Genesis flood question to ponder

[twinc]

Its quite obvious that the hebrew word for "earth" and "land" has multiple meanings, as is the fact that "all" is to be read withing the context of what is being written, ie: ALL doesn't always mean ALL as in everything single thing.
Just as we can say, " I put all my money into this and it didn't work" doesn't mean that you truly put every single penny you had.
Also, lest not forget that there are two flood accounts in Genesis and that this very flood is mentioned in older Mesapotamian writings.

it seems you also have not or did not read Genesis.9:1-16 - twinc

Oh I have and I have read it through the eyes of the literalistic AND the eyes of the Genreist.
You do know there were TWO Genesis accounts right?

there is and always has been only one Genesis account - come home now - how many more excuses are you going to falsely hide behind - twinc

[twinc]

Its quite obvious that the hebrew word for "earth" and "land" has multiple meanings, as is the fact that "all" is to be read withing the context of what is being written, ie: ALL doesn't always mean ALL as in everything single thing.
Just as we can say, " I put all my money into this and it didn't work" doesn't mean that you truly put every single penny you had.
Also, lest not forget that there are two flood accounts in Genesis and that this very flood is mentioned in older Mesapotamian writings.

it seems you also have not or did not read Genesis.9:1-16 - twinc

So twinc, according to your interpretation of earth meaning the entire globe, then the fear of Noah will be upon all the birds and beasts in the entire globe. That would include Australia, which Noah wouldn't even go to. So kangaroos in Australia would have the fear of Noah ?
Talk about way out, weird, wacky theology ad absurtum!

talk about way out,weird and wacky interpretations ad infinitum/ad absurdum - Noah did not roam around rounding up the animals nor did the Ark dock at Sidney Harbour to collect the Kangaroos - give up and come home now - twinc

[neo-x]

this is too much twinc...honestly, katabole actually made very good suggestion. You seem to be missing the point that even you could have to learn more. Everyone does. No full stops. You are of course our most senior member on the forum but it doesn't mean that you are above others while they still have valid points, that you can't just brush aside without proper arguments.

[twinc]

this is too much twinc...honestly, katabole actually made very good suggestion. You seem to be missing the point that even you could have to learn more. Everyone does. No full stops. You are of course our most senior member on the forum but it doesn't mean that you are above others while they still have valid points, that you can't just brush aside without proper arguments.

you have it exactly wrong - I am not claiming seniority or infallibility in any way shape or form - in fact exactly the opposite is the case for Catholics - so come home now - twinc

[neo-x]

No sir, you are actually behaving in the same manner as I pointed out. "I can not be wrong". This is what your posts imply, IMO. You refuse to deal with arguments. Your posts are hardly more than 5 lines. What exactly do you want me to expect? One liners are not going to get you anywhere.

[PaulSacramento]

Its quite obvious that the hebrew word for "earth" and "land" has multiple meanings, as is the fact that "all" is to be read withing the context of what is being written, ie: ALL doesn't always mean ALL as in everything single thing.
Just as we can say, " I put all my money into this and it didn't work" doesn't mean that you truly put every single penny you had.
Also, lest not forget that there are two flood accounts in Genesis and that this very flood is mentioned in older Mesapotamian writings.

it seems you also have not or did not read Genesis.9:1-16 - twinc

Oh I have and I have read it through the eyes of the literalistic AND the eyes of the Genreist.
You do know there were TWO Genesis accounts right?

there is and always has been only one Genesis account - come home now - how many more excuses are you going to falsely hide behind - twinc

Actually, it has been accepted by virtually ALL scholars that there are two creation accounts and two flood accounts.
Notice I didn't say DIFFERENT accounts, just that there are TWO versions of those events and BOTH have been "combined" into 1.
And it's pretty easy to notice that because it is clearly shown.

[twinc]

Its quite obvious that the hebrew word for "earth" and "land" has multiple meanings, as is the fact that "all" is to be read withing the context of what is being written, ie: ALL doesn't always mean ALL as in everything single thing.
Just as we can say, " I put all my money into this and it didn't work" doesn't mean that you truly put every single penny you had.
Also, lest not forget that there are two flood accounts in Genesis and that this very flood is mentioned in older Mesapotamian writings.

it seems you also have not or did not read Genesis.9:1-16 - twinc

Oh I have and I have read it through the eyes of the literalistic AND the eyes of the Genreist.
You do know there were TWO Genesis accounts right?

there is and always has been only one Genesis account - come home now - how many more excuses are you going to falsely hide behind - twinc

Actually, it has been accepted by virtually ALL scholars that there are two creation accounts and two flood accounts.
Notice I didn't say DIFFERENT accounts, just that there are TWO versions of those events and BOTH have been "combined" into 1.
And it's pretty easy to notice that because it is clearly shown.

not at all clearly shown as made out to be - nor can it be so - twinc

[secretfire6]

I've read tons and tons of evidence from YEC "scientists" that have been used to try and push their position on creation. Out of all that evidence, which is enough to make a book in itself, only one..yes ONE point has not been proven wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt. That point is at a standstill right now because it can neither prove nor disprove either creation view. Whenever I debate young vs old earth creation with someone I get them backed into a corner of proof, then I allways hear the same things when they are stuck. 1. "God made it that way. he can do anything. You have to have faith" 2. "satan will do anything to trick you" 3. "I've heard that all before. It's all lies and they dont know what they are talking about"

Another thing i hear alot of is "flood geology". So many proponents of young earth creation use this as thier cornerstone and give it the strangest magical powers I've ever heard of, like the following: the flood completely destroyed and rebuilt the earth, it slowed down time, it changed the fundementals of nuclear physics, it altered the human mind's perception of reality and so on. When i ask what these things are based on they either say nothing (which means they haven't thought of that) or they tell me its in the bible....somewhere (which means they havent thought of that)
I'm still waiting for someone to present some good points or proof for the YEC position

there is here no problem for an old YEC that used to be a long time young OEC - so the problem would appear to be you and your resistance to good points presented - so just try this one "millions of dead things buried in sedimentary rocks layers laid down by water all over the earth - repeat all over the earth" - twinc

yes because there are and have been living things living all over the earth and there have been living things dying all over the earth and not all of them were "laid down by water" some of them were, some of them were not. The assumption is that all these things died at one specific time. the tests and evidence show us they did not.

of course that is your incorrect take - it seems you do not really understand how fossils come about and came about including the Cambrian explosion nor why once thousands of Bisons roamed the American plains there are no real fossils as such - come home now - twinc

And why is it incorrect? I know very well how fossils come to be, including the PREcambrian explosion and the great cambrian die-off. I know all the variables that go into creating and preserving fossils as well as the changes in fossilization time that those variables will make. I am well educated in these things and there are people who study this all their lives and who do not care whether it proves a religious view right or wrong..their conclusions are also that the earth is very old and has gone through many changes. What are now mountains, didnt used to be mountains, what is now the sea bed wasnt allways sea bed, what is now frozen tundra wasnt allways that way. As for your statement about the Bison umm?????? i know why they were there in the thousands and i know where they went. Why does that matter?

[secretfire6]

Katebole - it seems you have not or did not as advised consult the internet or Bible at Gen.9:1-16 - twinc

if you are implying that this is proof that "earth" in our english bibles must allways mean planet earth, you now have a problem. if you interpret this into these ideals you would get the following statement "be fruitful and multiply and fill the planet". so we must ask, did God intend humans to fill the seas? No. Did God intend humans to fill the lakes, rivers and streams? No. Did God intend humans to fill every highest mountain top? No. The polar regions? No. We did multiply and fill the habitable land (erets). without boats we cannot survive long in the water, without planes we cannot get into the sky at all, without extra clothing and oxygen tanks we cannot survive high elevations. God did not build us to suvive in these places, so how could God tell us to fill these places? The answer is he didnt.
The suggestion i would give to everyone here, regarldess of your interpretation of Genesis, is to learn ancient hebrew AND their culture, how they understood things and then find Genesis written in hebrew and read it with their understanding. Since they wrote it they would know what they mean. the main website of godandscience.org has done a good job at this. Whenever you read a translation or version of a scripture you are allways, in part, reading someone else's ideas or guesses as to what it means

in the main eminent Scripture scholars have a grasp of ancient Hebrew and their culture as also Jewish scholars - your problem is you have no common ground of agreement but endless conclusions and interpretations ad infinitum/ad absurdum - twinc

thats 180 degrees from the truth there sir. I have more in common with the original ancient texts than i do with any westernized versions of the holy Bible. From the time of Constantine onward, christianity and the Holy Bible of the west would never be the same. And thats why i made the suggestion i made. Dont take anyone else's word for it IF you really want to find the truth. Not a pastor or priest or reverand, not a pope or bishop. Instead, go to the source. If you rely only upon whatever organization you are in, all you are going to get is THEIR personal opinion on things and THEIR interpretation. If you are in the Jehova's witnesses you will only know the Jehova's witness way. If you are Catholic you will only know the catholic way. If you are baptist you will only know the baptist way. See what I'm getting at? It's like going to a University, but learning everything from the janitor and librarian instead of the professors. You see twinc, I've heard alot of arguemnets and been given many pieces of support for the YEC belief. I have looked into them all and put them trough my many tests. They have ALLWAYS failed. Not because I want them to fail or that i hope they will fail, but because they are just wrong. If you have something to present to me (data, experiment results, scientific laws, translations, history, paintings/sculptures, etc) I would be willing to further discuss things with you. Otherwise, I feel im wasting valuable time that i need for my current studies.

[PaulSacramento]

not at all clearly shown as made out to be - nor can it be so - twinc

And yet it is.
And why you would be surprised by that is, well, surprising.
You have Two creation accounts ( Genesis 1 and 2), written in two different ways and even using different terms for God, a pattern you see through out Genesis ( and even Exodus too).
Not sure why you have issues with that to be honest.
It seems that the writer of Genesis1 was focusing on the creation account of the universe while Genesis2 wanted to focus on the Garden of Eden.
The two flood narratives show the same thing, a different focus on events by different original authors who were prioritizing one theme over another.

[secretfire6]

Thats true Paul. Chapter 1 is a Hebrew poem about the creation of earth, it's systems and life. Chapter 2 is a narrative about Eden, the human and God relationship and the fall. I've also noticed that the division between chapter 1 and chapter 2 is wrong. The first few verses of chapter 2 are actually the last verses of the chapter 1 poem. They talk about the 7th day and that God is currently resting on this day. Then verse 4 of chapter 2 "this is the history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the DAY that God made earth and heaven." (emphasis mine) is the closing verse of the poem. It's figurative use of the word "day" and the continuation into the seventh is support for this. I was curious about it so i did a little digging and found out that before the reformation, bibles didnt have chapters or verse numbers, they were just a continuous string of text. When the common people were finally able to own and read Bibles for themselves, the chapter and verse numbering system was created to make it easier to find what you wanted. It turns out that there are several of these chapter and verse divisions that are not correct, which is to be expected.

[PaulSacramento]

Thats true Paul. Chapter 1 is a Hebrew poem about the creation of earth, it's systems and life. Chapter 2 is a narrative about Eden, the human and God relationship and the fall. I've also noticed that the division between chapter 1 and chapter 2 is wrong. The first few verses of chapter 2 are actually the last verses of the chapter 1 poem. They talk about the 7th day and that God is currently resting on this day. Then verse 4 of chapter 2 "this is the history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the DAY that God made earth and heaven." (emphasis mine) is the closing verse of the poem. It's figurative use of the word "day" and the continuation into the seventh is support for this. I was curious about it so i did a little digging and found out that before the reformation, bibles didnt have chapters or verse numbers, they were just a continuous string of text. When the common people were finally able to own and read Bibles for themselves, the chapter and verse numbering system was created to make it easier to find what you wanted. It turns out that there are several of these chapter and verse divisions that are not correct, which is to be expected.

I would never use the term 'wrong" in that way.
We should never look at what seems to us an "error" or "contradiction" in the bible and think that we caught it and the original editors and compliers of those books into "the bible", didn't.
We need to take each individual book for what it is, genre, motif, etc.
The bible in of itself is a finger pointing the way to God, but it was written and edited and complied over many years by many authors writing different genres.
We have to take each book at a time.
The bible is God's Word, yes, but it is through human words and understanding that we got it.

[secretfire6]

I just meant it's in the wrong location, not that its interpreted or translated wrong. it doesnt make logical sense to end one chapter and begin another in the middle of a statement. verses 1-4 are still talking about the same things as chapter 1 and in the same way, then suddenly verse 5 takes us into a whole new point of reference, into a whole new time and is a new style of writting. Thats what i mean..the verse that is labeled 5 is actually the first verse of chapter 2. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen this and I'm also sure that editors and writers of newer versions of the Bible have thought about all the complaints, accusations and threats they would recieve and weighed them against the thought of how big a deal it really is to have mislabeled verses and chapters...not too much. I never assume translators of a Bible are dummies, but I also know alot of politics and economics go into making a new Bible. What the translators present to the editors and publishers may not be what ends up in the hands of the people.
What if we do find something in the modern Bible that IS wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt? Should we carry it on for tradition's sake, but put a footnote on it, or take the risk and find the correction? Most go the footnote route, even putting entire verses and chapters in italics and noting that they may not be real scripture, but do appear in certain other versions in some places. Then you have ones that are seemingly ignored, like this: English Bibles record Jesus telling Nicodemus that "unless a man is born again, he may not see the kingdom..." but the copies of the ancient Greek scriptures record Jesus telling him "unless a man is born from above, he may not see the kingdom..." the Greek word that is there means 'from above' or 'from the heavens', but people still translate it as "again" and there isn't even a single word for "again" in Ancient Greek. You would have to have the word 'reborn' to convey that idea. Similar issue with his second statement. "one must be born from water and from spirit" is how it is in most English Bibles and gives the idea that there are 2 seperate things that must be done before you are saved, but in Greek he says "one must be born of water, even the spirit" which conveys the idea that the water and spirit are the same thing, which confirms his first statement of being born from above.
I know I may sound knit picky and OCD and I appologize for that, but if I wasnt this way, I'd still be very confused about the Bible and it's message to us and would be relying on the conflicting interpretations of differing religious branches. Until I look things up, do research and prayer and find something concrete...some REASON to understand things the way I do, I must take everything i see and hear with a grain of salt.

[twinc]

it seems the confusion/s is in you and not in the Bible - I find no confusion - so guess where the problem is - twinc

[PaulSacramento]

I just meant it's in the wrong location, not that its interpreted or translated wrong. it doesnt make logical sense to end one chapter and begin another in the middle of a statement. verses 1-4 are still talking about the same things as chapter 1 and in the same way, then suddenly verse 5 takes us into a whole new point of reference, into a whole new time and is a new style of writting. Thats what i mean..the verse that is labeled 5 is actually the first verse of chapter 2. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen this and I'm also sure that editors and writers of newer versions of the Bible have thought about all the complaints, accusations and threats they would recieve and weighed them against the thought of how big a deal it really is to have mislabeled verses and chapters...not too much. I never assume translators of a Bible are dummies, but I also know alot of politics and economics go into making a new Bible. What the translators present to the editors and publishers may not be what ends up in the hands of the people.
What if we do find something in the modern Bible that IS wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt? Should we carry it on for tradition's sake, but put a footnote on it, or take the risk and find the correction? Most go the footnote route, even putting entire verses and chapters in italics and noting that they may not be real scripture, but do appear in certain other versions in some places. Then you have ones that are seemingly ignored, like this: English Bibles record Jesus telling Nicodemus that "unless a man is born again, he may not see the kingdom..." but the copies of the ancient Greek scriptures record Jesus telling him "unless a man is born from above, he may not see the kingdom..." the Greek word that is there means 'from above' or 'from the heavens', but people still translate it as "again" and there isn't even a single word for "again" in Ancient Greek. You would have to have the word 'reborn' to convey that idea. Similar issue with his second statement. "one must be born from water and from spirit" is how it is in most English Bibles and gives the idea that there are 2 seperate things that must be done before you are saved, but in Greek he says "one must be born of water, even the spirit" which conveys the idea that the water and spirit are the same thing, which confirms his first statement of being born from above.
I know I may sound knit picky and OCD and I appologize for that, but if I wasnt this way, I'd still be very confused about the Bible and it's message to us and would be relying on the conflicting interpretations of differing religious branches. Until I look things up, do research and prayer and find something concrete...some REASON to understand things the way I do, I must take everything i see and hear with a grain of salt.

I understand completely, some people that the opinions and interpretations of others as "gospel" and others require more research on their own.
Many paths to Our Lord.
There are a lot of different views, even in orthodox christian teachings.
Look at evangelicals, there are different types of "milleanianists" for example.
To say that the bible gives us only ONE view of every doctrine is very mistake, because if it did, why the many denominations? why the reform movement? why the divisions within protestantisim, why orthodox and Roman Catholic?
The great thinkers and theologians of the past were NOT perfect, not even close and yet, many of their teachings are still held on to and h ave become doctrine.