Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 8:48 PM
18 online now:
Dr Adequate, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 301 of 306 (641675)
11-21-2011 2:01 PM


Summation
The text says what it says.

A lot of arguments seem to be attempts to jam this story into histroical, archaeological, geographical etc history.

I look at the text and see lots of things that dont make any sense. I dont try to make up any strange and unusual stories or try to bend grammar and logic to try to explain these problems. I dont think the story needs to make any sense because it is just a story.

I dont complain when I see the coyote builds a machine that defies physics to catch the roadrunner. I just enjoy the cartoon.

This thread was about what the KJB said about the flood.

The text may not state Earth (with a capital E) reffering to the planet using the noun. However, there are many parts of the text that seem to refer to the entire Earth.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

If this 'earth' refers to a region, then God regrets creating the men in this region only?

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.

If 'earth' refers to a region, then God plans to destroy all men and animals in a small region only. And he regrests creating all of the men and animals in that region only.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

If Earth refers to a region, then only that region is corrupt and only that region 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.

If Earth refers to a region, then only that region is corrupt and all flesh in that region was corrupt.

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.

If Earth refers to a region, then God is telling Noah his region is filled with violence and he plans to destroy it.

This is all plausible until -

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.

This statement seems to be going a bit overboard for a regional flood. If the words 'the earth' means only Noahs hood in this verse then God is being really specific about what dies. he is going to destroy all flesh. He is going to destroy all flesh that has the breath of life. Then he says he is going to destroy all flesh under heaven. Would 'under heaven' not refer to all of the Earth? What part of the Earth is not under heaven?

As well as that, we have the destruction of Sodom. IamJoseph seemed to be using this as upport for his arguement but I could not work out why. It seems to do the exact opposite. Here are the verses discussing the destruction of Sodom. This is God destroying a small region and allowing a small party to escape. That would mean that this chapter should have the same or at least similar terminology.

Keep an eye out for the times that 'the earth' is mentioned to describe the small region being destroyed. Also keep an eye out for all of the times that it is mentioned that all living things or all men of the earth.

Gen 19: 12-29
12And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

13For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

14And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

15And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

16And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.

17And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

18And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my LORD:

19Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:

20Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.

21And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.

22Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do anything till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

23The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

26But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

27And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:

28And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

29And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

This seems like a very different story. Considering this story is a tale of God destroying a small region, it should at least be similar to the story of Noah if it is a tale of destroying a small region. God does not mention Lots 'household' in this story, he just tells him to get his family together. Why not tell lot to gather two of every animal? Wont Lot need these things too? It only makes sense to gather the animals if it is necessary to repopulate the world with the animals. Why did God not mention 'the earth' anywhere when talking about the region he was about to destroy? In the flood of Noah story, chapter 6, earth is mentioned 14 times in the 22 verses. In the story of Lot, earth is mentioned a grand total of 3 times in all 38 verses. And each time it looks like the usage refers to the entire Earth.

Gen 19:23The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

Sunrise on earth.

Gen 19:31And the firstborn 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:

Lots daughters believe that God has destroyed the entire earth so they decide to sleep with their dad in order to continue the human species. This is not God saying he will destroy earth. Or a description of what is happening or going to happen. This is the interpretation of two bronze age young women.

Is that not strange?

How does the story of Lot describe the region to be destroyed?

The following words and phrases are used to describe what is to be destroyed -

this place, it, this city, Sodom and Gomorrah. It seems that the author was quite specific about the region. These three verses describe the region in many ways.

25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

28And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

29And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

It is not possible to interpret any of this to mean the whole earth.

The Lot verses are all very specific, the Noah verses can all be interpreted as the entire earth and there is no verse than is specific enough to think it was only regional.

I know that there are attempts to make the story fit with common sense or history. I am not trying to shoe horn a story into reality. I am just reading what the text says. I am an athiest and do not have any obligation to support my faith.

Yes the story is unrealistic if it was a global flood. That does not change the text. Yes there are verses later regarding certain animals and restrictions on animals that dont really fit in. That does not change text. Yes all the animals on earth could not fit onto the ark. That does not change the text. Yes, the idea of the entire earth being covered in water is silly. That does not change the text. The whole book is filled with stories that are implausibe to totally unbelieveable. That does not change the text.

Certain words or phrases that are repeated in a passage can have different meanings. This is not unusual. However, when the same word or phrase needs to be taken a very specific way in some verses, then a different very specific way in other verses in order to support a theory, it becomes a bit of a stretch. Particularly if the interpretation begins to defy common sense. And especially if the person peddling the unlikley interpretation has a very specific need for it to be interpreted in their strange way.

It could be taken as even more unlikely as soon as you read that the person pushing the story is IamJoseph. If that is the case, it is almost gauranteed to be strange and confusing journey that ultimately leads nowhere.

If you read the text without any bias or need for it to fit into your particular world view, then it is quite a simple text to read. If however, you have distinct bias or real fundamentalist need for it to fit into your world view, then it gets much harder.

It made fuck all sense when Alice went down the hole chasing a rabbit in a suit. I dont feel the need to attempt to twist that story until it could be realistic. I dont feel that need here. The text says what it says. Trying to imaginatively interpret the text so that it seems plausible in order to support your faith does not change the text.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award


    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 302 of 306 (641743)
11-22-2011 6:46 AM


This thread seems to best resolved by the invocation of Bellisario's Maxim

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18312
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 303 of 306 (641749)
11-22-2011 8:25 AM


My Summation
I'm glad that ICANT and IamJoseph finally took advantage of an opportunity to examine their differing Biblical interpretations. I hope they continue this examination in a series of as many threads as it takes, and once they've reached agreement on what the Bible really says then they can present their conclusions to a thankful world.

Of course, if they never reach agreement then they might want to consider the possibility that the Bible is ambiguous, inconclusive on many points, and open to many interpretations, not to mention written by bronze-age desert goat herders who were trying to communicate a spiritual message, not science.

--Percy


    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 304 of 306 (641775)
11-22-2011 10:57 AM


My Summation
The flood myths in the Bible are a collection of at least two different traditions, perhaps of the two Confederacies that were Israel and Judah, perhaps of two different historical periods.

But in the case of the flood myths the two stories were simply mushed together with no effort to smooth over the inconsistencies and out right contradictions.

In both stories the God character decides that he failed in creating the people he hoped for and instead of just wiping the slate clean he picks one family, gives them some warning (how much warning depends on the version of the story), gives them instructions one what critters will be included (exactly how many of each critter and whether or not the family has to gather them or the critters will simply come themselves depends on the version of the story), instructs the family to build a big sucker of a boat and then floods the whole earth killing off most living things (exactly what gets killed again depends on the version of the story).

After awhile (exactly how long depends on which version of the story) the folk on the boat send out a raven or a dove (depending on which story) that brings back evidence that somehow there is still a tree living (no explanation ever offered on how that could be) and eventually the big sucker boat runs aground (where depends on the version of the story).

The main character announce "All ashore what's going ashore" and they get off, grow a vineyard and have a Pachanga (party hard).


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 305 of 306 (641841)
11-22-2011 7:33 PM


SUMMATION
Thanks to all who participated in this thread.

I might not agree with you or your interpertations of the events that took place. But everybody is welcome to have an opinion

Let me point out one thing about the flood story that no one ever mentions. In the scheme of things today and what we are to do as followers of God it is only a story to show how God can protect us if we let him.

There has been much said here at EvC about how the ark could not float, it would tear apart from the waves, it was not large enough to hold all the animals to repopulate the earth.

No one knows how rough the water was it could have been as slick as a pealed onion.

Some have said it would leak when the text says:

quote:
Genesis 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

If it went on the face of the waters and the Spirit of God went on the face of the waters in Genesis 1:2 there would have been nothing under the water.

I have asked many times for a list of the animals that would have to be on the ark to do the job of preserving all life forms on earth today. As of this writing no one has attempted to give me a list. But they assert the ark was not big enough to hold them. How does anyone know the ark was not large enough to hold 2 of all life forms on the earth, if they can't make a list? Besides that no one can tell me how large the ark was as that would be determined by the cubit that Noah used and there were giants in the land at that time and he might have used a cubit using the measurment from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger of one of them, as the cubit to build the ark by.

PD is always making a big deal out of the word earth not having a capital letter to begin with. Well the Hebrew that the Torah was written in had no capital letters at all. So any capitals in the old testament was supplied by translators.

There was no verses, chapters and books in the Torah, only 1 book existed.

Now as far as IAJ and myself ever agreeing on what the Bible says that is about as likely to happen as all scientist agreeing on how, or if the the universe began to exist.

Now as to what the KJV Bible says about the flood of Noah.

There has been much said in this thread about who and what was to be in the ark so let the words speak for themselves.
Genesis 6:19

ומכל־החי translation, and from all the life
מכל־בשר from all flesh
שנים two
מכל from all
תביא will come
אל־התבה־־להחית to the vessel to exist
אתד at you
זכר male
ונקבה and female
יהיו they exist

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.

This says all life.
From all Flesh,
2 would come to Noah to exist.

Nobody attempted to refute the text with anything other than assertions and hand waving.

Everybody seems to have a definition of earth and are not willing to accept God's definition of earth.

God's definition:

quote:
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


God called the dry land ארץ = earth.

quote:
Genesis 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.

The Hebrew word ארץ is used in every verse where earth appears in chapter 6 and 7.

If ארץ meant all the dry land in Genesis 1:10 it meant all the dry land in chapter 6 and 7. The word did not change.

IAJ is hung up on the word household.

The words Moses recorded did not have household anywhere in it.

The Hebrew word בית in Genesis 7:1 translated as house and in other places it is translated household, as well as family.

So the word household was not in the Old Testament Hebrew text. The English word household used in Genesis 45:11 was provided by translators.

The words in the Bible has to be studied in context.

If at some point IAJ would like to refute what the text says I would participate in a thread to do so as long as it is confined to the text.

If someone would like to give me a list of life forms that would have to be on the ark to produce what we have today I will see if it will fit in the ark. At present I have 30 acres of storage space.

In conclusion I would mention these important points.

God called the dry land in Genesis 1:10 earth.

The same author wrote chapter 6, and 7 so all the dry land should be what the author was talking about being covered with water.

So all the dry land under the whole heaven was covered with water. Genesis 7:19

The text says there was a male and a female on the ark of all creatures who had the breath of life in them. Genesis 6:17.

Those are some of the main points the Bible covers concerning the flood of Noah.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1786 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 306 of 306 (642317)
11-27-2011 2:48 PM


In summary and with hindsight, I can only say that this thread was a train wreck. We didn't get statements as to what the KJV says, but we got a whole lot of what people thought it meant.

The point of this thread was to pin down some facts about the KJV flood so that the thread on geological evidence for the flood had something to work with, i.e., here's how the flood is described so what evidence would that leave behind? Half of the thread was taken up by single land mass arguments, which was down to interpretation rather than what the KJV says, or any text for that matter and the rest was taken up quibbling about whether wild animals were included on the ark.

Are we any further forward in understanding what ICANT claims biblical support for in terms of the flood? I'd say we were, slightly. We can now start looking at the evidence for rapid and catastrophic plate tectonics which would have released enough heat to broil Noah and his floating menagerie, not to menion the vast amounts of superheated water from "the fountains of the deep".

While this thread failed to pin down a time frame for the flood, it seems that ICANT will stick out his neck in another thread and accept a date of 4000 - 10,000 years ago. That may also give us something to work with.

Overall, this thread has gone the way of most other threads - the one thing that sticks out a mile is the inability of creationists to tell the difference between what the text says and what they think it means.


  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019