|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2790 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not The Planet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. Could you expand on this just a bit. I don't see the problem with the word earth in the KJV being translated from a word meaning world rather than planet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3482 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That isn't really what we have. What we are seeing are words used to denote smaller specific areas expanded to include the planet. Our idea of Earth and world includes the planet in the definition, theirs did not as I understand it. Our planet wasn't named until the 1400's and at the time Genesis was supposedly written, the people didn't know they were on a planet. Even at the time the story was supposedly written according to Biblical criticism, the general public didn't know they were on a planet. Etymology Dictionary earth: O.E. eore "ground, soil, dry land," also used (along with middangeard) for "the (material) world" (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.Fris. erthe "earth," O.S. ertha, O.N. jr, M.Du. eerde, Du. aarde, O.H.G. erda, Ger. Erde, Goth. aira), from PIE base *er- "earth, ground" (cf. M.Ir. -ert "earth"). The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400. Even when we use the words, it depends on how the word is used to determine the meaning. When I say welcome to my world, I'm not talking about the planet. I feel our word land is closer to their meaning when speaking of an area than Earth. The word earth is a better fit when referring to soil. The idea that earth refers to the world or planet is a later concept and has been added to the meanings. In an old yearbook from 1947, they summarized the school play as a comedy about a gay family. Just because we now use the word to refer homosexuals, doesn't mean the play was about a homosexual family. Meanings change or are added over the years, but that shouldn't change the original meaning of the writing. If we allow that, then how can anyone trust what was written or translated? It's hard enough trying to recreate the idioms and humor of the time. Usually those are lost to the ages. Acre used to just mean field with no dimensions attached to it. The term God's acre doesn't refer to what we consider an acre today.
The name comes from the belief that the bodies of the dead are "sown as seed" in God's Acre, as in a field, so that they can rise again when Jesus Christ returns to the world. God's Acre is not literally one acre in size; many are larger or smaller. Just because the word acre now has a size attached to it doesn't change the size of these cemeteries. Just because we named our planet Earth, doesn't mean the ancient writers were referring to the planet when they used the word we translate as earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Just because we named our planet Earth, doesn't mean the ancient writers were referring to the planet when they used the word we translate as earth I can accept all that. But at worst that simply means that modern Bibles are bad translations in that one regard. After all, the actual Genesis stories were written a considerable period before the sixteenth century. So how does any of that invalidate the Flood story or the Creation story?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3738 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
I think PD is saying that when the bible says something like "The water covered the earth" it does not mean "The water covered the planet". So how does any of that invalidate the Flood story or the Creation story?If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3482 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:It confirms that the flood story is not talking about a global flood. The Bible writers do not present a global flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi purpledawn,
I agree that it means they weren't talking about a flooded planet. Clearly they weren't. I very much doubt that they had the slightest idea that they lived on the surface of a planet. What I think it leaves open is the question of whether the authors thought of the flood as completely flooding all the land that existed. Did the Authors think that their immediate area (the Near East, Southern Eurasia and North Africa) was all the land that existed? Did they have a notion of Terra Incognita? I don't know, but to me the text sounds very much as though they thought of the flood as being total. For instance it speaks of "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven," being covered; now that could just mean the local area, but it doesn't seem like the most obvious meaning. It sounds more like everything was flooded, everything that could be flooded was flooded. They just didn't imagine it on a planetary scale because they had no such concept to work with. Also, as I have mentioned before, the text specifically mentions Mt. Ararat and describes the Ark as having come to rest there. This is enough to discount any attempt at reconciling a local flood with a literal Bible. Now that's not a problem for sensible readers, but I think it's a major problem for Biblical literalists. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3738 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GM writes: Surely it would not be possible for Mount Ararat to be covered with water without the whole planet being flooded? For instance it speaks of "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven," being covered; now that could just mean the local area, but it doesn't seem like the most obvious meaning. It sounds more like everything was flooded, everything that could be flooded was flooded. They just didn't imagine it on a planetary scale because they had no such concept to work with.You couldn't have water above sea-level without it running into the sea - unless there was a massive container (taller than Mount Ararat) holding the water in place? If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I have to agree with the others. While the original author cannot have understood it as a literal global Flood, they certainly could have understood it to mean that all the land, everywhere, was covered. It is not sufficient to even claim that a local flood is a reasonable interpretation of the text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
Indeed a severe local flood, where perhaps all dry land that could be seen with the naked eye was covered, makes much more sense than the traditionally accepted interpretation.
You can gather animals from a region quite easily. Gathering animals from the entire Earth would have been an impossibility. Most myths are fictionalized retellings of actual events, and it seems reasonable to approach the Flood myth from the same perspective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think that we must distinguish between the original events that underly the story and the story itself. For the purposes of arguing against views derived from a literalist, inerrantist view of the bible, all that matters is what the story says. As soon as we take the story as a distorted recollection of historical events we have departed from a literalist and inerrantist view, and therefore strayed into irrelevancy.
It would be better to point out that the fact that the Bible takes an ancient Middle Eastern view of the nature of the Earth is a reason in itself to reject an literalist and inerrantist view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Panda,
Surely it would not be possible for Mount Ararat to be covered with water without the whole planet being flooded? As I've said elsewhere, Ararat is the 48nd highest peak in the world. That effectively puts most of the world under water if Ararat is flooded. But that's in reality. We're talking about the Bible here. You've got to remember that these ancient authors had a very different concept of the world around them than we do. If the physical/geographical details of the story aren't believable, that shouldn't surprise us. The authors had no idea about the world around them. Or maybe they never meant for it to be a literal account. Maybe they always intended it to be a mythic story. Or maybe it was meant to be a myth and literally true. We shouldn't expect these authors to think like us or see the world like us.
You couldn't have water above sea-level without it running into the sea - unless there was a massive container (taller than Mount Ararat) holding the water in place? The sky held it in place, or rather, the firmament. Something like this perhaps;
Note how the waters above and below are separated by the firmament, as per Genesis 1. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3738 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GM writes: Ah yes - I had forgotten that this is not a 'religious only' thread.
As I've said elsewhere, Ararat is the 48nd highest peak in the world. That effectively puts most of the world under water if Ararat is flooded. But that's in reality. We're talking about the Bible here. GM writes: I have never succeeded in putting myself into the shoes of the original authors. From my own PoV, I would be very dissatisfied if I had written Genesis. You've got to remember that these ancient authors had a very different concept of the world around them than we do. If the physical/geographical details of the story aren't believable, that shouldn't surprise us. The authors had no idea about the world around them. Or maybe they never meant for it to be a literal account. Maybe they always intended it to be a mythic story. Or maybe it was meant to be a myth and literally true. We shouldn't expect these authors to think like us or see the world like us.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2790 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Hi Granny,
Please allow me to interject while we wait for PD's response.
Granny Magda writes: ... it speaks of "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven," being covered; now that could just mean the local area, but it doesn't seem like the most obvious meaning. The original story is Sumerian in origin which makes its geography Mesopotamian and its likely basis: an unusually destructive but otherwise predictable annual flooding of the two rivers. Virtually every city of Mesopotamia was constructed to serve as a refuge from the annual river floods. These refuges evolved from fairly low mounds just above the average flood level. Even then, apparently, they were referred to as "hills" for they were "high" compared to their surroundings. Mud brick walls were constructed to protect against extra high water. In time, the "hills" became higher and the mud brick walls were plated with glazed brick to make them more durable. There is more to this story but I think this addresses the question of the high hills. Regarding "under the whole heaven" I suggest that it may simply mean: "as far as the eye could see." As for Ararat: It is a region, not the name of a specific peak. The King James Bible says, "the mountains of Ararat." The Douay/Rheims Bible reads: "the mountains of Armenia." Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2790 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Hi Granny,
Please allow me to interject while we wait for PD's response.
Granny Magda writes: ... it speaks of "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven," being covered; now that could just mean the local area, but it doesn't seem like the most obvious meaning. The original story is Sumerian in origin which makes its geography Mesopotamian and its likely basis: an unusually destructive but otherwise predictable annual flooding of the two rivers. Virtually every city of Mesopotamia was constructed to serve as a refuge from the annual river floods. These refuges evolved from fairly low mounds just above the average flood level. Even then, apparently, they were referred to as "hills" for they were "high" compared to their surroundings. Mud brick walls were constructed to protect against extra high water. In time, the "hills" became higher and the mud brick walls were plated with glazed brick to make them more durable. There is more to this story but I think this addresses the question of the high hills. Regarding "under the whole heaven" I suggest that it may simply mean: "as far as the eye can see." And thus, I think, there is no reason to imagine that the ancient reader would interpret it as anything other than a large but relatively local inundation.Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2790 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Sorry for the redundency. My browser appeared to have hung up on the first try so I attempted to escape, thought I had, and ended up editing the final paragraph. I like the second one better, don't you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024