Summations Only

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 IDEdited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

I don't think the contributors to this thread have that impression. Maybe they did. Perhaps we should discuss the textual support for this idea.

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

---

Leaving the universal flood in the title field as an excluded middle.

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

If you're going to play word games, then you need to explain the distinction you're making.

---

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.

quote:

---

Where have I contradicted myself? Or is this another, if I don't know you aren't going to tell me, game.

---

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 ?

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course it isn't that simple. I asked about Genesis 1, so the history of monotheism is implicitly there (i.e. Genesis 1, the text under discussion was written when monotheism was the Jewish view).Your answer in Message 222 was: So the point about Abraham is NOT given as "something the Bible presents" - it is presented as a fact. And with nothing to link it to the point. (And, interestingly my understanding is that monotheism IS believed to be an important part of the point of the Genesis 1 creation story !). But even if monotheism were not "the point" of Genesis 1, however, all that is required is that Genesis 1 IS monotheistic, thus implicitly denying the possibility of other deities creating any portion of the universe.

quote:

---

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.

---

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 ?You're being somewhat disingenuous in your explanations.

A flat-earth world. Just like I linked to in Message 146They may not have known that they lived upon a planet, but they weren't retarded. They knew that there was land beneath their feet and they must have had ideas about exactly what that was. This model fits what little the texts tell us.It doesn't really make much difference what their Bible authors' cosmology was though. If they did not imagine that they lived upon a planet, they must have imagined that they lived on something. Whatever that something was, the question remains; was it completely flooded or only partly flooded? Exactly what kind of world is getting flooded is not massively important.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

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. 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 MythsNow if you want to discuss specific text concerning eretz and adamah, I'm all for discussion.

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

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: 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, WHY are you set on classing it as a purely local flood ?

quote:

---

Actually I keep referring back to Message 234, which is my position concerning eretz and adamah.

---

Which, as everyone can see is primarily focussed on the irrelevant issue of the author's understanding of the world.

quote:

---

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.

---

That difference doesn't bother me. What bothers me is your behaviour. For reasons I have already given.But let us look at the facts.I ask for an argument against a universal flood.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.And you keep on doing it, even after I've made this objection - and in fact knowing that I had already rejected this argument as actually telling us anything about the supposed extent of the flood already.It looks very much to me as if you are TRYING to give the false impression that you have an argument against a universal flood and deliberately using the word "global" so you can claim that you were being honest.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

But I have provided an argument which does establish a reasonable possibility that such statements may be true at the end of Message 239. And if it is reasonable that such statements can be true, then how can they be hyperbole ?

quote:

---

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.

---

Your sarcasm aside, you did present the statement as a bald statement of fact, with no explanation of how it related to my argument.

quote:

---

Unfortunately I still don't know what you mean by universal. I'm trying, but I need more info.

---

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").

quote:

---

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.

---

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.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

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.

quote:

---

In this thread you said they were there, so you should know which ones you need to share

---

Relying on YOUR claim that they were there. If you don't know which statements you were referring to, why expect me to ?

quote:

---

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.

---

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.And no, your argument that the author didn't know about the size of the world is NOT enough to establish that it isn't meant to be a universal flood.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.So really the point of the difference is to stop talking about matters irrelevant to the extent of the flood in the story.

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. 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Since the issue is one of fact, not reasoning, this cannot be a valid reason.

quote:

---

I see no evidence. I just see you saying that it is so.

---

I give a reason for my conclusion. You do not dispute that reason. Again you give me reason to question your honesty.

quote:

---

Superman was not mentioned in this thread other than your message.

---

It was given early in the hyperbole thread. Message 38

quote:

---

How is that different than global? I don't want to look dishonest, you know.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

That's also false, since I gave relevant verses in the first post introducing the issue in the hyperbole thread: Message 3

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!