Did God send the flood to get rid of the sinners?

[AV1611VET]

I've seen ideas proposed that the Nephilim etc had modified and corrupted humans and animals so it all had to be purged.

That's what I believe as well.

Given that a few generations later you have Babylon, Babel and Anakim or looks like there's plenty of corruption still around.

Possibly due to autosomal recessive disorder?

Also given that Noah etc are humans, they still had Original Sin,

That is correct.

God didn't send the Flood to wipe out Original Sin (which resides in the flesh), He sent it to destroy all plant and animal life that were carrying diseases and dominant DNA.

One example that my pastor likes to use is saying that STD's were probably the norm back then.

Rampant ... what the Bible calls ... "flesh corruption" everywhere.

 

[Shemjaza]

That's what I believe as well.Possibly due to autosomal recessive disorder?That is correct.

God didn't send the Flood to wipe out Original Sin (which resides in the flesh), He sent it to destroy all plant and animal life that were carrying diseases and dominant DNA.

One example that my pastor likes to use is saying that STD's were probably the norm back then.

Rampant ... what the Bible calls ... "flesh corruption" everywhere.

The whole flood seems more like punishment than purification.

For a corruption of the body, I'd feel like healing is more appropriate than purging.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tyne while flood seems more like punishment than purification.

We dispensationalists believe the Flood is the judgment that ended the dispensation of Conscience, and started the dispensation of Human Government.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I could have this wrong because I have never read the Bible,
but according to the Creationists God sent the flood across the whole world,
If that is true why did he need to kill all of the animals as well? what had they done wrong?

The Bible is quite clear about the reasons for the global flood. Because the Bible is the sole historical record of it, and you have never read the Bible, then you know nothing of the reasons for it, as well as not believing that a global flood had occurred at all.

 

[Job 33:6]

I could have this wrong because I have never read the Bible,
but according to the Creationists God sent the flood across the whole world,
If that is true why did he need to kill all of the animals as well? what had they done wrong?

For many Christians, a global flood never actually happened. Rather it would more feasible have been a local one.

I'd recommend the book "Genesis for Normal People" by Peter Enns.

 

[AV1611VET]

For many Christians, a global flood never actually happened. Rather it would more feasible have been a local one.

A local flood that consigned a whole family aboard an ark for a year?

 

[Shemjaza]

A local flood that consigned a whole family aboard an ark for a year?

Once you accept some details as poetic or symbolic, there's no reason not to keep going.

I guess that's one of the conflicts between literalist and non literalist Christians, so not really my business.

 

[Astrid]

The Bible is quite clear about the reasons for the global flood. Because the Bible is the sole historical record of it, and you have never read the Bible, then you know nothing of the reasons for it, as well as not believing that a global flood had occurred at all.

You do realize that to claim to know exactly what the
story means, that it comes from God, and that it actually
did happen is claiming to be infallible in matters of Bible interpretation, and as a bonus, to know more than any geophysicist,
biologist, chemist, geologist etc on earth?

Evidence does not side with that.

 

[Astrid]

For many Christians, a global flood never actually happened. Rather it would more feasible have been a local one.

I'd recommend the book "Genesis for Normal People" by Peter Enns.

"For many people" is like saying it's a matter of personal preference.

That there was no flood is a matter of physical proof.

 

[TedT]

I could have this wrong because I have never read the Bible,
but according to the Creationists God sent the flood across the whole world,
If that is true why did he need to kill all of the animals as well? what had they done wrong?

Genesis 1:1 Now the serpent was MORE CRAFTY than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made.

Genesis 1:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you ABOVE all livestock
and every beast of the field!

All the beasts of the field were crafty in sin, just not as crafty as the serpent, And all were cursed for their craftiness in sin, just not as much as the serpent. And they are explicitly mentioned as being destroyed in the flood as a judgement for violence.

Why this truth has no place in the theologies of our creation is an amazement to me...

Does It imply that some of the fallen angels flung to the earth are sown into animal bodies like other sinners are sown into mankind, Matt 13:36-39?

Does it give credence to the pagan belief that their lives, not the lives of Christians, go through
the reincarnation cycles down and up the animal chain of being as they claim?

Why not?

 

[TedT]

Christians believe that God destroyed nearly everything with the flood because he used to be a huge jerk, but because he was God, everyone still had to do what he said.

This bad telling of the story is hilarious!

 

[Astrid]

Genesis 1:1 Now the serpent was MORE CRAFTY than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made.

Genesis 1:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you ABOVE all livestock
and every beast of the field!

All the beasts of the field were crafty in sin, just not as crafty as the serpent, And all were cursed for their craftiness in sin, just not as much as the serpent. And they are explicitly mentioned as being destroyed in the flood as a judgement for violence.

Why this truth has no place in the theologies of our creation is an amazement to me...

Does It imply that some of the fallen angels flung to the earth are sown into animal bodies like other sinners are sown into mankind, Matt 13:36-39?

Does it give credence to the pagan belief that their lives, not the lives of Christians, go through
the reincarnation cycles down and up the animal chain of being as they claim?

Why not?

Crafty sinful chipmunks and geckos.

 

[TedT]

yeah, and why are there still sinners around? his plan didn't work? gee, i thought he was, you know... omnipotent and omniscient.

Prove HIS plan was not to prove that HE could destroy the world but that such a proof of power would not bring mankind to repentance...

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You do realize that to claim to know exactly what the
story means, that it comes from God, and that it actually
did happen is claiming to be infallible in matters of Bible interpretation, and as a bonus, to know more than any geophysicist,
biologist, chemist, geologist etc on earth?

Evidence does not side with that.

Have you read British history, or how the history of how Hong Kong was colonised by the British? How do you know if that was true? Yet, it is taught in schools as if these were true facts. On what basis can it be proved so?

I know why the event of the Flood happened and the reasons for it. You have demonstrated that you don't know. All that you can tell me is that you don't believe that it happened at all, and that the Genesis account was not written by God. But you have no basis for proof either way except for your own opinion.

 

[Astrid]

Have you read British history, or how the history of how Hong Kong was colonised by the British? How do you know if that was true? Yet, it is taught in schools as if these were true facts. On what basis can it be proved so?

I know why the event of the Flood happened and the reasons for it. You have demonstrated that you don't know. All that you can tell me is that you don't believe that it happened at all, and that the Genesis account was not written by God. But you have no basis for proof either way except for your own opinion.

I grew up in HK.
The British tell the story differently than we do, much as with
the American revolution that is viewed differently by the two sides.

The events and outcome though is nowhere in question. The corroborating evidence and details are there in
huge quantity and detail. The reasonable person would not claim it did not happen.

The HK story likewise makes entire sense in the historical context; tea for silver; Britain didn't have silver. Opium, Chinese resist, opium wars. All of that. Both sides agree that's what happened. Ships logs, financial records, letters, military reports,many many ways to cross reference.

No reasonable person claims that Beijing asked the British to come. Or any other theory. Why do I say " reason-able'? Because there is no REASON for any other story. Not fact one to suggest that the narrative is falsified or just a myth. That some radically different events are what really happened.

With me so far?

 

[Eloy Craft]

I could have this wrong because I have never read the Bible,
but according to the Creationists God sent the flood across the whole world,
If that is true why did he need to kill all of the animals as well? what had they done wrong?

The flood prevented the destruction of the order God established. It was a redo so Human life could be saved and earth no t be permanently ruled by Satan.
The animals would be the only place for evil spirits to dwell if human life were holy. Satan holds the power of death and all the other animals naturally die. Satan had nothing to Lord over on Noah's ark. He got a taste of his final end .

 

[Astrid]

I know why the event of the Flood happened and the reasons for it. You have demonstrated that you don't know. All that you can tell me is that you don't believe that it happened at all, and that the Genesis account was not written by God. But you have no basis for proof either way except for your own opinion.

Now here, you make several statements
( Assertions) as if they were facts like 2+2=4, when in truth you are offering opinions, however emotionally attached you may be.
You believe, but you do not know. This is an important distinction. You have faith, not facts. Which is ok; just don't mix it up with facts and proof.

As for " written by God"? Inspired is the word. Nobody knows by whom or when the account was first written. But never mind that.

You say ( made up) the "fact" that I only have an opinion about the historicity of the flood. You don't know that, and it actually is quite false.
The Truth needs no such.as your baseless claim, and is only harmed by it.

Here is a little fictional story to illustrate a point I will get to.
Let us say I rent a house to four college students in oh, Kansas.

When they move out the house is a wreck.
Knee deep trash, bad smells, holes in the walls, rotten carpet, etc.

We go to court. IThey want their damage deposit back!
You are the judge. You ask for their side.
They say" We left it real nice! The night after we moved out, dopers came in and wrecked it! It's not our fault!".

How might I prove they are lying, and the mess started months ago?

Is there nothing but he says- she says, only opinions?

 

[TedT]

The animals would be the only place for evil spirits to dwell if human life were holy.

Does this reconcile with Matthew 13:36-39 which is the explanation, ie NO hyperbole or metaphor!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I grew up in HK.
The British tell the story differently than we do, much as with
the American revolution that is viewed differently by the two sides.

The events and outcome though is nowhere in question. The corroborating evidence and details are there in
huge quantity and detail. The reasonable person would not claim it did not happen.

The HK story likewise makes entire sense in the historical context; tea for silver; Britain didn't have silver. Opium, Chinese resist, opium wars. All of that. Both sides agree that's what happened. Ships logs, financial records, letters, military reports,many many ways to cross reference.

No reasonable person claims that Beijing asked the British to come. Or any other theory. Why do I say " reason-able'? Because there is no REASON for any other story. Not fact one to suggest that the narrative is falsified or just a myth. That some radically different events are what really happened.

With me so far?

So, you have to trust the historian to determine fact from myth. So, was Moses a good historian or not?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Now here, you make several statements
( Assertions) as if they were facts like 2+2=4, when in truth you are offering opinions, however emotionally attached you may be.
You believe, but you do not know. This is an important distinction. You have faith, not facts. Which is ok; just don't mix it up with facts and proof.

As for " written by God"? Inspired is the word. Nobody knows by whom or when the account was first written. But never mind that.

You say ( made up) the "fact" that I only have an opinion about the historicity of the flood. You don't know that, and it actually is quite false.
The Truth needs no such.as your baseless claim, and is only harmed by it.

Here is a little fictional story to illustrate a point I will get to.
Let us say I rent a house to four college students in oh, Kansas.

When they move out the house is a wreck.
Knee deep trash, bad smells, holes in the walls, rotten carpet, etc.

We go to court. IThey want their damage deposit back!
You are the judge. You ask for their side.
They say" We left it real nice! The night after we moved out, dopers came in and wrecked it! It's not our fault!".

How might I prove they are lying, and the mess started months ago?

Is there nothing but he says- she says, only opinions?

The historical books of the Bible are just as reliable as any other history. I believe what historians say about historical events in New Zealand history. When I was at school in the 1950s, the history we were taught started with Abel Tasman discovering NZ in the 18th Century. But more modern research has discovered that NZ has a history going back to 900AD when the first Moriori people arrived from the Pacific Islands. But the indigenous Maori people trace their history back to when they migrated to NZ from "Hawaiki" a place not yet identified. They do not recognise the earlier Moriori people. In fact, they massacred them, something that the Maori historians suppress. So it all has to do with who the historians are as to be able to determine which history is factual, or whether it is just the opinion of the dominant culture. While the dominant culture of NZ was British, NZ history really started with Captain Cook. When NZ became bi-cultural (Maori-European) teaching of history in schools was extended to include Maori history, told in the myths of how Maori believed that NZ was formed and how the Maori people arrived and settled in the country.

So whether Biblical or the history of our own cultures is determined, it is mainly faith that is involved. Much of the events described cannot be reliably verified.

So if you decide to believe the history of your own culture, it means that you have faith in your historians. if you decide not to have faith in the historians of the Bible, you won't acknowledge that what has been recorded is true. It all depends on what you base your faith.