The Flood Myth - The Greatest Evil

[Danmark]

Assuming the myth of the flood as recorded in Genesis is accurate history, it is the greatest single evil act recorded in the history of man. It also is evidence the alleged god who perpetrated this evil makes mistakes, contradicts himself, and is capricious.
Consider that shortly after pronouncing all of his creation "good" he repents and calls the whole thing evil and decides to destroy all of it; man and all the other animals [except, presumably, marine life]. Then he changes his mind again and decides He'll just wipe out everything and everyone except a single family to represent each species.

Why he saved the death stalker scorpion, mosquitoes, the box jellyfish, the black widow spider, the poison dart frog, blue ring octopus, and Clostridium Botulinum is beyond me, except that it puts the lie to the idea he was trying to get rid of evil.

It's obvious the story of the flood is pure mythology, but even then, what is its purpose? To show man how evil and corrupt he'd become? The God of this myth certainly does not set a good example.

[Danmark]

Wrong - note the semi-colon. Genesis 7:20 (KJV) says "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail;;;;;;..........

...........and the mountains were covered."
That doesn't mean that the flood height was 15 cubits above Mt Everest, but simply that the "mountains" or highest ground on the flood plain were covered and that the flood height was 15 cubits. I live on a riverine plain and the higher rises are often given names such as Mt Scopus etc and certainly wouldn't be classified as mountains by a surveyor.

The other versions make those authors/translators look stupid and particularly since the only ones who drowned were all members of Noah's family (Gen 5).

You seem to be banking on the KJV translation, which is about 400 years old as THE translation. In any event, your argument makes no sense to me. First you seem to equate 'mountains' with 'floodplain.' This is patently ridiculous. The ESV, an excellent translation, makes perfect sense as does the ERV.

"The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep."
and
"The water continued to rise above the mountains. The water was more than 20 feet above the highest mountain,"
respectively.

I don't know why you insist it was only Noah's extended family that was drowned when God made clear what he intended, in chapter 6:
7 So the Lord said, I will destroy all the people I created on the earth. I will destroy every person and every animal and everything that crawls on the earth. And I will destroy all the birds in the air, because I am sorry that I have made them.

One need not insist on a tortured and nonsensical interpretation of Genesis to see how preposterous the whole thing is if taken literally.

[mitty]

Wrong - note the semi-colon. Genesis 7:20 (KJV) says "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail;;;;;;..........

...........and the mountains were covered."
That doesn't mean that the flood height was 15 cubits above Mt Everest, but simply that the "mountains" or highest ground on the flood plain were covered and that the flood height was 15 cubits. I live on a riverine plain and the higher rises are often given names such as Mt Scopus etc and certainly wouldn't be classified as mountains by a surveyor.

The other versions make those authors/translators look stupid and particularly since the only ones who drowned were all members of Noah's family (Gen 5).

You seem to be banking on the KJV translation, which is about 400 years old as THE translation. In any event, your argument makes no sense to me. First you seem to equate 'mountains' with 'floodplain.' This is patently ridiculous. The ESV, an excellent translation, makes perfect sense as does the ERV.

"The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep."
and
"The water continued to rise above the mountains. The water was more than 20 feet above the highest mountain,"
respectively.

I don't know why you insist it was only Noah's extended family that was drowned when God made clear what he intended, in chapter 6:
7 So the Lord said, I will destroy all the people I created on the earth. I will destroy every person and every animal and everything that crawls on the earth. And I will destroy all the birds in the air, because I am sorry that I have made them.

One need not insist on a tortured and nonsensical interpretation of Genesis to see how preposterous the whole thing is if taken literally.

The bible says that there were only nine generations between Noah and Adam (Gen 5). Therefore the bible says that the only humans who drowned were obviously all members of Noah's family, including his grandfather (Gen 5:27) and Noah's widowed mother (Gen 5:31) and Noah's aunts & uncles & cousins (Gen 5:26) and Noah's brothers & sisters (Gen 5:30) and Noah's hundreds of other children born before and after the triplets (Gen 5:32). The story is just too ridiculous without even asking why kangaroos & jaguars & sloths are not native to the middle east as hypothesized and the total lack of geological evidence.

[mitty]

Wrong - note the semi-colon. Genesis 7:20 (KJV) says "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail;;;;;;..........

...........and the mountains were covered."
That doesn't mean that the flood height was 15 cubits above Mt Everest, but simply that the "mountains" or highest ground on the flood plain were covered and that the flood height was 15 cubits. I live on a riverine plain and the higher rises are often given names such as Mt Scopus etc and certainly wouldn't be classified as mountains by a surveyor.

The other versions make those authors/translators look stupid and particularly since the only ones who drowned were all members of Noah's family (Gen 5).

You seem to be banking on the KJV translation, which is about 400 years old as THE translation. In any event, your argument makes no sense to me. First you seem to equate 'mountains' with 'floodplain.' This is patently ridiculous. The ESV, an excellent translation, makes perfect sense as does the ERV.

"The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep."
and
"The water continued to rise above the mountains. The water was more than 20 feet above the highest mountain,"
respectively.

Nah, the only versions that have the slightest credibility are the NASB and KJV which say that the flood height was 15 cubits (~25 feet) and that the "mountains" were covered, and that a distant olive tree wasn't covered.

Where does the bible define what a "mountain" is, and what the minimum height of a "mountain" is? Answer: it doesn't.

Mount Scopus on our local floodplain is only about 30 feet high and I'm sure that's the type of land feature that the writers were referring to as a "mountain" and not the Himalaya or other mountain ranges which wouldn't be visible to an observer on the floodplain.

And the animals that the writer would be referring to would be just the sheep and goats and chooks etc belonging to Noah's extended family, and certainly not to kangaroos or taipans or death adders or tiger snakes or T rexes as some bible huggers hypothesize.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 53 by liamconnor]

People in the ancient world had yet to discover a process by which to understand nature beyond that of a supernatural agency.........it was taken for grant by most in those times that this kind of agency was behind anything they didn't understand so it was par for the course and no one questioned that.

Today with 500 years of successful applied technology as a result from our developing the process of the scientific method the idea of assuming supernatural agency to what is being discovered by science is not longer viewed as a viable option to the unknown anymore simply because in every case that assumption of a supernatural agency as a cause has been wrong.

That is what they didn't know.......so they were not stupid but ignorant of what we know today?...........you bet they were.......

And as a result we should discard those ancient claims because they are wrong.

[Danmark]

This theme continues on a new thread:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 711#783711

[Zzyzx]

.

Nah, the only versions that have the slightest credibility are the NASB and KJV

Personal opinion noted " and disagreed with by many or most Christians.

Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination (accounting for at least half of Christendom) and they disagree with your opinion. The most popular English translations of the Catholic Bible today are the New American Bible, the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, and the New Jerusalem Bible. http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Bible.html

which say that the flood height was 15 cubits (~25 feet) and that the "mountains" were covered, and that a distant olive tree wasn't covered.

A local flood Does NOT comply with Genesis account in KJV:

Genesis 6: 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Genesis 7: 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Bold added to emphasize the supposed God stated an intention to destroy ALL flesh he had created.

A local flood would obviously not accomplish that objective.

Where does the bible define what a "mountain" is, and what the minimum height of a "mountain" is? Answer: it doesn't.

That the Bible does not define mountain is immaterial " since Genesis clearly states that the Earth will be flooded to the extent that all flesh will be killed.

Mount Scopus on our local floodplain is only about 30 feet high and I'm sure that's the type of land feature that the writers were referring to as a "mountain" and not the Himalaya or other mountain ranges which wouldn't be visible to an observer on the floodplain.

It takes rather creative interpretation (and dismissing Genesis) to make it sound like a local flood was what is described in the Bible.

And the animals that the writer would be referring to would be just the sheep and goats and chooks etc belonging to Noah's extended family, and certainly not to kangaroos or taipans or death adders or tiger snakes or T rexes as some bible huggers hypothesize.

Okay. Do those who are not Bible huggers propose that only a few people and animals were killed rather than what Genesis describes?

[H.sapiens]

Absurd, absurd, absurd. There is no data, geologic, biologic, or otherwise to support the idea of a global flood, especially one so recent. There is lots of evidence to put the lie to both the overall tale and the story details.

[1213]

Assuming the myth of the flood as recorded in Genesis is accurate history, it is the greatest single evil act recorded in the history of man.

Bible tells the reason for flood was violence.

The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen. 6:11

What is your opinion, should the violence continue, or should God end it? As you may notice, violence has increased very much also in modern time, should it be ended, or should God allow violence to continue eternally?

[Zzyzx]

.

Assuming the myth of the flood as recorded in Genesis is accurate history, it is the greatest single evil act recorded in the history of man.

Bible tells the reason for flood was violence.

The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen. 6:11

What is your opinion, should the violence continue, or should God end it? As you may notice, violence has increased very much also in modern time, should it be ended, or should God allow violence to continue eternally?

According to Bible tales an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect-in-every-way God decides to end violence (or wickedness or whatever) on Earth by killing all inhabitants except eight members of a righteous family. After the flood those eight supposedly repopulate the Earth (presumably with good seed).

However, evil remains in large measure. How can that be? Did the all-knowing God not know what to do to end evil? Was an all-powerful God not up to the task (unable to accomplish its objective)?

If I needed a god (for some unimaginable reason) an incompetent one would not be my choice " among the thousands available for worship.

[1213]

According to Bible tales an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect-in-every-way God decides to end violence (or wickedness or whatever) on Earth by killing all inhabitants except eight members of a righteous family. After the flood those eight supposedly repopulate the Earth (presumably with good seed).

However, evil remains in large measure. How can that be? Did the all-knowing God not know what to do to end evil? Was an all-powerful God not up to the task (unable to accomplish its objective)?

Perhaps modern people are also evil, but I dont think those ancient violent evildoers live anymore, so the solution seems to have worked. Or do you know any evil person that survived from the great flood.

By that I see, God accomplished in what was His intention, those violent beings were destroyed. On basis of the Bible, the goal was not end all future life also.