Jesus cited the Genesis Flood and burning of Sodom because they happened. He was there.
So His entire point of mentioning these stories was to confirm that they really happened?
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jesus cited the Genesis Flood and burning of Sodom because they happened. He was there.
So His entire point of mentioning these stories was to confirm that they really happened?
You've already admitted he caused it. And now you seemingly backtrack again. So I will ask two questions- answer both. These are freaking simple yes/no type questions.
I am not here to be asked 'freaking simply yes/no type questions" I think they are freaking boring. I am here to have a discussion. Sometimes I think the only reason people like you are here is to makes sure that everyone has their Christian answer down pat. I mean any freedom of thought might mean the difference between God smiting you into Hell or you getting to go to Heaven. Protestantism seems to only be concerned with the 'right' answer and making sure everyone is on the same page. So boring....
1) Did God send the flood?
God allowed the Flood.
2) If the flood was sent by God, what is it characterized as? Wrath, mercy, pixie dust?
An act of nature. But I like your simplistic either/or mindset zzzz
3) If the flood was not sent by God, explain these passages.
"Then the LORD said to Noah, "For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot outfrom the face of the ground."
Humans attributing intent to God
Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
See above
Who said "entire"? You did.So His entire point of mentioning these stories was to confirm that they really happened?
Hey, aspen. Let's use your logic.
The entire purpose of the Bible is to reveal God's glory. Therefore, now that we have the general purpose of the Bible, no study needed!
Who said "entire"? You did.
3) If the flood was not sent by God, explain these passages.
"Then the LORD said to Noah, "For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot outfrom the face of the ground."
Humans attributing intent to God
Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
See above
Why are you making this stuff up?You really love to demand answers to your question, but fail to answer any of mine - why?
[font="tahoma][font="Arial"] [/font][/font][/color]
[font="tahoma][font="Arial"] [/font][/font]
[font="tahoma][font="Arial"]So then you don't believe Scripture is accurate and divinely inspired, which would also make God to be a liar.[/font][/font]
[font="tahoma][font="Arial"]You wonder why Ducky and others observe you having contempt for the Bible?[/font][/font]
So either the idea the humans are penning is inspired or not- which is it?I do not believe it is literal - I believe it is accurate - every word that is in the Bible is supposed to be there. God is not the liar - people are merely human and reporting heavenly ideas through human eyes.
Do you believe eternal salvation is literal?I do not believe it is literal -
So either the idea the humans are penning is inspired or not- which is it?
If it's inspired it means it came from GOD'S MIND, not a human's- it is as it says it is.
If it's not inspired then... God help you.
They wrote what God told them to write.so it is either right or wrong.....
I think you have a pretty high definition of inspired. I believe the Bible is inspired, and I gave my definition of inspired - every word in the Bible is supposed to be there
They wrote what God told them to write.
You cannot say on one hand the words are there exactly as God intended them and on the other hand turn around and say that they are HUMAN words not accurate to God's intention.
Answer Ducky's question: do you believe Salvation is literal? Do you believe Christ literally died on the cross?
The amount of heresy and un-Christian garbage allowed to be promoted on this forum is absolutely astounding...
"[font="tahoma][size="2"]Blasphemy will not be tolerated. This forum is intended for a Christian audience. Those who are not of the Christian faith are welcome to sign up but will be relegated to private forum discussion with staff members only. Any derogatory remarks about God (including the Son and Holy Spirit) will be removed. The same goes for remarks about Christianity. Do not hold the Bible to be the Word of God? We are not interested, then."[/size][/font]
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
I'm surprised that any who consider themselves to be believing Christians would take such a low view of Scripture and inspiration in light of the preceding passage. Also, to define 'inspiration' as "every word in the Bible is supposed to be there" is subjective and without Biblical warrant. It's a blatant equivocation. The Biblical definition is seen quite readily in 2 Tim. 3:16 in bold type. We're told there that all Scripture is 'theopneustos,' that is literally, God-breathed.
God breathed does not mean dictated. I actually have a high view of scripture - I value every part of it - even the parts that are not literal. Nothing wrong with stories that affirm God's omnipotence, but may not have actually happened or happen to communicate a human understanding of God's intention. To interpret scripture as defining God rather than God defining scripture is the real danger. I do not fit God's character into scripture written by human hands - I use what I know to be true about His character to understand scripture; to do otherwise is to create a demigod who acts beyond His own definition of morality.
Nothing wrong with stories that affirm God's omnipotence, but may not have actually happened or happen to communicate a human understanding of God's intention.
I use what I know to be true about His character to understand scripture; to do otherwise is to create a demigod who acts beyond His own definition of morality.
So you can decide which parts of Scripture are literal or not. Then maybe the virgin birth is not literal, or the cross, or the resurrection. If only part of the Scriptures have value how can any of it be believed?