The Genesis Flood

[Duckybill]

When did you have respect for Catholicism?

The belief in Jesus/God. Is that not part of Catholicism?

Why are you basing your beliefs about Catholicism on the opinions of a person you've never met?

Your beliefs do not represent Catholicism?

Why do you expect me to answer your questions, but rarely answer mine?

Which questions didn't I answer? Ask away.

Where is the contempt in my post?

Nearly every time Biblical doctrine is discussed. Perhaps 'unbelief' would be more accurate?

 

[aspen]

The belief in Jesus/God. Is that not part of Catholicism?

Your beliefs do not represent Catholicism?

Which questions didn't I answer? Ask away.

Nearly every time Biblical doctrine is discussed. Perhaps 'unbelief' would be more accurate?

The belief in Jesus/God. Is that not part of Catholicism?

I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


Your beliefs do not represent Catholicism?

My comments are influenced strongly by Catholicism, but they do not represent the teachings. I direct everyone who is interested in the teaching of the Catholic Church to seek out the Catholic Catechism.

Here are two of today's unanswered questions:

Why are you presenting a false dichotomy? If Jesus and Paul taught myths they must not be highly regarded in the Catholic Church........
Why are you claiming that the Flood Myth has to be a real event to be considered valuable?
[font="tahoma][/font][/color]
Nearly every time Biblical doctrine is discussed. Perhaps 'unbelief' would be more accurate?

[color="#000080"]Well, it certainly is a nicer term than 'contempt'

I am not concerned about the historicity of the Bible, as much as the message. For instance, I do not care if Sodom and Gomorrah got torched or if the Flood myth didn't actually happen or if Job ever lived - who cares? The point of the stories are the important part. I am sure that Abraham and all the rest of the OT and NT figures are much more complex and interesting in real life, anyway - we may not even recognize them when we meet them, someday, based on their description in the Bible.

For me, it really isn't an issue of belief or unbelief concerning the Ark - it appears improbable and therefore, I call it an inspired myth. I could be wrong and if I am, I am. God and I will have a good laugh about it.

My focus and interest is just on a different aspect of the stories, rather than if they really happened or not. Some people want to prove that all the figures in the OT and NT were actually white; Muslims want them all to be Muslim; I am interested in the relationship they had with each other and God.

I am also interested in the Jesuit practice of placing myself in the shoes of all the characters in the Bible, in order to gain their perspective on the story and learn from their actions.

 

[tomwebster]

...- it appears improbable and therefore, I call it an inspired myth. I could be wrong and if I am, I am. God and I will have a good laugh about it.[/color]
[/size] ...

I don't think God will be laughing with someone that calls any part of His Word a myth. I don't think you will be laughing either. Have a good conversation with the " a certain rich man."

 

[rockytopva]

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. - 1 Peter 3:20

If the flood did not kill all of humanity, save eight souls, then the whole word of God is trash.

 

[Rach1370]

Really? Why is there nothing in today’s fossils’ DNA record to indicate that every species of life on earth is descended from one, seven, or in the humans’ case three breeding pairs?

According to the Bible’s chronology, the Flood took place in 2348 BCE. The Great Pyramid in Egypt was built between 2600 and 2500 BCE, and Stonehenge, in England, was also completed around 2500 BCE.
Why does neither the Great Pyramid nor Stonehenge bear any trace of having been submerged for most of a year? Why wasn’t the Stone Age cave art in Lascaux, France, washed away, or the ancient pottery of China, Japan, and India destroyed?

Hey Aspen, can I ask about this? I don't see it can be right. According to scripture once the flood was done and man had began to populate with numbers again, they then banded together in such a way to try and build the 'tower of babel'. It very much sounds to me, both in the building and attitude itself, that this was probably the first 'impressive' structure to be built. I'm not putting certainty to this, it's just my opinion. You see, the people who built babel wanted to be more than they were, they wanted to rival God in glory...they were putting that glory into their building. You cannot deny that the Egyptian society had a god complex as well! Their Pharaohs claimed to be gods, and the pyramids were monuments to that. It just seems to me that we are told of babel as it is the first story of man not only attempting to knock God off His throne, but also trying to place himself on it. I believe that if the Egyptians or anyone else had been first, their story would have been in scripture.
As for the art in various places, doesn't scripture tell us that man didn't go to those places until after babel, when God mixed up the language and man departed to all ends of the earth? I would think art would only come after man arrived!

Another huge reason I feel this is because man's 'carbon dating' and such, is, in my opinion, hooey! Carbon dating tells us that dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years! I don't believe that the earth is that old, and even if it is, it certainly wasn't populated by dinosaurs back then! People dating layers in the earth are just not accurate. People will look at the different layers and determine it took thousands or millions of years to form, completely disregarding the fact that such layers can be created in just days by activities like volcanoes or floods. I dug into all these facts when my science teacher was trying to push evolution down my throat!
Anyway, I think my point is, we can't rely on the dating of man. I think the Bible is more reliable when it comes to sequence of events in history. Whether you think the flood is fact or story, I still think that all those other things came after it.

 

[tomwebster]

... I believe that if the Egyptians or anyone else had been first, their story would have been in scripture.
...

The Bible is not a book about the Egyptians or world history; it deals with the people of God. Others are mentioned only as they come in contact with God’s people and Jerusalem.

 

[aspen]

I don't think God will be laughing with someone that calls any part of His Word a myth. I don't think you will be laughing either. Have a good conversation with the " a certain rich man."

Well Tom, if I meet your God when I die and he wants to damn me for thinking too hard about his word then I will consider myself to be in the wrong place anyhow...........

[font="Verdana][size="2"]All right, then, I'll go to hell.[/size][/font] -[font="Verdana][size="2"]Mark Twain [/size][/font]

 

[Duckybill]

Here are two of today's unanswered questions:

Why are you presenting a false dichotomy? If Jesus and Paul taught myths they must not be highly regarded in the Catholic Church........

I assume you are referring to my Jesus and Peter comment? The 'contradiction' is on your side. How do you even know Jesus existed if not for the Bible? How can you pick parts of the Bible to believe and reject the rest???

Why are you claiming that the Flood Myth has to be a real event to be considered valuable?

Already answered that one but I will again.

"When God gives us such a terrifying example to warn us of living ungodly, it pays to take Him seriously.

2 Peter 2:4-6 (ESV)
[sup]4 [/sup]For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; [sup]5 [/sup]if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [sup]6 [/sup]if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; "

 

[aspen]

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. - 1 Peter 3:20

If the flood did not kill all of humanity, save eight souls, then the whole word of God is trash.

Wow Rockytova - I must say, I am a bit shocked!
Here is a man who considers Joel Olsteen a preacher........and is a literalist!

You continue to surprise me.

It is your opinion above that frightens me - setting God's Word up against a standard it never claims to meet. So now, what if you find out that Song of Songs didn't really happen or that Mark 16 was finished by a monk in the early middle ages? Are you prepared to chuck the Bible in the trash? You see how dangerous it is to think like this? It restricts any real thought or exploration into the scriptures because somebody else might lose their faith over an idea.

The Bible is not a history book - sure it depicts real events and really does a nice job of relaying historic places and events from a human perspective. It is not meant to be a history or science book; or timeline. It is a spiritual history of humanities' relationship with God. It is a one of a kind book - in a different class, all together.

Hey Aspen, can I ask about this? I don't see it can be right. According to scripture once the flood was done and man had began to populate with numbers again, they then banded together in such a way to try and build the 'tower of babel'. It very much sounds to me, both in the building and attitude itself, that this was probably the first 'impressive' structure to be built. I'm not putting certainty to this, it's just my opinion. You see, the people who built babel wanted to be more than they were, they wanted to rival God in glory...they were putting that glory into their building. You cannot deny that the Egyptian society had a god complex as well! Their Pharaohs claimed to be gods, and the pyramids were monuments to that. It just seems to me that we are told of babel as it is the first story of man not only attempting to knock God off His throne, but also trying to place himself on it. I believe that if the Egyptians or anyone else had been first, their story would have been in scripture.
As for the art in various places, doesn't scripture tell us that man didn't go to those places until after babel, when God mixed up the language and man departed to all ends of the earth? I would think art would only come after man arrived!

Another huge reason I feel this is because man's 'carbon dating' and such, is, in my opinion, hooey! Carbon dating tells us that dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years! I don't believe that the earth is that old, and even if it is, it certainly wasn't populated by dinosaurs back then! People dating layers in the earth are just not accurate. People will look at the different layers and determine it took thousands or millions of years to form, completely disregarding the fact that such layers can be created in just days by activities like volcanoes or floods. I dug into all these facts when my science teacher was trying to push evolution down my throat!
Anyway, I think my point is, we can't rely on the dating of man. I think the Bible is more reliable when it comes to sequence of events in history. Whether you think the flood is fact or story, I still think that all those other things came after it.

So are you saying that the Flood happened long before Egyptian history began? Okay, fair enough.

I guess we will have to disagree on carbon dating - I think any repeatable measurement fits the definition of accuracy.

 

[Duckybill]

You continue to surprise me.
It is your opinion above that frightens me -

You said the same of me Aspen. It's clear that the Bible is what really frightens you, as well it should.

 

[tomwebster]

Well Tom, if I meet your God when I die and he wants to damn me for thinking too hard about his word than I will consider myself to be in the wrong place anyhow...........
...

Your god is far too small. Love is only one of God's attributes.

 

[aspen]

I assume you are referring to my Jesus and Peter comment? The 'contradiction' is on your side.
Jesus told lots of stories to make His point - I do not hold that against Him - it is to His credit.

How do you even know Jesus existed if not for the Bible?
Tradition. How would we even have the Bible without Tradition? Also, I have experienced Christ in my life.

How can you pick parts of the Bible to believe and reject the rest???
I do not reject anything from the Bible. Everything in the Bible is supposed to be there; doesn't mean it really happened. You are assuming that stories have no value if they didn't really take place.

"When God gives us such a terrifying example to warn us of living ungodly, it pays to take Him seriously.
So are you saying you wouldn't take God seriously, if He really didn't kill everyone on Earth except 8 people? See, I do not need a Flood story in order to take God seriously. It is an inspired story and part of the human story - I think it reveals more about how humans viewed God at the time than how God viewed people, but that is beside the point. Something tells me that you would take God seriously without the Flood story or the Bible or even the church - you seem to be a serious fellow.


I think it is interesting that you used the word 'pays' as if we are in a contractual agreement with God. We are not. He is not obligated to us.

You said the same of me Aspen. It's clear that the Bible is what really frightens you, as well it should.

Indeed. Based on Rocky's post - he is more like you than I thought.

I agree that your interpretation of the Bible frightens me. It attributes evil actions to God without calling them evil and blames humanity for causing God to act against us. Your image of God should frighten everyone - he appears to be a Borderline, abusive parent with histrionic and antisocial tendencies. If he were human, he would be tried for crimes against humanity. And the most frightening part about it is that you praise him for it! YIKES.

 

[Duckybill]

Jesus told lots of stories to make His point - I do not hold that against Him - it is to His credit.

It doesn't say nor imply that it is anything but literal. You have offered ZERO proof.

Tradition. How would we even have the Bible without Tradition? Also, I have experienced Christ in my life.

Tradition? What tradition? How can you prove Jesus isn't just another myth?

I do not reject anything from the Bible. Everything in the Bible is supposed to be there; doesn't mean it really happened. You are assuming that stories have no value if they didn't really take place.

Even if the Flood was just a story, which you have no proof of, it would still be Truth from God and a very clear warning. I don't know what you think you are proving. If you think you are making God nicer then you haven't read Deut 28. It's FILLED with EXTREME warnings against disobeying God.

So are you saying you wouldn't take God seriously, if He really didn't kill everyone on Earth except 8 people? See, I do not need a Flood story in order to take God seriously. It is an inspired story and part of the human story - I think it reveals more about how humans viewed God at the time than how God viewed people, but that is beside the point. Something tells me that you would take God seriously without the Flood story or the Bible or even the church - you seem to be a serious fellow.

Yes I would still take God seriously because there are many other Biblical examples of similar warnings.

I think it is interesting that you used the word 'pays' as if we are in a contractual agreement with God. We are not. He is not obligated to us.

What then is a Covenant? God is obligated to keep His Word, the Bible. It is a dangerous thing to tamper with God's Word. There's warnings against that too.

Revelation 22:19 (ESV)
[sup]19 [/sup]and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Indeed. Based on Rocky's post - he is more like you than I thought.

Guess that means he believes the Bible.

I agree that your interpretation of the Bible frightens me. It attributes evil actions to God without calling them evil and blames humanity for causing God to act against us. Your image of God should frighten everyone - he appears to be a Borderline, abusive parent with histrionic and antisocial tendencies. If he were human, he would be tried for crimes against humanity. And the most frightening part about it is that you praise him for it! YIKES.

You're the one doing the 'interpreting' Aspen. You're saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Wise up Aspen.

Job 28:28 (ESV)
[sup]28 [/sup]And he said to man, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding.’ ”

 

[aspen]

It doesn't say nor imply that it is anything but literal. You have offered ZERO proof.

I am not obligated to prove my opinion to you. This is an opinion board, not a court of law, and I am sharing my opinion like everyone else. You seem to be willing to believe it really happened, not based on reason, but on faith that you are interpreting Peter and Jesus accurately. I choose to interpret the Bible through the lens of God's character - love.


Tradition? What tradition? How can you prove Jesus isn't just another myth? The same Tradition the early church relied on before the NT was assemble.

Even if the Flood was just a story, which you have no proof of, it would still be Truth from God and a very clear warning. I don't know what you think you are proving. If you think you are making God nicer then you haven't read Deut 28. It's FILLED with EXTREME warnings against disobeying God. I cannot 'make' God's character. I believe God is who He says He is - Good.

Yes I would still take God seriously because there are many other Biblical examples of similar warnings. I think you would take Him seriously without any warnings - you are a man of God.

What then is a Covenant? God is obligated to keep His Word, the Bible. It is a dangerous thing to tamper with God's Word. There's warnings against that too.

Revelation 22:19 (ESV)
[sup]19 [/sup]and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

A covenant based on a relationship. I am married, but my wife is not legally obligated to remain married to me. I have faith that she is faithful to her word and I have faith that God is faithful, but all relationships are risky by nature.

You know that verse only applies to the book of Revelation, right?

Guess that means he believes the Bible.

You only value the literal. I am sorry that you have limited yourself.



You're the one doing the 'interpreting' Aspen. You're saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Wise up Aspen.


We all interpret the Bible, every time we read it. I am reading the Bible for the message, not for conformation of events.

 

[Duckybill]

I am not obligated to prove my opinion to you. This is an opinion board, not a court of law, and I am sharing my opinion like everyone else. You seem to be willing to believe it really happened, not based on reason, but on faith that you are interpreting Peter and Jesus accurately. I choose to interpret the Bible through the lens of God's character - love.

Now you got it. It's only your opinion, not Bible doctrine.

The same Tradition the early church relied on before the NT was assemble.

You are basically saying all of our English Bibles are trash.

I cannot 'make' God's character. I believe God is who He says He is - Good.

Why do you choose to believe this part of the Bible and reject the rest? You're only fooling yourself.

A covenant based on a relationship. I am married, but my wife is not legally obligated to remain married to me. I have faith that she is faithful to her word and I have faith that God is faithful, but all relationships are risky by nature.

Since God cannot lie there is no risk of serving Him.

You know that verse only applies to the book of Revelation, right?

Very risky.

You only value the literal. I am sorry that you have limited yourself.

I'm sorry that you don't take God's Word for what it says.

We all interpret the Bible, every time we read it. I am reading the Bible for the message, not for conformation of events.

I think you read it with blinders on. You only see what makes you happy in the Bible. VERY risky. Soon you'll be forced to see the parts you don't like.

Revelation 9:15 (ESV)
[sup]15 [/sup]So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour, the day, the month, and the year, were released to kill a third of mankind.

 

[rockytopva]

Wow Rockytova - I must say, I am a bit shocked!
Here is a man who considers Joel Olsteen a preacher........and is a literalist!

Aspen... As a dispensationalist I believe that there were seven church ages in which yours is in there too... http://www.christian...-per-gods-word/

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; - Ephesians 4:14

Notice that the Apostle Paul said "every wind of doctrine." There are winds of doctrine that blow within a church age. In which... As I am of the Philadelphian church age I believe in the winds of doctrine as it was taught in that age 100 years ago. Joel Osteen is of the current wind of doctrine... In which as the Laodicean church has issues so he has his too.

 

[Rach1370]

The Bible is not a book about the Egyptians or world history; it deals with the people of God. Others are mentioned only as they come in contact with God’s people and Jerusalem.

I agree that the Bible tells the story of Gods people. But if we believe the flood account to be accurate...that being that for a time every human but Noah's family were dead, then the land and people of Egypt came from Noah's family, through the chaos God caused at Babel.
That was more my point, that it did happen that way, that society and nations grew out of the people God created...not all of them were to be His chosen people, but they still have their roots there.

 

[aspen]

I do find it interesting that many Christians smirk at the history of the Book Of Mormon because it is so inaccurate, based on what we know about history - Native Americans are genetically similar to Asians, not Israelites; Native Americans never built the structures described in the BOM; there were no lions and tigers in the Americas, etc. However, we totally throw out the same historical record when it comes to the Flood account.

We wonder how Mormons can accept something so obviously false, based on what we know to be true today, but our blinders are securely in place when it comes to the Flood myth, Job, Jonah, etc. BTW, Mormon apologists discount DNA testing just like conservative Christians discount carbon dating......

 

[Duckybill]

Yeah, ya gotta wonder how Jesus, Moses, Ezekiel, Peter, Matthew, Luke, the writer of Hebrews, Jude, etc. could have been so gullible to believe in Noah and the Flood.

 

[aspen]

Yeah, ya gotta wonder how Jesus, Moses, Ezekiel, Peter, Matthew, Luke, the writer of Hebrews, Jude, etc. could have been so gullible to believe in Noah and the Flood.

Who said they believed it?