Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel 140 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  GWEEDO

  Achristian,

  Any Hebrew Bible lexicon will verify this as a possibility. For they all tell us that the ancient Hebrew word which is translated as "every" here in the Genesis flood account, kol, was often used by the ancient Hebrew people, including the writer of Genesis, in a less than all encompassing manner.

  For instance, the actual Hebrew text of Gen. 24:10 tells us that when Abraham's servant Eliezer left him to find his son Isaac a wife Eliezer took with him "every [Hebrew = kol] good thing of his master." However, because "every" obviously does not really mean "every" in this verse, it is seldom translated that way. The NIV here translates the Hebrew word kol, and the rest of this verse, as "ALL KINDS of good things from his master." The NAS translates it as "A VARIETY of good things of his master's." If modern translators had used the same discretion when translating the Genesis flood account we might not be having this discussion.

  I think this is an absolute nonsense argument. I also actually kind of disagree with you about gen 24:10. I think 'every' can very well mean 'every' here. But I'm not gunna bother explaining my reasoning here because I think its irrelevant.

  Why?

  because>>>

  the word 'every' in the Genesis flood account obviously does mean exactly that. EVERy!!!!!

  read it...Chapter 7. Put yourself in the place of Noah. God comes to you and says the following:

  "Of every clean beast you must take..."

  "and of every beast that is not clean..."

  WHY?

  "to preserve offspring alive through the land"

  Thats all the bible says. Thats how Noah related the story, apparently, to his kids and family. In the absence of anymore details of what animals Noah was to take and leave behind, the only logical conclusion is that 'every' does mean 'every' here. You can speculate till your blue in the face about things God might have said to Noah that didn't get recorded. But the simple fact is the bible says nothing more than the above. It means 'every', as in EVERY...and it seems you agree because you said this:

  I should point out that what I just wrote regarding God's referring to "every kind" of animal is only my understanding.

  An extremely good understanding. An understanding that also makes your argument extremely weak.
• 

  Faithful2Jah

  >>>>>>the industrialized, Christian, Muslim, civilized, third, and entertainment worlds take their members from all over the face of the earth.

  So Joe tells us. LOL! Joe, did you really mean to say that? Other than possibly "the entertainment world", all of those "worlds" are confined to far less than global locations. "The industrialized world" does not extend into some of the very poor, technologically backward, agricultural lands on the continent of Africa. Lands like China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Laos, Thailand, and many more are not considered to be part of "the Christian world." Lands like Mexico, Cuba, Ireland, Brazil, Italy and many more are certainly not considered to be part of "the Muslim world."

  Since we today refer to all of these "worlds" as "worlds", even though they all occupy locations which are far less than global, Peter could have been referring to an "ancient world" which also occupied a location which was then far less than global.
• 

  aChristian

  Gweedo,

  I was explaining that not all Christians who believe that the flood was local understand the flood account, and its use of the word "every," in exactly the same way. As I explained, I myself lean toward Noah taking literally every kind of animal in his land onto the ark in order to point to Jesus Christ as "the sustainer of all things." (Heb 1:3) However, other local flood advocates believe that Noah only took the kinds of animals he would personally need the services of after the flood, In order "to preserve THEM alive through the land." The well known Christian astronomer and author Dr. Hugh Ross takes this position. When doing so he points out that the Hebrew word "kol," which is translated as "every" in the Genesis flood account, is not nearly as "all inclusive" as the English word "every." And because it is not he says that we may understand the word "every" in this portion of scripture to mean "many" or only "several." They may be right. I don't think the point is worth arguing.

  Of course, as I have pointed out before, some who believe that Genesis is describing a local flood say that words like "all the high hills/mountains were covered," "all the land/earth was flooded" and Noah took "every" kind of animal on the ark should only be understood as hyperbole.

  I am convinced that the truth lies in one of these three ways of understanding the word "every." Which way exactly is not really important to me. You tell me to put myself in the place of Noah and ask myself how I would understand what God said to Noah. However, I can't really do that because the Bible indicates God spoke ancient Hebrew to Noah and the ancient Hebrew word which He used, which is translated into our word "every," may not then have had the exact same meaning as our word "every."
• 

  GWEEDO

  lot of smoke in here...

  God sure likes to keep things vague!!!!
• 

  JosephAlward

  Gweedo and Farkel,

  Before aChristian finds a reason not to respond to your questions, ask him to explain the verse below, in which God promises never to bring another flood like that one again:

  I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11)

  These words would have been spoken by God more than three thousand years ago, and since that time there have been innumerable floods which destroyed all life over large areas. However, there has never since the time of Noah been a flood which destroyed all life over the entire earth. Either God broke his promise to Noah, or else the flood he was referring to was global. Which does aChristian think it is? God broke his promise to Noah, or the flood really was global?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  aChristian

  Gweedo,

  What we do know for sure about the flood account in Genesis is that it professes to be describing actual historical events, since it records the exact years, months and days that it tells us various flood related events occurred. We also know that, if it is describing actual historical events, it must be describing a large local flood and not a global one, since scientists tell us that, though there exists much evidence that Mesopotamia experienced major flooding at the time the Bible indicates Noah's flood occurred, our entire earth has not been completely covered with water at any time in the last four billion years.

  So those who believe that the Bible is inspired by God are left to understand the Genesis flood account to be describing events which took place in the "land" of Noah in one of three ways.
  
  1. Completely literally. ("All the high hills" meant all the high hills. "Every" kind of animal in the land meant every kind of animal in the land.)
  2. Completely literally, while maintaining that some Hebrew words in the text, such as those which have been translated into English as "all" and "every," had lesser meanings in the ancient Hebrew language.
  3. That the text contains some, and possibly much, hyperbole.

  Having someone like a Watchtower organization to tell us exactly how we should understand every passage of scripture makes life easier in some ways. But since we both know that anyone claiming to have the ability and the authority to explain the scriptures in that way for everyone else is full of baloney, we have to be content with knowing that God now allows each one of us to reach our own conclusions on matters such as these. Fortunately, whether we now understand these things correctly or incorrectly will not make any difference in the quality of our lives.
• 

  Faithful2Jah

  Joe: I already gave you a reasonable answer to this question at the bottom of page 3 in this thread. Maybe you missed it. Or maybe you just want to see if AC will give you a different one. There I wrote: If the "earth" spoken of in the Genesis flood account was really the "land", as in the land of Noah or the land of Mesopotamia, then God's covenant with Noah to never again destroy all life in that land has been kept. For historians tell us that, though Mesopotamia may have been completely flooded several thousand years ago, it has not been completely flooded at any time since then.
• 

  JosephAlward

  "8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you ...Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

  Are you saying, Faithful, that the covenant God made with the folks who would restart civilization applied only to the land of Noah, and not to the rest of the people who would be fathered by Noah and his children, the ones who would populate the rest of the world, folks such as you and me?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  GWEEDO

  Well...

  AC

  your've convinced me

  your've convinced me I cannot possibly trust the bible.

  Silly me to think that God would provide me with an english version of the bible that I could sit down and read with ease and get the message of what God wanted me to. Of course, God inspired his writers...but it seems he couldn't be bothered to inspire his translaters. I read the bible and it tells me that Noah took every kind of animal onto the Ark. This is the jist of every bible I know. Of course thats not what it really means. 'Every' doesn't really mean 'every', because if check your ancient hebrew...as we all do from time to time, you'll know this. The bible tells me that Noah took animals onto the Ark to preserve offspring alive throughout the land...but, of course, thats not really what God meant, he really meant to prefigure Christ and all sorts of esoteric gobble-de-gook. It seems these days to understand the bible you have to have read every ancient hebrew script under the sun. Nah..God could never see his way to provide us with a nice clear cut meaning. We have either mistranslated the hebrew, or its not what God really meant according to you guys...its just Hyperbole. Why God felt he needed to use heaps of hyperbole in the genesis flood account is beyond me. He could have saved us a lot of time arguing on this msg board by just being to the point. But he wanted to get all colorful and completely mislead us it seems. Somekind of practical joke or something huh. Obviously I cannot trust my english bible, and take what it says a face value....must be satan at work.
• 

  GWEEDO

  Joseph

  you want this verse translated. Well, I'll just whip out my ancient hebrew dictionary and explain it for you.

  I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11)

  'Never' doesn't really mean 'never' because if we check our ancient hebrew well find that out. If I look hard enough I can find verse where the hebrew word for never means something completely different.

  'All' doesn't mean 'all' either...once again your knowledge of ancient hebrew is lacking here. It's just hyperbole. Get it.

  Of course 'earth' means the 'land of Noah'. And of course floods have probably happened for thousands of years along the euphrates river and killed many people..and animals. But 'never' doesn't really mean 'never' in the above verse...so there no problem here.

  Hope this helps!