Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Leyla

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

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

They have everything to do as Yahuweh has revealed in His Word and through His Ruach HaKodosh.

As stated, the natural man does not think they have anything to do with anything !  They can only be spiritually perceived,  and not by the natural man at all.

This is true of everything -  the natural man understands nothing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are simply making unfounded accusations regarding why others may hold an interpretation different from your own. And your unfounded accusations are unrelated to the OP.

God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. James 4:6

  • Loved it! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, one.opinion said:

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.

 

But neither do they support the view that there was no global flood, creation etc.

To believe that these things didn't happen you have to read those ideas into the bible.

While it is natural to read out of the bible that there was a 6 day creation and a global flood.

 

On balance the later is more likely to be correect.

  • Praise God! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Who me said:

But neither do they support the view that there was no global flood, creation etc.

Excellent, you are making progress. I think we can safely put aside the argument that the words of Jesus support a global flood (and a creation period of 144 hours). Now we can move on to the actual account of the flood in Genesis. The Hebrew word eretz that is often translated into “the earth” does not specifically define the whole globe. More frequently, the word as used in the OT refers to a more localized area.

I am not attempting to accept a local flood, but I am attempting to convince you that I can be true to the Bible and accept a different viewpoint.

There is a deeply-rooted prejudice among evangelicals in the US that acceptance of a local flood viewpoint is dangerously contrary to the Bible itself. You appear to have discovered that one of the pieces of evidence supporting this prejudice, the teachings of Jesus Christ, does not actually say what many think it does and is not evidence of a global flood, after all.

17 minutes ago, Who me said:

To believe that these things didn't happen

For about the fifth time in this thread, I have never claimed these things (flood and creation) didn’t happen. I believe they happened in a different way than you do. Do you see the difference?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Bible claims it was a global flood in this wording in Genesis chapters 6-9:

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. 

 The waters:" rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. "

Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died

.And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

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

 

It was a universal flood, not a local flood.

 

 

Edited by ARGOSY
  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Praise God! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Excellent, you are making progress. I think we can safely put aside the argument that the words of Jesus support a global flood (and a creation period of 144 hours). Now we can move on to the actual account of the flood in Genesis. The Hebrew word eretz that is often translated into “the earth” does not specifically define the whole globe. More frequently, the word as used in the OT refers to a more localized area.

I am not attempting to accept a local flood, but I am attempting to convince you that I can be true to the Bible and accept a different viewpoint.

There is a deeply-rooted prejudice among evangelicals in the US that acceptance of a local flood viewpoint is dangerously contrary to the Bible itself. You appear to have discovered that one of the pieces of evidence supporting this prejudice, the teachings of Jesus Christ, does not actually say what many think it does and is not evidence of a global flood, after all.

For about the fifth time in this thread, I have never claimed these things (flood and creation) didn’t happen. I believe they happened in a different way than you do. Do you see the difference?

 

No we are not making progress. If Jesus acknowledged that Adam and Noah exsisted, it is reasonable to assume that he also accepted the truth of the passages that they are in.

 

You are at liberty to believe what you like about creation and Noah's flood, but you need to recognise that you are reading into the bible what it does not say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 4:02 PM, one.opinion said:

Jeff, you are getting further and further from the OP with each post. Let's try to rein this in - the Gospel is Jesus Christ and His miraculous birth of a virgin, His sinless life, His sacrificial death, and His triumphant resurrection. It has nothing to do with the flood.

YAHUWEH'S WORD IS WHOLE, COMPLETE , and IN HARMONY COMPLETELY -  not to be broken,  nor split up into pieces to believe some and not believe other.....

Whoever rejects His Word is judged, or liable to judgment, for rejecting Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Whoever rejects His Word is judged, or liable to judgment, for rejecting Him.

Do you understand the difference between rejecting the Word of God and disagreeing with someone’s interpretation of the Word?

I do not reject the Word of God.

I disagree with your interpretation.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 9:09 PM, Jayne said:

Hi, Leyla.....no, the story of Noah and Flood is not about magic.  It's the truth.  I'm a Christian and a former science teacher.  I'll try to answer your questions.  They are great questions by the way.

[1]  How can a planet be habitable after the Flood?  If the water/land ratios were the same pre-Flood as now, and I believe they are, 75-80% of the planet was/is already water.  Land masses today [continents, islands, etc.] comprise about 20-25%.  Couple that information with the Biblical fact that Noah and his family and those animals were on that ark for a little over a year and one can conclude that after the 40 days of rain from above and water surging up from below, and the 5-6 months that the waters took to overcome even the mountain top, the earth [the land] was settling down back to habitability in the last few months. 

Major changes in the earth today can happen in mere weeks and days.  It's been seen - provable, observable.  So 2-3 months of recovery from the Flood is time enough for God to make the world habitable again - at least enough for life to start over.

[2]  How did all the sea life survive?  The life that God killed was anything that lived totally on land and breathed through it's nose.  That's what Genesis said.  And that included birds.  Sea life was untouched.  Obviously, with great churning of waters, there may have been some mixing of salt and fresh waters.  There are some fish and sea creatures who can live in that today.  Some can't.  But God kept enough of them alive to create a food source of the people and birds and creatures he saved on the ark.   There was no way for sea life to get into the ark and Noah and his family were going to need something to eat immediately.  

[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.   As I said early, they stayed on the ark a little over a year.  I'm sure there were lots of babies born on the ark.  By the time that Noah sent out the dove, plant life had already grown back enough for birds to build nests and to eat. That's what the Bible says. The animals and the 8 people had a huge good source in the waters left behind.  

Again, having taught science, plant seeds can lie dormant for years and then re-grow in a matter of days when conditions are good again.  I once took a horticulture class and my final exam was to get a gourd seed that had lain dormant in the gourd for over 12 years to grow.  I just knew I was going to fail the exam.  It was totally dead in my opinion and it was a hard and dry as a brick.  But just a few days after I planted, up popped the sprout!!  The professor laughed at my anxiety.  He KNEW the seed would sprout, but let me sweat it out.

[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?    Well, that's an easy one.  They did not have a home to go back TO.  There were no seven continents "in the beginning".  God created one land mass.  Science agrees.  Science calls the original landmass Pangea and both science and the Bible agree that that supercontinent broke into the seven continents we know today.  The Bible and science just don't agree on how it happened.

Plate tectonics kept going even after the Flood was long over.  Climate changes drastically.  An Ice Age came.  Dinosaurs died out.  Extremely large mammals died out.  Giant plant eaters died out.  The earth changed.

 

[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?     There's actually quite a lot of evidence for the Great Flood and science knows about it.  Here's one piece - the fossil record.  All those layers and layers of rock found everywhere that have massive graveyards of animals that all died together.  Creationists and many scientists who believe the Bible see an incredibly rich evidence pool of creatures representing every creature we know of dying en masse.  The higher the layer, the more advanced the creature.  Animals who were intelligent enough to run who had a huge self-preservation instinct would be at the top.  Example, clams on the bottom layer and dinosaurs/Sabre-tooth cats on the top.  

If this is evolution and the clams lived 4.5 billion years ago, why do clams today and clam 4.5 billion years ago look the same?  Why do ALL creatures in the fossil record look the same as they do today?  [For those that are not extinct].

The main thing is that God, in his sovereignty, can do anything.  I trust that.  I trust him.

 

I know that this is not the position of most Christians here but I think the flood is an allegory on how much god hates all the evil things we do on earth. I in fact would sometimes as well wish for a great flood that ends cruelty and suffering; the important thing about the story is that he gives us a new start. This is consistent with the more philosophical idea that the old must die to give room for the new.

Nevertheless believe is about training to stretch your mind so I will try to answer some of your question as good as my imagination can although I don‘t think it is necessary. The resulting answers are my personal ideas and not a reflection of Christian believe.

A main objection against the flood is that there is not enough water to cover all mountains. However god could have altered the physics of matter a bit so that the mountains have sunken. Oxygen is never a problem because it‘s produced easily by algae. If the mountains have lowered a bit and that was a process over time the tops might have not been as long under water than the rest of the earth. In this case simple plants might have survived. God beeing god he could as well have slowed down the metabolism of animals in a way that they would take years to starve.

TO overcome the difficulty with the evidence of evolution and the age of the earth:  god could have created two earths in two alternative reality lines. A main reason for this could have been that he wanted to shorten the suffering through evolution by this way. „Live“ on earth would have than existed for over a billion years but nobody would have noticed because god filled it with philosophical zombies instead of giving the living beeing conciousness. In the flood event god destroyed the other earth or earth of the Bible in the sense that there is no life left on that earth. And he at the same time transferred all the souls Noa saved onto the new earth that was previously only inhabited by philosophical zombies. This would rise the interesting question if all kind of animals have a soul or just those that descended from the animals of the ark. Because to make the ark not to big the number of species should be limited  .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2019 at 12:39 PM, Nadjeschda said:

This would rise the interesting question if all kind of animals have a soul or just those that descended from the animals of the ark. Because to make the ark not to big the number of species should be limited  .

There is nothing in the CREATOR'S WORD,  the CREATOR'S PLAN,  or the CREATOR'S PURPOSE that

shows in any way that THE CREATOR limited the size of the ark and left some animals out.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...