Still waiting for Biblical proof that the Flood WAS literal (i.e. actually happened). Haven't seen any yet.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Still waiting for Biblical proof that the Flood wasn't literal. Haven't seen any yet.
dollarsbill said:Still waiting for Biblical proof that the Flood wasn't literal. Haven't seen any yet.
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.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
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 said:I have cited several Scriptures that teach the Genesis Flood as an actual event.
Do you take anything in the Bible literally? Again you offer no Biblical proof.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.
Of coursedollarsbill said:Do you take anything in the Bible literally?
you seem to have a very short memoryAgain you offer no Biblical proof.
What do you take literally in the Bible???Of course
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 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.
I have given Biblical texts that are perfectly clear to support the Genesis Flood. Want more?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.
Since the bible is full of metaphor, poetry, figure of speech, parable,... A simplistic answer to that question is inevitably misleading.dollarsbill said:What do you take literally in the Bible???
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.
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.How does you citing biblical passages mean that the flood is literal?
dollarsbill said:I have given Biblical texts that are perfectly clear to support the Genesis Flood. Want more?
dollarsbill said: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.
Again I ask, what in the Bible do you believe to be literal? Anything?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.
B doesn't follow from a.dollarsbill said:The Flood account is precise and detailed. It is literal.
It's used as an authoritative story. Your thinking is circular but you refuse to unpack it enough to see that.. It was confirmed by Moses, Jesus and others. Not a hint of anything but literal.
You didn't answer the question. What in the Bible is literal? Anything?I answered that question above.
dollarsbill said:You didn't answer the question. What in the Bible is literal? Anything?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?