Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
42 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, GDR, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Theodoric, vimesey, xongsmith (11 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,024 Year: 22,060/19,786 Month: 623/1,834 Week: 123/500 Day: 20/61 Hour: 7/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1577 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 16 of 306 (505262)
04-09-2009 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 2:36 PM


True, and really, I'm just arguing from a hypothetical framework.

To me, reading Genesis, it's obvious it's an origin myth about the creation of the Hebrew people. It seems quite obvious to me they did not think their god created everything, but were using hyperbole or exagerration. Where Cain's wife came from seems to indicate they knew there were other people and places beside what their god had created.

It makes much more sense to think they considered all of the creation stories floating around by different peoples to be valid. The first commandment would seem to say that while all those other gods exist for those other people, you (the Hebrews) are to have no other gods above me (YHWH).


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

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 17 of 306 (505265)
04-09-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 2:22 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

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.

Assuming for the moment that your statement is not self-contradictory (perhaps "seem to suggest" is the key to interpreting what you have said), two things come to mind.

a. The Hebrew authors did not aknowledge the reality of a terraqueous globe, much less that the whole thing is rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun.

b. The narrative makes no mention of fish or other sea creature and yet all creatures are destroyed from the "earth" except those which are with Noah on the ark.

Thus, unless you wish to assert that a pair of every kind of sea creature were present on the ark (including Blue Whales and/or large prehistoric reptiles): we are forced to conclude one of two things.


1. Sea creatures do not live on planet earth. Or,
2. "Earth" is not a reference to the globe.

Only in modern times does the flood story "seem to suggest that the entire planet was flooded."

Prior to widespread acceptance of the Copernican model, no one proposed such a bizarre interpretation.

:laugh:


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 2:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 3:45 PM doctrbill has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 306 (505266)
04-09-2009 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 3:38 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

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.


Assuming for the moment that your statement is not self-contradictory (perhaps "seem to suggest" is the key to interpreting what you have said),

Its not self-contradictory because, while the word for "earth" did not mean the globe, god's punishment was wiping out everything so it must have really meant everything, which implies the whole globe.

Thus, unless you wish to assert that a pair of every kind of sea creature were present on the ark (including Blue Whales and/or large prehistoric reptiles): we are forced to conclude one of two things.

1. Sea creatures do not live on planet earth. Or,
2. "Earth" is not a reference to the globe.

Or the story contains errors ;)

Prior to widespread acceptance of the Copernican model, no one proposed such a bizarre interpretation.

What were the propsed interpretations before the Copernican model?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 3:38 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 19 of 306 (505268)
04-09-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 3:45 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Its not self-contradictory because, while the word for "earth" did not mean the globe, ...

When I wrote "self-contradictory" I was referring to how you began by saying "I agree with you ..." and then followed with "But ..." which looks like a disagreement.

... while the word for "earth" did not mean the globe, god's punishment was wiping out everything so it must have really meant everything, which implies the whole globe.

That's the debate, isn't it? But the narrative suggests, and creationists confirm, that sea creatures survived outside the ark; which suggests that the biblical definition of "earth" does NOT include fish habitat.

What were the propsed interpretations before the Copernican model?

Prior to the Copernican model there was no issue here because prior to the Copernican model there was no planetary component in the defintion of "earth."


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 3:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 6:15 PM doctrbill has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 306 (505274)
04-09-2009 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 4:06 PM


When I wrote "self-contradictory" I was referring to how you began by saying "I agree with you ..." and then followed with "But ..." which looks like a disagreement.

Oh, well they're two seperate ideas so I can agree with you on one but not on the other.

... while the word for "earth" did not mean the globe, god's punishment was wiping out everything so it must have really meant everything, which implies the whole globe.

That's the debate, isn't it? But the narrative suggests, and creationists confirm, that sea creatures survived outside the ark; which suggests that the biblical definition of "earth" does NOT include fish habitat.

Sure, but I'm not basing this on the biblical definition of "earth". I agree with you that it doesn't mean the globe.

Looking at the story as a whole, god wasn't just punishing some corner of the world, he was destroying everything.

quote:
Genesis 6:

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


Interestingly enough, it doesn't even mention sea creatures.

God was dissappointed in man so he destroyed them. It doesn't make sense for god to destroy just the local people in one corner of the world.

What were the propsed interpretations before the Copernican model?

Prior to the Copernican model there was no issue here because prior to the Copernican model there was no planetary component in the defintion of "earth."

Okay, but lets look outside the definition of "earth". When people began to realize that there was more to the earth than what was known when the story of the flood was written, eastern Asia and perhaps even America as examples, but before the Copernican model, did people think that the people that lived in those areas were not included in the flood?

Or as the known part of the world was increased, did the presumed area that the flood covered increase?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 4:06 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 9:23 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 21 of 306 (505292)
04-09-2009 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 6:15 PM


ManAdam of EarthLand
Catholic Scientist writes:

...I'm not basing this on the biblical definition of "earth".

It seems that the word "earth" is leading you to think globally; as evidenced by your impression that,

quote:
"... god wasn't just punishing some corner of the world, he was destroying everything."
What, aside from the mention of "earth," leads you to imagine that everything is being destroyed?

Try substituing the word "land" for "earth" and see how it reads. I will rearrange the verses you quoted to show that; and I will also transliterate the Hebrew for man ('adam) which may, in itself, recommend an alternative understanding of the text.

quote:
Genesis 6:
5 And God saw that the wickedness of 'adam was great in the land, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made 'adam on the land, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy 'adam whom I have created from the face of the land; both 'adam, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."


This scripture seems to reinforce our impression that Heaven and Earth (i.e. Sky and Land) are involved in the general destruction but the Sea is not. The Sea is not even mentioned in passing, which seems rather odd when one considers how often Heaven, Earth and Sea are described as if they were three distinct regions of the universe. And if the Sea is not involved in nor affected by the destruction of "Earth," then why would one assume the affected area to be global in nature?

If we say "land" instead of "earth," then the story becomes more plausible.

BTW: 'adam is a term assigned to men of low station; i.e. commoners.

It doesn't make sense for god to destroy just the local people in one corner of the world.

Why not? He does it all the time (assuming you believe God is in control).

Remember Katrina?

Remember the Tsunami?

... but before the Copernican model, did people think that the people that lived in those areas were not included in the flood?

Or as the known part of the world was increased, did the presumed area that the flood covered increase?

I cannot answer everything. I am a student of these questions myself. I can tell you, based on my current understanding the historical development of global awareness, that prior to the voyage of Columbus, the Roman Church had determined that there could be NO INHABITED LANDS on the other side of the globe.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 6:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 10:21 AM doctrbill has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 306 (505327)
04-10-2009 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 9:23 PM


Re: ManAdam of EarthLand
Catholic Scientist writes:

...I'm not basing this on the biblical definition of "earth".


It seems that the word "earth" is leading you to think globally; as evidenced by your impression that,
quote:
"... god wasn't just punishing some corner of the world, he was destroying everything."
What, aside from the mention of "earth," leads you to imagine that everything is being destroyed?

Well damn. I guess I just suck at writing. This whole time I've been trying to tell you that its all the other stuff in the story, and not the word "earth", that leads me to my conclusion.

As I understand the story, god was pissed because people let so much sin into the world so he wanted to wipe the slate clean and start over. You can't wipe the slate clean and start over if you are only wiping one corner of the slate.

Now, I suppose the one corner could have been the only part that god was pissed about, but I haven't really seen any support for that. Other than that, we have to realize that the story does contain some errors.

This scripture seems to reinforce our impression that Heaven and Earth (i.e. Sky and Land) are involved in the general destruction but the Sea is not. The Sea is not even mentioned in passing, which seems rather odd when one considers how often Heaven, Earth and Sea are described as if they were three distinct regions of the universe. And if the Sea is not involved in nor affected by the destruction of "Earth," then why would one assume the affected area to be global in nature?

The way I see it, the sea was left out because it was what was doing the destroying. How could the sea destroy itself via a flood?

... but before the Copernican model, did people think that the people that lived in those areas were not included in the flood?

Or as the known part of the world was increased, did the presumed area that the flood covered increase?

I cannot answer everything. I am a student of these questions myself. I can tell you, based on my current understanding the historical development of global awareness, that prior to the voyage of Columbus, the Roman Church had determined that there could be NO INHABITED LANDS on the other side of the globe.

So there could have been an issue here prior to the Copernican model...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 9:23 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by doctrbill, posted 04-10-2009 11:06 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 23 of 306 (505329)
04-10-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2009 10:21 AM


Storm Surge?
Catholic Scientist writes:

You can't wipe the slate clean and start over if you are only wiping one corner of the slate.

True enough. But what are the parameters of the slate? That, I think, is the question before us. And given what we know about the language, and the state of cosmic knowledge at the time this was written, it is not difficult for us to imagine a limited area (less than global).

... the story does contain some errors.

Perhaps we should look at those. Eh? Do any of them impact the geographic question?

The way I see it, the sea was left out because it was what was doing the destroying. How could the sea destroy itself via a flood?

OK. But that results in a technical question. If the sea is doing the destruction, then perhaps we are looking at the story of a great hurricane with massive tidal surge such as that which killed 10,000 Indians a few years back. The area of devastation in that instance was essentially as far as the eye could see.

As the story is told (by creationists) the waters of the flood were deeper than Mount Everest is high. That notion is not, of course, consistent with the flood being cause by the sea.

So there could have been an issue here prior to the Copernican model...

Not quite sure what leads you to that conslusion. The Church appears to have objected to the idea of other inhabited lands on the basis of scriptural interpretations, the idea that Christ would have had to visit those lands, witness to those people and be crucified all over again. Doesn't make much sense to us now, but it seems to have meant something to people at the time.

At any rate, it was not about the Flood. I believe there has been a lot of Fuzzy thinking around the subject of Noah's flood, especially among persons who are untutored in the knowledge base (science). That fuzzy logic may be clarified via systematic analysis of the language, customs, and natural philosopy of the ancients. That is what we have been doing here, I think.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 10:21 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 11:38 AM doctrbill has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 306 (505333)
04-10-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by doctrbill
04-10-2009 11:06 AM


Re: Storm Surge?
Catholic Scientist writes:

You can't wipe the slate clean and start over if you are only wiping one corner of the slate.


True enough. But what are the parameters of the slate? That, I think, is the question before us. And given what we know about the language, and the state of cosmic knowledge at the time this was written, it is not difficult for us to imagine a limited area (less than global).

Sure.

The idea behind the story is that god wiped the entire slate clean, but the people at the time thought the entire slate was limited to their corner. Now that we know that their corner was not the entire slate, I don't think we should be limiting the wiping to just their corner. The point of the story was that it was the enitre slate, regardless of what the people at the time thought that emcompassed.

... the story does contain some errors.

Perhaps we should look at those. Eh? Do any of them impact the geographic question?

Of course. That they were unaware that their corner of the world was not the entire world doesn't necessitate that the flood was limited to their corner, especially when the idea behind the story is that everything was destroyed.

So there could have been an issue here prior to the Copernican model...

Not quite sure what leads you to that conslusion.

By "issue" I just meant as much of an issue as we are having here and not something to do with the entire chuch's stance on the issue. I wonder what people who were aware of indigenous Americans but unaware of the Copernican Model thought of how much of the globe was supposedly covered in the flood.

Are you familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh (I'm not). Was the flood in that story supposed to be local or was it supposed to cover the whole world? I think that could add wieght to either of our interpretations.

At any rate, it was not about the Flood. I believe there has been a lot of Fuzzy thinking around the subject of Noah's flood, especially among persons who are untutored in the knowledge base (science). That fuzzy logic may be clarified via systematic analysis of the language, customs, and natural philosopy of the ancients. That is what we have been doing here, I think.

Yeah, and you're correct in you interpretation of the word "earth" and how others missuse it to describe the globe.

I just think the other parts of the story suggest the flood should have been global.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by doctrbill, posted 04-10-2009 11:06 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 27 by doctrbill, posted 04-10-2009 1:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1577 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 25 of 306 (505349)
04-10-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2009 11:38 AM


Re: Storm Surge?
The idea behind the story is that god wiped the entire slate clean, but the people at the time thought the entire slate was limited to their corner. Now that we know that their corner was not the entire slate, I don't think we should be limiting the wiping to just their corner. The point of the story was that it was the enitre slate, regardless of what the people at the time thought that emcompassed.

You could have it backwards. You argue that the entire slate was wiped clean, so they thought their local area was the entire slate, but they were wrong on that count. Could it be the other way around, they thought their local area was the slate, and so when their local area was wiped clean, they thought the entire slate had been wiped clean?

If we look at ancient writings from other parts of the globe, we find no mention of this global flood, so either they didn't notice it, paddling around on a palm frond, or it was a localized event that the people in that locale thought was an event that occured everywhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 11:38 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 1:24 PM Perdition has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 306 (505351)
04-10-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Perdition
04-10-2009 1:06 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
You could have it backwards. You argue that the entire slate was wiped clean, so they thought their local area was the entire slate, but they were wrong on that count. Could it be the other way around, they thought their local area was the slate, and so when their local area was wiped clean, they thought the entire slate had been wiped clean?

Yeah but if they thought it was the entire slate then as we realize that the slate is more than they thought it was then the area the flood covered expands as the slate expands.

The point of the story was god starting over. If everything wasn't destroyed then it wasn't starting over.

If we look at ancient writings from other parts of the globe, we find no mention of this global flood,

That's far from true...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

quote:
1 Flood myths in various cultures
1.1 Ancient Near East
1.1.1 Sumerian
1.1.2 Babylonian (Epic of Gilgamesh)
1.1.3 Jewish
1.1.4 Islamic
1.2 Asia-Pacific
1.2.1 China
1.2.2 Lao (Indochina)
1.2.3 India
1.2.4 Andaman Islands
1.2.5 Indonesia
1.2.6 Australia
1.2.7 Malaysia
1.3 Europe
1.3.1 Greek
1.3.1.1 Ogyges
1.3.1.2 Deucalion
1.3.1.3 Dardanus
1.3.1.4 From The Theogony of Apollodorus
1.3.2 Germanic
1.3.3 Irish
1.3.4 Finnish
1.4 Americas
1.4.1 Aztec
1.4.2 Inca
1.4.3 Maya
1.4.4 Hopi
1.4.5 Caddo
1.4.6 Menominee
1.4.7 Mi'kmaq
1.5 Polynesian
2 Hypotheses of origin of flood myths
2.1 The Biblical Deluge
2.1.1 Flood geology
2.1.2 Sumerian king list flood

If we look at some individually:

quote:
Sumerian

The earliest extant flood myth is contained in the fragmentary Sumerian Eridu Genesis, datable by its script to the 17th century BC.

The story tells how the god Enki warns Ziusudra (meaning "he saw life," in reference to the gift of immortality given him by the gods), of the gods' decision to destroy mankind in a flood—the passage describing why the gods have decided this is lost. Enki instructs Ziusudra (also known as Atrahasis) to build a large boat—the text describing the instructions is also lost. After which he is left to repopulate the earth, as in many other flood myths.


quote:
India

The fish then warned him that a deluge would occur in a week that would destroy all life. Manu therefore built a boat which the fish towed to a mountaintop when the flood came, and thus he survived along with some "seeds of life" to re-establish life on earth.


quote:
Inca

In Inca mythology, Viracocha destroyed the giants with a Great Flood, and two people repopulated the earth.


These all support the idea of restarting the world from scratch, which requires everyone being killed, which require the whole planet being flooded.

The Genesis Flood was undoubtedly influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh, which seems to be a global flood because all of mankind was wiped out and two people repopulate the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 1:06 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 27 of 306 (505352)
04-10-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2009 11:38 AM


Re: Storm Surge?
Catholic Scientist writes:

The idea behind the story is that god wiped the entire slate clean, but the people at the time thought the entire slate was limited to their corner. Now that we know that their corner was not the entire slate, I don't think we should be limiting the wiping to just their corner. The point of the story was that it was the enitre slate, regardless of what the people at the time thought that emcompassed.

If it is the feel or impact of the story which one values, then he may wish to retell it in modern terms; such as that of a Space Noah who takes animals away on a giant rocket to escape a general destruction of the solar system. Future students of the story might determine that the entire solar system was not actually destroyed; but, if the important thing is the feel of the story (rather than its factuality), then the story might retain its literary value.

I might agree that the Flood story was intended to creat a sense of total destruction; while at the same time maintaining that it did not actually destroy everything. If one values the story as a cautionary tale (don't anger Jehovah), then one may well leave the story intact. If, on the other hand, one wishes to declare it as history and say it is scientifically accurate, then one will encounter numerous objections.

Are you saying that you value the story as a cautionary tale? Or, are you suggesting that the writer was naieve in his understanding of the scale of destruction? Or is it something else?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 11:38 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 1:38 PM doctrbill has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 306 (505355)
04-10-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by doctrbill
04-10-2009 1:28 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
Are you saying that you value the story as a cautionary tale? Or, are you suggesting that the writer was naieve in his understanding of the scale of destruction? Or is it something else?

Its a myth that may or may not be partially based on an actual event. The actual event could not have been a global flood.

I'm saying the writers thought that the entire world was flooded and wrote the story under that assumption. It doesn't matter that what they thought was the entire world was actually just a portion of it.

If, on the other hand, one wishes to declare it as history and say it is scientifically accurate, then one will encounter numerous objections.

Of course.

Now, the story could be based on an actual local flood. But the point of the story doesn't work if the writers knew that this flood did not cover the whole world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by doctrbill, posted 04-10-2009 1:28 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 7:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1577 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 29 of 306 (505356)
04-10-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2009 1:24 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
You're right, there are many flood myths, and almost (if not all) of them come from areas that are prone to local floods. If you could try and discover when the floods happened for each individual story, I doubt they would all occur at the same time, too.

Yeah but if they thought it was the entire slate then as we realize that the slate is more than they thought it was then the area the flood covered expands as the slate expands.

That's one conclusion, the other is, "Oh, gee, I guess the it wasn't the entire slate after all."

For example, let's say I live on a little island. A tidal wave comes and washes out my entire island. I sit there in despair thinking the entire world has been deluged and wondering why the deity I believe in has visited such destruction on the world. I teach my children that we must be careful never to anger that deity again or he may visit similar destruction upon us. My children have children who have children and eventually one of them decides to try and leave the island, floating off on a log raft. He reaches the mainland that they never even knew existed. They see people walking around and through various signs and gesturing, we find out that a tidal wave reached them, too. The man goes back to his island and tells them of his discovery. They rejoice at his return and realize their deity must be even more powerful than they thought to destroy a bigger world.

Scientists come along and begin to study the island these people live on and determine that the tidal wave that wiped out the island happened 100 years prior, but the tidal wave on the mainland was 200 years prior. Is that evidence that a deity wiped out the world with a tidal wave, or that tidal waves happen in different places at different times?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 1:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 2:44 PM Perdition has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 306 (505361)
04-10-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Perdition
04-10-2009 1:45 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
Yeah but if they thought it was the entire slate then as we realize that the slate is more than they thought it was then the area the flood covered expands as the slate expands.

That's one conclusion, the other is, "Oh, gee, I guess the it wasn't the entire slate after all."

That's why we look to the rest of the story. That god was punishing all of mankind by destroying them and then repopulating the world tells us that the flood was not supposed to be limited to just a portion of the world.

For example, let's say I live on a little island. A tidal wave comes and washes out my entire island. I sit there in despair thinking the entire world has been deluged and wondering why the deity I believe in has visited such destruction on the world. I teach my children that we must be careful never to anger that deity again or he may visit similar destruction upon us. My children have children who have children and eventually one of them decides to try and leave the island, floating off on a log raft. He reaches the mainland that they never even knew existed. They see people walking around and through various signs and gesturing, we find out that a tidal wave reached them, too. The man goes back to his island and tells them of his discovery. They rejoice at his return and realize their deity must be even more powerful than they thought to destroy a bigger world.

Scientists come along and begin to study the island these people live on and determine that the tidal wave that wiped out the island happened 100 years prior, but the tidal wave on the mainland was 200 years prior. Is that evidence that a deity wiped out the world with a tidal wave, or that tidal waves happen in different places at different times?

If the point of the story was that all of mankind was wiped out and then the world was repopulated, then we could conclude that the story was meant to describe a flood that covered the entire planet. That the writers didn't know that thier island was not the entire planet doesn't mean that they must have not been talking about the entire planet.

I'm not saying that the Genesis flood account is evidence of a global flood. I'm saying that the writers thought the whole world was flooded, not just their corner of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 1:45 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 3:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019