What Jesus Said About the Flood (page 3)

sir82

"plate teutonics" - is that another name for Austrian ceramics?

Vidiot

Snowbird - "I'm merely stating my beliefs."

That's all well and good, Snowbird, but what if your beliefs can be refuted by evidence, reason, or a combination of the two?

Someone educate me........why couldn't it be said that the flood was global in the sense of it affecting the known population in that area? The way I figure, if there were people in the Americas back then, the folks in the Middle East wouldn't have known about it. Did you know there's kids in South Central Los Angeles who've never been to the beach? I saw that on a gang documentary, and it blew me away. I'm like, you live in Los Angeles, and you've never been to the beach? Considering such, to those living in Noah's time, they couldn't imagine life outside of what they were exposed to in their geographics, which I'm sure was limited.

Another thing, Jesus likened his time on earth and his death to Jonah, which people use to verify the authenticity of Jonah's story. I find that interesting considering there's some evidence supporting Jonah's story to be a myth as well.

Qcmbr

If that is so then let us consider this:

1 - If the flood story is accepted as a myth -and it is seemingly by most Christians on this and related threads- the reason they believe it is a myth is because they are faced with almost irrefutable scientific evidence (I'm giving you room here BrotherDan ;) ) there is nothing in a pure reading of the bible alone to suggest anyone else talked about it as a simple allegory(reference Leo' comments at the end of the other thread). So having accepted scientific evidence for one biblical miracle what allows any moral integrity in the stance of ignoring scientific evidence and accepting a virgin birth, wandering star, levitating angels, water transmogrification, ex-nihilo baguette and sprat production, fishing boat based weather modification, resurrection etc.? If a 'god' can do those things why deny that same being the opportunity to flood globally?

2 - If we assume - an it is a very tenuous unsupported by evidence assumption - that somehow it was known by the often illiterate and highly superstitious people (who often struggled with basic parable symbolism) that it was simply a myth then to what use was Jesus (and others) making of this story? Well it was to threaten people to be good! Jesus would then basically stand accused of saying 'follow me otherwise you will die a horrible physical death.' Thus he is using an analogy of incredible destruction simply to exert power of them. If we assume that this terrible flood threat has a corollary with another terrible future myth threat:

2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

-then we expose Jesus as using non-existing events both past and future to induce fear based obedience. This is why it is important! This is what cults or power hungry people do - generate a fear inducing illusion, make it seem immediate and personal and then impose their will.

3 - If the flood is a myth, then the snake/Eden thing is even more suspect which dislodges the whole need for an atonement argument. Faith can only give way to facts and natural laws if it can live with the realisation that they wash away all insubstantial things. If you accept a flood myth you lose the ability to argue (from the bible) for ANY historical supernatural events from creation through to dead rising from the graves.

Qcmbr

oo and one thing I wanted to add (i know I've said too much already but this is interesting methinks!).

It was utter blasphemy to claim anything from Jehovah that was not correct. The very nature of God was so sacred that His name was treated as having special power. It is therefore difficult to accept a myth based story that includes a covenant between God and man. Which devout scribe would dare write down a covenant, uttered by God, in a made up story? Not only would that be blasphemous imo but it would also lead to accusation sthat maybe other covenants throughout the OT were likewise fabrications.

Vidiot

miseryloveselders - "Another thing, Jesus likened his time on earth and his death to Jonah, which people use to verify the authenticity of Jonah's story. I find that interesting considering there's some evidence supporting Jonah's story to be a myth as well."

Once again for the people in the nosebleed section; a parable has just as much value as a teaching aid as does an historical account, and Jesus was first and foremost a teacher. That's what "rabbi" means.

"...He would not speak to them except in parables..."

Qcmber - "If the flood is a myth, then the snake/Eden thing is even more suspect which dislodges the whole need for an atonement argument. Faith can only give way to facts and natural laws if it can live with the realisation that they wash away all insubstantial things. If you accept a flood myth you lose the ability to argue (from the bible) for ANY historical supernatural events from creation through to dead rising from the graves."

Another BIG reason why many evangelicals have a real problem with evolution.

snowbird

So far, I've found nothing to refute my beliefs, Vidiot.

Interesting, MLE, that the Book of Jasher, chapter two, states that the Lord God caused the River Gihon to overwhelm quite a portion of Earth's population prior to the Flood.

It also states that pre-Flood men forced their wives to drink a potion that rendered them infertile, a direct defiance of God's edict that they be fruitful and multiply.

Given the above, the Flood just may not have been as catastrophic as we've been led to believe.

Syl

Vidiot

Qcmber - "...I know I've said too much already..."

There is no such thing as saying too much. Saying too little is the fault, IMO.

Qcmber - "It was utter blasphemy to claim anything from Jehovah that was not correct. The very nature of God was so sacred that His name was treated as having special power. It is therefore difficult to accept a myth based story that includes a covenant between God and man. Which devout scribe would dare write down a covenant, uttered by God, in a made up story? Not only would that be blasphemous IMO but it would also lead to accusations that maybe other covenants throughout the OT were likewise fabrications."

Damn, I'd never thought of that.

Wow.

Vidiot

snowbird - "So far, I've found nothing to refute my beliefs, Vidiot."

Okeedokee, then.

I, on the other hand, have found increasingly obvious evidence and reasoning that refuted my former JW beliefs (hence, the fade). As such, my skeptical circuits kick into high gear whenever I hear the word "beliefs".

Sorry if I seemed like a smartass (although I freely admit that I occasionally am one - in fact, I'm quite good at it).

snowbird

You don't sound like a smartass, just a skeptic.

I like skeptics!

I, too, have left JW's by the wayside.

Way too dogmatic for me.

Syl

What Jesus Said About the Flood

Share this