Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
36 online now:
jar, ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Taq, Theodoric (7 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,848 Year: 16,884/19,786 Month: 1,009/2,598 Week: 255/251 Day: 26/58 Hour: 0/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 166 of 306 (639066)
10-27-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by PaulK
10-27-2011 4:49 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
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:

1) because the assumpion of inerrant inspiration is that the deity knew about the Americas all along and therefore included them in blanket statements regarding "earth," "the whole earth," and "all the earth."

2) because prior to the aforementioned silliness the Christian church denied the possibility that land masses might exist where we now sit.

3) because there are a number of people who bellieve that Jesus visited the America's in order to bring the gospel to the natives which in their opinion were a "lost tribe" of Israelites. And,

4) because fundevangelists assume that the Bible speaks of America and of these United States - which would be laughable if they weren't at the same time gaining political ascendancy in this country and teaching their lies in the name of Bible truth.

5) because our purpose in this thread is to demonstrate the ignorance and arrogance exhibited by those who then did and do now assert such preposterosity.

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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 4:49 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 5:42 PM doctrbill has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 167 of 306 (639070)
10-27-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by doctrbill
10-27-2011 5:25 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
quote:

1) because the assumpion of inerrant inspiration is that the deity knew about the Americas all along and therefore included them in blanket statements regarding "earth," "the whole earth," and "all the earth."

If you are constructing arguments only to use against the inerrantists, this might be a useful point, although I feel that the argument is weak and it would be better to point to lands that the Biblical authors might have known about, like India or even China. But in doing so you cannot also argue that the flood story is a distorted report of historical events because as soon as you do that, you will lose them

quote:

2) because prior to the aforementioned silliness the Christian church denied the possibility that land masses might exist where we now sit.

Where YOU now sit, perhaps. But this is not a good reason for assuming, even for the sake of argument, that the Biblical authors DID know about the Americas. It is an argument that they did NOT know about the Americas.

quote:

3) because there are a number of people who bellieve that Jesus visited the America's in order to bring the gospel to the natives which in their opinion were a "lost tribe" of Israelites. And,

I doubt that there are more than a handful outside of the Mormon churches. And I don't see this as any different from your point 1, other than the fact that if you are targeting them, you need to take their particular beliefs into account.

quote:

4) because fundevangelists assume that the Bible speaks of America and of these United States - which would be laughable if they weren't at the same time gaining political ascendancy in this country and teaching their lies in the name of Bible truth.

I don't think that this is very significant - I think that point 1 already covers pretty much everyone in this group.

quote:

5) because our purpose in this thread is to demonstrate the ignorance and arrogance exhibited by those who then did and do now assert such preposterosity.

But it seems to me that you are more pandering to them than attacking them.

Assuming that the Biblical authors knew of the Americas is pretty much the same as assuming that they knew about the Earth as a planet. I see both as being wrong, and assumptions which cannot be used in interpreting the Bible. If you are arguing that you will only use either for the sake of argument for dealing with people who believe these things then that is different, but it is something that needs care, because it is certainly not the impression I have got from Purpledawn's posts or from your recent posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 5:25 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 6:14 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 170 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 7:05 PM PaulK has responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 168 of 306 (639076)
10-27-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by PaulK
10-27-2011 5:42 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
PaulK writes:

...you will lose them...

You mistakenly assume that I care.

It is an argument that they did NOT know about the Americas

Yeah!

you need to take their particular beliefs into account

Do you imagine that I don't?

it seems to me that you are more pandering to them than attacking them

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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 5:42 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 6:38 PM doctrbill has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 169 of 306 (639077)
10-27-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by doctrbill
10-27-2011 6:14 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
quote:

You mistakenly assume that I care.

Not quite. I argue that your point 1 is only good because it might lead to an argument that inerrantists are more likely to acknowledge. If you don't care about that then that isn't a reason to consider it/

quote:

Do you imagine that I don't?

If you don't care about targeting them then you shouldn't bother tailoring arguments to target them. But I thought it a relevant detail.

quote:

It seems to me that you lack an overview of this thread.

Since I am referring to a specific point, made recently, that hardly seems relevant.

quote:

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.

Except that you can't disallow that simply by pointing out that the Bible authors had no concept of the planet. What you have to argue is that the specific references can't be reasonably understood as referring to the planet (in terms that the authors would understand).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 6:14 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 7:09 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 170 of 306 (639084)
10-27-2011 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by PaulK
10-27-2011 5:42 PM


Everything is Alright
PaulK writes:

Assuming that the Biblical authors knew of the Americas is pretty much the same as assuming that they knew about the Earth as a planet.

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.

If you are arguing that you will only use either for the sake of argument for dealing with people who believe these things then that is different, but it is something that needs care, because it is certainly not the impression I have got from Purpledawn's posts or from your recent posts.

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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 5:42 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2011 10:52 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2011 1:49 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 171 of 306 (639087)
10-27-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by PaulK
10-27-2011 6:38 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
PaulK writes:

What you have to argue is that the specific references can't be reasonably understood as referring to the planet (in terms that the authors would understand).

Done and done. Which is why you need to read the freaking thread!

Otherwise you are wasting my time.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 6:38 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 172 of 306 (639094)
10-27-2011 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Granny Magda
10-27-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
quote:
No, obviously not. But that's not what any sane person would argue it meant. They didn't know about the Americas. It would never have entered their minds. The question is, did they envisage the known world to be all the world, or nearly so. I don't think that they imagined the world to be very large, so these verses are perhaps not quite so improbable as they sound to us, with our modern knowledge of how large the world really is.
I didn't argue that's what it meant. Take in my whole argument, which you supposedly already agreed with.

PurpleDawn writes:

In Genesis 41:57, the translators don't have a problem using the more local terminology. The global idea doesn't fit the story.

The reason the global idea didn't fit the story is because our translators know that no one from the Americas would have come over, but the same terminology is used in these verses as used concerning the flood. The point being that neither has a global view, not that anyone should have known about the Americas.

IMO, our word earth should be used when referring to soil and the word land or nation used when referring to the real estate around them. When they are referring to inhabitants, our translators should use the word inhabitants.

Per Richard Elliott Friedman, the J&E writings were probably done before 722 BCE.
Babylonian Map 2500 BCE

The Priestly writing, which is the one that mentioned Mt. Ararat, was probably written about 715-687 BCE.

We have Thales World Map in 640-546 BCE.

Thale's assistant, Anaximander, did a World Map 611-546 BCE.

Friedman puts Ezra as the possible Redactor and written after 400 BCE.
The World Map according to Hecataeus 500 BCE.

So looking at these maps, when a writer says all the erets or adamah, he may be referring to all or part of the real estate known to them and I don't disagree with that. I feel that they are, but our English word earth is not appropriate to convey that idea since it now is the name for our planet and the way erets or adamah are used would lead one to understand a global reference when the word earth is used.

As I said before; ground, land, or country should be used instead to refer to the known real estate.

Just because our English word has changed, doesn't mean the ancient writings are now referring to the planet.

Like I said, I feel the translators are being a bit ambiguous on purpose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 4:12 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Granny Magda, posted 10-29-2011 8:14 AM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 306 (639100)
10-27-2011 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by doctrbill
10-27-2011 7:05 PM


Re: Everything is Alright
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.

True, but misleading. The Sixteenth Century clerics certainly had access to knowledge of the size and shape of earth. But Earth was not considered to be a planet solely because the earth was considered the center of the universe.

That particular bit of ignorance does not impact the flood story or much else described in the Bible.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 7:05 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by doctrbill, posted 10-28-2011 12:01 AM NoNukes has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1023 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 174 of 306 (639101)
10-28-2011 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by NoNukes
10-27-2011 10:52 PM


Re: Everything is Alright
NoNukes writes:

Earth was not considered to be a planet solely because the earth was considered the center of the universe.

There was no single reason why Christians rejected the idea that earth is a planet. There were several reasons why they rejected that idea.

1) Planets orbit the sun. -- The Bible clearly suggests that the sun orbits the "earth."

2) Planets are "heavens." -- The Bible clearly distinguishes between "heavens" and "earth."

3) Planets are stars, as the Scripture says. -- Earth is not a star.

4) Copernican theory requires earth to rotate on its axis daily. -- The scriptures clearly state that earth does not move.

Christians were never able to harmonize Copernican theory with Scripture.

Now they assert that the Scripture has confirmed the Copernican heresy all along.

That particular bit of ignorance does not impact the flood story or much else described in the Bible.

The fact that the Bible does not recognise planet earth has a huge impact on everything Christians believe. That is why they fought so hard against the idea in the first place. It is why so many continue to fight it today. Because it matters if the holy book is to remain holy. If the Bible is wrong about the structure of the universe, then how can it be right about anything else? How can it be a revelation from the creator of the universe? That is a real and very serious question which drives much of the debate here at EVC. Those who do not understand this detail of the situation cannot comprehend the importance of what we do here.

The church was wrong and it killed people who disagreed with it. Now it is embarrassed, as it should be, but continues to spout anti-scientific bullshit as if it hasn't learned a god-damned thing.

Edited by doctrbill, : No reason given.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2011 10:52 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2011 4:18 PM doctrbill has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 175 of 306 (639102)
10-28-2011 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by doctrbill
10-27-2011 7:05 PM


Re: Everything is Alright
quote:

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.

How is that possibly relevant ? In both cases you would be attributing knowledge to the Biblical authors that we have and they did not. That is a clear similarity.

quote:

And I do not assume that biblical authors knew of the Americas. I can't imagine how you came up with that.

Because that's pretty much what we are discussing. You've given no clear explanation as to how the Americas are relevant which DOESN'T require making that assumption, at least for the sake of argument.

quote:

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.

The simple fact is that nothing in the past of this thread can turn an obviously bad argument into a good one.

And to deal with your second post:

quote:

Done and done. Which is why you need to read the freaking thread!

Otherwise you are wasting my time.


Actually it makes no difference to my point at all whether you have or have not made arguments which deal properly with the relevant parts of the text in context. In fact if you have it just makes your position even sillier. Why defend bad arguments if you have good ones ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 7:05 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by purpledawn, posted 10-28-2011 7:17 AM PaulK has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 176 of 306 (639123)
10-28-2011 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by PaulK
10-28-2011 1:49 AM


Translator Bias
The translators are the ones who decide which words to use.

In Message 159, I showed that there are passages that the translators didn't use the ambiguous word earth because the global perspective doesn't fit the story. I provided an example.

When we read Bible stories, there are some that we have no problem envisioning a global image; but there are also stories that would not even though the same language is used.

I never understood the drought story to be global and I don't think anyone else has, but the wording is the same. Mentioning the Americas is an eye opener to reality. I don't feel that even fundamentalist would ever think that people from the Americas went to Egypt for food, but they have no problem with a global flood.

doctrbill writes:

Many biblical passages have, in modern times, been revised to make "earth" read: "land" or "ground" or "country." This trend is unlikely to continue to completion, because, many Christian doctrines depend on retaining the word "earth" for the value found in its post-Copernican planetary implication. And besides that, believers are already primed to convert "all the world" and to dream of dominating the globe. Message 1

I'm showing that the writers used the words to depict a more localized geography and not a global perspective.

Our English word earth carries a meaning of planet, but the Hebrew word erets and adamah do not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2011 1:49 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2011 7:37 AM purpledawn has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 177 of 306 (639127)
10-28-2011 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by purpledawn
10-28-2011 7:17 AM


Re: Translator Bias
You are not addressing my point. My point is that you cannot use the Americas to determine what the originator of the story meant because the originator of the story did not know of the Americas. The point is better made by using India or maybe China, which the author could have known about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by purpledawn, posted 10-28-2011 7:17 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by purpledawn, posted 10-28-2011 8:33 AM PaulK has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 178 of 306 (639131)
10-28-2011 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
10-28-2011 7:37 AM


Re: Translator Bias
quote:
You are not addressing my point. My point is that you cannot use the Americas to determine what the originator of the story meant because the originator of the story did not know of the Americas. The point is better made by using India or maybe China, which the author could have known about.
I didn't and I don't see that doctrbill did either.

I know what the originator of the story meant. I used the Americas to give today's readers an understanding of what the story didn't mean.

The Americas weren't used to determine anything. They are an extreme visual aid.

Can you show me that the writers would have known about China or India?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2011 7:37 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2011 12:53 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 179 of 306 (639155)
10-28-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by purpledawn
10-28-2011 8:33 AM


Re: Translator Bias
quote:

I didn't and I don't see that doctrbill did either.

I believe that your argument cannot work unless you do assume it. Remember that you are trying to argue that the phrase translated "all the countries" or "all the earth" in Genesis 41:57 cannot be intended to refer to everywhere. (This is especially important as the real issue is the extent of Noah's flood, and the interpretation of this phrase seems to be your major argument).

Now, unless the author knew of the Americas it cannot have affected his choice of words in that text. So the existence of the Americas cannot be used to say that the phrase does NOT mean, essentially "everywhere" in context. And so without that assumption your argument fails.

quote:

I know what the originator of the story meant. I used the Americas to give today's readers an understanding of what the story didn't mean.

In fact you used it to argue that the translators were wrong. Now maybe you can argue that people might take it as referring to the Americas but I would say that is more the fault of the readers than the translators and it is an argument that cannot be used with regard to the Flood. For that you DO need the original text to specifically refer to a restricted area (and preferably for it to only ever refer to a restricted area).

quote:

Can you show me that the writers would have known about China or India?

According to Wikipedia the Harrapan civilisation of India was trading with Mesopotamia around 2500 BC. Trade with China had started by around 1000 BC. Since the final redaction of Genesis was likely in the 5th-6th Century BC it is clearly possible for that author to of known of either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by purpledawn, posted 10-28-2011 8:33 AM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 306 (639192)
10-28-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by doctrbill
10-28-2011 12:01 AM


Re: Everything is Alright
doctrbill writes:

There was no single reason why Christians rejected the idea that earth is a planet. There were several reasons why they rejected that idea.

None of the reasons you list affects the point I make in the least. The 16th century view of earth as not a planet would not affect an opinion of whether the flood was global.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by doctrbill, posted 10-28-2011 12:01 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by doctrbill, posted 10-28-2011 5:34 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019