Is the great biblical flood real or not?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

DiscipleDave

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2012
3,095
69
48
Of course it was real, did you not read the story?
Many people do not believe the Word of God but choose to believe the interpretations of excellent educated people. These same people love to hold on to New Versions of the Bible that the last days generation produces. So even though these same people have read the story, they do not believe it to be True, because they do not believe the Word of God but choose to believe men who say what the Word of God means.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave
 

DiscipleDave

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2012
3,095
69
48
God really did open the windows in the dome over the flat earth just as the story says He did—or do we ignore the parts of the story that we do not like so that it can be true? But wait! The story still cannot be true because it describes a ludicrously impossible scenario!
Seriously? Are you saying that you think the Earth was flat? (or even worse, is flat?) You testify against your own self that you are not familiar with the Word of God. The Word of God reveals that the Earth was round. Even during the days that most people on Earth believed the Earth was flat, only if they would have believed the Word of God they would have known it was round and not flat, and would not have need of any proof that it was round, because the Word of God told them it was round. But like them, even as it is with this generation, They do not believe the Word of God and what it plainly says.

Isa_40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

So if people would have merely just believed the Word of God, they would never have believed the false doctrine that the Earth was flat. If people in the last days generation would merely believe the Word of God and what it says, they would not believe the false doctrines being spewed out of this generations mouth, saying such things like the flood did not happen. Which is contrary to the Word of God. How will these escape His wrath when it comes upon the whole Earth?

The Bible is NOT a science book and it does not pretend to be one.
It just happens to be Book that is TRUE. What it says is TRUE.

It is a well established fact that Genesis 6-8, if interpreted literally, is an historical account of actual events in history in which Noah’s family built an ark that was sufficiently large enough for representatives of 1.5 million or more genetically discrete populations of animals to come aboard and be maintained by Noah and his family for 150 or more days exclusively by natural means. Subsequent to those 150 or more days, the ark came to rest on a mountain and these representatives of 1.5 million or more genetically discrete populations of animals disembarked and found their way down the mountain and to the furthest corners of the earth and managed to survive that trip and their arrival even though every single land habitat had been completely destroyed by the flood.

It does not require a Ph.D. in biology from a prestigious university to see immediately that such an historic event never took place. Indeed, the completion of a seventh grade science class is all that is needed.
lol. So what you are affirming is that you do not believe the Word of God. Jesus Turned water into wine, this must not really have happened because that is scientifically impossible. Jesus walked on water, again, did not happen because science teaches that is impossible. Jesus turned a few fishes and a few loaves of bread into hundreds instantaneously, this also is not possible with the science we have today, therefore did not happen. Jesus rose from the dead, and walked in flesh again, this did not happen, because that is scientifically impossible. Oh my. Scriptures teach three men thrown into the furnace, and they did not get burned at all, This is scientifically impossible therefore could not have happened. The shadow of Peter healed people, this did not happen because that is scientifically impossible. God created the Earth in 6 days, this could not have happened because that is scientifically impossible. The Israelites lived in the wilderness for 40 years and not one of them had to change their shoes, this too could not have happened, because that is scientifically impossible. A world wide flood could not have happened because that is scientifically not possible.

lol, you either believe the Word of God and what it teaches or you don't. Your either going to Heaven or your not. You are either a good tree only doing good or you are bad tree doing bad. You either believe the Word of God by Faith, or you believe the word of men with science. lol. God spits on our science and laughs at it. know you not that all things are possible with God, or is that yet another of hundreds of verses you don't believe?

A few facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Gen. 6–8 are:
lol, as if i need or am requesting any facts to prove the Word of God is True. i don't need any of your facts. i know God can do whatever He wants to do, and physics, and science, can't hold Him back. Who do you think created the physics of this planet? Who do you think devised the science of this planet? God is the creator of both, and God can and does manipulate both as He sees fit. lol.

  • There are today about 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of animals living on the earth. If we assume a date of about 2,349 B.C. (Bishop Ussher’s date), microevolution reduces the number of “kinds” of animals that must have been aboard the ark (to account for the about 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of animals living on the earth today) to a few hundred thousand “kinds.”
blah blah blah. Don't care what men say and teach, i only believe the Word of God and what it says.

  • The few hundred thousand “kinds” of animals, including the dinosaurs, mammoths, giant ground sloths, etc., which have become extinct must also be considered. Did they all become extinct before the flood? If not, they were, according to the account in Genesis, aboard the ark.
blah blah blah. Don't care what men say and teach, i only believe the Word of God and what it says.

  • The ark, as literally described in Genesis, was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less than the animals, cages, and food on board, thus making it impossible for the ark to float.

  • The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

  • The amount of food required for the animals would weigh at least nearly as much as the animals, and would require a vast amount of storage space.

  • Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc., including fresh fruits that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore, these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained aboard the ark, and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

  • Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY LARGE fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

  • The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

  • After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept aboard the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

  • The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because many of them would eat each other.

  • The coming of the animals to Noah from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed more than a few special difficulties.


  • After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

  • Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

  • Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

  • There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood?

  • If the reported sightings of the Ark are factual, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the large majority of the animals would not have been able to descend.
blah blah blah. Don't care what men say and teach, i only believe the Word of God and what it says.

The narrative of Noah’s Ark cannot be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge and very numerous miracles would have been necessary,
And He did. The mere fact that God brought all the animals to the ark, indicates that God was there during the whole process. How do you know that God did not preserve all of them to not even eat during the flood. What? God can't do that? Is that what your saying? Could God have miraculously saved all these animals, like the Word says He did and you say He did not? Tell me if you would, which i believe you will not answer me, Tell me. in the Noah story that is presented to us in the Word of God, what part of it, that God could NOT DO?
Could God cause the hostile animals to be passive?
Could God sustain the animals lives in the ark?
Tell me, in the story that we have in the Word of God concerning Noah and the Flood, which part of it, That God could NOT DO? If then God could do all that He said He did, who are you to say that He didn't do as He said He did. Your Science has blinded you. Your science has caused you to lose Faith in believing the Word of God. But your now alone. Many people have do not believe the Word of God because of the tool satan uses, called science. lol. as if God is bound by the physics and science of this world. lol

and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural, physical means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the floodwaters.
The thing you are failing to understand is, the whole narrative of the story is how GOD SAVED THEM. You are looking at the story in the aspect of how NOAH saved them, which would be scientifically impossible. But the narrative of the story is NOT about Noah saving the animals, but the narrative is about how God saved humans and animals. And God is not bound by YOUR science. Amen for that.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave
 

DiscipleDave

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2012
3,095
69
48
Scripture tells us in the same story that the earth was covered with a dome—telling us very plainly that, according to the story, the earth was flat! “Going with” the part of the story that one likes, and totally ignoring the parts of the story that one does not like is intellectual dishonesty that makes a mockery of God and His word.
What makes a mockery of the Word of God is changing it to fit into your own interpretation. You say above and teach that the Word of God teaches the Earth was flat. The Word does not teach that, YOU DO. It is your interpretation of the Word that makes YOU think it teaches it is flat. Scriptures plainly teaches:

Isa_40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:


So YOU teach Scriptures teaches it was flat. YOU do error. Scriptures teach the earth is round, YOUR interpretations teach that it was flat. YOUR interpretation are wrong, and scriptures are True. YOU even teach that the Word of God PLAINLY teaches it is flat. How is that not Mockery? The Word of God plainly teaches the Earth is a circle. YOU teach that it is flat, because that is YOUR INTERPRETATION, and is not what the Word plainly teaches.

Know you not that all LIARS will burn in the lake of fire and brimstone? Therefore i warn you, think before you say something is plainly written in the Word, when it is not plainly written in the Word, making you a Liar, if you say it does. There is nothing in the Word of God that teaches the Earth is flat, not one verse in all of Scriptures even indicates that. The Earth has always been round just like all the other planets in the Universe. For you to say or teach the Word of God plainly teaches the earth is flat, is MOCKERY to the Word of God. lol. condemn mockery when that is what you dish out.

Friend, you need to start believing the word of God as a child, in simplicity, if the Word says God did this or that, merely believe it. But it seems to me you believe the words of men over what the Word of God teaches. Men teach a world wide flood could not have happened because ______________, ________________, ________________. God says a world wide flood happened. Your choice if you choose to believe men or God. And it seems you have made your choice to believe men. Repent therefore, and believe the Word of God and not what men teach. But if you continue to choose to believe men over God, then what do you think the outcome for you will be?



^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave
 

DiscipleDave

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2012
3,095
69
48
Mankind sometimes makes the simple so complex.
Amen. So True.

You either believe the following verse or you don't.

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And Genesis is Scripture. If God said He did something, doing something, or going to do something. He does it. He is God.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,345
16,317
113
69
Tennessee
Scripture tells us in the same story that the earth was covered with a dome—telling us very plainly that, according to the story, the earth was flat! “Going with” the part of the story that one likes, and totally ignoring the parts of the story that one does not like is intellectual dishonesty that makes a mockery of God and His word.
Where in the bible does it state that the earth is covered with a dome. This is complete nonsense. You are the one that is practicing intellectual dishonesty and making a mockery of what God has written.
 

DiscipleDave

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2012
3,095
69
48
God called the DRY LAND "earth!" So why do we read about the Spirit hovering over the WATER(S) in Genesis 1:2? Where (and WHEN) was the earth DRY, for which earth was named ... UNLESS there was a PRE-ADAMIC world on earth?
Before the Earth was Land, it was a ball of water (No land, ONLY WATER). The center of the ball of water was then created, and then the shell around the center of what was just created, then Land was created over the shell but under the water, and then the land rose up out of the water to become DRY LAND.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave
 

DiscipleDave

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2012
3,095
69
48
I remember asking my wife
Do you believe God created the world in seven days?
She said yes.
I asked why.

She said because he is God, unlimited and not constrained by our thoughts and understanding
Amen. So True.

People who believe God can't create a tiny planet in 6 days, do not understand the actual power of God.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave
 

DiscipleDave

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2012
3,095
69
48
also this verse

Psa_90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

People, know you not that time is only relevant to the planet that you live on? Whatever planet you live on, one rotation of that planet is considered a day. One rotation around the Sun of that planet is called a year.

Where the Father is now (and Jesus with Him) has a different length of day then planet Earth. A thousand years on Earth has passed it has only been a Day in Heaven that has passed. However there is an entirely different Time for entities that do not reside on any one given planet. This is what i call a Universal Time, irregardless what planet you are on. The Universal Time is set by the location of whatever planet the Father is located at. Here real soon the Universal Time will change, when the Father makes His abode on planet Earth in the New City Jerusalem, and the Earth becomes His footstool.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave
 

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
Seriously? Are you saying that you think the Earth was flat? (or even worse, is flat?) You testify against your own self that you are not familiar with the Word of God. The Word of God reveals that the Earth was round. Even during the days that most people on Earth believed the Earth was flat, only if they would have believed the Word of God they would have known it was round and not flat, and would not have need of any proof that it was round, because the Word of God told them it was round. But like them, even as it is with this generation, They do not believe the Word of God and what it plainly says.

Isa_40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

So if people would have merely just believed the Word of God, they would never have believed the false doctrine that the Earth was flat. If people in the last days generation would merely believe the Word of God and what it says, they would not believe the false doctrines being spewed out of this generations mouth, saying such things like the flood did not happen. Which is contrary to the Word of God. How will these escape His wrath when it comes upon the whole Earth?



It just happens to be Book that is TRUE. What it says is TRUE.
The Bible is true when read as the word of God rather than an old story about a man and his boat!

Isaiah 40:21. Have you not known? Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22. It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to live in;
23. who brings princes to naught,
and makes the rulers of the earth as nothing.
24. Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown,
scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth,
when he blows upon them, and they wither,
and the tempest carries them off like stubble.
25. To whom then will you compare me,
or who is my equal? says the Holy One.
26. Lift up your eyes on high and see:
Who created these?
He who brings out their host and numbers them,
calling them all by name;
because he is great in strength,
mighty in power,
not one is missing. (NRSV)


The Hebrew word חוּג is never used in ancient Hebrew literature to mean a “sphere,” but rather a circle, circuit, arch, vault, or horizon. On page 152 of Vol. 2 of his commentary on the Hebrew Text of Isaiah, Franz Delitzsch writes,

The prophet now proceeds to describe the God whom both His works and word proclaim. The participles which follow are predicates of the subject, which filled the consciousness of the prophet as well as that of every believer. “He who is enthroned above the vault of the earth, and its inhabitants resemble grasshoppers; who has spread out the heavens like gauze, and stretched them out like a tent-roof to dwell in.” He, the manifested and yet unknown, is He who has for His throne the circle of the heavens (chūg shâmayim, Job_22:14), which arches over the earth, and to whom from His inaccessible height men appear as diminutive as grasshoppers (Num_13:33); He who has spread out the blue sky like a thin transparent garment (dōq, a thin fabric, like daq, fine dust, in Isa_40:15), and stretched it out above the earth like a tent for dwelling in ('ōhel lâshebheth). The participle brings to view the actions and circumstances of all times. In the present instance, where it is continued in the historical sense, it is to be resolved into the perfect; in other cases, the preservation of the world is evidently thought of as a creatio continua (see Psychol. P. 111).​


Notice that he correctly translates the word חוּג as “vault.” The Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University, on page 295, gives the following meaning of the word, “vault, horizon; of the heavens and earth,” and cites Job 22:14, Prov. 18:27, and Isa. 40:20 as examples. In Isa. 44:13 we find the related word מְחוּגָה,

Isaiah 44:13. The craftsman stretches out his rule, he marks one out with chalk; he fashions it with a plane, he marks it out with the compass, and makes it like the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, that it may remain in the house. (KJV)

However, we do learn from the Old Testament that the ancient Jews believed that the earth was flat and covered with a dome. This cultural belief is reflected in Gen. 1:6.

Gen. 1:6 And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NRSV, 1989)

The NRSV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ (râqı̂ya‛) as “dome.” The evidence for the correctness of this translation is found in the use of this word in ancient Hebrew literature. Based upon this usage, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of it in Gen. 1:6, 7, and 8, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956)

On page 21 of his commentary on Genesis, the late John Skinner, Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, writes,

6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).​


Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives us the following,

Full Definition of FIRMAMENT

1: the vault or arch of the sky : heavens
2: obsolete : basis
3: the field or sphere of an interest or activity <the international fashion firmament>

Origin of FIRMAMENT

Middle English, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin firmamentum, from Latin, support, from firmare​


Notice especially definition 1: the vault or arch of the sky.

Moreover, if the earth was not covered with a very sturdy, solid dome with a massive amount of water above it (in agreement with ancient Hebrew cosmology), the great flood of Genesis would not have been possible!

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (KJV)

If the “windows of heaven” are to be understood figuratively rather than literally, we still have the problem of where the water actually came from if it did not come through the windows in the dome. (The earth’s atmosphere is not capable of holding even one millionth of the amount of water described in Genesis).

Moreover, flat discs, like cake plates, can be covered with a dome, but spheres cannot be covered with a dome. Furthermore, the concept of the dome comes from the very same Hebrew cosmology as does the flat earth. The personalities and cultures of the men whom God chose to pen His Scriptures are reflected in the Scriptures, giving us the following in the KJV of the Bible,

Isa. 11:12. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Matt. 4:8. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9. And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Rev. 7:1. And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Rev. 20:7. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8. And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

The passage in Matthew’s gospel is especially important because Matthew tells us that the mountain was “exceeding high” in order to give us surety that from such an altitude Jesus actually could see all the kingdoms of the world, and that this was an actual, historical event made possible by the height of the mountain!

The references to the “four corners” and “four quarters” of the earth gave rise to today’s expression, “the four corners of the earth.” (In the Greek text, the same word (γωνία) is used, but translated inconsistently in the KJV as “corners” and “quarters”).
 

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
lol. So what you are affirming is that you do not believe the Word of God. Jesus Turned water into wine, this must not really have happened because that is scientifically impossible. Jesus walked on water, again, did not happen because science teaches that is impossible. Jesus turned a few fishes and a few loaves of bread into hundreds instantaneously, this also is not possible with the science we have today, therefore did not happen. Jesus rose from the dead, and walked in flesh again, this did not happen, because that is scientifically impossible. Oh my. Scriptures teach three men thrown into the furnace, and they did not get burned at all, This is scientifically impossible therefore could not have happened. The shadow of Peter healed people, this did not happen because that is scientifically impossible. God created the Earth in 6 days, this could not have happened because that is scientifically impossible. The Israelites lived in the wilderness for 40 years and not one of them had to change their shoes, this too could not have happened, because that is scientifically impossible. A world wide flood could not have happened because that is scientifically not possible.

lol, you either believe the Word of God and what it teaches or you don't. Your either going to Heaven or your not. You are either a good tree only doing good or you are bad tree doing bad. You either believe the Word of God by Faith, or you believe the word of men with science. lol. God spits on our science and laughs at it. know you not that all things are possible with God, or is that yet another of hundreds of verses you don't believe?



lol, as if i need or am requesting any facts to prove the Word of God is True. i don't need any of your facts. i know God can do whatever He wants to do, and physics, and science, can't hold Him back. Who do you think created the physics of this planet? Who do you think devised the science of this planet? God is the creator of both, and God can and does manipulate both as He sees fit. lol.


blah blah blah. Don't care what men say and teach, i only believe the Word of God and what it says.


blah blah blah. Don't care what men say and teach, i only believe the Word of God and what it says.


blah blah blah. Don't care what men say and teach, i only believe the Word of God and what it says.



And He did. The mere fact that God brought all the animals to the ark, indicates that God was there during the whole process. How do you know that God did not preserve all of them to not even eat during the flood. What? God can't do that? Is that what your saying? Could God have miraculously saved all these animals, like the Word says He did and you say He did not? Tell me if you would, which i believe you will not answer me, Tell me. in the Noah story that is presented to us in the Word of God, what part of it, that God could NOT DO?
Could God cause the hostile animals to be passive?
Could God sustain the animals lives in the ark?
Tell me, in the story that we have in the Word of God concerning Noah and the Flood, which part of it, That God could NOT DO? If then God could do all that He said He did, who are you to say that He didn't do as He said He did. Your Science has blinded you. Your science has caused you to lose Faith in believing the Word of God. But your now alone. Many people have do not believe the Word of God because of the tool satan uses, called science. lol. as if God is bound by the physics and science of this world. lol



The thing you are failing to understand is, the whole narrative of the story is how GOD SAVED THEM. You are looking at the story in the aspect of how NOAH saved them, which would be scientifically impossible. But the narrative of the story is NOT about Noah saving the animals, but the narrative is about how God saved humans and animals. And God is not bound by YOUR science. Amen for that.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave
The whole narrative of the story is how God saved Noah, his family, and the land animals—not through a lengthy series of magnificent miracles—but through the use of a boat built with human hands following God’s instructions. The fact that nearly all of the saltwater fish would have died; and the fact that nearly all of the terrestrial and epiphytic plants would have died, proves that the intention of the narrative is NOT to present to the reader an accurate account of an historic event, but to present to the reader a story from which the reader could learn a spiritual lesson.

When Genesis 1-11 is interpreted to be an accurate account of historic events, we see from the chronology of the Bible that the flood occurred in 2349 B.C. However, no one in his or her right mind would teach such an obvious absurdity today. Even the most severely radicalized Christian fundamentalists push—contrary to the Scriptures themselves—the date back another few thousand years!
 

Silverwings

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2016
1,368
495
83
It took Noah about 100 years to build the ark, the rains came down for 40 days and 40 nights, they were afloat for about 150 days, before the water receded, the dove brought back the olive leaf letting Noah know that the waters had receded, sounds like a flood to me!!



Do you think this is just a story book, for your entertainment, or do you believe it is the divine work of a Sovereign God?
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,415
2,489
113
Was the Biblical flood real?

I guess the options would be: real, myth, or allegory.




1. Myth

If you're a Christian...
you'd have to assume the God of the universe probably has better things to do than devising books of entirely silly imaginary nonsense stories which he then adamantly demands that we study.

That would reduce God to someone kind of silly, like a leprechaun.


2. Allegory

A. If you're a christian...
you sort of have a problem that Jesus keeps mentioning it as a real event.

B. If you're a christian...
you sort of have a problem with all the people who died by drowning;
it takes quite a lot of effort to actually die by drowning in an allegory.

Ya know, I wouldn't be too fearful of a God that would only judge me allegorically...
hey, that's not so bad.


3. Real

If you're a Christian...
Jesus thought it was real, Peter thought it was real, Isaiah thought it was real, Ezekiel thought it was real, Joshua thought it was real, Job thought it was real, and the writer of Hebrews thought it was real...

so at least you're in good company.



What if you're NOT a Christian?
Well, Biblical stories, though many can be verified through physical evidence, are actually matters of SPECIAL REVELATION, which means, errr, if you aren't a believer... they aren't really for you anyway.

Whether or not some physical evidence seems compelling to an unbeliever, well that really has nothing to do with special revelation... unbelievers are, by definition, those who willfully choose to not believe despite all the evidence for God which IS right in front of them.
 
Last edited:

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
Was the Biblical flood real?

I guess the options would be: real, myth, or allegory.



1. Myth

If you're a Christian...
you'd have to assume the God of the universe probably has better things to do than devising books of entirely silly imaginary nonsense stories which he then adamantly demands that we study.

That would reduce God to someone kind of silly, like a leprechaun.


2. Allegory

A. If you're a christian...
you sort of have a problem that Jesus keeps mentioning it as a real event.

B. If you're a christian...
you sort of have a problem with all the people who died by drowning;
it takes quite a lot of effort to actually die by drowning in an allegory.

Ya know, I wouldn't be too fearful of a God that would only judge me allegorically...
hey, that's not so bad.


3. Real

If you're a Christian...
Jesus thought it was real, Peter thought it was real, Isaiah thought it was real, Ezekiel thought it was real, Joshua thought it was real, Job thought it was real, and the writer of Hebrews thought it was real...

so at least you're in good company.
The author of this post apparently has never considered the Bible to be worth the time to study it! Therefore, it is no wonder at all that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the genre of literature in which Genesis 1-11 is written, and has only a rudimentary concept of the God who gave it to us.

During the most recently past 150 years, the genre of literature in which Genesis 1-11 is written has been the subject of intense study on the part of hundreds of Old Testament scholars who were/are fluent in ancient Hebrew and other ancient Semitic and Oriental languages. Virtually all of these scholars agree with the obvious—that Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible. Indeed, even before I knew anything about the Hebrew language or literary criticism, I noticed when reading through Genesis as a young person that the genre of literature abruptly changes after Genesis 11:32. But why does the genre of literature abruptly change after Genesis 11:32? And what is the significance of this change in genre? The answers to these two fundamental questions is probably best learned from a study of the genre of Genesis 1-11.

Genesis 1-11 has literary characteristics found in such literature as epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Ancient epic tales and sagas are written in verse, but they could have been written in prose, as is Genesis 1-11, while retaining their other characteristics. The Apostle Paul finds allegory in Genesis,

Gal. 4:21. Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.
23. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise.
24. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
27. For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married.”
28. Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
30. But what does the scripture say? “Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”
31. So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (RSV)


However, the story of these two women is not found in Genesis 1-11, and there is nothing obviously allegorical about the stories in Genesis 1-11. Nonetheless, ancient (dating all the way back to the first century!) Jewish and Christian scholars realized that Genesis 1-11 is not an accurate account of historic events, and believed that it is at least partially allegorical rather than historical. The Bible itself never says or implies that Genesis 1-11 should be interpreted literally. It is sometimes argued that Jesus interpreted the flood story to be an accurate account of an historical event, but the Bible never says or implies that either. Indeed, He may have simply used the flood story to make His point, or he may have incorrectly believed it to be true Let’s not forget, that Jesus the man was fully human with a fully human brain capable of knowing only what he had learned from the people around him and from His Father—and there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that suggests that His Father taught Him anything at all about the flood story! As for the mentions of Noah and the flood by various contributors to the Bible, I wrote in a post above,

The men whom God chose to pen the Scriptures were real people in every respect—real people with their own vocabulary, real people with their own cultural background—and the realness of the people whom God chose to pen the Scriptures became a part of the Scriptures. In Genesis 1-11, we find the cultural belief of the cosmos held by the ancient Hebrew people to be the framework in which the story of the flood is told. Indeed, the reality of the flood is absolutely dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by an extremely strong “dome” (Hebrew = רָקִיעַ [râqı̂ya‛]) that, as the story goes, God made “and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.” The reality of the flood is absolutely dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by an extremely strong “dome” because, as the story goes, the “dome” held back a massive amount of water until the time of the flood. Since the reality of the flood is dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by a “dome,” the reality of the earth being round without a dome over it completely negates the possibility of the flood having occurred.​


What if you're NOT a Christian?
Well, Biblical stories, though many can be verified through physical evidence, are actually matters of SPECIAL REVELATION, which means, errr, if you aren't a believer... they aren't really for you anyway.

Whether or not some physical evidence seems compelling to an unbeliever, well that really has nothing to do with special revelation... unbelievers are, by definition, those who willfully choose to not believe despite all the evidence for God which IS right in front of them.
The truth is that unbelievers are people who do not believe the veracity of the gospel message in the Bible. For the past three years, I have been involved in a ministry to a fellowship of atheists. Nearly all of them had previously been active members of fundamentalist Christian churches—youth pastors, worship leaders, Sunday school teachers, etc. Now, however, they are unbelievers—and they are now unbelievers because they came to realize that what they had been taught about Genesis 1-11 was not true. NONE of them had been active members of Christian churches who taught an academically defensible interpretation of Genesis 1-11. When young people are taught the truth about Genesis 1-11, they have a solid basis upon which to build their knowledge of the rest of the Bible—including the gospel message—and that solid basis greatly helps them to maintain a sure and firm faith in Christ! However, when young people are not taught the truth about Genesis 1-11, they do not have a solid basis upon which to build their knowledge of the rest of the Bible—including the gospel message—and the lack of that solid basis all too often proves to be fatal to their faith in Christ!
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,415
2,489
113
The author of this post apparently has never considered the Bible to be worth the time to study it! Therefore, it is no wonder at all that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the genre of literature in which Genesis 1-11 is written, and has only a rudimentary concept of the God who gave it to us.

During the most recently past 150 years, the genre of literature in which Genesis 1-11 is written has been the subject of intense study on the part of hundreds of Old Testament scholars who were/are fluent in ancient Hebrew and other ancient Semitic and Oriental languages. Virtually all of these scholars agree with the obvious—that Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible. Indeed, even before I knew anything about the Hebrew language or literary criticism, I noticed when reading through Genesis as a young person that the genre of literature abruptly changes after Genesis 11:32. But why does the genre of literature abruptly change after Genesis 11:32? And what is the significance of this change in genre? The answers to these two fundamental questions is probably best learned from a study of the genre of Genesis 1-11.

Genesis 1-11 has literary characteristics found in such literature as epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Ancient epic tales and sagas are written in verse, but they could have been written in prose, as is Genesis 1-11, while retaining their other characteristics. The Apostle Paul finds allegory in Genesis,

Gal. 4:21. Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.
23. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise.
24. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
27. For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married.”
28. Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
30. But what does the scripture say? “Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”
31. So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (RSV)


However, the story of these two women is not found in Genesis 1-11, and there is nothing obviously allegorical about the stories in Genesis 1-11. Nonetheless, ancient (dating all the way back to the first century!) Jewish and Christian scholars realized that Genesis 1-11 is not an accurate account of historic events, and believed that it is at least partially allegorical rather than historical. The Bible itself never says or implies that Genesis 1-11 should be interpreted literally. It is sometimes argued that Jesus interpreted the flood story to be an accurate account of an historical event, but the Bible never says or implies that either. Indeed, He may have simply used the flood story to make His point, or he may have incorrectly believed it to be true Let’s not forget, that Jesus the man was fully human with a fully human brain capable of knowing only what he had learned from the people around him and from His Father—and there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that suggests that His Father taught Him anything at all about the flood story! As for the mentions of Noah and the flood by various contributors to the Bible, I wrote in a post above,
The men whom God chose to pen the Scriptures were real people in every respect—real people with their own vocabulary, real people with their own cultural background—and the realness of the people whom God chose to pen the Scriptures became a part of the Scriptures. In Genesis 1-11, we find the cultural belief of the cosmos held by the ancient Hebrew people to be the framework in which the story of the flood is told. Indeed, the reality of the flood is absolutely dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by an extremely strong “dome” (Hebrew = רָקִיעַ [râqı̂ya‛]) that, as the story goes, God made “and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.” The reality of the flood is absolutely dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by an extremely strong “dome” because, as the story goes, the “dome” held back a massive amount of water until the time of the flood. Since the reality of the flood is dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by a “dome,” the reality of the earth being round without a dome over it completely negates the possibility of the flood having occurred.​




The truth is that unbelievers are people who do not believe the veracity of the gospel message in the Bible. For the past three years, I have been involved in a ministry to a fellowship of atheists. Nearly all of them had previously been active members of fundamentalist Christian churches—youth pastors, worship leaders, Sunday school teachers, etc. Now, however, they are unbelievers—and they are now unbelievers because they came to realize that what they had been taught about Genesis 1-11 was not true. NONE of them had been active members of Christian churches who taught an academically defensible interpretation of Genesis 1-11. When young people are taught the truth about Genesis 1-11, they have a solid basis upon which to build their knowledge of the rest of the Bible—including the gospel message—and that solid basis greatly helps them to maintain a sure and firm faith in Christ! However, when young people are not taught the truth about Genesis 1-11, they do not have a solid basis upon which to build their knowledge of the rest of the Bible—including the gospel message—and the lack of that solid basis all too often proves to be fatal to their faith in Christ!


1. My post wasn't even that good, or that careful - it was written in a huge hurry, almost as a joke - and you STILL could not actually refute the individual points.


2. Avoiding the points is not equivalent to rebutting the points.


3. You also don't seem capable of conducting a debate by staying on topic:

a. We aren't discussing everything in Genesis 1-11... we're only discussing the veracity of the flood.

b. We aren't discussing the epistemological basis for atheism, or more properly, the "purported" epistemological basis for atheism... which the bible itself decries as nonsense.

C. We aren't talking about Galatians 4, a passage that has nothing to do with the flood.


4. I understand your case perfectly well, and I've heard it before, and I can't see any logical reason to start that case off by first thoroughly insulting someone with a different view.

Perhaps insulting me, in a personal way, is what makes your case more "academically defensible"?



* If you're worried about your views being "academically defensible", you might start by learning to rebut actual points instead of evading them, staying on the actual debate topic, and refraining from personal insults... that would be much more "academically defensible."









 
Dec 11, 2017
22
0
0
I created a new forum titled:
"God's biblical instructions on the does and don'ts". It can be found in this sub-folder. If you have the time I would like your comments

Thanks in advance :)-
Either way, have a great day
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
There is a web site that a multi national science based Christian web site named creation.com. Part of the information on that site gives evidence of the flood. The Grand Canyon was most likely to be formed in a day. The area north of it makes a bowl that would have held water. When the water started spilling over it took earth and made the breech bigger. That caused the force of the water to dig the canyon. It happened again relatively recently. Mt. St. Helens blew her top and created a dam across the nearby river. When the water reached the rim of the dam it started carrying dirt from the rim making the opening bigger. Within a day the gushing water created a small grand canyon in the resulting runoff.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
The author of this post apparently has never considered the Bible to be worth the time to study it! Therefore, it is no wonder at all that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the genre of literature in which Genesis 1-11 is written, and has only a rudimentary concept of the God who gave it to us.

During the most recently past 150 years, the genre of literature in which Genesis 1-11 is written has been the subject of intense study on the part of hundreds of Old Testament scholars who were/are fluent in ancient Hebrew and other ancient Semitic and Oriental languages. Virtually all of these scholars agree with the obvious—that Genesis 1-11 is written in a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible. Indeed, even before I knew anything about the Hebrew language or literary criticism, I noticed when reading through Genesis as a young person that the genre of literature abruptly changes after Genesis 11:32. But why does the genre of literature abruptly change after Genesis 11:32? And what is the significance of this change in genre? The answers to these two fundamental questions is probably best learned from a study of the genre of Genesis 1-11.

Genesis 1-11 has literary characteristics found in such literature as epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Ancient epic tales and sagas are written in verse, but they could have been written in prose, as is Genesis 1-11, while retaining their other characteristics. The Apostle Paul finds allegory in Genesis,

Gal. 4:21. Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.
23. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise.
24. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
27. For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married.”
28. Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
30. But what does the scripture say? “Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”
31. So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (RSV)


However, the story of these two women is not found in Genesis 1-11, and there is nothing obviously allegorical about the stories in Genesis 1-11. Nonetheless, ancient (dating all the way back to the first century!) Jewish and Christian scholars realized that Genesis 1-11 is not an accurate account of historic events, and believed that it is at least partially allegorical rather than historical. The Bible itself never says or implies that Genesis 1-11 should be interpreted literally. It is sometimes argued that Jesus interpreted the flood story to be an accurate account of an historical event, but the Bible never says or implies that either. Indeed, He may have simply used the flood story to make His point, or he may have incorrectly believed it to be true Let’s not forget, that Jesus the man was fully human with a fully human brain capable of knowing only what he had learned from the people around him and from His Father—and there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that suggests that His Father taught Him anything at all about the flood story! As for the mentions of Noah and the flood by various contributors to the Bible, I wrote in a post above,
The men whom God chose to pen the Scriptures were real people in every respect—real people with their own vocabulary, real people with their own cultural background—and the realness of the people whom God chose to pen the Scriptures became a part of the Scriptures. In Genesis 1-11, we find the cultural belief of the cosmos held by the ancient Hebrew people to be the framework in which the story of the flood is told. Indeed, the reality of the flood is absolutely dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by an extremely strong “dome” (Hebrew = רָקִיעַ [râqı̂ya‛]) that, as the story goes, God made “and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.” The reality of the flood is absolutely dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by an extremely strong “dome” because, as the story goes, the “dome” held back a massive amount of water until the time of the flood. Since the reality of the flood is dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by a “dome,” the reality of the earth being round without a dome over it completely negates the possibility of the flood having occurred.​




The truth is that unbelievers are people who do not believe the veracity of the gospel message in the Bible. For the past three years, I have been involved in a ministry to a fellowship of atheists. Nearly all of them had previously been active members of fundamentalist Christian churches—youth pastors, worship leaders, Sunday school teachers, etc. Now, however, they are unbelievers—and they are now unbelievers because they came to realize that what they had been taught about Genesis 1-11 was not true. NONE of them had been active members of Christian churches who taught an academically defensible interpretation of Genesis 1-11. When young people are taught the truth about Genesis 1-11, they have a solid basis upon which to build their knowledge of the rest of the Bible—including the gospel message—and that solid basis greatly helps them to maintain a sure and firm faith in Christ! However, when young people are not taught the truth about Genesis 1-11, they do not have a solid basis upon which to build their knowledge of the rest of the Bible—including the gospel message—and the lack of that solid basis all too often proves to be fatal to their faith in Christ!
Something that most people don't look at is writers style changes over time. I was a fan of the Tarzan books. Edger Rice Borroughs style changed through time and the first book in the series compared to the last book a person would think two different people wrote them.

An assumption not in evidence is that Moses sat down and wrote the Torah in a short period of time. It would make more sense that he wrote them over a period of time since he had many other duties. Thus the changes in style.
 

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
1. My post wasn't even that good, or that careful - it was written in a huge hurry, almost as a joke - and you STILL could not actually refute the individual points.


2. Avoiding the points is not equivalent to rebutting the points.


3. You also don't seem capable of conducting a debate by staying on topic:

a. We aren't discussing everything in Genesis 1-11... we're only discussing the veracity of the flood.

b. We aren't discussing the epistemological basis for atheism, or more properly, the "purported" epistemological basis for atheism... which the bible itself decries as nonsense.

C. We aren't talking about Galatians 4, a passage that has nothing to do with the flood.


4. I understand your case perfectly well, and I've heard it before, and I can't see any logical reason to start that case off by first thoroughly insulting someone with a different view.

Perhaps insulting me, in a personal way, is what makes your case more "academically defensible"?



* If you're worried about your views being "academically defensible", you might start by learning to rebut actual points instead of evading them, staying on the actual debate topic, and refraining from personal insults... that would be much more "academically defensible."
We are not engaged in a debate, so I chose to refute rather than rebut your points. That refutation was found especially in this paragraph,

The men whom God chose to pen the Scriptures were real people in every respect—real people with their own vocabulary, real people with their own cultural background—and the realness of the people whom God chose to pen the Scriptures became a part of the Scriptures. In Genesis 1-11, we find the cultural belief of the cosmos held by the ancient Hebrew people to be the framework in which the story of the flood is told. Indeed, the reality of the flood is absolutely dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by an extremely strong “dome” (Hebrew = רָקִיעַ [râqı̂ya‛]) that, as the story goes, God made “and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.” The reality of the flood is absolutely dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by an extremely strong “dome” because, as the story goes, the “dome” held back a massive amount of water until the time of the flood. Since the reality of the flood is dependent upon the earth being flat and covered by a “dome,” the reality of the earth being round without a dome over it completely negates the possibility of the flood having occurred.​


However, refuting ignorance is essentially impossible. Therefore, in the opening paragraph of my post, I brought forth the fact that your post manifested an extreme ignorance of Genesis 1-11, and only a rudimentary concept of the God who gave it to us. I then posted some very basic and irrefutable facts about Genesis 1-11, and the flood story in particular.
 

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
There is a web site that a multi national science based Christian web site named creation.com. Part of the information on that site gives evidence of the flood. The Grand Canyon was most likely to be formed in a day. The area north of it makes a bowl that would have held water. When the water started spilling over it took earth and made the breech bigger. That caused the force of the water to dig the canyon. It happened again relatively recently. Mt. St. Helens blew her top and created a dam across the nearby river. When the water reached the rim of the dam it started carrying dirt from the rim making the opening bigger. Within a day the gushing water created a small grand canyon in the resulting runoff.
The contents of this post are nothing but imaginative fiction that is refuted by literally hundreds of billions of pieces of data! Moreover, fiction is not science—it is fiction!