Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 287 of 306 (642468)
11-29-2011 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by ICANT
11-29-2011 3:10 AM


Monolatry, Not Monotheism
quote:
Now if you want to say God does not exist so this could not have taken place you are welcome to do so.
But if you believe God exists and is the all powerful God He claims to be then that would have been a piece of cake for Him.
And yet if I told you that God showed me that the story does not refer to a flood that covers the planet, you wouldn't believe me....would you?
All powerful doesn't mean he has to flood the planet.
All powerful doesn't mean he can't tell a story.
If you believe we are made in God's image, why wouldn't that god tell stories just like we do?
Why give us that ability if we aren't meant to use it?
Yhvh was going to destroy what he had created. Yhvh is the God of Israel.
Monolatry
Since many critical scholars believe that the laws banning the worship of other gods really do go back to Moses, but that the denial of the existence of other gods does not, they conclude that Moses only taught monolatry, not monotheism. And since historical books such as Judges and Kings state that the Israelites continued to worship other gods throughout their history, these scholars conclude that even the requirement of monolatry was not widely accepted in Israel until shortly before the Babylonian exile, or even later.
Just because a god can flood the planet, doesn't mean the god did flood the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2011 3:10 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 7:58 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied
 Message 289 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2011 10:58 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 290 of 306 (642490)
11-29-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by ICANT
11-29-2011 10:58 AM


Re: Monolatry, Not Monotheism
quote:
God would not choose to lie but you and I can.
Curious that you consider stories to be lies.
quote:
The children of Israel did not exist at the time of the flood.
They supposedly did at the time the J writer told his story.
The audience heard the name of their god (or however they said it without saying it) in the story.
Their god said he would destroy what he had created.
quote:
But it is recorded that He said He was going to destroy everything that breathed the breath of life from off the face of the dry land, except what was in the ark.
I'm sure several other gods in myths made the same such claim.
quote:
Either He did or He lied.
It is a shame you feel that way. Stories are wonderful training tools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2011 10:58 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2011 3:57 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 291 of 306 (642494)
11-29-2011 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by NoNukes
11-28-2011 3:54 PM


Re: Muddy Waters
quote:
If it helps to have a data point, I'm certainly confused. I have no idea what point you are making.
Seriously???
Once more with feeling:
Concerning the use of eretz and adamah in the flood story, I'm debating whether the text presents a flood that covers the planet as opposed to a flood that doesn't cover the planet?
That's why the name of the thread is "Not the Planet".
Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis) Message 234
What is confusing?
quote:
It appears to me that you've already decided that the flood was local and that you are simply providing rationalization for what you already believe.
It might help if you quit trying to figure out what I believe and actually look at the arguments I made concerning the text and if you don't believe the text refers to the planet; what are you going on about?
I seriously doubt that any humans, animals, trees, or bugs were harmed in the making of the flood story. It is a foundational myth. You can tell the story any way you want.
If you need it to cover a small space you can, go for it.
If you need it to cover all the non-planetary world, go for it.
Even if you need it to cover the whole planet, go for it.
The problem arises when a literal reading is used to teach incorrectly. That's when people need to understand what the text is really saying to guard against improper usage of the story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 11-28-2011 3:54 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2011 10:35 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 293 of 306 (642555)
11-29-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by ICANT
11-29-2011 3:57 PM


Re: Monolatry, Not Monotheism
quote:
Anything I make up that is not based on facts is a lie. Now I can say anything I desire to say. That just does not make it true or based on fact.
Not really. To be a lie there needs to be an intent behind the fabrication.
Lie
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
quote:
What does that have to do with who God was saying He was going to destroy?
If you consider stories to be lies and don't understand storytelling, I really have no way to help you understand. Although, my guess is in reality in anything other than the Bible you don't have that outlook. Sad if you do.
quote:
Well if all life forms that breath perished in the flood of Noah except those on the ark all of the descendents of those people would have a story of all life being destroyed, as that would be handed down from generation to generation.
That's just made up. You don't actually have any facts from reality for that statement. Unfortunately, I think delving into that issue is beyond the scope of this thread. We aren't really trying to prove that a flood did or didn't happen. There are flood threads for that.
quote:
Your problem is you want to make statements of fact a story to suit your own personal needs to justify yourself to yourself.
You know I can reverse that and apply it to you also. The point of a debate is to try and present our side as right. Trying to insult me doesn't help the debate and I consider you to be above those tactics.
Stories are useful for teaching, correcting, training, and entertainment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2011 3:57 PM ICANT has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 298 of 306 (642847)
12-02-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by NoNukes
12-01-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Muddy Waters
quote:
I'm confused because if the above statement was really what this thread was about it should have ended in one post. Nobody disputes the idea that the authors did not consider the earth a planet.
You just used an absolute statement. Message 191
NoNukes writes:
Nobody disputes the idea that the authors did not consider the earth a planet.
Do you really mean absolutely no one on this planet disputes that idea (which you have no way of knowing) or do you mean participants in this thread only or do you mean only the last few confused participants?
Since we are in this thread, I normally would assume you are talking about the participants in this thread and at the very least your confused trio (PaulK, Granny Magda, NoNukes).
That's why when we put the word "all" in front of land or ground, we can't assume the audience even took it to mean everything they knew existed. See Message 285 and Message 287.
PurpleDawn writes:
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.
quote:
Thus even a story about an all encompassing flood would not be about a flooded planet.
I agree and I have agreed several times before, but some people do believe that the story refers to a flood that covers the entire planet or could refer to a flood that covers the planet whether they believe the author considered the ground to be part of a planet or not.
quote:
However our agreement with the above did not end the thread, and you continued to treat other words (e.g. global, world-wide) that describe an all encompassing flood as if their authors had used the word planet.
Now this is where you should be providing quotes of where I have done this. I'm not going to guess at what you misunderstood.
Here are a few examples of what PaulK presented that, IMO, were still arguing that the story could be referring to a planetary flood.
Message 217
PaulK writes:
After all it seems reasonable to think that the "dry land" created in Genesis 1 would be meant to be essentially all the dry land in existence. So why can't the Flood be meant to cover all the dry land in existence ?
Message 223
PaulK writes:
If it literally means "all land" then it would take it "global" in the sense that it referred to all of the land.
Message 225
PaulK writes:
Since the story as we have it is a myth, why should it not refer to a universal flood?
Message 245
PaulK writes:
Actually right now, we are supposedly discussing whether the flood should be taken as universal or local. In the Bible, clearly those words do not refer to our concept of the planet in the sense that the authors knew and understood it. But equally clearly it is not impossible that some usages can be correctly understood as referring to the planet, if the story is taken as a true story about our world, as oppose to a fiction set in a world where the concepts of the ancient authors were factually correct.
His statement following that finally confirmed that he was using universal and global differently than I was.
PaulK writes:
And there you do it again. I'm not asking for arguments against you concept of a "global" flood. I am asking about arguments against a universal flood. And every time you try to change the subject.
Which is why I defined my usage in Message 247 and asked him to clarify. It took 3 requests to finally get an answer in Message 267. And low and behold, I have been using the words correctly because I am using them from my perspective, not the ancient author's perspective. I am the one writing these posts, not the ancient authors.
So if you want me to understand your confusion, you need to show where I have been confusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2011 10:35 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2011 7:55 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 302 of 306 (643042)
12-04-2011 6:53 AM


My Summation
Aside from a few, I feel that most of us agreed that the words eretz (land) and adamah (ground) by themselves to not refer to planet Earth. I also feel that most of us agree that our English words land and ground also do not by themselves refer to planet Earth and that our English word earth only refers to the planet when one is using it as the name of our planet. Message 185
The phrase "all the land" and "all the ground" seems to be the sticking point when it comes to the creation stories and the flood stories and whether they are referring to the entire planet or not. From what I can tell at least one sticking point seems to be because the character of God in the stories is assumed to be all powerful and all knowing and therefore could easily flood the whole planet. Unfortunately I feel my opposition adds more to the story than the author provided. The author wrote the story. The character didn't write the story.
I understand that the author is at most talking about the non-planetary world (Message 260) and at the least the land of Israel; But apparently I have been rather inept at explaining why.
I feel, the definite article "the" is the key. Message 208
A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker has already mentioned, or it may be something uniquely specified. The definite article in English, for both singular and plural nouns, is the.
The children know the fastest way home.
The sentence above refers to specific children and a specific way home; it contrasts with the much more general observation that:
Children know the fastest way home.
The latter sentence refers to children in general, perhaps all or most of them.
So the "ha" in front of eretz and adamah means the noun used is a particular one identifiable to the listener the same as the word "the" does for the English language.
That's why we don't assume the inscription on the Liberty Bell is referring to every person on the planet even with the absolute "all" in front of it. It's the same phrasing and those people did know they stood on a planet. Message 227
Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof...
The other issue was the absolute "all" in front of "the land". Unintentionally one of my opponents gave a wonderful example of how we automatically edit absolutes.
NoNukes writes:
Nobody disputes the idea that the authors did not consider the earth a planet. Message 296
When he uses the word "nobody" I don't assume he actually polled every person on the planet. I assume he is at most referring to the people participating in this thread and at the least end the three who were confused.
I feel the listeners of the original stories edited the absolutes just the way we do. The Hebrews weren't living in a vacuum. Message 285
There were several different flood myths. As the Hebrews interacted with the pagans and lived among them in exile, do we really believe they never shared flood stories or creation stories in all those years?
Monolatry
Since many critical scholars believe that the laws banning the worship of other gods really do go back to Moses, but that the denial of the existence of other gods does not, they conclude that Moses only taught monolatry, not monotheism. And since historical books such as Judges and Kings state that the Israelites continued to worship other gods throughout their history, these scholars conclude that even the requirement of monolatry was not widely accepted in Israel until shortly before the Babylonian exile, or even later.
Do we really believe they thought everyone's god of choice destroyed every living thing on the planet/non-planetary world except one family and a boat full of animals?
IMO, it is unreasonable to assume the audience had never heard any other flood stories, especially since these foundational myths were probably created from stories borrowed from pagans. If the Documentary Hypothesis is correct, then what we currently have is a cut and pasted version containing at least two different versions of the stories.
These stories are foundational myths and I feel the original audience understood "all the land" to refer to the particular land that was identifiable to them.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024