I have for a long time been intrigued by the huge, profound support of American Fundamentalist Christians for the Jews, Israel and Zionism in general.

Considering how Fundamentalist Christians usually treat people who reject Jesus as Christ - why are they so powerfully behind the Zionist cause? Can anyone enlighten me?

Well, considering the terms, words and sentence contruct it appears you're just after a fight.

But it has to do with the Jews being the 'chosen people'...biblicly speaking. It's not just the fundi Christians who support the Jews and Israel. Most Christians do. Not sure about the Catholics though...but them being Christian is a debate on its own.

I've always thought that Christian support for Zionism was because they'd rather Jews went and lived in their own country, instead of where they do now.

Actually I thought it was more to do with helping fulfil the prophecy of Revelations - in that the Jews must be living in Israel for Revelations to work. I'm not hugely read up on this, so no doubt am off the mark slightly. But if this is the case I think its very concerning that fundi christians are so actively supportive of anything the Jews do to retain their occupation of Israel. Are they TRYING to bring about the second coming of Jesus and the end of the world? Why try to hurry this - if its going to happen, then it will in its own good time. We dont need a group of fanatics actively trying to fulfil biblical prophecies.

Country Gal,

"Actually I thought it was more to do with helping fulfil the prophecy of Revelations - in that the Jews must be living in Israel for Revelations to work."

I'm sure I've heard something like that. I note that the Christian religion started as a Jewish sect in the Middle East that quickly expanded to people who were not Jewish. Thus it theoretically considers itself to be in accordance with the pre-existing Jewish faith and the correct way to worship the God of the pre-existing Jewish faith (ie. Yahweh). Also, according to the Christian faith Christ is God. The modern Jewish faith by contrast also considers itself to be a continuation of that pre-existing faith but they don't consider Christ to be legit. In other words, obviously, people calling themselves Jewish today such as the ones grouped in Israel follow a different religion to the version of the Jewish faith that Christians consider the correct one.

This points to another reason bunching together a group of Jews to fulfil Christian scripture is foolish. In the Christian religion, for a Jew to be on track (ie. following a continuation of the pre-existing Jewish faith) for the purpose of such prophecy would logically be someone of Jewish descent who follows Christ. Someone of Jewish descent who meets the bill these days would call themselves Christian not Jewish. They might even call themselves a Christian Jew but they definitely aren't the people gathered together. Those people don't subscribe to the Christ the saviour thing. They are people of Jewish descent who reject the Christian religion. Thus apart from the issues you raise it seems pretty foolish to bunch them together in the hope of fulfilling prophecy. Lets hope the real motive is more altruistic and less foolish.

Jews have a long history of persecution including extremely serious stuff in recent history. An alternative explanation may be just stopping them from being persecuted in other countries.

Rob,

So how do you say fundies treat people who reject Christ? Any examples?

So why then ignore the Romanies, who suffer much the same fate.

My understanding of the ideaology is that at the coming of armegedon that the scriptures require 144 Jews (12 from each of the 12 tribes) to convert to christianity or something of the kind. And that they are required to be in Israel. I had a bit of a read up on it a few years ago, but I dont put much faith in the bible anyway, as its been written and rewritten over the centuries by people keen to put their own spin on things, so its a creation of humanity rather than God. Better to develop your own faith if that's what you want.

Where's Boazy? Thought he'd have bitten by now?

CG: "Actually I thought it was more to do with helping fulfil the prophecy of Revelations - in that the Jews must be living in Israel for Revelations to work."

Quite so, CG. I forgot about that aspect of the Apocalypse :O

"Where's Boazy? Thought he'd have bitten by now?"

I was just thinking that's why he's been rabbiting on a bit lately about Jews and Palestinians and such. Clearly, fundies want to bring on Armageddon - which is what I reckon's really at the bottom of all the fear-mongering and rabble-rousing crap.

Rob513264, could you please give some concrete examples of or clarify what you mean by "the profound support of American Fundamentalist Christians for Jews" and the more sinister "how Fundamentalist Christians usually treat people who reject Jesus Christ". Also, are you identifying all Christians with this group? As the discussion has quickly moved past a minority political group to "Christians" as a whole.
Country Gal: there are so many resources available which give clarity on Revelations. A good starting point might be:
www.crivoice.org/millenium.html
Even if you feign disinterest, you have obviously thought about this so an informed opinion is better to post than a vague notion.
The self-deprecating Jewish response to CJ Morgan, might be "God, can't you choose someone else next time". But seriously, the diaspora outnumber those living in Israel....
Jews and Christians share common roots, a historical relationship, and God the Creator. As a Christian, it is our great hope that "(And) if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (Romans 11:23) Not an insurmountable task either, for "...how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!". (Romans 11:24)
Which I understand is mumbo jumbo for many, however it simply means that Christians love the Jewish people and need to hold out the message of salvation through Jesus Christ to them, along with the rest of humankind. So it is not "fundamentalist" at all, neither is it "Christian" to support Jews simply because they share a political agenda or a common enemy.

I can understand lots of reasons for support of Israel
that is not the problem
what I cannot understand is how the fundamentalists
deal with the specific issue of supporting a group
which denies that Jesus was Christ.

I am not trying to start a fight as was suggested
I find this a genuine conundrum
I suspect most 'supportive' Christians
probably dont even think about it.

Any examples of how fundies treat denialists:
Look at how Boazy treats Muslims.

In any event non-believers
will be cast into 'hellfire and brimstone'.

Since God himself
is apparently going to torture non-believers
for all eternity
it seems a bit odd to be helping them establish
a Jesus-denying community on Earth doesnt it?

If it is to facilitate Amageddon
- well the mind just boggles.

"what I cannot understand is how the fundamentalists
deal with the specific issue of supporting a group
which denies that Jesus was Christ."

Because they were chosen by God.

You need to quantify your statements Rob.

"Since God himself
is apparently going to torture non-believers
for all eternity..."

How?

For a view of how some of the fundies think, try http://www.raptureready.com/ . And google rapture or tribulatons or revelations - some very interesting results.

*CHOMP* there you are CG :) I bit.

ROB.... we (Christians) support Israel for many reasons.

Lets be clear though on one thing. We support Israel in:
a)It's right to exist.
b)It's right to defend it's existence justly.

Justly, in the sense that they should not act in a cruel manner simply for the sake of it. But war is unquestionably brutal, and we cannot avoid that.

FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY.. If you asked 'modern cosmopolitan Israelis' they would not have a clue. If you ask a Settler they will refer more than likely to Ezekiel 37.. and the Covenant with Abraham, I strongly recommend you read the following verrrrrry carefully.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=37&version=31

ABRAHAMIC COVENANT.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=11&version=31

To gain an understanding of this, it is very neccessary to read Genesis 11 to the end. Sorry but its compulsory :)

Gen 11 is fascinating. Post flood genealogical connection from Noah to Abraham.... (focus on that line of descent) then, focus on the Abrahamic line. V.27 is amazing..it shows how an individual "Haran" becomes a 'PLACE' (as they had families and grew, places were named after them)

CHRISTIANS will have various eschatological reasons/understandings about where Israel fits in, but many will agree that God alone is sovereign over that. But evangelicals will be pretty much unanimous on the importance of the return to the real land of Israel.

So... let me be clear.

>>Gen 11 is fascinating. Post flood genealogical connection from Noah to Abraham.... (focus on that line of descent) then, focus on the Abrahamic line. V.27 is amazing..it shows how an individual "Haran" becomes a 'PLACE' (as they had families and grew, places were named after them)<<

As I understand the above, you consider the story of the flood, Noah, the ark etc., to be literally true?

Are you sure about this?

Hi Rob, Thanks for that. I see that you genuinely have an agenda of having someone predicate an "unholy" alliance between Jew/Christian, one that exists in order to fast forward to the apocalypse.

The link I gave was :

http://wwww.crivoice.org/millenium.html

This is a very lengthy discourse, which, though I'm not a Wesleyan, captures well the various viewpoints, including interpretations of the "Rapture". In particular, it discredits anyone looking for end signs.

Quite simply "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heavan, nor the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36

Therefore, it is pointless engaging with our Old Testament compadres with the view to jumping ahead in history.

The website that CG directs us to, is full of signs, warnings, and predictions that are ultimately misleading. Though CG may be correct in writing it off, these views do not necessarily represent the Fundamentalist of which Rob speaks - ie. the political creature that has a distinctive Christian morality and seeks to influence the American political process.

The Christian response can only be to spread the message of the Gospel. The anticipated New Jerusalem is not a place on earth. I think by mentioning a "common enemy" in my earlier post, that Rob interpreted that as Islam. However, the common enemy is hate, prejudice, war...the arsenal of satan. An arsenal that historically has been taken up by Muslim and Christian alike.

Pericles...yes, I do. Literal, real flood, real people.

KatieO does have a good point... but also misses another one.
Yes.. our focus should be on proclaiming the Gospel, and seeing the kingdom grow! Amen x 7 to that. Anything which distracts us from this primary purpose is not helpful.

Regarding the return of Christ... indeed no one knows.. nor should we.
There is nothing but anguish to be gained by over speculating about 'this sign means such and such' or.."this IS the fulfillment of Revelation such and such.. aah....this is one of the cups of wrath etc"

Not knowing 'when' is one thing, but recognizing trends which MAY suggest a closeness is not errant in my view. Closeness might be a year or a 1000 yrs..thats not the point.

Here are the 3 major interpretations of Rev in diagram form.
http://home.att.net/~thestoneofhelp/three-interpretations.htm
PreMillenial
Amillenial
PostMillenial.

Mine is 'PAN' Millenial.. it will all pan out ok in the end.

Personally, I do see connections now with fulfilments of OT prophecies which I view as having a dual fulfillment in some cases.
Mainly concerning Israels return to the land.
Even if Christians sat around doing absolutely nothing to help Jews return to Israel, if it is going to happen in Gods providential scheme of things....it will happen. So I don't see any need to characterize any such assistance as 'un'holy.

If one takes a 'human rights' view of the world, sure.. there is fault on every side. But then, human rights were 'invented' after most of the squabbles for territory were settled in the West, but NOT in other places. So HR is irrelevant to most non western conflicts.

Just one more point.. in view of Katies post. (for which I'm appreciative)

Her emphasis on the Gospel and not on 'looking forward in history' ... ok.. in regard to the 'when' of the Lords coming I agree.
We have ample examples of people who have predicted fearlessly "The second coming will be on such and such a date" Millerites being one mob, Jehovah's witnesses being another. In the end... all look stupid.

At the same time, being watchful, and expectant, and considering if there are fulfillments of prophecy such as in Revelation, is certainly not an invalid exercise. It depends a bit on how one views the Revelation prophecies, but given that a person may hold (as I do) that they have a 'future from the time of being revealed' application.. which is not a long shot at all with revelation speaking about a New Jerusalem, New Heavens and New Earth etc....the Millenial reign and the winding up of history, then to be on the lookout for an 'AntiChrist' and all that goes along with it/him, again, is quite valid.

Going further than being watchful, to the point of saying "The End is Nigh" (thanx CJ) and it is Nigh 'within x yrs, or on such and such a date,' is clearly unbiblical to me.

If we lose the centrality of the Salvation of man in Christ, and the redeeming grace of the Gospel, the newness of life and transformed will of being in Him,.... then we have lost the plot.

Hey Kaite, there is a whole section on rapture ready that discusses the role of politics and recommends that christians vote republican. A lot of the arguments on the site fit very well with BD's arguments (eg be watchful but dont try to predict when). BD, you have a problem with Muslims trying to spread islam, but you think its ok for you to try to spread the gospel and increase the kingdom. That's the very height of hypocrisy! As for christians actively helping the jewish people oust the palestinians so that god's word would be fulfilled, I consider that to be very unholy. If the jews were meant to return to israel, then by all means let them, but dont condone wholesale slaughter to make this happen. Anyone that supports that is no different to the various aggressor countries around the world that we have problems with. And to say that its ok because god condones it, WELL! Then everything in the Koran must be ok too because it is condoned by the same god.

Boazy: "If we lose the centrality of the Salvation of man in Christ, and the redeeming grace of the Gospel, the newness of life and transformed will of being in Him,.... then we have lost the plot."

It's apparent that some Christians "have lost the plot", particularly those with millennial leanings like our Boazy apparently has.

CG - I agree completely with your last post.

Boaz, I think you are teasing me - you cannot possibly be serious.

In fact, if it weren't for the fact that you are discussing important modern-day issues, I wouldn't even bother to rise to the bait, but surely, you cannot possibly imagine that there actually was a real Ark etc.?

Just to play along for a moment, could you place this event in a timeframe that I can relate to?

Only one more question. If you believe this story, then you presumably are also have to be a fully paid-up Creationist?

Wow.

The only thing that takes more faith than believing in the Genesis account is the ridiculously flawed theory of evolution. To believe that takes a lot of blind faith.

Well Pericles, there is some evidence to suggest a big flood. There are large areas of mesopotamia that have below the current sand layer, a very thick layer of silt. Below that is rich fertile soil. This gives the suggestion that there was massive inundation. As for it being a world flood, well that might be a little far-fetched, but remember that these are the writings of people without the knowledge about the world that we have - to them the middle east would have been the whole world. Also remember that these have been written and rewritten, translated and retranslated over the years, and there is much to suggest that what is now in the bible has been exaggerated over time to appear more holy and supernatural. You need to look at what the bible says in light of both this and commonsense. So, was there a flood? Yes, probably there was, but not to the extent recorded in the bible as it now stands.

Country Gal, I'm perfectly willing to accept a flood. There are many ancient stories and myths and legends that speak not only about a flood, but also about the fact that it was a result of the wrath of the gods.

http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood2-t.html

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/561290

I asked Boaz, does he believe the literal truth of the Noah's Ark story? He said, yes he does.

If one is motivated not by the realities of living together in peace and harmony in a fairly turbulent part of the world, but by the fulfilment of some ancient prophecy, it is reasonable to ask for some insight into the basis of that ancient prophecy.

And as far as I can tell - Boaz hasn't responded yet to my question on Creationism - the only basis for settling the Israel/Palestine issues, for Boaz, is to rely upon evidence that in turn relies upon the world being only 6,000 years old.

So my question was less about Creationism itself, but more about the quality of logic and reasoning ability that is brought to the table in discussions that affect the lives and futures of real people, living in real difficulties, in the twentyfirst century.

runner's view is well known:

>>The only thing that takes more faith than believing in the Genesis account is the ridiculously flawed theory of evolution. To believe that takes a lot of blind faith.<<

Which is another crock. It is in fact not necessary to "believe" in evolution as far as it has presently been explained, because we evolutionists are absolutely certain to know more about it in a hundred years, just as we know more today than we did a hundred years ago.

Which is more than can be said for a Creationist.

It must be like living in a vacuum. To ignore every new discovery about the mystery of our life on this tiny planet, simply because it doesn't include Ham, Shem and Japeth.

Which reminds me. If Noah was 600 years old when he built the Ark - how old were his sons? And their wives?

Boaz - any thoughts?

Sorry Pericles, misunderstanding. I guess there very probably was an Ark, and a Noah etc, but just not to the extent of literal interpretation of the bible. There is a very interesting book that tackles some of these aspects its called Solomon's Shadow (Laurence Gardner) and is actually about the history of the Freemasons and the myths that they rely on. But it tackles issues relating to creationism and evolution with a very interesting take on it. In that Adam and Eve were indeed the first of the JEWISH race and were created, but using a form of genetic engineering (actually fiddling with embryos). Seems a little way out there, but the rest of the book seems pretty conservative. Its got some good references to ancient materials, and so isnt purely speculative. The names that the ancients used fit remarkably well to what we know now. Eg the first man to be granted the priesthood was Adama (or Adapa) = Adam. He was a mighty-man (or hu-mannan). Its worth a read, and manages to fit creationism and its timeline into the bigger picture.

CG first....

You said: "but dont condone wholesale slaughter to make this happen"

I think you need to re-read my post mate... 'slaughter' ? err.. did you note the 2nd point I made "It's right to defend itself justly" where do you get slaughter out of that ? *pinch* :)

Pericles. I am a creationist but not a paid up one. I don't think it would be fruitful to enter into all the specifics of Noah, Creation and the ages etc of who'sywhatsit and company. All we would be doing is re-hashing many arguments from both sides. You are most welcome to use google to your hearts content and see those sides for the argument. Do I believe in a literal ark ? Yep..I sure do. Again... there is evidence which may or may not point to it, you make the call.

I find it rather amusing that when one simply mentions words here.. our resident self styled scholars jump in leaps and bounds unparalleled by a top olympic athlete to the very core of the most weird beliefs and claims and then attach them to my own words like a limpit mine.

I mention a general idea and suddenly you blokes leap to the most extreme and fanciful extentions of that. C'mon.. you can do better.

Once you blokes start mining in the rich theological ore deposits of the Old Testament..even the boring genealogies.... you will maybe see some light one day :)

BD, I didnt for a moment attribute a "wholesale slaughter" comment to you. But you have to admit that the Israelis are pretty quite to bomb whole towns into sumbission, women and children included. As far as I'm concerned that's wholesale slaughter (and yes I'm aware of our activities in Iraq, and not impressed with those either).

Interesting new angle, Boaz.

>>I am a creationist but not a paid up one<<

It occurs to me to wonder what a "creationist but not a paid up one" actually believes in.

Or is it perhaps a flag of temporary convenience, a stance adopted for no other reason than to support an otherwise barren argument?

You have to admit being a "creationist but not a paid up one" does sound a little like being half pregnant, n'est-ce pas?

But do I also spy an attempt to shift the ground?

>>Do I believe in a literal ark ? Yep..I sure do.<<

Remember, Boaz, my question specifically asked whether you consider "the story of the flood, Noah, the ark etc., to be literally true?".

So we have an Ark. Do we also have a 600 year old Noah, and the whole of humankind being the fruit of his loins?

Boaz, don't be shy, tell us - is this part of the creation that you are "paid up" on?

And once again, the only reason it is of any importance at all is because you are using it to justify a position on modern-day issues in Palestine and Israel. And because of this, and only because of this, I think it is totally fair and reasonable to ask you to justify your stance.

Let us recap. Boaz, you said:

"FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY.. If you asked 'modern cosmopolitan Israelis' they would not have a clue. If you ask a Settler they will refer more than likely to Ezekiel 37.. and the Covenant with Abraham... To gain an understanding of this, it is very neccessary to read Genesis 11 to the end.... Gen 11 is fascinating. Post flood genealogical connection from Noah to Abraham.... (focus on that line of descent)<<

If I understand this correctly, you are linking the Israeli claim to territory with Noah.

My question is, can this line of argument can be sustained, historically speaking?

So tell us, when did all this take place? In what year, so that we can follow the "covenant" through the ages in a proper, legal manner.

Boazy: "I am a creationist but not a paid up one. I don't think it would be fruitful to enter into all the specifics..."

Yes - what a cop-out!

What does it mean to be an unfinancial creationist ? Which parts of Genesis don't you subscribe to?

"our resident self styled scholars"

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is, coming from our most pretentiously self styled Islamic scholar?

Christians support Israel and the jews for a number of good reasons.

Firstly Christians respect the bible, large chunks of which seem to have Jewish people in it as characters living in Israel. They are role models for us.

Second, Christ was a Jew, and did not supersede but fulfil the scriptures; ie the scriptures about them and their relationship to God remain true.

Third, their struggle to hold to life amid a sea of enemies is easily paralleled to biblical stories and we threfore identify with their modern peril.

Fourth, modern values of tolerance and projection, whoops I mean empathy, make it a core value to overlook the collossal religious differences.

AND fifth, if a bunch of savage head-chopping maniacs were running mass murder plans as a core community value, I would choose the side of the ones who are trying to stop them. (Revolutionary France- beware!)

As for his apocalypse idea - it is 'ow you say eet, - tripe?'

Maybe the Great flood in the bible refers to climate change. The earth was covered in water except for some islands. It would be a great way to cleanse the earth and start a new cycle of life every few millenium wouldnt it. The planet may be self cleansing and regenerating. Maybe God made it that way.

Country Gal- "The Israelis bomb whole towns into submission women and children included.

Looking at this from a different perspective. Hezbollah and Hamas fire rockets from the midst of groups of women and children in towns instead of firing them from isolated areas. If they cared about the women and children they would not use them as shields and would go to areas where they alone would be targeted. Outside of civilian areas.

People still seem to have some difficulty understanding the issue I am trying to raise - I have acknowledged that there are many reasons to support Zionism - reasons to support Zionism do not address the issue I raise.

Perhaps if I put in in another context:
Imagine a Christian American President,
backed by hundreds of American Christian Churches
backing the formation and establishment
and authorizing billions of dollars in military aid
to a regime dedicated to establishing
and maintaining a Muslim state.

See the problem?

In fact, spirtually, Islam is much more sympathetic to Christianity than Judaism. Jesus is regarded as a saint in Islam - correct me if I am wrong but, in Judaism, Jesus is regarded as no-one in particular isnt he?

PERILOUS AND CJ... in my naivity I misunderstood what you mean't by 'paid up' :) I thought you meant being a subcriber to Creation Science in a literal financial sense. Silly me.

I accept the biblical accounts, yes.. as they stand. I cannot fully harmonize them with the 'present' state of science/geology, but I can adequately do so for my own peace of mind.

But to keep this all in perspective, whether one accepts the Biblical Creation and Flood accounts as literal, the point of the topic connects with the call of and promise to, Abraham, and this is ultimately what matters. The Zionists and Christian Zionists peg their claim regarding Israel to 'that'... so rather than digress and waste space on peripheral issues, feel free to challenge those points to your hearts content.

1/ Abraham was real.
2/ Abraham received the promise from God regarding his descendants and the land.
3/ That promise was confirmed to Isaac (rather than Ishmael), Jacob and the 12 tribes.
4/ Settlers base their claim on the above.
5/ Settlers ARE seeking to live in obedient conformity to the covenant which authorizes them to occupy the land under the terms of the Abrahamic/Deuteronimical covenant.
6/ Thus, in their minds they have a divine right to be there and to take it all.

Christians are irrelevant to all that. (in their minds)

ROB.. keep going.. the 'issue' is sinking in gradually :) sorry if we seem not to be getting it.

Christians will support Israel from a fulfillment of prophecy angle.

That's why you should not be surprised. I suspect that 'Presidents' do so for geopolitical reasons more than fulfillment of prophecy.

The blurring of the line between 'Christian Churches' and the President/Government may be what is confusing you.

It matters not a scrap to Christians how the 'Jews' regard Jesus (yes u were right about how they regard him) what matters to us is how God regards the Jews, and the things Jesus said Himself.
They override feelings Christians might have about Jews for any specific act they may have done. Bear in mind, the true Biblical understanding of the crucifixion of Christ is NOT 'Jews murdered Jesus' but that Gods perfect will was done.

Mark 10:45

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Isaiah 53:6

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
....the iniquity of us all.

Next time you do something which you totally regret..where you know in your heart of hearts that you deserve the most final of punishments.. where you just know that nothing human can ever fix it... think of Isaiah 53:6 -I know I do.

David - 'what matters to us is how God regards the Jews, and the things Jesus said Himself.'

Did Jesus not say, 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life - none come to the Father but by me.'

That would seem to put the kybosh on members of any religion 'knowing God' unless they do so via Jesus and the Jews do not do anything via Jesus.

I hope you dont subscribe to the view that the Jews are 'God's Chosen People'. If there is a God, is it really reasonable to think that such a Being would discriminate on the basis of race?

I think the point about 'fulfillment of scripture' is probably valid - apparently some people are looking forward to Armageddon and the Rapture that hopefully precedes it. Since a lot of people are looking forward to it, I cant see any reason why they wouldnt be trying to speed it up just like people try to speed up other things to which they look forward.

Boaz, it is not good enough to make a ridiculous claim, have it challenged, and then simply change the subject.

You linked the modern-day claim of Israel to their land as being the "fulfilment of prophecy".

Boaz: "FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY.. If you asked 'modern cosmopolitan Israelis' they would not have a clue. If you ask a Settler they will refer more than likely to Ezekiel 37.. and the Covenant with Abraham... To gain an understanding of this, it is very neccessary to read Genesis 11 to the end.... Gen 11 is fascinating. Post flood genealogical connection from Noah to Abraham.... (focus on that line of descent)"

Pericles: "...you consider the story of the flood, Noah, the ark etc., to be literally true? Are you sure about this?"

Boaz: "yes, I do. Literal, real flood, real people"

Pericles: "If you believe this story, then you presumably are also have to be a fully paid-up Creationist?"

Boaz: "I am a creationist but not a paid up one... Do I believe in a literal ark ? Yep..I sure do."

Pericles "If I understand this correctly, you are linking the Israeli claim to territory with Noah... can this line of argument can be sustained, historically speaking?"

Boaz "...whether one accepts the Biblical Creation and Flood accounts as literal, the point of the topic connects with the call of and promise to, Abraham, and this is ultimately what matters."

As I understand it, this is an acceptance of the fact that your original excitement about Noah to be irrelevant.

What interests me is why you raised it in the first place. As a direct result of this piece of trivia you have outed yourself as a creationist, who believes in the literal statements made in the Bible about Adam, Eve, Noah, Ham, Shem and whatsisname...

It certainly puts all your other opinions in to context, now that we have established your basic level of credulity.

No wonder you get in a lather about other religions - with a baseline of "the Bible is literally true", you don't have a great deal of wriggle-room, do you?