Dear fellow, you are judging me and that is way above your pay grade.
As I said above, condemning someone for judging you is hypocritical.
Perhaps you are reacting to somebody who is challenging you somewhat.
People like you are not a challenge at all.
If you were totally comfortable in your belief, somebody like me would be water off a ducks back, but you are absolutely unloading, so I can only assume I have touched a nerve?
Pointing out the flaws in your argumentation is not "unloading."
The Flood of Noah is in its way an event,
Meaningless nonsense.
The flood is an event that did, in fact, occur.
it is 40 days and nights of rain,
And a total of 150 days of water on the earth that covered the mountaintops.
which means that Noah received from God 40 years of the raining down of a divine revelation.
Meaningless nonsense.
The Ark is not a big boat,
Yes, it was.
it is an Ark of Covenant with God.
The Ark of the Covenant is not Noah's Ark. They are two very different vessels.
Meaning that those who followed the teachings of Noah can enter into a covenant, a place in which they protect and preserve their human spirit from the rampages of the ego, materialism that replaces God in one's life, form ignoble passion and excesses.
More meaningless nonsense.
'Have a look at these passages.
Matthew 24/37 - But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 24/39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Luke 17/26 - And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
Notice the similes and metaphors in those passages.
Was there a Flood in any part of the age of Jesus?
Of sorts.
Has there been a global flood in the last 2000 years?
Flood of water? no.
A flood of new believers? Yes.
And yet the age of Jesus was compared to the age of Noah, how is that possible?
It's called figurative language. The Bible uses it often.
It's possible because in the age of Noah the people were more concerned about wealth and pleasure than harkening to the word of God.
No, that's not why it's possible, nor is it what happened.
What happened was God disallowed capital punishment for murderers after Cain killed his brother, and the result was that man became so wicked that they even interbreeded with demons and corrupted the genetic information contained within their descendants bodies.
In the age of Jesus, when He was murdered He had a small group of dedicated followers. The Flood they took them away was their egos, their sin and material cravings that replaced a love of God.
More nonsense.
You believe that the Flood of Noah was a real event and God killed every human except 8.
That's what happened, regardless if we (or if you, for that matter) believe it.
The problem with this is how one then must perceive God as a revenge filled being whose Creation has failed, so He has no alternative but to destroy everything and start again.
Your mockery of God notwithstanding, God was entirely justified in destroying humanity, because of how wicked they had become.
This would of course leave a planet utterly devastated,
Yes, the Flood of Noah did devastate the planet. It also ruined the solar system.
eco-systems destroyed beyond any hope of returning
False.
and if humans could have survived they would see the evidence of this deluge everywhere.
It's not that there isn't evidence. It's just that you're averting your eyes from it.
Somebody mentioned the rebound after Mt St Helens, but Mt St Helens is about a billionth of the planet's surface, whereas the literal Flood was a total coverage.
Isn't God's creation amazing, that it can be restored even after a global flood?
I believe this is an moral teaching, highly symbolic, expressed as a story.
What you believe is irrelevant, not to mention wrong.
These ideas are simply wrong. That of course is no more than an opinion.
Says the one who has so far only given his opinions.
I'm not sure how science becomes failed science when it contradicts your understanding of the Bible.
Science fails when it goes against reality.
Remember, the Bible would not exist if not for science.
False.
Language [is from science],
Nope. Language comes from God.
Languages change over time, but they did not arise from grunts and noises of animals.
Language is the conveyance of information. Information must come from intelligence.
kgov.com
the internet, etc, etc, all of this is from science,
Many of the fathers of the physical sciences were creationists.
but as soon as it goes near the sacred belief of a Christian Creationist it reverts to failed science.
Nope.
I appreciate that science gets stuff wrong, but they have this wonderful self-correcting mechanism called peer review.
As per NCBI:
"Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication."
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It's not what you think it is.
Scientists love nothing better than to find fault with the research of others and in this way errors get purged from the system.
How awfully biased of them.
Creation science is not science.
Yes, it is.
It is a process of substantiation where none exists.
False.
Conclusions are draw and research,
False.
or evidence is tortured to try to make it fit a Creationist world view.
False.
Some groups like the Jehovah Witness often employ quote mining to basically reach false conclusions.
JWs are just as wrong on this subject as you are.
Now to the Bible, the OT is a non-Christian Scripture.
Repeating yourself won't make the phrase magically come true, or be any more relevant.
It's a compilation of various religions that existed before Christ.
False.
It is not the literal word of God,
Yes it is.
though it is the Divine Will of God that passes through a Teacher,
More nonsense.
such as Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, Isaiah,
Abraham was a man chosen by God to be the father of many nations.
Noah was a man chosen by God to save his family (and thus humanity through him) from the coming floodwaters.
Moses was a man chosen by God to lead His people out of Egypt and into the Promised land, and to write the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch.
David was a man chosen by God to be the first king of Israel, so that Jesus, God the Son, could be born as a descendant of him, to be the final and rightful ruler of Israel.
Isaiah was a man chosen by God to be a prophet to the nation of Israel.
etc and is produced as comprehensible human language and then eventually was compiled as a written account.
More nonsense. God is fully capable of writing a book that can be understood by humans.
Genesis was written by one man, not many.
were producing a Teaching suitable for a simple Bronze Age people who had no scientific understanding relative to today.
This you say of the people who lived in the era that the pyramids were built, that no one today can even imagine exactly how they were built.
Again, ancient men were geniuses compared to men of today.
Genesis was not written specifically for somebody living in 2022.
It was written for all people everywhere and in any age.
A person living in 2022 must apply the knowledge of this age to reading Genesis
This is called presentism, and in this case, it's fallacious.
Try just reading scripture in the context of scripture, not modern day interpretations.
otherwise it becomes an illogical story of superstition and dogma and brings Christianity into disrepute with logic and reason.
False.
If you seek truth then you need the courage of your conviction to look at real science,
Someone needs to look in a mirror and say that...
Because we already look at real science. You don't.
not Creationist publications.
What's wrong with Creationist publications?
Real science is amoral, it is not trying to undermine religion.
Duh.
Yet the "science" (if it can even be called that) you promote does just that.
It seeks only to reveal the wonders of God's Creation.
Not the "science" you promote.
No evidence exists for the Flood of Noah
False.
apart from that which is purloined for the purpose of trying to substantiate a literal take of Genesis.
Special pleading is a fallacy, sir.
Thanks for your response.
I'd say the same, but you haven't responded to me, so I can't.