Foreword:
This post is part of an ongoing series. For more information on why I’m writing it, and for a listing of all posts in the series in chronological order, see An Atheist Reading the Bible: Prologue.
“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.” (Gene 7.19)
Author’s Note:
First of all, I would like to apologize for this post being a day late. There is a reason, and I want to explain it briefly.
On Friday, Amanda posted Jacob’s Story, an entreaty for help in raising money for a family member with an aggressive brain tumor. I beg any of you who haven’t read it to do so now, and to pass on the story in the hopes that somehow Jacob’s family can find a way to beat the odds. An 8-year-old boy deserves a chance at life.
Because I didn’t want to overshadow our attempts to help Jacob, I decided to postpone this post, leaving Jacob’s Story front-and-center on the Basic Humanity site for a few days. The response has been very encouraging (191 Facebook “Shares” as of this writing – we are overwhelmed with gratitude!), but Jacob still needs help, and his story will remain featured on our front page.
Discussing: The book of Genesis; Chapters 6 – 9.
The Biblical flood. Noah’s ark. The destruction of most of life on Earth. And before all of that… angels (or something) having sex with human women and making giants on the Earth. Yep. Did not know that.
These four chapters describe the calamitous flood with which God wiped his slate clean and started over, keeping only the family of Noah, whom he liked, and a pairing of male and female of every animal on the Earth alive in a boat together. I don’t know how they managed to keep enough fresh meat for all the predators, but I guess if you believe in God then you could believe in a walk-in freezer in the back of the ark or something.
The world right before the flood.
“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (Gene 6.4)
I am not clear on who the “sons of God” were supposed to be, but that’s the second time they’re mentioned in Chapter 6. Apparently they liked Earth girls, too, because they took wives from among them. (Gene 6.1, 2) I have to be honest. I don’t even know what to do with that. God had sons, and they had sex with humans because they were fair. Not because of any really great mystical covenant like, “I’m going to leave a few demigods to look after you,” but because they were fair. They were pretty. Someone. Help me out.
But even more baffling than that is the reason that God destroyed 99/100ths of his created Earth, as stated in Genesis 6.6: “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”
This God, I’m afraid, has a serious ego problem. He wiped out the planet because men – his own creation – were “evil”, and he was sorry he ever made them. This is equivalent to me having, say, one hundred children, and then just saying, “Oh wait, I’ve been raising them all wrong. I like this one (Noah), but I’m going to kill the rest of them.” I don’t care if you consider this literal or symbolic, this God sucks. I’m supposed to ask this bastard to forgive me for my sins? No matter how ‘wicked’ my son turns out to be (he’s not even close to being wicked, by the way, I’m just saying, you know, “What if?”), I would never abandon him with a swipe of my eraser like some piece of artwork I’m not satisfied with. I’ll not be taking moral lessons from this God, I assure you.
The flood.
There are a lot of obvious problems with believing in the flood as a literal event. An ark big enough for two of every air-breathing animal on Earth? Storing enough food for all of them? Is there any geological evidence of this flood that covered the Earth?
According to my calculations, Noah was in the ark for 375 days. I can raise lots of objections, but I suppose people who are inclined to believe in this story can raise lots of answers to them. A researcher named John Woodmorappe, for example, has it all worked out so that even without divine assistance, Noah could have cared for the animals.2
None of that even matters. According to this story, God wiped us out like a collection of cheap toys he’d lost interest in. Rather than make efforts to redeem us (who were fallen, but only by his design), he decided it was more cost-effective to replace us.
After the flood.
Following the flood, Noah and his sons and their wives and all the animals climbed out onto a freshly scrubbed Earth to start again. What do they do first? They offer a sacrifice to the Lord “of every clean beast”. (Gene 8.20) Which sucks for life on Earth, because there was supposedly only one male and one female of each species, and Noah immediately kills one of each. Maybe that’s why the dinosaurs are extinct?
Then comes the rainbow – God’s promise never to destroy the Earth by flood again. (Gene 9.15) All seems well until Noah gets drunk, his son finds him naked, and in a seriously convoluted chain of events (well, convoluted for a story in Genesis anyway) the nation of Canaan is cursed by Noah because his son saw him naked. I didn’t know men had the power to curse nations, but this is not the only time it happens in Genesis.
Parting thoughts.
I have been back and forth with people about whether the Bible is meant to be historical fact or merely allegory. Normally I would say it makes a huge difference. In the story of Noah, however, I find neither literal nor symbolic value. I dispute its historical accuracy. I also greatly dislike the ‘Deadbeat Dad’ characterization of God in this story. I can do without this God.
But what about the rest of you? Literal or symbolic? Good God or bad?
Sources:
- International Bible Seminary (2011). SearchByVerse™ Holy Bible (KJV) [Kindle]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
- Answers In Genesis (2011). Caring for the Animals on the Ark. John Woodmorappe. Retrieved July 16, 2012, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals
Amanda S. Moores
Robert D. Moores
Natural disasters happen. Some people ascribe them to the Gods, or God. The Bible has more than one view of who God is. Different views may seem more accurate at different times. The Bible does not have a moment where they are compared and contrasted, but the comparisons are there to see. Have a look at where God says to Job, basically, “Yo, bitch. I’m God, and I do what I like!”
Also, I don’t think the good/ bad judgments are in the text. Why do you think the text implies Ham clyping was a bad thing, but Shem and Japheth clyping was a good thing? You know that Noah was really angry because of it, and Ham suffered, but not any moral judgment on either clype. That is your reaction. Our reactions to the text are interesting.
I have awarded you the “One lovely blog award“. If you wish you may copy the logo from my blog. I would love to see what blogs you would pick on.
Posted by Clare Flourish | 19 July 2012, 7:30 amThere are some problems with translating “sons of God” from the Hebrew “ben’ e Elohim.” This Hebrew term will turn up three times in the Tanakh, and will usually be translated as “Angels”, fallen or otherwise. In Jewish thought (which never really comes to a consensus), it is theorized that this refers to the earliest form of genetic manipulation of humans, induced by demonic influence over human males and females. The “Nephelim,” or giants created by these relationships were large humans, not some sort of angel/human hybrid. The term “Nephelim” would also be used to describe Goliath, the abnormally large, but perfectly human phillistine that David killed with a well placed sling shot. Don’t get too freaked out by this passage. The moral of the story is that God does not appreciate anyone tinkering with the human genome other than himself. This is fascinating considering the story predates genetic science by more that 3,000 years.
The allegory of the flood is fairly obvious, so I’ll leave that to you. This is your first introduction to the Biblical Idea of the “Remnant,” God saving a righteous few from the calamity of judgement that befalls the wicked majority. The Idea of the remnant will appear again in this weeks reading, when you come to the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gemorah. The Idea of the remnant will turn up several times, and you will be familiar with it when it culminates in the Gospel message. This is all by design.
Here’s some cool facts about the Ark though, that will really make you stop and think.
1. The Ark was 300 cubits long, or 438ft by 50 cubits, or 73ft wide, by 30 cubits, or 44ft high. If my calculator is right, This gives it a volume of 1.4 million cubic feet. That’s a few less than 600 railroad boxcars.
2.According to nautical engineers, the Ark would have displaced 14,000 tons with a draft of just under 22 feet, which coincidently means it would have just cleared running aground on the highest mountaintop, 15 cubits beneath the surface of the water(Gen. 7:209)
3.The length to width ratio of the Ark is 6:1, which is still used by modern shipbuilders, because this ratio causes a ship to naturally turn into waves without the use of a rudder.
Anyway, I have a migraine now….shalom, and good luck with this week’s reading.
Posted by Tony Lollio | 18 July 2012, 1:00 amRob, it sounds like you are having the same issue I am the further I get in my reading. I find myself becoming enraged! First off, I made about 5 pages of notes while reading the flood story alone. These notes were on little things that stood out to me as being illogical, improbable, or impossible. So, I have pretty much decided to abandon the task of considering the Bible as literal, historical fact. I have to, or I will drive myself absolutely, flippin’ insane. I’m going to read it for the message at this point because I am never going to get anything at all out of it while trying to reconcile it with the reality I know. I am just hoping that once I reach the New Testament and the story of Christ that maybe something will explain the mess of nonsense that I am finding in the Old Testament.
I did come across one concept that I find interesting, although disturbing. The story of Noah’s son finding him naked and passed out, and then ratting him out to the other 2 had my head spinning. First of all, we are told that Noah is the only man at this point in time who “walks with God”, yet his first act after planting a vineyard is to get trashed and pass out. But, whatever, we all sin right? Then, his son is horrified that Noah is naked (in his own tent, by the way) and rats him out to his brothers. But wait a minute, I thought being naked wasn’t wrong? Didn’t God create Adam and Eve naked? oh yeah, it became a sin because of Eve…that bitch. Anyway, after hearing about their father’s state, the 2 “good” boys cover him up and then rat out the one that did the original ratting. So from this we can assume that the first act of tattle-tailing was wrong, the second was righteous. Then, Noah, whom we have just learned is an ordinary human (he sinned, remember), curses his son’s descendents for all eternity. Why does he have this power? who knows? And where the hell does he get off anyway? This whole fiasco started with HIS sin.
The whole story was odd, but here’s the chilling part: This story could provide a scriptural defense for the Church scandals we have been plagued with in recent years. This story seems to tell us that the right thing to do when an authority figure (such as Noah) has sinned, is to not look at the sin, cover it up, and punish anyone with the nuts to tell the truth. If I was a catholic priest that had been molesting little boys, this little piece of scripture would be tattooed on my ass and repeated to anyone who would listen.
I am having a giant issue with the mindset and message that I am getting from the Bible so far.
Posted by Cari Osborne | 17 July 2012, 9:55 am“The Earth was full of violence from them.” The Babylonian version had it that the gods couldn’t get any sleep.
If you think of humankind as more of a collective spirit than we’re inclined to conceive of… a collection of ‘images of God’ who continue to manifest in various forms ala reincarnation, perhaps — We’ve started off with this basic estrangement between humankind and its divine center; and while that estrangement presumably was needed for our further development; it inclined to people to misbehave (Think ‘serious runaway ego problems’!); and that condition seems to have become self-perpetuating.
“Ah! Much more peaceful around here.” [Most of the kids have been given severe 'time out' penalties, but the game continues, and there's no indication that they're barred from ensuing rounds. "Want to play again?"]
This is, after all, a retelling of a Babylonian myth with Hebrew themes woven into it. The Israelites have just been driven out of their world — for misbehaving, according to some prophets they hadn’t been listening to previously (but whose prognosis has been drastically confirmed on their butts!) — and yet their nation was supposed to be re-established, later on, by ‘a righteous remnant’.
The legend about Noah and his sons is pretty wiggy — probably a garbled remnant of a “just so story” told to justify the national claim to Palestine — but look, we’re getting a mirror-image of what the people writing this believe to be occuring in their own story. The old nation got scrapped, the righteous will inherit their role — and “We’re going to be those ‘righteous’ folks, by gum!”
Posted by treegestalt | 16 July 2012, 11:46 pmHey! We’ve got ‘survivors in exile’, in Babylon where they’re hearing this story and giving it their own twist. They presumably do think of themselves as ‘the righteous.’ But they’ve been traumatized (a siege in those times could ruin your whole day — munching rats, babies, you name it — then subjected to incoming violent people, armed, all het up & looking for loot, someplace to place a prong, someplace to set on fire, potential slaves…) and getting drunk is probably not so unusual for them. Their captors, meanwhile, are witnessing ‘their shame.’
Some of these Babylonians are probably decent sorts, just trying to get along — and others are getting off on the situation. They’re quite out of reach; vengeance is out of the question… but what’s going to happen to their descendants? Karma, anyone? Exploited our shame? — “Their kids are gonna be slaves; you wait & see!”
Posted by treegestalt | 17 July 2012, 12:48 am“Going naked as a sign”– something that 17th Century English religious enthusiasts sometimes did — was an allusion to something that Isaiah (? I think) did before the Babylonians invaded. It wasn’t: “Going nude for a sign.”
The meaning: “You’re going to be captured and led-off as slaves.” Because that was the way it was done. The message to the new slave-designate: “You’re funny-looking, and whoever you used to be, whatever suit you used to wear, doesn’t matter now — and we can do anything to you we want.”
“Seeing somebody naked” was a euphemism for sexual violence… because it could come down to that.
Posted by treegestalt | 17 July 2012, 2:13 amYou missed a couple details. There were two of many animals, but seven of the “clean” animals. So in theory you could sacrifice one of each clean animal and have six left over. Perhaps some of these were used to feed the carnivores, who knows?
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/noahsarkflood.htm has a summary of the story that gives the lessons a Christian should take away. But in general, I used to read it like this. God loved his people SO MUCH, that when we were REALLY BAD he saved the one righteous man and his family from God’s well-deserved wrath so that the human race wouldn’t be wiped out. And he gave us a rainbow to prove it and said he’ll never do it again. Until he does, on a smaller scale, with Lot in Sodom.
It really helps to read this stuff like you’re a four-year-old with an abusive parent. Daddy loves you, see? This hurts Daddy more than it hurts you. Those welts will heal, and probably won’t scar much.
Posted by Stan Adermann | 16 July 2012, 7:57 pmStan, you said:
“You missed a couple details. There were two of many animals, but seven of the “clean” animals. So in theory you could sacrifice one of each clean animal and have six left over.”
You’re right, I wasn’t picking up on that. I’ll have to give that score back to the believers. I have actually had a fairly keen eye for arguments against myself, but some of this stuff just makes my eyes glaze, and that whole thing barely made my radar next to the whole story of the flood in general. But thanks for pointing it out, and thanks for the cross-reference.
Also, I find a fair amount of accuracy in your four-year-old with an abusive parent analogy.
That’s really how this whole story felt: like an alcoholic father beat the hell out of his kids and then woke up sober and said, “Oh shit, did I really DO THAT?”
Posted by Robert Moores | 16 July 2012, 8:10 pmThere’s one other useful point to pick up here. Christians like to say that the laws of nature exist as a constant expression of the nature of God. Not that he created those laws, but that they exist because he exists. Well, apparently they aren’t so constant, because prior to Noah and the flood, water droplets did not refract sunlight.
Posted by Stan Adermann | 17 July 2012, 3:10 pmThis story is far too daft to be taken seriously
Posted by Robert Nielsen | 16 July 2012, 5:49 pm