The Flood

[dqhall]

'Ello, I'm just curious about what Christians tend to think about the Flood. Just say what you believe - there's no wrong answer.


(2a) The Flood story is a retelling of a previous flood story...
(2b) The Flood story is a metaphor.

(

There was an Assyrian copy of a Sumerian flood legend along the Tigris or Euphrates Rivers that sometimes flooded hundreds of square miles with the spring snow melt in the mountains near the headwaters of the rivers and their tributaries. Many farm animals were lost as were the lives of men. The legend of Atrahasis started something like, "When God liked man." God gave prior warning of a devastating flood and he (Atrahasis) was able to save the lives of his family and livestock by building a boat in advance. The flood was going to happen anyway. Atrahasis was loved by God and warned in advance.

I wrote a paper about it years ago: BEFORE THE LEGEND OF NOAH

 

[DingDing]

Ok... sure, you advocate a plain reading. But when Jesus tells several different people on several different occasions to sell all they have and give to the poor, suddenly exegesis is a complicated, delicate art.

Can you please give scripture reference of these "several different occasions to sell all they have"?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Can you please give scripture reference of these "several different occasions to sell all they have"?

Matthew 19:21
Mark 10:21
Luke 12:33
Luke 18:22

So in reality I think it's only depicting two incidents involving two different parties: the unfortunate rich young ruler, and then the twelve.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The flood story happened as depicted. Exactly. There were no innocent beings. The why and how was not necessary to explain. God created all, God could choose to erase all. Or not. Life in heaven is my goal. Why worry about children who are going to heaven. Every person who was old enough to be a sinner was a sinner except Noah. Every person who was not yet at the age of knowing the difference between right and wrong was not a sinner and is in Heaven. That is so simple to understand. Why do you make it so hard? Unless you want to confuse non-believers.

It's a little unfair to accuse me of that. You can see for yourself that not all Christians agree.

 

[Sarah connor]

I've read the bible, and no, I don't think that is how it when down. And are you really going with that? An excuse for genocide? Its ok to kill an innocent child, cause we're sending him/her to a better place?

You have to understand the pre-flood world was a crazy time you had Hybrids and Titans. The bible only give brief details
of genesis 6 and skips straight to the flood, as if the Titans wasn't responsible for the flood. I myself thought GOD flooded the earth because humans was wicked but that wasn't the reason. The main reason for the flood was to kill the Titans/Giants and hybrids animals, in other words to kill off the corrupted DNA. I know you believe Darwin theory but the reason why they took
the book of enoch out was because they knew it would have killed darwin theory.

In the book you'll see the activity of what these Titans was doing. They was enslaving humans as servants, Eating humans, Practicing homo sex, bestiality, and being Famous as super heroes. As for the Watchers they taught them how to mess with the Genetic code. This is a critical piece of information because Jesus Said the last days would be like the days of Noah, meaning yes it would be more bestiality, homosexual, selfish sin but also he was talking about the human/animal Hybrids making a comeback.

Scientist just proved they created a Human pig hybrid
Human-pig hybrid created in the lab for the first time : Worldly Science

So they taught them how to mess with the genetics like mixing chicken with the reptile, human with the horse, mammal with the bird etc. Is this the reason why most Dinosaurs are dead today, due to corruption of the flesh? God had to destroy everything because everything was wicked- Now in my head, I was thinking how can an animal be wicked to the point you have to completely destroy them, when all an animal can do is maul/bite... So guys that tell you that something more was happening to the animals. Now I do think GOD created the Dinosaurs but not the radical types like the T rex, I think all beast like the T rex came from the Genetic mixing

Today, science acknowledges that the T-Rex shares strong physiological similarities to a chicken and crocodile. Scientists have also discovered well preserved blood vessels and collagen fibers in a recovered T-rex fossil. How could both of these things be? We all can agree the dinosaurs has more characteristics as a Reptile but it's more related to the bird family.

Some key point verses of genesis 6 that tells us that the flesh was mixed
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

At first I thought God was meaning they was sinful but after reading Enoch years back, and coming back to this verse to re-looked at the word corrupted which of course mean tampered/altered/ etc etc. Then I looked up the definition of "way" it brings up process, method, procedure, technique, etc So " all flesh corrupted it's way" So could it be possible that scripture is talking about the genetic mixing was happening? Example- A horse main purpose should be grazing the land but instead the horse is flying LOL

The bible says ....11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

God said enough is enough. It's probably good the "innocent" infants died...this way they couldn't grow up an face a deeper level of Gods wrath.

Thanks. I infer that of 1i through 1vi you do not choose 1iv. Which, then, suits your? Am I missing a possibility, or do you prefer rewording?


I want to preface this by saying that I like the cut of your jib and I agree with you most of the time.

However, the gulf between Christianity and Islam could not be more vast. In the case of mass murder, Christians - or modern ones at least - leave the mass murder to God. Muslims don't.

I find Christianity to be wrong and illogical, but that is a far cry from the insanity that defines Islam.

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Those verses in my opinion is speaking about the genetic mixing. Remember to keep this in mind, how can an animal, insect, and bird be wicked when all it can do is maul and bite. It don't make sense. So those verse are telling us something more was going on with creatures. Reason why most dinosaurs had to die in the flood.

Go to google and look up the definition and synonym of Way and corrupted. Then re read that verse "All flesh had corrupted his way" I have studying Genesis 6 for a whole week because I knew something more was missing while I was reading the chapter.

What more interesting is Satanic Hollywood is showing us the effect of mixing the genetics in their movies. Let look at the Hulk, when the guy genetics was mixed and transformed into that HULK hybrid, was he not evil continually? Let's look at spider man, when that scientist mixed his genetics with the lizards.. did he not become the lizard man villain??

Plus look into X men apacolypse movie that came out last year - that whole movie is about the genetic code.. the X gene. Hollywood knows that blending the genetics would alter behavior. All this technology, genetic mixing, and knowledge isn't new, all this was in the pre-flood world.

Hence the reason why the bible says " The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What more interesting is Satanic Hollywood is showing us the effect of mixing the genetics in their movies. Let look at the Hulk, when the guy genetics was mixed and transformed into that HULK hybrid, was he not evil continually? Let's look at spider man, when that scientist mixed his genetics with the lizards.. did he not become the lizard man villain??

Plus look into X men apacolypse movie that came out last year - that whole movie is about the genetic code.. the X gene. Hollywood knows that blending the genetics would alter behavior. All this technology, genetic mixing, and knowledge isn't new, all this was in the pre-flood world.

 

[hedrick]

Are you interested in CF members or Christians in general? The one or two survey results I turned up suggest that belief in the flood as described in the OT is pretty similar to belief in the creation story. Somewhat under half of the US population. Probably more than half of active Christians in the US. But remember that it's basically conservative Protestants that require it. Catholics and mainline Protestants don't. In Europe it would be different. In third-world countries it would be different. CF seems to me more conservative than US Christians as a whole.

Since I don't think the story happened as recorded, I don't have to deal with the issue of God as perpetrator of genocide. However I do have to deal with the fact that the final editors of that part of the OT believed that God was like that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Are you interested in CF members or Christians in general? The one or two survey results I turned up suggest that belief in the flood as described in the OT is pretty similar to belief in the creation story. Somewhat under half of the US population. Probably more than half of active Christians in the US. But remember that it's basically conservative Protestants that require it. Catholics and mainline Protestants don't. In Europe it would be different. In third-world countries it would be different. CF seems to me more conservative than US Christians as a whole.

Since I don't think the story happened as recorded, I don't have to deal with the issue of God as perpetrator of genocide. However I do have to deal with the fact that the final editors of that part of the OT believed that God was like that.

I was aware of that statistic about American belief in the Flood but I've also heard that some polls suggest that a significant amount of Americans think, for example, that the sun revolves around the earth. I find that difficult to believe so I just wanted to look into things myself.

I'm somewhat surprised by the results so far because I've found many Christians here to be liberal, actually. Perhaps the issue is that most Christians interested in evangelism believe in a literal Flood event, and most of the evangelizers come to this subforum in particular. In other words, the sample is biased.

 

[hedrick]

I was aware of that statistic about American belief in the Flood but I've also heard that some polls suggest that a significant amount of Americans think, for example, that the sun revolves around the earth. I find that difficult to believe so I just wanted to look into things myself.

See New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels. But there are similar numbers in Germany and Great Britain. I think it's confusion or ignorance, not religion.

I'm somewhat surprised by the results so far because I've found many Christians here to be liberal, actually. Perhaps the issue is that most Christians interested in evangelism believe in a literal Flood event, and most of the evangelizers come to this subforum in particular. In other words, the sample is biased.

My church evangelizes, though maybe not the way you're thinking. "Evangelical" is a brand name, not the only people concerned with evangelism.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

See New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels. But there are similar numbers in Germany and Great Britain. I think it's confusion or ignorance, not religion.

Thanks. Those numbers are actually better than I thought they would be.

My church evangelizes, though maybe not the way you're thinking. "Evangelical" is a brand name, not the only people concerned with evangelism.

Yeah I thought that might be the case. By "evangelizers" I meant to include more than just evangelical Christians.

 

[DingDing]

... Jesus tells several different people on several different occasions to sell all they have and give to the poor...

Can you please give scripture reference of these "several different occasions to sell all they have"?

Matthew 19:21
Mark 10:21
Luke 12:33
Luke 18:22

So in reality I think it's only depicting two incidents involving two different parties: the unfortunate rich young ruler, and then the twelve.

Right, and only to the rich young ruler did Jesus say to actually sell all (and come follow Him). And thank you for being so honest. Jesus does want us to part with much of our wealth - our excess wealth - but He would not want us to do that to the point of hurting our families.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Right, and only to the rich young ruler did Jesus say to actually sell all (and come follow Him). And thank you for being so honest. Jesus does want us to part with much of our wealth - our excess wealth - but He would not want us to do that to the point of hurting our families.

Are you saying it was OK for the rich young ruler and disciples to do this because they had no families? Then doesn't it follow that young bachelors should do this?

 

[DingDing]

Are you saying it was OK for the rich young ruler and disciples to do this because they had no families? Then doesn't it follow that young bachelors should do this?

Jesus knew what the rich, young ruler needed to do, and He told him. The disciples had decided to leave everything and cast their lot with Jesus - so they were all in. Not all persons are called to walk the very same path. It is like being a eunuch, so what does the bible say in Matthew 19:12? So are all called to be eunuchs? Or are all called to live a single life?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Jesus knew what the rich, young ruler needed to do, and He told him. The disciples had decided to leave everything and cast their lot with Jesus - so they were all in. Not all persons are called to walk the very same path. It is like being a eunuch, so what does the bible say in Matthew 19:12? So are all called to be eunuchs? Or are all called to live a single life?

OK... but you go down this road of "What's 'true' for you isn't the same as what's 'true' for someone else" and you tumble down a slippery slope to the point that Jesus' sacrifice was meaningless. If there is no absolute standard by which we are all judged, why did Jesus actually have to die? If the standard is absolute, why is it suddenly different from person to person?

 

[DingDing]

OK... but you go down this road of "What's 'true' for you isn't the same as what's 'true' for someone else" and you tumble down a slippery slope to the point that Jesus' sacrifice was meaningless. If there is no absolute standard by which we are all judged, why did Jesus actually have to die? If the standard is absolute, why is it suddenly different from person to person?

Have you read Romans 14? And if so, do you get it? There are things to think about.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Have you read Romans 14? And if so, do you get it? There are things to think about.

Thanks but I see that as a non-answer.

 

[DingDing]

Thanks but I see that as a non-answer.

Then you do not get Romans 14...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Then you do not get Romans 14...

Over on the atheist forums we had a Christian who was telling us all that Numbers 5 is not about abortion. We kept asking him directly, "Please explain what the passage is about." Page after page and he wouldn't do it. He would try to slow conversation to a halt with things like, "Read this small part over here, tell me what you think it means, and we can go from there."

The point is that I know a tapdance when I see it. You just point me to some passage, explain nothing, and then lay the blame on me when I don't vindicate your position for you. Maybe that method works with Christians. But I'm no sheep. I'm a different animal entirely.

 

[hedrick]

First, I think Jesus taught an ethics focused more on intent than rules. I wouldn't carry that to extremes. There are things that are wrong. But if you look at his treatment of ethical questions in places like Mat 5, and particularly if you look at his various parables about judgement, he was more focused on our obligation to help people, to honor our commitments, etc., than on violations of rules. I'd say he assumed that people would follow major rules against theft, murder, infidelity, etc, but he was focused on things that can't be so easily defined. That means that when he tells someone to do or not do something, it's not necessarily a rule.

Did Jesus want everyone to sell their possessions? He certainly called his disciples to give up everything and follow him. But when he spoke to crowds he didn't call on everyone to give up their jobs, nor does there seem to be any sign from the Gospels that people understood him as saying that. His parables and teachings seem to have been aimed at people who lived normal lives.

For this reason I doubt that the call to the rich young ruler was intended to be a general rule.

Yes, Numbers 5 does seem to be about abortion. I would point out that Christians don't always follow OT laws. But it's a good text for people who claim that the Bible is uniformly against abortion.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

First, I think Jesus taught an ethics focused more on intent than rules. I wouldn't carry that to extremes. There are things that are wrong. But if you look at his treatment of ethical questions in places like Mat 5, and particularly if you look at his various parables about judgement, he was more focused on our obligation to help people, to honor our commitments, etc., than on violations of rules. I'd say he assumed that people would follow major rules against theft, murder, infidelity, etc, but he was focused on things that can't be so easily defined. That means that when he tells someone to do or not do something, it's not necessarily a rule.

Did Jesus want everyone to sell their possessions? He certainly called his disciples to give up everything and follow him. But when he spoke to crowds he didn't call on everyone to give up their jobs, nor does there seem to be any sign from the Gospels that people understood him as saying that. His parables and teachings seem to have been aimed at people who lived normal lives.

For this reason I doubt that the call to the rich young ruler was intended to be a general rule.

Yes, Numbers 5 does seem to be about abortion. I would point out that Christians don't always follow OT laws. But it's a good text for people who claim that the Bible is uniformly against abortion.

Good points. I appreciate your honesty. You seem to be probably the most honest Christian I've seen on this site.

But I like to consider what I call upping the ante on Pascal's Wager:

Do you want to gamble your eternal salvation on your interpretation? Or, in fairness, it might not be an issue of salvation but rather riches in heaven; still, I have to think that Jesus would reward you fairly for your sacrifices.

Holding onto the riches of this world and not caring about the riches in heaven is like holding onto a winning lottery ticket for the value of the paper it's printed on rather than redeeming it for its true value.

So I don't see the reason to not give to the poor. The poor would certainly benefit and you would gain in the afterlife. I see no losers here. The only problem is, in my estimation, a lack of faith in the Christian church from top to bottom.

Jesus gave many parables about good/bad stewards, spoke a lot about not needing material possessions, and warned about the dangers of being rich. I don't think it's hard to see what he's getting at: sell all that you have, give to the poor, and wander the world doing good works while preaching the gospel. You know, like John the Baptist.

I think the issue is spotlighted by communion. It's not difficult to eat crackers and drink grape juice, so Christians do it. But let's just pretend for a moment that communion was somehow a difficult task (or perhaps a painful task: selling all you have and giving to the poor is not actually difficult, but I'd reckon it's quite painful). In this case, Christians would not take communion. They'd say, "Jesus said to do this 'in remembrance of me' so he was clearly talking to the disciples only; we do not remember Jesus because we weren't there." And of course no investigation of the Greek language would be done to justify this because they already have the conclusion they want and there's no need to risk challenging that with what might be the truth.

But as it turns out, eating crackers and drinking grape juice is easy while giving up your possessions is difficult. Therefore, Jesus was addressing everyone on the topic of communion and on the topic of giving up all possessions he was only addressing his disciples and the unfortunate rich young ruler.