Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 2:30 AM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,793 Year: 9,829/19,786 Month: 2,251/2,119 Week: 287/724 Day: 12/114 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1840 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 286 of 306 (641246)
11-18-2011 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Admin
11-18-2011 7:22 AM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
Ok, however I never realized this variance existed. Yet the issue concerned the inclusion of this law more so than where it belongs.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Admin, posted 11-18-2011 7:22 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 287 of 306 (641257)
11-18-2011 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 1:36 AM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
ICANT and IamJoseph,

*I started this post before the verse issue had been resolved so some information is repeated*

You guys have been having a bit of a disagreement about what Deut 13:1 states.

The verse that IMJ is quoting is actually Deut 12:32 in the King James Bible.

In some Hebrew versions, the quote he is giving is indeed 13:1.

The verse IMJ is quoting is not Deut 13.1 in the King James Bible. I can understand why the problem arose though. Considering that the thread IMJ is currently in is called 'What the KJV Bible says about Noah Flood'. Not 'What the Hebrew text IamJoseph uses says about Noah Flood'.

The following verses also discuss not adding or removing anything - (NIB, I am pretty sure t aligns with KJV)

quote:

Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Joshua 1:7 Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go.

Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Ezekiel 44:5 The LORD said to me, "Son of man, look carefully, listen closely and give attention to everything I tell you concerning all the regulations regarding the temple of the LORD. Give attention to the entrance of the temple and all the exits of the sanctuary.


As IamJoseph has stated in multiple posts it would break holy law to add or subtract from the text...

quote:
the Jews were right of it. Only that which cannot be added to or subtracted from is the real mcoy.

...however, there are multiple different versions of the text and no one knows which version is correct. It is all well and good to say that the text must not change. But if this is true, why are there so many different texts? The main versions include : Alexandrian Septuagint, Vaticanus Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch, Qumran Texts (Dead Sea Scrolls).

With so many different texts known, it is a bit hard to presume that any one of them is the 100% accurate text. It is a bit presumptuous to state as fact that one or any of the currently known texts is an unaltered copy. The actual, original text may be lost forever and we will only ever have altered copies.

As to what the KJB says about the flood -

quote:
Gen 6:7 - And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 6:19 - And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Gen 6:20 - Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.


The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.

The text clearly states that Noah must take two of every living thing (of flesh) onto the ark.

The text clearly states that Noah and all of his house goes into the ark.

quote:
Gen 7:1 - And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

The KJB uses the word 'house', the Old Testament uses household.

IamJoseph is correct in saying that God instructed Noah to enter the ark with his household. Using the English definition of household in this context, it would mean that he would be taking himself, his family and his possesions. This could include all of his domestic animals.

IamJoseph is not correct when he suggests that this means that Noah is to ignore the previously given commands to take two of every living thing.

In preparation for the flood God said 'And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark' (Gen 6:19). And God told Noah to take his household into the ark 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark'(Gen 7:1). The second command does not cancel out the first. Both commandments can be followed. Two of every animal on Earth and all of Noahs household were to enter the ark.

The Documentary Hypothesesis discusses the different authors of the Old Testament. The suspected reason there are clean and unclean laws introduced out of place is because two different authors at different times wrote about the flood. When two different versions of the ame story are combined, there is bound to be some confusion. The part about the laws would have to have been written by someone who was aware of the laws, why else would it be there?

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : Advising that some info had already been covered before my post.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 1:36 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 9:23 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1840 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 288 of 306 (641262)
11-18-2011 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Butterflytyrant
11-18-2011 8:37 AM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
quote:
With so many different texts known, it is a bit hard to presume that any one of them is the 100% accurate

There is no differences. Some writings are embellished during second and third generation translations [Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English]. The DS Scrolls. which are in mid-ancient Hebrew, is substantially the same as today's Hebrew bibles. Even then, there are variant interpretations of some passages, including the Noah story, even among Hebrew speaking peoples. My reading is based solely on the block meanings of verses and how they align and interact with each other.

quote:
The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.

No, it does not say that. Those verses are preambled and conditional to Noah's family, possessions, the size of the arc, the area where the arc landed, those who are listed that went in and came out of the arc, etc, etc. The entire report is directed at Noah with terms such as thou, thy, take the animals yourself, etc. Here, the only meaning of 'all flesh of the earth' is 'all flesh of the earth - of Noah's possessions and families'; no grammatical contradictions apply.

When one examines the Hebrew calendar, it is continueos from Adam to Moses, spanning some 2,500 years, with no breaks of geneology or missed epochs of time. The flood is also reported by other nations which are not derivitives of Noah.

The reading of the people the whole earth was consumed is also seen in the story of Lot when Sodom was destroyed - they also thought the whole earth was destroyed. The Noah text is describing how things appeared to Noah, which is authentic for its period - it predates Abraham and Lot. One must imagine themselves in the same situation, when they would have never ventured out of their village all their lives and would not have known another country even existed.

For me, the most confusing issue is how the human population is only accountable from approximately this round about time - not 100's of 1000s of years. But this also aligns equally with Adam and cannot be directed at Noah: the time margin is too small between these two names.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-18-2011 8:37 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-18-2011 12:13 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 289 of 306 (641288)
11-18-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 9:23 AM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
There is no differences. Some writings are embellished during second and third generation translations [Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English].

You state that there are no differences? No differences between the Alexandrian Septuagint, Vaticanus Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch and the Qumran Texts (Dead Sea Scrolls)? Well, just let me know which one you believe is the 100% accurate version of the original text handed down by Moses. When I know that, I can let you know the opposing positions and the differences. Which ones were embellished? A list will do, just list which of the currently accepted versions are embellished and which ones are accurate.

The DS Scrolls. which are in mid-ancient Hebrew, is substantially the same as today's Hebrew bibles...

The Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. According to the intereet, there is no such language as 'mid ancient Hebrew'. When you tell me which version you believe is the correct one, I can tell you where it differs from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, how do you know the Dead Sea Scrolls are correct? They could be just another altered version. The original story may be lost, there is no way for you to know.

...Even then, there are variant interpretations of some passages, including the Noah story, even among Hebrew speaking peoples. My reading is based solely on the block meanings of verses and how they align and interact with each other.

Your interpretations often rest soley on a particular word. In this thread you are resting your case on an interpretation of the qord household. So a missing/altered/included word or phrase can make a lot of difference.

my claim - The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.

your reply - No, it does not say that.

Gen 6:1 - And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included in the words 'on the face of the Earth? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:5 - And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included in the words 'in the earth? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:7 - And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included in the words 'the face of the earth? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:11 - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included in these words. Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included when God 'looked upon the earth'? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

In this verse, when God tells Noah that 'the earth is filled with violence' and that he will destroy the Earth, what part of the Earth is not included? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

In this verse, when God says he is going to bring flood waters upon the earth, which parts of the earth are excluded? When he says that every living thing that breaths, under heaven, every thing that is in the earth, what will survive by being on the parts of the Earth that are not flooded?

God said that every animal on Earth would die in Gen 6:17. How would his flood accomplish this if it was only a localised flood?

Gen 6:19 - And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

God told Noah that a male and female of every living thing of flesh shall enter the ark. This appears to be where you seem to think God does not mean every living thing as he says, but just the domestic animals owned by Noah. However, in Gen 6:12 when God refers to 'all flesh', he refers to all living things on the entire Earth, then in Gen 6:13 when God refers to 'all flesh' he refers to all living things on the entire earth, then in Gen 6:17 when god refers to 'all flesh' he refers to every living thing on the earth, then in 6:19 when he says 'all flesh' you seem to think that he actually does not mean all flesh. He does not mean most flesh. He does not even mean much flesh at all. You seem to think that God is using the exact same words to refer to a very small amount of animals owned by Noah.

You say that -

quote:
Here, the only meaning of 'all flesh of the earth' is 'all flesh of the earth - of Noah's possessions and families';

But that is not what the text states.

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

All flesh that has the breath of life under heaven. Did ll of the other animals on the earth no breath? What part of the earth is not under heaven? It does not state anything about Noahs household until later in the text and that is instructions on who and what should enter. The text says two of every living animal will enter the arc and the text states that Noahs household will enter the ark. One refers to animals, the other refers to Noahs family. The text is very clear, both groups enter the ark.

When one examines the Hebrew calendar, it is continueos from Adam to Moses, spanning some 2,500 years, with no breaks of geneology or missed epochs of time. The flood is also reported by other nations which are not derivitives of Noah.

Not only is this information incorrect, it is also totally irrelevant and contradicts your own position. Why would other nations report the flood if it was a local flood? The following webpage discusses flood myths from every habited continent. Why would these nations discuss a flood if it was a localised flood as you claims? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) . That argument works against your claim.

The reading of the people the whole earth was consumed is also seen in the story of Lot when Sodom was destroyed - they also thought the whole earth was destroyed. The Noah text is describing how things appeared to Noah, which is authentic for its period - it predates Abraham and Lot. One must imagine themselves in the same situation, when they would have never ventured out of their village all their lives and would not have known another country even existed.

Is this text not divinely inspired? Is not God the real author and Moses the scribe? Are you suggesting that God at the time had the intellect of a bronze age nomad? Also, some of the statements are attributed to God himself.

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

This is not how things appeared to Noah. This is a direct statement made by God. It is not Noah describing how things appeared to him. It is God saying what he intends to do. Gen 6:7, 17, 19 are also direct statements made by God, not Noah. As far as the stories go, God knows everything and is everywhere, so I would think he would know about the next village and other nations he created.

For me, the most confusing issue is how the human population is only accountable from approximately this round about time - not 100's of 1000s of years. But this also aligns equally with Adam and cannot be directed at Noah: the time margin is too small between these two names.

You will have to tell me which time period you think this occured as the various versions differ. And what do you mean by accountable? What aligns with Adam? What time margin? In fact, have another shot at that whole paragraph because it makes little sense and it seems to be off topic.

Also, if the flood was just local, why not just tell Noah to head up the road a little way where the flood will not be occuring? This would be a much better idea. The verse would read something like this -

Gen 6: 13 And God sayeth to Noah 'your neighbours are arseholes Noah. I plan to smiteth them.

Gen 6: 17 'shit' sayeth Noah 'thats pretty serious, should I build a massive ark?

Gen 6: 18. And God sayeth to Noah 'no, why would I ask you to do that?'

Gen 6: 19 And the Lord Cammandeth to Noah 'head up the road. Travel for three days and make camp in the hills.' He continued 'While you are away I will bring forth a mighty flood and drowneth all the people and animals that live right near your house.'

Gen 6: 20 'But God' sayeth Noah 'why are you so pissed of at the animals around my house, why kill them?'

Gen 6: 21 And the Lord sayeth 'I work in mysterious ways'

Surely this would be easier than building a huge fucking ark. If the flood was local it would have made a lot more sense for Noah to go somewhere else.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : adding

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 9:23 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 8:01 PM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 291 by ICANT, posted 11-18-2011 8:20 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1840 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 290 of 306 (641384)
11-18-2011 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Butterflytyrant
11-18-2011 12:13 PM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
quote:
You state that there are no differences?

Correct. Differences of such a volumous set of books, over 1000's of years, which relate to minor grammar, word interpretations and ndex numbers are not differences. These were times when printing and photcopying never existed. No real differences in 'laws' exist - these are 613 and remain so.

quote:
there is no such language as 'mid ancient Hebrew'. When you tell me which version you believe is the correct one, I can tell you where it differs from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

That is silly. There is no confusion what I meant by mid ancient Hebrew; this only relates to curcive or the Hebrew style 2000 years ago, which is varied in design from ancient and modern Hebrew. As I said, there is no real differences in the text, while one must reasonably allow for slight variances in transmissions between different languages and periods.

quote:
Your interpretations often rest soley on a particular word. In this thread you are resting your case on an interpretation of the qord household.

Absolutely not. While the term household/possessions is embedded in a pivotal verse which cannot be disregarded, I pointed out a host of factors which align only with a regional flood and domestic animals. In fact, your charge upon me should be reversed on resting only on expressionisms which are not credible in their interpretations. The reason none have proof of a flood in Tasmania, Korea, India, Moscow, Peru - is because your interpretation is in error; mine is not.

quote:
In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included when God 'looked upon the earth'? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

You forget, in the creation chapter, there is no precedence of nations, countries and life forms. The term 'earth' can apply to the planet, a small region and the ground you are standing upon right now - depending on its context.

quote:
Gen 6:19 - And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

God told Noah that a male and female of every living thing of flesh shall enter the ark. This appears to be where you seem to think God does not mean every living thing as he says, but just the domestic animals owned by Noah. However, in Gen 6:12 when God refers to 'all flesh',


Again, the same error and mishap. You cannot align Noah with the creation chapter as your evidence or example. You cannot disregard Noah's arc is limited to 'THOU BRING INTO THE ARC' and 'TO KEEP THEM ALIVE WITH THEE'

quote:
You say that -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, the only meaning of 'all flesh of the earth' is 'all flesh of the earth - of Noah's possessions and families';
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that is not what the text states.

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth


Absolutely, 'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house - its not a free floating eon dangling in the universe, but a verse in the same story. You cannot connect it with the creation chapter. Earth in creation refers to corporeal generic matter - when nothing identifiable yet existed; in Noah's story earth refers to the ground Noah is standing upon!

quote:

When one examines the Hebrew calendar, it is continueos from Adam to Moses, spanning some 2,500 years, with no breaks of geneology or missed epochs of time. The flood is also reported by other nations which are not derivitives of Noah.

Not only is this information incorrect, it is also totally irrelevant and contradicts your own position.


Not from the POV the calendar does not allow for epochial time absences!

quote:

Why would other nations report the flood if it was a local flood?


They would report and know of a major regional upheaval; there will be impacts to the surrounding nations; refugees, etc. The point is, there would be no other nations if this was a global flood - Egypt would display a period when it never existed for a time. This is not the case!

The following webpage discusses flood myths from every habited continent. Why would these nations discuss a flood if it was a localised flood as you claim?

quote:

Is this text not divinely inspired? Is not God the real author and Moses the scribe? Are you suggesting that God at the time had the intellect of a bronze age nomad? Also, some of the statements are attributed to God himself.


The text correctly and authentically describes peoples' reactions as per the context of the period and its impact. It says Lot's two daughters genuinely believed they and their father were the only three people left on the whole earth; but we know for sure this was not the case; and that the destruction of Sodom was a regional one. EGGZACTLY the same factor applies in the Noah story. You are focusing on deviant views and ignoring the real message of the text.

quote:
Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

This is not how things appeared to Noah. This is a direct statement made by God. It is not Noah describing how things appeared to him. It is God saying what he intends to do. Gen 6:7, 17, 19 are also direct statements made by God, not Noah. As far as the stories go, God knows everything and is everywhere, so I would think he would know about the next village and other nations he created.


Incorrect. It is describing Noah's reaction. The rule of interpretation is, 'God speaks in the language of the people' - not in surpreme math and physics beyond the peoples' comprehension. Its like an adult talking to a child; the text is incredibly authentic. Understand Noah's mindset - there was no other countries to refer to with Noah; that region was the entire earth. You won't find words like scud missilles or tomatoes in this text - guess why!

quote:

For me, the most confusing issue is how the human population is only accountable from approximately this round about time - not 100's of 1000s of years. But this also aligns equally with Adam and cannot be directed at Noah: the time margin is too small between these two names.

You will have to tell me which time period you think this occured as the various versions differ. And what do you mean by accountable? What aligns with Adam? What time margin? In fact, have another shot at that whole paragraph because it makes little sense and it seems to be off topic.


It refers to historically recorded people and events, namely speech endowed humans. We have no NAME older than Adam; the period is 6000 years; the population accounts only for this period. If, for example, Australian natives are 60K years old - which I reject - their population would number more than a trillion! We learn also, the bogus premise there was no writings is false; a name is recallable without writings; the population count also proves this.

quote:

Why not just tell Noah to head up the road a little way where the flood will not be occuring, surely this would be easier than building a hiuge fucking ark.

Its a good point. But that is not a safe advice. There is hardly any safety from a regional flood for an entire group. The arc is equally unsuitable in a global flood! In the end the text vindicates its displayed logic.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-18-2011 12:13 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-19-2011 12:39 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 291 of 306 (641388)
11-18-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Butterflytyrant
11-18-2011 12:13 PM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
Hi DB,

Long time no argue.

DB writes:

If the flood was local it would have made a lot more sense for Noah to go somewhere else.

Walking 20 miles a day for 120 years he could have went a long way.
876,000 miles,

He could have walked 1 mile a day and have gone 365 miles in 1 year.

Besides if Noah was to have only his family and animals the ark required would have been required to be 100 cubit's x 16.6 cubits by 14.5 cubits using the 17.5 cubit as the unit of measure.

So it would have been foolish to build an ark 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits having 30 acres of storage (over 4 million cubic feet), taking 120 years to build.

But Joseph believes it was a local flood and has to produce evidence for such as that is what we are told by those who discuss the evidence here have argued. They say a global flood is impossible and did not happen. So Joseph has to be reconciled with that information.

I am glad to see you believe the text says the entire dry land was covered with water and only the life forms on the ark survived.

That is what the text says whether it is right or wrong. But there are people that just can't accept what the text says as it does not fit in their worldview.

The text we have studied in this thread also says the earth was divided in the days of Peleg. Gen. 10:25.

The text studied also says the people was scattered over all the face of the earth while building the tower of Babel. Genesis 11:8.

That explains why all the nations have a flood story.

The division of the land after the flood and the scattering of the people explains how the people and animals got to all the different places they were found.

All the dry land being in one place prior to the flood is what accounts for the idea that all the land mass was in one place at one time and so it was called Pangea.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-18-2011 12:13 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-19-2011 12:54 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 292 of 306 (641443)
11-19-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 8:01 PM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
my question to you - You state that there are no differences? No differences between the Alexandrian Septuagint, Vaticanus Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch and the Qumran Texts (Dead Sea Scrolls)?

Your reply - Correct. Differences of such a volumous set of books, over 1000's of years, which relate to minor grammar, word interpretations and ndex numbers are not differences. These were times when printing and photcopying never existed. No real differences in 'laws' exist - these are 613 and remain so.

You seem to be wavering in your position here. You have gone from claiming that there are no differences in the text. But you wont say which version of the text you follow. Is this because you are concerned that I will point out how wrong you are? You have reduced your statement from a bold no differences down to a weak 'no real differences in 'laws''. This seems to be a bit of a habit of yours. You make a bold statement, someone tells you it is bullshit, you water down and/or alter your statement, someone tells you it is still bullshit, you weaken an/or alter your statement further, etc etc until it is not even close to your original statement or you just start ignoring the issue. Why dont you save yourself some time and find out if what you are about to say is true before you say it?

Your claim that there are only 'minor grammar, word interpretations and index numbers are not differences' is flat out wrong. For examples, can you spot any differences between these three versions of Genesis 4:7

quote:

Septuagint
If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him.

Masoretic
Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it.

Latin Vulgate
If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it.


Your assertion that there are no differences between the various versions is wrong.

There is no confusion what I meant by mid ancient Hebrew; this only relates to curcive or the Hebrew style 2000 years ago, which is varied in design from ancient and modern Hebrew.

I know that you believe that what appears inside your head is known fact. Your choices of hebrew written text are paleo Hebrew, Aramaic and Hebrew, there is also the Samaritan alphabet that was an offshoot of paleo hebrew. There are variants of these scripts like Rashi script, cursive hebrew and sta''M. Of all of the texts that exist, there is no 'mid ancient hebrew'. A google search of the term 'mid ancient hebrew' gives results. However, the results are all your posts on this forum or quotes of your posts. It appears that this text exists in one location and that is in the imagaination of IamJoseph.

Absolutely not. While the term household/possessions is embedded in a pivotal verse which cannot be disregarded, I pointed out a host of factors which align only with a regional flood and domestic animals. In fact, your charge upon me should be reversed on resting only on expressionisms which are not credible in their interpretations. The reason none have proof of a flood in Tasmania, Korea, India, Moscow, Peru - is because your interpretation is in error; mine is not.

Remove the claim about household and your arguement falls to pieces. No one is disregarding your arguement. The text states the flood covered the area under heaven. It was designed to kill every living thing that drew breath. That would mean it would need to cover the entire Earth. You ignore all of the actual text and use unique interpretations to support your own position. Also, I provided an entire webpage showing flood myths from all over the world. Just because you choose to selectively read information and ignore information supplied to you does not mean that the information does not exist.

You forget, in the creation chapter, there is no precedence of nations, countries and life forms. The term 'earth' can apply to the planet, a small region and the ground you are standing upon right now - depending on its context.

I supplied 8 verses using the word earth. You had an answer for one of those. I take it that this means thaat the other 7 effectively refute your position so you choose to ignore them.

Again, the same error and mishap. You cannot align Noah with the creation chapter as your evidence or example. You cannot disregard Noah's arc is limited to 'THOU BRING INTO THE ARC' and 'TO KEEP THEM ALIVE WITH THEE'

Genesis is the creation chapter. Why cant I align Noah with Genesis? Seeing as though Noah and the flood story are in Genesis and all??? The two phrases do not support your position or refute mine.

Absolutely, 'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house - its not a free floating eon dangling in the universe, but a verse in the same story. You cannot connect it with the creation chapter. Earth in creation refers to corporeal generic matter - when nothing identifiable yet existed; in Noah's story earth refers to the ground Noah is standing upon!

Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

This verse states that God looked upon the earth and saw that all flesh had corrupted his way. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So the flesh that god was reffering to in this verse as corrupt is Noah, his family and his possesions including his domestic animals.

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

In this verse, God is telling knowing that he is going to destroy all flesh, removing them from the earth. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is saying he is going to destroy and remove from the earth Noah, his family and his possessions including his domestic animals.

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

In this verse, God is telling Noah that he is going to flood the earth. According to you, this means he is going to cause a localised flood in Noahs region. The aim of this flood is to destroy all flesh. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is going to flood Noahs local area in order to destroy Noah, his family and all of his domestic animals.

Gen 6:19 - And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

In this verse, according to you, God is telling Noah two of each sort of animal 'all flesh' should go into the ark. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is telling Noah that two of each of his animals can head into the ark.

Hold on a second. That does not make sense. According to your logic, God tells Noah he is going to flood his region and kill him, his family and all of his animals. But then God tells Noah that he can take some of his animals onto the ark and himself.

Why does this not make sense?

It makes no sense because your arguement is fataly flawed.

Not from the POV the calendar does not allow for epochial time absences!

Not only does this not make sense but I am pretty sure it is off topic and irrelevant.

my question - Why would other nations report the flood if it was a local flood?

Your reply - They would report and know of a major regional upheaval; there will be impacts to the surrounding nations; refugees, etc. The point is, there would be no other nations if this was a global flood - Egypt would display a period when it never existed for a time. This is not the case!

The website i supplied (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) tells of flood stories on every habited continent. Do you think that the Australian Indigenous people and the North American Indians came up with their flood myth because Jewish refugees told them about it? Your other arguement advising that there would be no other nations if there was a global flood is one of the common arguements disputing the Noah flood story.

The text correctly and authentically describes peoples' reactions as per the context of the period and its impact. It says Lot's two daughters genuinely believed they and their father were the only three people left on the whole earth; but we know for sure this was not the case; and that the destruction of Sodom was a regional one. EGGZACTLY the same factor applies in the Noah story. You are focusing on deviant views and ignoring the real message of the text.

So when the text says something like this -

Gen 6:7 - And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

are you suggesting that this is not a quote from God? According to you, these phrases were written by Moses under the direct instruction from God. Is this text not divinely inspired in your view?

Was the Pentateuch the unaltered word of God or not? You cant say it is when it suits you then say it is interpretive when it does not suit you.

In regards to this verse -

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

you said -

It is describing Noah's reaction. The rule of interpretation is, 'God speaks in the language of the people' - not in surpreme math and physics beyond the peoples' comprehension. Its like an adult talking to a child; the text is incredibly authentic. Understand Noah's mindset - there was no other countries to refer to with Noah; that region was the entire earth. You won't find words like scud missilles or tomatoes in this text - guess why!

So, according to your view, the bronze age people of the time have altered the word of God to make sure it made sense to the other people of their time. If this is the case, then we cannot take any commandment, instruction or law attributed to God as the actual word of God. If all of the text has been altered in order to make sense to bronze age people, then we cannot take any of it as truth. Any part of it could be altered.

The verse does not describe Noahs reaction at all. It is a quote. It begins with the words "And God said unto Noah".

It refers to historically recorded people and events, namely speech endowed humans. We have no NAME older than Adam; the period is 6000 years; the population accounts only for this period. If, for example, Australian natives are 60K years old - which I reject - their population would number more than a trillion! We learn also, the bogus premise there was no writings is false; a name is recallable without writings; the population count also proves this.

All of this is off topic. Most of it is also unsupported bullshit. Pretty standard IamJoseph ravings.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 8:01 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by IamJoseph, posted 11-20-2011 2:01 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 293 of 306 (641447)
11-19-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by ICANT
11-18-2011 8:20 PM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
Hey ICANT,

Hi DB,

Long time no argue.

DB? I hope you dont think I am Dawn Bertot. My posts are usually pretty lucid so it should not be hard to tell the difference.

I do agree with your interpretation of the text. I am an athiest so it is an exercise in comprehension for me. I dont have any vested interest one way or the other. I just read the text and describe what it actually says.

That explains why all the nations have a flood story.

The division of the land after the flood and the scattering of the people explains how the people and animals got to all the different places they were found.

All the dry land being in one place prior to the flood is what accounts for the idea that all the land mass was in one place at one time and so it was called Pangea.

These ideas sound pretty good on the surface. But there are lots of problems if you start to dig a bit. For example, lots of nations have a flood story but they are often from vastly different time periods and last for different amounts of time. Also, their flood stories are told by survivers and there is rarely mention of any arks. There are also archeological, geological, evolutionary etc issues with the idea that Pangea existed before the flood, then split after a flood.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by ICANT, posted 11-18-2011 8:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 11-19-2011 3:18 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18494
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 294 of 306 (641465)
11-19-2011 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Butterflytyrant
11-19-2011 12:54 PM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
I think you must be this year's leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-19-2011 12:54 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-19-2011 7:17 PM Percy has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 295 of 306 (641507)
11-19-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Percy
11-19-2011 3:18 PM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
I spend my time going on imaginary quests and don't pay my debts?

my girlfriend is really a peasant not a duchess?

I will die unfulfilled?

It has been 15 years since I read it in high school so I dont really get the reference...

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 11-19-2011 3:18 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Percy, posted 11-20-2011 5:41 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1840 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 296 of 306 (641523)
11-20-2011 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Butterflytyrant
11-19-2011 12:39 PM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
quote:
You seem to be wavering in your position here. You have gone from claiming that there are no differences in the text. But you wont say which version of the text you follow. Is this because you are concerned that I will point out how wrong you are? You have reduced your statement from a bold no differences down to a weak 'no real differences in 'laws''. This seems to be a bit of a habit of yours. You make a bold statement, someone tells you it is bullshit, you water down and/or alter your statement, someone tells you it is still bullshit, you weaken an/or alter your statement further, etc etc until it is not even close to your original statement or you just start ignoring the issue. Why dont you save yourself some time and find out if what you are about to say is true before you say it?

Your claim that there are only 'minor grammar, word interpretations and index numbers are not differences' is flat out wrong. For examples, can you spot any differences between these three versions of Genesis 4:7

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Septuagint
If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him.
Masoretic
Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it.

Latin Vulgate
If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it.


I stand by my view. There is firstly no difference in the laws [the primal factor here], and there is only nominal translationary impacts in delivering the textual meaning; new generations centuries apart express it according to their cultures and vernacular . This can be seen today when one translates a story, poem or song from a different language. Take for example all the three translations you gave above and the one below. It is clear the fundamental point is the same:

quote:

7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee is its desire, but thou mayest rule over it.'

quote:
Remove the claim about household and your arguement falls to pieces. No one is disregarding your arguement. The text states the flood covered the area under heaven. It was designed to kill every living thing that drew breath. That would mean it would need to cover the entire Earth. You ignore all of the actual text and use unique interpretations to support your own position. Also, I provided an entire webpage showing flood myths from all over the world. Just because you choose to selectively read information and ignore information supplied to you does not mean that the information does not exist.

Who ignored the verse about Noah's household, me or you? How does it align with all the earth as per your reading - how did you factor it in? In fact you did not! The terms 'all the earth under heaven' can only be read as 'all the earth under heaven - in Noah's region'. There is no grammatical contradiction here; there is with your reading!

quote:
Genesis is the creation chapter. Why cant I align Noah with Genesis? Seeing as though Noah and the flood story are in Genesis and all??? The two phrases do not support your position or refute mine.

Noah does not relate to creation of the universe or the earth. It deals with a story of its time only. Earth has a different meaning when aligning this with a farmer and a cosmologist. Earth in Ch. 1 relates to generic earth; not what a famer calls the earth of his land.

quote:
Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

This verse states that God looked upon the earth and saw that all flesh had corrupted his way. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So the flesh that god was reffering to in this verse as corrupt is Noah, his family and his possesions including his domestic animals.


It does not relate to the whole earth; Noah and his house/community/village/region is the subject matter, qualified and made conditional in the text you have disregarded. When I pointed out the size of the arc as applying only to Noah and his possessions, a rambling array of posts disputing what a cubit measure is followed! As if a set of cubits can equal an arc to contain billions of life forms can be justified?!

quote:
The aim of this flood is to destroy all flesh. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is going to flood Noahs local area in order to destroy Noah, his family and all of his domestic animals.

????? This makes no sense and cannot be applied to anything I said.

quote:

my question - Why would other nations report the flood if it was a local flood?
Your reply - They would report and know of a major regional upheaval; there will be impacts to the surrounding nations; refugees, etc. The point is, there would be no other nations if this was a global flood - Egypt would display a period when it never existed for a time. This is not the case!

The website i supplied (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) tells of flood stories on every habited continent. Do you think that the Australian Indigenous people and the North American Indians came up with their flood myth because Jewish refugees told them about it? Your other arguement advising that there would be no other nations if there was a global flood is one of the common arguements disputing the Noah flood story.


Your off the handle again. All I said was the countries around Noah did not get wiped out. There was no global flood!

quote:
So, according to your view, the bronze age people of the time have altered the word of God to make sure it made sense to the other people of their time. If this is the case, then we cannot take any commandment, instruction or law attributed to God as the actual word of God. If all of the text has been altered in order to make sense to bronze age people, then we cannot take any of it as truth. Any part of it could be altered.

The verse does not describe Noahs reaction at all. It is a quote. It begins with the words "And God said unto Noah".


Monotheism was a universe and God changer, hated by divine man kings. This is because people had an intrinsic notion of monotheism's irrefutable veracity, yet they disdained it because it impinged on their inculcated beliefs. The Hebrew version is not subject to changes - it speaks of an unknowable and unfathomable God, so how can one change that which cannot be defined?

quote:

It refers to historically recorded people and events, namely speech endowed humans. We have no NAME older than Adam; the period is 6000 years; the population accounts only for this period. If, for example, Australian natives are 60K years old - which I reject - their population would number more than a trillion! We learn also, the bogus premise there was no writings is false; a name is recallable without writings; the population count also proves this.

All of this is off topic. Most of it is also unsupported bullshit. Pretty standard IamJoseph ravings.


You may regard the population count as unsupported. I see it as pivotally impacting. Do the math - the pop count is unbiased and absolutely supportive in the Noah story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-19-2011 12:39 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-21-2011 3:31 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18494
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 297 of 306 (641541)
11-20-2011 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Butterflytyrant
11-19-2011 7:17 PM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
It could as easily be called the EvC Forum Tilting with Windmills award.

Don Quixote is the symbol of those who embark upon hopeless quests out of honor and hope and a sense of duty. Congratulations for actually having read the book, but most people are familiar with the character through stage and screen. Man of La Mancha was a famous Broadway musical in the late 1960's. It has been revived many times since then, and has had many film adaptations. You might be familiar with its signature song, The Impossible Dream. Note windmills in the background of this Picasso:

Anyway, congratulations, I think.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-19-2011 7:17 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 298 of 306 (641646)
11-21-2011 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by IamJoseph
11-20-2011 2:01 AM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
IamJoseph,

I stand by my view. There is firstly no difference in the laws [the primal factor here], and there is only nominal translationary impacts in delivering the textual meaning; new generations centuries apart express it according to their cultures and vernacular . This can be seen today when one translates a story, poem or song from a different language. Take for example all the three translations you gave above and the one below. It is clear the fundamental point is the same:

This is bullshit. You are shifting the goal posts. you are intellectually dishonetst. The laws you are saying are 'the primal factor here' are in fact irrelevant. If you do believe that your preffered version of the Old Testament is the accurate word quoted by God and set down by Moses, then start a thread with that claim. If you know you are full of shit, pretend you did not read this and hope it goes away. That seems to be what you do when someone calls you on your bullshit.

Who ignored the verse about Noah's household, me or you? How does it align with all the earth as per your reading - how did you factor it in? In fact you did not! The terms 'all the earth under heaven' can only be read as 'all the earth under heaven - in Noah's region'. There is no grammatical contradiction here; there is with your reading!

I am not ignoring the verse about Noahs household. Are you being intellectually dishonest here or are you a fucking idiot? I covered this issue extensively in Message 287 -

quote:
The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.

The text clearly states that Noah must take two of every living thing (of flesh) onto the ark.

The text clearly states that Noah and all of his house goes into the ark.

quote:Gen 7:1 - And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

The KJB uses the word 'house', the Old Testament uses household.

IamJoseph is correct in saying that God instructed Noah to enter the ark with his household. Using the English definition of household in this context, it would mean that he would be taking himself, his family and his possesions. This could include all of his domestic animals.

IamJoseph is not correct when he suggests that this means that Noah is to ignore the previously given commands to take two of every living thing.

In preparation for the flood God said 'And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark' (Gen 6:19). And God told Noah to take his household into the ark 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark'(Gen 7:1). The second command does not cancel out the first. Both commandments can be followed. Two of every animal on Earth and all of Noahs household were to enter the ark.


Noah does not relate to creation of the universe or the earth. It deals with a story of its time only. Earth has a different meaning when aligning this with a farmer and a cosmologist. Earth in Ch. 1 relates to generic earth; not what a famer calls the earth of his land.

I have no idea what the fuck you are going on about here. Are you trying to create a red herring? At no stage have I quoted from or referred to Genesis chapter 1 or the creation narrative. I have only quoted from chapter 6 or 7 in relation to this issue. I you trying to deliberately mislead people reading this by creating a fabricated arguement?

Here they are again from Message 292

quote:
Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

This verse states that God looked upon the earth and saw that all flesh had corrupted his way. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So the flesh that god was reffering to in this verse as corrupt is Noah, his family and his possesions including his domestic animals.

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

In this verse, God is telling knowing that he is going to destroy all flesh, removing them from the earth. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is saying he is going to destroy and remove from the earth Noah, his family and his possessions including his domestic animals.

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

In this verse, God is telling Noah that he is going to flood the earth. According to you, this means he is going to cause a localised flood in Noahs region. The aim of this flood is to destroy all flesh. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is going to flood Noahs local area in order to destroy Noah, his family and all of his domestic animals.

Gen 6:19 - And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

In this verse, according to you, God is telling Noah two of each sort of animal 'all flesh' should go into the ark. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is telling Noah that two of each of his animals can head into the ark.


You made a rambling attempt at a reply to one of these (Gen 6:12) with this -

It does not relate to the whole earth; Noah and his house/community/village/region is the subject matter, qualified and made conditional in the text you have disregarded. When I pointed out the size of the arc as applying only to Noah and his possessions, a rambling array of posts disputing what a cubit measure is followed! As if a set of cubits can equal an arc to contain billions of life forms can be justified?!

So according to your logic, this verse....

Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

...refers to Noahs household. So it was Noahs household that was corrupt. All flesh in Noahs household was corrupt. That would be Noah, Noahs family, Noahs possessions and Noahs animals. According to you, 'all flesh' in this verse refers to Noah, his family and his animals. And 'the earth' refers to Noahs local region.

In the very next verse -

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

According to you, 'all flesh' in this verse refers to Noah, his family and his possesions. And 'the earth' refers to Noahs local region.

So what is God talking about here -

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

God says here that he intends to kill man who he has created. According to you, God intends to kill only Noahs household (Noah, his family and domestic animals). God states that he is repentent for making them. According to your logic, God is telling Noah that he is going to kill him and he regrests making him.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

According to you, this verse states that only Noahs region was corrupt and filled with violence. According to your logic, God is looking at only Noahs local region and seeing that it was corrupt. According to you, 'all flesh' mentioned in this verse reffers to Noahs household. So God looked at Noah and saw that Noah, his family and his domestic animals were corrupted.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

According to you, God is telling Noah that the end of all flesh has come. So God is telling Noah that the end has come for Noah, his family and his domestic animals. God tells Noah that he will be flooding his local region and will destroy it.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

According to you, God is saying here that he will bring flood waters to Noahs region (the earth) in order to destroy Noah, his family and his domestic animals (all flesh, Noahs household). God states he will be destroying everything that has the breath of life that exists under heaven. If this is true, then all of the other people and animals alive at that time were not breathing/alive and existed in some other place other than the Earth (under heaven).

See how using your logic makes no fucking sense whatsoever?

Its easy.

God told Noah he was going to flood the entire Earth because he was unhappy about how things were going. This is what the text actually says.

Gen 6: 5,6,7
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

God told Noah what he planned to do and that he would save him because he was OK. This is what the text actually sats -

Gen 6: 8,9 & Gen 6:13

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

God told him to make an ark

Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

God again states he will flood the Earth and kill every living thing on it.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

God tells Noah to gather his household -

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

God also tells Noah to take 2 of every living creature onto the ark. Notice that this verse starts with the word 'and'. So God tells Noah to take his household AND the animals onto the ark.

Gen 6: 19,20
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come

The God tells Noah to take enough food for his household and the animals. Notice that this verse also starts with the word 'and' making it the third task issued by Giod.

Gen 6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

The final verse states that Noah performed these three tasks.

Gen 6:22
Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

That is what the text says. It does not matter if it is unbelievable or that there is not any physical evidence of a flood. Most likely this is because there was no global flood and this story is an exagerated myth. But this is not a debate about the evidence to support a flood. This thread is about what the KJB says about the flood of Noah. The above quotes are what the text actually state. It includes Noahs household mentioned in chapter 7 in a sensible, practical and rational manner that is supported by the text. It is not being ignored.

ICANT has asked you to define some terms on several occasions and you have yet to do this.

How about you do that and add these -

What does 'the earth' refer to in chapter 6 of Genesis.

What does 'all flesh' refer to in chapter 6 of Genesis

Monotheism was a universe and God changer, hated by divine man kings. This is because people had an intrinsic notion of monotheism's irrefutable veracity, yet they disdained it because it impinged on their inculcated beliefs. The Hebrew version is not subject to changes - it speaks of an unknowable and unfathomable God, so how can one change that which cannot be defined?

More grandstanding. Your arm must get sore from the amount of time you spend patting yourself on the back. It must be hard work dealing with how awsome your faith is. All of this is irrelevant bullshit.

Monotheism did not change the universe or any gods. How did monotheism change any part of the universe outside this one planet? How were any other gods changed by monotheism? Does your faith not state that there are no other gods? How could monotheism change gods that it does not support the existence of?

You may regard the population count as unsupported. I see it as pivotally impacting. Do the math - the pop count is unbiased and absolutely supportive in the Noah story.

More bullshit. You have made it very clear in other threads that you have no idea how population demographics work. If you really do believe that the population of Australia would be "more than a trillion" in 60 000 years, then start a thread with that claim. If you do know that it is a bullshit claim and you dont know what you are talking about, ignore this bit of the post. A ten year olf would be able to very simply show you whay you are wrong with regards to this claim.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by IamJoseph, posted 11-20-2011 2:01 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by IamJoseph, posted 11-21-2011 4:28 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 300 by purpledawn, posted 11-21-2011 5:25 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1840 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 299 of 306 (641649)
11-21-2011 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Butterflytyrant
11-21-2011 3:31 AM


Re: LET THE TRUTH SET YOU FREE - OR EXPOSE A LIE.
quote:
The laws you are saying are 'the primal factor here' are in fact irrelevant.

Ever hear of the term, 'THIS BOOK OF LAWS' - or 'MOSES THE LAW GIVER'?

quote:

If you do believe that your preffered version of the Old Testament is the accurate word quoted by God and set down by Moses


I don't know that. I am referring to the texts' reading only.

[quote]

quote:

I am not ignoring the verse about Noahs household.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.
The text clearly states that Noah must take two of every living thing (of flesh) onto the ark.


Not the entire earth; only 'Noah and all of his house goes into the ark' [the text].

quote:

The text clearly states that Noah and all of his house goes into the ark.

quote:Gen 7:1 - And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

The KJB uses the word 'house', the Old Testament uses household.

IamJoseph is correct in saying that God instructed Noah to enter the ark with his household. Using the English definition of household in this context, it would mean that he would be taking himself, his family and his possesions. This could include all of his domestic animals.

IamJoseph is not correct when he suggests that this means that Noah is to ignore the previously given commands to take two of every living thing.

In preparation for the flood God said 'And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark' (Gen 6:19). And God told Noah to take his household into the ark 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark'(Gen 7:1). The second command does not cancel out the first. Both commandments can be followed. Two of every animal on Earth and all of Noahs household were to enter the ark.


'two of every kind' is limited by, conditional to, and qualified with - 'Noah and all of his house goes into the ark' [the text].

Noah does not relate to creation of the universe or the earth. It deals with a story of its time only. Earth has a different meaning when aligning this with a farmer and a cosmologist. Earth in Ch. 1 relates to generic earth; not what a famer calls the earth of his land.

quote:
Are you trying to create a red herring? At no stage have I quoted from or referred to Genesis chapter 1 or the creation narrative. I have only quoted from chapter 6 or 7 in relation to this issue. I you trying to deliberately mislead people reading this by creating a fabricated arguement?

Here they are again from Message 292

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.


Of Noah's region.

quote:

This verse states that God looked upon the earth and saw that all flesh had corrupted his way. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So the flesh that god was reffering to in this verse as corrupt is Noah, his family and his possesions including his domestic animals.

Negative. Noah was told his household will be protected [the text].

quote:

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

In this verse, God is telling knowing that he is going to destroy all flesh, removing them from the earth. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is saying he is going to destroy and remove from the earth Noah, his family and his possessions including his domestic animals.


negative. 'ALL FLESH' can only be aligned with Noah's region - excluding Noah's family [the text].

quote:

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

In this verse, God is telling Noah that he is going to flood the earth. According to you, this means he is going to cause a localised flood in Noahs region. The aim of this flood is to destroy all flesh. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is going to flood Noahs local area in order to destroy Noah, his family and all of his domestic animals.

Gen 6:19 - And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

In this verse, according to you, God is telling Noah two of each sort of animal 'all flesh' should go into the ark. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is telling Noah that two of each of his animals can head into the ark.


All flesh of the earth; all domestic animals - "owned by Noah"; "You have I found rightious"; "You and thy house and household" applies [the text].

quote:

So according to your logic, this verse....

Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

...refers to Noahs household. So it was Noahs household that was corrupt. All flesh in Noahs household was corrupt. That would be Noah, Noahs family, Noahs possessions and Noahs animals. According to you, 'all flesh' in this verse refers to Noah, his family and his animals. And 'the earth' refers to Noahs local region.


Absolutely; no grammatical contradiction here. The term 'earth' is contextual, appearing in various places, even relating to Sodom, which destruction was nonetheless limited to one city only; even when we see it was viewed by Lot's daughters the entire earth was destroyed:

"23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar."
" and his two daughters. 31 And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth".

quote:

So what is God talking about here -

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

God says here that he intends to kill man who he has created. According to you, God intends to kill only Noahs household (Noah, his family and domestic animals). God states that he is repentent for making them. According to your logic, God is telling Noah that he is going to kill him and he regrests making him.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

According to you, this verse states that only Noahs region was corrupt and filled with violence. According to your logic, God is looking at only Noahs local region and seeing that it was corrupt. According to you, 'all flesh' mentioned in this verse reffers to Noahs household. So God looked at Noah and saw that Noah, his family and his domestic animals were corrupted.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

According to you, God is telling Noah that the end of all flesh has come. So God is telling Noah that the end has come for Noah, his family and his domestic animals. God tells Noah that he will be flooding his local region and will destroy it.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

According to you, God is saying here that he will bring flood waters to Noahs region (the earth) in order to destroy Noah, his family and his domestic animals (all flesh, Noahs household). God states he will be destroying everything that has the breath of life that exists under heaven. If this is true, then all of the other people and animals alive at that time were not breathing/alive and existed in some other place other than the Earth (under heaven).


Every one of those verses can only be attributed to Noah and 'ALL OF HIS" house, his household, with THEE, THOU, THY HOUSE, THEY FAMILY, IN THIS ARC, WITH THESE MEASUREMENTS, THESE ANIMALS. No other reading is plauible or possible when the full text is accounted for; no other reading is coherent.

quote:

God told Noah he was going to flood the entire Earth because he was unhappy about how things were going. This is what the text actually says.

Gen 6: 5,6,7
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


The word entire is not there; you have disregarded other impacting verses; as well as the persons and animals listed; and the arc size given with specific detail.

quote:

ICANT has asked you to define some terms on several occasions and you have yet to do this.

How about you do that and add these -

What does 'the earth' refer to in chapter 6 of Genesis.

What does 'all flesh' refer to in chapter 6 of Genesis


I answered these numerously. The earth refers to the land; all flesh refers to living life forms only. These are qualified with Noah's house and possessions = all life therein, as designated, which you and ICANT obsessively disregard. Consider:

'ALL THE FLESH OF THE EARTH WHICH JOHN DOE OWNS"

quote:

Monotheism did not change the universe or any gods.

It was a 'CHANGER'; as in CHANGING equation.

quote:

How did monotheism change any part of the universe outside this one planet?


In its premise the stars, sun and moons are not deities but created entities by ONE UNIVERSE MAKER. This changes the universe view for the first time.

quote:

How were any other gods changed by monotheism? Does your faith not state that there are no other gods? How could monotheism change gods that it does not support the existence of?

It is applied to the peoples' perspective. Obviously!

quote:
You have made it very clear in other threads that you have no idea how population demographics work. If you really do believe that the population of Australia would be "more than a trillion" in 60 000 years, then start a thread with that claim. If you do know that it is a bullshit claim and you dont know what you are talking about, ignore this bit of the post. A ten year olf would be able to very simply show you whay you are wrong with regards to this claim.

The population count does not support 60K year Australian aboriginals. Not even 5K years. I studied rocket science as a child.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-21-2011 3:31 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1629 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 300 of 306 (641651)
11-21-2011 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Butterflytyrant
11-21-2011 3:31 AM


Simple Story
Well I'll just put us at the 300 mark so we can get to those wonderful summaries I'm sure will astound us.

quote:
The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.
IAJ is more correct that it refers to the region, not the planet. The text doesn't say Earth it says earth, which does not refer to our planet. The Hebrew words refer to the ground and to the land and if you want to get into that issue, there is a thread for that called Not The Planet.

quote:
The text clearly states that Noah must take two of every living thing (of flesh) onto the ark.
It also says he is to take 7 of every clean animal. The text also says that Noah is to take every kind of food that is eaten and store it up and it serves as food for Noah and for the animals. (Genesis 6:21)

quote:
The text clearly states that Noah and all of his house goes into the ark.
God has already made provisions for storing food needed for Noah's family. This would already include livestock. IMO, the two of every kind are the protected passengers to be preserved to repopulate. So when God tells Noah and his household to go into the Ark, IMO he is referring to Noah and his family, not his stuff and his livestock. The food issue has already been taken care of and doesn't take away from the two of a kind.

quote:
What does 'the earth' refer to in chapter 6 of Genesis.

What does 'all flesh' refer to in chapter 6 of Genesis


As I said earlier, "the earth" refers to either the ground or the land which is regional and not planetary.

Flesh refers to humans. Also notice what God said in 6:7.

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Haadam is used and translated earth. So God is going to destroy the people he created from the area. This is a cultural story. We have become accustomed to viewing it as planetary and all encompassing, but IMO it isn't and the text doesn't really say that it is planetary either.

Although Noah found favor in God's eyes, we see in Genesis 8:21 that God still considered mankind to be corrupt. Apparently Noah wasn't the worst of the bunch.

This is a cultural flood story, not a planetary flood story.

quote:
Monotheism did not change the universe or any gods. How did monotheism change any part of the universe outside this one planet? How were any other gods changed by monotheism? Does your faith not state that there are no other gods? How could monotheism change gods that it does not support the existence of?
You really need to stop reading IAJ so literally.
If you really want to know the answers to those questions, I suggest reading a bit on the history of monotheism and how it impacted various cultures.

IAJ's wording may not be as exact as you wish it to be, but then neither is yours and neither is mine. We really aren't going for precision writing here. Try to grasp his overall point concerning the topic.

Now on to summations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-21-2011 3:31 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019