Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (9005 total)
36 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK (3 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,107 Year: 12,855/23,288 Month: 580/1,527 Week: 19/240 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 1 of 306 (505114)
04-07-2009 4:23 PM


"Earth" remains the same but the definition of "earth" has changed. It has changed by virtue of the Age of Discovery, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution. It has changed under the influence of Columbus, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. The definition of "earth" has changed dramatically in the 500 years since Tyndale first translated the Scriptures into English.

But now, it has come to my attention that there are a number of ongoing threads here in which apparently sincere and otherwise intelligent persons labor under the misapprehension that the Bible may sometime refer to planet Earth.

I wish to remind everyone that THE BIBLE NEVER EVER DOES THAT. And if one should come upon a modern version which appears to do it, he should remind himself that said version is post-Copernican at best and at worst a dishonest rendering.

The religious establishments of both Catholic and Protestant faith did not want to believe in planet Earth and resisted the notion for hundreds of years after Copernicus published his book (1543 AD). They did not perceive a planetary "earth" from their reading of the ancient text (they perceived the opposite) and there is no way they would have knowingly suggested such a thing in the wording of their official translations.

Many biblical passages have, in modern times, been revised to make "earth" read: "land" or "ground" or "country." This trend is unlikely to continue to completion, because, many Christian doctrines depend on retaining the word "earth" for the value found in its post-Copernican planetary implication. And besides that, believers are already primed to convert "all the world" and to dream of dominating the globe.

So ... Bring me your arguments (which I expect to refute) and I will show you reason to believe that EARTH IS NOT A PLANET.

:D

Edited by doctrbill, : to correct date Copernicus' published - 1543, not "1534."


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by kbertsche, posted 04-08-2009 6:25 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 12:47 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 36 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 10:04 AM doctrbill has responded
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 05-06-2009 7:47 AM doctrbill has responded
 Message 61 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2010 9:10 AM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 4 of 306 (505206)
04-09-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by kbertsche
04-08-2009 6:25 PM


Promised Land?
Hi kbertsche,

Thank you for your reply.

I have in recent months noticed that those promises, vis a vis inheriting the earth appear to be in reference to The Promised Land. I have also noticed that the creation story of Genesis 2 appears to describe the beginning of history for the Hebrew people. I think it is a far reach indeed to extrapolate these apparent facts to include Genesis 1 as a recitation of the creation of Canaan; particularly when it bears such an uncanny resemblance to the standard cosmology of the ancient middle east.

I looked up the author you named and found what strikes me as a cogent criticism of his book from none other than (:eek:) the people over at Answers in Genesis. To my surprise, they seem to have fielded a fair and balanced review which is summarized thus:

quote:
"While there are some things in this book we can agree with, there are many more things, such as those outlined above, where we must disagree. The basic thesis is fatally flawed, and it appears that the only things which Sailhamer has ‘unbound’ are the rules of grammar, the semantic fields of words and the laws of logic."

While I have not read the book and cannot, off the cuff, discuss their criticism of his Hebrew translations, I have been impressed with what appear to be instances of untenable assumption on his part. That said, I look forward to learning more of his theory, through the instrumentality of yourself, should you choose to share.

Sincerely,


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by kbertsche, posted 04-08-2009 6:25 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 11 of 306 (505256)
04-09-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 12:47 PM



Catholic Scientist writes:

I agree with you on how "earth" should be interpreted, but there's a problem with it not referring to the entire planet...

quote:
Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

If we are to understand that the earth is the known land and not the entire planet, then how could the flood destroy every living substance that He made?

I believe we need to read a bit more:

quote:
“And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast,
and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle,
and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth:
and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark. Gen 7:21-23 KJV

In the above verses, "ground" is given for Heb. 'adamah.
- In verse four (your quote), "earth" is given for 'adamah.

Scriptural usage suggests that 'adamah and 'erets were used interchangeably even though their etymologies indicate some subtle difference. The same is true of "earth" and "ground" in English usage prior to the modern age.

It is not insignificant that both "earth" and "ground" are given for the same Hebrew term in the context of this story.

It is even more significant that "dry [land]" is used interchangeably with both "ground" and "earth" in this story.

More telling still is the definition of "earth" which appears on the very page of Genesis; the very first page of the Bible.

quote:
Genesis 1:10 - "God called the dry [land] Earth"

It was not until long after Copernicus that Churchmen in general accepted the new and growing definition of "earth." It is a post-Copernican definition which, for the first time in history, has attached to "earth" a planetary implication.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 2:22 PM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 17 of 306 (505265)
04-09-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 2:22 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

I agree with you that when they said "earth" they did not mean the entire planet.
But the flood story does seem to suggest that the entire planet was flooded because god was destroying all of the creatures.

Assuming for the moment that your statement is not self-contradictory (perhaps "seem to suggest" is the key to interpreting what you have said), two things come to mind.

a. The Hebrew authors did not aknowledge the reality of a terraqueous globe, much less that the whole thing is rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun.

b. The narrative makes no mention of fish or other sea creature and yet all creatures are destroyed from the "earth" except those which are with Noah on the ark.

Thus, unless you wish to assert that a pair of every kind of sea creature were present on the ark (including Blue Whales and/or large prehistoric reptiles): we are forced to conclude one of two things.


1. Sea creatures do not live on planet earth. Or,
2. "Earth" is not a reference to the globe.

Only in modern times does the flood story "seem to suggest that the entire planet was flooded."

Prior to widespread acceptance of the Copernican model, no one proposed such a bizarre interpretation.

:laugh:


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 2:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 3:45 PM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 19 of 306 (505268)
04-09-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 3:45 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Its not self-contradictory because, while the word for "earth" did not mean the globe, ...

When I wrote "self-contradictory" I was referring to how you began by saying "I agree with you ..." and then followed with "But ..." which looks like a disagreement.

... while the word for "earth" did not mean the globe, god's punishment was wiping out everything so it must have really meant everything, which implies the whole globe.

That's the debate, isn't it? But the narrative suggests, and creationists confirm, that sea creatures survived outside the ark; which suggests that the biblical definition of "earth" does NOT include fish habitat.

What were the propsed interpretations before the Copernican model?

Prior to the Copernican model there was no issue here because prior to the Copernican model there was no planetary component in the defintion of "earth."


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 3:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 6:15 PM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 21 of 306 (505292)
04-09-2009 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2009 6:15 PM


ManAdam of EarthLand
Catholic Scientist writes:

...I'm not basing this on the biblical definition of "earth".

It seems that the word "earth" is leading you to think globally; as evidenced by your impression that,

quote:
"... god wasn't just punishing some corner of the world, he was destroying everything."
What, aside from the mention of "earth," leads you to imagine that everything is being destroyed?

Try substituing the word "land" for "earth" and see how it reads. I will rearrange the verses you quoted to show that; and I will also transliterate the Hebrew for man ('adam) which may, in itself, recommend an alternative understanding of the text.

quote:
Genesis 6:
5 And God saw that the wickedness of 'adam was great in the land, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made 'adam on the land, and it grieved him at his heart.

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


This scripture seems to reinforce our impression that Heaven and Earth (i.e. Sky and Land) are involved in the general destruction but the Sea is not. The Sea is not even mentioned in passing, which seems rather odd when one considers how often Heaven, Earth and Sea are described as if they were three distinct regions of the universe. And if the Sea is not involved in nor affected by the destruction of "Earth," then why would one assume the affected area to be global in nature?

If we say "land" instead of "earth," then the story becomes more plausible.

BTW: 'adam is a term assigned to men of low station; i.e. commoners.

It doesn't make sense for god to destroy just the local people in one corner of the world.

Why not? He does it all the time (assuming you believe God is in control).

Remember Katrina?

Remember the Tsunami?

... but before the Copernican model, did people think that the people that lived in those areas were not included in the flood?

Or as the known part of the world was increased, did the presumed area that the flood covered increase?

I cannot answer everything. I am a student of these questions myself. I can tell you, based on my current understanding the historical development of global awareness, that prior to the voyage of Columbus, the Roman Church had determined that there could be NO INHABITED LANDS on the other side of the globe.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2009 6:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 10:21 AM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 23 of 306 (505329)
04-10-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2009 10:21 AM


Storm Surge?
Catholic Scientist writes:

You can't wipe the slate clean and start over if you are only wiping one corner of the slate.

True enough. But what are the parameters of the slate? That, I think, is the question before us. And given what we know about the language, and the state of cosmic knowledge at the time this was written, it is not difficult for us to imagine a limited area (less than global).

... the story does contain some errors.

Perhaps we should look at those. Eh? Do any of them impact the geographic question?

The way I see it, the sea was left out because it was what was doing the destroying. How could the sea destroy itself via a flood?

OK. But that results in a technical question. If the sea is doing the destruction, then perhaps we are looking at the story of a great hurricane with massive tidal surge such as that which killed 10,000 Indians a few years back. The area of devastation in that instance was essentially as far as the eye could see.

As the story is told (by creationists) the waters of the flood were deeper than Mount Everest is high. That notion is not, of course, consistent with the flood being cause by the sea.

So there could have been an issue here prior to the Copernican model...

Not quite sure what leads you to that conslusion. The Church appears to have objected to the idea of other inhabited lands on the basis of scriptural interpretations, the idea that Christ would have had to visit those lands, witness to those people and be crucified all over again. Doesn't make much sense to us now, but it seems to have meant something to people at the time.

At any rate, it was not about the Flood. I believe there has been a lot of Fuzzy thinking around the subject of Noah's flood, especially among persons who are untutored in the knowledge base (science). That fuzzy logic may be clarified via systematic analysis of the language, customs, and natural philosopy of the ancients. That is what we have been doing here, I think.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 10:21 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 11:38 AM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 27 of 306 (505352)
04-10-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2009 11:38 AM


Re: Storm Surge?
Catholic Scientist writes:

The idea behind the story is that god wiped the entire slate clean, but the people at the time thought the entire slate was limited to their corner. Now that we know that their corner was not the entire slate, I don't think we should be limiting the wiping to just their corner. The point of the story was that it was the enitre slate, regardless of what the people at the time thought that emcompassed.

If it is the feel or impact of the story which one values, then he may wish to retell it in modern terms; such as that of a Space Noah who takes animals away on a giant rocket to escape a general destruction of the solar system. Future students of the story might determine that the entire solar system was not actually destroyed; but, if the important thing is the feel of the story (rather than its factuality), then the story might retain its literary value.

I might agree that the Flood story was intended to creat a sense of total destruction; while at the same time maintaining that it did not actually destroy everything. If one values the story as a cautionary tale (don't anger Jehovah), then one may well leave the story intact. If, on the other hand, one wishes to declare it as history and say it is scientifically accurate, then one will encounter numerous objections.

Are you saying that you value the story as a cautionary tale? Or, are you suggesting that the writer was naieve in his understanding of the scale of destruction? Or is it something else?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 11:38 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 1:38 PM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 35 of 306 (505931)
04-20-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by DD2014
04-19-2009 10:11 PM


Godidit?
Greetings DD,

Welcome to EvC.

DD2014 writes:

I think the main point here is:

The Hebrews claim that their God flooded the whole earth and destroyed everything that was on it (excluding all on the ark). The fact is it did not happen, so God lied about flooding the earth or the Hebrews lied about God.

The Hebrews claim that their God flooded the whole 'eretz and destroyed everything on the 'adamah, AKA: "dry ground." The main point here is that: Neither 'eretz nor 'adamah may be construed as a reference to the terraqueous globe; much less the planet. Thus, there is no reason to assert that "it did not happen." The Hebrews merely reported their impressions and assigned responsibility for the event to their "God" of Nature. There is no need to believe they "lied" about anything.

However you look at it God is stupid

That may be true, but we are not addressing that issue in this thread. Fact is, Creationism has evolved with the advancement of science; two steps behind perhaps, but always, eventually, catching up to agree with scientific principles involved in the mechanism of creation. Only a few hundred years ago, creationists counted the sun as a planet which orbits the earth. A few centuries from now, creationists will likely embrace Darwin as one of the greatest Christians in the history of science. The only thing which appears not to change is the bottom line of creationist argument:

"God did it."


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by DD2014, posted 04-19-2009 10:11 PM DD2014 has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 37 of 306 (507089)
05-01-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ochaye
05-01-2009 10:04 AM


Greetings ochaye,

And thanks for your input.

Please note that I have edited to the OP to correct the date when Copernicus published his book. That particular transposition is an easy mistake because Martin Luther, a high profile critic of Copernicus, published his Bible in 1534 while Copernicus (the great nemesis of Renaissance Christianity) published in 1543. I'd hate to tell you how often I've gotten those numbers turned around.

Good thing I'm not an accountant. Yes? :D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 10:04 AM ochaye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 12:36 PM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 39 of 306 (507119)
05-01-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ochaye
05-01-2009 12:36 PM


ochaye writes:

You're not alone. :D

Thanks for the sympathy.

If you click on the "Peek" button at the bottom of this frame, you can see how I made your quote stand out.

This helps us to distinguish between quotes and original material.

Good luck; and welcome to The Forum.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 12:36 PM ochaye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ochaye, posted 05-01-2009 4:36 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 42 of 306 (507642)
05-06-2009 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by purpledawn
05-06-2009 7:47 AM


Re: Kosmos
purpledawn writes:

Since believers are primed to convert "all the world", are you including the Greek word "kosmos" also as not meaning the planet?

Greetings Dawn. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You raise many good questions and I will address as many as I can in the short time I have to do this.

Yes. Kosmos, as far as I have been able to determine, has neither global nor planetary implication. Our word "cosmetic" is based on kosmos, and rightly so in having to do with arrangement, appearance, and beauty. Our word "cosmic," also based on kosmos, is a reference to the arrangement, appearance and beauty of the heavens. But kosmos carries another suggestion which appears prominently, at the head of the listing you posted from Crosswalk (the same is found at Blue Letter Bible. I think you may like the conveniences of this particular site.

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

This word, and the trail down which it leads, provide interesting alternatives to the word "world" in a number of verses containing kosmos.

Here's a discussion you may find helpful re: the etymology of kosmos and world.

purpledawn writes:

Here is an example from the Book of Mark which is what has primed believers to convert "all the world" or planet.

16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

A similar quote, also employing the word "world," is based not on kosmos but rather oikoumene; a reference to the Roman Empire, throughout which there lived many Jews, exiled from the homeland.

Matthew writes:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Matthew 24:14

It is reasonable to assume that Jesus did not expect his disciples to abandon the confines of civilization and enter hostile barbarian territories. Indeed, none of them did so. In fact, oikoumene is rendered "world" in the following which hardly applies to anything outside the civilizing influence of Rome.

Luke writes:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. Luke 2:1

This interpretation of oikoumene was acceptable to translators of the NLT who call it "Roman Empire" and of the NIV, who call it "Roman world."

purpledawn writes:

Where were they really supposed to go?

I don't wish to attempt proving it here, but I think they were expected to contact and rouse Jews living anywhere in the empire.

purpledawn writes:

If they didn't have a concept of planet, then would they have a concept of inhabitants of the planet?

Not likey, I think. :)

purpledawn writes:

Unfortunately when he got his conclusion on the use of kosmos in the NT, he seems to leave it as meaning planet. I didn't understand. I felt he fell back into tradition. Did I misunderstand?

I don't believe you misunderstood him. Based on what you presented here it seems to me that he may still be studying the question. I find it odd that in what appears to be the process of defining kosmos, he says,

quote:
There is absolutely no concept comparable to the notion of Kosmos in early Hebrew, late Hebrew, or in Aramaic.

"Absolutely" is a rather sweeping statement, and if one has not yet clarified the meaning of kosmos then it seems premature to say that there is "absolutely" nothing like it in Hebrew. Then there is the matter of how he lays out the pattern of usage:

quote:
Erets: meaning Earth (frequently); Land (frequently); country (some 140 times; ground (less than 100 times).

Why not give it all numerically, as he does with the last two?

But he doesn't - so - allow me:

AV — land (1543), earth (712), country (140), ground (98), world (4), way (3), common (1), field (1), nations (1), wilderness + 04057 (1)

Eretz is, by the Authorized Version (KJV), translated "Land" more than twice as often as it is translated "earth" and in newer versions (post Sputnik) even more so. This bit alone gives me pause to doubt his conclusions (if not his sincerity). Not only does he not reveal the numbers but by listing "earth" first he suggests that it is the dominant rendering while in fact: the relationship of "land" to "earth" in the AV is approximately the same as the relative gravity (thus influence on the tides) between moon and sun. And that 2/1 ration is climbing fast as Bible translators bring their work into compliance with the new definition of "earth."

I also have a problem with his apparently easy dismissal of the fundamental word search with what he calls,

quote:
an all-too-brief survey

I often see such brief excursions into Word Land. I hope that gentleman continues to search the scriptures. Perhaps he will, someday, understand them as well as you and I. :D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 05-06-2009 7:47 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by purpledawn, posted 05-07-2009 8:49 AM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 44 of 306 (507687)
05-07-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by purpledawn
05-07-2009 8:49 AM


Re: Kosmos
purpledawn writes:

Not to take this thread off topic, but it does give me a very different view of the verses using world for kosmos.

Don't worry. You're not going off topic. You are, in fact, going to the heart of the matter.

The obfuscation of ancient meaning leads modern readers astray. It allows dominionists to justify their thirst for conquest; and evangelists to justify their meddlesome "world mission." These annoyances have led me to this study and I am satisfied that dominionists and evangelists are being indulged, even encouraged, in wrong interpretation.

purpledawn writes:

Given Paul's letter and the range of his ministry, John 3:16 probably refers to Jews and Greeks within the empire, as opposed to people in other nations or all inhabitants on the planet.

I could not agree more.

And while we are on the subject, let me share another verse where essentially identical statements employ "kosmos" or "oikoumene" depending on who and where you read.

Here, "world" is given for "oikoumene"

quote:
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world ..." Mat 24:14

But in the following verses, "world" is given for "kosmos."

quote:
"... Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel ..." Mar 16:15

And if you like that you will love the following pair where, in the first, "world" is given for "kosmos."

quote:
"... the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world ..." Mat 4:8
But in the second, another author tells the same story employing the word "oikoumene."
quote:
"... the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world ..." Luk 4:5

This depiction of "the world" (oikoumene) should give us a clue to its intended scope; for it suggests the vast area one may see from an elevation, such as that from which Moses viewed Canaan. The maximum extent of that scope, suggested in the following verse, was not likely understood in terms of what we, in the Space Age, call "global."

quote:
"... the temple of the great goddess Diana ... whom all Asia and the world worshippeth." Act 19:27

There were only three continents identified in those days: Europe, Asia, and Africa; and in those days only north Africa was known to the "civilized" world. Africa, not fully explored until the nineteenth century was, because of that ignorance, known as: "The Dark Continent."

You may also appreciate a comment of Paul which suggests that the gospel had, already in his time (1st Century), gone into all the world (kosmos).

quote:
"... I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." Rom 1:8

Paul had not apparently traveled outside the Roman Empire, not even to visit the large Jewish community at Babylon (in Asia). This being the case, and assuming that he spoke from personal observation, we may imagine that his use of "kosmos" was equivalent in scope to the "oikoumene" which we have already seen to be synonymous with the Roman Empire.

How do you like them apples? I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this matter.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by purpledawn, posted 05-07-2009 8:49 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by purpledawn, posted 05-07-2009 3:02 PM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 46 of 306 (507767)
05-07-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by purpledawn
05-07-2009 3:02 PM


Re: Kosmos
purpledawn writes:

Looks like I have some reading to do and notes to put in my Bible.

Not just you.

That's what I love about these exchanges. I had explored the "kosmos/oikoumene" question only so far as it was necessary to conclude that neither is a reference to earth. You have opened my eyes to an even greater body of evidence than I had known. How fortunate for me that we have had this conversation. I am scheduled to present Bible studies of my choosing (to be announced), and had planned to include a segment on the subject of this thread: how the biblical "earth" may not be construed to mean our planet. Now, I see that the subject is even richer than I had imagined.

I have you to thank for that.

I don't think we will ever have a Bible that translates Roman Empire, where it should be.

Not in every instance, to be sure. We have a start, of course, and that from a surprising quarter (:eek:): the evangelical versions previously mentioned.

I should point out that "oikoumene" is not uniformly applied to the Roman Empire; as you may have guessed considering the fact that the expression is a Greek one. The Greeks referred to their own empire as "oikoumene" as well. The original sense is supposed to have been "habitable earth" (combining "oikos" with "ge" which reminds one of the Hebrew "tebel") and they (the Greeks) employed it in reference to their own domain, not to that of a lesser race. Its use reminds me of the Sicilian "Cosa Nostra."

I suspect that the Jews, in like manner, being proud of their cultural heritage and imagining they had favored status with their deity, might apply the term "oikoumene" to their own Homeland, the land promised to Abraham and his offspring "for ever." If so, it would explain a lot of the New Testament rhetoric, and explain away the ridiculous notion that this backward people, perennially unsuccessful in establishing their own ancestral heritage would dare to assert their imminent dominion of the Whole-shootin'-match.

The idea of taking over the whole planet is the basis a lot of Christian movements.

Yes. And a reason to be afraid of Christians. They believe God has told them to do it. When an individual behaves that way, he risks being carted off to the nut house.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by purpledawn, posted 05-07-2009 3:02 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2009 9:20 AM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1390 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 48 of 306 (508643)
05-15-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by purpledawn
05-15-2009 9:20 AM


Re: Oikoumenç
purpledawn writes:

Since Luke was written about 95 CE, people knew what had actually happened. Would the author still be talking about the Roman Empire, since the destruction was localized in Jerusalem? Although from what I've read, I think there were still difficulties between the Jews and the Romans that lead to later battles.

Indeed, there was continual tension between the home-boys and the army of occupation; much as there is continual tension between the U.S. Army and those who would have them out of the Iraqi homeland.

It would not have taken a clairvoyant of the time to imagine ever more terrible things to come, such as Julius Severus' reaction to the Bar Kokhba revolt in the second century, in which the Romans destroyed 985 villages, killing the residents and/or selling them into slavery; thus virtually wiping out the Jewish population of central Judea.

The sacking of Jerusalem was a serious blow to Jewish hopes of independence. Imagine then how demoralizing it must have been to stand by helplessly as an entire province was drenched in the blood of "God's People."

An astute political observer then, witnessing the continued tendency of the Jews to armed resistance, might with favorable odds on success, predict more of the same with an increasingly repressive response from the Empire. The Star Wars myth is an excellent analogy for what happens when a small group of dissidents stands up to a mighty conqueror; except that in reality the Jewish rebels did not defeat the Empire.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2009 9:20 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020