Summations Only

quote:

---

But now, it has come to my attention that there are a number of ongoing threads here in which apparently sincere and otherwise intelligent persons labor under the misapprehension that the Bible may sometime refer to planet Earth.

​

I wish to remind everyone that THE BIBLE NEVER EVER DOES THAT. And if one should come upon a modern version which appears to do it, he should remind himself that said version is post-Copernican at best and at worst a dishonest rendering.

---

Hey Doc,Since believers are primed to convert "all the world", are you including the Greek word "kosmos" also as not meaning the planet? When we see the English word "world" in these translations, depending on how it is used or presented to us, we think planet or all inhabitants of the planet. What is a better English word if planet would not have been the intent in these cases? The Lexicon has these meanings listed. If planet is a later meaning, what is the author really saying in some cases? From what I can tell the prime meaning of kosmos is good order. I'm not sure how it came to mean many of the above choices if order is the base. It appears that sometimes it is used to mean believers as noted above. I think they need to translate it that way. It gives very different meaning to John 1:29 than what is preached. Here is an example from the Book of Mark which is what has primed believers to convert "all the world" or planet. Given the second one, I'm not surprise they aren't preaching at zoos and animal shelters. Where were they really supposed to go?The author of John uses the term "kosmos" the most. See complete list. By context around the word we can tell that the author wasn't talking about the planet even though we may not know exactly what was meant. Who did God really love? Ungodly multitudes, inhabitants of the planet, or believers? Who is Jesus really here to save? The government, inhabitants of the planet, ungodly multitudes, believers. From the usage, I would say ungodly multitudes.If they didn't have a concept of planet, then would they have a concept of inhabitants of the planet?Really makes me look at the book of John a bit different.In this post entitled "The Meaning of Kosmos" the author shows that kosmos was not used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew terms you presented in the OP. Unfortunately when he got his conclusion on the use of kosmos in the NT, he seems to leave it as meaning planet. I didn't understand. I felt he fell back into tradition. Did I misunderstand?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Hey Doc,Crosswalk used to be easy to navigate for meanings, but they changed their format. Thanks for the new option and the kosmos etymology.Not to take this thread off topic, but it does give me a very different view of the verses using world for kosmos. Given Paul's letter and the range of his ministry, John 3:16 probably refers to Jews and Greeks within the empire, as opposed to people in other nations or all inhabitants on the planet.Thanks for the explanations and thoughts.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This is fascinating and eye opening. Actually the realization that the use of the word world is really limited to the locality or the Roman Empire, supports the idea that Jesus and Paul were preaching an end to Roman rule and God taking over that area. They were expecting God to save the Jews from the Romans, not everyone else in the world. God was to save them as he had supposedly done in the OT.Acts 17:30-31 Paul supposedly said: These make more sense now. Before they seemed exaggerations and still might be to some degree. Here Paul was blamed for stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world (oikoumenē). So really it was over the Roman Empire where he preached. (Acts 24:5)I don't think we will ever have a Bible that translates Roman Empire, where it should be. The idea of taking over the whole planet is the basis a lot of Christian movements.People want a correct translation as long as it doesn't interfere with the current doctrine.
Looks like I have some reading to do and notes to put in my Bible.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

In the prophecy thread the word "world" came up again and I kept thinking of this thread. The author of Mark left out the world issue, and the author of Luke didn't bring up how far the gospel had to go.If they didn't understand planetary, then the author of Matthew was most likely speaking of the Roman Empire or at least the inhabitants they knew of in the "world", which again goes back to Paul's ministry. The author of Matthew was written after the destruction of the temple and I assume Paul's work was known.Since Luke was written about 95 CE, people knew what had actually happened. Would the author still be talking about the Roman Empire, since the destruction was localized in Jerusalem? Although from what I've read, I think there were still difficulties between the Jews and the Romans that lead to later battles.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

It just occurred to me, considering what I said earlier about the probable Jewish use of the term "oikoumene," that if they did use it as others (Greeks and Romans) had done then it would have been a reference to their own homeland, much as many Old Testament authors appear to have employed the terms "tebel," "'adamah," and "'erets" in exclusive reference to Israelite territories.

​

Alternatively, first century Jews may have employed "oikoumene" to describe the greater Jewish community, including the far flung synagogues of Rome and Babylon. Such usage also has OT precedents in that "'erets" is often employed metaphorically as a reference to the body politic of Israelites.

---

That usage would fit with the author of Luke. Luke's author sees the destruction as punishment. He doesn't really say who for, but given the late writing he already knew the Jews lost, not the Romans. So the implication is punishment for the Jews. The authors' of Mark and Matthew have Jesus surfing in to collect the elect from the turmoil. The author of Luke doesn't.The author of Mark may have been written closer to the destruction and may still have had hope in defeating the Romans.Interesting thought.Edited by purpledawn, : Possessive

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This article "Planet Earth? or Land?"
brings up many of the points that you have made and helps to understand where our word planet comes from and what it really means. Jude 1:13 uses the the phrase wondering stars. So even the Greek of the NT is not referring to a spherical planet. This knowledge really changes some of the ideas concerning the Book of Revelation. It doesn't speak of the destruction of planet Earth, but more likely the Roman Empire. That may be a good thread to start. I'll have to work on that.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

No wonder no one wants to breech the subject. I always did find it odd that Churches say that we can see God in creation and yet don't take care of it. Bigger better churches, huge parking lots covering grasses. Good farmland no longer useful.They seem to want to escape creation instead of embracing and respecting it.The Bible writers speak of the world known to them, not the entire planet. I think it is hard for the fundamental believer to downsize their view.This knowledge does change a lot of what Christianity is selling.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

The discussion was not about what Moses knew or did not know. It was about the meaning of the Hebrew word erets which he used. Whose root means firm and erets means earth or land. It does not distinguish from dry land or land covered with water.

​

In Genesis 1:9 the Hebrew word yabbashah means dry ground and preceeds erets, producing dry land as all the water was gathered into one place.

---

Land covered with water is not dry land.So yabbashah means dry ground and God said the yabbashah would be called erets. If it is covered with water it isn't dry ground. The waters were called yam. Erets doesn't refer to the planet, which contains both. Bitstsah is the word for swamp or marsh.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This is in response to ICANT's Message 55 in the Biblically, Was Adam The First Man? thread. The concept that the ground under his feet was part of a huge globe also didn't exist. What the word has become is irrelevant to what it meant at the time of the writing. The meaning at the time of the writing is what is important.You do realize that the meaning of the word planet is not the issue.

quote:

---

If the ground in China, Australia, Japan, Europe and the Americas is considered a part of the earth then the ground in Genesis 2:5 would be any ground that existed at that time.

​

You are trying to apply a modern term that is still evolving to an ancient Hebrew word.

---

No, 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.Actually I would say you are applying a modern term to an ancient word. We have to get back to the beginning of the evolution. What the word meant then is what we need, not the newer meanings that have evolved since then.

quote:

---

Erets
According to Brown, Driver, Biggs Lexicon means:
1) land, earth

​

The modern definition of earth is land.
The Hebrew definition of earth is land.

---

None of which means planet. The word earth does not have a meaning of planet. The word earth is used as the name of our planet. There is a difference.Eretz and adamah were not that all encompassing.

It is mind boggling that you don't realize the definitions you provided do not support that the English word "earth" means planet. The confirm that it is the name of our planet.What you've shown is that the English word "earth" is used as the name of our planet. There aren't earths in our solar system, there are planets. From your Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary we can see that earth also means wire. So how ridiculous to we really want to get?As you have noted, the meaning of words evolve over time. It is incorrect to interpret ancient stories in terms of our own culture. When we interpret the Bible in terms of our own culture we are subjectively reading meaning into the texts (eisogesis) instead of objectively deriving meaning from the texts (exegesis).You have a need for eretz to refer to the planet. The original writers didn't. They didn't have a concept of planet at that time.The English word earth didn't refer to our planet until about the 16th century. The stories need to remain in their original historical context.Show me that at the time the stories were written that the authors held the concept that they stood on a globe or planet.

quote:

---

I am sorry I could not find your dictionary online.

​

Neither could I find one that gave the primary meaning of earth that agrees with your definition.

---

If your talking about the definition from the post, that is your definition from the other thread. There wasn't a link.By continuing to use the word earth when you are actually referring to our planet, it is you who are obfuscating. You want it to remain unclear and confusing. If you want to be clear, stop using the word earth. Use the other meanings of eretz or adamah instead.Eretz and adamah refer to the land, ground, soil, region, etc. depending on how it is used; but the writers were not referring to the third planet from the sun. They didn't know they were on a planet.Since you disagree, show me that the Genesis writers knew they were on a globe or planet.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

But then the story being about God wiping out life except for the dude that builds a big boat with animals to repopulate the world wouldn't make any sense at all. If it was only a part of the world then that whole thing would have been pointless. No?

---

From our current view, yes. From their limited view, no. God's were more provincial than universal.

quote:

---

Your other points make great sense, but my point has nothing to do with the particular word usage that is there, nor what they would have realized a priori. I'm looking at the purpose or message of the story. There's no need to "rescue" everything if it wasn't being lost in the first place.

---

Notice that in Genesis 7:4 the Lord says that everything living thing that he has made will be blotted out from the surface of the ground (adamah).This verse is interesting considering the NIV translation uses the word earth when two different words are actually used. The author used two different words.Rewrite: Seven days from now I will send rain on the land for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the surface of the ground every living creature I have made.Notice that Yahweh says he will wipe out the living creatures he has made from the surface of the ground. This fits very well with a more local view of gods.Edited by purpledawn, : Word change

quote:

---

That doesn't really makes sense with the Lord being upset with man and wiping him out. Also, it implies that there were other men that the Lord did not make that were not wiped out. Too, other animals that the Lord did not make. Does that really fit?

---

I think jar answered that one, but yes it does fit with the attitudes of the time.

quote:

---

Even reading earth as 'ground' or land, I don't see the point of wiping out all the flesh because you regretted making it, but then only wiping out a small portion of it. Unless the Lord didn't make all the other flesh that wasn't included in the flood, but that doesn't fit, does it?

​

Or did they think there wasn't any other flesh outside of their land?

​

One other thing too:

​

They were stuck on the ark for 150 days, isn't that a bit long for a local flood?

---

You're trying to fit the story to your needs and understanding. Gods could take the people they created to task. It's what gods do and people expected. People associated natural disasters with being punished by their god(s).As far as it lasting 150 days, it depends on which writer one is reading. According to the J writer the rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights. (Genesis 7:12 & 17) At the end of 40 days Noah opened the sent out the dove who found no land and then 7 days later he sent the dove again, who then brought an olive leaf. Seven days later the dove was sent again and didn't return. (Genesis 8:6, 8-12) In that story the total was about 60 days.The 150 day timeline is part of the Priestly writing as is the raven.So the myth grew over time. After a tornado devastates a town, a local person can say everything was destroyed. They aren't talking about the planet. They are talking about their area. If an astronaut looking down on the earth after a natural disaster says that everything is destroyed, odds are he's talking about the portion of the planet he can see (if he could even tell if something was destroyed).We've just been led to believe it was global.Oddly enough only after the flood, God realizes that human inclinations are evil from youth according to the J writer. (IMO, God should have known that before the event.) But the story had its purpose as ringo pointed out.

quote:

---

So our god made us, but not the people over there (nor their animals?). And when all the land was flooded, god had Noah build an ark with 2 of all of our animals so that our people were not wiped out by this flood that covered all of our land. But it didn't kill all those people over there nor any of their animals.

​

That's how you think the audience understood it!?

---

Not necessarily in that way. You have a bigger view. The J tribal story, the audience wouldn't be thinking of "other people". They are listening to a story that tells them how the various Semitic groups came to be. This isn't a planetary myth. It is a local myth. They had their own god and others had their own god. Shrink your perspective.

quote:

---

No, not really. I'm not forcing any conclusion here, I trying to find the support for the best one.

​

I can see how a local flood could fit with the story, but I don't think that it must be a local one and I still think it possible that they understood it to be a worldwide flood.

​

All in all, its pretty damn vague.

---

You have a wider view. They could not understand it as a planetary flood since they didn't know they were on a planet or that more existed than what was known to them as I showed you in the Flat Earth thread with the various maps in Message 471.The Babylonian map of 2500 BCE. Flat disk encircled by water.

quote:

---

Yeah, yeah... but the story just doesn't make sense with it just being a small portion of the whole land being flooded. All that rain and that huge-ass boat with all those animals, and all that time, just for some little flood that only killed a fraction of the world's populations. Seems dubious.

---

A story doesn't take long to create. Much easier than building a boat. A natural disaster inspires a story. Not unusual. Exaggeration was a normal part of story telling.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

According to the maps you presented the land mass was in one place at 2500 BC then divided into different locations after the flood which occured around 2345 BC. Your next map is about 1700 years later.

​

You actually presented evidence that supports the Biblical account of the land mass being in one place and was then divided in the days of Peleg like the Bible says.

---

No it doesn't. All they show is the land known to man at the time. Babylon was the center of their "world". They mapped their region, not the planet.As more is discovered or known, the maps changed.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

In Message 471 you presented this map The Babylonian map of 2500 BCE. Flat disk encircled by water.

​

It is the same map you are presenting now from Wikipedia it is dated at 600 BC. Which is correct?

---

If you talking about the dating of the carving, I don't know.

quote:

---

How did they know the land mass was surounded by water unless they could go all the way around the land mass?

---

Given the carving, I doubt they were going for accuracy. It depends on the purpose the people had for making the map. The map was for them, not for us.

quote:

---

The later maps shows the land separated.

---

This thread is about the meaning of the words eretz and adamah.What's your point?