Genesis seems to have blended two Flood stories. The Common English Bible translates the divine name in Narrative one as “the Lord” (Heb. Yahweh); in Narrative two as “God” (Heb. elohim). Different names for God and different story details notwithstanding, the two stories shared much common ground. Both indicated clearly that increasing human violence and cruelty caused God great pain and grief.

• In Making Sense of the Bible, Adam Hamilton wrote, “When I read Genesis 6, I can’t help but think about the fact that, in the last century, when humanity reached the apex of technological development (to that point), over 100 million people died by war and genocide.” A contemporary praise chorus prays, “God, break my heart for what breaks yours.” Do human cruelty and violence break your heart, do you mostly shrug them off as just the way things are, or do you see them as necessary or desirable if practiced by “good guys”?
• If you give “evil” its broadest definition, seeing it as anything that robs people of lasting well-being, can you imagine how ancient storytellers could picture a loving God choosing a worldwide Flood to stop evil from “taking over”? In what ways did Jesus, whom Christians see as the ultimate revelation of God and God’s eternal answer to evil, offer a different, more enduring solution than the Flood story’s answer?