"Local" Biblical flood dismissed

[gluadys]

Still waiting for Biblical proof that the Flood wasn't literal. Haven't seen any yet.

Still waiting for Biblical proof that the Flood WAS literal (i.e. actually happened). Haven't seen any yet.

 

[ebia]

Still waiting for Biblical proof that the Flood wasn't literal. Haven't seen any yet.

After its been pointed out that the burden of proof is on you.

I, for one, do not claim that the bible says one way or the other, though I think there are Indications in the story itself and the nature of the way all of Genesis 1-11 works as a prologue to indicate that the stories are parabolic.

The bible simply isn't concerned with how "literal" the story is, but how true it's message is.

You are the one making the positive claim - that the bible says the story is literal-historical. You are the one who needs to substantiate that claim

 

[dollarsbill]

After its been pointed out that the burden of proof is on you.

I, for one, do not claim that the bible says one way or the other, though I think there are Indications in the story itself and the nature of the way all of Genesis 1-11 works as a prologue to indicate that the stories are parabolic.

The bible simply isn't concerned with how "literal" the story is, but how true it's message is.

You are the one making the positive claim - that the bible says the story is literal-historical. You are the one who needs to substantiate that claim

I have cited several Scriptures that teach the Genesis Flood as an actual event. How many have you cited? The Flood cannot be refuted by Scripture.

 

[ebia]

I have cited several Scriptures that teach the Genesis Flood as an actual event.

No you have not. You've cited a few passages, but not one of those passages says or implies the Noah narrative is literal-historical. All of them are equally at home with it being parabolic.

 

[dollarsbill]

No you have not. You've cited a few passages, but not one of those passages says or implies the Noah narrative is literal-historical. All of them are equally at home with it being parabolic.

Do you take anything in the Bible literally? Again you offer no Biblical proof.

 

[ebia]

Do you take anything in the Bible literally?

Of course

Again you offer no Biblical proof.

you seem to have a very short memory
The burden of proof is on you.
Posting verses that don't substantiate your point does not count
Trying to shift the burden does not count.

 

[dollarsbill]

Of course

What do you take literally in the Bible???

you seem to have a very short memory
The burden of proof is on you.
Posting verses that don't substantiate your point does not count
Trying to shift the burden does not count.

Would you like me to repeat the several verses I have cited? I have given Biblical support. You have only given your opinion so far.

 

[Keachian]

Would you like me to repeat the several verses I have cited? I have given Biblical support. You have only given your opinion so far.

You have given biblical support that 1st C Jews viewed the story as something which could parallel their Eschatology, that to me at least says nothing about whether they believed it was literal let alone whether it actually is literal.

 

[dollarsbill]

You have given biblical support that 1st C Jews viewed the story as something which could parallel their Eschatology, that to me at least says nothing about whether they believed it was literal let alone whether it actually is literal.

I have given Biblical texts that are perfectly clear to support the Genesis Flood. Want more?

 

[ebia]

What do you take literally in the Bible???

Since the bible is full of metaphor, poetry, figure of speech, parable,... A simplistic answer to that question is inevitably misleading.

Let's say that, as an example, I'm happy to affirm that the gospel stories are reliable accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection.

Would you like me to repeat the several verses I have cited? I have given Biblical support. You have only given your opinion so far.

None of those verses say or imply the Noah narrative is literal-historical.

 

[Keachian]

I have given Biblical texts that are perfectly clear to support the Genesis Flood. Want more?

How does you citing biblical passages mean that the flood is literal?

 

[dollarsbill]

How does you citing biblical passages mean that the flood is literal?

Why would God say it if it doesn't mean what it says? Every Flood account in the Bible is presented as literal. And there are several.

 

[ebia]

I have given Biblical texts that are perfectly clear to support the Genesis Flood. Want more?

They take the flood as meaningful shared story. They do not depend on, say or imply that it's historical- literal.

If you listen to two people discussing what happened on their favorite soap over the last week the chances are that nothing in what they say will make it clear that the story is fiction. We talk about and use shared stories in the same language and in very similar ways regardless of the nature of the story.

 

[dollarsbill]

The Flood account is precise and detailed. It is literal. It was confirmed by Moses, Jesus and others. Not a hint of anything but literal.

 

[ebia]

Why would God say it if it doesn't mean what it says? Every Flood account in the Bible is presented as literal. And there are several.

You keep making this spurious claim. They don't present it as anything but a shared, authoratitve, story.

That story, for the purposes of Jesus, the author of 2 Peter, etc, could be historical, parabolic, myth, fiction, or a TV soap opera, so far as their reference to it is concerned so long as it is shared and mutually regarded as authoritative in some sense.

 

[dollarsbill]

You keep making this spurious claim. They don't present it as anything but a shared, authoratitve, story.

That story, for the purposes of Jesus, the author of 2 Peter, etc, could be historical, parabolic, myth, fiction, or a TV soap opera, so far as their reference to it is concerned so long as it is shared and mutually regarded as authoritative in some sense.

Again I ask, what in the Bible do you believe to be literal? Anything?

 

[ebia]

The Flood account is precise and detailed. It is literal.

B doesn't follow from a.

. It was confirmed by Moses, Jesus and others. Not a hint of anything but literal.

It's used as an authoritative story. Your thinking is circular but you refuse to unpack it enough to see that.

 

[ebia]

Again I ask, what in the Bible do you believe to be literal? Anything?

I answered that question above.

 

[dollarsbill]

I answered that question above.

You didn't answer the question. What in the Bible is literal? Anything?

 

[ebia]

You didn't answer the question. What in the Bible is literal? Anything?

The question has to be unpacked for any answer not to be partially wrong.

If what you actually mean is, for example, did Jesus historically perform miracles, get executed by crucifixion, and bodily rise from the tomb -yes.