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.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18565
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 210 times
Contact:

Post #41

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, etc) 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 lifespans 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.
Presence of water is also not alien to our biosphere. As a matter of fact, there is much more liquid 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 would 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 yet rejects believing in God, there is no salvation for that person.
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.
I think this is more of a result of surviving written documents going back to that timeframe. But if you look at other evidence, mathematics goes back tens of thousands of years.
The oldest known mathematical object is the Lebombo bone, discovered in the Lebombo mountains of Swaziland and dated to approximately 35,000 BC.[11] It consists of 29 distinct notches deliberately cut into a baboon's fibula.[12] There is evidence that women used counting to keep track of their menstrual cycles; 28 to 30 scratches on bone or stone, followed by a distinctive marker.[13] Also prehistoric artifacts discovered in Africa and France, dated between 35,000 and 20,000 years old,[14] suggest early attempts to quantify time.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... athematics
Do you think that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?
Yes.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18565
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 210 times
Contact:

Post #42

Post by otseng »

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%).
WinePusher wrote: -How did you convert the # 9846 to a percentage?
I didn't. 9846 is the number of years.
-Your conclusion is that the net growth in the human population per year would be .173%, or # 9846 correct?
Using your equation and your values, the rate would be 0.143%. And it is close to my calculated value of 0.173%.
-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?
I'm not sure where you get 5 human beings. The Bible says 8 (Noah, his three sons, and all of their wives). But, for the calculations, it doesn't matter much.

As for spreading out across the Earth, humans multiplied and travelled. Even if one walks or rides a boat, it would not take excessively long to travel to a distant part of the globe. If you walked 3 mph for 8 hrs a day around the length of the world, it would take less than 3 years.

As for plate tectonics, no I do not believe in it. I believe in the hydroplate theory.

WinePusher

Post #43

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:As a christian, I think that morals are absolute and incest has always been wrong prior to Moses and the law.
otseng wrote: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.
1 Corinthians 5:1-It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.

But even if we disregard the Bible, for a moment, it is an imperative to Christianity that morals are absolute and unchangable for they are based on God. Incest has either been always morally permissable or morally reprehensible, and according to the Bible and most Chrisitan Moral Theologies, Incest is reprehensible.
WinePusher wrote: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.
otseng wrote: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.
Is it not a bit presumptuious to assume that the years mentioned in Genesis are exactly similar to the years we have now? Also, with the lack of high quality medicine in the Genesis timeframe, disese and illness should have ravaged civilizations back then and shorten the human time span exceptionally. But, if we interpret the Bible literally in that sense, humans begin with very long lifespans and over the milleniums, their lifespans shrink. This seems to violate the causal relationship between medicine and human life.
WinePusher wrote: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.
otseng wrote: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.
Of course not, but many (or all) people believing in something does grant more veracity to the claim. Also, taking into account that the people whom we are talking about are Scientists who have advanced degrees in the subject, the ad populum fallacy is not quite applicable to this situation.
WinePusher wrote: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.
otseng wrote: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.
In order for the biblical flood story to be true, all mountains would have had to have been covered with water. The Himalayan Mountain Range is the highest mountain range on the earth, so in for the biblical flood claim to be literally true, water would have had to flood the earth to that peak. That amount of water does seem to be alien to our biosphere.
WinePusher wrote: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.
otseng wrote: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.
I would interpret Gen 6:7 to be a verse showing the anger and might/power of God, used by the biblical author to convey a philosophical point to the reader. But this takes us back to a previous point, if Noah (or Moses) heard the voice of God echo in the clouds or some other display of God's power, why don't we experience these sorts of things today.

For the story to be taken literally, you would have to accept that the authors copied God's words verbatim. So, the question is how they heard it or where they got it from?
WinePusher wrote: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.
otseng wrote: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.
I agree that sin and wicked behavior deserves destruction. However, you can't feasibly claim that Noah was able to go to every single person on earth and spend a fair amount of time preaching and trying to get them to repent, can you?
WinePusher wrote: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?
otseng wrote: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.
In general, I agree. But there are some people in the 21st century, and in Noah's time, who would not have heard the good news due an accidental result of geography.
Winepusher wrote:Do you think that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

otseng wrote:Yes.
I see no evidence to suggest this is so. When you say humans co-existed with the dinosaurs, do you mean like an inferior type of hominid species? Or do you mean like a 21st century human capable of thinking and rationalizing?

I realize that many Creationists think that humans must of existed since the beginnings of the creation of the earth, the Bible records the beginnings of biblical man. I interpret this to mean that it records the beginnings of humans when they began to form a relationship with God.

WinePusher

Post #44

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:-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?
otseng wrote:I'm not sure where you get 5 human beings. The Bible says 8 (Noah, his three sons, and all of their wives). But, for the calculations, it doesn't matter much.
I was counting Noah, his wife and three sons. I did not count the their wives.
otseng wrote:As for plate tectonics, no I do not believe in it. I believe in the hydroplate theory.
Are there theological implications to the hydroplate theory that would be ruled out if Plate Tectonics were true?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18565
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 210 times
Contact:

Post #45

Post by otseng »

WinePusher wrote: 1 Corinthians 5:1-It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.
In this case, I would agree that for a man to take his father's wife would be universally immoral, even before such a prohibition is stated. The reason though is not because of incest, but because it is taking someone who is already married.

But, the instance of incest that we are talking about is not this case, but the case of unmarried brothers, sisters, and cousins marrying. The grandchildren of Noah would have no other option but to marry among themselves. And medically and theologically, there is no prohibition for this.
Is it not a bit presumptuious to assume that the years mentioned in Genesis are exactly similar to the years we have now?
If we assume that the Bible is inspired by God, no it is not presumptuous.
Also, with the lack of high quality medicine in the Genesis timeframe, disese and illness should have ravaged civilizations back then and shorten the human time span exceptionally.
We have much more genetic diseases now than in the past. They had relatively few genetic diseases (if any) during the time of multi-centenarian lifespans.
But, if we interpret the Bible literally in that sense, humans begin with very long lifespans and over the milleniums, their lifespans shrink. This seems to violate the causal relationship between medicine and human life.
Because the long lifespan was not a result of medical technology back then, but a result of fewer genetic defects and an environment that promoted longer lifespans.
Of course not, but many (or all) people believing in something does grant more veracity to the claim.
No, it has no bearing on the veracity of a claim. What it does depend on is the evidence and reasoning to support the claims.
Also, taking into account that the people whom we are talking about are Scientists who have advanced degrees in the subject, the ad populum fallacy is not quite applicable to this situation.
Only when the evidence and reasoning is also presented would it not be applicable.
In order for the biblical flood story to be true, all mountains would have had to have been covered with water. The Himalayan Mountain Range is the highest mountain range on the earth, so in for the biblical flood claim to be literally true, water would have had to flood the earth to that peak. That amount of water does seem to be alien to our biosphere.
In order for me not to rehash what I've said in the past, you'll need to understand the flood model. I know this is going to take a lot of work on your part, but it will save us both even more time if you can read through A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood.
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.
I would interpret Gen 6:7 to be a verse showing the anger and might/power of God, used by the biblical author to convey a philosophical point to the reader.
Was the philosophical point that God would destroy man from the face of the earth?
For the story to be taken literally, you would have to accept that the authors copied God's words verbatim. So, the question is how they heard it or where they got it from?
I don't think it's necessarily "verbatim", but the meaning should be similar. As for how the author got it, it could've been passed down orally, or in written form, or supernaturally by God, or a combination of these.

I think the bottom line issue is that if you read a particular part of the Bible that seems difficult, then you decide to interpret it figuratively. Or even further, to dismiss it to have any meaningful purpose at all.

To me, this is not viewing the Bible as authoritative, but viewing your own opinions as more authoritative than the Bible. Yes, we are to use our own rational capabilities to discern what the Bible says. But on the other hand, if the Bible is authoritative, parts that we do not like or fully understand cannot be so easily dismissed by our own whims.
However, you can't feasibly claim that Noah was able to go to every single person on earth and spend a fair amount of time preaching and trying to get them to repent, can you?
I do not think he preached to everyone directly. But it is entirely possible that his message passed through the grapevine to a larger audience than those that he directly communicated with.
In general, I agree. But there are some people in the 21st century, and in Noah's time, who would not have heard the good news due an accidental result of geography.
Yes. And I will leave God to judge their eternal fate.
When you say humans co-existed with the dinosaurs, do you mean like an inferior type of hominid species? Or do you mean like a 21st century human capable of thinking and rationalizing?
Man was never an inferior hominid species. I believe God created Adam and Eve as special creations of God. Mankind did not evolve from primates.
Are there theological implications to the hydroplate theory that would be ruled out if Plate Tectonics were true?
I do not rule out plate tectonics based on any theological or Biblical reason. It is purely on empirical evidence that I find the theory lacking. If you are curious about my reasoning, see this thread.

WinePusher

Post #46

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:Is it not a bit presumptuious to assume that the years mentioned in Genesis are exactly similar to the years we have now?
otseng wrote:If we assume that the Bible is inspired by God, no it is not presumptuous.
However, where does it say that divine inspiration completely cancels out human error? In the same way Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully God, the bible can be thought of, in the same way, to have been written by both humans and God. If it were written by humans, the human authors would be prone to historical errors and would have limited foresight. And as you know, there are different types of calendars that use different measures of time and days and years.
WinePusher wrote:Also, with the lack of high quality medicine in the Genesis timeframe, disese and illness should have ravaged civilizations back then and shorten the human time span exceptionally.
otseng wrote:We have much more genetic diseases now than in the past. They had relatively few genetic diseases (if any) during the time of multi-centenarian lifespans.
You would be correct in saying that there existed few Genetic Diseases back then. However, there are much more types of diseases, they are not solely limited to Genes. There are things such as infectious disease and injuries, and there is no reason to believe that infectious diseases and injuries would have been fewer in the past.
WinePusher wrote:Of course not, but many (or all) people believing in something does grant more veracity to the claim.
otseng wrote:No, it has no bearing on the veracity of a claim. What it does depend on is the evidence and reasoning to support the claims.
Sorry, but I disagree and challenge the merits of this fallacy. In the context of Young Earth Creationism and the Flood Model, evidence plays a huge role in influencing scientists opinions. The conclusion is based (generally) on the evidence, and when a large group of people interpret the evidence one way, and a smaller group of people interpret the evidence a different way, I would think that the larger group holds more truth in their conclusion.
WinePusher wrote:I would interpret Gen 6:7 to be a verse showing the anger and might/power of God, used by the biblical author to convey a philosophical point to the reader.
otseng wrote:Was the philosophical point that God would destroy man from the face of the earth?
The point would be to demonstrate God's power and might in the form of a fictional story. It's a very liberal approach, but it also seems misguided to take something at face value without dissecting the history and context surrounding it.
WinePusher wrote:For the story to be taken literally, you would have to accept that the authors copied God's words verbatim. So, the question is how they heard it or where they got it from?
otseng wrote:I don't think it's necessarily "verbatim", but the meaning should be similar.
If you don't think that those are exactly God's words, then the door opens to the possibility that human writers invented the story (with inspiration from the Divine in some manifestation of the natural world). This would automatically discount the story as a literal occurence. If they did not pen the words down verbatim, then they added their own twist to it, leaving a wide space for human error and figurative speech.
otseng wrote:I think the bottom line issue is that if you read a particular part of the Bible that seems difficult, then you decide to interpret it figuratively. Or even further, to dismiss it to have any meaningful purpose at all.

To me, this is not viewing the Bible as authoritative, but viewing your own opinions as more authoritative than the Bible. Yes, we are to use our own rational capabilities to discern what the Bible says. But on the other hand, if the Bible is authoritative, parts that we do not like or fully understand cannot be so easily dismissed by our own whims.
I think this is a very potent argument, however I am not dismissing the Flood Story as figurative simply because it makes some extraordinary claims. When you apply the historical-critical method to it, it lacks alot of evidence.

Like I said, it would be more historically acceptable if it were a large local flood, or even a global flood that did not cover the entire mountains and wipe out all humans except for a selective few. But when you throw in technical claims such as animals coming on, or the construction of a magnificent ark, or the existence of a character named Noah, it not only lacks historical evidence, but it also cuts aganist settled scientific evidence.

I don't think the Bible was meant to be used as a book to relay accurate scientific information and history. There are parts of it that are historically sound, and other parts that simply are not. Christians should be using the Bible as the authoritative text on matters concerning their faith, and systematic theology.
WinePusher wrote:In general, I agree. But there are some people in the 21st century, and in Noah's time, who would not have heard the good news due an accidental result of geography.
otseng wrote:Yes. And I will leave God to judge their eternal fate.
Ok, I don't claim to know God's will and the criteria he uses to judge a persons soul. But in regards to the Flood Story, if you believe that all mankind (except for a select few) were wiped out, they must have been preached to and urged to repent.

WinePusher

Post #47

Post by WinePusher »

I realize that you, otseng, are not a literalist. However, you do interpret the Flood Story literally and you seem to interpret most of Genesis literally. My first question would be, are their any stories in the Bible that you would regard as fictional?

Secondly, I would like to address the many problems with biblical literalism in the context of the Flood Story. The God mentioned in the Flood Story is similar to the Old Testament God that told Joshua to kill and wipe out most of the Canannites. For us Christians, this seems to contradict Jesus Christ's message of forgiveness and love of enemy.

Also, to interpret the flood story literally is to deny the humanity of the authors. Also, we do not have to original test with which the story is written on, we don't have tha autographs. So, the humanity of the authors seems to be disregarded along with the possibility of translation errors and erosion of the the writing materials.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18565
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 210 times
Contact:

Post #48

Post by otseng »

WinePusher wrote: However, where does it say that divine inspiration completely cancels out human error? In the same way Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully God, the bible can be thought of, in the same way, to have been written by both humans and God. If it were written by humans, the human authors would be prone to historical errors and would have limited foresight. And as you know, there are different types of calendars that use different measures of time and days and years.
This thread is turning into debating the inspiration and authority of the Bible. And this is perhaps the whole crux of the debate.

In effect, you do not really believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, but only in the inspiration and authority of parts of the Bible. The rest of it is fictional in your view. And it would appear that this would constitute a significant portion of the Bible. Since this is the case, it would mean that the Bible cannot be assumed to be a source of authority and evidence that you would consider to be admissible. So, it doesn't really matter what I say using the Bible, you would automatically reject it as evidence.

Since this is the case, the only way that it can be argued with you is on non-Biblical evidence. And I have done this numerous times on other threads.
I think this is a very potent argument, however I am not dismissing the Flood Story as figurative simply because it makes some extraordinary claims. When you apply the historical-critical method to it, it lacks alot of evidence.
Again you need to read through A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood thread. I'm not going to rewrite answers when I've already written quite extensively on it already.
Like I said, it would be more historically acceptable if it were a large local flood, or even a global flood that did not cover the entire mountains and wipe out all humans except for a selective few.
I don't recall you presenting any evidence, Biblical or non-Biblical, that such a very large local flood occurred. Whereas I've already presented Biblical and non-Biblical evidence that a global flood occurred.
But when you throw in technical claims such as animals coming on, or the construction of a magnificent ark, or the existence of a character named Noah, it not only lacks historical evidence, but it also cuts aganist settled scientific evidence.
Actually, I believe there is sufficient evidence to back up many facets of the flood narrative. Again, please read through the thread I mentioned above.
However, you do interpret the Flood Story literally and you seem to interpret most of Genesis literally. My first question would be, are their any stories in the Bible that you would regard as fictional?
When the Bible says that something is a parable, then it is to be interpreted only as an object lesson, not that it literally happened.
The God mentioned in the Flood Story is similar to the Old Testament God that told Joshua to kill and wipe out most of the Canannites. For us Christians, this seems to contradict Jesus Christ's message of forgiveness and love of enemy.
God is also the God of hatred against sin and judgment. I believe that in the final judgment God will "wipe out" those who failed to believe in Him. There will not be much mercy at this time.

But God gives all men a chance to repent and to change. This is clearly evident even in the OT. I've mentioned the flood that Noah directly and indirectly preached for years prior to the flood. But the failure of others believing was not the fault of Noah, but the pride of everyone else. Most likely they sneered Noah with "A worldwide flood? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That will never happen."

WinePusher

Post #49

Post by WinePusher »

otseng wrote:This thread is turning into debating the inspiration and authority of the Bible. And this is perhaps the whole crux of the debate.

In effect, you do not really believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, but only in the inspiration and authority of parts of the Bible. The rest of it is fictional in your view. And it would appear that this would constitute a significant portion of the Bible. Since this is the case, it would mean that the Bible cannot be assumed to be a source of authority and evidence that you would consider to be admissible. So, it doesn't really matter what I say using the Bible, you would automatically reject it as evidence.

Since this is the case, the only way that it can be argued with you is on non-Biblical evidence. And I have done this numerous times on other threads.
I stated from the outset that I believe the Bible is authoritative and inspired by God. What I did not specify is that I believe that Bible is authoritative concerning only theological matters and was inspired by God as a whole. But I would consider some parts of the Bible admissable as evidence, such as the New Testament Letters and the Gospels in regards to the Resurrection.

But to say that you presented biblical evidence for the flood seems unusual. The Bible states that the Flood occured, so it would be impossible for me to use the Bible to disprove something that the Bible claims acutally happened. Rather I tried to point out internal inconsistencies in the story with the rest of the Bible, and how the Flood story portrays God in a different manner then the God of the New Testament.

And yes, many parts of the Bible were fictional, in my view. This does not mean that the Bible is not inspired, fiction can equally be inspired just as non-fiction can. But you did not address my problem, do you think that inspiration rules out human error? If so, you deny the humanity of the authors.

WinePusher

Post #50

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:Like I said, it would be more historically acceptable if it were a large local flood, or even a global flood that did not cover the entire mountains and wipe out all humans except for a selective few.
otseng wrote:I don't recall you presenting any evidence, Biblical or non-Biblical, that such a very large local flood occurred. Whereas I've already presented Biblical and non-Biblical evidence that a global flood occurred.
I am not arguing that a local flood occured. I am proposing it as a more plausible explanation and alternative for the Biblical Flood Account.
WinePusher wrote:But when you throw in technical claims such as animals coming on, or the construction of a magnificent ark, or the existence of a character named Noah, it not only lacks historical evidence, but it also cuts aganist settled scientific evidence.
otseng wrote:Actually, I believe there is sufficient evidence to back up many facets of the flood narrative. Again, please read through the thread I mentioned above.
I read through the last pages of it, and you mostly addressed the geological and biological aspects of the flood. I am talking about historical evidence for the historical claims of the flood story. It lacks attestation to the characters mentioned and the "technical" claims of it. If I am wrong, please lay out a refutation in your own words, not a directory to previous debates.

Post Reply