Just As In the Days of Noah (page 7)

GWEEDO

AC

No, they are based on Holy Scripture. The apostle Peter said that the waters of the flood were intended to symbolize Christian baptism.

WHY WHY WHY

why would he need to play around like that???

Just another point...there is no point taking the animals is there either...like birds huh. Unless he was intending to symbolize the time when he would baptize birds too...maybe?

Yes, God could have simply told Noah and his family to leave the area. But in order to symbolize how people would be saved in the future, God saved Noah and his family as they passed through water, not as they ran from water. (1 Pet. 3:20,21)

God is weird. Face it.

Besides, I believe Noah took a long time building that ark. The story of him building a giant boat nowhere near any body of water big enough to float it in, and why he said he was building it, probably spread throughout his land, helping greatly to spread the message of righteousness which Peter said he preached.

yeah...and I'm Santa Claus

See...now AC...

If thats as good as you can do...it's really not very much, IS IT. Take off your Rose colored bible goggles for a second and look at what your asking me to accept. It's wishful thinking on your part. If God is going to convince people that a local flood happened and the bible is real, I think a bit better rebuttal to the above point is in order...dont yah fink...just maybe?????????????hmmmmmmm!

I quite like you AC...but this stuff is just weird. You really think you got any hope of convincing people of this local flood stuff with rebuttals like what you just put up. Sorry,,,your living in lah lah land!

have a nice day!

aChristian

Gweedo,

I won't bother answering your animals and birds question. Since you didn't like my flood pictured baptism answer, I doubt you will care much for my "Why did Noah take animals on the ark?" answer.

You say no one will buy this local flood stuff. But they do. I do and a lot of other Christians do. More and more every day. We think it is much more believable than the Fundy alternative, believing that the whole earth was flooded with water a few thousand years ago. As any scientist will tell you, that's not just hard to believe, that's impossible to believe.

JosephAlward

9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you--the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you--every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth. (Genesis 6:9-11)"

The passage above makes it clear that God is speaking not of a local area, but of the whole earth. Apologists who advocate a local flood want to believe that "the earth" means "the land of Noah." They furthermore want to believe that "all life" refers only to "all life in the land of Noah."

The list of preposterous things that the true-believing Bible thumper has to convince himself of in order to preserve faith in the literal truth of the Bible is quite long. That the brain of an otherwise intelligent human will allow itself to be so deluded should stand as a warning to all of us: it could happen to any one of us.

Why does this happen to some, but not to others? Why are some able to see through the delusionary fog, and escape, but not others?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

GWEEDO

AC

What are you asking me to believe????

lets see here...

Gods reason for having Noah build a big Ark and then flood a whole lotta land, aside from killing a lot of people (babies included), was to prefigure baptism. Why he needed to do is beyond me! But he certainly didn't have the flood to kill everyone around... cause, from memory, you admit in another thread that there would have been people on the fringe of the flood that would have survived. Noah definitely didn't take all the animals aboard 'to preserve offspring alive in the entire land' AS THE BIBLE SAYS, because if a local flood happened not all animals would have been killed. Animals on the fringe of the flood etc would have just re-populated the land anyway. Birds would have flown away and just flown back. No...the reason he preferred to do this flood stuff, as opposed to have Noah walk to the high country, was to somehow prefigure in a cryptic sort of way: baptism. What a God...makes a lot of sense.

Oh oh

and when the bible says: "WHOLE heaven"..which doesn't exactly translate to: the land of Noah. It must mean something like: 'to the visible horizon'. hmmmm. Very sensible.

I think you been drinking too much green beer AC

JosephAlward

Faithful writes,

You somehow got AC to jump through all your hoops...I'm done talking to you.

Faithful thinks he's better than you, aChristian. He thinks he can run away from me with more class than you did, but he didn't. At least you showed the strength of character to try to defend your position before you ran.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

GWEEDO

AC

You say no one will buy this local flood stuff. But they do. I do and a lot of other Christians do. Motre and more every day.

Yeah..well..sorry if this sounds insulting. But I feel like calling a spade a spade. I guess your above statement just means there's just a lot of braindead people outside of kingdom hall! My mistake to think people outside KH don't believe dumb stuff huh!.

JosephAlward

Gweedo,

I appreciate your comments and your biting humor very much. You've made it clearer than I have that aChristian and Faithful are nuttier than fruitcakes.

Joe

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

GWEEDO

Thanks Joseph

I like your work

Dig your site too

keep it up!

aChristian

"Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament" has this to say about the Hebrew word 'eres which is used throughout the flood account: " 'eres designates either (a) 'the earth' in a cosmological sense, or (b) 'the land' in the sense of a specific territorial designation."

"Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament" tells us: " 'eres does not only denote the entire terrestrial planet. Quite frequently, it refers to an area occupied by a nation or tribe."

Faithful2Jah

It seems those here whose position is, in effect, "The Bible definitely teaches a global flood so the Bible is dumb," have been reduced to doing nothing more than making personal attacks. ("braindead", "nuttier than a fruitcake", "deluded", "living in lah lah land", etc.) That being the case, I hereby declare this debate to be officially over and declare those who believe that Genesis may be describing a large local Mesopotamian flood, to be its winners.

Faithful2Jah, Waiting, aChristian, Amazing, RWC, Gumby, and Stocwach <----------------- Taking their bows and graciously accepting their JWD Gold Medals for Excellence in the Debating Arts.

Joseph and Gweedo <---------------------- Slinking away, while trying to think up some new nasty insults to hurl at everyone whose beliefs they disagree with.

Just As In the Days of Noah

Share this