The Genesis Flood

[Groundzero]

Not a literal event. An important story, but it did not really happen.

Some issues here. If the Flood was not a literal event, then what does that make the Scripture? The Scripture makes it clear that the WHOLE earth was flooded. If such a thing didn't happen as Scripture stated, we cannot rely on the Scripture because it has a serious flaw in its history!

I think that it is well documented by http://creation.com/ that the flood is a literal event.

Because I believe the Flood may not have happened exactly as the Genesis account? It looks like your terror of the Lord is also the beginning of your slippery slope.

If that is the case, Genesis cannot be trusted! Imagine the implications! We are being mislead!

 

[Duckybill]

Some issues here. If the Flood was not a literal event, then what does that make the Scripture? The Scripture makes it clear that the WHOLE earth was flooded. If such a thing didn't happen as Scripture stated, we cannot rely on the Scripture because it has a serious flaw in its history!

I think that it is well documented by http://creation.com/ that the flood is a literal event.

If that is the case, Genesis cannot be trusted! Imagine the implications! We are being mislead!

My points exactly!

 

[Insight]

Ah the evidence...

 

[Groundzero]

Ah the evidence...

Hey, I like that!

 

[Duckybill]

Ah the evidence...

Amen!

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Your arguments are bizarre Aspen.

For example you say that water covered the earth for millions of years.

But you then say Noah's flood did not cover the earth for several months as per the bible.

 

[aspen]

Some issues here. If the Flood was not a literal event, then what does that make the Scripture? The Scripture makes it clear that the WHOLE earth was flooded. If such a thing didn't happen as Scripture stated, we cannot rely on the Scripture because it has a serious flaw in its history!

Inspired stories are not flaws in history. The story doesn't ask us to determine whether it literally happened or not - it points to an omnipotent God. Declaring and believing in a literal Flood does not win you points or make you a better Christian.

I think that it is well documented by http://creation.com/ that the flood is a literal event.

That is nice, but Creation Scientist use a backwards hypothesis method - they try to use science to prove what they already believe - that is not real science. It is like the Mormon practice of using the Bible to prove Mormonism. The methods are bias and the results are predictable.

If that is the case, Genesis cannot be trusted! Imagine the implications! We are being mislead!

Trusted to do what? Do you believe Jesus's parables, which were not real events, are not to be trusted? What a silly statement!

Your arguments are bizarre Aspen.

For example you say that water covered the earth for millions of years.

But you then say Noah's flood did not cover the earth for several months as per the bible.

Nothing bizarre about it, Arnie.

The evidence of fossils and the rock layers on the Earth show evidence for water covering the Earth millions of years before humans were on dry land.

 

[veteran]

Your arguments are bizarre Aspen.

For example you say that water covered the earth for millions of years.

But you then say Noah's flood did not cover the earth for several months as per the bible.

But that's what Evolutionists think they have the right... to do!

When Richard Dawkins, one of the world's leading Evolutionist/Atheist authors, was asked by Ben Stein about the origin of species, the same old idea that it took billions of years for them to evolve started coming out. Then Stein asked Dawkins in his own opinion how did the first origins of life begin on planet earth. Dawkin's answer? Aliens must have created first life here on earth!!!
(See this interview in Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed on DVD).

So at first Dawkin's brand of Evolutiion denies the idea of 'creation', but then in final with the origin of first life on earth, he assigns to aliens from another planet creating it. Only an Evolutionist can support both evolution and creation in the same sentence.

 

[Duckybill]

The evidence of fossils and the rock layers on the Earth show evidence for water covering the Earth millions of years before humans were on dry land.

You believe that but you don't believe in a literal Flood? Do you believe in the literal creation of Adam? He wasn't created a baby. But perhaps you don't believe in the literal creation either? Guess I should have asked that first.

 

[Wayne]

This all I got to say on the subjected. I believe it happen. We found the boat. It proven that world at one point of the time was flooded.

 

[aspen]

You believe that but you don't believe in a literal Flood? Do you believe in the literal creation of Adam? He wasn't created a baby. But perhaps you don't believe in the literal creation either? Guess I should have asked that first.

Of course not! It is genetically impossible for the entire race of humans to come from two people. Scientifically impossible. Fact is, the Creation story is an inspired story.

 

[veteran]

Of course not! It is genetically impossible for the entire race of humans to come from two people. Scientifically impossible. Fact is, the Creation story is an inspired story.

Inspired is correct, inspired by God The Holy Spirit through His servants given to write The Truth of His creation down in letters.

 

[aspen]

Inspired is correct, inspired by God The Holy Spirit through His servants given to write The Truth of His creation down in letters.

Yep, inspired by God and full of truth about the human condition. Scientifically true, not a chance.

 

[veteran]

Yep, inspired by God and full of truth about the human condition. Scientifically true, not a chance.

The Originator of True Science is GOD Himself. The rest is pseudo science.

 

[aspen]

The Originator of True Science is GOD Himself. The rest is pseudo science.

Truth is truth. Scientific truth is no different from God's truth. Why do you pit God against science?