So you believe Jesus is on a par with the Pied Piper?? LOL
So what is your worldview anyway???

I was actually referring to 2 Peter 3:3-7, which shows Peter is in no doubt...so the 'ifs' in your passage should not be interpreted to mean doubt about these things.

Thank you, NWR, you bet!

He did refer to God's judgment in 2 Peter 2, which was the passage you quoted that I was responding to. In 2 Peter 3, he recognises that 'the world was deluged and destroyed'. No doubt there.
While the evidence for 2 Peter is weaker than for any other book of the NT, it is much stronger than for those books that have been excluded from the Canon. Needless to say, I do not subscribe to the liberal theory that it is not written by the apostle Peter...that fact is clearly stated in the epistle...if that fact is not true, it would not be in the Canon at all, as it would be a fraud. Therefore, my argument from the last post stands, re. Jesus and Peter's interaction with each other on this issue.
Looking specifically at Matt. 24:37 - Jesus is quoted 'For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man'. (NRSV)
If Noah didn't exist, if the Flood was just a story, then why think 'the coming of the son of man' will be any different?? Jesus warning would be empty indeed.
You may as well translate that as "For as the days of Noah WEREN'T, so will be the coming of the son of man'. Sorry, but these theories about Jesus not being literal when referring to these stories make the whole NT passage completely senseless. Actually, it's one of the major reasons I abandoned liberal scholarship a long time ago. They're really not much better than the Jehovah Witnesses.

There is plenty of evidence a Flood happened. Obviously not looking in the right places.

Will do, when I stop getting so many replies! "wink"

I think there are other threads for that, I may do that before the week's out, just got alot of replies here right now.

A close examination of Scripture reveals that the scientific (factual) and spiritual truths of Scripture are often inseparable. For example, one cannot separate the spiritual truth of Chrit's resurrection from the fact that his body permanently vacated the tomb and later physically appeared.
Likewise, if Jesus is not born of a physical virgin, then he is no different from the rest of the human race on whom the stigma of Adam's sin rests.
Likewise, the death of Christ for our sins cannot be detached from his shedding of literal blood on the cross, for 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission'.
And Adam's existence and fall cannot be a myth. If there were no literal Adam and no actual Fall, then the spiritual teaching about inherited sin and eventual/physical death are wrong.
You see, historical reality and theological doctrine stand or fall together in the Christian faith. However, that is not true for every religion. Some religions can have all the 'earhtly stuff' removed and what's left will still make sense. Which is why it's such a mistake to treat all religions the same, they simply aren't, no matter how hard you try to make them otherwise.
Like Jesus said to Nicodemus, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:12). The two are intimately related.

And because the apostles felt the same way, at least I see no evidence to believe otherwise.

My, my, you honestly think that I believe there are NO parables, figures of speech, metaphors and other things in the Bible that aren't meant to be taken literally. I use the same criteria to determine these things as anyone who has been taught in an English (or any language) class does. Sheesh, sorry but that's a straw man.
Like most kinds of writing, there can be things that can be taken literally, and things that aren't.
At least I don't take the view that NOTHING can be taken literally...where on earth do you get that idea from??? Can I take it then, that you believe that nothing YOU or anyone else says can be taken literally??? As per usual, you folks have one standard for the Bible and another for everything else...so let's not pretend this is about interpretation here, you folks have obviously got some heart issues.

OK, Purp, sorry if I 'lumped' you in with everybody, but when you are all coming from the same direction, it's hard to see any differences in your assumptions.
You said,
"No it would not be a fraud as we think of it today. It was just the way things were done back then."
Yes, some people tried to do that...the fact is, however, that the Jews had a fanatically high regard for scripture. Copyists followed strict rules to reduce the chance of even slight errors in transmission. Scholars debated the meaning of every phrase...the idea that the Jews and the early Christians (many of whom had been Jewish originally, especially in the 1st century) would accept a fraud borders on the bizarre and at best must be considered irrational. The notion that all religions treated their religious texts the same way as each other is 'comparative religion' nonsense, that is why some religions are still around today and many are not.
Re. Jesus' Noah comment (Mt. 24:38), my rule of thumb is, if there is nothing in a passage that suggests it shouldn't be taken literally, I will take it literally...what is present in this passage that suggests to you that Jesus did not take the story of the Flood literally?
Re. Mt. 24:43, it is a parable Jesus shared in Luke 12:35-40. How do I know it's just a parable and not a historical occurence?? Luke 12:41 - "Peter said, 'Lord, do you intend this parable for us or is it for everyone?'" Of course, the stuff about Noah is not in the Luke passage, so Peter's words would not apply to that story.
Re. 2 Peter 3:3-7, how you can read that passage (beginning with scoffers and ending with judgment by fire) and argue the Flood was not considered God's judgment...why mention it in the passage then at all??...the rest of the passage is all about judgment!!!
Re 2 Peter's authorship, it has the weakest evidence of all the NT books, but has more than any of those books that were rejected. It's entirely possible it could have been written around 65-67 B.C.

Despite it's humble origins, Christians have made more changes on Earth for the good than any other movement or force in history. To get an overview of some of the positive contributions Christianity has made thru the centuries, here are a few highlights:
- Hospitals
- Universities
- Literacy and education for the masses
- Capitalism and free enterprise
- Representative government
- The separation of political powers
- Civil liberties
- The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and modern times
- Modern science
- The discovery of the New World by Columbus
- Benevolence and charity
- The elevation of the common man
- High regard for human life
- The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world's languages
- Greater development of art and music
Not saying there were no negatives, but you guys sure do go back along ways to find them (i.e. the Dark Ages), in fact, you have to go back to a time when the Roman Catholic Church was forbidding people to read the Scriptures in their own languages...be careful how you denigrate the Scriptures!
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seemed to suggest that you are a pagan. Can you tell me what, in your view, paganism has contributed to the world?

Getting way Off Topic. This is on Why read the Bible Literally, not flood stuff. Please do not reply to this message

Thank you for your civil reply.
Re. the Flood and whether it was local or global, let's consider some context in Genesis -1) The need for the ArkIf the Flood were local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped. Traveling just 20 km per day, Noah and his family could have traveled over 3,000 km in six months. God could have simply warned Noah to flee, as He did for Lot in Sodom.2) The size of the ArkIf the Flood were local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all the different kinds of land vertebrate animals in the world? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, or only domestic animals, the Ark could have been much smaller.13) The need for animals to be on the ArkIf the Flood were local, why did God send the animals to the Ark to escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce those kinds even if they had all died in the local area. Or He could have sent them to a non-flooded region.4) The need for birds to be on the ArkIf the Flood were local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range. Birds can fly several hundred kilometers in one day.5) The judgment was universalIf the Flood were local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not have been affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin. It boggles the mind to believe that, after all those centuries since creation, no one had migrated to other parts”or that people living on the periphery of such a local flood would not have moved to the adjoining high ground rather than be drowned. Jesus believed that the Flood killed everyone not on the Ark (Matt. 24:37-39).Of course those who want to believe in a local flood generally say that the world is old and that people were here for many tens of thousands of years before the Flood. If this were the case, it is inconceivable that all the people could have fitted in a localized valley in Mesopotamia, for example, or that they had not migrated further afield as the population grew.6) The Flood was a type of the judgment to comeWhat did Christ mean when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of ”all’ men (Matt. 24:37-39) in the days of Noah? In 2 Peter 3, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah’s Flood. A partial judgment in Noah’s day would mean a partial judgment to come.7) The waters were above the mountainsIf the Flood were local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Gen. 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.28) The duration of the FloodNoah and company were on the Ark for one year and 10 days (Gen. 7:11, 8:14)”surely an excessive amount of time for any local flood? It was more than seven months before the tops of any mountains became visible. How could they drift around in a local flood for that long without seeing any mountains?9) God’s promise broken?If the Flood were local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a Flood again. There have been huge ”local’ floods in recent times: in Bangladesh, for example, where 80% of that country has been inundated, or Europe in 2002.10) All people are descendants of Noah and his familyThe genealogies of Adam (Gen. 4:17-26, 5:1-31) and Noah (Gen. 10:1-32) are exclusive”they tell us that all the pre-Flood people came from Adam and all the post-Flood people came from Noah. The descendants of Noah were all living together at Babel and refusing to ”fill the earth,’ as they had been commanded (Gen. 9:1). So God confused their one language into many and scattered them (Gen. 11:1-9).There is striking evidence that all peoples on earth have come from Noah, found in the Flood stories from many cultures around the world”North and South America, South Sea Islands, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Japan, China, India, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. Hundreds of such stories have been gathered.3 The stories closest to the area of dispersion from Babel are nearest in detail to the biblical account”for example, the Gilgamesh epic.I have a bunch more stuff re. specific terminology in Genesis about the Flood but I think this post is big enough. Will send more tomorrow.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-15-2005 08:17 AM

There are over 200 of these Flood stories -While the differences are not always trivial, the common essence of the stories is instructive as compiled below:1. Is there a favored family? 88%
2. Were they forewarned? 66%
3. Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66%
4. Is catastrophe only a flood? 95%
5. Was flood global? 95%
6. Is survival due to a boat? 70%
7. Were animals also saved? 67%
8. Did animals play any part? 73%
9. Did survivors land on a mountain? 57%
10. Was the geography local? 82%
11. Were birds sent out? 35%
12. Was the rainbow mentioned? 7%
13. Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13%
14. Were specifically eight persons saved? 9%Putting them all back together, the story would read something like this:Once there was a worldwide flood, sent by God to judge the wickedness of man. But there was one righteous family which was forewarned of the coming flood. They built a boat on which they survived the flood along with the animals. As the flood ended, their boat landed on a high mountain from which they descended and repopulated the whole earth.Of course the story sounds much like the Biblical story of the great flood of Noah's day. The most similar accounts are typically from middle eastern cultures, but surprisingly similar legends are found in South America and the Pacific Islands and elsewhere. None of these stories contains the beauty, clarity, and believable detail given in the Bible, but each is meaningful to their own culture.Anthropologists will tell you that a myth is often the faded memory of a real event. Details may have been added, lost, or obscured in the telling and retelling, but the kernel of truth remains. When two separate cultures have the same "myth" in their body of folklore, their ancestors must have either experienced the same event, or they both descended from a common ancestral source which itself experienced the event.The only credible way to understand the widespread, similar flood legends is to recognize that all people living today, even though separated geographically, linguistically, and culturally, have descended from the few real people who survived a real global flood, on a real boat which eventually landed on a real mountain. Their descendants now fill the globe, never to forget the real event.But, of course, this is not the view of most modern scholars. They prefer to believe that something in our commonly evolved psyche forces each culture to invent the same imaginary flood legend with no basis in real history.I guess you and I just have to agree to disagree on this one.

You say, "The only reasonable way to understand the utter lack of any physical signs of a global flood -- a flood, by the way, with no source for water, nor no method of its elimination -- during historical times in the geological and archaeological record is to accept that there was no global flood."Oh, really??? Well, much as I would love to argue that with you, it has already being pointed out that scientific evidence re. a Flood, does not belong on a 'why take the Bible literally' thread. I guess I'm going to have to make my way over to the 'Flood' thread at some point, after I'm done with a couple of other threads.Re. modern scholars, I find many of them tend to work within the presuppositions with which they have been taught, and rarely bother to question them. Of course, you fail to mention the fact that many of the originators of their ideas from the 18th & 19th century were doing so on the basis of trying to undermine Biblical authority. I think if that were more widely known, I think more scientists would take a more critical view of what they've been taught.