The Biblical Flood Thoroughly Trashed

by Farkel 75 Replies latest watchtower bible

onacruse

restrangled:
I think, in my opinion as simple minded as it may be, ..... it comes down to the following: You either believe God manipulated scientific laws to create the "earth wide flood", or it was local.
The last option makes the most sense, and is more demonstrable.
For example, there was at one time a land bridge that blocked off the Black Sea from the Mediterranean, and there is to this day clear evidence that when that land bridge was breached (several thousand years ago) the ensuing flood of water inundated the entire periphery of that once "lake," to the tune of many hundreds of feet of water elevation, within a matter of days. Of course, all the "lake"side communities would have been devastated. And there is a "dead zone" of fresh deoxygenated water at the bottom of the Black Sea, over-ridden by salt water, that stands as a witness to that event.
There is also evidence that a land bridge at the Mediterranean Straights broke through, leaving just the Rock of Gibraltar standing. I'm not sure of the timing on that one.
And there is also geological evidence that a major tsunami came up into the Red Sea area, as a result of subterranean landslides and/or volcanic activity in the Indian Ocean. This too is difficult to time, but other recent events (like Krakatoa) show that it's entirely within the realm of possibility that such an event happened within the last several thousand years.
Any one of these events could easily have been mythologized into a catastrophic worldwide "flood," and after all, if civilization did begin in the Middle East (as seems probable), then the "world" (Gk. oikoumene) of that time would have been impacted in such a way that could easily lead to a generalized concept of "worldwide flood."
Just a few thoughts, randomly gleaned from here and there.
Hellrider

Tyrone:
I tried, for as long as I could, to resist the temptation of answering your post. This is because I firmly believe that conspiracy theories, in the form that you are presenting, should not be taken seriously. But anyway, here goes:
You don't think that governments don't have the power to withhold or even change information as we know it
Well, to a certain degree, ok. But much less so in our mass-media-world, with a constant and free flow of information, particularly in democratic countries. The relevant question would be: Why would they want to hide a "fact" like the existence of Noahs ark in that mountain? Unlike with the alien-conspiracies (that Bush and Blair are reptile-aliens, changing form now and then), all the major religions on the earth would welcome the existence of an ark. Bush and his christian fundy-buddies would love it, as it would prove the Bible. The jews in Israel would love it, it would prove the OT, and even the moslems would love it, as they too accept the "truths" of the OT. So I have to ask: Why would the existence of this "ark" be concealed by a (or more) governments? And what I would like to know, is: How do you know that a (or more) governments are doing this?
Governments must consider the impact on the masses when information is released
I doubt all these religious leaders (see above) would do anything but rejoice. It would "prove" all of them right. On the other hand, if it truly was a big old boat (or box) on that mountain, it would still nor "prove" anything right beyond doubt, it could have been dismissed as "just a bog old boat" (unless it had the skeletons of all the animals of the earth, including cangaroos and polar bears, two of each species).
I'm sure there are tons of scholars who have spent their whole lives studying what they knew to be fact that do not wish to be refuted
I wouldn`t say tons. Some, probably, but most hold to a scientific truth (a real truth) that says: A theory is only to be considered to be correct until proven otherwise. Had they found a big wooden boat or box on that mountain, the majority would be honest enough to reveal it. And, even if some of them would want to cover it up, do you really think all of them would want to? Because, you know, it takes all of them to agree, to ensure that noone will blow the whistle! And, in addition to this, there are plenty of religious archaeologists who would object if someone tried to cover it up (but I guess you`re gonna say that the CIA would probably kill them, so I`m not getting anywhere with this line of arguing either, I bet). But what I wanna know is: How do you know that this is the case? How do you know that these "scholars" have covered it up, or that they would want to cover it up, or that they would even be able to cover it up?
When they found the Ice man otzi, they came up with a whole concotion of how this guy died and were heralded as great thinkers. That was until they took a simple X ray and discovered that he was killed with a stone arrow. God did they ever look foolish. If they didn't take that X ray though, their analysis would have stood the test of time.
Ok, I don`t know that story. But anyway: They did take that x-ray test, didn`t they? So where`s the story here? Scientists are often wrong. Then, eventually, they gather more information, understand what they did wrong, and then correct their theories. Nothing new here.
Oh one more thing. Do you think I mentioned that my brother found a human footprint in stone for the good of my health. He still has it and no one wants to deal with it. Can you deal with it!
I`m not sure what you`re getting at here. There are plenty of footprints in stone around the world. It`s no big deal. If noone were willing to deal with it, it`s probably because they had enough of them already.
But: What I really want to know, is: How do you know there is a "cover-up" on this issue? Who told you? How did you arrive at the conclusion? And do you have any proof (and by that, I mean other than your arguments, which are easily refutable)? You should learn your basics: The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Present your proof.
One more thing: That air-photo showing a "weird rock formation" up on that mountain, is not considered interesting anymore, not by scientists, and not even by most Bible fundamentalists. It`s now considered just a rock formation by most.
serotonin_wraith

Burn:
Shepherds within living memory of the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea (which is not far away) are tending their flocks in the Ararat mountains. They either were witnesses of the flooding or the flood story was orally passed down to them without too much of a time lapse. (it looks like Durupinar is only a couple of hundred miles away from the shores of the Black Sea).
They come upon this huge shiplike rock formation and the story of an enormous ship that saved a remnant from the Great Flood is born!
Looks fine to me, but as you follow the Bible, why would God allow a man made myth to be put in his book? I don't get it.
Couple more questions. If it was a local flood, and God said he'd leave a sign (the rainbow) to remind us he'd never do it again, does he have to answer for all the local floods that have happened since?
What's actually the point of the Noah story? A local flood would mean there'd be no point in rescuing two of every species - a few hundred miles away there'd be plenty of them. Seems odd to have an ark built when Noah and his family could have just travelled out of flood range, and come back later if they so wished.
Was it about heeding God's warning? As someone else pointed out, all life on earth (which I'm guessing is code for 'everyone in that small area') was wiped out without warning. Noah didn't go preaching as far as I can see, and even Jesus says at Matt 24:39 "and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."
That last part too - when Jesus returns it will just be a local event? Oh.
It just bugs me when people say "It's not supposed to be taken literally!" and then not actually bother to look at what it means if it isn't literal. I see a ton of questions come up about it, and even if I was the slightest bit interested in wanting the Biblical god to be real, I couldn't just ignore things like this. The Bible is becoming more and more a book of things that never actually happened, and people still think it was inspired by God. Creation story - never happened. Garden of Eden story - never happened. Nativety scene - never happened. Man living in a whale - never happened. Talking donkey - never happened. Hair with magical strength-giving powers - never happened. It's a book of fairy tales, and even if the author is God, it's STILL a book of fairy tales.
a Christian

You asked: why would God allow a man made myth to be put in his book? I don't get it.
Some here may view it as a man made myth, but I don't.
You asked: Couple more questions. If it was a local flood, and God said he'd leave a sign (the rainbow) to remind us he'd never do it again, does he have to answer for all the local floods that have happened since?
No, his promise was to never again destroy the land (not earth, as in the globe, check the Hebrew) of Noah with a flood.
You asked: What's actually the point of the Noah story? A local flood would mean there'd be no point in rescuing two of every species - a few hundred miles away there'd be plenty of them.
After the flood Noah would immediately need animals to serve as beasts of burden, for food and for sacrifices to God. He would not have time to travel great distances in search of these animals. There may well have also been symbolic significance to Noah's actions which we don't now fully understand
You asked: Seems odd to have an ark built when Noah and his family could have just travelled out of flood range, and come back later if they so wished.
The Bible calls Noah. "A preacher of righteousness." He may well have served in that capacity, giving the people of his land an opportunity to repent and find and be saved from the coming destruction, right up until the time God closed the door to the ark.
You wrote: Noah didn't go preaching as far as I can see
Peter says that he did. (2 Peter 2:5)
You wrote: and even Jesus says at Matt 24:39 "and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."
Noah's message may simply have urged people to repent and begin living Godly lives. He may not have informed them of the exact consequences of failing to do so. I believe the ark had room for any in Noah's land who might have repented but did not do so. Or God could have canceled his plan to bring a flood if all had repented. Jonah prophesied that God was going to destroy Nineveh but when many of its people repented God did not do so.
You asked: That last part too - when Jesus returns it will just be a local event?
Quite possibly. When Christ returns He may judge only the Christian world. Two-thirds of the earth's population has never even heard the good news of Jesus Christ, including billions of people in lands like China and India. The Watchtower Society teaches that God will soon kill all of these people. I think they are wrong. This does not sound like the God of love, justice and mercy I worship.
One thing that leads me to believe this way is that the Bible tells us that "Judgment begins with the house of God." (1 Peter 4:17) Jesus also said those who will rule as kings with Him will "judge the 12 tribes of Israel." (Luke 22:30) To me this indicates that when Christ returns and draws all true Christians to Himself (Matt. 24:31), they will then determine who among those who have heard the good news of Jesus Christ and not taken it to heart are deserving of death. "The 12 tribes of Israel," spoken of in Luke 22:30, I believe refers to all those who have heard the good news preached by those whom Galatians 6:16 calls "the Israel of God." Remember, the literal "12 tribes of Israel" had all heard the Law of Moses, but few had taken it to heart.
Remember too that it was only the city of Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 AD, not the entire Roman empire, after those in Jerusalem who heeded Christ's words of warning had escaped. And First Century Jerusalem has long been understood to picture the Christian world, or as Jehovah's Witnesses call it, "Christendom."
Interestingly, Revelation chapters 8 and 9 talk quite a bit about "a third of the world" being judged. And by population, the part of the world claiming Christianity as its religion is almost exactly one-third.
You wrote: Creation story - never happened. Garden of Eden story - never happened. Nativety scene - never happened. Man living in a whale - never happened. Talking donkey - never happened. Hair with magical strength-giving powers - never happened.
Just because you don't understand something does not mean it never happened.
serotonin_wraith

Sorry to take so long to respond, I've been away.
No, his promise was to never again destroy the land (not earth, as in the globe, check the Hebrew) of Noah with a flood.

Yet land has been destroyed by floods. While it may be temporary in some places, that's the same with the Biblical flood too, right? Things still grew there afterwards.
The Hebrew could be either 'land' or the entire Earth.

the earth
'erets (eh'-rets)
the earth (at large, or partitively a land) -- common, country, earth, field, ground, land, natins, way, + wilderness, world.

http://lexicon.scripturetext.com/genesis/6-13.htm

Now with water, could it really travel as high as the tallest mountain in that area and not spread out over other areas? It's water. It's not sand.
Regardless, the Bible does say things which makes me think it's talking about the entire Earth.

Gen 6:13
..."I am going to put an end to ALL people,...
Gen 6:17
...to destroy ALL life under the heavens...
(now does 'heavens' really mean a patch of sky?)
EVERY creature that has the breath of life in it.
Gen 7:19
They rose greatly on the earth, and ALL the high mountains under the ENTIRE heavens were covered.
Why would God only be concerned about the humans in a small patch of land in the middle east? Why not look at the morality of ALL humans?
After the flood Noah would immediately need animals to serve as beasts of burden, for food and for sacrifices to God. He would not have time to travel great distances in search of these animals. There may well have also been symbolic significance to Noah's actions which we don't now fully understand

Yeah but the story says he had to save EVERY kind of animal. Not just ones that would help him when he got out of the ark. So if it was a local flood, why save every kind of animal? Why not just ones indigenous to that area?
I can't help but see 'symbolic significance... we don't now fully understand' the same as saying 'I know it makes no sense, but I'll still believe this is God's word'. It's the ultimate cop-out. Basically, whatever you can't answer won't matter to you, it'll be answered 'in due time'. So this post is probably just a waste of my time.
The Bible calls Noah. "A preacher of righteousness." He may well have served in that capacity, giving the people of his land an opportunity to repent and find and be saved from the coming destruction, right up until the time God closed the door to the ark.

And yet in the Genesis account there's no mention of God telling Noah to preach. His mind was made up. He was going to kill every human except Noah and his family. 'Preacher of righteousness' is so vague. It doesn't mean he warned people about an impending destruction, that there was even a chance others could be saved. Even if others had wanted to serve God, that wouldn't guarantee their survival either. Being innocent didn't matter - innocent babies and children were drowned.
And that verse was added to the canon hundreds of years after the Genesis story. So for hundreds of years, no one knew he'd tried to warn people or preach?
With all the animals on the ark, how much room was left for converts?!
Quite possibly. When Christ returns He may judge only the Christian world. Two-thirds of the earth's population has never even heard the good news of Jesus Christ, including billions of people in lands like China and India. The Watchtower Society teaches that God will soon kill all of these people. I think they are wrong. This does not sound like the God of love, justice and mercy I worship.
I don't believe the Bible is from any god, so it's hard to argue this issue from the opposite perspective. I think the Bible can say whatever you want it to say. Jesus told someone the only way to be saved was to believe in him, and there's a verse about the good news being preached throughout the entire earth, and then the end will come.
If people who don't hear about Jesus can avoid hell or destruction etc, why not just keep quiet about it and not set people up? If they don't know about Christianity, they'll be okay. Right? You have a view that I don't think most Christians would agree with. Accepting Jesus as personal saviour is the only way to be saved according to them, but maybe you know better. There's so many interpretations of the book. If I was a god who wanted to save humanity, I'd have made it easier to understand personally.
I can't agree with the 'god of love, justice and mercy' thing though. I don't see a god like that in the Bible. Genocide, slavery and women being worth less than men aren't loving things in my eyes.
Just because you don't understand something does not mean it never happened.
Well to take one example, there wasn't a first man and woman made 6,000 years ago in a garden who were pursuaded by a talking snake to eat some magic fruit. Hence, fairy tale. Even if it's some metaphor, that story is still a fairy tale. There was no original man and woman, humans were around much earlier than that and things like pain in childbirth existed before 6,000 years ago.
a Christian

Serotonin,
You wrote: Yet land has been destroyed by floods. While it may be temporary in some places, that's the same with the Biblical flood too, right? Things still grew there afterwards.
If the land of Noah (southern Mesopotamia) was destroyed by a flood, and it has never been destroyed again since then, then God's word to Noah were true. If a house is destroyed by a fire and then rebuilt it does not change the fact that it was still once totally destroyed.
You wrote: Now with water, could it really travel as high as the tallest mountain in that area and not spread out over other areas? It's water. It's not sand.
You may want to read in my first post in this thread what Carl Olof Jonsson wrote about southern Mesopotamia resembling a "trough." There are now no "mountains" in southern Mesopotamia. And even the "high hills" in the area were not so high at the time. Again, read what Carl wrote.
You wrote: Regardless, the Bible does say things which makes me think it's talking about the entire Earth. Gen 6:13 ..."I am going to put an end to ALL people,...
All people in the land of Noah.
You wrote: Gen 6:17 ...to destroy ALL life under the heavens... (now does 'heavens' really mean a patch of sky?) EVERY creature that has the breath of life in it. Gen 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and ALL the high mountains under the ENTIRE heavens were covered.
This seemingly universal language must be understood from Noah's perspective. The world as Noah saw it was a much smaller place 5,000 years ago. No jet planes, no world wide web, etc.
You asked: Why would God only be concerned about the humans in a small patch of land in the middle east? Why not look at the morality of ALL humans?
Why did God choose to deal in a special way with the Jews and not with the American Indians? The answer to such questions is usually that God has chosen to use small groups of people in the Middle East to teach all mankind large lessons.
You wrote: So if it was a local flood, why save every kind of animal? Why not just ones indigenous to that area?
Maybe God wanted Noah's actions to represent a future judgment that will truly be "world wide" - as we now use that phrase.
You wrote: And yet in the Genesis account there's no mention of God telling Noah to preach. ... And that verse was added to the canon hundreds of years after the Genesis story. So for hundreds of years, no one knew he'd tried to warn people or preach?
The Jewish people had many more histories of their ancestors, both written and oral, besides just that which is contained in Genesis. Peter's comment about Noah being a preacher almost certainly came from these extra-biblical histories which have since been lost, many no doubt at the destruction of Jerusalem's temple and its library in AD 70.
You asked: With all the animals on the ark, how much room was left for converts?!
Very possibly enough room for everyone in his land who might have repented but did not.
You asked: If people who don't hear about Jesus can avoid hell or destruction etc, why not just keep quiet about it and not set people up? If they don't know about Christianity, they'll be okay. Right? You have a view that I don't think most Christians would agree with.
I didn't say accepting Christ is not necessary for salvation. I just suggested that God may judge the Christian world before the entire world has had an opportunity to accept Christ and that they will be given that opportunity afterwards.
You wrote: I can't agree with the 'god of love, justice and mercy' thing though. I don't see a god like that in the Bible. Genocide, slavery and women being worth less than men aren't loving things in my eyes.
The Bible certainly contains much fodder for unbelievers and much that even believers find hard to understand. I could offer what I consider to be reasonable explanations to all such criticisms. But I doubt you would find them convincing.
You wrote: Well to take one example, there wasn't a first man and woman made 6,000 years ago in a garden who were pursuaded by a talking snake to eat some magic fruit. Hence, fairy tale. Even if it's some metaphor, that story is still a fairy tale.
So you say. I respectfully disagree.
You wrote: There was no original man and woman, humans were around much earlier than that and things like pain in childbirth existed before 6,000 years ago.
Here I completely agree. How can that be? Because I believe most people misunderstand Genesis. This seeming conflict between Bible chronology and well established human history can be resolved by understanding that the Bible does not tell us that Adam was, in an absolute chronological sense, "the first man." God simply used Adam and Eve, and orchestrated the events in Eden, to illustrate the unrighteous condition of the then already existing human race. This understanding also answers the questions, "Where did Cain get his wife?" and "Who were the people living in the land 'east of Eden' whom Cain was afraid might kill him?" (Gen. 4:14-17)
The only place in Scripture Adam is referred to as the "first" man is in 1 Cor.15:45-47. There Adam is called "the first man." But there we also find that Jesus is called "the second man." The context shows that the writer of those words was referring to Adam as the "first" man only in his relative chronological position to Christ. In other words, since Adam came "first" and Christ came "second," Adam came before Christ.
The Roman emperor Julian the Apostate (A.D. 331-363) held this understanding of scripture (that Adam is not there portrayed as literally the first man in an absolute chronological sense) but he thought it could be used as a counterpoint to Christianity to restore paganism. Isaac de la Peyrere, a Catholic priest, also held this understanding of Scripture in 1656. For his efforts he was forced to recant and his books were burned. In 1860, one year after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, Bible scholar Edward William Lane published this understanding, but anonymously to escape reprisals.
Today this understanding is being advanced by Christians such as Richard Fischer. He received his master's degree in theology in 1992. He has published articles in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and has reviewed articles for publication in Christian Scholar's Review. He is a member of American Scientific Affiliation, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Evangelical Theological Society, and he is listed in Who's Who in Theology and Science. Fisher's book on this subject is entitled The Origins Solution. It does a good job of making sense out of several controversial "origins" related subjects, such as biological evolution, the creative "days" of Genesis, the extent of Noah's flood and the tower of Babel. I found it to be a well worthwhile read.
5go

This seeming conflict between Bible chronology and well established human history can be resolved by understanding that the Bible does not tell us that Adam was, in an absolute chronological sense, "the first man." God simply used Adam and Eve, and orchestrated the events in Eden, to illustrate the unrighteous condition of the then already existing human race.
That would kind of go against the concept of Adamic sin and hence throw out the need for a savior from said sin and death.
To throw out Adam as the first man is to through out Jesus with him. Which is why Evolution is untenable in Christianity.
Though the are some that try to any way but the get stopped by the origin of death in the bible and the reason for man's fall and need for a savior in the first place, Adam.
a Christian

You wrote: To throw out Adam as the first man is to through out Jesus with him. Which is why Evolution is untenable in Christianity.
I completely disagree. In am a Christian who believes God used evolution as his means of creation.
This subject matter is not nearly as simple or as cut and dried as you seem to believe.
Your objection comes from a belief in the doctrine of "the Fall" of mankind, a doctrine which springs from a misunderstanding of both the book of Genesis and the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1 Corinthians 15:21,22.

Romans 5:12 tells us that "sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin." But as we read further we find that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam, the "sin", which was responsible for bringing about his "death", was the "sin" of "breaking a command". (verse 14) And we are told that the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or imputed KJV, NAS) when there is no law." (verse 13)

Nevertheless, verses 13 and 14 clearly tell us that "before the law was given," "from the time of Adam to the time of Moses," "sin was in the world." So, since the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or imputed) when there is no law," the "sin" that "was in the world" "before the law was given" must have been a different kind of sin than Adam's sin. It must have been unimputed sin.

And since Romans chapter 5 makes it clear that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam was "imputed" sin, it leaves open the possibility that unimputed "sin" may have been "in the world," not just "before the (Mosaic) law was given," but also before Adam disobeyed God in Eden.

Because these verses tell us that Adam was the first man to sin by "breaking a command" from God, it follows that the "death" that "entered into the world" as a result of Adam's new kind of sin would have been Adam's new kind of death, death as a penalty imposed by God for "breaking a command" from God.

However, Romans 5:15,17 and 18 do tell us that "many died by the trespass of one man," "death reigned through that one man" and "as a result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." 1 Corinthians 15:21,22 repeats this same thought by saying that "death came through a man" and "in Adam all die."

With these verses in mind, many feel that Adam must have been the first man and we must all be his descendants because, they say, these verses clearly indicate that all people inherit a "fallen" nature from Adam. And they say that it is this "fallen" nature inherited by us because of Adam's disobedience that brings upon us God's condemnation. They maintain that these verses prove that human beings were not "sinful" creatures until after Adam's spiritual, physical and genetic natures were somehow radically changed at the time he disobeyed God in Eden. Then, they say, when Adam fathered children after his nature had been corrupted, his children and all their descendants inherited Adam's "corrupted," "fallen," "sinful" nature.

Advocates of "the Fall" doctrine also insist that Adam must have literally been the first man. Because if he was not, then we are not all Adam's descendants. And if we are not, then we could not all have inherited Adam's "fallen," "sinful" nature. And if we did not, then they say, we do not all need God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ, as the Bible tells us we all do. (Romans 3:23,24; 1 John 2:2)

However, I contend this doctrine of "the Fall" of mankind must be an incorrect understanding of Scripture because it contradicts several clear teachings of the Bible.

For instance, though the Bible tells us God does not hold children responsible for the sins of their parents (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezekiel 18:20), the doctrine of "the Fall" of mankind says that all who have not accepted Christ as their Lord will be eternally condemned by God because of something Adam did.

Some may argue this point, reminding us that God has taken the lives of "innocent" children along with their "guilty" parents when executing a judgment in the past. However, those Divine judgments were not eternal judgments. For Jesus Himself told us that everyone who lost their lives in such past judgments by God will receive a resurrection from the dead. And He told us that they will then all be judged as individuals, and not by their parents past behavior. (Matthew 11:20-24; John 5:28,29)

The Bible also clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10)

And the scriptures say that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

The doctrine of "the Fall" must also be an incorrect understanding of Scripture because it is in conflict with proven science. The science of genetics has determined that information coded within the nucleotide sequences of human RNA and DNA is fully responsible for determining what characteristics will be inherited by a couple's children. And this branch of science has proven conclusively that a human being's genetic code cannot be altered by actions as ordinary as those performed by Adam in the garden of Eden.

I do not believe the Bible teaches that mankind "fell." Rather, I believe it tells us that God originally created the human race as free people. Free to do both right and wrong. In the exact same way we are free to do so today. Unfortunately we often choose to do what is wrong rather than what is right. God, however, cannot do wrong. For God is "Incorruptible." (Romans 1:23) So, because we can and often do behave unrighteously, and because God cannot and never does behave unrighteously, we are less righteous than God. And, because "all unrighteousness is sin" we are all born "sinful". (1 John 5:17, New American Standard Bible; Psalms 51:5)

Being able to do wrong, Adam was, from his very beginning, also less righteous than God. And he later proved his "sinful" condition by his behavior. Because Adam in paradise could not manage to obey one simple command from God, he clearly demonstrated that he and the entire human race, including those who had lived before him and those who would live after him, were far less righteous than God.

So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) This is true because Adam's disobedience demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift God had not yet given to any human being.

So, if mankind did not "fall," what did happen in Eden?

I believe those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" also basically misunderstand the events which transpired in Eden.

The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal with a dying nature just like us. The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life". (Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to continue to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life."

Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to continue eating from "the tree of life" their lives would have been prolonged indefinitely. (Genesis 3:22-24) But when God prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths. A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.

Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life."

I believe that "tree of life" was meant to picture Jesus Christ.

For, as we have seen, God was going to give Adam and Eve eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life," only if they passed a very simple test. And the Bible tells us that we will be given eternal life from an outside source, Jesus Christ, only if we pass a very simple test. That test is to simply believe in our hearts that Christ's death was sufficient payment to buy every human being God's full forgiveness, forgiveness for both our sinful nature and our sinful acts.

I see no other way to understand the Bible's story of Adam and Eve. And the traditional concept of "the Fall," I am convinced, is in conflict with several clear teachings of scripture, proven science and a natural reading of the events which took place in the garden of Eden.
Much more remains to be written on this subject.
serotonin_wraith

If the land of Noah (southern Mesopotamia) was destroyed by a flood, and it has never been destroyed again since then, then God's word to Noah were true.

If being the operative word. If there was a God talking about a local flood, and it wasn't a real local flood that became legend and part of stories such as the Epic of Gilgamesh (
2150-2000 BCE) and the Genesis account (around 1450 BC).
southern Mesopotamia resembling a "trough." There are now no "mountains" in southern Mesopotamia. And even the "high hills" in the area were not so high at the time.

Genesis 7:20
The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.
One gap in the mountain range would have the water pouring away before it reached the mountain tops.
Assuming all the hills/mountains surrounding the trough were exactly the same height (which I find very unlikely- well, it would have to be one long circular mountain), the waters would have overflowed, not carried on for another twenty feet.
All people in the land of Noah.

Your words, not the Bible's.

This seemingly universal language must be understood from Noah's perspective. The world as Noah saw it was a much smaller place 5,000 years ago. No jet planes, no world wide web, etc.

I think they were aware there was much more to the world beyond their 'trough'. Come on now. And forget 5000 years ago, didn't 'Moses' write the account 3500 years ago?
Why did God choose to deal in a special way with the Jews and not with the American Indians? The answer to such questions is usually that God has chosen to use small groups of people in the Middle East to teach all mankind large lessons.

Another answer could be that this was a religion made up by the Jews in which the god they worshipped is on the side of ... the Jews, funnily enough. Neither of us believe in the gods who apparently took an interest in the Egyptians (according to the Egyptians). What I'm doing is applying the same reasoning to the Jewish god, and you're making an exception.
Maybe God wanted Noah's actions to represent a future judgment that will truly be "world wide" - as we now use that phrase.

Maybe it's just silly to honestly believe two kangaroos swam to what is now modern day Iraq to board a boat, live through a flood, then return to their native Australia once it was over. Same with other animals.
Peter's comment about Noah being a preacher almost certainly came from these extra-biblical histories which have since been lost, many no doubt at the destruction of Jerusalem's temple and its library in AD 70.

Or, perhaps people thought it was strange that Noah didn't try to warn people and that God didn't tell him to, so Peter wrote that line to make things right.
Very possibly enough room for everyone in his land who might have repented but did not.

Apologists have a hard enough time explaining how all the millions of animals fitted into the Ark. Plus the food and other things that were needed (as seen by these recent Noah threads).
I didn't say accepting Christ is not necessary for salvation. I just suggested that God may judge the Christian world before the entire world has had an opportunity to accept Christ and that they will be given that opportunity afterwards.

Still, better to stop setting people up perhaps. Take me. I've been told about Christianity, and I don't believe for the same reason you don't believe in the Egyptian gods. I've got just as much reason to believe in them as I have to believe in your choice of god. But if I see a third of the world being judged/raptured/whatever, I'll know your god is real, and I will believe. Therefore giving me a much better chance of survival.
The Bible certainly contains much fodder for unbelievers and much that even believers find hard to understand. I could offer what I consider to be reasonable explanations to all such criticisms. But I doubt you would find them convincing.

Perhaps not. That wouldn't be to spite you, it would just be me being honest about what I was reading.
I've gone into the Adam/Eve/evolution stuff in another thread, so rather than copy that here I'll link you to what my thoughts were.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/146464/1.ashx

To add to that, if there were humans already around, what's going on when it says God made Adam from clay and divine breath, and woman from his rib, Adam being shown potential animal mates when women was already around, the snake being made to crawl on its belly (when it had been doing so long enough!) and well, the rest is in that thread if you're interested. I'll go in to what you've put on the subject next time.
One thing I'll answer now:
A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.

I think living for hundreds of years is unnatural, yet back in those days, the Bible has people living for hundreds of years.
Farkel

A Christian said:
: Just because you don't understand something does not mean it never happened.
That, in formal logic is known as argumentum from idiocy and is the last resort of people who have run out of real arguments.
"Just because you don't believe that I claim there are 50 million invisible purple unicorns floating around my head and telling me about God, is no proof they aren't really there."
"Just because you do not believe that God is a duck, does not mean God cannot be a duck."
One cannot disprove nor prove a negative assertion, and that is exactly what clueless people without any positive arguments do not understand. That is why they are clueless.
"God tells me all short people are cursed. PROVE ME WRONG." It cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven given the nature of the assertion.
Idiotic special pleading at its worst.
Farkel

The Biblical Flood Thoroughly Trashed

Share this