An interesting concept
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2011, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2011 04:15 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: An interesting concept
(05-12-2011 03:50 PM)Denicio Wrote:  
(05-12-2011 03:37 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  *WARNING*
*WARNING*
*WARNING*

*CHRISTIAN OPINION INCOMING*
*TAKE EVASIVE ACTION*

The flood was not a world wide flood. The original text suggests a regional flood. If this is so, there would be plenty of room on the ark to store the regional animals.

Little known Biblical trivia time!
Fourteen of each clean animal was on the ark, and two of each unclean.
The Nephilim survived the flood which suggests that it was regional.

I simply get hung up on words like EVERYTHING and ALL. And statements like "ONLY Noah was left and those with him" Sorry......i just get tripped up over those little semantics. ALL, EVERYTHING, and ONLY..................

And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits1 deep. 21 And aall flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on the dry land bin whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only cNoah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

"ALL the high mountains UNDER heaven". From God's POV...that would be pretty much all of them. Nothing regional about that...unless god has limits on how far he can see. ALL under HEAVEN... pretty inclusive. Unless you live in a world where all does not mean all and heaven is just a stripper name.

As a matter of fact this grouping of versus make a painful point to show over and over again about how much destruction happened. EVERY living thing....includes everything. Unless 'Everything' means 'Somethings but not all things'.

Then we get down to the actual meaning of words. I think Seth calls this Apologist Gymnastics.

The Hebrew word for "earth" הָאָ֑רֶץ is ambiguous. As you can tell this word has a variety of meanings. Its most relevant meaning is "area of ground". In fact, it is closely related to the word הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה. These two words are seemingly used interchangeably and in no way suggest an entire planet.

"Heaven" is also the expanse over what is seen. Again, the language does not suggest the whole earth.

As for the "all" and "everything", according to language of the time and to whom it was written to, this means the known land and region of the time.

It's akin to this: Let's say you and a bunch of friends are going on a road trip. All of you get in the car and you say, "Everybody here?" Now, do you literally mean EVERYBODY? Or, do you mean the people you are addressing?

A huge problem with the modern Bible is the translation problems of Hebrew to English and Greek to English. Much of the original meaning is slightly changed and pollutes the text.
(05-12-2011 04:04 PM)Denicio Wrote:  
(05-12-2011 03:57 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(05-12-2011 03:52 PM)Denicio Wrote:  
(05-12-2011 03:41 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(05-12-2011 03:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Yes.

So then what was the point of the flood?

Also, why a flood? Why put Noah through all this work when god could have snapped his fingers and killed all the people he wanted?

OR.... just tell Noah to grab the backpacks and head a few miles west. Dispense with the boat nonsense and just stay on the dry land out of the flood planes. THAT would make more sense. But then again, looking for reason in ALL the wrong places.


Is that all the wrong places? Or just some of all?

All of the some but not some of the ALL. Everything i look at, which is just somethings has me totally which is to say partially confused which is to say......
Oh bother.........

Actually this regional flood concept that was just floated is the WORST explanation of OT that i have ever come across. i have seen it before, but it truly defies any reason. You have to unplug the thinker to swallow that down. Seriously god could have simply told the Noah family to put on their running shoes and sprint to higher ground. Why even bother with building a ship? The "Ask Him" reply is the ultimate cop out. Ask who? The FSM? Xenu? Athena? In this forum, all those mythical clowns are ALL the same. And when i say all...i mean the TOTAL and COMPLETE lot of them, lacking NONE and inclusive of every single one of them.

D

Don't take to heart any snide comment I make to germanyt.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 04:21 PM
 
RE: An interesting concept
(05-12-2011 04:13 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(05-12-2011 03:50 PM)Denicio Wrote:  
(05-12-2011 03:37 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  *WARNING*
*WARNING*
*WARNING*

*CHRISTIAN OPINION INCOMING*
*TAKE EVASIVE ACTION*

The flood was not a world wide flood. The original text suggests a regional flood. If this is so, there would be plenty of room on the ark to store the regional animals.

Little known Biblical trivia time!
Fourteen of each clean animal was on the ark, and two of each unclean.
The Nephilim survived the flood which suggests that it was regional.

I simply get hung up on words like EVERYTHING and ALL. And statements like "ONLY Noah was left and those with him" Sorry......i just get tripped up over those little semantics. ALL, EVERYTHING, and ONLY..................

And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits1 deep. 21 And aall flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on the dry land bin whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only cNoah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

"ALL the high mountains UNDER heaven". From God's POV...that would be pretty much all of them. Nothing regional about that...unless god has limits on how far he can see. ALL under HEAVEN... pretty inclusive. Unless you live in a world where all does not mean all and heaven is just a stripper name.

As a matter of fact this grouping of versus make a painful point to show over and over again about how much destruction happened. EVERY living thing....includes everything. Unless 'Everything' means 'Somethings but not all things'.

Then we get down to the actual meaning of words. I think Seth calls this Apologist Gymnastics.

The Hebrew word for "earth" הָאָ֑רֶץ is ambiguous. As you can tell this word has a variety of meanings. Its most relevant meaning is "area of ground". In fact, it is closely related to the word הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה. These two words are seemingly used interchangeably and in no way suggest an entire planet.

"Heaven" is also the expanse over what is seen. Again, the language does not suggest the whole earth.

As for the "all" and "everything", according to language of the time and to whom it was written to, this means the known land and region of the time.

It's akin to this: Let's say you and a bunch of friends are going on a road trip. All of you get in the car and you say, "Everybody here?" Now, do you literally mean EVERYBODY? Or, do you mean the people you are addressing?

A huge problem with the modern Bible is the translation problems of Hebrew to English and Greek to English. Much of the original meaning is slightly changed and pollutes the text.

OK, got it and DEAL! (we shake hands).

You heard it folks, NONE of the words written in the bible actually mean what they say! And church on Sunday is a HUGE waste of time..as the majority of churchs literally preach from those words.

I wish all christians knew that all the words in the bible are bunk!
Now, dont really know YOUR credientials. But i am more apt to believe someone like Good ole Mr Ewok himself, Robert Price than just some bloke on the forums. i'll have to pull up his thoughts on this as well. Dr Price KNOWS his stuff and LOVES to talk about it.

Untill i get a free moment to check out his findings on this from his podcasts, i'll just accept your POV that the words in the bible are meaningless as translated. Your version makes the whole Flood account MUCH LESS impressive. SO much so, why even bother writing it down? Shame on Moses for making a local flood story into an Epic Story!

D
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Denicio's post
05-12-2011, 04:31 PM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2011 04:37 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: An interesting concept
I was offering you my opinion of view on it from the studies of the original text. Modern translations use English words that most people can understand and accommodate the majority. Even the most literal translations have trouble literally translating the original text because some words just don't exist in English for the concepts being conveyed.

You don't believe anything I believe anyway, but that's no reason to be rude and snarky about it. You asked "why", and I explained my "why".
Also, the asking of "why God did it this" or "why didn't He just do this" isn't a fair question to ask me. As a theist, my answer of "I don't know" is sufficient because I can't explain why God did anything. My acceptance of that God is omnipotent should be an answer enough. Granted, you don't have to agree with my answer and you may not think it's logical; however, from your point of view my belief in God isn't logical, so there is no answer that I could give you that would be correct.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 05:02 PM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2011 05:07 PM by kim.)
RE: An interesting concept
Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

Genesis 7:3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Genesis 7:8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,


Genesis 7:10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
Genesis 7:17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.
Genesis 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
Genesis 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

Genesis 8:4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
Genesis 8:5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
Genesis 8:14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.
---Are they are counting from the start of the rains, or the start of the floods, or the end of the rains, or from the time when the waters start to recede...?
Houston, we have a problem.

Genesis 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.

Then... I think they had lunch.

And maybe Noah had a poo cause he was 600 years old when all this flood shit started.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
05-12-2011, 05:12 PM
RE: An interesting concept
(05-12-2011 05:02 PM)kim Wrote:  Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

Genesis 7:3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Genesis 7:8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,


Genesis 7:10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
Genesis 7:17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.
Genesis 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
Genesis 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

Genesis 8:4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
Genesis 8:5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
Genesis 8:14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.
---Are they are counting from the start of the rains, or the start of the floods, or the end of the rains, or from the time when the waters start to recede...?
Houston, we have a problem.

Genesis 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.

Then... I think they had lunch.

And maybe Noah had a poo cause he was 600 years old when all this flood shit started.


Yeah. Let's not forget that bible literalists believe that just 2-3 thousand years ago people lived to be 8-9 hundred years old.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2011, 05:39 PM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2011 05:43 PM by Chas.)
RE: An interesting concept
(05-12-2011 05:12 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Yeah. Let's not forget that bible literalists believe that just 2-3 thousand years ago people lived to be 8-9 hundred years old.

Don't be ridiculous; it was 4000 years ago.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2011, 12:44 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2011 01:06 AM by cufflink.)
RE: An interesting concept
(05-12-2011 04:13 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  The Hebrew word for "earth" הָאָ֑רֶץ is ambiguous. As you can tell this word has a variety of meanings. Its most relevant meaning is "area of ground". In fact, it is closely related to the word הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה. These two words are seemingly used interchangeably and in no way suggest an entire planet.

"Heaven" is also the expanse over what is seen. Again, the language does not suggest the whole earth.

As for the "all" and "everything", according to language of the time and to whom it was written to, this means the known land and region of the time.

It's akin to this: Let's say you and a bunch of friends are going on a road trip. All of you get in the car and you say, "Everybody here?" Now, do you literally mean EVERYBODY? Or, do you mean the people you are addressing?

A huge problem with the modern Bible is the translation problems of Hebrew to English and Greek to English. Much of the original meaning is slightly changed and pollutes the text.

Ah. A linguistic discussion. I like.

First, a couple of small corrections: You've quoted both Hebrew words with the definite article הָ attached, so they actually mean "the earth" and "the land." If you want the bare nouns, eliminate the article (the rightmost consonant) in each case.

As for the meaning of אֶרֶץ [eretz] 'earth,' you're right that it can mean different things in different contexts. BDB (Brown Driver Briggs, the standard Biblical Hebrew lexicon) gives these possibilities, among others:

1. earth: (a) in the sense of whole earth as opposed to part, (b) in the sense of earth as opposed to heaven
2. land: (a) country, territory, (b) district, region, © tribal territory, (d) piece of ground, . . .
3. ground: surface of ground

(BTW, "earth" in English is ambiguous as well: "The earth goes around the sun," "The earth here is rich and fertile," "The classical elements were earth, air, fire, and water," "An earth is a metallic oxide.")

The question, however, is which meaning of אֶרֶץ [eretz] 'earth' was intended in the flood story? Which interpretation is natural and appropriate in that context?

You've claimed that "the most relevant meaning" is "area of ground" as opposed to "whole earth." Why? How do you know that?

Every translation of Genesis I've looked at interprets "earth" in the Noah story as the "whole earth," not "just the area around here." For example (JPS translation, emphasis added):

Gen. 6:7: The LORD said, "I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created--men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them."

You think God just meant he was going to blot out the people and animals from the local area? Why do you think so?

12: When God saw how corrupt the earth was, for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth,
13: God said to Noah, "I have decided to put an end to all flesh, for the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them: I am about to destroy them with the earth."


You feel God was saying that it was only the local people who were corrupt--everybody else was OK? Why do you feel that way?

17: "For My part, I am about to bring the Flood--waters upon the earth--to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish."

So you're saying that what God really meant was, "Everything around here will perish"? What's the evidence for your conclusion?

My point is this: If you're going to claim an interpretation of a Bible passage based on manipulating language that on the face of it seems pretty clear--an interpretation contrary to the translations done by noted Hebrew scholars--then the burden of proof is on you to show why your interpretation is the correct one. Simply claiming that your version is "the most relevant" doesn't cut it.

One more thing: If, as you say, other humans besides the eight in the ark survived the flood, then how do you explain this passage:

Gen. 9:18: The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth--Ham being the father of Canaan.
19: These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole world branched out.

Are we to assume that the others who survived didn't produce offspring? Hmm. Perhaps they were all gay . . . not that there's anything wrong with that.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
06-12-2011, 01:02 AM
RE: An interesting concept
The problem is the Bible doesn't make any sense. Even Genesis by itself doesn't make any sense. So if you are a thinking man who can't give up his chance of eternal life, you resort to all sorts of crazy strategies to try and reconcile the Bible (taken as true beyond all doubt, 'cos it's got eternal life in it) and what you can see is actually real.

One of these strategies is playing the mis-translation card - arbitrarily arguing that the true meaning of a verse is different than the very careful centuries long effort at translation that has been put in by scholars from KJV onwards. Just 'cos you can quote some squiggly Hebrew doesn't make you an authoritay, although I must admit it's more than I can do Wink But Bible scholars really do put a lot of effort into careful translation - you'd think there'd be at least a footnote in most translations saying "We think that what's meant here is a local flood." Maybe in more modern editions there will be, since it's clear that the global flood position is becoming untenable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
06-12-2011, 01:07 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2011 01:16 AM by Erxomai.)
RE: An interesting concept
(05-12-2011 04:21 PM)Denicio Wrote:  OK, got it and DEAL! (we shake hands).

You heard it folks, NONE of the words written in the bible actually mean what they say! And church on Sunday is a HUGE waste of time..as the majority of churchs literally preach from those words.

I wish all christians knew that all the words in the bible are bunk!
Now, dont really know YOUR credientials. But i am more apt to believe someone like Good ole Mr Ewok himself, Robert Price than just some bloke on the forums. i'll have to pull up his thoughts on this as well. Dr Price KNOWS his stuff and LOVES to talk about it.

Untill i get a free moment to check out his findings on this from his podcasts, i'll just accept your POV that the words in the bible are meaningless as translated. Your version makes the whole Flood account MUCH LESS impressive. SO much so, why even bother writing it down? Shame on Moses for making a local flood story into an Epic Story!

D

Well played, sir.
Not really all that snarky. Just sounds that way to someone who got pwnd.

And yes, Seth would call Apologist Acrobatics on this topic.
KC, why can't the Bible be read on it's own merit without twisting meanings and having a master's degree in Biblical Studies to know what they REALLY meant? If you have to interpret what God has to say, and your interpretations vary far from mine back when I was your age, then what's the point? It no longer becomes a meaningful document if Spirit-filled believers can't agree on what God REALLY meant to say when he said XYZ. Then it comes down to feelings...the ones you call experience...and I felt. Oh, brother, I felt. God is real and alive and he loves me and Jesus would have died for only me if I was the only person to have ever been elect. But once you start to realize what the Bible really is and how it was really constructed and what it really says, then you realize it never described a real god any better than the Vedic Writings, or Greek and Norse Mythology.

And now KC will interject to say, I am not elect and I never had the Holy Spirit in me so it's no surprise I don't understand the Bible the way he does.
(Still kinda offended by that for some reason...)

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
06-12-2011, 02:19 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2011 02:23 AM by cufflink.)
RE: An interesting concept
(06-12-2011 01:02 AM)morondog Wrote:  One of these strategies is playing the mis-translation card - arbitrarily arguing that the true meaning of a verse is different than the very careful centuries long effort at translation that has been put in by scholars from KJV onwards. . . . Bible scholars really do put a lot of effort into careful translation . . .

I agree, although there are plenty of places where the translation is genuinely controversial--for example, the iconic verse in Isaiah (7:14) predicting the Messiah: is it "behold, a virgin shall conceive" or "behold, the young woman is with child"? Does almah mean "virgin" (as the Septuagint translators apparently thought) or simply "young woman"?

My two favorite translation controversies are both in Job:

First, there's the famous declaration of supposedly unwavering faith:

13:15: Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him. (KJV)

But here's the RSV:

13:15 Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope; yet I will defend my ways to his face.

Whether it's "yet will I trust in him" or "I have no hope" (kinda different, huh?) depends on which spelling you accept for a particular Hebrew homonym (rather like "too" vs. "two" in English).

But the most amazing discrepancy comes in Job's final words in the book. Recall that Job, the most righteous person on earth, has been suffering horribly through no fault of his own: God has made a bet with Satan about whether Job will curse God if he's tortured. Job doesn't curse God but he does complain bitterly--in chapter after chapter of magnificent poetry--about how unjust God is ("the patience of Job" is a myth perpetrated by people who haven't read beyond chapter 2) and begs God to tell him what he's done to merit such punishment. When God finally speaks to Job, he (God, that is) is a complete dick, taunting and sarcastic, showing no compassion for Job's suffering and mistreatment, essentially saying, "How dare you, little man, question me? Do you have an arm like God? Are you as powerful as I am? Do you know what I know?"

After that, Job speaks for the last time--and very tersely. Has he been cowed by God's speech?

According to most translations, yes he has:

42:5 I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee;
42:6 therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (RSV)

So according to the majority translation tradition, Job folds like a lawn chair and totally wusses out at the end.

But the Hebrew scholar Jack Miles, in a carefully argued and convincing analysis of the enigmatic Hebrew, comes up with a very different translation:

42:5 Word of You had reached my ears, But now that my eyes have seen You,
42:6 I shudder with sorrow for mortal clay.

So according to Miles, Job does not collapse before God's bombast but maintains his integrity; his heroic stature is undiminished.

So those are example of real controversies of translation. My point to kingschosen is that the Flood story does not fall into that category. The content is perfectly clear; it's only "ambiguous" through a process of linguistic gymnastics performed in an effort to twist the text into something more acceptable to a particular audience.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: