Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8143 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-24-2014 4:31 AM
79 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: cheryllocascio
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Happy Birthday: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,468 Year: 24,309/28,606 Month: 1,610/1,786 Week: 472/423 Day: 12/101 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Emails Restored


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 911 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 responded

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10846
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 182 of 306 (639201)
10-28-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by doctrbill
10-28-2011 5:34 PM


Re: Everything is Alright
Which only means that they did not think that the area flooded was the surface of a globe (assuming you are correct). That tells nothing about their views of the extent of the Flood, which may well have been taken as covering all land, even lands as yet undiscovered if there should be any.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by doctrbill, posted 10-28-2011 5:34 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5477
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 183 of 306 (639229)
10-29-2011 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by doctrbill
10-28-2011 5:34 PM


Re: Everything is Alright
rior 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."

This argument is bad on several levels.

First, I note that you've shifted the goal posts from the 16th century to the 13th.

Second, if the authors thought that the earth was flat, then they might still have considered the flood to be worldwide. They just would not have used the word "global".

Third, if the ancients had no concept that the world was spherical, then we wouldn't have expected them to use words like ball.

Edited by NoNukes, : Goofy apostrophe that does not belong. other minor corrections


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by doctrbill, posted 10-28-2011 5:34 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2011 10:25 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 32 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 184 of 306 (639231)
10-29-2011 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by purpledawn
10-27-2011 8:02 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
HI PD,

In Genesis 41:57, the translators don't have a problem using the more local terminology. The global idea doesn't fit the story.

No, the idea of a globe doesn't fit the story. I completely agree with that. I just differ from you in the emphasis placed on the alternative explanations.

They had no concept of a globe or of the Americas, I agree.

You seem a little more keen on the idea that the authors were only trying to describe a local flood, i.e. a flood that did not fill the world as we know it to be, nor the world as they imagined it to be.

I agree that they were not describing a global flood of the world as we know it to be but I consider it a strong possibility that they were describing the total flooding of the world as they imagined it to be. I think that I favour this explanation a bit more than you do.

I don't think that anything that you or Dr Bill has said rules out this interpretation.

The reason the global idea didn't fit the story is because our translators know that no one from the Americas would have come over, but the same terminology is used in these verses as used concerning the flood. The point being that neither has a global view, not that anyone should have known about the Americas.

Okay, I understand your point with the Americas.

I do think though that the idea of all nations (I.e. all the nations in the world as the authors imagined it) trading with Egypt is not so far fetched when we view it the way that the authors would have done.

In the same way, the text does not describe a flood of the entire globe. There, we are in total agreement. But it still might describe the flooding of the entire world as they imagined it to be, which, given the likely smaller size of that notional world, doesn't seem quite so unreasonable.

So looking at these maps, when a writer says all the erets or adamah, he may be referring to all or part of the real estate known to them and I don't disagree with that.

Then we are almost in agreement I think.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by purpledawn, posted 10-27-2011 8:02 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

    
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 185 of 306 (639236)
10-29-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by NoNukes
10-29-2011 6:34 AM


Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
The Hebrew words erets and adamah do not carry a meaning of planet or global. The English words earth, land, and ground do not carry a meaning of planet or global. The English word earth is the name of our planet, but it doesn't mean planet or global.

Basically erets = land and adamah = ground. That may seem trivial, but land and ground don't always present the same idea depending on how it is used. So if an author is using both words in a story, there has to be a reason for the difference.

Besides referring to dirt, the English word land can imply country, realm, domain, or people of a country. It also implies ground that is owned. This in line with the Hebrew word erets.

land (n.)
O.E. land, lond, "ground, soil," also "definite portion of the earth's surface, home region of a person or a people, territory marked by political boundaries," from P.Gmc. *landom (cf. O.N., O.Fris. Du., Ger., Goth. land), from PIE *lendh- "land, heath" (cf. O.Ir. land, Middle Welsh llan "an open space," Welsh llan "enclosure, church," Breton lann "heath," source of Fr. lande; O.C.S. ledina "waste land, heath," Czech lada "fallow land").

The English word earth does not carry those added meanings. Other than being the name of our planet, it pretty much refers to ground or soil. This is more in line with the Hebrew word adamah.

earth
O.E. eorže "ground, soil, dry land," also used (along with middangeard) for "the (material) world" (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.Fris. erthe "earth," O.S. ertha, O.N. jörš, M.Du. eerde, Du. aarde, O.H.G. erda, Ger. Erde, Goth. airža), from PIE base *er- "earth, ground" (cf. M.Ir. -ert "earth"). The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400.

Over time words obtain new meanings, but we shouldn't apply new meanings to past writings.

Genesis (not quoting verbatim) (* earth used in NIV) (Ltrs denote suspected author per Friedman)
6:1 - The men began to multiply on the ground (adamah)*J
6:4 - There were Nephilim in the land (erets)*J
6:5 - God saw man's wickedness was great in the land (erets)*J
6:6 - God regretted making man in the land (erets)*J
6:7 - God said he would abolish mankind from the face of the ground (adamah)*J
6:11 - The land (erets)*P was corrupt in God's sight and the land (erets)* was filled with violence
6:12 - God looked upon the land (erets)*P, all flesh had corrupted his way upon the land (erets)*P
6:13 - The land (erets)*P if filled with violence, God will destroy all flesh with the land (erets)*P
6:17 - God is going to bring flood waters on the land (erets)*P and everything that is in the land (erets)*P shall die
6:20 - Bring two of every kind of creature that moves along the ground (adamah)P
7:3 - Bring male and female to keep seed alive upon the face of all the land (erets)*J
7:4 - In seven days God will cause it to rain upon the land (erets)*J and every living thing he had made will be destroyed off the face of the ground (adamah)*J
7:6 - Noah was 600 years old when the flood was upon the land (erets)*R
7:8 - Creatures that move along the ground (adamah)P
7:10 - Flood waters came upon the land (erets)*J
7:12 - The rain was upon the land (erets)*J 40days and nights
7:17 - The flood was 40 days upon the land (erets)*J, the ark was lifted above the land (erets)*J
7:18 - Waters increased greatly upon the land (erets)*J
7:19 - The waters prevailed upon the land (erets)*J
7:21 - All flesh died that moved upon the land (erets)*P, every creeping thing that creepeth upon the land (erets)*P
7:23 - Every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground (adamah)*J, all were destroyed from the land (erets)*J
7:24 - Waters prevailed upon the land (erets)*P
8:1 - God sent a wind over the land (erets)*P
8:3 - Waters receded from the land (erets)*J
8:7 - waters were dried up from off the land (erets)*P
8:8 - Sent dove to see if waters were abated from off the face of the ground (adamah)J
8:9 - Dove couldn't find place to land because the waters were on the face of the whole land (eretz)*
8:11 - Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the land (erets)*J
8:13 - Waters were dried up from off the land (erets)*P and the face of the ground (adamah)J was dry
8:14 - By the 27th day the land (erets)*P was completely dry
8:17 - Bring out of the ark all the creatures that creepeth on the land (erets)(used ground)P that they may multiply upon the land (erets)*
8:19 - Everything that moves on the land (erets)*P
8:21 - God said he would never again curse the ground (adamah)J
8:22 - As long as the land (erets)*J endures
9:1 - Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the land (erets)*P

What in the text implies a world wide thought?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 6:34 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 11:58 AM purpledawn has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5477
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 186 of 306 (639242)
10-29-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by purpledawn
10-29-2011 10:25 AM


Re: Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
Not so fast here PD.

purpledawn writes:

The English word earth does not carry those added meanings. Other than being the name of our planet, it pretty much refers to ground or soil. This is more in line with the Hebrew word adamah.

quote:
earth
O.E. eorže "ground, soil, dry land," also used (along with middangeard) for "the (material) world" (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.Fris. erthe "earth," O.S. ertha, O.N. jörš, M.Du. eerde, Du. aarde, O.H.G. erda, Ger. Erde, Goth. airža), from PIE base *er- "earth, ground" (cf. M.Ir. -ert "earth").

According to the etymology you posted, the word earth could be used to refer to "the material world" or Middangeard which is in keeping with a world encompassing concept.

I think the fact that earth was not known to be a planet is a red herring. Planets were those star-like things in the sky that wandered relative the vast background of regular stars. The Earth could not be a planet because it was the observation point.

I don't know what view of the earth's size and shape the Hebrews had, but the Greeks understood the size and shape of the Earth at the time of Eratosthenes, who died around 200 BC.

From the KJV Genesis 7:4

quote:
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Destroying every living substance made by God from the face of the earth sounds like a world wide flood to me. If "earth" can have imply both local and world-wide, I think it would be logical to use the more encompassing word here.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2011 10:25 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2011 7:17 PM NoNukes has responded

    
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 187 of 306 (639266)
10-29-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by NoNukes
10-29-2011 11:58 AM


Re: Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
quote:
According to the etymology you posted, the word earth could be used to refer to "the material world" or Middangeard which is in keeping with a world encompassing concept.
Except that the world (planetary) encompassing concept is not a meaning of erets or adamah. Those are the words that are being translated. Just because one meaning of earth fits the bill, doesn't mean they all do.

When the Jews did give a Hebrew name for planet Earth, they called it Kadur Ha'aretz (sphere of the land).

For the Jews, the Old Testament is a guide in morality, ethics, and how we are expected to behave. It isn't a science book or a history book.

quote:
Destroying every living substance made by God from the face of the earth sounds like a world wide flood to me. If "earth" can have imply both local and world-wide, I think it would be logical to use the more encompassing word here.
Made by that god. Why would a writer make the distinction if they believed that the god in the story had created all living things?

As I noted above, earth is not the word being translated. The words erets or adamah are being translated. 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 11:58 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by doctrbill, posted 10-29-2011 10:01 PM purpledawn has not yet responded
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 11:14 PM purpledawn has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 911 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 yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5477
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 189 of 306 (639281)
10-29-2011 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by purpledawn
10-29-2011 7:17 PM


Re: Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
Except that the world (planetary) encompassing concept is not a meaning of erets or adamah. Those are the words that are being translated. Just because one meaning of earth fits the bill, doesn't mean they all do.

Okay. I think in your previous post, you did remark about the meanings of the English words "land" and "earth", and that your argument was about those words. But I can agree that an argument based on erets or adamah is more appropriate. I know nothing of Hebrew.

Made by that god. Why would a writer make the distinction if they believed that the god in the story had created all living things?

If I reviewed some substantial work that you had authored, would I find that you had removed all redundancies from your work?

If in fact erets and adamah do not express universality, then some other words would be helpful in expressing that concept. So if your argument about erets and adamah are correct, then something else is needed to make the 7:3 and 7:4 talk about a world wide flood.

Are you suggesting that the Bible does not say that God created every living thing? That not even Genesis 1 and 2 are about the entire earth? I'd need some convincing on that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2011 7:17 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by purpledawn, posted 10-30-2011 4:31 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Juan Jose xx
Junior Member (Idle past 992 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 10-29-2011


Message 190 of 306 (639286)
10-29-2011 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cat Sci
04-09-2009 2:36 PM


Dr?
If you're really a "Doctor" can you show us your credentials?
evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cat Sci, posted 04-09-2009 2:36 PM Cat Sci has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 191 of 306 (639296)
10-30-2011 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by NoNukes
10-29-2011 11:14 PM


Hyperbole in the Bible
This thread is about whether erets and adamah refer to the planet Earth. We don't want to lose sight of that.

quote:
If in fact erets and adamah do not express universality, then some other words would be helpful in expressing that concept. So if your argument about erets and adamah are correct, then something else is needed to make the 7:3 and 7:4 talk about a world wide flood.
I think people have trouble accepting that the Bible writers did use exaggeration or Hyperbole. Like I've said before, everything doesn't really mean everything.

What do you buy the man who has everything? No one really has everything.

We use hyperbole today to bring the message home and it has been used through the ages. The Torah was not written as a science or history book. It contains many types of literary tools.

Exaggeration in story telling is very common.

quote:
Are you suggesting that the Bible does not say that God created every living thing? That not even Genesis 1 and 2 are about the entire earth? I'd need some convincing on that.
That debate started about Message 61.

Given that erets and adamah do not refer to the planet and hyperbole is very common, what in the text leads you to understand that the storyteller is saying that the God of the Bible created every living thing on the planet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 11:14 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 192 of 306 (639513)
11-01-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
09-20-2010 9:18 PM


earth or Earth
quote:
The Hebrew word אדץ that appears in Genesis 1:1 encompases the planet earth, all the land above water and under water all the way to the center of the Earth.
No it doesn't.

You've already been shown that the writer of Genesis 1 already made a distinction for 'erets. It refers to dry land only. The planet would include the sea. You've been shown this already in this thread. Message 81

This meaning for our word earth fits the bill.

areas of land as distinguished from sea and air

Which fits with this meaning of 'erets.

earth (as opposed to heaven)

The only meaning of the English word earth that encompasses the entire planet is when it is used as the name of our planet.

Here is what the LXX has for ge which is the Greek translation of 'erets.

arable land
the ground, the earth as a standing place
the main land as opposed to the sea or water
the earth as a whole
the earth as opposed to the heavens
the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

I know, you see that definition that says "earth as a whole" and think planet, but erets (per the Genesis writer) doesn't refer to anything covered by water.

Genesis 1:1 isn't written to refer to the "earth as a whole". Show me an instance where erets is used to mean the earth as a whole as opposed to a part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 09-20-2010 9:18 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 11-01-2011 2:15 PM purpledawn has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 66 days)
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 193 of 306 (639529)
11-01-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by purpledawn
11-01-2011 11:10 AM


Re: earth or Earth
Hi PD,

purpledawn writes:

Genesis 1:1 isn't written to refer to the "earth as a whole". Show me an instance where erets is used to mean the earth as a whole as opposed to a part.

Then what part of the world was it talking about?

What did the Hebrew word ארץ refer too in Genesis 1:2?

There was no arable land.
There was no place to stand.
There was nothing visible but water.
There was no inhabited earth, the abode of men an animals. Therefore there was no country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a track of land, territory, or region.

That only leaves two of your definitions.

The earth as a whole.
The earth as opposed to the heavens.

I think both of those would be the meaning of ארץ in Genesis 1:2.

Now since you disagree please present your argumentation to support you position.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by purpledawn, posted 11-01-2011 11:10 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by purpledawn, posted 11-01-2011 4:19 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 195 by doctrbill, posted 11-01-2011 4:58 PM ICANT has responded

    
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 194 of 306 (639541)
11-01-2011 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
11-01-2011 2:15 PM


Re: earth or Earth
quote:
Then what part of the world was it talking about?
Genesis 1:1, the storyteller is talking to his people and telling them their beginnings.

quote:
What did the Hebrew word ארץ refer too in Genesis 1:2?

There was no arable land.
There was no place to stand.
There was nothing visible but water.
There was no inhabited earth, the abode of men an animals. Therefore there was no country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a track of land, territory, or region.

That only leaves two of your definitions.

The earth as a whole.
The earth as opposed to the heavens.


The Genesis 1 creation story is not a journal. The storyteller is speaking to his audience and telling them about the past. In Genesis 1:2, the storyteller is still speaking of the land the people knew. Hard to picture more than they know.

quote:
Now since you disagree please present your argumentation to support you position.
The storyteller tells you himself. Since the yabbashah is called erets. The dry land is called erets. Erets is only talking about dry land, whether it is all the dry land they feel is encircled by the water or part of it. The earth as a whole, still refers to the dry land as a whole; not the planet.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 11-01-2011 2:15 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 9:01 AM purpledawn has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 911 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 responded

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

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014