Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[BCP1928]

IMHO, Biblical literallism allows one to avoid all such abovementioned quandaries. I'm not sure why empirical, phenomological 'science' has to be the hill for folks to die on.

Well, that's a pat answer, though not particularly informative. Let's try it on the Gospel of John, since I believe it was you who brought it up. The Gospel of John is unique among the four, It is the only Gospel which the believer can take confidence in having been written by a companion of Christ. It is primarily a theological treatise rather than a biography. It seems to me that we can, without doubt, take it as an accurate account of John's theological understanding given authority by divine inspiration. I don't see what biblical literalism could add to that, nor do I understand why rejection of biblical literalism would require rejection of the Gospel.

 

[David Lamb]

So for lizzy it’s education, but flood it isn’t?

We’ve noticed btw that scientists who professionally deny
evolution and promote flood are always rated as “ brilliant”, “ leaders”, etc.

You do know that ( highly educated)
scientists worked as shills for tobacco
companies, highly educated attorneys
got your ok Simpson acquitted, highly educated
doctors who took the Hippocratic oath involved themselves
in opistevtrafficking.

Its also about integrity, too. Not just education.

Your choice of AiG is like checking Pravda for the
fscts on Ukraine.

The scientists at AiG literally sign a pledge to
renounce scientific integrity.

And you choose them over the world scientific community,
you and they know better.

Theres much more to say on thst but really,
one thing is enough to disprove lizard, namely,
vacuum of space.

For flood, we have a half million years of snowfall/ ice
on Antarctica.

ice floats.

You do know those things?

I think we could argue back and forth on this till the cows come home, discussing things such as whether all people who believe the biblical accounts of creation and the flood, including scientists, must be uneducated. It boils down, for me, to the fact that I know the Lord Jesus Christ, and can say along with the apostle Paul:

“For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.” (2Ti 1:12 NKJV)

Christianity involves knowing Him, not just knowing certain facts about Him. As I know Him, I know that He died on the cross to save me, and rose from the dead. That is a huge miracle, and I know by experience in my life, as well as by the bible, that it is true so when I find other miraculous events in the bible, that is the amazing background against which I believe them. That's what makes the difference, not education or lack of it.

 

[Astrid]

I think we could argue back and forth on this till the cows come home, discussing things such as whether all people who believe the biblical accounts of creation and the flood, including scientists, must be uneducated. It boils down, for me, to the fact that I know the Lord Jesus Christ, and can say along with the apostle Paul:

“For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.” (2Ti 1:12 NKJV)

Christianity involves knowing Him, not just knowing certain facts about Him. As I know Him, I know that He died on the cross to save me, and rose from the dead. That is a huge miracle, and I know by experience in my life, as well as by the bible, that it is true so when I find other miraculous events in the bible, that is the amazing background against which I believe them. That's what makes the difference, not education or lack of it.

Not really. “ all…must be uneducated” is not even a topic.
I didn’t say that. It would be an absurd position to take.

And none of what I have to say has any bearing on
faith in Jesus, so ”boil down” to that is also absurd.

One should, imo, take great care to make sure it is
faith in God / Jesus, or faith in self at issue. Those
with unerring bible- interpretation skill are the “ self” kind.

is your Bible interpretation skill unerring?

But to belief and education.
Its not either / or. And millions of educated Christians
take reality into account, finding their faith the better for it.

So it’s not either / or.

There is an insidious third possibility.

its about integrity.

Sure there are yec scientists.
A Dr. K Wise PhD paleontology is
quoted thus:
” even if all the evidence in the universe turns
against yec, I will still be yec as that is what
the Bible seems to indicate”.

That is the exact opposite how science works. It’s
the ruination of it. It’s not how the legal system or
ftm, forensic accounting works. Or auto mechanics.
Navigation.

Theres a lot of layers there in the Dr. Wise quote.

What do you think of it?

 

[BCP1928]

That is an interesting statement, indeed.

1. The foremost apostle, and founder of Christianity, viewed the flood as it was actually recorded in the book of Genesis. Matthew 24:37-39
2. Saul, later named Paul, became Christian, and commended Noah as a man of faith, since he obeyed God, and constructed an ark, in order to save those God wanted saved. Hebrews 11:7
3. Peter, a man that walked with the chief apostle, and son of God, was definitely one of the first Christians, and here is what he wrote...
   1 Peter 3:18-20
   
   For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit, in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison at one time having disobeyed, when the longsuffering of God was waiting in the days of Noah, of the ark being prepared, in which a few--that is, eight souls--were saved through water,​
   
   2 Peter 2:5
   
   if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight;​

So, the Bible does say, with no room for any opposing idea, that the nature of the flood, being a literal event as recorded in the book of Genesis - part of the inspired word of God, is indeed a Christian doctrine.
To say otherwise, would be to demonstrate that we are against Christ and his teachings, and are not sticking to true Christianity.

Christ said, he teaches only what his father commanded him to teach, so what he taught, is from God, his father, and this is what his followers stick to, and teach, because they are are of God. John 8:45-47

The weeds may look like wheat, but they are not the same, and as Jesus said, once the weeds are identified, at harvest time, they are not gathered into the barn, but are heaped up to be burned - destroyed forever.
That's a sobering thought.

There is an element of equivocation to your argument. The most you can show with your scripture quotes is that Peter and Paul believed that the events described in Genesis actually happened. Literally means something different: it is a reference to the words used. Literal inerrancy is a statement about the text, not about the underlying events. Yes, in common speech literally and actually are often used interchangeably, but in the kind of argument you are making here it is an equivocation. You cannot conclude that because Peter and Paul believed that the events actually happened that they thought the text describing the events was literal and inerrant.

 

[Astrophile]

I believe that Genesis teaches that God said He would flood the earth, that He told Noah to build an ark to keep himself, his family and the animals in it safe from the Flood.

That seems very foolish of him. God could have saved himself a great deal of trouble if he had drowned everybody, Noah and his family included. There would have been no need of the crucifixion of Jesus, no heresy hunts or witch hunts, and no necessity of creating a new heaven and a new earth.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Revelation 6:12 shows no more understanding of the causes of eclipses than the lizard/moon story.

 

[Astrophile]

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 breathe.

Where does the Bible say that lunar eclipses are caused by the Moon passing through the Earth's shadow.? Revelation 6:12 implies that they are miraculous signs of the imminence of the end of the world. Some people still believe that.

 

[CoreyD]

There is an element of equivocation to your argument. The most you can show with your scripture quotes is that Peter and Paul believed that the events described in Genesis actually happened. Literally means something different: it is a reference to the words used. Literal inerrancy is a statement about the text, not about the underlying events. Yes, in common speech literally and actually are often used interchangeably, but in the kind of argument you are making here it is an equivocation. You cannot conclude that because Peter and Paul believed that the events actually happened that they thought the text describing the events was literal and inerrant.

I have a strong feeling you are actually not joking.

I'm sure you understand what an event in history is. It's not a dream, fantasy, or allegory. An event is an actually occurrence, isn't it.
Did Paul and Peter refer to an event that happened?

However one chooses to answer that, they should remember this:

1. Paul, a couple verses before - Hebrews 11:4, 5 says...
   4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he was attested to be righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for before he was taken up, he was attested to have been pleasing to God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.
2. A couple verses after, Paul says...
   8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he left, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as a stranger in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore even from one man, and one who was as good as dead at that, there were born descendants who were just as the stars of heaven in number, and as the innumerable grains of sand along the seashore.
   
   13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises
3. Peter, in writing to the Christians, said at 2 Peter 2:2-10
   2 Many will follow their indecent behavior, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
   4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into [Gehenna]hell and committed them to pits of darkness, held for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example of what is coming for the ungodly; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the perverted conduct of unscrupulous people 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from a trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt passion, and despise authority.

Evidently, you have an idea that is in opposition to the scriptures.
Your profile does not identify you as Christian, so while it is puzzling to me, as to why you would take that position, it's fine, as it does not really matter, since there really is no difference.

Have you read the Bible?
Please read 2 Timothy 3:16 (Paul's view); 2 Peter 1:21 (Peter's view)

 

[CoreyD]

That seems very foolish of him. God could have saved himself a great deal of trouble if he had drowned everybody, Noah and his family included. There would have been no need of the crucifixion of Jesus, no heresy hunts or witch hunts, and no necessity of creating a new heaven and a new earth.

I was thinking... and I wouldn't see a post like this.

 

[BCP1928]

I have a strong feeling you are actually not joking.

No, I was not joking, though sometimes I wonder if that's not what biblical creationists are doing.

I'm sure you understand what an event in history is. It's not a dream, fantasy, or allegory. An event is an actually occurrence, isn't it.
Did Paul and Peter refer to an event that happened?

Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Peter and Paul believed the events actually happened and they learned about them by reading scripture. There is no evidence, however, that they used your hermenuetic to do so.

Evidently, you have an idea that is in opposition to the scriptures.

I'm not so sure of that; clearly I have ideas about the scriptures that differ from yours.

Your profile does not identify you as Christian,

No, I don't wish to be seen as speaking for my faith community; no need for the animosity which biblical creationists routinely dish out to include them as well. My affiliation is clear enough in my profile to anyone who troubles to learn anything real about other Christian faith groups than their own anyway.

so while it is puzzling to me, as to why you would take that position, it's fine, as it does not really matter, since there really is no difference.

Have you read the Bible?
Please read 2 Timothy 3:16 (Paul's view); 2 Peter 1:21 (Peter's view)

Yes, I am quite familiar with those scriptures, neither one of which instructs us in hermeneutics.

 

[Astrid]

Where does the Bible say that lunar eclipses are caused by the Moon passing through the Earth's shadow.? Revelation 6:12 implies that they are miraculous signs of the imminence of the end of the world. Some people still believe that.

Some still thunk it will worry the lizard if they make noise.

 

[CoreyD]

No, I was not joking, though sometimes I wonder if that's not what biblical creationists are doing.

Some of us are, yes.

Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Peter and Paul believed the events actually happened and they learned about them by reading scripture. There is no evidence, however, that they used your hermenuetic to do so.

Oh, I get you now.
I did not chew over what you wrote. It hit me in the mouth, and I thought it tasted a bit bitter, but now that I took the time to chew, it tastes different.
I misread your post, somewhat, when I responded. The last comment was after I reread it, but decided to leave the post as it was. Sorry about that.

So, you are wondering if Paul and Peter believed the scriptures, simply because they read it.
1 Thessalonians 2:13-16
Paul says, in part, that what they teach is not the word of men, but the word of God.

Both Paul, and Peter quoted extensively from the Hebrew scriptures, just as their lord and savior did.
They did not have to be there to witness an event, in order to believe it was true. They believed, from the beginning to the end of the scriptures, for the following reasons:

• They were both Israelites - of the nation that God chose. They could trace their lineage all the way back to Abraham. Romans 11:1-4 They had no critics challenging their "status".
• They saw the fulfillment of numerous prophecies, recorded in the Hebrew scriptures. Romans 1:1-7
• They saw the Christ, the son of God, in a supernatural display. Matthew 17:1-3; 2 Peter 1:16-21
• They both knew that they were vessels of God Galatians 2:7-10; 1 Corinthians 9:16-18, and they both knew that his spirit was upon them, and annointed them.
• The both could perform miracles, which was from Jesus Christ. Acts 3:1-18; Acts 20:7-12

They had no reason to doubt the scriptures, because they were seeing all the evidence with their own eyes, that the scriptures are divinely inspired. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21

I actually have something in common with Peter and Paul. I consider it a primary reason.
I have seen fulfillment of numerous Bible prophesies. Joshua 23:14, 15
I also believe I have a commission from God, which I am obligated to carry out, and I have no reason to doubt the scriptures.

Skeptics : The flood of Noah. That should be reason enough to doubt.

I'm not so sure of that; clearly I have ideas about the scriptures that differ from yours.

No, I don't wish to be seen as speaking for my faith community; no need for the animosity which biblical creationists routinely dish out to include them as well. My affiliation is clear enough in my profile to anyone who troubles to learn anything real about other Christian faith groups than their own anyway.

My apologies.
My teeth were on edge.

Yes, I am quite familiar with those scriptures, neither one of which instructs us in hermeneutics.

What it does tell us, is that both Peter and Paul believed the scripture.
Neither of them resorted to hermeneutics. That's evidently a modern favorite, that started after the first century.

Prior to that, the scriptures explained. What the readers could not understand, Jesus explained.
When the disciples of Jesus wrote, they did not have to interpret anything.

Of Paul's letters, Peter said, "He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16

This, we can say, is what is happening moreso, in these times.
Did I interpret anything, or did I use the scriptures to clarify what the scriptures said?
I did the later, didn't I. It's what is called "pointing out scriptural evidence". Acts 17:3

 

[Gene2memE]

Hypothetical question:

If all religious texts and religious knowledge disappeared from reality tomorrow, what reason(s) would humans have to believe a global flood occurred within the span of human existence?

 

[BCP1928]

Some of us are, yes.


Oh, I get you now.
I did not chew over what you wrote. It hit me in the mouth, and I thought it tasted a bit bitter, but now that I took the time to chew, it tastes different.
I misread your post, somewhat, when I responded. The last comment was after I reread it, but decided to leave the post as it was. Sorry about that.

So, you are wondering if Paul and Peter believed the scriptures, simply because they read it.
1 Thessalonians 2:13-16
Paul says, in part, that what they teach is not the word of men, but the word of God.

Both Paul, and Peter quoted extensively from the Hebrew scriptures, just as their lord and savior did.
They did not have to be there to witness an event, in order to believe it was true. They believed, from the beginning to the end of the scriptures, for the following reasons:

• They were both Israelites - of the nation that God chose. They could trace their lineage all the way back to Abraham. Romans 11:1-4 They had no critics challenging their "status".
• They saw the fulfillment of numerous prophecies, recorded in the Hebrew scriptures. Romans 1:1-7
• They saw the Christ, the son of God, in a supernatural display. Matthew 17:1-3; 2 Peter 1:16-21
• They both knew that they were vessels of God Galatians 2:7-10; 1 Corinthians 9:16-18, and they both knew that his spirit was upon them, and annointed them.
• The both could perform miracles, which was from Jesus Christ. Acts 3:1-18; Acts 20:7-12

They had no reason to doubt the scriptures, because they were seeing all the evidence with their own eyes, that the scriptures are divinely inspired. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21

I actually have something in common with Peter and Paul. I consider it a primary reason.
I have seen fulfillment of numerous Bible prophesies. Joshua 23:14, 15
I also believe I have a commission from God, which I am obligated to carry out, and I have no reason to doubt the scriptures.

Skeptics : The flood of Noah. That should be reason enough to doubt.



My apologies.
My teeth were on edge.


What it does tell us, is that both Peter and Paul believed the scripture.
Neither of them resorted to hermeneutics. That's evidently a modern favorite, that started after the first century.

Are you saying that the Jews had no tradition of scriptural interpretation?

Prior to that, the scriptures explained. What the readers could not understand, Jesus explained.
When the disciples of Jesus wrote, they did not have to interpret anything.

Of Paul's letters, Peter said, "He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16

This, we can say, is what is happening moreso, in these times.
Did I interpret anything, or did I use the scriptures to clarify what the scriptures said?
I did the later, didn't I. It's what is called "pointing out scriptural evidence". Acts 17:3

Yes, the tradition that the scriptures are the literal and inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration is definitely a modern invention.

 

[David Lamb]

Where does the Bible say that lunar eclipses are caused by the Moon passing through the Earth's shadow.? Revelation 6:12 implies that they are miraculous signs of the imminence of the end of the world. Some people still believe that.

Two points: First, I didn't claim that the bible even mentions lunar eclipses, or their cause. Second, the context of Revelation 6:12 is John's description of his God-given vision of the end of the world as you mention, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, not a lunar eclipse. In fact the very verse you mention says:

“I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood.” (Re 6:12 NKJV)

If "the moon became like blood" referred to a lunar eclipse, what about "the sun became black as sackcloth of hair?" A lunar eclipse at the same time as a solar eclipse?

 

[Astrid]

Two points: First, I didn't claim that the bible even mentions lunar eclipses, or their cause. Second, the context of Revelation 6:12 is John's description of his God-given vision of the end of the world as you mention, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, not a lunar eclipse. In fact the very verse you mention says:

“I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood.” (Re 6:12 NKJV)

If "the moon became like blood" referred to a lunar eclipse, what about "the sun became black as sackcloth of hair?" A lunar eclipse at the same time as a solar eclipse?

Could be, fits with real events.

What I Don’t get is choosing a bible- interpretation as plainly
false as Pi=3

why do you do it?

 

[David Lamb]

Could be, fits with real events.

What I Don’t get is choosing a bible- interpretation as plainly
false as Pi=3

why do you do it?

Sorry, could be what? Do you men that the Revelation passage could be referring to a concurrent solar eclipse and lunar eclipse?

How is my saying that the context of Revelation 6:12 is John's description of his God-given vision of the end of the world, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ "as plainly false as saying that pi=3"? The context is indeed what I stated.

 

[Astrid]

Sorry, could be what? Do you men that the Revelation passage could be referring to a concurrent solar eclipse and lunar eclipse?

How is my saying that the context of Revelation 6:12 is John's description of his God-given vision of the end of the world, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ "as plainly false as saying that pi=3"? The context is indeed what I stated.

Could be about eclipse.

im just wondering why you’d bother connecting anything
in the Bible to real events, when what’s real doesn’t matter
to your belief- as in “ flood” which like Pi=3 is what the bible
shows but has no correspondence to reality.

 

[David Lamb]

Could be about eclipse.

im just wondering why you’d bother connecting anything
in the Bible to real events, when what’s real doesn’t matter
to your belief- as in “ flood” which like Pi=3 is what the bible
shows but has no correspondence to reality.

Reality? A solar eclipse and a lunar eclipse happening at the same time? brings with it a t

No it is not that what is real doesn't matter to me, and other Christians who believe as I do. It's simply that believing in Almighty God brings with it a different view of what is real than one has without such a belief. In view of the fact that these are Christian forums, it should surprise you that many here do believe what the bible says.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Hypothetical question:

If all religious texts and religious knowledge disappeared from reality tomorrow, what reason(s) would humans have to believe a global flood occurred within the span of human existence?

God will select another man to reveal the events, and he will re-write the scriptures.
Do you not know what 'Revelation' means?