Did Jesus believe in a literal Noah's Ark and Flood?

[rmwilliamsll]

There is no "me". We are only here to represent God and the truth. The question is, are you or are you not in agreement with God? The question here is not what I believe, the question is what does the Bible says.


there has been no period in Church history where there was not division, discord, uncertainty. Even from the beginning in the first General Assembly at Jerusalem there is confusion about what God requires of us.

To align your particular interpretation of Scripture with God's, to state baldly that you are always right, that anyone who disagrees with you is not disagreeing with a person but with God Himself. that interpretation of the Word is not necessary, you only have to read it, is at best a grossly misunderstood solo Scriptura position so common in the modern american church, at worse is sheer unmitigated gall flying in the face of any possible lessons from history. which above all teaches that the people who were most certain that they were on God's side, often are not.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

We are only here to represent God and the truth.


from: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/education/22baptist.html
a very interesting article on Southern Baptists and their afflilated colleges

Dr. Crouch and his trustees decided it was time to end the college’s 63-year affiliation with the religious denomination. “From my point of view, it was about academic freedom,’’ Dr. Crouch said. “I sat for 25 years and watched my denomination become much more narrow and, in terms of education, much more interested in indoctrination.’’
...


David W. Key, director of Baptist Studies at the Candler School of Theology at Emory, put it more starkly. “The real underlying issue is that fundamentalism in the Southern Baptist form is incompatible with higher education,’’ Professor Key said. “In fundamentalism, you have all the truths. In education, you’re searching for truths.’’

 

[Amaziah]

There is no "me". We are only here to represent God and the truth. The question is, are you or are you not in agreement with God? The question here is not what I believe, the question is what does the Bible says.


there has been no period in Church history where there was not division, discord, uncertainty. Even from the beginning in the first General Assembly at Jerusalem there is confusion about what God requires of us.

To align your particular interpretation of Scripture with God's, to state baldly that you are always right, that anyone who disagrees with you is not disagreeing with a person but with God Himself. that interpretation of the Word is not necessary, you only have to read it, is at best a grossly misunderstood solo Scriptura position so common in the modern american church, at worse is sheer unmitigated gall flying in the face of any possible lessons from history. which above all teaches that the people who were most certain that they were on God's side, often are not.

So are you actually saying that there is no way to know what God said and did not say? And that if man/woman was to quote God they would be wrong from the get go because we are not able to discern what God said? nor what is or what is not God's will and testimony?

 

[Amaziah]

There is no confusion with God.

then obviously since there was great confusion for nearly 400 years about the canon of the NT, God must not have been involved in it.

The Parable of the Sower and the Seeds (Mark 4, Matthew 13, Luke 8) explains that there will always be weeds among the wheat, in the world and in God's Church, attempting to cause discord, confusion, etc...throughout the centuries and time of time. Unless a person understands this parable they will not understand anything else of what Christ said nor of what the Kingdom of God is like. This parable explains as to God's predetermination as to what the world, and its people will be like in their attitude and acceptance of Him and His Word and His people. People will be blind to God and His ways because their hearts will be calloused, they will be hard of hearing (hard of understanding) and eyes will not see His ways and His truth.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So are you actually saying that there is no way to know what God said and did not say? And that if man/woman was to quote God they would be wrong from the get go because we are not able to discern what God said? nor what is or what is not God's will and testimony?

not saying anything of the sort, merely pointing out that a modicum of recognization that one could be wrong, that we are not God Himself, that we are often wrong, is a good thing.

people are not quoting God, they are referring to their interpretation of the text.

interpretation <> text.
my idea of what God is saying in the Bible is not the same thing as the text, it is my interpretation. to disagree with me is to disagree with an interpretation, not with God.

just a brief moment with church history ought to convince anyone that people are often wrong when they confidently state "thus saith the Lord".

my remarks are directed at the overbearing confidence that someone's interpretation is exactly the same thing as God's and to disagree with him/her is to disagree with God Himself.

 

[Amaziah]

not saying anything of the sort, merely pointing out that a modicum of recognization that one could be wrong, that we are not God Himself, that we are often wrong, is a good thing.

people are not quoting God, they are referring to their interpretation of the text.

interpretation <> text.
my idea of what God is saying in the Bible is not the same thing as the text, it is my interpretation. to disagree with me is to disagree with an interpretation, not with God.

just a brief moment with church history ought to convince anyone that people are often wrong when they confidently state "thus saith the Lord".

my remarks are directed at the overbearing confidence that someone's interpretation is exactly the same thing as God's and to disagree with him/her is to disagree with God Himself.

So then, if my interpretation does not match up with your interpretation then God did not speak would be your answer? Who then would be right?

Today's evaluation of what is right and what is wrong is often evaluated as what sounds true to me or what works for me. If something does not make sense to me then it must be wrong. So what is God's word, when is He speaking and when is God speaking through someone? Or speaking through something?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So then, if my interpretation does not match up with your interpretation then God did not speak would be your answer? Who then would be right?

Today's evaluation of what is right and what is wrong is often evaluated as what sounds true to me or what works for me. If something does not make sense to me then it must be wrong. So what is God's word, when is He speaking and when is God speaking through someone? Or speaking through something?

how do we adjudicate between conflicting opinions?
depends on where the conflicts occur.
we have courtrooms, peer-reviewed journals, blogs and warfare. all are means of asserting "who is right".


in the church, the proper way to judge truthfulness of claims is to 1-compare them to Scripture. 2-the problem is that we each exist in a church that has a history and an historical interpretive framework. I'd contend that the Presbytery and General Assembly are the God given means to discuss and settle matters of theology that are in dispute. So what we end up with is communities of interpretation, denominations, and schisms.

Being persuaded of the truthfulness is actually, imho, a rather complex issue. Certainly the almost total victory in our society of pragmatism and utilitarianism enters into the picture. but so does church politics, who shows up at Presbytery that day, who talks the loudest etc in addition to the persuasiveness of the arguments and how well they match up with and support the common interpretive matrix.

it is a big issue, we are not going to solve what remains unsolved in both the general culture and in the church, in that final analysis history and who wins these fights seems less truth and more power than i'd like to admit.

 

[Amaziah]

how do we adjudicate between conflicting opinions?
depends on where the conflicts occur.
we have courtrooms, peer-reviewed journals, blogs and warfare. all are means of asserting "who is right".


in the church, the proper way to judge truthfulness of claims is to 1-compare them to Scripture. 2-the problem is that we each exist in a church that has a history and an historical interpretive framework. I'd contend that the Presbytery and General Assembly are the God given means to discuss and settle matters of theology that are in dispute. So what we end up with is communities of interpretation, denominations, and schisms.

I would agree "compare then to "Scripture" and that we each speak and relate out of our own perceptions and ideologies. So bring everything down to Scripture and Scripture teaches all that is important for us to say, do and know.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I would agree "compare then to "Scripture" and that we each speak and relate out of our own perceptions and ideologies. So bring everything down to Scripture and Scripture teaches all that is important for us to say, do and know


as i've pointed out:

where is Jerusalem?
what does hesed mean?
what books are in the Bible?

if Scripture teaches all that is important, then where is it written what my wife's name is?
(actually a bad example, my wife's name is from Scripture, so make that, where in Scripture in the list of what i ought to name my kids, there that's better, they are named after theologians.)

none of which have answers from the Scriptures.

Scripture itself makes no claims to be exhaustive truth but rather states the opposite.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.