Originally posted by Bosse de NageTrue as that is Bosse, the talk about the flood authenticity does detract from the reason I started this thread, namely that the early Genesis book was taken from the older Sumerian mythology and did not come from the god El who was taken from the Canaanite pantheon.
If you go further back up the page a little, Freaky, you'll find a link (I think unattributed: I haven't checked) up at talk.origins (to a page that crops up frequently in various guises on sites that for a multitude of reasons are all concerned with the Deluge); I got their via an Amazon book review of some apologist for deluvian literalism. Chaos.
...[text shortened]... a universalist interpretation on the Gen. 6-9 flood may not be correct.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhew! That's a lot to which to respond! But, I'll do what I can.
If you go further back up the page a little, Freaky, you'll find a link (I think unattributed: I haven't checked) up at talk.origins (to a page that crops up frequently in various guises on sites that for a multitude of reasons are all concerned with the Deluge); I got their via an Amazon book review of some apologist for deluvian literalism. Chaos.
...[text shortened]... a universalist interpretation on the Gen. 6-9 flood may not be correct.
Throughout the English translations of Gen. 6-9, the Hebrew word eretzis translated "earth".
I agree that often times the English translations leave much to be desired. However, what is translated several times in Gen.6-9 as earth is also not from the Hebrew eartz. For instance, there are eadme (the-ground) and bartz (in-earth) both brought into the English as 'the earth' in some translations. It appears when eartz is used to mean, truly, the earth, it is when describing the completeness of the globe. For instance, the earth was ruined, filled with wrong, as describing the state of things prior to the flood.
In Gen 6-9, there are 56 instances of eadme, bartz, and eartz used, when the English translation is given as 'the earth,' albeit with a few instances of 'ground' and/or 'land' used as well, depending upon the translation.
In all of the OT, there are 934 times that eartz is used, with the following translations in the English (followed up their usage number).
the-land 580x
the-earth 350x
the-land-of 3x
the-earth-of 1x
In Gen. 12:10 there was a famine in the eretz.
Actually, this is an instance of bartz, signifying 'in-land.'
In Ex. 10:15 of the Authorized Version Bible, the King James, and the New American Standard, eretz is translated as earth, giving the impression that the plague covered the whole Earth, rather than just the land of Egypt. If it were not for verses 12 and 14, we would have no way of knowing that the most reasonable translation is "land" (used by the New International Version and the Revised Version). Again the choice of the English word would seem to determine the extent of the plague.
Here again, we have several phrases, including, as you point out, eartz. As with before, there is bartz, but also artz, denoting 'land-of' (Egypt), as well as bkl 'in-all-of' gbul 'boundary-of' (Egypt). Eartz is, indeed used, when describing the darkness--- not necessarily the locusts--- that covered the earth. The picture paints a foreshadowing of the death of darkness that covered the land when Christ was in agony on the cross, bearing the sins of the world.
1 Sam. 30:16 of the King James version has the Amalekites spread across all the Earth.
True, eartz is used here, but translated as 'the-land,' as seen above. Here's the phrase:
phni kl eartz
surface-of all-of the-land
In Gen. 12:1, Abraham is told to get out of his eretz. Surely, God was not telling him to get off the planet Earth.
Here, Abram is being told to leave his land to a land that God would show him:
lk lk martzk ummuldthk umbith abik al eartz
'go! for-you from-land-of-you and-from-kindred-of-you and-from-house-of father-of-you to the-land'
In Gen. 41:57, the famine was said to have been severe in all the lands and people from all countries came to buy grain from Joseph.
Here, again is eartz, and I believe that, while some relief was possible in the land of Egypt, there is nothing to indicate that it wasn't a world-wide famine.
In Deut. 2:25, we are told that the fear of the Israelites was beginning to be upon all the nations "under the whole heaven."
The phrase here, thehth kl eshmim, 'under all-of the-heavens' seems to indicate just that. However, your use of the word 'beginning' is spot-on: the term achi means 'I-shall-start,' indicating a point of origin for the issue in question. In this situation, respect for the Jew, while by no means universal even yet today, will be reality in the future and it began with God's actions on their behalf.
The Job 37:2-5 passage seems to be a clear reference to hearing the thunder from the lightning which in verse 2 had been unleashed beneath the whole heaven and sent to the ends of the earth.
Good point. It would appear that you study the Bible more than its self-proclaimed adherents! Here is simply a great illustration of a poor translation. For the purpose of berevity, I will only provide the English transliteration, verses 2 and 3:
"listen! to-listen in-disturbance-of voice-of-him and-soliloquy from-the-mouth-of-him he-is-going-forth under all-of the-heavens he-is-controlling-him and-light-of-him over wings-of the-earth..."
The phrase in consideration here, 'and-light-of-him,' is a word that is used but one time in the entire OT, uauru, in most translations given as 'lightning.' Compare this with v.11, which uses auru, 'light-of-him,' which is used five times total in the OT. However, 'lightning' in the Hebrew is brq, as seen in 2 Sam 22:15, and 18 other passages of the OT.
While I grant that most English translations have a problem with handling the varied meanings of Hebrew words and phrases, a good interlinear analysis source can typically right any wrong impressions. What I consider to be the height of complacency is how woefully ignorant the majority of pastors are in matters such as these. You described yourself as a layperson, yet you clearly are more versed in some basic mechanics of exegesis than far too many pastors who are supposedly schooled in the same.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course, idiot, I was referring to YOUR sentence, not the material you put in quotes.
[b]I have no idea what that sentence means.
It was a simple c/p job from the byline to the Spirituality forum. No enigma requiring special knowledge, as far as I can tell.
Obviously trying to establish that such things as 1 and 3 really exist is a valid discussion of them.
What would you say is discussed more on this forum: spirituality? o ...[text shortened]... sacred halls of Debate and chase the banished spiritualists. Wonder who is prosleytizing whom.[/b]
To you "Spirituality" means the God of the Bible. Not everyone else on planet Earth so limits themselves. How much time have you spent studying the Tao? Or Zen Buddhism? So the existence of your God is not the means and ends of all discussion of Spirituality neither are your personal beliefs the only fit subject for the Spirituality forum. Your arrogance is incredible.
Obviously you can't understand a very simple set of sentences IF you believe that what I said is that only Fundamentalist Christians were meant to post in Spirituality! The Forum was meant to put the discussions into an appropriate venue and reduce spillage into unrelated threads. There never was and never will be a "God Botherers Only" sign placed on this Forum.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI already gave my opinion on page 8. Here it is, as you obviously didn't bother to read it:
Gee, no1, I hadn't been asked so how could I have answered? As whodey has already offered, there are several possible scenarios relevant to the topic. Some are more likely than others. If I promised you a piece of candy for choosing the right one, which one would you guess most closely lines up with my viewpoint?
The geological evidence is overwhelming that no world wide flood ever happened. Flood stories are common, but not universal and many flood stories that do exist do not have much resemblance to the one presented in the Bible. That being said, I personally think that the basic Flood story is a "proto myth" dating from when early Man all lived in the same geographical area. They then carried this story with them to many other parts of the world though it underwent changes in each culture over time. This seems the most rational explanation that accords with the evidence i.e. myths similar to each other all over the world of an event that never happened (in the scope the myths claim anyway, though primitive Man would have a limited understanding of the "world" so a big flood in his area could be considered a "world wide" one).
Call it the "proto Flood" theory.
Originally posted by no1marauderI can only assume that your one edit was to double-check the spelling on 'idiot.' No one can fault your diligence or attention to detail.
Of course, idiot, I was referring to YOUR sentence, not the material you put in quotes.
To you "Spirituality" means the God of the Bible. Not everyone else on planet Earth so limits themselves. How much time have you spent studying the Tao? Or Zen Buddhism? So the existence of your God is not the means and ends of all discussion of Spiritualit ...[text shortened]... hreads. There never was and never will be a "God Botherers Only" sign placed on this Forum.
Originally posted by no1marauderNot much in common? Perhaps you need to go back and read the many sources which contrast such a position. Never mind; I forgot who I was replying to. My bad.
I already gave my opinion on page 8. Here it is, as you obviously didn't bother to read it:
The geological evidence is overwhelming that no world wide flood ever happened. Flood stories are common, but not universal and many flood stories that do exist do not have much resemblance to the one presented in the Bible. That being said, I personally think ...[text shortened]... could be considered a "world wide" one).
Call it the "proto Flood" theory.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat is your idea about how to discuss something? Not everybody on this planet is satisfied with "cuz Freaky says so". I presented a hypothesis based on the evidence; if you're going to try to refute it and/or present evidence refuting it, do so.
As if naming one would shut you up. That's rich.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, there was a worldwide ice age. Doesn't that technically qualify as a flood?
I already gave my opinion on page 8. Here it is, as you obviously didn't bother to read it:
The geological evidence is overwhelming that no world wide flood ever happened. Flood stories are common, but not universal and many flood stories that do exist do not have much resemblance to the one presented in the Bible. That being said, I personally think ...[text shortened]... could be considered a "world wide" one).
Call it the "proto Flood" theory.
Originally posted by no1marauderFlood stories are common, but not universal and many flood stories that do exist do not have much resemblance to the one presented in the Bible.
I already gave my opinion on page 8. Here it is, as you obviously didn't bother to read it:
The geological evidence is overwhelming that no world wide flood ever happened. Flood stories are common, but not universal and many flood stories that do exist do not have much resemblance to the one presented in the Bible. That being said, I personally think ...[text shortened]... could be considered a "world wide" one).
Call it the "proto Flood" theory.
Here's a great example of why those who converse with you spend a lot of their time shaking their head--- not only in disagreement, but in disbelief. Amazingly different conclusions were reached in J. Perloff's study regarding the same topic (quoting from his book Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, Refuge Press 1999).
"In 95 percent of the more than two hundred flood legends, the flood was worldwide; in 88 percent, a certain family was favored; in 70 percent, survival was by means of a boat; in 67 percent, animals were also saved; in 66 percent, the flood was due to the wickedness of man; in 66 percent, the survivors had been forewarned; in 57 percent, they ended up on a mountain; in 35 percent, birds were sent out from the boat; and in 9 percent, exactly eight people were spared (p. 168)."
Kind of flies in the face of your findings, don't you think?