Real: that is entirely reasonable, and I would agree.
World-wide, it cannot have encompassed the whole world in the modern sense. “Whole world” is frequently used for “whole known world”, like in Isaiah 23:17 and Luke 2:1. The passage can reasonable be interpreted to refer to “all the area known to those who survived it”, and if this were a low, flat area, the mountains/high hills need not be overly tall. A flood covering the entirety of earth’s surface in water would produce a produce a noticeable geological and biological signal of a type that has not yet been found.
Hi beaglelady
The Bible does not contradict itself. If we are lacking in understanding then people can very well speak of things that they do not understand or comprehend.
Well, maybe you have a different Bible than I do. In Genesis 1 It says that God creates animals and then creates man. But in Genesis 2 God creates man and then creates animals. Does your Bible show this?
In the NT, there are two Nativity narratives, in Luke and Matthew, and they don’t agree. Can you see that in your Bible?
Now for the Gospels on Page VI that we’ve gone through, there are actually four Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The first three Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels. These three were written in the mid 60s AD and the name synoptic comes from the Greek word sunovyi~ (SUNOPSIS) which means to view together. All three of these Gospels were written to different groups of people with different themes. Some of them have the same teachings but they are arranged for their audience.
Matthew was written to the Jews, and written to present Jesus as the coming Savior Messiah. Matthew’s gospel ends with the resurrection.
Then there’s Mark. Mark was written for the Roman mind, written from the testimony of Peter, written to present Jesus as the Suffering Servant. And his book ends with the ascension.
And then Luke that we just finished written to the Gentiles, written to present Jesus as the Son of man, the head of the human race. Luke ends his gospel with the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit, which is interesting that just sets up his sequel because the book of Acts was also written by Luke. In fact Luke and Acts traveled together for quite some time as the Gospel of Luke Part 1 and 2 but later was divided. And we’ll get into Acts after we get through with John.
Then we have the gospel of John Page VII. It is written to the church, written around 95 AD so approximately 30 to 35 years after the other Gospels were written and the Gospel John was one of the last letters written.
In fact there’s much evidence to say that the Gospel John and 1, 2 and 3 John and Revelation all those were written by John there’s evidence that he wrote all those letters one right after another all at the same time.
Pastor Bill Klein
We live in a world shaped by water. On the granite continents there is on average water deposited sediments one mile thick. Most landscapes are shaped by water, caves are created by water. Absolutely does not rule out a global flood.
This explanation in AIG helps to clear up any question of whether Genesis 1 & 2 contradict each other. After looking into this we find there are, in fact, no contradictions in God’s Word.
We all agree that whatever God says is our authority. Some of us just disagree with your opinion of what you think God’s word says. Disagreeing with you and your model of inspiration and hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture is not synonymous with disagreeing with God.
Do you believe Judas Didymus Thomas wrote the Gospel of Thomas? Did the Apostle Peter write the Gospel of Peter? Is the correspondence between Paul and Seneca written by Paul? Did Paul author the letter to the Laodiceans? Did Barnabas author the Gospel of Barnabas? Did Judas author the Gospel of Judas?
Traditional authorship has little basis in reality for our gospels, all of which are completely anonymous.
Rather than allow yourself to be offended by Kelli’s posting of a verse, perhaps look at the verse and ask the Lord what it is He has for you specifically, beaglelady.
Beaglelady… you have a couple interesting questions. But I would not describe the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 as contradictory…or the gospel accounts having two different nativity narratives. Some people have seen Genesis 2 as focusing on one aspect of the events of Genesis 1. See Peter Enns in The Evolution of Adam, p. 52 He says Genesis 2 focuses on Israel’s story. Another set of writers pairs Genesis 2 and 3 as formed from a background of Mesopotamian literature and then they demonstrate how the Genesis accounts of primeval times differ from the views of Mesopotamian creation accounts. A number of modern commentators and writers on these early chapters focus on the correlation between some of the language and imagery in Genesis 1,2 and 3 – and primeval concepts of the beginnings of the universe. Tremper Longman .!!!, in his book How to Read Genesis, calls Mesopotamia and Egypt the “cultural powerhouses of the day” and says these two chapters were written to counter the beliefs of their day — which were not our beliefs today at all. It’s too big a topic for the moment, but I suggest you dive into it a bit on your own. There are lots of perspectives on these two chapters ( Gen 1 and 2) and their reflection of ancient beliefs that the biblical writer (s) thought worth challenging. These wriers probably also discuss more of the meaning of the order of events — animal or man first – in the context of ancient beliefs and not necessarily as a description of “how it happened.”
As for the gospel accounts of Jesus’ birth…Kelli has it right when she says these two gospels were written about the same time (though in different locales) and I have read and also heard it said that they were directed to different groups of people. Both accounts have genealogies — and there is plenty written about them —but they do not put them in the same order-of-events in their accounts. That part is not a problem. Authors make their own choices. The two do have different methods–one describes the forecast of the birth of John the Baptist, while the other just has him preaching in the wilderness…one book describes the visit of the magi and then the couple’s escape to Egypt (before eventually returning to Nazareth after the coast was clear), while the other has the birth with the shepherd and the angels, the infant presented in the temple…and then returning to Nazareth.
That aspect of the story — did they go to Nazareth after the baby was born or did they go to Egypt and then later back to Nazareth? The inclusion of an account (presumably historical) – or the decision not to include an account – is always the decision of the writer, historian, or biographer. The NICNT commentator notes that Matthew includes the account of the trip to Egypt partly to reinforce the assertion of Hosea 11:1 and connect Jesus to that prophecy—as well as connect Jesus’ birth with a larger purpose, not simply for the nation of Israel. And it may have been an inconvenient detail to include in the sense that some early skeptics used that to bolster the charge that Jesus was a magician — a consequence of this Egyptian sojourn. No matter that Jesus was a baby — His trip to Egypt became the reason for describing Him as a magician, something occultic.
Beyond that – people could and did go to Egypt when troubled by events in Israel. Someone WAS trying to knock Him off, after all, and He was only days or months old. Luke did not mention this, but he did mention other things --like the remarks of Simeon and Anna. Some commentators note that the inclusion of women in the story of Jesus was significant to Luke but not so much Matthew. OK, that’s it for me…The two biographers just found some details more interesting or useful than others for the overall point they were making about Jesus and the meaning of His birth. No harm done! They both recognize this as the Birth of the One who would make possible the redemption of both Israelis and the rest of the world-- by His own blood.
It isn’t about debate Vinnie. It is ministering the faith from one believer to another of the same faith.
The faith of Christ. But there is a division here.