Taking Question on the Creation and/or the Flood

[MrGoodBytes]

No offense, but I'll respectfully pass.

I expected no less.

 

[Steezie]

I noticed my second set of questions have gone un-answered

 

[thaumaturgy]

We're all waiting for an answer which doesn't boil down to "Goddidit." We figure you'll deliver the goods -- eventually.

Why, in the name of all that is holy, would you EVER assume THAT???

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I noticed my second set of questions have gone un-answered

As have mine. But I can hardly blame AV - it's not like he started this thread for the sole purpose of meeting our demands.

 

[Basket]

So you agree that God made the wrong choice when he went to choose a "righteous" man to save civilization. Too bad He, in all His alleged omniscience, didn't see that coming.

What AV1611VET was saying was that even otherwise righteous men had times when they sinned. He wasn't saying that they were evildoers.

 

[consol]

What AV1611VET was saying was that even otherwise righteous men had times when they sinned. He wasn't saying that they were evildoers.

Please don't try and put words in his mouth, he's quite capable of cocking it up on his own.

 

[Basket]

Please don't try and put words in his mouth, he's quite capable of cocking it up on his own.

There is much antagonism towards him in this thread. I don't want the people here to think that someone is correct in what they're saying simply because they're speaking against him.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What AV1611VET was saying was that even otherwise righteous men had times when they sinned. He wasn't saying that they were evildoers.

By that definition, aren't we all righteous?

 

[Nathan Poe]

There is much antagonism towards him in this thread.

All of which he has quite literally invited upon himself.

 

[Basket]

By that definition, aren't we all righteous?

No. I'll make an analogy.

A good student makes straight A's. He gets an award for it. But suppose that student makes a C on a report card. Is he no longer a good student?

I explained that according to the Bible, Noah was an otherwise righteous man.

And now you say, well, if Noah is still considered righteous after that drinking incident, then everyone must be righteous. Which is like saying everyone who flunks half their classes is also a good student.

I can understand what your original thoughts about the righteousness thing might have been. But it hasn't come out right.

Lemme guess... you were thinking that if the entire world was considered evil except for one family, then God's standards must have been very high, since you'd expect there to be more exceptions to the case. And for Noah to have been drunk even once would have been going below the standards God had set.

But, the case is probably that what the Bible meant was not that God had set some super-duper high standard, but that everyone except Noah and his family actually were really corrupt and evil. Why?

The people who wrote the Bible (and probably many other people of that time period, and even today) had no problem stereotyping a group of people as evil and heinous, or stereotyping another group as holy and just, even though we know from experience that these claims are probably exaggerated. But they had no problem believing such things. Look through the Bible and you'll see many cases of this. It's rarely "the Poopavites were a so-so country, with some bad and some good". It's almost always good/evil. Look at the part in Matthew where Jesus goes through preaching to the different cities for an example.

If AV1611VET wants to defend the claim that they actually were all evil (with the exception of the innocent children and Noah's family), then so be it. I'm not going to help him with that. You could give some examples from real life or from other parts of history as to why it isn't likely.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No. I'll make an analogy.

A good student makes straight A's. He gets an award for it. But suppose that student makes a C on a report card. Is he no longer a good student?

I explained that according to the Bible, Noah was an otherwise righteous man.

Why are you adding the word "Otherwise" into the Biblical account?

And now you say, well, if Noah is still considered righteous after that drinking incident, then everyone must be righteous. Which is like saying everyone who flunks half their classes is also a good student.

So what you're saying is, Noah, with his binge drinking and violent temper against his own family, was not perfect, but the best God could find?

Lemme guess... you were thinking that if the entire world was considered evil except for one family, then God's standards must have been very high, since you'd expect there to be more exceptions to the case. And for Noah to have been drunk even once would have been going below the standards God had set.

But, the case is probably that what the Bible meant was not that God had set some super-duper high standard, but that everyone except Noah and his family actually were really corrupt and evil. Why?

The people who wrote the Bible (and probably many other people of that time period, and even today) had no problem stereotyping a group of people as evil and heinous, or stereotyping another group as holy and just, even though we know from experience that these claims are probably exaggerated. But they had no problem believing such things. Look through the Bible and you'll see many cases of this. It's rarely "the Poopavites were a so-so country, with some bad and some good". It's almost always good/evil. Look at the part in Matthew where Jesus goes through preaching to the different cities for an example.

Fair enough, and about what we'd expect from primative tribal writings, from people who worshipped a tribal God -- who loved what they loved and hated what they hated. "We're good; everyone else is evil" would be pretty standard fare.

If AV1611VET wants to defend the claim that they actually were all evil (with the exception of the innocent children and Noah's family), then so be it. I'm not going to help him with that. You could give some examples from real life or from other parts of history as to why it isn't likely.

AV is using his reading of the Bible to defend his reading of the Bible -- and nothing more. It's be a welcome change if real life or history were added into the discussion.

 

[Basket]

Why are you adding the word "Otherwise" into the Biblical account?

It's my way of acknowledging that he wasn't being very righteous in the incident when he was drunk, but he was supposedly a righteous person overall.

So what you're saying is, Noah, with his binge drinking and violent temper against his own family, was not perfect, but the best God could find?

The assumption is that this was a rare incident for Noah. Which isn't necessarily the case, and probably an exaggeration like about how everyone else was evil. But I'm going by the Bible's description here.

And the ideas about respect were probably different from back then, since it was a different culture... but I really find the idea of him cursing his grandson worse than laying drunk and naked. Maybe he was still a little bit drunk when he woke up.

Fair enough, and about what we'd expect from primative tribal writings, from people who worshipped a tribal God -- who loved what they loved and hated what they hated. "We're good; everyone else is evil" would be pretty standard fare.

AV is using his reading of the Bible to defend his reading of the Bible -- and nothing more. It's be a welcome change if real life or history were added into the discussion.

Okay. (I have nothing to add)

PS -- I think I am running out of brainpower at the moment, it feels like my brain is starting to fizzle out. So if I didn't explain myself very well, that's probably why.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't want to loose track of this exchange which is now several pages back.

From Post 182

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch
How did God's supposedly perfect creation contain the evil monsters that His sons turned out to be?

AV: The "sons of God" are angels.

Job 38:6-7
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

In [complimentary] Hebrew poetry, a fact is stated, then restated, using different words.

Originally Posted by AV1611VET (189)
I'll pick up here tomorrow --- but I'll address this point you're making in the short time I have left.

I quoted Job in describing these sons of God. Job is Hebrew poetry --- as I indicated.

Specifically, Job 38:7 is called [complimentary] Hebrew poetry.

A fact is stated --- then restated using different terminology.

There is also what is called [contrasting] Hebrew poetry, and, if my memory serves me correctly, [constructive] Hebrew poetry.

Either way --- it is poetry.

Frumious Bandersnatch (190)
Genesis also states and restates things because it is also Hebrew poetry and has nothing to do with the actual formation of the earth or the prehistory of the human race.

AV (196) I strongly disagree.

From (195)

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch
If they were the sons of God, God fathered them right?

AV - Wrong --- "son" doesn't always carry the connotation of "offspring".

The Bible says we will be made sons of God, through adoption.

Galatians 4:4-6
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.


In the case of the angels, I suspect they are referred poetically as sons of God due to the fact that they were directly created by God.

Adam too, has that poetic connotation:

Luke 3:38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

FB(new text): So let me restate my main point

Genesis also states and restates things because it is also Hebrew poetry and has nothing to do with the actual formation of the earth or the prehistory of the human race.

You will also note that AV has not answered this question
How did God's supposedly perfect creation contain the evil monsters that His sons turned out to be?

Even if the verse in Genesis is not literally true and the reference to sons of God in only poetic AV has claimed that the God created the Angels so they were part of God's original supposedly perfect creation. So how did their mating with humans produce such wickedness that God was forced (AV's word) to repent of His creation and drown everything with a global flood?

Added in Edit: I hope the colored text will make it clear who originally posted what. I am in blue and the Bible verses are italics and were all posted by AV. The numbers in quotes refer to the original post numbers
FB

 

[Basket]

Frumy, I'm having a hard time telling which quote is from which person... could you fix it up a bit?

 

[Tomk80]

Me too.

 

[Basket]

Thanks!

I know that the first chapter of Genesis is an actual poem, and is believed to be modeled off the Enuma Elish. However, a lot of Genesis is copy/paste from different sources, so different parts will sound differently.

The thing about the sons of God is apparently from the Yahwist document.

http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/PART1/PT1_TBA.HTM

Maybe I'll find something else to say about it later.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's my way of acknowledging that he wasn't being very righteous in the incident when he was drunk, but he was supposedly a righteous person overall.

Why do you suppose that?

The assumption is that this was a rare incident for Noah. Which isn't necessarily the case, and probably an exaggeration like about how everyone else was evil. But I'm going by the Bible's description here.

The Bible says nothing about whether this was a rare incident -- if we're going to play this by AV's rules, we have to go on what the Bible says, and no more.

And the ideas about respect were probably different from back then, since it was a different culture... but I really find the idea of him cursing his grandson worse than laying drunk and naked. Maybe he was still a little bit drunk when he woke up.

Still doesn't give him any points in the "role model" category, and again, under AV's rules, we have to go by the Bible alone, not what we might assume from the culture.

Okay. (I have nothing to add)

PS -- I think I am running out of brainpower at the moment, it feels like my brain is starting to fizzle out. So if I didn't explain myself very well, that's probably why.

Fair enough.

 

[Basket]

Nguuh.

Um, I'll call it quits here. I give. I was... going by the statement in the Bible that said he was righteous.

Genesis 6:9
This is the story of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, the one blameless man of his time; he walked with God.

There, that's what it says. Apparently he and God were buddies. Oh, and since it says "God" apparently that's from the priestly source. That verse... explains it.

Maybe if Noah was considered a bad person after the flood, God still didn't seem to have a better choice. Since he was the only good guy left on the earth.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So let's see if I've got the story straight so far. This all knowing all powerful God creates a perfect universe that includes a perfect man and a perfect woman. Then the serpent that the all knowing God created tempts the woman to get the man to eat an apple leading this God to curse his supposedly perfect creation that has now been "turned over to Satan", one of the supposedly perfect creations of this God that turned out to have iniquity that was found. Apparantely the all knowing and all powerful God was not able to prevent this turnover.

Then the "sons" of this all knowing God mated with the daughters of men who were descended from the once perfect but now cursed couple. Somehow the mating of these previously "perfect" sons of God or maybe Angels with the daughters of the descendants of the previously perfect people led to great wickedness.

The all knowing all powerful God then says, "Hey my creation is really screwed up. I'll just wipe it out with a big flood and start over". But then he notices that Noah isn't so bad after all so he decides to save Noah and his family and a boat load of animals.

The he make this big flood that covers all the mountains and goes on for quite a while with the water prevailing on the earth but then he "remembers" Noah and decides to end the flood.

Now you would think that every animal left would be of great value but Noah decides to burn up one of each clean animal right away making a smell that the all knowing God thinks is real sweet. (I guess when God made us in his image he did give us a different sense of smell. I never thought burning chicken feathers smelled very sweet)

Next Noah gets drunk and naked and curses Ham and all his descendants to be servants for seeing him drunk and naked. But God decides that's OK, maybe because those burning chicken feathers smelled so sweet.

Then God cleans up all the evidence of the flood and does things like creating lake varve and tree ring sequences more than 10,000 years long and getting nearly all the marsupials and all the monotremes and none of the placental mammals to go to New Guinea and Australia and lots of other things to make it look like he never did this horrible deed of drowning the earth but he messes up the job of covering his tracks completely because he just can't resist inspiring someone among his "chosen people" to write down the story.

Is that about it?

 

[MoonLancer]

pretty much.

oh i suppose your going to say gradual changes over time equate to larger changes over time when life is concern?

I suppose now your going to say that thats more reasonable. Riiiight... i have heard that one before...

Dear god, if you exist, please save me from all your crazy followers.