Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 6:52 AM
21 online now:
RAZD (1 member, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 992 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


(1)
Message 211 of 306 (639764)
11-03-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by purpledawn
11-03-2011 5:11 PM


Re: The Land
They may decrease in use, but I bet they won't want to give up Genesis. No one wants to think of it as just another creation story by a specific group. They'd rather leave it ambiguous.

I expect that will be true of most for some time to come. I have been encouraged, however, by the rendition which the English Standard Version has given at Genesisl 2:5, 6.

quote:
When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground--

This was an important tweak if one is to assert that creationism is plausible in the facre of modern science vis a vis the water cycle. Believers simply do not read carefully. They believe it had never rained, and they believe that the mist which came out of the ground provided enough moisture to water what they imagine was a sub-tropical paradise.

Here's the problem(s):

1) The water which produced the mist is the water which falls back to water the ground. No net gain. Net loss in fact because of evaporation of the mist. That the mist was not enough to water the garden is evidenced in that a "river" was diverted to the garden "to water it."

2) Rivers run down from higher elevations where they collect water from rain and snow. If it had never rained on earth then there could be no river.

By saying "land" instead of "earth" translators of the ESV made sense of these verses as no one had before and to the best of my knowledge, no one has since. Unfortunately, they do not apply their sensible reading elsewhere in the creation narratives.

The NIV and NLT have tweaked Gen 1:10 to make erets say "land" at that place but leave it saying "earth" at verse one.

Such measures are acts of war -- lies designed to obscure the truth of ecclesiastical idiocy. The same behavior was observed of their forebears in the time of Copernicus, and of Bruno, of Galileo and of Darwin. They have not changed. They will not learn. They are scorpions. It's their nature.

Edited by doctrbill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by purpledawn, posted 11-03-2011 5:11 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 8:55 PM doctrbill has responded

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


Message 212 of 306 (639782)
11-03-2011 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by purpledawn
11-03-2011 6:00 AM


Re: The Land
Hi PD,

purpledawn writes:

The point of this thread is that the "whole earth" meaning (implying planet) is a later addition.

Kinda like the universe I presume.

Why do you think it was added later?

It was there all the time it was just understood at a later date.

Let me use an example.

In Leviticus 17:14 we find the statement: "the life of all flesh is the blood thereof". This statement has been in the Bible for a very long time yet no one came to the conclusion that it was a factual statement until recently.

In February 2010 the article found Here was produced.

Here is a short quote from it.

quote:
The Life of ALL Flesh Is The Blood I perceive from thirty years of blood research that the blood is the basic material of which the human body is continually being created or formed. I have referred to the red blood cell as the foundational stem cell. As is the blood, so is the body. Why? Because body cells are created from blood - the red blood cells.

So why wasn't this known prior to the 20th century?

Does people not understanding what was said in Leviticus change the fact that the life of all flesh is the blood?

Does the people of Noah's days after the flood not knowing the geography of the earth change what is said in Genesis 1:1.

purpledawn writes:

Long, long ago, before Starbucks ruled the world, coffee shops were real community spots with mismatched furniture, friendly faces and drinks that you could order without resorting to such phrases as "half-caf skinny with wings." Big Bear Cafe

In the above paragraph, we don't forget what Starbucks refers to just because the writer is referring to a time before Starbucks existed.

How do you compare something going backwards like this example.

Now if in Genesis 1:1 the writer had added Starbucks then you could compare it to Earth.

But then you would have a long time that no one knew what a Starbucks was.

That is what I said has happened to the word Earth.

purpledawn writes:

I have no doubt that the audience understood the story to refer to their land.

I have no doubt that you actually believe that and you are sincere in your belief.

That does not make you right and the scriptural text does not support your belief, but you are welcome to it.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by purpledawn, posted 11-03-2011 6:00 AM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 213 of 306 (639786)
11-03-2011 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by doctrbill
11-03-2011 6:01 PM


Re: The Land
Hi Bill,

doctrbill writes:

2) Rivers run down from higher elevations where they collect water from rain and snow. If it had never rained on earth then there could be no river.

Why not?

I take it you have never heard of Silver Springs, the largest spring in the world in Ocala Florida that is the head of a river that flows from Ocala into Lake Okeechobee.

Or any of the hundreds of others on planet Earth.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2011 6:01 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2011 10:33 PM ICANT has responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 992 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 214 of 306 (639791)
11-03-2011 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
11-03-2011 8:55 PM


Re: The Land
I Can't writes:

I take it you have never heard of Silver Springs

Spring water also comes from preciptitation -- which falls upon the land at an elevation higher than that of the spring.

In fact the text says, "a river" not a spring. But that is beside the point isn't it?

Why are you not responding to the first point?

doctrbill writes:

Here's the problem(s):

1) The water which produced the mist is the water which falls back to water the ground. No net gain. Net loss in fact because of evaporation of the mist. That the mist was not enough to water the garden is evidenced in that a "river" was diverted to the garden "to water it."

2) Rivers run down from higher elevations where they collect water from rain and snow. If it had never rained on earth then there could be no river.

Many people think the text is explaining why rain is unnecessary. Indeed it is ultimately unnecessary for it to rain in the land where the Garden is planted because a river is brought in to irrigate the Garden.

The water of that river which irrigated the garden had to have originated in a land where it had rained.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 8:55 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2011 1:18 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

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


Message 215 of 306 (639802)
11-04-2011 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by doctrbill
11-03-2011 10:33 PM


Re: The Land
Hi Bill,

doctrbill writes:

Spring water also comes from preciptitation -- which falls upon the land at an elevation higher than that of the spring.

But it had not rained yet, so where did the water come from?

doctrbill writes:

In fact the text says, "a river" not a spring. But that is beside the point isn't it?

You mean to tell me those millions of gallons of water that comes out of Silver Springs and runs over a hundred miles to Lake Okeechobee is not a river.

BTW there is no mountains with snow in Florida for the water to run down hill from. Most of it is flatter than a flitter.

doctrbill writes:

Why are you not responding to the first point?

doctrbill writes:

Here's the problem(s):

1) The water which produced the mist is the water which falls back to water the ground. No net gain. Net loss in fact because of evaporation of the mist. That the mist was not enough to water the garden is evidenced in that a "river" was diverted to the garden "to water it."

If it's that important to you I will address it.

quote:
Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

That does not say anything about the mist coming down in the form of rain.

It says the water came up from the earth.

Reminds me of Gideon when he asked God to let the fleece be wet on the bottom and dry on the top.

It also reminds me of what happened to me when I bought my house when I was returning from the Cayman Islands after 13 years there. I was doing some painting and had plastic on the carpet to keep from getting paint on it. Well I had to leave in a hurry to return to the island and did not take the plastic off the carpet. When I got back 2 months later I had an inch of water on the floor where the plastic was. It had not rained but the water had come through the concrete floor. I had to ditch the carpet and seal the floor and then replace the carpet.

doctrbill writes:

Many people think the text is explaining why rain is unnecessary.

I don't.

The text is just saying the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth.

doctrbill writes:

The water of that river which irrigated the garden had to have originated in a land where it had rained.

Why?

If it had not rained at the time the river was flowing from Eden it did not come from rain or snow.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2011 10:33 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1685 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 216 of 306 (641788)
11-22-2011 11:59 AM


Universal or Local Flood?
Although some can accept that the words eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet, they can't seem to accept that the story of Noah's flood was not referring to a planetary flood. I find it baffling.

As Butterflytyrant says: The text says what it says. Message 301

The problem is that the text says what it says concerning a culture and environment over two thousands years ago. It isn't talking about today. The view of their world was much smaller. Their "world" was pretty much Mesopotamia. They saw things from the ground up. At most they had a view from a mountain or hill top.

The Torah is not an historical or science document and altough BFT seems to agree that the story should not be jammed into historical or scientific categories; he cannot seem to grasp the idea that the storytellers told stories concerning their culture and environment and not the planet.

I agree that the stories have some unbelievable elements. That's what makes the story interesting and exciting for the audience.

I should realize by now that there is a name for everything somewhere. Thanks to Larni I found this one, Anthropic Principle.

For any given story, there exist basic elements that are required for the basic premise to happen; there would be no story otherwise.

IMO, the basic premise of the story dealt with the storytellers culture and environment, not the planet. IMO, part of the basic premise provides for the backstory of the various semetic nations that came from the sons of Noah. The sons of Noah did not people the whole planet, they peopled the whole land (eretz). (Genesis 9:19)

In this thread so far we have already covered the meanings of the words that are translated as "earth". We have shown that they do not refer to the planet.

BFT shared verses he could probably accept as describing a local event.

Genesis 6:6
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the land (eretz), and it grieved him at his heart.

Genesis 6:11
The land (eretz) also was corrupt before God, and the land (eretz) was filled with violence.

Genesis 6:12
And God looked upon the land (eretz), and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the land (eretz).

But he seems to think the local theme loses ground because of the next verses.

Genesis 6:17
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the land (eretz), to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the land (eretz) shall die.

All, every, and under heaven are terms that were still used to refer to local events.

Genesis 41:46
And all countries (eretz) came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands (eretz).

Putting the word "all" in front of the word "land" doesn't take the story global. Remember their view is from the ground up. Their sky is what is above them. The visual for them isn't going to go from local to global, at most it moves to regional or just that it is going to be very very bad.

As for Lots daughters, even the New Living Translations understood they weren't talking about the planet.

Genesis 19:31
One day the older daughter said to her sister, "There are no men left anywhere in this entire area, so we can't get married like everyone else. And our father will soon be too old to have children.

They did not believe that they needed to sleep with their father to continue the entire species. The audience already knew Abraham was still out there.

We don't need to twist the flood story to make it realistic, but we also don't need to twist it beyond the means of the original audience.

The text says what the text says, but our understanding is considerably different than the original audience.

The text doesn't tell us global. Our wider knowledge leads some to visualize a global event depending on the words used.

IMO, the original audience would not have visualized a global event.


Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2011 12:14 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 237 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-26-2011 11:33 AM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 217 of 306 (641793)
11-22-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by purpledawn
11-22-2011 11:59 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

Although some can accept that the words eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet, they can't seem to accept that the story of Noah's flood was not referring to a planetary flood. I find it baffling.

It really is simple. The fact that the writers did not have the concept of the Earth being a planet does not in itself imply that the Flood should be taken as purely local.

After all it seems reasonable to think that the "dry land" created in Genesis 1 would be meant to be essentially all the dry land in existence. So why can't the Flood be meant to cover all the dry land in existence ?

Perhaps your linguistic efforts would be better focussed on finding the words which WOULD be used to refer to a "universal" flood. If you can show that there are other words that better express this concept you would have a far better case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by purpledawn, posted 11-22-2011 11:59 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 5:53 AM PaulK has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1685 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 218 of 306 (642051)
11-25-2011 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by PaulK
11-22-2011 12:14 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
After all it seems reasonable to think that the "dry land" created in Genesis 1 would be meant to be essentially all the dry land in existence. So why can't the Flood be meant to cover all the dry land in existence ?
Why would it seem reasonable? Creation stories tend to be culture specific.

Oral stories stay fluid and tend to adjust with the culture.

The Bible is stuck in time. The stories would have adjusted until they were put to paper.

We can tell the flood story or creation stories any way we want. If we look at Children's Bible stories we see the stories are softened for children and adjusted for an easier read. We still adjust the stories.

That's kinda the point of this thread. As our knowledge increased and the Judeo/Christian religion spread, the audience had a wider visual to draw from than the earlier audience.

The language of the text doesn't support that the storyteller was referring to lands he didn't know of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2011 12:14 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 6:25 AM purpledawn has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 219 of 306 (642052)
11-25-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by purpledawn
11-25-2011 5:53 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

Why would it seem reasonable? Creation stories tend to be culture specific.

Really ? How many are interpreted by believers as excluding other areas ? Or better still, explicitly say that they are only about a local area ? The fact that different cultures have different stories, slanted to their own culture is neither here nor there. It is all about what the stories say.

And isn't Genesis 1 as we have it now, essentially monotheistic, recognising only one God as real ? Where would other land come from ?

quote:

We can tell the flood story or creation stories any way we want. If we look at Children's Bible stories we see the stories are softened for children and adjusted for an easier read. We still adjust the stories.

That's kinda the point of this thread. As our knowledge increased and the Judeo/Christian religion spread, the audience had a wider visual to draw from than the earlier audience.


Not really. You are trying to push the idea that the reading of a universal Flood is a retelling while your local Flood is the actual Bible story. But from the evidence presented so far it's just as valid to assume that your reading is the retelling. And there is circumstantial evidence in this thread and others which tends to support that (e.g. your use of the obviously invalid argument that since the author of the story did not understand the nature of the Earth as a planet, he must have meant to refer to an explicitly local flood).

quote:

The language of the text doesn't support that the storyteller was referring to lands he didn't know of.

That is a curiously vague and oddly worded statement. Obviously we shouldn't expect reference to lands that the storyteller had no idea of. The question really is whether the story is such that it should naturally be extended to include lands unknown (as the Creation account in Genesis 1 is) or whether it should be read as only referring to specific lands. Your own argument elsewhere that the flood story makes universal claims which you believe should be taken as hyperbole tends to support the first alternative implicitly concedes that a literal reading indicates a universal Flood. And given your failure to establish that those claims were hyperbolic, it really does seem that there is a case for universality there.

I also note that you don't offer any argument that the text actually supports a local reading. All you have to do is show that we should expect a story of a "universal" flood to be written differently. Which really is exactly what SHOULD be the case if the author intended specifically to describe a local flood. Why don't you follow that line of argument ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 5:53 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2011 10:03 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 222 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 10:32 AM PaulK has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 306 (642062)
11-25-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by PaulK
11-25-2011 6:25 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
That is a curiously vague and oddly worded statement. Obviously we shouldn't expect reference to lands that the storyteller had no idea of.

Actually, we might have expected some cryptic hint about this if God was actually dictating the flood story to Moses.

Your own argument elsewhere that the flood story makes universal claims which you believe should be taken as hyperbole tends to support the first alternative implicitly concedes that a literal reading indicates a universal Flood.

I don't think you are using a useful definition of the term 'literal'. A literal reading of a text would not require word for word translations of idiom or even hyperbole.

Of course that doesn't prove Flood story isn't intended to be global.

This summer as I was traveling through the Richmond VA area to ferry my daughter to a basketball tournament, I was unable to find a radio channel carrying my usual music or talk, so I treated myself to some American Family Radio. Apparently AFR is some kind of YEC family values version of NPR, but without any apparent obligation to deal in facts.

On one segment, a host took on the task of debunking an atheist's attack on the flood story in the Bible by showing that the flood story could have been local, thus removing one of the atheist's reason to disbelieve. As you might expect, the host felt it necessary to ladle out several minutes of disclaimers to let the listeners know that he was only playing devil's advocate. The flood was real and global.

As I recall, the main argument was that essentially the same words and phrases that 'appeared' to describe the whole earth in Genesis were used in other places in the Bible, in situations where the context made it clear that the scope was local rather than global. I believe the text in Isaiah 24 was one of the examples given, but I may be wrong about that.

I didn't personally find the argument very convincing, because the other example cases did include clear contextual hints.

Then another segment featured a constitutional law 'expert' (hawking a book of course) who claimed that liberal Justices were interpreting the constitution in such a way as to steal our rights. Apparently the expert wasn't too concerned about the conservative Justices' crabbed readings of portions of the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments. The expert, when attempting to name the 9 Justices listed four liberal Justices who had never deliberated together, and failed to name Rader Ginsburg. (Yeah, I know there has been a bit of turnover, but still ...)

The next segment dealt with Congress' failure to take our country back from Obama by not extending the debt limit.

Once they started weighing in on how the 1830s were the most free and democratic period in American history (all based on Alexis de Tocqueville's book. As if...) while ranting against diversity I figured I had heard enough code words. I plugged in my iPod to my trusty radio transmitter and left the world of AFR.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 6:25 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 10:16 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 221 of 306 (642063)
11-25-2011 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by NoNukes
11-25-2011 10:03 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

I don't think you are using a useful definition of the term 'literal'. A literal reading of a text would not require word for word translations of idiom or even hyperbole.

That's something of a nitpick. In context it's quite clear what I mean.

But let's be absolutely clear about the point. It;s inconsistent to argue that there is nothing in the text to indicate a universal scope while also trying to argue that statements in the text are hyperbolic BECAUSE they indicate a universal scope.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2011 10:03 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1685 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 222 of 306 (642064)
11-25-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by PaulK
11-25-2011 6:25 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
And isn't Genesis 1 as we have it now, essentially monotheistic, recognising only one God as real ? Where would other land come from ?
Judaism started with Abraham recognizing one real God. That isn't really the purpose of the Genesis 1 creation story.

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea...

quote:
Not really. You are trying to push the idea that the reading of a universal Flood is a retelling while your local Flood is the actual Bible story. But from the evidence presented so far it's just as valid to assume that your reading is the retelling. And there is circumstantial evidence in this thread and others which tends to support that (e.g. your use of the obviously invalid argument that since the author of the story did not understand the nature of the Earth as a planet, he must have meant to refer to an explicitly local flood).
What evidence shows it is just as valid to assume the non planetary view is a retelling?
What circumstantial evidence supports your point?

quote:
Obviously we shouldn't expect reference to lands that the storyteller had no idea of. The question really is whether the story is such that it should naturally be extended to include lands unknown (as the Creation account in Genesis 1 is) or whether it should be read as only referring to specific lands.
Why would the audience naturally extend their visual beyond what they know?

quote:
Your own argument elsewhere that the flood story makes universal claims which you believe should be taken as hyperbole tends to support the first alternative implicitly concedes that a literal reading indicates a universal Flood. And given your failure to establish that those claims were hyperbolic, it really does seem that there is a case for universality there.
That's a different thread. Don't mix them.

This thread deals with the words used to refer to the ground (eretz and adamah). As I said in Message 216: Putting the word "all" in front of the word "land" doesn't take the story global.

quote:
I also note that you don't offer any argument that the text actually supports a local reading.
Sure I have.

Message 185, Message 176, Message 172, Message 159, Message 137, Message 124, Message 118, Message 115, Message 107, Message 100, Message 74, and Message 53.

Edited by purpledawn, : Typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 6:25 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 10:46 AM purpledawn has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 223 of 306 (642065)
11-25-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by purpledawn
11-25-2011 10:32 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

Judaism started with Abraham recognizing one real God. That isn't really the purpose of the Genesis 1 creation story.

Well, that's what the bible says, but it's not very likely to be true. Judaism seems to have started as a typical Canaanite religion, and worked it's way up through henotheism to monotheism.

quote:

What evidence shows it is just as valid to assume the non planetary view is a retelling?
What circumstantial evidence supports your point?

The circumstantial evidence is your use of clearly invalid arguments, to "support" your point.

quote:

Why would the audience naturally extend their visual beyond what they know?

Why would they not ? Why would it be "natural" if they learned about the Americas to assume that they were a completely separate creation from the rest of the dry land ?

quote:

That's a different thread. Don't mix them.

So the truth depends on which thread we are in ? Either the "everything" statements are there or they are not. And if they aren't there it's pretty silly to try to say that they are hyperbole.

quote:

This thread deals with the words used to refer to the ground (eretz and adamah). As I said in Message 216: Putting the word "all" in front of the word "land" doesn't take the story global.

If it literally means "all land" then it would take it "global" in the sense that it referred to all of the land.

quote:

Sure I have.

But not in the post I was replying to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 10:32 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 12:21 PM PaulK has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1685 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 224 of 306 (642069)
11-25-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by PaulK
11-25-2011 10:46 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
The circumstantial evidence is your use of clearly invalid arguments, to "support" your point.
And what are those invalid arguments and evidence that they are invalid?

quote:
Why would they not ? Why would it be "natural" if they learned about the Americas to assume that they were a completely separate creation from the rest of the dry land ?
Now you seem to be talking about how our views expand as our knowledge increases. I've already said that is what has happened. Oral stories changed with the times.

That doesn't explain why an audience would extend their visual beyond what they know?

quote:
So the truth depends on which thread we are in ? Either the "everything" statements are there or they are not. And if they aren't there it's pretty silly to try to say that they are hyperbole.
This is a debate forum. A person can argue any side of a debate. Each thread is a new debate and has its own theme. We are not required to maintain the same position across threads. I can argue from any angle I want. This thread is looking at the meanings of the words eretz and adamah.

quote:
If it literally means "all land" then it would take it "global" in the sense that it referred to all of the land.
Show me that it is to be taken globally in the flood story. I've already provided evidence why I feel it isn't. Absolutes tend to be exaggerations, but the audience isn't going to go to the global level since it is beyond their knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 10:46 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 2:52 PM purpledawn has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15318
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 225 of 306 (642074)
11-25-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by purpledawn
11-25-2011 12:21 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

And what are those invalid arguments and evidence that they are invalid?

There,s the quite obvious example of your argument that since the Biblical authors were unaware of the true nature of the planet they must intend the Flood account to be taken as purely local, rather than covering all the land. The absurdity seems self evident.

quote:

Now you seem to be talking about how our views expand as our knowledge increases. I've already said that is what has happened. Oral stories changed with the times.

No, I am tallying about interpretation of written words.

quote:

That doesn't explain why an audience would extend their visual beyond what they know?

Not knowing of a place does not equate to a specific intention to exclude it.

quote:

This is a debate forum. A person can argue any side of a debate. Each thread is a new debate and has its own theme. We are not required to maintain the same position across threads. I can argue from any angle I want. This thread is looking at the meanings of the words eretz and adamah.

But this, surely, is a matter of fact. Either the statements are there or they are not. If you are going to alter the text to suit your arguments there seems little point in debating matters of interpretation.

quote:

Show me that it is to be taken globally in the flood story. I've already provided evidence why I feel it isn't. Absolutes tend to be exaggerations, but the audience isn't going to go to the global level since it is beyond their knowledge.

Since the story as we have it is a myth, why should it not refer to a universal flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 12:21 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by bluescat48, posted 11-25-2011 3:03 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 227 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 4:20 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 7:52 PM PaulK has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019