dollarsbill
Well-Known Member
When you can prove that there is only one kind of window let us know.
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.
When you can prove that there is only one kind of window let us know.Do you have biblical support to show it meant something else? Please provide it.
In other words you don't have any biblical evidence to think that it meant anything other than a plain ordinary window, which is what it literally says. I assume that you will join with me then in denying what secular science has to say about our atmosphere and exclaim that there are really windows that let the rain in. (That is actually what the ancients thought happen, which is why it was written that way.)When you can prove that there is only one kind of window let us know.
dollarsbill said:What God has said is good enough for me.
Luke 17:26-27 (NASB)
26 And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
In comparison to the non-literal view of the Bible the problems are near zero.There is the problem with literalism. Everything has to be literal, but the literal meaning can be anything.
Doesn't have to. It just states it plainly.Doesn't say or imply the story is literal.
It doesn't have to. It is consistent throughout the Bible. If you have Scriptural proof that it is not literal then go ahead. The only Biblical point of view of the Flood that I have seen is the literal.What?. The Luke text does not say the Noah text is literal.
dollarsbill said:It doesn't have to. It is consistent throughout the Bible. If you have Scriptural proof that it is not literal then go ahead. The only Biblical point of view of the Flood that I have seen is the literal.
Actually what I said is that the Bible clearly presents is as literal and nobody has provided Scripture proof otherwise.You keep telling me the bible says it's literal but you haven't produced any biblical text that does that.
Again, that does not indicate whether the story is literal or not.dollarsbill said:Actually what I said is that the Bible clearly presents is as literal and nobody has provided Scripture proof otherwise.
1 Peter 3:20 (NASB)
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
I don't consider the many clear Biblical accounts to be negatives. Do you believe any of the Bible to be literal?Again, that does not indicate whether the story is literal or not.
It's Impossible to prove the negative. It's up to you to show your positive claim. So far you haven't produced one.
Oh, for pity's sake! Nobody is calling a biblical account negative.dollarsbill said:I don't consider the many clear Biblical accounts to be negatives.
Do you believe any of the Bible to be literal?
Still waiting for anyone to disprove the Biblical accounts of the Flood. Until then I will consider them to be literal.Oh, for pity's sake! Nobody is calling a biblical account negative.
[your] positive claim is that the bible presents the Noah story as literal.
The corresponding negative claim is that it does not.
The burden of proof lies with the positive claim since it cannot be possible to show the negative one without examining every possible meaning of every single verse in the bible.
In 'broad terms'?In broad terms, yes.
You can consider the moon to be made of cream cheese if you want. Just stop saying that the bible says the Noah story is literal when it does not.dollarsbill said:Still waiting for anyone to disprove the Biblical accounts of the Flood. Until then I will consider them to be literal.
All language is a complex mix of metaphorical and literal working at different levels.In 'broad terms'?
The Flood account is simple, clear and abundant in the Bible. I can't deny it. You have offered no Scriptural proof for denying it to be literal.You can consider the moon to be made of cream cheese if you want. Just stop saying that the bible says the Noah story is literal when it does not.
All language is a complex mix of metaphorical and literal working at different levels.
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?