An invitation to Old Guy on the subject of Noah's Flood.

[BreezeWood]

JoeB131: I think this diminished Christianity as a moral philosophy. Surely an omnipotent God could have found another solution to the flaws of humanity that didn't involve genocide or infanticide.

Appallingly, God drowned unborn children in the flood. This indisputably necessary consequence of his actions should ironically put a huge kink in the pro-life arguments from the church. God aborts countless unborn children for the questionable sins of their parents, yet the church expects society not to do the same? Infants and young children who do not possess the intellectual capacity to tell right from wrong were also casualties of the flood! How could they be among the wicked and evil? These are hardly the actions of the loving God depicted in the New Testament. The innocent children didn’t deserve the fate God inexcusably dealt them, end of story. Helpless animals also suffered the horrible fate of the children. However, given the apparently twisted love that God has for smells from animal sacrifices (Genesis 8:20-21), that last point shouldn’t have been very surprising to someone familiar with the Bible.

I think this diminished Christianity as a moral philosophy.

... as the event did not occur ?

... as the event occurred illustrating the Biblical religions distortion of the Deities intent ?

obviously by the first there is no basis for Biblical religions moral or otherwise.

the second, for some the correct answer is also the answer that validates further discussion per the Commandment by God of Remission - to the OuterWorld of the Everlasting as the objective or perish - and verifies the diminished Biblical religions moral philosophy.

otherwise what is the point of the Thread ???

"Helpless animals also suffered the horrible fate" - this is incorrect as an example of those restricted to Biblical accounts in their beliefs than to a true path to Remission.



Surely an omnipotent God could have found another solution to the flaws of humanity that didn't involve genocide or infanticide ... Appallingly, God drowned unborn children in the flood. This indisputably necessary consequence -

the above and the other associations are to Mankind's relevance per their existence - that is only a temporary condition on review and with already a negative downgrade ... figure that out yourselves.

 

[westwall]

Sorry, Nippy, praying to sky pixies isn't going to fix the environment any more than putting a magic horseshoe above your door.

The Flood didn't happen because it is scientifically impossible.

I beg to differ. There most certainly WAS a flood. Just not the "Waterworld" type flood that is bandied about by the faithful and unfaithful alike. 14,000 years ago when the continental ice sheets began to melt there most certainly was a flood.

Mankind was congregated along the coasts and rivers (like he is now) and, as the waters rose from the melting ice, man was driven out of his ancestral homes worldwide. The ocean levels rose at least 120 meters over a period of around 8,000 years ending roughly 6,000 years ago based on the geological evidence at hand. Most was gradual but there would have been periods where the flooding would have been accelerated and it is no doubt one of those times that initiated the ancestral memory of a great flood in mans history.

Virtually all peoples around the world have tales of a great flood in their past, so it was certainly a worldwide event.

You are describing a gradual rise of sea levels over a period of 2000 years. The biblical flood is described as a cataclysmic event that occurred over a period of a mere 40 days.

There would have been times when the rise was much greater. For reference I suggest you look at the geologic evidence of the channeled scablands of Washington state where a lake the size of Montana drained in a week. I will grant you that the floods that inspired the bible were nowhere near that scale but a rise of 10 meters in a week would have occured more than once.

And finally, the bible...ah yes the bible. It was written by primitive people who were attempting to describe their history and as such they included all the tales that could be remembered from the bardic era before man could write down his history.

As such it is a minimal guide for what occurred. I am amazed at what they got correct however. Archaological digs in the areas described in the bible have indeed turned up some remarkable things. But please, the religious believe it to be the word of God so don't try and disabuse them of that belief. It does no one any good at all. Acknowledge the bible for what it is...a very well written (for its time) compendium of history, legends, and tall tales.

 

[Oldguy]

I want to start this off by saying I have no animus towards the poster known as "Oldguy". Sometimes we agree, occassionally we disagree, but I respect him for his thoughtful opinions and the articulate way he expresses them.

That said, without going through the process of a "Bull Ring Call out", I would invite him or others to comment on the following subject- Noah's flood.

I've discussed in the past how a Nun from my childhood had rationalized the near genocide (as described in the bible) of the human race- including babies- by the "wickedness" of humanity.

I think this diminished Christianity as a moral philosophy. Surely an omnipotent God could have found another solution to the flaws of humanity that didn't involve genocide or infanticide.

So I will offer the floor to OldGuy to opine on this issue as much or as little as he sees fit.

- Joe B.

I'm sorry it took me so long to see this thread and nearly 2 days to respond. It's been pretty hectic around here the past couple of days and I've had time for only a few DBP's in other threads. I can do it now, though. Hope you're still here.

In the first place, I have to say I do believe the Bible is the revealed word of God, though I do not believe it is to be taken literally in every instance. Even Jesus taught using parables, which is a story designed to make an important point, though not necessarily literally true.

Nor am I 6000 year old earth person. I think that's a ridiculous notion and would suggest that St. Augustine was right when he warned not to take positions on the Bible which even the common man can see is refuted by science. (I think it was Augustine). My understanding of scripture finds no reason to presume God did not essentially say, "Let there be a Big Bang." (But, that's a subject for another day).

Also, I do not know if the flood described in Genesis actually covered the whole earth, or just the "whole" earth as known by the inhabitants at the time. There is some geologic evidence to support that it was the entire earth (for instance, sea animal fossils found at the summit of Mt. Everest) and there is the idea that such a flood could have covered the whole earth AT THAT STAGE OF THE EARTH'S DEVELOPMENT. Some scientists have calculated that all the water on earth, if unfrozen and drained from the sky, would cover a flat earth to a depth of roughly 9000 ft, so it IS possible that water could have covered the whole earth before mountains like the Himalaya's were formed. There is also the interesting fact that many, many cultures, from many time periods and without contact with other cultures, have some story of a flood.

However, your question doesn't necessitate discussing the flood itself but, rather, why God would destroy even innocent babies, so let's leave that for another time too.

Let me begin by saying that I think your nun was wrong. God did not destroy everybody because of only their wickedness. If he destroyed people just because they turned against Him, none of us would live past childhood. Not only that, but sin itself was not defined until the Law was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Though sin existed before its definition, it was not held against, or charged, to the people who lived before the Law. (Romans 5:13). Consequently, for God to condemn people for their wickedness before they knew the definition of sin would be unjust...and God is NOT unjust.

Other things were going on, though, which demanded He do something or the coming Messiah could not appear. Any serious student of the Bible knows that it is about Jesus Christ, from Gen. 1:1 to Revelations 22:13. Everything in it points to or confirms Jesus Christ as the ONLY Son of God and Redeemer of mankind. Everything in the Bible is related to that, including the Genesis flood account.

In a word, the destruction of all mankind was because the human blood line had been polluted by the fallen angels.

As you may recall, the Bible records that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels in heaven rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven, down to the earth. The scriptures tell us that Satan (Lucifer's new name or title) is the prince of the earth and that the other fallen angels were cast into darkness where they are chained (or, restrained) until judgment day. I believe that "darkness" is the earth. (See Gen. 1:2).

Scriptures tell us in Gen. 6 that there were "giants" in those days. The Hebrew word translated as "giants" is nĕphiyl, and it comes from a word which means "to fall or be cast down." Those giants are collectively known as the Nephilim and, according to my understanding, they were the offspring of fallen angels and human women. Not everybody agrees with that idea, but most Jewish scholars of antiquity do so far as I know, so I'm going with them as they are among the Chosen People and much closer to the event. There is also disagreement that angels have any reproductive capability, though it is without question that they all are male. The Bible reveals no female angels and for something to be considered as male, what else would define it but male genitalia?

In any case, I believe that mating of fallen angels and human women was Satan's first attempt to prevent the birth of the Messiah, which he had to know was coming because as Lucifer, he was second only go God and knew about as much as God did. He knew, or most likely should have known, God's plans from before the creation.

Sounds fanciful, doesn't it? In fact, it reads like a B grade sic-fi script! But, consider this:

Noah and his sons were the only human beings preserved from destruction. Why?

Gen 6: 8-9 tell us that Noah found grace, or favor, in the eyes of God because he was a just man, walked with God (was a righteous man) and because he was "perfect in his generations."

The Hebrew word translated as "perfect" means, "whole, sound, complete" and the word translated as "generations" can mean either in his offspring or refer to his generation of people. Either is appropriate in this case.

The point is, I think, that Noah's bloodline was uncorrupted by the seed of fallen angels. It was whole and sound. By preserving Noah's bloodline, God preserved the bloodline to Mary and Joseph, free from demonic taint. No, we don't know if Noah was the ONLY pure bloodline at the time, only that he, and he alone, was chosen to carry on the unpolluted human gnome. That's not an uncommon thing for God to do. For instance, when the Israelites were carried off into the Babylonian captivity, God reserved for himself a few people who were left in Judah and did not go. Everyone else did, the innocent right along with the wicked. Also, consider that God chose Isaac, from among all people on earth, to be the father of His Chosen People. He could have picked someone else, but didn't for reasons only He knows. Such is the case with Noah. Scriptures tell us that we cannot fully comprehend or understand the things of God (which I doubt few who believe in God would argue), so we are left to accept the idea that God knew what he was doing when He chose Noah and not somebody else.

Yes, there probably were innocents who died in the flood and that upsets and disturbs us. But, there are innocents who die now, every day, so why would be expect anything different in past times? The world is covered in the blood of innocents! I think we as human beings place a much higher value on ourselves than we deserve. We're really not that special in the grand scheme of things and we too can die without justification. That's just our pride talking. In any case, if God did create everything, including us, everything belongs to Him and He can do with it what He will. Who are WE to question God?

So...as you can see, the whole flood story isn't about PEOPLE per se, or their innocence or guilt, but about preventing Satan from short-circuiting the path to Jesus Christ, who had to be both human and God and pure in every regard to serve as a substitutionary sacrifice for our, personal sins.

I cannot definitively say if all that is true, but if you accept those ideas, the flood account makes much more sense...at least to me.

ps: Interestingly, the Nephilim appear one other time in the Bible, after the flood. When Moses sent Joshua and the scouts into the promised land, they came back reporting "giants" in the land, beside whom the scouts seemed like grasshoppers. That's the Nephilim again. Goliath, and other "giants" were just large people and the Hebrew word translated as "giant' is not nĕphiyl. Apparently, some survived the flood and some Jewish scholars presume they survive to this day, but without another infusion of angelic blood, have progressively shrunk to the point that they are no longer recognizable from other human beings.

Whether or not that is true, I don't know. But, it does lead to some interesting speculation about what's going on the world, and particularly in regards to the "end times" prophesied in Scripture, which many of us believe we have entered.

So..there ya go.

 

[LittleNipper]

I want to start this off by saying I have no animus towards the poster known as "Oldguy". Sometimes we agree, occassionally we disagree, but I respect him for his thoughtful opinions and the articulate way he expresses them.

That said, without going through the process of a "Bull Ring Call out", I would invite him or others to comment on the following subject- Noah's flood.

I've discussed in the past how a Nun from my childhood had rationalized the near genocide (as described in the bible) of the human race- including babies- by the "wickedness" of humanity.

I think this diminished Christianity as a moral philosophy. Surely an omnipotent God could have found another solution to the flaws of humanity that didn't involve genocide or infanticide.

So I will offer the floor to OldGuy to opine on this issue as much or as little as he sees fit.

- Joe B.

I'm sorry it took me so long to see this thread and nearly 2 days to respond. It's been pretty hectic around here the past couple of days and I've had time for only a few DBP's in other threads. I can do it now, though. Hope you're still here.

In the first place, I have to say I do believe the Bible is the revealed word of God, though I do not believe it is to be taken literally in every instance. Even Jesus taught using parables, which is a story designed to make an important point, though not necessarily literally true.

Nor am I 6000 year old earth person. I think that's a ridiculous notion and would suggest that St. Augustine was right when he warned not to take positions on the Bible which even the common man can see is refuted by science. (I think it was Augustine). My understanding of scripture finds no reason to presume God did not essentially say, "Let there be a Big Bang." (But, that's a subject for another day).

Also, I do not know if the flood described in Genesis actually covered the whole earth, or just the "whole" earth as known by the inhabitants at the time. There is some geologic evidence to support that it was the entire earth (for instance, sea animal fossils found at the summit of Mt. Everest) and there is the idea that such a flood could have covered the whole earth AT THAT STAGE OF THE EARTH'S DEVELOPMENT. Some scientists have calculated that all the water on earth, if unfrozen and drained from the sky, would cover a flat earth to a depth of roughly 9000 ft, so it IS possible that water could have covered the whole earth before mountains like the Himalaya's were formed. There is also the interesting fact that many, many cultures, from many time periods and without contact with other cultures, have some story of a flood.

However, your question doesn't necessitate discussing the flood itself but, rather, why God would destroy even innocent babies, so let's leave that for another time too.

Let me begin by saying that I think your nun was wrong. God did not destroy everybody because of only their wickedness. If he destroyed people just because they turned against Him, none of us would live past childhood. Not only that, but sin itself was not defined until the Law was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Though sin existed before its definition, it was not held against, or charged, to the people who lived before the Law. (Romans 5:13). Consequently, for God to condemn people for their wickedness before they knew the definition of sin would be unjust...and God is NOT unjust.

Other things were going on, though, which demanded He do something or the coming Messiah could not appear. Any serious student of the Bible knows that it is about Jesus Christ, from Gen. 1:1 to Revelations 22:13. Everything in it points to or confirms Jesus Christ as the ONLY Son of God and Redeemer of mankind. Everything in the Bible is related to that, including the Genesis flood account.

In a word, the destruction of all mankind was because the human blood line had been polluted by the fallen angels.

As you may recall, the Bible records that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels in heaven rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven, down to the earth. The scriptures tell us that Satan (Lucifer's new name or title) is the prince of the earth and that the other fallen angels were cast into darkness where they are chained (or, restrained) until judgment day. I believe that "darkness" is the earth. (See Gen. 1:2).

Scriptures tell us in Gen. 6 that there were "giants" in those days. The Hebrew word translated as "giants" is nĕphiyl, and it comes from a word which means "to fall or be cast down." Those giants are collectively known as the Nephilim and, according to my understanding, they were the offspring of fallen angels and human women. Not everybody agrees with that idea, but most Jewish scholars of antiquity do so far as I know, so I'm going with them as they are among the Chosen People and much closer to the event. There is also disagreement that angels have any reproductive capability, though it is without question that they all are male. The Bible reveals no female angels and for something to be considered as male, what else would define it but male genitalia?

In any case, I believe that mating of fallen angels and human women was Satan's first attempt to prevent the birth of the Messiah, which he had to know was coming because as Lucifer, he was second only go God and knew about as much as God did. He knew, or most likely should have known, God's plans from before the creation.

Sounds fanciful, doesn't it? In fact, it reads like a B grade sic-fi script! But, consider this:

Noah and his sons were the only human beings preserved from destruction. Why?

Gen 6: 8-9 tell us that Noah found grace, or favor, in the eyes of God because he was a just man, walked with God (was a righteous man) and because he was "perfect in his generations."

The Hebrew word translated as "perfect" means, "whole, sound, complete" and the word translated as "generations" can mean either in his offspring or refer to his generation of people. Either is appropriate in this case.

The point is, I think, that Noah's bloodline was uncorrupted by the seed of fallen angels. It was whole and sound. By preserving Noah's bloodline, God preserved the bloodline to Mary and Joseph, free from demonic taint. No, we don't know if Noah was the ONLY pure bloodline at the time, only that he, and he alone, was chosen to carry on the unpolluted human gnome. That's not an uncommon thing for God to do. For instance, when the Israelites were carried off into the Babylonian captivity, God reserved for himself a few people who were left in Judah and did not go. Everyone else did, the innocent right along with the wicked. Also, consider that God chose Isaac, from among all people on earth, to be the father of His Chosen People. He could have picked someone else, but didn't for reasons only He knows. Such is the case with Noah. Scriptures tell us that we cannot fully comprehend or understand the things of God (which I doubt few who believe in God would argue), so we are left to accept the idea that God knew what he was doing when He chose Noah and not somebody else.

Yes, there probably were innocents who died in the flood and that upsets and disturbs us. But, there are innocents who die now, every day, so why would be expect anything different in past times? The world is covered in the blood of innocents! I think we as human beings place a much higher value on ourselves than we deserve. We're really not that special in the grand scheme of things and we too can die without justification. That's just our pride talking. In any case, if God did create everything, including us, everything belongs to Him and He can do with it what He will. Who are WE to question God?

So...as you can see, the whole flood story isn't about PEOPLE per se, or their innocence or guilt, but about preventing Satan from short-circuiting the path to Jesus Christ, who had to be both human and God and pure in every regard to serve as a substitutionary sacrifice for our, personal sins.

I cannot definitively say if all that is true, but if you accept those ideas, the flood account makes much more sense...at least to me.

ps: Interestingly, the Nephilim appear one other time in the Bible, after the flood. When Moses sent Joshua and the scouts into the promised land, they came back reporting "giants" in the land, beside whom the scouts seemed like grasshoppers. That's the Nephilim again. Goliath, and other "giants" were just large people and the Hebrew word translated as "giant' is not nĕphiyl. Apparently, some survived the flood and some Jewish scholars presume they survive to this day, but without another infusion of angelic blood, have progressively shrunk to the point that they are no longer recognizable from other human beings.

Whether or not that is true, I don't know. But, it does lead to some interesting speculation about what's going on the world, and particularly in regards to the "end times" prophesied in Scripture, which many of us believe we have entered.

So..there ya go.

So, if St. Augustine saw Adam the day after Adam was created St. Augustine would argue that Adam was 30 years old? Does an artist paint a seed and grow the tree, or does the artist paint a fully grown tree? I believe God created a fully mature ecological system and universe. God didn't have to wait billions of years; however, God likely illustrated eternity to Adam through the universe He created.

 

[rdean]

The Grand Canyon was made by Noah's flood.

 

[LittleNipper]

I have solid reasons for condemning your gods in addition to those already delineated.

So, why do you think that little Johnny and Jane were deserving of the wrath of the gods?

From the very beginning of the genesis fable, we discover that god lied and Satan, (created by your gods), told the truth.

How ironic.

So what makes you imagine little Johnny and Jane even existed? All God needed to do was withhold the miracle of birth for say 13 years prior to the Flood, and He would be dealing with only sinful adults (who should have known something was up). They would have all drowned and gone to exactly where they deserved to go. I mean Noah's sons all seem to have been rather old before they even had children. Certainly they were already on the Ark. Do you even realize that according to the New Testament Noah preached to that generation concerning the coming judgment while he constructed the Ark? I pray that God will work on your seemingly cold unrepentant heart. Satan is the liar and he also is the accuser. Satan points his finger and says, "See, see ---- look at how sinful he/she is... Let me take care of them now!"

So... are you suggesting that you know the gawds really did "withhold the miracle of birth for say 13 years prior to the Flood"?

Was the planet inhabited only by those 18 years and older when the gawds launched Noah on his pleasure cruise to nowhere?

What I can tell you is read the Genesis account of the Flood. There are some very interesting details that people miss because they simply gloss over the epic. 8 people entered the Ark. Noah and his sons worked on the Ark for 100 years and yet there is no mention of grandchildren. Another interesting point that we learn with a time line is that Methuselah, the longest living man recorded in the Bible, died the same year that the flood came. Methuselah name means "when he dies, it shall come" (in other words, judgment), so it seems that there were prophesies of the destruction of the world long before the days of Noah.

 

[Oldguy]

So, if St. Augustine saw Adam the day after Adam was created St. Augustine would argue that Adam was 30 years old? Does an artist paint a seed and grow the tree, or does the artist paint a fully grown tree? I believe God created a fully mature ecological system and universe. God didn't have to wait billions of years; however, God likely illustrated eternity to Adam through the universe He created.

I have no idea what St. Augustine would say about Adam.

Yes, God could have formed all of creation in its current state, but He also didn't have to. Just because He could have, does not mean He did.

There's a really good book on that subject entitled, "The Genesis Enigma: Why The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate." The author takes the Genesis account of creation and compares it with what science knows today and they dove-tail almost perfectly in the order of things. I recommend it, if you're truly interested in exploring just what the Bible says and why it says it. Remember, God is never illogical and logic tells us that the earth is really, really old.

The real problem with the 6000 year old earth theory is that in order to "prove" it, much of science must be either totally ignored or accounted for by ridiculous ideas such as "carbon dating is wrong." No, it's not wrong. It can be very precisely measured and no amount of trying to make science fit the preconception of a 6000 year old earth will change that.

 

[Oldguy]

The Grand Canyon was made by Noah's flood.

Probably not. Why would a flood create a canyon there, along that river, and few other places? Why not along EVERY river?

 

[Oldguy]

So what makes you imagine little Johnny and Jane even existed? All God needed to do was withhold the miracle of birth for say 13 years prior to the Flood, and He would be dealing with only sinful adults (who should have known something was up). They would have all drowned and gone to exactly where they deserved to go. I mean Noah's sons all seem to have been rather old before they even had children. Certainly they were already on the Ark. Do you even realize that according to the New Testament Noah preached to that generation concerning the coming judgment while he constructed the Ark? I pray that God will work on your seemingly cold unrepentant heart. Satan is the liar and he also is the accuser. Satan points his finger and says, "See, see ---- look at how sinful he/she is... Let me take care of them now!"

So... are you suggesting that you know the gawds really did "withhold the miracle of birth for say 13 years prior to the Flood"?

Was the planet inhabited only by those 18 years and older when the gawds launched Noah on his pleasure cruise to nowhere?

What I can tell you is read the Genesis account of the Flood. There are some very interesting details that people miss because they simply gloss over the epic. 8 people entered the Ark. Noah and his sons worked on the Ark for 100 years and yet there is no mention of grandchildren. Another interesting point that we learn with a time line is that Methuselah, the longest living man recorded in the Bible, died the same year that the flood came. Methuselah name means "when he dies, it shall come" (in other words, judgment), so it seems that there were prophesies of the destruction of the world long before the days of Noah.

A hundred years? Where does that figure come from?

 

[LittleNipper]

So, if St. Augustine saw Adam the day after Adam was created St. Augustine would argue that Adam was 30 years old? Does an artist paint a seed and grow the tree, or does the artist paint a fully grown tree? I believe God created a fully mature ecological system and universe. God didn't have to wait billions of years; however, God likely illustrated eternity to Adam through the universe He created.

I have no idea what St. Augustine would say about Adam.

Yes, God could have formed all of creation in its current state, but He also didn't have to. Just because He could have, does not mean He did.

There's a really good book on that subject entitled, "The Genesis Enigma: Why The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate." The author takes the Genesis account of creation and compares it with what science knows today and they dove-tail almost perfectly in the order of things. I recommend it, if you're truly interested in exploring just what the Bible says and why it says it. Remember, God is never illogical and logic tells us that the earth is really, really old.

The real problem with the 6000 year old earth theory is that in order to "prove" it, much of science must be either totally ignored or accounted for by ridiculous ideas such as "carbon dating is wrong." No, it's not wrong. It can be very precisely measured and no amount of trying to make science fit the preconception of a 6000 year old earth will change that.

PLEASE Read the following:
Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old? | Creation Today

 

[LittleNipper]

So... are you suggesting that you know the gawds really did "withhold the miracle of birth for say 13 years prior to the Flood"?

Was the planet inhabited only by those 18 years and older when the gawds launched Noah on his pleasure cruise to nowhere?

What I can tell you is read the Genesis account of the Flood. There are some very interesting details that people miss because they simply gloss over the epic. 8 people entered the Ark. Noah and his sons worked on the Ark for 100 years and yet there is no mention of grandchildren. Another interesting point that we learn with a time line is that Methuselah, the longest living man recorded in the Bible, died the same year that the flood came. Methuselah name means "when he dies, it shall come" (in other words, judgment), so it seems that there were prophesies of the destruction of the world long before the days of Noah.

A hundred years? Where does that figure come from?

The Bible, PLEASE see:
How long did it take Noah to build the ark? How long was Noah on the ark?

 

[Oldguy]

So, if St. Augustine saw Adam the day after Adam was created St. Augustine would argue that Adam was 30 years old? Does an artist paint a seed and grow the tree, or does the artist paint a fully grown tree? I believe God created a fully mature ecological system and universe. God didn't have to wait billions of years; however, God likely illustrated eternity to Adam through the universe He created.

I have no idea what St. Augustine would say about Adam.

Yes, God could have formed all of creation in its current state, but He also didn't have to. Just because He could have, does not mean He did.

There's a really good book on that subject entitled, "The Genesis Enigma: Why The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate." The author takes the Genesis account of creation and compares it with what science knows today and they dove-tail almost perfectly in the order of things. I recommend it, if you're truly interested in exploring just what the Bible says and why it says it. Remember, God is never illogical and logic tells us that the earth is really, really old.

The real problem with the 6000 year old earth theory is that in order to "prove" it, much of science must be either totally ignored or accounted for by ridiculous ideas such as "carbon dating is wrong." No, it's not wrong. It can be very precisely measured and no amount of trying to make science fit the preconception of a 6000 year old earth will change that.

PLEASE Read the following:
Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old? | Creation Today

Consider the source. What would you expect them to say? That carbon dating disproves what they believe?

Among the things which Paul counseled Titus to avoid were "foolish controversies and genealogies" which engender strife and discord. Since the 6000 year old earth theory is derived from counting the Biblical generations mentioned between Christ and Adam, that seems to fit what Paul warned about. Also, never forget that Jewish family genealogies did not necessarily include every male member. For instance, if a verse says, "Bob begat Tom," that doesn't always mean Bob was Tom's father. He may have been his grandfather or great, great, great, grandfather and the genealogy would still be correct. The point being that we have no idea how many people were "left out" of that backward look at the ancestors of Christ.

Also, note that Paul warned Timothy in I Timothy to beware of false doctrines, false teachings and deliberate doctrines of demons which will come from inside the church in the latter days. If you believe, as I do, that we are in those days, then false "christian" doctrines should be all over the place, if Paul was right. He also cautioned Timothy not to become involved in any kind of controversies or disputes, but to seek after righteousness and preach the Gospel.

I'd submit to you that the 6000 year old earth theory has done nothing BUT create strife, discord, disharmony and arguments and does literally nothing to call people to Salvation. In fact, it does just the opposite and drives away people with even the most basic of scientific knowledge because the Church comes off looking like uneducated morons. If for no other reason than that, it ought not to be considered a foundational concept of Christianity. In the end, what does it matter in relation to the Great Commission?

 

[Aristotle]

Joe good thread man....This is an interesting read

 

[Oldguy]

What I can tell you is read the Genesis account of the Flood. There are some very interesting details that people miss because they simply gloss over the epic. 8 people entered the Ark. Noah and his sons worked on the Ark for 100 years and yet there is no mention of grandchildren. Another interesting point that we learn with a time line is that Methuselah, the longest living man recorded in the Bible, died the same year that the flood came. Methuselah name means "when he dies, it shall come" (in other words, judgment), so it seems that there were prophesies of the destruction of the world long before the days of Noah.

A hundred years? Where does that figure come from?

The Bible, PLEASE see:
How long did it take Noah to build the ark? How long was Noah on the ark?

Yeah...well. According to that, it could also have been as little as a year or less. We really have no idea and that links says it clearly.

To assume it took the full 100 years and try to make a point off that assumption is foolish.

 

[Oldguy]

Off to bed now. See you nice folks tomorrow.

 

[GWV5903]

I think this diminished Christianity as a moral philosophy. Surely an omnipotent God could have found another solution to the flaws of humanity that didn't involve genocide or infanticide.

- Joe B.

"I think this diminished Christianity as a moral philosophy".

not because of Noah, but their misunderstanding of JC.

God could have found another solution to the flaws of humanity that didn't involve genocide or infanticide.

Gods commandment is Remission to the Everlasting or Perish -

humanity chose the flaws causing expulsion and is for humanity to resolve the issue.

the choice is for each individual but in fact is for the Species and as with everything in the Garden death and life from one moment to the next is never a certainty ... be thankful.



Surely an omnipotent God could have found another solution to the flaws of humanity that didn't involve genocide or infanticide.

Noah represented the fruition to the Parable of Judgement explicit to Mankind's expulsion from the Everlasting - excluded from the Judea / Christian Bible.

Parable of Judgement: When the last good person or the last evil person on earth dies, God will return to Judge those who are remaining - they or the last to die will be granted Remission to the Everlasting.

Noah represented the last good person on earth who's death would have fulfilled the Parable and Mankind would have ceased to exist (Armageddon: the triumph of evil) - Rather, God prior to Noah's death exacted judgement beforehand on those already destined to death allowing Mankind one last chance. - The Triumph of Good over Evil.

Wow, that's really kind of a lot of nonsense that didn't come anywhere close to answering my question.

One more time, how can a God who drowns babies be considered "Good"?

It's over your head, just read your opening OP...

 

[BreezeWood]

"I think this diminished Christianity as a moral philosophy".

not because of Noah, but their misunderstanding of JC.

God could have found another solution to the flaws of humanity that didn't involve genocide or infanticide.

Gods commandment is Remission to the Everlasting or Perish -

humanity chose the flaws causing expulsion and is for humanity to resolve the issue.

the choice is for each individual but in fact is for the Species and as with everything in the Garden death and life from one moment to the next is never a certainty ... be thankful.



Surely an omnipotent God could have found another solution to the flaws of humanity that didn't involve genocide or infanticide.

Noah represented the fruition to the Parable of Judgement explicit to Mankind's expulsion from the Everlasting - excluded from the Judea / Christian Bible.

Parable of Judgement: When the last good person or the last evil person on earth dies, God will return to Judge those who are remaining - they or the last to die will be granted Remission to the Everlasting.

Noah represented the last good person on earth who's death would have fulfilled the Parable and Mankind would have ceased to exist (Armageddon: the triumph of evil) - Rather, God prior to Noah's death exacted judgement beforehand on those already destined to death allowing Mankind one last chance. - The Triumph of Good over Evil.

Wow, that's really kind of a lot of nonsense that didn't come anywhere close to answering my question.

One more time, how can a God who drowns babies be considered "Good"?

It's over your head, just read your opening OP...

you make a lot of sense ... mankind was diminished because God could not discern between all male inbreeding fallen angels banished to the same location he is about to "Breed" a son for to save those he previously banished as well for their own similar indiscretion ....

Happily, I am not a Christian.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Communist Goal #27:

[/SIZE]

Is this an actual list or are you just making things up?

I think you need to stop checking for commies under your bed and actually discuss the question at hand.

If anyone is kind of sweeping the whole moral question of the bible under the rug, it's the Churches themselves.

Here's the thing. I went to Catholic Schools for 12 years. They pretty much Disneyfied most of the really awful stories in the bible. They didn't even let us get a good clean look at the Old Testament until we were in High School.

So you feel you have had a bad experience and want everyone else to share your bad experience,how thoughtful of you.

Thing is, he had no bad experience whatsoever....It's only too damn obvious he's lying his proverbial ASS off.

Look, he's just one of those angry, bitter, hateful, intolerant, bigoted, far left atheist types, nothing more.....The funny thing though, is that he actually thinks clear thinking people believe his myriad of abject BS....The most hilarious of his BS being, that he actually tries to claim he's a former conservative.

And, if you ever want to get a sense of who are some of the dumbest posters on this board, just look at the bottom of his posts and see who thanks him.

Basically, to sum it all up, he occupies the same room as Truthmatters, Rdean, Duddly Hermaphrodite, Lakhota, and a few other far lefty loons, who are totally insignificant, yet entertaining in their abject attempts to seem relevent on any level.

 

[rdean]

The Grand Canyon was made by Noah's flood.

Probably not. Why would a flood create a canyon there, along that river, and few other places? Why not along EVERY river?

"Probably"?????

Hilarious!

 

[JoeB131]

[


I'm sorry it took me so long to see this thread and nearly 2 days to respond. It's been pretty hectic around here the past couple of days and I've had time for only a few DBP's in other threads. I can do it now, though. Hope you're still here.

In the first place, I have to say I do believe the Bible is the revealed word of God, though I do not believe it is to be taken literally in every instance. Even Jesus taught using parables, which is a story designed to make an important point, though not necessarily literally true.

Nor am I 6000 year old earth person. I think that's a ridiculous notion and would suggest that St. Augustine was right when he warned not to take positions on the Bible which even the common man can see is refuted by science. (I think it was Augustine). My understanding of scripture finds no reason to presume God did not essentially say, "Let there be a Big Bang." (But, that's a subject for another day).

Also, I do not know if the flood described in Genesis actually covered the whole earth, or just the "whole" earth as known by the inhabitants at the time. There is some geologic evidence to support that it was the entire earth (for instance, sea animal fossils found at the summit of Mt. Everest) and there is the idea that such a flood could have covered the whole earth AT THAT STAGE OF THE EARTH'S DEVELOPMENT. Some scientists have calculated that all the water on earth, if unfrozen and drained from the sky, would cover a flat earth to a depth of roughly 9000 ft, so it IS possible that water could have covered the whole earth before mountains like the Himalaya's were formed. There is also the interesting fact that many, many cultures, from many time periods and without contact with other cultures, have some story of a flood.

However, your question doesn't necessitate discussing the flood itself but, rather, why God would destroy even innocent babies, so let's leave that for another time too.

Let me begin by saying that I think your nun was wrong. God did not destroy everybody because of only their wickedness. If he destroyed people just because they turned against Him, none of us would live past childhood. Not only that, but sin itself was not defined until the Law was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Though sin existed before its definition, it was not held against, or charged, to the people who lived before the Law. (Romans 5:13). Consequently, for God to condemn people for their wickedness before they knew the definition of sin would be unjust...and God is NOT unjust.

Other things were going on, though, which demanded He do something or the coming Messiah could not appear. Any serious student of the Bible knows that it is about Jesus Christ, from Gen. 1:1 to Revelations 22:13. Everything in it points to or confirms Jesus Christ as the ONLY Son of God and Redeemer of mankind. Everything in the Bible is related to that, including the Genesis flood account.

In a word, the destruction of all mankind was because the human blood line had been polluted by the fallen angels.

As you may recall, the Bible records that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels in heaven rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven, down to the earth. The scriptures tell us that Satan (Lucifer's new name or title) is the prince of the earth and that the other fallen angels were cast into darkness where they are chained (or, restrained) until judgment day. I believe that "darkness" is the earth. (See Gen. 1:2).

Scriptures tell us in Gen. 6 that there were "giants" in those days. The Hebrew word translated as "giants" is nĕphiyl, and it comes from a word which means "to fall or be cast down." Those giants are collectively known as the Nephilim and, according to my understanding, they were the offspring of fallen angels and human women. Not everybody agrees with that idea, but most Jewish scholars of antiquity do so far as I know, so I'm going with them as they are among the Chosen People and much closer to the event. There is also disagreement that angels have any reproductive capability, though it is without question that they all are male. The Bible reveals no female angels and for something to be considered as male, what else would define it but male genitalia?

In any case, I believe that mating of fallen angels and human women was Satan's first attempt to prevent the birth of the Messiah, which he had to know was coming because as Lucifer, he was second only go God and knew about as much as God did. He knew, or most likely should have known, God's plans from before the creation.

Sounds fanciful, doesn't it? In fact, it reads like a B grade sic-fi script! But, consider this:

Noah and his sons were the only human beings preserved from destruction. Why?

Gen 6: 8-9 tell us that Noah found grace, or favor, in the eyes of God because he was a just man, walked with God (was a righteous man) and because he was "perfect in his generations."

The Hebrew word translated as "perfect" means, "whole, sound, complete" and the word translated as "generations" can mean either in his offspring or refer to his generation of people. Either is appropriate in this case.

The point is, I think, that Noah's bloodline was uncorrupted by the seed of fallen angels. It was whole and sound. By preserving Noah's bloodline, God preserved the bloodline to Mary and Joseph, free from demonic taint. No, we don't know if Noah was the ONLY pure bloodline at the time, only that he, and he alone, was chosen to carry on the unpolluted human gnome. That's not an uncommon thing for God to do. For instance, when the Israelites were carried off into the Babylonian captivity, God reserved for himself a few people who were left in Judah and did not go. Everyone else did, the innocent right along with the wicked. Also, consider that God chose Isaac, from among all people on earth, to be the father of His Chosen People. He could have picked someone else, but didn't for reasons only He knows. Such is the case with Noah. Scriptures tell us that we cannot fully comprehend or understand the things of God (which I doubt few who believe in God would argue), so we are left to accept the idea that God knew what he was doing when He chose Noah and not somebody else.

Yes, there probably were innocents who died in the flood and that upsets and disturbs us. But, there are innocents who die now, every day, so why would be expect anything different in past times? The world is covered in the blood of innocents! I think we as human beings place a much higher value on ourselves than we deserve. We're really not that special in the grand scheme of things and we too can die without justification. That's just our pride talking. In any case, if God did create everything, including us, everything belongs to Him and He can do with it what He will. Who are WE to question God?

So...as you can see, the whole flood story isn't about PEOPLE per se, or their innocence or guilt, but about preventing Satan from short-circuiting the path to Jesus Christ, who had to be both human and God and pure in every regard to serve as a substitutionary sacrifice for our, personal sins.

I cannot definitively say if all that is true, but if you accept those ideas, the flood account makes much more sense...at least to me.

ps: Interestingly, the Nephilim appear one other time in the Bible, after the flood. When Moses sent Joshua and the scouts into the promised land, they came back reporting "giants" in the land, beside whom the scouts seemed like grasshoppers. That's the Nephilim again. Goliath, and other "giants" were just large people and the Hebrew word translated as "giant' is not nĕphiyl. Apparently, some survived the flood and some Jewish scholars presume they survive to this day, but without another infusion of angelic blood, have progressively shrunk to the point that they are no longer recognizable from other human beings.

Whether or not that is true, I don't know. But, it does lead to some interesting speculation about what's going on the world, and particularly in regards to the "end times" prophesied in Scripture, which many of us believe we have entered.

So..there ya go.

Thank you for this response. I will give you credit, it is less silly than Sr. Mary Bonventure's "They were Wicked" response.

I think the thing here is that those first few Pre-Abraham chapters of Genesis are a mashup of a lot of myths. For instance, the Nephalim were a race of giants which most mythologies had at that time. Giants probably were how they explained all these giant bones they were finding and didn't know what a "dinosaur" was.

And I will admit, by the time I got to High School, the better educated and more Sophisticated Christian brothers admitted as much (while still trying to claim SOME elements were true.) For instance, one brother insisted that the flood was probably an account of a flood of Mesopotemia, but insisted the Ark was on Mount Ararat (which was considerably NORTH of there.)

Leaving the veracity of the story aside, even as a parable it kind of sucks.

Since God is Omniscient, he should have known this was going to happen before he started molding the clay. So his go-to solution was to drown babies- not to mention all the other animals? Because some humans were tainted with demonic blood. Why not just arrange for all the tainted people to have massive coronaries at the same time?