What did God accomplish with the flood?
Well, something had to get rid of that f***ing water canopy!
What did God accomplish with the flood?
by jam 79 Replies latest social humour
-
-
King Solomon
Heaven said:
Um, I has a question. Is gopherwood impervious to termites, Carpenter ants, wood boring beetles, Carpenter bees, Woodpeckers, beavers, etc?
A-pair-runt-lee.... JWs say "God Dun It" or "the answer to that and other mysteries will be given in the New System™, so doncha want to be there, too?"
Being that gopherwood is a questionable translation anyway, with no known word for the type of wood it represents, and being that NO wood actually possesses the physical properties required (density, specific gravity, etc) to make the ark, a heavy dose of God Magix™ is required.
BTW, on the issue of whether Noah preached and whether he was able to save others, the Genesis account is VERY SPECIFIC about the passenger manifest for Noah's Cruise Liner, even BEFORE it's construction began. Just after God gives Noah the dimensions of the ark, he says this in Genesis 6:
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
Note the word COVENANT (the first time the term is mentioned in the OT, BTW), which represents the oral agreement that was offered ONLY to Noah and his family, allowing them on board the ark after having built it: think of the labor of building the ark as the price for admission ONTO the Ark. Modern contracts are NOT assignable (transferrable) to others, or open to modification without the agreement of both parties.
After the ark was completed, Genesis 7 drives the point home as to whether there was intent to take on additional passengers:
1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.
6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
Note that in verse 1, God says Noah is allowed onboard the ark, since he is deemed "righteous". Well, it seems God forgot all about the covenant he entered into with Noah, back in Chapter 6, PROMISING to let Noah and family on-board the ark after building it! God seems to act as if he thinks he's God, able to breach contracts (break promises) at will? The ingratitude of God, even considering to not let Noah and family on-board after building it! (God was bluffing: who'd take care of the animals, if they weren't onboard? Oh, I forgot: God Magic!)
But back to the passenger manifest issue: it's not Noah's fault that no others were allowed on the Ark, as Noah was just following orders. This was clearly before the development of maritime law, which says that passing vessels are required to take on those at risk of drowning at sea (a later example of an "inferior" secular law, compared to God's laws....)
The Flood account is a story with a bottomless watery abyss of ridicularity that just keeps on giving up it's bloated and water-logged carcasses....
-
glenster
I see a covenant with the little group not behaving criminally, but not clear
stated exclusion of others should they follow suit. I suppose God could know the
future and know they wouldn't given the choice, though.I think the point is to find relevance in the allegory, not labor over literal
discrepancies of an allegory, or you run into the same folly of interpretation as
the literalist fundamentalist--literal or nothing--believe in God that way or not
at all--except one accepts and the other rejects. (If you want to disagree with
the literalist, which I would encourage, you don't want to show no better inter-
pretive ability than they have.)Basically, violent crime is bad is the most simplified relevant version, not
dependant on finding a literal ark on a mountain, and a nice message whether you
believe in God or not. Regarding the literal ark, I'd just give a Wikipedia
link or two--I wouldn't work so hard at it.No comments on Tom? I had his first six albums back when I had albums.
http://www.faith-theology.com/2007/12/tom-waits-theologian-of-dysangelion.html -
King Solomon
Glenster said:
I see a covenant with the little group not behaving criminally, but not clear
stated exclusion of others should they follow suit. I suppose God could know the
future and know they wouldn't given the choice, though.Do you really want to go down the "God knows the future" (omniscient) rat-hole for some verses of the account, when God seemingly does NOT know future events by showing regret, not ONCE, but TWICE?
It's accepted doctrine that God knows the future: after all, that's the entire basis of prophecizing, with readers tearing the Bible apart looking for obscure hints, dates, and clues! So why does His ability to see the future seem a bit foggy in Genesis?
I think the point is to find relevance in the allegory, not labor over literal
discrepancies of an allegory, or you run into the same folly of interpretation as
the literalist fundamentalist--literal or nothing--believe in God that way or not
at all--except one accepts and the other rejects. (If you want to disagree with
the literalist, which I would encourage, you don't want to show no better inter-
pretive ability than they have.)The problem with these literal errors is the question of divine inspiration: such continuity errors raise an inescapable conclusion that the Genesis account is NOT inspired by a perfect God, but written by uninspired and imperfect men. That's the problem, NOT taking them as allegories. That's the REFUGE of apologetists, sacrificing more and more scriptural territory in an attempt to save the literality of the Bible.
Are you willing to admit the Bible is written by very clever but non-omniscient and non-inspired men? Heck, even if you examine the dead sea scrolls, you can see evidence where subsequent copyists added their own "clean-ups", attempting to rectify issues that they thought were important and needed fixing (the timing of dates was considered important to the person working on the Dead Sea Scrolls, as the Noah account contained clarifications of dates that were important to make in order to align them with holidays contained in the Jewish calendar).
As another example, Leolaia explained how the Job account was pretty much destroyed by subsequent "clarifications" by subsequent redaction (which happens when too many cooks spoil the plot). Those are indications of the work of men, not divinity.
If you want to understand the original meaning intended to be conveyed for the original audience, you need to consider the historical and cultural context in which the story was told, which leads to the FUNCTION the story served for the authors in it's context.
In that kind of analysis (which is commonly used by anthropologists), the Genesis Flood account is a blend of elements that serve useful functions, i.e. explaining the origins of rainbows (i.e. a rainbow creation myth, a common subject for cultures around the World by ascribing a meaning to rainbows), and likely contains echos or remnants of memories of a major flood event. The account also provides a story of how man came to eat animals, and provides an explanation for man's authority to rule over his fellow men: these are critically important as introductory stories in the Torah, which afterall is a book of Hebraic civil/criminal law.
It was typical for legal, historical, and religious beliefs to be intertwined in ancient texts, because there wasn't yet a clear delineation between such specialities, as the roles in society weren't delineated, i.e. the priest WAS the doctor WAS the judge. The breakout of specialties and specific disciplines had not yet developed, so the learned men were "renaissance men" (jacks of all knowledge, where mastery hadn't yet occurred).
-
processor
Let's assume for a moment that the Bible (and the flood account) would be true, would be God's word and 100 % accurate, and even that JW's were right in their interpretation.
What happened after the flood?
Shortly "After the flood of Noah’s day, his great-grandson Nimrod became a tyrant, 'in opposition to Jehovah'" (Good News to Make You Happy, page 91)
352 years after the flood Abraham was born, and in his day the world was already "steeped in Babylonish idolatry" (Insight, vol 1, p. 29)
1000 years after Armageddon the number of godless people will be "as the sand of the sea" (Revelatoin 20:8).
Even after that, "anyone that carries on a disgusting thing and a lie" will not be allowed to enter the New Jerusalem, so it seems that such people will exist (Revelation 21:27).
So, according to the Bible and JW doctrine, God killed almost all humans in the the flood so that only righteous ones remained, but few years later the world was filled with unrighteous people. He will kill almost all humans soon in Armageddon, so that only righteous ones will remain, but at least 1000 years later the world will be filled with unrighteous people. He will kill these again, but even after that there will be unrighteous people.
So, if God exists and the Bible is true, he did not accomplish anything with the flood.
-
jam
Most of us can agree God did not accomplish anything with
the flood. Now let,s take a step further. For generations the
Hebrew/Jews was taught to worship God with sacrifices the
sword, and they the only chosen people. Now Jesus come
along. Forget the sword, forget the sacrifice, you are not
the only chosen people any more. We will teach love rather
then killing our neighbors, we will love our enemies.
Confusing to the Hebrews/Jews. Was this a learning experience
for GOD?
-
Black Man
bookmarking....great thread.
-
glenster
"That's the REFUGE of apologetists,"etc.A simplification of a couple possible directions of interpretation in Abrahamic
religion:Conservative
Proof claimed of God so religion as law of the land, defense of old interpreta-
tion of old texts, restriction of rights and punishment for women and LGBT
people, etc.Liberal
Faith in a possible God beyond the known things so separation of church and
state, defense of the basic God concept (if there is a God, it wouldn't honor Him
to misinform or cause needless harm in His name), civil rights for women and LGBT
people, etc.I don't want to put a crimp in your interpretation or criticism lifestyle, but
whatever you do, the latter isn't a defense or refuge for the former.If you go Abrahamic, I'd recommend liberal as more credible. If the choice
must be made between honoring an old text writer or God, and the point of faith
in God is to honor God, I'd recommend liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_christianityConservative interpretation is the type fundamentalists use, also often used
by non-believers in a similar purview as THE interpretation to criticize. Ob-
viously, there's overlapping in how liberal believers and non-believers would
criticize the conservative rendering.These aren't strict guidelines. I recently read of orthodox Jews deciding to
interpret Lev.18 as just for priests, which I thought was impressive for ortho-
dox. Islam, mostly orthodox, has the most catching up to do regarding staying up
to speed with the known things God is possible beyond.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcGfuEZ9dSo&feature=my_favorites&list=FLGDjZWvH8V0zca0Xu_46qkQ -
King Solomon
Noted that none of your words began to address the issues I raised, but merely challenges my... What, exactly, were you challenging, again? Who cares how others approach their critiques, when they valid points?
So for the record, I focus on likely motives of the original authors by looking at what they wrote, what actually happened, and the function actually served by the writings, seeing who likely benefitted by telling the story as written. This approach is more aligned with methods used by cultural anthropologists and historians, esp those focusing on the legal elements of the story (which is important in a book of law).
-
glenster
"I focus on likely motives of the original authors by looking at what they
wrote, what actually happened"That's the part of liberal stance and non-believer that overlaps, which I point
out to minimize not maximize any needless head butting over it. The liberal
stance doesn't need to make something of the known of the past different than it
was, rather keeps the basic God concept of a possible God beyond the known cur-
rent with the known without wanting harm over such things.One thing clear in the known is there wasn't a literal worldwide great flood,
of course.The author's intention is lost to history. They could have meant it literally,
but it's also possible they may have known they adopted and added to a popular
pre-existing idea to make an expression of faith, and allegorical interpretations
of Gen. are pretty old, too--see the pages at the next links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Creation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_GenesisAbrahamic faith can be orthodox, conservative, liberal, progressive, and re-
form.To simplify it to conservative and liberal stances, the conservative defends
perceived integrity of old interpretation of old text, possibly for a literal
flood, whereas both the non-believer and the liberal stance rejects that, as in
this case. There are a variety of ways the liberal stance may do that--take
something allegorically, something represents the thought of people of the time
not what God would think (ANE cosmology, etc.), God used some people he'd only
taken along so far from their cultural commitments, etc. It's not dependent on
a literal rendering of an old text."legal elements"
The most important legal point would be that violent crime is bad. The story
involves an allegory of a God that could do what he wants with the cosmos with
impunity with the prerogative, and nobody actually got hurt. Again, it reminds
me a bit of Grand Theft Auto that way with the literalist purview reminding me of
lawyer Jack."but merely challenges my... What"
I just broadened the picture of what goes on in Abrahamic faith regarding the
flood, etc., which shows that a disavowal of a set of literalist specifics (the
author must have meant these things and meant them literally, etc.) isn't
exclusive to a rejection of faith, not to challenge your free choice to reject or
embrace one or the partialities you have.