UC said:
The Flood was to destroy the wickedness of the day. Eight (still sinful) people preserved. Afterwards it didn't take long for wickedness to rear its ugly head once more. What purpose did it serve to kill everything off if you didn't fix the core problem - sinful mankind?
After I made that video and re-read the account, it seems that God's likely intent was simply to over-react and wipe the slate clean, and start anew, as YHWH declared the situation as FUBAR.
In Genesis 9:6, we see YHWH delegating His divine authority to Noah for establishing rule over his fellow man, demanding an accounting for spilled blood of others (and even animals that spilled blood were held accountable, as revealed in later passages, where ox were to be put to death after a trial, and if the owner failed to heed prior warnings of the animal's "vicious character", even THEY were held responsibile and to be stoned to death, unless redeemed).
Remember: Genesis 2 granted man dominion over ANIMALS, but it wasn't until Genesis 9 where God granted authority to man to "exercise dominion" over fellow MAN. Ooops.... Another God screw-up. Woopsie....
Which raises ANOTHER issue: why did God NOT foresee the need for civil/criminal laws BEFORE the Flood, and even after Cain killed Abel? Why did YHWH have to wipe out all humanity AND animals, giving a fresh start under this new system of justice? Talk about literally drowning thousands of babies IN the bathwater, and throwing it all out!!
YHWH botched the Cain murder trial (let him off the hook, since there is no crime when there's no criminal law against the action, as presumably YHWH forgot to make a rule saying, "thou shalt not murder" until Genesis 9:6). So why didn't YHWH issue that rule BEFORE Cain murdered?
Oh, the tangled webs some ancients writers weave, when "Divinely-inspired Moses" mixed myths into the Torah so as to deceive....
Here's more details about ancient Hebrew animals being dragged into a court before 23 judges, with "two witnesses" required!
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6817-goring-ox
GORING OX:
Table of ContentsTwo passages in Exodus treat of an ox doing harm: the first of harm to a person (xxi. 28-32); the second to the ox of another owner (ib. 35-36). The verb used in the first passage is "naga?" (to gore); that in the second, "nagaf" (to strike or hurt). But, according to the tradition, the rules laid down in either passage apply to goring, striking with the body, biting, kicking, and lying on. These rules are also extended to animals other than oxen, either injuring or injured (B. ?. i. 4); and, while the texts contemplate killing only, the rules apply to lesser injuries also.
"Tam" and "Mu'ad."
In each of these passages a distinction is made between the ox which has not given evidence of its vicious character and one whose master has been forewarned in this regard. The former is known in the Mishnah as "tam" (lit. "innocent," "harmless"); the latter is called "mu'ad" (lit. "testified"). An injury committed by an innocent ox is deemed a kind of accident; while the master who is forewarned, but does not watch his beast, is liable for full damage, and, in case of the death of a human being, to a mulct or forfeiture. To render an ox mu'ad, two witnesses must testify in court, in the presence of its owner, that the ox has on three separate days acted viciously. Acting thus to his kind or to other domestic animals does not render him mu'ad as to injury to persons; nor vice versa (ib. ii. 4).
Punishment.
An animal that kills a human being must be stoned to death: its flesh may not be eaten. But it should first be tried by a criminal court of twenty-three judges; for the owner, who is also morally guilty of homicide, can be tried only in such a court. Even a lion, bear, or wolf that kills a person must be so tried; only a serpent should be killed by the first comer (Sanh. i. 4). "The ox of the stadium [arena] is not stoned: it is not he that gores; he is made to gore" (B. ?. 39a).
Concerning the owner of a mu'ad the text says: "and his owner, also, shall be put to death; if there be laid upon him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life," etc. According to the rabbinic interpretation, the judges have no discretion as to putting to death or placing a ransom: they always place the ransom, which goes to the heirs of the decedent. But whose life is to be estimated? R. Ishmael says, that of the person killed; R. Akiba more logically says, that of the guilty owner, who redeems himself from death (ib. 40a). Hence Maimonides draws the conclusion that where the ox belongs to two owners jointly, both of whom have been warned, each of them has to redeem himself in the full amount. This amount is fixed according to age and sex (Lev. xxvii.; see Estimate).