Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 6:19 PM
455 online now:
CRR, frako, Modulous (AdminModulous), ooh-child, Percy (Admin), Rrhain, Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 447 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,033 Year: 6,639/21,208 Month: 2,400/2,634 Week: 63/525 Day: 38/25 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 1 of 306 (505114)
04-07-2009 4:23 PM


"Earth" remains the same but the definition of "earth" has changed. It has changed by virtue of the Age of Discovery, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution. It has changed under the influence of Columbus, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. The definition of "earth" has changed dramatically in the 500 years since Tyndale first translated the Scriptures into English.

But now, it has come to my attention that there are a number of ongoing threads here in which apparently sincere and otherwise intelligent persons labor under the misapprehension that the Bible may sometime refer to planet Earth.

I wish to remind everyone that THE BIBLE NEVER EVER DOES THAT. And if one should come upon a modern version which appears to do it, he should remind himself that said version is post-Copernican at best and at worst a dishonest rendering.

The religious establishments of both Catholic and Protestant faith did not want to believe in planet Earth and resisted the notion for hundreds of years after Copernicus published his book (1543 AD). They did not perceive a planetary "earth" from their reading of the ancient text (they perceived the opposite) and there is no way they would have knowingly suggested such a thing in the wording of their official translations.

Many biblical passages have, in modern times, been revised to make "earth" read: "land" or "ground" or "country." This trend is unlikely to continue to completion, because, many Christian doctrines depend on retaining the word "earth" for the value found in its post-Copernican planetary implication. And besides that, believers are already primed to convert "all the world" and to dream of dominating the globe.

So ... Bring me your arguments (which I expect to refute) and I will show you reason to believe that EARTH IS NOT A PLANET.

:D

Edited by doctrbill, : to correct date Copernicus' published - 1543, not "1534."


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by kbertsche, posted 04-08-2009 6:25 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 12:47 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 36 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 10:04 AM doctrbill has responded
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 05-06-2009 7:47 AM doctrbill has responded
 Message 61 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2010 9:10 AM doctrbill has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12391
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2 of 306 (505152)
04-08-2009 8:23 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1345
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 3 of 306 (505197)
04-08-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
04-07-2009 4:23 PM


quote:
Many biblical passages have, in modern times, been revised to make "earth" read: "land" or "ground" or "country." This trend is unlikely to continue to completion, because, many Christian doctrines depend on retaining the word "earth" for the value found in its post-Copernican planetary implication. And besides that, believers are already primed to convert "all the world" and to dream of dominating the globe.

So ... Bring me your arguments (which I expect to refute) and I will show you reason to believe that EARTH IS NOT A PLANET.



I agree. If we are to understand the Bible as originally written, it is often better to replace the word "earth" with "land" or "ground." All are the same word in Hebrew, "'eretz." Often the word implies the "promised land." The original writers had no conception of earth as a "globe," and it is anachronistic of us to infer this concept in the text.

For an interesting take on this, I recommend the book Genesis Unbound by John Sailhammer. He is an evangelical Christian who applies this concept to the Genesis creation account, arguing that it is only describing the creation and preparation of the promised land, not the creation of the planet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 04-07-2009 4:23 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 12:04 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 73 by nicoledc109, posted 07-19-2010 9:10 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 4 of 306 (505206)
04-09-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by kbertsche
04-08-2009 6:25 PM


Promised Land?
Hi kbertsche,

Thank you for your reply.

I have in recent months noticed that those promises, vis a vis inheriting the earth appear to be in reference to The Promised Land. I have also noticed that the creation story of Genesis 2 appears to describe the beginning of history for the Hebrew people. I think it is a far reach indeed to extrapolate these apparent facts to include Genesis 1 as a recitation of the creation of Canaan; particularly when it bears such an uncanny resemblance to the standard cosmology of the ancient middle east.

I looked up the author you named and found what strikes me as a cogent criticism of his book from none other than (:eek:) the people over at Answers in Genesis. To my surprise, they seem to have fielded a fair and balanced review which is summarized thus:

quote:
"While there are some things in this book we can agree with, there are many more things, such as those outlined above, where we must disagree. The basic thesis is fatally flawed, and it appears that the only things which Sailhamer has ‘unbound’ are the rules of grammar, the semantic fields of words and the laws of logic."

While I have not read the book and cannot, off the cuff, discuss their criticism of his Hebrew translations, I have been impressed with what appear to be instances of untenable assumption on his part. That said, I look forward to learning more of his theory, through the instrumentality of yourself, should you choose to share.

Sincerely,


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by kbertsche, posted 04-08-2009 6:25 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 5 of 306 (505248)
04-09-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
04-07-2009 4:23 PM


I agree with you on how "earth" should be interpreted, but there's a problem with it not referring to the entire planet...

quote:
Gen 7:4 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.

If we are to understand that the earth is the known land and not the entire planet, then how could the flood destroy every living substance that He made?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 04-07-2009 4:23 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 590 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 6 of 306 (505249)
04-09-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 12:47 PM


If we are to understand that the earth is the known land and not the entire planet, then how could the flood destroy every living substance that He made?

Maybe the Bible really is just the origin story of the Hebrew people and not all people (which would explain where Cain's wife came from).
In that case, the flood would have been a local flood, destroying everything in the "known" world and destroying everything YHWH had created, but not everything in existence that had been created by another god or that had come about through natural processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 1:30 PM Perdition has responded
 Message 71 by LieutenantDan, posted 07-03-2010 5:52 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 7 of 306 (505251)
04-09-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Perdition
04-09-2009 12:49 PM


Maybe the Bible really is just the origin story of the Hebrew people and not all people (which would explain where Cain's wife came from).
In that case, the flood would have been a local flood, destroying everything in the "known" world and destroying everything YHWH had created, but not everything in existence that had been created by another god or that had come about through natural processes.

I suppose that's not impossible...

Take a look at these passages:

quote:
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

quote:
Acts 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

quote:
Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Don't these seem to suggest that the people who wrote this thought that God did not make just a portion of everything in existence but actually did make everything in existence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 12:49 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 1:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 590 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 8 of 306 (505252)
04-09-2009 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 1:30 PM


Not if you assume that world means only the "known" world. And the fact that the Hebrews believed their god created the whole world, when the only part of the world they knew was the part of the world that their god had created, doesn't necessarily mean the entire world was created by their god.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 1:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 1:38 PM Perdition has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 9 of 306 (505253)
04-09-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Perdition
04-09-2009 1:32 PM


Not if you assume that world means only the "known" world.

Why assume that though?

What suggests that when they were talking about "everything" they mean "everything that we know of which is a subset of everything that there is"?

And the fact that the Hebrews believed their god created the whole world, when the only part of the world they knew was the part of the world that their god had created, doesn't necessarily mean the entire world was created by their god.

Fair enough. (but I'm not arguing against that)

I'm saying that if we assume that they were talking about a portion of the planet, then it doesn't make sense for them to talk about "everything" while meaning "not-everything".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 1:32 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 590 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 10 of 306 (505254)
04-09-2009 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 1:38 PM


But that's just it, if they only knew of a small part of the whole, then everything that they know is destroyed, how would they tell the difference between everything and just the part they know?

If you never leave your town and have no access to news or internet to see what's happening elsewhere, so all you know is your town, then a tornado comes through and destroys the town and all the land around it as far as you can see, how would you describe it? You would say everything was destroyed, because as far as you know, it was.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 2:18 PM Perdition has responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 11 of 306 (505256)
04-09-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 12:47 PM



Catholic Scientist writes:

I agree with you on how "earth" should be interpreted, but there's a problem with it not referring to the entire planet...

quote:
Gen 7:4 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.

If we are to understand that the earth is the known land and not the entire planet, then how could the flood destroy every living substance that He made?

I believe we need to read a bit more:

quote:
“And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast,
and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle,
and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth:
and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. Gen 7:21-23 KJV

In the above verses, "ground" is given for Heb. 'adamah.
- In verse four (your quote), "earth" is given for 'adamah.

Scriptural usage suggests that 'adamah and 'erets were used interchangeably even though their etymologies indicate some subtle difference. The same is true of "earth" and "ground" in English usage prior to the modern age.

It is not insignificant that both "earth" and "ground" are given for the same Hebrew term in the context of this story.

It is even more significant that "dry [land]" is used interchangeably with both "ground" and "earth" in this story.

More telling still is the definition of "earth" which appears on the very page of Genesis; the very first page of the Bible.

quote:
Genesis 1:10 - "God called the dry [land] Earth"

It was not until long after Copernicus that Churchmen in general accepted the new and growing definition of "earth." It is a post-Copernican definition which, for the first time in history, has attached to "earth" a planetary implication.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 2:22 PM doctrbill has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 12 of 306 (505257)
04-09-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Perdition
04-09-2009 2:01 PM


But that's just it, if they only knew of a small part of the whole, then everything that they know is destroyed, how would they tell the difference between everything and just the part they know?

I don't know, but they did say that god made everything in heaven too. They didn't "know" what was in heaven but were confident to claim that god made everything in it. That shows that when they said "everything", they were also talking about some things that they didn't know about.

Why would they say "everything" if they were just talking about "all the things we know about but not everything". Do you have anything that suggests that they thought that what they were aware of was everything and that there was nothing out there that they weren't aware of?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 2:01 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 2:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 13 of 306 (505258)
04-09-2009 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 2:15 PM


I agree with you that when they said "earth" they did not mean the entire planet.

But the flood story does seem to suggest that the entire planet was flooded because god was destroying all of the creatures.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 2:15 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 590 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 14 of 306 (505260)
04-09-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 2:18 PM


I'm just saying that they thought everything they knew about WAS everything. Everything they saw was, in their mind, everything in the universe. If they couldn't see it, why would God have made it? (That's what, I assume, they may have been thinking, since they were God's chosen people.)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 2:18 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 2:36 PM Perdition has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 15 of 306 (505261)
04-09-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Perdition
04-09-2009 2:29 PM


I'm just saying that they thought everything they knew about WAS everything.

I figured. That's why I asked:

quote:
Do you have anything that suggests that they thought that what they were aware of was everything and that there was nothing out there that they weren't aware of?

or are you just making that up for arguments sake?

Everything they saw was, in their mind, everything in the universe. If they couldn't see it, why would God have made it? (That's what, I assume, they may have been thinking, since they were God's chosen people.)

I doubt it. They also said that god made everything in heaven but they couldn't see all the heaven so they did have the concept of things existing that they were not aware of.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : added clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 2:29 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 190 by Juan Jose xx, posted 10-29-2011 11:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017