|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2785 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not The Planet | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes: quote:No it doesn't. All they show is the land known to man at the time. Babylon was the center of their "world". They mapped their region, not the planet. As more is discovered or known, the maps changed. In Message 471 you presented this map The Babylonian map of 2500 BCE. Flat disk encircled by water. It is the same map you are presenting now from Wikipedia it is dated at 600 BC. Which is correct? How did they know the land mass was surounded by water unless they could go all the way around the land mass? That agrees with the description given in 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. The later maps shows the land separated. That is what we observe today. Science does agree that at one time all the land mass was in one place. I know there is a supposed time problem but that does not change the facts. The land was in one place at one time and was then divided to what we see today. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
What exactly do you think the point of the story is? I think the point of the story implies a worldwide flood. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:If you talking about the dating of the carving, I don't know. quote:Given the carving, I doubt they were going for accuracy. It depends on the purpose the people had for making the map. The map was for them, not for us. quote:This thread is about the meaning of the words eretz and adamah. What's your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You're sitting around the tribal campfire and the storyteller begins his tale. When the people began to multiply over the land. ... Did the story tellers use the word adamah for other races if they knew of them or did they refer to them differently.
Cherokee Indians originally called themselves Aniyunwiya, "the principal people"... What did the Indians call themselves before Columbus? Columbus called them Indios because he mistook the New World for India. But the original Americans had never heard of India and even if they had they would have known they were not Indians. We use the word Indians to cover all the natives of the New World, but they never thought of themselves as one people. To them, each was a member of his own tribe and all other tribes were either allies or enemies ‑ much as the nations of the world still think of themselves. Each tribe had its own language or dialect and named itself with a word usually meaning the men or the people; We know of some 600 dialects, sometimes so different that neighboring villages could not understand each other. North of the Rio Grande, there was no written language. Sometimes the tribe name was mispronounced in translation and sometimes the meaning was lost. 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. The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes: This thread is about the meaning of the words eretz and adamah. Is that a warning that I am off topic? In Message 1 said:
Doctbill writes: So ... Bring me your arguments (which I expect to refute) and I will show you reason to believe that EARTH IS NOT A PLANET. So nothing we have discussed is on topic.
purpledawn writes: What's your point? My point is that the Earth existed whether it was visible as dry land or land covered by water. The early map shows that those people knew they were surrounded by salt water. The later maps you presented shows that those people knew the land mass was not all in one place surrounded by salt water. You can interpert the evidence any way you desire too. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:We know the planet did, but the point is did they? quote:No it says they believed they were surrounded by salt water. Later maps show a progression in knowledge. Nothing shows global knowledge though until later. quote:As you have shown. The point is to give reasoned argumentation as to why we should believe your interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
The early Tahitians knew they were surrounded by salt water but they didn't think Tahiti was all the land there was. The early map shows that those people knew they were surrounded by salt water. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The Bible is a great example. Look at the Bible stories of the Origin of the Moabites and Ammonites. In the Hebrew tales they are the children of an incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters and so bad guys. Each of the religions have side stories that account for the existence of other people, usually a story that explains why they are friend or foe. And of course, each of the different religions have mutually exclusive stories. The Hebrew canon have one entire book about and named after a Moabitess (the bad people)? That is the book of Ruth. I take that as evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible. Something else is going on there besides self grandizing national religious propoganda. The story of how the Messiah came is there. Ruth was the grandmother of David, whose descendent would be the Son of God.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The Recovery Version often translates the a word as "in inhabited eart" rather than just "the earth".
For example, concerning the second coming of Christ - "And when He brings again His Son into the inhabited earth, He says, and let all the angels of God worship Him" (Heb 1:6) The impact to me is the earth where humans live. That is the point rather than whether a globe or a flat plane is implied. The main concern seems to be living people. His operations are firstly involving people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
That was pretty good ICANT. I borrowed it without your permission and posted it on another forum.
I think doctrbill has to get the Internet Foot in the Mouth Award of the month. It also kind of confirms my suspicion that when God chose for Himself a ethnic group of people He chose one of the most heady and intellectual ones around. - (and stubburn).
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The point doctorbill made was that Genesis, amongst most religious stories, is not intended to impart knowledge about the real world; it is intended to supply spiritual advice and to explain events in a supernatural, often metaphorical manner. Attempting to use it for the former purpose is pointless, because it doesn't contain anything remotely suitable. Your counterargument was wrong -- "since Jews made useful discoveries, their holy writings must be useful for finding advanced knowledge" -- a post hoc fallacy because it is simply not the case that one followed from the other. Firstly, I don't believe that man should look to Genesis for a exhaustive scientific explanation of how the cosmos run. If that were the purpose of the writing of the Bible then perhaps we would have had 66 books just to discribe what water is. I am not trying to argue for ICANT here. And I don't agree with ICANT on some of the things he insists. And, admittedly, I have not read all of the discussion, but parts of it here. But you seem not to show a similar concern for the prejudice displayed by doctrbill. You pounce on ICANT because his association of Jews with great science. But you didn't pounce on doctrbill with his association of no science achievements from "God's chosen people." I don't think your critique was even handed. At worst ICANT just over adjusted the prejudice displayed by doctrbill. As for the wonderful Age of Enlightenment, it has also been argued that it was the FREEING of the Bible from its Catholic prison, in which only the priestly class could read it, and its liberation into the hands of the masses, that helped to bring in such an atmosphere of free thinking and enlightenment. In other words, Mr Skeptic, Enlightenment was not when the Bible was LOCKED UP from the greater population but when it was liberated to be READ by the masses. I know correlation does not necessarily means causation. But it has been argued that freeing of God's word brought in clearer thinking, exploration, reformation, and scientific enlightenment. The late Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer I believe argued this way.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Did the story tellers use the word adamah for other races if they knew of them or did they refer to them differently. I don't know. Did they?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
jaywill writes: The Hebrew canon have one entire book about and named after a Moabitess (the bad people)? That is the book of Ruth. I'm not sure what your point is. The Moabites well still considered the result of the incestuous incident with Lot and REALLY, REALLY unclean. Ruth is an interesting story though, one that I've found almost all modern Christian misunderstand. There is NO mention or even a connection between the story of Ruth and Jesus, the little genealogical stuff that got stuck on the end of Ruth 4 is almost certainly a later addition and most likely stuck there regarding David, not Jesus. But Ruth is still important for many reasons. It is one of the stories when the Hebrews were beginning the transition stages of monotheism. They still recognized that there were many Gods and that Gods were most powerful in relation to one area, tribe or people. It is also important in relation to the other thread because it revolves around legality, inheritance and fidelity. The key to Ruth is property rights.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4910 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
I've avoided this thread for some reason, most likely because it got too long and involved on a subject I care little about, at a point when I had less time to. So, one quick response to settle the matter:
First, to answer your That "freeing" of the Bible was part of the wider shift in society; advent of the printing press and all that, plus a few clever people realising that if you make stuff available to everybody then everybody can buy it; untapped markets waiting to happen.It makes no sense to argue that the enlightenment was caused by the Bible being more open and available either. The Bible being open and available as a result of the enlightenment, or as a result of the same causes, is much more reasonable and much more likely. For this section, it might make more sense to read my penultimate paragraph first. ICANT responded to doctorbill by arguing that the Jewish scripture must be divinely inspired to some degree and indirectly because Jews have presented the world with advanced discoveries. My counterargument was that those particular Jews made the discoveries as a result of wider culture and the knowledge built from the world, not because they were Jews -- the two facts are coincidence. The other point was that if a religious person making a great discovery validated their beliefs, the same must apply for every religious group simultaneously. Including atheists. Which would mean both that all gods exist (and ensuing theological problems where gods say they are the only god, enough to throw doubt on its own) and yet also that none of them do. So obviously saying that any holy text must be divinely inspired on that basis is nonsensical; it creates a huge contradiction. Trying to validate belief in the Bible -- or any text, but since this is the concrete example we must work with -- by doing so is a claim devoid of merit and intelligence. Arguing that Genesis is intended to supply such knowledge about the real world under the previous idea, coupled with the obvious contradictions between reality and its claims, is also an inherently unintelligent activity. And thus, my issue with ICANT: that he tries to do so despite the evident absurdity involved. Finally, as to doctorbill's comments, I disagree with them as stated. Clearly Jews have provided great insights to the world, just as people of every other cultural and religious group before, during and since then. Disagreeing with one person does not mean I agree with their other detractors; "the enemy of my enemy could still be my enemy too". But doctorbill's point may have been something different, only not suitably expressed: that Judaism itself has not presented those insights. Judaism has not increased human lifespan, nor discovered better and safer ways of doing something, nor done much particular good for humanity that couldn't have been achieved in multiple other ways. It is thereby not anything especially useful or special, and one can only wonder why something as objectively unimportant could be considered divine in origin. You recognised the original as idiocy, I recognised it as idiocy, I'm sure everybody else has at least subconciously registered the fact. Must I denounce every prejudiced comment as it occurs, or be considered complicit?But on the flipside, must one immediately assume another was being an asshole while also assuming their language was perfect instead of wondering about what their actual intent may have been? "Leaping to conclusions is a great way to smack your head on the roof". OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Bumping this thread back into view because of the current discussion concerning Noah's flood and what the KJV and Hebrew texts actually say.
The strongest proof against a global flood is the text itself. As this thread has shown, the English word earth didn't refer to the planet until about the 16th century. So thought I would pop this thread back in view for reference. If anyone wants to revive this discussion, please read what has already been argued before posting.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024