|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Earlier, Percy said
quote: Later you said, in reply to IamJoseph
quote: Forgetting for the moment the gender (which is irrelevant to my point) "seas" can't be considered a singular verb. For starters it's a noun, but, more importantly, its plural. If the original Hebrew uses a singular form, then the translation is inaccurate, if it's accurate it uses a plural form, therefore you can't argue that that it talks about a single sea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
You said
quote: If that's the case, what else in the translation is wrong? Does it really matter what the KJV says if you're going to argue that it's not accurate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
I think we're losing sight of the specific topic here.
ICANT writes:
Dr Adequate writes:
Genesis 7:20 says that "the mountains were covered". Yes but there is one problem with the statement. The word mountain did not exist until the 12the century and until the middle of the 18th century it was used to describe the hills around Paris. The highest elevation around Paris I can find is 322 feet. The lowest I can find is 118 feet. So when the Hebrew word was used about 3500 years ago it did not mean mountains as we know them. The primary meaning of is hill, hill country. Therefore should have been translated hills. The origin of the word 'hill' is unknown. The primary meaning was rising land. So land that rose 1 foot would be considered a hill but I will assume in Genesis the writer was refering to something somewhat higher than that. I just don't know how high. The topic is what the KJV says, not what the original text says so really we shouldn't be getting embroiled in translation minutiae. If you're going to continually argue that there are errors in the translation, then the topic becomes utterly pointless - what does it matter what the KJV says? That being the case, I think we can all agree that it says the seas were gathered in one place, but doesn't say anything about the layout of the land. It says the mountains were covered in the flood. It states that there were people around at the time of the flood (obviously). It states the water for the flood came from the "fountains of the deep" and from rain. It says the rain lasted 40 days and 40 nights, that the ark settled on Ararat eventually. These are the sorts of things the KJV says. If you want to get into discussions of what the original writer meant then I suggest that what the KJV says is irrelevant to that, unless you consider the KJV to be inerrant, as some have argued in the past. I get the feeling that this thread would be more properly titled "What ICANT thinks the KJV is getting at", since that is what is being discussed. Can I suggest that a way to get this discussion moving might be to pick a point that we all agree on and go from there? For example, can we all agree that, according to the KJV, there were people around at the time of the flood? That will give us a broad time frame in which the flood supposedly occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Ok, quote me exactly where any of the sources state that there was a single land mass.
Don't quote anything stating the waters were all in one place, that's to do with waters, seas, oceans, whatever. Don't quote anything to do with division of land in the days of Peleg. Both of these are open to interpretation. We're looking at what is said in the text, not what might be inferred from the text. I want a quote from any biblical text saying that the land was all either in or gathered into one place. If you can't supply one, then you have to accept that the texts don't say this. It's possible for all the seas to be in one place, but the land to be in a number of places and this has been pointed out time and again. The fact that you can't see this is neither here nor there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Al it says is that God gathered the water dry land appeared and that he called said dry land Earth. It doesn't say he did anything with the land at all. It also says that God scattered them (the people). It makes no mention of the people scattering themselves.
I thought the point of this thread was to examine what the texts actually say, not what they might mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
You're reply to me is patronising in the extreme and totally ignores the point of my post.
The water may have been gathered in one place, but it doesn't say that the land was gathered in one place as well. That's just your pet theory and you are willing to twist and turn to avoid accepting that there is no statement that the land was gathered, either into one place or numerous places. All it says is that the land appeared, and was called Earth. Do you get it yet? As for Genesis 11.7/8, that is completely irrelevant to what the texts say about the flood. Could you please concentrate on that? The texts say nothing about the layout of the land, but they do say something about the layout of the water. Can you accept that the texts make NO statement about the layout of the land? If you can't then provide the quote which describes the layout of the land. I've asked for this before and have yet to receive an answer from you. Remember, I'm asking for what the texts say, not what you think the texts mean, so I expect a direct quote. When can we expect to actually have a post from you about the flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I'm going to go back to the opening post and ask if ICANT agrees that the texts support the idea that there were people around at the time of the flood. That way we can start pinning down a time fame. I've said this before, but I've yet to get a response.
Edited by Trixie, : No reason given. Edited by Trixie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Ok, I'll bite. Going by your own statements you obviously agree with the texts that there were people around at the time of the flood.
Pangaea is thought to have broken up 175 million years ago and humans are thought to have been around for the last 250,000 years or so. How do you reconcile this discrepancy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Wow...just wow!
ICANT writes: I even believe there was people on Earth prior to Genesis 1:2. In fact according to the text man was the first lifeform on planet Earth The only thing we have, prior to Gen 1:2, in the texts is Gen 1:1
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth which is a one sentence summary of what is about to happen. Prior to verse 3 there was no light (verse 3), no heaven (verse 6), no dry land (verse 9), no plants (verse 11), no water creaures and birds (verse 20/21), no land creatures (verse 24/25) no man (verse 26/27). Are you claiming that plants, whales, birds, cattle etc aren't life forms? Or are you cherry picking and going by Genesis 2
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Even doing that you still have the problem of the plant life forms since it says earlier on
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. So again we have plants before man. Anyway, enough of creation, we're supposed to be discussing the flood and what the texts say about that.
ICANT writes: Magic words thought to have broken up 175 million years ago. There are a lot of things that are thought to be. Lets see that number is arrived at by assuming that the rate the continents are moving at today has always been the rate of movement. Nope! That dating is based on similar geological makeup of the continents prior to that date and differences after that date. It's based on the age of the igneus rock found on either side of the mid Atlantic ridge. A geologist can chime in here and explain it all much better than me. You really need to take on board what scientists mean when they use the phrase "thought to be". I'll give you a hint, it means that the evidence supports it. You say there are many assumptions made about the flood. You began this thread to dispel those assumptions and to tell us all exactly what the texts tell us, yet I've seen more unfounded assumptions from you than any other poster here. For example
ICANT writes: I'm sure Peleg and pals would have noticed this and the event would have deserved more than a passing nod. Then again it could have been moved instantly and just has not competely stopped yet. You're just making stuff up to fill in the gaps which are being exposed, yet you have NO textual support for what you imagine. You have man wandering around on a supercontinent which didn't even exist by the time man first appeared yet you claim there are no discrepancies. You base all of these pet fantasies on your own personal beliefs and not on what the texts actually say, but all you're doing is addng in even more difficulties for yourself. For example you now seem to have man created before there was even any dry land. Where did God find the dust to make him from? This discussion has moved from science -v- biblical story to become science and biblical story -v- ICANT's pet theory. If your entire belief in the flood scenario rests on these ridiculous mental and textual gymnastics, it says more about belief problems you have with the texts as they stand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
ICANT writes: Trixie writes:The only thing we have, prior to Gen 1:2, in the texts is Gen 1:1 Along with the history of that day God created the heavens and the Earth recorded in Genesis 2:4 - 4:26. In what fantasy Bible of yours does Genesis 2:4 to 4:26 come BEFORE Genesis 1:2?
ICANT writes: Trixie writes:which is a one sentence summary of what is about to happen. Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement with a subject, verb of completed action and the results of that action being the heavens and the Earth existed. Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department.
ICANT writes: Trixie writes:Nope! That dating is based on similar geological makeup of the continents prior to that date and differences after that date. Which simply is proof that the land mass was all in one place. It has nothing to do with dating when it was all in one place. What meaning of the word "dating" are you having trouble with? You can't be suggesting that my use of the word "dating" doesn't mean "dating", or can you?
ICANT writes: Trixie writes:You have man wandering around on a supercontinent which didn't even exist by the time man first appeared yet you claim there are no discrepancies. You are assuming mankind was not around when the land mass was all in one place. Do you have any proof? Yes I have man wandering around on a single land mass that had been flooded between 100 and 300 years prior, building cities, speaking one language whose language was confused and they could not understand each other and thus scattered over the face of that land mass. I make no assumptions. The EVIDENCE indicates that the single land mass broke up long before man appeared. You are the one asserting that man existed at the same time as a single land mass so it's up to you to provide evidentiary support for this idea or stop using it.
ICANT writes: Trixie writes:If your entire belief in the flood scenario rests on these ridiculous mental and textual gymnastics, it says more about belief problems you have with the texts as they stand. I don't have a problem with what I believe. Maybe not, but you certainly have a problem with reading for comprehension. You haven't addressed my observations on your belief that man was the first life form. I don't have a problem with your beliefs, which I am well aware of, but I do have a problem when you claim textual support which doesn't exist. For example, where in your list below does the phrase "single land mass" appear?
ICANT writes:
I believe Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the Earth.I believe Genesis 1:9, water gathered to one place leaving dry land. I believe Genesis 1:10, God called the dry land Earth. I believe Genesis 6:14, God told Noah to build an ark of gopher wood. I believe Genesis, 7:5, Noah did all that God comanded. I believe Genesis 7:7, Noah entered the ark. I believe Genesis 7:8, 9, living critters came in unto Noah in the ark. I believe Genesis 7:16, God shut Noah in the ark. I believe Genesis 7:19, that all the land mass under heaven was covered with water. I believe Genesis 8:16, they went forth out of the ark after the flood waters subscided. I believe Genesis 10:25, that the Earth was split/divided in the days of Peleg Just as an aside, I believe there is a thread on the translation of "Earth" and a better translation would be "land".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Are you readingover what you write to me befe you post it?
ICANT writes: So if dry land existed on the planet Earth it was covered by water. Eh? Quite apart from the fact that if it was covered in water it's anything but dry, your use of the word "if" in "So IF dry land existed...." has boggled my mind. Yes, I agree that a worldwide flood would cover all the land, but you'd be hard pushed to describe it as a world wide flood if there was no dry land in the first place. Does this mean that prior to the flood everyone was paddling around knee-deep in water?
ICANT writes: You may be right that all the land mass was not in one place at the time of the flood Halle-bloody-luja!! Finally, you seem to realise that there isn't a single mention in the texts of the land being a single land mass. Has it occurred to you that the division of the "land" in the days of Peleg may refer to political/tribal division? It makes more sense and is in context with the rest of the story that it appears in. The thread you might find interesting is one recently brought back to the top by purpledawn, I can't remember the title of it, but will supply a link tomorrow. Basically it argues that given that Earth is the name of the planet, Moses is unlikely to have used that terminology in his stories. It would be the dry land, the land that you've been using the word "Earth" for. EvC Forum: Not The Planet Edited by Trixie, : Found link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
This is just a quick reply as I'm a bit pushed for time.
ICANT writes: So it makes more sense to you that the writer used Earth in Genesis 10:25 to mean tribal or national split/division rather than the words he used in 10:5, 20, 31, and 32 Did the writer use Earth or did the translators? In the time of Moses would the writer have any concept of Earth? Earth, with a capital "E", is the name of the planet. This is discussed in the thread I gave you the link for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: 'ALL FLESH' refers to said animals and community in Noah's immediate region only How do you reconcile that with
Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. The text states that everything not on the ark will die in the flood and that those animals on the ark will provide "seed" for after the flood.
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. You may believe that the text is an exaggeration of a local flood, and you may be right, but there is no way that you can claim textual support saying wild animals weren't included.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
This thread is about what the text says, not what you take it to mean. Once again, how do you reconcile the quotes I provided with your assertion that the texts say only Noah's domesticated animals went onboard the ark?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
You have not addressed what I wrote and saying you have doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024