by Farkel 140 Replies latest watchtower bible
Since the Bible makes it clear that Jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust Jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of God?
Farkel
Hi Farkel: Jesus never stated that he believed in a literal world-wide / planetary flood. He merely spoke of Noah and mentioned the flood. The 'world of that time' could easily be a euphamism for the general locale of people around Noah. This is not to say for sure that Jesus didn't mean a world wide flood, but he just never specified. I think a worldwide flood never happened, in fact scientific evidence proves it cuold not have happened ... so I have to hope Jesus was speaking of a local event.
This is what gets me about theists... they never can nail down a solid fact. There always seems to be "possible" exceptions to every interpretation that is posed.
"As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
Believe in yourself, not mythology.
<x ><
As always, the Bible itself must serve as our guide. That reliable, holy Book has stood the test of time.
Could there be a lack of harmony between the views of God's Son, Jesus, and the inspired Scriptural account of the Flood? Far from it! The Bible's perfect consistency is renowned with good reason. And the Scriptures contain all we need to know on any given subject.
So for clarification, let us consult the record in Genesis 7:22:
"Everything in which the breath of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died [in a limited area somewhere in the Middle East]."
Truly, God's Word is alive and exerts power!
comment
That the Bible itself does not tell us that a global flood occurred in Noah's day can be seen from a careful examination of the text. To begin with we do well to keep in mind that the word widely translated as "earth" in the flood narrative, giving the impression that our entire planet was flooded, is often translated elsewhere in the Old Testament as "land." ( In acknowledging this fact, the translators of The New American Standard Bible chose to translate the same Hebrew word as both "land" and "earth" throughout the flood narrative.) We can certainly understand that without our modern means of global communication and global travel ancient peoples must have had a much more limited view of their world than we do today. That being the case, it seems more likely that the flood account in Genesis recounted the story of the whole "land" of Noah being flooded than the whole "earth" being flooded.
But doesn't the Bible's story of the flood say that all the high "mountains" were covered with water? And if that was true, since water seeks its own level, wouldn't that mean the whole earth had to have been flooded? For an answer to such questions we again have to look at the ancient Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrew word which has been widely translated as "mountains" in the flood narrative is translated elsewhere in the Old Testament simply as "hills." You see, the ancient Hebrews had only one word to describe what may have been either a small mound of earth or a Himalayan peak. That being the case, the flood narrative can certainly be understood as telling us that "all the high hills in the land of Noah were covered with water to a depth of about twenty feet." (see Gen. 7:20, 21)
But what about the unmistakably "universal" language used in the account? Doesn't the Bible tell us that God destroyed "all life under the heavens" (Gen. 6:17) during the flood? Yes, it does. But it also tells us that "all nations under heaven" lived in fear because of Joshua's conquest of Canaan. (Deut. 2:25) We are also told that during a famine that occurred at the time of Joseph, "The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph." (Gen. 41:57) And it tells us that at the time of Paul the good news of Jesus Christ had been "proclaimed to every creature under heaven." (Col. 1:23) Are we to believe such statements included the nations of people which then lived in North America, South America, China and Australia?
We must remember that the world of the Bible writers was a much smaller world than our world today. Their part of the earth was then for them "the whole world." We should also accept the possibility that Bible writers may, at times, have used larger than life expressions, just as we often do today. We often use figures of speech such as, "This book weighs a ton," or "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." This common form of speech is called hyperbole. It is certainly possible that it may, at times, also have been used by Bible writers. When we use such exaggerated figures of speech for dramatic impact we are being neither inaccurate nor dishonest. The same can be said for the writers of Scripture.
But why would God have had Noah construct such a large ark if it was intended to carry only Noah, his family, and a collection of animals from his own land? Could it be that Noah was instructed to build an ark big enough to hold every person in the land that was about to be flooded! An ark with room enough for all those who might repent but didn't? We know that "God does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." How could Noah be telling a land full of people to repent and get on the ark if that ark had no room for them? God's plan of salvation today has room for everyone on earth, does it not? Should we believe that God's plan of salvation in Noah's day did not?
Another question that is sometimes asked is, "If the flood was confined to the land of Noah, why would God not have simply told Noah to take his family and pairs of animals and flee to higher ground?" Many who believe that the flood of Noah's day, as described in Genesis, was confined to the land of Noah say that the answer to this question can be found in 1 Peter 3:20,21. There we are told that Noah and his family, "were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism." So, they say that by choosing to save the lives of Noah and his family as they passed through the waters of the flood, God was symbolically pointing to a time when his people (Christians) would find salvation as they passed through the waters of baptism. There may also be other reasons. The Bible tells us that "Noah was a preacher of righteousness." He may very well have continued urging the residents of his land to repent and accept God's provision for their salvation right up to the day it began to rain. (Gen.7:11-13) If Noah had relocated away from the area that was to be flooded he would have been unable to offer his neighbors a way to escape God's coming judgment nearly as long as he did.
Some have also asked, "Wouldn't a 150 day flood require an enclosed area?"
First, we should keep in mind that Mesopotamia has often been described as a "trough" by geologists because it is "enclosed" by areas of higher elevation on its north, east and west sides. If part of central Mesopotamia suddenly lost elevation due to a meteor impact, which some scientists have recently said may have caused Noah's flood, and tidal waves from the Persian Gulf brought on by that same meteor impact, or another one accompanying it, drowned the land of Noah, as some now understand the epic of Gilgamesh to say, then that three sided "trough" may have temporarily turned into a four sided trough, that is until the land of Noah recovered its previous elevation, and while doing so drained its flood waters back into the Persian Gulf from which they mainly came. Remember, the Bible does not say that it was just the 40 days of rain that were responsible for the flood. It tells us that it was also and probably primarily caused by "waters of the great deep" which "burst forth." (Gen. 7:11) I say, "probably primarily caused" because that is the first cause listed.
I encourage all Christians to investigate the possibility that the Bible does not really teach that the whole earth was flooded at the time of Noah. For I believe that when Christians now promote such a teaching, a teaching which conflicts with all serious scientific evidence, they only succeed in making themselves, and Christianity, look very foolish to very many people.
I am sick and tired of apologists for the Bible who invoke the excuse, "It was written that way because it was more understandable to the people alive at the time, or because the language only had one word to describe a particular phenomenon."
Well, that's great to know. However, why doesn't this wonderful excuse hold true when others argue that prohibitions about the use of blood or homosexuality or whatever should be understood in context as local custom or prejudice of the time?
All of a sudden, in the mind of the same apologist, the Bible reverts to being this great universal text whose sacred prohibitions must be upheld with the same force in 2002 as they were in 20 AD.
What I want to know is: If God inspired the writing of the Bible as his message to ALL mankind, being a God of justice who "does not desire any to be destroyed" (2 Peter 3:9), why couldn't he arrange for these passages to be clear enough to be automatically understood the correct way by people living thousands of years later who are not fluent in ancient Hebrew?
Or couldn't God have picked another nation to be his chosen people if the Hebrews didn't have enough words in their language to make the Bible halfway clear?
There's obviously a huge communication gap if this was in fact some local flood but most people today still read the Bible and conclude that it's talking about a global Deluge.
I also have to roll my eyes at this particular explanation of why Noah and his family couldn't just have departed the region to be flooded:
"If Noah had relocated away from the area that was to be flooded he would have been unable to offer his neighbors a way to escape God's coming judgment nearly as long as he did."
Hmm. Maybe he could have told everybody, "There's going to be a flood here. That's why I'm moving. If you want to avoid the flood, you should move too."
He probably wouldn't have had any worse of a success ratio than he did with the method he chose to use, which resulted in the death of everyone but the eight members of his extended family.
I could go on and on about the logistics of loading the animals on the Ark, let alone all the people, but I won't.
comment
AChristian asks,
Could it be that Noah was instructed to build an ark big enough to hold every person in the land that was about to be flooded! An ark with room enough for all those who might repent but didn't?No, it could not be. Genesis (see below) makes it clear that God told Noah he was going to kill all the people besides Noah and his family. God doesn’t say that he was going to kill all the people except those who repent; the all-knowing god of the Bible is infinitely intelligent, so he obviously is smart enough to have known how to say what he really meant, so if he really meant that he was going to kill everyone except Noah and his family--and those who repented, he would have said so.
If that’s not enough proof for you, then note that God said nothing about storing away food for the untold many who might repent; he told Noah to provide food for the animals and for Noah and his family, period. What were the people who repented going to eat? The fact that God doesn’t instruct Noah to plan to have additional food for the unknown numbers of persons who might repent should convince you that God knew that only Noah and his family, and the many animals, were going to be the passengers on that boat. Thus, the boat is as large as it is because the Bible writer wants us to understand that it was going to hold two of every single animal on the face of the globe, not just two each of every kind of animal on Noah's land.
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. So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it.... Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark--you and your sons and your wife and your sons wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." (Genesis 6:13-31)
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Joseph,
As usual, you make the Bible say something it does not say.
You wrote: Genesis (see below) makes it clear that God told Noah he was going to kill "all" the people besides Noah and his family. ...he told Noah to provide food for the animals and for Noah and his family, period.
However, the Bible verses you quoted to support your contention say this: "So GOD said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people..."
Obviously when God said that He was going to put an end to "all people" He did not mean literally "all" people. For, as we know, He certainly intended for Noah to survive the flood. So, when he said "all people" He must have meant "all people" outside of the ark. This means that "all" who came inside the ark would not perish in the flood. Your contention that God never intended for Noah to give anyone in his land a chance to repent and take refuge in the ark flatly contradicts what the Bible clearly implies in this story, especially when we remember that the Bible calls Noah "a preacher of righteousness." Any message of "righteousness" that God's prophets have ever preached has been one in which wrong doers were urged to repent.
Had some people repented at the last minute I'm sure God would have allowed Noah a bit more time to bring some more food on board.
Yes indeed, that's just how it happened. Then God put away His arrows and hung His bow on the wall of heaven.
I think it is fair to say that whoever wrote Genesis had a very limited scientific understanding of the world in which he lived. Most of nature was a mystery to him.
Let us examine what he did "know"; namely, God lived in heaven, which was in the sky. (Offerings to God were burned so that the smoke would carry the offering to heaven.)
Assuming this is true, is it possible that if such a man were caught outside during a thunderstorm he might think God was angry? Rain, wind, thunder and lightning all coming down from heaven. And when the storm ended and the warm sun began to shine, would he think God was no longer angry?
And what would he think if a bright arc of color appeared in heaven? Using his reasoning abilities he might assume this thing, which appeared out of nowhere; in heaven, belonged to God. He might compare it to things here on earth. To him it might resesmble a bow like the archers used. Could it be that the story of the Flood isn't really about a flood at all? Could it be just a way of explaining rainbows?
If my assumptions are correct the author of Genesis thought a rainbow was God's bow ( a weapon ) which God had hung up on the wall of heaven as a sign of peace (after the violence of the storm).
Ge 9:13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth.
Ge 9:14 "And it shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud,
Ge 9:16 "When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."
If he believed God had a bow, he would likely think God had arrows also. These arrows would have been in use prior to the time God hung up his bow. What would these arrows be? Lightning!!!
Following these assumptions, we should be able to find bible references to lightning as God's arrows.
Psa77:17 The clouds poured out water: the skies sent out a sound: thine (God's) arrows also went abroad.
2 Samuel 22:15
He (God) shot arrows and scattered [the enemies], bolts of lightning and routed them.
Psalm 18:14
He shot his arrows and scattered [the enemies], great bolts of lightning and routed them.
Psalm 144:6
Send forth lightning and scatter [the enemies]; shoot your arrows and rout them.
Psalm 64:7 But God shall shoot at them with an arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded.
Num24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Deu32:23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I (God) will spend mine arrows upon them.
Psa7:13 He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he (God) ordaineth his arrows against the persecutors.
comment,
: What I want to know is: If God inspired the writing of the Bible as his message to ALL mankind, being a God of justice who "does not desire any to be destroyed" (2 Peter 3:9), why couldn't he arrange for these passages to be clear enough to be automatically understood the correct way by people living thousands of years later who are not fluent in ancient Hebrew?
: Or couldn't God have picked another nation to be his chosen people if the Hebrews didn't have enough words in their language to make the Bible halfway clear?
Spot on! How often we heard Bible apologists come up with the insane excuse, "well, the Bible didn't mean what it meant." We have the phrases "entire earth" which didn't mean "entire earth," but meant "entire region." We have a phrase which describes the destruction of everyone on the earth which didn't mean the destruction of everyone on the earth at all, but meant "everyone in that immediate vicinity." We have the "highest mountain" which doesn't mean "highest mountain" at all, but "highest hill," ad nauseum.
This apology is particularly pathetic because it is asserted that the Hebrews didn't have a language well enough developed to have a word that described only a particular region. No! They only had a phrase which described the entire earth and which could either mean the actual entire earth, or the adjoining two block to one's house! How ridiculous! There are PLENTY of Bible verses in surrounding texts the clearly describe specific areas, so that whole argument collapses.
By the way, it was supposedly Jehovah himself who INVENTED their language. If the argument of these apologists is to hold, then it begs the question, "Why did Jehovah invented such a crappy language for his own people?"
Sometimes people just cannot face the obvious: stories like that are all bullshit and all the excusogetics in the world cannot change bullshit into anything other than bullshit.
Farkel
