Poll - Noah’s Flood - Factual or Figurative?

[DrWojo]

You are correct - I do not take issue with your question, at least if I understand correctly. I am generally accused of taking the book of the Revelation too literally. But from the standpoint of linguistics (specifically discourse structure) - the style of writing, this book is said to follow the apocalyptic style used of Jewish "mystery writers", generally somewhat like fake prophets who wrote about past events, while claiming in their works to be some real prophet who lived in times before the events of which they wrote. I haven't studied this a great deal (as is probably evident), but as I understand, John, by making an outright claim right at the beginning that he was who he actually was (not some famous and respected prophet of the past) he sort of turned this genre of writing on its head, so to speak. So it is in some sense symbolic. But then again, I personally tend to take the symbolism pretty literally in application. (For instance, I accept that there shall be a literal person who will be THE AntiChrist, the culmination of all those who qualify for that title in lesser ways. I accept a literal 7-year - or greater - period of intense tribulation. I accept a literal reign on earth of the Christ of God.) (So now I have outed myself.)

You have not outed yourself in my estimation. I guess I’ll now confess my motive for creating this poll. For most of last week, I kept meditating on 2Peter. Then reading those reacting to posts related to the end times, declaring them conspiracies and that it is impossible for them to happen (like rounding up people refusing to be vaccinated and placing them in camps), I decided I’d make this poll, because in 2Peter 3, the Apostle Peter specifically says of those scoffers that will come in the last days and try to deny the soon return of Christ, that they are willingly ignorant of God’s judgement of the ungodly world of Noah’s day. This is not to single out anyone by me personally, although I will confess I stubbornly declare I will not allow myself to be led away by error, but resolve to remain steadfast in my beliefs, and to have nothing to do with a one world government.

[Ken]

I'm not trying to challenge anyone else's beliefs. Just explaining mine.

The Jewish Torah or Hebrew Bible has 24 books
The Protestant Old Testament has 39 books
The Catholic Old Testament has 46 books
The Orthodox Old Testament has 49 books.

Which one is right? Does it matter?

Which of those Bibles do you believe are God’s Word to you? Which, if any do you believe are God’s Word for you?

I don't think it really matters because I don't think Christianity is rooted in, or depends literal interpretations of the Old Testament. According to Jesus in John 5:39-40

“You don’t have His word living in you, because you don’t believe the One He sent. You study the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me. And you are not willing to come to Me so that you may have life.”

[silentreader]

You are correct - I do not take issue with your question, at least if I understand correctly. I am generally accused of taking the book of the Revelation too literally. But from the standpoint of linguistics (specifically discourse structure) - the style of writing, this book is said to follow the apocalyptic style used of Jewish "mystery writers", generally somewhat like fake prophets who wrote about past events, while claiming in their works to be some real prophet who lived in times before the events of which they wrote. I haven't studied this a great deal (as is probably evident), but as I understand, John, by making an outright claim right at the beginning that he was who he actually was (not some famous and respected prophet of the past) he sort of turned this genre of writing on its head, so to speak. So it is in some sense symbolic. But then again, I personally tend to take the symbolism pretty literally in application. (For instance, I accept that there shall be a literal person who will be THE AntiChrist, the culmination of all those who qualify for that title in lesser ways. I accept a literal 7-year - or greater - period of intense tribulation. I accept a literal reign on earth of the Christ of God.) (So now I have outed myself.)

You have not outed yourself in my estimation. I guess I’ll now confess my motive for creating this poll. For most of last week, I kept meditating on 2Peter. Then reading those reacting to posts related to the end times, declaring them conspiracies and that it is impossible for them to happen (like rounding up people refusing to be vaccinated and placing them in camps), I decided I’d make this poll, because in 2Peter 3, the Apostle Peter specifically says of those scoffers that will come in the last days and try to deny the soon return of Christ, that they are willingly ignorant of God’s judgement of the ungodly world of Noah’s day. This is not to single out anyone by me personally, although I will confess I stubbornly declare I will not allow myself to be led away by error, but resolve to remain steadfast in my beliefs, and to have nothing to do with a one world government.

I guess in my opinion if you are studying 2 Peter his most important and most dire warning is in chapter 1 v9 where (paraphrasing) he says that if the things he talked about in the previous verses are not present and growing stronger in bringing you to be like Christ, not only are you being blinded to eternal realities but you are willfully forgetting the redemptive cleansing that has happened.
To me this trumps any presumptions we may form of the times of Trump or post-Trump.
We prepare for the temporal and let slip the eternal.
Just sayin.

[Valerie]

The Jewish Torah or Hebrew Bible has 24 books
The Protestant Old Testament has 39 books
The Catholic Old Testament has 46 books
The Orthodox Old Testament has 49 books.

Which one is right? Does it matter?

Obviously the Orthodox, as they have "more" books to learn from, & in the Wisdom of Solomon, in the Orthodox Bible, there is a passage that states God created more animals, apparently that would have been after the flood.

What about what Jesus said in Matthew 24:36-39: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only period but as a days of Noah were, so also will be the coming of the Son of Man be for as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking marrying and giving in marriage until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away so also will the coming of the Son of Man be"

Since Jesus the pre-incarnate Christ was with the father at creation for him to quote about Noah and the flood and the Ark I don't see how we could even doubt the truth of the story

[JimFoxvog]

I voted number 1, factual. I'm not 100% sure and am continuing to try to stay open-minded. I used to reject the flood as being contrary to science. But I've found the scientific creationists are not nearly so far out as I first thought. I believe sincere real Christians can have either opinion and it will not impact their salvation. Jesus seemed to take the account as historical, but one can refer to the lesson in a fable without labeling it a fable.

Ken, it would be worth your while to at least read what the scientists who defend the literal flood say about your objections. The usual hypothesis, with some possibly supporting evidence, is that the oceans became deeper and the mountains taller.

[ohio jones]

This is not to single out anyone by me personally, although I will confess I stubbornly declare I will not allow myself to be led away by error, but resolve to remain steadfast in my beliefs...

The problem with deception is that one doesn't realize one is deceived. Matt. 24:24. In the event that happens and the Spirit speaks a word of correction, it is best not to be too stubbornly immutable.

...and to have nothing to do with a one world government.

They might not ask your permission.

I am quite looking forward to a one world government, actually. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end.

[Ken]

Ken, it would be worth your while to at least read what the scientists who defend the literal flood say about your objections. The usual hypothesis, with some possibly supporting evidence, is that the oceans became deeper and the mountains taller.

If you have a good link discussing actual science, I would read it.

But what you are describing is not a scientific hypothesis of any kind. A scientific hypothesis looks at actual scientific evidence and then come up with the best explanation for that evidence. Scientific hypotheses are always subject to rejection or revision if the evidence points in a different direction. What you are describing is an attempt to explain how an event in the bible might have happened despite any supporting scientific evidence anywhere that I am aware of that supports a 40-day world-wide shifting of the earth's crust in 1300 BC that resulted in a 40-day-long flooding of the planet's surface. If such a flood had occurred it would have left uniform evidence on every continent. I'm not aware of scientists working on any continent anywhere who are finding independent evidence of a world-wide flood in 1300 BC. For example, here in the Pacific Northwest we have tremendous amounts of scientific evidence for what are known as the Great Missoula Floods that occurred between 15,000 and 12,000 years ago and that altered the landscape in innumerable ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_floods A similar biblical flood event occurring much more recently in 1300 BC would have left similar evidence across North America. There is none that I am aware of.

I'm not really trying to convince any of you of my position. Just explaining where I am coming from as per the question in this poll.

[ohio jones]

The Jewish Torah or Hebrew Bible has 24 books
The Protestant Old Testament has 39 books

The content is the same, just packaged more efficiently. The Tanakh (Torah is just the first 5 books) counts Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles as one book each, Ezra-Nehemiah is a single book, and the Minor Prophets are combined into one book.

[ohio jones]

1300 BC

Not that it will make much difference to you, but a literal Biblical chronology puts the flood closer to 2300 BC.

[Ken]

1300 BC

Not that it will make much difference to you, but a literal Biblical chronology puts the flood closer to 2300 BC.

My mistake then. I'm not sure why I had 1300 BC in my brain. I must be mixing up Noah and Moses.