Rev. David Rives — Noah and the Flood

We were recovering from the holiday when suddenly the Drool-o-tron™ aroused us with its sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). The Drool-o-tron™ had found the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

Our computer was locked onto this headline at WND: Are you like Noah? Or are you like his doubters?. A most intriguing question! The actual title of the video is “In the days of Noah.”

The rev tells us that the world was filled with wickedness, but Noah was righteous and he was instructed to build the Ark. Everything not aboard the Ark was destroyed! Evidence of the global flood is seen all over the world. That’s amazing!

Then the rev asks a very important question: When the day of judgment comes, as foretold, will you be one of the righteous, or one of the ungodly? Ponder that, dear reader!

The rev is all dressed up for this one. He’s wearing one of his bible-boy suits with a necktie. He’s the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! The video is the usual 90-second presentation — before the commercial at the end. It’s very inspirational, and definitely worth a look. Go ahead, click over to WND.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Noah and the Flood

  1. “Everything not aboard the Ark was destroyed!”

    If so, then where did all the flora forms come from if they’d been submerged for a year? What did Noah’s saved animals then graze upon?

  2. “where did all the flora forms come from?”
    That’s easy. They weren’t condemned to destruction by the flood:

    Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

    Did you ever see a plant breathe? Plants aren’t alive, they are just stuff that is extruded by the ground, as decreed by Elohim:

    Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

  3. Lyell. Hutton Geoscience.
    Someone send David a science book and
    some anti psychotic meds.

  4. “When the day of judgment comes, as foretold, will you be one of the righteous, or one of the ungodly?” Considering the running record of that which is foretold, I will take my chances! Also if your ahole gawd is real, I’d rather be in hell, the company is better.

  5. Doctor Stochastic

    While plants may not breathe, they do transpire.

  6. …and if submerged, they expire.

  7. jimroberts, Doctor Stochastics: This opens up a huge can of worms in the fundamentalist world. I know that it fascinates only me, but still…

    There’s this thing, you see, called “nephesh chayyah” in the Hebrew. Literally, it means “living breather” but it appears to be extended metaphorically to mean living things that have the specific qualities of inhalation and exhalation, motility, and some sort of blood. According to Genesis 1:26, insects and even worms – “creeping things” – have this quality of “nephesh chayyah”. But plants – green plants specifically – do not. (One might assume that neither do fungi, archaea, bacteria or viruses, but that’s by the way.)

    This allows the idea that “there was no death before the Fall”. Green plants are not exactly alive, you see..They haven’t got this quality “nephesh chayyah”. Hardened heathens may complain that plants breathe, that they reproduce, that they grow, that they metabolise, even that they move, even that they may be carnivorous themselves, and are hence just as alive as an animal. It doesn’t matter to one of the Faith. The animals had to eat something that wasn’t truly alive, because there was no death before the Fall. So plants aren’t alive in the same sense as animals are. So there.

    The truly interesting refelection on this, er, understanding occurs at Genesis 2:7, where it says that the Lord God breathed this thing “nephesh chayyah” into the nostrils of the man he’d just made from clay, so that Man became alive. And here’s the thing: It is only this quality of “nephesh chayyah” that God bestowed on man, the same as on the animals. There is no mention of a separate soul. Surely it would be mentioned, if it happened, for nothing could be more important, and not mentioning it would seem to imply that the scripture leaves vital things out, which is unthinkable.

    But the acquisition by humans of some special soul different from animals is NOT mentioned. Humans are distinguished from animals only later, by their self-acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil. Hence, it would appear that Genesis says either that no living thing has an immortal soul (which is also unthinkable) OR that the animals with “nephesh chayyah” have souls, too. Further, since they didn’t eat of the fruit, those souls are innocent. It was by man that death came, said Paul. The animals are therefore innocent of original sin.

    Oh, brother, where does that take us?

  8. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
    John 12:24

  9. Dave Luckett valiantly attempts to battle through the logical tangles of Genesis:

    The animals had to eat something that wasn’t truly alive, because there was no death before the Fall.

    But why did the prelapsarian animals need to eat at all? It’s not as if they could have starved to death, if death did not exist.

  10. “But why did the prelapsarian animals need to eat at all?”
    Gen 1 says that grass and leaves are for food for animals, and if we regard the two incompatible creation accounts in Genesis as parts of the same infallible story, the animals of Gen 2 must have eaten too.

  11. Dave Luckett says: “Green plants are not exactly alive, you see.”

    Right. Henry Morris III explained it — see ICR: Plants Are Not Alive.

  12. The animals had to eat something that wasn’t truly alive, because there was no death before the Fall. So plants aren’t alive in the same sense as animals are. So there.

    Actually, one suspects the Bible means only that there was no human death before the Fall. Plants were not considered truly alive, and animals were under the “stewardship” of humans, to be used as people chose. (Except as sex objects, of course, sex even between consenting adults who weren’t married and of opposite genders being a big no-no. Gotta keep the tribe’s numbers up, after all.)

  13. Considering that there were only two humans about 6,000 years ago – there must have been a LOT of sex going on since then.

    However, the population of Hebrews, who presumably were the first humans and included Adam and Eve, seems to have grown much more slowly than subsequent human tribes, else they would be the dominant group today. Perhaps all those rules in the bible did, in fact, curb their growth, while the heathens lived much merrier and prolific lives.

  14. Eric Lipps suggests

    Actually, one suspects the Bible means only that there was no human death before the Fall.

    Cool! Adam could have slit his own throat, or leapt off a mile-high cliff, or swum the width of the Atlantic underwater, and all without ill effect!

    Just like Superman–and immune to Kryptonite!

  15. Genesis doesn’t say, or even suggest, that there was no death before Adam ate the apple. That idea comes from Paul, writing centuries after Genesis was written: 1 Cor 15:21 For since by man came death …
    There were two trees in the centre of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Obviously the purpose of the tree of life was to ward off otherwise inevitable death by regular eating of its fruit. Also, if there was no death, it makes no sense for JHWE to (lyingly) threaten Adam with imminent death if he eats the knowledge fruit, since Adam couldn’t have understood the threat.

  16. jimroberts – Alas, no. Genesis 3:22 specifies the function of the fruit of the Tree of Life: it bestowed immortality. “What if he eats of the fruit of the tree of life and lives forever?” asks God.

    Real interesting that. Implies two things. One, if you had to eat of that fruit to become immortal, then you weren’t immortal before. If you weren’t immortal before, then sooner or later you would die. Hence, death existed before the Fall. Genesis not only doesn’t say no death before the Fall, and doesn’t imply it; it implies exactly the opposite. Two, it appears that even God Himself could not abolish the power of the Tree of Life. If the man ate of it, he was immortal, and God couldn’t prevent or reverse that effect. The only solution was to make sure the couple weren’t allowed to get at the tree. Hence the expulsion from the Garden, the angel with the flashing sword, etcetera.

    I agree with you that the threat YHWH makes at Genesis 2:17 is, um, disingenuous. “The day you eat of (the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil) you will surely die,” says YHWH. The straightforward meaning is that if they eat, they die immediately, that very day. However, stretching it a bit, it could mean that eating of that fruit will entail eventual death on them. But that was already the case, see above. Unless they ate of the tree of life, they were mortal and would die eventually anyway.

    And interestingly, there is no injunction against eating of that fruit, only against the other, of the knowledge of good and evil.

    Is there another story hidden here? That God expected that they would eat of the tree of life and live forever – but that they actually refused that, and preferred to know good from evil? Intriguing. Sounds like a comment on the human condition to me. Literature, eh?

    Well, yes. In fact I think it’s part of a wheels-within-wheels symbolic narrative. I don’t think it’s divinely inspired, mind, but I think there’s more going on here than appears at first sight.

  17. @Dave Luckett
    Yes, there is a long history of symbolic readings of the first few chapters of Genesis, some which have grown quite popular in Christianity, so much so that it is difficult to recognize that they are only popular symbolism. It is difficult for modern westerners to ignore our own culture and to imagine what people of the Ancient Near East would make of Genesis 1-11. We have, in the last century or so, learned much helpful about the culture in which Genesis appeared.

  18. Dave Luckett: It’s certainly a plausible reading of Genesis 3:22 that a single dose of tree of life fruit would suffice, but I still think it equally plausible that repeated doses would be taken, so that if the tree was available for ever, they would live for ever. In support of your reading, it does seem that the magic herb in the Gilgamesh epic would convey immortality be being eaten once. For the A&E story, it doesn’t make any difference how the tree worked, in either case they had to be kept away from it until they died.