Like skynightblaze said , please provide an example where "back in the days" was used for a fictional character .
"in the days of Yore" is another expression similar to that. "Back in the Golden Age"... I already gave you half a dozen or so similar phrases.
May a song will do the trick?:
Here is "Back in the days of Christopher robin" (That is a character from "Winnie the Pooh")
And you still not getting it.
a) we cannot be sure there exact words were even used.
b) they do not PROVE that Jesus thought Noah was real, he may or may not have done, we don;t know. But they certainly do not mean he TAUGHT that, no matter what he thought. All you have is your conjecture from a phrase in Matthew and you are telling Christians on the basis of that what they should believe.
c) When you are using a story to teach something else it is entirely natural to speak of it AS IF it was real.
d) I DON'T KNOW what Jesus thought about a historical Noah, nobody knows, and you don't either. I prefer to simply say that I don't know, whereas you prefer to present your belief as inescapable fact
SO they were Mathew's words "back in the days" not words of Jesus. So basically its not only this thing about Noah, but basically nothing we read regarding what Jesus said in gospel can be claimed 100% correct.
Sure. All we have is a text that is written some considerable time later. But we have similar accounts from several writers, so we can be quite sure of the general gist, but not obviously of every tiny detail. Christianity is not really a "book religion", the "Book" is part of a living tradition.
Only god knows what he said, as he was so stupid that he sent his son but had no plan to record anything he said for coming generations that they can trust. See how silly this whole thing is.
That is not quite what I said. What I mean it you cannot base a major argument on a couple of words from the text. You are not interested in what he said, otherwise you would realise he was merely using Noah to teach something else.You only want to cast ALL Christianity as fundamentalist so that you can have a laugh at it. That is the only reason why these two words must be read ONLY in the way you want, otherwise things don't work so well and you cannot poke so much fun.. What exact words he used, we don't know, but we have the ideas he put forward. And I am glad to learn that you are so much cleverer than God, iffo. One day maybe you meet him and you tell him how to run things, I am sure he will be impressed.
Well islamic scholars also spent their whole life studying Islam, so do we agree with them and believe everything they say?
We would hopefully agree that in most cases they speak for Islam and what it teaches. Whether you agree with the teachings is another issue entirely. They can provide a yardstick as to what Islam teaches but what you believe is your business.
That means very little manfred, they have no choice because this whole Noah story is so stupid.
It is only stupid if you pretend it is something it isn't. As I said to you before, a book is like a mirror. You can only get from it things that you already have.
Sam illustrated how to make it look stupid. That part is easy and requires little effort. Understanding it is quite a bit harder.
Anyway I tried my best to give you an introduction to that passage, and I really don't want to spend another day writing in this topic. I have quite a few things to do. So, iffo, thanks for chatting, "buy" whatever you fancy. Let's not drag this out until it gets boring.