Summations Only

quote:

---

Since the issue is one of fact, not reasoning, this cannot be a valid reason.

---

Sure it is. It's my reason and it is valid.

quote:

---

I give a reason for my conclusion. You do not dispute that reason. Again you give me reason to question your honesty.

---

That's not evidence. Oh pooh, I'm looking dishonest again. I really need to quit that.

quote:

---

It was given early in the hyperbole thread. Message 38

---

We aren't in the hyperbole thread.

quote:

---

It disposes of the false dichotomy that the author must either be describing a strictly local flood or a flood covering the planet as we understand it, as I have explained above.

---

Isn't that pretty much the options? Either the flood covered all the planet or it didn't. That's all we got.

quote:

---

That's also false, since I gave relevant verses in the first post introducing the issue in the hyperbole thread: Message 3

---

We aren't in the hyperbole thread.

quote:

---

Then show me where I made that claim in this thread. You could have done that you know. Very simple and avoids a lot of requests.

---

You know perfectly well that you made the claim in the hyperbole thread.

quote:

---

It is important that it's not presented as planetary, global, universal, etc., but I won't lose any sleep over it.

---

Except that all you can argue for is the undisputed point that the author didn't have our idea of the planet in mind...

quote:

---

That's it? Well since I have understanding that we are on a planet, then I am using the word correctly when I say the flood was not global. Since I feel the flood was restricted to an area of the planet, I am using the word correctly when I say that the flood was not universal.

---

Your opinion is not a matter of dispute either.So, just another evasion.

quote:

---

Sure it is. It's my reason and it is valid.

---

No, it's not valid. It's an obvious non-sequitur.

quote:

---

That's not evidence. Oh pooh, I'm looking dishonest again. I really need to quit that.

---

In what sense is it not evidence ?

quote:

---

We aren't in the hyperbole thread.

---

And again I point out that facts do not depend on which thread we happen to be in.

quote:

---

You know perfectly well that you made the claim in the hyperbole thread.

---

I love my main computer. It makes it so easy to search, copy and quote. I was really lost without it for two weeks. When I present an argument (and my main computer is working), I provide quotes and links I refer to. It is not my job to find what someone else is referring to whether it was something I wrote or not. Remembering what I've written on this board is not a priority in my life. If it's not important enough for you to do the work, it isn't important enough for me to do the work.I prefer not to carry someone elses monkey.

quote:

---

Except that all you can argue for is the undisputed point that the author didn't have our idea of the planet in mind...

---

So? That's my prerogative.

quote:

---

Your opinion is not a matter of dispute either.

​

So, just another evasion.

---

Actually it was very helpful. I'm the one using the words, not the authors; so I'm using them correctly. Good to know.

Reported

quote:

---

No, it's not valid. It's an obvious non-sequitur.

---

That doesn't mean my reason isn't valid.

quote:

---

In what sense is it not evidence ?

---

It's just you saying it is what it is. If I said it isn't what you say it is, you're going to ask for proof because you aren't going to take my word for it. Why should I take your word for it that it is what it is?

quote:

---

And again I point out that facts do not depend on which thread we happen to be in.

---

You really don't get it do you. It has nothing to do with the facts. If you want to present an argument concerning hyperbole that pertains to this topic, then make that argument with all the evidence that goes with it.If you want to discuss the argument in the hyperbole thread then discuss it there. I will be getting back to that thread now that I have my main computer back, but the holidays are upon us and I will be busy crafting. No time for wasted posts and people who won't present support or evidence for their position or people who won't even take a position. I don't argue for the sake of arguing.You go stupid, so can I.

Hi PD, How do you propose to find the understanding that the author had?All you have to examine is the words the author used to make his statements with.

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.Just to insure what is said in that statement. There was water and there was something sticking out of it and that something was called dry land.What part of what was protruding out of the water was not dry land?So erets = dry land according to the word used by the author.

quote:

---

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

---

The author used erets = dry land in verse 19 and even added all the high hills were covered with water.The waters prevailed upon the earth = erets = dry land.What part of the dry land is left uncovered with water.All the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.What hill under the whole heaven was left uncovered?It doesn't make any difference if the earth was as GM presented the flat earth what part of the dry land would be left uncovered.Since the earth is the shape it is in what part of the dry land was left uncovered?It makes no difference what shape the Earth was in all the dry land was covered with water?If you disagree please explain what dry land was left out in the preceeding verse mentioned?God Bless,

The definition of the words used is not the only way of trying to establish what a writer means. If a word or phrase can be taken in two or more ways, you need to look at the context, the intention of the writer and the purpose of the story to help decide what the writer means. It is also handy if there is another part of the story that discusses the same issues and comparing the two.There is a story in Genesis where regional destruction is discussed. It is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is Genesis chapter 19 verses 12 - 29.Here is the text -

quote:

---

12 Then the men said to Lot, ‘Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the citybring them out of the place. 13For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.’ 14So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, ‘Up, get out of this place; for the Lord is about to destroy the city.’ But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

​

15 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, ‘Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or else you will be consumed in the punishment of the city.’ 16But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and left him outside the city. 17When they had brought them outside, they* said, ‘Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, or else you will be consumed.’ 18And Lot said to them, ‘Oh, no, my lords; 19your servant has found favour with you, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, for fear the disaster will overtake me and I die. 20Look, that city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape thereis it not a little one?and my life will be saved!’ 21He said to him, ‘Very well, I grant you this favour too, and will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. 22Hurry, escape there, for I can do nothing until you arrive there.’ Therefore the city was called Zoar.* 23The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar.

​

24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven; 25and he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

​

27 Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord; 28and he looked down towards Sodom and Gomorrah and towards all the land of the Plain, and saw the smoke of the land going up like the smoke of a furnace.

​

29 So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had settled.

---

That story is a story of regional destruction. It can be taken in no other way. The are to be destroyed and the living things to be destroyed are clearly defined.There is no mention of destoying all land or the land under heaven or all things that breath etc etc etc. Now campare that part of Genesis with the text of the Flood of Noah - Genesis chapter 7 verses 17 - 24

quote:

---

The flood continued for forty days on the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. 21And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; 22everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. 24And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred and fifty days.

---

Even if you repleace the word earth with land, dry land etc it still reads very, very differently to the regional destruction story of Lot.The story of Noah and the story of Lot cannot be read to both discuss regional disasters. The wording and general feel of the text is extremelly different.The knowledge and intent of the writer needs to be discussed as well.Does the writer believe that there is no land on the other side of the mountains he can see? If the writer thought that the land went on forever in all directions, or came to an end at the horizon, they could still use the words 'all land' to refer to all of the land. (edit - Granny Magda covered this well in Message 260)When the writer is writing 'all land', do you think he means the land up the the side of the mountain that he can see but not the land on the other side?Just because the writer did not know what nations lay outside their knowledge does not mean that he/she did not include them in their description of 'all land'. All land could very well include all the known and unknown land. Everything.Is it reasonable to assume that the writer, when writing of the power of their god, did actually mean the entire world (including the lands they could not see)?It seems that the words used could be used to describe the entire planet, or a certain region on the planet.Which interpretation you choose to see as more plausible seems to be directly related to the world view or agenda you are affiliated with. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

That's all anyone has been talking about for 100+ messages! It's a bit late to complain about being off topic now. I was hoping that I might persuade you to stop playing word games, since it seems to me that it is mostly your misleading use of terminology that has derailed this thread. Had you not insisted upon using misleading language, the thread would probably have gone something like this; purpledawn: The Bible does not describe a planet.

​

PaulK: Agreed.

​

Granny Magda: No argument there.

​

NoNukes: Obviously it doesn't.Instead, you've muddied the waters until I don't think anyone on this thread knows what the hell you're arguing about. As far as I can tell, only ICANT is actually arguing that the Bible describes a planet, and he's... y'know... ICANT.The thing that's drawing disagreement is the way you keep making it look as though you want to exclude the possibility of a complete flood and the way you seem to be insisting that a total flood implies a planet. I don't think that is your actual position, but if you go back and read what you've written in this thread, I think you might see how you have been giving the appearance of trying to exclude this possibility.Mutate and Survive

The extent of the flood may be considered on a number of levels.1) Historic realityThis necessarily refers to a limited flood - but one that would be limited even within the area that the authors would have had knowledge of (even back to the Sumerian original). If the flood were a purely historic account, which could be identified with a real event then this would be of interest. However neither is the case. We have no event that can be definitely identified as the source of the story, and the story contains clearly mythic elements such as the creation of the rainbow.2) What the story saysThe text appears to contain indications that the flood was considered to be world-wide (e.g Message 5, Message 24, Message 238). Certainly there are no explicit limits given. The argument on the use of the words "eretz" and "adamah" seems weak. Firstly because it relies on looking at other uses (which can confirm possible meanings, but not disconfirm them) and secondly because context does suggest a wider use:
e.g. doctrbill states in Message 4
and in Message 11
So it seems that these words may be used to refer to essentially all the dry land, which leaves us with a general flood, unless the context requires a more limited area. But as has already been pointed out, there is context that suggests a general flood, covering all of the dry land in existence.Also it is reasonable to ask, if these words cannot indicate a more general flood, how would the author write of a more general flood ? No answer has been forthcoming.It is argued elsewhere that the statements taken to mean that the flood covered all the dry land were hyperbolic. However, given the fact that the flood is explicitly an act of God - an entity not restricted by nature at all and (in the context of the story) apparently capable of creating all the land in the first place (which in Genesis 1 involves massive movements of water) it is far from obvious that these are not to be taken literally.
dictionary.com defines hyperbole as: Meaning one clearly does not apply, while a simple assertion that meaning two is meant would beg the question. If the only reason for thinking that these statements are hyperbole is their extravagance, then we are left with no good reason to consider them hyperbole at all.So again the weight of evidence seems to support the idea that a general flood, covering all the habitable land is meant.3) How the author and early audience would have understood it.Obviously they would not have understood it as referring to our modern conception of the world, because they did not have that conception. However, this is no bar to them considering it a general flood covering all the land.4) How it should be understood today.Obviously if we are to understand it as a literal event we need to relate it to our understanding of the world. In this case a general flood would be a flood covering the entire globe (but this is the only context where they are synonymous - they were obviously not synonymous in the view of the author, who did not believe that the earth was a globe).If we are to understand it as a story, given in the context of the times, we should not bother to consider that at all. We should be content with the idea of a general flood without considering what that means in our understanding. (i.e. starting with a "fresh slate" may be important to the story, the shape of the world is not).In conclusion, then, the only context where it clearly makes sense to speak of a local flood is when we deal with the historical origins. But in that case it would clearly make more sense to be consider the older versions of the story as having more weight than the one found in the Bible, yet those have not been discussed here at all.We are therefore left with the other three options, all of which seem to favour a universal flood, with the only caveat being the point in the OP, that the author - even the redactor of the version we have - lacked our concept of Earth as a planet. An important point in some contexts, but not important when considering the extent of the flood as given in the story.

quote:

---

I was hoping that I might persuade you to stop playing word games, since it seems to me that it is mostly your misleading use of terminology that has derailed this thread. Had you not insisted upon using misleading language, the thread would probably have gone something like this;

​

purpledawn: The Bible does not describe a planet.

​

PaulK: Agreed.

​

Granny Magda: No argument there.

​

NoNukes: Obviously it doesn't.

​

Instead, you've muddied the waters until I don't think anyone on this thread knows what the hell you're arguing about. As far as I can tell, only ICANT is actually arguing that the Bible describes a planet, and he's... y'know... ICANT.

​

The thing that's drawing disagreement is the way you keep making it look as though you want to exclude the possibility of a complete flood and the way you seem to be insisting that a total flood implies a planet. I don't think that is your actual position, but if you go back and read what you've written in this thread, I think you might see how you have been giving the appearance of trying to exclude this possibility.

---

I assume you mean complete flood of your non-planetary world.And this post didn't do it for you. Message 172
That post contained several Ancient World Maps showing how the known land changed through the years. That would be your non-planetary world. Your last sentence in that post. Really, you don't think we're saying the same thing???? All or part of the real estate known to them. All or part of the non-planetary world. You couldn't make the leap, seriously???After I bumped the thread back into view. Message 216So I said the flood didn't cover the planet, which you supposedly agree with. The storytellers culture and environment. This covers your non-planetary world. So I did say the words in the Bible didn't refer to the planet, or do I need your exact wording for you to understand? Local and regional fall under your non-planetary world.In Message 218: Lands he didn't know of would at most fall outside your non-planetary world.In Message 227: This again falls under your non-planetary world. Do I really have to say all or part every time I refer to the non-planetary world?In Message 229: "The world" would be your non-planetary world.In Message 247, I said: 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.Message 248 is where you pop in again and tell me that is a waste of time. The words local area or region isn't enough for you to connect it with your non-planetary world?
That sentence didn't tell you that I'm saying the Bible doesn't describe a planet?
That sentence doesn't tell you that I'm debating whether the text presents a flood that covers the planet as opposed to a flood that doesn't cover the planet?In my response to you, which is Message 250 I told you: 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. I also told you: The point of the thread is that eretz and adamah don't refer to the planet.So I told you as soon as you popped in that your non-planetary world isn't the point of the debate.So I have made it quite clear that I am debating that eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet. When it comes to the flood story, that means the flood did not cover the planet.I've also made it known that I have no issue with whether the flood covered all of the non-planetary world or part of it.So show me where I have been confusing and where I seem to "look" as though I want to exclude the possibility of a complete flood, which I assume you mean a complete flood of the non-planetary world. We must be precise.

If it helps to have a data point, I'm certainly confused. I have no idea what point you are making.You appear to believe that there were some lands that the Bible authors knew about that were not flooded, but you don't seem to place much urgency in talking about them. If this thread never gets to the point of discussing that, I don't see the need in posting any kind of summary.My impression is that you have some reasons for reading the Bible the way you do, and that you believe those reasons to be objective. But you haven't given anything like an objective reason. It appears to me that you've already decided that the flood was local and that you are simply providing rationalization for what you already believe. Curiously enough, this sounds like something ICANT said a while back.

I agree that the word earth is not referring to a planet. But from the story as a whole, it doesn't make sense for the flood to be just a local one that didn't really flood everything.Back from Message 24:

quote:

---

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.

​

...

​

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.

---

From Message 30:

quote:

---

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.

​

...

​

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 world. 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 world.

​

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.

---

If we look at the Epic of Gilgamesh that the Flood story stemmed from, it too was about wiping out all of mankind and starting over.Now, your way around this was that the story was just talking about their people and their land, and that other people and other lands were not included in the flood.We ended with my Message 132:

quote:

---

They didn't necessarily use that name when referring to other tribes.

​

I don't find it difficult to believe that the ancient Hebrew tribes were the same.

​

It was their story about their people.

​

Okay but then it doesn't make sense to be talking about destroying mankind and restarting everything and having Noah repopulate the land.

​

That's what I don't get.

---

And I still don't get how the stroy could make sense if it was just a small local flood that just covered some of the land and only killed some of the people when the whole point of it is god destroying everything, wiping the slate clean, and then starting over again.

As Hyroglyphx said in Message 238: Surely, if it was a local flood, then god has broken his covenant - as there have been many local floods since the covenant was made.

quote:

---

I agree that the word earth is not referring to a planet. But from the story as a whole, it doesn't make sense for the flood to be just a local one that didn't really flood everything.

---

By everything I assume you are referring to the non-planetary world as opposed to the planet.

quote:

---

And I still don't get how the stroy could make sense if it was just a small local flood that just covered some of the land and only killed some of the people when the whole point of it is god destroying everything, wiping the slate clean, and then starting over again.

---

Try to get an idea of the environment in the non-planetary world.The Hebrews weren't off in a secluded sector not interacting with neighboring pagans (I use that word just to differentiate from the Hebrews). The Hebrews also participated in religious practices of their pagan neighbors. Each worshiped their respective gods.Some (which means not all) comparative mythologist scholars think that some elements of pagan mythology were absorbed into Jewish mythology.Now there are several different flood myths. As the Hebrews interacted with the pagans and lived among them in exile, do we think they never shared flood stories in all those years?One shares that his God wiped out all humans he created except Noah and family.
Another says his gods wiped out all humans except Utnapishtim and his family.My guess is they encountered more versions than we have today. I think they knew all humans really weren't destroyed.Did they see the stories as referring to their own people? Maybe some did, maybe some didn't.IMO, and I am allowed to have an opinion no matter how pitiful or whether it is supported by professionals or not, the flood was just the backdrop to the story.The Hebrews used their flood story to explain how their various clans came about. The flood was a very non specific big flood.We have to remember that in fiction all details don't have to pan out in reality. In a fictional story, I can say the sun reversed its course and set in the east. In reality that can't happen, but in fiction it can. I can say that the water covered the tallest mountains (in the land is usually implied), that doesn't mean that all the surrounding areas or lands in existence are flooded. In reality, if water was that high we can assume a significant area was flooded, but in fiction we really don't have to think that far out. We can, but we don't have to.We've been taught the flood was to wipe the slate clean; but if we read the end of the story, Chapter 20, we see that the slate wasn't really wiped clean.Unfortunately we have no way to know what the authors were thinking when they wrote their versions of the story or what the redactor was thinking when he put them all together. We have no way of knowing what the original audiences understood or how seriously they took the stories. We can only guess.I see it as another type of just so story for the Hebrew people.