Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 124 of 306 (584877)
10-04-2010 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by New Cat's Eye
10-04-2010 11:20 AM


Re: Local Story
quote:
I still wonder what the audience thought: whether it was their own group by itself or them and all the other people in the world who were destroyed by the flood.
You're sitting around the tribal campfire and the storyteller begins his tale.
When the people began to multiply over the land. ...
Did the story tellers use the word adamah for other races if they knew of them or did they refer to them differently.
Cherokee Indians originally called themselves Aniyunwiya, "the principal people"...
What did the Indians call themselves before Columbus?
Columbus called them Indios because he mistook the New World for India. But the original Americans had never heard of India and even if they had they would have known they were not Indians. We use the word Indians to cover all the natives of the New World, but they never thought of themselves as one people. To them, each was a member of his own tribe and all other tribes were either allies or enemies ‑ much as the nations of the world still think of themselves.
Each tribe had its own language or dialect and named itself with a word usually meaning the men or the people; We know of some 600 dialects, sometimes so different that neighboring villages could not understand each other. North of the Rio Grande, there was no written language. Sometimes the tribe name was mispronounced in translation and sometimes the meaning was lost.
They didn't necessarily use that name when referring to other tribes.
I don't find it difficult to believe that the ancient Hebrew tribes were the same.
It was their story about their people.

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-04-2010 11:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2010 9:31 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 126 of 306 (584883)
10-04-2010 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by ICANT
10-04-2010 2:11 PM


Re: Known World
quote:
My point is that the Earth existed whether it was visible as dry land or land covered by water.
We know the planet did, but the point is did they?
quote:
The early map shows that those people knew they were surrounded by salt water.
No it says they believed they were surrounded by salt water. Later maps show a progression in knowledge. Nothing shows global knowledge though until later.
quote:
You can interpert the evidence any way you desire too.
As you have shown. The point is to give reasoned argumentation as to why we should believe your interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ICANT, posted 10-04-2010 2:11 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 135 of 306 (638933)
10-27-2011 3:55 AM


Still Not The Planet - Bump
Bumping this thread back into view because of the current discussion concerning Noah's flood and what the KJV and Hebrew texts actually say.
The strongest proof against a global flood is the text itself. As this thread has shown, the English word earth didn't refer to the planet until about the 16th century.
So thought I would pop this thread back in view for reference.
If anyone wants to revive this discussion, please read what has already been argued before posting.

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2011 4:58 AM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 137 of 306 (638954)
10-27-2011 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by NoNukes
10-27-2011 4:58 AM


Re: Still Not The Planet - Bump
quote:
Could you expand on this just a bit. I don't see the problem with the word earth in the KJV being translated from a word meaning world rather than planet.
That isn't really what we have. What we are seeing are words used to denote smaller specific areas expanded to include the planet. Our idea of Earth and world includes the planet in the definition, theirs did not as I understand it. Our planet wasn't named until the 1400's and at the time Genesis was supposedly written, the people didn't know they were on a planet. Even at the time the story was supposedly written according to Biblical criticism, the general public didn't know they were on a planet.
Etymology Dictionary
earth:
O.E. eore "ground, soil, dry land," also used (along with middangeard) for "the (material) world" (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.Fris. erthe "earth," O.S. ertha, O.N. jr, M.Du. eerde, Du. aarde, O.H.G. erda, Ger. Erde, Goth. aira), from PIE base *er- "earth, ground" (cf. M.Ir. -ert "earth"). The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400.
Even when we use the words, it depends on how the word is used to determine the meaning. When I say welcome to my world, I'm not talking about the planet.
I feel our word land is closer to their meaning when speaking of an area than Earth.
The word earth is a better fit when referring to soil.
The idea that earth refers to the world or planet is a later concept and has been added to the meanings.
In an old yearbook from 1947, they summarized the school play as a comedy about a gay family. Just because we now use the word to refer homosexuals, doesn't mean the play was about a homosexual family.
Meanings change or are added over the years, but that shouldn't change the original meaning of the writing. If we allow that, then how can anyone trust what was written or translated? It's hard enough trying to recreate the idioms and humor of the time. Usually those are lost to the ages.
Acre used to just mean field with no dimensions attached to it. The term God's acre doesn't refer to what we consider an acre today.
The name comes from the belief that the bodies of the dead are "sown as seed" in God's Acre, as in a field, so that they can rise again when Jesus Christ returns to the world. God's Acre is not literally one acre in size; many are larger or smaller.
Just because the word acre now has a size attached to it doesn't change the size of these cemeteries.
Just because we named our planet Earth, doesn't mean the ancient writers were referring to the planet when they used the word we translate as earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2011 4:58 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2011 8:53 AM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 140 of 306 (639004)
10-27-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by NoNukes
10-27-2011 8:53 AM


Re: Still Not The Planet - Bump
quote:
So how does any of that invalidate the Flood story or the Creation story?
It confirms that the flood story is not talking about a global flood. The Bible writers do not present a global flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2011 8:53 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 12:45 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 1:09 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 159 of 306 (639048)
10-27-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Granny Magda
10-27-2011 12:45 PM


Everything Isn't Always Everything
quote:
For instance it speaks of "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven," being covered; now that could just mean the local area, but it doesn't seem like the most obvious meaning. It sounds more like everything was flooded, everything that could be flooded was flooded. They just didn't imagine it on a planetary scale because they had no such concept to work with.
In my opinion it is a way for the story teller to say there was an obscene amount of water. Given their area, I don't think the Hebrews were cut off from trading with civilizations around them. Everything they could see may have been flooded. We tend to use the word the same way. Everything doesn't always truly mean everything.
In Genesis 41:57, the translators don't have a problem using the more local terminology. The global idea doesn't fit the story. We know better. So we should know better when it comes to the flood also. Our English translators are choosing the word earth. IMO, they are trying to be ambiguous in certain parts of the Bible.
Young's Literal Translation
and all the earth hath come to Egypt, to buy, unto Joseph, for the famine was severe in all the earth.
New International Version (1984)
And all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world.
English Standard Version (2001)
Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.
Obviously, the peoples of the Americas didn't go to Egypt for food.
The same word ha'aretz was used for the words translated as land, earth, countries, and world.
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth (ba'aretz) and it grieved him at his heart
And the LORD said I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth (ha'adamah) both man and beast and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air for it repenteth me that I have made them
The author used different words, but our translators used the same words.
The story has to be taken with a grain of salt, just like the A&E story. The main character is supposedly 600 years old.
That's one of the problems with stories that are thousands of years old. It happens with stories from the beginning of American history. Over time we lose the meanings of the idioms and the humor of the day. Just listening to an old radio show with Red Skelton and one will not get the jokes. We don't have the background info. That's why Bible study should encompass more than just reading the text. I want to understand what the writer was telling his audience. He wasn't writing for me. It was a very ancient time, different continent, and very different culture.
Many of our idioms have changed meanings over the years and people will eventually forget why they say them. It is interesting to read books written in the 1800's.
quote:
Also, as I have mentioned before, the text specifically mentions Mt. Ararat and describes the Ark as having come to rest there.
I'm not sure what your point is with that statement since you didn't mention it in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 12:45 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 4:09 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 4:12 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Granny Magda, posted 10-29-2011 8:14 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 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 replied

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

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2011 12:53 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 185 of 306 (639236)
10-29-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by NoNukes
10-29-2011 6:34 AM


Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
The Hebrew words erets and adamah do not carry a meaning of planet or global. The English words earth, land, and ground do not carry a meaning of planet or global. The English word earth is the name of our planet, but it doesn't mean planet or global.
Basically erets = land and adamah = ground. That may seem trivial, but land and ground don't always present the same idea depending on how it is used. So if an author is using both words in a story, there has to be a reason for the difference.
Besides referring to dirt, the English word land can imply country, realm, domain, or people of a country. It also implies ground that is owned. This in line with the Hebrew word erets.
land (n.)
O.E. land, lond, "ground, soil," also "definite portion of the earth's surface, home region of a person or a people, territory marked by political boundaries," from P.Gmc. *landom (cf. O.N., O.Fris. Du., Ger., Goth. land), from PIE *lendh- "land, heath" (cf. O.Ir. land, Middle Welsh llan "an open space," Welsh llan "enclosure, church," Breton lann "heath," source of Fr. lande; O.C.S. ledina "waste land, heath," Czech lada "fallow land").
The English word earth does not carry those added meanings. Other than being the name of our planet, it pretty much refers to ground or soil. This is more in line with the Hebrew word adamah.
earth
O.E. eore "ground, soil, dry land," also used (along with middangeard) for "the (material) world" (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.Fris. erthe "earth," O.S. ertha, O.N. jr, M.Du. eerde, Du. aarde, O.H.G. erda, Ger. Erde, Goth. aira), from PIE base *er- "earth, ground" (cf. M.Ir. -ert "earth"). The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400.
Over time words obtain new meanings, but we shouldn't apply new meanings to past writings.
Genesis (not quoting verbatim) (* earth used in NIV) (Ltrs denote suspected author per Friedman)
6:1 - The men began to multiply on the ground (adamah)*J
6:4 - There were Nephilim in the land (erets)*J
6:5 - God saw man's wickedness was great in the land (erets)*J
6:6 - God regretted making man in the land (erets)*J
6:7 - God said he would abolish mankind from the face of the ground (adamah)*J
6:11 - The land (erets)*P was corrupt in God's sight and the land (erets)* was filled with violence
6:12 - God looked upon the land (erets)*P, all flesh had corrupted his way upon the land (erets)*P
6:13 - The land (erets)*P if filled with violence, God will destroy all flesh with the land (erets)*P
6:17 - God is going to bring flood waters on the land (erets)*P and everything that is in the land (erets)*P shall die
6:20 - Bring two of every kind of creature that moves along the ground (adamah)P
7:3 - Bring male and female to keep seed alive upon the face of all the land (erets)*J
7:4 - In seven days God will cause it to rain upon the land (erets)*J and every living thing he had made will be destroyed off the face of the ground (adamah)*J
7:6 - Noah was 600 years old when the flood was upon the land (erets)*R
7:8 - Creatures that move along the ground (adamah)P
7:10 - Flood waters came upon the land (erets)*J
7:12 - The rain was upon the land (erets)*J 40days and nights
7:17 - The flood was 40 days upon the land (erets)*J, the ark was lifted above the land (erets)*J
7:18 - Waters increased greatly upon the land (erets)*J
7:19 - The waters prevailed upon the land (erets)*J
7:21 - All flesh died that moved upon the land (erets)*P, every creeping thing that creepeth upon the land (erets)*P
7:23 - Every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground (adamah)*J, all were destroyed from the land (erets)*J
7:24 - Waters prevailed upon the land (erets)*P
8:1 - God sent a wind over the land (erets)*P
8:3 - Waters receded from the land (erets)*J
8:7 - waters were dried up from off the land (erets)*P
8:8 - Sent dove to see if waters were abated from off the face of the ground (adamah)J
8:9 - Dove couldn't find place to land because the waters were on the face of the whole land (eretz)*
8:11 - Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the land (erets)*J
8:13 - Waters were dried up from off the land (erets)*P and the face of the ground (adamah)J was dry
8:14 - By the 27th day the land (erets)*P was completely dry
8:17 - Bring out of the ark all the creatures that creepeth on the land (erets)(used ground)P that they may multiply upon the land (erets)*
8:19 - Everything that moves on the land (erets)*P
8:21 - God said he would never again curse the ground (adamah)J
8:22 - As long as the land (erets)*J endures
9:1 - Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the land (erets)*P
What in the text implies a world wide thought?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 6:34 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 11:58 AM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 187 of 306 (639266)
10-29-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by NoNukes
10-29-2011 11:58 AM


Re: Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
quote:
According to the etymology you posted, the word earth could be used to refer to "the material world" or Middangeard which is in keeping with a world encompassing concept.
Except that the world (planetary) encompassing concept is not a meaning of erets or adamah. Those are the words that are being translated. Just because one meaning of earth fits the bill, doesn't mean they all do.
When the Jews did give a Hebrew name for planet Earth, they called it Kadur Ha'aretz (sphere of the land).
For the Jews, the Old Testament is a guide in morality, ethics, and how we are expected to behave. It isn't a science book or a history book.
quote:
Destroying every living substance made by God from the face of the earth sounds like a world wide flood to me. If "earth" can have imply both local and world-wide, I think it would be logical to use the more encompassing word here.
Made by that god. Why would a writer make the distinction if they believed that the god in the story had created all living things?
As I noted above, earth is not the word being translated. The words erets or adamah are being translated. We have to use the meaning of the word earth that fits with erets or adamah and they didn't carry a planet wide meaning way back then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 11:58 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by doctrbill, posted 10-29-2011 10:01 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 11:14 PM purpledawn has replied

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


(1)
Message 191 of 306 (639296)
10-30-2011 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by NoNukes
10-29-2011 11:14 PM


Hyperbole in the Bible
This thread is about whether erets and adamah refer to the planet Earth. We don't want to lose sight of that.
quote:
If in fact erets and adamah do not express universality, then some other words would be helpful in expressing that concept. So if your argument about erets and adamah are correct, then something else is needed to make the 7:3 and 7:4 talk about a world wide flood.
I think people have trouble accepting that the Bible writers did use exaggeration or Hyperbole. Like I've said before, everything doesn't really mean everything.
What do you buy the man who has everything? No one really has everything.
We use hyperbole today to bring the message home and it has been used through the ages. The Torah was not written as a science or history book. It contains many types of literary tools.
Exaggeration in story telling is very common.
quote:
Are you suggesting that the Bible does not say that God created every living thing? That not even Genesis 1 and 2 are about the entire earth? I'd need some convincing on that.
That debate started about Message 61.
Given that erets and adamah do not refer to the planet and hyperbole is very common, what in the text leads you to understand that the storyteller is saying that the God of the Bible created every living thing on the planet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2011 11:14 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 192 of 306 (639513)
11-01-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
09-20-2010 9:18 PM


earth or Earth
quote:
The Hebrew word אדץ that appears in Genesis 1:1 encompases the planet earth, all the land above water and under water all the way to the center of the Earth.
No it doesn't.
You've already been shown that the writer of Genesis 1 already made a distinction for 'erets. It refers to dry land only. The planet would include the sea. You've been shown this already in this thread. Message 81
This meaning for our word earth fits the bill.
areas of land as distinguished from sea and air
Which fits with this meaning of 'erets.
earth (as opposed to heaven)
The only meaning of the English word earth that encompasses the entire planet is when it is used as the name of our planet.
Here is what the LXX has for ge which is the Greek translation of 'erets.
arable land
the ground, the earth as a standing place
the main land as opposed to the sea or water
the earth as a whole
the earth as opposed to the heavens
the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region
I know, you see that definition that says "earth as a whole" and think planet, but erets (per the Genesis writer) doesn't refer to anything covered by water.
Genesis 1:1 isn't written to refer to the "earth as a whole". Show me an instance where erets is used to mean the earth as a whole as opposed to a part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 09-20-2010 9:18 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 11-01-2011 2:15 PM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 194 of 306 (639541)
11-01-2011 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
11-01-2011 2:15 PM


Re: earth or Earth
quote:
Then what part of the world was it talking about?
Genesis 1:1, the storyteller is talking to his people and telling them their beginnings.
quote:
What did the Hebrew word ארץ refer too in Genesis 1:2?
There was no arable land.
There was no place to stand.
There was nothing visible but water.
There was no inhabited earth, the abode of men an animals. Therefore there was no country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a track of land, territory, or region.
That only leaves two of your definitions.
The earth as a whole.
The earth as opposed to the heavens.
The Genesis 1 creation story is not a journal. The storyteller is speaking to his audience and telling them about the past. In Genesis 1:2, the storyteller is still speaking of the land the people knew. Hard to picture more than they know.
quote:
Now since you disagree please present your argumentation to support you position.
The storyteller tells you himself. Since the yabbashah is called erets. The dry land is called erets. Erets is only talking about dry land, whether it is all the dry land they feel is encircled by the water or part of it. The earth as a whole, still refers to the dry land as a whole; not the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 11-01-2011 2:15 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 9:01 AM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 205 of 306 (639659)
11-02-2011 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by ICANT
11-02-2011 9:01 AM


The Audience
quote:
So in Genesis 1:1 according to you ארץ means people, or their beginnings.
Not what I said.
In Message 193, you asked what part of the world was Genesis 1 talking about. The storyteller is telling them about their land. He is not telling them about the planet.
Please use the transliterated words, I don't read Hebrew. It also makes it easier for visitors to understand.
quote:
But there was no dry land for them to relate too in Genesis 1:2.
Sure there is. They were standing or sitting on it. They were listening to a story of the past. The dry land around them was a mess way back when. The meaning is land.
Actually what you quoted were the meanings for the Greek word ge.
quote:
What was it called before it appeared out of the water when the water was gathered to one place?
Before God said the dry land was called land (erets) the word used to refer to land was erets (land).
quote:
Therefore 'the whole earth' would refer to the water the dry land, the wet land, the crust, mantel and core. All of those things compose the whole Earth. Whether the 7 billionth person on Earth that was born on halloween knows the facts about the Earth or not.
Not in the Bible. The writer makes it clear it refers to dry land.
Show evidence that it refers to the planet. Show evidence that the audience understood the entire sphere. Show me when the Jews knew there was more than the countries around them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 9:01 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 11:07 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024