I started the now closed
Assuming the flood was real topic. It also was an attempt as a purely theological discussion.
There message 1 contained:
quote:
Now, as I understand it, the flood is considered to be an act of re-creation, apparently to fix what had gone wrong after the original creation (which apparently wasn't as "good" as God originally thought).
Now for the questions:
1) Did indeed, the original creation, turn out not to be "good"?
And more important:
2) Was the re-creation act of the flood a success? Did it's happening result is a better world, than that which would have been, had the flood not happened?
I don't want to turn this into a "flood" topic, but my impression (as I went into at the above cited), was that God recognized that His original creation was flawed (He errored}, and thus the need for the Noahic flood.
God went on to promice Noah that He would never impose another flood like event upon the Earth. To me, this implies that God thought that the flood itself was a less than good idea, or perhaps a less than successful idea (errored again?).
But all this (to some degree) was followed up at at the above cited, so we may not wish to pursue it further in this topic. Perhaps Portmaster should function as a moderator on such things.
Moose