Jump to content
IGNORED

Questions about Noahs Flood (is it logical or just magic you have to believe)


Leyla

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.39
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

Mixing myths with Scripture does not work well.   However,  when the myths around the world confirm the Word of God,   and some do,  that does not make them an "authority",  but merely a witness of the truth.

If Scripture at all is a myth,  heaven forbid,  then those who trust in Yahuweh are lost, heaven forbid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.11
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

29 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

The physical evidence all lines up with the Bible,  i.e. a global flood, 

Physical evidence aside, try reading the article I offered to you earlier. It provides an explanation why some Bible-believing followers of Christ may have a different view than your own. https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_666.cfm

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  944
  • Content Per Day:  0.22
  • Reputation:   170
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/20/1980

Hi One,

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

He told people they should pluck out their eye if it led them to temptation.

That's no hyperbole, that's what we should do.

However, it's not the eye that causes temptation, in my opinion.

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

He told people that with faith, they could move mountains.

that's no hyperbole either, that's a matter of fact I believe. John 14:12 explains.

Nevertheless, hyperbole can be used as a figure of speech. We all do this. Everyone understands it. Even children do.

Just because of Jesus having used a figure of speech sometimes, we are not allowed to always take something he said as figure of speech, I think. If you don't believe the Bible here in what it says without resorting to metaphorical interpretation... when do you believe it in a literal sense. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason in the text indicating the flood was anything else than global.

Look I also use figures of speech when I am communicating with friends. But when I tell you "I'm Thomas. I am 39 years old, I come from Germany!" ... please don't go around telling people "hey Thomas just told me, he was 20 years old and comes from Swizzerland." No please no, you have no right to do this ;), even if elsewhere in speech I might have made use of figurative things.

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

why it is clearly within conservative Biblical interpretation to consider the flood as local, rather than global. https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_666.cfm

I'm no conservative.

There's just one problem I have with this: the Bible indicates a global flood in Gen 7:23. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

Only Noah. Not Noah + people. The Bible is pretty clear. How should a child ever understand this flood to be local.

Regards,

Thomas

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.11
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

53 minutes ago, thomas t said:

He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

The big question still unclear in my mind is - Does the "face of the ground" refer to the entire globe, or to a smaller geographical area? I don't think we have the answer to that. Why does original Hebrew passage use the word "eretz" when an arguably much better word "tetel" could have been used with less ambiguity?

The best direct scientific evidence we should have of the calamity is the fossil record. And the fossil record doesn't support a global flood - despite what AiG, CMI, etc. attempt to tell us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.39
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

When trusting the world,     No need to go further as long as that's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.11
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

@simplejeff there are Biblical reasons to consider the flood to be regional, rather than global. Try reading the article, you might just learn something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.39
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

As written,  they will call white black,  and black white .......   so no,   nothing new,  nothing unexpected,  just wrong.

 

Trusting the world,

trusting flesh,

trusting mankind,

is always wrong.   Never changes.

Edited by simplejeff
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  229
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  10,900
  • Content Per Day:  2.93
  • Reputation:   12,145
  • Days Won:  68
  • Joined:  02/13/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  08/14/1954

23 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

there are Biblical reasons to consider the flood to be regional, rather than global.

Oh? How about listing a few of them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.11
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

7 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

Oh? How about listing a few of them? 

Please read the article I've posted previously. We can learn a lot by putting some effort into understanding opinions that do not mirror ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.11
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

25 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

As written,  they will call white black,  and black white .......   so no,   nothing new,  nothing unexpected,  just wrong.

I would love to hear you explain what you disagree with from the article, and why. From all of your responses so far, I cannot even tell whether you have glanced at the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...