New Testament Support for the FLOOD

Thank you, A-Christian. For those who are wondering about the last part of your quotes, Jesus has told us that He WOULD tell us if something were not true.

He spent a lot of time trashing the teachings of men, but not one second indicating that anything in Scripture itself was anything other than the truth.

This, by itself, should make us very, very wary of anytime the teachings of man disagree with Scripture if we are claiming to be followers of Christ!

 

I'm still waiting for the verse in which he said that this was literal, rather than allegorical, or the verse in which it says that citing an allegorical verse makes it literal.

Can't find it anywhere.

 

That's OK, Galatian. The rest of us are happy to presume that Jesus knew what He was talking about -- in Genesis as well as in the rest of the Bible.

 

We all agree that He knew what He was talking about. I'm just waiting for the verse in which He said these parts of Genesis were literal.

Or a verse in which it says that citing an allegory converts it to literal history.

Do you know of one? I don't.

 

In contrast to your dependance on human wisdom first, Galatian, I am quite willing to assume that the Bible, as God's Word to us, is telling the truth about history in a straightforward way simply because Jesus never says it isn't history in the truest sense (not allegorical). Have you ever seen where He said it is allegorical? I can't find any place at all. He just kept referring to it as fact.

Or a verse where citing history converts it to allegory.

I can't find one.

 

It appears that you have relied upon human wisdom, yourself. In the absence of God saying that Genesis is literal, you have assumed that it is, even in light of obvious contradictions.

The error is in assuming that it is literal history. You are assuming what you propose to prove. Circularity, in other words.

He says neither. So, in the absence of His opinion, we have to look at the text itself to see. And a literal interpretation leads to insurmountable logical contradictions.

It is a common misconception that allegory means "not true". It can be (and in the case of Genesis, is) both true and allegorical. "Fact" doesn't appear in the NT in that context.

True. We don't have either, as I pointed out before. However, it's not hard, as most Christians acknowledge, to see that it is not a literal history.

If this was a major concern for God, I'm sure He would have made it plain for us all. But it isn't a major concern for Him.

 

Galatian:

Honest question here, not just being argumentative:

Can you cite a quotation in which Christ cites an Old Testament passage as if it were literal in which we KNOW from a third textual source that it was an allogory?

If there is such a case it would lend great credence to your position.

Keep in mind, I'm not looking for the sort of circular reasoning which would say:

"We know the flood did not happen so we know its an allogory so we know Christ cited an allogory as if it were real so we know that the flood might possibly have been known to Christ as an allogory"

The source which proves it an allogory would have to be Scripture or valid textual criticism.

 

I don't know of any verse He cites as though it were literal at all. He never says.

It's easier than that. If Jesus does not say whether the text is literal or not, then we have to look to other ways to know.

 

Any body that has been to Dr. Hovinds creation seminar will see the truth and realize evolution is just destrurtive to our faith His web sight is www.drdino.com check it out he has a scientific answer for all your Questions

 

Hovind is widely laughed at, even by many creationists.

What do you think Hovind's best argument against evolution might be?

 

I think that Hovin's best evidence, like anyones best evidence against evolution, is the truth revealed in God's inherent word, the Bible! If you don't believe in Genesis how can you truly believe in the rest of the bible?

 

I, and most Christians believe in Genesis. Hovind just doesn't like what it has to say.

So you're saying that an unorthodox interpretation of Genesis is the best "evidence" against evolution?

 

“The real argument here is the authority of the Word of God vs man’s fallible theories.
Those in the Church who do not accept God’s Word as written concerning the literal days of Creation have greatly contributed to the Christian demise of the culture, and will be held responsible before the Lord for leading so many lives astray. They have undermined the text of Scripture because they didn’t accept the words as written.

Why do Christians believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the words of Scripture (‘according to the Scriptures’).

And why should Christians believe in the six literal days of Creation? Because of the words of Scripture (‘In six days the Lord made …’).

The real issue is one of authority—is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority? How the church answers this question will determine the future of the nations of the world.” -Ken Ham

 

It's been said before. Dr Dino is a charlatan who got his degree from a dimploma mill. He uses the topic of creation/evolution to defraud foolish but well meaning Christians and part them from their money. Regardless of what side of the debate you're on, one should never support this con artist.

 

In Exodus 20:11, we find out why a infinite Creator God created everything in 6 literal days, when he very well could’ve created everything in no time.

The Bible tells us that God created Adam on day six and he lived through day 6 and day 7, but when Adam died he was only a mere 930 years old. Whoa now, we have a major problem. If each of these days were thousands or millions of years, how could Adam die at 930 yrs old?

(Romans 3:4) “…let God be true, but every man a liar, as it is written…”

 

Why is evolution founded without God, because you say so??

You set up a strawman again (and again). Evolution does not disprove God. You can be a Christian and accept evolution.

To take Genesis literally is to not only not read Genesis (1&2 contradict each other if you take it literally), but it is also to show God as a liar (the earth is not 6-10k years old, as my meteor example proves).

 

That still doesn’t explain how Adam only lived to be 930 yrs of age. When he was created on day 6.

What Romans chapter 3 is describing is that God isn’t limited to the Jews only. He is also the God of the Gentiles. And it still doesn't change that every man is a liar who doesn't believe Gods word to be true.

Furthermore, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.