Pacing sucks.

Jesus dies.

>>791948
It's okay though! He comes back later.

The sequel was so much better.

Totally blew me away when he did. I kept waiting to read if he came back a second time. Then it ended. Biggest let down.

Just hang on until you get to Leviticus. Shit gets real.

>>791951

I liked it, but the extremist undertones were too much for me.

obligatory

'Tards don't know about good religious texts.

>>791971
Fix'd.

>>791971
Well, you've got the whole Jesus in space thing, which is sort of cool.

>>791977
>>791971


Fixed

I heard it was based on actual events and people

OP, so how does the word become populated - via Abel and Cain? Where are the chicks? Are they just chillin in the wilderness?

This is the thing that annoys me about the Bible - people say 'Its silly to take it literally, its all allegory' - but then you look into the allegory and its full of plotholes and chewed dog biscuits.

I think the Bible is mostly symbolic. Fact and fiction combined. Its an old book and thru the centuries a lot of stuff has been changed

>>792006
It wasn't symbolic during the bronze age when it was written. That's just made up bullshit by embarrassed apologists.

>>791981
Beat me to it.

Adam=humanity
Eve=the mother
tree of knowledge=wisdom, intelligence
serpent=either reptilians or the donosaurs just before they got wiped out. Since God cursed them perhaps he sent the meteor to kill the reptilians(snake)

>>792028
>Adam=hurr
>Eve=durr
>tree of knowledge=herp
>serpent=derp

>>791999
>OP, so how does the word become populated - via Abel and Cain? Where are the chicks? Are they just chillin in the wilderness?


Cousins. I never got an explanation beyond that.

>>791999
Adam and Eve were superhumans, and then their kids inbred, and we're the retarded, inbred versions of what Adam and Eve were. Duh.

>>792033
Well, when Cain was kicked out he went to live in a place called Nod, where his wife (sister?) gave birth to their son, so Cain built a city for them. Makes sense, right?

You have not really read the Old Testament until you read it like this.

>>792023
Sorry bro - this too don't you reck?

>>792033
So it just says cousins? Got a passage?

>>791999
If I remember correctly, new women were made from dirt, and they would only bear male children or something like that. It was in a later period that women started to be born like men, though I can't recall if there was any specific reason for that starting to happen.

how does cain kill abel?

Christianity, much lik the ancient pagan religions, believed in the gradual degradation of the physical world and the human condition. When humanity first arised, people could live to be hundreds of years old. As humanity grew farther and farther from Eden, its ability to grow into extreme old age weakened. I do not feel that the Bible implied that it was incest that weakened humanity, but instead the growing disconnect from God.

It's a common theme throughout many religions. The Greeks had the Golden Age, Silver Age, etc. The great Greek heroes were close to the gods or born of divinity, and as the gods withdrew to Olympos humanity grew weaker and weaker.

>>792087
lol, nowhere in the bible does it say any of that

>>792110
I wouldn't know, I never read the thing. I can't remember where I heard that, either.

>>792099
I'm pretty sure it's a donkey's jaw if I remember correctly

>>792102
Noah lives till 800 years old motherfucker. He has kids at 500 years old.

And then all of a sudden everyone drops down to normal levels.WTF

You guys must remember that in genesis it says that during these times, angels use to walk the earth and they use to fuck our woman. much like the heroes in greek and roman mythology.

>>791999
I grew up in the home of a minister, and the most common explanation I heard was that the bible doesn't specifically mention Cain and Able as the first sons, so there's nothing to say they didn't have alot of kids in the garden of Eden. Also, before sin entered the world via the fall, there were no genetic repercussions for doing it with your own family.

>>792099

Son, haven't you killed a man with your bare hands?

>>792126
People started to die earlier because of this first:

Genesis 6:3 "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

Basically god said, you mother fuckers are pissing me off so I'm gonna fuck you up

>>792126

They were the last of those who were truly connected with god. Those who are messengers of God still live to be incredibly old, like Moses living to be 120, but as God leaves his children to their own devices he also makes them to be incredibly mortal.

Even in the early books of the Old Testament sinners and those who do not worship do not live to be old. Since the Bible only focuses on the holy it makes it seem like everyone gets to live to be super old. As the human population grew, more and more people turned away from God and into decadence and hedonism. The flood was an attempted purge but being born in the image of the Lord does not mean that one will carry the spirit of the Lord within their hearts. So finally God turned away forever.

>>792142
So the flood was God's attempt to cleanse the world of sin, but he failed?

>>791938

IＭＭＥＤIAＴｅｌＹ rｅＭOＶE YOＵＲ iＬＬＥGＡL clOＮｅ Of aｔ froｍ ｙＯｕｒ ＳeｒvｅＲ, ｍｏO-ｃoW, ＡｎＤ ｒＥｄｉＲｅCT iT (AｎＤ ｔhe SＴＯｌｅＮ DOＭAiＮ) ｔo ＷwW.ＡNＯｎtａｌK.Ｓｅ. aLＳＯ put ａ TＥｘt ＡＤ Ｏn 4ＣｈAｎ tＯ At FoＲ 12 MOｎtHｓ tO cOＭＰｅＮＳaｔE fOR tｈe LＯＳT ＴＲａｆｆｉC ｔｈＡt ＹＯU aND ｙＯuＲ ＵSErｓ hAVＥ Ｃａｕseｄ ＷITh ｙＯUr ＩＬｌＥｇａL PｒＡCtＩＣｅS. ＴＨIS IS ｙOuＲ cHＡNｃＥ ｔＯ Sｅｔ ｔHＩｎgs rｉGＨＴ. ＴａKｅ ｉt. Iｆ The ｐeＲsＯN ＲEADing TｈiＳ IＳ nｏT "MoＯＴ", Ｅ-ＭａｉL ｈiM aT MooＴ@4CｈＡN.ＯｒＧ ａnＤ ｐｕＴ ｓＯMｅ PＲeSsｕRE ｏＮ HiＭ ｉf ｙOＵ hAte tHＥｓｅ ＭeＳSａｇｅｓ. ｔhANk ＹＯu FoR ｌＩsTenｉｎｇ. i en du ipdwr ijip bqxf

>>792028

Old Testament Hermeneutics does not work that way.

>>792142

> So finally God turned away forever.

Why do the XTians pray to him, if he's no longer there?

>>792149
I'm think God in the Bible is the conglomeration of at least two gods, Elohim and Jehovah, which would explain his schizophrenic personality and general lack of omni-anything.

>>792149

It isn't that He failed, it's that humanity failed. He took the few who still piously believed in him and allowed them to basically create the world anew. Their descendants, though born of holy people, eventually descended back into the same hedonism and began to pray to the same false gods. God left a final will, or testament if you will, and left humans to their own devices.

>>792161

Meh. It's mainly the idea that God/Christ will eventually return to speak to mankind and allow the pious worshipers into eternal bliss. Rapture and all that jazz.

>>792175
Yea, but Noah was sinful by nature and so was his family (unless you don't believe in original sin) Either way, God knew he was going to fall back into sin anyway. He knew the flood wouldn't work, so why couldn't he have skipped the step of murdering all those people?

>>792175
God is weird.

All this imperfect creation - giving people sin/creating snakes.

Forsaking people but then saying yeah I'll forgive some of you.

Flooding dudes but not being sucessful. I mean if he tried to correct it that time why doesn't he try again.

RUN.EXE - FLOOD MOTHERFUCKERS. V.2

>>792175
Why is God only interested in Jews and is totally cool with them slaughtering other tribes (and even helps them sometimes)?

Well if it sucks, why don't you write a better one yourself?

If the mormons could do it so can you

>>792178

I personally read the Old Testament as not being retconned by Christian thought. Original sin is purely a Christian idea and at the time of the Old Testament the concept it did not exist. It's only with the concept of original sin being cast onto the Old Testament that it begins to have logical flaws like that (though with God being a jealous, outrageous dude he acted irrationally quite a bit). Judaism doesn't believe in original sin, nor does Islam.

Even with original sin it can be rationalized, though. God was going to wipe out everything on Earth, angry that his creation of life had turned out so poorly. He sees a small beacon of hope in Noah, whose only sin is being born into the world of man. He gives Noah a chance to do everything over, but the original sin within every man turns its ugly head. God, instead of destroying all life, just turns away and leaves humanity to its mortality. Jews don't even believe ina concept of heaven. According to the Old Testament we're just kind of here.

And then Jesus arrives and shit goes down and there's eternal bliss etc etc etc

>>791942
Steve Guttenburg worked really hard writing that thing. Show some respect.

>>792203
Okay, granted. But assuming original sin, you must also assume that God is either not omniscient (not knowing that Noah will just fuck up anyway) or unmerciful (starting a flood and killing people which could've been avoided) which both go against Christian doctrine. God destroying the world for the reason you described makes him seem like he has human characteristics and emotions...hardly worth regarding as all powerful or worth worshiping.

Didn't it say God made man on the sixth day, and then later he made Adam and Eve in his little garden of Eden to be the forefathers of his special little race of Jews? I mean, that would explain Cain going off to the land of Nod and suddenly having a wife and shit.

>>792219
Old Testament God is a lot different than New Testament God.
Like Israel. He just straight up wrestled with God for like 12 hours, and neither of them won, so they called it a draw.
God was a lot more awesome.

>>791999

There are multiple interpretations to be had of Genesis. While it's incorrect to say all of them are true, most Christians will agree that it's not really as important as the stuff that comes later in the bible, such as Jesus and etc.

Most Christians will agree on the following.

1: God creates the world.

2: God creates humans.

3: Humans are initially perfect beings.

4: Humans screw up and end up throughly imperfect beings.

How God specifically creates the world is not the primary concern of Genesis. It's throughly improper to read the bible as you would a text book. The bible is try to teach you lessons. Always. At any given moment in the bible, there is a moral you could be learning. Genesis isn't trying to tell you how God created the world, but that he did, and that he made man perfect, and that man made himself imperfect, and so on and so forth.

>>792181

>All this imperfect creation - giving people sin/creating snakes.

He didn't create anything imperfect. Man made himself imperfect. You could ask why God created the things that would lead to imperfection, but then you're essentially asking a spin off of the old philosophical problem of evil debate, for which there are numerous answers. One answer is that it could only look stupid to you. Compared to an omnipotent being your perspective is near-incomprehensibility narrow. There could be an infinite number of factors because of which creating Lucifer makes sense, but we simply can't see them because we're finite beings, and our perspective is so limited.

>>792247
But doesn't the bible also say God is unchanging?

God damn contradictions.....

>>792249

>Forsaking people but then saying yeah I'll forgive some of you.

You're going to have to expand on this. The sending of Jesus and his crucification is essentially God saying "I forgive all of you! Repent of your sins and be saved!"

If you're talking about all the people who lived before the time of Jesus, then you need to consider that Jesus needed to be sent at the most appropriate time. If he had, say, been born to a small tribe of natives on a isolated island that would be wiped out by a plague just as soon as he ascended into heaven, then humanity wouldn't have exactly been saved, would it? If you look into the details of Jesus' birth, it actually becomes quite impressive how much everything contrived to ensure Christianity survived.

>Flooding dudes but not being sucessful. I mean if he tried to correct it that time why doesn't he try again.

We can't know the specifics of how many people died, or even the state of the world. For all we know, the world we live in might be a rose garden compared to the days of Noah. World War 2 might be tame in comparison to what was happening at the time. The Earth is stated as being "ruined" and "filled with violence."

It simply might be the case that evening sending Jesus wouldn't have saved the world at this point.

As for why he didn't do it again, well, you might consider that he was already planing on sending Jesus at this point, and that after Jesus was sent and crucified, then it's rather self defeating to wipe out all those humans that you're just beginning to save.

>>792250
The books were written over like a 1000 year period, give them a break.

>>792251
>>792189

You're probably not going to find a specific, single answer. Political leaders do not go to war all for the same reason, after all.

If you want something, then consider that the Jewish race has to survive in order for Jesus to be born so that humanity can be saved. Coincidentally, they are surrounded by hostile nations. You do the math.

>>792178
>Yea, but Noah was sinful by nature and so was his family (unless you don't believe in original sin) Either way, God knew he was going to fall back into sin anyway. He knew the flood wouldn't work, so why couldn't he have skipped the step of murdering all those people?

Noah is described as "walking with God", which might mean little more than (a) believing in God and (b) trying to follow his commandments. Yes, God knew humanity would eventually fall back into sin, but we simply cannot know how extreme the world was back then. It might have been a truly horrific place compared to what we have today, or even to anything we've ever had since the flood.

>>792253
I shouldn't have to give the perfect infallible word of God "a break"

>>792219

In the Old Testament it does seem like God is incredibly emotional, mirroring the pagan religions. As Judaism began to become estranged from its pagan neighbours, God as an all-knowing and all-powerful deity became the norm. I personally am of the belief that originally Judaism was based around a central God with djinn, spirits, and angels being the minor gods. An odd kind of polytheism. As the stories developed and the Jewish people wished to separate themselves from their neighbours, their God became increasingly singular and the old stories were changed and adapted into that ideal. Unfortunately, this makes many of the early stories of the Old Testament prone to severe logical errors.

I've been discussing this with you as an attempt to rationalize the Bible from a non-believing perspective and it's incredibly difficult at times, I know. But that's why it's faith, I guess.

There's also the idea that since God knows all, he also knew that he had to do the flood and all that. He's as much a slave of his omnipotence and omniscience as humanity is, which is a pretty interesting view.

>>792258
Yeah. Like at one point in Exodus, God just randomly tries to kill Moses in Moses' tent, but his wife cuts off his foreskin and throws it at God, so He is unable to kill Moses.

For anyone who actually wants to read this thing, I suggest the following link.

http://net.bible.org/bible.php

Translation notes can be very useful, sometimes.

Also, commentaries.

>>792264
The only commentaries worth reading are Talmud commentaries.
BECAUSE THAT'S ALL IT FUCKING IS

>>792219
>you must also assume that God is either not omniscient (not knowing that Noah will just fuck up anyway) or unmerciful (starting a flood and killing people which could've been avoided) which both go against Christian doctrine.

I'm sorry. How are we to know the flood could have been avoided?

>>792263

Now that is an excellent example of a hermeneutics problem.

The passage probably had a clear meaning for its intended audience (the Israelites), but without the context that that audience had we're left scratching our heads.

>>792267
The reason for the flood (as was given by the poster who I was replying to) was to cleanse the world of sin. If god is omnicient, he would've known that this wouldn't work and could have just skipped over it since sin would carry on anyway. If he actually thought it would work, he's deluded.

>>792258
Exactly. So I would just assume chalk the bible under the same category as all the other holy books: epic fairy tales.

The thing about God is you can't think of him as 'good'. God is neutral.

He's okay with destroying civilizations, raping and pillaging, murdering children. Fuck anyone who isn't of Israel's seed, and if they ever go against him? Well, fuck 'em too. But obey his rules, honor and respect him and he'll take you to land of fucking milk and honey, save you from lions, sweep you up to heaven in a flaming chariot, give you great harvests and good rains and part the fucking seas for you.

The reason you have to love and worship God is because he's the all-powerful, supernatural being who made your sorry ass and your entire universe. So bow down, bitches, and toss your fattest calf on the altar.

>>792285
That's a little like saying I have to obey my abusive father no matter how many times he beats the shit out of me simply because he created me. Well fuck that. Respect has to be earned and god is no exception.

>>792296
And that's why I left religion. I haven't been smited yet.

>>792258
So what kind of faith do you have? What would you call yourself?

>>792285

I've written out three different responses to this, but 4chan refuses to let me actually post any of them.

Just check out Geneis 6 and see how explicit it is about God's intentions in wiping out mankind.

http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=6

It doesn't really come across as saying that God hopes to cleanse humanity of sin with this, does it? Rather, he seems intent on cleansing the Earth of what humanity has become.

>>792251
>You're going to have to expand on this. The sending of Jesus and his crucification is essentially God saying "I forgive all of you! Repent of your sins and be saved!"

This is one thing that never made sense to me. How does sending Jesus down to be killed forgiving humanity? If I remember Sunday school correctly, the explanation was that Jesus died so no one else would ever have to die again or something like that. Does this not whole concept not seem absurd to anyone else? What is the Christian belief with regard to this.

>>792353
It goes something along the lines of: We're all sinful, and therefore all deserve to die and go to hell. Jesus, however, was perfect. Jesus sacrificed himself as payment for all the sins everyone had committed and ever will commit. Thus, every time we sin, we are doomed to hell, but Jesus has already paid that debt, so we can be forgiven and have a chance to go to heaven when we die.

Of course, if you believe in the trinity then it's pretty much God killing himself in order to satisfy a law that he himself invented....which is a little fucked up.

>>792352
>what humanity has become

So he wiped them out because they were sinful? Were people worse off then than they are now? Was he justified in killing all those people even though he knew they were just going to turn out the exact same way anyway?

>>792370

That doesn't make any sense at all

>>792311

I really have no faith in a higher being or anything like that. I find religious texts as another form of literature to study and find meaning and metaphors within, etc. I think that looking at religious texts from a secular viewpoint can be incredibly rewarding, as you attempt to make sense of them without the fall back of divine infallibility. You find new ways of interpreting them that aren't always obvious or feasible within a religious mindset.

I do love the idea of spirituality or the inherent rights of humanity and all that. Renaissance humanism was a wonderful combination of secular thought with a spiritual backdrop. I can't rationalize there being a God or gods of any kind (nor do I find the idea appealing), but the idea of a just nature inherent within humanity is a beautiful thing.

>>792353

Let's just look at one thing.

When you disobey your parents as a little child, the "punishment" you receive is probably something on the level of going to bed without supper, or something like that.

Compare that to disobeying the law. If you do this, then your punishment is going to be rather more severe. We're talking prison time, or even a death sentence in extreme cases.

Now, the reason this punishment is more extreme is not just because your crime is more extreme, but because you've deliberately disobeyed something with more absolute authority. Laws are set by society, after all, or in ancient times, by the commandment of kings (from society's perspective) divinely appointed by the gods to hold their position of power.

When you spit in your father's face, you don't get punished as much as you do when spitting in the face of the president. This is because the president is, quite frankly, more important, and more absolute, than your parent.

>>792436
>>792436

Now, compare disobeying and disrespecting your parents to breaking the laws of the most powerful, absolute, important being in the universe and outside it. This man is so important the fucking WORLD and UNIVERSE shift, shape, and conform to his will. Worlds become and cease to be at the sound of his voice.

And we disobeyed this person. We did it the only way we possibly could, in fact. God prohibited us from doing ONE THING, and we did it.

There are repercussions for this sort of thing. Repercussions so severe that there is nothing we could actually do to fulfill this debt. Everything we HAVE would not fulfill the debt we owe. We are just
frail, finite, imperfect little miserable wretches who can hardly fathom what is required of us in return for what we have done.

So, God, in order to save us, sends someone who CAN fulfill the debt. That is to say, he sends a perfect being. We, as imperfect beings, couldn't ever pay the debt. So God payed it himself, because he honestly didn't want to do to us that which we deserved. He punished his own son in our stead so that we could be spared from the punishment we were due. It's like the whipping boys you used to see in the 17th and 18th centuries, really. Except you have unimaginable pain and suffering instead of a couple strikes to the back.

>>792436
The difference is when you spit in the president's face, he isn't going to torture you in hell for the rest of eternity.

Also, the rules set up by the government and whoever are there for a good reason: the society won't function without them. You can't have a proper society where people are allowed to murder and steal from each other. God's laws on the other hand, especially the ones about him being the only one you can worship, are just there to stroke his giant metaphysical cock. If he really acted like a parent, he wouldn't throw a fit if you decided not to worship him. He'd forgive you and love you anyway.

>>792383
>Were people worse off then than they are now?

Well, it makes sense, doesn't it?

>Was he justified in killing all those people even though he knew they were just going to turn out the exact same way anyway?
>they were just going to turn out the exact same way anyway

Who's to say we did? The world as it is could very well be a great improvement over how it was in Noah's time, regardless of what atrocities we've witnessed.

>>792465
Um, well obviously I can't prove otherwise, but you're really grasping at straws.

>>792464
>The difference is when you spit in the president's face, he isn't going to torture you in hell for the rest of eternity.

The nature of hell has multiple interpretations by a multitude of authors and persons. It is only in some of them that God is the active agent who is torturing you for eternity. I personally hold the belief that hell is total abandonment from God; it is you being left alone to the whims of the devil or whoever else might be there. Whatever it is, it's the result of God cutting himself off from your life entirely.

Now, this is just one interpretation among many, but nonetheless it's hard to make a valid point when your using a definition of something that has multiple definitions across a large range of people.


>God's laws on the other hand, especially the ones about him being the only one you can worship, are just there to stroke his giant metaphysical cock. If he really acted like a parent, he wouldn't throw a fit if you decided not to worship him. He'd forgive you and love you anyway.

This logic is rather bizarre. Should a women, if she truly loves her husband, simply ignore all his numerous and continuous affairs? She might still love him, but would you seriously expect her to tolerate such behavior? You can still love someone without accepting their misdeeds and faults, or tolerating their sins.

Really, should one just ignore any wrongs committed of him by those he loves? You may love your best friend very much, but if he rapes and murders your wife that love isn't going to somehow justify that he should be excused for that crime.

>>792536
No of course not, and I was never suggesting crimes should go unpunished. But if a women loves her husband, she isn't going to murder him and torture him for eternity. My point was that eternal punishment for a finite crime isn't very loving.

>>792543
You've never met my wife...

>>792546
ba dum csh

>>792370
>Of course, if you believe in the trinity then it's pretty much God killing himself in order to satisfy a law that he himself invented....which is a little fucked up.

Yeah, that's what I've always found confusing. The Arian take that Jesus was human would make more sense. But virtually all modern day Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus and the holy trinity so I don't get how they repeat this without questioning it. Most of Christianity revolves around morality and everyone has some kind of morality. It's understandable that people will believe in miracles and an afterlife. But this is perhaps the most absurd aspect of the Christian religion. For example, the general rule of fiction is that a story is believable even if it doesn't follow the rules of the real world as long as its own world's rules are consistent. Why can't an all-powerful god just forgive humanity himself instead of making an avatar of himself and then sacrificing himself so he can forgive humanity?

>>792478

And you over assuming things about 12 rather vague sentences in the context of so much more.

Really, has the Earth ever reached a point where you would seriously believe that all life on Earth should be exterminated? Have things ever decayed to such an extent that all life on Earth was wicked, that there was no more than one family who you could look on and not see evil?

Obviously not. Indeed, it's painfully difficult to say that there's been any decay at all; things have rather been improving recently in comparison to years past. I think one could say that the world, on the whole, is better than it was centuries ago.

People always assume God never sent another flood because he promised not to do so, but did anyone ever stop to think that maybe he promised not to do so because he realized he wouldn't need to?

>>792561
You ARE aware of the genocides happening around the world, right? All those world wars, dictators killing millions of people at a time.....you honestly expect me to think that the pre flood earth was worse off than we've been in our past history?

>>792553
>Why can't an all-powerful god just forgive humanity himself instead of making an avatar of himself and then sacrificing himself so he can forgive humanity?

Because a crime deserves a punishment. The very idea that a crime can be forgiven without some form of repayment comes from the fact that God went ahead and took our place on the cross, and essentially punished himself rather than do that do us.

We've been forgiven of debt that we could never hope to repay, which leaves us with little to no room to expect others to repay debts they owe to us. This is where the idea of forgiveness in the face of wrongs done to us comes from. It's questionable this concept would exist, let alone be as widespread as it is, without the influence of Christianity.

Humans are able to "just forgive" other humans because they have no pedestal to stand on and preach about what others owe them, because they've already been released from a debt that they could never repay. God is in no such position.

>>792580
>you honestly expect me to think that the pre flood earth was worse off than we've been in our past history?

Well, considering both of us know almost nothing about pre-flood earth, I would expect you to acknowledge the possibility.


Stuff was different back then, remember. Humans lived insanely long, and there were lot of distinctly inhuman beings running around, such as as the Nephilim, which we basically have no idea what are, and whoever the "sons of God" are supposed to be.

>>792600
God determines what is a sin and what isn't. Can't he bend the rules a little? Can't he change the fact that the punishment for sinning is an eternal one?

>>792622
Rules are rules.

>>792553
It's almost as if God imposes upon himself the "no crimes go unpunished" mantra.
Only in creating a perfect human upon whom to pin the punishment of centuries of sin can humanity be spared the terror of hell.

>>792618
I accept the possibilities of things that can be backed up with at least a little bit of evidence. Pardon me if this comes across as offensive, but I'm not going to acknowledge fairy tales just there's a possibility that it happened. It sounds to me like you're just coming up with excuses to justify God's actions because you've already jumped to the conclusion that a literal interpretation of the bible is true.

>>792636
Allow me to interject that we are discussing the Bible purely for its literary value.
That said, suppose the flood did occur. Then I think the other guy has a point.

>>792627
Maybe one could interpret it that God himself sinned when he created an imperfect humanity. Therefore he alone had to suffer for the sins of humanity. I guess that could kind of make sense. Well, I don't know if that is sensible but that makes the most sense to me.