The Great Flood Question
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2012, 07:20 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2012 09:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Great Flood Question
(08-05-2012 04:12 PM)elemts Wrote:  Both of the posts remind me of why I default to the Catholic bibles that I have. They put in images (such as how the Hebrews viewed the world.... here's a hint, it was flat with pillars, and big doors in a dome for floodwaters). I swear I remember someone saying, reading someone, something that said the bible being literal was just a recent thing anyway--that the context at the time was it was just stories (basically). Although I do find it fascinating how people go back and show what the words are in Hebrew that were used, and what words could have been used if they meant how we interpret it now.


Yup. The New American Bible has one of the best diagrams in the first few pages, of the Hebrew world view, with the "foundations, the "waters above the heavens", the "vault" bla bla bla. For more of my ranting about the misinterpretation of mythology, see my posts in the "Good News or Good Advice" thread, a few weeks ago. I deconstruct the Garden Myth, and show how it's been totally driven over a cliff.

I can't find the NAB diagram, but this one is pretty close. It's missing the 4 pillars, and a few other things.


[Image: badf296014e75a71c7bd7fa01368f5dc.jpg]

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-05-2012, 07:39 PM
RE: The Great Flood Question
Its funny how if you take what the people of the time thought about the world then then the bible makes literal sense, to an extent. But take what we know today and it doesn't make literal sense and so has to be metaphorical...

God it baffles me how people can't see this, it proves it was man written!!

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
08-05-2012, 08:19 PM
RE: The Great Flood Question
(08-05-2012 03:05 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Regional flood.

Like I said before, even the Bible doesn't line up with a world-wide flood.

Why?

1) The Hebrew for the word "earth" (cufflink debated me on this, but I believe he even admitted that the word was not definitive).

2) The Nephilim survived the flood.

More and more theologians are starting to subscribe to a local flood nowadays.
I know that you don't believe in the literal bible, and you agree with us that there are some mythical aspects. So why do you still believe in the Nephilim? We have zero evidence of the existence of giants.

To your first point, I'm not privy to the conversation that you had with cufflink, but let me introduce some aspects of the story that don't make sense when speaking of a "local" flood.

1. It's not necessary to rescue animals if they're not about to be made extinct. Why build a ship to contain animals?
2. Genesis 6:7 says that "the Lord said, I will destroy man". As we that believe in evolution are aware, most people did live in the fertile crescent around 6K BC but they also lived all over Africa. A local flood would not do the job of destroying man.
3. The waters remained for 7 months. There was dry land around this area that was flooded but the water was contained for seven months? And it's not as if this water was contained by hills or mountains, because...
4. Genesis 7:19-20 makes a point of telling us that everything was covered, even "all the high hills that were under heaven". "All" the high hills? Or is that another word mistranslated in our bibles?
5. Speaking of mistranslation, every time we have to have a debate about what the original manuscripts actually said or meant, we're totally throwing out the idea that our modern bibles were guided by God. Apparently it wasn't that important to Him that the words his followers had were accurate or reflected what he actually wanted people to know.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
08-05-2012, 08:53 PM
RE: The Great Flood Question
(08-05-2012 07:39 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Its funny how if you take what the people of the time thought about the world then then the bible makes literal sense, to an extent. But take what we know today and it doesn't make literal sense and so has to be metaphorical...

God it baffles me how people can't see this, it proves it was man written!!
I love when something once taken literal is shown to be embarrassingly impossible they then say it's a metaphor. How about this, the whole damn thing is a myth dreamed up by ancient people who thought the earth was flat and epileptics were possessed.

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes free2011's post
08-05-2012, 10:29 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2012 10:33 PM by earmuffs.)
RE: The Great Flood Question
(08-05-2012 08:53 PM)free2011 Wrote:  
(08-05-2012 07:39 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Its funny how if you take what the people of the time thought about the world then then the bible makes literal sense, to an extent. But take what we know today and it doesn't make literal sense and so has to be metaphorical...

God it baffles me how people can't see this, it proves it was man written!!
I love when something once taken literal is shown to be embarrassingly impossible they then say it's a metaphor. How about this, the whole damn thing is a myth dreamed up by ancient people who thought the earth was flat and epileptics were possessed.
But haven't you herd? They said it was true so it must be true!!
Because obviously a poor dumb peasant in the middle east who may or may not hear voices in his head obviously knows more then a college educated scientific community with factual evidence...
for the slow, yes I am being sarcastic

I seriously cannot comprehend human kinds stupidity, I really can't.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
09-05-2012, 01:55 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2012 02:00 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The Great Flood Question
(08-05-2012 03:05 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Regional flood.

Like I said before, even the Bible doesn't line up with a world-wide flood.

Why?

1) The Hebrew for the word "earth" (cufflink debated me on this, but I believe he even admitted that the word was not definitive).

2) The Nephilim survived the flood.

More and more theologians are starting to subscribe to a local flood nowadays.
If the flood was only local, why did Noah need to put two of every species in the ark? ps apologies starcrash, you already made this point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2012, 11:01 AM
RE: The Great Flood Question
(08-05-2012 08:19 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I know that you don't believe in the literal bible, and you agree with us that there are some mythical aspects. So why do you still believe in the Nephilim? We have zero evidence of the existence of giants.

Nothing in the Biblical texts suggests that the Nephilim were myth. In fact, I do believe that they are origins of demons (as detailed in Enoch).

Quote:1. It's not necessary to rescue animals if they're not about to be made extinct. Why build a ship to contain animals?

Nothing was "necessary". God was commanded Noah to do these things because it was a representation of a cleansing of the area that Noah lived in.

Quote:2. Genesis 6:7 says that "the Lord said, I will destroy man". As we that believe in evolution are aware, most people did live in the fertile crescent around 6K BC but they also lived all over Africa. A local flood would not do the job of destroying man.

Genesis 6:7 (NASB)
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gensis 6:7 in the Hebrew.

The word for "earth" here is this. It in NO WAY implies the entire earth; moreover, it implies the immediate area.

Quote:3. The waters remained for 7 months. There was dry land around this area that was flooded but the water was contained for seven months? And it's not as if this water was contained by hills or mountains, because...

This is something I have never considered before. I don't have an answer for this... yet Wink

Quote:4. Genesis 7:19-20 makes a point of telling us that everything was covered, even "all the high hills that were under heaven". "All" the high hills? Or is that another word mistranslated in our bibles?

Genesis 7:19-20
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

15 cubits = 22.5 feet or 6.85800 meters.

This is the Hebrew word for "mountain". As you can tell, it's more of "hills" or "hillside". It can also mean "mountain", but given the information that is detail in verse 20 (15 cubits), it is safe to assume that the author was talking about hills.

Quote:5. Speaking of mistranslation, every time we have to have a debate about what the original manuscripts actually said or meant, we're totally throwing out the idea that our modern bibles were guided by God. Apparently it wasn't that important to Him that the words his followers had were accurate or reflected what he actually wanted people to know.

For a Bible literalist, yes. But, I believe the Bible is literally errant. That does not affect it's inspiration because the Bible's intent wasn't to be literally inerrant. The stories and sciences of that time are detailed as they would be for the people of that time and their understandings of things. God used this to effectively communicate with them.

The fact that the Bible is literally errant is irrelevant because that was never its intent or purpose. The Bible is inspired.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
09-05-2012, 03:28 PM
RE: The Great Flood Question
KingChosen I am just trying to learn here as I ask this. Are you saying that the Bible can be both inspired and false? It seems as if you are stating that the stories are only meant to explain things in a way that the primitive people can understand. So the whole Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah, Virgin Birth stuff aren't real just parables to help them understand a complex world? Not sure I would hang my hat on following that type of information.

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2012, 05:27 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2012 05:32 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: The Great Flood Question
Thanks for the reply. I'll try to keep this as brief as possible.

(09-05-2012 11:01 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Nothing in the Biblical texts suggests that the Nephilim were myth. In fact, I do believe that they are origins of demons (as detailed in Enoch).

Nothing in the Bible suggests that any of it is myth, but because you're not a bible literalist I imagine that you accept that some of it is mythical. I would simply expect that when something sounds fantastic and unlike what we experience (women don't generally have sex with angels or give birth to demons/giants) that you might see it as a metaphor or something of that nature.

(09-05-2012 11:01 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Nothing was "necessary". God commanded Noah to [collect animals] because it was a representation of a cleansing of the area that Noah lived in.

I don't see why you came to this conclusion. Genesis 6 says nothing about the wickedness of animals or about their "generations" becoming unclean... so why cleanse them? I'm pretty sure Noah getting rescued is enough of a representation... let's take another example from Genesis, this time in chapter 19. Lot, his wife, and his daughters were told to flee from Sodom and Gomorrah before they were destroyed. Were they instructed to bring animals with them? Nope. Were their animals in the city? Undoubtedly. Innocent children, too. But God made his point without having Lot and his family grab and rescue a bunch of animals.

If you take the story literally, there's also a good reason why a male and female of each species was specified for bringing onto the ark. If it's symbolism, it symbolizes repopulating the earth, which doesn't make sense if the earth doesn't require it.

(09-05-2012 11:01 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Genesis 6:7 (NASB)
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gensis 6:7 in the Hebrew.

The word for "earth" here is this. It in NO WAY implies the entire earth; moreover, it implies the immediate area.p

And yet many Christians believe it means the whole earth because every single thing in the story makes sense in that context. Also, you have to remember that there are other references to Noah in the bible, and they also make more sense in a "worldwide flood" context. Is there a single lineage listed in the bible that goes through somebody other than Noah? Nope. Matthew 25 and Luke 17 make references to the coming Apocalypse and compare the days leading up to it as like "the days of Noah". 1 Peter 3:20 says that only 8 souls were saved from the flood and 2 Peter 2:5 says that "the ancient world" and the "world of the ungodly" was not spared from the flood. I wonder if the word "world" used here meant "immediate area"... there are 10 commentaries on the verse listed here, and not one of them corrects "world" as meaning something else (and several posit that the flood was worldwide). But if you have a source for literal translations of bible verses, I'd appreciate a citation of 2 Peter 2:5 (and a correction if I'm mistaken).

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2012, 11:26 PM
RE: The Great Flood Question
KC correct me if I am misunderstanding you but you say that the bible reflects what the people of the time knew about the world because did that on purpose because he wanted them to understand and by mentioning things like the world being round and such people wouldn't have believe him?

Because if so then the question remains, why then why them?? Because there was what, maybe 6million people worldwide back then? (I don't know but you get my meaning), so God decided that he would use information only relevant to 6million people. And now that there is 6billion of us and most of the bible is just plain stupid and doesn't apply (ie: slavery).. I don't know how to explain this, I think you'll understand what I am getting at.
Why give information to only a few people that only applies to small amount of people and that information is then suppose to apply to large groups of people of whom half of the shit has no relevance.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: