Flood, literal or not?

[Beastt]

I already know where it came from.

Know you don't. You hold a belief, nothing more.

Are you sitting down? Here's my answer: God did it.

Which is no more supportable than if I were to proclaim the Great Magic clown pulled it from his eternal handbag of miracles or that a sentient extra-universal pickle produced it from a vinegar-soaked cucumber seed.

BUT --- don't just take my word for it:

No problem.

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Sounds like a confession to premeditation to me.

It sounds inseparable from other ancient myths to me.

Not possible for us:

Not possible at all. It defies the rules which govern the universe.

[bible]Matthew 19:26[/bible]

If one subscribes to ancient myth, simply because the myth claims to be true, they will never hold truth. You can never know truth if you first refuse to accept truth.

No problem --- the Support Team will be here soon.

Christians have been saying this for over 2,000 years and it's been a complete no-show. It's time to start learning from that and stop presenting it as though it meant something.

Here is my prediction: You will die and there will be no such "Support Team". The next generation will die and there will still be no such "Support Team". Continual generations will be born and die, and still, no "Support Team". This has been the continual and uninterrupted pattern throughout the history of Christianity.

There is no "Support Team", (assuming you're implying the proclaimed return of Jesus). It's not going to happen. I'll stake my eternal soul, (if such a thing exists), on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Know you don't. You hold a belief, nothing more.

Like Paul, I too can declare:

... I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

God did it.

Which is no more supportable than if I were to proclaim the Great Magic clown pulled it from his eternal handbag of miracles or that a sentient extra-universal pickle produced it from a vinegar-soaked cucumber seed.

Go ahead and proclaim it, I would then ask you to show me documentation from said clown and/or pickle, with a protege nation thrown in for good measure.

If one subscribes to ancient myth, simply because the myth claims to be true, they will never hold truth.

That's right --- how does that saying go?

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You can never know truth if you first refuse to accept truth.

My Truth is no stranger to refusal --- but He's patient and will await a change of heart.

Christians have been saying this for over 2,000 years and it's been a complete no-show. It's time to start learning from that and stop presenting it as though it meant something.

I agree --- here's what we'll learn from that mindset:

[bible]1 John 3:2-3[/bible]

I believe the secular equivalent of this passage is:

• Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

There is no "Support Team", (assuming you're implying the proclaimed return of Jesus). It's not going to happen. I'll stake my eternal soul, (if such a thing exists), on it.

I'll let Peter answer this one:

[bible]2 Peter 3:3-4[/bible]

 

[flatworm]

I'll let Peter answer this one:

[bible]2 Peter 3:3-4[/bible]

...And how long do you suppose there have been scoffers?

Last days indeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

...And how long do you suppose there have been scoffers?

2000 years.

Last days indeed.

Either He comes or you go, either way your life's a vapor.

[bible]James 4:14[/bible]

 

[flatworm]

2000 years.

That's a lot of last days.

Either He comes or you go, either way your life's a vapor.

[bible]James 4:14[/bible]

Trust me, we're all going to go and he ain't going to come. An unbroken perfect record of failed doomsday prophecy millennia long supports me in this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Trust me, we're all going to go and he ain't going to come. An unbroken perfect record of failed doomsday prophecy millenia long supports me in this.

That's "doomsday prophecy" to you? We're looking forward to it.

[bible]1 Thessalonians 4:18[/bible]

 

[flatworm]

That's "doomsday prophecy" to you? We're looking forward to it.

[bible]1 Thessalonians 4:18[/bible]

Get used to disappointment.

 

[pyro214]

There were no ice caps in Noah's time. The earth was one uniform tropical temperature.

When God created the earth, He sheared off a layer of water and ballooned it out into space.

this always stumps me, why does ice dating show that the earth is a minamal of 100k years old....yet if they have only been around for a couple thousand years?

and wow you know alot, very nice

 

[AV1611VET]

Get used to disappointment.

No, thanks; either way--- we're on the winning side:

[bible]1 Thessalonians 4:17[/bible]

or

[bible]Psalm 116:15[/bible]

 

[JoshuaW]

I believe there really was a flood, but I hesitate at the tendency to expand the cataclysm worldwide. There is no reason to leap to that conclusion. However, a huge flood could have occurred at a regional level, caused by the release of water through a gap holding back an inland sea.

Records of this type of great flood exist in many parts of the world, including North America (not that they were all Noah's Flood) The Mediterranean could have formed this way when the Gates of Hercules opened. The preliminary "leakage" would have provided enough warning for people to build boats.

I believe there is great truth in the Bible, and evidence of global catastrophe, but it is foolish to take this translation of a translation of an interpretation word for word as it appears in English.

 

[AV1611VET]

this always stumps me, why does ice dating show that the earth is a minamal of 100k years old....yet if they have only been around for a couple thousand years?

and wow you know alot, very nice

Thank you, Pyro! God, of course, gets the glory. It pays to study, though!

When God created the earth, He created it with age embedded in it, and this is what "scientists" see when they date things - age.

But the earth, in my opinion, has only gone around the sun about 6100 times.

I sum it up like this:

• The earth is 4.55 billion years old geologically.
• And the earth is 6100 years old existentially.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe there is great truth in the Bible, and evidence of global catastrophe, but it is foolish to take this translation of a translation of an interpretation word for word as it appears in English.

Why? In view of the fact that God said He would preserve it?

[bible]Psalm 12:6-7[/bible]

 

[pyro214]

Thank you, Pyro! God, of course, gets the glory. It pays to study, though!

When God created the earth, He created it with age embedded in it, and this is what "scientists" see when they date things - age.

But the earth, in my opinion, has only gone around the sun about 6100 times.

I sum it up like this:

• The earth is 4.55 billion years old geologically.
• And the earth is 6100 years old existentially.

thanks,
this is the first time ive seen someone suggest this. Is it a logical opinion or do any scriptures back it up?
(would definatly make sense either way).

 

[AdHoc]

thanks,
this is the first time ive seen someone suggest this. Is it a logical opinion or do any scriptures back it up?
(would definatly make sense either way).

It is neither logical nor scriptural. It is a desparate attempt to get around the fact that the physical evidence contradicts a literal interpretation.

And, of course, if it were true it would make god a huge liar.

 

[AV1611VET]

thanks,
this is the first time ive seen someone suggest this. Is it a logical opinion or do any scriptures back it up?
(would definatly make sense either way).

[bible]Psalm 102:25[/bible]

It was created by thee; it did not grow by accretion or aggregation from a pre-existent nucleus. There was nothing; and thou didst produce being-substance or matter. Out of that created matter thou didst make the earth and the heavens.

Notice that Adam and Eve were created as adults, not children; not to mention the plants and animals.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is neither logical nor scriptural.

As I have just demonstrated, it's both.

It is a desparate attempt to get around the fact that the physical evidence contradicts a literal interpretation.

Yes --- physical evidence contradicts Scripture --- but that is the nature of ex nihilo creation.

You can't confine God's handiwork to the readings of a man-made machine.

And, of course, if it were true it would make god a huge liar.

Not hardly.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes --- physical evidence contradicts Scripture --- but that is the nature of ex nihilo creation.

Deception?

 

[AV1611VET]

Deception?

Knowing the difference between the nature of ex nihilo creation and deception is what constitutes maturity.

Isn't it interesting that the word "thaumaturge" carries dual definitions of miracle and magic?

Knowing the difference (source) and applying that difference accordingly to where credit is due is what constitutes maturity.

 

[Beastt]

Like Paul, I too can declare:

But unlike Paul, you proclaim that Jesus was a real man, walking on Earth. Paul's Jesus was a god in the mythical realm and not responsible for any of the miracles later proclaimed by Mark.

Go ahead and proclaim it, I would then ask you to show me documentation from said clown and/or pickle, with a protege nation thrown in for good measure.

Why would you ask for that which you can't provide yourself? You can't produce any documentation consistent with the claimed personage of God. All you have are markedly fraudulent documents written, likely in all sincerity, by men who were highly prone to superstition.

That's right --- how does that saying go?

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And you lack even moderate evidence. Yet you continue to present extraordinary claims and then present the ancient words of demonstrably incorrect men as your only support.

My Truth is no stranger to refusal --- but He's patient and will await a change of heart.

That is the problem and you present it in your signature as well. You proudly proclaim that you will refuse truth if it differs from what you wish to believe. Then you proclaim that you have found truth. Truth doesn't work that way. You must comply with it. It will never bend to comply with you.

I agree --- here's what we'll learn from that mindset:

[bible]1 John 3:2-3[/bible]

I believe the secular equivalent of this passage is:

• Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Believe what you wish. As long as your belief does no harm to others, I have no objection.

I'll let Peter answer this one:

[bible]2 Peter 3:3-4[/bible]

Before Peter could answer anything Peter would have to know the truth. And there is no indication that he did. There have always been skeptics toward every religious belief. To predict there will be skeptics toward any developing religion is no more prophetic than to predict that there will people who dislike a new perfume.

 

[Beastt]

I believe there really was a flood, but I hesitate at the tendency to expand the cataclysm worldwide. There is no reason to leap to that conclusion. However, a huge flood could have occurred at a regional level, caused by the release of water through a gap holding back an inland sea.

Records of this type of great flood exist in many parts of the world, including North America (not that they were all Noah's Flood) The Mediterranean could have formed this way when the Gates of Hercules opened. The preliminary "leakage" would have provided enough warning for people to build boats.

I believe there is great truth in the Bible, and evidence of global catastrophe, but it is foolish to take this translation of a translation of an interpretation word for word as it appears in English.

This strikes me as a contradiction. The Bible claims a global flood and further claims that this flood is God's knowledge. You tell us that you believe there was a flood, but that it was not global. So your belief is contrary to that presented as God's word and knowledge in the Bible. Then you claim to believe there is truth in the Bible. If there was a flood and it wasn't global, then the Bible is presenting untruth in its declaration that the flood was global.