Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Astrid]

Yes, there is more. It is an example of God's holiness, and of His judgment and punishment of sin, as well as of His grace, for we are told that Noah found grace in the Lord's eyes. It also teaches the great power of God. The promise associated with the rainbow after the flood reminds us that we serve a God Who keeps His promises. We learn from Noah the importance of obeying God. I am sure there is much more that the account of the Flood teaches and exemplifies.

Ok thanks. That’s pretty much what I’d
have said if i were to explain Christian
thinking, as I understand it.

From my pov it presents that god in an
extremely unfavourable light for what i
suppose are obvious ressons.

But more importantly, what teaching is there in a story that
is no more factual than Asian folk belief about moon-eclipses
being caused by a lizard trying to eat it?

 

[David Lamb]

Mark Twain was making fun of the literalist interpretation of the Bible that he grew up knowing. That's not a reflection on Christianity as a whole. The Church has never declared the Bible to be a literal account in every verse.

As long as we restrict "non-literal" to those parts of the bible which are clearly picture-language, I have no problem with agreeing that not every verse of the bible is literal. For example, when Jesus said, "I am the door," we would be foolish to take that to mean that He has hinges and a handle, and when He calls those who follow Him "sheep", we don't take Him to mean that they have woolly coats, and four legs, and eat grass. However, there's a danger of applying "non-literal" to every part of the bible that we cannot understand, or which goes against some view we may have. Some people say things like, "Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego didn't really survive the furnace; it can't be literal" or "Jesus didn't really rise from the dead; it's just picture language of the way the dead Jesus lives on in the minds of His followers."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, there is more. It is an example of God's holiness, and of His judgment and punishment of sin, as well as of His grace, for we are told that Noah found grace in the Lord's eyes. It also teaches the great power of God. The promise associated with the rainbow after the flood reminds us that we serve a God Who keeps His promises. We learn from Noah the importance of obeying God. I am sure there is much more that the account of the Flood teaches and exemplifies.

And is that teaching lessened by it being a literal global flood or is it not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As long as we restrict "non-literal" to those parts of the bible which are clearly picture-language, I have no problem with agreeing that not every verse of the bible is literal. For example, when Jesus said, "I am the door," we would be foolish to take that to mean that He has hinges and a handle, and when He calls those who follow Him "sheep", we don't take Him to mean that they have woolly coats, and four legs, and eat grass. However, there's a danger of applying "non-literal" to every part of the bible that we cannot understand, or which goes against some view we may have. Some people say things like, "Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego didn't really survive the furnace; it can't be literal" or "Jesus didn't really rise from the dead; it's just picture language of the way the dead Jesus lives on in the minds of His followers."

As above, are the stories related to those lessened by them being literal or are they not?

 

[David Lamb]

Ok thanks. That’s pretty much what I’d
have said if i were to explain Christian
thinking, as I understand it.

From my pov it presents that god in an
extremely unfavourable light for what i
suppose are obvious ressons.

But more importantly, what teaching is there in a story that
is no more factual than Asian folk belief about moon-eclipses
being caused by a lizard trying to eat it?

I certainly cannot agree that the Genesis Flood is "no more factual than Asian folk belief about moon-eclipses being caused by a lizard trying to eat it." I wonder where you draw the line. Which parts of the bible do you accept as being true? How do you decide?

 

[Astrid]

I certainly cannot agree that the Genesis Flood is "no more factual than Asian folk belief about moon-eclipses being caused by a lizard trying to eat it." I wonder where you draw the line. Which parts of the bible do you accept as being true? How do you decide?

I will answer your q., but first tell me, specifically, why you cannot
accept lizard / moon, which is as earnestly
believed by millions of people as is your flood story.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, there is more. It is an example of God's holiness, and of His judgment and punishment of sin, as well as of His grace, for we are told that Noah found grace in the Lord's eyes. It also teaches the great power of God. The promise associated with the rainbow after the flood reminds us that we serve a God Who keeps His promises. We learn from Noah the importance of obeying God. I am sure there is much more that the account of the Flood teaches and exemplifies.

To a YEC that lesson is irrelevant. The only important thing that story appears to teach them is that the world was entirely covered with water in 2350 BC. YEC appears to be all about an accurate historical timeline--that's all they defend, all they ever preach. Why is that, do you suppose? Never a word about Jesus, even Christians here who embrace the Gospel of Christ and look for their salvation in Him but don't agree with that timeline are hateful to YECs. What are they really defending? It certainly isn't faith in Christ.

 

[David Lamb]

I will answer your q., but first tell me, specifically, why you cannot
accept lizard / moon, which is as earnestly
believed by millions of people as is your flood story.

It's not my flood story, it's God's flood account. I believe it for the same reason that I believe Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, because it is stated in God's word, both Old and New Testaments, as being true. The lizard/moon story is not in God's word.

 

[BCP1928]

I certainly cannot agree that the Genesis Flood is "no more factual than Asian folk belief about moon-eclipses being caused by a lizard trying to eat it." I wonder where you draw the line. Which parts of the bible do you accept as being true? How do you decide?

A trite and empty response. What is the truth of the story? You just told us what you thought it was. How did you decide?

 

[David Lamb]

To a YEC that lesson is irrelevant. The only important thing that story appears to teach them is that the world was entirely covered with water in 2350 BC. YEC appears to be all about an accurate historical timeline--that's all they defend, all they ever preach. Why is that, do you suppose? Never a word about Jesus, even Christians here who embrace the Gospel of Christ and look for their salvation in Him but don't agree with that timeline are hateful to YECs. What are they really defending? It certainly isn't faith in Christ.

I'm sorry but I don't see how God's holiness, and of His judgment and punishment of sin, His grace and His promises are irrelevant whether or not we are Young Earth Creationists. I am, and God's holiness etc are relevant to me.

 

[BCP1928]

It's not my flood story, it's God's flood account. I believe it for the same reason that I believe Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, because it is stated in God's word, both Old and New Testaments, as being true. The lizard/moon story is not in God's word.

I don't believe you are being honest here, either. You don't need Genesis to be 100% accurate literal history to believe what you read in the Gospels. That's ludicrous. What are you really defending?

 

[David Lamb]

A trite and empty response. What is the truth of the story? You just told us what you thought it was. How did you decide?

Sorry that you felt my reply was trite and empty. As to how I decided, I've recently answered that in my reply to Astrid (Post 630).

 

[Astrid]

To a YEC that lesson is irrelevant. The only important thing that story appears to teach them is that the world was entirely covered with water in 2350 BC. YEC appears to be all about an accurate historical timeline--that's all they defend, all they ever preach. Why is that, do you suppose? Never a word about Jesus, even Christians here who embrace the Gospel of Christ and look for their salvation in Him but don't agree with that timeline are hateful to YECs. What are they really defending? It certainly isn't faith in Christ.

It’s faith in themselves

 

[David Lamb]

I don't believe you are being honest here, either. You don't need Genesis to be 100% accurate literal history to believe what you read in the Gospels. That's ludicrous. What are you really defending?

I am sorry. I am not being dishonest about what I believe about the bible. I know you don't agree, but I believe that except in passages which are obviously not meant literally ("Jesus said 'I am the door'" for example), the bible is literally true.

 

[Astrid]

It's not my flood story, it's God's flood account. I believe it for the same reason that I believe Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, because it is stated in God's word, both Old and New Testaments, as being true. The lizard/moon story is not in God's word.

You believe it is gods story.


You further believe your understanding of * flood”
is the one true understanding. So, yes, YOUR story.

” I believe coz I believe“ is kind of thin reasoning.

But let’s do lizards here.

Theres so much not in the Bible!
You cannot disbelieve everything not written
there.

Do you have ANY other reason not to believe
eclipse / lizard?

This is important. Thunk about it.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm sorry but I don't see how God's holiness, and of His judgment and punishment of sin, His grace and His promises are irrelevant whether or not we are Young Earth Creationists. I am, and God's holiness etc are relevant to me.

At least you have the decency to offer that as an excuse. Our US YECs don't bother. That's why I am pestering you about it, actually, hoping that a "foreign" YEC might give me a new insight.

 

[David Lamb]

You believe it is gods story.


You further believe your understanding of * flood”
is the one true understanding. So, yes, YOUR story.

” I believe coz I believe“ is kind of thin reasoning.

But let’s do lizards here.

Theres so much not in the Bible!
You cannot disbelieve everything not written
there.

Do you have ANY other reason not to believe
eclipse / lizard?

This is important. Thunk about it.

Yes, of course I have other reasons for not believing that lunar eclipses are caused by a lizard eating the moon, including the fact that the moon is still there, and re-appears as it comes out of the earth's shadow, and that the moon is in a vacuum, so the supposed lizard would be unable to breath.

Yes, there are plenty of things that are not in the bible that I believe. I believe there's a person with the user name Astrid on these forums, I believe that Pythagoras' Theorem is true. I don't believe things that go against what is in the bible.

 

[BCP1928]

I am sorry. I am not being dishonest about what I believe about the bible. I know you don't agree, but I believe that except in passages which are obviously not meant literally ("Jesus said 'I am the door'" for example), the bible is literally true.

All YECs do, but they don't say why, only offer lame excuses which don't justify the energy they put into defending their timeline. Just the other day in this forum I was admonished that if I didn't accept the literal inerrancy of Genesis I must of necessity reject the Gospel of John! To be offered such puerile nonsense is an insult. I want an honest answer.

 

[David Lamb]

At least you have the decency to offer that as an excuse. Our US YECs don't bother. That's why I am pestering you about it, actually, hoping that a "foreign" YEC might give me a new insight.

Well, I have heard and read a number of American YECs, and those I have heard do talk/write about God's holiness, judgment, etc. and the need for a Saviour.

 

[Astrid]

I am sorry. I am not being dishonest about what I believe about the bible. I know you don't agree, but I believe that except in passages which are obviously not meant literally ("Jesus said 'I am the door'" for example), the bible is literally true.

But, see, the flood story is obviously untrue,
obvious to all but ( sorry) the uneducated.

I am from SE Asia.

I've been in a rural community where there was
a great commotion of people banging cook pots etc
to scare the lizard.

What is obvious to who?
Do you suppose education makes a difference?