Should The Biblical Flood Story Be Taken Literally?

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

WinePusher

Should The Biblical Flood Story Be Taken Literally?

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

As otseng suggested, I am creating a thread to further discuss the topic of the Biblical Flood story. Both otseng and I are Christians, however I do not think that the flood story should be interpreted literally. So, in this debate, I will affirm the negative, that the flood story in the Bible is not literally.

WinePusher

Post #31

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:I wouldn't say that the differences are small, there are pretty big differences found amoung different ethnicities in order for the flood to be consistent with this, there must have been an appropriate amount of time between Noah and the growth of different races.
otseng wrote:Well, I would disagree. I see differences among humans as trivial. What are the big differences that you are referring to?
First we would have to establish the ethnicity of Noah, which I would assume to be middle-eastern. And then we look to see if the elapsed time between Noah and us could properly account for the mass variety of Phylogenic traits we have.

And there are many differences, such as skin color, physical appearence and so on. And if we had Noah, and him and his sons breeding with Noah's wife, that would not account for race diversity. Not to mention the many risks of incest as well. Also, I realize you said you don't accept historical time periods such as the Bronze age and so forth. So how would you organize human history in a way that would not conflict with geological and biological history, but would also incoporate a global flood.
WinePusher wrote:If a time or date can't be placed on the global flood, I don't think people are inclined to accept it with such a vital piece of information missing.
otseng wrote:Though some date the flood at a very specific date, I don't think that it can be dated so precisely. I only claim that it is on the order of tens of thousands of years ago.
And you suggested that the population growth equation that you presented is an accurate model, yes? Could you please re-post it and explain it here. Frankly, I find it unlikely that tens of thousands of years is enough time for the human population to grow from five people to over a billion people.
WinePusher wrote:However, like I said, if we read most parts of the Bible literally we see God reveling himself in magnificent ways, through talking animals, through direct intervention with people, through miracles and so on. This would be inconsistent with the experiences we have now, which are not as magnificent, so I would suggest that biblical tales of God's intervention should be read liberally.
otseng wrote:It might be inconsistent with experiences we now have, but that doesn't discount the possibility of it happening. The matter is not what what we currently experience, but is God capable of doing such things. If you only go by what we experience now, the writing of the Bible could also be included with this. Since nobody is currently writing down inspired words from God into canon, then how could they have done it in the past?
I think our disagreement lies in the methodology of inspiration. I don't think that the writers of the Bible were dictated by a divine authority/voice to write down the scriptures, rather I think they were simply inspired in a more liberal way, such as when a person looks at the sunset and is inspired to write a poem. I think this liberal view of inspiration and the bible is consistent with the experiences we have now.
WinePusher wrote:Ok, what reasons or evidence is there to support the assertion that the Biblical Flood story is the most accurate flood account?
otseng wrote:As I've mentioned, the evidence of scripture and the evidence of nature. But, in comparing with the flood stories of other cultures, we don't even need to assume that the Biblical account is the most accurate. Let's suppose that it is no more accurate than any other flood account. The question remains of how all these stories arose and share many similarities.
True, as I said I think this is good evidence for a global flood. However, fantasic stories such as a global flood and the world being born off of a turtles back are not foreign to ancient cultures. Comparative Mythology has shown that stories such as this exist in most ancient cultures, and the reason flood myths are so prominent is because of ancient peoples facinations and lack of understanding of the sea. There has been much research into why so many flood myths exist, and I don't think that the experts agree that the explanations for these myths is that a global flood actually did occur.
WinePusher wrote:God is all good, and all knowing, so I think it goes aganist his character to "regret" the creation of humans and want to completely wipe them out.
otseng wrote:I would not disagree that several passages have anthropomorphism in it when describing actions done by God.
I don't see how anthropomorphism is relevant to the problem I posed. But if the story is to be taken literally, it is inconsistent with God's nature. An omniscient God would not regret doing something.
WinePusher wrote:God clearly wants what is good for humanity, and wants to redeem mankind. Thus he sent his son to mediate for humans and make us justified before God, why would God not do the same for the people of the world at the time of Noah?
otseng wrote:Noah did warn the people. Peter described Noah as a preacher of righteousness. I do not think he was silent in warning others about the impending judgment.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

And also surely rumors widely circulated about some strange man building a massive ark and would ask what he was doing.

The flood was also symbolic in that it foreshadows baptism.

1Pe 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

1Pe 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge [fn] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Well, again, it would seem that those many lives that were lost in the flood were not saved then. The prophets warned Israel many times, and they constantly disobeyed and sinned aganist God. That is a frequent pattern throughout the Old Testament, yeet God does not eliminate them or disown them as his chosen people. However, the Flood Story breaks this pattern in the sense that it shows God giving up on humanity and starting over with another people, he never did that with the Israelites.
WinePusher wrote:So you would consider Job, Jonah, and other Old Testament figures such as Ruth to be real?
otseng wrote:Yes.
I disagree, I don't think those three characters I listed actually and historically existed. But to relate this back to the Flood, you said you think Noah existed as well, what is your methodology in determining the historicity of biblical figures? Personally, I don't think that just because the Bible mentions them is sufficent evidence.

WinePusher

Post #32

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:1) How was it possible for Noah to get the resources to build such an ark? Also, if it was before the development of civilization, technology such as this would be completely foreign.
otseng wrote:Why do you think Noah did not know sufficient technology to build the ark?
Building such an ark would require basic knowledge of Geometry, and it would also require basic tools as well. Whatever time the flood is dated back to, it is unlikely that mathematics and basic technology existed back then. So, if we're approaching this story secularly, this punches a huge hole in it.
WinePusher wrote:2) Problems with the animals. How did Noah gather the animals, fit them on the ark and care for them?
otseng wrote:If he had years to prepare, he could've gathered animals for the ark.

As for size, the ark was quite large.

Gen 6:15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.

The volume of this is equivalent to over 1000 20ft containers.

Noah didn't have to bring in every single species that we have now. For example, there was most likely only one kind of canine on board.

Animals didn't also have to be full sized adults. They could've been smaller younger animals.

Caring for them would have required a lot of preplanning. But I don't think it would be out of the question.
I still do think that it is an unbelievable tale, I mean, how would he be able to keep loins and deer and bears and elephants and cats and hamsters all on the same boat without eating eachother, regardless of whether they were infants or adults
WinePusher wrote:3) Internal inconsistency with the story. Some creationists argue that many types of animals became extinct due to the flood, yet the literal text says that Noah was to take a sample of all animals and save them from extinction.
otseng wrote:I believe they became extinct after the flood.
How would you fit dinosaurs into the equation?
WinePusher wrote:4) Many parts of the Bible, especially in Chronciles and other historical books, consist of dates and references to kings ruling at the time. The Flood story makes no reference to any date or figure that historians can use to date, whcih would seem toe exempt it from a literal, historica text.
otseng wrote:Well, there were no other people that survived the flood, so there'd be no way to date it based on rulers or kings.
Ok, well then why does the writer not list dates and numbers as they do in other parts of the Bible.

WinePusher

Post #33

Post by WinePusher »

I'd like to take a post and address the exponential growth equation you presented and I'll be using your post in the Global Flood thread as a source. I'm not looking to debate this, just inquire about it.

-In 2000 AD, the population estimate equals 6.4 Billion/64,000,000,000
-In 1 AD, the rough population estimate was equal to 200 million/200,000,000

2000 AD=64,000,000,000
1 AD=200,000,000

So that means that means the net growth in the population from 1 AD to 2000 AD was 63,800,000,000. Thus, you concluded that the growth rate was .173% (every 2000 years, I presume?) So, the variables we have now are:

Initial Population Number:5 People
Time Elapsed: I will use your last estimate which is 9846 years
End Population Number: 64,000,000,000

So what is trying to be solved for is the rate of growth from 9846 years ago to 2000 AD. I am not familiar with the equation you used
(N(t) = N(0) * e ^ (r*t)) so I will use the one I am familiar with: y=a(1+r)^x *with ^ representing x as an exponent.

a: initial amount-5
r: growth rate-unknown
x: time elapsed-9846

y=5(1+r)^9846
y=5(9846+9846r) by order of operations
y=49230+49230r by distributing/multiplying the 5
98460=growth rate (r)

So that would be an net increase in the growth rate of 98,460 every year. Is that consistent with your equation? Also, please don't be to harsh on me as I probably screwed up the math and your original source pretty badly. :P

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18576
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #34

Post by otseng »

WinePusher wrote: First we would have to establish the ethnicity of Noah, which I would assume to be middle-eastern. And then we look to see if the elapsed time between Noah and us could properly account for the mass variety of Phylogenic traits we have.
Relative to us, his ethnicity would encompass everyone's. He would've been a mixture of everyone, not just a distinct ethnicity.
And there are many differences, such as skin color, physical appearence and so on.
I do not view those as major differences.
And if we had Noah, and him and his sons breeding with Noah's wife, that would not account for race diversity.
Even if you accept the evolutionary framework, all mankind came from one woman - Mitochondrial Eve. And all mankind came from one man - Y-chromosomal Adam. The only major differences are the dating of these individuals.
Not to mention the many risks of incest as well.
From a Biblical viewpoint, this is not a problem. Incest was not prohibited until the law was given to Moses (Lev 20).

From a scientific point of view, the reason incest is a problem is that if a couple carries the same genetic defect, it will more likely be passed down than if only one has the genetic defect. Genetic diseases are inheritable and runs in families. So, if genetic defects exist, then it is better not to marry within the family (or close family). However, if no (or very few) genetic defects exist, then it is not a problem. This was the case during the time of Noah. One Biblical evidence for this was the long lifetime back then. As more genetic defects entered mankind, the average lifespan decreased.
Also, I realize you said you don't accept historical time periods such as the Bronze age and so forth. So how would you organize human history in a way that would not conflict with geological and biological history, but would also incoporate a global flood.
It does conflict with the evolutionary timeframe and with the associated geological and biological history. They are two completely separate frameworks. From my perspective, there is not really much harmony between the two.
And you suggested that the population growth equation that you presented is an accurate model, yes? Could you please re-post it and explain it here. Frankly, I find it unlikely that tens of thousands of years is enough time for the human population to grow from five people to over a billion people.
I see you made a separate post about it. I'll address it there.
I don't think that the writers of the Bible were dictated by a divine authority/voice to write down the scriptures, rather I think they were simply inspired in a more liberal way, such as when a person looks at the sunset and is inspired to write a poem. I think this liberal view of inspiration and the bible is consistent with the experiences we have now.
I do not think the Biblical authors "dictated" words from God either. They most likely used the same processes that we use now to write - research, interview, gather other documents, etc.
Comparative Mythology has shown that stories such as this exist in most ancient cultures, and the reason flood myths are so prominent is because of ancient peoples facinations and lack of understanding of the sea.
I don't think that's sufficient to explain the worldwide scope and similarities of the flood stories.
I don't think that the experts agree that the explanations for these myths is that a global flood actually did occur.
Of course secularists would not accept a global flood. They automatically discount anything that is close to what is mentioned in the Bible. For instance, they can accept that the entire world was covered by ice, but they cannot accept that the entire world was covered by water.
An omniscient God would not regret doing something.
I believe in freewill and do not believe in predeterminism. God created man with the ability to choose evil or good. And during Noah's time, all mankind freely chose to do evil. Even though God might've "foreseen" this, God did not dictate this. God did not create mankind to be doomed to be sinners. So, in that sense, he did not do anything wrong or even necessarily could've done it better.
Well, again, it would seem that those many lives that were lost in the flood were not saved then.
Right, only those in the ark were saved.
That is a frequent pattern throughout the Old Testament, yeet God does not eliminate them or disown them as his chosen people.
And Noah and his family was God's "chosen" people.
However, the Flood Story breaks this pattern in the sense that it shows God giving up on humanity and starting over with another people, he never did that with the Israelites.
The only time it will happen on this scale is during the last days, when those that have not accepted God's plan of salvation will result in destruction.
Personally, I don't think that just because the Bible mentions them is sufficent evidence.
Since we both accept the Bible as authoritative, it should be sufficient.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18576
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #35

Post by otseng »

WinePusher wrote: Building such an ark would require basic knowledge of Geometry, and it would also require basic tools as well.
Yes, it would've required this. And I think they knew these back then.

In Gen 4:17, they had technology to build cities.

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

To build a city, it would require knowledge of geometry and basic tools.

In Gen 4:21, they had technology to build musical instruments.

Gen 4:21 And his brother's name [was] Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

In Gen 4:22, they had technology for brass and iron.

Gen 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain [was] Naamah.

So, since they had the technology to build cities, musical instruments, brass, and iron, it is not inconceivable that Noah would have the technology to build the ark.
how would he be able to keep loins and deer and bears and elephants and cats and hamsters all on the same boat without eating eachother, regardless of whether they were infants or adults
The same way they do this in zoos. Keep each in separate living quarters.
How would you fit dinosaurs into the equation?
They would've been on the ark.
Ok, well then why does the writer not list dates and numbers as they do in other parts of the Bible.
As far as I know, dating in the Bible is always relative to a person or an event. And Genesis dates the flood narrative relative to Noah's age and flood events.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18576
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #36

Post by otseng »

WinePusher wrote:I'd like to take a post and address the exponential growth equation you presented and I'll be using your post in the Global Flood thread as a source. I'm not looking to debate this, just inquire about it.
For those interested, here's the original post.
-In 2000 AD, the population estimate equals 6.4 Billion/64,000,000,000
Correction, 6.4 billion is 6,400,000,000.
I will use the one I am familiar with: y=a(1+r)^x *with ^ representing x as an exponent.
Using your equation with my terms:
N(t) = N(0) (1+r)t

Where:
N(0) = 5
N(t) = 6,400,000,000
t = 9846

r solves to 0.00143 (or 0.143%). Which is close to what I calculated (0.173%).

WinePusher

Post #37

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:First we would have to establish the ethnicity of Noah, which I would assume to be middle-eastern. And then we look to see if the elapsed time between Noah and us could properly account for the mass variety of Phylogenic traits we have.
otseng wrote:Relative to us, his ethnicity would encompass everyone's. He would've been a mixture of everyone, not just a distinct ethnicity.
How? That simply doesn't seem possible. If you reject macroevolution, and also believe that humans can trace their lineage back to Noah, then differences amoung humans can't be accounted for. Noah's ethnicity would have to be either "one or the other" and since he and his sons were breeding with Noah's wife, one would expect that the genetic variations amoung humans to be homologous, but they aren't.
WinePusher wrote:Not to mention the many risks of incest as well.
otseng wrote:From a Biblical viewpoint, this is not a problem. Incest was not prohibited until the law was given to Moses (Lev 20).
What you seem to be suggesting is that incest only became wrong when Moses gave the law to Israel. This suggests moral relativism, does it not? As a christian, I think that morals are absolute and incest has always been wrong prior to Moses and the law.
otseng wrote:From a scientific point of view, the reason incest is a problem is that if a couple carries the same genetic defect, it will more likely be passed down than if only one has the genetic defect. Genetic diseases are inheritable and runs in families. So, if genetic defects exist, then it is better not to marry within the family (or close family). However, if no (or very few) genetic defects exist, then it is not a problem. This was the case during the time of Noah. One Biblical evidence for this was the long lifetime back then. As more genetic defects entered mankind, the average lifespan decreased.
But the problem I see with this is that, over time, the study of medicine has expanded and grown. Medicine is directly related to human life and a human's life span, so if medicine becomes better it is reasonable to expect the human life span to increase as well rather then decline. That is not the case though, from the biblical viewpoint. As medicine becomes better the human lifespan drastically decreases from what the Bible says.
WinePusher wrote:Also, I realize you said you don't accept historical time periods such as the Bronze age and so forth. So how would you organize human history in a way that would not conflict with geological and biological history, but would also incoporate a global flood.
otseng wrote:It does conflict with the evolutionary timeframe and with the associated geological and biological history. They are two completely separate frameworks. From my perspective, there is not really much harmony between the two.
But if the flood model does conflict with the evolutionary timeframe, shouldn't it then be disregarded? I have to agree with Dinesh D' Souza, when he says that it is more likely that the majority of the mainstream scientific community is right about evolution and evolutionary history rather then a small group of creationists who deny these theories.
WinePusher wrote:I don't think that the experts agree that the explanations for these myths is that a global flood actually did occur.
otseng wrote:Of course secularists would not accept a global flood. They automatically discount anything that is close to what is mentioned in the Bible. For instance, they can accept that the entire world was covered by ice, but they cannot accept that the entire world was covered by water.
Well, there are many Christian scholars who are skeptical of a global flood as well.

The distinction I would make between global coverage of water and global coverage of ice is that the presense of ice is not alien to our biosphere. The earth does go through warming and cooling phases, and a period of drastic cooling could freeze the water that already existed on earth's surface.

The presense of the extraordinary amount of water required for the flood story to be true is alien to Earth's surface, for the most part.

WinePusher wrote:An omniscient God would not regret doing something.
otseng wrote:I believe in freewill and do not believe in predeterminism. God created man with the ability to choose evil or good. And during Noah's time, all mankind freely chose to do evil. Even though God might've "foreseen" this, God did not dictate this. God did not create mankind to be doomed to be sinners. So, in that sense, he did not do anything wrong or even necessarily could've done it better.
I don't disagree, but the flood story states that God lamented and regreted the creation of man because of their wicked actions at the time of Noah. If this happened literally, one would have to wonder why God did not warn them or why God did not redeem them at that point. However, if its taken figuratively, there is no conflict.
WinePusher wrote:Well, again, it would seem that those many lives that were lost in the flood were not saved then.
otseng wrote:Right, only those in the ark were saved.
What happened to those lives? Did God "disown" them? Even though people sin, God still loves them and does not reject them. So the Flood Story suggests that wicked behavior deserves destruction and annhiliation while other parts of the Bible suggest that wicked people deserve redeemtion and a second chance.
WinePusher wrote:That is a frequent pattern throughout the Old Testament, yet God does not eliminate them or disown them as his chosen people.
otseng wrote:And Noah and his family was God's "chosen" people.
I was speaking in regards to Israel. To make my point more clear: The Bible shows God being dishonored by the Israelites time and time again, yet God does not completely destroy them or disown them, he continually gives them another chance to repent. The Flood Story shows an impulsive God that does not give the people at that time a second chance, but completely wipes them out.
WinePusher wrote:However, the Flood Story breaks this pattern in the sense that it shows God giving up on humanity and starting over with another people, he never did that with the Israelites.
otseng wrote:The only time it will happen on this scale is during the last days, when those that have not accepted God's plan of salvation will result in destruction.
Expanding the discussion a little bit. What is your view on universalism? Do you believe that if a person dies without having accepted Jesus as their savior would not go to heaven?

My take on it would be that, one doe snot neccesarily have to explicitly accept Jesus as their lord and savior to go to heaven. Biblical evidence for this would be the fact that Abraham was shown in the New Testament to be in heaven, yet he did not accept Jesus' atoning death. So, my view (heretical probably) would be that salvation is through Jesus alone, but acceptance of Jesus does not have to be verabally explicit. I would consider an atheist who does good deeds and works to be filled with the holy spirit and be acting in accordance with what Jesus taught.

WinePusher

Post #38

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:Building such an ark would require basic knowledge of Geometry, and it would also require basic tools as well.
otseng wrote:Yes, it would've required this. And I think they knew these back then.

In Gen 4:17, they had technology to build cities.

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

To build a city, it would require knowledge of geometry and basic tools.

In Gen 4:21, they had technology to build musical instruments.

Gen 4:21 And his brother's name [was] Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

In Gen 4:22, they had technology for brass and iron.

Gen 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain [was] Naamah.

So, since they had the technology to build cities, musical instruments, brass, and iron, it is not inconceivable that Noah would have the technology to build the ark.
But we do know that technology and even the discovery of mathematics did not occur until, at the very latest, around 3500BC. You place the flood tens of thousands of years before 3500BC, thus technology would not have existed back then. If Genesis is taken literally it conflicts with secular history, if its taken contextually and figuratively there is not much of a conflict. I don't think God would inspire the Bible and direct human history in a manner that would confuse us.
WinePusher wrote:how would he be able to keep loins and deer and bears and elephants and cats and hamsters all on the same boat without eating eachother, regardless of whether they were infants or adults
otseng wrote:The same way they do this in zoos. Keep each in separate living quarters.
Ok, I'll agree with this.
WinePusher wrote:How would you fit dinosaurs into the equation?
otseng wrote:They would've been on the ark.
Do you think that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

WinePusher

Post #39

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:-In 2000 AD, the population estimate equals 6.4 Billion/64,000,000,000
otseng wrote:Correction, 6.4 billion is 6,400,000,000.
Apologies.
WinePusher wrote:I will use the one I am familiar with: y=a(1+r)^x *with ^ representing x as an exponent.
otseng wrote:Using your equation with my terms:

N(t) = N(0) (1+r)t

Where:
N(0) = 5
N(t) = 6,400,000,000
t = 9846

r solves to 0.00143 (or 0.143%). Which is close to what I calculated (0.173%).
Several questions:

-How did you convert the # 9846 to a percentage?
-Your conclusion is that the net growth in the human population per year would be .173%, or # 9846 correct?
-If this is true, and at one point in the past, there were only 5 human beings, how would man have spread out so wide across the earth? Do you accept theories such as plate tectonics and the existence of a single continental landmass?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18576
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #40

Post by otseng »

WinePusher wrote:If you reject macroevolution, and also believe that humans can trace their lineage back to Noah, then differences amoung humans can't be accounted for.
Humans never macroevolved, they would've only microevolved. The differences that you speak about (skin color, shape of face) would fall under microevolution.
As a christian, I think that morals are absolute and incest has always been wrong prior to Moses and the law.
However, you do not have a Biblical defense for this position. And again, if their genes were relatively flawless, there is no medical reason to prohibit incest.
But the problem I see with this is that, over time, the study of medicine has expanded and grown. Medicine is directly related to human life and a human's life span, so if medicine becomes better it is reasonable to expect the human life span to increase as well rather then decline. That is not the case though, from the biblical viewpoint. As medicine becomes better the human lifespan drastically decreases from what the Bible says.
However, even modern medicine is not able to extend life to the order of hundreds of years. So, medical technology alone cannot explain the long lifespands in Genesis.
But if the flood model does conflict with the evolutionary timeframe, shouldn't it then be disregarded?
You are assuming here the evolutionary timeframe is true.
I have to agree with Dinesh D' Souza, when he says that it is more likely that the majority of the mainstream scientific community is right about evolution and evolutionary history rather then a small group of creationists who deny these theories.
Well, then both of you would be committing the ad populum fallacy. Just because many (or even all) people believe something does not make it true.
The distinction I would make between global coverage of water and global coverage of ice is that the presense of ice is not alien to our biosphere.
Presense of water is also not alien to our biosphere. As a matter of fact, there is much more water than ice in our biosphere.
The earth does go through warming and cooling phases, and a period of drastic cooling could freeze the water that already existed on earth's surface.
There are many problems with this. But let's avoid going down this rabbit trail since it's not really relevant.
The presense of the extraordinary amount of water required for the flood story to be true is alien to Earth's surface, for the most part.
Water covers over 70% of the surface already. And if the surface of the Earth was flatter, it could most certainly be able to cover the entire world.
If this happened literally, one would have to wonder why God did not warn them or why God did not redeem them at that point. However, if its taken figuratively, there is no conflict.
I already presented evidence that Noah most likely did warn others. So, I would not agree that they were not warned.

How do you interpret it figuratively then? What does Gen 6:7 mean?

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
So the Flood Story suggests that wicked behavior deserves destruction and annhiliation while other parts of the Bible suggest that wicked people deserve redeemtion and a second chance.
Yes, wicked behavior deserved destruction. But, God also provided a way for them to be saved. God instructed Noah to build an ark for those who go inside it to escape the destruction. If those who believed the warning would've also entered the ark, they would've survived.
The Flood Story shows an impulsive God that does not give the people at that time a second chance, but completely wipes them out.
They were given years/decades a chance. The flood was not an impulsive and rash decision.
What is your view on universalism? Do you believe that if a person dies without having accepted Jesus as their savior would not go to heaven?
I do not believe in universalism. But, I also do not believe that one needs to recite "I accept that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior" in order to be saved. An element of faith in Jesus Christ is required. Like the thief hanging on the cross next to Jesus, all we know he really said was "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." And that was enough for Jesus. But for someone that does good deeds and rejects believing in God, there is no salvation for that person.

Post Reply