|
Author
|
Topic: What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
quote:
With so many different texts known, it is a bit hard to presume that any one of them is the 100% accurate
There is no differences. Some writings are embellished during second and third generation translations [Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English]. The DS Scrolls. which are in mid-ancient Hebrew, is substantially the same as today's Hebrew bibles. Even then, there are variant interpretations of some passages, including the Noah story, even among Hebrew speaking peoples. My reading is based solely on the block meanings of verses and how they align and interact with each other.
quote:
The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.
No, it does not say that. Those verses are preambled and conditional to Noah's family, possessions, the size of the arc, the area where the arc landed, those who are listed that went in and came out of the arc, etc, etc. The entire report is directed at Noah with terms such as thou, thy, take the animals yourself, etc. Here, the only meaning of 'all flesh of the earth' is 'all flesh of the earth - of Noah's possessions and families'; no grammatical contradictions apply. When one examines the Hebrew calendar, it is continueos from Adam to Moses, spanning some 2,500 years, with no breaks of geneology or missed epochs of time. The flood is also reported by other nations which are not derivitives of Noah. The reading of the people the whole earth was consumed is also seen in the story of Lot when Sodom was destroyed - they also thought the whole earth was destroyed. The Noah text is describing how things appeared to Noah, which is authentic for its period - it predates Abraham and Lot. One must imagine themselves in the same situation, when they would have never ventured out of their village all their lives and would not have known another country even existed. For me, the most confusing issue is how the human population is only accountable from approximately this round about time - not 100's of 1000s of years. But this also aligns equally with Adam and cannot be directed at Noah: the time margin is too small between these two names.
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
quote:
You state that there are no differences?
Correct. Differences of such a volumous set of books, over 1000's of years, which relate to minor grammar, word interpretations and ndex numbers are not differences. These were times when printing and photcopying never existed. No real differences in 'laws' exist - these are 613 and remain so.
quote:
there is no such language as 'mid ancient Hebrew'. When you tell me which version you believe is the correct one, I can tell you where it differs from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
That is silly. There is no confusion what I meant by mid ancient Hebrew; this only relates to curcive or the Hebrew style 2000 years ago, which is varied in design from ancient and modern Hebrew. As I said, there is no real differences in the text, while one must reasonably allow for slight variances in transmissions between different languages and periods.
quote:
Your interpretations often rest soley on a particular word. In this thread you are resting your case on an interpretation of the qord household.
Absolutely not. While the term household/possessions is embedded in a pivotal verse which cannot be disregarded, I pointed out a host of factors which align only with a regional flood and domestic animals. In fact, your charge upon me should be reversed on resting only on expressionisms which are not credible in their interpretations. The reason none have proof of a flood in Tasmania, Korea, India, Moscow, Peru - is because your interpretation is in error; mine is not.
quote:
In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included when God 'looked upon the earth'? Or does it mean all of the Earth?
You forget, in the creation chapter, there is no precedence of nations, countries and life forms. The term 'earth' can apply to the planet, a small region and the ground you are standing upon right now - depending on its context.
quote:
Gen 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. God told Noah that a male and female of every living thing of flesh shall enter the ark. This appears to be where you seem to think God does not mean every living thing as he says, but just the domestic animals owned by Noah. However, in Gen 6:12 when God refers to 'all flesh',
Again, the same error and mishap. You cannot align Noah with the creation chapter as your evidence or example. You cannot disregard Noah's arc is limited to 'THOU BRING INTO THE ARC' and 'TO KEEP THEM ALIVE WITH THEE'
quote:
You say that - quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, the only meaning of 'all flesh of the earth' is 'all flesh of the earth - of Noah's possessions and families';
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But that is not what the text states. Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth
Absolutely, 'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house - its not a free floating eon dangling in the universe, but a verse in the same story. You cannot connect it with the creation chapter. Earth in creation refers to corporeal generic matter - when nothing identifiable yet existed; in Noah's story earth refers to the ground Noah is standing upon!
quote:
When one examines the Hebrew calendar, it is continueos from Adam to Moses, spanning some 2,500 years, with no breaks of geneology or missed epochs of time. The flood is also reported by other nations which are not derivitives of Noah. Not only is this information incorrect, it is also totally irrelevant and contradicts your own position.
Not from the POV the calendar does not allow for epochial time absences!
quote:
Why would other nations report the flood if it was a local flood?
They would report and know of a major regional upheaval; there will be impacts to the surrounding nations; refugees, etc. The point is, there would be no other nations if this was a global flood - Egypt would display a period when it never existed for a time. This is not the case! The following webpage discusses flood myths from every habited continent. Why would these nations discuss a flood if it was a localised flood as you claim? quote:
Is this text not divinely inspired? Is not God the real author and Moses the scribe? Are you suggesting that God at the time had the intellect of a bronze age nomad? Also, some of the statements are attributed to God himself.
The text correctly and authentically describes peoples' reactions as per the context of the period and its impact. It says Lot's two daughters genuinely believed they and their father were the only three people left on the whole earth; but we know for sure this was not the case; and that the destruction of Sodom was a regional one. EGGZACTLY the same factor applies in the Noah story. You are focusing on deviant views and ignoring the real message of the text.
quote:
Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. This is not how things appeared to Noah. This is a direct statement made by God. It is not Noah describing how things appeared to him. It is God saying what he intends to do. Gen 6:7, 17, 19 are also direct statements made by God, not Noah. As far as the stories go, God knows everything and is everywhere, so I would think he would know about the next village and other nations he created.
Incorrect. It is describing Noah's reaction. The rule of interpretation is, 'God speaks in the language of the people' - not in surpreme math and physics beyond the peoples' comprehension. Its like an adult talking to a child; the text is incredibly authentic. Understand Noah's mindset - there was no other countries to refer to with Noah; that region was the entire earth. You won't find words like scud missilles or tomatoes in this text - guess why!
quote:
For me, the most confusing issue is how the human population is only accountable from approximately this round about time - not 100's of 1000s of years. But this also aligns equally with Adam and cannot be directed at Noah: the time margin is too small between these two names. You will have to tell me which time period you think this occured as the various versions differ. And what do you mean by accountable? What aligns with Adam? What time margin? In fact, have another shot at that whole paragraph because it makes little sense and it seems to be off topic.
It refers to historically recorded people and events, namely speech endowed humans. We have no NAME older than Adam; the period is 6000 years; the population accounts only for this period. If, for example, Australian natives are 60K years old - which I reject - their population would number more than a trillion! We learn also, the bogus premise there was no writings is false; a name is recallable without writings; the population count also proves this.
quote:
Why not just tell Noah to head up the road a little way where the flood will not be occuring, surely this would be easier than building a hiuge fucking ark.
Its a good point. But that is not a safe advice. There is hardly any safety from a regional flood for an entire group. The arc is equally unsuitable in a global flood! In the end the text vindicates its displayed logic. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
quote:
You seem to be wavering in your position here. You have gone from claiming that there are no differences in the text. But you wont say which version of the text you follow. Is this because you are concerned that I will point out how wrong you are? You have reduced your statement from a bold no differences down to a weak 'no real differences in 'laws''. This seems to be a bit of a habit of yours. You make a bold statement, someone tells you it is bullshit, you water down and/or alter your statement, someone tells you it is still bullshit, you weaken an/or alter your statement further, etc etc until it is not even close to your original statement or you just start ignoring the issue. Why dont you save yourself some time and find out if what you are about to say is true before you say it? Your claim that there are only 'minor grammar, word interpretations and index numbers are not differences' is flat out wrong. For examples, can you spot any differences between these three versions of Genesis 4:7 quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Septuagint
If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him.
Masoretic
Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it. Latin Vulgate
If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it.
I stand by my view. There is firstly no difference in the laws [the primal factor here], and there is only nominal translationary impacts in delivering the textual meaning; new generations centuries apart express it according to their cultures and vernacular . This can be seen today when one translates a story, poem or song from a different language. Take for example all the three translations you gave above and the one below. It is clear the fundamental point is the same:
quote:
7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee is its desire, but thou mayest rule over it.'
quote:
Remove the claim about household and your arguement falls to pieces. No one is disregarding your arguement. The text states the flood covered the area under heaven. It was designed to kill every living thing that drew breath. That would mean it would need to cover the entire Earth. You ignore all of the actual text and use unique interpretations to support your own position. Also, I provided an entire webpage showing flood myths from all over the world. Just because you choose to selectively read information and ignore information supplied to you does not mean that the information does not exist.
Who ignored the verse about Noah's household, me or you? How does it align with all the earth as per your reading - how did you factor it in? In fact you did not! The terms 'all the earth under heaven' can only be read as 'all the earth under heaven - in Noah's region'. There is no grammatical contradiction here; there is with your reading!
quote:
Genesis is the creation chapter. Why cant I align Noah with Genesis? Seeing as though Noah and the flood story are in Genesis and all??? The two phrases do not support your position or refute mine.
Noah does not relate to creation of the universe or the earth. It deals with a story of its time only. Earth has a different meaning when aligning this with a farmer and a cosmologist. Earth in Ch. 1 relates to generic earth; not what a famer calls the earth of his land.
quote:
Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. This verse states that God looked upon the earth and saw that all flesh had corrupted his way. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So the flesh that god was reffering to in this verse as corrupt is Noah, his family and his possesions including his domestic animals.
It does not relate to the whole earth; Noah and his house/community/village/region is the subject matter, qualified and made conditional in the text you have disregarded. When I pointed out the size of the arc as applying only to Noah and his possessions, a rambling array of posts disputing what a cubit measure is followed! As if a set of cubits can equal an arc to contain billions of life forms can be justified?!
quote:
The aim of this flood is to destroy all flesh. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is going to flood Noahs local area in order to destroy Noah, his family and all of his domestic animals.
????? This makes no sense and cannot be applied to anything I said.
quote:
my question - Why would other nations report the flood if it was a local flood?
Your reply - They would report and know of a major regional upheaval; there will be impacts to the surrounding nations; refugees, etc. The point is, there would be no other nations if this was a global flood - Egypt would display a period when it never existed for a time. This is not the case! The website i supplied (Flood Stories from Around the World) tells of flood stories on every habited continent. Do you think that the Australian Indigenous people and the North American Indians came up with their flood myth because Jewish refugees told them about it? Your other arguement advising that there would be no other nations if there was a global flood is one of the common arguements disputing the Noah flood story.
Your off the handle again. All I said was the countries around Noah did not get wiped out. There was no global flood!
quote:
So, according to your view, the bronze age people of the time have altered the word of God to make sure it made sense to the other people of their time. If this is the case, then we cannot take any commandment, instruction or law attributed to God as the actual word of God. If all of the text has been altered in order to make sense to bronze age people, then we cannot take any of it as truth. Any part of it could be altered. The verse does not describe Noahs reaction at all. It is a quote. It begins with the words "And God said unto Noah".
Monotheism was a universe and God changer, hated by divine man kings. This is because people had an intrinsic notion of monotheism's irrefutable veracity, yet they disdained it because it impinged on their inculcated beliefs. The Hebrew version is not subject to changes - it speaks of an unknowable and unfathomable God, so how can one change that which cannot be defined?
quote:
It refers to historically recorded people and events, namely speech endowed humans. We have no NAME older than Adam; the period is 6000 years; the population accounts only for this period. If, for example, Australian natives are 60K years old - which I reject - their population would number more than a trillion! We learn also, the bogus premise there was no writings is false; a name is recallable without writings; the population count also proves this. All of this is off topic. Most of it is also unsupported bullshit. Pretty standard IamJoseph ravings.
You may regard the population count as unsupported. I see it as pivotally impacting. Do the math - the pop count is unbiased and absolutely supportive in the Noah story.
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
quote:
The laws you are saying are 'the primal factor here' are in fact irrelevant.
Ever hear of the term, 'THIS BOOK OF LAWS' - or 'MOSES THE LAW GIVER'?
quote:
If you do believe that your preffered version of the Old Testament is the accurate word quoted by God and set down by Moses
I don't know that. I am referring to the texts' reading only.
[quote]
quote:
I am not ignoring the verse about Noahs household. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.
The text clearly states that Noah must take two of every living thing (of flesh) onto the ark.
Not the entire earth; only 'Noah and all of his house goes into the ark' [the text].
quote:
The text clearly states that Noah and all of his house goes into the ark. quote:Gen 7:1 - And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. The KJB uses the word 'house', the Old Testament uses household. IamJoseph is correct in saying that God instructed Noah to enter the ark with his household. Using the English definition of household in this context, it would mean that he would be taking himself, his family and his possesions. This could include all of his domestic animals. IamJoseph is not correct when he suggests that this means that Noah is to ignore the previously given commands to take two of every living thing. In preparation for the flood God said 'And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark' (Gen 6:19). And God told Noah to take his household into the ark 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark'(Gen 7:1). The second command does not cancel out the first. Both commandments can be followed. Two of every animal on Earth and all of Noahs household were to enter the ark.
'two of every kind' is limited by, conditional to, and qualified with - 'Noah and all of his house goes into the ark' [the text]. Noah does not relate to creation of the universe or the earth. It deals with a story of its time only. Earth has a different meaning when aligning this with a farmer and a cosmologist. Earth in Ch. 1 relates to generic earth; not what a famer calls the earth of his land.
quote:
Are you trying to create a red herring? At no stage have I quoted from or referred to Genesis chapter 1 or the creation narrative. I have only quoted from chapter 6 or 7 in relation to this issue. I you trying to deliberately mislead people reading this by creating a fabricated arguement? Here they are again from Message 292 quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Of Noah's region.
quote:
This verse states that God looked upon the earth and saw that all flesh had corrupted his way. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So the flesh that god was reffering to in this verse as corrupt is Noah, his family and his possesions including his domestic animals.
Negative. Noah was told his household will be protected [the text].
quote:
Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. In this verse, God is telling knowing that he is going to destroy all flesh, removing them from the earth. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is saying he is going to destroy and remove from the earth Noah, his family and his possessions including his domestic animals.
negative. 'ALL FLESH' can only be aligned with Noah's region - excluding Noah's family [the text].
quote:
Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. In this verse, God is telling Noah that he is going to flood the earth. According to you, this means he is going to cause a localised flood in Noahs region. The aim of this flood is to destroy all flesh. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is going to flood Noahs local area in order to destroy Noah, his family and all of his domestic animals. Gen 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. In this verse, according to you, God is telling Noah two of each sort of animal 'all flesh' should go into the ark. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is telling Noah that two of each of his animals can head into the ark.
All flesh of the earth; all domestic animals - "owned by Noah"; "You have I found rightious"; "You and thy house and household" applies [the text].
quote:
So according to your logic, this verse.... Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. ...refers to Noahs household. So it was Noahs household that was corrupt. All flesh in Noahs household was corrupt. That would be Noah, Noahs family, Noahs possessions and Noahs animals. According to you, 'all flesh' in this verse refers to Noah, his family and his animals. And 'the earth' refers to Noahs local region.
Absolutely; no grammatical contradiction here. The term 'earth' is contextual, appearing in various places, even relating to Sodom, which destruction was nonetheless limited to one city only; even when we see it was viewed by Lot's daughters the entire earth was destroyed: "23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar." " and his two daughters. 31 And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth".
quote:
So what is God talking about here - Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. God says here that he intends to kill man who he has created. According to you, God intends to kill only Noahs household (Noah, his family and domestic animals). God states that he is repentent for making them. According to your logic, God is telling Noah that he is going to kill him and he regrests making him. Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. According to you, this verse states that only Noahs region was corrupt and filled with violence. According to your logic, God is looking at only Noahs local region and seeing that it was corrupt. According to you, 'all flesh' mentioned in this verse reffers to Noahs household. So God looked at Noah and saw that Noah, his family and his domestic animals were corrupted. Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. According to you, God is telling Noah that the end of all flesh has come. So God is telling Noah that the end has come for Noah, his family and his domestic animals. God tells Noah that he will be flooding his local region and will destroy it. Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. According to you, God is saying here that he will bring flood waters to Noahs region (the earth) in order to destroy Noah, his family and his domestic animals (all flesh, Noahs household). God states he will be destroying everything that has the breath of life that exists under heaven. If this is true, then all of the other people and animals alive at that time were not breathing/alive and existed in some other place other than the Earth (under heaven).
Every one of those verses can only be attributed to Noah and 'ALL OF HIS" house, his household, with THEE, THOU, THY HOUSE, THEY FAMILY, IN THIS ARC, WITH THESE MEASUREMENTS, THESE ANIMALS. No other reading is plauible or possible when the full text is accounted for; no other reading is coherent.
quote:
God told Noah he was going to flood the entire Earth because he was unhappy about how things were going. This is what the text actually says. Gen 6: 5,6,7
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The word entire is not there; you have disregarded other impacting verses; as well as the persons and animals listed; and the arc size given with specific detail.
quote:
ICANT has asked you to define some terms on several occasions and you have yet to do this. How about you do that and add these - What does 'the earth' refer to in chapter 6 of Genesis. What does 'all flesh' refer to in chapter 6 of Genesis
I answered these numerously. The earth refers to the land; all flesh refers to living life forms only. These are qualified with Noah's house and possessions = all life therein, as designated, which you and ICANT obsessively disregard. Consider: 'ALL THE FLESH OF THE EARTH WHICH JOHN DOE OWNS"
quote:
Monotheism did not change the universe or any gods.
It was a 'CHANGER'; as in CHANGING equation.
quote:
How did monotheism change any part of the universe outside this one planet?
In its premise the stars, sun and moons are not deities but created entities by ONE UNIVERSE MAKER. This changes the universe view for the first time.
quote:
How were any other gods changed by monotheism? Does your faith not state that there are no other gods? How could monotheism change gods that it does not support the existence of?
It is applied to the peoples' perspective. Obviously!
quote:
You have made it very clear in other threads that you have no idea how population demographics work. If you really do believe that the population of Australia would be "more than a trillion" in 60 000 years, then start a thread with that claim. If you do know that it is a bullshit claim and you dont know what you are talking about, ignore this bit of the post. A ten year olf would be able to very simply show you whay you are wrong with regards to this claim.
The population count does not support 60K year Australian aboriginals. Not even 5K years. I studied rocket science as a child.
|
™ Version 4.2
