Comments on: ‘The Flood’ – Allegory, exaggeration or literal world-wide disaster?

By: rick

rick — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:19:24 +0000

You and I must have a different definition for the word ‘love’, Sally.

;)

By: Sally

Sally — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:40:10 +0000

I never said you were going to hell Rick I said I would hate to be in your shoes on Judgement Day and I love to pay tithing!!!!

By: rick

rick — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:39:39 +0000

Well, I’m going to Hell and you have to pay tithing…

Sounds like a fair trade to me.
=)

By: Sally

Sally — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:40:42 +0000

Hey Rick.. ok maybe I am just having a DUH moment but what does tithing settlement have to do with my comment?

By: rick

rick — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:39:57 +0000

Sally #47 said “I would hate to be standing in your shoes on Judgement Day.”

…and I’d hate to be in your shoes during tithing settlement, so I guess it’s a wash. ;)

By: Jeffrey Giliam

Jeffrey Giliam — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:22:27 +0000

Let’s also be honest here. You aren’t really just saying “there could have been a universal flood”. What you are really saying is “there was a universal flood and it could have happened in such-and-such a way.” That is far more dogmatic than anything anybody else here has suggested.

By: Jeffrey Giliam

Jeffrey Giliam — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:17:02 +0000

If its a question of which is more dogmatic “There was no universal flood” or “There could have been a universal flood” given the evidence I’m going to have to say that the latter is actually far more dogmatic. ALL of the evidence points toward the former, while the only thing pointing toward the latter is a pre-scientific reading of a more-than-slightly mythical text.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:02:49 +0000

“God was able to build an entire earth and bring forth every flower, plant, tree and animal at the beginning of mankind.”

How he did so would affect how the rest of the question could be answered. If he used natural means (such as the Big Bang and evolution), then a flood restoration following similar natural methods would have taken millions of years.

By: Sally

Sally — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:53:25 +0000

of course the parables of talents is just a story.. it states that and we all know that.. it was given as an example of what happens when you don’t have faith and willingness to commit in doing what you are told.

But the scriptural “story” of Noah and the Ark is not a parable. Parables don’t give you literal measurements and blueprint on how to build an ark. God was able to build an entire earth and bring forth every flower, plant, tree and animal at the beginning of mankind. What was to stop him from doing so again after the flood? Even after devastating forest fires or volcano eruptions etc where there is no life afterwards.. given time everything grows. It may not be what was originally there but life starts over. And so it did after the waters receded.

Thank you Kim for pointing out that Rick was not a Christian and therefor was allowed (HEHEHE) to not believe in the bible. And I have a serious problem with those who go farther then studying the scriptures and cross the line into dissecting it bit by bit to the point that it no longer makes sense. You do not need to find nuances in every little line. Somethings are just supposed to be.

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:31:08 +0000

Geoff J (#53):
I’ve admitted all along the _possibility_ of a localized flood, though my personal beliefs lie elsewhere. I’m contrasting that with the others who allow _no_ possibility of a universal flood. Who’s being more dogmatic?

Others say there is no archeaological evidence of a universal flood, and seem to be closed to the possibility of new discoveries or new interpretations of previous obvservations.

Not only that, but we have never observed a universal flood, and its 5000 year aftermath, so any ideas of what the evidence of a 5000 year old universal flood should look like are speculative.

I say there is no _scriptural evidence_ of a _localized_ flood, but I’m open to receiving further light and knowledge from authorized sources on the interpretation and scope of those scriptures.

I’m not a geologist or archaeologist, so I’ll acknowledge their claims that they haven’t found evidence whose commonly accepted interpretation supports a universal flood.

But both physical evidence and scriptures are subject to new understandings when further light and knowledge are shed upon them.

The history of scientific understanding is one of discovering new evidence, and re-evaluating old evidence and coming up with new or modified understandings.

Therefore, to close off the possibility of scientific reinterpretation of evidence exhibits a “faith,” or rather a dogmatism, in science that is unwarranted.

My bone of contention isn’t their belief in the current scientific understanding (of there not having been a universal flood), it’s their assertion that scientific understanding of the matter can’t and won’t change, and their disallowing even the possibility that the scriptures mean what they say.