Noah's Ark and the Great Flood

[~Katherine]

What are some fulfilled perspectives on why this passage is in the scriptures? It has been used numerous times to prove creationism and figures into Hal Lindsey's highly influential (was it called?) Late Great Planet Earth (can't remember ... yes that's it I googled).

My 5 year old son Karl wants to know why God did that, and I'm curious what you all think for my own self too.

[Amie]

Katherine,

Perspectives vary, you'll probably see, lol! I think that the rain symbolized the tears of God who, in the biblical record, expressed regret for having made humanity. I don't think that is how it is taught in Sunday school. I think that is because the consequence of where we were going was self destruction. I don't think it was at all easy for God to endure that we were hurting ourselves and one another.

I would suggest a reread of the story. Why does anyone assume that Noah is counted as righteous because of his behavior? Is that true? Or is he counted as such because he found grace in God's eyes? Why does anyone assume that the people dying in the flood contributed nothing and meant nothing? How does Romans 2:11 change how we read the story, if at all? ("For there is no respect of persons with God.")

Could it be that the consequence of their disbelief was drowning? Would those believing be found "on the earth"?


Gen 6:17 And behold, I, even I, am bringing a flood of waters on the earth in order to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under the heavens. Everything which is on the earth shall die.

Was Noah standing on earth? Or in the ark?

Just some questions that roll around in my brain. Sorry that I don't have an answer really.

Amie

[Me Again]

Katherine,
Tim Martin once wrote an article that, from a preterist perspective, proved that Noah's flood was local to the Mesopotamian region. It had to do with the covenant people. He expounded on this view in his book, co-authored with our very own JL Vaughn, "Beyond Creation Science." I recommend the book.

One thing I'll say about the book before anyone else chimes in: Mr. Martin, who is a dear friend of mine, purports that his book (iow, his view) disproves universalism. Well, I would say that it might make a darn good case against the commonly held views of universalism; however, I believe that Davo and I have written enough to show that it doesn't disprove pantelism. This is mainly because our view of pantelism is covenantal, but breaks with Martin/Vaughn on the application of covenant salvation to the wider humanity.

Others here do not agree with the premise of Martin and Vaughn's book, and that's fine. I believe that it is an important link in tying much of this theology together, but I do not believe that it is "the total word," or even "the final word." It's one piece of the puzzle, in my opinion. Regardless if you agree with it en toto, I think it makes many good points about biblical interpretation, and the flood in particular.

[~Katherine]

Katherine,

Perspectives vary, you'll probably see, lol! I think that the rain symbolized the tears of God who, in the biblical record, expressed regret for having made humanity. I don't think that is how it is taught in Sunday school. I think that is because the consequence of where we were going was self destruction. I don't think it was at all easy for God to endure that we were hurting ourselves and one another.

I would suggest a reread of the story. Why does anyone assume that Noah is counted as righteous because of his behavior? Is that true? Or is he counted as such because he found grace in God's eyes? Why does anyone assume that the people dying in the flood contributed nothing and meant nothing? How does Romans 2:11 change how we read the story, if at all? ("For there is no respect of persons with God.")

I've always thought the respect of persons comment meant God isn't playing favorites. I think the reason is his grace is over all.

No I don't think Noah always strove to be righteous only in deed but that he believed in God while others were unconcerned with questions that create chances to grow and relate right to one another ... let alone God.


Could it be that the consequence of their disbelief was drowning? Would those believing be found "on the earth"?

Never thought of it like that. If I believed God about the flood, I'd be in the ark. Even if I didn't believe a flood was coming enough to warrant getting in an ark, it would depend on how much I trust God. I certainly might think Noah was off his rocker. Just being honest. Trusting God is way different than trusting some guy who says he talks to God.

But even besides that, it sounds like forcing a relationship. I'm still not getting the point of a flood.

I had the thought maybe God felt the whole exercise was too much for that generation and that their conclusions went too far in the direction of corrupting and destroying each other. Maybe I could think of the flood as merciful in that it stopped something that had gone too far for recovery. Like cancer sometimes does.


Was Noah standing on earth? Or in the ark?

At what point? Or am I misunderstanding your question?

[~Katherine]

Katherine,
Tim Martin once wrote an article that, from a preterist perspective, proved that Noah's flood was local to the Mesopotamian region. It had to do with the covenant people. He expounded on this view in his book, co-authored with our very own JL Vaughn, "Beyond Creation Science." I recommend the book.

Thanks.


One thing I'll say about the book before anyone else chimes in: Mr. Martin, who is a dear friend of mine, purports that his book (iow, his view) disproves universalism. Well, I would say that it might make a darn good case against the commonly held views of universalism; however, I believe that Davo and I have written enough to show that it doesn't disprove pantelism. This is mainly because our view of pantelism is covenantal, but breaks with Martin/Vaughn on the application of covenant salvation to the wider humanity.

I hope the book isn't too full of that because it will most likely make the book hard for me to read. I've looked at some preterist sites and find them kinda heavy since that's not where I'm at.


Others here do not agree with the premise of Martin and Vaughn's book, and that's fine. I believe that it is an important link in tying much of this theology together, but I do not believe that it is "the total word," or even "the final word." It's one piece of the puzzle, in my opinion. Regardless if you agree with it en toto, I think it makes many good points about biblical interpretation, and the flood in particular.

I haven't heard many ideas other than evolution and creation. It seems to me that there's plenty to support both.

[ozark]

Katherine,

You can read a few chapters from the book Ed is talking about at the link below to see if you might enjoy it.

http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Read_Book_Chapters

I read the book and found it interesting, but I think they misunderstand the purpose of the covenant people and leave us with a grace that is far less than infinite. Yet, if you want to read an outside the box view of the flood, this is the book.

[Amie]

I've always thought the respect of persons comment meant God isn't playing favorites. I think the reason is his grace is over all.

I think it means that God doesn't play favorites as well. However, the story of Noah's Ark as is typically told puts Noah as a favorite.


No I don't think Noah always strove to be righteous only in deed but that he believed in God while others were unconcerned with questions that create chances to grow and relate right to one another ... let alone God.

I could be wrong, but I thought that all people were wicked and then Noah found grace in the eyes of God. So, that would put him out from among the wicked actually - no different than them. He was righteous because God reached out to him and not because he behaved this way or that. He does believe God, as you say, and he shares his gratitude later by making an offering.


. I certainly might think Noah was off his rocker. Just being honest. Trusting God is way different than trusting some guy who says he talks to God.

So true! I thought about that after watching "Evan Almighty", lol! I can see how folks would think he was a loon, he even did for a little while, hehe.



Was Noah standing on earth? Or in the ark?

At what point? Or am I misunderstanding your question?

God said that the flood would wipe out everyone standing upon the earth. Whether the earth was local or global, when the flood hit, those that believed were not standing on the earth (ground), they were standing in the ark. The point was minor - just pointing out again, in a weird way, about Noah believing, haha!


But even besides that, it sounds like forcing a relationship. I'm still not getting the point of a flood.

That is one that I have been thinking hard about off and on for about two years now. I don't have an answer that I am happy with. I'm going to dig around in the original languages and see if it adds any light.. probably next week :).

Did you read the story to Karl from the bible? If so, I would be interested in why Karl thinks God caused the flood -- IF he even thinks that sounds right (that God caused it).

I would love to hear thoughts on what the point of the flood was from the rest of the gang.

As for creation vs evolution -- I see evolution as a religion that states that there is a single origin. I think that there is more than one origin and I do not think that we are primates. Goodness, we have more in common per DNA with dogs! I have no problem with God saying in a single day for things to come forth and for those things coming forth in a process. However, I think that the story is told in the form of Hebrew poetry and is not intended as scientific support. I think that it is their story of how the world was created, and that the things in their story are used as metaphor later in the bible.

Amie

[Laren]

"But even besides that, it sounds like forcing a relationship. I'm still not getting the point of a flood."



But what if the story of the flood is just a "story" to symbolize developing Christ consciousness. Looking inward, what if the "world that died" is symbolic of the "old wine", the "old beliefs" that we identified with that kept us from realizing our true nature, that kept us in fear; and as we die to those old beliefs (lake of fire)



arises a NEW man, the "mind of Chist" which starts as a seed, and by Faith progresses to the point of "receiving the end of our faith", the salvation of our souls.

[Amie]

Interesting perspective Laren.

It is hard for me to get past the thousand to million people drowning. To translate that into a symbol for "old wine" seems to minimize the impact. But I'm open to the idea that perhaps I am minimizing the "old wine".

Amie

[Laren]

Interesting perspective Laren.

It is hard for me to get past the thousand to million people drowning. To translate that into a symbol for "old wine" seems to minimize the impact. But I'm open to the idea that perhaps I am minimizing the "old wine".

Amie

What I'm thinking, is "what if it really wasn't a true story". But allegorical for our "thot" life, which shapes our reality.

See, I struggle with the whole "atonement" issue, and the whole biblical story perceived from a literal standpoint. I personally struggle with the literal AD70 interpretation too. It's basically the same story as Noah. God kills people through war, fire, and uses men's "hate" to do it.

hmmm,

[Amie]

Laren,

What I am struggle with is "God kills people". Did God do that? Do floods happen and God tries to warn people, or does God flood people? That is what I am going to look into the original language for. It seems like per the fall of Jerusalem that there was warning after warning about not doing what they did. That God didn't bring it down on them. Yet in the Noah story, in English it reads that God brought the flood down on them.

And, I am not attached to 70AD. I think that the fall of the temple symbolized the end of the old system. I do not think that the cross ceased to have an effect on everything at that point.

Amie

[Laren]

I have ordered a book called "Jehovah Unmasked". I'm hoping it will assist in my understanding of "a god who kills".

http://www.amazon.com/Jehovah-Unmasked-Nathaniel-J-Merritt/dp/1411651472/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245512326&sr=8-1

[Laren]

Laren,



And, I am not attached to 70AD. I think that the fall of the temple symbolized the end of the old system. I do not think that the cross ceased to have an effect on everything at that point.

Amie

But besides the temple being destroyed, children were ate, children were burned, crushed, raped etc. And all this being the "wrath of God". To me, it's like u with Noah, "it being the end of the "old" seems to minimize still the horrible destruction of human lives,

all by a God who loves unconditionally?? what??

[Amie]

Laren,

"Lies of God", that's pretty powerful. Now that I think about it, the people of the old testament didn't know God, he says so himself time and time again in the very least concerning Israel. It is apparent that Adam and Eve don't know God/love on a conscious level because they experience shame and fear. According to the story, it isn't until the removal of the veil and the revelation that God is actually known.

What that does for the stories is a kicker now that I think about it.

Amie

[Amie]

I do not think that God's wrath equates a huge anger spilling over into historical child abuse on a grand scale. That doesn't mesh with God = Love at all.

Human beings were murdering, raping, and cannibalizing.

As parents, if those were our children, what would we do? God's choice was to 'allow" or as the bible has it "let". He afforded people the freedom to bring consequences upon themselves.

How would we feel? Sad and pissed off? I would.


Gen 6:6 And Jehovah repented that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved to His heart.
Gen 6:7 And Jehovah said, I will wipe off man whom I have created from the face of the earth, from man to beast, to the creeping thing and to the birds of the heavens; for I repent that I made them.

Often this is interpreted as God having witnessed such horrors in the flood story. He felt regret for having made us and he felt grief. That sucks imo. I've heard that: "I wish you were never born!" How is that Love?!

Looking at how it may have been understood in the original language, it could also be that God was feeling a need to be comforted and consoled from the pain that he was feeling.

I just remembered that I have heard an explanation for the point of this story before! It is that wiping out people is NOT the solution. It is NOT what brings comfort. It is an example of what DOESN'T work. People just adapted and the same ole stuff began again. For real transformation to occur, a new cycle need be started. I could go on about that and how the ancient hebrews view time, but I'll save you the rambling!

We interpret what caused God pain as humanity's behavior, and maybe that is a part of it. It put God in the position that he was in. He could either undo it all, or put a man and his family in an ark so the story could be passed on.

Amie

[Paige]

Laren wrote:

But besides the temple being destroyed, children were ate, children were burned, crushed, raped etc. And all this being the "wrath of God". To me, it's like u with Noah, "it being the end of the "old" seems to minimize still the horrible destruction of human lives,

all by a God who loves unconditionally?? what??

I'm inclined to agree with Amie's thoughts above. Jesus saw what was coming (as per 70), and shares God's heart here:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

My thought is that those people were stuck in a system that was imploding upon itself. Their faith in that system would mean that when it imploded, they would find themselves among the collateral damage. Messiah was the way out. Messiah was their "ark."

Paige

[Amie]

It put God in the position that he was in. He could either undo it all, or put a man and his family in an ark so the story could be passed on.

PS -- Allowing humanity to thrive meant allowing them to make choices that would cause them to drown.

[Laren]

Laren wrote:


I'm inclined to agree with Amie's thoughts above. Jesus saw what was coming (as per 70), and shares God's heart here:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

My thought is that those people were stuck in a system that was imploding upon itself. Their faith in that system would mean that when it imploded, they would find themselves among the collateral damage. Messiah was the way out. Messiah was their "ark."

Paige

But why? did God create a rock so big he couldn't lift it?? The system itself. Didn't he create a being with foreknowledge of their inability to follow a system. Don't you see the events as orchestrated by God himself?

I guess i never have gotten past the belief that it wasn't a "set up" by God, (in other words, i see it as a "set up") but in that "set up" a perfect plan. supposedly.

[Laren]

Jer 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

[Barry]

But why? did God create a rock so big he couldn't lift it?? The system itself. Didn't he create a being with foreknowledge of their inability to follow a system. Don't you see the events as orchestrated by God himself?

I guess i never have gotten past the belief that it wasn't a "set up" by God, (in other words, i see it as a "set up") but in that "set up" a perfect plan. supposedly.

What we are seeing is the very best possible scenario to produce the very best possible world. It could not have been done any better.

How is one to evolve consciousness?
You're going to have to get dirty with the children in the sand box first!

If things were just left to there own then you land up with people trying to cloth themselves with leaves. Better to give a structure to the independent human potential and offer a clothing, first, that of an animal. The developing ego at that time had to be covered and such had to run its course. Better to do it all in an organized and structured fashion so that solutions could be arrived at and the potential for further sharing could be introduced.

The purpose of having offspring is to share.

JMO
Barry

[davo]

I guess i never have gotten past the belief that it wasn't a "set up" by God, (in other words, i see it as a "set up") but in that "set up" a perfect plan. supposedly.Laren… is there any need for you to get past your belief that it wasn't all just a set-up after all? What IF accepting it as such helps you reconcile that no matter "how odd" things might appear or seem to work out in our temporal existence, that such is no hindrance to God's goodness ultimately working for everyone's benefit.

[Amie]

I guess i never have gotten past the belief that it wasn't a "set up" by God, (in other words, i see it as a "set up") but in that "set up" a perfect plan. supposedly.

Imo, God's choice to allow the flood reflects his choice not to destroy humanity. With life comes the consequences of choice. By allowing life, by ensuring liberty, the flood was brought upon them. It is true, God could have moved that rock. I think that had God moved that proverbial rock, it will have ceased being a rock.


Jer 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

I think this would need further examination. For one:


Jer 13:17 But if you will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride. And my eye shall bitterly weep and run down with tears, because the flock of Jehovah was captured.

Bitterly weep/ no compassion? Weirdness.. or not. In between is recorded:


Jer 13:15 Hear and give ear; do not be proud, for Jehovah has spoken.

"Do not be proud" and "hear and give ear" -- were those commands kept? Did Jesus not fulfil all that was written?


Hos 2:16 And at that day, says Jehovah, you shall call Me, My husband; and you shall no more call Me, My Baal.

Confounding God and Baal ("Lord") was a mistake that Israel made.

Amie

[Truthseeker]

Warm Christian Greetings to All,

As for the flood in Noah's day that also happens to correspond as a "type" to the events of Jerusalem in 70AD:

The earth was filled with violence.

I believe that Amie's thought; God destroyed the "world" of that day to save it.

Had He not, it would not have survived.

Should the wicked be allowed to annihilate the righteous? If so, the world will die.

The "Ark" has always been the same throughout all time: faith in God's anointed one--The Christ (Whom Noah foresaw and put faith in since he knew of the testimony given at Gen 3:15).

All "die" at some point. Not one has escaped that. The fact that God brought the flood to stop the violence on the earth at that time was a good thing--not a bad thing--and "typed" the Greater Ark of the First Century.. :)

Much love to all--rhonda

[~Katherine]

Bitterly weep/ no compassion? Weirdness.. or not. In between is recorded:



"Do not be proud" and "hear and give ear" -- were those commands kept? Did Jesus not fulfil all that was written?



Confounding God and Baal ("Lord") was a mistake that Israel made.

AmieIsn't it interesting that both physicality and idolatry are about tangibles whereas spirituality and God and relationship encompass far more than physicality and pragmatics?

And yet here we are in a grand experiment that culminates so many things in a physical reality. It's like the great foil that reveals the Glory of the Father, the Son, the Spirit. And magnifies it.

That has me thinking about how loathe we may sometimes be to see to the needs of others. How love is equated in getting needs met. How need is very synonymous with the idea of "lack."

What is said in the gospels we should do that we lack in nothing?

There just seems to be something very illustrative about how all those things are interconnected to reveal the greater need for love. Love encompasses so much more than the perceived need to appease someone, or some inanimate thing, and give away our birthright for greatness, or a perceived need for control, powers & magiks that seem to guarantee self-sufficiency, anything that leads to some form of proof, the tangible, something to hang our hat on. Those are all false comforts that have led away from relationship with God and others and self-- everybody. Hollow comforts. Hollow gods.

Maybe the flood shows also that God isn't interested in making an object lesson out of what had unfolded in the story thus far. Instead, perhaps he simply chose to go onto the next unfolding scene that progressively continues to unwind the ball of yarn and untangle the myths.

[~Katherine]

Oh and since death doesn't seem to separate us from God, maybe the flood was actually a mercy in that it stemmed the misery of believing in lies and being in the dark and being fearful.

I am hopeful that for the people who lived during the flood, beyond this physical life, there is understanding, that they know God beyond the veil since outside this life, time is no more and the Law is fulfilled.

At the time of the flood, the Law had not yet been given and Abram had yet to be born, right?

What must it have been like to live then? I wonder.

[Barry]

The flood as a type and AD 70 as the finality of the matter as relates to the ego, are historical markers that relate to the ego [for the purpose of development].

Without historical markers there would be no human development. Adam and Christ are historical markers. All the righteous blood that was shed upon the earth as recorded in the history of eschatology came upon that generation. That's the finality of historical markers as relates to the precedence of types and figures.
The flood was a precursor of the final historical marker as relates to the history of eschatology.

This gets back at least in a vague way to Doug's point about the wrath of God actually being love centered.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
{Death within this mode of existence was necessary}
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached {the gospel} unto the spirits in prison; {IE In the spirit Christ through Noah preached the gospel to the people telling them that their world or age was about to end. This was good news because they were spirits in the prison of an independent human potential which is called in scripture "the flesh". This was not the end of "the flesh" as such but a precursor for the end. It was however an micro end for them in their time.}
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan {independent human potential covenantally expressed as Satan within the precedence of types and figures which represented an historical scaffolding for the self defined self}: thou art an offence unto me {in the spirit meaning of life}: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. {Satan is not a spirit entity that is striving to gather souls for the afterlife for himself. Satan is attached directly to the independent human potential of the time for the desire of Satan was those things that be of men ego-ly speaking}
Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me {to death in this mode of existence as relates to this age}.
Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life {the soul of this mode of existence} shall lose it {historically in the end of the age}: and whosoever will lose his life {willingly through transformation} for my sake shall find it.
Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world {of the old covenant mode of existence}, and lose his own soul {historically}? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? {As relates to one's legacy in life. And this is what apostate Israel lost. Their historical legacy as relates to what they desired ego-ly. They were ego-ly shamed with unquenchable fire as they historically lost their legacy as interpreted through the ego. In this way they were told to deny themselves for what they themselves interpreted themselves to be. See Rom. 12:3, 1 Cor 8:1-2Gal. 6:3, }
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward {as relates to legacy} every man according to his works {in the consumation of the history of eschatology}.
Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom {which makes everything new and thus restarts history}.

We too have legacy, but not in the same framing.
Nevertheless some of the same principles can be extrapolated to the present. What is done in love and trueness of heart is permanent because the truth of relationship which frames it is permanent. What is done when ego driven as a self defining endeavor is in time shown to be of nothing which is permanent for the permanency of the truth of relationship eventually and inevitably becomes manifest.

Our relationships are permanent.
We are all in this together. We always will be.
The key IMO is to live by this principle even while the framing that we live in has a temporal character or flavor to it. However always knowing that even here history builds upon itself and we make a mark and make a difference. The truth of relationship is being outworked.

In making everything new, history was restarted.

JMO
Barry