Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[CoreyD]

My avatar is a rose. It has spiritual significance to me. The Rose represents the mystery and beauty of our Soul. The thorns on the stem represents the path of a Human Being.

Interesting concept.
Did you come up with that, or is it a concept used by others?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Asking me about the 'truth' of the Bible (of which getting striped goats from getting them to look at striped rods is not truth at all, since it's a biological impossibility), along with talking about the miracles of the Bible, and my own personal views on the Bible, when the subject of the OP is clearly defined, that is going off-topic.

Sticking to the subject of the Flood is staying on topic, since that's what the OP is about. Maybe try that instead of boring people to death with an absolute wall of text.

You are making a false claim about the Bible. And that is relevant to the topic of the global Flood event.

You erroneously - and I believe very intentionally - have concluded that the Genesis account of the method that Jacob used to receive gain from his father-in-law is repeatable - when it never claimed that.

Just as my example of Naaman's miraculous healing of leprosy from washing seven times in the River Jordan - what Jacob did was God providing a miracle - something of a Higher Law - a Law we cannot discern or understand.

There is no reason to assume that they are repeatable or that they were accomplished by methods we would understand because we do not have knowledge or understanding of those Higher Laws.

The same goes with the global Flood event. There is no reason to assume that it was like any other flood event.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are making a false claim about the Bible. And that is relevant to the topic of the global Flood event.

You erroneously - and I believe very intentionally - have concluded that the Genesis account of the method that Jacob used to receive gain from his father-in-law is repeatable - when it never claimed that.

Just as my example of Naaman's miraculous healing of leprosy from washing seven times in the River Jordan - what Jacob did was God providing a miracle - something of a Higher Law - a Law we cannot discern or understand.

There is no reason to assume that they are repeatable or that they were accomplished by methods we would understand because we do not have knowledge or understanding of those Higher Laws.

The same goes with the global Flood event. There is no reason to assume that it was like any other flood event.

I do not believe that the Noahic Flood was a real global event that happened and I am under no necessity to believe it as an event since it is not necessary for salvation nor belief in Christ being the saviour and the Son of God to do so.

End of discussion.

 

[BCP1928]

Your ideas sir, and your personal feelings are not relevant to anything I said, and they certainly are not relevant to the OP, or whether or not there was a global flood as described in the Bible.
Please consider responding coherently to my posts, and especially if the are not directed to you, please try to respond to what is actually being said, if you are tempted to respond.
Thank you.


This "story" - A narration or recital of that which has occurred; a description of past events; a history; a statement; a record - is an actual historical event recorded in the book, of Genesis, if that is what you are referring to.

• It is recorded as an event that occured in the history of mankind, and the characters involved have their genealogy recorded in the same book.
• The author of the Bible - the sovereign, almighty God, as well as the son of God, Jesus Christ, testify to that account being a real historical event.
• There is some physical evidence, though circumstantial, and subject to other interpretations, which are favored, so that is the least of my concern.

That was not the point I was making.
Did you read the post carefully to see why I made that point? It was addressed to the person I was responding to.

Yes, those were the assumptions I was thinking you might need, but it's hard to see what you might want to conclude from them that wouldn't be circular reasoning.

 

[CoreyD]

Yes, those were the assumptions I was thinking you might need, but it's hard to see what you might want to conclude from them that wouldn't be circular reasoning.

Can you clarify please. What assumptions might you be referring to?

 

[BCP1928]

Can you clarify please. What assumptions might you be referring to?

• It is recorded as an event that occured in the history of mankind, and the characters involved have their genealogy recorded in the same book.
• The author of the Bible - the sovereign, almighty God, as well as the son of God, Jesus Christ, testify to that account being a real historical event.

 

[Astrid]

I do not believe that the Noahic Flood was a real global event that happened and I am under no necessity to believe it as an event since it is not necessary for salvation nor belief in Christ being the saviour and the Son of God to do so.

End of discussion.

So like actual facts mean nothing to you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So like actual facts mean nothing to you.

I'm going to copy and paste what I wrote and I'm going to highlight the points I feel are most relevant:
I do not believe that the Noahic Flood was a real global event that happened and I am under no necessity to believe it as an event since it is not necessary for salvation nor belief in Christ being the saviour and the Son of God to do so.

Do you understand what I meant now?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your ideas sir, and your personal feelings are not relevant to anything I said, and they certainly are not relevant to the OP, or whether or not there was a global flood as described in the Bible.
Please consider responding coherently to my posts, and especially if the are not directed to you, please try to respond to what is actually being said, if you are tempted to respond.
Thank you.

Your personal feelings about my evaluations of your personal feelings are just that.

You complained about the religion of your debate partner. It was irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the lack of evidence for the Noah-flood story. Geology is not religion dependent. (If you think it is, you are doing geology wrong.)

"Fine tuning" of the Universe for life has zero to do with the evidence for a global flood.

The chaff you tossed out about "100% accuracy" and "proof" have no impact on our understanding of the flood "evidence". (Or rather the stark lack of it.) It is not going to move the Missoula flood to the time of "Noah". All you are doing is demonstrating that you don't understand how science works.

 

[Astrid]

I'm going to copy and paste what I wrote and I'm going to highlight the points I feel are most relevant:
I do not believe that the Noahic Flood was a real global event that happened and I am under no necessity to believe it as an event since it is not necessary for salvation nor belief in Christ being the saviour and the Son of God to do so.

Do you understand what I meant now?

I did the first time, within a bit of ambiguity.

You said no necessity because
something about salvation.

So unclear…because facts, because salvation or both?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I did the first time, within a bit of ambiguity.

You said no necessity because
something about salvation.

So unclear…because facts, because salvation or both?

I have no idea what on earth you're trying to suggest or say.

I don't need to accept a literal reading of the Bible to believe in Jesus. That's not how I was raised as an Anglican, not how I am now as a Deist. I do not accept a literal reading of the Bible as something that needs to be done to believe in God, especially in light of what we actually see when studying the world around us. The two do not gel, especially with other posters commentary on both the Bible and the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

The two do not gel,

Should they?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Should they?

It would help get rid of a lot of confusion.

 

[dlamberth]

Interesting concept.
Did you come up with that, or is it a concept used by others?

Others.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would help get rid of a lot of confusion.

If you don't believe Robert the Bruce was real, can you fully understand Scotland's independence?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you don't believe Robert the Bruce was real, can you fully understand Scotland's independence?

That is an absolutely horrible comparison.

The belief in a literal 100% true and factual reading of Genesis is not need for a belief in Christ. Accepting Christ is the only thing that is needed to be a Christian. Hence the name!

 

[Piers Plowman]

The belief in a literal 100% true and factual reading of Genesis is not need for a belief in Christ.

Man, when reading the Bible, has a tendency to insert 'science' and 'common sense' into his understanding of the text.
When did God give us permission to use 'science' and 'common sense' as an interpretive grid of the scriptures?

I do not believe that the Noahic Flood was a real global event that happened and I am under no necessity to believe it as an event since it is not necessary for salvation nor belief in Christ being the saviour and the Son of God to do so.

End of discussion.

This is not about you and I, but rather folks who attempt to use 'scientific' 'common sense' interpretive grid of the scriptures, not just only on passages pertaining to terrestrial floods or celestial cosmology, but even on passages of immense points regarding: divinity of Christ, soteriology of Christ, historicity of Christ, etc.
Literallist reading of the scriptures avoid such pitfalls.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Man, when reading the Bible, has a tendency to insert 'science' and 'common sense' into his understanding of the text.
When did God give us permission to use 'science' and 'common sense' as an interpretive grid of the scriptures?

Science is a tool that God allowed humans to create. If He didn't want us to use it, He wouldn't have allowed us to create it now, would He?

This is not about you and I, but rather folks who attempt to use 'scientific' 'common sense' interpretive grid of the scriptures, not just only on passages pertaining to terrestrial floods or celestial cosmology, but even on passages of immense points regarding: divinity of Christ, soteriology of Christ, historicity of Christ, etc.
Literallist reading of the scriptures avoid such pitfalls.

Except that in this instance on this thread, we're talking about the former not the latter, which is when many literalists do try and use science to justify their views. Using science with the latter is... well for starters, the historicity of Christ is for historians. Hence why it's called historicity.

 

[Astrid]

Others.

I’m not much into adopting / internalizing others’
beliefs.

 

[Astrid]

I have no idea what on earth you're trying to suggest or say.

I don't need to accept a literal reading of the Bible to believe in Jesus. That's not how I was raised as an Anglican, not how I am now as a Deist. I do not accept a literal reading of the Bible as something that needs to be done to believe in God, especially in light of what we actually see when studying the world around us. The two do not gel, especially with other posters commentary on both the Bible and the world.

Whatevs