FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? (/showthread.php?tid=67848)

Pages: 1 2


Re: Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? - cassini - 02-27-2014

Most interesting posts fellow fisheaters.

Just a thought I have had from time to time.
As a wildlife lover I often cringed at the slaughter that goes on in nature. Unlike some Creationists I believe God created animals, birds and fish as they are found today, that is, survival of the fittest. It took me some time to come to terms with what Genesis meant by describing their creation 'good' when watching lions eating a zebra alive or a hawk tearing a songbird to pieces or a shark catching a seal as they do, terrifying. "Good' i now realise meant the survival of all those kinds and species through time as any study of the balance of nature shows. If it were not for the predatory system created by God, many kinds would have gone extinct for one reason or another.

And that is why I came to accept God is still good after seeing the TV THE BIBLE, with its slaughter. The purpose had to be the same as with the animals, for the ultimate good, which is this case is the maximum salvation of souls in a world where man has free will.

Another thought I have from time to time is thank God, God is good and not a bad God. Imagine a sadist God who created to enjoy the suffering of creatures, us expecially. He has the power to make one suffer for eternity, and enjoy it. which leads to another question, how come God happens to be good. How come God is Christ, goodness personified etc. Yes the Trinity does allow the good or just to suffer for a time, but always for a better good, more souls saved and one's own soul a higher place in heaven.

Anyone else ever have these thoughts?


Re: Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? - PrairieMom - 02-27-2014

I've been giving this thread some thought since yesterday. I have two thoughts that I keep circling back to.

1. I always understood... and now I'm not sure if this is with my Catholic hat on or my Protestant hat on or a mishmash of both (I've been through several hats)... that the entire point of the OT, of the law, of the stuff that happened was to show that humans are essentially corrupt and needed Christ. Horrible stuff happened because people, by their fallen nature, are corrupt. We are referencing God wiping out nations via war, but he nearly wiped out humanity via the flood. They are almost like attempts to get us to "wake up", but of course we collectively never did. He allowed His own son to die, mostly because we're really crummy, collectively speaking.

2. Isn't the God of the NT going to, like, destroy the whole world? Four horsemen, 12 seals, all that good stuff? How is this inconsistent with the OT?

With fire comes renewal. But even in the worst fires, Springtime eventually comes and everything grows again.


Re: Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? - Melkite - 02-27-2014

There never was a literal world wide flood.  It is physically impossible.


Re: Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? - PrairieMom - 02-27-2014

(02-27-2014, 07:51 PM)Melkite Wrote: There never was a literal world wide flood.  It is physically impossible.

Okay, then let's go with the assumption that the flood is metaphorical.

What does it mean? What purpose does it serve? The story of a flood is found across many ancient/contemporary cultures in that part of the world. It certainly was part of the collective consciousness that God was capable of these things. Yet the point of the story is mercy. Noah survives. Even in the wars where entire cities and nations are wiped out, there are survivors. Those survivors sometimes have key roles in the history of Salvation. When the first temple is destroyed, God's people survive. The worthy are always saved, and even sometimes the not-so-worthy. There is always mercy.

That is the overarching theme of the entire Bible. That is what ties the old and new together. It may seem incongruous at first because on the surface, the actions of God can seem very different between the two halves. But the vehicle for that mercy changed about 2000 years ago with the advent of Christ.

God is not temporal. We are. Our ability to understand  these things are limited, but it doesn't mean it's untrue. But I guess at some point, that simply becomes a matter of faith.

God bless.


Re: Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? - Melkite - 02-28-2014

I don't know how to hope in that kind of mercy anymore.  I mean, think about it.  Why couldn't God have had mercy on those who died?  How can those who survived presume that they were less sinful than those who died?  If there is no logic to God's mercy, no standard that even he abides by, what reason then can you have to hope in it?  I understand that we can never understand the reasons God does the things he does.  But if his mercy can't be shown to have a connection to something that we can follow (someone asks for it, someone would go to hell otherwise, etc.) and thus God shows mercy to anyone who meets those conditions - if it is rather completely arbitrary from our perspective, with no rhyme or reason, how then can we ever hope for that mercy?  Your hope would become nothing more than a superstitious belief that doesn't have anything stronger going for it than any other phenomena that may occur randomly, because at any moment, for any reason, God may decide to no longer show you any mercy, and that decision would be completely independent of any action of yours to link it to.  Yeah, I guess I just don't have that faith anymore :(


Re: Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? - cassini - 02-28-2014

(02-27-2014, 07:51 PM)Melkite Wrote: There never was a literal world wide flood.  It is physically impossible.

Here we go again, not even GOD could arrange a worldwide flood.

Its a pity Melkite you never told us why a worldwide flood is 'impossible.' As it is the MAJORITY of the world is currently under water, so why not it all once. Oh yes, I forgot, that would mean depths of water to the top of Mount Everest all over the world. No it would not, as mountains as high as Mount Everest did not necessarily exist before the flood. The continents did not necessarily exist then, all could have been the one land one sea, broken up and raised to heights like Mt Everset after the flood abated and the fountains of the earth closed once again..All this is recorded by science, the breaking up of the whole earth and the sealed cracks throughout the earth.

'And after the seven days were passed, the waters of the flood overflowed the earth ... in the seventeenth day of the month, all the foundations of the great deep were broken up.....For they overflowed exceedingly; and filled all on the face of the earth... and the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth ; and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.  (Genesis Ch 7)

In the Church calendar we are in the week after Sexagesima Sunday, a week the divine office is full of the thoughts of Noah.

Those who deny the world wide flood should wonder why God asked Noah to build a massive ark when he could have told Noah to take his family on a holiday to that land not flooded and return when it was all over. It is akin to imagine Noah and his Ark with all the animals on a lake. The idea is absurd, given all those animals on lands not flooded would have sufficed for their survival, including the people, thus eliminating the dogma that only through Christ (the Ark) can one be saved..




Re: Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? - Melkite - 02-28-2014

(02-28-2014, 08:06 AM)cassini Wrote: Here we go again, not even GOD could arrange a worldwide flood.

Its a pity Melkite you never told us why a worldwide flood is 'impossible.' As it is the MAJORITY of the world is currently under water, so why not it all once. Oh yes, I forgot, that would mean depths of water to the top of Mount Everest all over the world. No it would not, as mountains as high as Mount Everest did not necessarily exist before the flood. The continents did not necessarily exist then, all could have been the one land one sea, broken up and raised to heights like Mt Everset after the flood abated and the fountains of the earth closed once again..All this is recorded by science, the breaking up of the whole earth and the sealed cracks throughout the earth.

'And after the seven days were passed, the waters of the flood overflowed the earth ... in the seventeenth day of the month, all the foundations of the great deep were broken up.....For they overflowed exceedingly; and filled all on the face of the earth... and the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth ; and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.  (Genesis Ch 7)

Sorry, I like to deal with science, not fairy tales.  It's interesting you argue that there may not have been mountains before the flood, but the scripture you quote speaks of the waters covering all the high mountains.  Not even scripture defends the idea that mountains may not have existed.  You are speculating in a desperate attempt to hold onto the idea that the scriptures are reliable.  Allow me to destroy that for you.

So, yes, Mt. Everest existed at the time the flood would have occurred, along with all the other high mountains in the world.  The reason why the flood could not possibly have happened in reality is not because the world could not be covered by all that water now, but because that water would have no place to go.  The summit of Mt. Everest sits nearly six miles above sea level.  So that would mean six miles of water over the entire surface of the earth.  The average depth of the oceans right now is about three miles.  So that would mean a 200% increase in the waters just over what is already ocean now, not to mention to cover all the land masses of the earth.  Even if we were to assume that possibly the highest mountains were not totally covered, this is still well over a mile of water all over the earth.  Where did that water go?  Global warming fearmongers suggest that if all the world's ice sheets were to melt, the sea level would rise about 230 feet.  That's assuming they are not exaggerating.  230 feet is nothing compared to 5-30 thousand feet of water.  Just assuming for the moment that the flood really happened, where did that water go?  It could not possibly still be on earth.  The atmosphere is no where near large enough to contain that amount of water in vapor form.  The earth would be covered with the densest fog, every day, all over the world, to a height that would probably surpass the moon.  Did God just miraculously make it disappear?  If so, why does he not still perform such magic tricks today?

Further, the water could not possibly have come from underneath the earth, because an additional 5 miles of water, or even a mile of water, to cover the water would mean that all that water would have had to come from slightly more than 5 miles of solid water underneath the surface.  The surface of the earth as we know it know would have to be hovering over a void 5 miles deep, around the entire world, that somehow is not collapsing and falling onto the rest of the mantle 5 miles below it.  Yet we know the earth is solid in those 5 miles.  So there just could not possibly have been a flood that covered the entire world.  It is not just a physical impossibility.  With the facts we know, it is a logical impossibility.

It is interesting that most cultures have some kind of flood narrative.  The best case for rationalizing the flood that I can think of is that, if all the nations have a flood story, it must go back to a time so far that we were all still one people in a local area.  So the flood would have taken place long before man had spread out across the world.  30,000 years ago, when we have the common genetic male ancestor of all humanity, man would still have been isolated to East Africa.  It is certainly possible that there was a devastating flood in some valley that wiped out all of humanity except one family, which the genetic evidence actually indicates.  Beyond that, a global flood is pure fairy tale.




Re: Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? - cassini - 02-28-2014

(02-28-2014, 10:25 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-28-2014, 08:06 AM)cassini Wrote: Here we go again, not even GOD could arrange a worldwide flood.

Its a pity Melkite you never told us why a worldwide flood is 'impossible.' As it is the MAJORITY of the world is currently under water, so why not it all once. Oh yes, I forgot, that would mean depths of water to the top of Mount Everest all over the world. No it would not, as mountains as high as Mount Everest did not necessarily exist before the flood. The continents did not necessarily exist then, all could have been the one land one sea, broken up and raised to heights like Mt Everset after the flood abated and the fountains of the earth closed once again..All this is recorded by science, the breaking up of the whole earth and the sealed cracks throughout the earth.

'And after the seven days were passed, the waters of the flood overflowed the earth ... in the seventeenth day of the month, all the foundations of the great deep were broken up.....For they overflowed exceedingly; and filled all on the face of the earth... and the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth ; and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.  (Genesis Ch 7)

Sorry, I like to deal with science, not fairy tales.  It's interesting you argue that there may not have been mountains before the flood, but the scripture you quote speaks of the waters covering all the high mountains.  Not even scripture defends the idea that mountains may not have existed.  You are speculating in a desperate attempt to hold onto the idea that the scriptures are reliable.  Allow me to destroy that for you.

So, yes, Mt. Everest existed at the time the flood would have occurred, along with all the other high mountains in the world.  The reason why the flood could not possibly have happened in reality is not because the world could not be covered by all that water now, but because that water would have no place to go.  The summit of Mt. Everest sits nearly six miles above sea level.  So that would mean six miles of water over the entire surface of the earth.  The average depth of the oceans right now is about three miles.  So that would mean a 200% increase in the waters just over what is already ocean now, not to mention to cover all the land masses of the earth.  Even if we were to assume that possibly the highest mountains were not totally covered, this is still well over a mile of water all over the earth.  Where did that water go?  Global warming fearmongers suggest that if all the world's ice sheets were to melt, the sea level would rise about 230 feet.  That's assuming they are not exaggerating.  230 feet is nothing compared to 5-30 thousand feet of water.  Just assuming for the moment that the flood really happened, where did that water go?  It could not possibly still be on earth.  The atmosphere is no where near large enough to contain that amount of water in vapor form.  The earth would be covered with the densest fog, every day, all over the world, to a height that would probably surpass the moon.  Did God just miraculously make it disappear?  If so, why does he not still perform such magic tricks today?

Further, the water could not possibly have come from underneath the earth, because an additional 5 miles of water, or even a mile of water, to cover the water would mean that all that water would have had to come from slightly more than 5 miles of solid water underneath the surface.  The surface of the earth as we know it know would have to be hovering over a void 5 miles deep, around the entire world, that somehow is not collapsing and falling onto the rest of the mantle 5 miles below it.  Yet we know the earth is solid in those 5 miles.  So there just could not possibly have been a flood that covered the entire world.  It is not just a physical impossibility.  With the facts we know, it is a logical impossibility.

It is interesting that most cultures have some kind of flood narrative.  The best case for rationalizing the flood that I can think of is that, if all the nations have a flood story, it must go back to a time so far that we were all still one people in a local area.  So the flood would have taken place long before man had spread out across the world.  30,000 years ago, when we have the common genetic male ancestor of all humanity, man would still have been isolated to East Africa.  It is certainly possible that there was a devastating flood in some valley that wiped out all of humanity except one family, which the genetic evidence actually indicates.  Beyond that, a global flood is pure fairy tale.

I SAID: "No it would not, as mountains as high as Mount Everest did not necessarily exist before the flood' 'AS HIGH AS' I do not say something and then quote Scripture that contradicts what I said. Surely you know that mountains are caused by two plates coming together and rising where they meet. Modern geology accepts this. Such high mountains are as a result of the Flood. Volcanic mountaing have risen out of the ground in a few years. as for the water, well the Scriptures tell us there was enough water to flood the earth from above and below and that they returned after the flood with some obviously piling up as ice.

As for flood stories, well here is one:

(1) An investigation into Chinese palaeography called God’s Promise To The Chinese (  E. Nelson, R. Broadberry and G. Chock: God’s Promise To The Chinese, Read Books, HCR 65 Box 580, Dunlap, TN 37327, USA, 1997.).  In a summary of this book, the reviewer states: 

‘The three joint-authors have clearly demonstrated, to this reviewer’s satisfaction at least, that the inventor of the original Chinese characters, which were inscribed on tortoise shells and bones, knew and believed in an identical account of creation and earth’s beginnings to that found in Moses’ Book of Genesis….
    The Chinese have always revered their writing system. Calligraphy ranks supreme in their artistic scale of values… Just 142 of the earliest hieroglyphic pictograms contain, in a highly condensed (and therefore mentally portable and ineradicable form) key components of the Book of Genesis.  Since the truth or otherwise of the Flood has profound implications for the study of geology, in the Book of Documents (Sha Ching), written 3,000 years ago, we read: “The flood waters were everywhere, destroying everything as they rose above the hills and swelled up to Heaven.” ’ Tim Williams, Christian Order, November 2001, pp.629-631. 

For me the Bible speaks the truth and I fully accept a global flood just as I believe in a Virgin birth..   



Re: Is there a contradiction between the God of the OT and the God of the NT? - ThomasTheDoubter - 02-28-2014

It amuses me that the inside of the earth is pretty much a mystery and yet we claim to know that a global flood is impossible. We make models and infer from models, but we don't really know. It's pretty much the same with The Principle: we assume that the earth is moving because that is one model, but another model that works is a geocentric model--but no, it's more sane to believe in relativity where time and space are not independent than such a universe!

The bible does say that some of the water came from the foundations of the deep. Maybe it went back? And what should we think about underwater cities around the world?

The flood prefigures baptism of water. The next baptism is one of fire. And some approved apparitions state that the flood happened and fire will fall from the sky too.