Interpretation of the flood account in Genesis

[GakuseiDon]

The only way one can argue against a universal deluge is to ignore the actual story.

Agreed. The flood clearly covers the whole world in the story. The only argument here is "what did THEY believe?" when the story was first written down, when their world pretty much stopped at the horizon. I'm not interested in how Christians today try to reconcile the story with history.

I'm thinking of liberal Icelandic priests. Maybe I'll translate a quote or two for you. But the claim they make isn't that the story was just a local event or something like that, but that the story was never intended to be understood as a description of actual events.

Thanks hjalti, I'm not aware that any ancient person who questioned that there was an ancient flood, whether Jews, Christians or the wider ancient world. So I'm very interested in what evidence they are using for that claim.

[semiopen]

Rabbi Sacks is taking a well known discussion from the Talmud. This compares Noah, who does not ask God to forgive mankind, with Abraham, who asks God to spare Sodom with certain conditions, ie finding ten righteous men.

This is interesting but contrived. Genesis is notable for having nothing of the slightest moral significance.

http://www.btzbuffalo.org/services/darshan/Noah2013.pdf Drash on Parashat Noach

Where the guy apparently copies from Rabbi Sacks, but he mentions him at the end so he may have just forgot to credit him above.

Abraham didn't argue with God to save his son, even though he argued for Sodom. I think the rabbinic answer is reminiscent of Jody Foster when asked if she was afraid of the escaped Hannibal

Clarice Starling: [Hannibal Lecter has escaped] He won't come after me.
Ardelia Mapp: Oh really. How do you know?
Clarice Starling: He won't. I can't explain it... he - he would consider that rude.

[beowulf]

Thank you for your comment.

My thoughts were that if obedience to God – The one god of the whole wide universe-- was not sufficient, then man will have to take control of God.

Taking control of God meant in this case to write, select or modify the writings and interpretations of the word of god as found in holy revelations. Not an easy task, but the only practical conclusion to the statement: obedience to God is not sufficient

Obedience to God is not sufficient, would imply that man needs to provide the solution as best as he can

[beowulf]

For those still interested, I will post the model answer from the book.

The book does not give an answer to the problem: obedience to god is not sufficient. It pretends that the problem does not exist in Judaism despite the repeated warnings from the prophets of the terrible consequences of ignoring Hashem.

Model answer: “one of the strangest features of biblical Hebrew is that- despite the fact that the Torah contains 613 commands- there is no word for ‘obey’....

Religion is a tragic farce played in the hope of living happily after death.

[semiopen]

Exodus 19:8 is a good example of this

And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the LORD.

כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר יְהוָה נַעֲשֶׂה - All that YHVH has spoken we will will do.

The Noah exegesis is based on the Gen 6:9

These are the generations of Noah. Noah was in his generations a man righteous and whole-hearted; Noah walked with God.

There is a lot of discussion about what righteous in his generation means, because the most righteous guy, when everyone is evil, does not seem like a high bar. Basically he is pretty righteous - he walked with God which seems good. Then the sages go on this rap about Abraham being superior because of Sodom... frankly I find it annoying.

What is the lesson here? If you are lucky enough to talk to God, give him some shit... he likes that. That is, unless he tells you to sacrifice a family member, then just do it.

Maybe this is why Reform Judaism is destined to fail. They eliminate the commandments (not eating pork, rest on Shabbat, etc) but instead look for practical lessons in the bible when basically there are none. At least the commandments make some sense from a perspective of discipline and spiritual balance.

[hjalti]

beowulf and semiopen1, I fail to see how your posts have anything to do with the question of whether the story of Noah's flood was interpreted as a description of an actual event or not.

[beowulf]

What I have written assumes that the deluge is a real event and Noah a real person and God a real God.

It is interesting to explore what use leaned believers make of the story –such as priests, rabbis, imams...

If you would like to develop a different angle go ahead and give the readers a pointer.

Bye

[semiopen]

beowulf and semiopen1, I fail to see how your posts have anything to do with the question of whether the story of Noah's flood was interpreted as a description of an actual event or not.

I fail to see what your vague reference to Icelandic priests has to do with any question.

It seems to me that the story is either true or that the actual historicity of the matter is beside the point.

If the story is not historical, then what is the meaning of the story?

As we have discussed, it is difficult to find a meaning to the story that is significant enough for people to consider this a Metaphor vehicle.

The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936) by I. A. Richards describes a metaphor as having two parts: the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor is the subject to which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the object whose attributes are borrowed. In the previous example, "the world" is compared to a stage, describing it with the attributes of "the stage"; "the world" is the tenor, and "a stage" is the vehicle; "men and women" is a secondary tenor, "players" is the secondary vehicle.
Other writers employ the general terms ground and figure to denote tenor and the vehicle. In cognitive linguistics, the terms target and source are used respectively.

If the story is pointless, this is a good argument for assuming it was meant literally.

Hope that helps you.

[Hawthorne]

I think we need to know the actual arguments of the liberal Icelandic Christians who make this claim.

[semiopen]

The Genesis flood is probably derived from Gilgamesh that originated at least 1000 to 2000 years earlier.

One just has to consider the difference in dates to make the question of literality seem absurd.

The Tower of Babel story is even more ludicrous than the flood; perhaps that wasn't taken literally. Personally, I think this story may have been relatively recent with the exiles satirizing Babylon - on the other hand it explains the origin of language. It just seems so ridiculous it is hard to believe anyone would think it is true except some people do today.

Lest I again incur hjalti's wrath, may I point out that Babel is just after the flood.