Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not reading God's Word right is just wrong. No talking snakes!
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 46 of 157 (511224)
06-08-2009 12:01 PM


Sorry, your second question.
On person wrote,
"He shows how much in doing His part as a chimera God at the time of the flood. I wonder if He (Jesus) petitioned God to drown the children and babies first. All that crying would have been annoying.
There was no flood.
It does stand up to moral sense."
I was responding to that sentiment. I added (Jesus) for clarification.

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 47 of 157 (511225)
06-08-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 11:55 AM


The gods were angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy him. The god Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save himself, his family, and "the seed of all living things." He does so, and the gods brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. The god Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods. See the text Epic of Gilgamesh: Sumerian Flood Myth.
As you admit it is a myth, like the one in your bible. This is not proof of anything actually happening.
Myth -
quote:
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
Mind you, this site doesn't necessarily support the conclusion that those floods were connected to the Biblical flood or even the Sumerian flood
Science has found evidence of it in two Sumerian cities.
You stated that in Message 43
Then in Message 45
Mind you, this site doesn't necessarily support the conclusion that those floods were connected to the Biblical flood or even the Sumerian flood
Did you lie? Hope no one called you on your "evidence"? So will you admit there is no evidence for a worldwide flood? Because if there was I think you would present it.
I personally always search for science, history, etc that backs up my statements.
It may be true that you search, but that doesnt mean there is evidence to back up your statements; as proven by this exchange. Maybe you should find the evidence before you make the statements.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 11:55 AM greentwiga has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 48 of 157 (511226)
06-08-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 11:29 AM


Re: The "flood" again
There was a flood. History records it in the Sumerian writings. Science has found evidence of it in two Sumerian cities. (It wasn't the Black sea - that very interesting flood never receded.) The Sumerian flood fits all the Biblical statements.
If it was a local flood, then we really wouldn't have an argument.
But the Bible specifically says that the entire world was covered, even the mountains. Is says that Noah took two or seven (depending on whether the animal was "clean") of every species onto the Ark, with which to repopulate the Earth after the Flood was over. It specifically states that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and that the waters stayed for about a year before receding.
That doesn't describe a local flood. That's a global flood, one which is completely unsupported by physical evidence.
A local flood is completely plausible - floods happen all the time, and it's certainly conceivable that an unusually severe flood could be the root of the actual flood story in Genesis. But the details of the Genesis account are factually incorrect - no global flood ever happened, least of all in the span of human history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 11:29 AM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 12:50 PM Rahvin has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 49 of 157 (511228)
06-08-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rahvin
06-08-2009 12:16 PM


Re: The "flood" again
Please don't confuse the Bible with interpretations of the Bible. You are arguing against the Interpretation that says it is a world-wide flood. I scoured the Bible and find that world wide is only one possible interpretation. Sumerian-wide would fit just as well. Second, I know that the Sumerian quote is a myth, but history is written by the victors and even the American history we learned is a myth. We can find facts in both accounts. The Sumerian myth seems to be based on a real, dramatic flood around 2,900 BC. The science article goes into great depth on it. Did you read it?
Now, the Bible says that the entire civilized world was covered, the mountains of the region were covered and the only mountains in the region were the artificial ones that later grew to the size we called ziggurats. All the animals of the region entered the ark, and the flood stayed for a year and three months. That is only possible in a flood plain, a marsh , in a year of unusual wetness. The entire region of Sumer is a flood plain. You are right if you reword your statement to say the interpretation of the Genesis account is factually incorrect - no global flood ever happened (that covered the highest mountains) remember, the Hebrew word translated Global is also translated regional. Which interpretation is meant? The evidence points to regional.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rahvin, posted 06-08-2009 12:16 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 06-08-2009 1:36 PM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 06-08-2009 1:47 PM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 06-08-2009 1:50 PM greentwiga has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 157 (511234)
06-08-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 12:50 PM


Re: The "flood" again
So let's examine your premise that one of the ways in which evangelicals misinterpret God's word concerns the extent and impact of the flood. This is Genesis 6:13:
Gen 6:13 writes:
And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth."
God continues in Genesis 6:17:
Gen 6:17 writes:
"For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die."
God describes how many of the world's animals must be taken on the ark in Genesis 6:19:
Gen 6:19 writes:
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you."
God describes again how much life he will destroy in Genesis 7:4:
7:4 writes:
"For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."
In Genesis 7:19 the extent of the decimation is described:
Gen 7:19 writes:
And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth , birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth.
Heck of a mistranslation if the flood wasn't global wiping out all life except that saved on the ark.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 12:50 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 51 of 157 (511237)
06-08-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 12:50 PM


Re: The "flood" again
Please don't confuse the Bible with interpretations of the Bible. You are arguing against the Interpretation that says it is a world-wide flood. I scoured the Bible and find that world wide is only one possible interpretation. Sumerian-wide would fit just as well.
quote:
Genesis:
6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
6:7 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.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Emphasis mine.
Does that sound like a regional flood to you? The author is quite plainly setting us up for a global catastrophe. God wants to kill everything that he has made, everything with "the breath of life." You can't get any more direct than this.
It would seem that you are the one "interpreting" the Bible, as opposed to taking what it actually says at face value.
Second, I know that the Sumerian quote is a myth, but history is written by the victors and even the American history we learned is a myth. We can find facts in both accounts. The Sumerian myth seems to be based on a real, dramatic flood around 2,900 BC. The science article goes into great depth on it. Did you read it?
I have not, because it's irrelevant - I accept that a regional flood very well could have happened. I'm not disagreeing with you on that point at all. Floods, even severe floods, are commonplace enough that there's no point in debating whether a regional flood happened.
Now, the Bible says that the entire civilized world was covered, the mountains of the region were covered and the only mountains in the region were the artificial ones that later grew to the size we called ziggurats. All the animals of the region entered the ark, and the flood stayed for a year and three months. That is only possible in a flood plain, a marsh , in a year of unusual wetness. The entire region of Sumer is a flood plain.
It does not say that the entire civilized world was covered. Genesis clearly states that God set out to kill everything that he had made. Every. Single. Living. Thing. Not everything in the Sumerian region, unless you also claim that god only Created the Middle East, and not the rest of teh world. The text said that every creeping thing, every fowl of the air, every beast of the earth, and all men were killed. There is no textual limitation of a specific area - the text plainly is talking about the entirety of the planet, all of creation.
It never actually happened, of course. There was likely a severe local flood, and the Genesis account is the end result of generations of embellishment and, basically, playing telephone with the original facts of the story, such that it has been turned into a myth. I think that we both agree on that point.
But it's important to note that the Biblical account, if it is taken literally, is talking about a world-wide flood - just as Genesis also specifically states that all living things were specially Created by god, not evolved, that man was made from dust, not produced over generations from pre-existing animals, and that the Earth was Created in six literal days.
You are right if you reword your statement to say the interpretation of the Genesis account is factually incorrect - no global flood ever happened (that covered the highest mountains) remember, the Hebrew word translated Global is also translated regional. Which interpretation is meant? The evidence points to regional.
You can practice some apologetics and "re-interpret" the text to fit what we know today from actually studying the matter, but the fact is that the Bible, read literally, makes certain claims that are not themselves "interpretations." I'm not making any interpretations here. I'm simply reading and quoting the Bible, verbatim. Genesis clearly states that there was a global flood.
And interestingly enough, I don't see the word "global" in any of what I quoted. Genesis is speaking of a global flood, but this is clear simply by reading the whole text - god wanted to kill everything that he had made. That would be world-wide. It restates the same basic thing over and over again in slightly different ways. This isn't some translation "oops" where a translator screwed up a single word - the entire story is very clearly talking about a catastrophe that affects everything that god has made - which, according to earlier in Genesis, means the entirety of the world.
The Bible very clearly claims that there was a flood that covered the entire world. There is no interpretation wiggle-room. The Bible makes a claim, one that is very plainly falsified by modern science. You can try to twist it all you want by identifying the root factual events that inspired the myth, but the facts remain the same. The Genesis author (or rather the people who carried the oral tradition until it could be written down) reported events that, while based on an actual flood, now contains more falsehood than truth. It's a perfect example of why the Bible cannot be taken literally as a history book, but is instead a collection of mythology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 12:50 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 52 of 157 (511238)
06-08-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 12:50 PM


Re: The "flood" again
So you are willing to concede that the bible is filled with myths and legends?
So how do you tell what is a myth and what is "real". As Percy shows you certainly don't believe what the bible says.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 12:50 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 2:32 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 53 of 157 (511241)
06-08-2009 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Theodoric
06-08-2009 1:50 PM


Re: The "flood" again
What I need to do is dig up my word studies on the Hebrew words for earth, land, ground, soil, etc. The focus in the passage is that all on the earth, all on the land, etc was destroyed. Some passages, especially the ones that leave out all mention of earth seem to be best interpreted all living things that breathe air. That is why I also compare other scriptures. In 2 Peter, he mentions the creation of the earth and uses Ge, meaning the whole globe. He concludes with the destruction of the whole earth and uses Ge again. In between he mentions Noah's flood but uses Cosmos which is often translated world, or civilized world. That is one reason why I lean toward the translation "civilized world" for the passages in Genesis. Still, I need to find those word studies but I won't be able to today.
No, I don't think of the Bible as myth. It is a book of spiritual lessons that contains accurate history. I don' always stick to the most logical. the Ark was built out of gopher wood and wood is the most logical translation. There are other translations possible though less likely. The word wood is once or twice applied to flax stalks. A careful reading of the passage in Genesis and other Biblical passages shows that gopher wood should be translated Berdi stalks. Despite centuries of people insisting that it was a giant wooden boat, the Bible preserves the truth, forgotten by everyone for millineum, that only recently has science shown true, that in 3,000 BC, there were no oceangoing wooden boats but there were giant ocean going reed boats. Thus, I am willing to consider the other possibilities, even if the "whole earth" translation seems the best, on the surface, as you have shown.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 06-08-2009 1:50 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rahvin, posted 06-08-2009 2:38 PM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2009 3:43 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 54 of 157 (511242)
06-08-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 2:32 PM


Re: The "flood" again
It is a book of spiritual lessons that contains accurate history.
...so long as you remove all of the details and context that are inaccurate by "reinterpreting" the text.
The Bible describes a world-wide apocalyptic flood that kills every living thing on the entire Earth.
You trace this back to the original, factual flood that inspired the fantastical myth, and claim that the Bible contains "accurate history."
That's about as far from accurate as you can get. If you have to strip out all of the details that make the Genesis account what it is, clearly the Genesis account is not accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 2:32 PM greentwiga has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 06-08-2009 2:46 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 55 of 157 (511243)
06-08-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rahvin
06-08-2009 2:38 PM


Re: The "flood" again
If you have to strip out all of the details that make the Genesis account what it is, clearly the Genesis account is not accurate.
I agree. If he wants to strip out everything that disagrees with his belief set, then it becomes inaccurate and what I have said before; Myth.
greentwiga,
You can't have it both ways. Either you believe the mumbojumbo or you do not. It is either accurate as written or not. Torturing the bible to get it to say what you want it to say is dishonest, intellectually and theologically.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rahvin, posted 06-08-2009 2:38 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 56 of 157 (511247)
06-08-2009 3:15 PM


No, I am no stripping anything out. I am looking for an understanding that fits all the Biblical evidence. In science, if a model, such as the Atom fits all the evidence except one, it is wrong. The model has changed, and still doesn't quite satisfy, but does a much better job of predicting than the older models. What you have quoted fits those facts, but when I examine the whole package, I think my model fits much better. I have already quoted Peter. Look at Genesis 11. What land did they find unpopulated or underpopulated? Shinar or Sumer. What region was committing the Sins of Gen 6? In 3,000 BC, the only place was Sumer. What place built ziggurats? Sumer. I agree, when you eliminate everything that is inconvenient, and only look at some of the evidence, as you have done, then a world wide flood is the interpretation to use. All the evidence together allows for the words to be interpreted as a regional dramatic flood.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2009 3:35 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 57 of 157 (511248)
06-08-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 3:15 PM


I agree, when you eliminate everything that is inconvenient, and only look at some of the evidence, as you have done, then a world wide flood is the interpretation to use.
As who has done? Who around here is ignoring all the text about EVERYTHING WITH NOSTRILS getting drowned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 3:15 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 58 of 157 (511250)
06-08-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 2:32 PM


Re: The "flood" again
he mentions the creation of the earth and uses Ge, meaning the whole globe.
You might want to show that the author of Peter had any inkling of the Earth being a globe. He may have been Hellenized enough to know that, but that is not in evidence. The OT authors certainly gave no clue that they thought we lived on a ball.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 2:32 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 59 of 157 (511265)
06-08-2009 5:36 PM


We agree that "everything with nostrils getting drowned," by itself indicates a world wide flood. If we don't look any farther, that is the conclusion, but that is cherry picking the facts. That is why one needs to look at all the Biblical references to the flood and everything pertaining to the flood. Whether the Greeks of Peter's time understood that ge meant the whole world is a good question. It is known that a few Greeks, Eratosthenes and Posidonius, calculated the circumference of the earth reasonably closely before Peter's time. What is most important is that Peter used a much more limiting word for Noah's flood when he could have easily used ge, and in fact it seems more logical to use ge in the context since he used it for the other two verses 2 Peter 3:5-7.

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rahvin, posted 06-08-2009 6:32 PM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 62 by Rahvin, posted 06-08-2009 7:01 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 60 of 157 (511272)
06-08-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 5:36 PM


We agree that "everything with nostrils getting drowned," by itself indicates a world wide flood. If we don't look any farther, that is the conclusion, but that is cherry picking the facts. That is why one needs to look at all the Biblical references to the flood and everything pertaining to the flood. Whether the Greeks of Peter's time understood that ge meant the whole world is a good question. It is known that a few Greeks, Eratosthenes and Posidonius, calculated the circumference of the earth reasonably closely before Peter's time. What is most important is that Peter used a much more limiting word for Noah's flood when he could have easily used ge, and in fact it seems more logical to use ge in the context since he used it for the other two verses 2 Peter 3:5-7.
The author of Peter is not the author of Genesis. What is relevant is what Genesis actually says, not what you think that a much later Biblical contributor thought about it.
Genesis actually says that there was a flood that covered the entire world and killed every living thing that wasn't on the Ark. Full stop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 5:36 PM greentwiga 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