Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
41 online now:
Captcass, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, ramoss, RAZD, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (9 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,608 Year: 16,644/19,786 Month: 769/2,598 Week: 15/251 Day: 15/23 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 306 (505248)
04-09-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
04-07-2009 4:23 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 04-07-2009 4:23 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 306 (505251)
04-09-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Perdition
04-09-2009 12:49 PM


Maybe the Bible really is just the origin story of the Hebrew people and not all people (which would explain where Cain's wife came from).
In that case, the flood would have been a local flood, destroying everything in the "known" world and destroying everything YHWH had created, but not everything in existence that had been created by another god or that had come about through natural processes.

I suppose that's not impossible...

Take a look at these passages:

quote:
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

quote:
Acts 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

quote:
Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Don't these seem to suggest that the people who wrote this thought that God did not make just a portion of everything in existence but actually did make everything in existence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 12:49 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 1:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 306 (505253)
04-09-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Perdition
04-09-2009 1:32 PM


Not if you assume that world means only the "known" world.

Why assume that though?

What suggests that when they were talking about "everything" they mean "everything that we know of which is a subset of everything that there is"?

And the fact that the Hebrews believed their god created the whole world, when the only part of the world they knew was the part of the world that their god had created, doesn't necessarily mean the entire world was created by their god.

Fair enough. (but I'm not arguing against that)

I'm saying that if we assume that they were talking about a portion of the planet, then it doesn't make sense for them to talk about "everything" while meaning "not-everything".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 1:32 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 306 (505257)
04-09-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Perdition
04-09-2009 2:01 PM


But that's just it, if they only knew of a small part of the whole, then everything that they know is destroyed, how would they tell the difference between everything and just the part they know?

I don't know, but they did say that god made everything in heaven too. They didn't "know" what was in heaven but were confident to claim that god made everything in it. That shows that when they said "everything", they were also talking about some things that they didn't know about.

Why would they say "everything" if they were just talking about "all the things we know about but not everything". Do you have anything that suggests that they thought that what they were aware of was everything and that there was nothing out there that they weren't aware of?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 2:01 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 2:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 306 (505258)
04-09-2009 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 2:15 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 2:15 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 306 (505261)
04-09-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Perdition
04-09-2009 2:29 PM


I'm just saying that they thought everything they knew about WAS everything.

I figured. That's why I asked:

quote:
Do you have anything that suggests that they thought that what they were aware of was everything and that there was nothing out there that they weren't aware of?

or are you just making that up for arguments sake?

Everything they saw was, in their mind, everything in the universe. If they couldn't see it, why would God have made it? (That's what, I assume, they may have been thinking, since they were God's chosen people.)

I doubt it. They also said that god made everything in heaven but they couldn't see all the heaven so they did have the concept of things existing that they were not aware of.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : added clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 2:29 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 190 by Juan Jose xx, posted 10-29-2011 11:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 306 (505266)
04-09-2009 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 3:38 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),

Its not self-contradictory because, 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.

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.

Or the story contains errors ;)

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

What were the propsed interpretations before the Copernican model?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 3:38 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 306 (505274)
04-09-2009 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 4:06 PM


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.

Oh, well they're two seperate ideas so I can agree with you on one but not on the other.

... 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.

Sure, but I'm not basing this on the biblical definition of "earth". I agree with you that it doesn't mean the globe.

Looking at the story as a whole, god wasn't just punishing some corner of the world, he was destroying everything.

quote:
Genesis 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.

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.


Interestingly enough, it doesn't even mention sea creatures.

God was dissappointed in man so he destroyed them. It doesn't make sense for god to destroy just the local people in one corner of the world.

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."

Okay, but lets look outside the definition of "earth". When people began to realize that there was more to the earth than what was known when the story of the flood was written, eastern Asia and perhaps even America as examples, 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 4:06 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 9:23 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 306 (505327)
04-10-2009 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 9:23 PM


Re: 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?

Well damn. I guess I just suck at writing. This whole time I've been trying to tell you that its all the other stuff in the story, and not the word "earth", that leads me to my conclusion.

As I understand the story, god was pissed because people let so much sin into the world so he wanted to wipe the slate clean and start over. You can't wipe the slate clean and start over if you are only wiping one corner of the slate.

Now, I suppose the one corner could have been the only part that god was pissed about, but I haven't really seen any support for that. Other than that, we have to realize that the story does contain some errors.

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?

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?

... 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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 9:23 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by doctrbill, posted 04-10-2009 11:06 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 306 (505333)
04-10-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by doctrbill
04-10-2009 11:06 AM


Re: 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).

Sure.

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.

... the story does contain some errors.

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

Of course. That they were unaware that their corner of the world was not the entire world doesn't necessitate that the flood was limited to their corner, especially when the idea behind the story is that everything was destroyed.

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

Not quite sure what leads you to that conslusion.

By "issue" I just meant as much of an issue as we are having here and not something to do with the entire chuch's stance on the issue. I wonder what people who were aware of indigenous Americans but unaware of the Copernican Model thought of how much of the globe was supposedly covered in the flood.

Are you familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh (I'm not). Was the flood in that story supposed to be local or was it supposed to cover the whole world? I think that could add wieght to either of our interpretations.

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.

Yeah, and you're correct in you interpretation of the word "earth" and how others missuse it to describe the globe.

I just think the other parts of the story suggest the flood should have been global.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by doctrbill, posted 04-10-2009 11:06 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 27 by doctrbill, posted 04-10-2009 1:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 306 (505351)
04-10-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Perdition
04-10-2009 1:06 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
You could have it backwards. You argue that the entire slate was wiped clean, so they thought their local area was the entire slate, but they were wrong on that count. Could it be the other way around, they thought their local area was the slate, and so when their local area was wiped clean, they thought the entire slate had been wiped clean?

Yeah but if they thought it was the entire slate then as we realize that the slate is more than they thought it was then the area the flood covered expands as the slate expands.

The point of the story was god starting over. If everything wasn't destroyed then it wasn't starting over.

If we look at ancient writings from other parts of the globe, we find no mention of this global flood,

That's far from true...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

quote:
1 Flood myths in various cultures
1.1 Ancient Near East
1.1.1 Sumerian
1.1.2 Babylonian (Epic of Gilgamesh)
1.1.3 Jewish
1.1.4 Islamic
1.2 Asia-Pacific
1.2.1 China
1.2.2 Lao (Indochina)
1.2.3 India
1.2.4 Andaman Islands
1.2.5 Indonesia
1.2.6 Australia
1.2.7 Malaysia
1.3 Europe
1.3.1 Greek
1.3.1.1 Ogyges
1.3.1.2 Deucalion
1.3.1.3 Dardanus
1.3.1.4 From The Theogony of Apollodorus
1.3.2 Germanic
1.3.3 Irish
1.3.4 Finnish
1.4 Americas
1.4.1 Aztec
1.4.2 Inca
1.4.3 Maya
1.4.4 Hopi
1.4.5 Caddo
1.4.6 Menominee
1.4.7 Mi'kmaq
1.5 Polynesian
2 Hypotheses of origin of flood myths
2.1 The Biblical Deluge
2.1.1 Flood geology
2.1.2 Sumerian king list flood

If we look at some individually:

quote:
Sumerian

The earliest extant flood myth is contained in the fragmentary Sumerian Eridu Genesis, datable by its script to the 17th century BC.

The story tells how the god Enki warns Ziusudra (meaning "he saw life," in reference to the gift of immortality given him by the gods), of the gods' decision to destroy mankind in a flood—the passage describing why the gods have decided this is lost. Enki instructs Ziusudra (also known as Atrahasis) to build a large boat—the text describing the instructions is also lost. After which he is left to repopulate the earth, as in many other flood myths.


quote:
India

The fish then warned him that a deluge would occur in a week that would destroy all life. Manu therefore built a boat which the fish towed to a mountaintop when the flood came, and thus he survived along with some "seeds of life" to re-establish life on earth.


quote:
Inca

In Inca mythology, Viracocha destroyed the giants with a Great Flood, and two people repopulated the earth.


These all support the idea of restarting the world from scratch, which requires everyone being killed, which require the whole planet being flooded.

The Genesis Flood was undoubtedly influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh, which seems to be a global flood because all of mankind was wiped out and two people repopulate the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 1:06 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 306 (505355)
04-10-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by doctrbill
04-10-2009 1:28 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
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?

Its a myth that may or may not be partially based on an actual event. The actual event could not have been a global flood.

I'm saying the writers thought that the entire world was flooded and wrote the story under that assumption. It doesn't matter that what they thought was the entire world was actually just a portion of it.

If, on the other hand, one wishes to declare it as history and say it is scientifically accurate, then one will encounter numerous objections.

Of course.

Now, the story could be based on an actual local flood. But the point of the story doesn't work if the writers knew that this flood did not cover the whole world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by doctrbill, posted 04-10-2009 1:28 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 7:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 306 (505361)
04-10-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Perdition
04-10-2009 1:45 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
Yeah but if they thought it was the entire slate then as we realize that the slate is more than they thought it was then the area the flood covered expands as the slate expands.

That's one conclusion, the other is, "Oh, gee, I guess the it wasn't the entire slate after all."

That's why we look to the rest of the story. That god was punishing all of mankind by destroying them and then repopulating the world tells us that the flood was not supposed to be limited to just a portion of the world.

For example, let's say I live on a little island. A tidal wave comes and washes out my entire island. I sit there in despair thinking the entire world has been deluged and wondering why the deity I believe in has visited such destruction on the world. I teach my children that we must be careful never to anger that deity again or he may visit similar destruction upon us. My children have children who have children and eventually one of them decides to try and leave the island, floating off on a log raft. He reaches the mainland that they never even knew existed. They see people walking around and through various signs and gesturing, we find out that a tidal wave reached them, too. The man goes back to his island and tells them of his discovery. They rejoice at his return and realize their deity must be even more powerful than they thought to destroy a bigger world.

Scientists come along and begin to study the island these people live on and determine that the tidal wave that wiped out the island happened 100 years prior, but the tidal wave on the mainland was 200 years prior. Is that evidence that a deity wiped out the world with a tidal wave, or that tidal waves happen in different places at different times?

If the point of the story was that all of mankind was wiped out and then the world was repopulated, then we could conclude that the story was meant to describe a flood that covered the entire planet. That the writers didn't know that thier island was not the entire planet doesn't mean that they must have not been talking about the entire planet.

I'm not saying that the Genesis flood account is evidence of a global flood. I'm saying that the writers thought the whole world was flooded, not just their corner of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 1:45 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 3:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 306 (505366)
04-10-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Perdition
04-10-2009 3:08 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
I'm not saying that the Genesis flood account is evidence of a global flood. I'm saying that the writers thought the whole world was flooded, not just their corner of it.

They thought it was, therefore they would write it that way.

That was my whole point.

And that's my argument against the OP. Even though we know that when the said "earth" they were not talking about the planet, we can infer that they must have been talking about the whole world.

But what they thought has no bearing on what really happened. I'm just saying there may have been a flood, the Jewish people at the time attributed it ot their god because he was unhappy and therefore wiped everyone (as far as they knew) off the planet.

I already agreed that that was a possibility.

It turns out they were wrong, the flood didn't reach the entire world, but that doesn't change the fact that they wrote what they perceived, not what really happened.

Exactly. Why were you disagreeing with me on this earlier!?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 3:08 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Perdition, posted 04-10-2009 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 306 (582704)
09-22-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by doctrbill
09-22-2010 7:06 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
My intent was to consider this for a time and come up with a wise answer. Then, I must have become distracted. By now you have probably witnessed that new thread discussing whether or not the Noah's Flood story is exaggerated. There is an excellent video in that thread which graphically demonstates how a mere river flood can appear to be "world" wide. In fact it is, to the victims, most of whom are born in that world and never wander outside it bounds. Anyhoo, I now have a response to your response which you posted so long ago.

I've been way busy and haven't had time for EvC for, like, a month.

I only have a moment now so I can't even give you a proper reply. But I think I can tell what I was thinking about this.

Catholic Scientist writes:

the story could be based on an actual local flood. But the point of the story doesn't work if the writers knew that this flood did not cover the whole world.

Their "whole world" of course. But if by "whole world" you mean: the globe then, No. They had no notion of the global reality.

I don't know which version of the Bible you favor but I am not familiar with any which use the word "world" in the context of Noah's flood. I do know that the Hebrew version utilizes 'erets and 'adamah which generally refer to real estate and their greatest scope, with addition of modifiers "whole" and "all the" are applied to regions and even to imperial territories, but apparently, and for arguably excellent reasons, are never applied to anything larger than the Macedonian Empire.

I'm not talking about any particular word usage, but looking at the myth as a whole.

God was pissed so he killed all the life with a flood. To do that would mean that, for the point of the story, the whole world would have to have been flooded. I agree the people of the time had no concept of a planet, but I think they had to be thinking that all of the world was flooded, not just a portion of it. Otherwise God wouldn't have been killing all the life, which was pretty much the reason for the flood in the first place.

Makes sense?

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : can --> can't


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 7:06 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 11:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019