/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>814279

It probably didn't happen, or was some kind of miracle if it did. It's not complicated at all. Also you must note that cosmology was different to them, so "world" meant something comletely foreign to what you're thinking of.

>>814284

If you think a myth is a lie, then I would question your sense of Scripture. The Bible has many historical falsities for instance, sometimes propaganda, added portions, words attributed to God that He didn't say, etc, etc, it is what it is.

>>814287

Holy shit dude, you're on a slippery as winnie the pooh slope.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

>>814293

Inspiration is out the door once those original documents or statements are uttered, y'know? There are some things, meaning, etc, such as the exact meaning of a few odd verses here and there, that are forever lost. I am not on a slippery slope, just because acknowleding all of this and owning it would cause you to have fundamental doubts doesn't mean we all react that way.

>>814279

Try to forget about the fallible framework called flood geology for a second and just try to read what it says.

The flood of Noah's day was intended to and did remove all man except for the eight saved by the ark. It also killed off all animal life living in the same area, hence the reason why God told him to build the ark big enough to preserve future populations of them. But all of that doesn't include fish and beasts living outside of the area that was flooded.

The part about the whole face of the earth being flooded up to the hills is true because it likewise says in Exodus 10:15 that locusts covered the whole face of the earth in Egypt. There is a consistent use of language throughout scripture since it is a perfect narrative of what happened.

>God does speak about the rainbow being a covenant with ALL life that he will never flood THE world again.

>But then again, 2nd Peter 3:6 says the WORLD was deluged by water.

This is actually talking about the first flood which happened to make the world completely without life and void, as it says in Genesis 1:2. Notice this can't be the same flood as Noah's flood because in 2 Peter 3:6 it says that the whole world perished. That's not the same as eight people and some animals surviving.

Also notice what Genesis 9:11 says.

>And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

So there's actually two things here, not just one. The first one is talking about how God cut off all flesh by the waters of a flood. What just happened. The second part is referring to the other, earlier flood that destroyed the entire earth, making it without form and void in Genesis 1:2.

So yeah this goes right up against most people's theories of flood geology, but this is still very much Biblically consistent and it makes much more sense than those.

>>814299

Also probably the strongest proof of this comes in 2 Peter 2:7, which says "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

The verse clearly says that the "heavens and the earth, which are now," meaning that the world that is mentioned in 2 Peter 2:6 must come before the HEAVENS which are now.

If the very atmosphere was destroyed by the flood of Noah so that God had to make heavens again, it seems hard to understand how anyone survived. How were birds of Noah flying around in the aftermath if the heavens were destroyed. This is why ruin and reconstruction is the only sensible framework, and not standard flood geology.

>>814303

This is reading is all entirely new to me, can you elaborate or map it out step by step to help me understand what you're talking about?

>>814287

I was with you right up until

>words attributed to God that He didn't say

Oh no anon.

Look, I get it, the Bible is different from what we would call history today, the OT describes the origins of Christ with greater clarity than it describes what we would consider history, but don't push it that far or you'll not be a Christian, you'll be an anthropologist.

>>814398

>can you elaborate or map it out step by step to help me understand what you're talking about?

Pretty much what I said here >>814299 is the elaboration. After Noah's flood, God made an unconditional covenant that he wouldn't flood the earth to cut off all flesh, nor to destroy the earth anymore. This is because there was an earlier flood that occurred before Genesis 1:2 which destroyed the world that then was, and this is also what 2 Peter 2:6, as you quoted, is talking about. The flood that Noah rode out on the ark happened later and it involved destroying all the descendants of Adam except himself, his three sons and their wives. This is different in the sense that it didn't completely kill absolutely everything or destroy the atmosphere as the first flood did. And after this, God then promised not to do any more floodings like these two.

Not sure how I could make it simpler than this.

It implies that there was a world in existence in the time between when God created everything in Genesis 1:1 and the time when it was flooded and lifeless in Genesis 1:2. There's more reason to believe this besides making sense of the flood account, but this is a logical place to start. You just have to read specifically what God said in Genesis 9:11 and realize it's referring to two separate events. The part about destroying the earth is the earlier flood.

> thirty clean animals

>two of unclean animals of their kind

>8 humans

Why is this so complicated to some people? It must be secularism rotting the populace's brain because even I knew about this even before my preteen years.