...in essence.
Christ's teachings are definitive, as He himself is reported to have said in Matthew 22: 36-40.
If one views the rest of scripture through the lens of these two commandments then one can readily discern & interpret exactly what scriptures are relevant to the central tenet of Christianity.
In my opinion, the whole concept of the flood (and thus the Ark) is not only irrelevant but contrary to the concepts that Christ taught about.
Can you see Christ condemning the innocent children to death in the flood because of sinful parents? I can't.
However that is part of my rejection of the
literal interpretation of the flood story.
As for Kofh2U's interpretation of the flood myth, my rejection of that follows much the same objections as have already been aired on this thread.
As for Kofh2U's comment to Steen:
How could I hope to fair any better in your evaluation of anything I might say to you on any matter if you are so arbitary a Christian as to deny the writings of the beloved apostle, writer of the Revelation, and St Paul?
I would have thought that what Christ had to say rates more importantly than anything a later
interpreter of His words had to say?
Surely, if the intent & philosophy of a message varies significantly from that which is offered by Christ, it should be fairly easy to
judge who's message offers truth?
Cheers
™ Version 4.2