How do we know when our interpretation is wrong?

This is a clear cut example of how we see things differently. Many of us read the scriptures and we look for the timeless truth. We read the first three chapters of Genesis and say what was the point?

I read it and find that the point was that even given the ability to walk in the presence of God in paradise, man will sin. If that one man will sin, the rest of us will too. So, we’d better begin to look for a Redeemer.

This, again, shows the difference in how we read and digest scripture. God flooded “the world of that time” with water. But water was judgment for sin. It was a sign that we are all destined for death. So, did he build an ark to escape the water or the chaos? For us, both. The ark is a sign of salvation. It is passage through death, a death that was deserved and a chance at new life. This is truly what it means to me.


I ask because the council of Trent was issued by the apostate Roman church specifically for antathematizing people like myself who believe in the true gospel of faith alone.

But, there was literal water involved in this event. It was a worldwide, or a local flood?

1 Like

But there was literal wood in there, was it gopher wood? Where did the pitch come from? What did the animals eat? Did Adam have a navel? You miss the point when you ask.

It certainly could. I’m guessing there was water involved, I just don’t think what form the flood took is particularly important for my interpretation of 2 Peter 3. You asked me to interpret 2 Peter 3, not Genesis 6.

Well, again, I’m assuming literal water was involved, I’m just not sure how. I don’t see evidence in the world of a global flood, so I tend to be on the “there was some sort of major flood event that they’re talking about” side. I’m using chaos as an interpretation of the meaning of the story, I don’t think it’s literally saying Noah built the ark to escape chaos.

All good questions. I think it’s very unlikely it was worldwide, I think it was likely a massive regional event. I think it’s unlikely it was completely made up, although if it was that’s OK too, I don’t think that changes 2 Peter 3 at all.


You just said a moment ago that Peter was clearly referencing Genesis 6 right here, which would in theory suggest that your interpretation of both places should be the same. If Peter was talking about Genesis 6 here, and Genesis 6 is a real literal event, then so are Peter’s words here talking about real literal waters of a real literal flood. Right?

I don’t see evidence in the world of a global flood

What about evidence in Scripture? But I digress.

“there was some sort of major flood event that they’re talking about”

And this is what Peter is saying the scoffers will deny. This event.

I think it’s unlikely it was completely made up, although if it was that’s OK too, I don’t think that changes 2 Peter 3 at all.

Peter says that scoffers will be willingly ignorant of this event. And you are saying it’s OK if it was a made-up event that didn’t really happen. Do you see the glaring problem there?

The Bible says yes.

Where did the pitch come from?

The resin from trees available to them, presumably. The Bible doesn’t say God miraculously created pitch for them to use. He had 120 years advance notice to get the work done.

What did the animals eat?

Food supplies.

Did Adam have a navel?

I seriously doubt it.


Martin Luther agreed with them on heliocentrism. Your genetic fallacy doesn’t work.


The entire first portion of Genesis reads as myth, and I mean that in a positive sense. Myths were commonly used in that time period to convey deeper meanings of truth and theology. With Noah, it is an obvious retelling of the story found in the Enuma Elish.

Nachmanides (aka Nahmanides, Ramban) is an interesting example. I tried to find a few examples, but this 13th century Jewish commentator used similar language, interpretting Genesis as talking about chaos (if memory serves).


Why would you think that?

If I tell a kid “Remember George Washington and the cherry tree!” whether or not I believe the story about George Washington and “I cannot tell a lie” is literal history or not has no bearing on my usage of it to remind the kid not to lie.

I’m not ignoring Scripture, I’m trying to figure out what it means. The point being, I don’t really care that much what form the flood came in, because I’m focused on what the story means about God and our history with him. I just don’t see how the particular details change any of that.

Not, it actually says they will scoff at the coming of Christ. It says they will forget the Creation and flood. I certainly haven’t forgotten them.

No, not really. Only if they ignore God as Creator and Judge.


Please, slow down a second and consider this. None of us are ignoring scripture. We all love our bibles and the Word of God. This comment above punctuates the difference that we are discussing here. We see evidence from scripture and we see evidence from God’s creation. You fault us for reconciling the two and we fault you for not considering the other. There exists a mutual misunderstanding based upon a difference in focus. This exists and we all realize it.

That said, there are reasons why one should not be so literal with scripture. I have a friend who fervently believed that God would not hear his prayers unless he finished each with “in Jesus’ name.” The reason was that the scriptures tell us to pray in Jesus’ name. There are two ways (at least) to interpret this. The literal way is to assume that these are magic words and they hold the keys to God’s ears. The other is to understand that by praying in Jesus’ name, we are asking from his authority.


What evidence if found would falsify the claim of a 4500 year ago literal global Noah’s Flood and Noah’s Ark?

Everyone gets that you personally interpret Genesis as literal yet you work for an organization, CMI, which claims a literal Genesis is scientifically supported. A hypothesis can’t be scientific if it can’t in theory be falsified. Can you please describe this potential falsification?

Is CMI simply wrong about literal Genesis being scientifically verifiable?


Does this imply that your faith can not be aligned with scientific findings?

Hahahaha… Why? Not why do you doubt it… why do you care or even have a position? Because you are so steeped in the literal that it is important to you. That’s fine. I respect it. But I don’t have to believe the same or process the same way or get the same things from scripture that you do. All of those questions were rhetorical and unimportant, and yet you replied. That’s not important to me. What’s important is that man was going to sin and will always sin and is in dire need of a redeemer. That’s what matters.

It says more than that. It says "For they deliberately overlook this fact … "(ESV)

And then Peter goes on to list Creation and the Flood as things that the scoffers deliberately overlook. You cannot overlook a fact that isn’t a fact. But that seems to be what you’re suggesting.

No, not really. Only if they ignore God as Creator and Judge.

I don’t believe your reading is faithful to the clear grammatical meaning of the words presented. Peter clearly says there are two things (besides Christ) that the scoffers will choose to overlook. If these things are not real history, then there’s nothing there for them to scoff at or overlook in the first place.

Did the events in Jesus’ parables actually happen? Does it matter?

When you read one of Aesop’s fables, do you think it is a firsthand historical account of real events?


Genesis is neither a parable nor a fable. It’s historical narrative.

What evidence would it take to change your mind? Or can your mind be changed by evidence?

1 Like

Then why is it contradicted by such a huge amount of physical evidence the excuse “different interpretation” can’t hand wave away?

1 Like

So, there you have it… let’s stop then. This is getting nowhere.