You're referring to the biblical account but I'm actually talking about the event of the so-called "flood" that you raised, right here. So I fail to see how this equates to stating the Bible has been corrupted.Because if the Biblical account is wrong, then the Bible is impure. It's God's direct dictation or it isn't.
Here you're assuming the Bible is wrong when it says it's the Word of God. However, this isn't a proper answer to your question of taking a neutral stance.
Previously, I said I didn't believe such a thing exists, so I'm interested in hearing what you mean by "neutral stance"; how does one take a neutral stance when reading these old epics? And this isn't annoying presuppositionalist bait; I'm just asking what criteria you're using so I can answer your question. I think it is an interesting thought experiment; I'm just not sure where to begin.
You're referring to the biblical account but I'm actually talking about the event of the so-called "flood" that you raised, right here. So I fail to see how this equates to stating the Bible has been corrupted.If the flood happened one way, and the Bible presents it as happening another way, then the Bible is wrong, and not directly from God.
And the story being influenced even just in the way it's told by pagan religions is the definition of corruption.
Red herring. My claim was about the Babylonion epics. See below.
Where did I espouse the view of an old Earth?I suppose you didn't. But if you don't think the flood story is accurately relayed, I wonder how you have confidence in genealogies, that predate writing. I could remember a story about the flood a lot more faithfully than a list of dozens of ancestors, I think.
I think there's just confusion over what I'm referring to. Those comments are about Babylonian myths, not the Bible. My claim was that, if the flood actually happened, then it would have been passed down by everyone, not just the righteous. And the wicked would have spun the story in a way that justified themselves, in a way that fit their religious claims. But since I am already a believer of the Bible being the true record, that records it accurately in light of Yahweh, the true God, it shouldn't be unreasonable for me to suspect that the Babylonian, and other pagan versions, being that they deny Yahweh, have to change the story to fit their system.
In light of this, my original post still might not make sense to a Deist like you, however, because I believe the Bible is a true account of history, it would make sense to me that other pagan myths, though they may be based on true events, say false things about them, i.e., they take the flood story, real history, and then tell it with different gods, bringing on the flood for different reasons, and with different results. Hence, my original question, "How do I explain the Babylonian epics?"
Now, I'm quite aware I'm not taking a neutral position here, as I said earlier that I fail to see how can such a thing exist. That being said, this would sort of hark to your original question, so if you're attempting to take a 'neutral stance,' then what is your criteria you're using so I can try to explain this (if I can.)
I'm non-denominational. What about you?I was raised as a fundamentalist/independent Baptist. Now I'm just a deist.
You might as well be an atheist.
I fail to see why a Deist must cling on to the idea of a supernatural.
I went in circles for years pointing out that 3/4 of Christology is not even based on anything found in the Bible, but I have to admit that the framework is in place for good reason. The Bible is pretty much a decentralized book that doesn't seem to look fondly on large hierarchical churches.
Without that structure you'd inevitably devolve into a Unitarian "personal faith" type thing. It's impossible to maintain unity like that.
This is true only if you deny the inherent diversity of Scripture to where stagnation occurs, which can be caused when Gnosticism dominates much of fundamentalism.