Noahs flood.

[toLiJC]

Hello I would like to ask a question.

About Genesis 5.
Before anyone answers me I would like to ask that you only answer from you heart.
I do not desire to hear scholarly interpretations or parroted messages but I want to hear your interpretation.

What I want to ask is this.
Who in the genealogy of Adam to Noah died in the flood?

Enoch was ascended as it was with Elijah the Prophet, Noah and his sons survived the "flood"

Blessings

 

[Radrook]

Jesus was condemning the selfish avaricious, commercially- predatory attitude of the money changers and not the offering of the sacrifices as prescribed by Law. A little research as to why Jesus opposed the money changers prevents the hasty unwarranted conclusion that he opposed the Mosaic Law itself.

Why Did Jesus Drive The Money Changers From The Temple?
http://christianpf.com/why-did-jesus-drive-the-money-changers-from-the-temple/


Please also keep in mind that any violation of Mosaic Law would have rendered Jesus tainted and unworthy to die for our sins. In short, blamelessness was an extremely essential requirement. Jesus himself said that he did not come with the purpose of destroying the Mosaic Law but with the purpose of fulfilling it.

Another misconception is that Jesus was against the punishment of adultery via stoning as required by Law because he interceded on behalf of the woman who was about to be stoned. Such a view ignores the details of the situation. You see, the mob had deprived her of a trial and had violated the law by not going through the full process of law and so they themselves were sinning against law and had no legal right under the Law to stone her.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a clarifiication:

Were the Pharisees Condemned for Keeping the Law of God?

Jesus had problems with the Pharisees:

"He answered and said to them, 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, 'Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God'--then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophecy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines of God the commandments of men" (Mat 15:3-9).

Jesus also said, "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition, which you have handed down. And many such things you do" (Mark 7:13).

Jesus often called the Pharisees hypocrites (Mat 15:7;16:3;22:18;23:23,25,27,29; Mk 7:6). According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the Greek word Jesus used that was translated as hypocrite means, "an actor under an assumed role."

The Pharisees didn't really want to be good, they just wanted to look good (Mat 23:25-27).

Why? Because "they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (Joh 12:43).

Jesus condemned the Pharisees by saying, "you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (Mat 23:28).

Jesus said the Pharisees were filled with lawlessness because they did not keep God's law (Mat 15:3-9;22:15-18;23:23), and that they mainly tried to appear rig
http://www.cogwriter.com/pharisee.htm

So Jesus was in no way opposing the Mosaic Law.
he was merely opposing additions and interpretations and popular traditions which violated it.
"Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?...and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take Him" (John 7:19,32).

 

[Colter]

Well, many of the perceived flaws can be traced to misunderstandings, unwarranted assumptions, unfamiliarity with the historical social conditions as well as with the original languages that were used. Many of the complaints I have come across are from folks who hear an anti-biblical rumor and choose to accept it as irrefutable fact without taking time to investigate the matter. The vast majority of those who find faults are persons who haven't even read the Bible.

Others are extremely quick in accepting ant-biblical rumors because they want to be on the scientific side of the issue and anything biblical is immediately and unceremoniously as well as mindlessly dismissed as ignorance.

That has been my experience with many of the anti-biblical criticisms.

Actually, most of the people who choose to criticize the Bible do not know what it's purpose is and view it as simply a hodge podge of ancient drivel strung together without very little rhyme or reason. This seems to be a peculiarity which those who speak about the Koran do not share.

My experience has been that the writings of holy men become scripture and eventually Gods Word, making those writings a fetish or Bibliolatry. That being the case a pride and defensiveness developes among Bible worshipers which leads to stunting reforms and progress of the religion.

 

[dqhall]

Enoch was ascended as it was with Elijah the Prophet, Noah and his sons survived the "flood"

Blessings

From John 3:3: "And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven."

This goes against your notion that Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven.

We only have a few verses about Noah and a flood that claim to be from thousands of years before writing was invented circa 3200 BC (Egypt and Mesopotamia). I studied geology in college and did not find evidence of a global flood within the past 10,000 years. God may have rescued people from many floods, fires and other catastrophes.

 

[ewq1938]

Paul did not support the law in its entirety. He did not advise circumcising Gentiles, nor to make them bound to the laws of Moses.

No one was bound to it as it was replaced by the law of Christ. Paul lived under the new covenant not the old.

 

[ewq1938]

From John 3:3: "And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven."

This goes against your notion that Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven.

Being taken to heaven is different than an immortal ascending into heaven themselves. Enoch and Elijah did go to heaven.

Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,


John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

It is believed by some that these verses support "soul sleep" that no one, not even David has ever ascended into heaven, therefore they must be still in the grave literally. It is also believed that these verses say that no one has ever "ascended" to the "third heaven" except Christ. However, is that really what is being addressed?

Many of us understand that all who die, wicked and good, ascend up to heaven to either side of that gulf. It is written that when that silver cord is parted that the spirit returns to God. Even Elijah ascended up into heaven via that "whirlwind" and he didn't even die so these verses have to have a deeper meaning.




Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above : )
Romans 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead)

I think this may be the key to understanding what the other verses mean. Paul has just explained what it means to "ascend into heaven". It's a figure of speech! It doesn't mean what the literal, plain reading of the words suggest.


Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens [that is, to bring Christ down from above] : but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, [that is, to bring Christ down from above], but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man.


Its not about anyone being unable to ascend into heaven. Its about bringing Christ down and no one, not even David could do this; only Christ could.

You may have noticed I left off "which is in heaven" from John 3:13. That is because they are added. They were not spoken by Christ and are not in the manuscripts.

John 3:13
13 Kaí oudeís anabébeeken eis tón ouranón ei-meé ho
2532 3762 305 1519 3588 3772 1508 3588
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but
ek toú ouranoú katabás-- ho Huiós toú
1537 3588 3772 2597 9999 3588 5207 3588
from heaven, he that came down even the Son of
Anthroópou
444 <9999 > <9999 > <9999 > <9999 >
man which is in heaven.
(Interlinear Transliterated Bible. Copyright (c) 1994 by Biblesoft)

9999 means it was added.

 

[Radrook]

From John 3:3: "And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven."

This goes against your notion that Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven.

We only have a few verses about Noah and a flood that claim to be from thousands of years before writing was invented circa 3200 BC (Egypt and Mesopotamia). I studied geology in college and did not find evidence of a global flood within the past 10,000 years. God may have rescued people from many floods, fires and other catastrophes.

Actually, Elijah is reported as sending letters of correspondence from a certain geographical location after the ascension event.

 

[Radrook]

My experience has been that the writings of holy men become scripture and eventually Gods Word, making those writings a fetish or Bibliolatry. That being the case a pride and defensiveness developed among Bible worshipers which leads to stunting reforms and progress of the religion.

That is undeniably true as is evidenced by the many so-called sacred writings which humans have produced. So the real issue is whether the Bible distinguishes itself in any conclusively significant way which elevates it above all these other books which also make claims of divine inspiration.

 

[ewq1938]

Actually, Elijah is reported as sending letters of correspondence from a certain geographical location after the ascension event.

Which doesn't mean he wasn't in heaven nor returned there.

 

[MennoSota]

That is undeniably true as is evidenced by the many so-called sacred writings which humans have produced. So the real issue is whether the Bible distinguishes itself in any conclusively significant way which elevates it above all these other books which also make claims of divine inspiration.

My experience has been that the writings of holy men become scripture and eventually Gods Word, making those writings a fetish or Bibliolatry. That being the case a pride and defensiveness developes among Bible worshipers which leads to stunting reforms and progress of the religion.

[emoji99] [emoji99] [emoji99] [emoji99] [emoji99] [emoji107]

 

[Radrook]

Which doesn't mean he wasn't in heaven nor returned there.

Excerpt:

Did Elijah Go To Heaven before Jesus?
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008Old Testament
Q. I was reading through John last night and had a question about John 3 v 13. “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-, the Son of Man.”

How can that be when in 2 Kings 2 vs 11 says; “And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”

Jesus can’t be mistaken so how can this be? Elijah went up to heaven in the Old Testament prior to Jesus going up in the New Testament but yet Jesus said no one has ever gone into heaven except Him.

A. The English translation of 2 Kings 2:11 is the problem. The Hebrew word translated heaven there is the same word used in Genesis 1:6-8 to describe the firmament, the area between the waters on Earth and the water vapor canopy that was originally at the outer edge of our atmosphere. Today we call this the sky, and that’s really where 2 Kings 2:11 says Elijah was taken, up into the sky. I assume he went to Paradise where all Old Testament believers went to be comforted until the Messiah came, and where Jesus went from the cross.

According to Paul, there are three things we can call heaven (2 Cor. 2:12) The first is our atmosphere, or sky, second is the vast expanse of the universe, and third is the throne of God. This is where Jesus came from and where no one could go until He went back.

https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/did-elijah-go-to-heaven-before-jesus/

 

[Colter]

That is undeniably true as is evidenced by the many so-called sacred writings which humans have produced. So the real issue is whether the Bible distinguishes itself in any conclusively significant way which elevates it above all these other books which also make claims of divine inspiration.

I would say that the edited and redacted books of varying quality do contain more of the fragments of truth than any other existing work, and then there are the accounts of the incarnate Son of God on earth. But that doesn't make it written by God and far from perfect. The Scriptures reflect the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who create them. A false sense of sacredness has prevented the scriptures from being safeguarded by just a little common sense. Noah's flood was a fictional genealogical devise used by the Babylonion redactors used to trace their blood lines back to the incarnate Adam and Eve whom they assumed were the first humans. It was an enchanted age without any scientific knowledge.

 

[Colter]

Excerpt:

The idea that Jesus was always precisely quoted years after the fact from eyewitnesses is, well, that would be a first in history!

Jesus left no writings behind himself lest they become a fetish as has the writings about Jesus.

We all go through the Son enroot to the Father, perhaps a word or two were not recalled when Jesus said “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-, the Son of Man.”

Maybe he said “No one has ever gone into heaven except through the one who came from heaven-, the Son of Man.”

Both Enoch and Elijah were translated to a place in heaven, they didn't die a natural death. There would be others that have done the same that we don't know about.

 

[Radrook]

The idea that Jesus was always precisely quoted years after the fact from eyewitnesses is, well, that would be a first in history!

Jesus left no writings behind himself lest they become a fetish as has the writings about Jesus.

We all go through the Son enroot to the Father, perhaps a word or two were not recalled when Jesus said “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-, the Son of Man.”

Maybe he said “No one has ever gone into heaven except through the one who came from heaven-, the Son of Man.”

Both Enoch and Elijah were translated to a place in heaven, they didn't die a natural death. There would be others that have done the same that we don't know about.

I prefer to accept what Jesus is said to have said as an accurate description of what he actually said.
So I guess we differ in that area.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_407.cfm

BTW
There is absolutely nothing in Jesus' teachings which indicates that he was vehemently against his teachings being written down for posterity. If indeed he had been against it-then he would have clearly told his disciples not to do it.

Quite to the contrary:
Revelation 21:5 ►

New International Version
He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

 

[Radrook]

I would say that the edited and redacted books of varying quality do contain more of the fragments of truth than any other existing work, and then there are the accounts of the incarnate Son of God on earth. But that doesn't make it written by God and far from perfect. The Scriptures reflect the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who create them. A false sense of sacredness has prevented the scriptures from being safeguarded by just a little common sense. Noah's flood was a fictional genealogical devise used by the Babylonion redactors used to trace their blood lines back to the incarnate Adam and Eve whom they assumed were the first humans. It was an enchanted age without any scientific knowledge.

That requires either of two things.

1. Casting doubt on what Jesus said

2. Preference for what evolutionists and higher critics say.

Well, I'll go with what Jesus said.
Higher critics are notorious for jumping to conclusions and then sheepishly having to eat crow every time their anti-biblical views are proven silly.

They once claimed that the Hittites did not exist an that the writer of Genesis made them up.
They cast doubt on the existence of Jericho and its fallen walls and considered the it a mere story.
The list is very long.

A personal challenge from the Lord Jesus Christ
John 5:46-47

“If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”

The Bible, archaeology and the critics
“The trend of all this increased knowledge [from archaeology] has been to confirm the authority of the books of the Old Testament … Destructive criticism is thrown on the defensive; and the plain man may read his Bible confident that, for anything that modern research has to say, the Word of our God shall stand for ever”

(Rendle Short, Archaeology gives evidence)

 

[Colter]

That requires either of two things.

1. Casting doubt on what Jesus said

2. Preference for what evolutionists and higher critics say.

Well, I'll go with what Jesus said.
Higher critics are notorious for jumping to conclusions and then sheepishly having to eat crow every time their anti-biblical views are proven silly.

They once claimed that the Hittites did not exist an that the writer of Genesis made them up.
They cast doubt on the existence of Jericho and its fallen walls and considered the it a mere story.
The list is very long.

Evolution was the technique of creation. The 6 day creation story was simply a story for edification by the child like minds of Bronze Age sheep herders. Moses was a reformer of pervious beliefs and practices, the Babylonian redactors rewrote what Moses was purported to have written. It worked, but petrifying those stories as the word of God has stunted the growth of religion and betrayed the spiritual content.

 

[Colter]

I prefer to accept what Jesus is said to have said as an accurate description of what he actually said.
So I guess we differ in that area.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_407.cfm

BTW
There is absolutely nothing in Jesus' teachings which indicates that he was vehemently against his teachings being written down for posterity. If indeed he had been against it-then he would have clearly told his disciples not to do it.

Quite to the contrary:
Revelation 21:5 ►

New International Version
He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

True, Jesus wasn't opposed to future writings, but he didn't personally leave any writings. During his time on earth there is no indication that he had anyone take notes. In fact there is an indication that the apostles thought he would soon return so there was no need to write books about Jesus. Years later when he didn't return then there was a need.

 

[Colter]

Dup

 

[Radrook]

True, Jesus wasn't opposed to future writings, but he didn't personally leave any writings. During his time on earth there is no indication that he had anyone take notes. In fact there is an indication that the apostles thought he would soon return so there was no need to write books about Jesus. Years later when he didn't return then there was a need.

Very good insight!

 

[Radrook]

Evolution was the technique of creation. The 6 day creation story was simply a story for edification by the child like minds of Bronze Age sheep herders. Moses was a reformer of pervious beliefs and practices, the Babylonian redactors rewrote what Moses was purported to have written. It worked, but petrifying those stories as the word of God has stunted the growth of religion and betrayed the spiritual content.

Well, that is your opinion and you certainly are entitled to it.
However, I do not hold that opinion. Neither do many others.

Authorship of the Pentateuch

Excerpt:

Author James Rochford

The Pentateuch (e.g. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) claims to be written by Moses. He wrote “all the words of the Lord” (Ex. 24:4). The rest of the Pentateuch is claimed to be written by Moses, as well (Ex. 17:14; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9). Later OT authors believed Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Josh. 1:7; 8:31-32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; Dan. 9:11; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1; Mal. 4:4). Moreover, Jesus believed Moses wrote this book, quoting Exodus 20:12 (Mk. 7:10; Lk. 20:37), and Paul also attributed Exodus to Moses (Rom. 10:5).

Because Moses was trained in the Egyptian court, he is the most likely candidate to write the book. The other Jews were uneducated slaves in Egypt, and they were most likely illiterate.
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/authorship-of-exodus/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the allegation that the Noachian Flood account which Jesus considered historical fact was really nothing more than a copy of a silly story told by ignorants, here is a detailed rebuttal offered at Christian Apologetics for those who wish to read it.

DOES THE FACT THAT ONE ACCOUNT IS FIRST PROVE THE

LATER ACCOUNT IS A COPY?

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=5194

Please also note that Israelites who wrote the Bible were not all sheep herders nor was it all written during the Bronze Age.

Diversity of Bible Writers
Those who wrote the Bible lived at different times, some separated by hundreds of years. In many cases they were complete strangers to one another. Some Bible writers were businessmen or traders, others were shepherds, fishermen, soldiers, physicians, preachers, kings—human beings from all walks of life. They served under different governments, and lived within contrasting cultures and systems of philosophy.

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/who-wrote-the-bible

In any case who they might have been is considered irrelevant for the following reason:

II Peter 1:20-21, "You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

As for God using evolution to create living things?
I guess we differ there as well since the view I subscribe to is the following one.

Did God Use Evolution As His Method of Creation?
This article is from Hank Hanegraaff, The Creation Answer Book (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012)

Under the banner of “theistic evolution,” a growing number of Christians maintain that God used evolution as his method for creation. This, in my estimation, is the worst of all possibilities. It is one thing to believe in evolution; it is quite another to blame God for it.

First, the biblical account of creation specifically states that God created living creatures according to their own “kinds” (Genesis 1:24–25).

As confirmed by science, the DNA for a fetus is not the DNA for a frog, and the DNA for a frog is not the DNA for a fish. Rather, the DNA of a fetus, frog, or fish is uniquely programmed for reproduction after its own kind. Thus, while Scripture and science allow for microevolution* (transitions within “the kinds”), they do not allow for macroevolution* (amoebas evolving into apes or apes evolving into astronauts).

http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/god-use-evolution-method-creation-2/