Noah's Flood

Why is the deluge/Noah story so insane? Christians often have very fanciful ideas about it that are completely belied by the Biblical text, and that's because the story is incredibly alien to the popular Christian perspective. Let's leave aside its internal incoherence, literary dependence on Atrahasis, and the fact that is fractally contradicted by the last two hundred years of scientific inquiry. Really, let's leave those aside.

• Why did God flood the Earth? Luckily Genesis tells us twice, in ipsissima verba Dei.
>The Lord saw that the wickedness of humans was great in the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the humans I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air—for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord.
>Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw that the earth was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.
God regrets and grieves. How can you be sorry to have made something the fate of which you foreknew exhaustively? Clearly this God is not omniscient, not transcendent. Why not create something which you won't be sorry for, if you can? If you can't, why create it in the first place?
It's also interesting that the guilt is upon "all flesh" (cf. v.9 "every living thing, of all flesh") - animals are violent as well.
cont.

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    • So, mission accomplished right? The earth is flooded, and all that is left is he who "found favor in the sight of the Lord" (and his sons and their wives...). Surely now the nature of man has changed, the wheat has been separated from the chaff. Well, we know that isn't true from the ongoing depravity and violence, and many Christians even profess that the Earth shall be destroyed again in two weeks, and only a small remnant in whom the Lord has found favor, so to speak, shall be spared the destruction of the world. What gives? Well, the story continues.
    >Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humans, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
    Reading this, all I can say is what the frick? Read it again. God flooded the Earth because "flesh has corrupted its ways upon the Earth". But, nothing at all has changed. The human heart is still evil, and I think israelites and Christians even more than most would agree that the "wickedness of humans" has many times been "great in the earth" since. The sole reason that God will not destroy "every living [unfavored, since Noah et al. are not included] creature" is ostensibly because Noah made sacrifices and God likes the smell of burning flesh. Is that why "the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire", because we no longer sacrifice? The ongoing Samaritan sacrifices do not suffice to propitiate God? Or is it just a coincidence the promise appears to logically follow the sacrifice, and God changed his mind for no reason whatsoever? According to Genesis, God is inconsistent.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/8UzFwz9.jpeg

      Why is the deluge/Noah story so insane? Christians often have very fanciful ideas about it that are completely belied by the Biblical text, and that's because the story is incredibly alien to the popular Christian perspective. Let's leave aside its internal incoherence, literary dependence on Atrahasis, and the fact that is fractally contradicted by the last two hundred years of scientific inquiry. Really, let's leave those aside.

      • Why did God flood the Earth? Luckily Genesis tells us twice, in ipsissima verba Dei.
      >The Lord saw that the wickedness of humans was great in the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the humans I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air—for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord.
      >Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw that the earth was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.
      God regrets and grieves. How can you be sorry to have made something the fate of which you foreknew exhaustively? Clearly this God is not omniscient, not transcendent. Why not create something which you won't be sorry for, if you can? If you can't, why create it in the first place?
      It's also interesting that the guilt is upon "all flesh" (cf. v.9 "every living thing, of all flesh") - animals are violent as well.
      cont.

      >WHY DID GOD
      Why do you imply the god of ancient israel is the One True God?

      The religion of israel has had its own evolution like any other custom of a group of humans. From many gods, to One chief god, to One universal god. There are clues of these currents of thinking in the bible. God liking the smells of sacrifices is a holdover from the pagan tradition, and textually from the narrative of deluge, since the reason the sumerian gods regret the flood is because they were starving, since humans were not there anymore to make sacrifices for them.

      >BUT WHY IS GOD LIKE THIS, GOD SHOULD BE...
      God is God. You don't have a say on how should he behave, what powers should he have, what things should he know. You can see that the world around you exist, is complex, and has certain rules. You can assume God made these, take it as the handwriting of God, but you can't make any more assumptions than what you are willing to believe.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Earth shall be destroyed again in two weeks

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      • But, at least the world would be a bit better for a while, right?
      On the contrary, Genesis has nothing to tell us about Noah and his sons after the flood before Ham violates Noah and sires the progenitor of the Canaanites, whom God later orders wiped off the Earth down to the last infant. If God is omniscient, he could have spared his people unimaginable amounts of war, conflict, and the onerous labor of slaughtering women and children by simply sterilizing Ham's wife (cf. Gen. 20:18) Or he might have simply let Noah know to not let Ham on the Ark, and spare him an indignity so abominable it cursed a nation. Remember as well the Hamites (Egyptians) ended up enslaving Israel for 400 years. The seed of depraved evil was ordered by God himself to be saved from destruction.

      Genesis 6:6

      But leave that aside, if you take the narrative at its word it is already very problematic in light of the transcendent conception of God professed by almost all Christians and many israelites.

      [...]
      So why does he destroy the Earth then? He might have grieved and done nothing, as one might imagine was the case every time "the wickedness of humans was great in the earth" since then.
      >And the Lord was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the humans I have created.
      >I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them
      Is there no logical connection here?

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >God regrets
    Nope.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      • But, at least the world would be a bit better for a while, right?
      On the contrary, Genesis has nothing to tell us about Noah and his sons after the flood before Ham violates Noah and sires the progenitor of the Canaanites, whom God later orders wiped off the Earth down to the last infant. If God is omniscient, he could have spared his people unimaginable amounts of war, conflict, and the onerous labor of slaughtering women and children by simply sterilizing Ham's wife (cf. Gen. 20:18) Or he might have simply let Noah know to not let Ham on the Ark, and spare him an indignity so abominable it cursed a nation. Remember as well the Hamites (Egyptians) ended up enslaving Israel for 400 years. The seed of depraved evil was ordered by God himself to be saved from destruction.

      Genesis 6:6

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That's just God grieving over his creations abandoning Him.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Also christians believe the whole of earth was flodded which is moronic

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      But leave that aside, if you take the narrative at its word it is already very problematic in light of the transcendent conception of God professed by almost all Christians and many israelites.

      That's just God grieving over his creations abandoning Him.

      So why does he destroy the Earth then? He might have grieved and done nothing, as one might imagine was the case every time "the wickedness of humans was great in the earth" since then.
      >And the Lord was sorry that he had made humans on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the humans I have created.
      >I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them
      Is there no logical connection here?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Something had to have happened because there are flood myths in that region, in multiple different mythologies (Greek and Sumerian to name a few)

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Just because something happened does not mean that Genesis is correct. It's like when the Qur'an talks about Talut and mixes up Saul and Gideon. Yeah, it's talking about something earlier known or referenced, but it's grievously incorrect.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Right so what do you think all these flood myths are referencing if not an actual flood (doesn't necessarily have to cover the whole world, I have heard some Christians, that is, OECs and TEs, argue that it was actually describing a regional flood)

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Just because something happened does not mean that Genesis is correct. It's like when the Qur'an talks about Talut and mixes up Saul and Gideon. Yeah, it's talking about something earlier known or referenced, but it's grievously incorrect.

            It was describing a world flood. Have you never read any other myths? The world flood literally happened.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Good point, we have other myths beyond the Black Sea basin or Mesopotamia describing such a flood, so it definitely couldn't have been just something in that area.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            DUDE A FLOOD? NO WAY, MAN, THOSE THINGS NEVER HAPPEN. ESPECIALLY NOT IN RIVER VALLEYS OR RIVER BASINS WHERE MOST CIVILIZATIONS BEGAN!!!

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            No, anon, they literally desribe events which are not normal in actual normal floods. Such as fireballs coming down from the sky and the sub exploding. They also describe far off regions as being destroyed as well. Idk what so difficult for you to rake ancient people at their word. They werent cavemen. I take their word over what people today think about their word.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Flood myths and floods are found all over the world. It's possible that they all developed independently, flood and myths are not unusual. But there is clearly a literary relationship between at least Atrahasis, Epic of Gilgamesh, and Genesis 6-9.

            That really happened though

            [...]
            It was describing a world flood. Have you never read any other myths? The world flood literally happened.

            Why did God flood the world? Please quote scripture, if possible.

            Good point, we have other myths beyond the Black Sea basin or Mesopotamia describing such a flood, so it definitely couldn't have been just something in that area.

            Pic related is attested in prehistoric Crete, India, North Africa, Europe, Indonesia, and even in the Americas. Ideas may spread very far.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        This happened and is attested in basically every religion across the world, where the flood happens for different reasons, as made rational in each individual belief system. Just because the story about it, as told in the Bible, is the most known/prominent in the west, doesn't mean that it, by association, should be dismissed.

        Nta, but it does exist across basically all mesopotamian religions.

        It happened in the part of the world the author cultures lived. Not the part of the planet they never inhabited. No one denies a semite flood but a global one is delusional and would have led to a mass extinction.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >a global one is delusional
          More like delugeonal.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That really happened though

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This happened and is attested in basically every religion across the world, where the flood happens for different reasons, as made rational in each individual belief system. Just because the story about it, as told in the Bible, is the most known/prominent in the west, doesn't mean that it, by association, should be dismissed.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >This happened and is attested in basically every religion across the world
        Nope. You making shit up isn't an argument
        The vast majority of religions do not have a flood myth

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Nta, but it does exist across basically all mesopotamian religions.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Nope. You making shit up isn't an argument
          I guess the attestations and accounts are made-up then.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        attested in every religion? wow! how about attested in the geological record next? how about an explanation as to where all the extra 8km of water would come from or where'd they go?

        Nta, but it does exist across basically all mesopotamian religions.

        >people who live in a floodplain are scared of floods
        wow........

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          That's also where the biggest flood was.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            so? there still was not a global flood

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It was a flood big enough to wipe out all the peoples of afro-eurasia.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >infinite water hack

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    for sure the water levels rose 5 km

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Flood myths are not found all over the world. That is a lie. The vast majority of world religions do not have a flood mythology in them.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      "Found all over the world" doesn't mean "a cultural universal". There's flood myths attested from every continent.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If you're going to aggressively argue and dismiss real history with insincerity, what's the point of sharing information? You are presented a history consistent with all the peoples of the Earth, but you'll belief in fish shapeshifting into people with no evidence because it justifies your sexual perversions. There is no logic in this process.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Because it's not true. A percentage of various religious (not even the majority of them) having similar allegories does not indicate an actual historical event. We would be able to test for a global flood and it never happened buddy.
      Evolution has been proven by DNA evidence. No amount of you screaming and crying about this will change the fact that biology is real. "Fish shape-shifting into people", you're a joke and a moron and there's no logic in your process whatsoever. You just want your religion to be true. It's not.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        brother his "arguments" are below faceboomer-tier, do not reply to him. and he has the nerve to call you insincere lol

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Why did you reply to yourself?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            are you unable to tell two people from how they write? well, you do believe in a flood that would of covered the everest

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >If you're going to aggressively argue and dismiss real history with insincerity
      The point of this thread is that if you sincerely credit Noah's deluge as real history, then our source for it attests to a God who is incredibly un-transcendent. The reason he floods the Earth (or if you disagree that there is a logical connection between what God says about humans/flesh and the flood, what reason(s) did he not state?) is because of a condition that has never not been present.
      >You are presented a history consistent with all the peoples of the Earth
      The notion that Egyptians and Canaanites are closer to each other than Canaanites are to the Israelites is just one of dozens of with the Noah traditions that are completely belied by all the evidence. But I'd rather discuss the flood.
      >you'll belief in fish shapeshifting into people with no evidence
      I have decided not to discuss evolution on IQfy anymore because nobody responds to my points even superficially, they just spam wojaks and call me depraved.

      https://i.imgur.com/l5x7zIa.jpeg

      >christian ""logic""

      Many try to be as logical as they can, and profess to be logical, and that the Bible is logical.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >The reason he floods the Earth (or if you disagree that there is a logical connection between what God says about humans/flesh and the flood, what reason(s) did he not state?) is because of a condition that has never not been present.
        >Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
        The "sons of God", which are attributed to fallen angels, mated with human women, producing Nephilim (giants). That is the corruption of flesh being referenced.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          None of this happened.
          I don't believe that there are people who actually believe this. You're all just lapping for political reasons or something

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon, but in high school, we watched a documentary about how homosexual sapiens once cohabitated the world with a race of giants. I wish I knew the scientific name or even the documentary, but it was a biology class that was focused on evolution.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            The star people are referenced in American Indian folklore as mating with women and creating tribes of giants. The Polarians, who came from the moon in India are considered the ancestors to the Priti. Princess Kaguya descends from the moon to Japan to marry a human man. These are just some examples.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            So what? So 3 religions have a similar story about magical people? There are more dissimilarities between these religions but you'll ignore those. If you were looking for a different shared theme you'd find it in multiple religions as well.
            What you're saying doesn't mean anything. Do you genuinely not understand this? Do you really think that going "these three religions have a similar theme in one of there stories where people mated with giants (no nothing else in their religions are similar but that doesn't matter)" means that people actually mated with magical giants? Or is it more likely that people were making up religious myths and the theme of mating with giants happened to be shared by some religions?
            You're not logical at all dude. You're desperately trying to justify your mythology.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            All pagan religions are similar. You are arguing against a lot of theologians, pagan included on this subject that you are clearly uneducated in.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >All pagan religions are similar
            No, they aren't, outside of diefying natural forces like the sun and such.
            The shared themes in the various indo-european religions, which is most likely what youre talking about, come from the fact that they descend from the proto indo European religion. It is not similar to other religions.
            Theologians and historians do not make the false claim that "all pagan religions are similar". There is almost no non superficial similarity between japanese shintoism, Mayan religion, and indo European religion as just 3 examples.

            The flood never happened. Evolution is true. Pull your head out of your ass and accept reality.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You are aggressively wrong, but that's to be expected, you're an evolutiontard that believes in complete, incoherent randomness.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          What exactly does that have to do with the flood though? As you know from your own quotation and Numbers 13, there were Nephilim after the flood too, so it isn't as if God flooded the Earth to destroy them.
          Can you explain a little more? I don't see your point.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Nephilim ruled over the people of the Earth as mighy men, forcing them in servitude. They forced all the peoples of the Earth over time to merge with animals to become chimera's, this is the "corruption of flesh". Noah and his children were considered the only "pure" (non-chimeraed) people left on the planet when God gave him the command to build the Ark, but you will only get this information in 1 Enoch which gives much more specifics on the antediluvian world.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            So what is your point? Do you think Numbers and Genesis are inaccurate, and the flood destroyed the Nephilim? If God didn't flood the world to destroy the "chimeras", since they manifestly were not destroyed by the flood, then why did he?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Where did I imply that? giants escaped under the Earth. The act of the flood was preservation of the human bloodline, not to eradicate giants. Events like that war against the Canaanites was to eradicate giants from an area, but they still existed somewhere else.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >The act of the flood was preservation of the human bloodline
            Why didn't God just instantly annihilate Uriel et al. if he's so concerned about the human bloodline? Why did God create Uriel et al. foreknowing what they would do?
            The Enochian conception again attests to a very un-transcendent God. Of course, that may not be as big a problem for you as it is for Christians who reject Enoch and prefer Plato's triomni monad.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Because it's not true. A percentage of various religious (not even the majority of them) having similar allegories does not indicate an actual historical event. We would be able to test for a global flood and it never happened buddy.
      Evolution has been proven by DNA evidence. No amount of you screaming and crying about this will change the fact that biology is real. "Fish shape-shifting into people", you're a joke and a moron and there's no logic in your process whatsoever. You just want your religion to be true. It's not.

      If you guys are going to debate evolution, can you do it on my thread in IQfy?

      [...]

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        There's nothing to debate anymore. Evolution has been proven by DNA and endogenous retroviruses.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >but you'll belief in fish shapeshifting into people with no evidence because it justifies your sexual perversions
      Dismissing real science with insincerity I see
      Lying hypocrite

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That's what people sincerely believe. In their mind, fantasy and reality are melded together into a solid form that can't be removed in parts without breaking the entire structure.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >christian ""logic""

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    In a certain way, the flood did happen and noahs ark was based on a real story.

    In ancient mesopotamia, a small town experienced a local flood. A farmer made a makeshift boat and rescued his family and a couple of farm animals. That's it. That's all that happened.
    Now, every time people tell this story to eachother it becomes more and more fantastical "he rescued dozens of animals!" "he resued the whole town" "the flood was actually enormous and lasted for a month!" "actually, the whole world was flooded!" etc.
    Eventually, a version of this oral story was written down in the epic of gilgamesh, and then much later by the Israelites.

    The lesson is: reality is boring so we have to make shit up when we tell stories.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I think that's a rational conclusion, but this thread is supposed to be about God as presented in the Genesis Noah traditions.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >nephilim
    >>>/x/
    thread dismissed

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >book of Enoch
    Not even going to give that a (You)

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    SING WITH ME NOW
    Billions of dead things
    Buried in rock layers
    laid down by water
    All over the earth

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >B-b-but muh carbon dating!

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >carbon dating isn't real
        The absolute state

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You have to be an absolute moron to believe that carbon dating is accurate.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You are aggressively wrong, but that's to be expected, you're an evolutiontard that believes in complete, incoherent randomness.

            not an argument

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >B-b-but muh carbon dating!

            Can you please tell me where I am going wrong here?
            >The environment has a basically constant proportion of carbon isotopes, since some are themselves fissile products.
            >Living things are made out of environmental carbon from what their progenitor consumes
            >Carbon isotopes each have a different and constant rate of radio decay, therefore the proportion of carbon isotopes in matter shall constantly change.
            >Therefore, the age of an organic specimen can be approximately dated by ascertaining its ratio of carbon isotopes

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You're extremely moronic.

            You are aggressively wrong, but that's to be expected, you're an evolutiontard that believes in complete, incoherent randomness.

            No, I'm not.
            Evolution has been proven. You screaming and crying about this won't stop genetics and biology from being real

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Evolution has been proven
            ...false.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            Please, tell us over at IQfy how evolution is false.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. Genetics and endogenous retroviruses alone prove evolution.
            Your position is literally you saying genetics and DNA aren't real lmfao

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            and the peer reviewed study that proves this?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            The entire field of genetics.
            Here's just one
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0189-2

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16805923/
            NTA, here's another one.
            How about you share a peer reviewed paper from the last fifty years that rejects common descent?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You're the one that has to prove it's case. I don't have to do anything to disprove it other than point out the obvious holes.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            There are no holes and me and the other anon just gave you 2 peer reviewed sources explaining why endogenous retroviruses prove common descent and thus evolution
            You crying and denying this isn't an argument

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, I'll explain how ERVs are proof for evolution. Retroviruses work by having their genetic information spliced into host DNA. When this occurs in the germ line, all descendants of the host will have this DNA signature (synapomorphy). Humans share almost all of our ERV DNA with chimpanzees, appearing in the same places in our completely homologous chromosomes (pic). less with the other apes, and on up the taxonomic tree. Therefore, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.
            Here's another proof, just for fun. Humans constructed taxonomies on the basis of morphology before DNA was discovered; when we began to sequence genomes, we found that the taxonomy produced on the basis of genetic affinity recapitulated the vast majority of taxonomic families naturalists previously supposed. This is exactly what we would expect if common descent is true.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    YEC's think everything past the blue line happened in a few thousand years.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      wtf is a yec?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Young earth creationism

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >christian "science"

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >a baylonian myth with various gods working against each other shoved into a monotheist theology
    >shocked that it doesn't make sense

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Believe it or not, but there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that specifically calls the israelites or the tribe of Judah God’s chosen people. This misconception comes from the fact that the israelites of today have declared themselves to be Israel and not the house of Judah, as the Scriptures rightfully call them.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      White nationalists LARPing the identity of israelites while simultaneously declaring israelites to be their sworn nemesis is collective schizophrenia.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Abraham literally renames himself to Israel dude.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Jacob did

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >a perfect, omnipotent being feels the need to create anything at all
    This fundamental premise never made sense to me. A deity with needs and feelings cannot by perfect by default. At best, it's a demiurge.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It makes perfect sense to me in light of the Gospel of John, which says this:

      "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." (John 3:35)

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Read the sumerian myth.

    >City of Ur, coastal city
    >Narrative of the myth is mostly allegoric. Gods regret people, god of civilization reveals secret to a noble/king in order to save him, gods regret their decision and are grateful to men
    >Quantity of animals was much lower, about a dozen species of mammals were included.
    >Ark stops at locally known mountain range.

    It was a local flood/tsunami, maybe big storms were known from time to time. They didn't categorize many animals as such. What's not to get OP?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      >WHY DID GOD
      Why do you imply the god of ancient israel is the One True God?

      The religion of israel has had its own evolution like any other custom of a group of humans. From many gods, to One chief god, to One universal god. There are clues of these currents of thinking in the bible. God liking the smells of sacrifices is a holdover from the pagan tradition, and textually from the narrative of deluge, since the reason the sumerian gods regret the flood is because they were starving, since humans were not there anymore to make sacrifices for them.

      >BUT WHY IS GOD LIKE THIS, GOD SHOULD BE...
      God is God. You don't have a say on how should he behave, what powers should he have, what things should he know. You can see that the world around you exist, is complex, and has certain rules. You can assume God made these, take it as the handwriting of God, but you can't make any more assumptions than what you are willing to believe.

      Can you fricking read? You both completely missed the point of the thread. It's actually funny you think you're explaining something to me.

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Its especially baffling that contemporary Christians are so obsessed with it since historically speaking, most Christians treated the Old Testament as more mythological than historical save for key events like the creation of the Earth and Adam and Even

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Its especially baffling that contemporary Christians are so obsessed with it since historically speaking, most Christians treated the Old Testament as more mythological than historical
      No, they didn't, that belief is completely ahistorical cope invented by modern Christians embarrassed by Biblical literalism

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yes they did anon, Christians have beenn debating the Biblical canon since the first Church

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Even assuming those debates over events like the flood happened, one can only assume that the allusionists lost to the literalists, given the number of eccelesiastically-educated chroniclers that seemed to view the OT as more or less literal.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >one can only assume that the allusionists lost to the literalists, given the number of eccelesiastically-educated chroniclers that seemed to view the OT as more or less literal.
            I'd argue it's mostly protestants that lean towards literalism. whereas the Catholic Church has always been more on the side of open-ended interpretation

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I've posted two accounts from chroniclers from completely separate "apostolic" churches, one of which was catholic, lol. Keeping in mind these chroniclers would've been among the most educated people of their time, it seems quite silly to argue that they thought everything other than God creating the world, Adam and Eve and maybe some of Israel's more recent history was more-or-less fables and mythology is moronic

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is the deluge/Noah story so insane?
    You haven't really thought about how it fits in with the Biblical narrative.

    >How can you be sorry to have made something the fate of which you foreknew exhaustively?
    Because even though the Lord already knows a person is going to sin, it still angers Him to see it. That's what the Biblical account says.

    >Why not create something which you won't be sorry for, if you can?
    This is one of those things where it will make sense upon seeing the end. Things are unresolved now, but they will be resolved. As a limited being I do not have the ability to say whether this reality is worse than some other possible reality; for all I know this actually is the best reality possible and people are just complaining because they always would. I have no real way of saying the proposition of this being the best reality is false. I am willing to admit that I can't decide this on my own using my limited capacity and reasoning as a finite being. I can therefore easily believe that this is in fact the best possible timeline, and moreover that is what everything in the Bible tells me, due to God's omnipotence, omniscience, and the fact that the Lord is all-good, which only reassures me of the fact this is true.

    >Surely now the nature of man has changed, the wheat has been separated from the chaff.
    The flood does typologically reflect what is going to happen. See 2 Peter 3:5-7.
    >The sole reason that God will not destroy "every living [unfavored, since Noah et al. are not included] creature" is ostensibly because Noah made sacrifices
    This is only talking about not destroying the world with a flood. See Genesis 9:11.
    >Samaritan
    Jeroboam created that system and it was never legitimate.

    >do not suffice to propitiate God?
    The sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ does propitiate God actually, and the animal sacrifices were all types of what was to come with Christ, the high priest after the order of Melchizedek (rather than the order of Aaron).

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >This is one of those things where it will make sense upon seeing the end
      You can justify anything with this. Muslims and Hindus can instantly dismiss any criticism you might have of their traditions with your own words.
      >This is only talking about not destroying the world with a flood
      But that isn't what the Bible says. "nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.", no "unless", no asterisk.

      But why did you ignore the subject of the motivations for the flood and for not flooding the Earth once more? I can't understand the reason for the flood and what it accomplished, help me out please?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >But that isn't what the Bible says
        Allow me to quote what it literally says.

        "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."
        (Genesis 9:11)

        >But why did you ignore the subject of the motivations for the flood and for not flooding the Earth once more?
        See where I talked about typologies. It all represents what God is going to do more fully and perfectly at the end. I talked about this extensively. The animal sacrifices were a shadow of things to come. The true sacrifice, who is the Lamb of God, was yet to come at that time. It all is meant to point to Christ. It all points to what the Lord will do, like a signpost, a type or a figure, which is analogically related to what God has yet to do.

        In Colossians, for instance, the New Testament says this:

        "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
        Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
        (Colossians 2:16-17)

        And in Hebrews:

        "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:"
        (Hebrews 9:24)

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Allow me to quote what it literally says
          You're reading the wrong verse. That verse isn't preceded by "and though I said I will not ever again destroy every living creature as I have done, let me clarify". What you're missing is the flood story conflates two narratives, one preferring the name "Elohim", one the tetragrammaton. That's why that verse is far from the only doublet in the story, and the doublets themselves appear mostly sequentially, i.e., ABC + 123 = A12BC3. There are also two instances of God telling Noah his intent, two commands to preserve the animals (one of which says seven pairs of clean animals, the other says simply two of every kind), two descriptions of Noah entering the Ark with his family and animals, etc. If you want an example of the same thing with actual manuscript evidence, cf. the LXX and MT David and Goliath stories. Even if you can't accept this, God himself says "nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done", period, no proviso.
          >See where I talked about typologies. It all represents what God is going to do more fully and perfectly at the end. I talked about this extensively
          Sorry, are you saying the only reason God killed almost every human being on Earth is that he wanted to presage a destruction thousands of years later for Christian readers of Genesis? I haven't studied the details of this supposed type/antitype so I don't understand what you're getting at. Can you please spell it out for me like "God flooded the Earth because ____", and "God wouldn't flood the Earth again because _____"?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *