Sizemik said:
unshaved bum-fluff: commonly found growing wild on the face of adolescents to obscure pimples.
Analagous application: An unattractive shroud designed to obscure an even less attractive truth. (eg; W/W flood justification).
Just thought I'd tidy that up . . . I'm not here to offend fellow bums, unshaven or otherwise.
Well, THAT makes more (OK, at least SOME) sense!
Aclue said:
Genesis 1:31 - "it was very good." Genesis 6:13 - "I will destroy them with the earth." or "I will wipe them out along with the earth." and the NWT reads "I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth."
Well, that's an interesting point: what sin did the Planet Earth commit to warrant destroying IT, along with mankind? And did God ACTUALLY succeed in "destroying the Planet"? Nope. Still here....
God's intent was to change the nature of the planet. Long living corrupt human beings were making a whole mess out of the situation. Idle hands are the devil's workshop, as the saying goes. People were living too long and boredom made us do the unimaginable.
Problem with that explanation is that YHWH pronounced a divine limit on man's lifespan even BEFORE the Flood (in Gen 6:3), which was even BEFORE he gave Noah instructions for building the Ark. So the limit on lifespan is not associated with the Flood event itself.
When it comes to God's motives, it's revealing to examine what happened immediately AFTER the Flood, in Gen 9:5-6:
God says to Noah:
"And I will require the blood of anyone who takes another person's life. If a wild animal kills a person, it must die. And anyone who murders a fellow human must die. If anyone takes a human life, that person's life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image."
This passage is extremely significant to the story, as it's saying that after the Flood, God is now demanding man to establish a system of justice so as to deal with violence and crime, and render capital punishment, with God admitting that man is up to the job since He made humans "in his image", with the capability to administer civil justice having a moral sense (knowledge of right and wrong).
(Interesting, as God didn't GIVE man wisdom: in fact, YHWH FORBADE Adam and Eve of possessing wisdom by forbidding eating of the fruit! So NOW God is flip-flopping on the "wisdom is for Gods, only" policy? Hmmmm....)
The implication of that scripture is profound, since it means that God HADN'T delegated such authority BEFORE the Flood! This explains the light sentencing that Cain received for killing his brother: God had apparently forgetten to demand an accounting for spilled blood, since God didn't say in effect "thou shalt not murder" until AFTER the Flood!
Therefore, predeluvian man existed in a anarcharist world, where "might made right", and there was no law indicated in Genesis (and the 10 commandment's "Thou Shalt Not Murder" was still far off).
So once again, the Bible documents how YHWH screwed the pooch by forgetting to give mankind laws, and not delegating the authority to mankind to self-administer justice until AFTER the Flood. Perhaps God felt it was easier to "wipe the slate clean" and start anew vs explaining to the masses alive before the Flood that there's a new sheriff in town, so you'd better straighten up?
So add that to the list of YHWH's screw-ups: he forgot to say, "hey, don't you kids kill each other down there!" and it got so out of hand, He presumably had to kill everyone....
Here's Barnes explanation of the passage, which is a longer way of saying what I said above:
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
The second restriction guards human life. The shedding of human blood is sternly prohibited. "Your blood of your lives." The blood which belongs to your lives, which constitutes the very life of your corporeal nature. "Will I require." I, the Lord, will find the murderer out, and exact the penalty of his crime. The very beast that causes the death of man shall be slain. The suicide and the homicide are alike accountable to God for the shedding of man's blood. The penalty of murder is here proclaimed - death for death. It is an instance of the law of retaliation. This is an axiom of moral equity. He that deprives another of any property is bound to make it good or to suffer the like loss.
The first law ("Thou Shalt Not Eat The Fruit From The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil") promulgated in Scripture was that between Creator and creature. If the creature refused to the Creator the obedience due, he forfeits all the Creator has given him, and, therefore, his life. Hence, when Cain murdered his brother, he only displayed a new development of that sin which was in him, and, being already condemned to the extreme penalty under the first transgression, had only a minor punishment annexed to his personal crime. And so it continued to be in the antediluvian world. No civil law is on record for the restriction of crime. Cain, indeed, feared the natural vengeance which his conscience told him his sin deserved. But it was not competent in equity for the private individual to undertake the enforcement of the penalties of natural law. So long as the law was between Creator and creature, God himself was not only the sole legislator, but the sole administrator of law.
The second law is that between creature and creature, which is here introduced on the occasion of giving permission to partake of animal food, as the first was published on that of granting the use of vegetable diet. In the former case, God is the administrator of the law, as he is the immediate and sovereign party in the legal compact. In the latter case, man is, by the express appointment of the Lord of all, constituted the executive agent. "By man shall his blood be shed." Here, then, is the formal institution of civil government. Here the civil sword is committed to the charge of man. The judgment of death by the executioner is solemnly delegated to man in vindication of human life. This trust is conveyed in the most general terms. "By man." The divine legislator does not name the sovereign, define his powers, or determine the law of succession. All these practical conditions of a stable government are left open questions.
The emphasis is laid solely on "man." On man is impressively laid the obligation of instituting a civil constitution suited to his present fallen condition. On the nation as a body it is an incumbent duty to select the sovereign, to form the civil compact between prince and people, to settle the prerogative of the sovereign and the rights of the subjects, to fix the order of succession, to constitute the legislative, judicial, and administrative bodies, and to render due submission to the constituted authorities. And all these arrangements are to be made according to the principles of Scripture and the light of nature.
The reason why retribution is exacted in the case of man is here also given. "For in the image of God has he made man." This points on the one hand to the function of the magistrate, and on the other to the claims of the violated law; and in both respects illustrates the meaning of being created in the image of God. Man resembles God in this, that he is a moral being, judging of right and wrong, endowed with reason and will, and capable of holding and exercising rights. Hence, he is in the first place competent to rule, and on his creation authorized to exercise a mild and moral sway over the inferior creatures. His capacity to govern even among his fellow-men is now recognized. The function of self-government in civil things is now conferred upon man. When duly called to the office, he is declared to be at liberty to discharge the part of a ruler among his fellow-men, and is entitled on the ground of this divine arrangement to claim the obedience of those who are under his sway. He must rule in the Lord, and they must obey in the Lord.
However, in the next place, man is capable of, and has been actually endowed with, rights of property in himself, his children, his industrial products, his purchases, his receipts in the way of gift, and his claims by covenant or promise. He can also recognize such rights in another. When, therefore, he is deprived of anything belonging to him, he is sensible of being wronged, and feels that the wrongdoer is bound to make reparation by giving back what he has taken away, or an equivalent in its place. This is the law of requital, which is the universal principle of justice between the wrongdoer and the wrong-sufferer. Hence, the blood of him who sheds blood is to be shed. And, in setting up a system of human government, the most natural and obvious case is given, according to the manner of Scripture, as a sample of the law by which punishment is to be inflicted on the transgressor in proportion to his crime. The case in point accordingly arises necessarily out of the permission to use animal food, which requires to be guarded on the one hand by a provision against cruelty to animals, and, on the other, by an enactment forbidding the taking away of human life, on the pain of death, by order of the civil magistrate. This case, then, turns out to be the most heinous crime which man can commit against his fellow-man, and strikingly exemplifies the great common principle of retributive justice.
The brute (beast) is not a moral being, and has, therefore, no proper rights in itself. Its blood may therefore be shed with impunity. Nevertheless, man, because he is a moral being, owes a certain negative duty to the brute animal, because it is capable of pain. He is not to inflict gratuitous or unnecessary suffering on a being susceptible of such torture. Hence, the propriety of the blood being shed before the flesh is used for food. Life, and therefore the sense of pain, is extinguished when the blood is withdrawn from the veins.
