Maybe Noah preached to the animals in order to find which ones (er, I mean "which twos") were repentant and Ark-worthy...?
More evidence of fraud in 2nd Peter: Noah didn't preach, per Genesis 6
by adamah 25 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Black Sheep
Sorry.... didn't read it. Too much for my attention span.
Had a go at old time JWs on this one a few weeks ago. Got the stunned mullet look. 120 years of preaching with Jehovah's blessing and not one convert????? There are heaps of nutters with crazy doctrines that have followers. Charlie Manson had more converts than Noah with his 'helter skelter' and he was a right nutcase and it didn't take him 120 years. They agreed.
Pointed out that Peter's statement only supported the notion that Noah was selected because he was a preacher of righteousness, not that he was given a commission to 'save' anyone by preaching a warning. They had nothing to offer in defence except excuses for a quick exit.
The point I was trying to make was that the god their church believes in murders innocent babies and that that wasn't my idea of any god I found 'loveable', or particularly 'godlike'.
-
adamah
Hello,
Whahappened, whoops, I guess I forgot something. :) I added subscribe/share buttons to the front page, so thanks for the heads-up!
(I'm not sure if I should add that function to all pages, or just the main page?)
Billy, I also want to know what the animals ever did wrong to piss off God, in the first place. I'm thinking it may have been the fault of those evil oxen, since God made a point to say he'd demand an accounting for ALL spilled blood, with even animals called on the carpet to account for killing other animals. Thus the basis for later passages in Exodus 21:28-35 saying that oxen who kill humans must be stoned to death (along with their owners, if they had prior knowledge of the animal's tendency to gore), and saying what men must do if oxen kill other oxen. God is cracking down on ALL evil!
Although you have to wonder about the predators: would the carnivores get off the hook for the blood they spilled, saying, "But God, as my so-called "Intelligent Designer", you certainly must remember that you MADE me like this?!? Why would you give me fangs, claws, and the enzymes to digest proteins (and not those needed to digest plants) if you didn't expect me to use them?" :)
Blacksheep said:
"Sorry.... didn't read it. Too much for my attention span."
Sorry to hear that, as I tried to keep it short enough to keep interest, but also wanted to provide enough details to satisfy those who want them. It's hard to make any point that's worth making in few words, but that's the whole challenge: finding the right 'mix'.
"Had a go at old time JWs on this one a few weeks ago. Got the stunned mullet look. 120 years of preaching with Jehovah's blessing and not one convert????? There are heaps of nutters with crazy doctrines that have followers. Charlie Manson had more converts than Noah with his 'helter skelter' and he was a right nutcase and it didn't take him 120 years. They agreed."
Yeah, Noah must've had a case of mumble-mouth even worse than Moses', or perhaps he lacked personal charisma such that Noah didn't get ANY converts? Not even an emotionally-needy 'clinger' whom everyone else didn't want to hang out with, LOL?
"Pointed out that Peter's statement only supported the notion that Noah was selected because he was a preacher of righteousness, not that he was given a commission to 'save' anyone by preaching a warning. They had nothing to offer in defence except excuses for a quick exit."
Of course, since God had already DECIDED to kill all mankind BEFORE telling Noah of his plans, then the Greek word used in 2nd Peter which is translated as "preacher" could actually mean "herald",which would imply that Noah was sharing the "bad news" that they were going to be destroyed in a coming Flood and there's absolutely nothing they could do about it. Hence, Noah would be taunting them over their upcoming blind date with death.
That also would be very questionable, even worse than those sanctimonious believers today who KNOW they are going to Heaven, and inform sinners they're going to burn in Hell for an eternity and there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING they can do to change that outcome; remember, Noah KNEW God had already decided on his final condemnation of mankind, so it was all over but the shouting (or drowning).
Not much of God's mercy on display in that rendering, so 2nd Peter makes God out to be even more of a jerk than the Genesis account; that's what trying to force Noah into the role of a "herald" would require.
Blacksheep said:
"The point I was trying to make was that the god their church believes in murders innocent babies and that that wasn't my idea of any god I found 'loveable', or particularly 'godlike'."
I tried to stay away from the "baby killer" thing, since it was going astray of my goal of the article: reexamining Genesis 6 on a verse-by-verse manner to see "who knew what, and when they knew it", showing that it's impossible for Noah to have been saved on account of being a "preacher of righteousness" without contradicting Genesis 6.
But I'll be writing a follow-up article that looks at the story from a slightly-different angle, revealing it's roots in mythology and ancient beliefs.
Adam
-
whathappened
Went back and still don't see how to subscribe. Guess I will just keep a lookout for your posts here.
-
DeWandelaar
Adam,
I enjoy reading the articles... they are well written and spot on...
It makes me curious however: Are you still a believer in God (and Christ) or are you a atheist?
It does not change the fact that I will read your blog ( I like it too much :D) but was just wondering :D
-
adamah
Whahappened, I don't know whahappened: the social media icon shows up on the edit page, but not after publishing. I need to contact their tech support to get the kink worked out.
I'm writing an article on JW's blood doctrine, which ties in nicely with the Noah article, since the Noahide Covenent IS part of God's solution to the problem that inspired God to carry out the flood, in the first place (problem being, "evil thoughts in the hearts of men").
God's solution is actually a three-step process, which most people overlook: sure, everybody knows the first step ("kill all evil men with a flood") but forget all about the other two steps, which are actually MORE important, since #2 and #3 are long-term solutions that are still relevant today (whereas step one was a stop-gap measure that only had an effect for those alive at the time of the Flood). I'll post the article when it's up, likely tonight or tomorrow.
DeW, I'm an atheist for Abrahamic God, the guy depicted in the Torah/Tanakh/Christian Bible, simply due to contradictions found in the Bible, itself. Once you learn of ancient cultures, you can see the roots of beliefs that leads to an adaptation of mythology by the Hebrews. As the Bible says, there is nothing new under the Sun, and that includes the myths found in the Bible, itself. :)
I'm agnostic for other unknown deities, but will believe in them once presented a compelling reason to believe (evidence).
I approach the study of the Bible as a rationalist, a non-believer, much like Bible scholars like John Van Seters will, approaching it as a historic document that's a product of an ancient culture. The problem with reading stuff by Van Seters is the scholarly approach is inaccessible to most non-scholars, so I'm trying to take their approach, but writing in a manner that makes it accessible to anyone who hasn't spent their entire lives learning ancient Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, studying ancient cultures, earning advanced PhDs, etc.
Adam
-
sir82
What I can't figure out is who Noah reported his time to.
And what were the hour requirements for pioneering back then?
-
adamah
Sir82 said:
"What I can't figure out is who Noah reported his time to. And what were the hour requirements for pioneering back then?"
Sir82, Noah didn't really need preaching skills, but was picked for the job due to his qualifications of being "just" (as in justice): he was in essence deputized by God to be the World's first cop/judge, after God delegated authority to allow establishment of a system of law. That's a motif common to other Flood narratives in the region, serving as a justification for rulers to assume the throne based on their favored status given them by God(s).
I didn't mention it in the article, but the sin of Ham was exposing Noah's shame by telling of Noah's nakedness to his brothers. In the Bible, nakedness is a metaphor often used to suggest exposing one's vulnerability, their achille's heel, their flaws. Hence Ham was the first whistleblower, telling his brothers of flaws he saw in the judicial system (and was cursed for it, as a result) vs his brothers, who engaged in the World's first cover-up.
I wrote on the topic of the Flood, and how JWs miss important elements that allow them to miss that God offered a 3-part SOLUTION to antediluvean anarchy that existed before the Flood, leading them to misread Genesis 9:5 the scripture which their flawed blood policy is based:
Adam
-
sd-7
I always assumed that Peter had access to other sources (ie. like Jude quoting from the Book of Enoch) from which he was retelling that story about Noah. I figured it was another indication of a different Bible canon back during that time.
So there are folks who say it's a fraud, Peter's letter(s)? Tell me more about how the entire Bible has been debunked...
--sd-7
-
adamah
sd-7 said:
"I always assumed that Peter had access to other sources (ie. like Jude quoting from the Book of Enoch) from which he was retelling that story about Noah. I figured it was another indication of a different Bible canon back during that time."
Well, being that St Peter was dead at the time 2nd Peter was written, it would be quite the escape from the grave. :) On second thought, I guess that kind of thing wouldn't be a problem for many believers? :)
It's pretty amazing to see the absolute nonsense that's proposed in discussions in the talmudic literature, and in the intertestamental works. Although the position shift is seen, moving slowly but surely.
"So there are folks who say it's a fraud, Peter's letter(s)? Tell me more about how the entire Bible has been debunked..."
The problem is not 1st Peter as much as 2nd Peter, due to wide difference in writing styles, word choice, etc. 2nd Peter was questionable from the start, doubted by the early fathers as questionable, but useful, nonetheless; it took about 200 yrs for 2nd Peter finally to be canonized, the last addition to the New Testament.
2nd Peter is extremely suspicious for characterizing Lot as "righteous", and for claiming Noah as a "preacher" before the Flood when those claims don't appear ANYWHERE ELSE in the Bible. Not surprisingly, both scriptures get quite a work-out, being used by Christians to support their theology of both the Flood and Sodom & Gomorrah as serving as the prototype(s) of Armageddon.