Was there a global, world-wide Flood?

[PaladinValer]

So differentiate for me then; from theological to actuality. The resurrection is theological too...doesn't make it a parable now does it?

You claim and provide no evidence...parables in the Bible are quite clear and certainly the Flood does not fit that mold. Yet please, indulge us.

If there was a universal Deluge, a ring of sediment that massive floods do create in the strata of the Earth would have been deposited.

No such ring exists.

Therefore, it must be a myth.

God isn't a God of deception. Another spiritual being has deception in his portfolio.

 

[Hentenza]

Thread moved to Exploring Christianity from General Theology.

 

[ebia]

So differentiate for me then; from theological to actuality. The resurrection is theological too...doesn't make it a parable now does it?

The resurrection is a theological event. It doesn't work (IMO, anyway) as the narrative answer to a theological question. The story of Noah does. Such narratives are not usually set in the immediate and indentifiable past, place, etc.

parables in the Bible are quite clear

Begging the question? "Bible parables are quite clear, therefore nothing that is not clearly a parable is one, therefore there are no bible parables that are not clear, therfore all bible parables are quite clear". I would suggest that there are plenty of bible parables that are far from clearly such to various audiences.


This thread now in Exploring Christianity, so change of mode is now required. I'll confine myself to addressing the OP.

 

[granpa]

the only truly worldwide flood was the big bang.

 

[2thePoint]

flood geology
rocks and fossils
(found no sources of any kind on an alleged "ring of sediment" as opposed to the layers of sediment that make up the fossil record)

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I suggest reading the Bible (Genesis 6-9, Matt 24:37-51, 1 Peter 3:18-22) and ignore the presumtuous and ignorant commentaries that suppose it was a local flood or a myth with "specific" meaning. Also google "evidence for Noah's flood" and you will find more than enough geological and scientific proof to satisfy any unbelief you may have.

There is no doubt this flood involved the destruction of all mankind.

Liberal and phony Christian's are the enemies of the Cross and can be spotted a mile off by their unwilllingness to rely on scriptures. They love to use terms such as "the Pope or Rabbi or St Augustus said", "this is a modern day teaching" (as if they know what happened last year , never mind a thousand years ago) "Its a myth", "no one can say for sure", "it doesnt agree with science", etc etc. And when they are unable to distort the truth with such corrupt reasoning, they attempt to creatively interpret the Word or rely on distortive analysis or give it an allegorical meaning or fictional explanation. Anything but being confronted with the truth will do.

Their whole purpose is to shed doubt on the Word of God and deny its power and with their deceiptful characters they do a pretty good job..

My advice is when you meet such "Christians" dont turn your back on them.......RUN FROM THEM!!!

We also kick puppies.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gnarwhal]

We also kick puppies.

-CryptoLutheran

Hardcore bro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0ejnD3qIOo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Hardcore bro.

‪A Great Moment In Movie History‬‏ - YouTube

You, sir, have inspired me to re-watch that movie.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Lion King]

I suggest reading the Bible (Genesis 6-9, Matt 24:37-51, 1 Peter 3:18-22) and ignore the presumtuous and ignorant commentaries that suppose it was a local flood or a myth with "specific" meaning. Also google "evidence for Noah's flood" and you will find more than enough geological and scientific proof to satisfy any unbelief you may have.

There is no doubt this flood involved the destruction of all mankind.

Liberal and phony Christian's are the enemies of the Cross and can be spotted a mile off by their unwilllingness to rely on scriptures. They love to use terms such as "the Pope or Rabbi or St Augustus said", "this is a modern day teaching" (as if they know what happened last year , never mind a thousand years ago) "Its a myth", "no one can say for sure", "it doesnt agree with science", etc etc. And when they are unable to distort the truth with such corrupt reasoning, they attempt to creatively interpret the Word or rely on distortive analysis or give it an allegorical meaning or fictional explanation. Anything but being confronted with the truth will do.

Their whole purpose is to shed doubt on the Word of God and deny its power and with their deceiptful characters they do a pretty good job..

My advice is when you meet such "Christians" dont turn your back on them.......RUN FROM THEM!!!

You Sir, speak the truth.

 

[addo]

You, sir, have inspired me to re-watch that movie.

-CryptoLutheran

This reminds me of a comercial I saw a couple of years ago on TV.

Fantastic dog shoot for animal lovers - YouTube

 

[Mr Dave]

So then, the Gospels are more authoritative than the Old Testament?

No, they're different, it would be wrong to try and pretend that they are the same when they are not. This doesn't affect how authoritative we should view them.

 

[Blueforest]

If a literal, global flood happened, I'd like to know how the kangaroos got back to Australia after the flood and how all the fresh water life in the seas around the world survived the flood. I don't think literalists take simple facts like these into account.

 

[2thePoint]

If a literal, global flood happened, I'd like to know how the kangaroos got back to Australia after the flood and how all the fresh water life in the seas around the world survived the flood. I don't think literalists take simple facts like these into account.

kangaroos
other post-flood questions/answers

I don't think anti-literalists take simple facts and logic like these into account. Or do much online searching before asking us.

 

[Mr Dave]

Answers in Genesis, that great fount of truth and reliability.

 

[Dark_Lite]

If a literal, global flood happened, I'd like to know how the kangaroos got back to Australia after the flood and how all the fresh water life in the seas around the world survived the flood. I don't think literalists take simple facts like these into account.

The answers vary, and all of them are physically impossible. All of them involve animals traversing across the world somehow to get to Noah.

Generally it will be one of:
- There was a supercontinent, so crossing water was not a problem. This relies on physically impossible plate tectonics that probably would have destroyed the planet.
- There were a bunch of parent "kinds" that eventually "adapted" (aka "microevolution") into all of the animals we see today. This relies on physically impossible hyper evolution that would have been noted by historians and the fossil record. It also requires an explanation for why the hyper-diversity just up and stopped.

 

[2thePoint]

I'll take the "impossible" Flood account over the "frogs-to-princes" fairy tale any day.

 

[Blueforest]

Yeah, I've heard the Pangaea theory (which according to christians, was some 5000 years ago!). The problem is, the evidence shows the earth was relatively the same as it is now, not one large landmass that broke apart at rapid speeds 4500 years ago.

 

[berachah]

Yeah, I've heard the Pangaea theory (which according to christians, was some 5000 years ago!). The problem is, the evidence shows the earth was relatively the same as it is now, not one large landmass that broke apart at rapid speeds 4500 years ago.

And your evidence is.......?

 

[Dark_Lite]

And your evidence is.......?

The continental plates don't move at the speeds required for such an idea to work. They move mere centimeters in a year. This is plainly observable. Even over 6,000 years, that's not enough time for a supercontinent to break up and give us the geography we have now.

Then there's the problem that such rapid movements would cause widespread geological devastation and reshaping of the landscape. Then there's also the (not so) startling lack of a historical record regarding this alleged hyper plate tectonics.

But the speed argument alone is enough to destroy any notion of hyper plate tectonics and a supercontinent 6,000 years ago. We'll be generous and say all the plates move at 10cm/year. Over 6,000 years that gives 60,000 cm or 600 m. I think we can safely say the continental plates have drifted a bit further than 600 meters if they were to have started as a supercontinent.

Millions and millions of years are required to get the geological landscape we have today. It can be no other way.

 

[2thePoint]

Here is a free online book debunking* the continental drift theory and replacing it with the hydroplate theory. Yes, Virginia, there is "another way".

* as in CD not being the sole explanation