Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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:   Could the flood have been exaggerated?
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 9 of 23 (582394)
09-21-2010 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
09-20-2010 11:45 AM


Re: sure it could be an exageration.
Hey jar, the thread is about whether the story could have been/was exaggerated. There's already a a couple going about the contradictions and stuff -- don't turn this one into a crusade and wreck it before it gets going properly, please?
Just a friendly request.

And yes, there are known to be numerous events that were likely embellished. For example, the Black Sea deluge; while it may not have been as big as originally claimed, it was definitely a large increase in water level over a relatively short period of time.
Plus, who wouldn't build up that kind of story? It's human nature to be competitive: "our flood was bigger than yours! Nahnahnahnahnah.."
And then there's also the propaganda value. "We are the chosen descendants of the only people to survive a flood that killed everything! Our ancestor was the single person selected by God to save all life! Blah blah, self-promotion, exaggeration, etc."
There's also the fact that there really was a flood that destroyed the entire "world". For a majority of people at the time, the "world" consisted of everything within a few dozen miles of your birthplace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-20-2010 11:45 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by frako, posted 09-21-2010 4:33 AM Nij has not replied
 Message 13 by jar, posted 09-21-2010 9:46 PM Nij has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 12 of 23 (582539)
09-21-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Larni
09-21-2010 5:08 AM


Re: sure it could be an exageration.
Doesn't stop creationists from raising the dead.
Ahh, zombie arguments!! Noooo!!
In all seriousness, they'll get around to it at some point. Most of them are otherwise engaged in rather heavy discussion and another thread about Teh Fludde isn't going to interest many yet.
And evidence? What evidence: the only "evidence" you need is The Holy Bible™, now in over twenty flavours to suit all of your theological needs!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 09-21-2010 5:08 AM Larni has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 21 of 23 (585389)
10-07-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by 1.61803
10-07-2010 6:26 PM


Apparently the original word just means "a lot" or "many".
When the first translators were doing their job, they picked a number that seemed like lots to them and used it instead.
There wasn't a number at all; just an unspecified plural amount that could be embellished into whatever the audience chose to think was substantially large.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by 1.61803, posted 10-07-2010 6:26 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2010 10:20 PM Nij has replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 23 of 23 (585398)
10-08-2010 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Adequate
10-07-2010 10:20 PM


Only going by what I remember of my REST classes.
If anybody has something more concrete to say either way, I'll go with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2010 10:20 PM Dr Adequate 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