|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2793 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not The Planet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
The point of this thread is that the "whole earth" meaning (implying planet) is a later addition.
ha’aretz in Genesis and the rest of the Hebrew Bible is the land that is promised to Abraham, Jacob, and the children of Israel: it is not planet earth. Any reading of ha’aretz as the planet earth (The planet earth that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the planet earth to your offspring after you) would be so tendentious, delusional, and idiotic that those three words would then come to describe the person(s) who offered such a translation. quote: Long, long ago, before Starbucks ruled the world, coffee shops were real community spots with mismatched furniture, friendly faces and drinks that you could order without resorting to such phrases as "half-caf skinny with wings." Big Bear Cafe
In the above paragraph, we don't forget what Starbucks refers to just because the writer is referring to a time before Starbucks existed. I have no doubt that the audience understood the story to refer to their land.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:They may decrease in use, but I bet they won't want to give up Genesis. No one wants to think of it as just another creation story by a specific group. They'd rather leave it ambiguous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
Although some can accept that the words eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet, they can't seem to accept that the story of Noah's flood was not referring to a planetary flood. I find it baffling.
As Butterflytyrant says: The text says what it says. Message 301 The problem is that the text says what it says concerning a culture and environment over two thousands years ago. It isn't talking about today. The view of their world was much smaller. Their "world" was pretty much Mesopotamia. They saw things from the ground up. At most they had a view from a mountain or hill top. The Torah is not an historical or science document and altough BFT seems to agree that the story should not be jammed into historical or scientific categories; he cannot seem to grasp the idea that the storytellers told stories concerning their culture and environment and not the planet. I agree that the stories have some unbelievable elements. That's what makes the story interesting and exciting for the audience. I should realize by now that there is a name for everything somewhere. Thanks to Larni I found this one, Anthropic Principle.
For any given story, there exist basic elements that are required for the basic premise to happen; there would be no story otherwise. IMO, the basic premise of the story dealt with the storytellers culture and environment, not the planet. IMO, part of the basic premise provides for the backstory of the various semetic nations that came from the sons of Noah. The sons of Noah did not people the whole planet, they peopled the whole land (eretz). (Genesis 9:19) In this thread so far we have already covered the meanings of the words that are translated as "earth". We have shown that they do not refer to the planet. BFT shared verses he could probably accept as describing a local event.
Genesis 6:6
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the land (eretz), and it grieved him at his heart. Genesis 6:11
The land (eretz) also was corrupt before God, and the land (eretz) was filled with violence. Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the land (eretz), and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the land (eretz). But he seems to think the local theme loses ground because of the next verses.
Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the land (eretz), to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the land (eretz) shall die. All, every, and under heaven are terms that were still used to refer to local events.
Genesis 41:46 And all countries (eretz) came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands (eretz). Putting the word "all" in front of the word "land" doesn't take the story global. Remember their view is from the ground up. Their sky is what is above them. The visual for them isn't going to go from local to global, at most it moves to regional or just that it is going to be very very bad. As for Lots daughters, even the New Living Translations understood they weren't talking about the planet.
Genesis 19:31 One day the older daughter said to her sister, "There are no men left anywhere in this entire area, so we can't get married like everyone else. And our father will soon be too old to have children. They did not believe that they needed to sleep with their father to continue the entire species. The audience already knew Abraham was still out there. We don't need to twist the flood story to make it realistic, but we also don't need to twist it beyond the means of the original audience. The text says what the text says, but our understanding is considerably different than the original audience. The text doesn't tell us global. Our wider knowledge leads some to visualize a global event depending on the words used. IMO, the original audience would not have visualized a global event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Why would it seem reasonable? Creation stories tend to be culture specific. Oral stories stay fluid and tend to adjust with the culture. The Bible is stuck in time. The stories would have adjusted until they were put to paper. We can tell the flood story or creation stories any way we want. If we look at Children's Bible stories we see the stories are softened for children and adjusted for an easier read. We still adjust the stories. That's kinda the point of this thread. As our knowledge increased and the Judeo/Christian religion spread, the audience had a wider visual to draw from than the earlier audience. The language of the text doesn't support that the storyteller was referring to lands he didn't know of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Judaism started with Abraham recognizing one real God. That isn't really the purpose of the Genesis 1 creation story. Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea... quote:What evidence shows it is just as valid to assume the non planetary view is a retelling? What circumstantial evidence supports your point? quote:Why would the audience naturally extend their visual beyond what they know? quote:That's a different thread. Don't mix them. This thread deals with the words used to refer to the ground (eretz and adamah). As I said in Message 216: Putting the word "all" in front of the word "land" doesn't take the story global.
quote:Sure I have. Message 185, Message 176, Message 172, Message 159, Message 137, Message 124, Message 118, Message 115, Message 107, Message 100, Message 74, and Message 53. Edited by purpledawn, : Typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:And what are those invalid arguments and evidence that they are invalid? quote:Now you seem to be talking about how our views expand as our knowledge increases. I've already said that is what has happened. Oral stories changed with the times. That doesn't explain why an audience would extend their visual beyond what they know?
quote:This is a debate forum. A person can argue any side of a debate. Each thread is a new debate and has its own theme. We are not required to maintain the same position across threads. I can argue from any angle I want. This thread is looking at the meanings of the words eretz and adamah. quote:Show me that it is to be taken globally in the flood story. I've already provided evidence why I feel it isn't. Absolutes tend to be exaggerations, but the audience isn't going to go to the global level since it is beyond their knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Why is it absurd? The ground in Genesis is the ground known at the time that pertained to the story. They didn't know that more ground existed. The storyteller is talking to a specific audience. The land and ground would be the land and ground they know. How can they envision what they don't know?
Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof Lev. XXXV X. By order of the Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania for the State House in Philada... Did the assembly really expect every single human on the planet to be told? These people did know they were on a planet and that there was more across the ocean, etc.
quote:Not knowing of a place means it isn't in your mind to include. It has nothing to do with intention to exclude. The storyteller creates a story for the people to hear and experience. How can they envision more than they know?
quote:Why should it? Edited by purpledawn, : Typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Non sequitur doesn't mean anything to me, so you're going to have to spell it out. Why is it absurd? They lacked the concept of the planet. "The world" to them had nothing to do with the globe.
quote:I didn't add "and nowhere else" to the story. I've said that eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet. The use of those words are consistently used to refer to the lands known at the time.
quote:I don't understand what you're saying. I know you're trying to do some wonderful logic thing, but basically the people were just listening to a story. How can they envision more than they know? quote:Literally eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet. What does being a myth have to do with it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:And what is that concept? The English word "world" carries many different concepts. world O.E. woruld, worold "human existence, the affairs of life," also "the human race, mankind," a word peculiar to Germanic languages (cf. O.S. werold, O.Fris. warld, Du. wereld, O.N. verold, O.H.G. weralt, Ger. Welt), with a literal sense of "age of man," from P.Gmc. *wer "man" (O.E. wer, still in werewolf; see virile) + *ald "age" (see old). Originally "life on earth, this world (as opposed to the afterlife)," sense extended to "the known world," then to "the physical world in the broadest sense, the universe" (c.1200). In O.E. gospels, the commonest word for "the physical world," was Middangeard (O.N. Midgard), lit. "the middle enclosure" (cf. yard), which is rooted in Germanic cosmology. Greek kosmos in its ecclesiastical sense of "world of people" sometimes was rendered in Gothic as manases, lit. "seed of man." The word "world" isn't used in the flood story. The storyteller isn't telling them that their "world" is larger than they know, he is telling them about a flood that covered their land.
quote:No. There is nothing universal about the language. quote:The words by themselves do not tell us if the land is known or unknown. Haeretz, "the land", puts it in the realm of known land and carries the idea of boundaries. The fairest maiden in the land. If we say the fairest maiden in all the land, it doesn't mean on the planet or absolutely all land known. It just means she was very pretty. You're asking for exactness from a story that is really just telling people there was a really big ass flood in the area a long time ago. Just as the Liberty Bell quote wasn't universal, neither was the flood story. How far the water spread isn't the main point of the story.
quote:Why not? The storyteller has to use the words that will trigger the minds eye of the listener. The words in the flood story do not present a global flood.
quote:You haven't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth, so I have nothing to address yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:The language used does not describe a global flood. Even today, it does not describe a global flood. The Hebrew words erets and adamah do not carry a meaning of planet or global. The English words earth, land, and ground do not carry a meaning of planet or global. The English word earth is the name of our planet, but it doesn't mean planet or global. Basically erets = land and adamah = ground. That may seem trivial, but land and ground don't always present the same idea depending on how it is used. So if an author is using both words in a story, there has to be a reason for the difference. Besides referring to dirt, the English word land can imply country, realm, domain, or people of a country. It also implies ground that is owned. This in line with the Hebrew word erets.
land (n.) O.E. land, lond, "ground, soil," also "definite portion of the earth's surface, home region of a person or a people, territory marked by political boundaries," from P.Gmc. *landom (cf. O.N., O.Fris. Du., Ger., Goth. land), from PIE *lendh- "land, heath" (cf. O.Ir. land, Middle Welsh llan "an open space," Welsh llan "enclosure, church," Breton lann "heath," source of Fr. lande; O.C.S. ledina "waste land, heath," Czech lada "fallow land"). The English word earth does not carry those added meanings. Other than being the name of our planet, it pretty much refers to ground or soil. This is more in line with the Hebrew word adamah.
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. Over time words obtain new meanings, but we shouldn't apply new meanings to past writings. Genesis (not quoting verbatim) (* earth used in NIV) (Ltrs denote suspected author per Friedman)6:1 - The men began to multiply on the ground (adamah)*J 6:4 - There were Nephilim in the land (erets)*J 6:5 - God saw man's wickedness was great in the land (erets)*J 6:6 - God regretted making man in the land (erets)*J 6:7 - God said he would abolish mankind from the face of the ground (adamah)*J 6:11 - The land (erets)*P was corrupt in God's sight and the land (erets)* was filled with violence 6:12 - God looked upon the land (erets)*P, all flesh had corrupted his way upon the land (erets)*P 6:13 - The land (erets)*P if filled with violence, God will destroy all flesh with the land (erets)*P 6:17 - God is going to bring flood waters on the land (erets)*P and everything that is in the land (erets)*P shall die 6:20 - Bring two of every kind of creature that moves along the ground (adamah)P 7:3 - Bring male and female to keep seed alive upon the face of all the land (erets)*J 7:4 - In seven days God will cause it to rain upon the land (erets)*J and every living thing he had made will be destroyed off the face of the ground (adamah)*J 7:6 - Noah was 600 years old when the flood was upon the land (erets)*R 7:8 - Creatures that move along the ground (adamah)P 7:10 - Flood waters came upon the land (erets)*J 7:12 - The rain was upon the land (erets)*J 40days and nights 7:17 - The flood was 40 days upon the land (erets)*J, the ark was lifted above the land (erets)*J 7:18 - Waters increased greatly upon the land (erets)*J 7:19 - The waters prevailed upon the land (erets)*J 7:21 - All flesh died that moved upon the land (erets)*P, every creeping thing that creepeth upon the land (erets)*P 7:23 - Every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground (adamah)*J, all were destroyed from the land (erets)*J 7:24 - Waters prevailed upon the land (erets)*P 8:1 - God sent a wind over the land (erets)*P 8:3 - Waters receded from the land (erets)*J 8:7 - waters were dried up from off the land (erets)*P 8:8 - Sent dove to see if waters were abated from off the face of the ground (adamah)J 8:9 - Dove couldn't find place to land because the waters were on the face of the whole land (eretz)* 8:11 - Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the land (erets)*J 8:13 - Waters were dried up from off the land (erets)*P and the face of the ground (adamah)J was dry 8:14 - By the 27th day the land (erets)*P was completely dry 8:17 - Bring out of the ark all the creatures that creepeth on the land (erets)(used ground)P that they may multiply upon the land (erets)* 8:19 - Everything that moves on the land (erets)*P 8:21 - God said he would never again curse the ground (adamah)J 8:22 - As long as the land (erets)*J endures 9:1 - Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the land (erets)*P What in the text implies a global picture? In Chapter 10 we see the nations the sons became. That would give us a rough idea of the area the storyteller was probably referring to, which has nothing to do with whether that much area was actually flooded or not. It's a setup for the clans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:What do you mean by cosmos? quote:So your issue with my argument concerning eretz and adamah is what? quote:What statements did I object to? quote:But you haven't shown why it would trigger a view of a global flood to the audience. I've already shown why it wouldn't. quote:I have already shown that the text rules out a global interpretation. Message 234 quote:You still haven't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:This thread isn't about whether any of the stories are true or false. It is about whether the words used and usually translated as earth refers to the planet Earth. Some say it does, making the flood story refer to a global flood. My position is that the words used do not refer to the planet. As I've said, I've already shown that the text rules out a global interpretation. You'll have to explain why what I've shown doesn't rule out a global interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote: quote:The flood is just the backdrop of the story. The basic premise of the story doesn't change whether one views it as global or regional. The issue comes when one tries to present a "truth" based on the idea the words eretz and adamah refer to the planet.
quote:I've already provided what I consider to be a valid reason for ruling out a global flood. Message 234. You have yet to explain why it isn't valid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote: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. quote:Then show the verses that could be correctly understood as referring to the planet. IMO, it doesn't matter whether one takes the story as fact or fiction. The wording still doesn't refer to the planet. quote:If you're going to play word games, then you need to explain the distinction you're making. Global 1 : spherical 2: of, relating to, or involving the entire world : worldwide ; also : of or relating to a celestial body (as the moon) 3: of, relating to, or applying to a whole (as a mathematical function or a computer program) : universal Universal 1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society 2a : present or occurring everywhere b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions 3a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) I have been using the words universal and global to refer to the flood covering the entire planet. I don't feel I have used those terms incorrectly. Please explain what your point is concerning universal and global.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Where have I contradicted myself? Or is this another, if I don't know you aren't going to tell me, game. quote:I tend to respond in like kind. If one wants to address real history vs what the Bible presents, I will respond accordingly. If one asks a question concerning the text and what it says, I will respond accordingly. In Message 219, you asked: And isn't Genesis 1 as we have it now, essentially monotheistic, recognising only one God as real? Where would other land come from? You asked about the text, not the actual history of monotheism. Judaism attributes the beginning of their religion to Abraham. It actually comes from their legends more than the Bible text, so it has nothing to do with the reliability of the Bible and it really had nothing to do with the topic, so I didn't feel it necessary to elaborate. I also showed you in Message 222 that Genesis 1 wasn't necessarily monotheistic. Unfortunately you never continued with that line of argument, so I'm not sure what the point was. Concerning me, your conclusions are incorrect. I'm not arguing for the reliability of the Bible. I'm arguing that eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet by definition or by how they are used in the text. My arguments concerning eretz and adamah don't really make the creation or flood stories more plausible. The flood is just the backdrop and the Jewish legends have more in them than the Bible has. The Bible seems to have the bare bones. The lessons presented in the stories are the purpose of the stories. IMO, the original audience knew it was a story.
Legends of the Jews Even after God had resolved upon the destruction of the sinners, He still permitted His mercy to prevail, in that He sent Noah unto them, who exhorted them for one hundred and twenty years to amend their ways, always holding the flood over them as a threat. As for them, they but derided him. When they saw him occupying himself with the building of the ark, they asked, "Wherefore this ark?" IMO, the Bible is missing a lot of the character and some of the lessons of the legends.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024