flood

[mee]

Why Was an Ancient World Destroyed?
The global Deluge was not a natural disaster. It was a judgment from God. Warning was given, but it was largely ignored. Why?

[wil]

Again I'm wondering, if this is old testament texts...and the Jews think a worldwide flood did not happen, that this is a metaphor, and this stems from their books...why do Christians think it did?

It is thought like this that turns people away...that Noah actually gathered every creature in two's and his family was able to feed em and clean the stalls...

[truthseeker]

Isn't this promoting Watchtower propaganda? Sort of like preaching the Good News of Jehovah's Kingdom on CR without invitation through means of discussion?

[E99]

Hello Wil


Your quote:

Again I'm wondering, if this is old testament texts...and the Jews think a worldwide flood did not happen, that this is a metaphor, and this stems from their books...why do Christians think it did?

It is thought like this that turns people away...that Noah actually gathered every creature in two's and his family was able to feed em and clean the stalls...



Many Christians also think that the flood was metaphorical, similarly they say the same about the creation account in Genesis, parting of the red sea etc. Some go to the lengths of stating that nearly all biblical miracles and obscure occurrences are symbolic, or have a vague scientific explanation to them in one way or another.



Out of all of the ‘miraculous’ events in the scriptures, the flood is the most difficult to come to terms with and to defend.
Science .v. religion comes to mind; and science tends to try to batter the flood occurrence into the dust; attempting to make a paste out of the watered earth....A little water, no flood and a lot of dirt.



The biblical flood ’story’ is seemingly a weak point, and why not ‘kick the man when he’s down’ if ones objective is to first de-deluge the earth and expose an agenda to disprove Gods word by disparaging an event that possibly happened ? And that subsequently, in some cases, will go a long way to feed those with the anti-God agenda, on a want to disprove Gods existence if his words are said to be mere stories, or even lies ?



To God it does not matter if his deluge account, succinct and uninformative that it is, deters people from turning away from him. The moment the first pair sinned he knew that man would turn from him so that man will suit his own wants and ideas. After all they turned from him even though they were given everything. Full belief in scriptural accounts such as the flood that are hard to grasp are a test of faith.



In the written account it was Jehovah God that closed the door of the ark, he was with them. All things are possible with God. God did not desert Noah, his family and the creatures on the ark to the elements, the trials and tribulations that they were to face. Man was not alone on the ark. Just as we are not alone on this ark the earth. God has not deserted us, we simply don’t always see and appreciate fully what he does for us and the new cleansed earth he is preparing for us like the cleansed earth that Noah faced.
Neither of these accounts, a prophesised new earth or new earth given to the flood survivors are metaphorical.



Jesus spoke of Noah when he referred to this forthcoming change in Matthew 24:37 Jesus made a comparison between two real events when he said.....“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the son of man will be."
To Jesus the events of Noah and his existence were real. If Jesus, Gods son knows and believes about the times of Noah, then how can we say that it is metaphorical. Only a little faith in Gods written word as truth is required.



Matthew 17 : 20
“He said to them: “Because of your little faith. For truly I say to you, If you have faith the size of a mustard grain, you will say to this mountain, ‘Transfer from here to there,’ and it will transfer, and nothing will be impossible for you.”


Shalohm

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by -E99

Many Christians also think that the flood was metaphorical, similarly they say the same about the creation account in Genesis, parting of the red sea etc. Some go to the lengths of stating that nearly all biblical miracles and obscure occurrences are symbolic, or have a vague scientific explanation to them in one way or another.



Out of all of the ‘miraculous’ events in the scriptures, the flood is the most difficult to come to terms with and to defend.
Science .v. religion comes to mind; and science tends to try to batter the flood occurrence into the dust; attempting to make a paste out of the watered earth....A little water, no flood and a lot of dirt.



The biblical flood ’story’ is seemingly a weak point, and why not ‘kick the man when he’s down’ if ones objective is to first de-deluge the earth and expose an agenda to disprove Gods word by disparaging an event that possibly happened ? And that subsequently, in some cases, will go a long way to feed those with the anti-God agenda, on a want to disprove Gods existence if his words are said to be mere stories, or even lies ?

This is what cracks me up, this idea that science goes to great lengths to undermine the Bible because of it's "anti-God agenda", and all because science doesn't put an effort into shoring up the literality of someone's pet mythology.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

This is what cracks me up, this idea that science goes to great lengths to undermine the Bible because of it's "anti-God agenda", and all because science doesn't put an effort into shoring up the literality of someone's pet mythology.

Good observation. Yet, what cracks me up equally, perhaps even more, is when someone claims scientific validation for their view, only to find out it is supported only by hearsay, hints and allegations. You know, the supermarket tabloid kind...no peer reviewed scholarship, just a lot of superstitious nonsense touted as being scientific.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, China Cat!


Good observation. Yet, what cracks me up equally, perhaps even more, is when someone claims scientific validation for their view, only to find out it is supported only by hearsay, hints and allegations. You know, the supermarket tabloid kind...no peer reviewed scholarship, just a lot of superstitious nonsense touted as being scientific.

Agreed.

I also find it interesting how some people cultivate a sense of persecution in order to shore up an isolationist religious mindset. It reminds me of Mick Jagger singing, "I went down to the demonstration to get my fair share of abuse."

Chris

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

I also find it interesting how some people cultivate a sense of persecution in order to shore up an isolationist religious mindset. It reminds me of Mick Jagger singing, "I went down to the demonstration to get my fair share of abuse."

You mean like anyone who is responsible for more people than just themselves? Like, oh, maybe every genuine mother and father that ever lived?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Isn't this promoting Watchtower propaganda? Sort of like preaching the Good News of Jehovah's Kingdom on CR without invitation through means of discussion?

I reviewed article that the link took me to. It is a variation of the concept of the history of the flood. It does not come out and ask the reader to join. However, it is definitely a web site for a specific denomination, and is designed to cause the reader to be curious and check out the rest of the site.

It is also a variation of cutting and pasting someone else's published work, and though permission is granted to link to the page, it defeats the purpose of having a discussion and expressing personal thoughts on said issues.

That is not what CR is about, and such "cutting and Pasting" or linking to another site is not encouraged.

Anyway the thread has apparently taken off on its own and there is a good discussion developing about the topic of the flood (though sometimes we spin off into related or not so related issues)...

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, China Cat!


You mean like anyone who is responsible for more people than just themselves? Like, oh, maybe every genuine mother and father that ever lived?

I'm sorry, I'm not catching your point.

Chris

[Thomas]

Here's an idle speculation ...

The world soul, the 'anima mundi' of philosophy (the akashic records, it has many names), an element of the 'waters above the firmament' becomes so polluted by the acts and intentions of a humanity that it is apparent that any meaningful dialogue between God and man has becomes nigh on impossible (for man, not for God).

'Make straight the way of the Lord' cried the voice in the wilderness, and to enable man to accomplish this, God institutes his right to freely withdraw that which was given freely in the first place (given and rejected), His sanctifying Presence.

When God withdraws Himself from participation in the anima mundi, its 'place' as intermediary between the human and divine collapses, and by the law of 'everything returns to the source of its arising' the anima mundi collapsess, in its entirely, upon the human collectivity – and much like each atom of a holographic image contains the whole image, the whole anima mundi lands upon each and every individual, individually.

'On your own heads be it', as the saying goes.

This would manifest as a psychic event of cataclysmic proportion. If the drowning man sees his life pass before him, the victim of the flood would see all life pass. This is the psychic equivalent of as 'mega-tsunami'.

(An Hermetic aside - the hallucinations of someone suffering 'delerium tremens' in the wake of chemical dependency are not entirely 'imagined', but rather a window has been opened to enable a vision of the lower orders of the anima mundi, in effect it is a vision of the product of humanity's less-than-human activity. Demons do exist, we cause 'em to.)

Noah and his family symbolise those who cleave yet to truth, and as man is the highest of all the animals, as long as one man or woman holds to what is true, they are safe 'under the cover' of his faith.

Noah's Ark prefigues Christ and His Church.

Once the waters had subsided – 40 days meaning 'a passage of time' – and the dove returned – the descent of the Holy Spirit and the inauguration of the Rule of Peace, the ark 'grounds' on a high place - in the 'peak' of religious principle (God lives in the High Places) - the 'Upper Room' of the Last Supper - then God puts his 'bow in the clouds' - the arc of the rainbow, as a sign of a new covenant with man.

Now, if we start speculating on rainbows ...

Of course, on the other hand the whole thing can be part of the Vatican's religious conspiracy, or a fabricated myth to scare people and keep them in line ... or mere superstition ... or genetic memory ...

... but it is intriguing that many cultures have a vision of the flood signifying some order of psychospiritual cataclysmic event ...

I'm sure the Vedas mention it, and from what I recall the Aboriginal Australians have a flood at the end of the world.

... like I said, just speculatin'

Thomas.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Here's an idle speculation ...

The world soul, the 'anima mundi' of philosophy (the akashic records, it has many names), an element of the 'waters above the firmament' becomes so polluted by the acts and intentions of a humanity that it is apparent that any meaningful dialogue between God and man has becomes nigh on impossible (for man, not for God).

'Make straight the way of the Lord' cried the voice in the wilderness, and to enable man to accomplish this, God institutes his right to freely withdraw that which was given freely in the first place (given and rejected), His sanctifying Presence.

When God withdraws Himself from participation in the anima mundi, its 'place' as intermediary between the human and divine collapses, and by the law of 'everything returns to the source of its arising' the anima mundi collapsess, in its entirely, upon the human collectivity – and much like each atom of a holographic image contains the whole image, the whole anima mundi lands upon each and every individual, individually.

'On your own heads be it', as the saying goes.

This would manifest as a psychic event of cataclysmic proportion. If the drowning man sees his life pass before him, the victim of the flood would see all life pass. This is the psychic equivalent of as 'mega-tsunami'.

(An Hermetic aside - the hallucinations of someone suffering 'delerium tremens' in the wake of chemical dependency are not entirely 'imagined', but rather a window has been opened to enable a vision of the lower orders of the anima mundi, in effect it is a vision of the product of humanity's less-than-human activity. Demons do exist, we cause 'em to.)

Noah and his family symbolise those who cleave yet to truth, and as man is the highest of all the animals, as long as one man or woman holds to what is true, they are safe 'under the cover' of his faith.

Noah's Ark prefigues Christ and His Church.

Once the waters had subsided – 40 days meaning 'a passage of time' – and the dove returned – the descent of the Holy Spirit and the inauguration of the Rule of Peace, the ark 'grounds' on a high place - in the 'peak' of religious principle (God lives in the High Places) - the 'Upper Room' of the Last Supper - then God puts his 'bow in the clouds' - the arc of the rainbow, as a sign of a new covenant with man.

Now, if we start speculating on rainbows ...

Of course, on the other hand the whole thing can be part of the Vatican's religious conspiracy, or a fabricated myth to scare people and keep them in line ... or mere superstition ... or genetic memory ...

... but it is intriguing that many cultures have a vision of the flood signifying some order of psychospiritual cataclysmic event ...

I'm sure the Vedas mention it, and from what I recall the Aboriginal Australians have a flood at the end of the world.

... like I said, just speculatin'

Thomas.

i dont get it. is this even in the right forum?

[Thomas]

Well, the querstion was regarding the flood, and this is the Christianity forum, and I gave an answer within the realms of Christian speculation.

I do not endorse the JW interpretation however, nor do I think it can stand. To say that the world today is like the world of Noah's time is entirely subjective. For those living in drought-bespoiled Africa it is infinitely worse. For those in the affluent West, it is infinitely better.

Even in my lifetime (a half century) the world is a 'safer place' - I no longer wake with the fear of an impending nuclear holocaust.

If we take times in the Middle Ages, when the Black Death ravaged Europe, when every nation state was at war with its neighbour, when the lives of the poor were disposed of by their lords as they so chose - the everyday lives of people were infinitessimally worse - but no deluge then ...

So do I believe in the flood? Yes.

Do I believe that we are in the End Times? Yes.

Do I believe that the world today is the same as Noah's? No.

When will the end come? None can say. Maybe tomorrow, maybe another millenia, maybe three.

Someone said all philosophy is a footnote to Plato.
I believe that all life is a footnote to Christ.

Thomas

[China Cat Sunflower]

That's some interesting speculation Thomas! The flood story is obviously a myth, which makes it's arcane allegorical meanings even more powerful. Taken literally we wind up with a host of logical problems ranging from what the size of the boat would have to be to carry all those animals and their food, to where all the water went in a closed ecological system.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

That's some interesting speculation Thomas! The flood story is obviously a myth, which makes it's arcane allegorical meanings even more powerful. Taken literally we wind up with a host of logical problems ranging from what the size of the boat would have to be to carry all those animals and their food, to where all the water went in a closed ecological system.

Chris

Well, Chris one of the interesting biblical details given prior to the "flood" was that it had never rained before...

And we do know today, that if all the water vapor in the atmosphere was to condense and drop to earth today...we would be under 500 feet of water, that is 500 feet over the top of Mount Everest...just a thought.

v/r

Q