|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3083 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not The Planet | |||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 3083 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Looks like I have some reading to do and notes to put in my Bible. Not just you. That's what I love about these exchanges. I had explored the "kosmos/oikoumene" question only so far as it was necessary to conclude that neither is a reference to earth. You have opened my eyes to an even greater body of evidence than I had known. How fortunate for me that we have had this conversation. I am scheduled to present Bible studies of my choosing (to be announced), and had planned to include a segment on the subject of this thread: how the biblical "earth" may not be construed to mean our planet. Now, I see that the subject is even richer than I had imagined. I have you to thank for that.
I don't think we will ever have a Bible that translates Roman Empire, where it should be. Not in every instance, to be sure. We have a start, of course, and that from a surprising quarter (:eek![]() I should point out that "oikoumene" is not uniformly applied to the Roman Empire; as you may have guessed considering the fact that the expression is a Greek one. The Greeks referred to their own empire as "oikoumene" as well. The original sense is supposed to have been "habitable earth" (combining "oikos" with "ge" which reminds one of the Hebrew "tebel") and they (the Greeks) employed it in reference to their own domain, not to that of a lesser race. Its use reminds me of the Sicilian "Cosa Nostra." I suspect that the Jews, in like manner, being proud of their cultural heritage and imagining they had favored status with their deity, might apply the term "oikoumene" to their own Homeland, the land promised to Abraham and his offspring "for ever." If so, it would explain a lot of the New Testament rhetoric, and explain away the ridiculous notion that this backward people, perennially unsuccessful in establishing their own ancestral heritage would dare to assert their imminent dominion of the Whole-shootin'-match.
The idea of taking over the whole planet is the basis a lot of Christian movements. Yes. And a reason to be afraid of Christians. They believe God has told them to do it. When an individual behaves that way, he risks being carted off to the nut house. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
In the prophecy thread the word "world" came up again and I kept thinking of this thread.
Mark 13:10
The gospel must first be preached to all the nations. Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumenē) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Luke 21:26 ...men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world (oikoumenē); for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. The author of Mark left out the world issue, and the author of Luke didn't bring up how far the gospel had to go. If they didn't understand planetary, then the author of Matthew was most likely speaking of the Roman Empire or at least the inhabitants they knew of in the "world", which again goes back to Paul's ministry. The author of Matthew was written after the destruction of the temple and I assume Paul's work was known. Since Luke was written about 95 CE, people knew what had actually happened. Would the author still be talking about the Roman Empire, since the destruction was localized in Jerusalem? Although from what I've read, I think there were still difficulties between the Jews and the Romans that lead to later battles. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 3083 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Since Luke was written about 95 CE, people knew what had actually happened. Would the author still be talking about the Roman Empire, since the destruction was localized in Jerusalem? Although from what I've read, I think there were still difficulties between the Jews and the Romans that lead to later battles. Indeed, there was continual tension between the home-boys and the army of occupation; much as there is continual tension between the U.S. Army and those who would have them out of the Iraqi homeland. It would not have taken a clairvoyant of the time to imagine ever more terrible things to come, such as Julius Severus' reaction to the Bar Kokhba revolt in the second century, in which the Romans destroyed 985 villages, killing the residents and/or selling them into slavery; thus virtually wiping out the Jewish population of central Judea. The sacking of Jerusalem was a serious blow to Jewish hopes of independence. Imagine then how demoralizing it must have been to stand by helplessly as an entire province was drenched in the blood of "God's People." An astute political observer then, witnessing the continued tendency of the Jews to armed resistance, might with favorable odds on success, predict more of the same with an increasingly repressive response from the Empire. The Star Wars myth is an excellent analogy for what happens when a small group of dissidents stands up to a mighty conqueror; except that in reality the Jewish rebels did not defeat the Empire. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 3083 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Luke 21:26 ...men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world (oikoumen); for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. It just occurred to me, considering what I said earlier about the probable Jewish use of the term "oikoumene," that if they did use it as others (Greeks and Romans) had done then it would have been a reference to their own homeland, much as many Old Testament authors appear to have employed the terms "tebel," "'adamah," and "'erets" in exclusive reference to Israelite territories. Alternatively, first century Jews may have employed "oikoumene" to describe the greater Jewish community, including the far flung synagogues of Rome and Babylon. Such usage also has OT precedents in that "'erets" is often employed metaphorically as a reference to the body politic of Israelites. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That usage would fit with the author of Luke. Luke's author sees the destruction as punishment. He doesn't really say who for, but given the late writing he already knew the Jews lost, not the Romans. So the implication is punishment for the Jews. Luke 21:22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. The authors' of Mark and Matthew have Jesus surfing in to collect the elect from the turmoil. The author of Luke doesn't. The author of Mark may have been written closer to the destruction and may still have had hope in defeating the Romans. Interesting thought. Edited by purpledawn, : Possessive "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 3083 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
So, what does the Bible mean by earth?
quote: In other words: Earth is "Land."
Earth is the dry part / Sea is the wet part. This is the initial and perennial understanding of the term earth as it is used throughout the Bible.
We say Seas are a part of the Earth.
The author of Genesis doesn't agree. The ancient concept isn’t difficult to grasp. - Earth - dry / Sea - wet. Unless the meaning of dry [land] is stretched to include wet Seas, then Genesis 1:10 cannot be describing the globe. Likewise, Genesis 7:22 cannot be describing a global flood. The Bible speaks for itself. ![]() Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5558 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
Medieval Europe reputedly talked about the number of angels who can stand on a pin. Medieval America similarly has not a clue about anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
This article "Planet Earth? or Land?"
brings up many of the points that you have made and helps to understand where our word planet comes from and what it really means. The Greek verb which is the basis for "wandering" or "going astray," when cast in a commonly-cited form, is plan; this means to wander, to go astray, to lead astray, to mislead. From this verb, one can derive a noun (plants), and then one can derive an adjective, which is similar; they describe a more-or-less aimless wanderer, vagabond, rover, or person who is straying or mistaken in his path. In ancient Greek writings, the adjective is then combined with a noun meaning "star" resulting in "straying star," "erratic star," or "wandering star." In English, we have taken the adjective only, and from it we have developed the word "planet," which we use as a noun. But in ancient Greek the pertinent noun is "star," and the concept of a planetas something quite distinct from a staris not present. A "planet" was only one variety of star: the dot of light that wanders aimlessly in the sky. Both were merely points of light in the night sky, distinguishable from each other because of the two different kinds of paths. Jude 1:13 uses the the phrase wondering stars.
Raging waves of the sea , foaming out their own shame; wandering (planētēs) stars (astēr) , to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever . So even the Greek of the NT is not referring to a spherical planet.
A Greek New Testament word that is commonly translated as "world" is ain, which means "age" or "era," but not "planet." Another New Testament word is g, which is discussed above, and which commonly means "land," but not "planet." A third Greek word which may be translated as "world" is kosmos which means "order" or "arrangement" and which might be well rendered at some points, in view of the context, as "social order." And a fourth such word is oikoumen which identifies either "inhabited area" or "habitable area" (but not a planet with people on it). This knowledge really changes some of the ideas concerning the Book of Revelation. It doesn't speak of the destruction of planet Earth, but more likely the Roman Empire. That may be a good thread to start. I'll have to work on that. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 3083 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
It is gratifying to see such an article appearing, as it does, in an ostensibly Christian setting. Sounds like the author has been looking over my shoulder. It is hard for me to believe sometimes, but it is now twenty years since I began singing this song.
"Earth is NOT the planet" Not in the Bible, you understand. ![]() quote: At the time this thoroughly pissed me off. Twenty years earlier, by virtue of being a heretic, I was pressured out of the ministerial training program of my church. I was already an avid student of the Bible and had been in the program long enough to acquire a few preacher tools. Subsequently, I continued to study and surpassed all my clergyman friends in knowledge of the Bible. But the course of my formal education had to change, so I switched my studies to biology/pre-med, and came to know the importance of preserving our habitat. So, when that man attacked my mission, in the local newspaper, I was sure I knew more about the issues than did he. I was also sure that he was not alone in his ignorance and negatory attitude.
So even the Greek of the NT is not referring to a spherical planet. Indeed! Few people understood the recent theories of Pythagoras (500 BC) and Aristotle (300 BC) and fewer still accepted their validity; least of all persons of faith. It took 1600 years for the Church to perceive the wisdom of Aristotle's belief. And we are only discussing the concept of a terraqueous globe. And the heliocentric vision of Eratosthenes? Forget it. He believed pretty much the same thing Copernicus would be teaching nearly 2,000 years later; and getting a similar reception. Few people understood it, fewer still accepted it, and least of all persons of faith. This knowledge really changes some of the ideas concerning the Book of Revelation. It doesn't speak of the destruction of planet Earth, but more likely the Roman Empire. It changes pretty much everything which believers believe about the Bible (IMO). It changes our idea of the scope of The Creation. It changes what we make of The Great Commission. And it changes what we imagine to be The Kingdom of God; AKA "Christ's Global Dominion." Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
No wonder no one wants to breech the subject.
![]() I always did find it odd that Churches say that we can see God in creation and yet don't take care of it. Bigger better churches, huge parking lots covering grasses. Good farmland no longer useful. They seem to want to escape creation instead of embracing and respecting it. The Bible writers speak of the world known to them, not the entire planet. I think it is hard for the fundamental believer to downsize their view. This knowledge does change a lot of what Christianity is selling. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 3083 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
purpledawn writes: No wonder no one wants to breech the subject. ![]() I expect it is quite embarrassing if you believe the Bible to be a true revelation of the universe and its creator; A creator who, for example, made man with a foreskin on his penis, then, a few thousand years later demanded that he remove that foreskin with an old fashioned knife manufactured by banging rocks together. A few thousand years after that this eternal, unchanging, deity relented and said we didn't have to do that any more. But that was only after we arrested his only child and tortured him to death. Now, the creator will do pretty much anything we ask. So long as we remind him of what happened to his kid in Israel two thousand years ago. Just a for instance, you understand. - There's more where that came from. Did you happen to read the one and only response that author got to his article on that web? A rather lame retort, I'd say. After checking out the home page of that site I think he must be somewhat of a heretic thereabouts; at least that is what I gathered from their introductory video The American Christian Science Affiliation. In the video Randy Isaac, executive director of the ASA, defines "Science:" as "a study of God's creation."
quote: Perhaps my favorite part of the video was an appearance by Margaret Towne, an editor of the ASA NEWSLETTER who enthusistically reported,
quote: They cut her off there, leaving me to wonder if she were being censored. I figure she had already exposed a fundamental weakness of creationist religion: clergymen who don't know what they are talking about when it comes to questions of science. My previous, and continuing pet peeve is: clergymen who don't know what they are talking about when it comes to their own purportedly foundational documents: the anthology we call the Holy Bible.
I always did find it odd that Churches say that we can see God in creation and yet don't take care of it. Bigger better churches, huge parking lots covering grasses. Good farmland no longer useful.
Indeed! When I was in my third year of Bible College we were holding worship services in the gymnasium because our student body had outgrown the meeting hall in our administration building. In fact, our numbers were so great that we had to hold two services in order to accomodate everyone's desire to attend. So there came a movement to erect a church building. The building committee employed various enticements to elicit our support, financial and otherwise. One argument in favor of giving was that the new structure would be large enough to accomodate us all in one big happy single weekly worship service. Another argument enticed us with the thought of real church pews padded with six inches of foam rubber; beatiful music from a real pipe organ; and a dazzling light show from numerous six-inch-thick color-tinted windows. They seem to want to escape creation instead of embracing and respecting it. One sales pitch I found particularly distasteful. "Jesus is coming soon," they crooned, "and Sister White {SDA version of Joseph Smith, or Mary Baker Eddy} tells us we should raise churches because in the time of the end {of the world} throngs will flock to us to hear God's message." {ain't we special!?} The building we erected was an engineering marvel. I lived on campus so I got to see it take shape gradually over a period of months. I won't take the time now to describe it but I can tell you that with proper maintenance, the structure could easily last 500 years, possibly a thousand. So I wonder if we'll have paid off the loans before Jesus comes? BTW, We still had to hold two services weekly. And yes, they knew that we would have to do that, even as they promised us the moon. And whereas the gymnasium may not have been conducive to the "spiritual" atmosphere in which the clergy feel most comfortable, it was, after all, paid for and utilized free-of-charge as part of the benefits for which we paid such outlandish tuition and fees. NOW, we had to collect money to finish paying for our new church, and in order to keep the doors open we had to collect a thousand dollars a week, just to pay for the utilities.
Please keep in mind that we were "God's remnant people" with "an urgent message" to the world:
"Jesus is coming soon. Maybe today. (So get on your knees and empty your pockets)."
The Bible writers speak of the world known to them, not the entire planet. I think it is hard for the fundamental believer to downsize their view. Very hard. Even for me. Which seems odd to me because I think of this gospel as it were my invention. I find the truth of it quite liberating. Even so, all that brainwashing...errr...early training, is difficult to overcome. So I have demons, so to speak.
This knowledge does change a lot of what Christianity is selling. Sad but true. But what a fantasy they spin. I mean: Wouldn't it be great if you and I and our friends could rule the world? Us versus them; whoever they are. We'd show 'em how its done. Us and God. They'd better watch their evil asses now! ![]() Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 346 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi doctrbill,
doctrbill writes: "Earth is NOT the planet" How much of the firm erets is covered by water? You have dry erets and you have erets covered by water, but it is all erets. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2649 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes: How much of the firm erets is covered by water? Clearly, the folks who first put scripture into written form could not have answered that question (unless of course they were given the answer by divine inspiration, in which case they curiously chose not to make a record of it). Should we nonetheless take their scripture into consideration, using it as some sort of guide or "filter for truth," when we answer that question today? If so, how does that help us, exactly?
You have dry erets and you have erets covered by water, but it is all erets. Perhaps you can cite some specific verses in scripture to confirm that this was the perspective held by the original writers. But I wonder if there may be other verses that would tend to confuse the issue -- e.g. there might be something to support a notion like "go far enough out to sea and it's just water all the way down." I don't doubt that if someone in the Middle Ages had wanted to expound such a view, they would be able to find scriptural "evidence" to support it. It's virtually impossible for a group to sustain a coherent description for some aspect of reality that they really don't comprehend, no matter how cohesive they may be in their shared world view. This is especially true (and obvious) when the group is unwilling to acknowledge what they don't understand. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 346 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Otto,
Otto Tellick writes: Perhaps you can cite some specific verses in scripture to confirm that this was the perspective held by the original writers. The discussion was not about what Moses knew or did not know. It was about the meaning of the Hebrew word erets which he used. Whose root means firm and erets means earth or land. It does not distinguish from dry land or land covered with water. In Genesis 1:9 the Hebrew word yabbashah means dry ground and preceeds erets, producing dry land as all the water was gathered into one place. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Land covered with water is not dry land. So yabbashah means dry ground and God said the yabbashah would be called erets. If it is covered with water it isn't dry ground. The waters were called yam. Erets doesn't refer to the planet, which contains both.
Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth ; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas : and God saw that [it was] good . Bitstsah is the word for swamp or marsh. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025