The Flood - If even Christians don't believe what Jesus said, why should non-believers??

[lifepsyop]

Then again one might consider that a particular and narrow view of both Genesis 1 and the Flood are simply incorrect. Positing disagreement as the abandonment of God's word is quite disingenuous. I've posed to you several questions and am waiting for a response....

I don't know how else to interpret it other than abandonment. We have a real history and God preserved it for us. We choose whether to believe God or the theories of man.

 

[Jamsie]

I don't know how else to interpret it other than abandonment. We have a real history and God preserved it for us. We choose whether to believe God or the theories of man.

No, that is a false dilemma as we can also give some serious study to Gen. 1 and the Flood thereby applying the reason that he gave us. When one studies questions arise, and it is through seeking those answers through prayerful cerebration that we may arrive at some conclusion. Again, there are questions that were asked of you but you did not give answer to? I spent years pouring through Genesis 1 and the Flood when at some point my hardened YEC and simple literalist mentality was slowly changed. I believe God and scripture...which is exactly why my mind was changed...you call things that oppose your view theories of man, you might consider at some point that many of those "theories" are actually facts (and backed by a proper interpretation of scripture)

 

[lifepsyop]

It has been my experience that many non-believers when shown Gen. 1 or the Flood with rational exegesis tend to have their smirk removed. It seems the fundamental stumbling block is the existence of God, that is a starting point.

I think the world is quite comfortable with an ambiguous concept of god, just not THE God of the Bible. People are comfortable with the god of theistic evolution because they instinctively know it isn't that mean old God from Genesis that destroyed the world with a flood because of sin, and offers only one narrow way to salvation in Jesus Christ.

The world is just fine with a god as long as they don't have to repent and surrender their lives to him. That was pretty much the main theme of much of the Old Testament. And I'm pretty sure that scenario will play a big role in the end times deception.

What I see is non-believers hold the Bible and believers in ridicule for believing the earth is 6,000 years old and that humans walked with the dinosaurs like the flintstones.

This tells me that you see everything through evolutionists' glasses, with cartoon giraffes and elephants popping up out of a tiny bathtub toy ark, and a goofy flintstones world.

By the way, there's a lot of ancient art and architecture around the world that suggests humans were interacting with dinosaurs. Evolutionary history cannot accept this of course. Just like how evolutionists now have to believe that the original dinosaur protein they keep discovering can stay preserved for 70,000,000+ years. All to fit their evolutionary creation religion.

I personally believe in the Bible as do myriad others who disagree with you. You seem to have difficulty accepting that one can believe "all the stuff" in Bible but hold a different opinion than yours...

I will not question your salvation in Jesus Christ, but that won't stop me from calling a spade a spade if a believer rejects plain accounts of what God actually says he did in the Bible.

I confess I don't know all things so I try not to be so tightly tethered to questionable beliefs. Can you show me where exactly I stated that the Biblical accounts are "metaphors" and "allegories"?

That was a general criticism of compromising Christians. They either believe that Genesis is an allegory, or that the flood was a local one that had no effect on the rest of the world.

Can you explain how it is that there exist uninterrupted histories of civilizations at the time of the flood?

It is all secular/evolutionary "history" you are drawing from. I'm sure you know that conventional history teaches that even more recent events like the Exodus in Egypt was mythology as well.

You believe that dinosaurs were on the ark?

Very young dinosaurs, probably. Why not?

As for Genesis 1 can you explain God's command to the land to produce living creatures?

To me it's just saying that the earth, or terrestrial ecosystems, are going to facilitiate reproductions of each of those kinds of animals. And in the next verse it explicitly says that God made them that day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.


25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[Jamsie]

I think the world is quite comfortable with an ambiguous concept of god, just not THE God of the Bible. People are comfortable with the god of theistic evolution because they instinctively know it isn't that mean old God from Genesis that destroyed the world with a flood because of sin, and offers only one narrow way to salvation in Jesus Christ.

What the world believes and is "comfortable with" has absolutely no bearing on a proper interpretation of scripture. There remains questions as to uninterrupted histories, species diversity, plant life, etc. that can not be answered given the time frames involved. In addition there are myriad Christians whose considered reading of scripture leaves them of a different opinion, and based squarely on His word. Attempting to misrepresent those who disagree with your view is not only offensive but wrongheaded.

This tells me that you see everything through evolutionists' glasses, with cartoon giraffes and elephants popping up out of a tiny bathtub toy ark, and a goofy flintstones world.

Is it possible that that you were inculcated from the beginning and are incapable at understanding that peripheral parts of scripture can be interpreted differently?

That was a general criticism of compromising Christians. They either believe that Genesis is an allegory, or that the flood was a local one that had no effect on the rest of the world.

Once again can you show me where exactly I referred to scripture in these two cases as "allegory"?

To me it's just saying that the earth, or terrestrial ecosystems, are going to facilitiate reproductions of each of those kinds of animals. And in the next verse it explicitly says that God made them that day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I would strongly suggest again that a certain humility and openness should be required to any thoughts on Genesis/Creation. That reasoned people can arrive at differing thoughts on the various issues related in Genesis 1 inform us that there is no absolute certainty but only opinion involved. The person that would suggest absolute certainty on this is merely fooling themselves, and given more to arrogance than to scholarly authority.

I don't see any mention of "Facilitate" as the verse is talking about the initial creation of life, not of subsequent reproductions. A "plain" reading shows that the verse is in a present moment not in the earth facilitating some future events such as reproductions... that is adding to scripture rather than dealing with the actual content.

It should be very clear that any reading or interpretation of Genesis 1 revolves around fiat or commands as the sole instrument of creation, "And God said". That the sole and only operative agent was God's commands is further supported in Psalm 3:6, Heb. 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5. Therefore, any "God made" statements are explanatory, for on each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have commanded something.

The distinction is also that the fiats were mediate not immediate. Gen. 1:3 reads "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light", quite pointedly an immediate command. Yet how can one not take note that subsequent commands are directed in a mediate way directly to the land/water. Again, it could have been written "And God said, let there be vegetation and there was vegetation"... but this was not the case so why avoided? The command was directed at pre-existing created matter and "it was so". I would suggest that based on the plain reading of the account that "what was so" is God setting in motion all of the laws for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced? The immutable God ordered the processes then just as we see today.

There is much more detail but one will notice that each day is structured in a similar way. There is nothing in this brief overview that is not based on a literal and plain reading of Genesis 1.

 

[loveofourlord]

The problem creationists face isn't wether we beleive in the flood or not, but your not going to convince a atheist that knows the science that a flood happened, your more likly to turn CHristians into atheists by demanding they must accept creationism and the flood when they know better.