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

[Amaziah]

"I think that I will never see
A poem as lovely as a tree"
Factually, that little poem is not accurate
However, would you agree that it is truth?

Depends on what type of tree it is and how beautiful you subjectively believe by 'your' taste that it is (for both the tree and poem).



Not at all.
Jesus, being familiar with the scriptures and stories in question could very easily have understood the metaphorical meanings behind the stories he referrenced.
And his audience would have understood this as well, which is why Jesus wouldnt have to point out the metaphorical or literal contexts of the stories he was speaking about.

No doubt ... but is the original story of the flood in the OT fictional? I do not believe it is. 2 Tim. 3:16 says"all of scripture is profitable for ...". You are not saying that the 'stories' of the OT are just stories for metaphorical use are you? Just stories with good life principles and illustrations. All of God's Scripture (that's what I meant by 'Word' in the previous post) is true and infallible.


God's Word=the Bible?!?
When did THIS happen?
I thought that, even among Christians, the bible was, well, the bible.
I was pretty sure that Christians agreed that the Word of God= Jesus.
Or is bibliolatry now accepted?

The Word is Jesus as quoted in John 1:1 ... I used 'Word' as meaning Scripture. I hold a high view of Scripture as God's word's guided by the Holy Spirit, given to man, as guided by the Spirit, recorded by man using His various ability and style in phrasing and recording. Recorded by man, guided and led by the Spirit, but spoken by God.

 

[kangitanka]

We all know "a poem is as lovely as a tree" is metaphorical. Comparing that to The Flood or Adam/Eve is like comparing apples and oranges.

Point taken.
I almost feel like two of the three pigs when they had their houses blown down. Fortunately I still have the house of bricks to retreat to.

Namely this comparison
I trust nobody confuses my comparison with any form of literalness or fact-based reality.
It's a metaphor, it's a morality tale and everyone (I hope) understands it as such.

Keep in mind that even Augustine (5th century CE) agreed that when the literal reading of the bible (namely Genesis) contradicts reality, then the bible should be understood to be speaking metaphorically/poetically/allegorically and/or in parable.

 

[kangitanka]

The Word is Jesus as quoted in John 1:1 ... I used 'Word' as meaning Scripture. I hold a high view of Scripture as God's word's guided by the Holy Spirit, given to man, as guided by the Spirit, recorded by man using His various ability and style in phrasing and recording. Recorded by man, guided and led by the Spirit, but spoken by God.

Ah, so when you refer to the bible as "God's word", you dont actually mean "The Word of God" or "God's Word" (capitalization change)?

I think I got it

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

Point taken.
I almost feel like two of the three pigs when they had their houses blown down. Fortunately I still have the house of bricks to retreat to.

Namely this comparison
I trust nobody confuses my comparison with any form of literalness or fact-based reality.
It's a metaphor, it's a morality tale and everyone (I hope) understands it as such.

Keep in mind that even Augustine (5th century CE) agreed that when the literal reading of the bible (namely Genesis) contradicts reality, then the bible should be understood to be speaking metaphorically/poetically/allegorically and/or in parable.

Hehe no worries. Your post led me to think more on it, so that is a good thing!

 

[Stinker]

The writers of the Gospels claim that Jesus said a number of things, whereby removing any critical examination of these things by believers.

Jonah, 3 days and nights in a whale, Noah and the Flood story, etc.

What the New Testament reveals about the character of Jesus, He would not have said something that was possibly not true, something that could be checked by any believer, such as this questionable passage: "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day," (Lk.24:46) Search as long as you can, you won't find a "third day" resurrection anywhere in the Old Testament.

Would Jesus have used a belief in a myth that was strongly entrenched in people, as a springboard to take them to a higher level of teaching, rather than first destroy their belief in the myth first? I think He did.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

If the Earth isn't supported by pillars, is the Bible accurate? Jesus liked using metaphor to get his point across. How would Him using metaphor about the flood, if that's what He intended, be lying?

Excuse me, but you do not know that Jesus was using a metaphor. You assume Jesus was using a metaphor because clearly the Flood is not scientifically possible. Yet people who are literalists think that Jesus was being literally accurate.

This is interesting ...

Literalists think the Flood happened thus Jesus should be taken literally.
Theistic Evolutionists think the Flood did not occur thus Jesus' statement should be seen as metaphoric.

Is it just me or is it blatantly obvious what's going on? The Bible never states what is figurative or literal, rather you Christians take one or the other based on your preconceived notions.

For those interested, there is a topic where I debated this with one literalist and one theistic evolutionist here.

 

[Jase]

Excuse me, but you do not know that Jesus was using a metaphor. You assume Jesus was using a metaphor because clearly the Flood is not scientifically possible. Yet people who are literalists think that Jesus was being literally accurate.

Did I say I know he was using a metaphor? I said, How would him using a metaphor - meaning, if he did happen to be using one.

Literalists think the Flood happened thus Jesus should be taken literally.
Theistic Evolutionists think the Flood did not occur thus Jesus' statement should be seen as metaphoric.

I don't know whether the flood happened or not. I could accept a local flood, but it seems that there is no physical evidence for an entirely global one. So either, what ever miracle God did to cause the global flood also erased the evidence, or it was local/metaphoric. I mean, I guess science could also possibily be wrong, but that doesn't make the whole issue any less complicated.

 

[Amaziah]

The Bible says the Earth is set upon pillars, and has ends. You surely don't take that literally, so does not taking something literally mean we can't trust the Bible?

What Scripture are you referencing?

 

[Amaziah]

Point taken.
I almost feel like two of the three pigs when they had their houses blown down. Fortunately I still have the house of bricks to retreat to.

Namely this comparison
I trust nobody confuses my comparison with any form of literalness or fact-based reality.
It's a metaphor, it's a morality tale and everyone (I hope) understands it as such.

Keep in mind that even Augustine (5th century CE) agreed that when the literal reading of the bible (namely Genesis) contradicts reality, then the bible should be understood to be speaking metaphorically/poetically/allegorically and/or in parable.

How does Genesis contradict reality?

 

[Amaziah]

Ah, so when you refer to the bible as "God's word", you dont actually mean "The Word of God" or "God's Word" (capitalization change)?

I think I got it

Yes, all scripture, the whole Bible, is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God ...", through the Holy Spirit, therefore the Bible is The word of God or God's word (I prefer to capitalize 'word' whether refering to Jesus or Scripture because both are divine in origin whether being God or of God.)

Hopefully I am making myself clearer than mud and am not burned at the stake for heresy.

 

[Amaziah]

If a person upholds that Genesis, the Old Testament, the Flood or Jonah in the belly of a whale, is metaphorical, a tale, how does one know what is true and not true in the Bible - the very words of God?

Scripture thus becomes subject to man's reason, the created subject to the creator, the author, God. This contradicts a principle that Jesus upholds in Scripture that the servant is not greater than the master. The servant can become like the master, without diviness of course, but cannot exceed the master (John 13:16 "I assure you: A slave is not greater than his master, and a messenger is not greater than the one who sent him. [17] If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them").

Are we greater than God? Are we greater than Jesus? Are we greater than the Holy Spirit? No on all accounts according to Jesus, including we are not greater than one another. We therefore are also not greater than God's word, the Bible. We are to be subject to Scripture, not Scripture subject to man's falliable and depraved minds (Romans 1:28-32 "And because they did not think it worthwhile to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong. ..."

Just because God's word does not make perfect sense to us, we cannot reconcile everything perfectly, does not mean that it is wrong. It means that we are not God. It means that we are finite and limited in our knowledge of what we can possibly know. God is God and we will never have nor know the complete mind of God. Our ways are not His ways, our thoughts not His thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). Nothing is impossible for Him unless it violates His nature which He can and never will do.

If you reject Scripture in one area it would seem to me you would have to reject Scripture in all areas because each one of us is no greater than God (metaphorical or non-metaphorical in language to communicate the knowledge of God to the whole world.).

My preconcieved notion is founded on the truth that God is a holy, just, and righteous God; that is not evil, but wholly good, and has done everything He could and can to communicate the knowledge of Him, His love and His desire for everyone to come to know Him, believe in Him and trust in Him through His one and only Son, Jesus Christ. Why create a confusing, misleading testimony, in the Bible, to snare men in doubt and cause them to miss out on a Savior. I say no way ... that is not the God I know.

 

[DamonWV]

It seems many Christian evolutionists do not take Noah's Ark or the Flood story literally, yet you accept Jesus as your savior. Jesus addresses Noah and the Flood in the New Testament:

‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all.’ (Luke 17:26–27)

From this passage, it sounds like Jesus is speaking of the Flood as a real event. Since Jesus is your savior, would his words affirming Noah and the Flood convince you it literally happened? If not, why?

This is part 2 of me as an outsider trying to understand the seeming contradiction of Christian TEs who tend to not take the Bible literally except for the Resurrection. (Wherefore Bible literalism is rejected in favor of physical evidence, yet there is none for the Resurrection.)

I Know there was a Global flood, there is overwhelming evidences for one. I know alot of people seem to think there was a local flood, which is kinda silly , when you think that people could had just moved from the water to the higlands to avoid being flooded.
I think Noah would had enough intelligence to think if a place was going to be locally flooded, why not just move to another area. Why take years to build an ark ? He knew before hand from God that the earth was wicked and God was going to bring a flood.

Like ken ham said the found of answersingenesis.org website , what would you have if there was a global flood ? You would have billions of dead things layed down in layers of rock all over the earth. And what do we see all around us and find every day ?

All around the world, in rock layer after rock layer, we find billions of dead things that have been buried in water-carried mud and sand. Their state of preservation frequently tells of rapid burial and fossilization, just like one would expect in such a flood.

 

[JohnR7]

when you think that people could had just moved from the water to the higlands to avoid being flooded.

It is believed that the water came to fast. It could have been more like the recent Tsunami.
There is no question that there is ocean water at very high levels in the area that Noah's Ark was said to have landed on Mt. Ararat.

 

[Jase]

I Know there was a Global flood, there is overwhelming evidences for one. I know alot of people seem to think there was a local flood, which is kinda silly , when you think that people could had just moved from the water to the higlands to avoid being flooded.
I think Noah would had enough intelligence to think if a place was going to be locally flooded, why not just move to another area. Why take years to build an ark ? He knew before hand from God that the earth was wicked and God was going to bring a flood.

There isn't overwhelming evidence for a worldwide flood. Depending on how big a local flood was, it might have been inconceivable to walk that far.

Like ken ham said the found of answersingenesis.org website , what would you have if there was a global flood ? You would have billions of dead things layed down in layers of rock all over the earth. And what do we see all around us and find every day ?

It doesn't quite work that way. AIG is not sound science.

 

[Jase]

double post

 

[JohnR7]

There isn't overwhelming evidence for a worldwide flood. Depending on how big a local flood was, it might have been inconceivable to walk that far.

There is overwhelming evidence for world wide flooding. It is believed that starting at the end of the last ice age the world has been flooded three times. The ocean level has gone up 300 to 400 feet. It has been shown that the flood does not hit everywhere all at the same time. Just like now we have islands in Alaska that are going underwater from the ice melting. But the flooding has not had as much of an impact on other parts of the world. Although we have had a lot of flooding here in Ohio in recent years.

 

[notto]

Like ken ham said the found of answersingenesis.org website , what would you have if there was a global flood ? You would have billions of dead things layed down in layers of rock all over the earth. And what do we see all around us and find every day ?

Fossilized footprints, root systems, and animal burrows in between those layers of rock which falsifies them being laid down by a flood all at the same time.

Ken Ham ignores the physical evidence and only tells you what he wants you to hear. He ignores the rest of what we would expect if there was a world wide flood and the evidence that falsifies his ideas.

This statement by him is simplistic and doesn't address the actual evidence and geology we find. That you accept it shows that you are not that familiar with the actual physical evidence that cannot be explained by a worldwide flood and the nature of those layers and dead things.

http://www.christianforums.com/t43339

 

[Baggins]

I Know there was a Global flood, there is overwhelming evidences for one. .

There is zero evidence of a global flood as stated in the bible.

As a petroleum geologist with 23 years experience I can assure you that you have been lied to by people you trust.

The sad delusions that you also posted about fossilisation means you took those lies on trust and you have never bothered to investigate the evidence for yourself.

The biblical flood was proved false over 200 years ago by a number of geologists in the UK and switzerland. Most of those geologists were devout christians and were looking for evidence of the flood.

Intellectual honesty finally lead them to proclaim the biblical flood falsified. Formost amonst these men was William Buckland, he was a geologist and the Dean of Westminster Abbey ( and therefore a devout christian ) when he dropped his views due to the superior evidence of the Uniformitarian ancient earth model of geology there was no prominant, honest flood geologist left.

And to this day there has never been an honest flood geologist since. It is a position that can only be upheld by faith, never by science, those who attempt to use science to back up their views are either con-men like Hovind and his ilk, out to make a buck off peoples gullabillity, or the intellectually dishonest.

 

[JohnR7]

There is zero evidence of a global flood as stated in the bible.

You have absolutly no evidence to show that the Flood did not take place just as the Bible says it did.

As a petroleum geologist with 23 years experience I can assure you that you have been lied to by people you trust.

Then you should be able to answer the question of why Lake Van and all the other Lakes in the Mt Ararat area are made up of salt water. Why do you find fish in the Mr Ararat area that you otherwise would only find in the ocean?

Why do you deny that the ocean level went up 400 feet when the ice from the last ice age melted. If that isn't a flood, then what is a flood?

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

There is zero evidence of a global flood as stated in the bible.

As a petroleum geologist with 23 years experience I can assure you that you have been lied to by people you trust.

The sad delusions that you also posted about fossilisation means you took those lies on trust and you have never bothered to investigate the evidence for yourself.

The biblical flood was proved false over 200 years ago by a number of geologists in the UK and switzerland. Most of those geologists were devout christians and were looking for evidence of the flood.

Intellectual honesty finally lead them to proclaim the biblical flood falsified. Formost amonst these men was William Buckland, he was a geologist and the Dean of Westminster Abbey ( and therefore a devout christian ) when he dropped his views due to the superior evidence of the Uniformitarian ancient earth model of geology there was no prominant, honest flood geologist left.

And to this day there has never been an honest flood geologist since. It is a position that can only be upheld by faith, never by science, those who attempt to use science to back up their views are either con-men like Hovind and his ilk, out to make a buck off peoples gullabillity, or the intellectually dishonest.

Thanks for that informative post. I do not know enough first hand about what did or did not happen with the flood, but you have given me a direction to at least look into and verify.

There are some Christians at my work who are die hard Hovind people. I have heard him proclaimed a fraud here, and celebrated at work. I do not have much details for or against, since I have not looked into his teachings, nor am I an in-the-field science guy. Is there something you would like me to challenge the Christians at work with that would be a slam dunk?