Zone1 If God Truly Loves Us Then Why Did He Cause The Great Flood?

And regret that He created humans in the first place? That doesn't sound like love to me.
This statement assumes that one has to believe in the literal interpretation and take on the flood. Moses had plenty of influences where he might have been able to drop that story into the history of Israel.

The problem today is that Christians (no all, but the majority) are completely unable to separate the O.T. from the N.T. and more specifically the Gospels that provide the Testimony of Jesus.

It is absolutely plausible, that Moses and all the other OT authors have attributed to 'God', historical events, attributes and characters of God improperly. The warring and murdering god of the OT is not represented in the example of Jesus, who not only did not bring about war against Rome and the messianic age (as the Jews expect and still assume today) but was the peaceful, compassionate, loving example who then allowed those he loved, to crucify him due to their misunderstanding of God which is also represented in mass in the O.T.

In summary, if the Jews fully understood who God was from the onset, they would have recognized their Messiah.

Now today, Christians are making the same mistake by attempting to harmonize the O.T. and the N.T. into the unnecessary "Word of God". And because it's the WOG, it has to be infallible and perfect, which leads to hermeneutic stretches of interpretation.

Christianity can absolutely exist without the O.T., and one does not have to be believe in the flood being literal to be a "christian".
 
Did Indians know about the Euphrates?

the flood was near the very beginning of civilization - there were no indians, chinese, austraians, europeans - there were no survivors than the handful allowed, there are no local recordings of the heavenly event only spoken remembrances over time of the single event and written long afterwards when that became available - and when still not too late for a successful outcome.
 


Christianity can absolutely exist without the O.T., and one does not have to be believe in the flood being literal to be a "christian".
Jesus and Peter mention the flood, as described in Genesis.
 
Jesus and Peter mention the flood, as described in Genesis.
Because they were Jews. It's like being an American an not understanding the Constitution (Oh wait, that is most of USMB LOL).

Belief in the flood, or creation, or Job, or David and Goliath is not needed or a requirement to believe that Jesus said who he was.
 
Because they were Jews. It's like being an American an not understanding the Constitution (Oh wait, that is most of USMB LOL).

Belief in the flood, or creation, or Job, or David and Goliath is not needed or a requirement to believe that Jesus said who he was.
I take Jesus and Peter at their word.
 
the flood was near the very beginning of civilization - there were no indians, chinese, austraians, europeans - there were no survivors than the handful allowed, there are no local recordings of the heavenly event only spoken remembrances over time of the single event and written long afterwards when that became available - and when still not too late for a successful outcome.

Playing semantics because you can't address all those "non-existing" civilizations
on distant continents having a record of a global flood?

In your rush to discredit the historicity of the Bible,
you lose the main argument about the collective
archetypes of all human civilization.

 
I take Jesus and Peter at their word.
Jesus never said you have to believe in a literal flood to be a disciple of a "believer".

The use of the flood, Noah by Peter or Jesus, is used as an analogy to their current time and is not intended to ascribe historical didactic accuracy. That much must be evident to you? Not much different than using a parable to relay a teaching point, whether the story is made it up or history isn't the point of the story/parable.

Again, my point, is that O.T. stories are not salvific. One doesn't have to believe in the flood to be a 'Christian'. Therefore arguments about those Genesis stories or other O.T. stories, are waisted mental energy.

Forgot I should add that it makes the OP's original question moot and nothing to argue about.
 
Last edited:
Jesus never said you have to believe in a literal flood to be a disciple of a "believer".

The use of the flood, Noah by Peter or Jesus, is used as an analogy to their current time and is not intended to ascribe historical didactic accuracy. That much must be evident to you? Not much different than using a parable to relay a teaching point, whether the story is made it up or history isn't the point of the story/parable.

Again, my point, is that O.T. stories are not salvific. One doesn't have to believe in the flood to be a 'Christian'. Therefore arguments about those Genesis stories or other O.T. stories, are waisted mental energy.

Forgot I should add that it makes the OP's original question moot and nothing to argue about.
So, your purpose here is to hijack the thread. Got it.
 
So, your purpose here is to hijack the thread. Got it.
No, the OP asked why god murdered people due to the flood because how could a loving god do so. The premise of the question is based on current idea that Christianity has to harmonize the O.T. and the life of Christ. If God is love, and the bible is True, then why did God murder people (who cares about the how) in the O.T. I'm pointing out that Jesus, his teachings and his sacrifice point to a crucified, self-sacrificing God, not the war mongering or natural disaster murdering god of the O.T.

Yet, Christians will try and incorrectly harmonize the O.T. God and Jesus because the Bible has to be correct and infallible. My point is is that Christians do not need to do so. They can respond to the OP this way....

Moses and the OT authors ascribed, unintentionally, attributes and characteristics to Yahweh. Israel tried to know an unknowable god. When the continued to get it wrong, God sent Jesus. Jews still mucked it up and killed him.

But, despite that, Jesus presented the TRUE characteristics of God. Therefore, the OT god can be 'tossed out', along with the O.T. that is now just a historical narrative of the Jews. Jesus is Christianity and the N.T. or really the Gospels, are the true scriptures.
 
No, the OP asked why god murdered people due to the flood because how could a loving god do so. The premise of the question is based on current idea that Christianity has to harmonize the O.T. and the life of Christ. If God is love, and the bible is True, then why did God murder people (who cares about the how) in the O.T. I'm pointing out that Jesus, his teachings and his sacrifice point to a crucified, self-sacrificing God, not the war mongering or natural disaster murdering god of the O.T.

Yet, Christians will try and incorrectly harmonize the O.T. God and Jesus because the Bible has to be correct and infallible. My point is is that Christians do not need to do so. They can respond to the OP this way....

Moses and the OT authors ascribed, unintentionally, attributes and characteristics to Yahweh. Israel tried to know an unknowable god. When the continued to get it wrong, God sent Jesus. Jews still mucked it up and killed him.

But, despite that, Jesus presented the TRUE characteristics of God. Therefore, the OT god can be 'tossed out', along with the O.T. that is now just a historical narrative of the Jews. Jesus is Christianity and the N.T. or really the Gospels, are the true scriptures.
So how do you square this with the fact that Jesus upheld the death penalty for people violating the fifth commandment?

The flood was a mass execution, not a mass murder.
 
Playing semantics because you can't address all those "non-existing" civilizations
on distant continents having a record of a global flood?

In your rush to discredit the historicity of the Bible,
you lose the main argument about the collective
archetypes of all human civilization.
- there were no indians, chinese, austraians, europeans - there were no survivors

there can not be any records of the heavenly flood than the immediate area as there were no other survivors ... as well there were no beings in those areas to survive the flood.

the flood was at the very beginning of civilization -

mcdonalds would come latter in history ...

and yes, being in the desert bibles, copies from earlier versions is a failure of historicity and the same for that even earlier version than the true version at the very beginning of life, civilization on planet earth.
 
there can not be any records of the heavenly flood than the immediate area as there were no other survivors ... as well there were no beings in those areas to survive the flood.



mcdonalds would come latter in history ...

and yes, being in the desert bibles, copies from earlier versions is a failure of historicity and the same for that even earlier version than the true version at the very beginning of life, civilization on planet earth.
The Dead Sea Scrolls date to 150-160 BC. Genesis and Exodus were written after the Babylonian exile.
 
15th post

These unpopular scriptures are often hard to find as many Christians have torn them from their Bibles. Some have removed so many such scriptures that their Bibles are nothing but empty leather covers flapping in the breeze. ;)

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the (fifth) commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
 
Last edited:
These unpopular scriptures are often hard to find as many Christians have torn them from their Bibles. Some have removed so many such scriptures that their Bibles are nothing but empty leather covers flapping in the breeze. ;)

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the (fifth) commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Context is key: Here is the pre-text, that was left out.

7 The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they [a]carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they [b]cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the [c]washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 5 The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” 6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to [d]be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, [e]given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

The point of this entire passage is Jesus pointing out the hypocrisy of the Jewish elders trying to entrap Jesus. They were elevating their man made oral traditions above the law of moses. Jesus called them out for it by basically telling them they would rather take the money into the temple coffers rather than allowing the child to use the money to help the mother and father. By taking the money, the child no longer has to honor the father and mother.

This text is in by no means an absolute validation of the death penalty from Jesus, but rather, in its proper hermeneutical context, exposing the hypocrisy of the jewish leaders or elevated their oral traditions and temple traditions over the law of moses.
 
Back
Top Bottom