dantech
Well-Known Member
It says "and he is doing"... active tense right now.
This should be enough to close this thread
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Problems with Noah and the flood
- Thread starter we-live-now
- Start date
This should be enough to close this thread
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
We can call God by the title 'God' or by the title 'Lord' and still be talking to the same person. These are just titles and they are used like this throughout the bible so it shouldnt be surprising.
Secondly, Chapter 6 ends with Gods command to build an ark, and it says Noah 'did just so'.
Have you considered how long it would have taken Noah and his 3 sons to build that ark? Do you think he built it instantly? A few days? A few weeks? 6months???
Try 40 years. Thats how long it took him to build.
Now chapter 7 begins by God saying "Enter into the ark" and he gives an additional command to take 7 clean animals in addition to the pairs of all the animals previously instructed.
I dont see any problem with this scenario at all. What do you see?
rosends
Well-Known Member
Just as an aside, Judaism teaches 120 years though others compute between 55 and 75 years.
AstralProjectee
Member
This is what I have found is wrong with interpretation Noah's flood in the strict biblical sense. I order to really understand the biblical story of Noah one has to understand the history of this story. What we have found is archeological evidence that dates at least 1000 yeas before the biblical story from the Sumerians and Babylonians and others. I strongly suggest you look into this story more here are some links.
Noah's Ark - The Real Story **NEW** by BBC Award Winning Documentary
Noah's Ark is Plagiarized. Here's how we know ...
Great Flood - Sumerian Version
Prehistoric Megastorms - Noah's Great Flood
Noah's Ark is a Mesopotamian myth
Noah's Ark Prototype was Round
Noah's Ark Prototype was Round
Noah's Ark - The Real Story **NEW** by BBC Award Winning Documentary
Noah's Ark is Plagiarized. Here's how we know ...
Prehistoric Megastorms - Noah's Great Flood
Noah's Ark is a Mesopotamian myth
Noah's Ark Prototype was Round
Noah's Ark Prototype was Round
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Do they give a reason why they say it took him 120 years to build?
rosends
Well-Known Member
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
It says the 'midrash' says that one of the reasons Noach built the Ark over 120 years was so that the people of the generation should see him building it and ask him -what it's the purpose of this structure?
So their source of the 120 years of building is not from the bible account.
The bible tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood waters began. And it also tells us that Noah was 500 years old when he 'began' to have children. His 3 sons were all married when Noah was building the ark and when they went into it. So he certainly couldnt have spent 120 years building it.
rosends
Well-Known Member
The 120 figure is from the Jewish POV, that's true. As I said, other sources have it at other lengths based on textual analysis. I can't vouch for this site, but it shows its math
How Long Did It Take for Noah to Build the Ark? | Answers in Genesis
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Yes, thats a lot more accurate then the Midrash.
Noah spent at least 40 years building the ark with his 3 sons...and the declaration that God would send a flood came exactly 120 years before the flood. So the 120years was not a declaration to Noah....it was a declaration God made in the heavens for the length of time until he brought the flood. Noah was only 580 years old when that declaration was given in heaven....it would be at least another 50 odd years (time for Noah to have 3 sons and for them to all grow up and get married) before God spoke to Noah to inform him of the plan.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It might be better to put in terms of "... a Jewish POV" as not all of us are on the same page.
rosends
Well-Known Member
so noted. Thanks.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, all of the ^ above ^ would be a ' spot on the shirt ', so to speak. Those people having the selfish form of love described at 2nd Timothy 3 vs 1-5,13 which is in sharp contrast with the Bible's definition of love defined at 1st Cor. 13 vs 4-6
I'd like to add that besides Not being spotted with the ' works of the flesh ' as listed at Galatians, Jesus, nor any of his 1st century followers, became involved with the political issues of the day, including the issues between the Jews and the Romans, but they remained neutral (unspotted ) in world affairs.
we-live-now
Active Member
Those are very valid points and I think I hear/understand what you are saying.
I also don't think it is possible for any of us to worship in PURE truth outwardly in our fleshly natural man of the natural body called "the flesh". It is dead spiritually and has no faith whatsoever. All things it does are not pleasing to God because only faith pleases him. Hebrews 11:6 It must die and will die because it is also part of God's "living sacrifice". Romans 12:1, 1 Cor 12:27, Romans 12:5
Have you ever heard that according to one of the original Greek words used in Matthew 27:42 and Mark 15:32, his body may still be on the cross right "now"? Could it be a spiritual cross (death) and we thought it was natural/physical? Could it be this entire dying creation including our natural bodies? I share a bit in this post.
I believe the ONLY true and pure worship (pure religion if you prefer that) is in our inner man or our heart who is Jesus himself. This is done by Jesus the Son himself who is our high priest (Hebrews 4:14) and is worshipping God (the father) directly for us and as us in a pure and Holy way whether we are under law (Old covenant) or grace (new covenant).
"But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers John 4:23
True worship occurs only in our inner man or our hearts and God does it for us. This is mind-blowing. This is also how we can "pray continually" 1 Thes 5:17 and how and why the "Spirit prays for us" in Romans 8:26-27. Christ truly IS all and IN all. Col 3:11. All external forms are false and will die with the body. His body called "the flesh" which is also the veil. Hebrews 10:20.
God bless.
Last edited:
we-live-now
Active Member
I would have to disagree with the idea that these two names are the same thing. God makes a big deal over his names and he is always 100% precise and accurate in his specific words he uses. He will not use different words/names for the same thing. I believe his words and names are always 100% precise and accurate and always do what they are intended with no chance of variation or failure.
He reveals this to Moses in Exodus 6:3.
and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them Exodus 6:3
The name that God reveals himself as is very important and it completely determines your relationship to him. I have you noticed the specific names and ways he talks to Abram and identified himself.
Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless Genesis 17:1
This very high name of God called "God Almighty" was revealed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe this is what caused them to be under grace. However, the name "Lord" is a law-based name he reveals to those still under the old covenant. I see God as truly working in multiple realms of man at the same time and each person's covenant they are under is based on how God reveals himself. He often has multiple "names" of himself going at the same time.
we-live-now
Active Member
? Can you elaborate on this?
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
When I was responding to the OP I had not looked up Ge 7:1 right off the bat. So I did not know that a comparison was not being made between 2 titles, but that a comparison was being made between a title and a name hidden by a title. When I saw the all caps "LORD", I realized the mistake I made.
Likewise the divine name shows up in Ge 17:1 and Exodus 6:3 hidden by the translation you use by the all-caps LORD.
We can know that the meaning of God's reputation would certainly be understood to be more than "I am the all powerful one," as he delivered the Israelites from Egyptian slavery.
It was with the signs and miracles in the land of Egypt that God made a name for himself. (Jer 32:20)
This is in line with Ex 3:14, where the correct verb tense translates as "I Will Become What I Choose to Become" or "I Will Prove to Be What I Will Prove to Be." Now Jehovah would be known as a God that will become whatever is needed to fulfill his purpose, not just as the Almighty God. Now he is a Shepherd, a Teacher, a Deliverer, a Lawgiver, a Father, etc.
Other proof that Abram knew the divine name and not just Lord/God Almighty is when Abraham is speaking with an angel representing God as if in the 1st person. There in Ge 18:16-33, the account uses what is translated today as Jehovah coming directly out of Abraham's mouth in verses 27,30,31 and 32.
Last edited:
we-live-now
Active Member
My (seemingly hostile) friend.
I am not looking to become a language scholar or expert. I am only searching for the truth which I believe NEVER changes. I believe that has NOTHING to do with becoming a language expert. I certainly could be wrong though.
If you know otherwise, please do enlighten me. I will gladly listen.
A child can look at two Hebrew or Greek words and see if they are different even if they don't know what they exactly mean. I think I at least qualify as a "child'. I do have a college degree and work all day solving abstract IT problems.
So, what exactly is your motive here? Are you trying to help me find truth or simply out to prove me wrong no matter what it is I am doing?
Are you for me or against me? Why are you always making it about ME instead of the ideas being discussed?
Last edited:
I ask only because if you did, my explanation would've been much shorter. However, you do not. Give me a minute to write this up and I'll show you why you're approaching this from the wrong direction.
Alright. First things' first. Hebrew is an agonizing language to learn. Why? Because it contains no vowels. Think about that for a second. Imagine if I typed everything before "Why?" without vowels. Actually, screw it, here;
Rght. Frst thng's frst. Hbrw s n gonzng lngg t lrn.
That still looks legible, right? Do you know why? Because you know where the vowels are supposed to be. So here's test two, I'm going to show you the vowel-less version only and I want you to tell me what you think I said. It's going to be a bit of poetry too, which is important, because the Hebrew Scriptures are largely that, poetic.
Knwst th tht gv
t ths ght nt -
vctry t cwrds?
Th ws ght wntrs
n th rth blw,
mlkd cw s wmn,
nd ddst thr br chldrn.
Nw tht, mthnks, btkns bs ntr.
Bt, t s sd, th wntst
wth tttrng stps n Sms,
nd knckd t hss s Vl.
n lknss f frtn tllr,
th wntst mng ppl;
Nw tht, mthnks, btkns bs ntr.
Chew on this for a bit while I do some things round' the house and then we'll get into the absurdities of Hebrew, Greek & Aramaic grammar as well, which I think will shed more light on why you cannot just look at the individual word in these languages.
Rght. Frst thng's frst. Hbrw s n gonzng lngg t lrn.
That still looks legible, right? Do you know why? Because you know where the vowels are supposed to be. So here's test two, I'm going to show you the vowel-less version only and I want you to tell me what you think I said. It's going to be a bit of poetry too, which is important, because the Hebrew Scriptures are largely that, poetic.
Knwst th tht gv
t ths ght nt -
vctry t cwrds?
Th ws ght wntrs
n th rth blw,
mlkd cw s wmn,
nd ddst thr br chldrn.
Nw tht, mthnks, btkns bs ntr.
Bt, t s sd, th wntst
wth tttrng stps n Sms,
nd knckd t hss s Vl.
n lknss f frtn tllr,
th wntst mng ppl;
Nw tht, mthnks, btkns bs ntr.
Chew on this for a bit while I do some things round' the house and then we'll get into the absurdities of Hebrew, Greek & Aramaic grammar as well, which I think will shed more light on why you cannot just look at the individual word in these languages.
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
iirc, there were no spaces between the words either.