|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2785 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not The Planet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You know perfectly well that you made the claim in the hyperbole thread.
quote: Except that all you can argue for is the undisputed point that the author didn't have our idea of the planet in mind...
quote: Your opinion is not a matter of dispute either. So, just another evasion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No, it's not valid. It's an obvious non-sequitur.
quote: In what sense is it not evidence ?
quote: And again I point out that facts do not depend on which thread we happen to be in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Reported
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
The extent of the flood may be considered on a number of levels.
1) Historic reality This necessarily refers to a limited flood - but one that would be limited even within the area that the authors would have had knowledge of (even back to the Sumerian original). If the flood were a purely historic account, which could be identified with a real event then this would be of interest. However neither is the case. We have no event that can be definitely identified as the source of the story, and the story contains clearly mythic elements such as the creation of the rainbow. 2) What the story says The text appears to contain indications that the flood was considered to be world-wide (e.g Message 5, Message 24, Message 238). Certainly there are no explicit limits given. The argument on the use of the words "eretz" and "adamah" seems weak. Firstly because it relies on looking at other uses (which can confirm possible meanings, but not disconfirm them) and secondly because context does suggest a wider use:e.g. doctrbill states in Message 4
I think it is a far reach indeed to extrapolate these apparent facts to include Genesis 1 as a recitation of the creation of Canaan; particularly when it bears such an uncanny resemblance to the standard cosmology of the ancient middle east.
and in Message 11
Scriptural usage suggests that 'adamah and 'erets were used interchangeably even though their etymologies indicate some subtle difference.
So it seems that these words may be used to refer to essentially all the dry land, which leaves us with a general flood, unless the context requires a more limited area. But as has already been pointed out, there is context that suggests a general flood, covering all of the dry land in existence. 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. It is argued elsewhere that the statements taken to mean that the flood covered all the dry land were hyperbolic. However, given the fact that the flood is explicitly an act of God - an entity not restricted by nature at all and (in the context of the story) apparently capable of creating all the land in the first place (which in Genesis 1 involves massive movements of water) it is far from obvious that these are not to be taken literally.dictionary.com defines hyperbole as:
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as to wait an eternity. Meaning one clearly does not apply, while a simple assertion that meaning two is meant would beg the question. If the only reason for thinking that these statements are hyperbole is their extravagance, then we are left with no good reason to consider them hyperbole at all. So again the weight of evidence seems to support the idea that a general flood, covering all the habitable land is meant. 3) How the author and early audience would have understood it. Obviously they would not have understood it as referring to our modern conception of the world, because they did not have that conception. However, this is no bar to them considering it a general flood covering all the land. 4) How it should be understood today. Obviously if we are to understand it as a literal event we need to relate it to our understanding of the world. In this case a general flood would be a flood covering the entire globe (but this is the only context where they are synonymous - they were obviously not synonymous in the view of the author, who did not believe that the earth was a globe). If we are to understand it as a story, given in the context of the times, we should not bother to consider that at all. We should be content with the idea of a general flood without considering what that means in our understanding. (i.e. starting with a "fresh slate" may be important to the story, the shape of the world is not). In conclusion, then, the only context where it clearly makes sense to speak of a local flood is when we deal with the historical origins. But in that case it would clearly make more sense to be consider the older versions of the story as having more weight than the one found in the Bible, yet those have not been discussed here at all. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
This thread with the quite reasonable point that the authors of the Bible did not understand the idea of the Earth as a planet. (although it should be noted that the idea of the Earth as a globe was available in the time of the later Biblical writers, especially in the New Testament).
Unfortunately it did not stop there. Somehow this was taken as meaning that the story of Noah's Flood MUST be read as referring to a purely local flood. This is absurd as was demonstrated in the thread, but somehow the supporters of this argument would not let go. I suppose at this point I have to mention Purpledawn's odd behaviour. Including such highlights as forgetting the point being argued about, being unable (according to her) to realise that the word "global" carries the connotation of a globe, while the word "universal" does not (and even missing the explanation - she would not have "had to ask three times" if she had noticed the answer given the first time !) and in the end confusing her modern point of view with that of the Biblical authors. We could put this down to confusion but apparently it is people who remember the point under discussion and can see the link between "global" and "globe" who are confused... The other assertion was that since eretz and adamah are sometimes used to refer to limited areas they must always refer to limited areas. Again this seems odd, since we are also told that adamah is used in the monotheistic creation story of Genesis 1, where it seems eminently reasonable to consider it as referring to all the major land masses that might exist. And we are also told that eretz and adamah are used interchangeably so it seems that this argument is not on firm ground. Perhaps the argument could be saved if a better wording could be found to express the concept of "all of the land in the world", but none was offered nor was there any suggestion that there was any reasonable alternative. Maybe this is due to the limited knowledge of those proposing the argument, but if it is true that there is no better alternative, then the case for reading the Flood story as referring to a universal flood becomes very strong. I did write a story setting out my views of how the Flood story should be read in different contexts. It was almost a summary post in itself - the more so, since it attracted no replies. Rather than repeat it here, I will just provide the link. Please go and read it : Message 280
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024