Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 306 (582704)
09-22-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by doctrbill
09-22-2010 7:06 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
My intent was to consider this for a time and come up with a wise answer. Then, I must have become distracted. By now you have probably witnessed that new thread discussing whether or not the Noah's Flood story is exaggerated. There is an excellent video in that thread which graphically demonstates how a mere river flood can appear to be "world" wide. In fact it is, to the victims, most of whom are born in that world and never wander outside it bounds. Anyhoo, I now have a response to your response which you posted so long ago.
I've been way busy and haven't had time for EvC for, like, a month.
I only have a moment now so I can't even give you a proper reply. But I think I can tell what I was thinking about this.
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
Their "whole world" of course. But if by "whole world" you mean: the globe then, No. They had no notion of the global reality.
I don't know which version of the Bible you favor but I am not familiar with any which use the word "world" in the context of Noah's flood. I do know that the Hebrew version utilizes 'erets and 'adamah which generally refer to real estate and their greatest scope, with addition of modifiers "whole" and "all the" are applied to regions and even to imperial territories, but apparently, and for arguably excellent reasons, are never applied to anything larger than the Macedonian Empire.
I'm not talking about any particular word usage, but looking at the myth as a whole.
God was pissed so he killed all the life with a flood. To do that would mean that, for the point of the story, the whole world would have to have been flooded. I agree the people of the time had no concept of a planet, but I think they had to be thinking that all of the world was flooded, not just a portion of it. Otherwise God wouldn't have been killing all the life, which was pretty much the reason for the flood in the first place.
Makes sense?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : can --> can't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 7:06 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 11:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 92 of 306 (582710)
09-22-2010 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by New Cat's Eye
09-22-2010 10:27 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm not talking about any particular word usage, but looking at the myth as a whole.
God was pissed so he killed all the life with a flood. To do that would mean that, for the point of the story, the whole world would have to have been flooded. I agree the people of the time had no concept of a planet, but I think they had to be thinking that all of the world was flooded, not just a portion of it. Otherwise God wouldn't have been killing all the life, which was pretty much the reason for the flood in the first place.
Makes sense?
Makes sense to me that their first impression would have been like that, yes. But when the clouds cleared and they could see the mountains they would realize it was just another, albeit extra devastating, river flood. Later, when they talked to the mountain people, who had not gotten wet and to the desert people, who had not gotten wet, they would have realized that it wasn't "worldwide" after all.
My point is, that they did not record it as if the "whole world" had been drowned. Surely, in retrospect, they would know good and well that it wasn't the case. They weren't dummies. Surely they understood that it was their own personal, tribal, or national world which took the hit. "All the land," you see; NOT "all the earth." I know it says "all the earth" but no matter how good that reading was 600 years ago, it is NOW a bad translation. English has changed a great deal since then. In fact, the word "earth" is disappearing from the Bible for just that reason. The word "world" is also disappearing, for the same reason. It meant something different to the guys who translated Bibles during the 16th century. Did they think of it as having a global component? Probably, and there seems to be some evidence that they favored the word "earth" over "land" when describing particularly large bits of real estatel. On the other hand, they were clearly and historically opposed to any suggestion that the "terraqueous globe" was in motion (rotating) or going somewhere (orbiting the sun). But I'm sure you are already aware of that factoid.
I think Christian establishments will continue to resist resolution of these semantic issues. As long as there are Creationists, Dominionists and Evangelists, biblical usage of "earth" and "world" will continue to be interpreted as if they had a global, even planetary scope. In some future reality, if we still have that lot tagging along, three steps behind and complaining at every step, they will likely apply those terms to an even greater scope: the solar system perhaps, and then the galaxy. ??
You think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-22-2010 10:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2010 11:34 PM doctrbill has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 93 of 306 (582718)
09-23-2010 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by doctrbill
09-22-2010 5:15 PM


Re: "Whole Earth"
Hi doc,
doctrbill writes:
Besides, you appear to be unwilling to explore it.
What is there to explore?
If you translate erets as earth. Anywhere you go on this planet it is refered to as earth.
If you translate erets as land. Anywhere you go on this planet it is refered to as land.
If you translate erets as dirt. Anywhere you go on this planet it is refered to as dirt.
If you take all the water out of the seas you have anyone of the three that you want to call it.
doctrbill writes:
How do you hold both of those thoughts in your head at the same time? How is it that "a completed universe" has no planet earth? You have written that "The earth...was brought on line later." When I read that I hear you saying, "The universe was complete, but wasn't."
You have never read much I have written have you?
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
That verse does not say they were created at the same time.
It only says they were created in the beginning.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
That verse says they were created the same day.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
That verse says a light period is day.
It also says that light period including the dark period found in Genesis 1:2 which ended at the next light period was the first day.
So you have a light period that lasted from the beginning until we find darkness in Genesis 1:2.
How long was that light period? I don't know the Bible does not say. Science says it was a long time.
So if that light period lasted for billions of years you had a very long day.
Which would benefit the production of all the bio-mass required to be able to produce the oil, coal, and natural gas that is miles underground.
That would explain why there is no age recorded for Cain or any of his descendants for 7 generations.
So there is nothing to preclude the Universe beginning to exist and then the Earth begin to exist a few billion years. They would still be created in the same day, as there was no night.
Night did not exist until we find it in Genesis 1:2.
doctrbill writes:
Seems to me you are grabbing at linguistic straws while dodging whole bales of scriptural evidence. Seems to me you are desparate to prove that the writer of Genesis was sharing advanced cosmogony with God's chosen people.
I am not grabbing at straws. I am just reading what is wrote in the text whether it is right or wrong.
Why would I be desperate to prove that the writer of Genesis was sharing advanced cosmology with God's chosen people?
So far as I know He has only shared that with a 10 year old boy in 1949. I have never met anyone that believes what I do about the beginning of the Heaven and Earth.
They would not have had a clue as to what he was talking about and could have cared less. They were wandering around in the desert for 40 years while Moses was writing the Torah.
They went out every morning and picked up just enough food to last one day any extra would spoil. On Friday they picked up enough for two days and none spoiled.
They had a cloud over them during the day to keep them cool and a pillar of fire at night to keep them warm.
They had a rock that followed them around in the desert and supplied them with drinking water.
Why would they question anything Moses said?
When they did bad things happened.
doctrbill writes:
Perhaps the most persuasive reason to believe Genesis was NOT intended to reveal advanced knowledge is that its creators and target audience, the Jews, God's chosen people, did not, in 5,000 years of chosen people history, produce a single aspirin or roll of toilet paper with which to amaze us heathen folk.
Are you sure about that?
Since Abraham lived around 2300 BC they still got about 690 years to go to get your 5,000 years in.
I guess the contributions of the following
JEWISH NOBEL WINNERS don't count.
0.2% OF WORLD'S POPULATION (16-19 Million Jews)
Literature (13)
1910 - Heyse, Paul
1927 - Bergson, Henri
1958 - Pasternak, Boris
1966 - Agnon, Yosef Shmuel (Israeli)
1966 - Sachs, Nelly
1976 - Bellow, Saul
1978 - Singer, Bashevis Isaac
1981 - Canetti, Elias
1987 - Brodsky, Joseph
1991 - Gordimer, Nadine
2002 - Kertesz, Imre
2004 - Jelinek, Elfriede
2005 - Pinter, Harold
Chemistry (31)
1905 - Baeyer, Von Adolph
1906 - Moissan, Henri
1910 - Wallach, Otto
1915 - Willstaetter, Richard
1918 - Haber, Fritz
1943 - Hevesy, de Charles George
1961 - Calvin, Melvin
1962 - Perutz, Ferdinand Max
1972 - Stein, Howard William
1972 - Anfinsen, Christian B.
1977 - Prigogine, Ilya
1979 - Brown, Charles Herbert
1980 - Berg, Paul
1980 - Gilbert, Walter
1981 - Hoffmann, Roald
1982 - Klug, Aaron
1985 - Hauptman, A. Albert
1985 - Karle, Jerome
1986 - Herschbach, R. Dudley
1988 - Huber, Robert
1989 - Altman, Sidney
1992 - Marcus, Rudolph
1994 - Olah, George A.
1998 - Kohn, Walter
2000 - Heeger, Alan J.
2004 - Ciechanover, Aaron (Israeli)
2004 - Hershko, Avram (Israeli)
2004 - Rose, Irwin
2006 - Kornberg, Roger. D.
[Update]
2008 - Chalfie, Martin
2009 - Yonath, Ada E. (Israeli)
Economics (26)
1970 - Samuelson, Anthony Paul
1971 - Kuznets, Simon
1972 - Arrow, Joseph Kenneth
1973 - Leontief, Wassily
1975 - Kantorovich, Leonid
1976 - Friedman, Milton
1978 - Simon, A. Herbert
1980 - Klein, Robert Lawrence
1985 - Modigliani, Franco
1987 - Solow, M. Robert
1990 - Markowitz, Harry
1990 - Miller, Merton
1992 - Becker, Gary
1993 - Fogel, Rober
1994 - Selten, Reinhard
1994 - Harsanyi, John C.
1997 - Merton,Robert
1997 - Scholes, Myron S.
2001 - Stiglitz, Joseph E.
2001 - Akerlof, George A.
2002 - Kahneman, Daniel (Israeli)
2005 - Aumann, Robert J. (Israeli)
[Update]
2007 - Hurwicz, Leonid (Oldest person to receive Nobel Prize)
2007 - Maskin, Eric S.
2007 - Myerson, Roger B.
2008 - Krugman, Paul
Physiology or Medicine (53)
1908 - Metchnikoff, Elie
1908 - Erlich, Paul
1914 - Barany, Robert
1922 - Meyerhof, Otto
1930 - Landsteiner, Karl
1931 - Warburg, Otto
1936 - Loewi, Otto
1944 - Erlanger, Joseph
1944 - Gasser, Spencer Herbert
1945 - Chain, Boris Ernst
1946 - Muller, Joseph Hermann
1947 - Cori, Gerty Theresa, Radnitz
1950 - Reichstein, Tadeus
1952 - Waksman, Abraham Selman
1953 - Krebs, Hans
1953 - Lipmann, Fritz Albert
1958 - Lederberg, Joshua
1959 - Kornberg, Arthur
1964 - Bloch, Konrad
1965 - Jacob, Francois
1965 - Lwoff, Andre
1967 - Wald, George
1968 - Nirenberg, W. Marshall
1969 - Luria, Salvador
1970 - Axelrod, Julius
1970 - Katz, Bernard Sir
1972 - Edelman, Maurice Gerald
1975 - Baltimore, David
1975 - Temin, Martin Howard
1976 - Blumberg, S. Baruch
1977 - Schally, Andrew V.
1977 - Yalow, Sussman Rosalyn
1978 - Nathans, Daniel
1980 - Benacerraf, Baruj
1982 - Vane, Sir John
1984 - Milstein, Cesar
1985 - Brown, Stuart Michael
1985 - Goldstein, L. Joseph
1986 - Cohen, Stanley
1986 - Levi-Montalcini, Rita
1988 - Elion, Gertrude
1989 - Varmus, Harold
1992 - Fischer, Edmond
1994 - Rodbell, Martin
1994 - Gilman, Alfred
1997 - Prusiner, Stanley B.
1998 - Furchgott, Robert F.
2000 - Kandel, Eric R.
2000 - Greengard, Paul
2002 - Brenner, Sydney
2002 - Horvitz, H. Robert
2004 - Axel, Richard
2006 - Fire, Andrew Z.
Physics (49)
1907 - Michelson, Abraham Albert
1908 - Lippmann, Gabriel
1921 - Einstein, Albert
1922 - Bohr, Niels
1925 - Franck, James
1925 - Hertz, Gustav
1943 - Stern, Otto
1944 - Rabi, Issac Isidor
1945 - Pauli, Wolfgang
1952 - Bloch, Felix
1954 - Born, Max
1958 - Tamm, Igor
1958 - Frank, Ilya
1959 - Segre, Emilio
1960 - Glaser, A. Donald
1961 - Hofstadter, Robert
1962 - Landau, Davidovich Lev
1963 - Wigner, Eugene P.
1965 - Feynman, Phillips Richard
1965 - Schwinger, Julian
1967 - Bethe, Hans A.
1969 - Gell-Mann, Murray
1971 - Gabor, Dennis
1972 - Cooper, Leon N.
1973 - Josephson, David Brian
1975 - Mottleson, Benjamin
1976 - Richter, Burton
1978 - Penzias, Allan Arno
1979 - Weinberg, Stephen
1979 - Glashow, Sheldon
1981 - Schawlow, Arthur
1987 - Mller, K. Alexander
1988 - Lederman, Leon
1988 - Schwartz, Melvin
1988 - Steinberger, Jack
1990 - Friedman, Jerome
1992 - Charpak, Georges
1995 - Reines, Frederick
1995 - Perl, Martin
1996 - Osheroff, Douglas D.
1996 - Lee, David M
1997 - Cohen-Tannoudji, Claude
2000 - Alferov, Zhores I.
2003 - Abrikosov, Alexei A.
2003 - Ginzburg, Vitaly L.
2004 - Politzer, H. David
2004 - Gross, David J.
2005 - Glauber, Roy J.
Source
172 not counting the 8 that receive the Peace Prize.
I think there is some pretty important people in that list.
When you get the egg off your face you can apoligize to God's chosen people.
Here is a few inventions of God's chosen people.
Levi Strauss, Jeans, 1873
Maurice Levy (1), Lipstick, 1915
Lazlo Biro (1), Ballpoint Pen, 1938
J. Robert Oppenheimer, et al (1), Atomic Bomb, 1945
Edwin Herbert Land (1), Instant Photography, 1947
Denis Gabor (1), Holography, 1948
Peter Carl Goldmark (1), Long Playing Record, 1948
Robert Adler (1), Television Remote Control, 1950
Edward Teller, et al (1), Thermonuclear Bomb, 1952
Paul M. Zoll (2), Defibrillator, 1952 and Cardiac Pacemaker, 1952
Gregory Pincus (1/3), Contraceptives, early 1950s
Charles Ginsburg (1), Videotape, 1950s
Gordon Gould (1/3), Laser, 1958
Stanley N. Cohen (1/2), Genetic Engineering, 1973
Jason Lanier (1), Virtual Reality, 1989
Source
Looks like they did pretty well to me.
But you are correct they did not invent aspirin or toilet paper.
Rolled and perforated toilet paper as we're familiar with today was invented around 1880. Various sources attribute it to the Albany Perforated Wrapping (A.P.W.) Paper Company in 1877, and to the Scott Paper company in 1879 or 1890.
Felix Hoffmann, a German chemist, produced a stable form of acetylsalicylic acid, more commonly known as aspirin, in 1897.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 5:15 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Nij, posted 09-25-2010 4:37 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 130 by jaywill, posted 10-05-2010 7:13 AM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 306 (582941)
09-23-2010 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by doctrbill
09-22-2010 11:24 PM


Bigger Picture
Makes sense to me that their first impression would have been like that, yes. But when the clouds cleared and they could see the mountains they would realize it was just another, albeit extra devastating, river flood. Later, when they talked to the mountain people, who had not gotten wet and to the desert people, who had not gotten wet, they would have realized that it wasn't "worldwide" after all.
But then the story being about God wiping out life except for the dude that builds a big boat with animals to repopulate the world wouldn't make any sense at all. If it was only a part of the world then that whole thing would have been pointless. No?
My point is, that they did not record it as if the "whole world" had been drowned.
And my point is that they did. If it was only a portion of the world then everything Noah did would be for nought.
Your other points make great sense, but my point has nothing to do with the particular word usage that is there, nor what they would have realized a priori. I'm looking at the purpose or message of the story. There's no need to "rescue" everything if it wasn't being lost in the first place.
Ya dig?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 11:24 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 09-24-2010 1:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 100 by purpledawn, posted 09-24-2010 7:06 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 101 by doctrbill, posted 09-24-2010 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 95 of 306 (582956)
09-24-2010 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
09-23-2010 11:34 PM


Re: Bigger Picture
Catholic Scientist writes:
But then the story being about God wiping out life except for the dude that builds a big boat with animals to repopulate the world wouldn't make any sense at all. If it was only a part of the world then that whole thing would have been pointless.
If the plan was to rid the world of sin, then the plan did fail, didn't it? We still have sin in the world today, don't we? Sin must have been perpetuated by somebody on the boat or somebody outside the flood area.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2010 11:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2010 1:39 AM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 306 (582961)
09-24-2010 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by ringo
09-24-2010 1:24 AM


Re: Bigger Picture
Catholic Scientist writes:
But then the story being about God wiping out life except for the dude that builds a big boat with animals to repopulate the world wouldn't make any sense at all. If it was only a part of the world then that whole thing would have been pointless.
If the plan was to rid the world of sin, then the plan did fail, didn't it? We still have sin in the world today, don't we? Sin must have been perpetuated by somebody on the boat or somebody outside the flood area.
Are you saying that the existence of sin today means that The Flud must have been understood to be a portion of the world instead of the whole thing?
Is there anything in the myth that says that the decendants of Noah couldn't have sinned afterwards?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 09-24-2010 1:24 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 09-24-2010 2:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 97 of 306 (582966)
09-24-2010 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
09-24-2010 1:39 AM


Re: Bigger Picture
Catholic Scientist writes:
Is there anything in the myth that says that the decendants of Noah couldn't have sinned afterwards?
No, but what was the point of murdering most of the people in the world if it was the same after as it was before?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2010 1:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2010 2:18 AM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 306 (582972)
09-24-2010 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by ringo
09-24-2010 2:05 AM


Re: Bigger Picture
Catholic Scientist writes:
Is there anything in the myth that says that the decendants of Noah couldn't have sinned afterwards?
No, but what was the point of murdering most of the people in the world if it was the same after as it was before?
Are you saying that the existence of sin today the world becomming the same means that The Flud must have been understood to be a portion of the world instead of the whole thing?
Does both the pre and post Flud states both containing sin mean that they must be the "same"?
Is this relevant to my point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 09-24-2010 2:05 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 09-24-2010 2:31 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 99 of 306 (582974)
09-24-2010 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by New Cat's Eye
09-24-2010 2:18 AM


Re: Bigger Picture
Catholic Scientist writes:
Are you saying that the existence of sin today the world becomming the same means that The Flud must have been understood to be a portion of the world instead of the whole thing?
It would make more sense, wouldn't it? As a permanent fix, it didn't work. As a temporary/local fix, maybe it did.
But the extent of the flood isn't particularly relevant anyway. The story doesn't focus on the ones who died. It focuses on the ones who lived. It makes the point that if you obey God, He takes care of you. The flood could have been a tempest in a teapot and it wouldn't spoil that lesson.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2010 2:18 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 100 of 306 (582997)
09-24-2010 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
09-23-2010 11:34 PM


Local Story
quote:
But then the story being about God wiping out life except for the dude that builds a big boat with animals to repopulate the world wouldn't make any sense at all. If it was only a part of the world then that whole thing would have been pointless. No?
From our current view, yes. From their limited view, no. God's were more provincial than universal.
quote:
Your other points make great sense, but my point has nothing to do with the particular word usage that is there, nor what they would have realized a priori. I'm looking at the purpose or message of the story. There's no need to "rescue" everything if it wasn't being lost in the first place.
Notice that in Genesis 7:4 the Lord says that everything living thing that he has made will be blotted out from the surface of the ground (adamah).
This verse is interesting considering the NIV translation uses the word earth when two different words are actually used.
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth (erets) for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth (adamah) every living creature I have made."
The author used two different words.
Rewrite: Seven days from now I will send rain on the land for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the surface of the ground every living creature I have made.
Notice that Yahweh says he will wipe out the living creatures he has made from the surface of the ground. This fits very well with a more local view of gods.
Edited by purpledawn, : Word change

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2010 11:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2010 10:33 AM purpledawn has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 101 of 306 (583019)
09-24-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
09-23-2010 11:34 PM


Re: Bigger Picture
doctrbill writes:
Makes sense to me that their first impression would have been like that, yes. But when the clouds cleared and they could see the mountains they would realize it was just another, albeit extra devastating, river flood. Later, when they talked to the mountain people, who had not gotten wet and to the desert people, who had not gotten wet, they would have realized that it wasn't "worldwide" after all.
Catholic Scientist writes:
But then the story being about God wiping out life except for the dude that builds a big boat with animals to repopulate the world wouldn't make any sense at all. If it was only a part of the world then that whole thing would have been pointless. No?
I think you err in dismissing the importance of the story's essential linguistic elements. The story is NOT about destruction of the world, it is about the destruction of a world; a world which existed on "the dry [land]"; the world in which they lived who recorded the story. Thus, every reference to that world within the context of the story is a local reference. You will note that there is no mention of sea creatures in the story. This seems odd to us, for the majority of species and the majority of biomass itself is in the water. It is clear, from a reading of the story, that the intended victims of the destruction were air breathing, land dwelling creatures. Do whales, dolphins, and manatees not breathe air? Besides that there is the semantic consideration of how Bible writers described the world at large. This they did by the expression "earth and sea." That expression does not appear in the Flood narratives. That fact recommends my assertion that the writer, or writers, were cognisant of the limited, regional scope of the event.
Bible writers did not imagine their word 'erets as a reference to the terraqueous globe.
doctrbill writes:
My point is, that they did not record it as if the "whole world" had been drowned.
Catholic Scientist writes:
And my point is that they did. If it was only a portion of the world then everything Noah did would be for nought.
Noah saved his children, did he not? He saved enough livestock to feed them, did he not? How is it that saving one's family could "be for nought? I refer you to the Sumero/Babylonian version of the story which is much closer to the "original autograph" and contains the same theological message without the exaggerations present in the Jewish retelling of it.
Catholic Scientist writes:
There's no need to "rescue" everything if it wasn't being lost in the first place.
I think you are oversimpifying for the sake of preserving a moralistic tale. It is NOT difficult for a Bible scholar to put the Flood story in its ancient perspective. It IS difficult for laymen and scholars alike to overcome the prejudice instilled by the Church's traditional telling of the story. And if that were not enough, there is the problem of overcoming what can only be described as obfucation on the part of those responsible for producing an honest Bible. A Bible which, by whatever means necessary, shares with the reader a matter of fact revelation of what the ancient narrator must have had in mind.
A more honest Bible might correct what is now a superstitious understanding of the story. In time, that honest Bible might diminish the anger of those who seek to dismantle the American educational system in the interest of teaching the Flood tradition as if it were fact.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2010 11:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2010 10:37 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 306 (583020)
09-24-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by purpledawn
09-24-2010 7:06 AM


Re: Local Story
Thanks for the reply, PD. That does make sense.
But...
there's always a but
God's were more provincial than universal.
...
Notice that Yahweh says he will wipe out the living creatures he has made from the surface of the ground. This fits very well with a more local view of gods.
That doesn't really makes sense with the Lord being upset with man and wiping him out. Also, it implies that there were other men that the Lord did not make that were not wiped out. Too, other animals that the Lord did not make. Does that really fit?
quote:
Gen 6
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;...
...
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
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.
Even reading earth as 'ground' or land, I don't see the point of wiping out all the flesh because you regretted making it, but then only wiping out a small portion of it. Unless the Lord didn't make all the other flesh that wasn't included in the flood, but that doesn't fit, does it?
Or did they think there wasn't any other flesh outside of their land?
One other thing too:
They were stuck on the ark for 150 days, isn't that a bit long for a local flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by purpledawn, posted 09-24-2010 7:06 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by purpledawn, posted 09-24-2010 1:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 306 (583023)
09-24-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by doctrbill
09-24-2010 10:33 AM


Re: Bigger Picture
The story is NOT about destruction of the world, it is about the destruction of a world; a world which existed on "the dry [land]"; the world in which they lived who recorded the story.
Honest questions:
Did they think that the Lord made the men and creatures that existed outside of their local world?
Or did they think that there were not other men and creatures outside of their local world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by doctrbill, posted 09-24-2010 10:33 AM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 09-24-2010 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 104 of 306 (583024)
09-24-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by New Cat's Eye
09-24-2010 10:37 AM


Re: Bigger Picture
Actually the answer is likely "yes" to both questions. At the general time of the flood myth right on through to sometime around when Kings was compiled the view was of local deities tied to one place and one people.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2010 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2010 10:48 AM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 306 (583027)
09-24-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by jar
09-24-2010 10:41 AM


Re: Bigger Picture
Hrm, I thought they were mutually exclusive.
Did they think that other peoples' gods made the other people but that thier god made them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 09-24-2010 10:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 09-24-2010 10:57 AM New Cat's Eye 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