space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian 251 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  aChristian

  Rem,

  You wrote: Why would god allow 99% of Christians and Jews throughout history to believe that the words in the account can be taken at face value if he really meant for them to find hidden meanings in alternate interpretations of words?

  Because the subject matter, global vs. local flood, has been unimportant to 99% of Christians and Jews throughout history, up until now. Just as the subject of whether or not God created the world in six 24-hour days has been unimportant to 99% of Christians and Jews throughout history, up until rather recently. (Now most Christians understand that the Hebrew word for "day" which Moses used in Genesis can simply refer to a period of time of undesignated length.) And Just as the subject of whether the sun revolves around the earth or vise versa had been unimportant to 99% of Christians and Jews throughout history, up until Galileo proved the case for "vise versa" in the 1600's. He then did so much to the embarrassment of the religious leaders who then all insisted that the Bible "clearly" taught that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, however, you would be hard pressed to find a single religious leader, or for that matter a single Bible reader, who believes the Bible teaches such a thing. I do not believe that God intended for us to interpret the Bible, or to try to fully understand anything else for that matter, in a vacuum. I believe God has provided us with many valuable tools to help us do so. These things include information provided to us Hebrew and Greek scholars, by historians, by archeologists, by geologists, by astronomers and by experts in various other areas of learning. Today some are saying the Bible is not to be trusted because it teaches that the entire planet was flooded just a few thousand years ago. Of course we know that it was not. This was not an issue until only very recently. So I see no reason why God would have seen fit to clear this matter up before this time. I believe He is now doing so. Just as He saw fit to clear up another misunderstanding of the scriptures in Galileo's day.

  You wrote: Peter believed in a global flood.

  The verses you cited prove no such thing. In referring to the flood, Peter said "The world at that time was destroyed." You may want to check out the Greek meaning of the word used by Peter which is translated as "world" in this verse. It often carries a far less than universal or global meaning. The Greek word Peter there used primarily denotes an order of things or an arrangement of things. In fact Peter's own use of the word is translated just that way in 1 Pet. 3:3. Elsewhere in the New Testament the word is used on occasion to refer only to the Gentile world. (See Rom. 11:12,15)

  You wrote: The flood story is simple: It is a myth of a Global (Earth-wide) flood. That is how people understood it back in ancient times up till now.

  I suggest you research this subject matter a bit more before you speak so authoritatively on it. Have you heard of Philo of Alexandria? He was a Jewish historian who lived between the years 30 B.C. and A.D. 45, and is overshadowed only by Josephus as the outstanding historian of his time. And when I say "his time" you may want to keep in mind that "his time" was also the time of both Jesus and Peter. In his work "Questions and Answers on Genesis" Philo wrote that the flood of Noah's day was not a "trifling outpouring of water but an immense one, which ALMOST flowed out beyond the Pillars of Hercules (the Straights of Gibraltar) and the Great Sea." Notice his word "almost." Here Phillo certainly appeared to limit the flood's extent to the Mediterranean basin. So, all of the ancients did not understand that the flood of Noah's day was global, as you seem to have said. The fact is, and this may get to the real heart of the matter, most of the ancients did not even understand the concept of the word "global."

  You wrote: Ask any child what the story is about and they'll tell you.

  I prefer not to have children explain the Bible to me. For most children don't even know the meanings of many English words, let alone all the meanings of many Greek and Hebrew words. And I have found that sometimes such knowledge is quite helpful in understanding some passages of scripture.
• 

  aChristian

  Rem,

  I just read your response to "Faithful." I have never said my understandings were "mainstream" or tried to make them sound that way. I have only tried to make them sound reasonable. But it seems to me that any Christian, "mainstream" or otherwise, would have a hard time in a discussion with you. For you seem to criticize all "fundies" for being brain-dead and then criticize "liberal" Christians for being out of "the mainstream."

  Your statement that "the majority" of Christians and/or Christian scholarship recognizes the fact that the Bible's flood account "is a myth" is far from accurate. I have read tons of Christian commentaries on the flood and spoken with many Christians and Christian clergy members from many denominations on this subject matter. Very, very few of them have ever said they consider the story of Noah's flood to be fictional. They nearly all have said they believe it is historical. Most of them, of course, still believe the flood was global. But a large minority of Christians and clergy members I have spoken to in the last couple years have told me they think the flood did not cover the whole earth.
• 

  aChristian

  Gweedo,

  You wrote: Maybe God could have used lightning bolts to selectively kill all the bad people and then had Mr. and Mrs. Noah go and get them all. He could have had the angels to look after the kids until Mr. and Mrs. Noah got to them. ... What about those people on the fringes of the flood and comet impact who would have suffered greatly?

  One of the lessons taught in the flood of Noah's day was that when people live their lives unrighteously their actions often end up hurting not just themselves, but also their children and even their neighbors. Yes, God could have used some kind of "smart bombs" to kill just the guilty adults in Noah's land, and He could have made sure that no one in any neighboring land was harmed in any way by the judgment He brought upon Noah's land. But had he done those things, the lesson I just spoke of would not have been taught. The U.S. military is right to be as careful as possible not to kill any innocents in their military actions. For when they do so they have no power resurrect the dead. But God does have that power. And, as I have pointed out before, the Bible indicates that He will one day resurrect everyone who has ever lived and died, including any innocent people who died in His past judgments, such as Noah's flood.
• 

  rem

  aChristian,

  Well, I suppose your beliefs don't hurt anyone. I can't prove to you the Flood account is a myth, just like I can't prove the Odyssey is a myth and Santa doesn't exist.

  You wrote: Peter believed in a global flood.

  The verses you cited prove no such thing. In referring to the flood, Peter said "The world at that time was destroyed."

  You took that phrase out of context. Read the whole quote I gave you. Peter is speaking of a global flood. It's quite obvious that that he believed the flood covered the whole earth - the earth that god created ("the earth was formed out of water"), not a specific area. Even the Zondervan scholars (who bring up some arguments for a local flood) for their study bibles agree that Peter was clearly speaking about a global deluge.

  In his work "Questions and Answers on Genesis" Philo wrote that the flood of Noah's day was not a "trifling outpouring of water but an immense one, which ALMOST flowed out beyond the Pillars of Hercules (the Straights of Gibraltar) and the Great Sea." Notice his word "almost." Here Phillo certainly appeared to limit the flood's extent to the Mediterranean basin. So, all of the ancients did not understand that the flood of Noah's day was global, as you seem to have said. The fact is, and this may get to the real heart of the matter, most of the ancients did not even understand the concept of the word "global."

  I said that is how people understood it. I was speaking in general terms and I should have been more careful because I knew you were going to bring up Philo like you did last time. I didn't mean there weren't ever any divergent views, but in general the global (or whole land) interpretation was the most obvious and accepted view. I don't see Philo's view of the flood being that influential on Jewish or Christian thought after his lifetime. I don't think Philo spoke for all or even the majority of Jews and Christians, at the time. If he did, then why the blatant Global language in 2 Peter? Why have the majority of Bible believers understood the story to be a global flood since then?

  I prefer not to have children explain the Bible to me

  It's my belief that the God of the universe could communicate his thoughts in such a way that even a child could understand them. Surely the story of the flood is not that complicated. No, I think you are the one making the story more complicated than it is. We could rationalize Paul Bunyan all day if we wanted to make it fit the facts of the world we live in, but all we would be doing is twisting the simple story and making the language more complex than need be. (Blue ox could really mean sad ox, etc.)

  View the story as a myth, and there is no explaining away troubling passages and words. The author's intent comes through quite easily.

  For you seem to criticize all "fundies" for being brain-dead and then criticize "liberal" Christians for being out of "the mainstream."

  Fundies are brain dead, but at least they are honest with the scriptures. Liberal Christians who believe fanciful stories are real historical accounts dissapoint me. Just because you feel you can localize the flood (with major scripture twisting) doesn't make the account historical. Global or local, to me it's still too fantastic to be a historical account. I suppose I'm more sympathetic to the Catholic scholarship, which seems to be not-so-apologetic when it comes to these OT stories. They don't seem to be afraid to call an obvious myth a myth and glean the spiritual meaning from the story.

  But in the end, as long as nobody is flying airplanes into tall buildings I suppose what stories you believe are not really that big of a deal.

  Have a happy holiday!

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  GWEEDO

  Achristian,

  One of the lessons taught in the flood of Noah's day was that when people live their lives unrighteously their actions often end up hurting not just themselves, but also their children and even their neighbors.

  But it wasn't their actions that cost their childrens lives. It was Gods actions. The lesson I learn from the flood story is this: cross God and he will punish you severly and he doesn't care if he makes the innocent suffer in the process. He will put his desire to speak in cryptic messages and symbols ahead of innocent human suffering. I have trouble with such a God. The thought of such a God doesn't warm my heart at all!

  Yes, God could have used some kind of "smart bombs" to kill just the guilty adults in Noah's land, and He could have made sure that no one in any neighboring land was harmed in any way by the judgment He brought upon Noah's land. But had he done those things, the lesson I just spoke of would not have been taught.

  Surely by God just zapping people selectively, the lesson that our actions have consequences would still have been taught. The lesson is simple: live an unrighteous life and God will zap you with lightning bolts, as opposed to: live an unrighteous life and God will kill you and many others who probably dont deserve it. To selectively kill would have been a good way of God expressing his concern for innocence; It would have been an example to us that we should hold innocence in high regard; That people should not be held accountable for other peoples actions. It would have taught us that God actually believes in and abides by the laws he demands us humans abide by: Dt. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20.
• 

  aChristian

  You wrote: Even the Zondervan scholars (who bring up some arguments for a local flood) for their study bibles agree that Peter was clearly speaking about a global deluge.

  I have studied the Greek text of Peter's words here in question and do not agree with your assessment of them. I can tell you why I don't, but I doubt you really want me to do so. So, I wont, unless you tell me you really want to discuss this subject matter further.

  You wrote: I should have been more careful because I knew you were going to bring up Philo like you did last time. I didn't mean there weren't ever any divergent views, but in general the global (or whole land) interpretation was the most obvious and accepted view.

  Agreed, as it is today. I've never argued that the understanding I have presented, that the flood of Noah's day was neither geographically nor anthropologically universal, has ever been the way most people have understood the Bible. However, your "most people have always understood the Bible this way" argument could also be made to support the understanding that the creative "days" of Genesis were definitely meant by the writer of Genesis to be understood as 24-hour days, and, up until the time of Galileo, to support the understanding that the Bible teaches that the sun revolves around the earth. How most people understand the Bible has not proven in the past that majority understandings are always right. And it does not prove such a thing today.

  You wrote: Fundies are brain dead, but at least they are honest ... Liberal Christians .... disappoint me. ... I suppose I'm more sympathetic to the Catholic scholarship, ... They don't seem to be afraid to call an obvious myth a myth.

  So, let's see. You don't like Fundamentalist Christians because you say they are brain dead. And you don't like liberal Christians who refuse to admit that the Bible contains myths because you think they are dishonest. But you respect people who believe that a book that is filled with myths is actually the inspired word of God. OK.

  You wrote: Have a happy holiday!

  You too, Rem. You too.
• 

  aChristian

  Gweedo,

  You wrote: But it wasn't their actions that cost their childrens lives.

  Yes, it was. When we live unrighteously we not only lose God's blessings and His protection, but we deserve and can rightfully expect to be punished by God. But there is no way a parent can ever be punished by God that does not also hurt their children, and to a lessor degree all those around them. I believe the flood of Noah's day taught this lesson. A lesson that you say was unfair to the children and the neighbors of the guilty adults in Noah's land. But that "unfairness" is part of the same lesson I just mentioned. When we behave unrighteously our actions often end up unfairly hurting innocent people. God does not now protect innocent people from the consequences of guilty people's actions. Neither did He do so at the time of Noah's flood.

  Of course, all of this would make the God of the Bible seem to be quite heartless if He had not also promised to resurrect everyone who ever unfairly lost their life as a result of another person's wrongful acts. But, as I have pointed out before, the God of the Bible has promised to restore the lives of all such people.

  Hey, we may disagree here. But we usually manage to do so without being disagreeable. Besides, this discussion board would be kind of dull if we all agreed on everything.

  Have a great Christmas, Gweedo.
• 

  GWEEDO

  >But it wasn't their actions that cost their childrens lives.

  Yes, it was...

  No it wasn't

  It was God who chose to act the way he did. He could have struke them down with lightning bolts; He could have done nothing; But he's the one who chose to act the way he did...not anyone else. I think your passing the buck here.

  but anyway...

  Hey, we may disagree here. But we usually manage to do so without being disagreeable. Besides, this discussion board would be kind of dull if we all agreed on everything.

  agreed

  Have a great Christmas, Gweedo.

  dido

  ...and dont drink too much plonk!
• 

  AlanF

  I strongly disagree with you about God's punishing the innocent along with the guilty, aChristian. In any civilized society, when a criminal can be isolated it is he and he alone who is punished. His family may suffer cetain side effects, such as when the breadwinner is imprisoned, but that's not the same as suffering direct punishment. Who in his right mind would say that killing the entire innocent family of a murderer along with the killer is right? I'm sure you don't. Yet you excuse exactly this kind of conduct on the part of God.

  And don't try making excuses for God along the lines of, "Well, look at how Al-Qaeda fighters families suffer and are killed along with the head of the household." The U.S. and its allies are not God and have no ability to separate the killers from their families. God can easily separate the guilty from the innocent and make full provision to support them. The fact that God does not do this kind of thing in general seems to me a proof that he does not want to.

  This is exactly the kind of double standard that makes so many, including me, have much distaste for the way Christianity is often defended. "Whatever God does is good", is the refrain. I've been forced to conclude, especially from stories like that of Job, that this sentiment is true: "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport".

  Tell me, aChristian, if God directly told you to kill your family, would you do it? Why or why not? How about if he told you to kill a thousand of your neighbors and gave you the weapons to do it? Why would you do it, or why not? Would you think it right for God to do so? Why or why not?

  AlanF
• 

  D wiltshire

  Alan,

  The points you make here are valid points that have not ever really been answered well by Christians.
  Although I concider myself a christian I don't have a good answer and I feel that I have to be honest and admit it.
  I am learning everyday but will I find a good answer to the problem you bring up before I die, I don't think so.
  My reasons for beleiving in God are not based on finding an answer to this aspect of God's fairness, Although it would be nice if I did.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?