Summations Only

quote:

---

This thread isn't about whether any of the stories are true or false

---

But it's pretty clear that you want the Bible to be true, and from that point of view a flood which covered pretty much all the Middle East - or even just Judah - isn't any better than a universal flood.

quote:

---

Some say it does, making the flood story refer to a global flood. My position is that the words used do not refer to the planet.

---

But I am not arguing for that it means a global flood in your peculiar sense. I just want to know if you have a valid reason for ruling out a universal flood. So why do you keep trying to change the subject?

quote:

---

But it's pretty clear that you want the Bible to be true,

---

quote:

---

and from that point of view a flood which covered pretty much all the Middle East - or even just Judah - isn't any better than a universal flood.

---

The flood is just the backdrop of the story. The basic premise of the story doesn't change whether one views it as global or regional.The issue comes when one tries to present a "truth" based on the idea the words eretz and adamah refer to the planet.

quote:

---

But I am not arguing for that it means a global flood in your peculiar sense. I just want to know if you have a valid reason for ruling out a universal flood. So why do you keep trying to change the subject?

---

I've already provided what I consider to be a valid reason for ruling out a global flood. Message 234. You have yet to explain why it isn't valid.

Hi PD, Every verse that has erets in it as it means the dry land.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

​

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

---

God called the dry land erets.So erets = dry land.I find no place where the word erets should have been translated anything other than dry land as God defined it.If the word erets was translated as dry land there would be no question as to the entire dry land being covered with water.God Bless,

Maybe im lost here (and there's a good chance I am) but how exactly is purpledawn being "pretty clear" she wants the Bible to be true if she has gone to such lengths to try to point out that what the Bible is saying isn't true?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The issue comes when one tries to present a "truth" based on the idea the words eretz and adamah refer to the planet.

---

Actually right now, we are supposedly discussing whether the flood should be taken as universal or local. In the Bible, clearly those words do not refer to our concept of the planet in the sense that the authors knew and understood it. But equally clearly it is not impossible that some usages can be correctly understood as referring to the planet, if the story is taken as a true story about our world, as oppose to a fiction set in a world where the concepts of the ancient authors were factually correct.

quote:

---

I've already provided what I consider to be a valid reason for ruling out a global flood.

---

And there you do it again. I'm not asking for arguments against you concept of a "global" flood. I am asking about arguments against a universal flood. And every time you try to change the subject.

quote:

---

Maybe im lost here (and there's a good chance I am) but how exactly is purpledawn being "pretty clear" she wants the Bible to be true if she has gone to such lengths to try to point out that what the Bible is saying isn't true?

---

She doesn't here or in the related thread on hyperbole. She tries to argue that the flood story does not claim that the flood was universal, making it more plausible. It's common for concordists to try to interpret the Bible to match modern knowledge, to argue for the reliability of the Bible. The fact that she was willing to contradict herself to support her preferred reading also speaks of a motive beyond merely understanding the text.She refuses to consider the fact that the Flood story as we have it is a myth and dismissed the idea of referring to the older stories it is based on to try to understand it better.She also directly attributes Jewish monotheism to the legendary Abraham, which relies again on assuming Biblical reliability.Seems pretty clear to me.

quote:

---

Actually right now, we are supposedly discussing whether the flood should be taken as universal or local.

---

Actually, I'm debating whether the text presents a flood that covers the entire planet or a flood that covers just a local area or region.

quote:

---

In the Bible, clearly those words do not refer to our concept of the planet in the sense that the authors knew and understood it. But equally clearly it is not impossible that some usages can be correctly understood as referring to the planet, if the story is taken as a true story about our world, as oppose to a fiction set in a world where the concepts of the ancient authors were factually correct.

---

Then show the verses that could be correctly understood as referring to the planet. IMO, it doesn't matter whether one takes the story as fact or fiction. The wording still doesn't refer to the planet.

quote:

---

And there you do it again. I'm not asking for arguments against you concept of a "global" flood. I am asking about arguments against a universal flood. And every time you try to change the subject.

---

If you're going to play word games, then you need to explain the distinction you're making. I have been using the words universal and global to refer to the flood covering the entire planet. I don't feel I have used those terms incorrectly.

​

Please explain what your point is concerning universal and global.

Hi PD, Well if that's what you're doing then you are wasting everyone's time. Those are two possibilities. There exists a third, as you well know and as you have already acknowledged. There still exists the possibility that the text is describing a flood that did not take place on a planet (because they had no concept of "planets") but did flood the entirety of what they imagined to exist.If you are going to insist upon creating a false dichotomy between a flooded planet and a regional flood then I don't see how reasonable discussion is possible.Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

The fact that she was willing to contradict herself to support her preferred reading also speaks of a motive beyond merely understanding the text.

---

Where have I contradicted myself? Or is this another, if I don't know you aren't going to tell me, game.

quote:

---

She also directly attributes Jewish monotheism to the legendary Abraham, which relies again on assuming Biblical reliability.

---

I tend to respond in like kind. If one wants to address real history vs what the Bible presents, I will respond accordingly. If one asks a question concerning the text and what it says, I will respond accordingly.In Message 219, you asked: And isn't Genesis 1 as we have it now, essentially monotheistic, recognising only one God as real? Where would other land come from?You asked about the text, not the actual history of monotheism.Judaism attributes the beginning of their religion to Abraham. It actually comes from their legends more than the Bible text, so it has nothing to do with the reliability of the Bible and it really had nothing to do with the topic, so I didn't feel it necessary to elaborate. I also showed you in Message 222 that Genesis 1 wasn't necessarily monotheistic. Unfortunately you never continued with that line of argument, so I'm not sure what the point was.Concerning me, your conclusions are incorrect. I'm not arguing for the reliability of the Bible. I'm arguing that eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet by definition or by how they are used in the text.My arguments concerning eretz and adamah don't really make the creation or flood stories more plausible. The flood is just the backdrop and the Jewish legends have more in them than the Bible has. The Bible seems to have the bare bones. The lessons presented in the stories are the purpose of the stories. IMO, the original audience knew it was a story. IMO, the Bible is missing a lot of the character and some of the lessons of the legends.

quote:

---

Well if that's what you're doing then you are wasting everyone's time. Those are two possibilities. There exists a third, as you well know and as you have already acknowledged. There still exists the possibility that the text is describing a flood that did not take place on a planet (because they had no concept of "planets") but did flood the entirety of what they imagined to exist.

---

I don't see a distinction between local, regional, or known land concerning this argument. Eretz can refer to all three. From my perspective, compared to the planet, all those possibilities fall under the term local. From the perspective of an ancient audience, the upper limit would be known land. So apparently it bugs you all that I use them interchangeably?The point of the thread is that eretz and adamah don't refer to the planet.So what you all are fussing about is my choice of English words? Good grief!I use the words universal and global to refer to the entire planet. Would you prefer I use the word planetary?I use the words local, regional, and known lands to differentiate from planetary. From now on I will just use the word local.So planetary or local flood. Do you understand what I'm saying now?

I've always thought that referring to a planetary flood was distracting, but not for the reasons you give. Planetary carries a connotation of a relationship between earth and the rest of the cosmos, and at least some of the argument here and in other threads has dealt with whether the ancients knew understood Earth to be a planet in the same way Mars is a planet.Anyway, I'm happy to dispose of word "planet" for this discussion.But that said, when you use the term local for the purposes of this discussion, and contend that the Bible authors were describing a local flood, the implication is that the authors knew of non-local places that were not being flooded. If the authors knew not of such other places, or had any hint that they existed, then the authors were referring to a world wide flood and not a local one. It's just that they believed the world was rather tiny.

I can't help but feel that this would be an odd choice for describing a scenario where all the land that was imagined to exist was flooded. Your own cited definition goes directly against such a usage;

quote:

---

of, relating to, or applicable to part of a whole

---

"Part of a whole" seems like an... idiosyncratic way of describing all of a whole. "Local" is a rather peculiar way to say "universal". I don't think so. They could easily have been aware that other, unknown lands existed beyond what was known. They could have had the concept of Terra incognita. Nothing you have said rules this out. What bugs me is that you appear to be using terms to mean the opposite of their normal meanings and then chiding others when they misunderstand you. You might do better if you used words to mean what they actually mean, rather than arbitrarily redefining them. Certainly, it would be of aid to sensible discussion, since I strongly feel that your current usage has posed a barrier to comprehension and discussion throughout this thread. I am honestly at a loss to understand why you would do this. If you want to say "black" when you mean "white", feel free. But if you want to make yourself understood, I think that "planetary" might be a better term, yes. Now you have clarified your Humpty-Dumpty definitions, yeah, I'm happy. But I still can't understand why you insist upon such a misleading usage.If "local flood" includes the flooding of just the Near East and surrounds, but could also cover a scenario where absolutely all land that was imagined to exist was flooded, then I agree; the Bible is definitely describing one of those two scenarios. But no-one on this thread has said otherwise. There is a reason why your discussion with PaulK has dragged on, and I don't think it's because you substantially disagree. I think it's because you have been arguing past each other. Employing misleading terms seems to be at the root of this.Mutate and Survive

When someone says "all the earth", people today visualize the entire globe. To avoid that association in this thread, I didn't want to use the word earth. That leaves global, universal, or planetary.

quote:

---

But that said, when you use the term local for the purposes of this discussion, and contend that the Bible authors were describing a local flood, the implication is that the authors knew of non-local places that were not being flooded. If the authors knew not of such other places, or had any hint that they existed, then the authors were referring to a world wide flood and not a local one. It's just that they believed the world was rather tiny.

---

The English word "world" isn't used in the text. When you present the idea that "their world" was flooded (which IMO is the same as saying the lands they occupy or the civilization of the time), it can still be understood as the entire planet by people today since the English word "world" can also carry the idea of planet. The text uses eretz and adamah. Neither is translated as world.The authors probably did know of lands that weren't flooded. The flood story is a borrowed and adjusted story. Do we really think the first person to borrow and adjust the story didn't know it was talking about another group of people? Like I said, IMO, the audience knew it was a story and took away the lessons intended.The point is that the phrase "all the land" doesn't refer to every piece of exposed ground on this planet.

You like planetary, but NoNukes doesn't. Wow!You all get together and decide what you can comprehend and send me a list.

NoNukes and I are using the term in exactly the same sense; to make reference to a planet. When he says that we can dispense with it, I agree, insofar as that neither you, nor I nor PaulK or NoNukes has suggested that the Bible is referring to a planet. We agree on that bit. We can set it aside.The only question remaining is whether the text describes this non-planetary world being partly or totally flooded. You seem to have passed upon your chance to discuss this issue.Mutate and Survive