Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel 140 Replies latest watchtower bible

Faithful2Jah

Joe asked: Why didn't he just say that the large space in the ark was meant to provide comfortable living space, and a generous storage area for food, for each of the few hundred or so animal types in the "land of Noah"?
Probably because he was telling you how he believes things probably happened. I doubt he would say that they could not have happened the way you just suggested. Few Christians outside of the Watchtower act that way. I think he was just giving you his opinion. The one you just expressed also seems to me to be a reasonable possibility to me. Though I like AC's better. Somewhere in the New Testament I know it says that the flood waters pictured the waters of baptism through which it says we are now saved. Salvation through Christian baptism is available to everyone. So it seems to me that for this to be a good comparison salvation through the flood waters must also have been available to everyone. Just my opinion. : ) Though Joe's explanation seems sufficient to also explain why such a large ark was used.
aChristian

Faithful,
I appreciate your support.
I too find it helpful to sometimes read a few different translations and check the Greek as you did. You are right. I think Joe's suggested answer for why God asked Noah to build such a big ark is an adequate one. And I think it might be the correct one. Though I doubt it. Again, I go back to Peter calling Noah "a preacher of righteousness" in 2 Pet. 2:5. The suggestion that Peter was referring to Noah's holding that position after the flood seems highly unlikely. Why? Because about the only thing the Bible tells us about Noah's activities after the flood is that he became a "man of the soil," "planted a vineyard," got drunk from its wine, was found by one of his sons while he was both drunk and naked and cursed his son for exposing his embarrassing condition to his brothers. Not exactly the "preacher of righteousness" kind of stuff Peter probably had in mind. Besides, the internal context of this verse shows Peter was saying that Noah was "a preacher of righteousness" at the time God "protected Noah."
Again, thanks for your support.
JosephAlward

I know you do not like others here answering questions you ask AC.
That's not a problem now; you can take over for the defense, if you wish. You've already seen the many points I've made in the prosecution of my case, so I won't repeat all of them here. Instead, I will focus my attention on what the inspired Bible writers knew, and didn't know.
First, if it's true that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that God guided his writers as they were recording their understanding of one of the most important events since the Creation, then surely the all-powerful God would have made certain that we received an accurate description of his intentions and will.
How many more functions of the Bible are more important than informing mankind all about the circumstances leading up to the selection of the individuals who would be the parents of all of us? It is evident that this function was not served by the Bible, if what aChristian believes is true.
12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 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. (Genesis 6:12-13)
There can be no doubt that based on the Genesis verse above, and the killing flood which followed, countless Bible readers have believed that God intended for all of the people on earth to die except Noah and the seven others; the Bible is virtually crystal-clear on that issue, no matter what some misguided believers may think.
Now, here is my main point: If God had wanted us to know that he really did not want those people to die, but had hoped they would repent so he could save them, he would have made one-hundred percent sure the Genesis writer told us so, don't you think? God would have wanted us to have no doubt that insofar as his selection of those who would restart civilization, he was willing to be a forgiving god, if that's really what he planned to be in the days leading up to the flood, don't you agree? Why would he wish to keep this secret, or at least so well-hidden that only one person and three of his nameless "Bible scholar" friends four thousand years later would see "hints" of his "real" intentions?
It would be immensely important theologically for all Christians to know that God had hoped to restart civilization with more than just Noah and his family; doesn't that make sense? So, why isn't this told to us directly--at least somewhere in the Bible, if it's true? Isn't the likely explanation that it's not true, and that the Bible writers really did want us to know that the ark was large because it was supposed to hold two of every kind of animal on the face of the globe, not because God wanted to have room for a horde of repentant sinners?
The fact that we find no words in Genesis which explain what aChristian thinks was God's true will toward the pre-flood dwellers of the "land of Noah" should tell any objective, clear-thinking person that God probably didn't feel this way at all, that he did not plan to allow repentant sinners into the ark.
Now, Faithful, please try to answer all of my questions above clearly, then choose. Which do you think is the more likely scenario:
1. The Genesis writer told us the ark was large because he wanted us to know that it had to accommodate two of every type of animal on the face of the globe, or
2. aChristian's Peter-Preacher-of Righteousness theory?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
GWEEDO

Its very easy to debunk this local flood thing. If it was a local flood that came upon the earth, then God wouldn't have made Noah build an Ark... he would have just moved him to higher ground. I know what what AC will say to that.It's here that his arguments become reeeaaally strained, and seem to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking.
case closed!
Faithful2Jah

Joseph: It seems to me that the only really important lesson there is for us to learn from the story of Noah's flood is that God does not tolerate evil forever. He destroyed an evil world at the time of Noah and he will do so again. Whether or not he then allowed people to repent and escape the destruction that he was going to bring upon that world, to me does not seem important. It seems to me AC only raised the issue here to explain why he thinks the ark was such a big one if the flood was a relatively small one, as he thinks it was.
I say I don't think the issue of whether or not God allowed people at the time of the flood a chance to repent and be saved is really that important is because I believe God has at other times destroyed whole communities of people without first giving them a chance to repent and be saved. So if God's actions were justified when he destroyed those groups of people then his actions may have also been justified in destroying all people at the time of Noah's flood without giving them warning first and a chance to repent and be saved.
However, at this time I am leaning AC's way. Jesus and Peter both compared God's coming judgment on this world to that which he brought upon Noah's world. And we know he has given the people of this world plenty of chance to repent and be saved. They did not compare the judgment God will bring on this world to the judgments he brought upon various groups of Canaanites.
So science says if the story of Noah's flood is true it has to be describing a less than global flood. So why was the boat so big? So Noah, his family and a few animals would have lots of room to exercise, or so there would be plenty of room on the ark for any people who might of repented but didn't? I don't see that it makes a difference. God is God. I trust that either way, whether he gave the people living at the time of the flood a chance to repent and get on the ark or whether he did not, that he was justified in doing what he did. Especially since Jesus said everyone is going to be resurrected anyway. So, like I said, I don't see that it makes much difference. Maybe that is why Moses did not bother to make it crystal clear one way or the other.
JosephAlward

Faithful,
At least the now-mute aChristian answered all my questions in his farewell post to me. He cut and pasted all of the questions I asked, and he added underneath them comparatively lengthy answers.
Will you do the same? There were several questions I asked, but you answered almost none of them; you really only stated that you thought other things were important, and then you answered the question about which theory you preferred. You completely ignored the questions about what the Bible writers, if they were inspired by God, would have been told by God. These questions were at the heart of my argument.
Here are the questions I would like you to answer:
1. If it's true that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that God guided his writers as they were recording their understanding of one of the most important events since the Creation, then why did the all-powerful God not make certain that we received an accurate description of his intentions and will?
2. How many more functions of the Bible are more important than informing mankind all about the circumstances leading up to the selection of the individuals who would be the parents of all of us?
3. You do agree, don't you, that if what aChristian and--now--you believe is true, then these circumstances--God's plan that more than just Noah and his family would father us all--were not made explicitly known to thousands of years of Bible readers? If not, why not?
12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 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. (Genesis 6:12-13)
4. Do you have any doubt that based on the Genesis verse above, and the killing flood which followed, countless Bible readers have believed that God intended for all of the people on earth to die except Noah and the seven others? If so, why?
5. Do you doubt that if God had wanted us to know that he really did not want those people to die, but had hoped they would repent so he could save them, he would have made one-hundred percent sure the Genesis writer told us so? If so, why?
6. God would have wanted us to have no doubt that insofar as his selection of those who would restart civilization, he was willing to be a forgiving god, if that's really what he planned to be in the days leading up to the flood, don't you agree? If not, why not?
7. Why would he wish to keep this secret, or at least so well-hidden that only one person and three of his nameless "Bible scholar" friends four thousand years later would see "hints" of his "real" intentions?
8. It would be immensely important theologically for all Christians to know that God had hoped to restart civilization with more than just Noah and his family; doesn't that make sense?
9. So, why isn't this told to us directly--at least somewhere in the Bible, if it's true?
10. Isn't the likely explanation that it's not true, and that the Bible writers really did want us to know that the ark was large because it was supposed to hold two of every kind of animal on the face of the globe, not because God wanted to have room for a horde of repentant sinners? If not, why not?
11. Don't you agree that the fact that we find no words in Genesis which explain what aChristian thinks was God's true will toward the pre-flood dwellers of the "land of Noah" should tell any objective, clear-thinking person that God probably didn't feel this way at all, that he did not plan to allow repentant sinners into the ark? If not, why not?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
aChristian

Gweedo,
You wrote: If it was a local flood that came upon the earth, then God wouldn't have made Noah build an Ark... he would have just moved him to higher ground. I know what AC will say to that. It's here that his arguments become reeeaaally strained, and seem to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking.
No, they are based on Holy Scripture. The apostle Peter said that the waters of the flood were intended to symbolize Christian baptism. Yes, God could have simply told Noah and his family to leave the area. But in order to symbolize how people would be saved in the future, God saved Noah and his family as they passed through water, not as they ran from water. (1 Pet. 3:20,21) Besides, I believe Noah took a long time building that ark. The story of him building a giant boat nowhere near any body of water big enough to float it in, and why he said he was building it, probably spread throughout his land, helping greatly to spread the message of righteousness which Peter said he preached.
JosephAlward

aChristian writes,
The story of him building a giant boat nowhere near any body of water big enough to float it in, and why he said he was building it
Are you making this up, or do you have Bible verses you can show the forum which describe where in the world the ark was built? How do you know it wasn't near a body of water big enough to float the ark?
Before you can argue that there couldn't have been a body of water large enough to float the boat, you have to show how you estimate the weight of the ark, and then calculate the amount of water in inches or feet which would have to be displaced. If you cannot do this, then you should tell the forum that your statements are based only on hopeful speculation.
Where do you get support for your contention that Noah spoke to others about the reason he was building the boat? Where in the Bible does it say that?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
JosephAlward

aChristian and Faithful have argued the flood which killed men and animals was a local flood, a flood which they believe occurred only in the "land of Noah." However, this seems not to be possible, for the Bible clearly has God promising never again to bring a killing flood to the earth. If the "earth" God is talking about is just the local "land of Noah," then God's promise was broken. The evidence of this is found in the following passage:
9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you--the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you--every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth. (Genesis 6:9-11)"
God can't be speaking of a local flood that will "never again" destroy the earth, because there have been an uncountable number of local floods in the past few thousand years in which "all life" was cut off. Thus, God must be speaking of a global flood; if not, then he broke his promise.
Which is more likely, that God broke his promise, or that the flood was a once in a lifetime global flood, a flood which God promised in his covenant would never come again--and hasn't?
What do you believe, Faithful?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
Faithful2Jah

Joe: You somehow got AC to jump through all your hoops. But I'm not going to. Partly because I have seen Christians ask you questions time and time again which you completely ignore. Can you say HYPOCRITE?
God has done an awful lot of important things, including creating the universe, in which he did not make certain that we received a completely accurate description of. Some of the things you say are so important that if God did them he would have HAD TO explicitly make known to us I don't see as so important. These things include whether the flood was local or global, whether we are all descended from Noah and whether God gave those who died in the flood a chance to repent and get on the ark or whether he did not.
Your statement that God has kept the fact that the flood of Noah's day was probably a local flood a secret from everyone but AC and three unnamed Bible scholars is ridiculous. There are probably millions of Christians who believe this and thousands of Bible "scholars" who do. Much has been written about this way of understanding Genesis. Maybe you oughta come out of your JW/Fundy/Bible critic cave and read some "liberal" Christian periodicals and reference works.
Your constant criticism of Bible believers for anything and everything is ridiculous. You criticize AC for speculating that Noah's building a giant boat might have helped spread his message that God was soon going to judge the land because he said that boat was probably far from any body of water big enough to hold it. Well, DUH! It was 450 feet long and 45 feet high. Any boat built that size today is built in a shipyard at a seashore. Most local flood advocates say Noah's flood occurred in the Tigress/Euphrates River Valley nowhere near any sea shore. You criticize him for assuming that Noah told people why he was building a giant boat like that. But it is perfectly all right for you to assume that Noah would have wanted to or could have managed to keep the whole thing a secret. Something much more difficult to believe.
Now I'm done talking to you. Who's next? Waiting? LOL
PS. Joe, if the "earth" spoken of in the Genesis flood account was really the "land" as in the land of Noah or the land of Mesopotamia then God's covenant with Noah to never again destroy all life in that land has been kept. For historians tell us that, though Mesopotamia may have been completely flooded several thousand years ago, it has not been completely flooded at any time since then.

Just As In the Days of Noah

Share this