"Local" Biblical flood dismissed

Who says it's NOT historical?

Click to expand...

The Bible itself. The Book of Genesis is a highly literary work and has no basis in historical fact.

The Universe, which is the arena of God's action for the believer, also reveals that the creation stories cannot be literal, because every single piece of evidence reveals an ancient earth, the truth of evolution and the lack of any evidence whatsoever for a world wide flood.

As Jesus (a master story-teller himself) says, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear..."

Creationists reveal themselves time after time to be deaf to the God who reveals himself in his universe.

artybloke said:

The Bible itself. The Book of Genesis is a highly literary work and has no basis in historical fact.

The Universe, which is the arena of God's action for the believer, also reveals that the creation stories cannot be literal, because every single piece of evidence reveals an ancient earth, the truth of evolution and the lack of any evidence whatsoever for a world wide flood.

As Jesus (a master story-teller himself) says, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear..."

Creationists reveal themselves time after time to be deaf to the God who reveals himself in his universe.

Click to expand...

So, how can you even know God, or anything about Him, if the book that tells all about Him is not true at all?

In Christ, GB

philadiddle said:

It was common for ancient mythologies to have their heros live to be hundreds of years old. Noah's story seems to fit with that, and seems to be an apologetic to the things that happened in the flood myth of the epic of gylgamesh. Of course it's not meant to be historical, it's meant to properly define our relationship with God, which is part of an eternal matter.

Click to expand...

So, if the first few chapters of Genesis are nothing more than retells of older myths, how do we know that any of it is true?

Whether or not it happened as defined is meaningless.

Click to expand...

If it did happen, it is of utmost importance as it means that God can judge His creation and has a right to as Creator. If it didn't happen, the story is meaningless.

In Christ, GB

good brother said:

So, how can you even know God, or anything about Him, if the book that tells all about Him is not true at all?

In Christ, GB

Click to expand...

Through the past and present witness of the Church and the Holy Spirit. How else would you know the Bible is true? And please note, that no one here is saying the Bible is not true. "Not historical" does not mean "not true". Why is your faith dependent on every passage of scripture being historical? Should it not depend rather on your living relationship with Christ?

good brother said:

So, if the first few chapters of Genesis are nothing more than retells of older myths, how do we know that any of it is true?


If it did happen, it is of utmost importance as it means that God can judge His creation and has a right to as Creator. If it didn't happen, the story is meaningless.

In Christ, GB

Click to expand...

Ditto. The Holy Spirit was given to the apostles and the Church to guide us into truth. It is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us through scripture and the Holy Spirit speaks truth whether the truth it tells is through history or story. It is not scripture (or history) that validates the witness of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit who validates the witness of scripture.

good brother said:

So, how can you even know God, or anything about Him, if the book that tells all about Him is not true at all?

In Christ, GB

Click to expand...

And yet Jesus thought parables were a good way to teach us about God. Perhaps the problem is not literal or non literal, but your attitude literal or non literal, which could do with lining up more with Jesus's love of parable and metaphor as a way to lead us into truth.

gluadys said:

Through the past and present witness of the Church and the Holy Spirit. How else would you know the Bible is true? And please note, that no one here is saying the Bible is not true. "Not historical" does not mean "not true". Why is your faith dependent on every passage of scripture being historical? Should it not depend rather on your living relationship with Christ?




Ditto. The Holy Spirit was given to the apostles and the Church to guide us into truth. It is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us through scripture and the Holy Spirit speaks truth whether the truth it tells is through history or story. It is not scripture (or history) that validates the witness of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit who validates the witness of scripture.

Click to expand...

We know the Bible is true "through the past witness" which you noticed I highlighted for you. If the Bible is not true on physical matters, why would you assume it would be true on the unseen spiritual matters? You know, Mormons CLAIM their book is true and historical though there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT WHATSOEVER. Their church claims to know its true though it's known to be not true. They have a spirit that moves in and through them that is not the Holy Spirit. We should always test the spirits to see if they are from God or not. That is a verse one should remain familiar with.

Or are you familiar with the verse that states that Satan masquerades as a minister of light so it is no surprise that his followers also try to appear as ministers of righteousness?

In Christ, GB

Assyrian said:

And yet Jesus thought parables were a good way to teach us about God. Perhaps the problem is not literal or non literal, but your attitude literal or non literal, which could do with lining up more with Jesus's love of parable and metaphor as a way to lead us into truth.

Click to expand...

He also thought that demonstrating literal supernatural power was an important way to teach us about who He was.

Was Jesus literally born of a virgin? Did He literally heal a blind man? Did He literally heal a leper? Did He literally calm the storm with a spoken word? Did He literally walk on water? Did He literally feed over five thousand people with just a few loaves and a couple of fish? Did He literally raise the dead to life again? Did He literally heal the sick by forgiving their sins? Did He literally heal people He was not even physically close to? Did He literally turn water into wine? Did He literally live a sinless life? Did He literally die on a cross for your sins and mine? Did He literally raise up from the dead? Yes. Yes to all of my questions. But "we" don't like to focus on the LITERAL HISTORICAL SUPERNATURAL events Jesus did, "we" just like to say He spoke in parables, so then the events of Genesis must also somehow be parables.

Is Luke true and historical? The gospel of Luke tells us a lot about Jesus. When describing historical events, it is known that they are historical events, when describing parables, it is clear that they are parables. Why is it that everyone tries to confuse and confound the issue by taking books recorded as history and inject Jesus's use of parables into it?

In Christ, GB

good brother said:

So, if the first few chapters of Genesis are nothing more than retells of older myths, how do we know that any of it is true?

Click to expand...

We study it. What do you think theologians do all day? You have much to learn.

If it did happen, it is of utmost importance as it means that God can judge His creation and has a right to as Creator. If it didn't happen, the story is meaningless.

In Christ, GB

Click to expand...

If you think that if it didn't happen it is meaningless then I'm afraid you've missed the real meaning of the flood story. If you accept that there is more for you to learn about God's word then there will be much more personal meaning that you can get from it. If you're content with your surface literal reading, then I'm afraid you're missing out. Like I said, theologians spend time reading and studying this for a reason, there's more to it than just a shallow historical reading. I assume that since you are a Christian you would be interested to know what the deeper meaning is, but so far you've just shrugged off any mention of it. Maybe you hold your interpretation closer to your heart than God, or maybe not, time will tell.

philadiddle said:

We study it. What do you think theologians do all day? You have much to learn.

If you think that if it didn't happen it is meaningless then I'm afraid you've missed the real meaning of the flood story. If you accept that there is more for you to learn about God's word then there will be much more personal meaning that you can get from it. If you're content with your surface literal reading, then I'm afraid you're missing out. Like I said, theologians spend time reading and studying this for a reason, there's more to it than just a shallow historical reading. I assume that since you are a Christian you would be interested to know what the deeper meaning is, but so far you've just shrugged off any mention of it. Maybe you hold your interpretation closer to your heart than God, or maybe not, time will tell.

Click to expand...

What could it mean if it doesn't at least mean what it says on the surface too? If God could not flood the entirety of this planet with a judgement of water, what could it mean deeper than that?

The deeper meaning? The deep meaning of it is this: God is all powerful Creator and has the right to hold judgement upon His ENTIRE creation. He did it once with the flood on the seventeenth day of the second month on the 600th year of Noah's life. And He will hold all of creation in judgement again, this time, with fire.

What would be your deeper meaning?

In Christ, GB

good brother said:

He also thought that demonstrating literal supernatural power was an important way to teach us about who He was.

Was Jesus literally born of a virgin? Did He literally heal a blind man? Did He literally heal a leper? Did He literally calm the storm with a spoken word? Did He literally walk on water? Did He literally feed over five thousand people with just a few loaves and a couple of fish? Did He literally raise the dead to life again? Did He literally heal the sick by forgiving their sins? Did He literally heal people He was not even physically close to? Did He literally turn water into wine? Did He literally live a sinless life? Did He literally die on a cross for your sins and mine? Did He literally raise up from the dead? Yes. Yes to all of my questions. But "we" don't like to focus on the LITERAL HISTORICAL SUPERNATURAL events Jesus did, "we" just like to say He spoke in parables, so then the events of Genesis must also somehow be parables.

Click to expand...

Pointing out the miracle Jesus performed as well as speaking in parables doesn't get around your despising metaphors and parables. You may value the literal description of miracle, as you should, but as long as dismiss parables as a way to teaching truth and refuse to take Jesus' love of parable into your heart, you are really in no position to judge how God is speaking in Genesis.

Is Luke true and historical? The gospel of Luke tells us a lot about Jesus. When describing historical events, it is known that they are historical events, when describing parables, it is clear that they are parables. Why is it that everyone tries to confuse and confound the issue by taking books recorded as history and inject Jesus's use of parables into it?

In Christ, GB

Click to expand...

Does the parable of the Good Shepherd say it is a parable? What about the Good Samaritan... or when Jesus took bread and said this is my body? In many of the parables it is the gospel writer who explains Jesus was speaking in parables, but Jesus did nothing of the sort, he just sat down and started telling a story that hadn't happened. It is the same throughout the OT, parables and metaphor without the slightest indication or label, the Talking Trees in Judges, Nathan's account of the stolen lamb to David, Jerusalem and her Sisters in Ezekiel. There is no basis in scripture for thinking parables and metaphors have to come with labels. You can't rely on labels, the best that labels can do is show you that God does speak in parables and metaphors so you can learn how he speaks to us through both literal and parable, and love and respect both forms of how he speak to us. If nothing else it would take away your fear of Genesis not being literal. God uses parables and metaphor because they lead us into a deeper understanding of him and his ways that a literal description can.

good brother said:

So, how can you even know God, or anything about Him, if the book that tells all about Him is not true at all?

In Christ, GB

Click to expand...

Truth is not the same as factuality. Jesus's parables are true without having to be factual.

Story and poetry are probably two of the best ways to convey and/or explore spiritual and moral truth that human beings have devised. Facts are just stuff.

Stories may or may not contain facts. So maybe there really was a David who killed a Goliath. Whether there was or was not, however, has no bearing on the truth/message the story is intending to convey.

And, as the other people have said, it is the Spirit who confirms the truth or falsity of the message.

good brother said:

We know the Bible is true "through the past witness" which you noticed I highlighted for you. If the Bible is not true on physical matters, why would you assume it would be true on the unseen spiritual matters? You know, Mormons CLAIM their book is true and historical though there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT WHATSOEVER. Their church claims to know its true though it's known to be not true. They have a spirit that moves in and through them that is not the Holy Spirit. We should always test the spirits to see if they are from God or not. That is a verse one should remain familiar with.

Or are you familiar with the verse that states that Satan masquerades as a minister of light so it is no surprise that his followers also try to appear as ministers of righteousness?

In Christ, GB

Click to expand...

So, are you saying you have no assurance that the Spirit which testifies to you and your church is the Holy Spirit? You have no assurance that Jesus really did send the Holy Spirit to guide us?

You do know that the Christian church, by and large, agrees that whatever spirit Mormons are following, it is not the Holy Spirit who testifies that Jesus is Lord.

What do you know of the truth of the bible apart from the testimony of your church and the Holy Spirit?

Why do you need some other ground of assurance?

gluadys said:

So, are you saying you have no assurance that the Spirit which testifies to you and your church is the Holy Spirit? You have no assurance that Jesus really did send the Holy Spirit to guide us?

Click to expand...

I have every assurance that the Spirit that moves in my life is the Holy Spirit because He moves in perfect accord with how the Holy Bible says He will move and work. I have that assurance because I test every spirit with the Word of God to see whether or not that spirit is of God or not. If I sense a spirit moving in my life that is not in concert with the Bible, then I know that spirit is not of God. When I hear doctrine being taught that is not what the Bible teaches, I likewise know that doctrine is not of God.

Remember what Paul said about being aware of those who preach a different gospel and different Jesus than one we have recieved.


In Christ, GB

good brother said:

I have every assurance that the Spirit that moves in my life is the Holy Spirit because He moves in perfect accord with how the Holy Bible says He will move and work. I have that assurance because I test every spirit with the Word of God to see whether or not that spirit is of God or not. If I sense a spirit moving in my life that is not in concert with the Bible, then I know that spirit is not of God. When I hear doctrine being taught that is not what the Bible teaches, I likewise know that doctrine is not of God.

Click to expand...

So then, why does the witness of the Spirit and the witness of scripture agree? Is it not because scripture came into being in the first place because the authors were inspired by the Spirit of God? The same Spirit that testifies of Christ in the Church and in your heart?


So, if the Holy Spirit inspires a retelling of older myths, why is that a problem? If the Holy Spirit inspires an author to tell a story, why would you write it off as meaningless? What criterion of truth outweighs the testimony of a Person of the Trinity, the one who spoke by the prophets as recorded in scripture and the chosen witness of Christ to his Church?

gluadys said:

Through the past and present witness of the Church and the Holy Spirit. How else would you know the Bible is true? And please note, that no one here is saying the Bible is not true. "Not historical" does not mean "not true". Why is your faith dependent on every passage of scripture being historical? Should it not depend rather on your living relationship with Christ?

Ditto. The Holy Spirit was given to the apostles and the Church to guide us into truth. It is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us through scripture and the Holy Spirit speaks truth whether the truth it tells is through history or story. It is not scripture (or history) that validates the witness of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit who validates the witness of scripture.

Click to expand...

gluadys said:

So, are you saying you have no assurance that the Spirit which testifies to you and your church is the Holy Spirit? You have no assurance that Jesus really did send the Holy Spirit to guide us?

You do know that the Christian church, by and large, agrees that whatever spirit Mormons are following, it is not the Holy Spirit who testifies that Jesus is Lord.

What do you know of the truth of the bible apart from the testimony of your church and the Holy Spirit?

Why do you need some other ground of assurance?

Click to expand...

gluadys said:

So then, why does the witness of the Spirit and the witness of scripture agree? Is it not because scripture came into being in the first place because the authors were inspired by the Spirit of God? The same Spirit that testifies of Christ in the Church and in your heart?


So, if the Holy Spirit inspires a retelling of older myths, why is that a problem? If the Holy Spirit inspires an author to tell a story, why would you write it off as meaningless? What criterion of truth outweighs the testimony of a Person of the Trinity, the one who spoke by the prophets as recorded in scripture and the chosen witness of Christ to his Church?

Click to expand...

You know, you have not offered ONE reason why you believe the flood narrative couldn't be true, but have attacked me and implied that the Holy Spirit is not moving in my life because I believe in a physical, literal, and historical global flood. Unless you want to put up some evidence on WHY I shouldn't take the flood story as history, I am not responding to any more of your posts. Thank you for your input thus far, and God bless you.

In Christ, GB

P.S. I feel a greater respect on differing opinions from Assyrian than I do from you.

artybloke said:

He didn't. That's why it's a story not a literal event.

Click to expand...

No Biblical proof?

artybloke said:

What of? That God is a nasty piece of work and shouldn't be trusted?

Click to expand...

Glad I didn't say that.

To those who deny the literal Genesis Flood the warning is lost. The Genesis Flood is clearly presented as literal.

dollarsbill said:

To those who deny the literal Genesis Flood the warning is lost. The Genesis Flood is clearly presented as literal.

Click to expand...

No, it's a proven fact that it is not. A local flood? Sure. A flood that literally covers the entire currently know planet? About as likely as Unicorns orbiting Saturn, while breathing fairies out of their mouth.

artybloke said:

Truth is not the same as factuality. Jesus's parables are true without having to be factual.

Click to expand...

Are you serious???