Noah's Ark

[BCP1928]

The Hebrews didn't write about the Flood.

Noah did.



That account got Noah into the Hall of Faith Chapter in Hebrews 11.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

If Noah lied about the account, then it wouldn't have been recorded in the New Testament as factual.



The Flood story is both.

It is factual as well as exemplary.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.



The purpose of the Flood is well documented.

You don't have to go looking for it.



The story has both an A and B side.

A is literal; B is exemplary.

If you want to dwell on the B side, help yourself.

But don't deny the A side.

The A side means a lot to me; the B side means a lot to you.

In doing so, it's almost as if you're telling me your faith is in jeopardy if you find out the Flood story was literal.

That sounds weird to me.

Why would anyone base their faith on a story in the Bible being made up?

Because our faith is not based on it. We don't believe in Christ because of the Bible, we believe the Bible because of Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because our faith is not based on it.

Noah's was.

We don't believe in Christ because of the Bible, we believe the Bible because of Christ.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[BCP1928]

Noah's was.



Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Christ Himself said much the same thing. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." Not, "Hand them 'round this magic book what my daddy wrote and leave them to it."

 

[AV1611VET]

Christ Himself said much the same thing. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." Not, "Hand them 'round this magic book what my daddy wrote and leave them to it."

Have a good day.

 

[BCP1928]

Have a good day.

You too. The bottom line is that I don't have any use for your view of the Bible and you don't have any use for mine and we shouldn't always be nattering about it, especially in a forum where it is off topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

You too. The bottom line is that I don't have any use for your view of the Bible and you don't have any use for mine and we shouldn't always be nattering about it, especially in a forum where it is off topic.

1 Corinthians 6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

 

[DamianWarS]

Suffice it to say, I believe Jesus' parables were real events that took place.

I have no issue with the parables being real events but that's not my point. The parables literalness has no consequence to their message in the context they are given.

Obviously if there was a good Samaritan the consequence is life changing for the man beaten and left for dead. And obviously if there was a flood the consequence would be immense for those involved. But the biblical presentation of these accounts have different goals then a historical narrative and these goals trump all others so that the details used are their to support the goal. It is their purpose that is most important and the literalness least important.

For example light is spoken into darkness on day 1 of creation before the sun, moon or stars are created (on day 4). This is by design. Light spoken into darkness is a metaphor for salvation and foreshadows Christ. When we look at vessels of darkness it is the light of Christ that transforms them not some intermediary thing that is required first. This may contradict the natural world but that's not it's goal so it doesn't matter. Disembodied light also forces a reference direct from God, had their been a luminary first that embodied the light, then that luminary inevitably would be worshiped too (and many historical cultures have worship the sun). The light in us is not self generated like how a sun works and if it were we would not need Christ and we would be our own salvation. But our light is dependent upon and sustained by God and is direct from God, Christ is even called the light. Having the luminary on day 1 would contradict these redemptive goals so it is important there is only light spoken into the darkness on day 1 and the luminaries need to come later.

 

[DamianWarS]

Noah's was.

Perhaps, but the account we have of the flood was not written for Noah's faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

But the biblical presentation of these accounts have different goals then a historical narrative and these goals trump all others so that the details used are their to support the goal. It is their purpose that is most important and the literalness least important.

Nice.

Will you agree that those who only take the Bible literally understand the history of the earth better than those who only take it figuratively?

In other words, will you agree you only understand one aspect of the Kingdom of Heaven, while I understand both?

Some people are so caught-up in the spiritual side of the Bible, they don't even notice when someone tells them whales came after land animals.

Then, by the time they wake up and smell the Rosaceae, the Ten Commandments are off the courthouse lawns, the Bible is being given equal airtime in literature and philosophy classes, and abortions are being done with Visas and MasterCards.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps, but the account we have of the flood was not written for Noah's faith.

But Noah is the human author of the account.

Since Shem lived right up to the time of Jacob, are you familiar with this story I made up some time ago?

Re: The Epic of Gilgamesh

Shem: What's this trash you wrote, Nimrod; are you okay!?

Nimrod: Don't start on me again, uncle; you've always looked down on us Hamites.

Shem: That's garbage too! You used to be a mighty hunter before the LORD, what went wrong?

Nimrod: You think you Shemites are so much better than us, just because my grandfather was cursed for what his father did to your mother in that tent that day.

Shem: I watched you grow up, Nimrod, and how you used to love the LORD so much; but somewhere along the line you went astray and broke away from the rest of us and went and formed your own little empire. Well ... you do what you want, but as long as I live, I'll make sure my eyewitness testimony trumps your lies.

Nimrod: And what makes you an authority on the Flood over me?

Shem: I was there! Remember??? I was on the Ark ... you weren't!

Nimrod: Oh, that's right ... somehow I forgot ... what with there being no evidence and all.

Shem: [facepalms]

 

[DamianWarS]

Will you agree that those who only take the Bible literally understand the history of the earth better than those who only take it figuratively?

You're conflating. We're speaking of a specific text within the Bible not using a one size fits all approach. The flood to Moses is about 800 years apart. The account we have was written for post-exodus Hebrews (or later) and it's reasonable it may not be the exact representation of the facts

But God of course is in control so what does he care about more? The post-exodus message of the flood to the Hebrews as well as the new covenant or how literal it was kept? I propose the more important meaning is the former and the latter is so unimportant that it doesn't matter if it happened or not, and the message still holds.

So I'm not saying it did or did not happened, I'm saying it doesn't matter.

But Noah is the human author of the account.

Noah would have most likely kept the account through oral tradition and passed it down the same way. What we have is not Noah's story, or his kids story, or his grandchildren's story etc... , it's a post-exodus version of Noah's story at the very earliest but it could also be a much later version too. It has an intentional redemptive goal that foreshadows new covenant experiences and that's more important of a message than if a global flood happened or not.

This is because the factual information doesn't impact my life, nor did it impact the direct audience it was written for. We don't have Noah's version we have a much later version and in that context the impact of a literal flood would have been far removed. You could have called it a great sand storm or an astroid that hit the earth, because in each case the catastrophic ordeal of the event is far removed and forgotten that it's literal details become meaningless.

We use more systematic approaches to historical events today so that we can trace the impact of an event to cultural shifts and values that feed right up to current events. That would be true to a great flood event too as it would be true to any major global event, but the systematic history is not the value of the account and the account essentially stands alone; the only link is geniologies but the literal impact of post-repopulated flood culture is not commited to scripture. It does not have anthropological goals to break down cultural shifts it has a redemptive goals revealed many generations after the fact where it's historical accuracy would be meaningless.

 

[AV1611VET]

The flood to Moses is about 800 years apart. The account we have was written for post-exodus Hebrews (or later) and it's reasonable it may not be the exact representation of the facts.

God has never left this earth without His word.

Are you implying there was no pure word of God in writing from the time of Adam to the time of Moses???

Would God be so careless as to leave His words out of the hands of man for some 2500 years?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God has never left this earth without His word.

Are you implying there was no pure word of God in writing from the time of Adam to the time of Moses???

Probably so. But did it need to be written? Or should it have been enough to pass on generation to generation via word of mouth?

Would God be so careless as to leave His words out of the hands of man for some 2500 years?

Or, would God be so careful as to not commit His words out of hand to man in written form, knowing that people can at times be treacherous and have the ability to idolize just about anything, even His own words when given to them in writing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Probably so. But did it need to be written? Or should it have been enough to pass on generation to generation via word of mouth?


Or, would God be so careful as to not commit His words out of hand to man in written form, knowing that people can at times be treacherous and have the ability to idolize just about anything, even His own words when given to them in writing?

Do you know why it's called a "Testament"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you know why it's called a "Testament"?

You're asking me this question? You do realize that I literally, not figuratively, have several hundred books and journal articles from top biblical scholars and theologians, and I myself went to a year of Bible college. I've read the Bible cover to cover and have been a Christian for almost 40 years. But in all of that time, I haven't come across anything telling me that I must kowtow to the exact definition of "covenant" mandated by an Independent, Dispensationalist Baptist.

Therefore, I'm not going to your question.

 

[DamianWarS]

Are you implying there was no pure word of God in writing from the time of Adam to the time of Moses???

Probably through oral tradition, but I'm confused why that matters? The point is what we we have is not what Noah had (because he didn't write the portion we read in the Bible). Even if you don't believe this, there is no evidence supporting Noah wrote anything, the Bible doesn't even posit this. We must approach the text in a post-exodus context, written of things that have long past. Again what rises to the surface in this context is the message of the account as the most important and superior to the literal details. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that's not the point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Probably through oral tradition, but I'm confused why that matters?

Paul states in Galatians that adding one little letter -- (the letter "s") -- to a word in the Protevangelium can lead to error doctrine.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Note too how adding an "s" to the word "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 opens the door to Babylonian cosmology to filter in.

 

[DamianWarS]

Paul states in Galatians that adding one little letter -- (the letter "s") -- to a word in the Protevangelium can lead to error doctrine.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Note too how adding an "s" to the word "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 opens the door to Babylonian cosmology to filter in.

I'm not sure your point here and you're being cyptic or avoiding

with regards to the plural of heavens this seems an odd thing to bring up like you're intentionally trying to bait a tengential topic to avoid a response.

It might be more appropriate to start a new thread if you want to discuss it. Otherwise perhaps you might want to try that reply again.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure your point here and you're being cyptic or avoiding.

Let me be frank then.

God doesn't leave this earth without his Word in written form.

So any "oral tradition" that would have been passed on by word of mouth from Adam to Moses had a written Document to fact check what was being said.

It's this simple:

Adam wrote Genesis 1 & 2, Noah wrote Genesis 6 - 9, Abraham wrote Genesis 12 - 25, etc.

Moses only compiled those books under inspiration of God, and that's why Genesis falls under the umbrella of one of Moses' books; as in the five books of Moses, even though Moses didn't write a single thing down in the book of Genesis.

He took Adam's book, Noah's book, Abraham's book, and others, and compiled them into a book he called "Genesis."

Simple as that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let me be frank then.

God doesn't leave this earth without his Word in written form.

So any "oral tradition" that would have been passed on by word of mouth from Adam to Moses had a written Document to fact check what was being said.

It's this simple:

Adam wrote Genesis 1 & 2, Noah wrote Genesis 6 - 9, Abraham wrote Genesis 12 - 25, etc.

Moses only compiled those books under inspiration of God, and that's why Genesis falls under the umbrella of one of Moses' books; as in the five books of Moses, even though Moses didn't write a single thing down in the book of Genesis.

He took Adam's book, Noah's book, Abraham's book, and others, and compiled them into a book he called "Genesis."

Simple as that.

Wha---whuh-----whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? From where are you getting this teaching?

Here's the thing, AV, all of what you're saying is heartfelt hearsay and doesn't even count as historical or archeological testimony. But the following discourse by Dr. Andrew Mark Henry about the biblical flood narrative's place among the other Ancient Near Eastern flood accounts DOES count for that, and it doesn't look like it's easily dismiss-able:

And that's just the way the cuneiform cookie crumbles my good man: