Yesterday I presented a way of reading about the flood that was different than the traditional way the flood account is usually read.
Certainly, the way I have proposed is challenging, but let us think momentarily about what the traditional reading says. To reject the view I have presented in previous posts, you either have to go with the traditional reading which says God sent the flood and killed all humanity except for eight people, or you have to categorize the flood account as a historical or literary myth.
Frankly, if the choice is between a God who drowns millions of people and understanding the flood account as a myth, the second option is better by far. The traditional reading of this account says that because God saw how great the violence was upon the earth, He decided to bring even greater violence. The traditional reading argues that because the sin of violence had spread throughout the earth, God was going to trump all their violence with the greatest violence of all.
Can this be true of God?
Does God defeat violence with greater violence?
Can it be right that God’s response to violence is only greater violence?
Does it not seem strange that when God sees violence come upon the earth, His response is an act of supreme violence?
It is extremely strange that the primary sin mentioned in Genesis 6:13 is violence (cf. Genesis 6:11), and the most common way of reading Genesis 6 says that God responded to the sin of violence with greater violence.
How can this way of reading Genesis 6 be correct?
If God is actually trying to show the world a better way—a more loving way, a less violent way—the flood does not seem to be the best course of action. All it really shows is what the human race already believes: that might makes right.
The Flood Failed at Wiping Out Evil
Furthermore, aside from annihilating every living thing on earth except for the humans and creatures in the ark, the violent response of God toward evil didn’t really accomplish anything. Some seem to think that God intended to wipe out evil with the flood, but He knows that this is impossible, as He Himself states in Genesis 8:21.
The condition of humanity as having every inclination and imagination of their hearts only evil all the time didn’t change one bit as a result of the flood. It was this way before the flood, and it was this way afterwards as well (cf. Genesis 6:5 with Genesis 8:21). If God’s goal in the flood was to teach people not to be so evil, He failed miserably, and got a lot of human blood on His hands in the process (Fretheim, God and World, 81). This not only seems overly violent, but incredibly foolish of God.
If God knew beforehand that the flood wouldn’t “work,” why send it?
The Traditional Way of Understanding the Flood is Incorrect
This is why the text seems to hint that God didn’t send the flood.
It appears, based on several clues within the text itself, that the traditional way of reading the text is not correct.
Though the traditional reading is what the text seems to say on the surface, the revelation we have received in Jesus Christ challenges us to look beneath the surface of these deep and troubled waters to discern something else going on in the flood event than a violent God foolishly seeking the near-extermination of everything that breathes on earth.
The alternative perspective helps us understand that when worldwide destruction was coming up on the earth as a result of mankind becoming extremely evil and violent, God stepped in to save and rescue those who would follow Him. This truth is not only hinted at in Genesis 6–8 itself, but also in the parallel accounts in Job, Isaiah, Matthew, and 2 Peter, all of which we have looked at earlier (See the link list on this post: When God Pled Guilty)
Genesis 6-8 Summarized
When God saw that this destruction was inevitable, He set in motion a series of events to rescue and deliver as many people as He could from this great evil. He called out Noah to build the ark and proclaim deliverance from the destruction that was coming. When that destruction came, it was not by the hand of God, but He nevertheless took the blame for it by inspiring the biblical author of Genesis 6–8 to record that He was sending the flood.
In reality, far from sending the flood, God did all He could to rescue people from it. In the end, only eight people were delivered when the flood waters came upon the earth.
How can a God who says "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44) be the same God who instructs His people in the Old Testament to kill their enemies?
These are the sorts of questions we discuss and (try to) answer in my online discipleship group. Members of the group can also take ALL of my online courses (Valued at over $1000) at no charge. Learn more here: Join the RedeemingGod.com Discipleship Group I can't wait to hear what you have to say, and how we can help you better understand God and learn to live like Him in this world!
One question that needs to be asked is -Could God have carried out his plan for the redemption of man as prophesised in Gen 3:15 if the world would have been over-run by evil people?
The Devil wanted to cut off the bloodline of Jesus Christ which he nearly accomplished if he could have gotten rid of Noah and his family.
God had no choice but to wipe out the evil people or it would have been the end of all mankind.
I don’t think that God wiped out evil people with the flood. Based on what I have written about in the Chaos theory and in my analysis of the flood texts, I would say that evil people wiped themselves out. God has set up the universe in such a way that evil can never fully overcome Him or His plans.
So you are saying there was no flood?
No. Not at all.
This is what I have always been taught about the flood, in every church I have been in (I have moved towns a bit). The basic argument was that Noah worked for 100+ years, and still only his family believed him and only they were rescued. As someone said in yesterday’s comments: God seemed to have plan A for anyone who wants it, followed by plans B-Z for the rest.
It’s your suggestion that God took the ‘blame’ for it that’s new, and I have to admit having some trouble with at least your choice of words.
Yes, I have trouble with my choice of words too. The full explanation in the entire series of posts (and future book) should provide some clarification, I hope.
On re-reading my comment, I realised it might have sounded harsh. I’ll blame the pre-coffee early morning for that! Thanks for responding graciously anyway.
I really had never heard of your ‘traditional’ view of the flood from any Christian, until today, although the atheists seem to be really into the concept of a mean and nasty God. I must have led a sheltered life!
It’s just this blaming thing: it’s possible it has a different connotation to me from what it has to you.
It wasn’t harsh. Thanks for the clarification though.
When you read about the flood, what does it sound like to you?
I guess the summary would be along the lines of: He made it, we broke it, it crashed, He rescued anyone who was interested. Unfortunately, very few were.
Does your alternate view of the flood make God any less of a monster? You say, “The alternative perspective helps us understand that when worldwide destruction was coming up on the earth as a result of mankind becoming extremely evil and violent, God stepped in to save and rescue those who would follow Him.” A God who you claim is all good and loves his creation, creates a world with billions of animals, plants, and people. He was so bad at creation that some people are evil. He would have known this even before he created anything but let that pass. You say he then decides to send a flood but also decides to save eight “good” people. You say nothing about the innocence of the animals and plants who God also decides to kill. Did God have to send a flood? Only if he feels obligated to repeat the “myths” of many cultures that pre-dated the Hebrews and had flood myths of their own. God is all-powerful and can do anything. He could have given fatal heart attacks to all the evil people and spared the “perfect eight”. (Who apparently weren’t so perfect, but that is another story.)
You are leaning dangerously close to a reasonable answer when you allow the possibility that the flood story is a myth. (I suspect that you believe all of the flood stories that pre-date the Hebrews are myths.) It is such a small step – why don’t you take it? Just for a few moments, believe that the flood story is a myth. See how freeing that thought is. You don’t have to apologise for a monsterous, sadistic God. It was just a myth. It was just a myth.
Now, let’s look at the other stuff that makes no sense. Talking snakes and donkeys? That would be a good place to start.
Harold,
Again, I do not believe God sent the flood.
Also, I do not believe the flood myths predate the actual flood, but are evidence of it.
Regardless, I do see the attraction of your view, that such stories are just myths. If I went that route, I would have to say they are truly inspired myths. That is, they are God-inspired stories which teach us truth through myth. I don’t believe that, but it certainly would be easier than what I am currently trying to argue.
You say you do not believe that God sent the flood but that the flood did happen, in spite of the lack of evidence. Who or what caused the flood that God just permitted to happen? Satan? Just another creation of God and God not only would have known what Satan was doing (allowing God the chance to save the “eight”) but God could have prevented Satan from doing it, unless Satan is more powerful than God?
I may have misstated what I meant by flood “myths”. There are a number of cultures that pre-date the Hebrews that have their own flood myths. The stories in Genesis are most likely adopted and adapted from those earlier stories.
These stories may or may not have been based on an event, such as the breach of the land barrier that kept the Black Sea below the level of the Mediterranean Sea or even the flooding of the north end of the Red Sea, but there is no evidence for a global flood.
In the end, you can choose any row to hoe that you like. Some arguments are more difficult to make than others. Generally, that means there is less evidence and less likelihood of the argument being valid. Water runs downhill and follows the easiest path, likewise electricity. Take a lesson from nature. If your argument is convoluted and difficult to make, difficult for others to follow, maybe you are arguing for the wrong thing?
The case for the flood being a regional event that generated multiple myths is the most logical and simplest argument.
Unfortunately, if you are arguing for the flood as part of an argument for God, you will not be comfortable with the flood story being a myth. Worse, once you even consider the flood being a myth, all of the rest of the nonsense in the Bible comes into question.
God gave man dominion over the Earth.
The serpent constantly attacked Adam and Eve, in an attempt to kill them, and obtain their power for himself. (_First book of Adam and Eve_.) This theme is repeated in both canonical and non-canonical texts.
God could have prevented the flood. However, He would do so, only if mankind repented, and followed Him. Based on various Biblical pericopes, I’d suggest that even ten people who honoured God, would have resulted in no flood.
Reading between the lines, we can say that the flood was a desperate attempt to gain the power that humans have, but cherubim do not have. The flood was a failure, but it did enable some things to be setup, so that more attempts could be made, at a later point in history.
>But there is no evidence for a global flood
Salt water seashells five miles above sea level are indicative of a great upheaval. Human habitation a mile below sea level is also indicative of a great upheaval.
Ponder on the effect of the water level rising at 28 millimetres per minute, for 40 days.
Then ponder the effect of 162 bars, for 150 days, on the Earth’s crust.
(I’m guessing that the water level increased at 28 mm per minute. We don’t know how high mountains were back then. I’m assuming that mountains were no more than 1.5 kilometres high. At a kilometer high, the water level would rise at 17.5 mm per second, and the pressure on the Earth’s crust would be 100 bars.)
You have clearly been doing some studying, but once you open the door to non-canonical texts, you also open the door to all fantasy stories. You may not want to go down that path.
No one seems to address the idea that God did not need to kill every LIVING being. If he is all powerful, he could have killed only the people committing evil and spared the innocent people as well as plants and animals.
Sea shells on mountain tops do act as evidence of a great upheaval, but the orderly arrangement of shells by type and age is not indicative of a violent flood. Rather, they show the uplifting of sea floor by plate tektonics over millions of years.
You seem fascinated by numbers. Why don’t you do a calculation on the amount of water needed to flood the Earth to the top of your assumed mountain height, 1.5 km. Where did the water come from and where did it go?
Finally, if everyone alive today is a descendent of Noah, why does our genetic makeup trace back millions of years rather than a few thousand?
The bottom line is that Jeremy wants to take Yahweh off the hook for his murderous acts rather than accept the fact Yahweh’s own words betray him as a genocidal maniac and a being not worth of worship, if he does exist.
This is Jeremy’s blog, not mine.
I’m not sure how appropriate it is to write about Dawkins here, and his explanation of why the serpent is cruel evil.
###
In the books that are canonical for Non-Chalcedonian Christianity, when the flood erupted, the only good living things on the planet, native to the planet, are those individuals who are of the family of Noah. Even the animals have been corrupted!
Nephelem… Giants in the land….demon seed is how men were corrupted in my opinion. God made human kind in his perfect image. We went against his plan. At least that is what I ponder. I even had to prove I am not a robot before making this comment… Wow lol! : \
Whether we understand the flood as a myth or an historical event (local or worldwide), might we consider that the “meaning” we have given to the event/story might be skewed? Perhaps the story is a prototype for that which is yet to come.
Again, if we postulate that God “whispered” rather than dictated, is it not possible that those who wrote gave us their understanding of the myths/stories about which they wrote?
Methinks we have elevated the Bible and our interpretation of it above all else, including Him of whom it is supposedly meant to testify. We have become the people of the book, rather than the people of God. We shudder to think that anything found within its pages is anything other than the literal (word-for word) word of God. We slice it and dice it in every conceivable manner and yet have little time or energy remaining to follow Jesus, modeling our lives after his life as reported within its pages. We have become the people of the book, rather than the followers of Jesus.
This is so well said. I know I find myself at times so engrossed in reading the Bible that I sometimes forget the foundation of it all – Jesus. My focus becomes trying to find out the answers to specific questions and theology and then, at the end of the day, I haven’t been brought any closer to God, or shown the people around me that I am a follower of Jesus. All they’ve seen is me with my head stuck in my Bible, instead of seeing me constantly relying upon His strength and praising Him in every moment. Our awesome Creator lives in us. We have the Bible to guide us, but it seems we, including me, put it on a pedestal, and forget to listen to Christ deep within our soul.
All good points, Sam. I guess that regardless of whether or not one understands some of these Scriptures as myth, we still need to learn how to read them in light of Jesus Christ. The story of the flood, even if it is a “myth” is still a pretty irresponsible story. So how do we read about Jesus in the story of the flood, whether it is historical fact or not?
The flood story is one of those stories that most of us read and wonder if the event really happened. Maybe it was a literal flood, worldwide or not. In that case, the story is an historical record of sorts, one that impressed the writer enough that he thought it should be written down for posterity.
I don’t find Jesus in the story. On the other hand, I do think it says that God will provide a way for his people. We might say that way is Jesus, and in that sense the story prefigures the Jesus story.
Was the flood a real flood? Was it worldwide? Did God send the flood? Why did God drown most of mankind? Why did he promise he wouldn’t send another flood? Will he someday slaughter most or all of mankind again? If he knew we would become so evil that someday he would decide to slaughter most of us, why did he ever create us in the first place? Did he really create us? Did it take him just a few days? Did that all happen only a few thousand years ago?
I too am curious about the answers to such questions, but have discovered that it is easy to become so absorbed in pursuing such things that I have little or no time left to follow Jesus, trying to model my life after him. Jesus I know. He’s real. I’m sure.
A few questions I have that bother me…How could Noah have gotten the invitation out to all the millions of people that were alive? Also, is it thought that at this point, all the land on the earth would have been in one big piece (Pangaea)?
Noah spent more than a century building the biggest boat ever. Everyone would have known:they all would have been talking about it and possibly laughing at him. He was quite possibly seen as the local nutter. News can spread without mass media.
Gen 7:4
4 Seven days from now I will make it rain on the earth 40 days and 40 nights, and I will wipe off from the face of the earth every living thing I have made.”
(HCSB)
implies that Noah spent less than 7 years in building the art.
Where is the evidence thst Noah had a century to build the ark?
The boat was built well before the seven-day announcement:
Genesis 7:1 “When everything was ready, the Lord said to Noah, “Go into the boat with all your family … (vs 4) Seven days from now I will make the rains pour down on the earth.”
As for the century: I should have said “up to a century”. Sorry about that. Noah was probably at least 500 when God first told him to build the boat, and the Flood happened when he was about 600 (taking the text at face value).
The point is that he did it all manually, probably with no volunteer help: any help would have come from his sons (were sons in those days volunteers?) or paid labor. It would have taken a long time, and word would certainly have spread, taking us back to the original question of how people could have known what was coming.
I quoted the wrong material. 🙁
Genesis 6:3 is the 120 year warning.
Noah married when he was 498, and had his first son when he was 502. (Jasher 5:16,18)
He delayed both his marriage, and having his children, in an effort to prolong the 120 year deadline. (Jasher 5:12)
Noah and Methuselah preached to the world “Repent”, for at least a century.
When Noah was 595, he started construction of the ark. (Jasher 5:34).
(This is the verse I meant to quote, instead of Genesis 7:4.)
Jubilees 5:22-24 implies that Noah took 14 months to build the ark, and load the animals into it.
That aside, it still brings us back to Ragan’s original question: how did people find out?
There was time for news to travel,up to about a century. In that time, Noah would have become infamous for what he believed and built.
>How did the millions find out.
Both Noah and Methuselah preached for more than a century, before constructing the ark.
Was a century long enough to reach every person on the planet, at the time? I don’t know.
The primary issue is population size, and geographic range.
The secondary issue is whether or not to preach to the “partially human” population.
( “Partially human” is the people that resulted when he who shall remain nameless, and the assorted hangers on, drifters, and camp-followers interbred with humans.)
(What is God’s plan for those people? If mankind has things bad, because of a poor choice — eating the fruit that was prohibited — what happens to them, whose only apparent option was to follow the one who fell.)
Yes, there are numerous problems with the “workings” of the flood event. I have no answers.
Do you believe what some have stated that Satan was attempting to cut off the blood line of our Lord
and the flood was God destroying the race that Satan had built using his angels? Angels are discussed in Jude and Peter’s letters.
I do.
Yes, I do believe that was happening. I think it has happened on multiple occasions in different ways throughout history.
I have not read all the articles and comments about the flood but I have been thinking about it. Maybe you have already commented on this but…
When I think of the flood I think of fossils.
Fossils can not be created without a catastrophic flood or something to bury things.
When an organism dies on the surface of the ground it decays. It does not fossilize.
Something had to bury all that stuff and bury it below the level of worms. Worms would bring air and germs into the soil to help consume what they did not eat.
All fossils, I believe had to be buried very deep, in thick silt, to cut off the oxygen and decay.
I have said nothing about the fossils. Yes, the fossil record is one piece of evidence for a world-wide flood.
Jeremy.. At 65 years of age, I always believed the account of the Flood that states that God was angry with that generation, because of all the evil they were producing and living in. and as your readers and comments say above, I could not understand how a loving God could wipe out all of his creation, because of disobedience. But recently, I heard about, and read it for myself….how the fallen angels, demons, whom the Bible calls the…sons of God…. fallen angels, according to the Book Of Job, when they presented themselves before God, along with satan…..how these fallen angels, demons, “took wives of all that they chose……Genesis 6, Vs: 2. They took WIVES… they had sexual relations with them. This relationship produced what the Bible calls the NEPHILIM..or the giants of VS 4. This they did to destroy and contaminate the bloodline of the world, so that, as Steve stated above, they could prevent the birth of Jesus, or at least cause Jesus to be born with evil blood in Him. Or so they thought, Noah was saved because he was PERFECT…..NO, not perfect as a person, but perfect….IN HIS GENERATIONS…..HIS GENERATIONS, as verse 9 tells us, in the King James. Noah was obviously not messing around with the women of those days, and so God said he was perfect….in his generations. He was not perfect as a man or sinless, but perfect in his….generations….The rest of the world, or as the Bible says…..All Flesh…. or The Earth……Vs 13…was filled with violence. Even the animals were contaminated by these fallen angels, which is why all the animals that remained, had to be destroyed also.How did Noah KNOW which animals were clean, and which were not??? He didn’t. Vs 20 says…”two of every sort SHALL COME UNTO THEE”. Noah didn’t have to go looking for them….they came to him. And what about Noahs FAMILY???? Chapter 7 vs 1 says….And the LORD SAID unto Noah “Come thou, and ALL THY HOUSE, into the Ark, for thee have I seen RIGHTEOUS before ME, in THIS GENERATION. So as I see what the WORD is saying..God destroyed that GENERATION of people, so that Jesus would be born, and so as to allow NOTHING to stop HIS plan of salvation for all the human race, for all eternity. And all those INNOCENT BABIES??? I believe they ALL went immediately to be with GOD in HEAVEN. Why do I believe that?? Because GENESIS 18 vs 25 says..Shall not the judge of all the Earth do right. He’s GOD. Of course he will.
Yes, that is a view. I have not talked much about the sons of God and the Nephilim. There is lots in this text that we simply don’t know much about!
Exactly!!!! So we’ll said sir! That is exactly what I believe! Can you answer me this please sense you make a lot of sense? I thought God promised not to flood the earth again. But what about (Earth Under Water Documentary on YouTube History Chanel) all that ice melting in Antartica? I’m serious. Scary. Why does God not PREVENT these things from happening to begin with? Who am I to question GOD to begin with right?
God states that He alone has seen the beginning to the end…so He knew exactly what was going to happen at each step of the way. From Eve’s supposed “sin” to the anti-Christ, and everything in between. So unless His intention is to create billions of people over time and kill 99.9% of them at a later date…then there’s a lot we’re missing in the bible. Either He truly is as we’re told to believe…”God is love”…and all will be saved after being summarily chastised and reasonably punished for their “sins”…or none of us know what love really is.
In either case, it would be nice to know the truth – once and for all.