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

[thomas t]

Hi One,

I wanted to wait for the others to post their point first. (That's why I waited to reply.)

On 6/26/2019 at 2:34 PM, one.opinion said:

On 6/26/2019 at 1:32 PM, 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? 

"eretz" = "face of the ground" is the opposite of "of the heavens". In my opinion, God used that word for the sake of the dualism: of the ground, on the one hand, and of the heavens, on the other. For me, it's a nice stylistic device to show that this was all encompassing.

If God would have wanted to show that it was a regional flood, Hebrew would have had the possibilities to do that easily:

For instance, here in 1. Samuel 15 we see God describing a regional desaster: And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur,

There is absolutely no linguistical problem to describe a limited catastrophe, everybody would understand. There is no reason to hide local restrictions from the text if there were any.

 

But rest assured, I do believe you play a very important role in the thread, since you're the only one publicly doubting the "scientific facts" from those who believe in a literal interpretation (such as myself). In order for us to have a real debate we need you, since you're the only one arguing from another standpoint at the moment.

 

So let's turn to your source that you say has biblical reasons to believe in a local flood, which I doubt. I will click on your source and try to refute one argument, the first one. I do not have time to read more, and if you think your source has a valid point besides the first argument I find, please explain which one of the arguments in the source you think is the best.

The first argument they have is this: "all" as in Joel 3:2 ("all nations") did not mean literally "all", according to them. 

That's an unsupported allegation, in my opinion. Your source did not back this up by anything. They just hinted at "context", but they did not explain why the context could possibly exclude all from meaning all. I believe "all" in this passage literelly meant "all".

So I'm against the conclusion that you can use a different interpretation of "all" in the flood story, since Joel 3:2 purportedly used another (hidden) meaning of "all", as well.

All means always all in the Bible, I believe.

But excuse me again, your source, for me, is too long to read. I found the first argument to be weak, so I won't bother to read the rest, if it's ok for you.

 

EDIT: The problem with citing sources instead of one Bible verse... you have to go through all that source. Why not cite one Bible verse, instead?

So I had to go through all that source till I came to the first argument. Waste of time, in my opinion.

Regards,

Thomas

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by thomas t
clarity + see EDIT line

[Who me]

On 25 June 2019 at 9:13 PM, one.opinion said:

Take a minute and read the context. Jesus is not talking about a 144 hour creation, he is talking about Adam and Eve. There is no claim regarding any time frame for creation.

There is nothing in the words of Jesus that claim that the flood was global.

You are using your own interpretation bias to add to the words of Jesus Christ.

No I am reading what the bible says. Jesus said that both these people exsited, he therefore implies that the events they are part of happened.

If you read the bible the creation and flood accounts read as prose, as telling of something that happened.

 

[one.opinion]

57 minutes ago, Who me said:

No I am reading what the bible says.

That is not correct. If you are using the words of Jesus as evidence of 144-hour creation and a global flood, then you are adding what human, fallible leaders have taught you on top of what the Bible actually says. Jesus did not claim that creation occurred in a 144-hour time period, nor did He claim that the flood covered the entire earth. Those are plain and evident facts.

I believe the Biblical account in Genesis is, by far, the best reason to accept a global flood, as @thomas t has demonstrated. Jesus does confirm the existence of Noah and a flood, but there is nothing there that confirms that the flood was global.

6 hours ago, thomas t said:

"eretz" = "face of the ground" is the opposite of "of the heavens". In my opinion, God used that word for the sake of the dualism: of the ground, on the one hand, and of the heavens, on the other. For me, it's a nice stylistic device to show that this was all encompassing.

This makes a lot of sense, but I do not believe it is definitive.

What I'd really like to accomplish here is establish that there are multiple ways to consider the flood, while still being true to the Word of God. @thomas t gets that, but I'm hoping that a few more will at least consider the possibility that their opinion just might be wrong.

[Who me]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

That is not correct. If you are using the words of Jesus as evidence of 144-hour creation and a global flood, then you are adding what human, fallible leaders have taught you on top of what the Bible actually says. Jesus did not claim that creation occurred in a 144-hour time period, nor did He claim that the flood covered the entire earth. Those are plain and evident facts.

I believe the Biblical account in Genesis is, by far, the best reason to accept a global flood, as @thomas t has demonstrated. Jesus does confirm the existence of Noah and a flood, but there is nothing there that confirms that the flood was global.

This makes a lot of sense, but I do not believe it is definitive.

What I'd really like to accomplish here is establish that there are multiple ways to consider the flood, while still being true to the Word of God. @thomas t gets that, but I'm hoping that a few more will at least consider the possibility that their opinion just might be wrong.

Nothing Jesus says discounts a 6 day creation, in fact by sayting man is from the begining of creation he is saying that there was a 6 day creation.

From reading the bible no one naturaly comes to believe in long ages. That has to be read into the bible while a recent creation naturaly is read out of the bible.

[simplejeff]

22 minutes ago, Who me said:

Nothing Jesus says discounts a 6 day creation, in fact by sayting man is from the begining of creation he is saying that there was a 6 day creation.

From reading the bible no one naturaly comes to believe in long ages. That has to be read into the bible while a recent creation naturaly is read out of the bible.

Correct.

The sinful world trusts men instead of God,  and without even reading the Bible opposes the Bible in every way whenever they feel like it, for no reason at all - no reason needed.

The LIGHT has come into the world,  and the world rejected Him, because its deeds are evil.

[one.opinion]

30 minutes ago, Who me said:

in fact by sayting man is from the begining of creation he is saying that there was a 6 day creation.

The words of Jesus, recorded in the Bible, do not say that. You are reading it for what you WANT it to say, not what it actually says. I don't know how else to explain it.

[simplejeff]

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural man does not accept the things ...

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/2-14.htm

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. King James Bible But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.

 

What does Paul mean when he writes of the natural man?

https://www.gotquestions.org/natural-man.html

Verse 14 says, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (NASB). This verse does not define the natural man, as such; rather, it uses the term to describe one who does not understand God's words and thoughts.

[simplejeff]

SUBJECT: Christian Living

TITLE: The Natural Man vs. The Spiritual Man

"PROPOSITION: We must reject the natural man and accept the spiritual man in regard to: 1) Self-Control, 2) Introspection, 3) Forgiveness, 4) Servitude

OBJECTIVES: Each listener should be able to explain the difference between the natural man and the spiritual man.

AIM: That each person would want to be less natural and more spiritual in his life.

INTRODUCTION:

1. Read: 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

2. About the Text:

1) Paul has just finished addressing the issue of division at the church in Corinth.

2) This issue was caused by the wisdom of men."

 

https://gewatkins.net/the-natural-man-vs-the-spiritual-man/

"3. The natural man serves self and merits for himself his glory in this life, but the spiritual man understands that he is merely a servant in this life and can never merit God’s grace."

... ... ...

[Coemgen]

Quote

1) How can a planet be habitable after global flood on such a big scale?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              2)How did all sea life survive?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  3) After the flood was over, what were animals supposed to eat? Carnivores would kill off all the saved animals and plant eating animals would have nothing to eat.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               4) Even if we assume that the animals survived and had enough oxygen, food etc... how did they find their way back home, to the different regions in all the other continents?                                                                                  5)  If we world was flooded on this big scale, why cant we find any evidence?? Do you think our scientists are really so incompetent, that they cant find even one evidence for it?

Hi Leyla,

1) I don't believe the planet was submerged 2) same 3) There was not any lion, tiger, elephant and kangaroo 4) see answer 1) and 2) 5) Depend what and where a scientist is seeking. Sincerely.

Coemgen

[one.opinion]

@simplejeff, your recent posts, although important and a good reminder, have nothing to do with the OP and belong on a different thread.