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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 228 of 306 (639706)
11-03-2011 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by ICANT
11-03-2011 1:10 AM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
quote:
That is not a verse that is animals.
This verse covers the snakes, worms, and elephants.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is well outside the Noah story. Have you not wondered why this verse is not in the Noah story - when it should be if based on a global flood? It is easy to see how a host of factors have been ignored, resulting in outlandish conclusions.
The main problem has been cherry picking verses out of context with the entire reportings and leaving out pivotal verses. The other issue is that two of the biggest religions have a vested interest in negating the Hebrew - it is an affront to their core beliefs. Then you have the anti-religionists who save all their anxst to the pet scapegoat, which is a good career move as well. I am not a religionist but also I don't follow all the thrash hurled around at the least incoherent theological writings. Its always the multitiude that is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 1:10 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 4:42 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 230 of 306 (639730)
11-03-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by jar
11-03-2011 10:08 AM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
Lots of unsupported assertions in there and also lots of falsehoods and utter nonsense.
So providing evidence seen in hard copy in an ancient writings displaying the epitome of mathematical accuracy as in....
quote:
"The 10 C's were given on a saturday, by virtue of its calculus proof - something which cannot be improvised from millions of datings and numbers inerspersed of a 3000 year period, with no errors, in the absence of a super pc or record of that entire period. " it just shows everyone that you are simply making stuff up.
is....
quote:
When you post word salad.
And
And it still has nothing to do with what the KJV says about the Noahic Flood.
How does one then judge the merit of a passage of writing if not by its merit in other passages? Can one passage be totally fable and foolish, while others its absolute reverse? Can you point us to any ancient writings, or in fact anything in all of recorded history, which can equate with the proof I cited of math excellence - as opposed philosophy and dogma? I see your response as word salad, and great wisdom in the Hebrew writings, including the Noah story.
I also gave proof that people in ancient times were wholly focused on their village and towns as the focal point of the world, as in the story of Lot and his two daughters. That is hard copy proof the people in Noah's time, much earlier than Lot, would have also seen the flood as a global one. That is not word salad and it has much to do with the thread topic - even if it is ignored and not admitted as such.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by jar, posted 11-03-2011 10:08 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 11-03-2011 11:00 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 232 of 306 (639732)
11-03-2011 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by jar
11-03-2011 11:00 AM


Re: look at what the God characters say
I responded to every post, accurately and in context. Most were disregarded and frog leaped to new charges. You just did so to my last post!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 11-03-2011 11:00 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 236 of 306 (639780)
11-03-2011 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by ICANT
11-03-2011 4:08 PM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
quote:
Here is the question again and I will try to simplify it so you can understand the question.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dry land of Genesis 1:9, 10 was called earth.
If the face of that dry land was covered with water where was the dry land left under the heavens where all land under the heavens was covered with 15 cubits of water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a dry land mass that the water left visible when the water gathered to one place. Genesis 1:9, 10.
I believe the dry land mass was all in one place but that is immaterial to what we are discussing.
The dry land mass could have been shaped just as it is today.
Everything would be covered by water.
The opening preamble of Genesis relates to
V1. The earth is focused upon, seperating it from all the rest of lands [other space bodies like stars, moons and planets]; indeed the entire five books focus only the earth, which is to appoint the subject matter - it is about one planet now; it is talking to forthcoming humans of their origins and history [who/what else!?]. It also means the term earth, in this instance, refers to solid earth as opposed water. The solid matter [earth] on this planet, was covered with water. There is no other meanings here - nothing else yet existed on this planet to mention about. There was yet no light focused on this planet as today; there was no seperation of day and night, or water from land before this point, nor any life yet existed. There was no evolution or environment yet.
Then we go to the later verse you quoted:
1.9. 'The dry was called earth': this aligns with V1, namely all dry land [not submerged in water, and solid] is called earth. Also, this marks the first thresold of seperations on the earth [this planet] of water from land; indeed there was no water created outside of this planet. Also, it is listing this seperation as a pointer of what is forthcoming - namely life; why else to mention this here; note the next forthcoming items which follow, namely "life"? There is no ther reading here - nothing else existed; only life is referred to; this is also the beginning of we call environment and nature today - these are created, designed processes, the wiring of the earth workings. Nothing to do with Noah, but it is a higher, global description of the early earth pre-life. It is vital to know this; it is also perfect grammar protocol when considered.
Yes/no?
quote:
the earth being covered with water and when no life existed yet.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All the high hills were covered. Not some of the high hills.
Now you have gone to chapter 7 - another time, another specific sector zoomed into. This is well after all life forms and many lands and regions existed and seperated, and the focus is on one small region, not all the earth, namely of one region of Noah. It does not concern Adam, Cain, Tasmania, Egypt, Mount Everest, etc. The text is only referring to Noah's region. Note the opening verse in this chapter 7 which you disregarded:
7/1: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation'
It refers to Noah in this [his] generation. COME THOU; ALL THY HOUSE; THIS [NOAH'S] GENERATION; NOAH'S ENVIRONMENT. Indeed and most impacting, it does NOT say that Noah was rightious, because this is limited to Noah's generation, his community. Indeed, Noah may not have been found rightious in another generation of town or community. The verse is also saying that Noah's rightiousness was 'limited'; that most people around him were abolsutely corrupted beyond the point of saving, unless they change their ways. Indeed Noah turned out to be a drunk; as soon as the flood was over he planted 'vine' [booze!] not grains. Indeed the demeaning, qualifying term 'in this' generation" is not included with Abraham and Moses - Noah was NOT rightious compared to others in different generations. Indeed Noah was markedly inferior to Abraham and Moses - both these figures totally rejected God's pledge to destroy all of Sodom and all of the Israelite nation - they battled with God over this saving for humanity, respectively in each case; Noah did not! Thus the words 'IN THIS [YOUR] BAD GENERATION, YOU NOAH JUST BARELY WAS FOUND RIGHTIOUS. Read, Noah was different in a negative way from Abraham and Moses:
'WILL THE JUDGE OF ALL JUDGES TAKE THE INNOCENT [CHILDREN OF SODOM] ALONG WITH THE GUILTY - THIS EVIIL BE FAR AWAY FROM YOU' [Abraham]
'FIRST TAKE ME OUT OF YOUR BOOK BEFORE DESTROYING THIS NATION OF ISRAEL' [Moses]
Noah: "BLANK!" [Gee, thanks for saving me, my family, my possessions - I don't care for others].
quote:
2. All the high hills that were under the whole heaven was covered with 15 cubits of water.
This is again referring to Noah and his generation, not the opening V1 which refers to the point before water and land were seperated globally. Here, V7/1 applies, its not connected with Chapter 1; its about one particular region here - not the whole planet; its talking to and about Noah and Noah's [this/your] generation only. The animals and humans in Europe or Egypt are not referred to here, else V7/1 becomes compromised to the extent of being superfluous, even incoherent. Wrong way - go back.
quote:
Using the short Hebrew cubit there was 22.25 feet of water.
Using the long Hebrew cubit there was 25.8375 feet of water.
Using the Holy cubit there was 31.2875 feet of water.
The amount of water is immaterial. The highest part of dry land that existed under the whole heaven was covered by 15 cubits of water.
Therefore if there was any dry land it was not on the planet earth, as it had to be out from under the heaven.
Now if you want to argue that there was not enough room on the ark for two of 'ALL' creatures plus the extra clean creatures figure up the amount of cubic feet required for them to exist on the ark and I will see if I can get them to fit. There are between 10,000 and 17,000 species alive today.
The size of the cubit used by Noah does make a big difference in the size of the ark.
Using the smallest Hebrew cubit there was 1,468,685.403465 cubic feet in the ark.
Using the Holy cubit there was 4,011,000 cubic feet.
So the size of the cubit makes a big difference.
The size of reading the length of a cubit is aligned only with the size of the ark; the measurements are not as you defined. It is roughly about one side being about 50 feet as we know 50 feet today; telephone numbers do not apply; six digits as yet never applied in Noah's time or understanding. This is also what can only be read from the text and how many animals can fit therein. This is also the translation in the oral law, which came directly from Moses when long ques existed as the laws were handed down in the 40 year period of desert wonderings in 42 such stops. The oral law was not accepted by Christianity - because it included interpretations of Monotheism and other laws which was unacceptable to Christianity [No graven images for worship; ony the soul that sinneth it shall pay]. Indeed, Christianity cannot survive if those laws were accepted as per the law of Moses. Christianity would have then had no choice but to disregard and/or fulfill away those interpretations [as its life saver]; and the other interpretations between those who accepted those oral laws from Moses [as seen accepted by Islam, a people with more credibility of this region than that of Europe in this particular instant only]; indeed all the writngs and dictionaries and encyclopedia of the modern world would reflected the Christian understanding; it is the foremost educator of the wrd and humanity; but not yet confirmed as right. The matter impacts on all the non-Hebrew world and is today the substantial understanding of the Hebrew bible - its loony tunes and walt disney stuff, yet the winning multitide. That is manifest tday - there is chaos and humanity is pointing to disaster ahead.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 4:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 11:08 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 237 of 306 (639784)
11-03-2011 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by ICANT
11-03-2011 4:42 PM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
That is well outside the Noah story.
Yes but it declares what is a clean animal and and unclean animal.
The snake, and worms go on their belly and the elephant goes on all fours. All of these are listed as unclean animals.
You are the one claiming they were not on the ark, not me.
It refers to clean and unclean animals in "Noah's possessions"
No sir. The verse is about Two of everything that breathed of ALL flesh went into the ark - IN NOAH'S SURROUNDS ONLY; NOAH'S POSSESSIONS ONLY. This must align with Ch7/1; namely THOU, THY HOUSEHOLD, YOUR GENERATION.
quote:
I guess Noah was responsible for the rest of the clean animals because they did not load themselves.
There you go! Do you now see the ubsurdity of your take here?
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
The main problem has been cherry picking verses out of context with the entire reportings and leaving out pivotal verses.
Is the three verses presented above cherry picking?
Of course! You have connected a global pre-life point [chapter 1 - the creation chapter], with a later post-life scenario. Its like saying if there is a tsunami in Asia before life existed with Briton today. It disregards the opening verse in chapter 7, which is not applicable in chapter 1.
quote:
Its always the multitiude that is wrong.
Since I am a minority of 1 as no one believes what I do then I have to be correct, if your statement is correct.
But the majority is on your side! Here, the Hebrew version is the minority. Thus it does not say not to follow the minority; it says the oppositte:
"THEREFORE YOU SHALL NOT FOLLOW A CORRUPTED MAJORITY/MULTITUDE." This refers to Christianty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 4:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 11:57 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 238 of 306 (639790)
11-03-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by ICANT
11-03-2011 4:16 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
What does the human POV have to do with what God does.
God said: "And of every living thing of all flesh"...
Every living thing does not change from every to some just because you want it too or believe that it does.
Its not about every living thing changes. Its about every living thing in "Noah's generation/region." Consider, ALL THE EARTH'S WATER [applying to all water on the planet], and "ALL THE EARTH'S WATER IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD." Consider this is put to Noah and his household and possessions - you keep flying over the cookoo's net here in disregarding the impacting text!
quote:
15 cubits is a small amount; it has no relevency with covering the earth. There is a diminishing series of rejections, but it won't result in a backdown for sure.
15 cubits of water on the highest hill under the heaven does not leave any dry land.
Yes it is! It can only apply to Noah's small region. How or why else would a boat rise, be saved and all the world be submerged?
quote:
If you disagree please explain how there would be any dry land anywhere if the highest point of dry land on planet earth was covered with 15 cubits of water.
15 cubits is a small amount of water which can only apply to a regional flood. If the entire planet was covered with water, as in before the water and land was seperated in Chapter 1, there would be no mountains!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 4:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2011 2:01 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 241 of 306 (639803)
11-04-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by ICANT
11-03-2011 11:08 PM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
quote:
It also means the term earth, in this instance, refers to solid earth as opposed water.
I agree as in Genesis 1:1 there was no ocean.
In 1.1 there was no ocean, but there was the components which make an ocean, and all things now contained in the universe, icluding stars, oceans, pineapples and the songs someone writes today. IOW, the base materials were already a given with the creation of the heavens [galaxies] and the earth - as per v1. There is nowhere else for these to come from.
In V2, we are told that everything was unformed [nothing was seperated from each other]; all was one unformed mush. Science and scientific laws yet never emerged. There were no stars, water, darkness, light, energy or any forces. Then we are told the unformed void was turned to formed; things appeared as seperate entities from the mush of the void. We can conjure up an alignment here with the big bang, namely an action or command which initiated laws which enabled the mush to form identifiable components. This is also the introduction of science, from a point when there was no science or laws in the universe.
The act of emerging identifiable products were caused by the act of 'seperations', subsequent to laws and commands in a directed program from a universe maker source [how else!?]. Here, the first products seperated were darkness and light, these were the first things seperated from the mush [void], as in the text [V3]: LET THERE BE LIGHT; AND HE SEPERATED THE LIGHT FROM THE DARKNESS - namely from the mush of unseperated stuff, but from which void these components already existed, but without the laws which allowed them to become seperate products with specific attributes of water, light, darkness, etc. Analogy: base metal in the earth; when seperated a car can be formed based in scientific laws discovered by humans - all the required components were already given.
The above scenario is a scientific premise, allowing no other scenario possible in a finite universe. Genesis is based on a finite universe [V1]. This is scientific, namely cause and effect, while the infinite [totally wrong] and random emegence of a universe based on scientific laws is unscientific and never experienced in any exampe of science. This is the difference between Darwinism and Creationism; only one is scientific at its foundational base.
To return to your statement, there were no oceans, is better stated as, there was no water on earth prior to the seperation phase; then, after the seperation action, there was water which covered up all the earth; then the water was seperated from the earth
quote:
The solid matter [earth] on this planet, was covered with water.
Not in Genesis 1:1. It was not covered with water until some time later as it is found covered with water in Genesis 1:2.
The water was seperated from land before the emergence of life forms, along with other seperations such as with light and darkness; day and night [chapter 1]. Clearly, a scientifically correct and indispensible premise, and one which is not seen in Darwinism. Evolution cannot explain the emergence of life without Genesis' proceedial seperation manual.
quote:
You say how do you know there was no water in Genesis 1:1?
Simple, all you have to do is read the history of the day the Lord God created the Earth and the heavens. Genesis 2:4
Genesis 2:5 there was no plants, and no rain.
Genesis 2:6 there was a mist that watered the whole face of the Earth.
Incorrect reading of the text! Genesis says all life forms were created in chapter 1, but they yet were not alive. These needed a further trigger action to become animated, such as the rain cycle, which is again related to the cycle of adjusted day and night, heat temps, etc, etc. The life cycle ignited the life; the ability to interact with these ignition factors was applied in the creation of the life forms.
quote:
Genesis 2:7 God formed man from the dust of the ground.
Absolutely, with no alternatives available. Life forms are made of the earth's elements, such as iodone, iron, phosperous, water, zinc, atoms, quarks, etc. This is translated as the dust of the earth - an excellent term open to all generation's understanding. Crazies like Attenborough ridicule this verse - they have no better alternatives!
quote:
Genesis 2:8 God planted a Garden in Eden.
Genesis 2:9 God caused trees to grow out of the ground.
Genesis 2:10 A river went out of Eden and watered the Garden.
Genesis 2:19 God formed animals and fowl out of the ground.
Genesis 2:22 God made a woman out of a rib he took from the man.
There is no sea or seas mentioned neither is there any fish mentioned.
They are mentioned in chapter 1. Hello? Chapter 2 refers to after the life cycle began, when the already completed life forms became animated [living]. Analogy: a completed car does not move unless further triggered by a key.
quote:
There was yet no light focused on this planet as today;
You base that upon what?
The text! Note that when the light was seperated from the darkness [v3/4], the earth yet did not have the critical light focus allowing life. This occured in V14:
quote:
14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness
Now, the light of the sun [luminosity] was critically focused on earth, whereas there was already sunlight before, but not critically directed to life. Note that V14 refers only to light variances, not light itself, not the stars. Note that the previous verse [9/13] gives the criteria how the seperation of water from land was to cause life in the oceans:
Thus we know from the texts the light was critically directed to give life: vegetation, fish, etc. This is what I referred to by the focusing of light on earth for the precise purpose of fostering life. How else!? The light ratio on earth is very varied from every other space body in the known universe; some planets have 5 year days and no water - not suitable for life or so-called evolution.
quote:
there was no seperation of day and night,
I agree there was no separation of light and darkness as darkness did not exist in Genesis 1:1.
Darkness did not exist until it is found in Genesis 1:2.
The components for darkness, light and all things contained now in the universe were already supplied in V1. They became seperated only after laws were impacted and the mush divided in identifiable products. There is nothing new in the universe since V1 and v2 which created these things from nothing but a command - no tools, elements or materials yet existed. While this may appear extraordinary, it becomes not so by virtue there is no alternative to it from a finite, created universe view.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
1.9. 'The dry was called earth': this aligns with V1, namely all dry land [not submerged in water, and solid] is called earth.
How can verse 9 align with verse 1? There was no water in verse 1.
There was water in the follow up verse. V1 is about the entire universe and all its unformed components being already created. The water and the light were seperated - seperated from the unformed mush in V2.
quote:
Also, this marks the first thresold of seperations on the earth [this planet] of water from land;
The text does not say anything about the water and land being separated.
It simply says the dry land appeared when the water gathered to one place.
It does:
quote:
3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
quote:
Now you have gone to chapter 7 - another time, another specific sector zoomed into. This is well after all life forms and many lands and regions existed and seperated, and the focus is on one small region, not all the earth, namely of one region of Noah. It does not concern Adam, Cain, Tasmania, Egypt, Mount Everest, etc. The text is only referring to Noah's region. Note the opening verse in this chapter 7 which you disregarded:
Are you saying chapter 6 and chapter 7 are talking about two arks and two floods that Noah went through?
I am saying chapter 1 refers to creation; chapter 7 refers to a localised story of a human community.
quote:
7/1: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation'
It refers to Noah in this [his] generation. COME THOU; ALL THY HOUSE; THIS [NOAH'S] GENERATION; NOAH'S ENVIRONMENT.
Are you saying this means something other than what this says?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We got Noah and we got Noah's sons that equals 2 generations.
Noah and his wife went into the ark.
Shem Ham and Japheth and their wives went into the ark.
House in Genesis 7:1 should have been translated family which is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word bayith.
Noah's household [family] entered the ark.
quote:
IamJosephIndeed and most impacting, it does NOT say that Noah was rightious, because this is limited to Noah's generation, his community. Indeed, Noah may not have been found rightious in another generation of town or community. The verse is also saying that Noah's rightiousness was 'limited'; that most people around him were abolsutely corrupted beyond the point of saving, unless they change their ways.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah was righteous because he believed and obeyed God.
If you think Abrahan or Moses or you are more righteous than Noah was you are in deep trouble.
Abrahan comitted adultry and bare a son by Sarah's handmaid.
Moses failed to obey God and speak to the rock and did not enter the promised land because of that disobedience.
You will have to examine your own life.
The meaningn of rightious is not whether one sins. It refers only to how one acts 'AFTER' one sins: "WHERE A REPENTANT SINNER STANDS - THE MOST RIGHTIOUS CANNOT." This says a decent person is better than an innocent person. Only the sinner can pass the test of rightiousness - the reason temptation is factored in. Abraham did not commit adultry - there was no law of adultry then; both God and Abraam's wife asked him to get a child; the law to reproduce was already given from Adam terms ['GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY'/ the first law in the Hebrew bible]. Also, 'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT'; thus we know a female prophetess can see further and beyond a male prohet of God's words. The female is the final and highest life form.
quote:
But I will let you in on a little secret. I am not worthy now nor will I ever be for the grace of God that has been poured out to me. I do not deserve to go to heaven for any reason other than I have been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ who is the only way to heaven.
Its not a secret; everyone harbours inferiority when related to higher paradigsms, increasing in inetinsity as we elevate.
Indeed Noah turned out to be a drunk; as soon as the flood was over he planted 'vine' [booze!] not grains.
Indeed all roads lead to heaven or wherever there is out there, which none know. The Nasa moon mission had no right to place a plaque on the moon with the date 1968 AD and apply this to all humanity and this planet - its pretty damn assumptious. Probably, this is why we have no visitations from ET's - they must think we are all so primitive. The Hebrew bible records 5702 years of history alone, and has no condition of any group being special. All are subject to their deeds and actions - none to names. See, there is chosen to be a light unto the nations [meaning by example only?], and there is chosen by the rake, sword and each group's most preferred names. Choose your own chosen preference, but do not do so for everyone - it is the cause of millions of innocent lives being destroyed.
quote:
Do you know how long it would take the grape vine to grow and produce fruit.
But then if his squezed grape juice had never fermented before why would he expect it to ferment after the flood?
The vine is the quickest producing plant of all. Noah wanted wine; he should have planted grain for food.
quote:
YOU NOAH JUST BARELY WAS FOUND RIGHTIOUS.
What do you back that assertion up with?
IamJoseph writes:
Noah: "BLANK!" [Gee, thanks for saving me, my family, my possessions - I don't care for others].
Its qualified by IN HIS GENERATION; unlike with Abraham and Moses.
quote:
After being a wittness for 120 years to everyone that came by and asked what he was doing building that monstrosity and him telling them God was going to flood the earth what would you expect him to say?
He was made a witness, but he failed bceaiuse he did not implore anyone; he never argued the case with God as did Abraham and Moses.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. All the high hills that were under the whole heaven was covered with 15 cubits of water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is again referring to Noah and his generation, not the opening V1 which refers to the point before water and land were seperated globally. Here, V7/1 applies, its not connected with Chapter 1; its about one particular region here - not the whole planet; its talking to and about Noah and Noah's [this/your] generation only. The animals and humans in Europe or Egypt are not referred to here, else V7/1 becomes compromised to the extent of being superfluous, even incoherent. Wrong way - go back.
What part of ALL do you not understand?
Chapter 1 and 7 are of different scenarios. V7/1 applies to the Noah story.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 11:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2011 4:23 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 244 of 306 (639920)
11-04-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ICANT
11-04-2011 2:01 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
This text says EVERY living thing of ALL flesh.
It preceeds Genesis 7:1 and would not be limited by that verse.
So for your wild idea to be true it would have to read.
And of some living thing of some flesh.....
OR
It would have to read: And of every living thing of all flesh in Noah's household, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark.
There is no grammatical reading of it except that it applies to Noah's entire household and all his possessions - with all that was required for sustainence of all the souls and living life forms. I have already tended maybe 20 examples why this is the only reading, including why this flood appeared as covering the mountain tops and all the earth, with actual examples in the same book of a much later period in Abraham's time. The world was not destroyed in the destruction of Sodom either - yet some thought so. This authentic description of the period is correctly highlighted, in equal measure of the authenticity of the ancient names listed in the book of this period and region, as well as the listing of factual geographical items like Mount Ararat in its exact location - down the road from Noah's household. When it says Noah planted a vine, it means either the vine seeds were also taken into the arc - or there was still planting possible when they emerged out of the arc; either way it makes my reading the only path available. However, you maybe imprisoned by your inculcation of this story, which is listed as a mythical fable, ignoring all the wondrous factors impossible to find in a fable of any kind. Its not Walt Disney stuff!
There is no writing possessed by humanity more pristine than this writings - it is perfect and error free, most coherent, and solely responsible for influencing the works of Isaiah, Shakespeare and almost every great writer, including those who wrote the Gospels and Quran, and there is no precedence of this writings - it emerged suddenly and in an already advanced state of grammar and alphabetical mode. There are no such Phoenecian or other earlier alphabetical books, no matter what you read in today's encyclopedia and anti-creational descriptions. Ask them all to put up instead of quoting opions 1000's of years later, from sources who never studied this writings via observation and input!
A first verse is also a header - its next verses and passages becoming extentions of qualifications and magnifications: its about going forth on the same platform of thought and direction. If an opening verse says the heavens and earth were created, followed by 'there was darkness' - it means the earth was created with darkness as an underlying property potential, because there is nowhere else to come from and no other reading possible. Its like a mathematical sequence; the term 'create' is included and must be understood fully and without confusion. Similarly, if the Noah story is directed to Noah and his household, it can only read as the life forms which entered the arc were of Noah's household. There is no other reading. Your objections are about low level grammar only, not any error in any factual geographical or historical factors; everything else in the descriptions of such things are irrefutable, to the extent they could not even come from another earlier source - there are no other such sources.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of ALL flesh that had the breath of life went into the ark unto Noah.
To satisfy your assertions it would have to say:
Two of SOME flesh that had the breath of life went into the ark unto Noah.
No, your grammar is faulty. Read: 'Two of ALL flesh - [of Noah's household]'. You cannot render verses in the same text as superfluous; its like a math equation. One has to retain and infuse all factors of the text in making a conclusion. Otherwise your baking a cake without sugar, an ingredient listed in its reciepe up top. And thus your complaint is your cake is not sweet!
quote:
The text does not say nor imply what you say it says.
The text does not imply - it says it pointedly and blatantly.
quote:
But be assured the text says EVERY and ALL and those two words does not leave out anything that had the breath of life in it.
IF - you omit pivotal verses!
quote:
The text says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now if ALL the high hills was covered that existed under the whole heaven there would be nothing protuding above the water that covered Mt Everest.
All the earth under the heavens - [of Noah's region only!]. Perfect grammar with nowhere else to go. The water covered 'ONLY' the hills and peaks in Noah's immediate surrounds; the boat stopped down the road. It appeared the whole earth was drenched. There was no description reported in Egypt or Lebanon; none in Tasmania; none reported a global flood destroying their towns of the 100's of nations surrounding Noah's town; no lies or mis-reportings occur when the text is correctly understood.
quote:
The text does not say some of the high hills but ALL.
The text does not say the high hills in Noah's region but ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE WHOLE (ENTIRE) HEAVEN.
ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE WHOLE (ENTIRE) HEAVEN - [in Noah's town]. Yes it says that!
quote:
One day maybe you will understand the difference in a boat and an ark. But I am beginning to have my doubts.
A boat is a vessel that is designed to travel through the water. Most have a v bottom with a pointed bow and a narrower stern than the beam.
Noah's ark was built with the same dimensions of width from the front to the back. The length is the same from side to side. The height was the same from end to end and side to side.
In other words it was a rectangle cube.
Now the ark was sitting on dry land when it was built. The water rose and the ark floated. It does not make any difference whether the water rose just enough to float the ark or whether the water rose 50 miles deep on all the earth. If the water then receeded somehow to the point there was dry land below the ark when it settled it would be on dry land.
So what is the problem you are trying to allude to with your statement?
There would be no problem for the ark floating and keeping those on board safe whether it was a local flood or a world wide flood.
I was not alluding, nor making an issue of arc or boat; your descriptions only favor my position: the arc or boat, whatever, was designed only to float, stable and safe; apparently given with a clear knowledge of engineering equations of force and bouyancy. The text is advanced in its knowledge: it even understands what dimensions to give for how many people and animals, with super PC mathematical ability, even able to easure how many days before Noah's vicinity would remain submerged. I doubt whether 40 days of rain would submerge the whole earth and heavens - some countries have non-stop monsoon rains for like six months and still pop up unscathed. What's your point?
quote:
The mountains would exist whether they were covered with water or not.
The tallest mountain in the world from base to top is Mount Lamlam with an elevation of 1334 feet above sea level. but from the base to the top it is 37,820 feet tall.
Drop Mt Everest in the trench beside Lamlam and it would be covered by over a mile of water.
There are mountains and mountain ranges that are competely covered with water with only a few peaks sticking out of the water. Those peaks are called Islands.
So what problem do you see with the ark floating if all the mountains of the earth was covered with water?
Why would the mountains not exist if the were covered with water?
The mountains would not exist if the water and land was not seperated as per Ch. 1. If the world was again covered wth water - as in ch. 1 - the mountains would not be seen. But the mountain tops after the flood were seen! Your error of the text reading!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2011 2:01 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by ICANT, posted 11-07-2011 2:34 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 245 of 306 (639923)
11-04-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by ICANT
11-04-2011 4:23 PM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
quote:
I am saying chapter 1 refers to creation; chapter 7 refers to a localised story of a human community.
That is not what I asked you.
I asked the question:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying chapter 6 and chapter 7 are talking about two arks and two floods that Noah went through?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please answer the question.
Its a ridiculous question. What brought up such a question?
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT'
Is this a quote? If so from who and where.
OR is it just an assertion of IamJoseph?
One thing for sure that statement is not in the Bible.
It shows again you are making statements which indicate you have not studied this writings in any measure of merit, which would not allow you to understand what you are describing. Here you are:
quote:
21/11. 'Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice;
Sarah knew and saw more than Abraham. This was also the case with Isaac's wife Rebecca concerning Esau and Jacob. Both were vindicated as above the male prophets' spiritual vision or insights if you will - agreed ultimately by the male prophets themselves. But for these prophetess' directives there would be no Judaism, Christianity or Islam today, nor any nation or people called Hebrew or Israel. This was also seen with Esther later. Life and its sustainence is kept in the palms and sub-consciousness of the woman, never in the man alone.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
The vine is the quickest producing plant of all. Noah wanted wine; he should have planted grain for food.
A tomato plant will produce fruit in 55 to 90 days from planting.
Your error again. Tomatoes are a recent discovery as a consumable food. In ancient times only foods which did not corrupt had any value.
quote:
A grape vine will produce fruit in 2 years from planting.
The vine gives wine in a very short time, unlike grains and olives. Noah was drunk the first thing he consumed.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
Its qualified by IN HIS GENERATION;
All of the animals alive on all the dry land existed in his generation.
Yes, including snakes, tigers, elephants, bears. But these are not included in the list of animals. Guess why!
quote:
But nothing you said refuts the fact the text says all, every, whole. You can't get rid of those words by simply saying they were not in his generation.
Everything I said, does.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
He was made a witness, but he failed bceaiuse he did not implore anyone; he never argued the case with God as did Abraham and Moses.
I don't find where God told Noah to witness to anyone.
Correct. But Abraham acted differently when told an entire city would be destroyed. Noah did not emulate this act. Noah did not argue to save the children, or to ask if the town will be saved if he finds 10 good men. Abraham did - relentlessly. If someone tells you it is a blessing to kill one from a different belief or that they are born of a devil - it becomes a test how you respond: Abrahamically - or Noahically. Therein is the difference between a rightious and a rightious only within his own mindset and self interest; the dfference between the Godly and UnGodly. The rest is history, not theology.
quote:
God told Noah to build an ark and to gather food for himself and his family along with the animals that would make the journey with him. God told him there was to be 7 clean animals and a male and female of all unclean animals.
He wasn't told to do anything else. So get off his back.
No sir. Getting off his back is a bad lesson. Its a test for all mankind how to behave. It causes holocausts and chants of VE VERE NOT AVARE. You are not understanding what you are reading.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What part of ALL do you not understand?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 1 and 7 are of different scenarios. V7/1 applies to the Noah story.
I will ask the question again.
What part of ALL do you not understand?
What is your definition of ALL?
Take the parts of this post that I did not reply to and make a thread if you desire to pursue a discussion about them. We only have just over 50 posts in this thread to discuss the flood.
Why repeat the same. ALL in this writing refers to NOAH AND HIS HOUSEHOLD. I did not invent that verse - its in the text.
MOSTLY OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Address only topic related comments.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2011 4:23 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by ICANT, posted 11-05-2011 1:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 247 of 306 (639948)
11-05-2011 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by ICANT
11-05-2011 1:02 AM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
quote:
So the reason God was speaking to Abraham was that Sarah had saw Ishmael mocking, and because of that Sarah told Abraham to cast out the bondwoman and her son.
Abraham was grieved because Ishmael was his son.
And because of that God told Abraham to listen to Sarah and cast out the bondwoman and his son.
No sir. It is inappropriate to conclude Sarah's extraordinary decison would rest on a mere mocking, and worse that you conclude such was sanctioned by God. A journalist must know how to see an underlying cadence here, judge by the harsh decision taken by Sarah, and look deeper at what is occuring. Mocking by children is not a great crime! But this is beyond the topic and your journalism rules.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by ICANT, posted 11-05-2011 1:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 249 of 306 (640252)
11-08-2011 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by ICANT
11-07-2011 2:34 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
I had over looked this message and since you can't reply to my last message I will reply to this one.
The Monitor is totally out of line, but shame on those who were silent of it.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by ICANT, posted 11-07-2011 2:34 PM ICANT has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 250 of 306 (640362)
11-08-2011 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by ICANT
11-07-2011 2:34 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
So when was the flood story divided into chapter's and verses?
In other words who decided Genesis 7:1 would be the first verse of Chapter 7?
The text order was always the same; the Greeks merely gave them numbers for verses and sub-chapters, an intelliginet input, but also subject to a detraction from the original process of deliberations. Originally, there were no spaces between verses and passages, yet all was in context; this is why most interpret EYE FOR AN EYE as revenge as opposed just compensation for accidental damages. The eye for an eye is embedded in a long list of accidental damages and compensation only. Revenge and deep held grudges are forbidden.
quote:
So explain why does this verse not include the word household?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This verse lists who is supposed to be in the ark.
It mentions nothing about Noah's tame animals.
This verse mentions who is in the household (family) of Noah.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This verse tells Noah what animals are to be on the ark.
Very simple explanation. After nominating who will enter the arc [Noah and his entire household], the text now enumerates them as confirmation. Note how all refer only to Noah's household and possessions for sustainence and re-growth of a small family - not all life forms of the earth.
quote:
Reading:
And from all the life from all flesh two from all will come to the vessel to exist at you male and female they exist.
Please explain from that verse what creature on planet Earth would not come to the vessel to be able to exist?
That is the reason I asked you for your definition's of 'all', and 'every'.
I find no life form left out in either word.
Only domestic animals and household owned animals are listed. Not a single wild animal makes the list - no snakes or elephants. This is no typo.
quote:
Now you claim Genesis 7:1 is a header for what follows.
Where is the header for the description of who and what is to get on the ark in Genesis 6:18, 19?
Those verses preceed your assertion of 7:1.
Your famous word household in English means:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
a. A domestic unit consisting of the members of a family who live together along with nonrelatives such as servants.
b. The living spaces and possessions belonging to such a unit.
2. A person or group of people occupying a single dwelling:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source
The Hebrew word ביתד translated as house means:
1) house
2) place
3) receptacle
4) home, house as containing a family
5) household, family
The KJV translates ביתד as house.
The LXX translates ביתד to the Greek word οικος which is translated family.
A family is what is covered in Genesis 6:18.
Everything points only to Noah's household and possessions. You are reading what you like to read and not reading what you don't like. Header also refers to definitive; pivotal; can appear where it is best in the context; it cannot be rendered superfluous.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
No, your grammar is faulty. Read: 'Two of ALL flesh - [of Noah's household]'
The problem is that Genesis 7:17 has no Hebrew word indicating household in it.
It does have the Hebrew words מכל־בשר meaning all flesh.
There is no mention of region or household in the verse.
However your version translates "'Come thou and all thy house into the ark" - the defining factors are what actually went into the arc, the size of the arc, what is not listed and what is the most correct path. 'HOUSE' [as in 'House of Jacob' - which went to Egypt] refers to the entire family; dynasty; tribe; clan; 71 souls; etc. The 'house of Jacob' became 'Nation of Israel' numbering 3 million in 400 years went they left Egypt in the exodus cencus. No such accounting occurs in the Noah story.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE WHOLE (ENTIRE) HEAVEN - [in Noah's town]. Yes it says that!
Where does the text say: "in Noah's town"?
I would still like to know what your definition of 'all' is.
This is the only reading by precedence and resultant text. Namely, it refers to Noah's region, town, village, etc. Its a localized sector; a household cannt be read as whole earth.
quote:
The point I am trying to make is that the ark was not a boat.
Whatever. It does not impact.
quote:
Your position is that it was small and could not hold two of all the critters on Earth therefore it had to be a local flood.
My position is it was not a boat/ship/arc for all the life forms on the planet but for one large group of families, including their wives, children and each group's vital possessions.
quote:
But the mountain tops after the flood were seen!
But dry land was not seen until:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Noah saw the face of the ground was dry when he removed the covering of the ark.
It says Noah saw the face of the ground nothing is mentioned of him seeing the high hills or mountains.
Prior to this event Noah sent out a dove to see if the land was dry.
Noah could only see the dry ground in his immediate region; he could not see the ground in Tasmania! This is also true of a dove sent to check the region - it could not possible fly all over the planet and report back - it could only fly a small distance in the region and report back; this was all Noah would have required to know.
quote:
What is your definition of whole?
It is subject to its extenuating qualifications. Whole of the universe, or whole of a small cup of wine?
quote:
I will agree that we are reading the text different.
That only means either one of us is wrong or both of us is wrong.
Yes, I was not having a go at you - many hold your position sincerely. However, only one reading is plausible and coherent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by ICANT, posted 11-07-2011 2:34 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by ICANT, posted 11-09-2011 12:38 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 252 of 306 (640472)
11-10-2011 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by ICANT
11-09-2011 12:38 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
The NT was divided into paragraphs around 325 AD.
Despite all the hooplah, the Hebrew bible has no evidences of changes, and it is most impossible that it could have been authored by more than one source on one particular time. One would need a super dooper PC to manage this; it is not like changing Shakespear or Einstein - this has transcending math, science, history, geography, laws, dates, names, genealogies and prose all combined. Aside from normal embellishments of indexing and divisions of the text, there is no variances and no proof another wrote it. In fact, none of the nations spoke Hebrew, the reason the then advanced Greeks asked Jews to create its first translation. I hardly know of a single alphabetical book even near the datings of the Hebrew writings. If I am incorrect then pls enlighten me with some hard proof.
quote:
I can't find where it says, thy domesticated animals shalt come into the ark.
I can't find where it says, Wild animals shalt come into the ark.
While the word 'domestic' is new, it does actually say that word in paraphrase. Household, sometimes translated as possessions, means all your families and livestock - aka, domestic stuff.
quote:
I do find where the text says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no mention of domesticated or wild living thing of all flesh.
We've covered this. It does mean domestic, all life forms "as per your household" [the text]. Excluding virus, bacteria and snakes.
quote:
That text says EVERY living thing of ALL FLESH.
It is limited by the qualifications in the text. 'ALL FLESH IN THY HOUSEHOLD'.
YET YOU INSIST THE COMMAND WAS SO UBSURD IT EXPECTED NOAH TO LOCATE EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET: CAN ANYONE DO SO TODAY - WOULD SUCH A COMMAND EVER BE PLAUSIBLE?
quote:
It does not say some living thing's of some flesh.
But it does!
quote:
Snakes and elephants are unclean animals so there were male and female of each on the ark.
Negative. The verse relates only to unclean animals in Noah's possession. This corresponds to the ark size, what is plausibe, and what Noah required to prevail a regional flood. This is not a Walt Disney writings or Alice in Wonderland; it is the most serious and credible work of all writings.
It is nigh impossible to prove an inculcated belief wrong even by reasoning or hard proof: a cherished lie transcends a disdained truth. If you doubt this then tell us who is right - the Gospels or the Quran, both touting the same message of exclusive gate keys, both being mutually exclusive of history, geography, science, math, dates, names and places. It is manifest both cannot be right, which in turn is proof 'belief' does not impact here, because belief can be wrong, bad and false when standing on one simple premise as its proof! And no, this is not the same for all other beliefs, but exclusive to two only!
To conclude this from my end, everything makes sense when this report is seen as a regional flood. It becomes ubsurd when the text is read otherwise. And there is no possibility the writings are conducive to ridicule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by ICANT, posted 11-09-2011 12:38 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2011 11:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 254 of 306 (640573)
11-10-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by ICANT
11-10-2011 11:37 AM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
Are you saying the entire OT was written by one man?
Or, that one man wrote the Torah?
I agree Moses wrote the Torah.
But there has been many copies since Moses wrote the original writings.
The point is that there is no evidence more than one person wrote the five books attributed to Moses, and that if one man wrote these five books, around the time given, IMHO it is a greater feat than any God writing it. I see no motive to nominate these books written by one person because it becomes more credible if more than one wrote it, namely it gives it proof of credibility as a witnessing, while one person makes it less credible. The Noah story, like the Creation chapter in Genesis, is enigmatic writings which are not conclusive to its rejection and/or acceptance, as in other fable stories - this is why it is so open to rage and anxst. It is not discardable completely - as history has proven. Too many vindicated and new premises apply here, intermixed with what seems not credible. We cannot identify our ancestry today as effectively as in the geneologies of these writings, even with the aid of recorded data and computers. Try to date the name and dod and dob of your great grand father's fifth son - give it the correct name and spelling of its time?!
Its not about what one thinks or concludes - one does not have to be a rocket scientiist to propose more than one would probably had to write it. The point remains we have no proof how these were devised or how one could do so; the evidences given for why it was made by different people at different times is nothing short of hogwash, as with the notion these are copied from previous works and beliefs. This issue is enigmatic and mysterious, while threatening to contradict everything our emperical reasoning depends on. The writing contradicts everything ancient Egypt stood for; it aligns with everything Abraham similarly contradicted everything his generation stood for. The fact is that Monotheism was a greater thought than Einstein's MC2 - for its time. It overturned every divine king nation and belief on its head, earning their wrath and an ongoing series of existential wars - today seen in the numerous religions battling for its ownership.
What is not realised is that the prevailing belief systems prior to monotheism were very serious belief systems, exactly as we see serious and genuine belief today: a father would sacrifice his most cherished child for such beliefs. Monotheism was thus a great kick in the soul to these belief systems, while it also inspired scientific thought and the universe origins, regardless of whether we accept or reject creationism: it KO'd the mighty Greek and Roman religions of Zeus and Jupiter and caused other paths to be considered. No human thought other than Monotheism and Creationism has upset humanity the same way.
quote:
These verses specify who and what was to be in the ark.
Instead of cherry picking, you should list all the texts which contradict your conclusion, acknowledging why these are enigmatic writings. My interpretation that household is the same as 'domestic' will be seen as standing. Further, are you saying the writer of Noah was in sincere error - or intentionally creating a good story? What are the motives for either - would this beget wealth, power or fame - or was the writer just insane to spend decades writing and accumulating such stuff - was the author a masochist and unafraid of causing his death in going against the system? Why extend a regional flood to a global one - is it to show an almighty, boasting or cruel God - why embed terms such as 'rightiousness' in the story? Why add negative stuff of the hero Noah here - who is the good guy [protagonist] in this story?
What is not realized is that the five books of Moses is a greater feat than building the pyramids or any monument standing today - in terms of time and mental prowess. It has impacted humanity more and outlasted all other factors. The great, older, more advanced nations did NOT create such books - how come?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2011 11:37 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2011 8:53 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 256 of 306 (640605)
11-10-2011 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by ICANT
11-10-2011 8:53 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
I believe Moses wrote the book that was divided into the first 5 books of the Bible.
He had nothing to do with the chapters, verses, or book division.
No contest. It means each generation can read as they percieve in their generation, while also adhering to one of the commands, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THESE LAWS. This command appears to have been honored, as we see in a host of existential wars with differing nations who disagreed with it. While Christianity and Islam, for example, also uphold their scriptures as sacred, they do not have such a command as in the Hebrew, thus we see great differences in any changes offered by those religions.
IOW, if there were any changes to be made, even to save many lives, it should have been seen in Rome's heresy decree of worshipping a divine king, which the Jews rejected, and which culminated in one of history's greatest destructions - and the safe guarding of monotheism as preserved slely by those Jews 2000 years ago. Had the jews of Judea seccumbed to Rome, Europe would have been worshipping Jupiter today! This should be seen as proof any changes from the writings is not plausible, and the reason we have no such proof of it. The other factor is that the Hebrew letters also acted as numerals, whereby the entire letters are accountable, and any numerical variance would pop up as an error.
quote:
There is not a single tablet available that Moses wrote in any museum as of this date.
He would have wrote on clay tablets which were made in the wilderness. The materials might not have been perfect and that is the reason none of them have been found.
Not many similar period relics are available in museums, save for stone etched slabs. The original five books are said to be contained in an arc of the covenant [a box] and this was hidden away by K. Solomon. Its discovery will be one of the greatest finds. This box is layered with fine gold, which means it will never rust or corrupt.
quote:
But we do have what has been copied over years.
The dead sea scrolls and the copies of the Septuagint [300 BCE], both predating Christianity and Islam, both being stemmed from different source points - are substantially the same. Both contain the Noah story; nothing is missing or added. Your inference of 'copying' has no basis.
quote:
The Hebrew I use and we have in the Torah is not what Moses writings looked like. Moses would have written in Paleo-Hebrew which is what was used prior to 585 BC. I think I have an avatar with Paleo on it. I will change it to that one. I would love to use it but I can't find html codes for it.
How many times do you think the text was copied from Moses time until today?
The Hebrew is the most authentic writings and language possessed by humanity. Consider that it was resurrected after 2000 years and still retains the ancient gutheral sounds how people spoke in ancient times, acting as a time machine. We do not have similar proof from other ancient languages. The Hebrew also contains the first transliterated ancient Egyptian language, namely the opening verse in the 10 commandmands is not in Hebrew but ancient Egyptian, namely, 'I AM' ['ANO CHI']; this is directed at the Pharoah who deemed himself divine, but did not speak Hebrew. It is an evidence of arguable quantity, that the writings is contemporary of its said period.
quote:
If you were one of those copyist there would be no question about the text supporting a local flood. Do you think there was not others who had some wild ideas and copyed to suit their biases.
This is your own personal conjecture and it is bereft of any evidences. All the evidences at hand contradict it.
quote:
If you want to refute the texts you say I am quote mining please present the texts you believe does so. It is not my job to refute myself.
As examples: You have not inserted the verse relating to Noah's household as applicable, then you either deny it or distort it; nor that the arc dimensions only support a local flood and Noah's possessions. Nor did you factor in that no wild animals are mentioned, or that when the arc ceased floating it could not have released all the earth's life forms, or that avine plant would suffice for all such animals. Nor could the arc have landed nearby from where it started. You, like many others, decided this writings is unspecific, fable, uninteligent and capable of incoherence and blatantly implausible descriptions. I say:
Please show us a similar period writings which describes Mount Ararat for the first time and in its correct geographical location? Please explain why the measurements of the arc are given and it only supports Noah's domestic live stock and family - yet that it can still apply to all the earth's life forms? Please show us another writings which lists names and dobs of an entire genealogy as seen in Genesis and deemed as authentic by scholars and archeologists? Therein is the rub! Therein is the runaway avoidance!
quote:
The great, older, more advanced nations did NOT create such books - how come?
But they did create such books. They just poluted the stories that had been handed down to them from their ancestors who was divided into the land after the tower of Babel. And was then divided into the different continents after the flood in Peleg's day.
Moses probably even had the privilege of reading some of them in Pharaohs house. Remember he lived in Pharaohs house for the first 40 years of his life and was educated in the best knowledge in Egypt as he was Pharaohs daughters son by adoption.
So show us the books - even the distorted versions - which museum?! In fact, we have no such books for more than 800 years thereafter! All we have are stone etched pieces of poems, epitaphs and trade reciepts, and none in the alphabetical mode. This is seen even of nations older, mightier and which have never been subjected to exiles as with the Hebrews.Anomaly, no?
quote:
BTW there are some of those tablets available in museums today.
We have no advanced, alphabetical books. A book being a multi-page continuing narrative.
quote:
Where do you think the stories that is constantly trotted out here and claimed to be older stories which the Torah came from?
Tye Hebrew was a late comer in the ancient world. This makes it more enigmatic how it has no equivalence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2011 8:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2011 11:41 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 258 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-12-2011 1:34 PM IamJoseph 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