Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Leyla

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 6/28/2019 at 12:29 PM, ARGOSY said:

Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood

Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant

Did God truly destroy all life? Others have argued that most aquatic life survived. What about plant life and microbial life? It is difficult to see how life on the planet survived if we take the entire account literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  17
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,272
  • Content Per Day:  1.73
  • Reputation:   1,677
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Did God truly destroy all life? Others have argued that most aquatic life survived. What about plant life and microbial life? It is difficult to see how life on the planet survived if we take the entire account literally.

What does the bible say?

 

Genesis7: 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.

 

I don't know about you but to me it is clear that every man, animal and bird that was not on the Ark died.

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:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, Who me said:

I don't know about you but to me it is clear that every man, animal and bird that was not on the Ark died.

I agree that the language seems very clear, but the language in chapter 8 is even stronger.

Quote

Genesis 8:21 - When the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, He said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, even though man’s inclination is evil from his youth. And I will never again strike down every living thing as I have done.

"Every living thing" would include plants, fungi, and bacteria, wouldn't it? And these would be absolutely essential to reestablishing living ecosystems on the planet that would have been wiped out. How would you defend a literal interpretation of this language?

 

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:  2.95
  • Reputation:   12,145
  • Days Won:  68
  • Joined:  02/13/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  08/14/1954

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

"Every living thing" would include plants, fungi, and bacteria, wouldn't it? And these would be absolutely essential to reestablishing living ecosystems on the planet that would have been wiped out.

No, bro. That makes absolutely no sense now, c'mon... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  17
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,272
  • Content Per Day:  1.73
  • Reputation:   1,677
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I agree that the language seems very clear, but the language in chapter 8 is even stronger.

"Every living thing" would include plants, fungi, and bacteria, wouldn't it? And these would be absolutely essential to reestablishing living ecosystems on the planet that would have been wiped out. How would you defend a literal interpretation of this language?

 

Today we would recognise that bacteria etc are living. In the bible we get everything that has breath is regarded as living.

On an equally strict literal understanding of biology, merely being soaked/drowned in water will not kill bacteria, or many seeds. So would be an inefective way of killing all living things.

A global flod is able to kill all mamals, birds etc that don't have an ark to escape in.

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:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

44 minutes ago, Who me said:

Today we would recognise that bacteria etc are living. In the bible we get everything that has breath is regarded as living.

Are you suggesting that we now have scientific knowledge that the original Genesis human author and audience lacked? And we should perhaps evaluate the language of the Bible in light of people that would have no concept of modern science?

Edited by one.opinion
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:  2.95
  • Reputation:   12,145
  • Days Won:  68
  • Joined:  02/13/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  08/14/1954

34 minutes ago, Who me said:

A global flod is able to kill all mamals, birds etc that don't have an ark to escape in.

thank :clap: you!

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:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

36 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

No, bro. That makes absolutely no sense now, c'mon... :rolleyes:

Agreed, it wouldn’t make sense for “every living thing” to have died, but that is exactly the language that is used. That is my point. People insist that the “eretz” must refer to the entire planet even though the word is much more flexible, but then when we get to “every living thing”, then we can disregard the word choice of the Bible. Now that doesn’t make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  17
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,272
  • Content Per Day:  1.73
  • Reputation:   1,677
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Are you suggesting that we now have scientific knowledge that the original Genesis human author and audience lacked? And we should perhaps evaluate the language of the Bible in light of people that would have no concept of modern science?

Of course we have knowledge Moses etc didn't have. As for evaluating the language of the bible, that is constantly being done by evolutionists.

 

Here is a better suggestion would be to evaluate science in the light of biblical revelation.

Something a great many scientists have done. Of course this would throw the unscentific like evolution out straight away.

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:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

28 minutes ago, Who me said:

As for evaluating the language of the bible, that is constantly being done by evolutionists.

But you did the exact same thing when dealing with Genesis 8:21. How is your evaluation of this passage in light of modern scientific knowledge different?

29 minutes ago, Who me said:

Here is a better suggestion would be to evaluate science in the light of biblical revelation.

I have an even better suggestion. What God has revealed through His Word AND what He has revealed through His works are BOTH true! So it is important to determine how the two coincide.

31 minutes ago, Who me said:

Of course this would throw the unscentific like evolution out straight away.

This is probably not the thread for it, but I would be happy to start a new thread to discuss why you think evolution is unscientific. Are you up for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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