If the Bible (at least the OT) is not "scripture" that "cannot be broken" as Jesus said, then how do we determine what in the Bible can be trusted? I suppose it's all good until scientists come up with something new. Then will clip a little more out of the Bible...
What if the Bible (including the OT)
is "scripture" that "cannot be broken", as Jesus said, but is not "literal scientific fact about natural history" (which Jesus did not say)?
As for mainstream denominations, if I could be stuck into one denomination or another, it would be Pentecostal, and I can assure you that they believe in a literal creation.
Ok, let's just pretend for a moment that you and I discovered that the Pentecostals were wrong (without any doubt) about the literal 6-day creation. Now, you apparently like their views on core Christian doctrine, right? In this hypothetical situation, you know they are wrong about this one doctrine (literal 6-day special creation). Now, would you:
1) Pretend they were right anyway, because you like their other doctrines?
2) Change your mind about all their doctrines because you found out they were wrong about this one?
3) Discuss the issue with other Pentacostals, so that they could have an opportunity to correct this one small flaw in their beliefs?
Here's a good question for you. If Christianity is real and Evolution is real, why didn't God put evolution clearly in the Bible?
For the same reason He didn't include information about the gaseous atmosphere, spherical earth, large and distant stars, relativistic physics, etc., etc.
Why cause so much confusion if we really did evolve? Why write about a flood in "ambiguous" terms if it wasn't actually global?
"Ambiguous" means it is difficult to tell which interpretation is right. Someone who held to the local flood idea might just as well why the flood was written about in "ambiguous" terms if it wasn't actually
local. The question doesn't really make sense.
Why have Peter refer to it in a very global context? Why wouldn't the Bible be more clear if you two are right?
Pretend an atheist came here and claimed that the Bible was wrong about the flood: that the Bible definitely talks about a global flood, and since there obviously wasn't one, the Bible must be full of errors and holes. Pretend that he was saying the flood
had to be global, in the same way you were. Pretend that someone like Smilin' pointed out to him that the Bible can be interpreted to show a local flood. Pretend he asked exactly the same question you just asked: "If it was a local flood, why wouldn't the Bible be more clear about that? There is a lot that seems to indicate a global Flood. Why would God create so much confusion?" Do you know how someone who believed in a local flood and in the inerrancy of the Bible would answer him? Here's how:
"God doesn't need your opinion on how He should write the Bible. God's ways are so much higher than man's ways, that you will never be able to understand why God does something this way instead of that way. The Bible doesn't lie, because God doesn't lie. He had a good reason for everything He put in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it will be obvious to you or me. Since we know that a global flood didn't happen, you must be interpeting the Bible wrong, probably because you don't have the Holy Spirit to guide you."
What do you do when atheists point out that the simplest interpretation of the Bible makes it look like the Bible teaches a flat earth? If God was required to write the Bible the way you wanted Him to (not only free of error, but free of the
appearance of error), then why are there loads and loads of "contradictions" in the Bible, where you
have to interpret much of what is said in ways that do not seem to go with the "plain text" meaning? For instance, in 1 Chronicles 21:1, the Bible says "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." In 2 Samuel 24:1, the Bible says, "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." - After these two passages, the very same event is described, with just a few other minor differences (like the reported results of the census, for instance). It is
very clear that the Bible is referring to the same event here. Obviously, for both accounts to be correct, one must apply a very non-standard interpretation to at least one of them. (Many Christian apologists say that God incited the census by allowing Satan to tempt David in this way.)
Now, I'm going to ask you a question, and when you answer it, the same answer should apply equally well to your question about why God wasn't more clear about the flood. If the passages really mean the same thing (like that God incited the census by allowing Satan to tempt David to perform it, knowing that David would yield to that temptation) why don't they both just come out and say so? Why leave such a confusing message in the Bible?
I'd like you to answer a question from my previous post. Which, in your opinion is most likely:
1) That the evidence is wrong, and/or most every science is wrong about it.
2) That the Bible is wrong or
3) That you are interpeting the Bible wrongly?
How do you answer that question, and why?
I'll be back tonight or tomorrow night with a post or two about the genetic evidence - much stronger stuff than the fossil evidence, and enough to make the case open and shut for the common ancestry of humans and the great apes.
In the meantime, could you post the passage you are asking about where Peter refers to a global flood?