Frank, it wasn’t the case for me where one day I picked up the Bible and arrived with the view I hold now. I’m well aware of the narrative above. I studied it extensively at the undergrad level, and that the perspective I held most of my life… and I don’t outright reject it now.
The problem with orthodoxy is precisely with certainty in singular narrative which people go “all in”, mostly because these narrative are institutionalized and perpetuated as a theological certainty. The reality though is that there isn’t any such certainty. It’s a guess from a POV of your personal decision to go along with narratives that were prepackaged for you, as opposed to look and see whether there could be anything else to these at all… first from perspective of plausibility and coherence, and second from any possible secondary concepts.
I don’t know if I already gave you an example, but by 2050, there would have been 120 billion people lived in the planet Earth. Evaluating the plausibility of something like Adventist narrative is fairly simple. There’s 150 million square kilometers of land surface. If you discount mountainous regions, swamps, etc… where people could physically stand… much less.
Let’s be generous and say half of these people… 60 billion are fly off to space with new bodies. I’ll leave logistics of that up to God, since it’s the equivalent of nearly 10x current world population going somewhere. If it’s less, it’s less. The point being it’s ba lot of people.
Per Adventist narrative, all of them get resurrected, some are sooner than later, and one gets to look from inside a giant Borg cube (or pyramid, depending on who you talk to" beyond the walls . The problem is that some of these people wouldn’t even know what’s going on, and Il explain why.
It’s absolutely unclear how and where these people are resurrected. But, those who died at sea apparently get to stand on dry land…which is currently split into 5 continents. So even if they spread of on those continents, 60 billion people would each get about 4 feet to stand on.
The plausibility of Adventist narrative goes out of the window, and frankly, so does the plausibility of the resurrection narrative liked to these events.
These narratives were obviously written by and for people who didn’t expect population expansion to 7.5 billion, which isn’t a number they could even process.
So, you and I are not talking about the same thing from the same POV even in terms of the narrative that you read as these “say something”. As I’ve said, you have to take into account certain ignorance of people, and attempt to process the language as they understand it and then somehow cast it into possible interpretation of our expanded understanding of reality.
Your quoting these “as is” is quite pointless unless you actually attempt to process what exactly it translates into our reality that we live in right now.
People who wrote down this narrative likely had no clue that Americas or Australia existed. Their worldview was bound to very specific geography, and was ethnocentric until it later took certain xenocentric range.
Of course it’s mine. Each of us gets to read into the text our own perspective and concepts. We wouldn’t be able to read or process information otherwise. I’m not sure why you take this as some kind of inherent problem.
The problem as I have pointed out is that as you read this, you have to pretend like you are not reading a limited perspective of 1st venture agrarian people, but you are reading some transcendent narrative which was not merely written to some church out there… but is personally addressed to you… an American cultured person. That’s not the case.
If you don’t read ancestral stories of animism as literal ideas, why would you attempt to infuse literalism in Biblical narrative? You don’t see that as a double-standard when it comes to generic rules one follows to various narrative interpretation?
I grew up in Soviet system with a family who had a partial Jewish and partial middle Eastern heritage. So, I am quite familiar with hardship, which precisely why I am saying things are better today for virtually everyone, no matter where they are. Technological and scientific progress allowed abundance and understanding which greatly reduced suffering.
My child , for example, wouldn’t live past 2 months if he was merely born 30 years earlier simply because they wouldn’t look for certain conditions at that age and infants just suddenly died with them from heart faire. I could give you a wide range of examples, but if you merely shift your perception as it’s constrained by negatives of recent past … then what’s the point?
Your bias is quite evident, since you are trying to imply that we should judge human progress by 20% of the world population that you choose selectively as problematic exhibits. But even in those cases, they arguably have better lives than people in first century… most of whom died before they reached the age of 5. If you don’t understand the significance of that metric, I can’t provide with any facts that would convince you otherwise.
My perspective doesn’t rule that out. I am admittedly agnostic when it comes to ontology and echatology. I don’t know. I’m left guessing. I don’t hold perspectives. I hold possibilities.
Well, I’m not really sure you can dictate that for me now, can you? The fact is that not only I can and able, but I’m actively doing that, as I share this as a possibility, when at the same time providing some criticism for established narrative which I find less plausible. That’s a I’m doing. I have no means not ground for saying that it’s absolutely wrong. There are problems when we concider implications of unpacking visualizing these events as written. These were obviously written by people who didn’t have billions in mind, since they packed all of these people in relatively tight spaces, sometimes at very high altitudes
I respect your choice in believing and sharing your perspective, but to say that I can’t do what I do … is a constrain that you have to justify by providing such justification for the entire chain of assumptions that you make. I’m not so certain you will be able to do so.