Zone1 Noah's Ark

[Ace Nova]

were it to be believed, the triumph of evil was at hand ... not just a few, rather everyone was about to vote for trump.

Flooding the Earth for political reasons? I would surely hope not.

 

[BreezeWood]

were it to be believed, the triumph of evil was at hand ... not just a few, rather everyone was about to vote for trump.

Flooding the Earth for political reasons? I would surely hope not.

the heavens know the many differences used to confuse the issues too bad for the sinners they see right through them.

 

[Ace Nova]

Why should Ham's descendants, but not Ham, suffer for Ham's actions?

When speaking in the Old Testament God would speak through Prophets/angels/messengers and would speak in terms of "nations/groups" of people - he would speak from a "macro" perspective - meaning that when he was referring to Canaan he was talking about "Ham's people" since Ham was "The Father of the Canaan people".

That said, not all of Ham's "people" would follow that path - Cush, Mizraim and Put were not mentioned. What does that mean? It means that this so called "curse" was Noah for-telling what would happen with Canaan - with a reason to why it would happen. And I wouldn't doubt that later on it was used as a reference to explain their "political" divides.

This is a repeating theme in the Old Testament - Israel fell out of favor with God repeatedly - and when it happened - they too would suffer the consequences. God also offered redemption for people when they strayed - this happens over and over again in the Old Testament.

One needs to keep in mind that many of the books of the Old Testament are dealing with war and the consequences of war - so it can be difficult to see "broader meanings" to many of the passages but if one looks hard enough - with an open heart, an open mind and an open spirit they tend to reveal themselves.

 

[Ace Nova]

the heavens know the many differences used to confuse the issues too bad for the sinners they see right through them.

Well the good news is that there is a 0% chance that Trump will receive 100% of the vote so we should be safe - for now.

 

[alang1216]

The ice age ended approximately 11,500 years ago.

It took a long time for the waters to fully rise. Doggerland lasted until 8,200 years ago for instance.

The oldest known version of this story is about 5000 years old, which corresponds perfectly to the date of the Burckle crater at the bottom of the Indian Ocean under more than 11,000 feet of water which is about 25 times the size of meteor crater in Arizona. The impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing mega tsunamis and superstorms and a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks sweeping away every coastal city and every village and settlement built next to rivers, streams, and even dry washes in the deserts on every continent.

This would also account for the more than 200 mind boggling flood stories from every continent.

Burkle is not accepted by all scientists. We may never know the source of the stories or even if there was a single source.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

When speaking in the Old Testament God would speak through Prophets/angels/messengers and would speak in terms of "nations/groups" of people - he would speak from a "macro" perspective - meaning that when he was referring to Canaan he was talking about "Ham's people" since Ham was "The Father of the Canaan people".

I get that, but it still doesn't make sense. Why would this nation be punished for the act of Ham? Punishing people for something they didn't do is evil.

That said, not all of Ham's "people" would follow that path - Cush, Mizraim and Put were not mentioned. What does that mean? It means that this so called "curse" was Noah for-telling what would happen with Canaan - with a reason to why it would happen. And I wouldn't doubt that later on it was used as a reference to explain their "political" divides.

However the reason why the were cursed never happened if the story was a parable. So God punished them for no apparent reason.

This is a repeating theme in the Old Testament - Israel fell out of favor with God repeatedly - and when it happened - they too would suffer the consequences.

Yeah, but they were being punished for what they did, right? What's that got to do with the Canaanites being punished for something they didn't do?

God also offered redemption for people when they strayed - this happens over and over again in the Old Testament.

In this case the Israelites were ordered to slaughter every man, woman, and child in the land of Canaan. At not because of anything they did. God simply wanted the Jews to have Canaanite land. So there was no offer of redemption here.

One needs to keep in mind that many of the books of the Old Testament are dealing with war and the consequences of war - so it can be difficult to see "broader meanings" to many of the passages but if one looks hard enough - with an open heart, an open mind and an open spirit they tend to reveal themselves.

What I see is a people desperately trying to justify genocide. Some things never change.

 

[Ace Nova]

I get that, but it still doesn't make sense. Why would this nation be punished for the act of Ham? Punishing people for something they didn't do is evil.

However the reason why the were cursed never happened if the story was a parable. So God punished them for no apparent reason.



Yeah, but they were being punished for what they did, right? What's that got to do with the Canaanites being punished for something they didn't do?


In this case the Israelites were ordered to slaughter every man, woman, and child in the land of Canaan. At not because of anything they did. God simply wanted the Jews to have Canaanite land. So there was no offer of redemption here.


What I see is a people desperately trying to justify genocide. Some things never change.

No, not at all. It's easy to look back on history and judge people, their ways from 3000+ years ago according to modern standards. If everyone did that throughout history this entire world would have been condemned over and over again - good chance we wouldn't even be here right now.

What isn't easy to do is to put yourself in the time period, among the people you are judging. Understand that 3000+ years ago the world was a very different place - The Old Testament - The Law, The Books of the Prophets were written for the people of that time period. Yet, the "wisdom/lessons" within the Old Testament can be timeless - if you can put aside your prejudice.

Let's see if this helps:

- In the spiritual/moral sense - God did not condemn Ham or Canaan. Noah did not condemn Ham or Canaan. Ham condemned himself by not doing what was right, allowing both he and his father to be condemned - when he could have easily prevented it had he done the right thing.

- Noah then states that Ham's way was the "wrong way" - which would lead to his people to also follow "the wrong way". His brothers' ways were the "right way" - which would lead their people to doing things the "right way".

As far as the wars that followed later - war is war - "Live by the Sword, Die By The Sword" - That was the way of mankind, their leaders, the "the ways of the world" at the time - and it's been that way for the majority of the past 3000+ years.

As far as individuals stories go - I find it extraordinarily ironic that naysayers will not take anything literally from the Bible - mock the vast majority of the stories but when it comes to stories of war and killing people - they state it word for word as historical fact.

 

[surada]

I commented on the theology of the Ark story but do people actually believe the story documents an actual historical event? If so, was it a global or a local flood?

In the original story the reason for the flood was that humans had become too numerous and noisy. They annoyed the gods.

 

[Woodznutz]

In the original story the reason for the flood was that humans had become too numerous and noisy.

And rotten.

 

[Woodznutz]

No, the Bible is quite clear that the people involved were Ham, Shem, and Japheth. Canaan, who did nothing, got cursed because the drunkard Noah is somehow righteous. Face it, the god of the Bible is a shit tier god with no sense of right or wrong.

Yikes! I wouldn't stand near you during a thunderstorm.

 

[Woodznutz]

Except Canaan was the one who was cursed even though he wasn't involved. The story isn't a parable, though I agree that it never happened. It was political propaganda to smear Canaanites. In this regard it's similar to the story of Lot which also didn't happened, but was a smear against the Edomites. Using made up stories to smear your political opponents is something Jews have been doing for millennia, and continue to do even today.

Do you believe that the Jews later also wrote the curses upon themselves that they are suffering still?

 

[Woodznutz]

No, the Bible is quite clear that the people involved were Ham, Shem, and Japheth. Canaan, who did nothing, got cursed because the drunkard Noah is somehow righteous. Face it, the god of the Bible is a shit tier god with no sense of right or wrong.

Canaan and Noah are the principles in the story. Canaan is introduced immediately.

 

[Care4all]

and why does the false version say

"every male and his mate" instead of "every male and his female"??

were there gay animals on the ark??

give me a break,,

What MATE means to you, is not what mate means in context in this scripture. A mate for a male animal, bird etc, is a female to breed with.... And that is made very clear in this passage. There is no ambiguity when the term mate, is used imo.

 

[Woodznutz]

Where on earth did you come up with the idea that grandsons were considered sons?

From the Hebrew word son which can also mean grandson. Just one more mistake the translators made.

בֵּן​

Transliteration
bēn (son)
Pronunciation
bane

Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From בָּנָה (H1129)
Dictionary Aids
TWOT Reference: 254
Variant Spellings
The following spelling is supported by Strongs and Gesenius: בן.
KJV Translation Count — Total: 4,906x
The KJV translates Strong's H1121 in the following manner: son (2,978x), children (1,568x), old (135x), first (51x), man (20x), young (18x), young (with H1241) (17x), child (10x), stranger (10x), people (5x), miscellaneous (92x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. son, grandson, child, member of a group
   1. son, male child
   2. grandson
   3. children (pl. - male and female)
   4. youth, young men (pl.)
   5. young (of animals)
   6. sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]
   7. people (of a nation) (pl.)
   8. of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
   9. a member of a guild, order, class

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
בֵּן bên, bane; from H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like father or brother), etc.):—afflicted, age, (Ahoh-) (Ammon-) (Hachmon-) (Lev-) ite, (anoint-) ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, (Assyr-) (Babylon-) (Egypt-) (Grec-) ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, × came up in, child, colt, × common, × corn, daughter, × of first, firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, × in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, rebel, + robber, × servant born, × soldier, son, + spark, steward, + stranger, × surely, them of, + tumultuous one, valiant(-est), whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.

 

[hobelim]

It took a long time for the waters to fully rise. Doggerland lasted until 8,200 years ago for instance.

Still that does not account for the hundreds of flood myths on every continent recorded by people who knew the difference between seasonal floods and a catastrophe never seen before.

Burkle is not accepted by all scientists. We may never know the source of the stories or even if there was a single source.

Maybe so. That being said, even if the story of Noah was pure fiction, like Pinocchio for instance, what lessons do you think the unknown author was trying to teach bronze age Hebrew children?

 

[hobelim]

It was political propaganda to smear Canaanites. In this regard it's similar to the story of Lot which also didn't happened, but was a smear against the Edomites.

Well I have to agree that the story of Lot ends with incest deriding the origins of their enemies.

"The elder daughter bore a son and called him Moab; he was the ancestor of the Moabites. The younger also bore a son, whom she called Ben-ammi; he was the ancestor of the Ammonites."

Its reprehensible that some perverted preachers out there have cited this story to justify incest.

 

[hobelim]

Using made up stories to smear your political opponents is something Jews have been doing for millennia, and continue to do even today.

Well, to be fair, when those stories were written many of the neighboring tribes were violent knuckle dragging barbarians who had the form and shape of a human being but an intelligence just slightly above that of a monkey. Calling them "the wild beasts of the field" was being kind.

And what about all those Christians now who compare their political opponents to evil incarnate inciting all of the wild beasts in the jungle to lose their shit, stampede, and devour one another?

In the name of Trump for Christs sake, WTF! (out of all the creepy unclean creatures out there) a direct descendant of that venomous ever elusive talking serpent of old, the lowest of all lowlifes.

 

[progressive hunter]

What MATE means to you, is not what mate means in context in this scripture. A mate for a male animal, bird etc, is a female to breed with.... And that is made very clear in this passage. There is no ambiguity when the term mate, is used imo.

its a false scripture made up by some athiest pretending to be a believer,,,

 

[surada]

Well, to be fair, when those stories were written many of the neighboring tribes were violent knuckle dragging barbarians who had the form and shape of a human being but an intelligence just slightly above that of a monkey. Calling them "the wild beasts of the field" was being kind.

And what about all those Christians now who compare their political opponents to evil incarnate inciting all of the wild beasts in the jungle to go insane, stampede, kill, and devour one another?

In the name of Trump of all the creepy creatures, a talking serpent, the lowest of all lowlifes.

The Canaanites were prosperous. They were involved in pottery making, mining and metallurgy in sophisticated urban groups. They paid tribute to Pharaoh and were guarded by Egyptian garrisons.

 

[hobelim]

The Canaanites were prosperous. They were involved in pottery making, mining and metallurgy in sophisticated urban groups. They paid tribute to Pharaoh and were guarded by Egyptian garrisons.

I'm sure the pottery was beautiful but they sacrificed their firstborn to their gods. So there's that.