What was God's intention?

[philadiddle]

When the flood account was written which of the two following scenarios do you think He was intending. Note, I don't want to create a false dichotomy so feel free to add an option C.

A. Christians in our century would read it and have a conversation something like:
"I wonder how the animals got to the ark"
"God called them, He's that amazing"
"It's neat to think about how these strata were laid down by the flood, if only others would recognize that"
"I agree, there are signs of Him flooding the world all over the place, people should recognize this and repent"

B. Christians in our century would read it and have a conversation something like:
"It's neat how God told the Israelites how He loved them in the context of the myths they were already familiar with."
"Ya, the flood story very clearly tells us how God can keep us safe in the storms of life, and He has hope for humanity."
"For sure, the other myths of that time were of hopelessness and how the gods lost faith in humanity and wanted to drown them all, but in the biblical flood God wanted to save us because He has hope for us. It applies to the alternate worldviews at that time but we could apply it to us in the present as well. The hopelessness some people have in their lives can be overcome with the love of God and he can keep us safe in the storms of life."
"I agree, there are people struggling all around us so hopefully we can be a light in the storm and they can repent and know of the sacrifice that Jesus made."

 

[Alan Hooker]

When the flood account was written which of the two following scenarios do you think He was intending. Note, I don't want to create a false dichotomy so feel free to add an option C.

A. Christians in our century would read it and have a conversation something like:
"I wonder how the animals got to the ark"
"God called them, He's that amazing"
"It's neat to think about how these strata were laid down by the flood, if only others would recognize that"
"I agree, there are signs of Him flooding the world all over the place, people should recognize this and repent"

B. Christians in our century would read it and have a conversation something like:
"It's neat how God told the Israelites how He loved them in the context of the myths they were already familiar with."
"Ya, the flood story very clearly tells us how God can keep us safe in the storms of life, and He has hope for humanity."
"For sure, the other myths of that time were of hopelessness and how the gods lost faith in humanity and wanted to drown them all, but in the biblical flood God wanted to save us because He has hope for us. It applies to the alternate worldviews at that time but we could apply it to us in the present as well. The hopelessness some people have in their lives can be overcome with the love of God and he can keep us safe in the storms of life."
"I agree, there are people struggling all around us so hopefully we can be a light in the storm and they can repent and know of the sacrifice that Jesus made."

Although I personally don't believe in a global flood, perhaps option C would be reading it both ways. Aquinas believed there was an historical sense and a spiritual sense. This spiritual sense was then divided three-fold: (1) allegorical, (2) moral, and (3) anagogical.

The literal sense of the flood narrative would be that God commanded a flood to come upon the earth because of humankind's wickedness. In the allegorical sense, how the Old Law signifies things to come in the New Law, it may be read as a message about the power of baptism. This is how Peter read it:

In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism which now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21)
​

In the moral sense, as a type of what we ought to do, I suppose it could be read as an admonition to obey God even in times of dire trouble, as Noah did. And for the anagogical sense, in what sense the story relates to things of glory eternal, maybe we could read it is an assurance that the love of God will keep us safe unto eternity.


My own understanding is that the authors took common mythic tropes and transformed them to tell their own story. There are key differences between the flood myth in the Bible and others in ancient West Asia. In focussing on the differences, we can see what set the 'Israelite' understanding of the myth apart from their neighbours'.

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

I'd have to say neither.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[philadiddle]

hi phil,

I'd have to say neither.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

In the politest way possible I'd have to ask that if you are going to post in a thread you try to contribute. Can you please explain what option C is then from your perspective? I'd genuinely like to know.

 

[philadiddle]

Although I personally don't believe in a global flood, perhaps option C would be reading it both ways. Aquinas believed there was an historical sense and a spiritual sense. This spiritual sense was then divided three-fold: (1) allegorical, (2) moral, and (3) anagogical.

The literal sense of the flood narrative would be that God commanded a flood to come upon the earth because of humankind's wickedness. In the allegorical sense, how the Old Law signifies things to come in the New Law, it may be read as a message about the power of baptism. This is how Peter read it:

In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism which now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21)
​

In the moral sense, as a type of what we ought to do, I suppose it could be read as an admonition to obey God even in times of dire trouble, as Noah did. And for the anagogical sense, in what sense the story relates to things of glory eternal, maybe we could read it is an assurance that the love of God will keep us safe unto eternity.


My own understanding is that the authors took common mythic tropes and transformed them to tell their own story. There are key differences between the flood myth in the Bible and others in ancient West Asia. In focussing on the differences, we can see what set the 'Israelite' understanding of the myth apart from their neighbours'.

I appreciate your input and I like what you added about baptism. Thanks!

 

[shernren]

Recent digs have uncovered extremely ancient scrolls that, by careful dating and analysis, could only possibly fit between Genesis 9 and Genesis 10. Scholars are furiously translating the antique language, but have published an initial fragment of what they believe is the first ever divinely-inspired Hebrew competency test:

"Based on the passage above, answer the [not clear] question(s?):

1. When man's wickedness had filled all the Earth, G-d chose _____ to build [design? engineer? translation uncertain] the ark.

A. Adam
B. Noah
C. Joseph
D. Moses

2. Estimate the number of total species on the ark.

A. 20,000.
B. 30, ..... "

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

Here's the reply:

Let me just give you some of the insight of the Scriptures that I am firmly convicted the Holy Spirit has given to me and you may study it and decide whether or not you also find the same understanding. Your basic question from your OP is: I often hear the phrase that the Bible is 'God's Word'. What does that mean exactly?

When God created this realm of existence, yes, about 6,000 years ago. He knew that man would sin. He knew that the only way He was going to ultimately get what He intended was that there would have to be a way of 'harvesting' out of the creatures that He was creating that would be what He created them to be. Creatures who would love Him and honor Him and respect Him for who He is. Creatures who would understand that the very reason they breathe is because God created. Creatures that He also would love and provide for and nurture and share in real relationship as Creator and created and be satisfied with that relationship and understanding of who they are and who God is. He knew that not every person to be born of the sexual relations between a man and a woman would be willing to live under the authority of this truth. Just as happened in the angelic realm, some of the angels rebelled against His ultimate authority. God knew all of this would come to pass.

But, in order that the ultimate goal could be reached, the crop had to be planted. Jesus often relates what is happening on the earth as a farmer and his growing of a crop. One of the clearest parables of this is the parable of the sower and the parable of the weeds, both found in the gospel of Matthew, chapter 13. Jesus even opens the parable of the weeds with these words, "This is what the kingdom of heaven is like..."

Because God knew all of this even before He spoke the first 'let there be...', He also had in mind a plan, whereby the crop would be harvested. God even introduces this plan all the way back when sin first entered this realm of His creation. He begins to teach about a way of redemption in the first chapters of Genesis explaining to Adam and Eve that there would be a 'seed' that would crush the serpent.

Then God gives us a true account of all that happened in this created realm from the day of Adam and Eve's sin to His call to a man named Abram. Up to this call to Abram we get a fairly speedy account of the important points regarding the early years of the creation. However, as soon as God gets to Abram, the account begins to slow down considerably. We are now given careful details of the lives of these people and God makes several promises to Abraham. One of which is that he will be the father of a great nation of people and that he will be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. HMMMMM.

So, why does God make these promises to this man of no real account? Because God is working out the plan that He told Adam and Eve about. He is working out this perfect plan of redemption for those creatures who would trust and believe and live as He created mankind to live. In a nutshell, here is that plan.

God is going to raise up this nation of people promised to Abraham so that they would write the Scriptures. You see, this promised redeemer was going to come, but God wanted that we would have a full and complete written account as to who and what this redeemer was going to do and He wanted that we would be able to identify him. So, as God raised up this nation of people from the loins of Abraham just as He had promised, He also caused, by His Holy Spirit that some of them would write the story of the redeemer. Throughout that story would be prophecies that would clearly indicate to any thinking man, how to recognize him when he came. Throughout that story would also be a fairly complete history of the people that God raised up through the promise to Abraham so that we would be able to see and understand how God was working through them. He didn't just call Abraham and 1500 years later lay His Son on the alter. No, He gave us a reasonably clear and concise accounting of all that happened through His people from the call to Abraham, to the writing of the Scriptures and then to the sacrifice of His Son for sin.

phil, it is my fervent and steadfast belief that every word of the Scriptures are true because they are not just words written by men, but they are a complete and full accounting of what God wants His creation to know in order that they may know and understand and choose His way of salvation. Now, not all will, that is clearly apparent, but I believe that if we flip back to the last chapters of the Revelation we find that many do.

We find in the last chapters of the Revelation that God's ultimate goal, the one that He began when He spoke the first 'let there be...' is attained. God is going to cleanse all the heavenly realm and all the earthly realm of all those who are against Him in any way. God's final words to us in the Revelation are:

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." He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

Read and study this picture very closely. Friend, this singular piece of Scripture pretty well explains the whole of what I am explaining to you.

First, the form of the creation that we are living in now is not the ultimate goal. A time is coming when God is going to make everything new, again.

Second, "It is done." What is done? The plan! The plan that began when God spoke the first, "let there be..." that we read about in the account of Genesis, through the raising up of a nation of people who would deliver to the world His written promises. And continue through the sacrifice of the promised redeemer so that generation after generation would then know, throughout the whole earth, what God had done and what He was going to do. That was done and now all those who chose to believe. All those who read and understood the purpose of this realm and what God had explained to them through the Scriptures were now going to receive God's promise to them.

Here's the promise finally stated so that no man who reads the Scriptures should have any doubt. "He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars -- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur."

This is the end of the plan that God set in motion when He spoke the first "Let there be..." of the beginning of this realm of creation that His Scriptures account for us in the first verse of Genesis. This age, this time of life between those first verses of Genesis and these last verses of the Revelation are a time of planting and growing and just as the parable of the weeds is explained by Jesus to his disciples; God is going to send His angels out to harvest the earth. He is going to harvest the good crop and set it in the storehouse where it will be cherished and protected and then He will have those angels gather up all the weeds and briars and thornbushes and cast them into the fire.

Friend, that's what the Scriptures are. They are not some accounts written by men that explain what they believed in their day was the truth of God. The Scriptures are the truth of God. Written by the Holy Spirit of God who continues to delight in giving those who are willing to humbly submit and understand their place in God's creation all truth. It is his continuing work until we get to that day that is pictured for us in this passage of the Revelation.

Yes, phil, it is my absolute conviction that everything, absolutely everything happened in the Scriptures just exactly as the Holy Spirit has caused to be written that it did. Does this explain my postion clearly enough?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

Just so you know, this piece was actually written for another thread and so please disregard - Your basic question from your OP is: I often hear the phrase that the Bible is 'God's Word'. What does that mean exactly?

Sorry, I went through and cleaned up some of the other references that were specific to the other thread, but missed this statement.

Again, God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SkyWriting]

.... There are key differences between the flood myth in the Bible and others in ancient West Asia. In focussing on the differences, we can see what set the 'Israelite' understanding of the myth apart from their neighbours'.

Suppose one story told of a world wide extinction by fire,
another by earthquake,
another by darkness,
another by lightning strikes.

Maybe this will uncloud your thinking to multiple stories of a flood by different people. Different accounts of the same event.

 

[chris4243]

Should Christians read Genesis and say, oh look the Bible is making a scientific prediction, that all unclean species had a population bottleneck down to one mating pair about 4,400 years ago, and all clean species down to 7? If this turns out to be true it is some very good scientific evidence, but if genetics studies don't match that then the Bible is wrong? If you're not willing to go the last bit, then you can't be intellectually honest if you claim the first half. Can you be confident that it is indeed a prediction of the Bible, or might you be misinterpreting the Bible?

 

[SkyWriting]

Should Christians read Genesis and say, oh look the Bible is making a scientific prediction, that all unclean species had a population bottleneck down to one mating pair about 4,400 years ago, and all clean species down to 7? If this turns out to be true it is some very good scientific evidence, but if genetics studies don't match that then the Bible is wrong? If you're not willing to go the last bit, then you can't be intellectually honest if you claim the first half. Can you be confident that it is indeed a prediction of the Bible, or might you be misinterpreting the Bible?

Or might you be misinterpreting the Genetics? One doesn't have a useful theory unless the data presented can convince critics of its validity. YOU may be bedazzeled by the field of genetics, but it has only been around about 100 years. What we know of genetics is about enough for a snowball....

You should present your best evidence for your case. It would be much more interesting.

 

[SkyWriting]

Recent digs have uncovered extremely ancient scrolls that, by careful dating and analysis, could only possibly fit between Genesis 9 and Genesis 10. Scholars are furiously translating the antique language, but have published an initial fragment of what they believe is the first ever divinely-inspired Hebrew competency test:

"Based on the passage above, answer the [not clear] question(s?):

1. When man's wickedness had filled all the Earth, G-d chose _____ to build [design? engineer? translation uncertain] the ark.

A. Adam
B. Noah
C. Joseph
D. Moses

2. Estimate the number of total species on the ark.

A. 20,000.
B. 30, ..... "

Is it too much to ask you to link to the information?

 

[cigero84]

GOING THAT DIRECTION IN THIS MATTER IS COMPLETELY UNFAIR. FIRST OF ALL WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHY GOD DID WHAT GOD DID AND KNOW EXACTLY WHO WAS BEIND THE SCENE AND HIS INTENTIONS.
IT WAS SATAN THAT WANTED TO WIPE OUT THE HUMAN RACE AND NOT GOD; HE KNEW THE THINGS TO DO(BY INTRODUCING SOME FALLEN ANGELS TO INTERMARRY WITH THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN, THEREBY POLLUTING THE HUMAN GENETIC CODE) TO GET GOD TO DO IT BECAUSE HE(SATAN) CANNOT WIPE OUT THE HUMAN RACE.

LET US 1ST OF ALL TRACE THIS BACK TO THE ORIGIN OF MAN, THE ESSENCE OF MAN'S CREATION AND THE FALL OF LUCIFER ETC

WE LEARNT THAT GOD CREATED MAN AND ASKED THE ANGELS TO BOW TO MAN, THAT LUCIFER DISOBEYED AND THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.

WHAT IF I TELL YOU THAT MAN WAS CREATED TO SET LUCIFER UP, THAT IT'S PART OF A MASTERPLAN TO MAKE HIS PRIDE, WICKEDNESS AND FOOLISHNESS MANIFEST?

HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT HE AND THE ANGELS WATCHED GOD MAKE MAN FROM THE EARTH, THEN WHY WILL THEY THAT WERE MADE FROM PRECIOUS STONES BOW TO MAN?

NOW LETS JUDGE HIS FOOLISHNESS:
1. GOD MADE HIM
2. HOW ARE PRECIOUS STONES MADE? ANSWER- FROM THE EARTH. MEANING THAT THE RAW MAERIAL OF MANS CREATION IS THE RAW MATERIAL FOR THE RAW MATERIAL OF LUCIFERS CREATION. WHO IS MORE SUPERIOR?
3. HE SAW GOD MAKE THE BODY OF MAN AND BREATH INTO IT THE BREATH OF LIFE WHICH IS THE SOUL AND THE SPIRIT, WHY DIDNT HE WONDER WHAT THE CONPONENT OF THE BREATH IS?

GOD HAS CREATED THE SPIRIT AND THE SOUL OF MAN LONG BEFORE HE CREATED THE BODY. AFTER THE CREATION OF THE SOUL WHICH WAS MOULDED FROM WATER AND THE CREATION OF THE SPIRIT WHICH WAS CREATED FROM THE AIR (WHICH WAS THE CREATION OF ADAM); GOD STAYED WITH HIM IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN WHERE HE TAUGHT HIM SO MANY THINGS, OTHERWISE WHY WILL HE ASK HIM TO NAME EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND IF HE DIDNT TEACH HIM SOMETHINGS. IN THAT GOD WAS TESTING THE SPIRIT OF PROPHESY IN MAN... (to be discussed later, let me get back on point)


SO SATAN AFTER HE WAS BANISHED, DECIDED TO PROVE THAT GOD WAS UNFAIR AND STARTED PLOTTING THE DOWNFALL OF MANKIND ....... AFTER HE FAILED, HE DEVISED ANOTHER STRATEGY : TRYING TO BUILD HUMAN ALLIES, THATS WHAT YOU ARE SEEING TODAY ..... to be continued

 

[chris4243]

Or might you be misinterpreting the Genetics? One doesn't have a useful theory unless the data presented can convince critics of its validity. YOU may be bedazzeled by the field of genetics, but it has only been around about 100 years. What we know of genetics is about enough for a snowball....

You should present your best evidence for your case. It would be much more interesting.

I was neither interpreting Genesis nor stating anything about genetics that is not absolutely certain and known by all who have the most basic understanding of it. You tell me -- is the only interpretation of Genesis that the animals Noah didn't take on the ark, died, and that this cannot be figurative? Or is your implication that "genetics studies" will automatically fail to match a literal flood, and that therefore the studies are wrong?

 

[cigero84]

@ chris 4243, I do not agree that God is Love. If God is Love, then does Love hate? But it is stated that God hates Sin, Iniquities, God also hated Esau.

I will say that Love is an attribute of God.

 

[Mightymenoftoday]

@ chris 4243, I do not agree that God is Love. If God is Love, then does Love hate? But it is stated that God hates Sin, Iniquities, God also hated Esau.

I will say that Love is an attribute of God.

He that loveth not knoweth not God ; for God is love. --1 John 4:8

I think that's pretty clear.

 

[Mightymenoftoday]

I was neither interpreting Genesis nor stating anything about genetics that is not absolutely certain and known by all who have the most basic understanding of it. You tell me -- is the only interpretation of Genesis that the animals Noah didn't take on the ark, died, and that this cannot be figurative? Or is your implication that "genetics studies" will automatically fail to match a literal flood, and that therefore the studies are wrong?

Chris I'm a little confused, are you implying that there WAS a genetic bottleneck or that there WASN'T.

 

[SkyWriting]

@ chris 4243, I do not agree that God is Love. If God is Love, then does Love hate? But it is stated that God hates Sin, Iniquities, God also hated Esau.

I will say that Love is an attribute of God.

Does Love "Hate"? Yes. Note that the opposite of Love is

APATHY.

Love and Hate are close together. Apathy and indifference are on the other side.

http://bible.cc/1_john/4-8.htm

 

[chris4243]

Chris I'm a little confused, are you implying that there WAS a genetic bottleneck or that there WASN'T.

You tell me. Were all land animals reduced to only those few on the Ark, or weren't they? When talking about animal populations, such a reduction in population size is called a bottleneck.

 

[shernren]

Is it too much to ask you to link to the information?

Sorry, here you go:

Genesis Narrative Turns Out To Be World's Oldest Multiple-Choice Comprehension Test