Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 272 of 306 (642332)
11-27-2011 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by purpledawn
11-27-2011 5:58 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
quote:
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.
You know perfectly well that you made the claim in the hyperbole thread.
quote:
It is important that it's not presented as planetary, global, universal, etc., but I won't lose any sleep over it.
Except that all you can argue for is the undisputed point that the author didn't have our idea of the planet in mind...
quote:
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.
Your opinion is not a matter of dispute either.
So, just another evasion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 5:58 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 6:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 273 of 306 (642333)
11-27-2011 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by purpledawn
11-27-2011 6:06 PM


Re: Incorrect Conclusions
quote:
Sure it is. It's my reason and it is valid.
No, it's not valid. It's an obvious non-sequitur.
quote:
That's not evidence. Oh pooh, I'm looking dishonest again. I really need to quit that.
In what sense is it not evidence ?
quote:
We aren't in the hyperbole thread.
And again I point out that facts do not depend on which thread we happen to be in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 6:06 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 6:34 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 275 of 306 (642336)
11-27-2011 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by purpledawn
11-27-2011 6:22 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
Reported

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 6:22 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 280 of 306 (642378)
11-28-2011 3:33 AM


Considering the Extent of the Flood.
The extent of the flood may be considered on a number of levels.
1) Historic reality
This necessarily refers to a limited flood - but one that would be limited even within the area that the authors would have had knowledge of (even back to the Sumerian original). If the flood were a purely historic account, which could be identified with a real event then this would be of interest. However neither is the case. We have no event that can be definitely identified as the source of the story, and the story contains clearly mythic elements such as the creation of the rainbow.
2) What the story says
The text appears to contain indications that the flood was considered to be world-wide (e.g Message 5, Message 24, Message 238). Certainly there are no explicit limits given. The argument on the use of the words "eretz" and "adamah" seems weak. Firstly because it relies on looking at other uses (which can confirm possible meanings, but not disconfirm them) and secondly because context does suggest a wider use:
e.g. doctrbill states in Message 4
I think it is a far reach indeed to extrapolate these apparent facts to include Genesis 1 as a recitation of the creation of Canaan; particularly when it bears such an uncanny resemblance to the standard cosmology of the ancient middle east.
and in Message 11
Scriptural usage suggests that 'adamah and 'erets were used interchangeably even though their etymologies indicate some subtle difference.
So it seems that these words may be used to refer to essentially all the dry land, which leaves us with a general flood, unless the context requires a more limited area. But as has already been pointed out, there is context that suggests a general flood, covering all of the dry land in existence.
Also it is reasonable to ask, if these words cannot indicate a more general flood, how would the author write of a more general flood ? No answer has been forthcoming.
It is argued elsewhere that the statements taken to mean that the flood covered all the dry land were hyperbolic. However, given the fact that the flood is explicitly an act of God - an entity not restricted by nature at all and (in the context of the story) apparently capable of creating all the land in the first place (which in Genesis 1 involves massive movements of water) it is far from obvious that these are not to be taken literally.
dictionary.com defines hyperbole as:
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as to wait an eternity.
Meaning one clearly does not apply, while a simple assertion that meaning two is meant would beg the question. If the only reason for thinking that these statements are hyperbole is their extravagance, then we are left with no good reason to consider them hyperbole at all.
So again the weight of evidence seems to support the idea that a general flood, covering all the habitable land is meant.
3) How the author and early audience would have understood it.
Obviously they would not have understood it as referring to our modern conception of the world, because they did not have that conception. However, this is no bar to them considering it a general flood covering all the land.
4) How it should be understood today.
Obviously if we are to understand it as a literal event we need to relate it to our understanding of the world. In this case a general flood would be a flood covering the entire globe (but this is the only context where they are synonymous - they were obviously not synonymous in the view of the author, who did not believe that the earth was a globe).
If we are to understand it as a story, given in the context of the times, we should not bother to consider that at all. We should be content with the idea of a general flood without considering what that means in our understanding. (i.e. starting with a "fresh slate" may be important to the story, the shape of the world is not).
In conclusion, then, the only context where it clearly makes sense to speak of a local flood is when we deal with the historical origins. But in that case it would clearly make more sense to be consider the older versions of the story as having more weight than the one found in the Bible, yet those have not been discussed here at all.
We are therefore left with the other three options, all of which seem to favour a universal flood, with the only caveat being the point in the OP, that the author - even the redactor of the version we have - lacked our concept of Earth as a planet. An important point in some contexts, but not important when considering the extent of the flood as given in the story.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 297 of 306 (642829)
12-02-2011 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by doctrbill
12-01-2011 8:56 PM


Re: End of the Planet?
quote:
You have taken the position that when Bible writers say all the land they may well have been speaking of all the land on planet earth. IMO: That is not a speculative position, sir. It is a fantasy.
I hope that you can come up with a sound basis for that claim. So far nobody else seems to have. It would be a fantasy to insist that the authors knew of all of the land on this planet. But it would be a fantasy even more remote from reality to claim that they were incapable of thinking of or expressing the concept of "all the land".
quote:
When parameters are given, the biblical expression kol ha eretz (all the earth or the whole earth) never indicates a piece of real estate larger than the largest of ancient empires. The empire of Babylonia, much smaller than that of Persia, is nonetheless described as "the whole earth." Even an area small as a battlefield is, in the Bible, described as all the earth. When parameters are not given should we assume that the authors are referring to all the land on all the planets in all the universe? But we must do that, mustn’t we? If we are to explore the full possibility of what the authors might have meant.
As I have stated elsewhere, the interpretation depends on what level you are dealing with the story. see Message 280
However, simply because context may limit the phrase we cannot safely assume similar limits when none are given. We must work with what we have.
quote:
Today you imagine that a flood of water which covered all the land could have meant a flood of water that covered all the land on planet earth. Five thousand years from now your distant progeny may imagine it as a flood of people who swarmed over all the land on all the colonized planets prior to collapse of the galactic empire. It could happen. That's how myth evolves. But why would anyone wish to engage in such mental masturbation unless he has a religious agenda, is a numbskulled creationist, or gets off on behaving like one
Of course, anyone who did so would be lacking any knowledge of the time the story was describing - as well as straining the story in other ways. But this is not the case for the interpretation of the flood as covering the planet - that does not strain the story, and uses a BETTER understanding of the world as it was, at the time the event is supposed to have happened than was available to the authors.
quote:
As purpledawn has reiterated, this thread hosts the question of whether or not the ancient language was used to describe planet earth. I’m afraid the discussion has wandered afield of that. I would be happy to indulge a discussion of Noah’s flood in another thread but we have wasted a lot of time here chasing our tails and our time is nearly up.
In other words, like purpledawn you refuse to answer a simple question that could clear up the whole business. You are quite prepared to make strong assertions, to use obviously bad arguments to attempt to back up those assertions, but you suddenly stop short of dealing with a point which could actually help your claim ?
Given that the authors had the capability to think of and express the simple concept of "all of the land" how would they express it ? If they would not use the wording found in the Flood story, you finally have a viable case for assuming limits when none are given. So why hold back from making a good argument, when you've already wasted enough time with bad.
quote:
As purpledawn has reiterated, this thread hosts the question of whether or not the ancient language was used to describe planet earth. I’m afraid the discussion has wandered afield of that. I would be happy to indulge a discussion of Noah’s flood in another thread but we have wasted a lot of time here chasing our tails and our time is nearly up.
If the question was whether the ancient writers had the concept of the Earth as a planet, then the answer is obvious and already settled. No need to save space for that.
If the question is whether the stories should - if taken as descriptions of events that actually occurred (which we may do for the sake of argument without presuming that the story is true) - can be taken as referring to the whole of the planet then we are discussing that right now. So no need to stop.
quote:
I disagree. All we have are the authors words. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t know earth as a globe. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t have x-ray vision. What matters is that there was no global flood ridden out by an old drunk who surfed a boatload of dinosaurs into a mountain side and loosed a hungry lot of malaria carrying mosquitoes on the world.
So what you are saying is that it is wrong to interpret the story as referring to a global flood, because there was no global flood. Those are the words of a Biblical apologist of the concordist camp. Not of someone who wants to understand the story. There is no need for the story to be true, no need for it to accurately describe a real event. There are clearly elements of myth in the story, so why not take the whole thing as a myth and throw out any consideration of whether it refers to something that actually happened or even could have happened ?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by doctrbill, posted 12-01-2011 8:56 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 304 of 306 (643074)
12-04-2011 3:29 PM


Summary
This thread with the quite reasonable point that the authors of the Bible did not understand the idea of the Earth as a planet. (although it should be noted that the idea of the Earth as a globe was available in the time of the later Biblical writers, especially in the New Testament).
Unfortunately it did not stop there. Somehow this was taken as meaning that the story of Noah's Flood MUST be read as referring to a purely local flood. This is absurd as was demonstrated in the thread, but somehow the supporters of this argument would not let go.
I suppose at this point I have to mention Purpledawn's odd behaviour. Including such highlights as forgetting the point being argued about, being unable (according to her) to realise that the word "global" carries the connotation of a globe, while the word "universal" does not (and even missing the explanation - she would not have "had to ask three times" if she had noticed the answer given the first time !) and in the end confusing her modern point of view with that of the Biblical authors. We could put this down to confusion but apparently it is people who remember the point under discussion and can see the link between "global" and "globe" who are confused...
The other assertion was that since eretz and adamah are sometimes used to refer to limited areas they must always refer to limited areas. Again this seems odd, since we are also told that adamah is used in the monotheistic creation story of Genesis 1, where it seems eminently reasonable to consider it as referring to all the major land masses that might exist. And we are also told that eretz and adamah are used interchangeably so it seems that this argument is not on firm ground. Perhaps the argument could be saved if a better wording could be found to express the concept of "all of the land in the world", but none was offered nor was there any suggestion that there was any reasonable alternative. Maybe this is due to the limited knowledge of those proposing the argument, but if it is true that there is no better alternative, then the case for reading the Flood story as referring to a universal flood becomes very strong.
I did write a story setting out my views of how the Flood story should be read in different contexts. It was almost a summary post in itself - the more so, since it attracted no replies. Rather than repeat it here, I will just provide the link. Please go and read it : Message 280

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024