Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Piers Plowman]

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?

Tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a very specific creation of God which we were not supposed to 'use'.

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.

That such 'historians' make attempts to utilize 'common sense', is my point.

 

[Piers Plowman]

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

"a rose by any other name..."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a very specific creation of God which we were not supposed to 'use'.

You're not the first person on here to admit that you're against knowledge and learning and that's very sad to see.

That such 'historians' make attempts to utilize 'common sense', is my point.

... you don't know what common sense means, do you?

 

[Piers Plowman]

You're not the first person on here to admit that you're against knowledge and learning and that's very sad to see.



... you don't know what common sense means, do you?

you and I have different definition of 'knowledge' and 'learning'.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you and I have different definition of 'knowledge' and 'learning'.

Oh I know it...

 

[CoreyD]

• 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.

Can you please explain which of these are assumptions, and how you arrive at that conclusion.
The question - Is God the author of the Bible, can be answered in another thread, but there is evidence for this. It's not an assumption.
The others are facts.

 

[Astrophile]

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

If you don't believe that A Midsummer NIght's Dream, Troilus and Cressida and Cymbeline are historical, how can you believe that Julius Caesar, King John and King Henry VIII were real people.

 

[AV1611VET]

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!

Let's try this again, since you're so good at misunderstanding.

If you don't believe Noah's Ark was a literal ark, can you fully understand a global flood?

 

[BCP1928]

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?

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.

Or it merely gives a false sense of certainty to a particular sectarian theology. The authority of scripture depends on its divine inspiration, not its adherence to a particular literary genre.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let's try this again, since you're so good at misunderstanding.

If you don't believe Noah's Ark was a literal ark, can you fully understand a global flood?

You mean the idea that one single person through his own actions and choices could help and redeem mankind for the greater, sinful many?

... no, I can't fully understand that at all...

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't believe that A Midsummer NIght's Dream, Troilus and Cressida and Cymbeline are historical, how can you believe that Julius Caesar, King John and King Henry VIII were real people.

By reading a history book?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean the idea that one single person through his own actions and choices could help and redeem mankind for the greater, sinful many?

... no, I can't fully understand that at all...

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the QED.

I was being facetious.

But I do not believe that accepting a global flood as a real event, despite all the evidence to the contrary, means anything when the whole point of being Christian is to accept Christ as your personal lord and saviour. If it was the former, you'd be called... oh lord, what would you be called? Genesians? Genesists?

 

[Piers Plowman]

Or it merely gives a false sense of certainty to a particular sectarian theology. The authority of scripture depends on its divine inspiration, not its adherence to a particular literary genre.

The idea of my understanding of the Bible being 'particular sectarian theology' to you I have difficult time taking in important consideration, seeing that I place the certainty of my salvation on my interpretation of the Bible which stems from my understanding of the Bible which hinges on my faith in the authority of the Bible.

 

[BCP1928]

Thanks for the QED.

Warden was being facetious, maybe, but it's true. To be a Christian one must believe in the Atonement, but it is not necessary to understand it. In fact most Christian churches teach that it is beyond our understanding.

 

[BCP1928]

The idea of my understanding of the Bible being 'particular sectarian theology' to you I have difficult time taking in important consideration, seeing that I place the certainty of my salvation on my interpretation of the Bible which stems from my understanding of the Bible which hinges on my faith in the authority of the Bible.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

 

[Piers Plowman]

I was being facetious.

But I do not believe that accepting a global flood as a real event, despite all the evidence to the contrary, means anything when the whole point of being Christian is to accept Christ as your personal lord and saviour. If it was the former, you'd be called... oh lord, what would you be called? Genesians? Genesists?

Can't be a coincidence that many folks on this thread who argue against literallist readings happen to be the same folks who apparently have no overt concerns for their own personal salvation...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can't be a coincidence that many folks on this thread who argue against literallist readings happen to be the same folks who apparently have no overt concerns for their own personal salvation...

You are in no position to say that about anyone at all since you don't know the true nature of anyone on this forum.

To do so is nothing short of horrible rudeness, especially since many of the people who argue against a literalist reading of the Bible do happen to be Christians too.

 

[Piers Plowman]

You are in no position to say that about anyone at all since you don't know the true nature of anyone on this forum.

To do so is nothing short of horrible rudeness, especially since many of the people who argue against a literalist reading of the Bible do happen to be Christians too.

"Yes, that is exactly what I meant." - BCP1928

 

[BCP1928]

Many Christians find the certainty of their salvation in their faith in Christ rather than their faith in a literal reading of Genesis.