Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
81 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat, Tangle (5 members, 76 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,321 Year: 4,433/6,534 Month: 647/900 Week: 171/182 Day: 4/47 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by bluescat48, posted 11-25-2011 3:03 PM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 227 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 4:20 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 7:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 228 of 306 (642080)
11-25-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by purpledawn
11-25-2011 4:20 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

Why is it absurd?

It's a massive non-sequitur as should be obvious to anyone. Does it make sense to you? Do you really think that they lacked the basic concept of "the world"?

quote:

The ground in Genesis is the ground known at the time that pertained to the story. They didn't know that more ground existed. The storyteller is talking to a specific audience. The land and ground would be the land and ground they know. How can they envision what they don't know?

The absurdity is your addition of "AND NOWHERE ELSE!!!!" to the story.

quote:

Not knowing of a place means it isn't in your mind to include. It has nothing to do with intention to exclude.

Your argument requires the intention to exclude because without that you have no general rule which lets you infer that other places should not be included.

quote:

Why should it?

Is not hyperbole an obvious exaggeration? If we cannot say that it definitely is exaggeration, then it cannot be hyperbole. And if it is not hyperbole, why should we not take it as intended to be literal? (in the context of the myth)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 4:20 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 6:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 231 of 306 (642157)
11-26-2011 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by purpledawn
11-25-2011 6:18 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

Non sequitur doesn't mean anything to me, so you're going to have to spell it out. Why is it absurd?
They lacked the concept of the planet. "The world" to them had nothing to do with the globe.

Because it is the concept of "the world" that is important, not the concept of the world being a globe. There is no problem with them finding out that the world was larger than they knew and understanding the story to include those areas too. Why do you keep claiming otherwise?

quote:

I didn't add "and nowhere else" to the story.

So you concede that there is no problem with understanding the story as referring to a universal flood.

quote:

I've said that eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet. The use of those words are consistently used to refer to the lands known at the time

But you have conceded that they do not exclude unknown lands. And a REAL flood would not even have covered all the known lands. If there was a historical flood, that served as a basis of the myth it likely covered no more than a large part of Mesopotamia - or maybe somewhere even further from Israel.

quote:

I don't understand what you're saying. I know you're trying to do some wonderful logic thing, but basically the people were just listening to a story. How can they envision more than they know?

What the audience could envision is not important.

quote:

Literally eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet. What does being a myth have to do with it?

The point you are attempting to address is that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth. Please address that point instead of dragging an entirely different argument into it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2011 6:18 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 5:52 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 232 of 306 (642158)
11-26-2011 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 7:52 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

I believe what she is saying is that the author appears to be intending to mean that the Deluge included the "whole world," but only on account of their ignorance of modern geography. Obviously the author(s) were incorrect (which it doesn't sound like anyone is contending with). In reality, they were accounting for a large, localized flood.

But that would be conceding that the story says that the flood was universal, which Purpledawn's denies. And even a large, localised flood would not have covered the known world at the time of writing. Canaan itself, for instance, is unlikely to have been affected at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2011 11:41 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 235 of 306 (642171)
11-26-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by purpledawn
11-26-2011 5:52 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

And what is that concept? The English word "world" carries many different concepts.

Let us say, that portion of the cosmos inhabited or habitable by humans, of which the listener's land is a part.

quote:

The storyteller isn't telling them that their "world" is larger than they know, he is telling them about a flood that covered their land.

Of course I never claimed that the storyteller was saying anything about the size of the world. So this is just another misdirection on your part.

And I will repeat, if their land is in Canaan, it probably wasn't covered by any real flood at all.

quote:

If we say the fairest maiden in all the land, it doesn't mean on the planet or absolutely all land known. It just means she was very pretty.

Which simply raises the question of where the universal statements you object to could be.

quote:

You're asking for exactness from a story that is really just telling people there was a really big ass flood in the area a long time ago.

I'm not. You are. You're the one that insists that the universal interpretation is invalid. So you are the one who needs to rule it out. If the text doesn't rule it out, then too bad for you.

quote:

Why not? The storyteller has to use the words that will trigger the minds eye of the listener.
The words in the flood story do not present a global flood.

But they could trigger the view of a universal flood.

quote:

You haven't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth, so I have nothing to address yet.

Well if you wish to argue that the supernatural beings that appear in myths - including your God - are incapable of affecting the entire planet than please go ahead. So far as I am aware, most people would decisively reject such a view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 5:52 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 11:20 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 239 of 306 (642204)
11-26-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by purpledawn
11-26-2011 11:20 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

What do you mean by cosmos?

Is it really relevant ? Let,s say material reality, then.

quote:

So your issue with my argument concerning eretz and adamah is what?

You really have to learn to read in context. The point is that if the story was based on a historical event it is very unlikely that it covered all the land that the Israelites knew of - and that the "Promised Land" of Canaan was almost certainly spared. If the story is meant to convey the message that their land was covered, then it is still almost certainly false.

quote:

What statements did I object to?

You neglected to explain exactly which. So if you don't know what you were talking about I can't be expected to tell you.

quote:

I have already shown that the text rules out a global interpretation. Message 234

I note your weasel wording. You have argued against a "global" flood on the grounds that the author was not aware that the world was a globe. But you have not disproven a universal interpretation -which is the one you need to address.

quote:

You still haven't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth

Sure I have, by pointing out that myths often involve the actions of beings accepted as being capable of acting on that level. It is no different from the example of Superman presented earlier in the thread, which you accepted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 11:20 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 5:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 241 of 306 (642218)
11-26-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by purpledawn
11-26-2011 5:22 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

This thread isn't about whether any of the stories are true or false

But it's pretty clear that you want the Bible to be true, and from that point of view a flood which covered pretty much all the Middle East - or even just Judah - isn't any better than a universal flood.

quote:

Some say it does, making the flood story refer to a global flood. My position is that the words used do not refer to the planet.

But I am not arguing for that it means a global flood in your peculiar sense. I just want to know if you have a valid reason for ruling out a universal flood. So why do you keep trying to change the subject?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 5:22 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 6:27 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 244 by Chuck77, posted 11-26-2011 11:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 245 of 306 (642259)
11-27-2011 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by purpledawn
11-26-2011 6:27 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

The issue comes when one tries to present a "truth" based on the idea the words eretz and adamah refer to the planet.

Actually right now, we are supposedly discussing whether the flood should be taken as universal or local. In the Bible, clearly those words do not refer to our concept of the planet in the sense that the authors knew and understood it. But equally clearly it is not impossible that some usages can be correctly understood as referring to the planet, if the story is taken as a true story about our world, as oppose to a fiction set in a world where the concepts of the ancient authors were factually correct.

quote:

I've already provided what I consider to be a valid reason for ruling out a global flood.

And there you do it again. I'm not asking for arguments against you concept of a "global" flood. I am asking about arguments against a universal flood. And every time you try to change the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 6:27 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 5:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 246 of 306 (642260)
11-27-2011 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Chuck77
11-26-2011 11:55 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

Maybe im lost here (and there's a good chance I am) but how exactly is purpledawn being "pretty clear" she wants the Bible to be true if she has gone to such lengths to try to point out that what the Bible is saying isn't true?

She doesn't here or in the related thread on hyperbole. She tries to argue that the flood story does not claim that the flood was universal, making it more plausible. It's common for concordists to try to interpret the Bible to match modern knowledge, to argue for the reliability of the Bible. The fact that she was willing to contradict herself to support her preferred reading also speaks of a motive beyond merely understanding the text.

She refuses to consider the fact that the Flood story as we have it is a myth and dismissed the idea of referring to the older stories it is based on to try to understand it better.

She also directly attributes Jewish monotheism to the legendary Abraham, which relies again on assuming Biblical reliability.

Seems pretty clear to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Chuck77, posted 11-26-2011 11:55 PM Chuck77 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 6:38 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 258 of 306 (642310)
11-27-2011 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by purpledawn
11-27-2011 5:22 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

Actually, I'm debating whether the text presents a flood that covers the entire planet or a flood that covers just a local area or region

Leaving the universal flood in the title field as an excluded middle.

quote:

Then show the verses that could be correctly understood as referring to the planet. IMO, it doesn't matter whether one takes the story as fact or fiction. The wording still doesn't refer to the planet.

We've already seen verses that could be read as referring to a universal flood, and it seems reasonable that a believer in the story could extend that to a planetary flood based on our better understanding of the world.

Of course, if it's taken just as a story, then the whole "global" issue is unimportant.

quote:

If you're going to play word games, then you need to explain the distinction you're making.

Oh please. You're the one playing word games. You keep referring back to your argument that since the author would not have known that the world was a globe that the story did not include that concept. But that is not an argument against the flood being seen as universal.

And that is why YOU keep referring back to a "global" flood instead of a "universal" flood, which does not require the idea that the Earth is a globe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 5:22 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 3:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 259 of 306 (642311)
11-27-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by purpledawn
11-27-2011 6:38 AM


Re: Incorrect Conclusions
quote:

Where have I contradicted myself? Or is this another, if I don't know you aren't going to tell me, game.

The whole business of "everything" statements in the flood story, of course. Don't you forget your attempt to say that your statement that they even existed should be disregarded because you made it in a different thread ?

quote:

In Message 219, you asked: And isn't Genesis 1 as we have it now, essentially monotheistic, recognising only one God as real? Where would other land come from?

You asked about the text, not the actual history of monotheism.


Of course it isn't that simple. I asked about Genesis 1, so the history of monotheism is implicitly there (i.e. Genesis 1, the text under discussion was written when monotheism was the Jewish view).

Your answer in Message 222 was:


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

So the point about Abraham is NOT given as "something the Bible presents" - it is presented as a fact. And with nothing to link it to the point. (And, interestingly my understanding is that monotheism IS believed to be an important part of the point of the Genesis 1 creation story !). But even if monotheism were not "the point" of Genesis 1, however, all that is required is that Genesis 1 IS monotheistic, thus implicitly denying the possibility of other deities creating any portion of the universe.

quote:

My arguments concerning eretz and adamah don't really make the creation or flood stories more plausible. The flood is just the backdrop and the Jewish legends have more in them than the Bible has. The Bible seems to have the bare bones. The lessons presented in the stories are the purpose of the stories. IMO, the original audience knew it was a story.

Yet a local flood IS far more plausible than a universal flood. And if it is just a story, why the aversion to considering it as a myth ? Why not consider the historical origins of the story to understand it ? Why the insistence on a local flood, if a universal flood serves the story just as well ?

You're being somewhat disingenuous in your explanations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 6:38 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 4:08 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 264 of 306 (642323)
11-27-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by purpledawn
11-27-2011 3:34 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

But I can't guess which ones you're referring to so it would be ever so helpful if you would provide the verses you feel refer to a universal flood. Thank you.

Well, let's start off with those "everything" statements that you wish to class as hyperbole. You say they're there, so you should know which ones you meant.

quote:

Yes if it is just a story this whole discussion and any other discussion concerning the Bible is a total waste. Apparently we just like to see our words in print.

So, WHY are you set on classing it as a purely local flood ?

quote:

Actually I keep referring back to Message 234, which is my position concerning eretz and adamah.

Which, as everyone can see is primarily focussed on the irrelevant issue of the author's understanding of the world.

quote:

Lobbing this one back to you again. It would be ever so helpful if you would tell me the difference between global and universal that bothers you so.

That difference doesn't bother me. What bothers me is your behaviour. For reasons I have already given.

But let us look at the facts.

I ask for an argument against a universal flood.

You say that you have an argument against a global flood and lo and behold, the fact that the Earth is a globe and the author of the current version of the story did not know that is a key part of that argument. And equally clearly it does not apply against a universal flood.

And you keep on doing it, even after I've made this objection - and in fact knowing that I had already rejected this argument as actually telling us anything about the supposed extent of the flood already.

It looks very much to me as if you are TRYING to give the false impression that you have an argument against a universal flood and deliberately using the word "global" so you can claim that you were being honest.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 3:34 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 5:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 265 of 306 (642325)
11-27-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by purpledawn
11-27-2011 4:08 PM


Re: Incorrect Conclusions
quote:

Your wonderful Message 219. I simply asked that you address the arguments I made in this thread and not arguments I made in another thread. Each thread has its own theme after all.

The question of whether such statements are present in the story is a matter of objective fact, not an argument. It cannot be true in one thread and false in the other. Thus you have no valid reason to object - not if you are being honest.

quote:

And I told you that since you hadn't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth, I didn't have anything to address. You failed to show evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth. You also didn't share any "everything" statements from the text or share how they should be taken literally.

But I have provided an argument which does establish a reasonable possibility that such statements may be true at the end of Message 239. And if it is reasonable that such statements can be true, then how can they be hyperbole ?

quote:

My Bad! In the future I will make sure that I have the appropriate wording to make sure that nobody could mistakenly think that insignificant little me would declare something a fact. Perish the thought. I will be more careful in the future. Thanks for setting me straight.

Your sarcasm aside, you did present the statement as a bald statement of fact, with no explanation of how it related to my argument.

quote:

Unfortunately I still don't know what you mean by universal. I'm trying, but I need more info.

I don't see why you would need more information. It expresses the concept that the entire world was flooded, without restricting it to the area that the author knew about (your "local flood").

quote:

I have no problem considering the story a myth. (Message 107 and Message 115) I just don't think it amounts to a hill of beans concerning the topic and you haven't shown me that it does. I have asked ever so nicely, but to no avail.



I stand corrected on the point of whether you are prepared to call the story a myth (although noting that you were reluctant elsewhere to consider it). However your claim that I did not give the reason is false, as shown above.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 4:08 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 5:40 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 267 of 306 (642327)
11-27-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by purpledawn
11-27-2011 5:06 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:

In this thread you said they were there, so you should know which ones you need to share

Relying on YOUR claim that they were there. If you don't know which statements you were referring to, why expect me to ?

quote:

Someone has to take that side of the debate, otherwise it wouldn't be very interesting. Besides, the wording in the text doesn't refer the planet, so it was less than planetary or global or universal. Anyway it's more than nothing and less than everything.

There are plenty of other subjects you could choose to debate. No, it is clearly important to you that the flood is local, important enough to justify all the odd behaviour.

And no, your argument that the author didn't know about the size of the world is NOT enough to establish that it isn't meant to be a universal flood.

quote:

I feel the author's understanding is very relevant. If one is going to exaggerate, one has to know what is extreme. I feel the audience's understanding is relevant also. He's got to know what they will understand. I feel everybody is relevant.

Whether the author felt that the flood was universal or strictly limited is relevant. Whether he understood that our world is a globe or a planet is not.

quote:

I still don't understand the distinction you are making between a global flood and a universal flood. I can't provide the argument you desire until you tell me the difference between a global flood and a universal flood. To me they are the same. I truly don't want to look dishonest, but until you tell me the difference between a global flood and a universal flood, I guess I'll continue to look bad. Hopefully others will overlook that shortcoming.

Well the "global" flood terminology is yours. By inference from your posts to write about it requires understanding that the earth is a planet, a globe. A universal flood does not. That's one key difference. A universal flood is simply one that is not restricted to a purely local area of our world. Writing about one requires nothing more than the ability to imagine that - not knowledge of the actual structure of the planet.

So really the point of the difference is to stop talking about matters irrelevant to the extent of the flood in the story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 5:06 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 5:58 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 269 of 306 (642329)
11-27-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by purpledawn
11-27-2011 5:40 PM


Re: Incorrect Conclusions
quote:

I have a perfectly valid reason to object. Each thread is a different topic and I present a certain line of reasoning for an argument. I may not wish to present the same line of reasoning in another topic with similar issues. Like I said, you can present your line of reasoning concerning the issue all you want.

Since the issue is one of fact, not reasoning, this cannot be a valid reason.

quote:

I see no evidence. I just see you saying that it is so.

I give a reason for my conclusion. You do not dispute that reason. Again you give me reason to question your honesty.

quote:

Superman was not mentioned in this thread other than your message.

It was given early in the hyperbole thread. Message 38

quote:

How is that different than global? I don't want to look dishonest, you know.

It disposes of the false dichotomy that the author must either be describing a strictly local flood or a flood covering the planet as we understand it, as I have explained above.

quote:

I wasn't reluctant, I just didn't see any verses, evidence or reasoned argument to address. I can't address what I can't see or understand.

That's also false, since I gave relevant verses in the first post introducing the issue in the hyperbole thread: Message 3


The creation of the rainbow (Genesis 9:13-14), for instance, is an obvious mythic element.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 5:40 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 6:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022