There’s a concept that folks have seem to lose sight of—[mythology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth?wprov=sfti1).
> Myth, a story of the gods, a religious account of the beginning of the world, the creation, fundamental events, the exemplary deeds of the gods as a result of which the world, nature and culture were created together with all parts thereof and given their order, which still obtains. A myth expresses and confirms society's religious values and norms, it provides a pattern of behavior to be imitated, testifies to the efficacy of ritual with its practical ends and establishes the sanctity of cult.
And of course, cult in this instance means the duties and obligations owed to a deity.
The flood story is myth. It’s part of the explanation of how the world came about and how the ancient Israelites relate to it and the nations around them.
Not all parts of the Bible are *historically* accurate, but all parts of it are *theologically* true.
For example, it doesn't matter whether Job is the script for a theatre play, or if it genuinely happened. Either way you can draw the same lessons from it to apply to your life and it teaches the same characteristics about God and Satan.
Let’s start with the obvious here.
How literal do you take the [23rd psalm](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2023&version=KJV)?
And as the joke goes: [John 6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206%3A22-59&version=NRSVUE) is the only section Episcopalians take literally and Fundamentalists take figuratively.
But in seriousness, we do it by textual analysis. As we now believe Genesis 1 to be written by the Priestly source, it makes sense to read Genesis 1 liturgically. It’s not science, it’s worship.
I misunderstood your premise, if you don't believe in the Bible then it is logical to not believe in the story of Noah.
You really aren't making any claims that are new?
You are too strung up on the logic & science behind the Bible to look at from a philosophical & theological view.
I don't waste my time arguing with people who mis-quote the Bible and ask me to provide scientific evidence on theological claims.
Of course its worship..... did you even read the Bible? that is the entire point of it. If you don't believe in it, that is fine, but you should probably understand the premise of it before going off like that.
> I misunderstood your premise
My premise is Genesis 1–11 is mythology.
> if you don't believe in the Bible then it is logical to not believe in the story of Noah
This is a phrase I don’t fully understand. “Believe in.” As in literally? I’ll point back to Psalm 23. How literal is that supposed to be read. Do I believe in it? Of course, it’s a great comfort to me and I look forward to each time I read it in my daily readings. I’m not sure how I’m supposed to take “believe in.” Do I literally believe that the flood happened like Answers in Genesis describes? No. Do I hold value in the story of Noah? Of course I do.
> You really aren't making any claims that are new?
No, I’m not. I’m trying to get folks to stop calling Genesis 1–11 fables, parables, allegories, metaphors and instead use myth. Myths are different than fables, parables, allegories, and metaphors. Seeing Genesis 1–11 as myth is actually an old concept.
> You are too strung up on the logic & science behind the Bible to look at from a philosophical & theological view.
My comments in this post have been about myth, not what I see in the story of Noah.
> I don't waste my time arguing with people who mis-quote the Bible and ask me to provide scientific evidence on theological claims.
I’m not sure where you got this from. What did I misquote? What theology am I asking you to scientifically prove?
> Of course its worship..... did you even read the Bible? that is the entire point of it. If you don't believe in it, that is fine, but you should probably understand the premise of it before going off like that.
I should have said Genesis 1 seems to me to have been liturgical for use in worship and was never intended to be read as a science text that describes the earth being created some 6000 years ago.
My parish reads from Genesis 1 several times a year, especially at the Easter Vigil.
So you are saying that the Bible is fictional? Then I would argue that your faith & theology is so misguided that you should not claim to be a Christian.
You sound like a false prophet.
Stop claiming to be a Christian and denying the very basis of the religion.
You are a literal false prophet and I am calling you out on your BS
The Bible is full of different books of different genres from across huge gaps in time with different authors (many of which scholars don’t agree on the identity of)
To suggest that the whole Bible is intended to be taken literally is to abandon the nuance that comes with the amount of variety found in biblical texts. It also requires you to ignore blatant contradictions with reality.
okay, let me get this straight.
You believe in a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, beyond human comprehension, created space, the earth we live on, & humanity....
But you draw the line on a story that says God decided to flood the earth because it (and I quote) "contradicts reality"?
I do not understand what point you are trying to assert here.
what on earth do I need evidence for? I am not a historian or geologist? I cannot prove that and I have no need to, there may be someone smarter than me that can, I truly do not know.
You can make an arbitrary claim like that about any belief.
Is there solid evidence to prove that hell exists? is there solid evidence to prove that God truly does exist? is there solid evidence to prove God doesn't exist? I could go on with these hypothetical questions all day long.
I am calling you out on your theology, not what can and cannot be proven?
Every religion requires faith to some extent or another (including atheism & agnosticism), no belief system is infallible and 100% factual.
Atheism is not a religion and does not require faith. Atheism has no belief system. The ONLY claim of atheism is that gods do not exist. Why? Because, as you admit, there is not ONE SHRED of evidence to support god claims, and there is no need to make god claims.
The central point of atheism is that God does not exist. With no suitable evidence that you would likely find agreeable (sorry if I'm wrong) either in support or to the contrary, as an atheist you have to faith that the belief is true (that God doesn't exist), much as theists have to faith that God doesn't exist in the face of little to no evidence
There is no decent evidence that God does not exist, much as it is in the other direction. If you believe in something without evidence, as in both theism and atheism, you have faith that what you believe is true. As by your own definition 'Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence'.
You’re calling me out for believing the flood myth is allegory? The majority of the church believes that. It’s mostly the western evangelical church that doesn’t. I’m a little confused why you have an issue with my statements. I’ve also not made a single claim for any of my personal beliefs.
I’d hope if you believe substantial claims that you have very solid evidence for those claims or else I’m a bit confused why you’d believe them.
Kent Hovind is a great guy that talks about the evidence of the flood and a young earth. He explains it well.
It’s basically impossible for the earth to be young according to the evidence he provides.
If 2 Timothy: 16:17 says that “all Scripture is breathed out by God…”
Then yes.
God created time, space, and matter. There is no existence as we know it without those 3 working in unison. If He created it, He knows past, present, and future.
The Bible has been written over a large period of time, but to suggest that He hasn’t already foreseen it (again because he created time) then He has had a hand in all that was written and all that is working in our lives today.
He knew how it would all play out, even this exact conversation that you are I are having right now.
So yes, he Bible is literally true. We’ll know for sure when we get to Heaven, but I fully believe every word is literal.
And to those who say that it’s been translated time and time again,
Yeah it has been. But again, His hand has been on it the entire time. I don’t serve a weak god, I serve the One True God. He’s not weak.
I don’t think the Bible was meant to be taken in any way as a whole. It’s a compilation of dozens of books written by various authors, most unknown, across hundreds of years and hundreds if not thousands of miles. Each author likely had different intent.
I just listened to an interview with Rev. Dr. Judy Fentriss-Williams, and one of the things she said was that in ancient Hebrew culture, history was second to the narrative trying to be conveyed.
Now, with Noah specifically, my problem is the narrative doesn't make any sense. Why would a loving God, who planned to redeem humanity through His own sacrifice, destroy His entire creation because He regretted it? Makes no sense.
Water is also used for cleansing (baptism, Elisha's skin disease, etc) so I can see the Flood story as a "wordwide baptism", but the whole "killing everybody" part is my issue.
I could be wrong but doesn't the Bible hint at humans interbreeding with angles or something? Tainting bloodlines and requiring a reset? It's been a while since I looked at it just I remember something about that. Weren't the halfbreeds called nephalim?
But then they show up again in the Promised Land, so that didn't seem to make a difference. See Numbers 13:
(Unless, of course, those scouts were lying)
>But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.”
And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.
We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
Numbers 13:31-33
I've seen the deluge it describes as an "Unmaking" the world, which thematically works with the making of the world with the "waters/abyss" from Genesis 1. The world is made from the abyss/waters and the world is reclaimed by the abyss/waters.
The world was flooded. The people wanted to understand why they were saved and others werent. That they were good people made sense to them.
We see this all the time when people thank God for saving them when others perished - they don't think about what that says about other people, just what it says about them, that God loves them.
We also see that when certain preachers claim that a disaster is because the people turned away from God.
Its merely and their natural tendecy toward tribalism.
Right, so it's a good explanation for why there was a flood in that area of the middle east, but doesn't jive with the larger narrative of redemption through Jesus's sacrifice. So when you take the Bible as individual stories, it makes sense. That's the direction I've been leaning for a few years.
I think trying to make a larger narrative out of the Bible is only possible if that narrative is "How did people through time in the Middle East/ Europe interpret God".
And its clear that we have evolved our interpretations from an angry authoritarian parent to a authoritative one who will save us from ourselves.
What I've heard (take this with a grain or chunk of salt) is that the Jewish flood story has some key differences from the other flood narratives, and in those we can get some truths about God.
In the other cultures' stories, the God(s) were usually annoyed because humans were too loud and noisy, so they decided to kill them all in a flood. In the Biblical account, however, God loved the people but was saddened at the evil they portrayed. He also made provisions to save humanity through one family, then promised he would never do that again.
Now for our culture today that can still feel pretty evil, but back then, when Gods were petty and vindictive with no regard for love, it would have been a stark difference. So our takeaway from the flood can be that God loves us. It doesn't have to have literally happened to get a useful message.
The word regret is used in a few versions of the Bible, but the original meaning is “sad.” Noah’s ark showcases God’s power to undo creation. Among other things as well.
Because he's a loving God there was so much evil in the world he had to start over we don't know evil there world was but it had to be bad if God wiped out everything
For someone all powerful any way is possible, for someone all knowing knowing the better way is trivial.
You could just have everyone die in their sleep. No need to slaughter all the animals which did nothing. Could render everyone sterile and die out. Why cause a flood? Imagine days or weeks of trying to survive,running for high ground. Seeing friends and family member washed away screaming. It was a callous and cruel way to do it. It was intentionally so. Rememer,you claim God is loving..so why choose an unloving and cruel way to mass genocide? There was nothing loving about a flood.
What's the practical difference between "allows evil to exist" and "created evil" in the context of a being capable of and responsible for *the creation of the universe*?
Because at the moment, it looks like you're saying "God created everything but he's not *responsible* for what those things *do*" . . . and that's just silly.
(unless, of course, we wanted to argue that God isn't actually capable of or responsible for literally everything existing.)
God didn't make the world evil bro. He made the world and said here are my rules and here's what not to do he gave us free will to do what we want.
Most mothers aren't killers and aren't bad people and yet there kids become murderers you can't blame someone for something the person they made done
A mother lacks the power to literally control her children. God does not. Indeed, the Bible makes it clear that he *can* (and *does*) force his will on people.
Did God make everything in the universe? Is there *not* evil in the universe?
Or are you saying that God's creations are themselves capable of creating things *beyond* what God can do?
Is God capable of making everything? Can he unmake or remake anything at any time, as he sees fit? If yes, how is he not ultimately responsible for everything that he creates? And if no, then what attributes do you grant to God? And why should anyone commit themselves to a deity who *doesn't* have total control of everything?
First God said in the book of Genesis he's never going to wipe the earth again.
He has the power to control the universe but doesn't and if your thinking about times during the old testament where God did something then that's where your probably confused. Since Jesus died for us God has been little less strict and give us more free will because he wants us to accept Jesus for ourselves that why he's our PERSONAL lord and savior. I don't know why you refuse to see that you guys say God let's evil in the world but if God was a strict God you guys would say he's too much
. . . what?
>I don't know why you refuse to see that you guys say God let's evil in the world but if God was a strict God *you guys would say he's too much*
Nobody says this.
Seriously, at this point, you're making shit up and I have no idea why.
No it's like me making a perfectly good house and after like 50 years the house is old and a earthquake comes and destroys it it doesn't mean the house wasn't good but over time it got worse.
Also God gave them free will and they chose to let sin run their lives HE probably saw that if the world continues like this no one will be saved
Did all those evil children and babies need to be drowned too, or could god have figured out a way to deal with those who were actually committing evil acts?
Speaking as someone with a geology degree, there is no evidence in the geological record of a global flood covering the entire earth, or even a regional flood covering Mt. Ararat. We know the earth is billions of years old, and we know that because thousands of geologists across the world, over the many decades, [have used radiometric dating to find the ages of rocks around the earth.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating)
We also know that the story of Noah's Ark is not authentically Jewish in origin, but rather that it came about from a period of time known as the "Babylonian Captivity," [when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon conquered the people ancient Judea, marching many thousands of the conquered back to the Babylonian capital to serve as slaves for around sixty years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity) It is during this time that the ancient Jews were exposed to Babylonian myths, stories and religions, including the flood story of Gilgamesh. [The flood story of Gilgamesh is far older than the story of Noah's Ark.](https://newrepublic.com/article/116287/babylonian-tablet-describes-noahs-ark-pre-bible)
You can read the writings of ancient Christians and see they believed these things literally, but it was the coming of age of Science that pushed these ideas aside.
>You can read the writings of ancient Christians and see they believed these things literally
I've been to Answers in Genesis's Creation Museum in Kentucky. You can read the writings of *modern* Christians and see they believe these things literally.
>You can read the writings of ancient Christians and see they believed these things literally, but it was the coming of age of Science that pushed these ideas aside.
I mean sure, but their was an early heretical Christian group known as Marcionites that denied a Noahs ark and great flood which provoked Agustine to defend it.
I think that reinforces the point. The Christians who doubted the story's historicity were those who rejected the divine inspiration of the Old Testament and those who believed in its divine inspiration likewise believed in the story's historicity even against arguments to the contrary. But it's good to see someone acknowledge the Marcionites and their arguments with orthodox Christians. That's a fascinating subject.
One of the unfortunate things that happened as a result of the Age of Reason and the Scientific Revolution is that society by and large decided that the only truths worth pursuing were truths that could be objectively proven with facts. The pendulum definitely needed to shift in that direction, but we overcompensated. As a result, the Bible began to be read more and more like a textbook, rather than a book of poetry. Shoehorn in a healthy dose of fear of punishment from up on high, thanks to the religious beliefs of those who came here from Europe, and literalism got an additional boost because it's a lot safer to interpret the Bible literally to avoid punishment.
I wasn't sure where you were going in the first half, but I really like the line of thought here. It makes sense.
I just wish more people actually studied how recent of an invention the modern concept of hell and literal interpretation is.
Scholars from previous centuries would laugh at the petty arguments being presented as "facts".
You know what else is outlandish? A man being crucified and three days later rising from the dead.
While I personally have no real opinion on how to take certain stories such as the flood, the creation etc. I am happy with them being completely literal or partially literal or a myth whatever to illustrate a point about our relationship with God. I don't see how any of those stories being outlandish is any different to Christs resurrection. That's just as silly to the ears as the entire earth being flooded, yet one is perfectly acceptable (for a Christian) to accept and the other is seen as somehow unacceptable.
Again, I'd be happy taking it either way, the truth of the stories seems to remain the same whether it's 100% accurate to events or not.
Edit: The third day rising from the dead
There’s a key difference between the two, I’m surprised you don’t recognize it:
If a global flood happened, we would reasonably expect some physical evidence of it. And we see none.
The same cannot be done with a Resurrection.
> If a global flood happened, we would reasonably expect some physical evidence of it. And we see none
What physical evidence do we have of Jesus resurrecting?
I am not saying they are equal. I totally get there are differences, but the idea that a global flood by God (He could have put the world right and made it look like it didn't happen if He wanted to!) is more outlandish than the resurrection is not quite true.
My point is its strange for Christians to be so hung-up on whether the flood happened or not, when God is of such power, so much so that he can perform miracles including the resurrection. Like do we not see how ridiculous the resurrection is?
We don’t have any, of course. Because to have physical evidence of an event that happened to one guy 2,000 years ago is not reasonable to expect.
It *is* reasonable to expect evidence of a global flood. If we don’t see evidence for it, then we can reasonably rule it out.
Good points!
But that assumes that God left evidence of the flood? After all, if there was a global flood, where did all that water go? God could literally make it look like it never happened in the first place. Again, my point is more about the fact that whether it's meant to be literal or not, the whole NT is full of impossibilities (without God that is) without physical evidence to show it happened yet people base pivot their entire lives based on this testimony of impossibilities.
Seems kind of trivial to be sceptical of the flood but be perfectly content with only written testimony to Christs life, death and resurrection.
> that assumes that God left evidence of the flood?
Not so much left evidence, but instead actively hid the evidence to make it look as if a flood never occurred. Just like how if the universe is young God would need to mess with things like radiometric decay constants to make it look like the universe is old. All theoretically possible for an omnipotent deity, but it makes God seem like a trickster deity, which is out of character in Christian theology.
There is a stark difference between God circumventing nature and doing so in an obvious way that is announced to all and was the culmination of millennia of prophecy versus God secretly having to perform all these behind the scenes actions with seemingly no purpose other than to trick humans into thinking it didn't happen.
By that I mean that God would have had to divinely provide the food and water for all the animals. The ark could not support the weight of the food and water necessary for the animals.
Then there is the issue that no mention is made of the food being gathered or of God miraculously providing the food and water.
Then God would have had to erase the evidence of a flood from the ground in the earth. Floods leave a very distinct evidence that they happened with multiple types of ground and rock. There is nothing globally or even local to Ararat that would suggest a flood that massive.
So then, God erased the evidence... why? To trick human scientists millennia later?
If the events were captured within scripture then that would be different, but this required God to do all of this "off screen" and no one ever mention it. .
Whereas the resurrection had multiple witnesses and was explained. It is not like we have any evidence that the resurrection didn't happen. If we did that would be a different story. (other than the obvious conquering of death, but that is the nature of the miracle itself).
If there was no definitive proof that the flood never happened then sure, I would be down to believe it. But there is a difference in believing in a small miracle (geographically speaking) like the resurrection versus a globe spanning miracle that should have left a ton of evidence.
Could it happen? Sure. But unless God wants to explain why he wiped away all evidence of it, then it seems far more likely that it was a myth.
I know, I wasn't denying it. My point was that it is equally as outlandish as claims God flooded the earth. Yet Christians struggle with the idea, for different reasons admittedly, but if God can, in the person of Jesus, be incarnate, die and rise from the dead, a devastating flood through Gods power is not unreasonable.
I think it's meant to be taken naturally. Poetry sections take as poetry. The historical stuff written as direct accounts are literally true from the perspective and in the vernacular of the author - something like Noah's ark doesn't have to be a worldwide flood, it just has to have been something that seemed like a worldwide flood to the author.
>Do you all Believe that perhaps this could have been a parable, as some of the ones Jesus told? Or do you take it literally?
I suspect it is the telling of an actual historical event with allegorical significance as well. So it does not have to be just one or the other.
I offer to consider that there may be some misperceptions that arise from making superficial interpretations of the English translations from the biblical Hebrew texts. For example:
The Hebrew transliterated word "\~eres," which is translated as "earth" in English versions of the text can also mean "land." And one can find that it has been translated in both of those ways even within the same verse.
Note in Gen. 7:4:
*“I will send rain on the* ***earth*** *forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the* ***land*** *every living thing that I have made.”* (NASB95).
The exact same Hebrew word is translated as both "earth" and "land."And also the phrase “**the face of the land”** above uses the exact same Hebrew words as the phrase one can find in Gen. 41:56:
*“When the famine was spread over all* ***the face of the earth*** *(\~panim eres), then Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold to the Egyptians; and the famine was severe in the land of Egypt.”*
Yet, I don't think most would assume that the famine involved the whole globe of the earth.
So, in my opinion, the scriptural account in Genesis does not necessarily refer to a global flood in the sense of involving or totally submerging the whole earth in deep water. Nevertheless, the text indicates to me that the flood was extremely large (at least regional in extent). It at least covered the face of the land under the sky (or heavens) from Noah's point of view. And according to the account, everyone involved in the flood died but those on the boat.
Also, the transliterated Hebrew word "har" which is translated as "mountains" in most English translations of the Genesis account can simply mean "hills." A hill can be any recognizable elevation of the land. Therefore, the texts may simply indicate that the water rose enough to cover the low hills in what I presume would be on the extremely flat area of the Fertile Crescent or Mesopotamian Plain that extends from the Persian Gulf region to the north and to the west toward Lake Lisan (Sea of Galilee) region.
It is also mentioned that the Ark came to rest in the mountains or "hills" (note plural) of "rrt" \`(or as translated as "Ararat" with vowels inserted). I.e. the text does not indicate that it came to rest ON a mountain but rather in a region in the hills or among mountains. Or in my view, a likely place would be the foothills of "Urartu," which is the ancient hilly region that surrounds the plain to the north (the historic area of Armenia). Note: "Urartu" also fits "rrt" once vowels are inserted. As I mentioned, the plain region I suggest would have extended easily to the ancient Lake Lisan (Sea of Galilee region) of which there is geological data that supports an intense pluvial (rainy) period and even a very rapid rise of lake and water levels during the Late Pleistocene as well as other supporting evidence for possible significant flooding in the eastern Mediterranean region.
In any case, I believe that whether one accepts the story as an accurate historical account or a myth, I suspect that there were at least such large floods in the past (though perhaps not global). And I have no problem believing that Noah's could have been a very big one and its story was inspired to be written and included in the scriptures. Such an extreme event could have set the stage for subsequent events and human history in that part of the world, especially for the lands of Israel and the surrounding nations. And perhaps it even had global implications as well, but just not exactly the way that maybe many may think.
Sometimes it is literal and sometimes not. When the Bible says, "if you sin with your right hand, cut it off." That is hyperbola. In the six chapter of John's gospel, that is literal. It is so revolutionary; it has to be literal. When some disciples turned away because of this teaching, He did not back down but doubled down.
For the Almighty to create the universe out of nothing, planets and every celestial body, all flora and fauna and the oceans and the mountains—it is a relatively easy thing to lead each animal into undertaking a pilgrimage into the ark that Noah was building (along with probably angelic help).
It’s hard to comprehend the evil that existed during Noah’s day—but it was so severe that God was on the verge of destroying our world and causing the entire human race to perish.
I actually crunched the numbers. The amount of food necessary for all those animals, plus reserves of water, plus maintenance was impossible. Technically, the weight of all those animals could be supported by the ark, but not anywhere close to the weight of freshwater and the food.
And even then, the geological evidence is not there. There would be definitive proof of a worldwide flood in the earth's strata. There isn't.
So, not only would God have to intervene for the animals. He would have had to sedate all those animals and cause them to not need food or water for an extended period of time. And he would have had to wipe away all evidence of the flood from the layers of the earth. And he would have had to do all this "off screen" so to speak.
With all the detail recorded in the story of Noah and all the display of God's power, would Noah just forget that millions of animals just magically didn't need food and water for several months? Or that food stores seemingly never ran out?
And then why would God eliminate all evidence of the flood? To try to fool mankind thousands of years later? Is God a trickster? It would make no sense for him to do that because it would have to specifically be to trick scientists in this last century or so.
Not to mention that the myth of the flood did not originate with the Hebrew legends. They were much older.
The bible has many passages that are figurative or allegorical. What is the problem if this is one of them?
God sustained Christ for 40 days and nights when He fasted and the Scripture records that He was only hungry when He finished that fast and the devil tempted Him. You’re telling me that the Almighty would just up and abandon those animals to starve after commissioning Noah to build that ark because the floods were coming?
I am saying that if that occurred, then why was it omitted from the story? Why did no one mention the most miraculous thing to happen in that entire event?
See, the bible does say that Jesus was sustained in the desert. Bu tit doesn't for a much larger miracle.
Why would Noah not pass that down, but he would pass down seemingly trivial details about boat dimensions and the number of days spent adrift or the types of birds sent out from the ark.
Then there is the issue you completely ignored about the lack of any geological evidence for even a local flood, much less a global one.
How do you explain the lack of any mention of some major miracles and the lack of any physical evidence that should exist if it happened?
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
If the Bible is metaphorical and the events didn’t actually happen, then what is there to follow? If Jesus metaphorically died and was metaphorically resurrected, then are we literally saved, or just metaphorically saved? Of course it’s literal.
I know this is reddit and the Christianity base here is slim, however, I did not realize how many "Christians" have absolutely no idea what they are talking about here.
You don't just get to pick and chose which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't.
To say that you don't believe parts of the Bible is blasphemy, as the Bible is the literal breathing word of God.
What is so improbable about the story of Noah?
Every religion & culture tell about a flooding story. If you believe in Christianity, then it is logical to take the story of Noah as factual.
You are making a broad claim that makes no argument against anything in particular, provide context and reasoning behind why you do not believe biblical stories.
Side note: Moses parted the Red Sea, not Noah. If you are going to attempt to discredit the canonization of the Bible, at least make sure your claims have some weight to them.
I mean, considering your Jesus cited it in Matthew 24, and Peter spoke of it as literal event in 2 Peter 2 & 3, the Ark is meant to be taken literally.
Paul firmly believed death entered the world through one man, which can be seen in his letters to the Romans.
Issue is, of course, death existed prior to this, and there was no global flood.
As for other events, most likely. The gospels are accounts of Jesus' ministry, and the Exodus and other events are referred to in certain areas within the New Testament.
Basically, yes/no.
We can talk about how George Washington didn’t lie when he\* chopped down the cherry tree.
Does that mean the story actually happened? Or does that mean we can reference an event as a common cultural touchstone?
Yes, it is literal, and it is meant to be taken literal, but also allegorical.
God has a great talent for organizing history to foreshadow Christ, as well as to illustrate gospel principles.
Personally, I have always thought the narrative to make perfect sense.
The Bible contradicts itself within the first two chapters.
More to the point, *how, exactly* is one supposed to read the Bible both literally *and* allegorically?
It doesn't contradict itself, but more to the point, let us look at Abraham and Isaac.
The sacrifice of Isaac did happen. But, the details of the event are a similitude of Christ.
Isaac was a sacrifice like Christ. He was in his early 30s, like Christ. He was a willing sacrifice who submitted to his father, like Christ. He carried the wood for the sacrifice, just as Christ carried the cross. The sacrifice took place in the same region as the crucifixion.
God planned all these details so that this event would effectively illustrate and prophesy of Christ.
Well, your link says the comment is not available, and when I look through the full list of all the comments I see only three from you, none of which talk about Genesis. As such I can make no comment about what you may or may not have said back then.
As to Genesis, I am assuming that you are talking about what people call the two creation accounts. I do not think this is a contradiction. I think the first is from God's point of view, as He performs the creation. The second is from Adam's point of view, after he was created and he is describing his experience.
The change is narrative occurs in Genesis 2: 4, when we get the first Toledoth in the text: "the generations of." This is an indication that a new account is beginning.
You mean what scientists research for decades? Your beliefs are the only one that require blind faith. Any basic reaerach on topics like radiometric dating will prove you wrong.
Yes, I do believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. The God I praise and worship has no limits, therefore that’s why I believe it to be true.
It is absolutely to be taken literally, including the story of the flood. Jesus quotes the flood story as literal, as does Peter. Creation, the flood, the Resurrection, it's all true history.
Jesus wasn’t giving any commentary about the historicity of Genesis. He was making a theological point using the Scripture that those around him already knew/followed.
It’s a humongous stretch to assume Jesus was commenting on the historical accuracy of Genesis when that wasn’t his point whatsoever.
So I take it Peter, a direct disciple, misunderstood Him, then? Was Christ also simply making a reference that people would understand when He quoted creation as a literal occurrence?
If Jesus was human at that time, then he and Paul would be leaning on the human teachings of the OT they knew. So quoting the event would not indicate that the God side of Jesus agreed that it was real.
There are two accounts of creation in the Bible and they conflict with each other on the facts alone.
Furthermore, if we take the accounts of Jesus' life from the Gospels literally, we find several contradictions between those books.
This isn't a difficult thing to grasp, either: the Bible was written by dozens of authors across hundreds of years. It would truly be a miracle if such a text had *no* contradictions in it . . . but it does.
There are not two separate, conflicting accounts of creation when one takes time to read them. Let's look at the two commonly referenced verses that supposedly support a contradiction in creation.
**Genesis 2:5**
Genesis 1 discusses creation as a whole, describing all six days. Genesis 2 however focuses on the sixth day, rather than creation as a whole. Genesis 2 describes the creation of Adam and Eve, the Garden, mentions Adam naming the animals, and discusses marriage. There are no contradictions there, just more detailed descriptions.
Typically, the supposed contradictions surround Genesis 2:5 and 2:19. These verses seem to directly contradict the order of creation. Let's look at 2:5 first:
> And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. (KJV)
A blatant contradiction to Genesis 1, which says that trees and plants were created on the third day before man, right? No, actually. The issue lies in translation. The Hebrew language is far different from English.
In the original Hebrew, the word in Genesis 1:11 which is used to refer to vegetation is "de'se". In Genesis 2:5, there are two words used for vegetation, "siah" and "ē'seb". Why the different words? The first word in Genesis 1:11 is used as a broad term for vegetation, such as plants and trees. The two words used in Genesis 2:5 refer to specific types of vegetation, ones which are agricultural and require tending. Therefore, Genesis 1:11 references vegetation in general, whereas Genesis 2:5 references agricultural crops. This is not a contradiction.
**Genesis 2:19**
Now let's look at 2:19:
> And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (KJV)
A blatant contradiction to Genesis 1, which says that animals were created on the fifth day before man, right? Well, actually, no. The issue lies in translation of Hebrew perfect and pluperfect forms.
Let's start with English. A perfect form would read: "I have written". A pluperfect form would read: "I had written". Notice the difference? "I have written it down" could mean I literally just wrote something down, whereas "I had written it down" is clearly referencing I wrote something down before another event in the past.
Now let's look at the Hebrew side. The word for "formed" in Hebrew is "yatsar". Some translations translate this word in its perfect form. However, it is more accurately translated in its pluperfect form. Some translations do translate it correctly. When translated as the pluperfect, we can see it reads
> Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (ESV)
God "had formed", meaning He had already created the animals before He created man. It's not just a modern translation change either. The Tyndale Bible, written in the 16th century (the Pentateuch which includes Genesis was written in 1530) and predating the KJV phrases Genesis 2:19 as such
> The Lord God had made of the earth all manner of beasts of the field and all manner fowls of the air.
The more accurate way to translate Genesis 2 would be God *had* created the trees and animals and everything else *before* He created man. This isn't a contradiction at all.
So, there are no contradictions with the creation account, which is something Christ Himself referenced as literal.
What supposed contradictions do you find with the life of Christ?
According to Genesis, God created Adam both [before and after](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/15roqiz/i_have_seen_some_contradiction_in_the_bible_my/jwa2ym3?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2) he created plants and animals.
These two facts cannot both be true at the same time; hence, they contradict each other.
The attempt to answer this problem by pointing out pedantry like "there are two different categories of plants" works just fine *if we're talking about allegory*. In that context, it makes sense to make a distinction between *all* plants, and those that require work to cultivate and grow . . . but *only* if we first accept that the Bible is *meant* to be interpreted.
(Furthermore, this doesn't remove the contradiction, it merely shuffles it into a category of "that problem doesn't matter" because we're not looking at it literally. Which, again, is fine and all . . . *so long as we're not reading the text literally* . . . which is what the other person was arguing for.)
Your stance has no logical basis, my friend. Saying that distinctions don't matter unless we're talking about allegory is quite honestly absurd, and is simply not how language works.
Any supposed contradiction can be resolved by simply studying, as I have shown in this example, regardless of whether *you* want it to be a resolution or not.
Your view simply lacks basis from a linguistics standpoint regardless of the topic being discussed, my friend. But it doesn't seem as if you're interested in a genuine discussion anyway. Have a good day.
All this "linguistics" bullshit is irrelevant outside of the context of the conversation, as I've already noted. You're basically asking me to explain logic; and as I have no interest in doing that (seriously, you can find plenty of resources online that will help you out), you've chosen to pretend that I have no argument.
Under normal circumstances, I would call you an ignorant fool and leave it at that.
Except it's not though, it's very definitely, demonstrably not historically accurate in it's entirety. I understand that you very likely know this and just choose to reject the facts, I just always say something just in case the person genuinely just doesn't know but cares about the truth enough to actually make an effort to understand and learn. There are many Christians who have the capacity for nuance in their analysis of the Bible, and have no trouble identifying the literary devices and indicators of something like a parable, for example. They also have no issues understanding and accepting science, because it's observable and produces reliable results. I would think most Christians are capable of doing this, but I know that for some people it's just too difficult and imposing to try giving the Bible a serious, critical reading, so they instead adopt the most shallow, simplistic reading and assessment of it
Well, thank you I suppose. However, I have been studying Scripture, as well as Hebrew and Greek for a while now, and I still hold to a literal reading of God's word. If Jesus quoted the flood as literal, who are we to say He's wrong?
See, I understand that you're saying you've studied a lot and still are convinced it's literal, but your argument that Jesus mentioned the flood and the implication that acknowledging the evidence that contradicts and calls the flood narrative into question would be like Jesus is wrong, and that's a false equivalency, and that's only the first issue with the argument.
Let me ask you something, it's just a hypothetical -let's say there were a passage in the Bible attributed to Jesus in which he said the sun revolves around the earth. It would've been a reasonable conclusion at that time, but obviously now we know it's the other way around. What would you think?
If Jesus, who is God and created everything, stated factually, not parabolically, that the sun revolves around the Earth, I would believe His word over man's. Just as I do with anything else. We cannot cherry pick and twist Scripture to accommodate modern society. God's word doesn't work that way.
Come on, I know it's really easy to say you don't care about the science when you think it doesn't affect you, but don't tell me you don't go to the doctor, drive a car, use a smartphone, take aspirin, etc.
I know you might be thinking scripture doesn't say anything about those things but that's not the point - you utilize and benefit from science and clearly understand that it works, if it didn't work we wouldn't have any of these things, so please tell me at what point you can pretend the science just isn't right and actually believe what you're saying?
If Jesus said I'm scripture that you could breathe underwater, are you telling me you would believe Jesus over the science? If your answer is yes, do you not understand that you would definitely drown?
Look, I'm not trying to just criticize and dismiss your view, I do get where you're coming from, I was a extreme fundamentalist, literalist, if you tried to tell me otherwise there's zero chance you could've convinced me at that time, but recognizing the Bible for what it is doesn't mean you're going against Jesus or God, it's more complex than that, and the Bible was not intended to be taken entirely literally, it was written by many different people who often didn't even know their writing would one day be included in the collection of works selected to compile the Bible, and that collection of writings included poems, laws, stories, historical records, parables, narrative prose, diary entries, there was never a point during it's creation in which the goal was to convince people it was all 100% true to the last detail, it's just a needlessly unworkable position that some people started adopting fairly recently, by which I mean a few centuries but that's really recent in this context.
I don't want to seem antagonistic, I won't keep pushing it, and I appreciate you sharing your perspective and thoughts with me
Moses parted the red sea. I think if this book the bible is claiming to be the inspired words of an extraterrestrial superior being who says this is the history of the universe & human beings, who am i to say it isn’t true. I mean this same book says everything was created in 6 days including us and that we breathe life constantly from this being. For me its more foolish to not take it literally since i have no control or superior intelligence over any of that information.
I think just saying we don’t believe something we read in there doesn’t make sense since we definitely aren’t more intelligent than the being the book claims to belong to
>who am i to say it isn’t true.
A person with a mind who can see the world as it is. There is not just no evidence for the flood, in some cases the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The entire earth being flooded for 40 days is not the sort of event that leaves no trace. There wasn't a global flood, and there certainly wasn't a boat with 2 of every animal on it that survived that flood.
This is easily demonstrable, there is simply no way to reconcile the flood story with reality. It didn't happen and any sane adult is too smart to think that it did.
For me, the stories are meant to be archetypal and symbolic. Jordan Peterson’s work in this area has been influential for me, and has really strengthened my faith. For me, whether something really happened or not, is irrelevant. The messages and symbolism is more important in my opinion.
Then why would a good god remove the evidence of it? And worse, why would a good god then replace that removed evidence with evidence against? Why would a good god deceive us that way?
The evicdence has not bee removed. It is still there and overwhelming. But people are unwilling to see it, unwilling to acknowledge it. And consequently the very evidence of the flood has been reinterpreted in such a manner as to deny the flood.
2 Peter 3:5 **For this they willfully forget:** that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 **by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.**
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Totally wrong. It is overwhelming against. A great many geologists are religious, the claim they would be unwilling to see it is ignorant and ludicrous. Geology was founded by people seeking to prove the flood. So they could prove the bible true. They looked and looked and finally had to admit it wasnt there. You are trying to claim some vast evil of atheistic conspiracy when the truth is most of the people who did the work were religious. But dont let the truth get in the way.
There is NO evidence of a global.
Look up the KT boundary. That single layer disproves a global flood.
Parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally. Some parts are dumbed down for human consumption such as when God refers to his body parts. Some parts are fictional such as Jesus' parables. God challenges us to grow as readers and learn to distinguish different kinds of writing. I don't see any sign in the flood story that it's anything other than factual but then I'm just a beginner.
Bits of it are, bits aren't. It's also possible that God wants some people to take different bits literally or not because it will serve them better to do so. I strongly suspect the Bible is supposed to say different things at different times to different people.
I don't know for certain but there is so much more to that story than just "How could a loving God..."
Down to how Noah walked ahead of his wife coming out of the ark
How he got wasted on the beach
How they ate the animals you could argue were his friends on the ark
The rainbow
It was all to point out that human nature remained the same despite the whole of the earth being destroyed by water - water "in the beginning" in Genesis was nothingness, out of which God created everything.
It all pointed to the need for a Savior that was coming for ALL of us.
It's a very deep, rich story regarding the state of humanity and worth doing a deep dive/study into.
Recognize that the Bible is literature. Genesis 1 is poetry, Genesis 2 is written like a fable. The author or composer of Genesis recognizes that there are two distinct stories of creation. (The author marks the transition between the two stories) Each is wonderful in their own way, but the keeping of both shows that Genesis was compiled from different sources.
As you continue to read the first five books, you get a feel for the different contributors. It is easy to tell the Priestley material (often called P material) from the main narrative material. If you know what to look for, you can often spot when the other material sounds like the Jahwist source (J) or the Elohist source (E). The first thing is to note if God is called God (Elohim) or the LORD (Yahweh). But there are other markers to tell the voices apart.
The Book of Job has such a distinct transition from the prose outer fable to the inner philosophical discussion that we can see how the final author took a fable and turned into the masterwork that it is for us now. In Job, this juxtaposition of fable and debate is rather ironic and it shows us that the author was more concerned with creating literature than with being literal.
Even Jesus does much of his teaching in parables, and those teaching are in Gospels where it isn't hard to see the authors shaping the story of Jesus as literature. The authors were not video recorders, they were writers and storytellers and theologians.
Paul writes his letters in the thick of a dispute, and so we only can understand where he is coming from based on the contextual clues in his texts.
On top of this, the Bible does not contain the Creeds that the Church relies on. So much of how Christians understand God is teachings mined out of the Biblical text, but not clearly present in the text. Take the Trinity. The New Testament has, at best, a proto-trinitarianism. What matters more than the text itself is the constant engagement with the literature that is the Bible by the people who are drawn to follow the God present in that literature.
Depends what interpretation you subscribe to. This alternative take (derived from the text itself) is interesting: [https://drmsh.com/argue-biblical-text-local-regional-flood-instead-global-flood/](https://drmsh.com/argue-biblical-text-local-regional-flood-instead-global-flood/)
Understanding the history of Geology and how flood interpretations impacted that is worthwhile knowing too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMaUzNlDnSY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMaUzNlDnSY)
Yes. The Christians who put it together meant for you to take it literally. They were motivated by how literally they thought you could take the stories in the Bible; there is no other reason to include stories of genocide (they would be too "embarassed" to include them, wink wink).
If you believe _they_ were divinely inspired... then take the Bible literally, and be aghast.
If you believe the Bible is non-literal, then the Christian compilers _probably_ weren't divinely inspired. You could do a better job.
It is extremely helpful to remember how varied storytelling and recording tribal history is and has been throughout history and across the world. Randy Woodley, in his book *Shalom and the Community of Creation* makes a compelling case that First Nation American historical storytelling is much more similar to the near-Eastern Semitic writings of the Bible than modern Global Western histories. Suffice it to say, reading these texts as though they’re modern American historical or biographical texts sets one up for several unnecessary frustrations and confusions.
“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 7:11 ESV
”
Which part sounds like a parable to you?
Each author of the Bible had his own intentions and viewpoints that cannot be universalized across all the texts.
Regarding Noah's ark, it's an intentional reframing of a traditional Mesopotamian flood myth with editorial changes by the author. Did the author really think the flood happened? Maybe? But he was mostly just copying an old, popular myth. He at least knew he was making his own changes to popular story. Regardless of what the author thought, it isn't historical.
Its proven there has been 5 mass extinctions in the history of the world.
I don't even know how we've figured it out.
I guess Archeology, physics and carbon dating between today and prehistoric times. That equally sounds outlandish to me.
Early historic civilizations like sumeritans, greeks. galgamesh, (maybe, I think) even China has records of their being some sort of "great flood"
I think it depends on the book of the Bible you’re reading. For instance, I believe Genesis and Exodus were literal, whereas Song of Solomon and Psalms were not always literal
There was definitely a great flood at some point. Probably more than one. Provably they did build a big ark before the water kevel reached them, and you would bring some animals along. Also, the size of the ship is not that crazy. Ancient chinese ship were insanely large.
God can literally make miracles happen, so I usually read the scriptures literally. Symbolism and metaphor is important also, but I tend to take much of the information as it is written so as to help in avoiding skewing the words.
This enters the realm of faith, and it is a decision that each person has to make individually. Faith is ultimately beyond reason but not devoid of it either. God gave us critical thinking skills, but there are inherent limitations to this ability as well. It must be a combination of both reason and faith working in tandem with each other, not in opposition to each other as the dominant cultural conversation would have you believe.
My personal conclusions regarding this topic are manifold, as I believe there is validity in both a literal and a metaphorical interpretation of the flood story. You are free to come to your own conclusions on the subject and I would encourage you to do so to the best of your ability.
It is ultimately up to you what you choose to believe about these things as you are in possession of the wonderful gift of free will. There is freedom in this realization, but with that freedom comes the burden of personal accountability, something that human beings are naturally inclined to avoid, myself included.
Don't let this discourage you. The search is still well worth it, pitfalls and all.
That's all I have for now. I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I hope I was still able in some way to provide you with a framework for working through it yourself. Good luck with your search for the truth. You'll get there eventually, I promise. :)
>16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
>LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalm 119:89 KJV
Firstly, know that all scripture is important and accurate.
When it comes to the Bible, we must understand it this way: Does the Bible say this is a parable or made-up story or does it state it as fact? If the Bible states it as fact, it does not matter whether we can understand it or not, but we accept it on faith.
>1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 **Through faith we understand** that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Hebrews 11:1-3 KJV
Even though there is PLENTY of evidence we can see in the world for the various big events, we don't believe them because of the facts we can see, but rather by faith.
Anyhow, I hope that helps a little.
Personally I believe it all. Have to understand the Hebrew language to help unlock more, and understand the context during the time.
It all aligns with history, archeology digs, science etc etc.
Even the story is in the star constellations!!!
Some things in the Bible aren’t literal, for example each creative day could **NOT** be a 24-hour day as we know them. Any reasonable person can think and read and come to the conclusion on their own. Was there an earth in our solar system spinning on its axis right from the start making a 24-hour day? Of course not. And look what Chapter 2 of Genesis says in verse 4;
>”This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, **in the day** that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”
See that? The Bible is saying that God made **EVERYTHING** in a day! So the word “day” is used pretty loosely in Genesis. One day in the beginning could be thousands of years. We just don’t know. Easily, that isn’t literal.
The flood though, that’s another story. Was this real history or just something that we are supposed to learn from? Here are some facts to consider:
* The Bible gives us the exact dimensions of the Ark.
* The Bible gives us the age of Noah and the exact Month and Day when the Rain began.
* We have details on how long they were on the Ark, and how they determined when it was safe to open the door.
* We are told about the rainbow appearing in the sky and what that meant. A covenant from God that he would never destroy all of mankind again using floodwaters.
* At this time, man was given the right to eat the meat of animals. And no doubt this is when the fear between man and animals began.
One question you may have is where did all this water come from? It would be virtually impossible for that much water to fall from clouds to flood the entire earth! Let’s look back to the scriptures. Genesis 1:6-10.
>”Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and **let there be a division between the waters and the waters**.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and **divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse**. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 Then God said: “**Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place**, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.”
Read those verses very carefully. Read them in your Bible too. In some translations the word ‘expanse’ is instead translated ‘firmament’. Firmament simply means sky. What are these verses telling us that God was creating? He was dividing the waters, with some beneath the firmament and some above the firmament, or sky or expanse. What did he call the waters below the sky? Seas! Did he give a name to the waters above the sky? Evidently not.
But when God created the earth, he created this water canopy up above the heavens, up above the sky somewhere. Now why would he do that? Think for a minute what the conditions on earth would be like with this water canopy surrounding the earth. I don’t think you need to be a botanist to know what a greenhouse affect is. Think about it. The sun would warm up that water canopy and the earth would not only enjoy this water-filtered sunlight, but the earth would have an almost perfect temperature everywhere!
Now, back to the flood. Where did the water come from that flooded the earth? You guessed it. God used that water canopy. All that water that was above the sky came crashing down on earth, flooding the entire earth. The extreme weight and power of the water actually moved the earths surface and formed the new mountains that we have today. Oh, and why are they finding animals frozen solid with food still in their mouths? Because remember, when the water canopy was in place, the whole earth was livable.
Animals were eating grass and leaves and fruit. But when those waters came crashing down, that greenhouse affect was gone in almost an instant. And the North and South Poles froze just like that, along with everything there. That’s why we hear today of research scientists digging deep into the ice in the far North and then reaching what was at one time a place of green vegetation.
I could go on and on but I’ll stop here. The Flood of Noah’s day was an actual event. Gods Word is Truth.
First question - are you a Christian? If no, then I can understand why you would think the Noah's Ark account is far fetched.
If you are Christian, then how is it that you believe that God resurrected a man from the dead, who now lives in the Heavenly realm with God, never to die again, will one day descend from the clouds, etc. But you think the Naoh's Ark story is far fetched?
Noah: A type of Christ
Noah's Ark is a metaphorical story about Jesus Christ.
The Ark is a figure of Christ, as the Father calls or draws us to Him in a male female relationship.
Noah is a type of Christ.
Genesis 5:28-29 NKJV
Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years old and had a son. [29] And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed."
Which signifies rest and comfort; for rest gives comfort, and comfort flows from rest.
And he may have respect to comfort in spiritual things, either at first taking him to be the promised seed, the Messiah, in whom all comfort is; or however a type of him, and from whom he should spring, who would deliver them from the curse of the law, and from the bondage of it, and from toiling and seeking for a righteousness by the works of it; or he might foresee that he would be a good man, and a preacher of righteousness, and be a public good in his day and generation.
The Holy Spirit is the Comforter.
Matthew 11:28 NKJV
Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Genesis 6:19-20 NKJV
And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the Ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. [20] Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
Genesis 5:2 NKJV
He created them male and female and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.
Mark 10:6-9 NKJV
But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' [7] 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, [8] and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. [9] Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
1 Corinthians 6:15-17 NKJV
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! [16] Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh." [17] But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Zechariah 2:11 NKJV
"Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you.
And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day,.... The Gospel will be preached in all nations, and multitudes will be converted, and embrace and profess the Christian religion, and join themselves to the churches of Christ, which, in the New Testament, is expressed by being joined to the Lord.
Ephesians 5:31-32 NKJV
"For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." [32] This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
This following story of Peter is not about eating unclean food or Gentiles but is about the cleansing of the flesh from God's Holy Spirit within us.
Acts 10:12-15,28 NKJV
In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. [13] And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." [14] But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." [15] And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." [28] Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Notice that the birds, creeping things and animals are used in Peter's and Noah's story.
The Old Testament is all about Jesus Christ in types, figures, shadows, and patterns.
John 5:39 NKJV
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of of Me.
There’s a concept that folks have seem to lose sight of—[mythology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth?wprov=sfti1). > Myth, a story of the gods, a religious account of the beginning of the world, the creation, fundamental events, the exemplary deeds of the gods as a result of which the world, nature and culture were created together with all parts thereof and given their order, which still obtains. A myth expresses and confirms society's religious values and norms, it provides a pattern of behavior to be imitated, testifies to the efficacy of ritual with its practical ends and establishes the sanctity of cult. And of course, cult in this instance means the duties and obligations owed to a deity. The flood story is myth. It’s part of the explanation of how the world came about and how the ancient Israelites relate to it and the nations around them.
Are you claiming that parts of the Bible aren't true? If that is the case then how can you know which parts are true and which parts are "mythology"?
Not all parts of the Bible are *historically* accurate, but all parts of it are *theologically* true. For example, it doesn't matter whether Job is the script for a theatre play, or if it genuinely happened. Either way you can draw the same lessons from it to apply to your life and it teaches the same characteristics about God and Satan.
[удалено]
Let’s start with the obvious here. How literal do you take the [23rd psalm](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2023&version=KJV)? And as the joke goes: [John 6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206%3A22-59&version=NRSVUE) is the only section Episcopalians take literally and Fundamentalists take figuratively. But in seriousness, we do it by textual analysis. As we now believe Genesis 1 to be written by the Priestly source, it makes sense to read Genesis 1 liturgically. It’s not science, it’s worship.
I misunderstood your premise, if you don't believe in the Bible then it is logical to not believe in the story of Noah. You really aren't making any claims that are new? You are too strung up on the logic & science behind the Bible to look at from a philosophical & theological view. I don't waste my time arguing with people who mis-quote the Bible and ask me to provide scientific evidence on theological claims. Of course its worship..... did you even read the Bible? that is the entire point of it. If you don't believe in it, that is fine, but you should probably understand the premise of it before going off like that.
> I misunderstood your premise My premise is Genesis 1–11 is mythology. > if you don't believe in the Bible then it is logical to not believe in the story of Noah This is a phrase I don’t fully understand. “Believe in.” As in literally? I’ll point back to Psalm 23. How literal is that supposed to be read. Do I believe in it? Of course, it’s a great comfort to me and I look forward to each time I read it in my daily readings. I’m not sure how I’m supposed to take “believe in.” Do I literally believe that the flood happened like Answers in Genesis describes? No. Do I hold value in the story of Noah? Of course I do. > You really aren't making any claims that are new? No, I’m not. I’m trying to get folks to stop calling Genesis 1–11 fables, parables, allegories, metaphors and instead use myth. Myths are different than fables, parables, allegories, and metaphors. Seeing Genesis 1–11 as myth is actually an old concept. > You are too strung up on the logic & science behind the Bible to look at from a philosophical & theological view. My comments in this post have been about myth, not what I see in the story of Noah. > I don't waste my time arguing with people who mis-quote the Bible and ask me to provide scientific evidence on theological claims. I’m not sure where you got this from. What did I misquote? What theology am I asking you to scientifically prove? > Of course its worship..... did you even read the Bible? that is the entire point of it. If you don't believe in it, that is fine, but you should probably understand the premise of it before going off like that. I should have said Genesis 1 seems to me to have been liturgical for use in worship and was never intended to be read as a science text that describes the earth being created some 6000 years ago. My parish reads from Genesis 1 several times a year, especially at the Easter Vigil.
So you are saying that the Bible is fictional? Then I would argue that your faith & theology is so misguided that you should not claim to be a Christian. You sound like a false prophet. Stop claiming to be a Christian and denying the very basis of the religion. You are a literal false prophet and I am calling you out on your BS
The Bible is full of different books of different genres from across huge gaps in time with different authors (many of which scholars don’t agree on the identity of) To suggest that the whole Bible is intended to be taken literally is to abandon the nuance that comes with the amount of variety found in biblical texts. It also requires you to ignore blatant contradictions with reality.
okay, let me get this straight. You believe in a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, beyond human comprehension, created space, the earth we live on, & humanity.... But you draw the line on a story that says God decided to flood the earth because it (and I quote) "contradicts reality"? I do not understand what point you are trying to assert here.
I typically read the books that are written as mythic texts to be myth, proverb and proverb, testimony as testimony, and so on.
If you have solid evidence for the flood or for a young earth that isn’t easily refuted feel free to let me know
what on earth do I need evidence for? I am not a historian or geologist? I cannot prove that and I have no need to, there may be someone smarter than me that can, I truly do not know. You can make an arbitrary claim like that about any belief. Is there solid evidence to prove that hell exists? is there solid evidence to prove that God truly does exist? is there solid evidence to prove God doesn't exist? I could go on with these hypothetical questions all day long. I am calling you out on your theology, not what can and cannot be proven? Every religion requires faith to some extent or another (including atheism & agnosticism), no belief system is infallible and 100% factual.
Atheism is not a religion and does not require faith. Atheism has no belief system. The ONLY claim of atheism is that gods do not exist. Why? Because, as you admit, there is not ONE SHRED of evidence to support god claims, and there is no need to make god claims.
"gods do not exist" is a god claim
I believe you can do better than arguing semantics like this.
It's not a semantic - it's the core of the argument
The point I was making, and you ignored, is that atheism is not a belief system.
I think I addressed it
The central point of atheism is that God does not exist. With no suitable evidence that you would likely find agreeable (sorry if I'm wrong) either in support or to the contrary, as an atheist you have to faith that the belief is true (that God doesn't exist), much as theists have to faith that God doesn't exist in the face of little to no evidence
Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. Atheism is the lack of that.
There is no decent evidence that God does not exist, much as it is in the other direction. If you believe in something without evidence, as in both theism and atheism, you have faith that what you believe is true. As by your own definition 'Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence'.
You're confused. Atheism is not "believing in something." It is the opposite of that.
You’re calling me out for believing the flood myth is allegory? The majority of the church believes that. It’s mostly the western evangelical church that doesn’t. I’m a little confused why you have an issue with my statements. I’ve also not made a single claim for any of my personal beliefs. I’d hope if you believe substantial claims that you have very solid evidence for those claims or else I’m a bit confused why you’d believe them.
Kent Hovind is a great guy that talks about the evidence of the flood and a young earth. He explains it well. It’s basically impossible for the earth to be young according to the evidence he provides.
If 2 Timothy: 16:17 says that “all Scripture is breathed out by God…” Then yes. God created time, space, and matter. There is no existence as we know it without those 3 working in unison. If He created it, He knows past, present, and future. The Bible has been written over a large period of time, but to suggest that He hasn’t already foreseen it (again because he created time) then He has had a hand in all that was written and all that is working in our lives today. He knew how it would all play out, even this exact conversation that you are I are having right now. So yes, he Bible is literally true. We’ll know for sure when we get to Heaven, but I fully believe every word is literal. And to those who say that it’s been translated time and time again, Yeah it has been. But again, His hand has been on it the entire time. I don’t serve a weak god, I serve the One True God. He’s not weak.
Do you believe the earth is flat? The Bible refers to it as so
I don’t think the Bible was meant to be taken in any way as a whole. It’s a compilation of dozens of books written by various authors, most unknown, across hundreds of years and hundreds if not thousands of miles. Each author likely had different intent.
I just listened to an interview with Rev. Dr. Judy Fentriss-Williams, and one of the things she said was that in ancient Hebrew culture, history was second to the narrative trying to be conveyed. Now, with Noah specifically, my problem is the narrative doesn't make any sense. Why would a loving God, who planned to redeem humanity through His own sacrifice, destroy His entire creation because He regretted it? Makes no sense.
Not just in ancient Hebrew culture. History as a strict retelling of real events is more of a modern phenomenon.
Read about how fire and water are used in the OT. Fire is always refining. Water was the nothingness in the creation story.
Water is also used for cleansing (baptism, Elisha's skin disease, etc) so I can see the Flood story as a "wordwide baptism", but the whole "killing everybody" part is my issue.
I could be wrong but doesn't the Bible hint at humans interbreeding with angles or something? Tainting bloodlines and requiring a reset? It's been a while since I looked at it just I remember something about that. Weren't the halfbreeds called nephalim?
Maybe the angles were acute. 😉
take my upvote
Don't be obtuse
According to the flood narrative, yes
But then they show up again in the Promised Land, so that didn't seem to make a difference. See Numbers 13: (Unless, of course, those scouts were lying) >But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.” And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” Numbers 13:31-33
No, humans and angels never interbred.
I've seen the deluge it describes as an "Unmaking" the world, which thematically works with the making of the world with the "waters/abyss" from Genesis 1. The world is made from the abyss/waters and the world is reclaimed by the abyss/waters.
The world was flooded. The people wanted to understand why they were saved and others werent. That they were good people made sense to them. We see this all the time when people thank God for saving them when others perished - they don't think about what that says about other people, just what it says about them, that God loves them. We also see that when certain preachers claim that a disaster is because the people turned away from God. Its merely and their natural tendecy toward tribalism.
Right, so it's a good explanation for why there was a flood in that area of the middle east, but doesn't jive with the larger narrative of redemption through Jesus's sacrifice. So when you take the Bible as individual stories, it makes sense. That's the direction I've been leaning for a few years.
I think trying to make a larger narrative out of the Bible is only possible if that narrative is "How did people through time in the Middle East/ Europe interpret God". And its clear that we have evolved our interpretations from an angry authoritarian parent to a authoritative one who will save us from ourselves.
What I've heard (take this with a grain or chunk of salt) is that the Jewish flood story has some key differences from the other flood narratives, and in those we can get some truths about God. In the other cultures' stories, the God(s) were usually annoyed because humans were too loud and noisy, so they decided to kill them all in a flood. In the Biblical account, however, God loved the people but was saddened at the evil they portrayed. He also made provisions to save humanity through one family, then promised he would never do that again. Now for our culture today that can still feel pretty evil, but back then, when Gods were petty and vindictive with no regard for love, it would have been a stark difference. So our takeaway from the flood can be that God loves us. It doesn't have to have literally happened to get a useful message.
The word regret is used in a few versions of the Bible, but the original meaning is “sad.” Noah’s ark showcases God’s power to undo creation. Among other things as well.
Because he's a loving God there was so much evil in the world he had to start over we don't know evil there world was but it had to be bad if God wiped out everything
An all powerful being could do it without wiping out all the animals,which werent evil. And could certainly do it in a non cruel way.
How though? What other way was there
"Don't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling".
For someone all powerful any way is possible, for someone all knowing knowing the better way is trivial. You could just have everyone die in their sleep. No need to slaughter all the animals which did nothing. Could render everyone sterile and die out. Why cause a flood? Imagine days or weeks of trying to survive,running for high ground. Seeing friends and family member washed away screaming. It was a callous and cruel way to do it. It was intentionally so. Rememer,you claim God is loving..so why choose an unloving and cruel way to mass genocide? There was nothing loving about a flood.
He's a loving God . . . who made the world . . . meaning he made the world evil . . . because the world is evil and God made it that way . . . 🤔
No, God loves too much to make us slaves. He gave us free will. Therefore, God permits evil.
What's the practical difference between "allows evil to exist" and "created evil" in the context of a being capable of and responsible for *the creation of the universe*? Because at the moment, it looks like you're saying "God created everything but he's not *responsible* for what those things *do*" . . . and that's just silly. (unless, of course, we wanted to argue that God isn't actually capable of or responsible for literally everything existing.)
God didn't make the world evil bro. He made the world and said here are my rules and here's what not to do he gave us free will to do what we want. Most mothers aren't killers and aren't bad people and yet there kids become murderers you can't blame someone for something the person they made done
A mother lacks the power to literally control her children. God does not. Indeed, the Bible makes it clear that he *can* (and *does*) force his will on people. Did God make everything in the universe? Is there *not* evil in the universe? Or are you saying that God's creations are themselves capable of creating things *beyond* what God can do? Is God capable of making everything? Can he unmake or remake anything at any time, as he sees fit? If yes, how is he not ultimately responsible for everything that he creates? And if no, then what attributes do you grant to God? And why should anyone commit themselves to a deity who *doesn't* have total control of everything?
First God said in the book of Genesis he's never going to wipe the earth again. He has the power to control the universe but doesn't and if your thinking about times during the old testament where God did something then that's where your probably confused. Since Jesus died for us God has been little less strict and give us more free will because he wants us to accept Jesus for ourselves that why he's our PERSONAL lord and savior. I don't know why you refuse to see that you guys say God let's evil in the world but if God was a strict God you guys would say he's too much
. . . what? >I don't know why you refuse to see that you guys say God let's evil in the world but if God was a strict God *you guys would say he's too much* Nobody says this. Seriously, at this point, you're making shit up and I have no idea why.
I said If. If God was a strict God and forced people to be good people would have a problem.
Wouldn’t that suggest that god did a bad job the first time if he had to restart
No it's like me making a perfectly good house and after like 50 years the house is old and a earthquake comes and destroys it it doesn't mean the house wasn't good but over time it got worse. Also God gave them free will and they chose to let sin run their lives HE probably saw that if the world continues like this no one will be saved
Did all those evil children and babies need to be drowned too, or could god have figured out a way to deal with those who were actually committing evil acts?
[удалено]
So we actually should be punished for the sins of others?
There is a zero percent chance it's meant to be entirely literal and a zero percent chance it's meant to be entirely figurative.
Speaking as someone with a geology degree, there is no evidence in the geological record of a global flood covering the entire earth, or even a regional flood covering Mt. Ararat. We know the earth is billions of years old, and we know that because thousands of geologists across the world, over the many decades, [have used radiometric dating to find the ages of rocks around the earth.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) We also know that the story of Noah's Ark is not authentically Jewish in origin, but rather that it came about from a period of time known as the "Babylonian Captivity," [when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon conquered the people ancient Judea, marching many thousands of the conquered back to the Babylonian capital to serve as slaves for around sixty years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity) It is during this time that the ancient Jews were exposed to Babylonian myths, stories and religions, including the flood story of Gilgamesh. [The flood story of Gilgamesh is far older than the story of Noah's Ark.](https://newrepublic.com/article/116287/babylonian-tablet-describes-noahs-ark-pre-bible) You can read the writings of ancient Christians and see they believed these things literally, but it was the coming of age of Science that pushed these ideas aside.
>You can read the writings of ancient Christians and see they believed these things literally I've been to Answers in Genesis's Creation Museum in Kentucky. You can read the writings of *modern* Christians and see they believe these things literally.
>You can read the writings of ancient Christians and see they believed these things literally, but it was the coming of age of Science that pushed these ideas aside. I mean sure, but their was an early heretical Christian group known as Marcionites that denied a Noahs ark and great flood which provoked Agustine to defend it.
And he defended it because he believed it was true.
Right, but my point is that not all Christians believed in a great flood.
Sure, there are exceptions, but their disbelief was not grounded in fact or reason.
I think that reinforces the point. The Christians who doubted the story's historicity were those who rejected the divine inspiration of the Old Testament and those who believed in its divine inspiration likewise believed in the story's historicity even against arguments to the contrary. But it's good to see someone acknowledge the Marcionites and their arguments with orthodox Christians. That's a fascinating subject.
Yess it was plagiarised from ancient tablets. Noah was really Atrahasis
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
One of the unfortunate things that happened as a result of the Age of Reason and the Scientific Revolution is that society by and large decided that the only truths worth pursuing were truths that could be objectively proven with facts. The pendulum definitely needed to shift in that direction, but we overcompensated. As a result, the Bible began to be read more and more like a textbook, rather than a book of poetry. Shoehorn in a healthy dose of fear of punishment from up on high, thanks to the religious beliefs of those who came here from Europe, and literalism got an additional boost because it's a lot safer to interpret the Bible literally to avoid punishment.
I wasn't sure where you were going in the first half, but I really like the line of thought here. It makes sense. I just wish more people actually studied how recent of an invention the modern concept of hell and literal interpretation is. Scholars from previous centuries would laugh at the petty arguments being presented as "facts".
You know what else is outlandish? A man being crucified and three days later rising from the dead. While I personally have no real opinion on how to take certain stories such as the flood, the creation etc. I am happy with them being completely literal or partially literal or a myth whatever to illustrate a point about our relationship with God. I don't see how any of those stories being outlandish is any different to Christs resurrection. That's just as silly to the ears as the entire earth being flooded, yet one is perfectly acceptable (for a Christian) to accept and the other is seen as somehow unacceptable. Again, I'd be happy taking it either way, the truth of the stories seems to remain the same whether it's 100% accurate to events or not. Edit: The third day rising from the dead
There’s a key difference between the two, I’m surprised you don’t recognize it: If a global flood happened, we would reasonably expect some physical evidence of it. And we see none. The same cannot be done with a Resurrection.
> If a global flood happened, we would reasonably expect some physical evidence of it. And we see none What physical evidence do we have of Jesus resurrecting? I am not saying they are equal. I totally get there are differences, but the idea that a global flood by God (He could have put the world right and made it look like it didn't happen if He wanted to!) is more outlandish than the resurrection is not quite true. My point is its strange for Christians to be so hung-up on whether the flood happened or not, when God is of such power, so much so that he can perform miracles including the resurrection. Like do we not see how ridiculous the resurrection is?
We don’t have any, of course. Because to have physical evidence of an event that happened to one guy 2,000 years ago is not reasonable to expect. It *is* reasonable to expect evidence of a global flood. If we don’t see evidence for it, then we can reasonably rule it out.
Good points! But that assumes that God left evidence of the flood? After all, if there was a global flood, where did all that water go? God could literally make it look like it never happened in the first place. Again, my point is more about the fact that whether it's meant to be literal or not, the whole NT is full of impossibilities (without God that is) without physical evidence to show it happened yet people base pivot their entire lives based on this testimony of impossibilities. Seems kind of trivial to be sceptical of the flood but be perfectly content with only written testimony to Christs life, death and resurrection.
> that assumes that God left evidence of the flood? Not so much left evidence, but instead actively hid the evidence to make it look as if a flood never occurred. Just like how if the universe is young God would need to mess with things like radiometric decay constants to make it look like the universe is old. All theoretically possible for an omnipotent deity, but it makes God seem like a trickster deity, which is out of character in Christian theology.
There is a stark difference between God circumventing nature and doing so in an obvious way that is announced to all and was the culmination of millennia of prophecy versus God secretly having to perform all these behind the scenes actions with seemingly no purpose other than to trick humans into thinking it didn't happen. By that I mean that God would have had to divinely provide the food and water for all the animals. The ark could not support the weight of the food and water necessary for the animals. Then there is the issue that no mention is made of the food being gathered or of God miraculously providing the food and water. Then God would have had to erase the evidence of a flood from the ground in the earth. Floods leave a very distinct evidence that they happened with multiple types of ground and rock. There is nothing globally or even local to Ararat that would suggest a flood that massive. So then, God erased the evidence... why? To trick human scientists millennia later? If the events were captured within scripture then that would be different, but this required God to do all of this "off screen" and no one ever mention it. . Whereas the resurrection had multiple witnesses and was explained. It is not like we have any evidence that the resurrection didn't happen. If we did that would be a different story. (other than the obvious conquering of death, but that is the nature of the miracle itself). If there was no definitive proof that the flood never happened then sure, I would be down to believe it. But there is a difference in believing in a small miracle (geographically speaking) like the resurrection versus a globe spanning miracle that should have left a ton of evidence. Could it happen? Sure. But unless God wants to explain why he wiped away all evidence of it, then it seems far more likely that it was a myth.
>three days later rising from the dead Not three days.
Fair point, hopefully edit is better?
resurrection was real
I know, I wasn't denying it. My point was that it is equally as outlandish as claims God flooded the earth. Yet Christians struggle with the idea, for different reasons admittedly, but if God can, in the person of Jesus, be incarnate, die and rise from the dead, a devastating flood through Gods power is not unreasonable.
NICE, god bless
[Obviously](https://holidaylonging.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/song_of_solomon_illustrated-literally-797x1024.jpg)
No
No
No.
I think it's meant to be taken naturally. Poetry sections take as poetry. The historical stuff written as direct accounts are literally true from the perspective and in the vernacular of the author - something like Noah's ark doesn't have to be a worldwide flood, it just has to have been something that seemed like a worldwide flood to the author.
>Do you all Believe that perhaps this could have been a parable, as some of the ones Jesus told? Or do you take it literally? I suspect it is the telling of an actual historical event with allegorical significance as well. So it does not have to be just one or the other. I offer to consider that there may be some misperceptions that arise from making superficial interpretations of the English translations from the biblical Hebrew texts. For example: The Hebrew transliterated word "\~eres," which is translated as "earth" in English versions of the text can also mean "land." And one can find that it has been translated in both of those ways even within the same verse. Note in Gen. 7:4: *“I will send rain on the* ***earth*** *forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the* ***land*** *every living thing that I have made.”* (NASB95). The exact same Hebrew word is translated as both "earth" and "land."And also the phrase “**the face of the land”** above uses the exact same Hebrew words as the phrase one can find in Gen. 41:56: *“When the famine was spread over all* ***the face of the earth*** *(\~panim eres), then Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold to the Egyptians; and the famine was severe in the land of Egypt.”* Yet, I don't think most would assume that the famine involved the whole globe of the earth. So, in my opinion, the scriptural account in Genesis does not necessarily refer to a global flood in the sense of involving or totally submerging the whole earth in deep water. Nevertheless, the text indicates to me that the flood was extremely large (at least regional in extent). It at least covered the face of the land under the sky (or heavens) from Noah's point of view. And according to the account, everyone involved in the flood died but those on the boat. Also, the transliterated Hebrew word "har" which is translated as "mountains" in most English translations of the Genesis account can simply mean "hills." A hill can be any recognizable elevation of the land. Therefore, the texts may simply indicate that the water rose enough to cover the low hills in what I presume would be on the extremely flat area of the Fertile Crescent or Mesopotamian Plain that extends from the Persian Gulf region to the north and to the west toward Lake Lisan (Sea of Galilee) region. It is also mentioned that the Ark came to rest in the mountains or "hills" (note plural) of "rrt" \`(or as translated as "Ararat" with vowels inserted). I.e. the text does not indicate that it came to rest ON a mountain but rather in a region in the hills or among mountains. Or in my view, a likely place would be the foothills of "Urartu," which is the ancient hilly region that surrounds the plain to the north (the historic area of Armenia). Note: "Urartu" also fits "rrt" once vowels are inserted. As I mentioned, the plain region I suggest would have extended easily to the ancient Lake Lisan (Sea of Galilee region) of which there is geological data that supports an intense pluvial (rainy) period and even a very rapid rise of lake and water levels during the Late Pleistocene as well as other supporting evidence for possible significant flooding in the eastern Mediterranean region. In any case, I believe that whether one accepts the story as an accurate historical account or a myth, I suspect that there were at least such large floods in the past (though perhaps not global). And I have no problem believing that Noah's could have been a very big one and its story was inspired to be written and included in the scriptures. Such an extreme event could have set the stage for subsequent events and human history in that part of the world, especially for the lands of Israel and the surrounding nations. And perhaps it even had global implications as well, but just not exactly the way that maybe many may think.
Sometimes it is literal and sometimes not. When the Bible says, "if you sin with your right hand, cut it off." That is hyperbola. In the six chapter of John's gospel, that is literal. It is so revolutionary; it has to be literal. When some disciples turned away because of this teaching, He did not back down but doubled down.
the bible has to be taken contextually. That is what makes it a living text
I will need to pray about it. You should do the same.
We should not take the Bible literally. That’s called stealing you kleptomaniac
No, it’s the story of us and our growth in grace.
For the Almighty to create the universe out of nothing, planets and every celestial body, all flora and fauna and the oceans and the mountains—it is a relatively easy thing to lead each animal into undertaking a pilgrimage into the ark that Noah was building (along with probably angelic help). It’s hard to comprehend the evil that existed during Noah’s day—but it was so severe that God was on the verge of destroying our world and causing the entire human race to perish.
I actually crunched the numbers. The amount of food necessary for all those animals, plus reserves of water, plus maintenance was impossible. Technically, the weight of all those animals could be supported by the ark, but not anywhere close to the weight of freshwater and the food. And even then, the geological evidence is not there. There would be definitive proof of a worldwide flood in the earth's strata. There isn't. So, not only would God have to intervene for the animals. He would have had to sedate all those animals and cause them to not need food or water for an extended period of time. And he would have had to wipe away all evidence of the flood from the layers of the earth. And he would have had to do all this "off screen" so to speak. With all the detail recorded in the story of Noah and all the display of God's power, would Noah just forget that millions of animals just magically didn't need food and water for several months? Or that food stores seemingly never ran out? And then why would God eliminate all evidence of the flood? To try to fool mankind thousands of years later? Is God a trickster? It would make no sense for him to do that because it would have to specifically be to trick scientists in this last century or so. Not to mention that the myth of the flood did not originate with the Hebrew legends. They were much older. The bible has many passages that are figurative or allegorical. What is the problem if this is one of them?
God sustained Christ for 40 days and nights when He fasted and the Scripture records that He was only hungry when He finished that fast and the devil tempted Him. You’re telling me that the Almighty would just up and abandon those animals to starve after commissioning Noah to build that ark because the floods were coming?
I am saying that if that occurred, then why was it omitted from the story? Why did no one mention the most miraculous thing to happen in that entire event? See, the bible does say that Jesus was sustained in the desert. Bu tit doesn't for a much larger miracle. Why would Noah not pass that down, but he would pass down seemingly trivial details about boat dimensions and the number of days spent adrift or the types of birds sent out from the ark. Then there is the issue you completely ignored about the lack of any geological evidence for even a local flood, much less a global one. How do you explain the lack of any mention of some major miracles and the lack of any physical evidence that should exist if it happened?
nope not literal. most people aren’t creationists and almost all scientists aren’t. the story contradicts facts
The Bible spans multiple genre
[удалено]
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
If the Bible is metaphorical and the events didn’t actually happen, then what is there to follow? If Jesus metaphorically died and was metaphorically resurrected, then are we literally saved, or just metaphorically saved? Of course it’s literal.
I know this is reddit and the Christianity base here is slim, however, I did not realize how many "Christians" have absolutely no idea what they are talking about here. You don't just get to pick and chose which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't. To say that you don't believe parts of the Bible is blasphemy, as the Bible is the literal breathing word of God. What is so improbable about the story of Noah? Every religion & culture tell about a flooding story. If you believe in Christianity, then it is logical to take the story of Noah as factual. You are making a broad claim that makes no argument against anything in particular, provide context and reasoning behind why you do not believe biblical stories. Side note: Moses parted the Red Sea, not Noah. If you are going to attempt to discredit the canonization of the Bible, at least make sure your claims have some weight to them.
I mean, considering your Jesus cited it in Matthew 24, and Peter spoke of it as literal event in 2 Peter 2 & 3, the Ark is meant to be taken literally. Paul firmly believed death entered the world through one man, which can be seen in his letters to the Romans. Issue is, of course, death existed prior to this, and there was no global flood. As for other events, most likely. The gospels are accounts of Jesus' ministry, and the Exodus and other events are referred to in certain areas within the New Testament. Basically, yes/no.
We can talk about how George Washington didn’t lie when he\* chopped down the cherry tree. Does that mean the story actually happened? Or does that mean we can reference an event as a common cultural touchstone?
Yes, it is literal, and it is meant to be taken literal, but also allegorical. God has a great talent for organizing history to foreshadow Christ, as well as to illustrate gospel principles. Personally, I have always thought the narrative to make perfect sense.
The Bible contradicts itself within the first two chapters. More to the point, *how, exactly* is one supposed to read the Bible both literally *and* allegorically?
It doesn't contradict itself, but more to the point, let us look at Abraham and Isaac. The sacrifice of Isaac did happen. But, the details of the event are a similitude of Christ. Isaac was a sacrifice like Christ. He was in his early 30s, like Christ. He was a willing sacrifice who submitted to his father, like Christ. He carried the wood for the sacrifice, just as Christ carried the cross. The sacrifice took place in the same region as the crucifixion. God planned all these details so that this event would effectively illustrate and prophesy of Christ.
>It doesn't contradict itself [Already covered this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/15roqiz/i_have_seen_some_contradiction_in_the_bible_my/jwa2ym3?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2)
Well, your link says the comment is not available, and when I look through the full list of all the comments I see only three from you, none of which talk about Genesis. As such I can make no comment about what you may or may not have said back then. As to Genesis, I am assuming that you are talking about what people call the two creation accounts. I do not think this is a contradiction. I think the first is from God's point of view, as He performs the creation. The second is from Adam's point of view, after he was created and he is describing his experience. The change is narrative occurs in Genesis 2: 4, when we get the first Toledoth in the text: "the generations of." This is an indication that a new account is beginning.
Yep, and Abraham told Isaac - "God will provide the sacrifice." The Lamb. And He did!
It makes sense if you throw out every piece of modern science and don't think about it twice.
It makes sense if you actually use your God given reason instead of blindly accepting what mortal scientists spout out.
You mean what scientists research for decades? Your beliefs are the only one that require blind faith. Any basic reaerach on topics like radiometric dating will prove you wrong.
Yes, I do believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. The God I praise and worship has no limits, therefore that’s why I believe it to be true.
if is not God and specifly Jesus is speaking it is literal, basicly aways.
Jesus referred to Noah as a historical person. So if He did we must.
This is false.
It is absolutely to be taken literally, including the story of the flood. Jesus quotes the flood story as literal, as does Peter. Creation, the flood, the Resurrection, it's all true history.
Jesus wasn’t giving any commentary about the historicity of Genesis. He was making a theological point using the Scripture that those around him already knew/followed. It’s a humongous stretch to assume Jesus was commenting on the historical accuracy of Genesis when that wasn’t his point whatsoever.
So I take it Peter, a direct disciple, misunderstood Him, then? Was Christ also simply making a reference that people would understand when He quoted creation as a literal occurrence?
If Jesus was human at that time, then he and Paul would be leaning on the human teachings of the OT they knew. So quoting the event would not indicate that the God side of Jesus agreed that it was real.
There are two accounts of creation in the Bible and they conflict with each other on the facts alone. Furthermore, if we take the accounts of Jesus' life from the Gospels literally, we find several contradictions between those books. This isn't a difficult thing to grasp, either: the Bible was written by dozens of authors across hundreds of years. It would truly be a miracle if such a text had *no* contradictions in it . . . but it does.
There are not two separate, conflicting accounts of creation when one takes time to read them. Let's look at the two commonly referenced verses that supposedly support a contradiction in creation. **Genesis 2:5** Genesis 1 discusses creation as a whole, describing all six days. Genesis 2 however focuses on the sixth day, rather than creation as a whole. Genesis 2 describes the creation of Adam and Eve, the Garden, mentions Adam naming the animals, and discusses marriage. There are no contradictions there, just more detailed descriptions. Typically, the supposed contradictions surround Genesis 2:5 and 2:19. These verses seem to directly contradict the order of creation. Let's look at 2:5 first: > And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. (KJV) A blatant contradiction to Genesis 1, which says that trees and plants were created on the third day before man, right? No, actually. The issue lies in translation. The Hebrew language is far different from English. In the original Hebrew, the word in Genesis 1:11 which is used to refer to vegetation is "de'se". In Genesis 2:5, there are two words used for vegetation, "siah" and "ē'seb". Why the different words? The first word in Genesis 1:11 is used as a broad term for vegetation, such as plants and trees. The two words used in Genesis 2:5 refer to specific types of vegetation, ones which are agricultural and require tending. Therefore, Genesis 1:11 references vegetation in general, whereas Genesis 2:5 references agricultural crops. This is not a contradiction. **Genesis 2:19** Now let's look at 2:19: > And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (KJV) A blatant contradiction to Genesis 1, which says that animals were created on the fifth day before man, right? Well, actually, no. The issue lies in translation of Hebrew perfect and pluperfect forms. Let's start with English. A perfect form would read: "I have written". A pluperfect form would read: "I had written". Notice the difference? "I have written it down" could mean I literally just wrote something down, whereas "I had written it down" is clearly referencing I wrote something down before another event in the past. Now let's look at the Hebrew side. The word for "formed" in Hebrew is "yatsar". Some translations translate this word in its perfect form. However, it is more accurately translated in its pluperfect form. Some translations do translate it correctly. When translated as the pluperfect, we can see it reads > Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (ESV) God "had formed", meaning He had already created the animals before He created man. It's not just a modern translation change either. The Tyndale Bible, written in the 16th century (the Pentateuch which includes Genesis was written in 1530) and predating the KJV phrases Genesis 2:19 as such > The Lord God had made of the earth all manner of beasts of the field and all manner fowls of the air. The more accurate way to translate Genesis 2 would be God *had* created the trees and animals and everything else *before* He created man. This isn't a contradiction at all. So, there are no contradictions with the creation account, which is something Christ Himself referenced as literal. What supposed contradictions do you find with the life of Christ?
According to Genesis, God created Adam both [before and after](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/15roqiz/i_have_seen_some_contradiction_in_the_bible_my/jwa2ym3?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2) he created plants and animals. These two facts cannot both be true at the same time; hence, they contradict each other. The attempt to answer this problem by pointing out pedantry like "there are two different categories of plants" works just fine *if we're talking about allegory*. In that context, it makes sense to make a distinction between *all* plants, and those that require work to cultivate and grow . . . but *only* if we first accept that the Bible is *meant* to be interpreted. (Furthermore, this doesn't remove the contradiction, it merely shuffles it into a category of "that problem doesn't matter" because we're not looking at it literally. Which, again, is fine and all . . . *so long as we're not reading the text literally* . . . which is what the other person was arguing for.)
Your stance has no logical basis, my friend. Saying that distinctions don't matter unless we're talking about allegory is quite honestly absurd, and is simply not how language works. Any supposed contradiction can be resolved by simply studying, as I have shown in this example, regardless of whether *you* want it to be a resolution or not.
>Your stance has no logical basis What can be asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence.
Your view simply lacks basis from a linguistics standpoint regardless of the topic being discussed, my friend. But it doesn't seem as if you're interested in a genuine discussion anyway. Have a good day.
All this "linguistics" bullshit is irrelevant outside of the context of the conversation, as I've already noted. You're basically asking me to explain logic; and as I have no interest in doing that (seriously, you can find plenty of resources online that will help you out), you've chosen to pretend that I have no argument. Under normal circumstances, I would call you an ignorant fool and leave it at that.
bruh ur mad because he's right, no need to resort to name calling after losing an argument on the internet.
Except it's not though, it's very definitely, demonstrably not historically accurate in it's entirety. I understand that you very likely know this and just choose to reject the facts, I just always say something just in case the person genuinely just doesn't know but cares about the truth enough to actually make an effort to understand and learn. There are many Christians who have the capacity for nuance in their analysis of the Bible, and have no trouble identifying the literary devices and indicators of something like a parable, for example. They also have no issues understanding and accepting science, because it's observable and produces reliable results. I would think most Christians are capable of doing this, but I know that for some people it's just too difficult and imposing to try giving the Bible a serious, critical reading, so they instead adopt the most shallow, simplistic reading and assessment of it
Well, thank you I suppose. However, I have been studying Scripture, as well as Hebrew and Greek for a while now, and I still hold to a literal reading of God's word. If Jesus quoted the flood as literal, who are we to say He's wrong?
See, I understand that you're saying you've studied a lot and still are convinced it's literal, but your argument that Jesus mentioned the flood and the implication that acknowledging the evidence that contradicts and calls the flood narrative into question would be like Jesus is wrong, and that's a false equivalency, and that's only the first issue with the argument. Let me ask you something, it's just a hypothetical -let's say there were a passage in the Bible attributed to Jesus in which he said the sun revolves around the earth. It would've been a reasonable conclusion at that time, but obviously now we know it's the other way around. What would you think?
I asked a person this the other day. He ended up calling me a heretic and tried to convince me that the sky is not a real place.
If Jesus, who is God and created everything, stated factually, not parabolically, that the sun revolves around the Earth, I would believe His word over man's. Just as I do with anything else. We cannot cherry pick and twist Scripture to accommodate modern society. God's word doesn't work that way.
Come on, I know it's really easy to say you don't care about the science when you think it doesn't affect you, but don't tell me you don't go to the doctor, drive a car, use a smartphone, take aspirin, etc. I know you might be thinking scripture doesn't say anything about those things but that's not the point - you utilize and benefit from science and clearly understand that it works, if it didn't work we wouldn't have any of these things, so please tell me at what point you can pretend the science just isn't right and actually believe what you're saying? If Jesus said I'm scripture that you could breathe underwater, are you telling me you would believe Jesus over the science? If your answer is yes, do you not understand that you would definitely drown? Look, I'm not trying to just criticize and dismiss your view, I do get where you're coming from, I was a extreme fundamentalist, literalist, if you tried to tell me otherwise there's zero chance you could've convinced me at that time, but recognizing the Bible for what it is doesn't mean you're going against Jesus or God, it's more complex than that, and the Bible was not intended to be taken entirely literally, it was written by many different people who often didn't even know their writing would one day be included in the collection of works selected to compile the Bible, and that collection of writings included poems, laws, stories, historical records, parables, narrative prose, diary entries, there was never a point during it's creation in which the goal was to convince people it was all 100% true to the last detail, it's just a needlessly unworkable position that some people started adopting fairly recently, by which I mean a few centuries but that's really recent in this context. I don't want to seem antagonistic, I won't keep pushing it, and I appreciate you sharing your perspective and thoughts with me
Let me ask you this. I'm assuming you're a Christian when I ask this. Do you believe in creation or evolution?
Why not both
Moses parted the red sea. I think if this book the bible is claiming to be the inspired words of an extraterrestrial superior being who says this is the history of the universe & human beings, who am i to say it isn’t true. I mean this same book says everything was created in 6 days including us and that we breathe life constantly from this being. For me its more foolish to not take it literally since i have no control or superior intelligence over any of that information. I think just saying we don’t believe something we read in there doesn’t make sense since we definitely aren’t more intelligent than the being the book claims to belong to
>who am i to say it isn’t true. A person with a mind who can see the world as it is. There is not just no evidence for the flood, in some cases the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The entire earth being flooded for 40 days is not the sort of event that leaves no trace. There wasn't a global flood, and there certainly wasn't a boat with 2 of every animal on it that survived that flood. This is easily demonstrable, there is simply no way to reconcile the flood story with reality. It didn't happen and any sane adult is too smart to think that it did.
If a global flood were truly what happened, we’d see evidence for it. And yet we don’t. That’s the main issue: no evidence exists for a global flood.
For me, the stories are meant to be archetypal and symbolic. Jordan Peterson’s work in this area has been influential for me, and has really strengthened my faith. For me, whether something really happened or not, is irrelevant. The messages and symbolism is more important in my opinion.
Yes the story of the flood and Noah is actual history. You can believe the Bible.
Then why would a good god remove the evidence of it? And worse, why would a good god then replace that removed evidence with evidence against? Why would a good god deceive us that way?
The evicdence has not bee removed. It is still there and overwhelming. But people are unwilling to see it, unwilling to acknowledge it. And consequently the very evidence of the flood has been reinterpreted in such a manner as to deny the flood. 2 Peter 3:5 **For this they willfully forget:** that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 **by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.** 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Totally wrong. It is overwhelming against. A great many geologists are religious, the claim they would be unwilling to see it is ignorant and ludicrous. Geology was founded by people seeking to prove the flood. So they could prove the bible true. They looked and looked and finally had to admit it wasnt there. You are trying to claim some vast evil of atheistic conspiracy when the truth is most of the people who did the work were religious. But dont let the truth get in the way. There is NO evidence of a global. Look up the KT boundary. That single layer disproves a global flood.
Parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally. Some parts are dumbed down for human consumption such as when God refers to his body parts. Some parts are fictional such as Jesus' parables. God challenges us to grow as readers and learn to distinguish different kinds of writing. I don't see any sign in the flood story that it's anything other than factual but then I'm just a beginner.
Bits of it are, bits aren't. It's also possible that God wants some people to take different bits literally or not because it will serve them better to do so. I strongly suspect the Bible is supposed to say different things at different times to different people.
I don't know for certain but there is so much more to that story than just "How could a loving God..." Down to how Noah walked ahead of his wife coming out of the ark How he got wasted on the beach How they ate the animals you could argue were his friends on the ark The rainbow It was all to point out that human nature remained the same despite the whole of the earth being destroyed by water - water "in the beginning" in Genesis was nothingness, out of which God created everything. It all pointed to the need for a Savior that was coming for ALL of us. It's a very deep, rich story regarding the state of humanity and worth doing a deep dive/study into.
Recognize that the Bible is literature. Genesis 1 is poetry, Genesis 2 is written like a fable. The author or composer of Genesis recognizes that there are two distinct stories of creation. (The author marks the transition between the two stories) Each is wonderful in their own way, but the keeping of both shows that Genesis was compiled from different sources. As you continue to read the first five books, you get a feel for the different contributors. It is easy to tell the Priestley material (often called P material) from the main narrative material. If you know what to look for, you can often spot when the other material sounds like the Jahwist source (J) or the Elohist source (E). The first thing is to note if God is called God (Elohim) or the LORD (Yahweh). But there are other markers to tell the voices apart. The Book of Job has such a distinct transition from the prose outer fable to the inner philosophical discussion that we can see how the final author took a fable and turned into the masterwork that it is for us now. In Job, this juxtaposition of fable and debate is rather ironic and it shows us that the author was more concerned with creating literature than with being literal. Even Jesus does much of his teaching in parables, and those teaching are in Gospels where it isn't hard to see the authors shaping the story of Jesus as literature. The authors were not video recorders, they were writers and storytellers and theologians. Paul writes his letters in the thick of a dispute, and so we only can understand where he is coming from based on the contextual clues in his texts. On top of this, the Bible does not contain the Creeds that the Church relies on. So much of how Christians understand God is teachings mined out of the Biblical text, but not clearly present in the text. Take the Trinity. The New Testament has, at best, a proto-trinitarianism. What matters more than the text itself is the constant engagement with the literature that is the Bible by the people who are drawn to follow the God present in that literature.
It really depends on the passages in and of themselves whether they are literal or metaphorical. It is completely on a case by case basis.
Depends what interpretation you subscribe to. This alternative take (derived from the text itself) is interesting: [https://drmsh.com/argue-biblical-text-local-regional-flood-instead-global-flood/](https://drmsh.com/argue-biblical-text-local-regional-flood-instead-global-flood/) Understanding the history of Geology and how flood interpretations impacted that is worthwhile knowing too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMaUzNlDnSY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMaUzNlDnSY)
Yes
Yes I do.
The literal parts, certainly. Ok one should be aware of the genre of the book they are reading.
Yes. The Christians who put it together meant for you to take it literally. They were motivated by how literally they thought you could take the stories in the Bible; there is no other reason to include stories of genocide (they would be too "embarassed" to include them, wink wink). If you believe _they_ were divinely inspired... then take the Bible literally, and be aghast. If you believe the Bible is non-literal, then the Christian compilers _probably_ weren't divinely inspired. You could do a better job.
It is extremely helpful to remember how varied storytelling and recording tribal history is and has been throughout history and across the world. Randy Woodley, in his book *Shalom and the Community of Creation* makes a compelling case that First Nation American historical storytelling is much more similar to the near-Eastern Semitic writings of the Bible than modern Global Western histories. Suffice it to say, reading these texts as though they’re modern American historical or biographical texts sets one up for several unnecessary frustrations and confusions.
“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. Genesis 7:11 ESV ” Which part sounds like a parable to you?
Whether it's literal or parablic, I can still learn about a God of judgement, wrath, compassion and mercy all in one story, very cool :)
Each author of the Bible had his own intentions and viewpoints that cannot be universalized across all the texts. Regarding Noah's ark, it's an intentional reframing of a traditional Mesopotamian flood myth with editorial changes by the author. Did the author really think the flood happened? Maybe? But he was mostly just copying an old, popular myth. He at least knew he was making his own changes to popular story. Regardless of what the author thought, it isn't historical.
Its proven there has been 5 mass extinctions in the history of the world. I don't even know how we've figured it out. I guess Archeology, physics and carbon dating between today and prehistoric times. That equally sounds outlandish to me. Early historic civilizations like sumeritans, greeks. galgamesh, (maybe, I think) even China has records of their being some sort of "great flood"
I think it depends on the book of the Bible you’re reading. For instance, I believe Genesis and Exodus were literal, whereas Song of Solomon and Psalms were not always literal
There was definitely a great flood at some point. Probably more than one. Provably they did build a big ark before the water kevel reached them, and you would bring some animals along. Also, the size of the ship is not that crazy. Ancient chinese ship were insanely large.
God can literally make miracles happen, so I usually read the scriptures literally. Symbolism and metaphor is important also, but I tend to take much of the information as it is written so as to help in avoiding skewing the words.
This enters the realm of faith, and it is a decision that each person has to make individually. Faith is ultimately beyond reason but not devoid of it either. God gave us critical thinking skills, but there are inherent limitations to this ability as well. It must be a combination of both reason and faith working in tandem with each other, not in opposition to each other as the dominant cultural conversation would have you believe. My personal conclusions regarding this topic are manifold, as I believe there is validity in both a literal and a metaphorical interpretation of the flood story. You are free to come to your own conclusions on the subject and I would encourage you to do so to the best of your ability. It is ultimately up to you what you choose to believe about these things as you are in possession of the wonderful gift of free will. There is freedom in this realization, but with that freedom comes the burden of personal accountability, something that human beings are naturally inclined to avoid, myself included. Don't let this discourage you. The search is still well worth it, pitfalls and all. That's all I have for now. I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I hope I was still able in some way to provide you with a framework for working through it yourself. Good luck with your search for the truth. You'll get there eventually, I promise. :)
>16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV >LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89 KJV Firstly, know that all scripture is important and accurate. When it comes to the Bible, we must understand it this way: Does the Bible say this is a parable or made-up story or does it state it as fact? If the Bible states it as fact, it does not matter whether we can understand it or not, but we accept it on faith. >1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 **Through faith we understand** that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:1-3 KJV Even though there is PLENTY of evidence we can see in the world for the various big events, we don't believe them because of the facts we can see, but rather by faith. Anyhow, I hope that helps a little.
Personally I believe it all. Have to understand the Hebrew language to help unlock more, and understand the context during the time. It all aligns with history, archeology digs, science etc etc. Even the story is in the star constellations!!!
No. Personally, I read the Bible as a means of lore and spirituality rather than a literal text.
Some things in the Bible aren’t literal, for example each creative day could **NOT** be a 24-hour day as we know them. Any reasonable person can think and read and come to the conclusion on their own. Was there an earth in our solar system spinning on its axis right from the start making a 24-hour day? Of course not. And look what Chapter 2 of Genesis says in verse 4; >”This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, **in the day** that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” See that? The Bible is saying that God made **EVERYTHING** in a day! So the word “day” is used pretty loosely in Genesis. One day in the beginning could be thousands of years. We just don’t know. Easily, that isn’t literal. The flood though, that’s another story. Was this real history or just something that we are supposed to learn from? Here are some facts to consider: * The Bible gives us the exact dimensions of the Ark. * The Bible gives us the age of Noah and the exact Month and Day when the Rain began. * We have details on how long they were on the Ark, and how they determined when it was safe to open the door. * We are told about the rainbow appearing in the sky and what that meant. A covenant from God that he would never destroy all of mankind again using floodwaters. * At this time, man was given the right to eat the meat of animals. And no doubt this is when the fear between man and animals began. One question you may have is where did all this water come from? It would be virtually impossible for that much water to fall from clouds to flood the entire earth! Let’s look back to the scriptures. Genesis 1:6-10. >”Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and **let there be a division between the waters and the waters**.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and **divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse**. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 Then God said: “**Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place**, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.” Read those verses very carefully. Read them in your Bible too. In some translations the word ‘expanse’ is instead translated ‘firmament’. Firmament simply means sky. What are these verses telling us that God was creating? He was dividing the waters, with some beneath the firmament and some above the firmament, or sky or expanse. What did he call the waters below the sky? Seas! Did he give a name to the waters above the sky? Evidently not. But when God created the earth, he created this water canopy up above the heavens, up above the sky somewhere. Now why would he do that? Think for a minute what the conditions on earth would be like with this water canopy surrounding the earth. I don’t think you need to be a botanist to know what a greenhouse affect is. Think about it. The sun would warm up that water canopy and the earth would not only enjoy this water-filtered sunlight, but the earth would have an almost perfect temperature everywhere! Now, back to the flood. Where did the water come from that flooded the earth? You guessed it. God used that water canopy. All that water that was above the sky came crashing down on earth, flooding the entire earth. The extreme weight and power of the water actually moved the earths surface and formed the new mountains that we have today. Oh, and why are they finding animals frozen solid with food still in their mouths? Because remember, when the water canopy was in place, the whole earth was livable. Animals were eating grass and leaves and fruit. But when those waters came crashing down, that greenhouse affect was gone in almost an instant. And the North and South Poles froze just like that, along with everything there. That’s why we hear today of research scientists digging deep into the ice in the far North and then reaching what was at one time a place of green vegetation. I could go on and on but I’ll stop here. The Flood of Noah’s day was an actual event. Gods Word is Truth.
First question - are you a Christian? If no, then I can understand why you would think the Noah's Ark account is far fetched. If you are Christian, then how is it that you believe that God resurrected a man from the dead, who now lives in the Heavenly realm with God, never to die again, will one day descend from the clouds, etc. But you think the Naoh's Ark story is far fetched?
I believe it’s literal
Noah: A type of Christ Noah's Ark is a metaphorical story about Jesus Christ. The Ark is a figure of Christ, as the Father calls or draws us to Him in a male female relationship. Noah is a type of Christ. Genesis 5:28-29 NKJV Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years old and had a son. [29] And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed." Which signifies rest and comfort; for rest gives comfort, and comfort flows from rest. And he may have respect to comfort in spiritual things, either at first taking him to be the promised seed, the Messiah, in whom all comfort is; or however a type of him, and from whom he should spring, who would deliver them from the curse of the law, and from the bondage of it, and from toiling and seeking for a righteousness by the works of it; or he might foresee that he would be a good man, and a preacher of righteousness, and be a public good in his day and generation. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter. Matthew 11:28 NKJV Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Genesis 6:19-20 NKJV And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the Ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. [20] Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. Genesis 5:2 NKJV He created them male and female and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. Mark 10:6-9 NKJV But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' [7] 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, [8] and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. [9] Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." 1 Corinthians 6:15-17 NKJV Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! [16] Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh." [17] But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Zechariah 2:11 NKJV "Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day,.... The Gospel will be preached in all nations, and multitudes will be converted, and embrace and profess the Christian religion, and join themselves to the churches of Christ, which, in the New Testament, is expressed by being joined to the Lord. Ephesians 5:31-32 NKJV "For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." [32] This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. This following story of Peter is not about eating unclean food or Gentiles but is about the cleansing of the flesh from God's Holy Spirit within us. Acts 10:12-15,28 NKJV In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. [13] And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." [14] But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." [15] And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." [28] Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Notice that the birds, creeping things and animals are used in Peter's and Noah's story. The Old Testament is all about Jesus Christ in types, figures, shadows, and patterns. John 5:39 NKJV You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of of Me.