The Flood

[ded2daworld]

I think it's important since we are to have "the mind of Christ."
Si8nce the flood accounts say that "all" people werre destroyed except for the eight, we can allegorize the "all" and play right into the ET camp of saying all doesn't really mean all or God meant something other than all or what they usually say:
"YES! ALL righteous people will be saved just like in the days of Noah when the Lord destroyed ALL the unrighteous. Just like if you don't "accept" Jesus before you die, "ALL will die in their sins" not knowing Jesus.

So ET'ers are no different from us in that we interpret all to mean something else when it fits our belief and they do also.

I'm gonna stick with when God tells us the history of the human race - it's accurate plainly and maybe also allegorically. In either case, words like all will mean all. :Peace2:

[micah7:9]

First I believe the mind of Christ is becoming in us, should we have the mind of Christ already, we would be out of questions, we would know all the answers.
Second, I believe that All means All.
A global flood fits "a" historial  christian theoligical doctrine that has been handed down, a story that "fits" how an all powerful God could do such a thing. Could the story spoke of, just be hyperbole?
I do not deny, but accept the parting of the sea and chariots now found beneath. I do not deny a flood that removed "all" save 8 souls, I cannot deny what
we are to, or do receive from what the flood represents, and that what we recieve from the record is,  there was an ark filled with assorted animals and 8 souls, all brought aboard
by the Lord God.
Peter writes, "....which the then world....".......assumption was not just born yesterday and assumption does exclude translators, theology, commentaries, or denominations.
The story of an entire worldwide flood is a jaw dropping word of record. I believed that story for a very long time, but have come to understand, that
a worldwide flood is not needed for me, that's myself, to receive from that story of biblical history. Besides the fact, and the science that studys the earth finds no evidence
of a worldwide flood, metor craters from millions and billions of years ago that would have to show evidence in water lines show nada. The Grand Canyon is another example.
There was a flood of, ".... the then world....". My faith and belief in the Lord God Almighty was not diminished whatsoever.  :Peace2:

[jbertonbounds]

The examples you gave had nothing to do with the written history of the Jews and/or the things God said happened. Are you saying you don't know if Jesus believed the old testament writings to be true? I think Jesus, being the word of God believed the word of God.

You are changing my words.  I did not say that. 

I actually said, "we don't know whether Jesus "believed" them to be historical or allegorical, and we have no basis for believing He believed one way or the other."

I think you need to re-read my post.

[jbertonbounds]

I think it's important since we are to have "the mind of Christ."
Si8nce the flood accounts say that "all" people werre destroyed except for the eight, we can allegorize the "all" and play right into the ET camp of saying all doesn't really mean all or God meant something other than all or what they usually say:
"YES! ALL righteous people will be saved just like in the days of Noah when the Lord destroyed ALL the unrighteous. Just like if you don't "accept" Jesus before you die, "ALL will die in their sins" not knowing Jesus.

So ET'ers are no different from us in that we interpret all to mean something else when it fits our belief and they do also.

I'm gonna stick with when God tells us the history of the human race - it's accurate plainly and maybe also allegorically. In either case, words like all will mean all. :Peace2:

The story of the flood and the ET doctrine really have nothing to do with each other, because the ET doctrine is false to start with.  Although people do sometimes argue points they want to be true to suit their own doctrinal tastes, that is not what we are doing here.  We are giving our opinions of whether certain (not all) bible stories are historical or allegorical - not whether they are true or false, and not whether Jesus believed his own word or not (To question such a thing would be ridiculous.). 

Furthermore, ET'ers are dramatically different from us in their approach to the Word and the gospel.

As, well, I don't recall anyone arguing  that "all" didn't mean "all" in the Word.

[ded2daworld]

So a local flood destroyed "all" of humanity and every living thing that walks on the earth except for those in the ark?
By saying ALL weren't destroyed as the bible says, it gives et people the opening to deny where the bible says ALL will be saved.
and it's not if the bible has stories that are historical OR allegorical. It's the bible has historical stories which have some allegorical meaning also.

I guess my question is still since the Bible is true and accurate, why is there any need to say that some of the historical stories are only allegorical and not to be taken as literal truth? Has anyone ever proved the Bible wrong? Not on a single story and science backs up A created young earth and a global flood. I also think that Jesus corrected where people had wrong ideas about what the old testament said. None of these ideas concerned whether or not the flood was local or global.

[micah7:9]

Where can I find this? "Not on a single story and science backs up A created young earth and a global flood."

I just left the basic dates, it was long with names
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ANCIENT EGYPTIAN KINGS
                                      With chronology

ARCHAIC PERIOD
(a.k.a. EARLY DYNASTIC)

Dynasty I: 3050-2857

Dynasty II: 2857-2705

OLD KINGDOM

Dynasty III: 2705-2630


Dynasty IV: 2630-2524

Dynasty V: 2524 2400

Dynasty VI: 2400-2250?


Dynasty VII: 2250?-2230


Dynasty VIII: 2230-2213
   


FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD

Dynasty IX: 2213-ca. 2175


Dynasty X: ca. 2175-ca. 2035

. . . .                                                       ca. 2075
Nebkaure Akhtoy   (father of Merikare?)         


Dynasty XI: 2134-1991

Horus Tepi-'o            Mentuhotep I              2134-   
Nebtawyre            Mentuhotep IV                       -1991
                                                         TIME OF ABRAHAM

When we come to the old dynasty 3 Nebka I 2705-2687, that was the time of the Bent Pyramid was built during his reign. Then when we come down to the forth dynasty which is 2630-2524 and we have Khufu/"Cheops" and the Great Pyramid of Cheops and that was 2606-2583 that he reigned.   

In the sixth dynasty there was a Pharaoh called Pepi II he reigned from 2355-2261. How could Pepi have reigned from 2355 when seven years later there was Noah's flood? Yet years later he is still reigning. The flood occurred in the middle of the reign of Pepi II of the VI dynasty of the Old Kingdom, right in the middle of his reign. It didn't kill him, he reigned right through the flood. 

I take this list all the way down to 1991 BC to Mentuhotep IV and he reigned at the time of Abraham. Now Abraham is just this side of the flood. So if you are going to tell me that the pyramids were built after the flood, then that's where they were, not knocked down. What are you going to do with a thousand years of perfectly documented history of the kings of Egypt? Some of these kings built them... Cheops built The Great Pyramid and we know when he reigned 2606-2583, that's when he built The Great Pyramid of Cheops. The Bent Pyramid was built back in 2705 under the reign of Nebka I. 

So we know when the pyramids were built and we know who was reigning and it is unbroken for a thousand years. How are you going to cramp a thousand years of history, that occurred before the flood, into after the flood? Where are you going to put it? It's like we take all the history from 1750-1850 in the United States and try to cram it in between 1850-1950 how are you going to cram a hundred years of American history in there, I mean it is just foolishness. So there is the proof.

There was no (global) flood, it would have destroyed the pyramids. But if it didn't destroy the pyramids, then they would have had to be built after the flood. If they were built after the flood then you can't cram a thousand years of history in there... a fully documented history. If they say there was a flood and they survived the flood then you can't account for the two to three miles of strata underneath the pyramids. How was that water laid strata put down if the flood didn't even destroy the pyramid, how did it put down two to three miles of strata underneath the pyramids, you see.  This thing book ended, there is no way around it. That is all the proof you will ever need.

[ded2daworld]

Perfectly documented? Really? There are a few archeologists that put that timing off by 1,000 years so don't act like it's cut and dry. No scientist, no archeologists agree on the INTERPRETATION of the findings. (Well maybe there was a scarcophagus with a "Made in CXhina 3600 B.C. sticker on it.)Police have trouble figuring out what happened just hours after a murder scene and it's "perfectly documented" about what happened 4-5,000 years ago. In fact, we should take the word of pagans with an agenda over the inspired word of the God that cannot lie. (God is not a man that he should lie) :Peace2:

[jbertonbounds]

Perfectly documented? Really? There are a few archeologists that put that timing off by 1,000 years so don't act like it's cut and dry. No scientist, no archeologists agree on the INTERPRETATION of the findings. (Well maybe there was a scarcophagus with a "Made in CXhina 3600 B.C. sticker on it.)Police have trouble figuring out what happened just hours after a murder scene and it's "perfectly documented" about what happened 4-5,000 years ago. In fact, we should take the word of pagans with an agenda over the inspired word of the God that cannot lie. (God is not a man that he should lie) :Peace2:

No one here has accused God of lying.
No one here has accused the written word of containing lies.
No one here has accused Jesus of telling things he didn't believe.

[Graph1159]

I recall Gary Amiralt saying in his "The Rapture you missed" series how Biblical references to "all the world" meant all the world known to the original audience. I don't remember the exact Scriptures he quoted, but they were ones like this:

Colossians 1:5-6 - "of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit."

Gary made the case that "all the world" meant everywhere in which there were Jews. I am not an adherent to the local flood theory; however, if the great majority of scientific evidence supported a local flood, I probably wouldn't argue that Scripture says otherwise. On the other hand, Scripture completely prevents me from believing in Evolution, even if every scientific study said it was true.

[micah7:9]

Where and why would the thought and/or the word "evolution" come into the a debate on "the" flood"?
Evolution, the POTUS "evolved" in his thinking that gay was okay.( :doh:) That was  humor. :laughing7:
But the word evolution seems to come up in biblical debate(why I do not know) I believe, and unless some one can change my reasoning, in evolution; but I cannot accept, the theory or hypothesis of evolution having anything to do with the written Word of the Lord regarding the creation. I, in the "human strain" am evolving, and that "change," I thank the Lord, is by His faith and Grace. And as David prayed, "How long Lord! How long!" :HeartThrob:


"No one here has accused God of lying.
No one here has accused the written word of containing lies.
No one here has accused Jesus of telling things he didn't believe." (jbertonbounds)

Spot on! :thumbsup: :dsunny:

[ded2daworld]

Sure, because if we disagree with scripture or think science has "proved" what the bible says happened didn't happen, we can always just say, OH that was just an allegory, God didn't mean what every translation says about a worldwide flood. God doesn't understand the science of it all so he told a story about something that didn't really happen so our feeble minds could understand it. Scientists would never lie or stretch the truth even if big grant money is at stake because being atheist for the most part, they are more moral than the rest of us and know better about what happened than the eyewitness God. :Chinscratch:

[Graph1159]

But the word evolution seems to come up in biblical debate(why I do not know) I believe, and unless some one can change my reasoning, in evolution; but I cannot accept, the theory or hypothesis of evolution having anything to do with the written Word of the Lord regarding the creation. I, in the "human strain" am evolving, and that "change," I thank the Lord, is by His faith and Grace. And as David prayed, "How long Lord! How long!" :HeartThrob:

I agree. Very well stated.

[jbertonbounds]

Where and why would the thought and/or the word "evolution" come into the a debate on "the" flood"?
Evolution, the POTUS "evolved" in his thinking that gay was okay.( :doh:) That was  humor. :laughing7:
But the word evolution seems to come up in biblical debate(why I do not know) I believe, and unless some one can change my reasoning, in evolution; but I cannot accept, the theory or hypothesis of evolution having anything to do with the written Word of the Lord regarding the creation. I, in the "human strain" am evolving, and that "change," I thank the Lord, is by His faith and Grace. And as David prayed, "How long Lord! How long!" :HeartThrob:

Good point! :thumbsup:

[jbertonbounds]

The only connection that I can see between the flood and evolution is that some folks believe that the stories of the creation and the flood are both allegorical.  Anyway, the word "evolution" scares the heckle out of Christians because it was presented by the scientific world back in the 50's or 60's (?) as a substitute theory for the biblical creation story, and some scientists used it to refute the truth of the Word.  That in itself was antichrist.  What almost nobody in Christendom realizes is that there is nothing to fear but fear itself.  Evolution is a broad term, and is most often used in science to describe how species adapt to changes in their environments through time - it's a survival mechanism for life on earth.  God made us that way.  Evolution itself is not antichrist, and it's not a dirty word.

If you want to believe in a literal six-day creation or flood, wonderful!  It's in our bibles, so believe your bible!  If you want to think of the creation or flood stories as allegorical, then fine.  There is nothing antichrist about that.  God gave us reasoning ability, and he expects us to use it.  Do what you were created to do:  THINK.

And may your thoughts always be toward God.