achristian believes those who think the bible teaches that the flood was global look foolish.
he wrote, .
i encourage all christians to investigate the possibility that the bible does not really teach that the whole earth was flooded at the time of noah.
KJV: >>>>>>>> 7 million sq. miles
Where in the world did you come up with a figure like that? Mesopotamia is in Iraq. A small part of Iraq. Iraq's total area is 169,235 square miles. Noah's flood would have been about 10 % of that figure. Probably less. a lot closer to 7 thousand square miles than 7 million.
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
AC: Do you think the dove and the olive branch may have been just symbolic props, so to speak, in a production that was entirely staged to point to Jesus Christ and the work he would do for our salvation? The dove and the olive branch symbolizing the "Prince of Peace" pointing to the time a dove would descend upon Jesus at his baptism. Flood = baptism? Just a thought.
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
Seeing the less than brilliant comment Farkel just made about how Joe has "spent much time presenting pretty good arguments that show how ridiculous the world-wide flood story is", I think he may be referring to himself when he said "most people don't read threads like this. They have the attention span of a quantum particle. Barely." LOL
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
Joseph: You quoted Genesis 9:9-11 which tells us that God said to Noah: "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you...never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."
You then added your own commentary and in it tried your best to make this passage say something it does not say. You wrote: "This is a pledge by God never to bring an all-destroying flood onto Noah's descendants, who would multiply to occupy regions outside of the land of Noah."
No it is not. God never made any such promise. He only promised Noah and his descendants that he would never again destroy the land. Which land? As the word "again" implies, the land he had just destroyed. The land in which Noah then lived.
Joe, get a new hobby. As has been said several times before on this board, as a Bible critic you leave a lot to be desired.
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
Joe asked: >>>>>Are you saying, Faithful, that the covenant God made with the folks who would restart civilization applied only to the land of Noah, and not to the rest of the people who would be fathered by Noah and his children, the ones who would populate the rest of the world, folks such as you and me?
Joe, I think you got my drift. God promised Noah and his descendants that he would not destroy "the land" again. What land? "The land" he said he would destroy and did destroy earlier in the story. What "land" was that? A large part of Mesopotamia in which Noah lived.
By the way, most people who believe that the Genesis flood was a local flood which occurred in Mesopotamia only a few thousand years ago do not believe that very many people now on earth are Noah's descendants. For most of us "liberal" Christians accept what science now tells us, that the earth was then widely populated outside of Mesopotamia.
Earlier AC referred to several Bible scholars who believe as he does. I believe one of them is Dr. Davis Young. He is both an evangelical Christian Bible scholar and a professor of geology at a large college. He has written several books which discuss various aspects of Noah's flood. I have just checked one of them out of my local public library, "The Biblical Flood". In it he writes: "In the light of a wealth of mutually supportive evidence from a variety of disciplines and sources, it is simply no longer tenable to insist that a deluge drowned every human on the face of the globe except Noah's family. ... All the relevant evidence from the created order tells us that the flood was neither geographically nor anthropologically universal."
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
Joe: I already gave you a reasonable answer to this question at the bottom of page 3 in this thread. Maybe you missed it. Or maybe you just want to see if AC will give you a different one. There I wrote: If the "earth" spoken of in the Genesis flood account was really the "land", as in the land of Noah or the land of Mesopotamia, then God's covenant with Noah to never again destroy all life in that land has been kept. For historians tell us that, though Mesopotamia may have been completely flooded several thousand years ago, it has not been completely flooded at any time since then.
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
>>>>>>the industrialized, Christian, Muslim, civilized, third, and entertainment worlds take their members from all over the face of the earth.
So Joe tells us. LOL! Joe, did you really mean to say that? Other than possibly "the entertainment world", all of those "worlds" are confined to far less than global locations. "The industrialized world" does not extend into some of the very poor, technologically backward, agricultural lands on the continent of Africa. Lands like China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Laos, Thailand, and many more are not considered to be part of "the Christian world." Lands like Mexico, Cuba, Ireland, Brazil, Italy and many more are certainly not considered to be part of "the Muslim world."
Since we today refer to all of these "worlds" as "worlds", even though they all occupy locations which are far less than global, Peter could have been referring to an "ancient world" which also occupied a location which was then far less than global.
me and my roommate eliud will be in las vegas from april 20-24. we will be staying at new york, new york.. are there any people on this site that live in las vegas?.
"i have so much love to give, but no one to give it to.".
william h. macy - "magnolia"
Hey, that crazy "Larsguy" who posts here, you know the one who dresses in drag and claims to be Jesus Christ, says he now lives in LV and spends a lot of time dropping nickles in the slots. I hope you can meet him and give this board a report on your impressions of him. It would make an interesting post.
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
Joe: I think AC's last two posts thoroughly debunked your appeals to the Bible's use of the word every in Genesis and Peter's use of the greek word for world to support your contention that the Bible definitely teaches a global flood. AC showed that the writer of Genesis used the Hebrew word for every to only mean many. AC also showed that New Testament writers including Peter used the greek word for world to mean something other than the entire world. It seems to me that when you have been proven wrong in a discussion that you would be man enough to admit it. But no, not you. I have seen Christians prove you wrong several times on this board. But I have never seen you admit you were wrong about anything. Why anyone here pays any attention to anything you say I have no idea. Your mind is so blinded by your obvious hate of Christianity and the Bible that you can't think clearly. Thats why I never bother anymore to read any thread that you start. You asked for my opinion. You got it.
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
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.
