SALVATION FOR THOSE KILLED IN THE FLOOD?

With all due respect, the people who were killed in the flood had 150 years to repent and I believe if they had repented they would have been on the ark.

 

Yeah, I agree with Walls. Certainly it can be hard to imagine because you wonder about those living away from Noah, but this is one of those questions you have to trust a just God with.

 

I agree with Walls and Mark except I'm not sure they had quite 150 years to repent. One thing I have never heard anyone discuss though is that there were no children on the ark. Of course Noah's children where there with their wives, but I mean no small kids.

Randall

 

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think what you are trying to say here is, why didn't God spare the children who were no doubt on the earth at the time of the flood? since the children would have been innocent. if that is what you mean, i think this verse might help to clear this up a bit.

Exodus 20:5
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

also
Gen 17:14
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

it seems that sometimes in God's Just judgment His wrath overflows to the younger generations.

is that what you meant?

 

Dr Bob, where did you get that statistic? I never would have guessed it to be that low.

 

i always knew this verse was true, but in my mind i never really thought it would be as true as 1.7% makes it.

Matthew 7
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

 

Yes Harvest that is what I meant. Thanks for the information - I hadn't thought of that and will take a closer look at it from that view point.

Randall

 

Yes Harvest that is what I meant. Thanks for the information - I hadn't thought of that and will take a closer look at it from that view point.

Randall </font>[/QUOTE]you bet. i struggle with things like this from time to time. it's hard to understand why God does some of the things He does. i just cannot wait for the day when we are all able to fully understand God's reasoning.

 

Dr. Bob

While I agree with you Dr. Bob, was it really 120 years? I can only account for 100 years or less. My reasoning is:

Here in Chapter 5 we have Noah as 500 years old.
Gen 5:31-32
31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Continuing on into chapter 6 we see men beginning to multiply etc…and God saying he would destroy man.
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Then When God brings the flood to destroy man we see Noah as 600 years old which equals 100 years since he was 500 years at the end of chapter 5.
Gen 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Actually, from the verse below, we might be able to revise the 100 years to 100 years 2 months and 17 days. This would mean for Noah to have preached 120 years he would have had to begin preaching 20 years before his sons were born, and long before God decided to destroy man from the face of the earth in Gen. 6:7.
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Have I have missed something somewhere? Do you think that Noah began preaching before God's decision to destroy man from off the earth in Gen. 6:7?

Randall

 

Any ideas about 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 1 Peter 4:6?

 

Oops my mistake, not 150 but 120. I was going on memory and didn't actually look it up before making my post. Sorry about that!

 

Dr. Bob

Acutally the verse saying 120 years is verse 3 and does not say Noah preached for this period of time.

However 1 Peter 3:20 says, “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” So obviously there was a period of time, and it does not say 120 years but, “while the ark was a preparing,” when God was longsuffering.

If we say the ark was in preparation 120 years then the last part of Genesis chapter 5 and the first few verses of Genesis 6 are not in Chronological order. Noah would have to be 480 years old and began preaching prior to the birth of his 3 sons and possibly their 3 wives. I have no problem with either view as it does not affect our present relationship with Christ. Thanks for your response.

Randall

 

Wow, I never even thought about the kids. That is weird. So after the rapture children will go to hell right? cause parents will get them the mark and they will have no choice. Is that what the verse is talking about when it says Woe until them who give suck in thoses days? (mark 13:17)

I guess I just never thought about it but it sure makes sense. Boy am I glad I was born in this day and age where we are given the grace of God.

Heather

 

The story of Noah and the Flood is not literal history. The earliest candidates for history are Abraham and on (and that is not to say that even he was completely historical).

It's an apocalyptic myth that points to the future, written and rewritten in response to the exile and the post-exilic period under the influence of the similar Babylonian flood stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Noah represents the righteous remnant of Israel who will receive the second Temple covenant following the exile. The rest of the world represents the evil (i.e. Babylon) that God destroys in the end, so don't feel too sorry for them.

And of course, the 120 years in Gen 6:1-4 comes from the Yahwist literary source, and in its original context was either a) the absolute age limit on the lifespan of men following the fall from Eden ("If you eat of it, you will surely die"), or b) the time between the fall of Adam and the flood according to the Yahwist's genealogy in Gen 4. It was moved to its present location (and pluralized) as a result of supplementation of the Gen 5 genealogy and the whole new number scheme.

See Bandstra's "Reading the Old Testament" for more information.

(Shields up. Fire away!)

 

Ah...the same old tired arguments of "Higher" (ahem!) criticism. The Documentary Hypothesis??? Please...

 

It should be noted that in 2 Peter 2:5, Noah is called a preacher of righteousness. In Genesis 6:9, the word meaning 'righteous' is also used as a description of Noah (saddiyq). The KJ translates it differently, but the word is there in the Hebrew.

Thus it would seem Noah had already been preaching a lot longer than the building of the Ark took, so simply attributing 120 years to his preaching might be wrong. He may have been preaching for several hundred years.

It is also interesting that Noah is certainly considered an historical reality by Peter there! But, of course, Peter just wasn't aware of higher criticism! He didn't understand, I'm sure, what the truth was (read that as totally sarcastic...).

The writer to the Hebrews must have also been unaware of true history as BW Smith here describes, for listed in Hebrews 11 as men of faith are Seth, Enoch, and Noah. Strange to list mythological people as men of faith...

OH well, what do we know? What did they know? Obviously the 'higher crit' folk know best...

However, allow me to take the ignorant view that the Bible really is the Word of God and really is true and the God caused to be written there what He wanted us to know about and that He has also preserved it for a number of thousands of years.

Given my ignorant view of that, allow me to also say that although the children at the time of the Flood died in the Flood as a consequence of their parents' rebellion and wickedness, that does not mean the children are not in heaven.

I discussed the meaning of the words used in such references several times in the Bible study below. Here, from the Exodus study on the Ten Commandments, is this:

"Does God punish the children for the sins of the fathers? No, and this is one of the places where the New International Version has failed in translation badly. The old or new King James puts it much more accurately: …for I , the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth [generation] of those who hate me… The actual Hebrew meaning here is not punishment, but consequence, and that is a far different matter. A good example is a child born blind because the mother has syphilis. The child is innocent of the misdeeds which caused the syphilis, but nevertheless has suffered the consequences. The other way of putting it is with the popular line, “No man is an island.” We each affect others, and the lives of the fathers have enormous effects upon the lives of their children and even their grandchildren. God is warning about this; cautioning the fathers regarding their responsibilities. He is not threatening punishment."
from http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=43;t=000081

Considering the comments of Jesus in Matthew 19 and 19:4, it is not a stretch to say that the kids who died in the Flood are with Him now. Considering the age of accountability the Lord appears to have established regarding the Israelites in the desert (Numbers 14:29), anyone under 20 at the time of the Flood may be safe with the Lord.

No reason to argue, for that is not the point of the thread, but just wanted to bring in a little more Bible here.