If there was no global flood - does this mean that the Bible is not inspired?

by Olin Moyles Ghost 36 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JustHuman14
    JustHuman14

    First of all if you take the Bible text it does not speak about global flood. Noahs flood was regional and it took place only in the Mesopotamia basin. The fact is that we had world wide flood after the last ice age 10,500 years ago that is why we find the legend of flood in many places in the world. From India, Greece, Babylonia, Aborigines of Australia, Native American Indians.

    Plus the Bible DOES contain mistakes since it was written by Humans but never the less this does not cancel the Divine Inspiration of the Bible

  • passwordprotected
    passwordprotected

    We need to get away from worshiping the Book and instead we must form a living personal relationship with God. Place bibliolatry where it belongs and become personally and intimately involved with God, through the personal holy spirit. Use the Scriptures to allow the holy spirit develop that relationship with God.

    Great point.

    God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit...not God the Holy Bible.

  • TheOldHippie
    TheOldHippie

    "We need to get away from worshiping the Book and instead we must form a living personal relationship with God."

    Quite simply good words, made me think. Thank you - in all simple honesty.

    Humanist - the best proof is that Jesus refers to it. Yes, that seems to be "the final proof". I was very close to being thrown out because of my doubts in a global flood.

  • cognizant dissident
    cognizant dissident
    Plus the Bible DOES contain mistakes since it was written by Humans but never the less this does not cancel the Divine Inspiration of the Bible

    If you admit the Bible does contain mistakes because it was written by humans, on the basis of what evidence to you claim it is inspired?

  • cognizant dissident
    cognizant dissident
    Straw man. The flood being global or is not is not the means to discredit the whole Bible. Eg. should the fact that some of Dawkins research and hypothesis into and of genes is being shown to be outdated discredit all of his research?

    No, but then Dawkins doesn't claim to be perfect, all knowing, or that it's impossible for him to make a mistake. Whereas the Bible claims that ALL scripture is inspired of God (including the flood story) and it claims that is impossible for God to lie.

    A hypothesis, by it's very definition, is an unproven supposition. Does the Bible claim to be an unproven supposition or the inerrant word of God? You can't have it both ways. That's what the WTBTS does. They are God's divinely inspired prophet when they are laying down the law, but when their prophesies fail, they are just imperfect men who never claimed to speak directly for God.

  • Caedes
    Caedes
    Straw man. The flood being global or is not is not the means to discredit the whole Bible. Eg. should the fact that some of Dawkins research and hypothesis into and of genes is being shown to be outdated discredit all of his research?
    Is there empirical evidence that a flood of the Mesopotamian basin did not take place?

    You claim my argument is a straw man and then immediately make a straw man yourself. I did not claim that the inaccuracy of the flood story discredits the whole bible, or that the biblical flood myth was not based on a real flood. Perhaps you need to re-read what I actually said.

    Dawkins has nothing to do with the thread topic.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Inspired doesn't = error free in regards to human point of views.

    What is insipred in the bible is what its writers were inspired to write about, the good, the bad and the ugly.

    God inspired the writers to write about what they were seeing, about what God was teaching them, about what they saw and how they viewed it in relationto God.

    Did they get it all 100% right?

    Nope.

    If the view of the OT God was 100% correct, Jesus would never have had to come to Us and say, "Hey Dudes, check it out, THIS is my Father..."

  • LUKEWARM
    LUKEWARM

    Why should the WTS interpretation mean that the Bible is not inspired when the Bible itself is NOT clear regarding a global flood??

    Excerps below are from a letter written to the WTS about the matter

    "We well know how common it was for Bible writers to describe events from their geographic standpoint, both in the Greek and in the Hebrew scriptures.

    At Colossians 1:23 Paul speaks of "that good news which YOU heard, and which was preached in all creation that is under heaven." It is acknowledged in all our publications that since this was written in c.60-61 C.E., Paul meant 'all creation under heaven' known to him at that time.

    Logically so, since at that time Christianity had by no means reached the Americas, the Far East, Southern Africa or Australasia. The words at Romans 10:18, "..to the extremities of the inhabited earth...", must of course also be understood in the relative sense.

    At Acts 2:5 we read "..there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, reverent men, from every nation of those under heaven." This was written in c.61 C.E. Here too, 'every nation under heaven' cannot be literal, since there were no South American, Chinese or Australian proselytes in Jerusalem at that time. Once again, 'every nation under heaven' is to be understood as a relative phrase.

    At Isaiah 13:5 [concerning the Babylonians] we read that "They are coming from the land far away, from the extremity of the heavens." On a global scale, the Babylonians were not far away, they were literally next door to the Israelites! Yet, relative to the known earth of that time, they were "from the extremity of the heavens".

    At Genesis 41:57 people from "all the earth" came to buy food from Joseph "because the famine had a strong grip on all the earth." Does this mean Aborigines, South American Indians and Japanese peasants also came to buy food? Of course not, that would be absurd. The famine was limited to Egypt, and to the lands immediately around Egypt, like Palestine (Ge.41:54).

    Yet again we see how "all the earth" does not mean the entire planet, but is to be understood as the lands immediately around the Bible writer.

    I'm sure you have anticipated what my primary question is.

    Based on the preceding examples, why is it we understand the Flood to be global and not local? Why is it that phrases such as "..the flood covered the whole earth..." need to be literal, when there are numerous examples in the Bible where that phrase has to be understood in a relative sense?

    For what reason are the words regarding "all the earth" at Genesis 6-8 to be understood differently from the words at Colossians 1:23, Romans 10:18, Acts 2:5, Isaiah 13:5, Genesis 41:57 and other like verses?

    It says in the Creation book p25, par2: "When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers".
    I know those words were written with the Genesis creation account in mind, but for what reason can they not apply to the Flood account?

    Surely a huge local flood would also prompt expressions such as: "..I am bringing...waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens. Everything that is in the earth will expire." (Ge.6:17)?

    Why would Jehovah expect Noah to understand those words to mean the entire globe and its life, when Noah did not even know the entire globe existed? All that existed to Noah was the visible land and its indigenous wildlife; to him that was "the earth".

    In all earnestness, do you not agree that words such as the ones at Genesis 6:13,19 and 7:4,10,19,20,21,23 can also be understood as pertaining to a local flood?

    My question then brothers is just this: if the possibility exists that the words at Genesis 6-8 can apply to a local occurrence, why do we say the Flood must have been global?"

    The entire letter can be read here http://www.dimaggio.org/Heretic/1st_corr.htm

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Your premise suggests that only the flood is a problem. That's like saying "If the apostles and Jesus were not actually in an UPPER room for their last supper, does this mean that the Bible is not inspired?" You imply that everything else is true.

    If everything else is true, then God was talking in symbols when He told of a global flood.

    But really, there's so much more wrong with Genesis. Let me reboot your question:

    If there were no Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, no Garden of Eden, no global flood, no exodus, does this mean that the Bible is not inspired?
    What if most of the history in the Bible were inaccurate?

    so if the flood is not real and Jesus didn't realise that the flood story was not accurate then Jesus isn't who he claimed to be.

    Excellent point.

  • oompa
    oompa

    WELCOME HUMANIST!.........and what a funny first post........i could see the elders at your home.....morans........oompa

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit