Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 171 of 306 (639087)
10-27-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by PaulK
10-27-2011 6:38 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
PaulK writes:
What you have to argue is that the specific references can't be reasonably understood as referring to the planet (in terms that the authors would understand).
Done and done. Which is why you need to read the freaking thread!
Otherwise you are wasting my time.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 6:38 PM PaulK has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 174 of 306 (639101)
10-28-2011 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by NoNukes
10-27-2011 10:52 PM


Re: Everything is Alright
NoNukes writes:
Earth was not considered to be a planet solely because the earth was considered the center of the universe.
There was no single reason why Christians rejected the idea that earth is a planet. There were several reasons why they rejected that idea.
1) Planets orbit the sun. -- The Bible clearly suggests that the sun orbits the "earth."
2) Planets are "heavens." -- The Bible clearly distinguishes between "heavens" and "earth."
3) Planets are stars, as the Scripture says. -- Earth is not a star.
4) Copernican theory requires earth to rotate on its axis daily. -- The scriptures clearly state that earth does not move.
Christians were never able to harmonize Copernican theory with Scripture.
Now they assert that the Scripture has confirmed the Copernican heresy all along.
That particular bit of ignorance does not impact the flood story or much else described in the Bible.
The fact that the Bible does not recognise planet earth has a huge impact on everything Christians believe. That is why they fought so hard against the idea in the first place. It is why so many continue to fight it today. Because it matters if the holy book is to remain holy. If the Bible is wrong about the structure of the universe, then how can it be right about anything else? How can it be a revelation from the creator of the universe? That is a real and very serious question which drives much of the debate here at EVC. Those who do not understand this detail of the situation cannot comprehend the importance of what we do here.
The church was wrong and it killed people who disagreed with it. Now it is embarrassed, as it should be, but continues to spout anti-scientific bullshit as if it hasn't learned a god-damned thing.
Edited by doctrbill, : No reason given.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2011 10:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2011 4:18 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 181 of 306 (639200)
10-28-2011 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by NoNukes
10-28-2011 4:18 PM


Re: Everything is Alright
NoNukes writes:
The 16th century view of earth as not a planet would not affect an opinion of whether the flood was global.
Prior to the 13th century, the Christian church denied that Earth is a globe. Consequently it would have denied a global flood. The scripture certainly does not suggest a global flood. If the authors had intended such a thing there were a number of words by which that reality might be expressed - the most likely among them being the word "ball."
Prior to the 13th century, the shape suggested by the English word "earth" was something "flat" like "ground." It referred primarily to real estate. Last time I checked land is not a kind of ball.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2011 4:18 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2011 5:39 PM doctrbill has not replied
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 6:34 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 188 of 306 (639280)
10-29-2011 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by purpledawn
10-29-2011 7:17 PM


Re: Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
purpledawn writes:
Just because one meaning of earth fits the bill, doesn't mean they all do. ... We have to use the meaning of the word earth that fits with erets or adamah and they didn't carry a planet wide meaning way back then.
How's about some graphic illustration?

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2011 7:17 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 195 of 306 (639544)
11-01-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
11-01-2011 2:15 PM


Re: earth or Earth
ICANT writes:
What did the Hebrew word ארץ refer too in Genesis 1:2?
There are two schools of thought regarding the first chapter of Genesis.
One group says it is like a journal: a day by day record - the first verse being the first day, and so on down the line. This becomes a problem almost immediately when the narrative shifts to telling what happened on each day. You will note that Earth appears on the third day, and the heavens on the fourth day.
Another group says that verses one and two are an introduction to the story, and that the body of the story begins with God creating light. This makes more sense to me and it completely eliminates the mental gymnasitics required of the other interpretation.
-

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 11-01-2011 2:15 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 10:10 AM doctrbill has replied
 Message 199 by Juan Jose xx, posted 11-02-2011 12:39 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 198 of 306 (639611)
11-02-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by ICANT
11-02-2011 10:10 AM


Re: earth or Earth
ICANT writes:
Now if you would like to come up with a date for the beginning we could determine if your assertions are true or false.
... when our atmosphere was formed and dry land appeared was around 6,000 years ago. But that was not the beginning ...
I take it you are imagining a water-covered globe which has no atmosphere. And why, exactly, would you imagine that such a thing is possible?
Methinks thou knowest nothing of chemistry.
And what would be the point of having a water covered globe hanging out for thirteen billiion years with nothing useful to do and then suddenly, a second ago in geologic time: it develops an atmosphere?
The history (generations) of the heavens and the Earth that existed in Genesis 1:1 begins in Genesis 2:4 as that is the history of the day God created the Earth and the heavens.
1). "generations" which is given for the Hebrew toldah which the Jews translated to Greek as geneseos is better translated "origins."
2). The "history" revealed in chapter two is different from the "history" revealed in chapter one.
ICANT writes:
Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement with a subject, a verb of completed action, with the results of that action.
Genesis 1:1 tells us when: In the beginning.
Genesis 1:1 tells us who: God.
Genesis 1:1 tells us what (God did) created.
Genesis 1:1 tells us the result of what God did. The heavens and Earth existed.
Therefore it can not be an introduction to a story.
It is the story.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. If something is stated as a complete sentence then it cannot be an introduction to the paragraphs which follow?
Whatever follows Genesis 1:1 is to speak to Genesis 1:1, the problem is that the first verse that speaks to Genesis 1:1 is Genesis 2:4 which states it is the history (generations) of 'the day' the Lord God created the Earth and the heavens.
Why doesn't Genesis 2:4 follow Genesis 1:1?
Well we did not have verses and chapters until recently and anywhere along the line some copyist could have decided the order the words was copied in.
So there was a conspiracy to make Genesis sound as if God created everything in seven days, six thousand years ago -- that the Bible has been made purposely misleading -- that the creator of the universe has been unable to protect his holy word from wicked men who would pervert it?
The problem is no one along the line changed the words in Genesis 2:4 nor the story that follows it, describing what happened that day.
Not very clever, those conspirators, eh?
Where does the text say God light?
Since you are so fond of Hebrew and cannot seem to grasp the concepts of English literature, then perhaps we should continue this conversation in Hebrew Only. Yes?
doctrbill writes:
This makes more sense to me and it completely eliminates the mental gymnasitics required of the other interpretation.
I CAN'T writes:
Sure it does as it fits your worldview, and it does not make any difference what the test says.
Neither account fits my worldview.
For me, this is an exercise in reading comprehension. I am here for the joy of sharing knowledge.
Why are you here?

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 10:10 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 1:42 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 201 of 306 (639632)
11-02-2011 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Juan Jose xx
11-02-2011 12:39 PM


Re: earth or Earth
Juan Jose xx writes:
I think that you are wrong when you say that the earth just appeared on the 3rd day. The Bible doesn't say that.
quote:
God said ... let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth ... (Genesis 1:9, 10)
Actually it says that the earth was there on the first day. it was just "without form and void." ... Then on the third day God formed it. It went from being without form, to with form.
That is not what it says though, is it Juan? And while we are on the subject: What does it mean to be "formless and void"?
Does it mean "invisible"? And if earth is invisible , then how do we know it is there?
And what does it mean that God called the dry land Earth? If he called the land Earth, then what did he call the water?

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Juan Jose xx, posted 11-02-2011 12:39 PM Juan Jose xx has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 3:22 PM doctrbill has not replied
 Message 204 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2011 6:19 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 203 of 306 (639653)
11-02-2011 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by ICANT
11-02-2011 1:42 PM


Re: earth or Earth
I Can't writes:
I am here to broaden my knowledge of many things.
And yet you don't seem to be learning.
the Earth existed in Genesis 1:2 covered by water with an unbreathable atmosphere
That is an unscriptural assertion, and surprising for someone who is a stickler for the exact wording of "the Word."
the Earth has always existed
And yet you say it was created.
Earth was created in the beginning
As I was saying ...
matter/energy can not be created or destroyed.
I think you are confused.
Where in those definitions do you find origins?
Everywhere.
They are about events that took place billions of years apart.
Actually, it is as you have said:
There is no information on those events recorded anywhere.
Exactly.
I don't think there was conspirators.
Sure you do. You have called them:
those who are of their father the devil that prevert the Word of God just because they can and don't want anyone to have the truth of God's Word.
That is the very definition of conspiracy.
doctrbill writes:
the creator of the universe has been unable to protect his holy word from wicked men who would pervert it?
I Can't writes:
No, He has protected His Word. Mankind is just making it harder and harder to find a Bible that has the truth in it.
And you have the "true" Bible?
I am here to broaden my knowledge
I sincerely doubt that.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 1:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 9:44 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 209 of 306 (639757)
11-03-2011 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by purpledawn
11-03-2011 6:00 AM


Re: The Land
Greetings PD,
I thought you might find this graphic interesting.
It is part of a larger sample which documents decreasing use of the word earth in newer Bibles which suggests that translators are increasingly aware that it's use is ever more inappropriate.
Personally, I think it should be all but eliminated except in such places as it may be clearly understood as a poetic reference to soil.
Eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by purpledawn, posted 11-03-2011 6:00 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by purpledawn, posted 11-03-2011 5:11 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


(1)
Message 211 of 306 (639764)
11-03-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by purpledawn
11-03-2011 5:11 PM


Re: The Land
They may decrease in use, but I bet they won't want to give up Genesis. No one wants to think of it as just another creation story by a specific group. They'd rather leave it ambiguous.
I expect that will be true of most for some time to come. I have been encouraged, however, by the rendition which the English Standard Version has given at Genesisl 2:5, 6.
quote:
When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground--
This was an important tweak if one is to assert that creationism is plausible in the facre of modern science vis a vis the water cycle. Believers simply do not read carefully. They believe it had never rained, and they believe that the mist which came out of the ground provided enough moisture to water what they imagine was a sub-tropical paradise.
Here's the problem(s):
1) The water which produced the mist is the water which falls back to water the ground. No net gain. Net loss in fact because of evaporation of the mist. That the mist was not enough to water the garden is evidenced in that a "river" was diverted to the garden "to water it."
2) Rivers run down from higher elevations where they collect water from rain and snow. If it had never rained on earth then there could be no river.
By saying "land" instead of "earth" translators of the ESV made sense of these verses as no one had before and to the best of my knowledge, no one has since. Unfortunately, they do not apply their sensible reading elsewhere in the creation narratives.
The NIV and NLT have tweaked Gen 1:10 to make erets say "land" at that place but leave it saying "earth" at verse one.
Such measures are acts of war -- lies designed to obscure the truth of ecclesiastical idiocy. The same behavior was observed of their forebears in the time of Copernicus, and of Bruno, of Galileo and of Darwin. They have not changed. They will not learn. They are scorpions. It's their nature.
Edited by doctrbill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by purpledawn, posted 11-03-2011 5:11 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 8:55 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 214 of 306 (639791)
11-03-2011 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
11-03-2011 8:55 PM


Re: The Land
I Can't writes:
I take it you have never heard of Silver Springs
Spring water also comes from preciptitation -- which falls upon the land at an elevation higher than that of the spring.
In fact the text says, "a river" not a spring. But that is beside the point isn't it?
Why are you not responding to the first point?
doctrbill writes:
Here's the problem(s):
1) The water which produced the mist is the water which falls back to water the ground. No net gain. Net loss in fact because of evaporation of the mist. That the mist was not enough to water the garden is evidenced in that a "river" was diverted to the garden "to water it."
2) Rivers run down from higher elevations where they collect water from rain and snow. If it had never rained on earth then there could be no river.
Many people think the text is explaining why rain is unnecessary. Indeed it is ultimately unnecessary for it to rain in the land where the Garden is planted because a river is brought in to irrigate the Garden.
The water of that river which irrigated the garden had to have originated in a land where it had rained.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 8:55 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2011 1:18 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 294 of 306 (642808)
12-01-2011 8:56 PM


End of the Planet?
PaulK writes:
If it literally means "all land" then it would take it "global" in the sense that it referred to all of the land.
You have taken the position that when Bible writers say all the land they may well have been speaking of all the land on planet earth. IMO: That is not a speculative position, sir. It is a fantasy.
When parameters are given, the biblical expression kol ha eretz (all the earth or the whole earth) never indicates a piece of real estate larger than the largest of ancient empires. The empire of Babylonia, much smaller than that of Persia, is nonetheless described as "the whole earth." Even an area small as a battlefield is, in the Bible, described as all the earth. When parameters are not given should we assume that the authors are referring to all the land on all the planets in all the universe? But we must do that, mustn’t we? If we are to explore the full possibility of what the authors might have meant.
Today you imagine that a flood of water which covered all the land could have meant a flood of water that covered all the land on planet earth. Five thousand years from now your distant progeny may imagine it as a flood of people who swarmed over all the land on all the colonized planets prior to collapse of the galactic empire. It could happen. That's how myth evolves. But why would anyone wish to engage in such mental masturbation unless he has a religious agenda, is a numbskulled creationist, or gets off on behaving like one?
... the LORD hath delivered into our hands all the land ... the inhabitants of the country do faint ..." Jos 2:24
... behold, they were spread abroad upon all the earth, eating and drinking, and dancing ... 1Sa 30:16
The biblical expression is the same in both cases: kol ha eretz.
Also it is reasonable to ask, if these words cannot indicate a more general flood, how would the author write of a more general flood ? No answer has been forthcoming.
As purpledawn has reiterated, this thread hosts the question of whether or not the ancient language was used to describe planet earth. I’m afraid the discussion has wandered afield of that. I would be happy to indulge a discussion of Noah’s flood in another thread but we have wasted a lot of time here chasing our tails and our time is nearly up.
We are therefore left with the other three options, all of which seem to favour a universal flood, with the only caveat being the point in the OP, that the author - even the redactor of the version we have - lacked our concept of Earth as a planet. An important point in some contexts, but not important when considering the extent of the flood as given in the story.
I disagree. All we have are the authors words. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t know earth as a globe. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t have x-ray vision. What matters is that there was no global flood ridden out by an old drunk who surfed a boatload of dinosaurs into a mountain side and loosed a hungry lot of malaria carrying mosquitoes on the world.
But isn’t there a Flood thread already working somewhere? Or shall we consider an all out, no holds barred, free-for-all of ridiculous claims for "the truth of the Bible"?

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by PaulK, posted 12-02-2011 1:58 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 295 of 306 (642809)
12-01-2011 9:20 PM


Dream a Little Dream
Butterflytyrant writes:
When the writer is writing 'all land', do you think he means the land up the the side of the mountain that he can see but not the land on the other side?
Depends perhaps on whether he says eretz or adamah.
Even if you repleace the word earth with land, dry land etc it still reads very, very differently to the regional destruction story of Lot.
Indeed. It was a different story. It was a different era. A different author. A different language. A homespun story versus one borrowed from another culture in deep antiquity. The fact that they read differently is a testimony to the authenticity of their cultural origins.
Just because the writer did not know what nations lay outside their knowledge does not mean that he/she did not include them in their description of 'all land'. All land could very well include all the known and unknown land. Everything.
Why would an honest person make such sweeping claims, if as you say the facts lay outside their knowledge?
Which interpretation you choose to see as more plausible seems to be directly related to the world view or agenda you are affiliated with.
Quite.
Realistic if you are rational. Fantastic if you are not.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


(1)
Message 306 of 306 (649205)
01-21-2012 1:18 PM


What I'm Talkin' About
I have whipped up a little demo of what I'm talking about. There are others of the same genre on my channel. Please view:
Thank You
Edited by doctrbill, : No reason given.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024