|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1104 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not The Planet | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6269 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Hi PD,
Are you a mind reader that is able to read someone's mind from 3500 years ago? How do you know what Moses knew or did not know? I can agree that your redactors didn't have a clue. But Moses spent 80 day's on mount sinai in two 40 day periods. That is a long time for God not to be able to explain to Moses what He wanted him to write. In fact He had time to take Moses back and let him see everything He did in creation and up until the time Moses went up on the mount the first time. Now if you want to say God does not exist so this could not have taken place you are welcome to do so. But if you believe God exists and is the all powerful God He claims to be then that would have been a piece of cake for Him. 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."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 1796 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:And yet if I told you that God showed me that the story does not refer to a flood that covers the planet, you wouldn't believe me....would you? All powerful doesn't mean he has to flood the planet. If you believe we are made in God's image, why wouldn't that god tell stories just like we do? Why give us that ability if we aren't meant to use it? Yhvh was going to destroy what he had created. Yhvh is the God of Israel.
Just because a god can flood the planet, doesn't mean the god did flood the planet.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I suppose you didn't say that because we were discussing this in the science section? Ouch.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6269 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Hi PD,
I would ask you for the evidence that God showed you the story does not refer to a flood that cover all the dry land. Then I would ask you which God you were talking about. The God of Heaven or the God of this world?
God would not choose to lie but you and I can.
You were given the ability to choose, to believe whatever you desire and to do whatever you desire. Just look around you and see the choices people are making.
The children of Israel did not exist at the time of the flood.
But it is recorded that He said He was going to destroy everything that breathed the breath of life from off the face of the dry land, except what was in the ark. Either He did or He lied. 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."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 1796 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Curious that you consider stories to be lies. quote:They supposedly did at the time the J writer told his story. The audience heard the name of their god (or however they said it without saying it) in the story. Their god said he would destroy what he had created. quote:I'm sure several other gods in myths made the same such claim. quote:It is a shame you feel that way. Stories are wonderful training tools.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 1796 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Seriously??? Once more with feeling: Concerning the use of eretz and adamah in the flood story, I'm debating whether the text presents a flood that covers the planet as opposed to a flood that doesn't cover the planet? That's why the name of the thread is "Not the Planet". Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis) Message 234 What is confusing? quote:It might help if you quit trying to figure out what I believe and actually look at the arguments I made concerning the text and if you don't believe the text refers to the planet; what are you going on about? I seriously doubt that any humans, animals, trees, or bugs were harmed in the making of the flood story. It is a foundational myth. You can tell the story any way you want. If you need it to cover a small space you can, go for it. The problem arises when a literal reading is used to teach incorrectly. That's when people need to understand what the text is really saying to guard against improper usage of the story.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6269 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Hi PD,
Anything I make up that is not based on facts is a lie. Now I can say anything I desire to say. That just does not make it true or based on fact.
What does that have to do with who God was saying He was going to destroy?
And he did that about 400 years prior to the existence of the children of Israel. Which was about a 1000 years before they themselves existed.
Well if all life forms that breath perished in the flood of Noah except those on the ark all of the descendents of those people would have a story of all life being destroyed, as that would be handed down from generation to generation.
We are talking about the Word of God not training tools. The flood story is not a training tool but a statement of fact. It is a history of the destruction of all life forms that breathed the breath of life on the face of the dry land, with a flood except those life forms on the ark. A parable is a training tool. The story of the rich man who lifted up his eyes in hell and saw Lazarus in Abraham's bosom was not a teaching tool. It was a statement of fact. Your problem is you want to make statements of fact a story to suit your own personal needs to justify yourself to yourself. 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."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 1796 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Not really. To be a lie there needs to be an intent behind the fabrication.
quote:If you consider stories to be lies and don't understand storytelling, I really have no way to help you understand. Although, my guess is in reality in anything other than the Bible you don't have that outlook. Sad if you do. quote:That's just made up. You don't actually have any facts from reality for that statement. Unfortunately, I think delving into that issue is beyond the scope of this thread. We aren't really trying to prove that a flood did or didn't happen. There are flood threads for that. quote:You know I can reverse that and apply it to you also. The point of a debate is to try and present our side as right. Trying to insult me doesn't help the debate and I consider you to be above those tactics. Stories are useful for teaching, correcting, training, and entertainment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 1104 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
You have taken the position that when Bible writers say “all the land” they may well have been speaking of all the land on planet earth. IMO: That is not a speculative position, sir. It is a fantasy. When parameters are given, the biblical expression kol ha eretz (“all the earth” or “the whole earth”) never indicates a piece of real estate larger than the largest of ancient empires. The empire of Babylonia, much smaller than that of Persia, is nonetheless described as "the whole earth." Even an area small as a battlefield is, in the Bible, described as “all the earth.” When parameters are not given should we assume that the authors are referring to all the land on all the planets in all the universe? But we must do that, mustn’t we? If we are to explore the full possibility of what the authors might have meant. Today you imagine that a flood of water which covered “all the land” could have meant a flood of water that covered all the land on planet earth. Five thousand years from now your distant progeny may imagine it as a flood of people who swarmed over all the land on all the colonized planets prior to collapse of the galactic empire. It could happen. That's how myth evolves. But why would anyone wish to engage in such mental masturbation unless he has a religious agenda, is a numbskulled creationist, or gets off on behaving like one?
The biblical expression is the same in both cases: kol ha eretz.
As purpledawn has reiterated, this thread hosts the question of whether or not the ancient language was used to describe planet earth. I’m afraid the discussion has wandered afield of that. I would be happy to indulge a discussion of Noah’s flood in another thread but we have wasted a lot of time here chasing our tails and our time is nearly up.
I disagree. All we have are the authors words. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t know earth as a globe. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t have x-ray vision. What matters is that there was no global flood ridden out by an old drunk who surfed a boatload of dinosaurs into a mountain side and loosed a hungry lot of malaria carrying mosquitoes on the world. But isn’t there a Flood thread already working somewhere? Or shall we consider an all out, no holds barred, free-for-all of ridiculous claims for "the truth of the Bible"? Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 1104 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Depends perhaps on whether he says ”eretz” or ”adamah”.
Indeed. It was a different story. It was a different era. A different author. A different language. A homespun story versus one borrowed from another culture in deep antiquity. The fact that they read differently is a testimony to the authenticity of their cultural origins.
Why would an honest person make such sweeping claims, if as you say the facts lay outside their knowledge?
Quite. Realistic if you are rational. Fantastic if you are not. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'm confused because if the above statement was really what this thread was about it should have ended in one post. Nobody disputes the idea that the authors did not consider the earth a planet. Thus even a story about an all encompassing flood would not be about a flooded planet. However our agreement with the above did not end the thread, and you continued to treat other words (e.g. global, world-wide) that describe an all encompassing flood as if their authors had used the word planet.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 15639 Joined: Member Rating: 2.8
|
quote: I hope that you can come up with a sound basis for that claim. So far nobody else seems to have. It would be a fantasy to insist that the authors knew of all of the land on this planet. But it would be a fantasy even more remote from reality to claim that they were incapable of thinking of or expressing the concept of "all the land". quote: As I have stated elsewhere, the interpretation depends on what level you are dealing with the story. see Message 280 However, simply because context may limit the phrase we cannot safely assume similar limits when none are given. We must work with what we have. quote: Of course, anyone who did so would be lacking any knowledge of the time the story was describing - as well as straining the story in other ways. But this is not the case for the interpretation of the flood as covering the planet - that does not strain the story, and uses a BETTER understanding of the world as it was, at the time the event is supposed to have happened than was available to the authors. quote: In other words, like purpledawn you refuse to answer a simple question that could clear up the whole business. You are quite prepared to make strong assertions, to use obviously bad arguments to attempt to back up those assertions, but you suddenly stop short of dealing with a point which could actually help your claim ? Given that the authors had the capability to think of and express the simple concept of "all of the land" how would they express it ? If they would not use the wording found in the Flood story, you finally have a viable case for assuming limits when none are given. So why hold back from making a good argument, when you've already wasted enough time with bad. quote: If the question was whether the ancient writers had the concept of the Earth as a planet, then the answer is obvious and already settled. No need to save space for that. If the question is whether the stories should - if taken as descriptions of events that actually occurred (which we may do for the sake of argument without presuming that the story is true) - can be taken as referring to the whole of the planet then we are discussing that right now. So no need to stop. quote: So what you are saying is that it is wrong to interpret the story as referring to a global flood, because there was no global flood. Those are the words of a Biblical apologist of the concordist camp. Not of someone who wants to understand the story. There is no need for the story to be true, no need for it to accurately describe a real event. There are clearly elements of myth in the story, so why not take the whole thing as a myth and throw out any consideration of whether it refers to something that actually happened or even could have happened ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 1796 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:You just used an absolute statement. Message 191
Do you really mean absolutely no one on this planet disputes that idea (which you have no way of knowing) or do you mean participants in this thread only or do you mean only the last few confused participants? Since we are in this thread, I normally would assume you are talking about the participants in this thread and at the very least your confused trio (PaulK, Granny Magda, NoNukes). That's why when we put the word "all" in front of land or ground, we can't assume the audience even took it to mean everything they knew existed. See Message 285 and Message 287.
quote:I agree and I have agreed several times before, but some people do believe that the story refers to a flood that covers the entire planet or could refer to a flood that covers the planet whether they believe the author considered the ground to be part of a planet or not. quote:Now this is where you should be providing quotes of where I have done this. I'm not going to guess at what you misunderstood. Here are a few examples of what PaulK presented that, IMO, were still arguing that the story could be referring to a planetary flood.
His statement following that finally confirmed that he was using universal and global differently than I was.
Which is why I defined my usage in Message 247 and asked him to clarify. It took 3 requests to finally get an answer in Message 267. And low and behold, I have been using the words correctly because I am using them from my perspective, not the ancient author's perspective. I am the one writing these posts, not the ancient authors. So if you want me to understand your confusion, you need to show where I have been confusing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10285 From: London England Joined: |
If it wasn't the planet (or some entirety of land that constitutes "the world" to people who had no idea about planets) then what are you suggesting was flooded in the story?
If it wasn't the entire world/planet/whatever one wants to call it - What was the point of saving two of each animal in the ark? Are you suggesting that only Israel or some other locality was believed to host animals/beasts? I really don't understand your point in this thread.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 2052 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Various parts of the flood story only make sense from a global perspective (e.g. saving 2 of each animal, cleansing evil). A local flood would be so mundane that it would not have any worth beyond "god is quite powerful". Edited by Panda, : Changed to a summation message. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019