Summations Only

Hi PD,

purpledawn writes: So I did say the words in the Bible didn't refer to the planet, or do I need your exact wording for you to understand?

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,

quote:

---

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.

---

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.
All powerful doesn't mean he can't tell a story.

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.

Monolatry Since many critical scholars believe that the laws banning the worship of other gods really do go back to Moses, but that the denial of the existence of other gods does not, they conclude that Moses only taught monolatry, not monotheism. And since historical books such as Judges and Kings state that the Israelites continued to worship other gods throughout their history, these scholars conclude that even the requirement of monolatry was not widely accepted in Israel until shortly before the Babylonian exile, or even later.

Just because a god can flood the planet, doesn't mean the god did flood the planet.

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?

I suppose you didn't say that because we were discussing this in the science section? Ouch.

Hi PD,

purpledawn writes: 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?

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?

purpledawn writes: If you believe we are made in God's image, why wouldn't that god tell stories just like we do?

God would not choose to lie but you and I can.

purpledawn writes: Why give us that ability if we aren't meant to use it?

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.

purpledawn writes: Yhvh was going to destroy what he had created. Yhvh is the God of Israel.

The children of Israel did not exist at the time of the flood.

purpledawn writes: Just because a god can flood the planet, doesn't mean the god did flood the planet.

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,

quote:

---

God would not choose to lie but you and I can.

---

Curious that you consider stories to be lies.

quote:

---

The children of Israel did not exist at the time of the flood.

---

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:

---

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.

---

I'm sure several other gods in myths made the same such claim.

quote:

---

Either He did or He lied.

---

It is a shame you feel that way. Stories are wonderful training tools.

quote:

---

If it helps to have a data point, I'm certainly confused. I have no idea what point you are making.

---

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 appears to me that you've already decided that the flood was local and that you are simply providing rationalization for what you already believe.

---

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.
If you need it to cover all the non-planetary world, go for it.
Even if you need it to cover the whole planet, 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.

Hi PD,

purpledawn writes: Curious that you consider stories to be lies.

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.

purpledawn writes: They supposedly did at the time the J writer told his story.

What does that have to do with who God was saying He was going to destroy?

purpledawn writes: Their god said he would destroy what he had created.

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.

purpledawn writes: I'm sure several other gods in myths made the same such claim.

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.

purpledawn writes: It is a shame you feel that way. Stories are wonderful training tools.

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,

quote:

---

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.

---

Not really. To be a lie there needs to be an intent behind the fabrication.

Lie 1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2: to create a false or misleading impression

quote:

---

What does that have to do with who God was saying He was going to destroy?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Your problem is you want to make statements of fact a story to suit your own personal needs to justify yourself to yourself.

---

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.

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

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 LORD hath delivered into our hands all the land ... the inhabitants of the country do faint ..." Jos 2:24 “... behold, they were spread abroad upon all the earth, eating and drinking, and dancing ...” 1Sa 30:16

The biblical expression is the same in both cases: kol ha eretz.

Also it is reasonable to ask, if these words cannot indicate a more general flood, how would the author write of a more general flood ? No answer has been forthcoming.

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.

We are therefore left with the other three options, all of which seem to favour a universal flood, with the only caveat being the point in the OP, that the author - even the redactor of the version we have - lacked our concept of Earth as a planet. An important point in some contexts, but not important when considering the extent of the flood as given in the story.

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"?

Butterflytyrant writes: When the writer is writing 'all land', do you think he means the land up the the side of the mountain that he can see but not the land on the other side?

Depends perhaps on whether he says ”eretz” or ”adamah”.

Even if you repleace the word earth with land, dry land etc it still reads very, very differently to the regional destruction story of Lot.

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.

Just because the writer did not know what nations lay outside their knowledge does not mean that he/she did not include them in their description of 'all land'. All land could very well include all the known and unknown land. Everything.

Why would an honest person make such sweeping claims, if as you say the facts lay outside their knowledge?

Which interpretation you choose to see as more plausible seems to be directly related to the world view or agenda you are affiliated with.

Quite.

Realistic if you are rational. Fantastic if you are not.

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?

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

You just used an absolute statement. Message 191

NoNukes writes: Nobody disputes the idea that the authors did not consider the earth a planet.

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.

PurpleDawn writes: Try to get an idea of the environment in the non-planetary world. The Hebrews weren't off in a secluded sector not interacting with neighboring pagans (I use that word just to differentiate from the Hebrews). The Hebrews also participated in religious practices of their pagan neighbors. Each worshiped their respective gods. Some (which means not all) comparative mythologist scholars think that some elements of pagan mythology were absorbed into Jewish mythology. Now there are several different flood myths. As the Hebrews interacted with the pagans and lived among them in exile, do we think they never shared flood stories in all those years? One shares that his God wiped out all humans he created except Noah and family. Another says his gods wiped out all humans except Utnapishtim and his family. My guess is they encountered more versions than we have today. I think they knew all humans really weren't destroyed. Did they see the stories as referring to their own people? Maybe some did, maybe some didn't.

quote:

---

Thus even a story about an all encompassing flood would not be about a flooded planet.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

Message 217

PaulK writes: 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 ?

Message 223

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

Message 225

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

Message 245

PaulK writes: 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.

His statement following that finally confirmed that he was using universal and global differently than I was.

PaulK writes: 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.

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.

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.

Straggler writes: 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?

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".
It would be on a par with "God made a hurricane which killed a lot of people".

Edited by Panda, : Changed to a summation message.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.