"Jolly-Rancher206" wrote: I'mma just slide in here... Maybe you clarified this on another page, page but AlphaT do you believe it's possible the flood really did happen but could've been local? Unrung, do you think there's any merit to the flood being local? And also Alpha, does that mean you don't think Noah actually existed?
While my personal view of the narrative doesn't have much to do with whether or not there was a flood, I do think that there was a local flood. I also think that Noah and his kin were the only survivors in his specific area.
"Jolly-Rancher206" wrote:I don't see the point in quoting the Joseph story. That's one line and an obvious hyperbole. The flood story doesn't read exactly like that at all. It's pretty detailed. It tells how old Noah was when this came about, the specifics of the ark. If anything in Genesis reads like it could be allegorical I'd point to the creation account, not the flood.
The Joseph story was written by the same person who wrote the Noah story. And the Noah story reads much like this, as it talks about all the world being flooded in the same way as in the Joseph story. Thank you for bringing this up though, as I misquoted the Joseph story. See, it says that all of the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, not that all the Egyptian citizens came to Joseph to buy grain.
"Jolly-Rancher206" wrote:How are OT writers sure God created the Heavens and the Earth? They weren't aware of deep space, the numerous other galaxies we can see with the Hubble Telescope. They weren't aware of China and North America and the world's thousands of islands either.I think they were convinced in a global flood. How do you view Gen. 8:9?
Well, they saw creation, and knew that there was a Creator. They attributed all that they saw to this creator.
To Genesis 8:9, I doubt that the dove could have flown far enough to find land. Even though the flood was local, it was devastating.
"Jolly-Rancher206" wrote:Another question I want to pose to both of you, and anyone else, is what do you think the moral of the story is? And is the power of that moral diminished if the flood isn't historically accurate?
The moral of the story is that God is righteous in His judgment, and that evil will be punished. But it also connotes the idea that God is righteous in His mercy, sparing those who obey Him. This is very much effected if there was no flood, as God's judgment would have never really happened.
My opening statement was 3,269 words long. The usual opening statement is around 2,000 words long, so I understand if it takes longer than usual.
about 1 hour
Okay, So I Just Need Like A Best Friend Who Will Leave Me Little Cute Messages && Be MY Best Friend && Not "Best Friends" With Everyone. I'll Be Your Best Friend Too.
Someone I Can Talk To && Connect With.
Have Actual Conversations && Not Short Answers Or Replies.
Someone Who Will Put Me In Check When I Have An Attitude.
Someone Who Will Just Be There For Me No Matter What.
MY Best Friend.
Applications Are Being Accepted c:
about 2 hours
"Jolly-Rancher206" wrote: I'mma just slide in here... Maybe you clarified this on another page, page but AlphaT do you believe it's possible the flood really did happen but could've been local? Unrung, do you think there's any merit to the flood being local? And also Alpha, does that mean you don't think Noah actually existed? Another question I want to pose to both of you, and anyone else, is what do you think the moral of the story is? And is the power of that moral diminished if the flood isn't historically accurate?
-Just wanna throw this out there, my response to Alpha is going to take a while. My opening statement was indeed 3 pages long in Microsoft Word, but my friend's is a whopping 9 pages. I don't really have the time at the moment, but I'll be getting around to it as soon as I can.-
But I can answer your question. :)
What I gather from the text, Jolly, is the idea of the whole earth being subject to judgment, and this point is repeated throughout the story. Chapter 6:11-13 stresses the notion.
"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, 'I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.'"
There is no way of getting around this, the story clearly indicated that God meant to destroy all life on the face of the earth. What would be the point of a localized flood anyway? God said all life was corrupted, so how was purging this one little region somewhere in the Middle East going to cleanse the entire earth? Why would Noah even have to make an ark, why not just take a hike out of the area where God was going to bring the tiny flood? Creationists typically believe that the ark was built over a period of roughly 60 years. This would have been ample time for Noah and his family to just get out of dodge and settle down somewhere else!
So you have to either take the story at face value, or you have to reject it altogether. And I would point out that Noah and his son Shem are found in the Messianic lineage, as we read in Luke 3:36. So if you believe the lineage of Christ to be accurate, then you have to accept that Noah was a real man who really walked the earth. This evidence might not persuade an atheist of the flood, but I think it ought to mean something to the Christian. Not to mention, both Jesus and his disciples refer to Noah's flood in the New Testament.
You also asked what I think the moral of the story is. I think it attests to God's righteousness, that he punished the wicked for turning their back on Him and doing evil all the time, it attests to God's mercy and love, that he spared the righteous from destruction, even if it was only one family, and it attests to God's reliability, as He never fails to meet His promises.
about 2 hours