.
Just As In the Days of Noah
by Farkel 140 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
aChristian
Faithful,
I believe your answer is the correct one to Joseph's question. God promised Noah and his descendants that He would never destroy all life in their land again by means of a flood. Bible chronology and recent tree ring studies both date Noah's flood to 2350 BC. Scientists now say that it is possible that a very large flood may have destroyed all of Mesopotamia at that time. They also tell us that no such flood has destroyed Mesopotamia since that time. God has kept His promise. For since the time of Noah's flood no flood has ever destroyed "all" life in Mesopotamia or even "much" of the life in Mesopotamia.
Gweedo,
No one who believes that the Bible describes a local flood has ever suggested that the Hebrew word for "never" does not mean "never." When I have pointed out that the Hebrew words for "every," for "mountains" and for "earth" sometimes had smaller meanings such as "many," "hills" and "land," I have done so with the support of Hebrew lexicons and by referring to other passages of the Old Testament.
I think you greatly overstate the importance of these things. You say if these things are true, and if the languages which the Bible was written in are not always able to be easily and perfectly translated into English, then God should have inspired all Bible translators to make sure nothing was ever lost in translation. You say that if He did not do so then we cannot trust the Bible.
I think you have missed my point. I maintain that nothing of any importance has been lost in these few possible mistranslations of a minor nature. None of the important lessons God wanted to convey to us, by havings the story of Noah's flood recorded in the Bible, have been lost.
Those lessons are these: God destroyed an ancient world because of its unrighteousness. Before doing so He sent the people of that world a preacher of righteousness to warn them of their coming destruction if they did not repent. God had this preacher of righteousness create a way for all who then chose to live righteous lives to escape destruction. God intends to bring a similar Judgment upon our world in the future. Before doing so He sent us a preacher of righteousness to warn us of our coming destruction if we do not repent. This preacher of righteousness, named Jesus Christ, also created a way for all who now choose to live righteous lives to escape this coming destruction.
I believe you know "the way" I am referring to. The New Testament tells us that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for all of our sins. It also tells us that all who believe in their hearts that He did so, and that God raised Him up from the dead, will be saved.
I do not believe God has "inspired" Bible translators. However, I do believe that He has made sure that nothing of importance to our salvation, or to living our everyday lives as Christians, has been lost in the preservation and translation of the Bible.
-
Faithful2Jah
Joe asked: >>>>>Are you saying, Faithful, that the covenant God made with the folks who would restart civilization applied only to the land of Noah, and not to the rest of the people who would be fathered by Noah and his children, the ones who would populate the rest of the world, folks such as you and me?
Joe, I think you got my drift. God promised Noah and his descendants that he would not destroy "the land" again. What land? "The land" he said he would destroy and did destroy earlier in the story. What "land" was that? A large part of Mesopotamia in which Noah lived.
By the way, most people who believe that the Genesis flood was a local flood which occurred in Mesopotamia only a few thousand years ago do not believe that very many people now on earth are Noah's descendants. For most of us "liberal" Christians accept what science now tells us, that the earth was then widely populated outside of Mesopotamia.
Earlier AC referred to several Bible scholars who believe as he does. I believe one of them is Dr. Davis Young. He is both an evangelical Christian Bible scholar and a professor of geology at a large college. He has written several books which discuss various aspects of Noah's flood. I have just checked one of them out of my local public library, "The Biblical Flood". In it he writes: "In the light of a wealth of mutually supportive evidence from a variety of disciplines and sources, it is simply no longer tenable to insist that a deluge drowned every human on the face of the globe except Noah's family. ... All the relevant evidence from the created order tells us that the flood was neither geographically nor anthropologically universal."
-
JosephAlward
Faithful,
You believe the flood was a local one, not global, and that it occurred in the Mesopotamian region. I agree with you, and with most scientists, who say that the flood could not have been global, but I believe that that Bible's flood story is a mythologized version of a the story of a real flood in the Mesopotamian valley. I furthermore believe the Bible clearly and unambiguously describes a global flood, and have presented many reasons why I believe this.
One of the verses which I believe shows the Bible is not speaking of a local flood is this one:
"I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you...never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:9-11)
This is a pledge by God never to bring an all-destroying flood onto Noah's descendants, who would multiply to occupy regions outside of the land of Noah.Since God never said that his promise never to bring a destroying flood to Noah's descendants was void if they moved outside that region, we have to conclude that God's covenant applied to all those regions into which the descendants might move.
Thus, God was not limiting his promise of no more destroying floods to the land of Noah; he was promising never again to flood the whole world. Thus, his covenant protected Noah's descendants wherever they went; the only way they could be protected everywhere is for God's promise to apply to the whole world, not just the land of their forefathers.
It is clear, therefore, that the flood God said would never come again was a global one, not a local one.
How do you address this issue? I would also like to hear what aChristian has to say.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
GWEEDO
AC
Faithful,
It was so nice of God to atleast leave us his rainbow though...I believe your answer is the correct one to Joseph's question. God promised Noah and his descendants that He would never destroy all life in their land again by means of a flood. Bible chronology and recent tree ring studies both date Noah's flood to 2350 BC. Scientists now say that it is possible that a very large flood may have destroyed all of Mesopotamia at that time. They also tell us that no such flood has destroyed Mesopotamia since that time. God has kept His promise. For since the time of Noah's flood no flood has ever destroyed "all" life in Mesopotamia or even "much" of the life in Mesopotamia.
But seriously, I think if you buy this answer, you'll buy just about anything.
keep duckin' and weavin'
Gweedo,
surprise surprise!No one who believes that the Bible describes a local flood has ever suggested that the Hebrew word for "never" does not mean "never."
When I have pointed out that the Hebrew words for "every,"
Actually, I find it hard to believe that...even if 'every' doesn't mean 'every' here. That it doesn't in fact atleast mean: "a great many". I find it hard to believe that Noah didn't take the vast majority of animals in his land onto the Ark. That said...there would have been no need to do so. You wanna tell me that there would have been been none of these animals on the the outlying region that would have survived. That Noah really needed to take them onto the Ark to preserve them alive, AS THE BIBLE SAYS, if a local flood 1000 miles by 60 happened [correction: '100 miles by 60]....yeah right! Like you said in another thread, few if ANY animals in that region would have been indigenous. Assuming that there might have been some indigenous animals around...Noah surely would have taken more than a few animals onboard anyway, so there would have been a lot of non-indigenous animals there that needed no preserving.But the idea that there are any indigenous animals I could really question. Its not the mesapotanian basin is really that isolated that animals cant easily spred outward. It not like it's that isolated an area that they have evolved like say animals down here in Australia.
But anyway...
I think you greatly overstate the importance of these things.
hyperbole...thats what that isYou say if these things are true, and if the languages which the Bible was written in are not always able to be easily and perfectly translated into English, then God should have inspired all Bible translators to make sure nothing was ever lost in translation.
would have been a good ideaYou say that if He did not do so then we cannot trust the Bible.
Well, he didn't do a very good job with the flood. I thought he might have had just a little bit of forethought and could see how promoting a Global flood, which the bible does on the face of it, could cause a so much trouble: disbelief. Why he wouldn't have just been straight up to begin with is beyond me. But according to you, he couldn't be bothered and decided to correct everything later...which apparently is now, still, he isn't doing a very good job.I think you have missed my point. I maintain that nothing of any importance has been lost in these few possible mistranslations of a minor nature.
He made sure he got all those contradictions in there, didn't here. One author says this, another that. An omnipotent being that cant even get his stort straight. How believeable is that.Before doing so He sent the people of that world a preacher of righteousness to warn them of their coming destruction if they did not repent.
actually this is your assumption. I think Joseph already pointed this out. There is nothing in the primary account at genesis that suggests that Noah went around preaching. You rely on some verse that calls Noah a 'preacher of righteousness'. Well...he may have been that, but that doesn't mean went around preaching about the flood. You just hope he did...because a God that would condemn a whole load of people without giving them a chance to repent is rather disagreeable.I believe you know "the way" I am referring to. The New Testament tells us that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for all of our sins.
A god that demands that an innocent man die to pay for the sins of others...is a pretty weird God, I'd say.It also tells us that all who believe in their hearts that He did so, and that God raised Him up from the dead, will be saved.
Guess I'm off to hell...I'm like Thomas. Jesus is going to have to stand in my living room to get me to believe. Even then, I probably wont believe, I'll probably think I'm hallucinating or something...so I'm doomed I guess.I do not believe God has "inspired" Bible translators.
Would have made sense if he had. A little bit of an oversight on the part of God. -
Faithful2Jah
Joseph: You quoted Genesis 9:9-11 which tells us that God said to Noah: "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you...never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."
You then added your own commentary and in it tried your best to make this passage say something it does not say. You wrote: "This is a pledge by God never to bring an all-destroying flood onto Noah's descendants, who would multiply to occupy regions outside of the land of Noah."
No it is not. God never made any such promise. He only promised Noah and his descendants that he would never again destroy the land. Which land? As the word "again" implies, the land he had just destroyed. The land in which Noah then lived.
Joe, get a new hobby. As has been said several times before on this board, as a Bible critic you leave a lot to be desired.
-
GWEEDO
Faithful
Joseph: You quoted Genesis 9:9-11 which tells us that God said to Noah: "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you...never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."
Yeah...he promised he would never destroy this nameless land of Noah and all flesh in it again. Of course we arn't really sure if 'all' flesh means 'all' here...It might mean 'much' as AC above is possibly suggesting.
You then added your own commentary and in it tried your best to make this passage say something it does not say. You wrote: "This is a pledge by God never to bring an all-destroying flood onto Noah's descendants, who would multiply to occupy regions outside of the land of Noah."No it is not. God never made any such promise. He only promised Noah and his descendants that he would never again destroy the land. Which land? As the word "again" implies, the land he had just destroyed. The land in which Noah then lived.
So, Noah has promised that he will not kill ALL or MUCH flesh in the Land of Noah. Who did he promise? He made the promise to Noah and his descendants and all the animals in the Ark for all generations till time indefinite... who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply and spread out upon the surface of the Ground (which specifically means the nameless land of Noah). So the agreement doesn't apply to those who spread outside these boundries. If any descendants of Noah ever moved down the nile and got flooded in a big way then they cant go to God and say 'you broke your covenant with us'. Because God will just say: 'I meant the land of Noah, dummy'. Yeah, and of course this agreement entirely allows smaller floods. So God can send a small deluge upon Noahs descendants even if they still live in the Land of Noah. To qualify as a breach of the agreement the flood has to kill ALL..or MUCH. Anything less than than that don't qualify. God would make one hell of a lawyer!
Joe, get a new hobby. As has been said several times before on this board, as a Bible critic you leave a lot to be desired.
Faithful..ALL (and I mean ALL here) bible critics leave a lot to be desired when your someone who thinks the bible is inerrant.hey, have you checked out his site. Not bad is it!
-
aChristian
Gweedo,
I will not object to your nonbelief. Besides you made it plain that you would refuse to believe even if you were standing in Thomas' shoes. (Make that sandals.) So there is obviously nothing I am going to be able to say to change your mind. I will however respond to a couple other issues you raised.
You wrote: It was so nice of God to at least leave us his rainbow though...
You are obviously poking fun at the fundy teaching that the flood account teaches that rainbows were first seen in earth's skies at the time of God's covenant with Noah following the flood. Of course the Bible does not say this. It only says that God used a rainbow as a sign of His covenant with Noah. When the writer of Genesis told us that God did so, he in no way implied that God then created rainbows. For a person who is familiar with the scriptures knows that God always used previously existing things to serve as signs of his covenants with men.
One example that comes to mind is circumcision. In Gen. 17:10-14 God told Abraham that from then on circumcision would act as a sign of the covenant He had just made with Abraham. Historians tell us that circumcision is a custom that existed long before Abraham. God also said that the Sabbath was to serve as a "sign" of His "covenant" with the new nation of Israel. (Ex. 31:16,17) And regular days of rest had been observed by many groups of people before the Jews began observing their Sabbath. Jesus used a simple cup of wine as a sign of "the new covenant" he made with his followers. Cups of wine were certainly not new at the time. (Luke 22:20) The Romans used the cross for executions before they put Christ to death on one. This does not in any way diminish the cross as a sign for Christians. Neither did the rainbow's preexistence in any way diminish it as a sign for Noah.
You wrote: [God] made sure he got all those contradictions in there, didn't he. One author says this, another that. An omnipotent being that cant even get his story straight. How believable is that.
For about 15 years after leaving the JWs I was an agnostic. During that time and since becoming a Christian I have examined more alleged Bible contradictions than you can shake a stick at. I have never run across one that turned out to be a real contradiction. However, this is not an invitation to challenge me to explain why some alleged Bible contradiction is not really a contradiction. I have played that game before with Bible critics. It can be never ending. So there is often little point in starting it, especially if the person presenting the alleged contradictions has already decided that he will never believe in God even if the risen Christ stands before him and allows him to put his hand into the holes in His hands and in His side.
Joseph,
Faithful gave you a perfectly good answer to your question. I have nothing to add to it.
-
JosephAlward
"I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you...never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:9-11)
Alward claimed,
"This is a pledge by God never to bring an all-destroying flood onto Noah's descendants, who would multiply to occupy regions outside of the land of Noah."
Faithful disagreed:No it is not. God never made any such promise. He only promised Noah and his descendants that he would never again destroy the land. Which land? As the word "again" implies, the land he had just destroyed. The land in which Noah then lived.
That seems pretty silly. Why would anyone care whether the soil of the land of Noah was never again to be flooded? God was guaranteeing the the people of Noah immunity from destruction by an all-killing flood, not the land. Who would care about the land more than the people? It's was God's chosen people that he was interested in protecting, not the soil of the land of Noah.It is thus obvious that God's promise of no more all-killing floods was extended to all of the descendants of Noah, wherever they would live. Thus, the flood God said would never come again was a global one.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
JosephAlward
Some members of this forum, most notably aChristian and Faithful, have argued that Noah’s flood was local, not global. They argue that the “earth” mentioned so often as being flooded was not the whole earth, but just the earth, or soil, of the “land of Noah,” wherever that is.
The question of whether Noah’s flood covered the entire globe, or was just a local flood should be settled once and for all time with the verses below. In them, readers will find that the Psalms writer describes an “earth” set on its foundations in the beginning by the Lord, who covered it with water above the mountains, and then drove the waters away, commanding that they never again will cover the earth.
Readers should note that the “earth” being described is NOT a limited region-- the “land of Noah”; it is the entire earth set on its foundations at the beginning. They should also note that this “earth”--the same one set on its foundations by God--is covered above the mountains with water in the manner of a garment wrapped around an person--in this case, wrapped around the earth. At God’s command, the waters were commanded never again to cover the earth.
Readers should also note that the reference to water being above the mountains distinguishes this description from the one in Genesis 1, as does the command for the water never again to cover the earth.
Here are the verses:
”In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” (Psalm 102:25)
“O Lord my God, you are very great; you are clothed with splendor and majesty. He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent ...
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains... But at your rebuke the waters fled...You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth. (Psalm 104:1-9)Is this clear to everyone, finally? The Psalm writer speaks of heavens stretched over the earth which God set on its foundations, and water covering this earth above the mountains. The writer is NOT speaking of a particular area--a “land of Noah”--which was set “on its foundations” and covered over the mountains with water; he was speaking of the entire earth which was set on its foundations by God “in the beginning”, then later wrapped in water in the manner of a garment. Thus, the Psalm writer is writing about Noah's flood, the one in which the high mountains were covered with water, and then commanded never to return again when God established his rainbow covenant with man.
Few teachings in the Bible are clearer than the one which holds that God covered the entire earth with water. Do you agree, now, aChristian, and Faithful, that the Bible writers thought the flood was global?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"