I was not familiar with this channel. Thanks for this. I like her.
1 Like
Hi Darrell,
Appreciate your question and I would only want to point you to what God has said on the flood.
Genesis 5-10 give the account of Noah and the global flood. Genesis 6:5-7 reveals the reason for this global judgement upon manâŚâthe wickedness of man was great on the earth, and every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuallyâ. God as Creator and Judge executed His righteous judgement on that ancient generation. Genesis 7:23 is absolutely clear that every living thing on land was blotted outâŚit was a global floodâŚand only Noah and those in the ark were saved from the flood.
And I would encourage you and all readers here that the flood account is not some vague or controversial subject. Our Lord and Savior Himself confirms the flood in Mark 24 & Luke 17 comparing His second coming to the days of Noah in that it will apply to everyone on the face of the earth. Further, God confirms the flood account through Peterâs inspired writings in 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter 2 where again, it is confirmed that eight people survived the global flood. And finally, the author of the book of Hebrews in chapter 11, the âhall of faithâ chapter, summarizes Noahâs faith to build an ark at the command and warning of God.
Godâs word is completely clear on this catastrophic and global event. It reveals the righteousness & justice of God as well as the patience & grace of God in waiting 120 years and allowing Noah to be a preacher of the coming catastrophe. We now have the visible rainbow as a symbol that God will never again destroy all flesh through a global flood (Genesis 9:14-17). But sadly, manâs sin and rebellion will again bring global judgement as described as the âDay of the Lordâ throughout the scripture and which Peter wrote of in 2 Peter chapter 3.
As believers, our hope and righteousness is in Christ alone and He is the âarkâ that can save a lost sinner from their impending judgement that will come regardless of whether they die a âpeacefulâ death at an old age or die via a catastrophic event. This historic event should not destroy peopleâs faith but point them to faith in Christ. Just as there was a door in the ark Noah built that one could enter and be saved from that coming flood of judgement, Christ calls us to enter by the narrow gate representing faith in Him aloneâŚHis life, death and resurrectionâŚto be saved from the coming judgement of God.
Blessings,
Tom
Thanks Tom for the reply.
Do you believe in eternal torment for those that do not accept the opportunity to enter through the narrow gate?
Thanks.
Why does the ark have to be true for this statement to be true? Do you expect all the characters in the parables to be real? Just because Jesus (et al) refer to Noah, it does not necessarily confirm it as anything more than a story with meaning. (the same logic can be applied to Adam & Eve)
Richard
Hi Darrell,
I do believe what God has revealed in His word. Searching on words âhellâ, âouter darknessâ, âeternal fireâ, âweeping and gnashing of teethâ will produce numerous verses that reveal the understanding of eternal judgement. Most of these verses are the words of Jesus HimselfâŚprimarily in the book of Matthew and also in 2 Thessalonians and Revelation. Matthew 25:31-46 is very clear ending with Jesus stating âThese will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.â I believe this understanding is also revealed in the old testament as the term being âcut offâ is a clear and repeated theme to those who would reject God and His word.
Thereâs no doubt this doctrine is the most offensive to manâs sensibilities because it conveys a complete hopelessness and finality in one being consigned to an eternal, never ending, punishment. But it reveals the holiness of God in a way that it reveals the heinousness of our sin and offense towards our holy Creator. I for one know I am worthy of this punishment having lived a life of rebellion and disobedience towards my Creator. But by the grace and mercy of God, He has made a way of salvation through Jesus Christ whoâs sin-bearing on the cross received the wrath of God that the offense of sin requires and satisfied the righteous judgement of God. By faith in Christ we can receive forgiveness of sins and be given the righteousness of ChristâŚboth of which we desperately need and can never achieve on our own. John 3:16 is one verse that conveys this saving love towards lost sinnersâŚwhoever believes in Jesus for salvation will receive eternal life and not perish.
Blessings,
Tom
But that does not give you the right to condemn anyone else. Not by their actions nor by your theologyâŚ
Christ talks about eternal damnation but we have only our own concepts to understand it. Any idea that Eternal punishment is cruel is to judge God by human standards (and understanding). Perhaps we do not understand it the way God does?
As a passing thought. If God is outside of time then eternity has no meaning. Eternity would be an instance, no more and no less. An instant joy or an instant horror, but there is no suffering of time to meditate on either. .
Richard
Jesus is not outside of time. He is in a different realm with a different timeline, but he still has a body and thus is in time and not omnitemporal.
Hi Richard,
The illustration of Christ and the ark is illustrating that they are both a means of salvationâŚthe ark Noah built saved him and his family from the flood of judgementâŚChrist saves from the righteous judgement of God on sin.
As far as the parallel passages in Matthew 24 and Luke 17, Jesus is speaking of His second coming and makes the illustration that the days of His second coming will be like the days preceding the floodâŚpeople will be living their lives with disregard or disinterest in the fact that judgement is coming. Jesus then warns in Matthew 24:42 & 44 to âbe on the alertâ, âbe readyâ because no man knows the day or hour of their death nor the day or hour of Christâs return. Jesus also uses Lot and Sodom as an illustration of this in the Luke passage. Thereâs nothing in these passages to suggest Jesus was referring to these individuals in any other way than as historical figures and historical events. Further, trying to interpret these passages as being a parable and not historical figures then forces one to have to do the same with the passages in Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5 which makes no sense in their context. The plain reading of these passages is clearly indicating that Noah is a historical person and the flood was a historical event. Especially in Hebrews 11, Noah is listed in what many refer to as the âhall of faithââŚthese are historical people and events.
Yes, there are parables in the Bible and Jesus used many parables to communicate spiritual truth. However, in the Matthew 24 and Luke 17 passages where Noah and the flood are mentioned, there no logical reason to interpret that as a parable nor is it supported from the rest of Scripture.
Hopefully this helps. Thanks,
Tom
Hi Richard,
I interpret your statement âthat does not give you the right to condemn anyoneâ as simply a statement of fact. Of course I do not condemn anyone nor do I have any power or authority to condemn and I myself was under condemnation. And in communicating to someone that God is holy and righteous and will judge sin is in no way personally condemning them but is warning them that they are under condemnation from the one who does have all power and authorityâŚGod their Creator & JudgeâŚand that they desperately need a Savior to save them from the coming judgement of their sinâŚand God in His grace, love and mercy has sent Jesus, God the Son, to receive the punishment for sin in our place and through faith in Him we can be forgiven and reconciled to GodâŚthere is no condemnation for those who are in ChristâŚRomans 8:1.
As far as the thought that eternity is an instant in timeâŚthat sounds much like a belief in annihilation. Scripture speaks of a great hope in Christ, eternal life in Christ, a paradise with Christ, worship and praise to God in His kingdom. Jesus in John 14 comforts His followers saying that He will prepare a place for them in His Fatherâs houseâŚthe eternal kingdom where we will worship and enjoy our Creator & Savior forever. If all of that was just an instant of time it is certainly not described that way in Godâs word.
Take care,
Tom
That is not how to read the Bible
There is no priciple in reading Scripture that says âThe simplest is probably the correct oneâ.
All you are doinf is superimposing your beleifs onto scriptrue.
That dos not change whether the ark is real or not.
Is a theological stetement that does not require the flood tobe real to exist.
Noah, supposedly did. Are you claiming that Cristians are the equivalent of Noah? We do not know when the rain is going to fall and cannot hide in a boat until it does, Noahâs preparations were very clear, ours are not. Any analogy, even one from Christ, has limitations,
The writers of Hebrews, and Peter belieed that Noah was real. The writer of Genesis 1 probably beleived that his version of creation was real. The writer of the Garden almost certainly believed it was real. At what point do we decide that we know better? And which parts do we then adjust our beliefs to? You are happy to temper Gensis 1 with science. Science would indicate that there is not enough water on the earth (Including melting the ice caps) to flood it. For a local flood there would have to be a âbasinâ to contain the water. There is no such feature. Water still has to abide by the laws of nature (unless we are talking of a specific miracle) Genetically 8 pairs of genes is not enough to make a viable population let alone the whole human race.
Yes there are, but your theology refuses to see them.
I am sorry, but I am not a green and naive Christian, I have been preaching for over 40 years,
If you think you are here to change my theology you have another think coming.
Richard
The city of Eridu (I think Iâm remembering the right city) has an unfinished ziggurat that would have been the largest building ever constructed, except it never got finished. What we know is that Eridu didnât have a large enough work force to do the job, so they brought in workers from wherever they could find them. But the planners had overlooked the fact that these workers spoke a bunch of different languages, and had made no plans to handle communications, so the workers actually became a problem. Then Eridu itself had issues due to changing rainfall patterns, and all the imported workers packed up and headed back to their homes while Eriduâs own population started leaving as well.
This history has all sorts of points in common with the Genesis narrative, including that the ziggurat was meant to âreach up to heavenâ â but that was a colloquial term, not a literal statement: Back then, everyone thought that gods either lived on or at least would meet humans on âhigh placesâ (that should ring a bell with the Old Testament!). Eridu was out on the Tigris-Euphrates plain where the highest elevation above average was maybe three meters, and that was along the flood berms along the rivers, so what were they to do? The general solution in the lands of the two rivers was to build artificial hills, which got stylized as ziggurats. Eriduâs concept was simple: if they were to build the biggest, tallest ziggurat of all, then the gods would come down to meet with their priests, and that would make them the mightiest city of all! So the actual history is of pride, arrogance . . . and bad planning which came together at just the wrong time.
So the Genesis writer rearranged the details a bit to make his point about arrogance in not so much seeking to communicate with heaven but in thinking that humans could by their efforts summon heavenly powers at their wish. He just put the language confusion as something God did and had YHWH âcome downâ instead of the gods they meant to call down, and sort of let the rest speak for itself.
2 Likes
I start with the text, where the first point is that Hebrew " ×Ö¸×ָֽר֜׼" (ha-AR-etz) does not mean the entire planet, in context it means âthe known worldâ â probably the world known to Noah, possibly the world known to the writer, though the writer would likely not have considered that these might be different. Second, " ×ÖśÖ˝×ָרִ××Ö" (ha-har-EEM) more likely means âhillsâ in context; the word covers everything from a ten meter tall mound to a thousand meter tall mountain (about the tallest they knew).
So the flood wiped out the world that Noah knew, and it covered the highest hills, which werenât much more than ten meters anyway, and Noah and his family survived but as far as they knew they were the only ones. Keep in mind here that the account is written from Noahâs perspective!
Historically there have been some flood events that involved the Tigris and the Euphrates at the same time, which for someone roughly in the middle of the two rivers region would have meant that there was nothing visible except water in all directions; itâs that flat and any significant mountains are that far away, so the description we find in the text, when read from Noahâs point of view, is spot on.
Now back to the text. One notable feature is that the account is roughly poetic, using what is called a chiastic structure where things at the front balance with things at the end in an inverted order. It looks like this:
A. Transitional Introduction: Noah and His Sons (6:9â10)
B. The Corruption of All Flesh (6:11â12)
C. Godâs Resolution to Destroy the Earth by Flood (6:13â22)
D. Godâs Command and Noahâs Response: The Entrance into the Ark (7:1â10)
E. The Beginning of the Flood: The Inundating of the Earth (7:11â16)
F. The Rising of the Waters (7:17â24)
G. Godâs Remembrance of Noah (8:1a)âcentral theme of the account of Noahâs Flood
Fâ. The Recession of the Waters (8:1bâ5)
Eâ. The End of the Flood: The Drying of the Earth (8:6â14)
Dâ. Godâs Command and Noahâs Response: The Exodus from the Ark (8:15â19)
Câ. Godâs Resolution Never Again to Destroy the Earth by Flood (8:20â22)
Bâ. The Covenant with All Flesh (9:1â17)
Aâ. Transitional Conclusion: Noah and His Sons (9:18â19)
(Sorry about that; the formatting got lost in copy-and-pastel the second half should be in steps back out from the middle matching their counterparts above.)
The numbers the writer uses in the story do the same thing: 7, 40, 150, 150, 40, 7. Note especially the 7s and the 40s, which are special numbers with hefty symbolic meanings â and in the middle is the main point, where ancient listeners would expect it to be: âBut God remembered Noahâ (not that He ever forgot Noah; this is indicating that His focus returned to Noah & co.). We modern readers expect the main point of a story to be at the end, so we start off with a handicap in understanding this!
BTW, the symbolism of the numbers used in the ark account is discussed nicely here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2022/03/biblical-size-of-noahs-ark-literal-or-symbolic.html
That kind of cheapens the effort the writer went to â the more obvious lesson is âDonât try to control Godâ, since the point of the ziggurat/Tower was to be able to summon the gods to come meet with the priests.
Thank you for the informative response. Do you know where those details are mentioned (the work force and languages, etc.? I am interested in reading the primary literature that says this.
Thanks for the response. Very informative and interesting.
What parts of the story do you view as historical versus fiction or exaggeration?
Thanks.
No, you read it right the first time. The land was flat and the waters rose 15 cubits, covering the hills in a flat land.
The NET Bible notes acknowledge what the Hebrew text says, but it assumes it âmustâ mean something different:
tn Heb ârose 15 cubits.â Since a cubit is considered by most authorities to be about 18 inches, this would make the depth 22.5 feet. This figure might give the modern reader a false impression of exactness, however, so in the translation the phrase â15 cubitsâ has been rendered âmore than 20 feet.â
tn Heb âthe waters prevailed 15 cubits upward and they covered the mountains.â Obviously, a flood of 20 feet did not cover the mountains; the statement must mean the flood rose about 20 feet above the highest mountain.
Maybe that refers to Neanderthals, or the offspring of Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens
If I remember right, one geology professor noted that thereâs a flood layer there thatâs even more extensive, like 600 by 120 â immense by any measure!
There are a couple of candidates in the Tigirs-Euphrates valley that could qualify, on the order of five hundred miles long and a hundred-plus miles wide. For much of that region the highest natural features are on the flood berms built up over time along the rivers.
And quite possibly Noah & co. landed and there just wasnât anyone else around, so as far as they knew they were all that was left.
I never had that issue because I began from the standpoint that the Hebrew text (or the Septuagint in some portions where the Hebrew is plainly corrupted) is authoritative; it is what was inspired by the Spirit and affirmed by the church, so studying the text canât undermine anything, only change the perspective. It was a bit of a struggle when I encountered the fact that some accounts (Babel is an obvious one) were shifted around a bit to achieve the point the writer wanted, but if thatâs that the church affirmed as inspired by the Spirit, then the text as it stands is still authoritative. I did got through a bit of a phase where I toyed with notions like the âGap Theoryâ in Genesis 1 but I was never really comfortable with using science to push meaning into the text; science can certainly illuminate some but the meaning of the text has to come from the text.
My sources for this are numerous and range from scholarly journal articles to popular books by scholars to YouTube talks by scholars to âtheology reportersâ passing on their understanding of what some scholars have said. Iâll organize it roughly chronologically.
a. We know that there were Semitic people living in the land the biblical writer calls Goshen; we donât yet know their extent or numbers save that it was at least thousands.
b. We know that all subject peoples in Egypt were subject to spending a fixed period of time each year working for the Pharaoh-priest administration; evidence indicates that non-Egyptians were required to serve longer terms than Egyptians.
c. We know that there was a departure from Egypt of a group of people whose names strongly tie them to the tribe of Levi.
d. We have a linguistic theory about the numbers reported in Exodus that shrinks them to (IIRC) something on the order of ten thousand or so.
e. We have strong evidence that there were Semitic people living in Canaan at roughly the time of the Levitical migration (b. above).
f. We have evidence that these Semitic peoples in Canaan ended up identifying with Israel.
g. We know that the people referenced in a., c., and e. above were known as âIvriâ, a word that turned into our term âHebrewâ.
I think that covers things. To link these and put it into rough narrative form, there were Ivri living in Goshen who, like other of Pharaohâs subjects, were required to provide labor for royal/priestly projects. Assuming that the Ivri in Goshen were or identified with the descendants of Jacob/Israel, a large number of them, possibly all, under Levitical leadership, packed up and left Egypt (which to a certain degree wouldnât have bothered ordinary Egyptians or even a lot of the noble/priestly class since the Ivri were shepherds, and shepherds were an âabominationâ in Egyptian religion). Some time later, these Ivri crossed into Canaan and started occupying portions of the land, fighting for some of it but merely moving in to other parts. As these Ivri enjoyed success in driving out various Canaanite groups, Ivri already living in Canaan joined ior at least allied with these invaders, including attaching themselves to specific tribal divisions and possibly actually being some of those divisions, which were given names corresponding to the sons of Jacob.
Eventually the Ivri dominated the area and joined together from being a loose confederation of tribes bound together by the Levites and YHWH Whom they served to setting up their own kingdom.
Now that doesnât match the biblical version very tightly at all, but it does supply a framework that the biblical version could adapt and adjust in order to bind all the Ivri together as a single people. And in some ways itâs a more compelling story than the (mythologized) version in the Pentateuch because it shows Godâs action in gathering others to build a single people, a beginning of blessing all the nations of the Earth by bestowing the blessing of inclusion into His people, something that is provided for in the Torah but wasnât common (to a large degree because Israel as a people had a lousy record of faithfulness, so there wasnât that much difference between them and their neighbors; I believe that if they had been consistently faithful then a good number of their neighbors would have joined in whole tribes). It illustrates how other peoples â admittedly all Semitic â could be adopted into Godâs people, as became the norm in the New Testament and take on that identity so strongly that they would say along with the descendants of those who actually came out of Egypt, âWe were slaves in Egyptâ.
And of course over time as the Ivri from Egypt and those already in Canaan intermarried (within their designated tribes, generally) then their descendants could honestly state that their forefathers had come out of Egypt.
But this does not negate the Pentateuchâs version, which after all is the one with authority, and from which we draw the lessons the Holy Spirit commends to us via inspiration and canonization.
âOutside of timeâ, geometrically speaking, would mean that eternity includes out spacetime but also includes a lot more, and that âa lot moreâ could well include additional time(-like) dimensions so that there is duration, it just doesnât move the way time does for us, plus any entities dwelling there may be free to move along those axes just as we do the three we are free to travel in.
So rather than âeternity has no meaningâ â which doesnât fit at all with the Hebrew and Greek words that get translated as âeternityâ â it would be much more correct to say that eternity has a different meaning than existence dragged along by the march of time.
BTW, this is one of those areas where the gulf between the ancient languages and the modern â and especially the Western â understanding is substantial. The best way to translate the Hebrew and Greek terms isnât âeternalâ as the English word is defined, i.e. lasting forever, but âagewiseâ, matching an age. That doesnât help much because our concept of âageâ is also different; the best way to put the scriptural understanding is a duration of time that lasts as long as is needed for something to be accomplished (this shows up in the phrase âthe fulness of timeâ used in reference to the Incarnation).
So the phrase that often gets rendered as âeternalâ is actually âages of agesâ, which would indicate a collection of periods of time with a common purpose or theme that last as long as it takes to fulfill that purpose or theme, and that this is a very long time indeed. Think of an âage of agesâ, which would indicate a single age that is so long (due to the nature of its purpose) that it contains ages within it!
As age is sometimes associated with a millennium, but as with many other things the concept isnât that tidy. Consider for example the phrase âthe church ageâ, which presently is approaching the end of its second millennium; although no writer of scripture uses that phrase it is nevertheless indicative of the extent of an age, so an age of ages could extend to a million years!
note: the phrase âin the days ofâ doesnât indicate an age; the New Testament phrase âthe times ofâ, as in âthe times of the Gentilesâ, most likely does.