For Christians. Was the flood real or just a myth?

[Deeje]

Why would they have to be literal humans, and not figurative examples of the human condition for which people seek redemption from the suffering we experience? There's no reason they had to be historical, in order for them to be true symbolically.

The taking of the fruit, despite the express command from the Creator that it belonged to him and that they were not to touch it under penalty of death, was the event that set the entire human race on the path to sin and all it's awful consequences, including certain death. If these were not real people, then Jesus' coming to earth to offer to God the price for releasing Adam's children from the consequences of his actions, makes no sense.

Why call Jesus "the last Adam"? It is because he paid the price required by God's law...."an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....a life for a life". Equivalency was demanded to make atonement. (at-one-ment) Like for like.

Adam lost his own perfect life and paid the price for his own sin, but there was no human on earth who could atone for the perfect life he took from his children. It was a lethal inheritance with no way to make the necessary atonement.

God stepped in and provided the price...the perfect life of Jesus paid the debt Adam left for his children. That is why Jesus' sacrifice is called a "ransom". (Matthew 20:28) It was the price demanded under the law of God to settle the debt and free the ones under bondage. (Redemption) This is something I was never taught in church. I was always told that Jesus died for us.....but never did they explain why. Once I understood the mechanics, it all made sense. I will wager that most in the churches today, still don't understand it.

This is why I believe that all the Bible characters were real people...why wouldn't they be?

Jesus could speak of them symbolically in the same way I do, and no meaning be lost. Do you not see that the truth of something is greater than the thing in itself, that the object we attach meaning to, is not the meaning itself? We are all Adam and Eve. They are us.

You seem to be unaware of why we (us) are in this situation, and why Christ came to offer his life. If these people were not real, then how does any of it make sense? How did humans become sinful and need rescuing from this inheritance that they had no way, on their own, to pay? (Romans 5:12)

Your scenario does not make any sense to me.

 

[Windwalker]

The taking of the fruit, despite the express command from the Creator that it belonged to him and that they were not to touch it under penalty of death, was the event that set the entire human race on the path to sin and all it's awful consequences, including certain death. If these were not real people, then Jesus' coming to earth to offer to God the price for releasing Adam's children from the consequences of his actions, makes no sense.

It makes no sense to you from within the context in which you are speaking. I speak from a different context, where this is understood as a very limited, partial view of things.

Why call Jesus "the last Adam"? It is because he paid the price required by God's law...."an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....a life for a life". Equivalency was demanded to make atonement. (at-one-ment) Like for like.

Yet, ironically, didn't Jesus debunk the whole "eye for an eye" thing? “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil."

This is why I believe that all the Bible characters were real people...why wouldn't they be?

Because a truth that they represent exists independent of them.

You seem to be unaware of why we (us) are in this situation, and why Christ came to offer his life. If these people were not real, then how does any of it make sense?

Because the represent they truth about us. A story doesn't have to be factual, to speak great truths.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No. Unity of thought in the sense you mean it is uniformity of thought. You can't have "unity" unless there is diversity. And the important point is that it does not lead to actual peace between members. It leads to the illusion of peace because of getting rid of diversity. Uniformity is done by force. Unity is done by love, bringing together individuals in harmony with the different notes of their own songs. Marching in lockstep means all individuality is removed. A lack of open warfare is not peace. It's oppression.


This too is a fallacy. You cannot fully understand what the other intended, no matter how good of an interpreter you imagine yourself to be. Everyone will always, without exception, interpret another's words through the filters of their own mind. And those filters depend on a very complex set of variables, such as one spiritual growth, general maturity, cultural expectations, etc. You reading a passage at age five for instance, will have a very different meaning than it will when you read it 30 years later! The scripture was just there, static and doing nothing, until you as a reader translate it into your life for where you are at at that time, and again for where you are at later on, and again and again. It's always your understanding, not the original author's ideas, whatever those may have actually been for them.



Not in the sense I stated it, meaning forcing people to all think one way, read one way, speak one way, etc. Those are the cults like which strip individuals of the uniqueness, to bring them under the power of a single leader, or authoritative group, engaging in practices of shunning to force conformity through fear. That was not early Christianity, though it certainly would have arisen in places since wherever there is a group of people, power vacuums begin to exist to be filled by those who seek power over others.


First of all, "spiritual beliefs", seems a bit of an oxymoron to me! Beliefs about spirituality, are not the same thing as actual spirituality, which is "beyond beliefs". Don't mistake doctrinal statements and theological views as "spirituality". They are not. They are religious beliefs. Someone can in fact have a wide range of beliefs, yet be equally spiritual with another. And that is something these modern cults who claim to be the one true religion have in common. Their "spirituality" is actually just a collection of religious beliefs, and not actual spirituality that leads to Unity, bringing together with the heart that sees past differences of beliefs.

Read this passage to see if you can see that at play here: 1 Corinthians 8 NIV You will notice how Paul is not forcing people to all think the same, but instead to embrace the differences of beliefs, held in the unity of Love? That's spirituality, not some cult who all think the same religiously together.

Fortunately, that's not what Paul and Peter were talking about! (Anyways, why would you try telling me 'what Paul meant', when you just got through posting this: "It's always your understanding, not the original author's ideas, whatever those may have actually been for them."??????) You make studying the Bible, a useless endeavor.

Once again fortunately, that's not the case....we're dealing with a book that is totally harmonious, as Isaac Newton well knew.

 

[Deeje]

It makes no sense to you from within the context in which you are speaking. I speak from a different context, where this is understood as a very limited, partial view of things.

How do you see the need for Christ's sacrifice if Adam was not a real person? If Adam was not the father of all mankind, then sin did not spread as an inheritance to all of us. Jesus' sacrifice makes no sense. He is the "last Adam" because of what the first Adam did.

1 Corinthians 15:45, 47...."So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. . . .The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven."

Romans 5:12... "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned".

Yet, ironically, didn't Jesus debunk the whole "eye for an eye" thing? “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil."

These admonitions were directed to the Jewish people whose perceptions of the law were corrupted by the teachings of the Pharisees. Matthew ch 5 contains many of these addresses, yet none of them were telling people not to obey the law. As a Jew, Jesus would never do that. He said in that same chapter (verse 17) that he did not come to "destroy the law but to fulfill it".

Because a truth that they represent exists independent of them.

You have not stated why you would assume that these things are allegorical when there is nothing in scripture to indicate that they were. Jesus and other Bible writers spoke of Noah and many other Bible characters as real people. Do you have special power to discern which are real and which are not? Was Jesus real? Was Moses? Daniel? Jeremiah? Isaiah? Where do you draw the line?

Because the represent they truth about us. A story doesn't have to be factual, to speak great truths.

Unless the Bible says that the accounts are merely illustrative, I will take them at face value as I have no reason not to. Factual stories tell the same truth, do they not?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Another relevant issue that many ask, is: "Where did all that water go?"


Apparently, it's still here!


Almost everyone knows that the Earth's surface is 70% covered with water, with some very deep areas! In fact, if we were to smooth out the Earth like a cue ball -- to flatten the mountains and fill in the oceans -- water would cover the Earth to a depth of 1.7 miles! That is a lot of water!


So then, was the antediluvian Earth less mountainous? Well, consider this: did all of the water come from above? No! Much of it came from underground, from "springs of the vast watery deep." So the Bible tells us there were two sources of water causing the Noachian Flood. Water doesn't move upward (due to gravity) unless forced.

And that's what happened: the land above those vast springs caved downward, thus forcing the water upward.

Again, the Bible explains......
Psalm 104:6-9 says, "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, at the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth." After it describes 'waters standing above the mountains', (the condition before the Flood), then Jehovah God says, "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down." The account is telling us that the mountains before the flood were not as high as they are today and valleys (more specifically the ocean trenches) were not as deep. Therefore, the mountains that were covered with water during the flood were not the same as we see today.


For example, Mount Everest, which today is about 5.5 miles high, was not that tall in the pre-flood world. It's interesting to note that we find fossilized sea creatures on top of Mount Everest! That only makes sense if it was lower in the past and covered with water. (There's not enough water on the planet to cover mountains that high and there is also evidence of great uplifting.) Ocean trenches, such as the 6.8 mile deep Mariana Trench off the coast of Japan, also did not exist. Catastrophic plate tectonics not only explains the uplifting of mountains, but also the creation of these great ocean trenches.

On top of that, mountain ranges have been discovered to contain 'roots', as it were (the book of Job calls them "pedestals"), to keep them in place. (See Putnam's Geology)
This would keep them from sinking, unlike the rest of Earth's land above those underground springs.

One more thing: do the mountain ranges we have today, like the Himalayas, the Alps, Andes and others -- do they look eroded? Erosion wears out topographic features. They become rounded, like stumps, less well-defined.

What do our present mountain ranges look like? They look brand new! They exhibit very well-defined features, with sharp, clearly observable characteristics! Not like objects that have been exposed to extreme elements for "tens of millions of years"! That's malarkey.

The rocks themselves may be millions or billions of years old, but not what they have formed!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How do you see the need for Christ's sacrifice if Adam was not a real person? If Adam was not the father of all mankind, then sin did not spread as an inheritance to all of us. Jesus' sacrifice makes no sense. He is the "last Adam" because of what the first Adam did.

1 Corinthians 15:45, 47...."So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. . . .The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven."

Romans 5:12... "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned".



These admonitions were directed to the Jewish people whose perceptions of the law were corrupted by the teachings of the Pharisees. Matthew ch 5 contains many of these addresses, yet none of them were telling people not to obey the law. As a Jew, Jesus would never do that. He said in that same chapter (verse 17) that he did not come to "destroy the law but to fulfill it".



You have not stated why you would assume that these things are allegorical when there is nothing in scripture to indicate that they were. Jesus and other Bible writers spoke of Noah and many other Bible characters as real people. Do you have special power to discern which are real and which are not? Was Jesus real? Was Moses? Daniel? Jeremiah? Isaiah? Where do you draw the line?



Unless the Bible says that the accounts are merely illustrative, I will take them at face value as I have no reason not to. Factual stories tell the same truth, do they not?

Absolutely wonderful, Deeje!
Some of these people will never admit it til their dying day, but their "minds are blinded by the god of this system"! -- 2 Corinthians 4:4

Hopefully one day they will....possibly at their resurrection? The arch Deceiver will then be gone.

Take care, my (spiritual) sister and (fleshly) cousin.

 

[Windwalker]

Fortunately, that's not what Paul and Peter were talking about! (Anyways, why would you try telling me 'what Paul meant', when you just got through posting this: "It's always your understanding, not the original author's ideas, whatever those may have actually been for them."??????) You make studying the Bible, a useless endeavor.

You fail to understand perspectives. Of course I read certain meanings from Paul. So do you. You and I have different perspectives we can discuss and share with each other. You saying there is only one true perspective, and that you happen to have that one true perspective, is not a discussion. It's preaching one's ego as if it were the voice of almighty God.

 

[Windwalker]

How do you see the need for Christ's sacrifice if Adam was not a real person?

We are real people. Adam symbolizes us. The story of Adam and Eve, is the story of humanity's existential condition. It's a story that has a morale to it, like Aesop's Fables. Those weren't historically true either, but they do represent actual truth. While metaphors are "as if" statements, they do point to an actual reality, ones which often are beyond mere descriptive terms. You do understand metaphors, right?

You have not stated why you would assume that these things are allegorical when there is nothing in scripture to indicate that they were.

Now that's a good question. Some of the early Christian Church Fathers understood them as allegorical too, BTW. Why did they? Why do I? Why do we and those like us?

First, it has to do with understanding facts. Second, it has to do with accepting facts. Denying facts in order to preserve our ideas we use to support our faith is unhealthy, and unwise. There is nothing sinful about changing how we previously believed about things and thought about our faith. In fact, I see it as a fundamental requirement of growth!

When you understand the facts, as best as possible, and not live in denial, then you soon see that these are a well-known, common category of stories the world over, in most religions, and all cultures. They are mythologies. They have a purpose. The myths in the Bible are no different, and bear all the earmarks of mythologies.

Then when you understand them as such, and aren't busying yourself try to force fit scripture into your preconceptions about them, you actual lift them out of that ego-miring and can let the truth of them speak unencumbered by your limited, and errant ideas. They are more meaningful, when you quit trying to make them literal.

So, it is a result of education and study, as well as one's spiritual and intellectual integrity and maturity which leaves no choice but to understand these things at a far different level, a much larger context, than that which a literalist mind can allow. The literalist mind is incapable of understanding meaning, as what is actually meaningful. The symbol points to the meaning. The symbol is not the meaning itself. The meaning exists beyond the symbol, and can survive without the symbol being understood as "fact".

 

[Laughing Coyote]

It is funny that this same exact discussion went on through the entire late 18th and early 19th centuries voluminously with each consecutive scientific discovery, particularly geological ones, discrediting one claim after another until the argument for deluge was untenable. And then Darwin searched out evidence and brought it all together to put the nails in the coffin. And yet it is revived in the 20th century with little reference to any elements of this argument (even though there are recent books about it by philosophers and historians of science). There are certainly problems with Darwin, and limitations of understanding and knowledge, most of them overcome to make a more complete theory. In my mind to reduce evolution into organisms as opposed to the planet as a whole is still a major one. However, the Deluge is not one of them and it was largely overcome by discoveries in cosmology, physics and geology even prior to Darwin. For Christians on the other hand, a big problem was that they made belief in God contingent upon the veracity of a particular text gathered by Neolithic herders and farmers thousands of years ago. Interestingly this was not always the case for Christians, and they would do well to understand their own history and the context of its development.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We are real people. Adam symbolizes us. The story of Adam and Eve, is the story of humanity's existential condition. It's a story that has a morale to it, like Aesop's Fables. Those weren't historically true either, but they do represent actual truth. While metaphors are "as if" statements, they do point to an actual reality, ones which often are beyond mere descriptive terms. You do understand metaphors, right?


Now that's a good question. Some of the early Christian Church Fathers understood them as allegorical too, BTW. Why did they? Why do I? Why do we and those like us?

First, it has to do with understanding facts. Second, it has to do with accepting facts. Denying facts in order to preserve our ideas we use to support our faith is unhealthy, and unwise. There is nothing sinful about changing how we previously believed about things and thought about our faith. In fact, I see it as a fundamental requirement of growth!

When you understand the facts, as best as possible, and not live in denial, then you soon see that these are a well-known, common category of stories the world over, in most religions, and all cultures. They are mythologies. They have a purpose. The myths in the Bible are no different, and bear all the earmarks of mythologies.

Then when you understand them as such, and aren't busying yourself try to force fit scripture into your preconceptions about them, you actual lift them out of that ego-miring and can let the truth of them speak unencumbered by your limited, and errant ideas. They are more meaningful, when you quit trying to make them literal.

So, it is a result of education and study, as well as one's spiritual and intellectual integrity and maturity which leaves no choice but to understand these things at a far different level, a much larger context, than that which a literalist mind can allow. The literalist mind is incapable of understanding meaning, as what is actually meaningful. The symbol points to the meaning. The symbol is not the meaning itself. The meaning exists beyond the symbol, and can survive without the symbol being understood as "fact."

"(The stories in the Bible) bear all the earmarks of mythologies"??
Why? Because you don't want to accept that Jehovah God used extreme (read, 'miraculous') power and control? The Creator of the universe isn't capable, got it!

Deny the posted evidence.

Take care, my cousin through Noah.

 

[Deeje]

We are real people. Adam symbolizes us. The story of Adam and Eve, is the story of humanity's existential condition. It's a story that has a morale to it, like Aesop's Fables. Those weren't historically true either, but they do represent actual truth. While metaphors are "as if" statements, they do point to an actual reality, ones which often are beyond mere descriptive terms. You do understand metaphors, right?

You have failed miserably to tie in the Bible's narrative with Jesus' ransom sacrifice. The account in Genesis tells us that God provided the means to ensure that humans did not die UNLESS they disobeyed one specific command....the only mention of death in the whole scenario.

So ask yourself, what would have happened if Adam had never partaken of the fruit? A whole other scenario would have transpired. If Adam was not personally responsible for the death of himself and all who descended from him, then Jesus death is meaningless. Adam had to be real in order for Christ's sacrifice to make sense.
For the "last Adam" to have accomplished what the "first Adam" dismantled for his offspring, they both had to be real and their actions had to be real as well.

Now that's a good question. Some of the early Christian Church Fathers understood them as allegorical too, BTW. Why did they? Why do I? Why do we and those like us?

I have no real interest in what the early church fathers had to say. It isn't scripture, nor is it inspired of God.
The apostles were the only restraining influence from the foretold apostasy that was to take place as soon as they passed away. (the weeds of Jesus' parable) These spiritually destructive influences were "already at work" in their day, but once they were gone, Christianity descended into what humans made it....not what Christ initiated. (2 Thessalonians 2:7-12) Any wonder Paul warned us "not to be quickly shaken from our reason" in connection with Christ's return. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2) Is that a real event in your estimations?

First, it has to do with understanding facts. Second, it has to do with accepting facts. Denying facts in order to preserve our ideas we use to support our faith is unhealthy, and unwise. There is nothing sinful about changing how we previously believed about things and thought about our faith. In fact, I see it as a fundamental requirement of growth!

Ah....facts. What facts would these be? Those of the "scientific" variety? These are what make our faith "unhealthy? How much of theoretical science can be trusted? How much of it is based on data that might not have applied at all to the pre-flood earth? Do any of them really know?

Even with their radio carbon dating, isn't the consistent flow of radiation from the sun necessary to calculate their dates? If Genesis is correct, then the water canopy suspended above the atmosphere would have shielded the earth from much radiation, giving the earth a more uniform climate. This is confirmed by the discovery of palm trees unearthed from layers below the icy ground in Siberia. That would have thrown all their calculations way off.

You can go by man-made science, but you can't really know if any of the data it is based on is reliable.

If the foundations of a building are unsound, then whatever you build on it will be doomed to collapse.

You trust men...I trust the Creator and will not sell out to save face.

When you understand the facts, as best as possible, and not live in denial, then you soon see that these are a well-known, common category of stories the world over, in most religions, and all cultures. They are mythologies. They have a purpose. The myths in the Bible are no different, and bear all the earmarks of mythologies.

Denial? What am I denying? The fables of men of science...or the truth of God's word? The mythologies of many cultures that carry a flood story are too widespread and too similar NOT to have been a real event.

Do you not believe that the Creator of the universe can do whatever he wishes? Does he need the limited "science" that humans know to prove that he can flood the world if he so chooses to teach us many things about how to serve him and what is required of us to meet with his approval?

You think he approves of those who try to make him "more believable" by tampering with his word and implying that he is not truthful and cannot do what humans think is impossible? Think again. More "impossibilities" are on their way.

Then when you understand them as such, and aren't busying yourself try to force fit scripture into your preconceptions about them, you actual lift them out of that ego-miring and can let the truth of them speak unencumbered by your limited, and errant ideas. They are more meaningful, when you quit trying to make them literal.

Where is the forcing? In accord with whose knowledge is anything forced into scripture? "The truth of them" speaks without humans trying to save face by turning them into myth. They are "meaningful" without the human efforts to make them more "believable". If they are already "unencumbered" as I believe they are, what is wrong with those who identify as Bible believers, who have to put their own meaning into God's word? He has stated quite clearly what he has done, yet you want to discredit his words and make them into something else.

So, it is a result of education and study, as well as one's spiritual and intellectual integrity and maturity which leaves no choice but to understand these things at a far different level, a much larger context, than that which a literalist mind can allow.

What education? Man's? You are welcome to that. I trust God way more than I trust a worldview controlled by God's adversary. (1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

The literalist mind is incapable of understanding meaning, as what is actually meaningful. The symbol points to the meaning. The symbol is not the meaning itself. The meaning exists beyond the symbol, and can survive without the symbol being understood as "fact".

I know whose mind is "incapable of understanding".....those who cannot take the Creator at his word.

 

[illykitty]

I always wondered, how did Noah feed all of these animals, how did he get rid of all of the poop and how could he have a boat big enough for two of each animals? Also, all of the animals that can fly or swim were surely ok?

 

[Deeje]

I always wondered, how did Noah feed all of these animals, how did he get rid of all of the poop and how could he have a boat big enough for two of each animals? Also, all of the animals that can fly or swim were surely ok?

Since everything to do with the construction of the ark and provisions to be taken on board were from the Creator, and how big the vessel actually was, it is not too difficult to understand. It was God who brought the land dwelling animal "kinds" to Noah (which would not include any of the marine creatures who would have survived in the waters) and it he was he who determined what specimens he wanted preserved. Their repopulating of the earth was also under his care and control. There is a lot of detail that is not included in the narrative, but that does not mean that it can't be provided if God wants it known.

Since we are pleasing to God by the demonstration of our faith in him and his word, then the provability of the details shouldn't matter. We don't need the testimony of men to prove what God says.
If everything was scientifically provable, then faith would be unnecessary.

 

[illykitty]

Well, I don't really agree with taking things on faith, especially when my brain tells me there's something wrong with this picture. I don't think that details don't matter. They're EXACTLY what makes me question a literal interpretation of the Bible. To me, it raises red flags to have to just believe things that make no sense.

 

[Deeje]

Well, I don't really agree with taking things on faith, especially when my brain tells me there's something wrong with this picture. I don't think that details don't matter. They're EXACTLY what makes me question a literal interpretation of the Bible. To me, it raises red flags to have to just believe things that make no sense.

I guess it depends on who is raising the flags. I don't trust the men of science to be entirely truthful when it comes to supporting their pet theory. How do you know that what they are theorizing is correct? Their "facts" can all change with the next "scientific" discovery. The Bible has never changed because God doesn't. If you have strong faith, there is nothing that can kill it. If your faith is weak, it can easily be swayed by the next convincing argument.

 

[Windwalker]

"(The stories in the Bible) bear all the earmarks of mythologies"??
Why? Because you don't want to accept that Jehovah God used extreme (read, 'miraculous') power and control? The Creator of the universe isn't capable, got it!

No, not that. It's because if you read other culture's creation myths, they look just like ours. That may be revelatory to you, and I consider that a good thing. You need to start looking beyond into the greater world that lays outside your door. It's a big world out there. And God is Love, everywhere.

 

[Windwalker]

You have failed miserably to tie in the Bible's narrative with Jesus' ransom sacrifice.

No I didn't. You failed to understand what I said. I get that.

So ask yourself, what would have happened if Adam had never partaken of the fruit?

Let's explore that thought for a moment. I know you probably won't fully get this, but I'll put it out there for you. What was that fruit, actually? Have you explored that thought? What did that fruit represent? What did it signify in our human experience? What did it represent? What did it symbolize? What does it mean to us in our current life experience? What does it point to beyond this simple world we think we understand with our paltry minds?

What is that fruit? Symbolically it means in essence our awakening to our existential state of being. In eating that fruit, we recognize our separateness, as the story tells, as you know. So that moment in which we realize we are alone, isolated, there is the terror death. We do not feel connected with God. We fear death. We fear isolation. We fear hell.

The whole story of Adam and Eve speaks to that innate foreboding in ourselves of dying and facing our own immortality, that we are finite, and not infinite. It is at that moment we reach out across that chasm of isolation to realize that we were never apart from it. It is at that moment we realize God. It is at that moment we realize what to us is our salvation.

The entire story of Adam of Eve is our story. However it happened, whether through natural evolution where we came to realize our separation from nature in our humanity which led to a deeper realization of our prior connection with this world which birthed us. Or via some magical story of supernatural occurrences; a man and a woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere in a magical garden. It doesn't matter. It still speaks the same truth.

Try to understand, beyond your own understanding. It's a beautiful world beyond the doors of your church of thought.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This place has more atheists per area than there is sand on a beach per square meter. Ooops too late indeed.

I sometimes would rather talk to an atheist because some have inquiring minds that want to know.
Whereas some so-called Christians just want to believe in a burning forever of people, or a false trinity concept.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

......... It's because if you read other culture's creation myths, they look just like ours. That may be revelatory to you, and I consider that a good thing. You need to start looking beyond into the greater world that lays outside your door. It's a big world out there. And God is Love, everywhere.

True, God "IS" love everywhere, and the proof is because God is having the good news message about His Kingdom government of Daniel 2:44 being proclaimed world wide as it is being done today as per Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.

As far as other culture's myths, the reason they might seem like Scripture is because we can trace mankind's family tree back to its base at Genesis 10 with Nimrod in ancient Babylon. Even astrology traces back to Babylon.
As the people migrated out of ancient Babylon they took with them their religious stories and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great. They mixed or fused the Genesis Flood account with their ideas, and that is why we see so many similar or overlapping religious stories and concepts.
None of which makes the Bible's account as wrong but makes their version as similar but Not accurate.

Because it is 'a BIG world out there' is why God is having the international proclaiming about Matthew 24:14 being done today on such a vast global scale. Modern technology has allowed for rapid Bible translation so that people even remote areas of Earth can Now have Scripture in their own mother tongue or native languages.
What is also revelatory is that there is soon going to be a ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I always wondered, how did Noah feed all of these animals, how did he get rid of all of the poop and how could he have a boat big enough for two of each animals? Also, all of the animals that can fly or swim were surely ok?

Did Noah have to feed all those animals or were they hibernating.
Noah had ' kinds' of animals. In other words, a ' kind ' can expand itself.
A dog is a 'kind' and from that we have a variety of dogs, etc. in the dog kind family of dogs.
Noah did release birds from the Ark, so flying creation would have been included.