quote: Actually I don't feel that anyone has. The issue with Noah's age, which I yielded on, is an odd situation due to possibly being a later addition.
That's odd. It was the many greater ages in Genesis 5 - none of which shows the signs of simple hyperbole - that convinced you. That IS context. (And I would note that the "late addition" criterion is also not part of "comparing the statement against reality" - and doesn't seem to make much sense either).
Do you also feel that all the ages of Genesis 5 are late additions ? What stops you from viewing them as hyperbole ? The statements, compared to reality, appear to be extremely exaggerated.
Since I've conceded on Noah's age, I am baffled as to why it is still an issue and we aren't moving forward.
My explanations for yielding are in Message 22 and Message 41. Neither said anything about Genesis 5. The ages are exaggerated when compared to reality. The exaggerated age doesn't seem to be written to stimulate a visual image in our mind's eye. The agees were probably more about filling a gap.
Yes, per Friedman, Genesis 5 was added by the Redactor.
Re: Hyperbole's Impotence Regarding the Limitations of Excess
quote:Is this really hyperbole? I'd suggest not. Certainly a literary device is in use, but nobody is really claiming that any animals are being eaten or swallowed. Instead the comparison between gnat and camel is supposed to indicate how badly the Pharisees and teachers of the law had missed the mark by concentrating on relative minutia. I'd suggest that we are looking at a metaphor rather than hyperbole.
Interesting that you don't consider Matthew 23:24 to be a hyperbole.
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Matthew 23:24
The camel and gnat are not being compared to each other. Straining out gnats or their larvae from one's drinking water was common. The camel is an exaggeration of what can be swallowed, let alone be found in one's water. Humor of the day.
quote: Since I've conceded on Noah's age, I am baffled as to why it is still an issue and we aren't moving forward.
We're aren't arguing about whether Noah's age is hyperbole - we are using it as an example of how to identify hyperbole. In large part BECAUSE you agree that it isn't hyperbole, but also because you NOW reject my reasons for saying so but don't seem able to offer any valid alternatives.
quote: My explanations for yielding are in Message 22 and Message 41. Neither said anything about Genesis 5.
That is either untrue or intentionally misleading. You implicitly refer to the ages in Genesis 5 In message 22.
quote: The ages are exaggerated when compared to reality.
In other words, by your "comparison to reality" criterion you should consider them to be hyperbole.
quote: The exaggerated age doesn't seem to be written to stimulate a visual image in our mind's eye. The ages were probably more about filling a gap.
The "filling a gap" explanation seems pretty weak (being short of evidence and reasoning). But note, that this reasoning is NOT about either a comparison to reality or about being a late addition. Doesn't the fact that your stated criteria need to be augmented to deal with this case suggest that you need to rethink ? Doesn't the fact that you keep referring to the ages in Genesis 5 suggest that they ARE relevant to Noah's age in the Flood story?
And you still leave important points unaddressed. Do you really take the position that acts attributed to God should be limited to what is naturalistically possible ? How do you feel about the creation of the rainbow at the end of the Flood story ? Hyperbole ? Literal fact ? Or Myth ?
Yes, I would consider Genesis 7:19 to be hyperbole.
All hills, whole heaven. It was a very bad flood.
This rather goes against what I thought was the accepted understanding of the flood. If not all hills were covered then many people/animals could have survived on the uncovered hills. (I would suggest that it would have been a better idea for god to have told noah to build a wooden building on one of those hills rather than an ark.)
So, how do we decide between your claim of hyperbole and other people's claim of accuracy? What are you using to decide the Genesis quote is hyperbole, when others simply see a statement of fact?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
Genesis 5 was not the basis for agreeing that Noah's exaggerated age might not be a true hyperbole as it is used in the story. His age doesn't make a point concerning the story.
As for the rainbow question, if you have a verse you feel I would consider to be hyperbole, please provide the verse.
As I said in Message 1, this thread is not about what Christianity teaches. It is about what the text says.
Since the flood didn't cover the planet, there were plenty of places for people to go. Notice the Nephilum were still around after the flood. Genesis 6:4.
As I said in Message 1, this thread is not about what Christianity teaches. It is about what the text says.
So, how do we decide between your claim of hyperbole and other people's claim of accuracy? What are you using to decide the Genesis quote is hyperbole, when others simply see a statement of fact?
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
Since the flood didn't cover the planet, there were plenty of places for people to go. Notice the Nephilum were still around after the flood. Genesis 6:4.
I'd agree that there is some hyperbole associated with 6:4, but I don't know how you tell what is literal and what is not. Were the Nephilum really demigods? Were the later tales of giant people actually related to these same folk? Or were these guys just a bunch of well fed, fit, fierce, street-fighting men that nobody was really inclined to take on.
If they weren't really weren't some kind of pre-flood superfolk, then they aren't much evidence at all about whether the flood was global.
quote:So, how do we decide between your claim of hyperbole and other people's claim of accuracy? What are you using to decide the Genesis quote is hyperbole, when others simply see a statement of fact?
Asked and answered. How do you determine hyperbole in any other book you read. It's your turn to explain.
If you want to argue the position that the verse is fact, then make your argument. I'm not going to debate against a position not presented by a participant.
So, how do we decide between your claim of hyperbole and other people's claim of accuracy? What are you using to decide the Genesis quote is hyperbole, when others simply see a statement of fact?
PD writes:
Asked and answered.
No, you have not answered this. You can tell that you have not answered this by the number of people in this thread asking you to describe how you are deciding if things are hyperbole or not.
PD writes:
How do you determine hyperbole in any other book you read. It's your turn to explain.
If you want to argue the position that the verse is fact, then make your argument.
You are claiming that the verse is not fact, but when asked to explain your claim, you say "Prove it is fact!". If your intention in this thread was to say "The following bible phrases are hyperbole. Prove me wrong!" then I think you are shifting the burden of proof to the wrong people.
Panda writes:
I'm not going to debate against a position not presented by a participant.
But you are the one who is meant to present a position. And since you are reluctant to do so, I am finding it difficult to debate that position with you.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)