Biblical morality/relevance? Noah

[Gone Apostate]

This is about one of the worst stories of them all, Noah and the flood.

I realize this may be an exhausted topic for some of the more active apologists, and disbelievers alike, but I hope some will find it worth a read, and a comment.

Since this is a discussion of the morality/relevance of this story we don’t need to get too much in to the logistic arguments for or against the possibility of the flood. Let’s just assume it could have happened. Noah, his family and the preserved samples of all species on the ark survive but EVERYTHING, everyone else, dies horrifically. Children, infants, kittens everything. The thought of any child panicked and gasping for air is monstrous, but all the children of existing humanity?

I have a really hard time with this one. There are other gems in the Bible, but the flood makes my top 5 for sure. I will be less antagonistic on most topics but on this one it’s difficult to strike even the pretense of objectivity. It might have to do with the fact that I personally took part in the teaching of this story to my children, and other children, toddlers on up.

This is one of the first stories children learn. This is the one that invariably is depicted in cheery cartoon scenes. We teach children that God’s morality is perfect while also teaching that he was directly responsible for the closest to complete genocide ever to occur. They are too young to question so they simply accept that it makes sense that some people deserve to die, if they are wicked enough.

What is the moral lesson here? Death is better than wickedness? Was God sparing those innocent children before they could be corrupted? I really would like someone’s perspective on this one. Is this defensible? If so, how?

Secondly, is there anything to take from this story that is relevant to us today? If so how do you apply the lessons of this story in your life?

I look forward to your comments, I really hope people are willing to participate in a discussion on this one, sooner or later.

Little Mormon trivia from an LDS apostate:
According to Mormon Doctrine Noah was also the angel Gabriel. Gabriel lived his earthly life as Noah.

Little belated Mormon trivia that should have gone with last post:
According to Mormon Doctrine the Garden of Eden was actually located in present day Missouri. The references to Ethiopia and the Euphrates River, is explained by these landmarks being located there prior to the super continent Pangaea being split up buy the great flood (so I guess it’s a little topical) and the renaming of geographic areas and landmarks after.

I guess this brings up a bonus question. For someone to believe in this Eden revelation by Joseph Smith, doesn’t the flood have to be a literal, historical account? If it was more metaphorical how then would the names be preserved? I can see how the creation story might be allegorical and therefore not present a challenge to a faithful LDS member that also accepts the science of evolution, but this little tidbit doesn’t seem to work the same way. This one seems to pretty much require a young earth theory. If I am wrong in this, I preemptively apologize and I look forward to being set straight.

Thank you for making it through all that. I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you.

[johnmarc]

First of all let me say that I LOVE western Washington. I lived on the Kitsap Peninsula for four years while attached to a Sub out of Bangor.

Western Washington is a great place to live---keep the secret.

Secondly, Wow.
…here you talk about three congregations within the same general area that allow for that liberal of an interpretation. I have always said that there are as many different faiths as there are faithful but I still was unprepared for that.

I left out the Episcopal church near my home. They sponsored the EFM (Education for Ministry) program which essentially trains church leaders to interpret the Bible in a non-literal way. Check it out on the web. This is where I received my training. Also, each church which hosts a Jesus Seminar (on the road) is a church with non-literal leanings.

– Ha!) If it’s myth, why is it so much better than other myths that you would associate yourself if not exclusively, primarily, with it as opposed to other traditions? Why identify with it at all? Why not just pursue truth and wisdom where ever it may be found? You say that all the stories speak to you in one way or another. I’m sure that can’t be exclusive to the Bible, What about Shakespeare or Twain, or Dickens, or the Quran or the teachings of Budda?

I identify with the Christian myths because I grew up with them. I know them by heart, I don’t remember a time when I was not aware of the major stories in the Bible. For me, they are superior myths. I do pursue truth wherever it can be found, but I always come back to the God stories and the Jesus stories of the Bible. Someone once told me that the most popular episodes from the old Ponderosa series (Little Joe, Hoss, and Pa) were episodes whose themes were adapted from Bible stories. Whether that is true or not, the stories remain abundantly popular and transformative today. Progressive Christianity is not competitive. Everyone moves forward with whatever myths draw themselves into wholeness.

I call myself Christian because I believe that the Resurrection story is true. (not literal, but true) I, with Christ, have died and been born again into a new life. Everything that I am today, is a result of this experience. I don’t give a rip about what Jesus did. I care deeply about what Jesus tells me to do.

I read A History of God by Karen Armstrong and in the final chapter she makes the case for the future of religion by saying that religions have value because they represent a path to ‘enlightenment’ that is rooted in an understanding of the human spirit that has developed over hundreds and thousands of years. Basically she was saying we there is benefit to the process of religious observance and faith separate from the foundational ‘truth’ of it. Is it something like this that motivates your religious observances?

Don’t get me started on Karen Armstrong. It is just not possible for a mere human being to have the length and breadth of knowledge that she has. I heard her speak at Pacific Lutheran University---I am still woozy. (Marcus Borg was there too---Pacific Lutheran University can handle some non-literal reading of the Bible as well)

Daniel Dennett and Linda Lascola collaborated on some research into this idea of agnostic religious leaders:
Story: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2309/qa-danie ... da-lascola
Paper:http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source ... WkECLGuSjg



Doesn’t it say something that once these men (mostly men I assume) in your group and here in this exploration by Dennett, learned that the Bible was so flawed they felt compelled to continue to teach it as if it were not? How many people hang their faith on the expertise of their pastor/priest when facing questions about the ‘truth’ of their doctrines? Isn’t it telling that they had to be “safely� in retirement to be able to be candid about their biblical scholarship? If it’s demonstrably flawed why can’t we teach, study, learn from it in that way? So as to more easily separate the wheat from the chaff as it were. Wouldn’t everyone be better off if they weren’t trying to round the square with stories like Noah? Shouldn’t the pastors be able to get up and say the Bible is as you and I agree it is:

As long as the Bible is literal, Noah will be a round peg in a square hole, just as you suggest.


I looked at your website for a little bit. The members of my Seattle group are not former ministers who have lost their faith. They are individuals who have renewed their faith. They continue to call themselves Christian and are working towards a way to share a non-literal reading of the text. As ministers (and breadwinners) they had to choke down literal interpretations of stories like Noah for the sake of congregational conformity. Yes, they were hypocrites and they freely admit it. Far from leaving Christianity, now they are looking forward to building a new and less defensive Christianity.

Do you think the Bible to be sacred? Or at least more sacred then other books? If so, why?

Yes, to me the Bible is sacred. It is unevenly written. It is confusing, petty, tribal, and even immoral in spots. It was written by human beings who believed that they were in concert with God. Some were clearly not. But some, I believe, were. I will make my stand against the atheists on this forum on the Book of Job. This is the book that I threw across the room---my kids ratted on me---my wife insisted that I go to church--- which created the situation that I am in presently. It is now the book that I will go to the wall claiming that it was divinely inspired.

I think what you said about reading between the lines is absolutely perfect. I think it’s a stretch because I think that you making the story into something other than what is written and you have to ignore some pretty key issues to do it.

I don’t ignore anything. I take it warts and all. The bottom line is that no babies died in a world wide God-created flood and no one can prove that they did.

1.The character of God in the story is something I have ask for interpretations on twice. However you consider this story, mythological or literal it has to be considered as a lesson about God as much as it is a lesson for us. Especially if you are going to tie it into something like a commentary about “falling short of the perfect being God want s me to be.� This story established God fictional or otherwise, as about as wicked a being as I can imagine. Why is this a God who’s morality we should consider perfect.

The God of the Bible doesn’t exist. There is no man-god up in the heavens reaching down to save mankind in the way that you or I might reach into a glass and save a drowning fly (thank you Marcus Borg) One might question the morality of the author of Genesis, but not God. These are Aesop’s fables for heaven’s sake---are you going to find fault with the farmer’s wife or incorporate the lesson into your daily life?

2.There is no indication (at least in the KJV) that the family of Noah found any special favor in God, in fact it seems pretty clear that it was Noah exclusively that was favored. (thee not they) the theme seems to be that they got spared as a favor to Noah and for the same reason the beasts did, repopulation. So your stand that the number of perfect people was equal to the number of people on the ark is something you are projecting into the story.

Yes, correct. I am making the myth useful to me.

I really like your interpretation; I want to be clear about that. It’s unique, in my experience and the message of community in our flawed humanity is by far the most positive take away from it that I have ever heard. I would never suggest that I get to determine what you should take away from this story but I think that we can say you are reading a lot into those spaces between the lines. If I were sharing the tale of Little Red Riding Hood as a lesson on oral hygiene, I could defend it (what big teeth you have), but it’s not the intended or primary moral of the story. What is the primary moral could be interpreted differently, sure (don’t talk to strangers, be wary and careful, be skeptical when things don’t seem right, or make friends with an attentive woodsman) but it would be “a stretch� to say the story was about brushing your teeth.

Wolves can’t talk. Your storyteller is stupid. Everyone knows that wolves can’t talk. The story has to be false. Why would anyone believe such a tale? Only gullible people can be taken in by this. Granny didn’t deserve that. Your storyteller is immoral as well. Reasonable people will disregard the story as a bogus, immoral, manipulative, sham.


Yes, to say that this is a story about brushing your teeth is an unreasonable stretch. As I learned the Noah story in my Pentecostal Sunday School, it was about one man of God in a sea of sinners. Yes, eight (or six, or whatever) was probably too many. Maybe I will have to go with the Jewish midrash---none. The point remains, none of us are ever going to be perfect---get over it. None of us are going to do what Noah did. Following God’s directions is just too hard. And you are right. Drowning seems too cruel a crime for ‘just being human’ but I fundamentally, positively don’t believe that anyone drowned in the Flood Story. They wallowed in a sea of self absorption perhaps---separated from God by their own self interest. That’s most of us, I guess. I also don’t believe that a farmer cut open a goose which laid golden eggs either.


As a child, I would hold my breath under water for as long as I could stand it, just to get the sense of what drowning was like. I knew that I had never been singled out for anything special in my life and the chance of getting into the boat was impossibly remote. In fact, I could just about make out who in my church would make it. There was truly never anyone who hated the Bible and God more than I. Imagine my shock when the whole #&^#*@ thing turned out to be fairy tales!

I think that the great message of support and human solidarity you get from the story of Noah is easier and less encumbered where it is actually written - inside you. Trying to make it fit in a story of a vengeful and murderous God only bogs it down with, and lends credence to, the less inspiring parts by association.

No one knows the warts of the Bible better than me. I set off on a six year search to find them. And find them, I did. I don’t deny a single one. But then there was Job---one of the biggest warts of all. God callously kills his family in a petty bet with Satan to test his faithfulness. I read the story the first time and threw the Bible against a wall. I read it a second time and will now stand arm in arm with Job against anything that the atheists can throw against us.

Do we not know enough about the good parts of the Bible that we can extract them for what they are and let them stand on their own? Can we not, should we not, put the Bible on the self with other ancient philosophies and myths, and consider it as we do them - wisdom muddled with ancient understandings and traditions?

It is not time to put the Bible on the shelf. It is time instead to take the ancient philosophies and myths off the shelf and read them again with new eyes. The condensed wisdom of three thousand years cannot be reproduced in modern times. There are many in Progressive Christianity who might choose to set the Bible aside (Feminists, Gays etc) but I have not found anyone who has claimed to have found a suitable substitute. We may need to rewrite our myths, but thus far, no one has emerged with the capability to do that.

[Gone Apostate]

I believe the bible contains most truths and wisdom that we can find. Just because the bible is that way does not limit me from seeking truth, wisdom, and knowledge elsewhere. For example, im here on this forum right now. It also means that the Quran, Dickens, anything can have truth and wisdom in it.

I never meant to insinuate that I didn't think that someone who revered the Bible wouldn't enjoy or appreciate the great works of literature and/or philosophy I hope it didn't sound like I did.

What I meant to suggest was that there would be better places to find inspiration, good moral lessons, observations on human condition than the Bible. "The most truths and wisdom we can find?" I say this with all due respect from a former LDS to an active one, I think there are much better places to seek wisdom, and 'truth' than the Bible. This started with a discussion of the applicability and morality of the story of Noah. There were two positive, but very personalized takes on that story. I think people should seek wisdom and inspiration wherever they can find it, I also think that there is little if any wisdom in the story of Noah, and no morality that I can see. I think it is a credit to johnmarc and Jrosemary that they pull something positive out of it, but I think that’s where the vast majority of the credit should stay. The story of Noah is about an angry and vengeful God who saw humanity as unfit to live (including the children). It is about fear and obedience. That we have managed to make it mean more than that over the years and to reconcile it with a more evolved social awareness which is great but I think that it requires some rationalization that hinders the process. I would submit we can do much better than the Bible to learn these lessons. I would even submit that the Bible isn’t teaching half what people give it credit for.

I would really like to hear one primary question addressed which for me sums up my whole point. Did the God described in this story act as an example of morality in any way?

Thank you. I appreciate your comments and hope to have continued discussion with you.

[Kuan]

I believe the bible contains most truths and wisdom that we can find. Just because the bible is that way does not limit me from seeking truth, wisdom, and knowledge elsewhere. For example, im here on this forum right now. It also means that the Quran, Dickens, anything can have truth and wisdom in it.

I never meant to insinuate that I didn't think that someone who revered the Bible wouldn't enjoy or appreciate the great works of literature and/or philosophy I hope it didn't sound like I did.

What I meant to suggest was that there would be better places to find inspiration, good moral lessons, observations on human condition than the Bible. "The most truths and wisdom we can find?" I say this with all due respect from a former LDS to an active one, I think there are much better places to seek wisdom, and 'truth' than the Bible. This started with a discussion of the applicability and morality of the story of Noah. There were two positive, but very personalized takes on that story. I think people should seek wisdom and inspiration wherever they can find it, I also think that there is little if any wisdom in the story of Noah, and no morality that I can see. I think it is a credit to johnmarc and Jrosemary that they pull something positive out of it, but I think that’s where the vast majority of the credit should stay. The story of Noah is about an angry and vengeful God who saw humanity as unfit to live (including the children). It is about fear and obedience. That we have managed to make it mean more than that over the years and to reconcile it with a more evolved social awareness which is great but I think that it requires some rationalization that hinders the process. I would submit we can do much better than the Bible to learn these lessons. I would even submit that the Bible isn’t teaching half what people give it credit for.

There is no way to measure what someone gets from different sources. Each person has their own unique concepts and views. Some see terrible things in the bible, and others see great things. We cant judge the bible really, unless we judge it for ourselves.

I would really like to hear one primary question addressed which for me sums up my whole point. Did the God described in this story act as an example of morality in any way?

As with most of the bible, you dont read it literally. What you can get from it depends upon the person. I can tell you what I got from the story; probably positive. While you can say what you get; negative? positive?

Thank you. I appreciate your comments and hope to have continued discussion with you.

Hey, I cant wait to see you around too, good luck!

[johnmarc]

The story of Noah is about an angry and vengeful God who saw humanity as unfit to live (including the children). It is about fear and obedience. That we have managed to make it mean more than that over the years and to reconcile it with a more evolved social awareness which is great but I think that it requires some rationalization that hinders the process. I would submit we can do much better than the Bible to learn these lessons. I would even submit that the Bible isn’t teaching half what people give it credit for.

The story of Little Miss Riding Hood is about an angry and vengeful wolf who saw humanity as unfit to live (including little children) It is about fear and trembling. That we have managed to make it mean more than that over the years and to reconcile it with a more evolved social awareness which is great, but I think that it requires some rationalization that hinders the process. I would submit we can to much better than Little Red Riding Hood to learn these lessons. I would even submit that Little Miss Riding Hood isn't teaching half what people give it credit for.

What is the moral of Little Miss Riding Hood anyway---careful awareness of one's surroundings? Careful observation? The wolf loses---Little Miss Riding Hood wins.

What is the moral of the Flood anyway---subservience to a greater power? A recognition that humanity is less than God? God loses. He sends an apology rainbow and humanity screams back just as wicked as before.

The writer paints an omnipotent God as furious with his creation, deals an over-reactionary punishment, (for which He apologizes) and is mistaken about the effects of that punishment. How anyone can see this as any more than ancient mythology is beyond me.

Joseph Campbell once said that cultures should not be allowed to literalize their mythologies. I agree. Look at the mess that it has made of all of this.

[Friar512]

Apostate,
I think the story of the flood is an amazing story of what God can do. He can literally destroy almost all of mankind and work that for the greater good. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose � (Romans 8:28, NIV84).
The act may look evil or overkill to us, but to God, who can see how everything will work out over eternity, the event may be an extreme act of compassion. I think the application of the story for today is that God will work everything to His good. Who knows the evil that may have been avoided when God kind of started over with humanity? Mankind is evil enough already even with this intervention. It just depends on how you look at it.
P.S
Rest assured; He won’t flood it again

[johnmarc]

Rest assured; He won’t flood it again

Thanks for the reassurance.

But since the laws of science have never been conclusively shown to be set aside in favor of miracles---regardless of how small, it seems intuitively clear that a big one like this will never happen (again). My confidence does not come from God, who has shown Himself to be mighty fickle about things like this, but from scientific laws that have no 'fickle' in them whatsoever.

[Yahu]

This is about one of the worst stories of them all, Noah and the flood.

Since this is a discussion of the morality/relevance of this story we don’t need to get too much in to the logistic arguments for or against the possibility of the flood. Let’s just assume it could have happened. Noah, his family and the preserved samples of all species on the ark survive but EVERYTHING, everyone else, dies horrifically. Children, infants, kittens everything. The thought of any child panicked and gasping for air is monstrous, but all the children of existing humanity?

I have a really hard time with this one. There are other gems in the Bible, but the flood makes my top 5 for sure. I will be less antagonistic on most topics but on this one it’s difficult to strike even the pretense of objectivity. It might have to do with the fact that I personally took part in the teaching of this story to my children, and other children, toddlers on up.

This is one of the first stories children learn. This is the one that invariably is depicted in cheery cartoon scenes. We teach children that God’s morality is perfect while also teaching that he was directly responsible for the closest to complete genocide ever to occur. They are too young to question so they simply accept that it makes sense that some people deserve to die, if they are wicked enough.

What is the moral lesson here? Death is better than wickedness? Was God sparing those innocent children before they could be corrupted? I really would like someone’s perspective on this one. Is this defensible? If so, how?

Secondly, is there anything to take from this story that is relevant to us today? If so how do you apply the lessons of this story in your life?

I don't have any problem taking the flood story literally. It helps if you read some of the non-canonical books that cover events before the flood. The book of Enoch covers alot of the reasoning for the flood and the evil that was being wiped out.

Basically if God hadn't wiped out the earth, there would have been a total contamination of the bloodlines due to the Watchers having crossed with the daughters of men which would have prevented the coming of the messiah. Noah and his household were 'pure in their generations', ie of uncorrupted blood line.

Now it is just as relevant to us today as then. The righteous few will be saved and all the wicked and their offspring will be destroyed.

[Filthy Tugboat]

I don't have any problem taking the flood story literally. It helps if you read some of the non-canonical books that cover events before the flood. The book of Enoch covers alot of the reasoning for the flood and the evil that was being wiped out.

The main problem most people have with taking the flood story literally is the actual flood being impossible to live through, the Earth being decimated and uninhabitable after the flood and the unnecessary and gratuitous destruction the flood caused. Basically the result could have been achieved through different, more effective means, so even granting the magic that God apparently has, the flood is just way over the top.

Basically if God hadn't wiped out the earth, there would have been a total contamination of the bloodlines due to the Watchers having crossed with the daughters of men which would have prevented the coming of the messiah.

Why would the coming of the messiah have been prevented? Why was the messiah necessary? What are the watchers? How is their bloodline crossing with the daughters of men a corruption?

Noah and his household were 'pure in their generations', ie of uncorrupted blood line.

What bloodline was uncorrupted? Why was that bloodline corruptible? What does it mean to corrupt a bloodline?

Now it is just as relevant to us today as then. The righteous few will be saved and all the wicked and their offspring will be destroyed.

Why the offspring of the wicked and not just the wicked? This seems like more gratuitous and unnecessary violence.

[ttruscott]

...What is the moral lesson here? Death is better than wickedness? Was God sparing those innocent children before they could be corrupted? I really would like someone’s perspective on this one. Is this defensible? If so, how? ...

Sometimes I understand and sometimes I don't. Yes, the flood could be a real story and I don't know how it was pulled off. If an allegory, I don't care...the lessons are here somewhere.

I don't understand Filthy Tigboast's string theory universes nor the debating rules over across the tracks.

But I am the guy who believes we all started our existance in the spirit world (Sheol for those who know where that is) and that is where we became sinners.

And no, I have no outside proof for that and you know, I don't really care...

Effects of Our True Free Will Choice:
So there are two kinds of self created by true free will choice sinners in this scenario: pure rebels with a deep and abiding hatred of GOD so pure they will never seek redemption and don't care that the nature of a true free will choice makes changing their mind impossible anyway. These are the eternal enemies of GOD.

And then there is the fallen church. Their first choice was to accept GOD's invitation to join HIS church in loving holy communion and were thereby elected to heaven and given the gospel promise that GOD would do anything at all possible to save them from their sins if they should ever fall.

And fall they did when GOD asked them to "come out from among" HIS eternal enemies so they could face HIS wrath and some of them rebelled, saying that damantion was too rough, that if they were loved enough HIS eternal enemies might change their mind etc etc thus becoming sinners and facing GOD's judgmental wrath themselves.

A forgotten movement amongst Christians that claimed all babies under a certain age to be innocent and not under GOD's wrath has grown into modern counterpart in some circles, led by the various Adventist type theologies.

And thus to the lessons of the Flood:
1. GOD's eternal enemies are born on earth into new bodies (only their bodies are young) and still face HIS wrath for which death by war, natural disaster or GOD's wrath is an allegory in the flesh pointing to their ultimate end, being slammed into the lake of fire in hell.

2. The world will end but GOD's church will be saved and HIS eternal enemies destroyed from our perception.

3. Babies are not pure nor innocent but slaves to sin. Some can be redeemed but some cannot. The age of a person is no criteria of character. This is proven by their death (the wages of sin) and the fact they were dead because of GOD's judgement...

[Aside: this teaching is a litte better resolved in Genesis 18:

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
God was asked about sparing a city if HE found innocent people within it. God responded by saying that he would not destroy a city that had innocent people within it.

Presumably those two places had many babies inside. Why didn't God spare those cities since there were innocent babies in the cities?

Genesis 18:32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?� He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.� No one was spared.]

4. Remember Noah's sons? they were foolish lot, no? Full of sin? This proves they were not on the boat because they were perfect, just chosen.

This attests that the elect / chosen church on earth, though redeemed, has a lot of time to put in making mistakes and suffering accordingly until they give up on their idolatrous addictions.

So, though I like, "Death is better than wickedness?" I'd also suggest, "With wickedness, death is inevitable."

God bless...

[Yahu]

I don't have any problem taking the flood story literally. It helps if you read some of the non-canonical books that cover events before the flood. The book of Enoch covers alot of the reasoning for the flood and the evil that was being wiped out.

The main problem most people have with taking the flood story literally is the actual flood being impossible to live through, the Earth being decimated and uninhabitable after the flood and the unnecessary and gratuitous destruction the flood caused. Basically the result could have been achieved through different, more effective means, so even granting the magic that God apparently has, the flood is just way over the top.

Basically if God hadn't wiped out the earth, there would have been a total contamination of the bloodlines due to the Watchers having crossed with the daughters of men which would have prevented the coming of the messiah.

Why would the coming of the messiah have been prevented? Why was the messiah necessary? What are the watchers? How is their bloodline crossing with the daughters of men a corruption?

Noah and his household were 'pure in their generations', ie of uncorrupted blood line.

What bloodline was uncorrupted? Why was that bloodline corruptible? What does it mean to corrupt a bloodline?

Now it is just as relevant to us today as then. The righteous few will be saved and all the wicked and their offspring will be destroyed.

Why the offspring of the wicked and not just the wicked? This seems like more gratuitous and unnecessary violence.

1) The flood didn't decimate, it destroyed. To decimate is to destroy 1/10th.
2) The Watchers (gregori) are referenced several times in scripture but the full story is from the Book of Enoch. Jude directly quoted from the book of Enoch right after he talked about the angels that left their estate in heaven and were imprisoned for it. The Watchers were the 'ben Elohyim','sons of God' that impregnated daughters of men and caused great problems on the earth (Gen 6). II Pet 2:4 is also a reference to this story out of Enoch. The Greeks called these demi-gods, the offspring of the Watchers, the Titans and they caused tremendous problems on the earth.
3) The messiah has to be of pure human descent but the gene pool had been polluted by angelic beings crossing with mankind. If the Messiah had been from that polluted bloodline, it would have justified the actions of the Watchers as being necessary to bring about the messiah. All that carried that polluted bloodline had to be destroyed.
4) An example of a post flood corrupted bloodline is the Canaanite bloodline. It is the reason that there were giants in that bloodline and why Yah ordered the total destruction of them, men, women, children and even their animals. This was due to Nephilim corruption after the flood by the four angels that are bound at the Euphrates. These four angels is where the legends of the Greek gods came from and the source of the ancient paganism that spread from Babel.
5) The tares (seed sowed by Satan into the earth) will be destroyed in the next global destruction by fire. This event is covered in the book of Revelation. The destruction of the wicked isn't needless. It is require to bring about the next age of peace.