ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Who Survived The Flood

Was Noah's Flood worldwide or local. Did some people other than Noah's family survive?

Join Our Free Dating and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 5/29/15
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog



misha9344:

You asked: Does the event have to be completely "natural" for it to be historic?

No. The supernatural can descend to the natural. This is called a miracle. However, dismissing everything that doesn't quite seem to fit into the natural order as miraculous can be naive and even dangerous (e.g. burning women at the stake as witches because their neighbor's cow got sick).

God usually worked in normal ways. He didn't magically rescue Noah and the animals - he told him to make a normal, natural ship. The whole point of doing so would be moot if God made the inside of the Ark larger than the outside (like the Tardis) or magically fed all the animals afterwards.
---StrongAxe on 6/23/15


Good questions, SA.
May I first ask if the virgin birth, the Resurrection, partings of the Red Sea and river Jordan, and other like events were historical or allegorical?
Does the event have to be completely "natural" for it to be historic?
I believe you are looking for "natural" answers to your questions.
There may well be those, but it may well be God's provision and protection outside the realm of natural laws.
If we look at the canine family, we see large variation, even in the past 500 years. We are always finding new "species" of plants or animals.
Why would one think that "speciation" occurs slowly if not for the view of ages?
Rapid change in kinds is occurring all around us.
---micha9344 on 6/23/15


misha9344:

You asked: With SA's answer in mind, how does one determine, in context and by discernment, that the account of Noah is allegorical?

A literal interpretation asks some troubling questions:
1) How did several thousand animals separate into several million species? Either cross-species evolution is possible (weakening strict creationist arguments), or the Ark was too small.
2) What did the animals eat? Animals and humans consume many times their weight in food each year. (OK, maybe they hibernated.)
3) What did the animals eat AFTER they got off the ark? Did lions fast for decades before flocks of sheep arose that could feed them daily?
---StrongAxe on 6/23/15


Upon reading back a bit and trying to maintain the blog,
the question comes into being about the historicity of the Flood event.
Some consider this allegorical, using the term in a fictional sense, while bring forth truth.
With SA's answer in mind, how does one determine, in context and by discernment, that the account of Noah is allegorical?
What in the text would lead a person to that conclusion?
Also, bringing obvious metaphorical examples from the Bible does nothing to prove a case from a discerning or contextual standpoint.
Statements like "Jesus is the vine", even without context, shows metaphorical traits.
---micha9344 on 6/23/15


micha9344:

You wrote: I'm still unclear on how people decide some parables are fiction.

The same way we interpret any other scripture - we use our God-given discernment instead of blindly taking word at their face value without considering their context (which can lead to absurd doctrines like Mormon's "baptism for the dead" based on a single fragment of one line of scripture).

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Given the above, Why is it vital that we know which are factual? It is enough that we know they are inspired and useful, without judging their factuality.
---StrongAxe on 6/23/15




/I didn't say "false". I said "not necessarily factual". If it's 4:56 and you ask me what time it is, and I say "5 o'clock", I am not factually correct\-StrongAxe on 6/22/15
I think you're confusing "specific", "actual", and "factual", or you are jumbling them in order to confuse others.
The same seems to occur with "parable", "allegory", and "fictional."
These groups may be considered synonyms in a general sense, but in context, they can be widely different.
So, we have already determined that parables are not necessarily fictional, but do provide a secondary (para) truth.
I'm still unclear on how people decide some parables are fiction.
---micha9344 on 6/23/15


StrongAxe: "People often derive spiritual falsehood by direct literal interpretation of what the Bible actually says (i.e. factual but not true). Mormon "baptism for the dead" is an example."

I agree. Other examples by which some have a distorted interpretation are the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and Peter's vision of the sheet. In these cases, as in others, the correct interpretation is governed by the context of the story itself - not by the interpreter's beliefs. The context of the Genesis account is a straightforward historical account with names and lifespans - NOT a metaphorical "story" meant to teach a spiritual lesson.


---jerry6593 on 6/23/15


jerry6593:

You said: If you think that the Bible contains falsehood, and you are the judge of the truth, then how can you know that any of it is true, and not just a reflection of your own opinions?

I didn't say "false". I said "not necessarily factual". If it's 4:56 and you ask me what time it is, and I say "5 o'clock", I am not factually correct, even though the answer is what you want to hear most of the time (unless you're Mr. Spock). Fictional parables contain truth - it's just not factual truth.

People often derive spiritual falsehood by direct literal interpretation of what the Bible actually says (i.e. factual but not true). Mormon "baptism for the dead" is an example.
---StrongAxe on 6/22/15


Biblically, there was just the eight.
---aaron on 6/22/15


StrongAxe: "Factual, not necessarily"

Again I caution you that you are on a dangerous path. If you think that the Bible contains falsehood, and you are the judge of the truth, then how can you know that any of it is true, and not just a reflection of your own opinions?

I repeat, it is clear from context which statements Jesus considered parables and which He considered historical fact.

I once thought that I could reason with you because we shared a common point of reference - the Bible. I guess I was wrong.



---jerry6593 on 6/22/15




jerry6593:

You said: 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Profitable, yes. Factual, not necessarily (e.g. Jesus was not made of wood). Parables and fictional tales are frequently profitable and wise, even though they are not factually true. Paul quoted pagan Greek philosophers who were definitely not scriptural, yet he considered their wisdom to be profitable.
---StrongAxe on 6/21/15


StrongAxe: "If Jesus were preaching today, he might give quote [sic] Aesop or Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter"

Your credibility is slipping. You might as well say He would quote Satan. The OT figures were real, historical figures, and their lives were examples to us:

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Act 26:27 King [StrongAxe], believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.



---jerry6593 on 6/21/15


jerry6593:

You said: "As in the days of Noah" and "As in the day of Lot", however give credence to the historicity of the OT record.

Don't you trust Jesus?


If Jesus were preaching today, he might give quote Aesop or Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter, if they had important moral lessons to tell (which wouldn't make them non-fictional), just as Paul quoted pagan Greek philosophers (which didn't make them the Word of God).

I trust Jesus. I just don't presume to dictate which words of his are NECESSARILY fact and which are necessarily not, unless the reverse is obviously absurd (e.g. Jesus is a plant). Many scholars believe Job to be a parable, for example.
---StrongAxe on 6/20/15


i believe it was and the world I believe was only around the middle east, as people had not yet ventured thru to the pacific etc. Only 8 people survived,followed Gods commands and believed in Him. Mr n Mrs Noah n family of 8
---rob on 6/20/15


StrongAxe: "Jesus frequently used metaphors."

Of course He did. But it is clear from context which statements He considered parables and which He considered historical fact. "A sower went to so" and "I am the vine" are obviously preludes to parables meant to teach a spiritual lesson. "As in the days of Noah" and "As in the day of Lot", however give credence to the historicity of the OT record.

Don't you trust Jesus?


---jerry6593 on 6/20/15


Learner:
Do you have some scientific or historical evidence to support your allegorical theory?
---jerry6593 on 6/16/15

He could have asked you the same thing.
You have presented none. He has data you refuse to answer available to him.
You claim to be a scientist but, have no answers to even grade school level science flood questions. I see you as scripturally lazy and fearful and a follower of a dead, over emotional woman, who is proven as false teacher/preacher/prophet. She has no credibility, by unity yourself.
Psa_119:128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right, and I hate every false way.
---Trav on 6/18/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


jerry6593:

Biblical literalism means "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense", where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words, not figurative or metaphorical". (Wikipedia)

Jesus frequently used metaphors. He is the branch and the vine, but he is not a plant. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 chronologies literally contradict each other, as I pointed out. Most of the Bible is historical records, but if one slavishly insists that ALL of it is literally true exactly as written, one arrives at absurdities (e.g. Jesus is a plant) or contradictions (e.g. Genesis 1 vs. 2).
---StrongAxe on 6/18/15


StrongAxe: "Biblical literalism is fairly recent in the history of Christianity."

I don't think so. Jesus considered the Old Testament accounts of Creation, the Flood of Noah, The destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, Jonah & the fish, etc. to be literal historically. Do you believe that Jesus was literal historically?


---jerry6593 on 6/18/15


jerry6793:

You said: 1) My post was addressed to Learner2 but you answered.

Communications that are posted in public forums are open to responses to all in those forums. If you had wanted to only speak to learner2, you could have sent him a private message (or not, on this site, as that may not be easy for non-registered posters, but that is the site's fault, not mine, as the site collects poster's private email addresses with each post, but doesn't use them).

2) You imply that the historical interpretation of the Bible lead to contradictions.

No. I imply that a slavish LITERAL interpretation of the Bible can lead to contradictions. Biblical literalism is fairly recent in the history of Christianity.
---StrongAxe on 6/17/15


Strongaxe: I find several points of objection to your last post.

1) My post was addressed to Learner2 but you answered.

2) You imply that the historical interpretation of the Bible lead to contradictions.

3) You insist that multiple accounts of the same events MUST be identical and chronological order.

I think that this shows poor scholarship, and I think that you are better than this. You will have great difficulty accepting the New Testament under this skeptical paradigm. Jesus spoke of the Genesis account as literal, and the gospels are anything but identical. Do you think they are allegorical?


---jerry6593 on 6/17/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


jerry6593:

You said: Learner: What is it that causes you to doubt the authenticity of the biblical record? Do you have some scientific or historical evidence to support your allegorical theory?

If one takes every word of the Bible literally, one quickly arrives at contradictions. For example, the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 show God creating different things in different orders. If one is literal, the other cannot be.
---StrongAxe on 6/16/15


Learner: What is it that causes you to doubt the authenticity of the biblical record? Do you have some scientific or historical evidence to support your allegorical theory?



---jerry6593 on 6/16/15


///Leon, things can be allegorical and still truthful. I'm sure there are many people who have been saved who have never even thought about this subject. It is a side issue.[?] If it is a central issue for you, that's okay with me. Just don't make it be so for everyone.
---learner2 on 6/2/15///

Truthful can be the telling of something, e.g., a fictional account that's full of truth without real "being" (existence). However, you can't have "real sin" without "real people" (beings).

Trying to allegorize G1-11 cunningly reduces real people to nonexistent fictional characters. But, Jesus spoke of Adam & Noah as real people.

The "Truth" will set you free L2.
---Leon on 6/15/15


Learner2 - it's in the bible - Genesis 6:20 King James Version (KJV)

Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort SHALL COME UNTO THEE, to keep them alive.

Noah did NOT have to travel the world to find ANY of them.

I hope that you are living up to your user name and are learning from the answers you receive here.

Yours was an understandable question if you have not read all of the bible.
---Rita_H on 6/15/15


Send a Free Father's Day Ecard


Elder: It is so very good to see you back on line. I do hope that you are well.

Our friend Learner has a lot to learn, but seems to make progress slowly, if at all.



---jerry6593 on 6/15/15


Or do you believe ANY of the Bible?
The mountains were created by plate techtonic upthrusting AFTER the flood - not before.
---jerry6593 on 6/13/15

It appears I believe all the witnesses you refuse to see. You are like the ones caught by the flood. Assumptions you prefer is what you believe.
I believe there was a large "erets" flood. It killed "all" "Noahs kind. Other civilizations histories are recorded passing through this period.

Now you want the mountains "after" the flood? The Bible says there were mountains during the flood. It doesn't say how high.
---Trav on 6/15/15


Learner, did God have any part in this endeavor or not? This was God's project and he gathered the animals. Some times we just have to read the Bible.
---Elder on 6/14/15


I have said what I have said, and you welcome to disagree. God bless you.
---learner2 on 6/14/15

What a cowardly answer. If you BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAID, then by all means, give some support for this. Just to plop anything you want down, and then walk away, with no explanation of WHAT you see here as an allegory, is not only RUDE, but childish. You really DON'T want to be taken seriously do you? This is just some game to you. So then WHY are you here?
---kathr4453 on 6/14/15


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


How did animals travel from all over the world? Some, like the sloths, can't travel overland very well at all. Some, like koalas, require a special diet. How did they bring it along? Some, like the dodo, must have lived on islands. (If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals.) If animals all lived fairly close to Noah before the flood, how were they all able to survive the predation and competition pressures from all the others, and why doesn't evidence of their living together show up in fossil distributions?
---learner2 on 6/14/15


I have said what I have said, and you welcome to disagree. God bless you.
---learner2 on 6/14/15


//It's still an allegory..

---learner2 on 6/13/15 //


That's your opinion, but not many Christians share it. More importantly, Jesus and the NT writers don't agree with you. They considered the flood of Noah to be historical fact, as do most nations' ancient traditions.

Do you have some compelling data to prove your allegorical theory? Bring it!



---jerry6593 on 6/14/15


So now we have three views.
The Flood is/was:

1) LITERAL
2) AN ALLEGORY
3) LOCAL

So Learner2 does not believe in a literal flood, whether the whole earth or a local flood, Hummm.

BUT just to throw out the word, "allegory" again makes me wonder how during the time of Noah, learner2 claimed there were LITERALLY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE on earth. Where did these BILLIONS OF PEOPLE go? We have no record of their death. Certainly scripture would tell us what became of them.
---kathr4453 on 6/14/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


John Bunyans Pilgrims Progress is an example of spiritual allegory. The ordinary sinner Christian leaves the City of Destruction and travels towards Celestial City, where God resides, for salvation. He finds Faithful, a companion who helps him on his way to the City. On many instances, many characters Hypocrisy, Apollyon, Mr. Worldy Wiseman and Obstinate and Pliable try to discourage or stop him from achieving his aim. Finally, he reaches the Celestial City carried by Hopefuls faith.

The moral learnt through this allegory is that the road to Heaven is not easy and it is full of obstacles.


I see nothing in the Genesis Flood even suggesting it is an allegory..
---kathr4453 on 6/14/15


It's still an allegory..
---learner2 on 6/13/15


Trav & L2: The Bible says:

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of ALL flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence through them, and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy ALL flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Do you guys understand the meaning of ALL? Or do you believe ANY of the Bible?

Trav, you continue to make false assumptions which lead to false conclusions. The mountains were created by plate techtonic upthrusting AFTER the flood - not before.


---jerry6593 on 6/13/15


Trav 6/11: Your ellipsis removes "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." The context of H776 erets earth here is shown by using H3605 kole whole and H8064 shameh heaven. Everest is capped by limestone containg sea fossils. Shallower seas and lower peaks = less than five miles of water. If you do a small amount of research, you will find one Ark was quite sufficient to hold 8 people and the animals. Genesis chapters 7-8, 1Peter 3:20, 2Peter 2:5.
---Glenn on 6/12/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


Kath, my point exactly.
---learner2 on 6/11/15

Good answer. Sincerely.
I'm becoming wiser to your wisdom L2.
Hopefully by.
---Trav on 6/11/15


Kath, my point exactly.
---learner2 on 6/11/15


All I know Learner 2, is scripture deals with neither. And WE believe BY FAITH, not by logic.

Here, let me explain. It's the same as the virgin birth. Many also believe this is mythology. There is no logic in it. It's never happened before or will after. Exactly WHY do we BELIEVE IT? Well, because the scriptures tell us .....correct? it's called, FAITH COMES BY HEARING, HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. unless you HEAR things in your head, not associated with the WORD, that's called by a different name, under mental illness. NOW, Do we fudge around with it because it doesn't agree with our LOGIC. You might ....but many don't. WE BELIEVE, because God told us so in the scriptures. This is the definition and application of FAITH.
---kathr4453 on 6/11/15


Hebrews 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

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.

7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Faith is not having to SEE to believe, or PROOF to believe.
You claimed there were BILLIONS on earth at the flood Learner 2, GOD SAID all but 8 of those billions DIED. You put all those BILLIONS in a small geographical area? That's NUTS!
---kathr4453 on 6/11/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


Learner2, so it appears YOUR LOGIC just doesn't pan out.

And to ADD your logic as you did totally calls God a liar.

So if you do it here, you do it everywhere in scripture, as you do in all your posts.
---kathr453 on 6/11/15


Learner "He flooded the part of the world he wanted flooded and did not flood the rest" Which part of scripture tells you this?
---Rita_H on 6/11/15


Genesis 7:19-20, ...Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered".
---Glenn on 6/10/15

16,854 is the height of Greater Mt Ararat.
Roughly just below 1/2 of Mt Everest at 29,029'.
Everest was not covered with water.
Noah started in this "erets" area and landed in the same "erets" area.
5miles of water pressure globally did not happen.
The 40+ Arks it would have taken to house all the known species today PLUS FOOD didn't get built.
One did. For Noah and his own.
Show your Grandkids there was a miracle flood, in a huge local "erets" area. Show them a GOD of truth not of men's fables. Be a PaPa who knows his bible not mens doctrines.
---Trav on 6/11/15


Easy. He flooded the part of the world he wanted flooded and did not flood the rest. Same sort of miracle.
---learner2 on 6/10/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


When you are dealing with mythology, it you don't need logic so much.
---learner2 on 6/10/15


Moses and the children of Israel walked through the Red Sea dryshod. So apparently water does not always seek its own level.
---learner2 on 6/10/15

Since God parted the Red Sea, and then brought the waters back in their place, back over the Egyptians, how can this be compared to the flood?
---kathr4453 on 6/10/15


Ah, another learner2 non sequitur, and an informal fallacy too! A wind setdown, and a possible ebb tide, causing this phenomenon must have been quite an experience for both parties. And water eventually found its level around sunrise, Exodus 14:21-30. Also, please read the previously given verses. Genesis 7:19-20, ..."and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered".
---Glenn on 6/10/15


Moses and the children of Israel walked through the Red Sea dryshod. So apparently water does not always seek its own level.
---learner2 on 6/10/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


If water sought its level some 4350 years ago as it does today, then according to the following verses - world wide, and no others. Genesis 7:19-23.
---Glenn on 6/10/15


Leon, things can be allegorical and still truthful. I'm sure there are many people who have been saved who have never even thought about this subject. It is a side issue. If it is a central issue for you, that's okay with me. Just don't make it be so for everyone.
---learner2 on 6/2/15


Cliff, I intended to say 'was' 100% true. Yes there are many revisions which is why I own as many different versions as possible and compare them a lot to help my understanding. I have said here, many times before, that we would all need to be fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek to understand older manuscripts.

I just pray and trust that God will help my understanding with the versions I have at hand. Some people's personal interpretations of certain scriptures are close to being whacky in the extreme. I'd be afraid to try twisting scripture the way some people do.
---Rita_H on 6/2/15


Rita, You stated that you believe in the bible in it's "original" form to be 100% true.
Why did it need to be revised many times?
Your mind is locked on to something that doesn't exist !
---1st_cliff on 6/2/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Gen 10:31 These are the sons of Shem
Gen 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah...the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel...
Gen 11:10 These are the generations of Shem...
Gen 11:27 Now these are the generations of Terah...
Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram...
1Ch 1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
1Ch 1:27 Abram, the same is Abraham.
Luk 3:34 ...which was the son of Abraham...
Luk 3:36 ...which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe...
L2, could you please tell me where the allegory stops and the history starts?
---micha9344 on 6/2/15


L2: Glad to hear your confession of faith in Jesus Christ for the remission of your (our) sins. But, if you think G1-11 is fictional, then what is your bases for Christ dying for our sins? If there was no real Adam & Eve, etc., then there was really no original sin, & need for salvation.

What "church fathers" are you referring to? Just because they were "church fathers" doesn't mean they weren't wrong L2. It's better to follow the leading/teaching of God, the Holy Spirit, rather than fall into opinionated error.

Also, you seem to be saying the Great Flood didn't really happen. Your summation is very problematic.
---Leon on 6/2/15


If I believe parts of the Old Testament are allegorical, it does not affect my salvation one little bit.
---learner2 on 6/1/15

I would suggest that you mean non-literal verses allegorical. Allegory as defined by Webster is "the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence". If I understand you correctly, you believe Genesis 1-11 is truth, but not necessarily literal truth.

I look at the Bible as a library of books. Psalms are songs or hymns, Kings & Chronicles are history, the Prophets are autobiographies, and Genesis is oral history put onto paper. Oral histories always contained truth but little of actual facts that would stand up in court.
---Mark_Eaton on 6/2/15


Leon, I believe that Christ died for my sins. If anything else is necessary for my salvation, you tell me what it is. If I believe parts of the Old Testament are allegorical, it does not affect my salvation one little bit. Many of the early church fathers read the Old Testament allegorically. So if they could, so can I.
---learner2 on 6/1/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


I am certain that the bible, in it's original form, is one hundred percent true. If it isn't what is the point of it existing?

I don't understand any language other than English so have only English versions from which I can learn. We have to trust that God has not allowed 'adjustments' of His Word to the point that we now read a different message from the one He intended us to read.

I compare as many different version as possible when something seems unclear. If we cannot trust in the accuracy of God's Word we might just as well give up now. I've no intention of giving up.
---Rita_H on 6/2/15


///...Gen.1-11 is definitely allegorical.---learner2 on 6/1/15///

L2: What do you base your opinion? If Adam's fall from grace, into sin, is fictional, then we don't need a Saviour (Redeemer). Therefore, according to your logic, Jesus died for nothing.

Gen. 12 begins with Abram. Is that where reality begins with you or are you just playing games here?
---Leon on 6/1/15


Micha, Gen.1-11 is definitely allegorical. The rest of the book is a mixture of story and history. It's not history as we understand history today.
---learner2 on 6/1/15


So, if Noah is allegorical, was also the lineage to Abram also allegorical?(Gen 11) And, if so, was Abraham also allegorical?
Where does the line get drawn from being allegorical to being historical?
Please pick a spot in 1Chr 1 or Luke 3 that an allegorical figure gave birth to a historical figure.
After all, we all believe in biogenesis, life begets life, don't we?
Or, maybe the people were real, but the event was allegorical?
Doesn't Isa 54:9,Mat 24:37-38, Luk 17:26-27, 1Pe 3:20, 2Pe 2:5, and Heb 11:7 show a historicity to the event?
How many in Heb 11 are just allegory?
---micha9344 on 6/1/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


L2: Do you believe the Genesis account, of those years leading up to the flood, is fictional (allegorical)?
---Leon on 6/1/15


Leon, allegorically.
---learner2 on 6/1/15


///Leon, it really doesn't much matter unless you take those years as literal ones.
---learner2 on 5/31/15///

Truth always matters L2. What else would/could you take them as other than literal?
---Leon on 5/31/15


Leon, it really doesn't much matter unless you take those years as literal ones.
---learner2 on 5/31/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


L2: After Cluny's statement, regarding what I'd said, I went back & did the math & realized I had been wrong to make a 4-5 thousand year assumption off the top of my head. Yes, I agree the Bible shows it was actually 1,656 years from the time of Adam's creation to the Great Flood.

---Leon on 5/31/15


Just count the years in the genealogies from Adam to the flood in Genesis and the years add up to 1656.

All the earth was under water before the first day of creation in Genesis 1.
---learner2 on 5/30/15


Trav
But could 'getting back on the horse' actually be the hardest part of riding?
All cultures has stories of a great flood in their past.
---Nicole_Lacey on 5/30/15

We always had horses growing up. I've been thrown, dragged, kicked, bit and loved by horses and a mule.
Yes...getting back on is like taking a second jump from an Airplane. I didn't really want to do it.
Time lines of several civilizations pass right through the known timeline of Noah's flood. It was "Noah's Flood". The "erets" Flood killed Adamic line of Noah. Scripture does not lie. Uneducated, but faithful believers, prefer their version. The danger is their kids, grandkids being educated by atheist with facts. Now.
---Trav on 5/31/15


Actually, I do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis Cluny. Would you mind explaining how you come to the "2,000 years" conclusion?
---Leon on 5/30/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


\\Afterall, based on the generations from Adam to Noah, approximately 4-5 thousand years had passed.
\\

Actually, it was less than 2000 years from Eden to the Flood, if you believe a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 5/30/15


Trav I like that line about the ground being the hardest thing of learning to ride a horse.

But could 'getting back on the horse' actually be the hardest part of riding?

Either way, Science has shown all parts of the earth's land was underneath water.
All cultures has stories of a great flood in their past.
---Nicole_Lacey on 5/30/15


Jerry: From the time of A & E to Noah's generation, is it possible their children may have populated the entire earth? Afterall, based on the generations from Adam to Noah, approximately 4-5 thousand years had passed.

God said (G6:7) He would destroy mankind from the face of the earth, i.e., mankind wouldn't be found no where on the planet after the flood. Yet, because Noah was a just man, God made an exception for him & his family only to be saved. Eight people went into the ark before the flood & everyone else died. Eight people were left to repopulate the earth.

How far did the ark travel? In 40 days time it could've gone a great distance or pitched, like a cork, back n forth in the same region.
---Leon on 5/30/15


Rita: I agree. I opened this blog because the last one was wasted on a stupid anti-Trinity discussion.


---jerry6593 on 5/30/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


Jerry - 1). Worldwide. 2). NO.
---Rita_H on 5/29/15


You're beating a dead horse now.
---learner2 on 5/29/15

Truth and horse Sense. Think I'll take a little ride in the wagon.
Hope you have a good weekend L2 and everyone else also.

Found some other bits of wisdom from the online stables.
What the colt learns in youth he continues in old age.
French Proverb

The hardest thing about learning to ride is the ground! (Erets) ha.
---Trav on 5/29/15


You're beating a dead horse now.
---learner2 on 5/29/15


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.