Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
72 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar (3 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,263 Year: 4,375/6,534 Month: 589/900 Week: 113/182 Day: 20/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 208 of 306 (639709)
11-03-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by ICANT
11-02-2011 11:07 PM


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

ha’aretz in Genesis and the rest of the Hebrew Bible is the land that is promised to Abraham, Jacob, and the children of Israel: it is not planet earth. Any reading of ha’aretz as the “planet earth” (“The planet earth that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the planet earth to your offspring after you”) would be so tendentious, delusional, and idiotic that those three words would then come to describe the person(s) who offered such a translation.

quote:
They may have been standing on dry land somewhere on Earth but they were not standing on dry land in Genesis 1:2 as there was none there.

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2011 11:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2011 4:57 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 8:12 PM purpledawn has seen this message

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 210 of 306 (639758)
11-03-2011 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by doctrbill
11-03-2011 4:57 PM


Re: The Land
quote:
It is part of a larger sample which documents decreasing use of the word earth in newer Bibles which suggests that translators are increasingly aware that it's use is ever more inappropriate.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2011 4:57 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2011 6:01 PM purpledawn has taken no action

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 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 replied
 Message 237 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-26-2011 11:33 AM purpledawn has seen this message

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 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 replied

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

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 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 replied

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

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 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 replied

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

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 227 of 306 (642078)
11-25-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by PaulK
11-25-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
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.
Why is it absurd?

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?

Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof Lev. XXXV X. By order of the Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania for the State House in Philada...

Did the assembly really expect every single human on the planet to be told? These people did know they were on a planet and that there was more across the ocean, etc.

quote:
Not knowing of a place does not equate to a specific intention to exclude it.
Not knowing of a place means it isn't in your mind to include. It has nothing to do with intention to exclude.

The storyteller creates a story for the people to hear and experience. How can they envision more than they know?

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

Edited by purpledawn, : Typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 2:52 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 4:58 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 229 of 306 (642090)
11-25-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by PaulK
11-25-2011 4:58 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
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"?
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.

quote:
The absurdity is your addition of "AND NOWHERE ELSE!!!!" to the story.
I didn't add "and nowhere else" to the story.

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.

quote:
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.
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?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2011 4:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 2:24 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 233 of 306 (642161)
11-26-2011 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by PaulK
11-26-2011 2:24 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
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?
And what is that concept? The English word "world" carries many different concepts.

world
O.E. woruld, worold "human existence, the affairs of life," also "the human race, mankind," a word peculiar to Germanic languages (cf. O.S. werold, O.Fris. warld, Du. wereld, O.N. verold, O.H.G. weralt, Ger. Welt), with a literal sense of "age of man," from P.Gmc. *wer "man" (O.E. wer, still in werewolf; see virile) + *ald "age" (see old).

Originally "life on earth, this world (as opposed to the afterlife)," sense extended to "the known world," then to "the physical world in the broadest sense, the universe" (c.1200). In O.E. gospels, the commonest word for "the physical world," was Middangeard (O.N. Midgard), lit. "the middle enclosure" (cf. yard), which is rooted in Germanic cosmology. Greek kosmos in its ecclesiastical sense of "world of people" sometimes was rendered in Gothic as manaseþs, lit. "seed of man."

The word "world" isn't used in the flood story.

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.

quote:
So you concede that there is no problem with understanding the story as referring to a universal flood.
No. There is nothing universal about the language.

quote:
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.
The words by themselves do not tell us if the land is known or unknown. Haeretz, "the land", puts it in the realm of known land and carries the idea of boundaries. The fairest maiden in the land.

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.

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.

Just as the Liberty Bell quote wasn't universal, neither was the flood story.

How far the water spread isn't the main point of the story.

quote:
What the audience could envision is not important.
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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 2:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 9:33 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 234 of 306 (642167)
11-26-2011 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 7:52 PM


Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
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.
The language used does not describe a global flood. Even today, it does not describe a global flood.

The Hebrew words erets and adamah do not carry a meaning of planet or global. The English words earth, land, and ground do not carry a meaning of planet or global. The English word earth is the name of our planet, but it doesn't mean planet or global.

Basically erets = land and adamah = ground. That may seem trivial, but land and ground don't always present the same idea depending on how it is used. So if an author is using both words in a story, there has to be a reason for the difference.

Besides referring to dirt, the English word land can imply country, realm, domain, or people of a country. It also implies ground that is owned. This in line with the Hebrew word erets.

land (n.)
O.E. land, lond, "ground, soil," also "definite portion of the earth's surface, home region of a person or a people, territory marked by political boundaries," from P.Gmc. *landom (cf. O.N., O.Fris. Du., Ger., Goth. land), from PIE *lendh- "land, heath" (cf. O.Ir. land, Middle Welsh llan "an open space," Welsh llan "enclosure, church," Breton lann "heath," source of Fr. lande; O.C.S. ledina "waste land, heath," Czech lada "fallow land").

The English word earth does not carry those added meanings. Other than being the name of our planet, it pretty much refers to ground or soil. This is more in line with the Hebrew word adamah.

earth
O.E. eorþe "ground, soil, dry land," also used (along with middangeard) for "the (material) world" (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.Fris. erthe "earth," O.S. ertha, O.N. jörð, M.Du. eerde, Du. aarde, O.H.G. erda, Ger. Erde, Goth. airþa), from PIE base *er- "earth, ground" (cf. M.Ir. -ert "earth"). The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400.

Over time words obtain new meanings, but we shouldn't apply new meanings to past writings.

Genesis (not quoting verbatim) (* earth used in NIV) (Ltrs denote suspected author per Friedman)
6:1 - The men began to multiply on the ground (adamah)*J
6:4 - There were Nephilim in the land (erets)*J
6:5 - God saw man's wickedness was great in the land (erets)*J
6:6 - God regretted making man in the land (erets)*J
6:7 - God said he would abolish mankind from the face of the ground (adamah)*J
6:11 - The land (erets)*P was corrupt in God's sight and the land (erets)* was filled with violence
6:12 - God looked upon the land (erets)*P, all flesh had corrupted his way upon the land (erets)*P
6:13 - The land (erets)*P if filled with violence, God will destroy all flesh with the land (erets)*P
6:17 - God is going to bring flood waters on the land (erets)*P and everything that is in the land (erets)*P shall die
6:20 - Bring two of every kind of creature that moves along the ground (adamah)P
7:3 - Bring male and female to keep seed alive upon the face of all the land (erets)*J
7:4 - In seven days God will cause it to rain upon the land (erets)*J and every living thing he had made will be destroyed off the face of the ground (adamah)*J
7:6 - Noah was 600 years old when the flood was upon the land (erets)*R
7:8 - Creatures that move along the ground (adamah)P
7:10 - Flood waters came upon the land (erets)*J
7:12 - The rain was upon the land (erets)*J 40days and nights
7:17 - The flood was 40 days upon the land (erets)*J, the ark was lifted above the land (erets)*J
7:18 - Waters increased greatly upon the land (erets)*J
7:19 - The waters prevailed upon the land (erets)*J
7:21 - All flesh died that moved upon the land (erets)*P, every creeping thing that creepeth upon the land (erets)*P
7:23 - Every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground (adamah)*J, all were destroyed from the land (erets)*J
7:24 - Waters prevailed upon the land (erets)*P
8:1 - God sent a wind over the land (erets)*P
8:3 - Waters receded from the land (erets)*J
8:7 - waters were dried up from off the land (erets)*P
8:8 - Sent dove to see if waters were abated from off the face of the ground (adamah)J
8:9 - Dove couldn't find place to land because the waters were on the face of the whole land (eretz)*
8:11 - Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the land (erets)*J
8:13 - Waters were dried up from off the land (erets)*P and the face of the ground (adamah)J was dry
8:14 - By the 27th day the land (erets)*P was completely dry
8:17 - Bring out of the ark all the creatures that creepeth on the land (erets)(used ground)P that they may multiply upon the land (erets)*
8:19 - Everything that moves on the land (erets)*P
8:21 - God said he would never again curse the ground (adamah)J
8:22 - As long as the land (erets)*J endures
9:1 - Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the land (erets)*P

What in the text implies a global picture?

In Chapter 10 we see the nations the sons became. That would give us a rough idea of the area the storyteller was probably referring to, which has nothing to do with whether that much area was actually flooded or not. It's a setup for the clans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 11-26-2011 9:27 PM purpledawn has taken no action

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 236 of 306 (642178)
11-26-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by PaulK
11-26-2011 9:33 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
Let us say, that portion of the cosmos inhabited or habitable by humans, of which the listener's land is a part.
What do you mean by cosmos?

quote:
And I will repeat, if their land is in Canaan, it probably wasn't covered by any real flood at all.
So your issue with my argument concerning eretz and adamah is what?

quote:
Which simply raises the question of where the universal statements you object to could be.
What statements did I object to?

quote:
But they could trigger the view of a universal flood.
But you haven't shown why it would trigger a view of a global flood to the audience. I've already shown why it wouldn't.

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

quote:
PurpleDawn writes:


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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 9:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 5:00 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 240 of 306 (642209)
11-26-2011 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by PaulK
11-26-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
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.
This thread isn't about whether any of the stories are true or false. It is about whether the words used and usually translated as earth refers to the planet Earth. 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.

As I've said, I've already shown that the text rules out a global interpretation. You'll have to explain why what I've shown doesn't rule out a global interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 5:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 5:51 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 242 of 306 (642224)
11-26-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by PaulK
11-26-2011 5:51 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
But it's pretty clear that you want the Bible to be true,

quote:
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.
The flood is just the backdrop of the story. The basic premise of the story doesn't change whether one views it as global or regional.

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

quote:
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?
I've already provided what I consider to be a valid reason for ruling out a global flood. Message 234. You have yet to explain why it isn't valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 5:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 3:53 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 247 of 306 (642263)
11-27-2011 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by PaulK
11-27-2011 3:53 AM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
Actually right now, we are supposedly discussing whether the flood should be taken as universal or local.
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.

quote:
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.
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.

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

Global
1 : spherical
2: of, relating to, or involving the entire world : worldwide ; also : of or relating to a celestial body (as the moon)
3: of, relating to, or applying to a whole (as a mathematical function or a computer program) : universal

Universal
1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society
2a : present or occurring everywhere b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions
3a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) b : comprehensively broad and versatile

I have been using the words universal and global to refer to the flood covering the entire planet. I don't feel I have used those terms incorrectly.

Please explain what your point is concerning universal and global.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 3:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Granny Magda, posted 11-27-2011 6:31 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 258 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 1:17 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 249 of 306 (642270)
11-27-2011 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by PaulK
11-27-2011 4:02 AM


Incorrect Conclusions
quote:
The fact that she was willing to contradict herself to support her preferred reading also speaks of a motive beyond merely understanding the text.
Where have I contradicted myself? Or is this another, if I don't know you aren't going to tell me, game.

quote:
She also directly attributes Jewish monotheism to the legendary Abraham, which relies again on assuming Biblical reliability.
I tend to respond in like kind. If one wants to address real history vs what the Bible presents, I will respond accordingly. If one asks a question concerning the text and what it says, I will respond accordingly.

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.

Judaism attributes the beginning of their religion to Abraham. It actually comes from their legends more than the Bible text, so it has nothing to do with the reliability of the Bible and it really had nothing to do with the topic, so I didn't feel it necessary to elaborate. I also showed you in Message 222 that Genesis 1 wasn't necessarily monotheistic. Unfortunately you never continued with that line of argument, so I'm not sure what the point was.

Concerning me, your conclusions are incorrect. I'm not arguing for the reliability of the Bible. I'm arguing that eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet by definition or by how they are used in the text.

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.

Legends of the Jews
Even after God had resolved upon the destruction of the sinners, He still permitted His mercy to prevail, in that He sent Noah unto them, who exhorted them for one hundred and twenty years to amend their ways, always holding the flood over them as a threat. As for them, they but derided him. When they saw him occupying himself with the building of the ark, they asked, "Wherefore this ark?"

IMO, the Bible is missing a lot of the character and some of the lessons of the legends.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 4:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 1:34 PM purpledawn 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