Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 262 of 306 (247170)
09-29-2005 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by ringo
09-29-2005 1:08 AM


I'm not interested in why you think the text indicates a global flood. Been there. Done that.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 1:08 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 3:40 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 273 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 11:29 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 264 of 306 (247175)
09-29-2005 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
09-29-2005 3:26 AM


you missed the point
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 3:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 3:45 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 267 of 306 (247182)
09-29-2005 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
09-29-2005 3:40 AM


Re:
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?
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?
translation aims to find the best meaning for the original.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 3:40 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Steve8, posted 09-29-2005 1:15 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 268 of 306 (247186)
09-29-2005 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
09-29-2005 3:45 AM


Re: you missed the point
God doesn't say He will not destroy the earth any more. He says He will not do it by flood.
hey, i'm the one pointing out technicalities here!
The Day of the Lord is certainly a prophecy of a future total annihilation of the earth by fire.
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.
The New Testament affirms that "the wages of sin is death" so that law has certainly not been abrogated.
paul is still wrong. not all sin requires death. not even in leviticus.
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.
... 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 3:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 4:31 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 270 of 306 (247192)
09-29-2005 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
09-29-2005 4:31 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 4:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 5:23 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 295 of 306 (247529)
09-30-2005 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
09-29-2005 5:23 AM


Re: technicalities
Well, I'm not committed to that popular interpretation of prophecy. It may have some truth in it or it could be all wrong. I am more persuaded to the view that the rapture will occur at the second and final return of Jesus. The rapture in the popular scenario DOES, however, explain how believers are saved while unbelievers endure wrath.
i'm pretty certain that if you're going read revelation as a literal prophecy, there's only one order it goes in.
No boat needed.
the boat bit was supposed to be a joke.
I can't believe that anyone who is not saved in the rapture will be saved afterward, however. That doesn't fit anything in the gospel as I understand it. Nobody was saved besides those on the ark, so nobody will be saved besides those who already believe on the Last Day. But that's a side issue here.
well, the flood and endtimes are not exactly analogous -- which WAS the point. revelation says there will be a chance for those who have NOT heard the gospels to hear. which i think occurs after the rapture. but i could be wrong, it's been a number of years since i last read revelation as a whole.
Oh you mean because some are saved? Are you just quibbling with the term "annihilation" then?
what i'm saying is that 1 religious group > 1 family. god's not destroying ALL of mankind. just some.
It's not genocide either, however, technically speaking, as believers from all races and tribes are to be saved, and unbelievers from all races and tribes will suffer wrath.
yes, i suppose, technically. but i didn't have a better word for it.
God has provided sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, yes, and Jesus is the Ultimate Sacrifice. What is your point though? Living the repentant life, even living by the Proverbs, can restore life too ("It is health to the bones"), whenever one begins to do so. God said He gave His laws as a means to life -- follow them and you will be blessed in all kinds of ways, disobey and the curse is your lot. "Choose life" He said, that is, choose obedience.
Jesus is the Sacrifice that ended all other sacrifices.
which is of course not true. sacrifice went on in solomon's temple well after jesus's death. but if we should quibble about this bit... you're going to say that the foundation of the new christian religion is what counts. sure, but we still sacrifice.
tithing is a form sacrifice. under the levitical standards, sacrifices did not serve primarily to attone for sins -- most served to feed the preistly caste. some were burned up whole for certain things, the serious things. but most were food, such as the flour. see, the levites only worked in the tabernacle by tradition. they didn't farm or shepherd. so they needed to be fed.
if you pay money out of your own pocket in church, you are making a sacrifice. jesus did not end that, did he? although i think he probably intended to.
There is an eternal death besides the bodily death. The death of the soul. It is this death He saves us from.
uh huh. but you just made a speach about how god punishes sin with PHYSICAL death: the flood.
But also in that statement He is simply claiming that He has power over death, can raise people from the dead. He did that when He was on earth, and He will do it on the Last Day when all will be resurrected to face the Judgment.
not what he said. he said: " If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death."
he's not saying "i can raise people from dead" he's saying "you won't die."

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 5:23 AM Faith has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 296 of 306 (247530)
09-30-2005 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by ringo
09-29-2005 11:29 AM


Re:
I agree with your take on it, that the word eretz refers to a local area (but the writers probably thought the flood was "global" - if they had such a concept at all).
it was certainly meant to be massive. maybe it equates to "global" in a modern sense: it did wip out everyone on the planet according to the story. i just don't think the authors had a strict concept of globality, and it would have been very easy to mix up what they meant where. the literal wording does not demand a global flood, but it is the accepted reading.
My point was that the topic is (or should be, in my opinion) about why a literal reading of the Bible is preferred by some.
well, i'll be honest. i prefer a literal reading of the bible (even if it's wrong). the reason i prefer to read it that way is because it makes a lot more sense. the people who wrote it weren't thinking in terms of disguising stuff we only know now into some kind of code language. they were interested in recording their culture -- and that include some folk tales.
the thing is that we should be able to read it literally in a detached sense. this is what it says, these are the events of the story. we shouldn't be worried about how to make it literally true, either. we can read homer's odyssey literally for instance without trying to justify odysseus' 10 year journey home as a factual account. and we can read good works of fiction from today literally as well. things are written literally...
...even when there's more to them. gulliver's travels clearly reads as a literal story. but there's obviously more to it than that. i think there's more to the bible as well, but we have to get the literal story down first. i am by no means adovocating ignoring the rest of it. read it literally, understand it according to application and context, and remember it symbolically.
I just wish we could discuss why we can't learn as much from fiction as from history.
to be honest, at a certain point i don't even differentiate the two anymore. even as a work of COMPLETE fiction (which i'm sure it's not) the bible tells us a great deal about who the ancient hebrews were. there's a good deal we can learn just from reading it. just like beowulf could help us understand anglo-saxons, and the iliad ancient greeks.
certainly books like psalms tell us very little as historical account, but in some sense they themselves are history. it's a look into what religious song was like 2600 years ago in israel and judah.
i'm also completely for reading the bible as fiction. i wish the religious people would really put down what they believe and what they think they know about it and just read it for what's there. it's a really interesting collection of books, and there's a lot to be learned when you actually want to learn it.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 11:29 AM ringo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 297 of 306 (247531)
09-30-2005 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Steve8
09-29-2005 1:15 PM


Re:
I think it's important in reading Genesis 1-11, that there is even more time covered in that period, than in the rest of the OT combined (excepting prophecy of the future of course).
yeah, i think you're right. moses to exile is only about 700 years. (not counting the huge discrepency in judges.) noah's birth to babel is about 700 years.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Steve8, posted 09-29-2005 1:15 PM Steve8 has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 298 of 306 (247533)
09-30-2005 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
09-29-2005 1:47 PM


Re: Flood
Well, I wouldn't disagree with that. I'd just ask how much reason we have to trust that God will protect us if we obey Him if His threats don't amount to anything anyway?
this is a pretty common christian idea of the jewish god. orthodox jews are very concerned with the law, yes. but their god does not govern with fear. in fact, their god doesn't govern at all.
following the law or not following the law is entirely a choice. the people who obey do it out of duty and love. not fear of death.
when jesus came, his ideas were radical especially because alot of people thought in the same way you do. they had been told to fear god. jesus explained that god loves his children, and provides for them.
this is clearly still a revolutionary idea, but if you look for it it's all over the bible.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 1:47 PM Faith has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 299 of 306 (247534)
09-30-2005 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
09-29-2005 2:24 PM


Re: Flood
God's punishments are not real, why should anything else He says be real either?
were you ever punished as a child? did it kill you?
must not have been a real punishment then, right? the fact is that god isn't an authoritarian ruler -- he's a FATHER. if you kill your children, they're not going to learn to do better next time.
How on earth is the story of a worldwide cataclysm of any value in teaching obedience
because, like i explained, it's not about teaching obedience. where on earth did you get the idea that it was?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 09-29-2005 2:24 PM Faith has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 300 of 306 (247535)
09-30-2005 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by ringo
09-29-2005 2:38 PM


Re: Flood
As I said, Noah was never threatened. He did what was right because it was right.
i'll go a step further. noah didn't have anything to obey in the first place. it's not he followed the ten commandments or anything. god kills mankind because:
quote:
Gen 6:5 every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
nothing to do with following rules or obeying god -- it was about the content of their hearts. the stuff jesus spoke about, not the law.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 2:38 PM ringo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 301 of 306 (247538)
09-30-2005 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Steve8
09-29-2005 2:38 PM


a priori
You see, you start with the a priori assumption that a global Flood didn't happen, you see all stories on this as being made up in some way...I, on the other hand, view it as an historical event, which other stories allude to, but which the Bible captures most accurately. We have different starting points, that's all.
you start with a few a priori assumptions too. for instance, the contents of the bible. everyone does it, and it's really hard to ignore sometimes.
for instance, we all know the fruit adam ate in the garden was an apple, we all know moses crossed the red sea on foot, and we all know that noah took exactly two of every animal on his boat. we've heard a lot ABOUT these stories from our own cultural tradition that when we actually read them we forget to actually pay attention and read them for what they say.
i'm not blameless here either -- i've been caught in an assumption or two myself. we all do it.
so here's the question. when the hebrew word for "country" is used to describe what got flooded, what context makes you think it was global? what translators say? what you've heard about the story in church? or something in the text? because i don't see any literal indication in the text.
don't get me wrong, i'd LIKE to read it as global. i just can't totally justify it.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Steve8, posted 09-29-2005 2:38 PM Steve8 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by purpledawn, posted 09-30-2005 7:06 AM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 302 of 306 (247540)
09-30-2005 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by ringo
09-29-2005 5:51 PM


Re: Flood
No offense, but it was people like you with the "vengeful God" bit that made me decide that's not the side I'm on.
maybe i'm missing something here, but isn't the flood story the one where god promises NOT to be vengeful? i mean, i don't see how it's possible to think it's about why we should fear a god who says "oops, sorry, i guess that was kind of overkill. i won't do that again."
i mean, i'm sure i can find lots of other instances general "deserved" nastiness...

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by ringo, posted 09-29-2005 5:51 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by purpledawn, posted 09-30-2005 7:22 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024