Genesis 6: 13 Commentary

Jason, for some reason I never saw your posting #12 until today.

I believe I have already proved that some of the accounts in the Bible are non-factual. We need reliable and independent verification before we can anything as potentially factual. There is no such verification for the Shekinah or Paul’s experience on the way to Damascus (certainly not Nebraska! :)) Today we often witness lighting phenomena (such as aurora borealis, shooting stars, midnight sun, eclipses, and so on and so forth) which could easily be miscontrued when reasons were unknown. Today we know better.

Well, we SHOULD know better!

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/1/2010 00:20 am

just take the Shekinah glory or Paul’s experience on the road to Nebraska (sic lol)

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/7/2009 03:23 am

I can understand the concept that God is light in the sense that he provides guidance and enlightens our minds. I CANNOT understand that God is light in the physical sense. Every little kid knows that the reason for darkness at night is the absence of the sun. The Bible tells us that the sun was created AFTER God had created light, AFTER God had separated the light from the darkness, AFTER there were mornings and evenings, AFTER there were trees growing on Earth, and all this is simply false.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/6/2009 10:39 am

Not sure of your point (not your fault, its late) but God is light. That’s perhaps why he had to divide the light from the darkness

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/6/2009 07:02 am

Jason, we’re in the wrong verse. But I never said that God couldn’t create the Earth. What I said was that Genesis 1:1 is wrong because it says that God created Earth first. God is still creating stars and Earths (in that order). So which day of creation are we in?

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2009 04:37 am

Chuck, Genesis 1:1 has been proven wrong? What, do you have pictures or something? I must’ve missed that class where the professor proved conclusively that God couldn’t create the Earth

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2009 04:26 am

Ryan, I cannot explain Genesis 1:1 because this verse has been proven to be wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that a planet cannot precede its own star in the order of creation. The creation of galaxies is not yet finished. Scientists are observing the birth of new stars and new planets, so now we have a pretty good idea of how and when our star and our planet were formed - and it is nothing at all like the Bible describes.

But let’s get back to the great flood. I think it is safe to assume that more people have perished in regional floods than did in the great flood of Genesis. Does it provide you with any sense of justice or relief knowing that God will not send a global flood again but he will continue to send regional ones? What significance does God’s great promise have on people who perish or see their loved one perish in a regional flood?

Finally you said that the whole point behind the great flood is that there is no safe haven outside of God’s wrath. However, archeologists are discovering otherwise. For example we have records indicating a continuous human presence in North America for the past 16,000 years, which is well before the great flood. Records like this point to the conclusion that the great flood was almost certainly a regional event.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/28/2009 15:25 pm

If the word “earth” is regional then how do you explain Genesis 1:1? Was Creation only regional then? And if the Great Flood was only regional, then how is it that we have had many local floods and not ONE flood that covers all of the earth, the whole earth (Gen. 1:19-20)enveloping all of its high mountains trees under water? It is God’s great promise that we will never suffer such catastrophe and as HE is Faithful, He is Trustworthy.

This verse only makes us realize God’s justice. That since we were filling our earth with violence because our hearts was filled with violence, then it is the earth that will envelope our lives. And as for the birds, I believe even they would get tired of flying, for in fact they had nowhere to go to or rest their wings on; according to Gen. 1:9, of course that is until the revelation of the first “olive leaf”! The whole point behind the Flood is that there is no safe haven outside of God’s wrath (not until Christ anyway), so how could anyone or anything survive?

By Polet Oushana (wrote 2 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/28/2009 04:38 am

Ryan, I don’t know what God knew and didn’t know. We assume that God knows everything because that’s what we’ve been told all our lives. But does the Bible even make that claim?

There are instances in the Bible which indicate that God DIDN’T know everything. In Gen 6:7 God said “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” In other words, if he had known that people would turn out to be so bad, he would not have created us.

(And why was he also mad at the birds and creepers!?)

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/23/2009 16:13 pm

they may not of known, but God would of right? So why if God knew all the animals would infact not die, why would He even bother to put them in the ark? He could of just put noah in with his family and a few animals for the trip. birds wouldn’t have to be included because they could go fly somewhere else couldn”t they?

By Ryan Dittmann (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/23/2009 14:51 pm

Well, maybe so. It wouldn’t be the only time that God changed his mind.

My point is that the Bible is only about Jews and their part of the world. It is a precious account of the region’s history, but it does not apply to the entire world. Not the flood story, nor any other.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/23/2009 01:10 am

In Genesis 9:13-15 God promised to never again flood the earth and destroy all flesh. if the flood was only local then God has broken his promise because there has been local flooding.

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2009 22:50 pm

The question is raised sometimes whether the great flood was really a global one. Taken literally, this verse and others in Chapter 6 of Genesis leave no doubt that the Bible was talking about the entire globe. That’s what the word “earth” means. As Ryan points out in the Genesis 1:1 comments, what would be the purpose of saving all the species if animals had safe havens outside the flood region?

BUT…. it is highly probable that when Genesis was written the people of the Bible area had no idea that there were also people living in the Americas, Australia and elsewhere. So “earth” for them may have meant the region where the Jews and their neighbors lived. And if they didn’t know about people outside their region, how would they know about animals roaming the unknown parts of the world?

This is not the only time that the Bible ignores the rest of the world. Never does Geneses take into consideration the world outside the Bible zone. So when the Bible talks of earth and men, it is probably speaking only of the Jews and their neighbors. And from this one can conclude that the great flood may have occurred only in one area of the globe.

As ALL floods do!

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2009 18:58 pm