Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,283 Year: 5,540/9,624 Month: 565/323 Week: 62/143 Day: 5/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 156 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 151 of 306 (639029)
10-27-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by doctrbill
10-27-2011 1:55 PM


Re: Still Not The Planet
Hi doctrbill,
The original story is Sumerian in origin which makes its geography Mesopotamian and its likely basis: an unusually destructive but otherwise predictable annual flooding of the two rivers.
Virtually every city of Mesopotamia was constructed to serve as a refuge from the annual river floods. These refuges evolved from fairly low mounds just above the average flood level. Even then, apparently, they were referred to as "hills" for they were "high" compared to their surroundings. Mud brick walls were constructed to protect against extra high water. In time, the "hills" became higher and the mud brick walls were plated with glazed brick to make them more durable.
There is more to this story but I think this addresses the question of the high hills.
Yeah, I can get behind all of that, But I would be at pains to point out the distinction here; this may be the origin of the story, but it is not a meaning that one could get from simply reading the text.
Regarding "under the whole heaven" I suggest that it may simply mean: "as far as the eye could see."
I think that is an extremely odd phrasing. Do you have any other texts that use it in that sense?
As for Ararat: It is a region, not the name of a specific peak. The King James Bible says, "the mountains of Ararat." The Douay/Rheims Bible reads: "the mountains of Armenia."
Nonetheless, it is a region with Mt. Ararat in it. In Gen 8, the ark comes to rest upon the mountains of Ararat. It is only after that the tops of the mountains become visible. I fail to see how that could happen without Ararat itself being flooded.
Of course none of this can be part of a Bible which is both literal and true and which describes a local flood.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 1:55 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 2:48 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 156 by hERICtic, posted 10-27-2011 3:37 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 157 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 3:40 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 152 of 306 (639031)
10-27-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Panda
10-27-2011 1:49 PM


Re: Still Not The Planet - Bump
Panda writes:
I would be very dissatisfied if I had written Genesis.
Had I written Genesis I too would be dissatisfied: displeased that modern people were exaggerating it so.
But wait! Maybe I wouldn't much mind after all. Maybe I could take a clue from those folks and re-write the story such that the Ark transforms into a starship and Noah finds him a Terra Nova, and instead of his wife and kids he takes him seventy two virgins and they all live happily ever after eating barbecued Brontosaurus and drinking home made wine.
Hmmm. Good Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Panda, posted 10-27-2011 1:49 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 10-27-2011 2:29 PM doctrbill has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 153 of 306 (639034)
10-27-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by doctrbill
10-27-2011 2:22 PM


Re: Still Not The Planet - Bump
It's important to remember that Genesis is NOT one book but rather an anthology itself, a collection of stories from a variety of writers during many different periods and from many different cultures.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 2:22 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 2:56 PM jar has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 154 of 306 (639036)
10-27-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Granny Magda
10-27-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Still Not The Planet
Granny Magda writes:
this may be the origin of the story, but it is not a meaning that one could get from simply reading the text.
Despite what we may have heard in Sunday school. This story was not written with us in mind. It was not written in our langauge nor with anticipation that it be translated to our language. In fact, it is unlikely that it can be translated to our language succinctly, at least not without terrifying several generations of true believer.
Granny Magda writes:
doctrbill writes:
Do you have any other texts that use it in that sense?
Regarding "under the whole heaven" I suggest that it may simply mean: "as far as the eye could see."
In a poetic discussion of lightning and thunder we encounter that very expression. It is translated in various ways. In the King James Version as "under the whole heaven" and in the following as "through all the heaven."
quote:
Give ear to the rolling noise of his voice; to the hollow sound which goes out of his mouth.
He sends it out through all the heaven, and his thunder-flame to the ends of the earth. Job 37:2, 3 (Bible in Basic English)
As you can imagine, I am thinking that "under the whole heaven" is a figure of speech and am doubting that it refers to all sky everywhere on our planet.
Yes?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 2:17 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 3:43 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 155 of 306 (639038)
10-27-2011 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by jar
10-27-2011 2:29 PM


Still Not The Planet
Hi Jar.
Can't say I know the full extent of it but I have noticed that there are at least four different traditions of the flood story and three or maybe five different versions of Abraham's adventure. Exodus is another book like that. Then, of course, there is the variety and redundency of the books of kings and chronicles. But hey, we are attempting to simplify Bible study arent'we? The fundies are severely under exposed to Bible truth so they do deserve to know about all that but I think of my own experience at getting out of the box and I am thankful that the realizations came in small doses. Well there was the one big rush on the occasion of realizing that it wasn't God's word after all, but once that passed, I was perfectly content with little steps.
Ya know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 10-27-2011 2:29 PM jar has not replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4635 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 156 of 306 (639045)
10-27-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Granny Magda
10-27-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Still Not The Planet
Granny, I agree. The story does not seem to make sense if it was a local flood. Granted, the "world" most likely was believed to be quite small compared to what we know today. But, it appears through scripture the authors believed in quite a few things about the flood.
Genesis 6: 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
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.
The very reason for the flood was due to mankinds wickedness. Not a certain amout of people, but mankind. Only Noah and a few others were chose to survied.
Genesis 7: 21 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 flesh was killed.
Genesis 9: 1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Seems odd that millions surived, but it was up to Noah and his sons to replenish the earth.
The very purpose of taking male and female animals was to replenish their kind. Obviously if it was local, this would not be necessary.
If it was local, why could they not find land for a year?
Also, if the flood was local, what about gods promise? That the rainbow was sign that god would never flood the earth like that again? If it was local, theres a huge problem. There have been other deveasting floods. Did god lie?
Even "Peter" believed it was "world" wide, all perished.
And God did not spare the ancient world--except for Noah and the seven others in his family. Noah warned the world of God's righteous judgment. So God protected Noah when he destroyed the world of ungodly people with a vast flood.
2Peter 2:5.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 2:17 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 157 of 306 (639046)
10-27-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Granny Magda
10-27-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Still Not The Planet
Granny Magda writes:
doctrbill writes:
As for Ararat: It is a region, not the name of a specific peak. The King James Bible says, "the mountains of Ararat." The Douay/Rheims Bible reads: "the mountains of Armenia."
Nonetheless, it is a region with Mt. Ararat in it. In Gen 8, the ark comes to rest upon the mountains of Ararat. It is only after that the tops of the mountains become visible. I fail to see how that could happen without Ararat itself being flooded.
Ararat may be a reference to the kingdom of Urartu.
Please note that the word "mountains" here is given for the same Hebrew word translated "hills" in the previous discussion. And, note that the bible does not say the ark came to rest on "Mount Ararat." My intent is to show textual and contextual reasons to doubt that the story was originally reported as a global catastrophe. There is certainly no scientific evidence of such an inundation.
If we care to believe that the ancient authors were persons of normal intelligence then we cannot have them spouting such nonsense as the arguments brought by evangelicals. I find no textual reason to assume that the ancients were spouting nonsense when they reported the adventure of a very lucky man who survived an unusually devastating flood. What Bible translators choose to do with it 5,000 years later is another matter entirely.
Can you dig it?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 2:17 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 4:00 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 156 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 158 of 306 (639047)
10-27-2011 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by doctrbill
10-27-2011 2:48 PM


Re: Still Not The Planet
Despite what we may have heard in Sunday school. This story was not written with us in mind. It was not written in our langauge nor with anticipation that it be translated to our language. In fact, it is unlikely that it can be translated to our language succinctly, at least not without terrifying several generations of true believer.
Yeah, I largely agree with that. Specifically, I suspect that the authors probably intended the story to be read as factual on one level and symbolic on another, in a way that is quite alien to our way of reading a text.
As you can imagine, I am thinking that "under the whole heaven" is a figure of speech and am doubting that it refers to all sky everywhere on our planet.
Yes?
Nah!
I'm not getting that from that quote. I see where you're coming from, but I don't see it ruling out the idea that the thunder is anything less than global. After all, thunder does manifest everywhere, if not everywhere at once. Further, the verse is glorying God's power. It seems to me that the author would reach for the widest ranging metaphor possible, not that God's might extends only as far as the horizon. I also notice the use of flat-earth language in this verse, namely the bit about "can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze? ", which is one of the verses I've previously used in support of the solid firmament model.
Also the phrase "ends of the earth" in particular does seem to imply a very large area at the least. I'm kind of envisaging it as being similar in extent to the area highlighted in your avatar pic.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 2:48 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 4:04 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3576 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 159 of 306 (639048)
10-27-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Granny Magda
10-27-2011 12:45 PM


Everything Isn't Always Everything
quote:
For instance it speaks of "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven," being covered; now that could just mean the local area, but it doesn't seem like the most obvious meaning. It sounds more like everything was flooded, everything that could be flooded was flooded. They just didn't imagine it on a planetary scale because they had no such concept to work with.
In my opinion it is a way for the story teller to say there was an obscene amount of water. Given their area, I don't think the Hebrews were cut off from trading with civilizations around them. Everything they could see may have been flooded. We tend to use the word the same way. Everything doesn't always truly mean everything.
In Genesis 41:57, the translators don't have a problem using the more local terminology. The global idea doesn't fit the story. We know better. So we should know better when it comes to the flood also. Our English translators are choosing the word earth. IMO, they are trying to be ambiguous in certain parts of the Bible.
Young's Literal Translation
and all the earth hath come to Egypt, to buy, unto Joseph, for the famine was severe in all the earth.
New International Version (1984)
And all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world.
English Standard Version (2001)
Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.
Obviously, the peoples of the Americas didn't go to Egypt for food.
The same word ha'aretz was used for the words translated as land, earth, countries, and world.
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth (ba'aretz) and it grieved him at his heart
And the LORD said I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth (ha'adamah) both man and beast and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air for it repenteth me that I have made them
The author used different words, but our translators used the same words.
The story has to be taken with a grain of salt, just like the A&E story. The main character is supposedly 600 years old.
That's one of the problems with stories that are thousands of years old. It happens with stories from the beginning of American history. Over time we lose the meanings of the idioms and the humor of the day. Just listening to an old radio show with Red Skelton and one will not get the jokes. We don't have the background info. That's why Bible study should encompass more than just reading the text. I want to understand what the writer was telling his audience. He wasn't writing for me. It was a very ancient time, different continent, and very different culture.
Many of our idioms have changed meanings over the years and people will eventually forget why they say them. It is interesting to read books written in the 1800's.
quote:
Also, as I have mentioned before, the text specifically mentions Mt. Ararat and describes the Ark as having come to rest there.
I'm not sure what your point is with that statement since you didn't mention it in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 12:45 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 4:09 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 4:12 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 156 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 160 of 306 (639049)
10-27-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by doctrbill
10-27-2011 3:40 PM


Re: Still Not The Planet
Ararat may be a reference to the kingdom of Urartu.
Which also contained Mt. Ararat.
Please note that the word "mountains" here is given for the same Hebrew word translated "hills" in the previous discussion.
Okay, that is a good point.
And, note that the bible does not say the ark came to rest on "Mount Ararat."
Not outright, but what other scenario could be described? The boat comes to rest on the "mountains/hills of Ararat" and only later does the flood recede enough to see the mountains. How could that have happened so close to so many actual mountains?
There is certainly no scientific evidence of such an inundation.
That doesn't really have any relevance to what the Bible actually says.
If we care to believe that the ancient authors were persons of normal intelligence then we cannot have them spouting such nonsense as the arguments brought by evangelicals. I find no textual reason to assume that the ancients were spouting nonsense when they reported the adventure of a very lucky man who survived an unusually devastating flood. What Bible translators choose to do with it 5,000 years later is another matter entirely.
Can you dig it?
I agree that the idiotic antics of YECs and inerrantists are way off the mark. I also agree that the Genesis authors were intelligent and well educated men, if not particularly nice ones. But I have to say that I do not think them stupid for having a very peculiar view of their world. Ideas like the world being flat or that it only extended a few hundred miles around them don't seem that foolish to me, given what little they knew back then. These were intelligent men, but they lived in very ignorant times and imagined their world accordingly.
As it goes, I don't really see this sort of thing as that big of a problem for the more moderate Christian. It's death to any wrong-headed fundamentalist reading though.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 3:40 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 161 of 306 (639051)
10-27-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Granny Magda
10-27-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Still Not The Planet
Granny Magda writes:
... the phrase "ends of the earth" in particular does seem to imply a very large area at the least. I'm kind of envisaging it as being similar in extent to the area highlighted in your avatar pic.
Actually, "ends of the earth" may be translated borders of the land. My avatar is but one of numerous graphics I have created to illustrate biblical figures of speech touching ancient worldviews. You may be interested to know that the biblical expressions, "whole earth" and "all the earth," where their parameters are defined, never encompass so large an area as the then known world which I have shown in yellow on the globe.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 3:43 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17860
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 162 of 306 (639054)
10-27-2011 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by purpledawn
10-27-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
You're making obviously bad arguments here:
Obviously, the peoples of the Americas didn't go to Egypt for food.
Obviously there is no reason to think that the writer even KNEW of the Americas, so this is no reason to think that the writer did not mean the whole Earth. If you are going to make good arguments you can't assume that the author had information that nobody in the time and place of writing had access to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by purpledawn, posted 10-27-2011 3:50 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 156 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 163 of 306 (639055)
10-27-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by purpledawn
10-27-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
I agree with you up to this statement;
Obviously, the peoples of the Americas didn't go to Egypt for food.
No, obviously not. But that's not what any sane person would argue it meant. They didn't know about the Americas. It would never have entered their minds. The question is, did they envisage the known world to be all the world, or nearly so. I don't think that they imagined the world to be very large, so these verses are perhaps not quite so improbable as they sound to us, with our modern knowledge of how large the world really is.
It's the same for the flood. They may have meant to describe a flood that covered an area that to us looks local, but to the authors, seemed like the whole world.
The story has to be taken with a grain of salt, just like the A&E story. The main character is supposedly 600 years old.
Oh yeah, of course. If only everyone would take their daily dose of salt, there might be more rational discussion on this topic.
Also, as I have mentioned before, the text specifically mentions Mt. Ararat and describes the Ark as having come to rest there.
As I have mentioned before, if one takes this to mean that Mt. Ararat was deluged, then one cannot then claim that the text is a literal description of a local flood. I know that's not your position, I just mention it fore the sake of those who might be tempted to take such a view seriously.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by purpledawn, posted 10-27-2011 3:50 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 4:40 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 172 by purpledawn, posted 10-27-2011 8:02 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 164 of 306 (639059)
10-27-2011 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Granny Magda
10-27-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
I will say this within the thread so it doesn't get lost but I intend it as,
A general message to all participants.
[size=3]Words of ancient language translated "earth" are not the same as those translated "world." Let's not confuse ourselves by speaking as if they were equivalent or interchangeable terms. They are not. [/size=3]
For purposes of clarity, I suggest that discussion of the word "world" in a biblical context be taken up as a separate topic.
The current topc is Earth and the premise is that according to the Bible it is NOT a planet.
Purple Dawn's comment about the Americas is neither inappropriate nor off topic.
As to the question of whether the Americas are relevant to this discussion - I say they are, and for a number of reasons which I will elaborate if any one cares to hear.
OK?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2011 4:12 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2011 4:49 PM doctrbill has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17860
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 165 of 306 (639061)
10-27-2011 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by doctrbill
10-27-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Everything Isn't Always Everything
I agree that the ancient Jews had no concept of Earth as a planet. I agree that the knowledge and beliefs held by the authors are relevant to interpreting the intended meaning.
I do not agree that knowledge that they would not have had is relevant.
So, unless you can give some reason why the ancient authors of the Bible would have known of the Americas, why should they be relevant ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 4:40 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by doctrbill, posted 10-27-2011 5:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024