Posts by JosephAlward

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

aChristian and Faithful believe that the Bible speaks of a local flood, a flood over what they call the “land of Noah,” not a global flood. There is much evidence against this, not the least of which is the fact that the Genesis author gives not the slightest hint that the flood was local.

The only “evidence” they’ve been able to come up with is the statement by the writer in 2 Peter that “Noah was a preacher of righteousness,” and from this they jump to the conclusion that the writer was referring to preaching Noah did before the flood, rather than after, and they furthermore assume that if Noah preached before the flood then that preaching Noah did must have included admonitions to repent.

Next, aChristian and Faithful assume that if it’s true that Noah wanted the sinners to repent, then it was God’s will that he do so. Then, they assume that if God wanted them to repent, it must have been so he could forgive them and remove the death penalty he levied against them, and invite them to come to the saving ark. Thus, these fellows layer one unsupported assumption over another, and another, and another, and another, to get from Peter's "preacher of righteousness" to a local flood. aChristian and Faithful think that God left it for them to unravel this puzzle and discover his true will.

Now, if it’s true that God would have rescinded his death penalty, they argue, then it must have been true that God would have planned to have space for the sinners on the ark, just in case they did repent. That’s why God ordered Noah to build an extra-large ark, they think. They never explain why God, who inspired his Bible writers to record the Word of God, never had even one of his writers say a word about how he had really hoped to restart civilization with hordes of repentant sinners

Besides the fact that the plainest and simplest reading of Genesis would tell any intelligent person that the writer wanted us to know that the flood was over the entire globe, and not local, what other evidence do we have that the flood was global?

The other evidence is found in 2 Peter, in which the writer speaks of the “ancient world” not being spared by the flood:

God …did not spare the ancient world [kosmos] when he brought the flood on its ungodly people (2 Peter 2:5)

Who on this list seriously believes that “ancient world” the writer referred to was not really the “ancient world,” but actually the “ancient land of Noah”? Do you, aChristian? Do you, Faithful?

Consider also the passage below, in which the “world of that time” was flooded and destroyed:

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world [kosmos]of that time was deluged and destroyed. (2 Peter 3:5)

How is it possible that the writer above meant for his readers to believe that “the world of that time” was not the whole world, but instead was just the “land of Noah”? Wasn’t this writer inspired by God to write the Word of God? If so, then God would have guided the writing of this passage, and God is smart enough to know that intelligent readers would surely believe that the writer was not talking about a local flood. Knowing this, God would never have let the passage be written like this, would he? Thus, it must be true that if the writer was inspired by God, then the writer must have wanted us to know that the “world of that time” was the whole world.

The word used in the passages above for “world” is kosmos, which appears 187 times in the New Testament. The word kosmos, is not used to represent a local area even once in those 187 occurrences. One can use the concordance in the Blue Letter Bible to confirm this: just enter the verse 2 Peter 2:5, and click on “C” for concordance, then look for the word “kosmos” (world), and click on the Strongs Number (it’s 2889) to see all 187 occurrences of the word.

I’ll cite below just a few of the examples of the use of the word kosmos.

the Christ, the Saviour of the world [kosmos]. (John 4:42)
I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world [kosmos]. (Matthew 13:35)
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world [kosmos], and lose his own soul? (Matthew 16:26)

Now, if aChristian and Faithful want us to believe that the writer of 2 Peter 2:5 and 2 Peter 3:5 wanted us to think that “world” ( kosmos) really meant “land of Noah,” then why won’t they explain why he used a word which everywhere else in the Bible means the “whole world”?

Can they find a single example among the 187 of the use of the word kosmos to mean a local area? If they cannot, why won't they admit that the kosmos the writer in 2 Peter 2:5 and 3:5 was referring to--the one which suffered the deluge--was the "whole world"?

Why, also, won’t aChristian and Faithful explain to us why not one single one of the Bible writers were guided by God to explain to Bible readers that the flood was only over the “land of Noah,” and that God really did plan to fill the ark with repentant sinners?

Finally, why won’t aChristian and Faithful explain why not one single Bible writer told us that the vast ark was mostly empty, because only local animals were on board, and all of the sinners God had hoped would repent, didn’t? How come God didn’t have at least one of his Bible writers tell us this--if that’s really what happened?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

RWC asks,

It is known that the Noah account was an oral tradition of the Hebrew nation long before it was written, so how do we know who copied from who?

Well, let's look more closely at what the article says:

Although it may be the best known, the account of Noah's adventure is neither the only nor the oldest such legend.
Compton's Encyclopedia Online v2.0 © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc.

This doesn't prove that the Noah's flood tradition was copied from the Babylonian one, of course. There may have been a pre-Babylonian flood myth based on the "Noah" described in Scripture, but where is the evidence of this? For now, the best evidence we have shows that there existed a flood story just like the one in the Bible which existed before the time (eighth or ninth century BCE) alleged for the Noachian flood.

If you want to believe that there existed in oral tradition before the Babylonian story a story about God, Noah, and his ark, you will need to find it to support your hope. You'll also have to explain why you believe the flood described in the Bible didn't really happen at the time given in the Bible, but instead happened around the time the Babylonian myths were developing, a thousand years prior to that; otherwise, you will have to agree that the best evidence available points to the Noah's flood story as being mythical, and a copy of an earlier myth at that.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

5

Forty Days Motif

by JosephAlward in

after the flood which lasted forty days, it seems that there were an unusual number of bible events lasting exactly forty days.

there are eighteen separate events of duration greater than ten days, and 61% of the time the event lasted exactly forty days.

only seven of eighteen events did not last forty days [1], while the other eleven lasted forty days [2].

JosephAlward

After the flood which lasted forty days, it seems that there were an unusual number of Bible events lasting exactly forty days.

There are eighteen separate events of duration greater than ten days, and 61% of the time the event lasted exactly forty days. Only seven of eighteen events did not last forty days [1], while the other eleven lasted forty days [2].

The events which spanned forty days were independent of each other, so it seems extraordinary that so many events would occupy exactly the same amount of time. Did these events really last exactly forty days, or was this time period of particular mythological importance, and the writers--not really knowing how long the event took--just assumed that events of supreme importance must have taken this long?

(1) Acts 24:11 (eleven days); 1 Kings 8:64 (fourteen); Galatians 1:18 (fifteen); Daniel 10:13 (twenty-one), Numbers 20:29 (thirty), Deuteronomy 34:8 (thirty), and Leviticus 12:4 (thirty-three).

(2) All of the following events lasted forty days: Genesis 7:4, Genesis 50:3, Exodus 24:18, Numbers 13:25, Deuteronomy 9:9, Deuteronomy 10:10, 1 Samuel 17:16, 1 Kings 19:8, Ezekiel 4:6, Jonah 3:4, Matthew 4:2.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

The Myth of Noah's Flood

(Excerpted from the article at http://members.aol.com/JAlw/flood_myth.html by Joseph F. Alward)

In this article I present evidence that suggests that the story in Genesis about the apocalyptic flood was probably plagiarized from a mythologized Mesopotamian flood that predated the writing of Genesis by more than a thousand years.

Many of the most incisive comments and points raised in this article were copied from Dennis McKinsey's articles in Biblical Errancy at http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html

Flood Legends

"In the traditions of most ancient civilizations there can be found a legend concerning a flood of such enormous proportions that it is believed to have covered the whole Earth. Such was the destructive force of this flood that few land animals and plants survived it. For readers in Western society the most famous version is the story of Noah and the Ark as recounted in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. Although it may be the best known, the account of Noah's adventure is neither the only nor the oldest such legend.

"Legends of a flood can be found in the folklore of such diverse places as the Middle East, India, China, Australia, southern Asia, the islands of the Pacific, Europe, and the Americas. But the best-known flood legend--that on which the story of Noah is based--had its origins among the peoples of ancient Mesopotamia in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley.

The Real Mesopotamian Flood

"The Babylonian plain is very fertile. The land was built up of mud and clay deposited by two great rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. These twin rivers come down from mountains in the north, cut southeastward through hilly grasslands, and finally cross the plain they created to reach the Persian Gulf. The Greeks named the land between them Mesopotamia, 'land between the rivers.' Today it is called Iraq. Tradition says the Garden of Eden was here.

"Excavations in Mesopotamia have led archaeologists and other scientists to conclude that a number of serious floods occurred there between 4000 and 2000 BC. It is possible that one of these floods was so destructive that it made a lasting impression on the population and became a subject for the ancient literature of the period.

The Flood Grows into Myth

"In its fully developed mythical form, the Mesopotamian flood appeared in the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the first literary masterpieces, which relates the adventures of a hero-king of Sumer. The earliest versions of the epic derive from the first part of the 2nd millennium BC.

The story of the flood is told to Gilgamesh by Utnapishtim, the counterpart of Noah in the story. Advised by the god Ea that his city is to be destroyed by flood, Utnapishtim is told to build a ship for his family, servants, and animals. After a seven-day flood, the vessel comes to rest on a mountaintop. The wrath of the gods has been appeased, and Utnapishtim and his wife are granted immortality.

Hebrews Make the Flood Apocalyptic

"About two thousand years after the Mesopotamian flood which led to the writing of The Epic of Gilgamesh, the story was probably brought to Canaan, the land where the Israelites settled, from Mesopotamia by the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The tale was reshaped around the eighth or ninth century BC by Hebrew writers into a narrative about God and his purposes for mankind. In this version it is the whole Earth that is to be flooded. Only Noah, his family, and the animals he collects are to be saved. The flooding lasts 40 days, and afterward Noah's Ark settles on top of a mountain." [1]

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

Gweedo,

I appreciate your comments and your biting humor very much. You've made it clearer than I have that aChristian and Faithful are nuttier than fruitcakes.

Joe

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

Faithful writes,

You somehow got AC to jump through all your hoops...I'm done talking to you.

Faithful thinks he's better than you, aChristian. He thinks he can run away from me with more class than you did, but he didn't. At least you showed the strength of character to try to defend your position before you ran.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

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)"

The passage above makes it clear that God is speaking not of a local area, but of the whole earth. Apologists who advocate a local flood want to believe that "the earth" means "the land of Noah." They furthermore want to believe that "all life" refers only to "all life in the land of Noah."

The list of preposterous things that the true-believing Bible thumper has to convince himself of in order to preserve faith in the literal truth of the Bible is quite long. That the brain of an otherwise intelligent human will allow itself to be so deluded should stand as a warning to all of us: it could happen to any one of us.

Why does this happen to some, but not to others? Why are some able to see through the delusionary fog, and escape, but not others?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

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

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

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

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

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