Summations Only

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. 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.

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?

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. 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. 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 - - -

Hi Granny,Please allow me to interject while we wait for PD's response. The original story is Sumerian in origin which makes its geography Mesopotamian and its likely basis: an unusually destructive but otherwise predictable annual flooding of the two rivers.Virtually every city of Mesopotamia was constructed to serve as a refuge from the annual river floods. These refuges evolved from fairly low mounds just above the average flood level. Even then, apparently, they were referred to as "hills" for they were "high" compared to their surroundings. Mud brick walls were constructed to protect against extra high water. In time, the "hills" became higher and the mud brick walls were plated with glazed brick to make them more durable.There is more to this story but I think this addresses the question of the high hills.Regarding "under the whole heaven" I suggest that it may simply mean: "as far as the eye could see."As for Ararat: It is a region, not the name of a specific peak. The King James Bible says, "the mountains of Ararat." The Douay/Rheims Bible reads: "the mountains of Armenia."

Hi Granny,Please allow me to interject while we wait for PD's response. The original story is Sumerian in origin which makes its geography Mesopotamian and its likely basis: an unusually destructive but otherwise predictable annual flooding of the two rivers.Virtually every city of Mesopotamia was constructed to serve as a refuge from the annual river floods. These refuges evolved from fairly low mounds just above the average flood level. Even then, apparently, they were referred to as "hills" for they were "high" compared to their surroundings. Mud brick walls were constructed to protect against extra high water. In time, the "hills" became higher and the mud brick walls were plated with glazed brick to make them more durable.There is more to this story but I think this addresses the question of the high hills.Regarding "under the whole heaven" I suggest that it may simply mean: "as far as the eye can see." And thus, I think, there is no reason to imagine that the ancient reader would interpret it as anything other than a large but relatively local inundation.

Sorry for the redundency. My browser appeared to have hung up on the first try so I attempted to escape, thought I had, and ended up editing the final paragraph. I like the second one better, don't you?

Had I written Genesis I too would be dissatisfied: displeased that modern people were exaggerating it so.But wait! Maybe I wouldn't much mind after all. Maybe I could take a clue from those folks and re-write the story such that the Ark transforms into a starship and Noah finds him a Terra Nova, and instead of his wife and kids he takes him seventy two virgins and they all live happily ever after eating barbecued Brontosaurus and drinking home made wine.Hmmm. Good Bible.

Despite what we may have heard in Sunday school. This story was not written with us in mind. It was not written in our langauge nor with anticipation that it be translated to our language. In fact, it is unlikely that it can be translated to our language succinctly, at least not without terrifying several generations of true believer. In a poetic discussion of lightning and thunder we encounter that very expression. It is translated in various ways. In the King James Version as "under the whole heaven" and in the following as "through all the heaven."

quote:

---

Give ear to the rolling noise of his voice; to the hollow sound which goes out of his mouth.
He sends it out through all the heaven, and his thunder-flame to the ends of the earth. Job 37:2, 3 (Bible in Basic English)

---

As you can imagine, I am thinking that "under the whole heaven" is a figure of speech and am doubting that it refers to all sky everywhere on our planet.Yes?

Hi Jar.Can't say I know the full extent of it but I have noticed that there are at least four different traditions of the flood story and three or maybe five different versions of Abraham's adventure. Exodus is another book like that. Then, of course, there is the variety and redundency of the books of kings and chronicles. But hey, we are attempting to simplify Bible study arent'we? The fundies are severely under exposed to Bible truth so they do deserve to know about all that but I think of my own experience at getting out of the box and I am thankful that the realizations came in small doses. Well there was the one big rush on the occasion of realizing that it wasn't God's word after all, but once that passed, I was perfectly content with little steps.Ya know?

Ararat may be a reference to the kingdom of Urartu.Please note that the word "mountains" here is given for the same Hebrew word translated "hills" in the previous discussion. And, note that the bible does not say the ark came to rest on "Mount Ararat." My intent is to show textual and contextual reasons to doubt that the story was originally reported as a global catastrophe. There is certainly no scientific evidence of such an inundation.If we care to believe that the ancient authors were persons of normal intelligence then we cannot have them spouting such nonsense as the arguments brought by evangelicals. I find no textual reason to assume that the ancients were spouting nonsense when they reported the adventure of a very lucky man who survived an unusually devastating flood. What Bible translators choose to do with it 5,000 years later is another matter entirely.Can you dig it?

Actually, "ends of the earth" may be translated borders of the land. My avatar is but one of numerous graphics I have created to illustrate biblical figures of speech touching ancient worldviews. You may be interested to know that the biblical expressions, "whole earth" and "all the earth," where their parameters are defined, never encompass so large an area as the then known world which I have shown in yellow on the globe.

I will say this within the thread so it doesn't get lost but I intend it as, A general message to all participants. [size=3]Words of ancient language translated "earth" are not the same as those translated "world." Let's not confuse ourselves by speaking as if they were equivalent or interchangeable terms. They are not. [/size=3]For purposes of clarity, I suggest that discussion of the word "world" in a biblical context be taken up as a separate topic.The current topc is Earth and the premise is that according to the Bible it is NOT a planet.
Purple Dawn's comment about the Americas is neither inappropriate nor off topic.As to the question of whether the Americas are relevant to this discussion - I say they are, and for a number of reasons which I will elaborate if any one cares to hear.OK?

Hi PaulK,There is nothing we can do to enlighten the men of days gone by. It is not very important to me me personally what they believed or did not believe about the world around them but it is important to some people and those people have given me grief about it all my life. The Americas are relevant: That is why it is OK and ultimately relevant to consider the Americas in our discussion. Not because the ancients were aware of them but because many people believe the ancients were aware of them. Except when they believe that no such lands could exist.Is that reason enough?Edited by doctrbill, : to expand the conclusion.

You mistakenly assume that I care. Yeah! Do you imagine that I don't? It seems to me that you lack an overview of this thread.If disallowed their biblical fantasy regarding "planet earth" Christians would be hard pressed to justify their imagined global mission to "subdue" and "inherit" the earth.

No. It's not. - Sixteenth Century clerics knew about the Americas but they did not believe Copernicus. They did not believe earth is a planet.And I do not assume that biblical authors knew of the Americas. I can't imagine how you came up with that. I say again. I believe you lack an overview of this thread. Unless and until you read what has gone before you cannot presume to understand what is happening at present. You would do well to ask questions rather than come in guns blazing as you have today after apparently ignoring this thread during the two years and six months it has been open.