Bible Buffet (Run-off From Noah's Flood)

Yes, Iblis, people throughout history have chosen to just pick and chose what they want out of Scripture. In a way, hooah is right in what religion can do in a negative way to society. Take the Roman Catholic church for example....their misinterpretation of the bible led to actual Christians being burnt at the stake, by the "church" no less, during the Reformation period.Now, that's not to say their isn't a right way to interpret scripture. For example....for thousands of years, Genesis was read literally. God created what we see, in 6 literal days, he rested on the 7th, all this done around 6-10k years ago, give or take a few. Really the age of the earth was not much of an issue. Only in the last 300 years has the church begun debating the issue of origins and creation.So the question is, how do we interpret Genesis? For me, it's simple and easy. I read it how it says. However, some in the church see it differently. They feel, and maybe rightly so, that evolution is sprinkled in their somewhere, that the 6 days in Genesis aren't literal but are millions of years, that there is a gap in between verse 1 and 2 of millions of years, that Noah's flood is a myth and/or allegorical. What I'm curious is though, from an OEC or from a TE, why the need to interpret Genesis in this fashion?

Hey Huntard,Sorry I've been AWOL. I'll try to post a little more here later. Been real busy at work and 8 month old admitted to hospital last week so my posting time is almost nill....Anyway, in reference to this issue....there is still a correct way to interpret Scripture. I don't see anything wrong in jaywill's post...I'll have to reread it and further analyze it but on a cursory reading he seems accurate.If one understands the character of God, which is revealed through the bible, one will know that God is not a relavist. There are rights and wrongs and ways to interpret Scripture.

hello Iblis,I'm not sure what your point is in this really. Do I believe that when Christ said, "You have heard that it was said, `YOU HALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. " that he meant this literally? Yes I do. Am I guilty of this sin, yes I am...lol. But that's not the point. We are born sinners from Adam, sin and death entered into the world. There isn't one sin itself that makes me a sinner, whether I murder someone or sleep with the woman next door. I was born a sinner, as was everyone, thus I need a replacement for that sin, thus, Christ's death and resurrection.

Thanks Granny, nice post. He's doing fine now. Had a 2 week combination of two horrible ear infections coupled with some viral infections also, for those scientists out there that the know the difference....it's all gibberish to me. Anyway, he's home today...thanks again.

hello Huntard,I'll try and address as much as I can in your post but I'd still like to bring it back to the whole reason why I posted and that's to debate the TE if we can.Let's just take the Gen 9:14 example that you discussed, "And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud."In light of what we read here in Genesis, the verse has to be interpreted within the context or with other Scripture. This is something that you are failing to do in all the examples you give. You are pulling verses out of the air, typing out a portion of it (not the other verses surrounding it) and saying it can mean whatever you want....and in the way you are doing it, yes, it can mean other things. However, the whole context says this:"12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. 17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."So clearly your example can easily be understood in light of the end of Noah's flood and the covenant established with mankind that, if followed throughout the history of the OT and NT, ends in the death and resurrection of Christ. I'm not claiming to know the whole mind of God. God reveals himself in Scripture, he even says so...however, there are aspects of God we will never understand and yes it would be arrogant to claim that we can fully understand God...he clearly says in Scripture:"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. Isaiah 55:8. An example would be the Trinity or Triune God. The human mind cannot rationalize three persons in one. What makes yours less valid is that it was not in the context of the rest of Scripture. As a human being, fallible that I am, there will be times that I am wrong in my interpretation and there are resources to turn too to study these things, along with a discerning Spirit. Flip it around for a second and let's say I completely and maybe intentionally misinterpreted a science publication you posted here...even just one line of it. You would probably correct me where I was wrong and show me the context in which I should have interpreted the line. Except again, the bible says otherwise. If God were a relativist, there would have been no need for the cross and there would be listed in the bible, myriads of ways to heaven.I hope that shed some light Huntard on your questions. I would like to steer this back to the flood however and what Scripture says about it, not what man says about it.In light of Scripture, one can only come to the conclusion that it was a global flood, no? Take everything else out (for now) and have the TE convince me in Scripture that the flood was not a literal global catastrophic flood.