Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[3rdAngel]

And yet you cherry pick again. In verse 8 he clearly states his opposition to marriage. He only sees it as a last ditch escape from sinning:

"8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.I)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-28496I" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry,J)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-28497J" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. "

Sorry, using my tablet and the site I used added the extra garbage. You should be able to filter it out.

If someone is adding the context to scripture they are not cherry picking scripture. You did not read the post you are quoting from did you. If you did perhaps you would like to prove what I posted to SW was not true? If you cannot why make claims that are not true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now now SZ no need to get upset when someone disagrees with you and can show why they disagree with you and prove why they believe you are in error. You either have evidence for your belief or you do not. Now because you do not have any evidence for your belief there is no need to be upset. This may be your faith but as posted earlier it is not mine, so we will have to agree to disagreee .

I am only moderately upset. I am more disappointed since you won't let yourself learn.

Already addressed in many posts already through the historical records. You denying them does not make you belief true it only means you have shared your opinion and faith that you cannot prove.

Yes, and you were shown to be wrong. You did not understand your own sources. None of them were the claimed eyewitness accounts.

Well here my friend we will have to agree to disagree. I see you do you have evidence that there is no God? If you do not have any evidence and that is your belief you are living by faith only in a different direction to what I believe. The only difference between you and me is that I acknowledge I do not have evidence for everything I believe and therefore live by faith. You on the other hand also do not have any evidence that there is not God and refuse to acknowledge that you also live by faith because you have no evidence for what you believe.

Unfortunately do you not only lack evidence, you do not understand the concept or how to apply it. As a result you end up constantly breaking the Ninth Commandment. Pretty much every Bible literalist I have met lacks those talents. It is why I so often offer to discuss those concepts with them. Sadly, most are cowards and run away.

I said earlier do you I would be happy to continue our discussions if you choose to be honest and address my posts and the content provided. This is something you have failed to do sadly IMO.

I am the only one that has been honest here. Fear is probably what keeps you from posting properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If someone is adding the context to scripture they are not cherry picking scripture. You did not read the post you are quoting from did you. If you did perhaps you would like to prove what I posted to SW was not true? If you cannot why make claims that are not true?

Who is adding context? You appear to have not understood Paul. He had rather strange views on sex.

 

[3rdAngel]

I am only moderately upset. I am more disappointed since you won't let yourself learn.

Perhaps it is you that needs to do the learning? I am at peace in what I believe. It seems you are not. Do you know why?

Yes, and you were shown to be wrong. You did not understand your own sources. None of them were the claimed eyewitness accounts.

Not really. By God's grace you have been shown why your claims are not true and you have been shown evidence as to why more than once now. Your only repeating yourself here without addressing the content in the posts shared with you. When this happens your response is to simply ignore the posts that show why you are in error. You are free to believe as you wish. As I posted earlier, you have your faith and I have mine. Time will tell who's is right and whose is wrong. My hope for you is that you will not find yourself on the wrong side. That is not a place to be if the scriptures are correct, which I believe they are.

Unfortunately do you not only lack evidence, you do not understand the concept or how to apply it. As a result you end up constantly breaking the Ninth Commandment. Pretty much every Bible literalist I have met lacks those talents. It is why I so often offer to discuss those concepts with them. Sadly, most are cowards and run away.

Then stop breaking God's ninth commandment and man up and address the posts and questions asked of you that disagree with you and show why you are in error. Running away in order to avoid answering posts that challenge what you believe is simply you running away from the truth by closing your eyes and ears to leaning why you are in error IMO.

I am the only one that has been honest here. Fear is probably what keeps you from posting properly.

It is not for me to judge you. According to the scriptures, I believe it is the very Word of God we deny that will be our judge come judgment day *JOHN 12:47-48

Nice to talk to you

 

[3rdAngel]

Who is adding context? You appear to have not understood Paul. He had rather strange views on sex.

I did not think you would try to prove your claims. This only shows you did not read what you are responding to or did not understand what it was saying. The scripture provided in 1 CORINTHIANS 6:12-20 provides the context that is left out of you cherry picking 1 CORINTHIANS 7:2 and explains the subject matter which is fornication. This is addressed in detail in post # 596 linked. Please address this post if you disagree. If you cannot why make claims that are not true? Thank you for proving my point once more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hi SW, nice to see you. Some comments below that may be helpful in regards to the context.

Paul is not saying what you are saying. The scrptures in GENESIS are in reference to mankind populating the earth. This had already happened 4000 years latter in Pauls day. Paul is saying

1 CORINTHIANS 7:1-3 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me"...

What PAUL is referring to here is 1 CORINTHIANS 6:12-20 which are questions in relation to fornication or unlawful or unmarried sex between a man and a woman. From which he continues....

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman".

Now notice the context is fornication. In regards to "fornication" it is good for a man not to touch a woman. This is the context of 1 CORINITHIANS 7:1-2 of the things that were written to Paul highlighted in 1 CORINTHIANS 6:12-20. Then Paul continues...

[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. [3] Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

Hope this is helpful

I get the fornication part. The Bible makes a very clear distinction that makes fornication a thing, with adultery being punishable by death in the OT. In Corinthians Paul says it's good to not touch a woman. No stipulations of fornication are given. No distinctive of marriage. It just says it's good for a man to not touch a woman. Then it says, however and but to avoid fornication get married. Such as, certain thoughts of Islam teach masturbation isn't good and is best avoided, but it can be permissible if it will prevent fornication. If Paul would have meant its good to not fornication. They're would have been no need for such a transition word. It's good to not touch a woman, however, to avoid fornication let each man take a wife. He says it's not good to touch a woman, which does mean if that "good thing" is lived up to then terroristic is impossible.

 

[3rdAngel]

I get the fornication part. The Bible makes a very clear distinction that makes fornication a thing, with adultery being punishable by death in the OT. In Corinthians Paul says it's good to not touch a woman. No stipulations of fornication are given. No distinctive of marriage. It just says it's good for a man to not touch a woman. Then it says, however and but to avoid fornication get married. Such as, certain thoughts of Islam teach masturbation isn't good and is best avoided, but it can be permissible if it will prevent fornication. If Paul would have meant its good to not fornication. They're would have been no need for such a transition word. It's good to not touch a woman, however, to avoid fornication let each man take a wife. He says it's not good to touch a woman, which does mean if that "good thing" is lived up to then terroristic is impossible.

The stipulations are given in the context to fornication your leaving out in 1 CORINTHIANS 6:12-20. This is the context of 1 CORINTHIANS 7:1-3 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me"...

What PAUL is referring to here is 1 CORINTHIANS 6:12-20 which are questions in relation to fornication or unlawful or unmarried sex between a man and a woman. From which he continues.... So Paul is stating in relation to "FORNICATION" (which is the context to 1 CORINTHIANS 6:12-20) in 1 CORINTHIANS 7:1 "it is not good for a man to touch a woman (this is in reference to forniation which is the context, not marriage)".

Paul is saying that if anyone wants to have sex with a woman another words not to fornicate but to go and get married *1 CORINTHIANS 7:1-5.

Hope this helps.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well, you got that wrong.
The JWs of Australia openly presented every report of an alleged incident to Government investigators, and one led to a conviction and one other to a JW giving up eldership. We debated and discussed this very subject about two years ago on RF.

@Deeje would know more about this.

I brought those up last year on this forum.

They still apply the two witness rule today in cases of child abuse.

Your words say "JW giving up eldership". Does that mean he left on his own or that the congregation disfellowshipped him? Also notice that he only gave up eldership. That says nothing about other things that he does, such as preaching, in which he can encounter non witness children.

Also, have you watched the royal commission proceedings on this matter?

Summary of Royal commissions findings from ARC website:

28 November 2016
The Royal Commission’s Report of Case Study No. 29 - The response of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to allegations of child sexual abuse, was released today.

The report follows a public hearing held in Sydney in July and August 2015 which examined the experience of two survivors of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation, as well as the systems, policies and procedures in place within the organisation for raising, responding to and preventing child sexual abuse.

The Royal Commission heard from two survivor witnesses, 12 institutional witnesses and an expert engaged by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation who gave evidence about the organisation’s policies, procedures and practices.

It also examined evidence from case files held by the organisation which recorded allegations, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse by 1,006 members of the organisation.

The Royal Commission found children are not adequately protected from the risk of child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation and does not believe the organisation responds adequately to allegations of child sexual abuse.

From the evidence presented, the Royal Commission considers the Jehovah’s Witness organisation relies on outdated policies and practices to respond to allegations of child sexual abuse which were not subject to ongoing and continuous review. Included in these was the organisation’s retention and continued application of policies such as the two-witness rule in cases of child sexual abuse which, the Royal Commission considered, showed a serious lack of understanding of the nature of child sexual abuse. It noted the rule, which the Jehovah’s Witness organisation relies on, and applies inflexibly even in the context of child sexual abuse, was devised more than 2,000 years ago.

The Royal Commission found the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s internal disciplinary system for addressing complaints of child sexual abuse was not child or survivor focused. Survivors are offered little or no choice in how their complaint is addressed, sanctions are weak with little regard to the risk of the perpetrator re-offending.

Finally, the Royal Commission considered the organisation’s general practice of not reporting serious instances of child sexual abuse to policy or authorities, demonstrated a serious failure on its part to provide for the safety and protection of children.

Report into Jehovah’s Witness organisations released | Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not think you would try to prove your claims. This only shows you did not read what you are responding to or did not understand what it was saying. The scripture provided in 1 CORINTHIANS 6:12-20 provides the context that is left out of you cherry picking 1 CORINTHIANS 7:2 and explains the subject matter which is fornication. This is addressed in detail in post # 596 linked. Please address this post if you disagree. If you cannot why make claims that are not true? Thank you for proving my point once more.

And I saw that and though I do agree that they had the belief that sex was a sin, you do not seem to understand that Paul went beyond that. He was clearly anti sex. Let me try to post this again and I will clean it up now that I am at home and put in bold the parts you need to pay attention to:

"8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Clearly this goes beyond simply saying that sex should be in marriage only. He only wants marriage in case a person could not control himself. , otherwise why would he say it is "good for them to stay unmarried"?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well, you got that wrong.
The JWs of Australia openly presented every report of an alleged incident to Government investigators, and one led to a conviction and one other to a JW giving up eldership. We debated and discussed this very subject about two years ago on RF.

@Deeje would know more about this.

Read page 58 and onwards of the linked file from the government website:

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case Study 29 - Findings Report - Jehovahs Witnesses.pdf

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Both beliefs rely on a literal interpretation of Genesis, do they not? I’m not saying the two have to go together and one cannot be believed without the other. However, a likely outcome of literal interpretation of Genesis along with other parts of the Hebrew Bible is believing in both a young earth and a world wide flood.

Just keep in mind: believing in Adam & Eve as literal people, has no bearing on the Creative days being literally 24-hr. days! Too much was going on, especially in Day 6.

So believing the Flood happened as described, is not contingent on a YEC point of view.

I'll soon be creating a thread about how the Bible's description of the events during those Creative periods actually agrees with what science has discovered, contrary to what skeptics think. But it'll be a little while, I've got a lot on my plate right now.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[rational experiences]

When you think of science, think of males who have never told any truth.

Then think of the history and stories about who were and who were not allowed to read from the Holy science scriptures unless you were a proven spiritual male?

So that you would not use that information against your own life, or life on Earth, before you believe what you say is true.

For that was once an imposed male dictated reasoning.

A male is a storyteller claiming that he first experiments. For how does a male know exactly how he will affect the natural bodies by a machine reaction...when his theory is for the building of the machine and the reaction of that machine as controlled by the male?

You can only be witness to what you cause, in wanting to own UFO radiation extra mass for the condition science. Seeing natural history was supported by natural cold held radiation fusion.

So a male said, natural light was for 12 hours of the day O as a constant.

O yet uses math/mass removal as a whole data based inference.

Natural gas light however was not O...it was only for 12 hours, not 24.

So he then illuminated the day light...and lit up the night time sky.


If you research human and AI memory as a psychic can, the AI information states, that the theme science was taken from an early Earth historic body attack of the Sun collapse. When Earth was irradiated converted. Flooded up to its mountain tips ^ pyramid theory with o UFO radiation metal mass.

The attack was stopped by what was taught to be the Saviour wandering star gas release...space began to cool....mass flood water evaporated, leaving a large land water mass on the ground.

Proving it was an attack as Earth previously did not own water on its ground.

As Earth did not own that science theory in its new Nature....the male attacked the plate tectonics, which is a variation to the flood. The plates snap and immerse the civilization beneath water, as a flood in reverse.

Due to the fact natural water flood evaporation was in natural history. To reverse natural history is to force God, O the stone body to fall beneath water again.
First he says the balances in O God, the heavens are EVEN.

12 hours of day light and 12 hours of night time.....dark and clear non burning gas.

He then causes the night TIME 12 hour sky to light up and said, I changed the balances and named it EVE.

It burnt for 6 days and then on the 7th the evening sky stopped burning.

And in that event I caused a lot of Nature/Garden and self changes.

How he taught that theme....what I caused as a male in a ground nuclear reaction.

And to prove that he did change self, he medically confirmed it as a GENETIC detailed history. And proved that he did change natural life on Earth by irradiating it.

Which is why the details were secret, for it was a known evil act against life survival on Earth as a simple explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just keep in mind: believing in Adam & Eve as literal people, has no bearing on the Creative days being literally 24-hr. days! Too much was going on, especially in Day 6.

So believing the Flood happened as described, is not contingent on a YEC point of view.

I'll soon be creating a thread about how the Bible's description of the events during those Creative periods actually agrees with what science has discovered, contrary to what skeptics think. But it'll be a little while, I've got a lot on my plate right now.

Take care, my cousin.

There is no real difference between the Ark myth and YECism. One has to deny practically all of science to believe either one.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Read page 58 and onwards of the linked file from the government website:

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case Study 29 - Findings Report - Jehovahs Witnesses.pdf

It is clear the two-witness rules remains a significant barrier to addressing instances of child sexual abuse within the JW church in Australia and most likely worldwide. In regards to the two witness rule page 65-66 of the Royal Commission’s report reads:

7.3 The two-witness rule
The two-witness rule remains a current procedural rule that is applied today within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in all cases of complaints of ‘wrongdoing’, including child sexual abuse.

Suitability of the rule in the context of child sexual abuse

Child sexual abuse invariably occurs in private, where the only witnesses to the abuse are the perpetrator and the child victim. Mr Spinks accepted that this is the case.

Both Mr Geoffrey Jackson and Mr Spinks also acknowledged that allegations of child sexual abuse are almost always justified and that this fact is reflected in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s own publications on the subject.

Regardless of the biblical origins of the two-witness rule, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s retention of and continued application of the rule to a complaint of child sexual abuse is wrong. It fails to reflect the learning of the many people who have been involved in examining the behaviour of abusers and the circumstances of survivors. It shows a failure by the organisation to recognise that the rule will more often than not operate in favour of a perpetrator of child sexual abuse, who will not only avoid sanction but will also remain in the congregation and the community with their rights intact and with the capacity to interact with their victim.

A complainant of child sexual abuse whose allegation has not been corroborated by confession by their abuser or a second ‘credible’ eyewitness is necessarily disempowered and subjected to ongoing traumatisation. To place a victim of child sexual abuse in such a position is today, and was 30 years ago, unacceptable and wrong.

The Watchtower & Ors submitted that the two-witness rule is not a danger to children because, even if there are not the requisite two witnesses to authorise elders to take action, elders will nevertheless ensure that precautionary measures are in place to protect the complainant and other children in the congregation.

As discussed in section 7.6, on the basis of the evidence before the Royal Commission, we
do not consider that the precautionary or protective measures available within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation are sufficient to protect a child victim of sexual abuse or other children in the community when the child victim is the only witness to the abuse and the perpetrator does not confess.

Flexibility of the rule

The Royal Commission received and heard evidence in relation to the flexibility of the two-witness rule and the scope for revision of the rule, at least in cases of child sexual abuse.

Both Mr Spinks and Mr O’Brien told the Royal Commission that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation does not have the authority to change the two-witness rule.

While Mr Geoffrey Jackson told the Royal Commission that the two-witness rule had a proper foundation in the Scriptures, he did not say that there is no prospect of modifying the application of the rule within scriptural requirements so that it does not apply to cases of sexual abuse.

Mr Geoffrey Jackson gave evidence that suggested that there may be a role for circumstantial or corroborating evidence, such as the evident trauma that a victim of sexual abuse has experienced, in determining the truth of an allegation.

The Royal Commission considers that, in the interests of child safety, institutions should review and improve all of their policies on child sexual abuse. The two-witness rule is an example of a policy position that, on the evidence before the Royal Commission, has not been revised or improved since the Jehovah’s Witness organisation was founded in the late 19th century. The Jehovah’s Witness organisation relies on, and applies inflexibly even in the context of child sexual abuse, a rule which was devised more than 2,000 years ago.

The Jehovah’s Witness organisation should revise and modify its application of the two-witness rule, at least in cases involving complaints of child sexual abuse.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommissi...29 - Findings Report - Jehovahs Witnesses.pdf

 

[Dawnofhope]

Come now. Easier to just say you have to believe it before you can believe it.

A Holy Spirit that says there really was a Noah’s ark is a
an imaginary one

You haven’t seen the kingdom of heaven until you’ve seen the kingdom of heaven. The Gospel of John famously records the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:1-3

There in lies the key differences between the believer and the unbeliever according to His Holiness Jesus the Christ. One is born again and can see the kingdom of God. Of course being born again is nonsensical so Nicodemus asked:

“How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?”

Jesus answered a riddle with a riddle.

“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

As made clear to you in a previous post, I don’t take the story of Noah’s Ark literally. To take as literal history is to entirely miss the point of the story.

 

[Audie]

You haven’t seen the kingdom of heaven until you’ve seen the kingdom of heaven. The Gospel of John famously records the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:1-3

There in lies the key differences between the believer and the unbeliever according to His Holiness Jesus the Christ. One is born again and can see the kingdom of God. Of course being born again is nonsensical so Nicodemus asked:

“How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?”

Jesus answered a riddle with a riddle.

“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

As made clear to you in a previous post, I don’t take the story of Noah’s Ark literally. To take as literal history is to entirely miss the point of the story.

I didn’t mean you are an ark believer, but lo and
many a one filled with Holy Spirit is afflicted
as I said. My assessment of a spirit that inspires it
stands.

And of course the believers would say if it is
not literal the whole bible is a lie, and for
once I agree with them.

Your quotes are familiar but seem a longer
way to rephrase “believe before you can
believe”.

People in all manner of religions work themselves
up into transcendent experiences.

A Native American might fast and chant on an isolated
hilltop for many many hours until his totem animal appears,
and he comes back changed.

My take is that people invest way too much significance into
rather simple and mundane aspects of the human psyche.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To take [the story of Noah’s Ark] as literal history is to entirely miss the point of the story.

Well, I take it as literal history. Not to put you on the spot (although I guess I am) but... how would I miss the point of the story? Maybe, in believing it's real history, the point of the story would be even more impressed on me?

Curious.....what do you think the point of the story is?

Somethings to think about:
1, Noah is in the list of ancestors of Jesus in Luke 3. How could that be, if he's allegorical?

2, At a time when the ancients -- like the writers of the Epic of Gilgamesh -- thought that a cube of '90 cubits sq.' could float properly, Moses wrote that the ratios of the Ark were 30:5:3, which are the ratios for modern, sea-keeping vessels....see Scientists: Noah's Ark Would Have Floated With 70,000 Animals If Built By Dimensions In The Bible.

There's a lot more evidence.

Have a good day.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I suspect if we met in real life we wouldn’t talk too much about religion and we would get along just fine.

I didn’t mean you are an ark believer, but lo and
many a one filled with Holy Spirit is afflicted
as I said. My assessment of a spirit that inspires it
stands.

And of course the believers would say if it is
not literal the whole bible is a lie, and for
once I agree with them.

You have to admit there is just as much investment in a literal interpretation for atheists as there is for fundamentalists.

Your quotes are familiar but seem a longer
way to rephrase “believe before you can
believe”.

Is that really what the verses are saying?

People in all manner of religions work themselves
up into transcendent experiences.

A Native American might fast and chant on an isolated
hilltop for many many hours until his totem animal appears,
and he comes back changed.

If that is all there is to religion why waste time talking to religious people about religion? Are we not psychotic and deluded in your estimation?

My take is that people invest way too much significance into
rather simple and mundane aspects of the human psyche.

Funny you should mention that. I practiced psychiatry for many years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I take it as literal history. Not to put you on the spot (although I guess I am) but... how would I miss the point of the story? Maybe, in believing it's real history, the point of the story would be even more impressed on me?

Curious.....what do you think the point of the story is?

Somethings to think about:
1, Noah is in the list of ancestors of Jesus in Luke 3. How could that be, if he's allegorical?

2, At a time when the ancients -- like the writers of the Epic of Gilgamesh -- thought that a cube of '90 cubits sq.' could float properly, Moses wrote that the ratios of the Ark were 30:5:3, which are the ratios for modern, sea-keeping vessels....see Scientists: Noah's Ark Would Have Floated With 70,000 Animals If Built By Dimensions In The Bible.

There's a lot more evidence.

Have a good day.

Sorry, but there is no significant evidence for the flood. Specs that match some modern vessels might mean that one of the writers knew a little bit about ship construction, but it is a leap of desperation to claim that validates the story when it fails for much more substantial reasons. Why it matches in great detail with that much older story would lead any reasonable open-minded person to question the authenticity of it. And there is so much more evidence that has never been overcome, that needs to be, to establish the story as literally true.

I have no problem that someone wants to believe it. But trying to proclaim it real to others at the expense of valid knowledge is unacceptable. Besides, there is nothing that says that one has to believe it is real to know God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well, I take it as literal history. Not to put you on the spot (although I guess I am) but... how would I miss the point of the story? Maybe, in believing it's real history, the point of the story would be even more impressed on me?

I have no doubt you believe the story literally and that works well for you to believe it as such.

Curious.....what do you think the point of the story is?

The Eternal Covenant of God.

Somethings to think about:
1, Noah is in the list of ancestors of Jesus in Luke 3. How could that be, if he's allegorical?

Baha’is believe Noah was a real character and a Prophet of God. We believe there is considerable truth in the ancestry.

2, At a time when the ancients -- like the writers of the Epic of Gilgamesh -- thought that a cube of '90 cubits sq.' could float properly, Moses wrote that the ratios of the Ark were 30:5:3, which are the ratios for modern, sea-keeping vessels....see Scientists: Noah's Ark Would Have Floated With 70,000 Animals If Built By Dimensions In The Bible.

There's a lot more evidence.

And maybe Noah built a boat. But I don’t need the whole story to be literally true to believe in it whereas apparently you do.

Have a good day.

Thank you.