Why read the Bible literally: take two

Yep, I was right about the Admin., see message 232.

I think AdminJar's objection in Message 232 was to your trying to bring in evidence that a flood could happen, or did happen. That is the correct interpretation. AdminJarMy question is on topic: why do you think a literal reading of the flood story is more meaningful than a figurative reading? In other words, what do you think the meaning of the story is and why do you think it would mean less if it was fiction?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-28-2005 10:51 PM

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Your claim was that these things were brought to us by Christians. Your comments here are not refutations of my points, they are simply comments on my points.Are you saying that you've way overstepped your bounds by claiming Christian roots to all these things, or are you claiming that the Roman's who invented medicine just didn't do it right until the Christians came along?

My point was, the things I mentioned did not exist before Christ for everyone as they do today. The hospitals and universities as they exist today (i.e. for everyone) began in the Middle Ages in Christian societies, long after the Greek and Roman empires had disappeared. My point was not about medicine per se.

Well, you could say that about the last paragraph or two of message 232 (about how it 'could' or 'did' happen - my apologies), but the vast majority of my posting was about how the text wont allow for anything but a literal reading. I used the assumption that the Flood was local (and therefore not literally a Global flood) and tried to apply it to the text, but I don't see how you can make that work. I was going to go on about the specific words used in more detail to show how it would be even more difficult not to accept that the Flood account was intended to be read as literally global but that is when the Admin. told me to stop posting.

I'm not interested in why you think the text indicates a global flood. Been there. Done that.What I'm asking you to do is to suppose for the moment that the flood story was just a story - pure fiction, not a word of history in it. How would that change the message? Why would the message be any different?That's why I asked the simple question: what do you think the meaning of the flood story is? Too often, people get hung up on whether or not the ark is on top of a certain mountain, and whether or not the flood was global, and they lose track of what the story is really about.So, what do you think the story is about?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

wait, no. i AM.being in hebrew class has become increasingly interesting and useful, not to mention difficult. (i hate gender... but that's pretty much in every other language). this week we took a fun test, basically a test of reading ability. it was more or less a 3rd grade hebrew geography quiz.the week before, we'd learned about countries and cities and whatnot. how to say that something is in a particular city, or ask someone what country they're from. anyways, the word for city is עיר and the word for country is of course ארץ.in fact i could refer to THIS particular country (just to the south of you ringo) as "ameryqah" אמריקה or ארצות הברית ... eretzot habrit -- countries together: "united states." you might have picked up why this discussions important. just to drive this point home, here's the wording of genesis:

quote:

---

Genesis 6:17

​

וַאֲנִי, הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת-הַמַּבּוּל מַיִם עַל-הָאָרֶץ

​

And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth

---

see that pesky word again? literally, i suspect the word means land -- as in ground, soil, dirt, etc, and that it came to mean region, a parcel of land. today, it means country, or even state (those two words are mostly interchangeable, really). i'm not sure what the modern word for "world" or "earth" in the sense of a planet is right now. but what seems to be the case is that the authors of the bible weren't really concerned with too many other countries. just theirs.so the question is this. what grounds does anyone have to read the story as global, when a global concept doesn't appear to exist in the bible, and when the word being used to imply a globe simply means "country." the literal reading again does not support the literalist view. and if steve doesn't believe me that it's even used that way in the bible, here it is again:

quote:

---

Genesis 4:16

​

וַיֵּצֵא קַיִן, מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה; וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ-נוֹד, קִדְמַת-עֵדֶן.

​

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

---

also, if one looks it up in strongs or similar they would find the count:

quote:

---

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count ” Total: 2504
AV - land 1543, earth 712, country 140,

---

twice as many lands as earths. and most of those "lands" are because "country of canaan" sounds a little funny in english. but not in hebrew.

---

אָרַח

It's about how sin brings death, and how the accumulated sins of the pre-flood world brought massive death, and if it didn't really happen, then we don't have to believe that sin really brings death, or that God is truthful.

uh. no. that's the wind up. it's not even the pitch, let alone the homerun. just the wind up.here's the point:

quote:

---

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.'

---

the point is that sin DOES NOT bring death, because god promised us that he wouldn't destroy us anymore no matter how worthy of it we are. it's like a parent spanking a kid a little too hard and promising never to do it again.you can't tell the whole story by just reading the first few pages. the morals are normally at the END.(it's funny how the supposed literalists love the stuff about god's wrath, but are willing to overlook his generosity, compassion, love and even repentence for the sake of his creation -- what would jesus say?)This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 09-29-2005 03:35 AM

---

אָרַח

The word "erets" also means the whole earth as you say, and how many times it is used is irrelevant, as translation aims to find the best meaning for the original.The meaning of Genesis 6 is that God intends to destroy all of mankind except for Noah and sons. That rather corroborates the idea that the entire earth was flooded, wouldn't you think?

God doesn't say He will not destroy the earth any more. He says He will not do it by flood. The Day of the Lord is certainly a prophecy of a future total annihilation of the earth by fire.The New Testament affirms that "the wages of sin is death" so that law has certainly not been abrogated.God's mercy is not ignored in any of this. This is its backdrop and motivation as a matter of fact. This is why the Son of God came to save us.

no, actually it doesn't. i'm sure you know this story:

quote:

---

Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language;

​

Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

---

granted, these were all noah's sons. it's concievable that a similar division and spreading took place prior to the flood -- but i see no indication of it in the text. prior to babel, it seems that everyone was ALWAYS one group of people. it's only 9 generations between adam and noah.other countries are mentioned -- a problem for both readings. but references to countries are often anachronistic: points of reference for the audience, not descriptions of the places at that time. for instance, i highly doubt abraham was around in the time of the chaldeans. and if there's already another country called nod by the time cain flees his family, that presents a REAL problem for a literal reading of a "earth" as a planet, doesn't it? yes, but that's a simplistic way of putting it. it also aims to make the ideas translate well, and make the original make sense in modern idioms. if a translation does not do these two things, it fails.rendering eretz as "earth" may not be the best meaning of the original. the subject line of this is evident that they're not the same word -- it's plural. you can use the plural "eretzot" in hebrew, and it makes sense. but "earths" doesn't make sense in english, does it?now, it could be argued that in some instances, it can for all intents and purposes mean the planet -- the ancient hebrews clearly did not think of "the earth" as we do today. when it stands alone, paired with heaven, it might mean the whole earth. so i don't object to the usage in genesis 1:1 for instance.but strictly speaking in literal terms, there is no actual indication in the text that ארץ in the context of genesis 6-9 should mean anything other than a particular region (not neccessarily ONE country), not even exterminating all of mankind.i do think it would be a much grander miracle larger, however. so i tend to think of it as a global flood myself. just like two great big walls of water is cooler than an extremely low tide. so if you can show me a really good reason to think that it should mean the whole planet here... please do. i'm just basically suggesting that they didn't seem to have thought of "the earth" as we do today.

---

אָרַח

hey, i'm the one pointing out technicalities here! and while we're on technicalities -- not EVERYONE. every christian of even a single denonomination would require a MUCH bigger boat than one old guy and his family. it's not exactly anhilitation of mankind -- just parts of it.you can't get off on the flood technicality and expect me not to point out the genocide vs. anhilation technicality. paul is still wrong. not all sin requires death. not even in leviticus. ... from death?i propose a contest. i'll check back with you in about 70 years. if we're both still alive, i'll check back every 100 years or so until one of us keels over. last man standing is the winner.sound offensive? think about it for a second. the flood is pretty clearly talking about real death. no more brain activity, heart stopped, physical death. if that's the death christ saved us from, why do we still die?personally, i hope you win the challenge. i don't want to live forever.

---

אָרַח

Um, Arach, I'm not sure I understood much of this post of yours. Genocide vs annihilation, gigantic boat required? Not following you.All sin contributes to death, though, even the lesser sins.About being saved from death, it goes something like this: Salvation is a process that won't be fully realized until after death. We still have sin operating in our bodies and our bodies have to die as a consequence. Redemption starts with the spirit and is completed with the redemption of the body in the resurrection.

in the last days, a lot more will be saved than were in the flood, right? all of christendom, or at least all of the particular sect you happen to be in? supposedly, all of the remaining christians will be exempt from the hell on earth bits because of the rapture? then the 144,000 go to to minister to those who haven't heard?basically, all of a religion, and a single family are a little different in orders of magnitude. it's only genocide, not anhilation. you sure? generally, when you sinned in ancient israel, you brought a young lamb without blemish to be slaughtered for a sin offering. and if you have no lamb? two turtledoves. the priest would snap their necks, wring out the blood and sprinkle it on the altar.but if you couldn't find or afford two turtledoves?

quote:

---

Lev 5:11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering.

---

tell me faith, do plants count here while we're on technicalities? sounds like an excuse to me. so, jesus's sacrifice clenses us of all our sin, and he promises to save us from death ---

quote:

---

Jhn 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

---

--- but we still die, and we still see death (of ourselves and others), because this whole "not dying" thing kicks in after death?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 09-29-2005 04:52 AM

---

אָרַח