Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 250 of 306 (642273)
11-27-2011 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Granny Magda
11-27-2011 6:31 AM


Planetary or Local Flood
quote:
Well if that's what you're doing then you are wasting everyone's time. Those are two possibilities. There exists a third, as you well know and as you have already acknowledged. There still exists the possibility that the text is describing a flood that did not take place on a planet (because they had no concept of "planets") but did flood the entirety of what they imagined to exist.
I don't see a distinction between local, regional, or known land concerning this argument. Eretz can refer to all three. From my perspective, compared to the planet, all those possibilities fall under the term local.
Local
2a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular place : not general or widespread b : of, relating to, or applicable to part of a whole
From the perspective of an ancient audience, the upper limit would be known land. So apparently it bugs you all that I use them interchangeably?
The point of the thread is that eretz and adamah don't refer to the planet.
So what you all are fussing about is my choice of English words? Good grief!
I use the words universal and global to refer to the entire planet. Would you prefer I use the word planetary?
I use the words local, regional, and known lands to differentiate from planetary. From now on I will just use the word local.
So planetary or local flood. Do you understand what I'm saying now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Granny Magda, posted 11-27-2011 6:31 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by NoNukes, posted 11-27-2011 9:37 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 252 by Granny Magda, posted 11-27-2011 10:03 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 253 of 306 (642291)
11-27-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by NoNukes
11-27-2011 9:37 AM


Re: Local v. world wide
When someone says "all the earth", people today visualize the entire globe. To avoid that association in this thread, I didn't want to use the word earth. That leaves global, universal, or planetary.
quote:
But that said, when you use the term local for the purposes of this discussion, and contend that the Bible authors were describing a local flood, the implication is that the authors knew of non-local places that were not being flooded. If the authors knew not of such other places, or had any hint that they existed, then the authors were referring to a world wide flood and not a local one. It's just that they believed the world was rather tiny.
The English word "world" isn't used in the text. When you present the idea that "their world" was flooded (which IMO is the same as saying the lands they occupy or the civilization of the time), it can still be understood as the entire planet by people today since the English word "world" can also carry the idea of planet. The text uses eretz and adamah. Neither is translated as world.
The authors probably did know of lands that weren't flooded. The flood story is a borrowed and adjusted story. Do we really think the first person to borrow and adjust the story didn't know it was talking about another group of people? Like I said, IMO, the audience knew it was a story and took away the lessons intended.
The point is that the phrase "all the land" doesn't refer to every piece of exposed ground on this planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by NoNukes, posted 11-27-2011 9:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by NoNukes, posted 11-27-2011 1:13 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 254 of 306 (642295)
11-27-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Granny Magda
11-27-2011 10:03 AM


Re: Planetary or Local Flood
You like planetary, but NoNukes doesn't. Wow!
You all get together and decide what you can comprehend and send me a list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Granny Magda, posted 11-27-2011 10:03 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Granny Magda, posted 11-27-2011 11:27 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 256 of 306 (642303)
11-27-2011 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Granny Magda
11-27-2011 11:27 AM


Re: Planetary or Local Flood
quote:
The only question remaining is whether the text describes this non-planetary world being partly or totally flooded. You seem to have passed upon your chance to discuss this issue.
What exactly is the non-planetary world you speak of?
Edited by purpledawn, : Wrong ID
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Granny Magda, posted 11-27-2011 11:27 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Granny Magda, posted 11-27-2011 2:11 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 261 of 306 (642318)
11-27-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Granny Magda
11-27-2011 2:11 PM


Re: Planetary or Local Flood
quote:
Whatever that something was, the question remains; was it completely flooded or only partly flooded?
But that isn't the focus of this thread. Your non-planetary world is the same thing I referred to as local, regional, or known lands. They are still talking to their people, their culture, their environment, their civilization. You seemed to understand it earlier in the thread.
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. Message 141
No one addressed the open question because it isn't the focus of the thread.
You feel you can just change the focus of the topic whether I've changed or not? Notice the name of the thread is "Not the Planet". The debate is about whether eretz and adamah refers to the planet Earth. If you agree that the words don't refer to the planet Earth, then I'm not sure why you reentered the thread other than to play word games.
Since you're stuck on your question and not the focus of the thread, IMO, it really doesn't matter if the area was partially flooded or totally flooded. The story isn't that specific. The audience could visualize it either way.
This thread isn't about proving that the flood actually happened as written or to prove that it didn't happen. If you want to know if a big flood actually happened in the non-planetary world, go to archeology or whoever does that.
As I said before, the writer is telling his audience it was a big ass flood. The flood is just the backdrop of the lesson being presented. Odds are it's a borrowed flood story adjusted for the culture to teach whatever the storyteller had in mind. My guess is that the people had heard other flood stories in their lifetime from other cultures. As I've said several times, IMO, they knew it was a story. They weren't stupid.
There are various thoughts on what might have inspired flood myths. They might not have been inspired by the same thing.
Origin of Flood Myths
Adrienne Mayor's The First Fossil Hunters and Fossil Legends of the First Americans promoted the hypothesis that flood stories were inspired by ancient observations of seashells and fish fossils inland and on mountains. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, and Chinese all wrote about finding such remains in these locations, and the Greeks hypothesized that Earth had been covered by water several times, noting seashells and fish fossils found on mountain tops as evidence. Native Americans also expressed this belief in their early encounters with Europeans, though they had not written it down previously.
Now if you want to discuss specific text concerning eretz and adamah, I'm all for discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Granny Magda, posted 11-27-2011 2:11 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Granny Magda, posted 11-28-2011 2:30 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 262 of 306 (642319)
11-27-2011 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by PaulK
11-27-2011 1:17 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
We've already seen verses that could be read as referring to a universal flood, and it seems reasonable that a believer in the story could extend that to a planetary flood based on our better understanding of the world.
Of course, if it's taken just as a story, then the whole "global" issue is unimportant.
But I can't guess which ones you're referring to so it would be ever so helpful if you would provide the verses you feel refer to a universal flood. Thank you.
Yes if it is just a story this whole discussion and any other discussion concerning the Bible is a total waste. Apparently we just like to see our words in print.
quote:
Oh please. You're the one playing word games. You keep referring back to your argument that since the author would not have known that the world was a globe that the story did not include that concept. But that is not an argument against the flood being seen as universal.
And that is why YOU keep referring back to a "global" flood instead of a "universal" flood, which does not require the idea that the Earth is a globe.
Actually I keep referring back to Message 234, which is my position concerning eretz and adamah.
Lobbing this one back to you again. It would be ever so helpful if you would tell me the difference between global and universal that bothers you so. Try as I might I don't really understand the issue you have with the two words after all they are synonyms. Although I am sure that you have a wonderful explanation that will enlighten me and make my day. Unfortunately that won't happen unless you grace me with the explanations. Thank you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 1:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 4:24 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 263 of 306 (642321)
11-27-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by PaulK
11-27-2011 1:34 PM


Re: Incorrect Conclusions
quote:
The whole business of "everything" statements in the flood story, of course. Don't you forget your attempt to say that your statement that they even existed should be disregarded because you made it in a different thread ?
Your wonderful Message 219. I simply asked that you address the arguments I made in this thread and not arguments I made in another thread. Each thread has its own theme after all. You are quite welcome to make your own argument concerning hyperbole as it pertains to the topic of this thread. I'm not sure how I can contradict myself when you didn't provide any more info for discussion.
In Message 231 you said:
The point you are attempting to address is that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth. Please address that point instead of dragging an entirely different argument into it.
And I told you that since you hadn't shown evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth, I didn't have anything to address. You failed to show evidence that "everything" statements may be literally true in a myth. You also didn't share any "everything" statements from the text or share how they should be taken literally.
quote:
So the point about Abraham is NOT given as "something the Bible presents" - it is presented as a fact.
My Bad! In the future I will make sure that I have the appropriate wording to make sure that nobody could mistakenly think that insignificant little me would declare something a fact. Perish the thought. I will be more careful in the future. Thanks for setting me straight.
quote:
Yet a local flood IS far more plausible than a universal flood. And if it is just a story, why the aversion to considering it as a myth ? Why not consider the historical origins of the story to understand it ? Why the insistence on a local flood, if a universal flood serves the story just as well ?
Unfortunately I still don't know what you mean by universal. I'm trying, but I need more info.
I have no problem considering the story a myth. (Message 107 and Message 115) I just don't think it amounts to a hill of beans concerning the topic and you haven't shown me that it does. I have asked ever so nicely, but to no avail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 1:34 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 4:41 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 266 of 306 (642326)
11-27-2011 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by PaulK
11-27-2011 4:24 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
Well, let's start off with those "everything" statements that you wish to class as hyperbole. You say they're there, so you should know which ones you meant.
In this thread you said they were there, so you should know which ones you need to share.
quote:
So, WHY are you set on classing it as a purely local flood ?
Someone has to take that side of the debate, otherwise it wouldn't be very interesting. Besides, the wording in the text doesn't refer the planet, so it was less than planetary or global or universal. Anyway it's more than nothing and less than everything.
quote:
Which, as everyone can see is primarily focussed on the irrelevant issue of the author's understanding of the world.
I feel the author's understanding is very relevant. If one is going to exaggerate, one has to know what is extreme. I feel the audience's understanding is relevant also. He's got to know what they will understand. I feel everybody is relevant.
quote:
You say that you have an argument against a global flood and lo and behold, the fact that the Earth is a globe and the author of the current version of the story did not know that is a key part of that argument. And equally clearly it does not apply against a universal flood.
I still don't understand the distinction you are making between a global flood and a universal flood. I can't provide the argument you desire until you tell me the difference between a global flood and a universal flood. To me they are the same. I truly don't want to look dishonest, but until you tell me the difference between a global flood and a universal flood, I guess I'll continue to look bad. Hopefully others will overlook that shortcoming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 4:24 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 5:21 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 277 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2011 9:46 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 268 of 306 (642328)
11-27-2011 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by PaulK
11-27-2011 4:41 PM


Re: Incorrect Conclusions
quote:
The question of whether such statements are present in the story is a matter of objective fact, not an argument. It cannot be true in one thread and false in the other. Thus you have no valid reason to object - not if you are being honest.
I have a perfectly valid reason to object. Each thread is a different topic and I present a certain line of reasoning for an argument. I may not wish to present the same line of reasoning in another topic with similar issues. Like I said, you can present your line of reasoning concerning the issue all you want.
quote:
But I have provided an argument which does establish a reasonable possibility that such statements may be true at the end of [mid=-239]. And if it is reasonable that such statements can be true, then how can they be hyperbole ?
I see no evidence. I just see you saying that it is so.
Sure I have, by pointing out that myths often involve the actions of beings accepted as being capable of acting on that level. It is no different from the example of Superman presented earlier in the thread, which you accepted. Message 239
Superman was not mentioned in this thread other than your message. You're making generalizations and hoping I get it. I don't get it.
This thread isn't about whether the stories are true or not.
quote:
I don't see why you would need more information. It expresses the concept that the entire world was flooded, without restricting it to the area that the author knew about (your "local flood").
How is that different than global? I don't want to look dishonest, you know.
quote:
I stand corrected on the point of whether you are prepared to call the story a myth (although noting that you were reluctant elsewhere to consider it). However your claim that I did not give the reason is false, as shown above.
I wasn't reluctant, I just didn't see any verses, evidence or reasoned argument to address. I can't address what I can't see or understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 4:41 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 5:54 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 270 of 306 (642330)
11-27-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by PaulK
11-27-2011 5:21 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
Relying on YOUR claim that they were there. If you don't know which statements you were referring to, why expect me to ?
Then show me where I made that claim in this thread. You could have done that you know. Very simple and avoids a lot of requests.
quote:
There are plenty of other subjects you could choose to debate. No, it is clearly important to you that the flood is local, important enough to justify all the odd behaviour.
It is important that it's not presented as planetary, global, universal, etc., but I won't lose any sleep over it.
quote:
Whether the author felt that the flood was universal or strictly limited is relevant. Whether he understood that our world is a globe or a planet is not.
Well I still disagree. Sorry.
quote:
Well the "global" flood terminology is yours. By inference from your posts to write about it requires understanding that the earth is a planet, a globe. A universal flood does not. That's one key difference. A universal flood is simply one that is not restricted to a purely local area of our world. Writing about one requires nothing more than the ability to imagine that - not knowledge of the actual structure of the planet.
That's it? Well since I have understanding that we are on a planet, then I am using the word correctly when I say the flood was not global. Since I feel the flood was restricted to an area of the planet, I am using the word correctly when I say that the flood was not universal.
Good to know I have not been dishonest. Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 5:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 6:08 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 271 of 306 (642331)
11-27-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by PaulK
11-27-2011 5:54 PM


Re: Incorrect Conclusions
quote:
Since the issue is one of fact, not reasoning, this cannot be a valid reason.
Sure it is. It's my reason and it is valid.
quote:
I give a reason for my conclusion. You do not dispute that reason. Again you give me reason to question your honesty.
That's not evidence. Oh pooh, I'm looking dishonest again. I really need to quit that.
quote:
It was given early in the hyperbole thread. Message 38
We aren't in the hyperbole thread.
quote:
It disposes of the false dichotomy that the author must either be describing a strictly local flood or a flood covering the planet as we understand it, as I have explained above.
Isn't that pretty much the options? Either the flood covered all the planet or it didn't. That's all we got.
quote:
That's also false, since I gave relevant verses in the first post introducing the issue in the hyperbole thread: Message 3
We aren't in the hyperbole thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 5:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 6:13 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 274 of 306 (642334)
11-27-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by PaulK
11-27-2011 6:08 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
You know perfectly well that you made the claim in the hyperbole thread.
I love my main computer. It makes it so easy to search, copy and quote. I was really lost without it for two weeks. When I present an argument (and my main computer is working), I provide quotes and links I refer to. It is not my job to find what someone else is referring to whether it was something I wrote or not. Remembering what I've written on this board is not a priority in my life. If it's not important enough for you to do the work, it isn't important enough for me to do the work.
I prefer not to carry someone elses monkey.
quote:
Except that all you can argue for is the undisputed point that the author didn't have our idea of the planet in mind...
So? That's my prerogative.
quote:
Your opinion is not a matter of dispute either.
So, just another evasion.
Actually it was very helpful. I'm the one using the words, not the authors; so I'm using them correctly. Good to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 6:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 6:25 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 276 of 306 (642337)
11-27-2011 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by PaulK
11-27-2011 6:13 PM


Re: Incorrect Conclusions
quote:
No, it's not valid. It's an obvious non-sequitur.
That doesn't mean my reason isn't valid.
quote:
In what sense is it not evidence ?
It's just you saying it is what it is. If I said it isn't what you say it is, you're going to ask for proof because you aren't going to take my word for it. Why should I take your word for it that it is what it is?
quote:
And again I point out that facts do not depend on which thread we happen to be in.
You really don't get it do you. It has nothing to do with the facts. If you want to present an argument concerning hyperbole that pertains to this topic, then make that argument with all the evidence that goes with it.
If you want to discuss the argument in the hyperbole thread then discuss it there. I will be getting back to that thread now that I have my main computer back, but the holidays are upon us and I will be busy crafting. No time for wasted posts and people who won't present support or evidence for their position or people who won't even take a position. I don't argue for the sake of arguing.
You go stupid, so can I.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 6:13 PM PaulK has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 281 of 306 (642383)
11-28-2011 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Granny Magda
11-28-2011 2:30 AM


Muddy Waters
quote:
I was hoping that I might persuade you to stop playing word games, since it seems to me that it is mostly your misleading use of terminology that has derailed this thread. Had you not insisted upon using misleading language, the thread would probably have gone something like this;
purpledawn: The Bible does not describe a planet.
PaulK: Agreed.
Granny Magda: No argument there.
NoNukes: Obviously it doesn't.
Instead, you've muddied the waters until I don't think anyone on this thread knows what the hell you're arguing about. As far as I can tell, only ICANT is actually arguing that the Bible describes a planet, and he's... y'know... ICANT.
The thing that's drawing disagreement is the way you keep making it look as though you want to exclude the possibility of a complete flood and the way you seem to be insisting that a total flood implies a planet. I don't think that is your actual position, but if you go back and read what you've written in this thread, I think you might see how you have been giving the appearance of trying to exclude this possibility.
I assume you mean complete flood of your non-planetary world.
And this post didn't do it for you. Message 172
That post contained several Ancient World Maps showing how the known land changed through the years. That would be your non-planetary world.
PurpleDawn writes:
So looking at these maps, when a writer says all the erets or adamah, he may be referring to all or part of the real estate known to them and I don't disagree with that. I feel that they are, but our English word earth is not appropriate to convey that idea since it now is the name for our planet and the way erets or adamah are used would lead one to understand a global reference when the word earth is used.
Granny Magda writes:
I agree that they were not describing a global flood of the world as we know it to be but I consider it a strong possibility that they were describing the total flooding of the world as they imagined it to be. I think that I favour this explanation a bit more than you do. Message 184
Your last sentence in that post.
Then we are almost in agreement I think.
Really, you don't think we're saying the same thing???? All or part of the real estate known to them. All or part of the non-planetary world. You couldn't make the leap, seriously???
After I bumped the thread back into view. Message 216
PurpleDawn writes:
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.
So I said the flood didn't cover the planet, which you supposedly agree with.
PurpleDawn writes:
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)
The storytellers culture and environment. This covers your non-planetary world.
PurpleDawn writes:
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.
So I did say the words in the Bible didn't refer to the planet, or do I need your exact wording for you to understand?
PurpleDawn writes:
All, every, and under heaven are terms that were still used to refer to local events
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.
Local and regional fall under your non-planetary world.
In Message 218:
PurpleDawn writes:
The language of the text doesn't support that the storyteller was referring to lands he didn't know of.
Lands he didn't know of would at most fall outside your non-planetary world.
In Message 227:
PurpleDawn writes:
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?
This again falls under your non-planetary world. Do I really have to say all or part every time I refer to the non-planetary world?
In Message 229:
PurpleDawn writes:
They lacked the concept of the planet. "The world" to them had nothing to do with the globe.
"The world" would be your non-planetary world.
In Message 247, I said: 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.
Message 248 is where you pop in again and tell me that is a waste of time.
Granny Magda writes:
Well if that's what you're doing then you are wasting everyone's time. Those are two possibilities. There exists a third, as you well know and as you have already acknowledged. There still exists the possibility that the text is describing a flood that did not take place on a planet (because they had no concept of "planets") but did flood the entirety of what they imagined to exist.
The words local area or region isn't enough for you to connect it with your non-planetary world?
That sentence didn't tell you that I'm saying the Bible doesn't describe a planet?
That sentence doesn't tell you that I'm debating whether the text presents a flood that covers the planet as opposed to a flood that doesn't cover the planet?
In my response to you, which is Message 250 I told you: I don't see a distinction between local, regional, or known land concerning this argument. Eretz can refer to all three. From my perspective, compared to the planet, all those possibilities fall under the term local.
I also told you: The point of the thread is that eretz and adamah don't refer to the planet.
So I told you as soon as you popped in that your non-planetary world isn't the point of the debate.
So I have made it quite clear that I am debating that eretz and adamah do not refer to the planet. When it comes to the flood story, that means the flood did not cover the planet.
I've also made it known that I have no issue with whether the flood covered all of the non-planetary world or part of it.
So show me where I have been confusing and where I seem to "look" as though I want to exclude the possibility of a complete flood, which I assume you mean a complete flood of the non-planetary world. We must be precise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Granny Magda, posted 11-28-2011 2:30 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 11-28-2011 3:54 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-28-2011 4:36 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 286 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2011 3:10 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 285 of 306 (642440)
11-28-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by New Cat's Eye
11-28-2011 4:36 PM


Re: Muddy Waters
quote:
I agree that the word earth is not referring to a planet. But from the story as a whole, it doesn't make sense for the flood to be just a local one that didn't really flood everything.
By everything I assume you are referring to the non-planetary world as opposed to the planet.
quote:
And I still don't get how the stroy could make sense if it was just a small local flood that just covered some of the land and only killed some of the people when the whole point of it is god destroying everything, wiping the slate clean, and then starting over again.
Try to get an idea of the environment in the non-planetary world.
The Hebrews weren't off in a secluded sector not interacting with neighboring pagans (I use that word just to differentiate from the Hebrews). The Hebrews also participated in religious practices of their pagan neighbors. Each worshiped their respective gods.
Some (which means not all) comparative mythologist scholars think that some elements of pagan mythology were absorbed into Jewish mythology.
Now there are several different flood myths. As the Hebrews interacted with the pagans and lived among them in exile, do we think they never shared flood stories in all those years?
One shares that his God wiped out all humans he created except Noah and family.
Another says his gods wiped out all humans except Utnapishtim and his family.
My guess is they encountered more versions than we have today. I think they knew all humans really weren't destroyed.
Did they see the stories as referring to their own people? Maybe some did, maybe some didn't.
IMO, and I am allowed to have an opinion no matter how pitiful or whether it is supported by professionals or not, the flood was just the backdrop to the story.
The Hebrews used their flood story to explain how their various clans came about. The flood was a very non specific big flood.
We have to remember that in fiction all details don't have to pan out in reality. In a fictional story, I can say the sun reversed its course and set in the east. In reality that can't happen, but in fiction it can. I can say that the water covered the tallest mountains (in the land is usually implied), that doesn't mean that all the surrounding areas or lands in existence are flooded. In reality, if water was that high we can assume a significant area was flooded, but in fiction we really don't have to think that far out. We can, but we don't have to.
We've been taught the flood was to wipe the slate clean; but if we read the end of the story, Chapter 20, we see that the slate wasn't really wiped clean.
Unfortunately we have no way to know what the authors were thinking when they wrote their versions of the story or what the redactor was thinking when he put them all together. We have no way of knowing what the original audiences understood or how seriously they took the stories. We can only guess.
I see it as another type of just so story for the Hebrew people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-28-2011 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024