Bcspace, a question about the flood.

[_Bazooka]

1. You believe the flood of Noah was probably local in nature and not a global event.
2. The Rainbow (according to scripture) is a sign that God has covenanted to never doing that to humanity again.
3. There have been instances of humanity being wiped out by local floods since the time of Noah.

Therefore, if the flood of Noah was indeed local in nature, you must believe God has gone back on His promise, right?

[_GR33N]

1. You believe the flood of Noah was probably local in nature and not a global event.
2. The Rainbow (according to scripture) is a sign that God has covenanted to never doing that to humanity again.
3. There have been instances of humanity being wiped out by local floods since the time of Noah.

Therefore, if the flood of Noah was indeed local in nature, you must believe God has gone back on His promise, right?

Another reason why it was a global event just as suggested in the Bible.

[_Bazooka]

1. You believe the flood of Noah was probably local in nature and not a global event.
2. The Rainbow (according to scripture) is a sign that God has covenanted to never doing that to humanity again.
3. There have been instances of humanity being wiped out by local floods since the time of Noah.

Therefore, if the flood of Noah was indeed local in nature, you must believe God has gone back on His promise, right?

Another reason why it was a global event just as suggested in the Bible.

Hi Gr33n, do you agree with the point?
That if people believe the flood was a 'local' event, then God would have to be viewed (based on a fairly clear statement in the Bible) as breaking His covenant that He made with Noah?

[_Themis]

Hi Gr33n, do you agree with the point?
That if people believe the flood was a 'local' event, then God would have to be viewed (based on a fairly clear statement in the Bible) as breaking His covenant that He made with Noah?

If you think the Bible is wrong about it being a global event, then why would you think it is accurate about God making this covenant with Noah?

[_Bazooka]

Hi Gr33n, do you agree with the point?
That if people believe the flood was a 'local' event, then God would have to be viewed (based on a fairly clear statement in the Bible) as breaking His covenant that He made with Noah?

If you think the Bible is wrong about it being a global event, then why would you think it is accurate about God making this covenant with Noah?

The thread isn't about what I think, it's about what bcspace thinks.
If he believes in a local event then he has to believe God has subsequently broken His covenant.
That or he has to throw the Bible under the bus.

Personally I think most religions have some form of flood story and that it is just that, a story.

[_Themis]

The thread isn't about what I think, it's about what bcspace thinks.

I was talking about the logic of it.

If he believes in a local event then he has to believe God has subsequently broken His covenant.

No he doesn't. If he doesn't believe literally one claim of the Bible, why does he have to believe this other one?

That or he has to throw the Bible under the bus.

Of course he is throwing the Bible under the bus. Mormons do this all the time. Most Christians interpret the Bible to fit their beliefs. The more you don't want to take it literally, the less valuable it becomes in it's claims being really true. The problem is if the flood story is not global as it states, then why should the Jesus story of rising from the dead be any more accurate?

[_Bazooka]

I wonder how bcspace will respond....

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Considering when the flood is supposed to have happened, do we have any written or printed records dating BEFORE that time? Unless well sealed they would not have survived the worldwide flood.

[_moksha]

I wonder if Bc has an explanation regarding how liberals apparently survived the flood. I am wondering specifically whether liberals might be pre-adamites.

[_Quasimodo]

I wonder if Bc has an explanation regarding how liberals apparently survived the flood. I am wondering specifically whether liberals might be pre-adamites.

I'm sure that is the answer. We liberals are all knuckle draggers. The heavy brow ridges are aesthetically a problem, but having to put bandaids on my knuckles is the most annoying (along with the extensive body hair).