The Bible as Literature: The Noah/Flood Story

[cacian]

Lucky women... I'm a son of God, talk about an absent parent...

how does that formate?
''men is the son of God and women only of men'' says who? the voice of cult?
let's see where is the son born from? a man god? I hardly think that is appropriate. we have already got a virgin giving birth to a prophet god knows how that happened. let's not extend it to man giving birth now please
a woman is of the same as a god for it to be a son. god/woman to some kind of link to be able to reproduce.
god and a woman are totally of the same rib. I say how else god ever be? not from nowhere surely?

[FTJohnson]

When I read this part I am sure that I'm one of those people who didn't notice that Noah was the God's servant. But now that I knew God, I believe is not for the person, but to God alone.

[sandracollin]

I like the Noah/Flood Story although it is somewhat disappointing as they would only need 7 pairs of species which is brutal for me but as we know there are times wherein choice should prevail in order to balance things out. I know that some of you might not agree but for me it taught me to appreciate life more.

[AuntShecky]

RE: the story of Noah and the Flood.
There may have been a cataclysmic flood in pre-Biblical times, the memory of which may have passed down through generations as a bit of folklore, until the story became immortalized in the Book of Genesis.

A Hollywood movie which I believe will be released this week is supposedly loosely based on the Biblical story; however, weeks before its release several religious groups have criticized it for taking so many liberties with the Scripture. Perhaps the producer and director believed that the story held contemporary (as well as commercial) appeal, and thus added characters, a dramatic 3-act structure (de rigueur for screenplays), and the magic of CGI.

I have no immediate plans to see the film (at least before it comes out on free cable), but in my increasingly humble opinion, if someone is looking for a spiritual experience, a movie is probably the last place one should look. It is also important to remember that Biblical stories (whether in a popular medium or the Good Book itself) were not meant to be taken literally but rather as allegories conveying universal truths.

[Duikboot]

Oetnapisjtim, a.k.a. Utnapištim or Uta-Napištim (Sumerian: He that found Life), also Atrahasis (Akkadisch: The Wise One), or also Ziusudra (A life of many days).

this character foreshadowed Noah in mythology. And it is not the only lie in the bible that knows a Jekyll and Hyde prior twin.

And when more than half of all Christians in the USA stopped to believe in a literal interpretation of the story of Noach, imagine how many dinosaurs the rest of them stuffed into that poor old wooden boat made of gopher wood only.

You may wonder where noah kept all those trees and plants that could not survive submarine. You may wonder how genderless creatures did survive. How a koala bear survived without eucalyptus, a panda bear without fresh bamboo....the biblical depiction of facts its a travesty of reality...Well, the boat did not even float!! Given the size and material. Give up, religious people. This story is not to be taken literally...so you religious people try it another way....I wonder how you can explain how blood clots, your last stronghold of your mongoloid intelligent design scheme.

how can you honestly in your right mind deny someone Polio-shots because you believe that God can cure that disease once it gtes into your system? Is that the same God who gave 30 percent of all South Africans the aids virus for not fornicating under the king's control without a condom? How do you, as a pope, explain to god/jesus, to have killed more people than Hitler and Stalin did together? By simply stating "diseases are given by god, we must accept them to be gifts..."


Wake up *******s....religious people are tearing up this planet. They think of the Earth as a waiting room. Their only concern is their guilt....because god saw him/her masturbating one day......ooohwoohh....how wonderful..get a life.

god is not alive. WE ARE, so get the **** moving and protect each other.

In days of old, namely 1930-1945, there was some austrian german breed of german shepherds named "Prinz" or "Blondi"...the latter got away and howled at CBGB in some decades after uncle Adolf's regime....The other dogs demanded more blood...

i wonder how much 6 million Israëlian sjekel is in "new German reichmarks"....one, specially a german, must forget about such an amount very quickly.


YOU KILLED US YOU ****ING *******!!! IS THAT NOT ENOUGH IN YOUR SADISTIC MIND? I will ****ing shoot every ****ing german speaking **** I ever come across from now on

[YesNo]

It is also important to remember that Biblical stories (whether in a popular medium or the Good Book itself) were not meant to be taken literally but rather as allegories conveying universal truths.

That's how I view these stories as well.

[lemonorange]

I didn't read all the replies, so I don't know if anyone mentioned the rainbow. I came across an interesting sermon lately.
It said that, the Old Testament being the shadow of the New Testament, it foreshadows what is to come in the New Testament.

The rainbow that is shaped like a bow is now pointing its arrowhead towards God, who will come down and take the wrath Himself.
The first wrath or judgment came upon men in a form of flood, only eradicating (or trying to?) the wickedness expressed through the flesh of men.
The second wrath, the Son of God took it himself on the cross, now fully removing the source of wickedness in men, or "sin."

So just as a story, it is old and can be found in other books, but as a mechanism for foreshadowing the New Testament, I guess it is still unique?

I think all the stories in the Old Testament are incomplete without the perspective of the New Testament anyways...

[YesNo]

It makes more sense to me to say that the Christian New Testament is incomplete without the Jewish Tanakh, not the other way around.

[Poetaster]

That's how I view these stories as well.

Then what universal truths are being conveyed? Take the creation story in Genesis - what is the truth there?

I know I'm an atheist, but please don't take this as a snooty remark. I'm not trying to disparage the bible in any way. This is something that is said a lot but I never really know what it really means, or is really being meant.

[YesNo]

Then what universal truths are being conveyed? Take the creation story in Genesis - what is the truth there?

I know I'm an atheist, but please don't take this as a snooty remark. I'm not trying to disparage the bible in any way. This is something that is said a lot but I never really know what it really means, or is really being meant.

I don't represent any Christian group. I also agree with Harold Bloom that Bathsheba (or at least some very influential female in Solomon's court) wrote the J version of Genesis initially as a story. I don't see this as discrediting Judaism or Christianity although my view of the origin of the text might put me at odds with some of these groups.

So, what is true about the creation story? Well, Genesis claims that the universe had a beginning for one obvious thing. The Big Bang confirms that. However, there is deeper truth which validates the foundation of these Abrahamic religions: the universe is "good" and consciousness was involved in its creation.

[Poetaster]

So, what is true about the creation story? Well, Genesis claims that the universe had a beginning for one obvious thing. The Big Bang confirms that. However, there is deeper truth which validates the foundation of these Abrahamic religions: the universe is "good" and consciousness was involved in its creation.

The universe being good and consciousness being involved in creation is really more of an assumption than a 'universal truth' though, isn't it? I likely picked a bad example, but certain stories to me do not contain universal truths, but maybe things relevant to the people who first read the contents of the bible.

[108 fountains]

I think there are many interesting passages in the Bible that lend themselves to being considered universal truths. My two favorites are

From Chapter 2 of Genesis
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And the first line of John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Both of these passages, like any piece of great literature, can be interpreted in different ways and can be the subject of thoughtful discussions as to what was the intent of the writer. For example, the early Greek version of John 1:1 uses the word “Logos” for “Word,” and logos can mean simply the expression of a thought or the potential for indwelling logic or inward thought itself. Much has been written about both passages, so there is no need for me to expound my personal interpretations here. I’ll just note that - putting aside the debate about the relative merits of believing in God or not believing in God - the Bible as literature does contain some profound ideas worth thinking about.

[YesNo]

The universe being good and consciousness being involved in creation is really more of an assumption than a 'universal truth' though, isn't it? I likely picked a bad example, but certain stories to me do not contain universal truths, but maybe things relevant to the people who first read the contents of the bible.

The goodness of the universe with consciousness as fundamental could be considered an assumption or common sense. However, it is not universally viewed as true. If the religion or metaphysics doesn't accept a conscious, good universe, I reject it as false. In that sense I agree and side with the message in the Genesis creation story.

There are religions that don't appear to me to accept the goodness of the universe. For example, I suspect the goal of some eastern religions to get out of the chain of reincarnation may imply that they don't believe in the goodness of the universe.

Western atheistic Buddhism, specifically as it is described in Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs", also makes me think that consciousness is being trivialized.

Some world views that are often confused with "science" don't consider the world "good" and assume it is possible to reduce consciousness to matter. I don't think this succeeds scientifically, but that doesn't stop the metaphysics from dominating the imaginations of some.

All of these metaphysics or religious perspectives would be opposed to the Genesis creation story, that is, a story of Consciousness creating a good universe. So the story is not something everyone will accept.

[Drkshadow03]

Then what universal truths are being conveyed? Take the creation story in Genesis - what is the truth there?

I know I'm an atheist, but please don't take this as a snooty remark. I'm not trying to disparage the bible in any way. This is something that is said a lot but I never really know what it really means, or is really being meant.

I dislike the term "universal truths" in describing any literature because it carries a large burden (i.e. it must be universal, therefore its idea must be true for EVERYONE!). However, what I think most people mean by this term when they use it is that a work contains important ideas and explores difficult issues involved in human experience that is potentially relate-able cross-culturally, across social classes, and such.

[Poetaster]

Thank you to you both.