14. Two Questions About the Flood

March 2, 1998

  

In a message dated March 2, 1998, DavidTietz writes:

"Final note….

"I think that the Noah's ark story is an expression of Israelite conjectures about god, such as:

"David"

Not so fast.

Before we put the Flood myth in Genesis to rest as what it really is, a myth, I would like to ask those who accept the Genesis tale of Noah, his ark and the aqueous deluge as genuine knowledge a couple questions that I myself find quite uncomfortable to answer, from the Christian's perspective:

  1. In Genesis 7:2, 'God' allegedly commands Noah:

    2. "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of the beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

    My question is this: How was Noah supposed to know which 'beasts' were 'clean' and which 'beasts' were 'not clean', when these notions are not laid down until the "Law" was 'revealed' to Moses?

    The particular laws and ordinances that the 'almighty' revealed to Moses about supposedly 'clean' and 'unclean' beasts was not an issue until long after Noah and his little barge of beasts were a done deal. If you look in Leviticus chapter 11, you see an account of the Law as 'revealed' to Moses regarding 'clean and unclean beasts'. Did this happen before or after Noah and the Flood? Well, for that matter, who preceded whom? Did Moses live before Noah, and his accounts are just told after those of Noah? Or, as the order of the books of the Pentateuch suggests, did Noah's lifetime predate that of Moses?

    It seems that the notion of 'clean and unclean beasts' certainly came about long after Noah and his days preceding the Flood. In fact, according to my concordance (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible), the very first use of the word clean (in any sense) appears in Genesis 7:2, which I quote above. Therefore, I just wonder how Noah was supposed to understand this directive from God. There was no such thing as the "Mosaic Laws" at the time Noah and his ark set sail.

    Is this one of those pesky discrepancies that everyone's always talking about? Or, is this merely an oversight of the editors of the biblical tales who forgot that Noah predated Moses and his legal ramblings? It certainly seems inconsistent with the context as laid down by the various books that open the Bible. Or, perhaps I'm taking everything out of context here. Hmmm… I wonder.

    Perhaps some willing Christian can enlighten me?

  2. Just WHAT did the Noahic Flood accomplish after all? In Genesis chapter 6, verses 5 through 7, you will find an account of God's wrath against man for his wickedness (again, another unnecessary condemnatory statement of man's metaphysical nature). Genesis 6:12 states that "God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his (God's I presume?) way upon the earth." Apparently, 'God' did not like what he 'created', and he 'repented' (ver. 7) that he had made man and 'God' thus determined that he would "destroy man whom [he has] created from the face of the earth" (ver. 7).

'God' also say in verse 13, "And God said to Noah [who lived before Moses], '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.'"

It seems pretty clear that 'God' intended to 'destroy man whom [he had] created'. Genesis chapter 6 states at least twice that THIS is his purpose: the destruction of man.

Did 'God' succeed at this purpose of his? Did this 'all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good almighty God' succeed in the task that he clearly sets before himself in these verses of Genesis chapter 6?

If 'God' did succeed at his task, then how does the Christian account for the fact that you and I and he and anyone else who is a member of this depraved an innately vicious and violent beastly family MAN exist today?

Did 'God' fail at his task? Good heavens NO! Who would dare suggest such sacrilege?

If 'God' indeed wanted to 'destroy man whom [he had] created', why did he save Noah and his family? This hardly seems like a thorough job. If my home were infested with roaches, and I set out to destroy them all, do you think I'd catch a few first and protect them from my poisons, only to let them back loose again in my kitchen?

Again, I use man's wisdom and consequently misunderstand everything, right?

 

To me, it seems that the Flood myth merely starts depraved man (as the Bible assesses him) all over again: Instead of Adam and "his female" Eve, it was now Noah and his family. But what really did this accomplish? In the end, man was still so depraved according to the priestly types of those days that he needed to endure Moses' ridiculous Laws and still he needed a 'savior' in the form of Jesus Christ (later on, as the stories evolved further in the New Testament).

The Flood obviously did not destroy man, as 'God' states in Genesis 6, and the Flood and its destruction did not accomplish anything, for it was only a few generations after Noah and his family landed the ark that everything was right back where it started!

What kind of hogwash is this?

Okay, okay, I'm settled down now, I'm regaining my composure, after all, the only possible answer is, is that I am depraved, and that I am taking things completely out of context, and that, since I do not accept these tales…. Ahem, I mean, divinely inspired accounts on faith, the problem most certainly must lie within me, and not GOD! For God cannot tell a lie, can he?

Anyway, these are just a couple observations I thought might amuse some of you.

Again, I await your reply.

Tindrbox

 

_________________________________

© Copyright 1999 by Anton Thorn. All rights reserved.

 

 

[Top]

[Back to the Tindrbox Files]

[Back to ATOA Grand Central]