by Qcmbr 118 Replies latest watchtower bible
Hard to understand someone would try so hard to convince themselves of a global flood idea. Guess it comes down to trying to fit facts to conclusion-first thinking.
@BroDan....you are an atheist when it comes to the hundreds of gods man has invented. You're just into the latest fad god.
That's well put unshackled. I'm not an atheist. I don't claim to be that knowledgeable where I know for certain. Maybe there is a God, but not in the form of what so many religions believe. I can't say for certain, but I will say I have no faith in the Bible.
It takes quite a bit of courage to wear a banana hammock to the waterpark but it doesn't mean I respect the guy who does it.
Cheeze, I've missed you here on the site. I hope you know how much I respect your opinion on all this stuff. It doesn't go on deaf ears like you think it might. That's all I have to say about that... I've missed you, buddy.
The case about a global flood is this:
Jesus believed in it and spoke of it. If I reject the flood, then I reject Jesus. That is why I take an all or nothing approach to the Bible. When you begin to throw out 1 part, you end up having to throw out the whole thing.
I've interacted with a lot of Christians including prominent xJW's like Jim Penton, Carl Olaf Jonsson and Rud Person who don't see as an all or nothing proposition.
Of course there are people that will reject the inerrancy of the Bible. But I CAN'T be one of those people. It is all or nothing for me. If I throw out the flood, I throw out Genesis. Then I have to throw out all refs to Genesis (which includes the gospels). If I throw out something like Daniel or Ezekiel, then I have to throw out all refs to those (including the gospels and some of Pauls epistles). When you track it all down, you end up having to reject the whole Bible.
It is all or nothing. ANd right now, for me, it is ALL.
@BroDan....you are an atheist when it comes to the hundreds of gods man has invented.
I see your point.
Dan
Would the idea of the earth as a planet have been an anachronism in the first century? Did Jesus at Luke 17:27 and Matthew 24:38-39 (Which are the only two mentions of the flood in the synoptics AFAIK) confirm or deny the idea of a global flood?
The point is, TD, I don't see how it matters. As far as the Bible itself is concerned, it indicates it was a global flood. So if it was a local flood, then I have to question the validity of the Bible.
I know that there are some here that are ok with picking and choosing for themselves which parts of the Bible to believe (I won't mention names). But I CAN'T do that. If I have to reject SOME of the Bible...I have to reject it all. Whether that is right or wrong...it is what I would have to choose personally...
I can respect that about you, Dan, and I also understand it. But even you know that Christ is more than words on a page, and so your faith is in Him. That's more important than any of the other stuff.
Tammy
