Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 8:39 AM
449 online now:
frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, Stile, Tangle (6 members, 443 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,998 Year: 6,604/21,208 Month: 2,365/2,634 Week: 28/525 Day: 3/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1541 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 226 of 306 (642075)
11-25-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by PaulK
11-25-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
Since the story as we have it is a myth, why should it not refer to a universal flood?

To the storytellers, it probably did. The basic problem is not whether it referred to a local or global flood, but as to what was believed at the time the story was first told. One should read the Bible and other ancient writings through the eyes of the people of the time of the writings and not try to read it through modern eyes. When one does this, then he/she can attempt to verify or debunk it.

Edited by bluescat48, : typo

Edited by bluescat48, : syntax


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 2:52 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 227 of 306 (642078)
11-25-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by PaulK
11-25-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
There,s the quite obvious example of your argument that since the Biblical authors were unaware of the true nature of the planet they must intend the Flood account to be taken as purely local, rather than covering all the land. The absurdity seems self evident.
Why is it absurd?

The ground in Genesis is the ground known at the time that pertained to the story. They didn't know that more ground existed. The storyteller is talking to a specific audience. The land and ground would be the land and ground they know. How can they envision what they don't know?

Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof Lev. XXXV X. By order of the Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania for the State House in Philada...

Did the assembly really expect every single human on the planet to be told? These people did know they were on a planet and that there was more across the ocean, etc.

quote:
Not knowing of a place does not equate to a specific intention to exclude it.
Not knowing of a place means it isn't in your mind to include. It has nothing to do with intention to exclude.

The storyteller creates a story for the people to hear and experience. How can they envision more than they know?

quote:
Since the story as we have it is a myth, why should it not refer to a universal flood?
Why should it?

Edited by purpledawn, : Typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 2:52 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 4:58 PM purpledawn has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 228 of 306 (642080)
11-25-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by purpledawn
11-25-2011 4:20 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

Why is it absurd?

It's a massive non-sequitur as should be obvious to anyone. Does it make sense to you? Do you really think that they lacked the basic concept of "the world"?

quote:

The ground in Genesis is the ground known at the time that pertained to the story. They didn't know that more ground existed. The storyteller is talking to a specific audience. The land and ground would be the land and ground they know. How can they envision what they don't know?

The absurdity is your addition of "AND NOWHERE ELSE!!!!" to the story.

quote:

Not knowing of a place means it isn't in your mind to include. It has nothing to do with intention to exclude.

Your argument requires the intention to exclude because without that you have no general rule which lets you infer that other places should not be included.

quote:

Why should it?

Is not hyperbole an obvious exaggeration? If we cannot say that it definitely is exaggeration, then it cannot be hyperbole. And if it is not hyperbole, why should we not take it as intended to be literal? (in the context of the myth)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 4:20 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 6:18 PM PaulK has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 229 of 306 (642090)
11-25-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by PaulK
11-25-2011 4:58 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
It's a massive non-sequitur as should be obvious to anyone. Does it make sense to you? Do you really think that they lacked the basic concept of "the world"?
Non sequitur doesn't mean anything to me, so you're going to have to spell it out. Why is it absurd?

They lacked the concept of the planet. "The world" to them had nothing to do with the globe.

quote:
The absurdity is your addition of "AND NOWHERE ELSE!!!!" to the story.
I didn't add "and nowhere else" to the story.

I've said that eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet. The use of those words are consistently used to refer to the lands known at the time.

quote:
Your argument requires the intention to exclude because without that you have no general rule which lets you infer that other places should not be included.
I don't understand what you're saying. I know you're trying to do some wonderful logic thing, but basically the people were just listening to a story. How can they envision more than they know?

quote:
Is not hyperbole an obvious exaggeration? If we cannot say that it definitely is exaggeration, then it cannot be hyperbole. And if it is not hyperbole, why should we not take it as intended to be literal? (in the context of the myth)
Literally eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet. What does being a myth have to do with it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 4:58 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 2:24 AM purpledawn has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 230 of 306 (642101)
11-25-2011 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by PaulK
11-25-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
There,s the quite obvious example of your argument that since the Biblical authors were unaware of the true nature of the planet they must intend the Flood account to be taken as purely local, rather than covering all the land. The absurdity seems self evident.

I believe what she is saying is that the author appears to be intending to mean that the Deluge included the "whole world," but only on account of their ignorance of modern geography. Obviously the author(s) were incorrect (which it doesn't sound like anyone is contending with). In reality, they were accounting for a large, localized flood.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 2:52 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 2:31 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 7:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 231 of 306 (642157)
11-26-2011 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by purpledawn
11-25-2011 6:18 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

Non sequitur doesn't mean anything to me, so you're going to have to spell it out. Why is it absurd?
They lacked the concept of the planet. "The world" to them had nothing to do with the globe.

Because it is the concept of "the world" that is important, not the concept of the world being a globe. There is no problem with them finding out that the world was larger than they knew and understanding the story to include those areas too. Why do you keep claiming otherwise?

quote:

I didn't add "and nowhere else" to the story.

So you concede that there is no problem with understanding the story as referring to a universal flood.

quote:

I've said that eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet. The use of those words are consistently used to refer to the lands known at the time

But you have conceded that they do not exclude unknown lands. And a REAL flood would not even have covered all the known lands. If there was a historical flood, that served as a basis of the myth it likely covered no more than a large part of Mesopotamia - or maybe somewhere even further from Israel.

quote:

I don't understand what you're saying. I know you're trying to do some wonderful logic thing, but basically the people were just listening to a story. How can they envision more than they know?

What the audience could envision is not important.

quote:

Literally eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet. What does being a myth have to do with it?

The point you are attempting to address is that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth. Please address that point instead of dragging an entirely different argument into it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 6:18 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 5:52 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 232 of 306 (642158)
11-26-2011 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 7:52 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

I believe what she is saying is that the author appears to be intending to mean that the Deluge included the "whole world," but only on account of their ignorance of modern geography. Obviously the author(s) were incorrect (which it doesn't sound like anyone is contending with). In reality, they were accounting for a large, localized flood.

But that would be conceding that the story says that the flood was universal, which Purpledawn's denies. And even a large, localised flood would not have covered the known world at the time of writing. Canaan itself, for instance, is unlikely to have been affected at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2011 11:41 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 233 of 306 (642161)
11-26-2011 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by PaulK
11-26-2011 2:24 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
Because it is the concept of "the world" that is important, not the concept of the world being a globe. There is no problem with them finding out that the world was larger than they knew and understanding the story to include those areas too. Why do you keep claiming otherwise?
And what is that concept? The English word "world" carries many different concepts.

world
O.E. woruld, worold "human existence, the affairs of life," also "the human race, mankind," a word peculiar to Germanic languages (cf. O.S. werold, O.Fris. warld, Du. wereld, O.N. verold, O.H.G. weralt, Ger. Welt), with a literal sense of "age of man," from P.Gmc. *wer "man" (O.E. wer, still in werewolf; see virile) + *ald "age" (see old).

Originally "life on earth, this world (as opposed to the afterlife)," sense extended to "the known world," then to "the physical world in the broadest sense, the universe" (c.1200). In O.E. gospels, the commonest word for "the physical world," was Middangeard (O.N. Midgard), lit. "the middle enclosure" (cf. yard), which is rooted in Germanic cosmology. Greek kosmos in its ecclesiastical sense of "world of people" sometimes was rendered in Gothic as manasežs, lit. "seed of man."

The word "world" isn't used in the flood story.

The storyteller isn't telling them that their "world" is larger than they know, he is telling them about a flood that covered their land.

quote:
So you concede that there is no problem with understanding the story as referring to a universal flood.
No. There is nothing universal about the language.

quote:
But you have conceded that they do not exclude unknown lands. And a REAL flood would not even have covered all the known lands. If there was a historical flood, that served as a basis of the myth it likely covered no more than a large part of Mesopotamia - or maybe somewhere even further from Israel.
The words by themselves do not tell us if the land is known or unknown. Haeretz, "the land", puts it in the realm of known land and carries the idea of boundaries. The fairest maiden in the land.

If we say the fairest maiden in all the land, it doesn't mean on the planet or absolutely all land known. It just means she was very pretty.

You're asking for exactness from a story that is really just telling people there was a really big ass flood in the area a long time ago.

Just as the Liberty Bell quote wasn't universal, neither was the flood story.

How far the water spread isn't the main point of the story.

quote:
What the audience could envision is not important.
Why not? The storyteller has to use the words that will trigger the minds eye of the listener.

The words in the flood story do not present a global flood.

quote:
The point you are attempting to address is that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth. Please address that point instead of dragging an entirely different argument into it.
You haven't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth, so I have nothing to address yet.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 2:24 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 9:33 AM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 234 of 306 (642167)
11-26-2011 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 7:52 PM


Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
quote:
I believe what she is saying is that the author appears to be intending to mean that the Deluge included the "whole world," but only on account of their ignorance of modern geography. Obviously the author(s) were incorrect (which it doesn't sound like anyone is contending with). In reality, they were accounting for a large, localized flood.
The language used does not describe a global flood. Even today, it does not describe a global flood.

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 global picture?

In Chapter 10 we see the nations the sons became. That would give us a rough idea of the area the storyteller was probably referring to, which has nothing to do with whether that much area was actually flooded or not. It's a setup for the clans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 11-26-2011 9:27 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 235 of 306 (642171)
11-26-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by purpledawn
11-26-2011 5:52 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

And what is that concept? The English word "world" carries many different concepts.

Let us say, that portion of the cosmos inhabited or habitable by humans, of which the listener's land is a part.

quote:

The storyteller isn't telling them that their "world" is larger than they know, he is telling them about a flood that covered their land.

Of course I never claimed that the storyteller was saying anything about the size of the world. So this is just another misdirection on your part.

And I will repeat, if their land is in Canaan, it probably wasn't covered by any real flood at all.

quote:

If we say the fairest maiden in all the land, it doesn't mean on the planet or absolutely all land known. It just means she was very pretty.

Which simply raises the question of where the universal statements you object to could be.

quote:

You're asking for exactness from a story that is really just telling people there was a really big ass flood in the area a long time ago.

I'm not. You are. You're the one that insists that the universal interpretation is invalid. So you are the one who needs to rule it out. If the text doesn't rule it out, then too bad for you.

quote:

Why not? The storyteller has to use the words that will trigger the minds eye of the listener.
The words in the flood story do not present a global flood.

But they could trigger the view of a universal flood.

quote:

You haven't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth, so I have nothing to address yet.

Well if you wish to argue that the supernatural beings that appear in myths - including your God - are incapable of affecting the entire planet than please go ahead. So far as I am aware, most people would decisively reject such a view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 5:52 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 11:20 AM PaulK has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 236 of 306 (642178)
11-26-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by PaulK
11-26-2011 9:33 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
Let us say, that portion of the cosmos inhabited or habitable by humans, of which the listener's land is a part.
What do you mean by cosmos?

quote:
And I will repeat, if their land is in Canaan, it probably wasn't covered by any real flood at all.
So your issue with my argument concerning eretz and adamah is what?

quote:
Which simply raises the question of where the universal statements you object to could be.
What statements did I object to?

quote:
But they could trigger the view of a universal flood.
But you haven't shown why it would trigger a view of a global flood to the audience. I've already shown why it wouldn't.

quote:
I'm not. You are. You're the one that insists that the universal interpretation is invalid. So you are the one who needs to rule it out. If the text doesn't rule it out, then too bad for you.
I have already shown that the text rules out a global interpretation. Message 234

quote:
PurpleDawn writes:


You haven't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth, so I have nothing to address yet.

Well if you wish to argue that the supernatural beings that appear in myths - including your God - are incapable of affecting the entire planet than please go ahead. So far as I am aware, most people would decisively reject such a view.


You still haven't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 9:33 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 5:00 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 1773 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 237 of 306 (642179)
11-26-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by purpledawn
11-22-2011 11:59 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
Hello PurpleDawn,

The Torah is not an historical or science document and altough BFT seems to agree that the story should not be jammed into historical or scientific categories; he cannot seem to grasp the idea that the storytellers told stories concerning their culture and environment and not the planet.
...
BFT shared verses he could probably accept as describing a local event.
...
But he seems to think the local theme loses ground because of the next verses.

Your comments regarding what I can and cannot grasp that you are referring have been taken out of context.

What you did not mention here is that I was making these comments while in conversation with IamJoseph.

The Torah is not an historical or science document...

Try telling that to IamJoseph. He has stated on many occasions that the Old Testament is a more historically and scientifically accurate text than any other text in existence. He claims that over 70% of the text has been proven accurate.

...and altough BFT seems to agree that the story should not be jammed into historical or scientific categories;...

This is my position.

...he cannot seem to grasp the idea that the storytellers told stories concerning their culture and environment and not the planet.

I fail to to grasp no such thing. You have made an assumption and your assumption is incorrect.

The conversation that I was having with IamJoseph has lead you to this assumption.

When it suits IamJoseph he states that the Old Testament text is written by Moses and divinely inspired by God. Quotes attributed to God can be taken as the exact word of God.

When it suits IamJoseph he states that the Old Testament was written by ignorant bronze age nomads and needs to be taken as such.

Those two positions are very different and cannot exist simultaneously.

quote:
Genesis 6:17
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the land (eretz), to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the land (eretz) shall die.

All, every, and under heaven are terms that were still used to refer to local events.


This depends on what you believe regarding the authorship of the Old Testament. This verse supposed to be a quote from God himself. If you believe that the words contained in the Old Testament are the actual words of God taken down by Moses, then you have to believe that this a direct quote from God himself. If this is a quote directly from God, then he would have known about the entire Earth. God would know what exists under heaven. God would know that all of the area under heaven is all of the Earth. Unless you believe that God was unaware of some parts of the creation attributed to him?

If you believe that this text is indeed the scribblings of a bunch of bronze age nomads then I agree that any, all, earth etc can mean only the local area. Of course if you do believe that this text is the scribblings of a bunch of bronze age nomads then it has as much credibility as the legends of the Norse or the legends of the Greeks.

Also, the debate that you have taken your opinion of my comments from specifically discussed the King James Version of the Bible. In the above quote, you have not provided a copy of the text being discussed, you have provided a quote that suits your arguement. Poor form on your part there.

It is an interesting arguement regarding Lots daughters. So you use a quote attributed to a bronze age nomad to support the idea that bronze age people did not know about the Earth as a planet. But you also use a quote attributed to God to support the same arguement. Do you think that your God was as ignorant as a bronze age nomad or do you believe that the text was written by superstitious, ignorant nomads?

Why is it that religious people push a certain part of the text until it becomes impossible for them to do so. Then they smugly advise everyone that it needs to be taken in context or nobody takes that passage literally etc etc etc.

Can you let me know which parts of the bible we are taking literally today and which parts are to be taken in a specific context?

Once you have these two groups, see if you can find 2 other christians who agree with you.

If you want to disagree with a position you believe I support, how about mentioning it in that thread. At least tthat way, if you get it as wrong as you have here, at least I can correct you in the right thread.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by purpledawn, posted 11-22-2011 11:59 AM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


(1)
Message 238 of 306 (642180)
11-26-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by PaulK
11-26-2011 2:31 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
But that would be conceding that the story says that the flood was universal, which Purpledawn's denies. And even a large, localised flood would not have covered the known world at the time of writing. Canaan itself, for instance, is unlikely to have been affected at all.

I see what you're saying now. Well, it's an interesting concept. The only way to know is to read the text and attempt to determine whether or not it was hyperbole or whether or not it was literal.

Consider the following passages as clues to the intent of the author:

quote:
I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” -- Genesis 9:11

Obviously there have been many localized floods since this time. It is therefore possible that this flood was so large that the people of Mesopotamia literally thought that this flood covered the whole planet.

quote:
So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. -- Genesis 6:13

The illustration here is unmistakable. The author clearly states that all people on earth will be destroyed [save Noah and his family], and that the earth would essentially have to start over as a result.

It seems to me that the intent of the author was to illustrate that this was a global flood. Obviously we know that isn't factually accurate, but from a purely literary point of view, that seems to be the intent of the author.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 2:31 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 239 of 306 (642204)
11-26-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by purpledawn
11-26-2011 11:20 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

What do you mean by cosmos?

Is it really relevant ? Let,s say material reality, then.

quote:

So your issue with my argument concerning eretz and adamah is what?

You really have to learn to read in context. The point is that if the story was based on a historical event it is very unlikely that it covered all the land that the Israelites knew of - and that the "Promised Land" of Canaan was almost certainly spared. If the story is meant to convey the message that their land was covered, then it is still almost certainly false.

quote:

What statements did I object to?

You neglected to explain exactly which. So if you don't know what you were talking about I can't be expected to tell you.

quote:

I have already shown that the text rules out a global interpretation. Message 234

I note your weasel wording. You have argued against a "global" flood on the grounds that the author was not aware that the world was a globe. But you have not disproven a universal interpretation -which is the one you need to address.

quote:

You still haven't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth

Sure I have, by pointing out that myths often involve the actions of beings accepted as being capable of acting on that level. It is no different from the example of Superman presented earlier in the thread, which you accepted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 11:20 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 5:22 PM PaulK has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 240 of 306 (642209)
11-26-2011 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by PaulK
11-26-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
You really have to learn to read in context. The point is that if the story was based on a historical event it is very unlikely that it covered all the land that the Israelites knew of - and that the "Promised Land" of Canaan was almost certainly spared. If the story is meant to convey the message that their land was covered, then it is still almost certainly false.
This thread isn't about whether any of the stories are true or false. It is about whether the words used and usually translated as earth refers to the planet Earth. Some say it does, making the flood story refer to a global flood. My position is that the words used do not refer to the planet.

As I've said, I've already shown that the text rules out a global interpretation. You'll have to explain why what I've shown doesn't rule out a global interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 5:00 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 5:51 PM purpledawn has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017