Posts by GWEEDO

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

You people have got it all wrong. This is how it really happened, as told by the Australian aborigines. trust me, it's all true...

Long, long ago there was a great flood. It originated from the fact of some children who found the 'winking' owl in a tree and plucked out all its feathers. They forced a grass reed through its nose and treated the bird most shamefully. The bird flew without wings, into the heavens and showed himself to Ngowungu, the Great Father. Ngowungu became very angry and decided to drown the people.
Later the people saw a small cloud rising which grew bigger and bigger till it spread all over the sky. The thunder began to roll and crash and the people were greatly afraid.
With the rain and thunder was a terrible wind which broke great limbs off trees and rooted up others. During this terrible storm there was a noise above the awful crashes of thunder. This noise was coming from the north. The salt water, the sea, came pouring over the ranges from the north. The flood rose higher and higher till all the land was covered except the tops of two or three mountains.
From further west a man and his wives with a dog were battling their way in a canoe when a bird with a leaf in its mouth flew in front of them showing them the way to Mt. Broome. They eventually reached Mt. Broome and landed there where some other survivors were.
Then Djabalgari, the great left-handed man incised his little finger and let the blood trickle down into the flood waters. The waters began to go down and eventually disappeared off the country. All other people were drowned.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

Achristian

As you have already said, you would not believe in God if Jesus Christ Himself appeared right in front of you and allowed you to examine the holes in His hands and in His side, as He allowed Thomas to do.

I said 'probably'. That line was little tongue in cheek too...in case you hadn't noticed...

So then, why are you so interested in understanding how every passage of scripture should be understood.

Because it seems to me that your here preaching and pushing your ideas...like you always do when the flood topic comes up...trying to create as much FUZZ as possible and have the last word. I dont see why you should have a free ride.

After all, you believe the Bible is entirely the work of a bunch of not too bright men and nothing more.

As a whole the bible is a man-made work. I can find good pieces in it, little pieces of wisdom...and I can find bad. But I would never let my life rest on it soley. That would be foolish.

Aren't you just doing as Joseph does, trying to find what you think might be inconsistencies and contradictions in either the Bible, my understanding of the Bible or both,

Well it does seem that you are rather inconsistent in your interpretation of the bible as it pertains to the word earth. The way you view the verses above tells me that.

in order to make either the Bible, my understanding of the Bible or both look foolish?

Well, your trying to make it look better than what it really is

You referred to several passages of Genesis in which the Hebrew word 'eres is used. You asked when that word should be understood to mean "the land," in the sense of a limited geographical area occupied by a particular group of people, and when it should be understood as meaning "the earth," in the sense of our entire planet.

Yeah...we should strive for some kind of consistency here, shouldn't we. It seems you just pick and choose to suit your theory, because you want to believe.

On the small chance that your questions might have been sincere,

Oh well thanks. I'm sincere in the sense that I dont like BS being dress up as anything more than that.

You asked about Gen. 1:22, 28. I would translate 'eres in these two verses as "the earth," as in our entire planet. You asked about Gen. 8:17 and 9:1,18,19. I would translate 'eres in these four verses as "the land," as in the limited geographical area Noah and his immediate descendants lived in. I would spend more time telling you why I believe this way, but I suspect I would only be giving you more to criticize.

So basically you just pick and choose when it means Earth in some larger sense, and when it means the land of Noah. I really dont see how you can be so inconsistent. It seems your thinking goes like this: The bible is true, and God is real. A global flood is not possible. Yet the bible talks of a flood. So, this flood must have been local because the bible isn't wrong, a flood did happen. You therefore interpret earth to mean the land of Noah when it suits you...to suit your beliefs. Which is fine. Even though to most people it would make more sense to be a bit more consistent...which your not. Your intpretation is based on faith...but you often try and make it sound as if it is based on more, either for other peoples benefit, or your own. It's 'quite possible' this and that you say...as if your interpretation of earth to mean land of Noah is on an equal footing with the general consensus. Well, your view may be possible...but it is hardly on an equal footing with general view that earth above means just THAT...and not some specific land of Noah. You are a little inconsistent..just a little. I also notice you tried to fuzz the topic again when you said this:

The fact of the matter is that Bible scholars and Bible translators are sometimes not sure when 'erers in a particular passage, such as those you cited, should be translated as "the land" and when it should be translated as "the earth." In fact, the translators of the New American Standard Bible were so confused over this issue when translating the Bible's flood account contained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8, that they there translated 'eres several times as "the land" and several times as "the earth," going back and forth between the two in the story of Noah's flood. This should certainly show you that even the world's foremost Bible scholars and experts in the ancient Hebrew language cannot now answer the questions you posed to me with any degree of certainty. So, as I said, I can only give you my opinion.

Your trying to cloud the issue again and thereby make your view seem just as worthy as any other. But it aint...it's a more obscure view of things, and its based on your faith in God. Which is fine...more power to you.

Thats how I'm seeing it

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

AC

on this covenant thing

"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." gen 9:11

'Earth' here means the mysterious 'land of Noah'..right!. God is saying he wont flood the land of Noah...

skip back to gen 9:1

'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.'

Earth here, does it mean the Land of Noah...or what?

I'm just guessing, but it sounds like it might mean a little bit more than the 'land of Noah'. Especially when you consider these latter verses:

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.)
19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.

What about this verse:

"Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." gen 1:22

Does earth here mean Earth on some larger scale...or maybe just 'the land of Noah'

and this one:

"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."gen 1:28

how about this one:

Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you--the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground--so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it." gen 8:17

Does earth here mean 'the land of Noah'...or does it have a broader meaning? This one seems to have a broader meaning to me.

confused...

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

Faithful

Joseph: You quoted Genesis 9:9-11 which tells us that God said to Noah: "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you...never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."
You then added your own commentary and in it tried your best to make this passage say something it does not say. You wrote: "This is a pledge by God never to bring an all-destroying flood onto Noah's descendants, who would multiply to occupy regions outside of the land of Noah."
No it is not. God never made any such promise. He only promised Noah and his descendants that he would never again destroy the land. Which land? As the word "again" implies, the land he had just destroyed. The land in which Noah then lived.

Yeah...he promised he would never destroy this nameless land of Noah and all flesh in it again. Of course we arn't really sure if 'all' flesh means 'all' here...It might mean 'much' as AC above is possibly suggesting.

So, Noah has promised that he will not kill ALL or MUCH flesh in the Land of Noah. Who did he promise? He made the promise to Noah and his descendants and all the animals in the Ark for all generations till time indefinite... who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply and spread out upon the surface of the Ground (which specifically means the nameless land of Noah). So the agreement doesn't apply to those who spread outside these boundries. If any descendants of Noah ever moved down the nile and got flooded in a big way then they cant go to God and say 'you broke your covenant with us'. Because God will just say: 'I meant the land of Noah, dummy'. Yeah, and of course this agreement entirely allows smaller floods. So God can send a small deluge upon Noahs descendants even if they still live in the Land of Noah. To qualify as a breach of the agreement the flood has to kill ALL..or MUCH. Anything less than than that don't qualify. God would make one hell of a lawyer!

Joe, get a new hobby. As has been said several times before on this board, as a Bible critic you leave a lot to be desired.

Faithful..ALL (and I mean ALL here) bible critics leave a lot to be desired when your someone who thinks the bible is inerrant.

hey, have you checked out his site. Not bad is it!

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

AC

Faithful,
I believe your answer is the correct one to Joseph's question. God promised Noah and his descendants that He would never destroy all life in their land again by means of a flood. Bible chronology and recent tree ring studies both date Noah's flood to 2350 BC. Scientists now say that it is possible that a very large flood may have destroyed all of Mesopotamia at that time. They also tell us that no such flood has destroyed Mesopotamia since that time. God has kept His promise. For since the time of Noah's flood no flood has ever destroyed "all" life in Mesopotamia or even "much" of the life in Mesopotamia.

It was so nice of God to atleast leave us his rainbow though...

But seriously, I think if you buy this answer, you'll buy just about anything.

keep duckin' and weavin'

Gweedo,
No one who believes that the Bible describes a local flood has ever suggested that the Hebrew word for "never" does not mean "never."

surprise surprise!

When I have pointed out that the Hebrew words for "every,"

Actually, I find it hard to believe that...even if 'every' doesn't mean 'every' here. That it doesn't in fact atleast mean: "a great many". I find it hard to believe that Noah didn't take the vast majority of animals in his land onto the Ark. That said...there would have been no need to do so. You wanna tell me that there would have been been none of these animals on the the outlying region that would have survived. That Noah really needed to take them onto the Ark to preserve them alive, AS THE BIBLE SAYS, if a local flood 1000 miles by 60 happened [correction: '100 miles by 60]....yeah right! Like you said in another thread, few if ANY animals in that region would have been indigenous. Assuming that there might have been some indigenous animals around...Noah surely would have taken more than a few animals onboard anyway, so there would have been a lot of non-indigenous animals there that needed no preserving.

But the idea that there are any indigenous animals I could really question. Its not the mesapotanian basin is really that isolated that animals cant easily spred outward. It not like it's that isolated an area that they have evolved like say animals down here in Australia.

But anyway...

I think you greatly overstate the importance of these things.

hyperbole...thats what that is

You say if these things are true, and if the languages which the Bible was written in are not always able to be easily and perfectly translated into English, then God should have inspired all Bible translators to make sure nothing was ever lost in translation.

would have been a good idea

You say that if He did not do so then we cannot trust the Bible.

Well, he didn't do a very good job with the flood. I thought he might have had just a little bit of forethought and could see how promoting a Global flood, which the bible does on the face of it, could cause a so much trouble: disbelief. Why he wouldn't have just been straight up to begin with is beyond me. But according to you, he couldn't be bothered and decided to correct everything later...which apparently is now, still, he isn't doing a very good job.

I think you have missed my point. I maintain that nothing of any importance has been lost in these few possible mistranslations of a minor nature.

He made sure he got all those contradictions in there, didn't here. One author says this, another that. An omnipotent being that cant even get his stort straight. How believeable is that.

Before doing so He sent the people of that world a preacher of righteousness to warn them of their coming destruction if they did not repent.

actually this is your assumption. I think Joseph already pointed this out. There is nothing in the primary account at genesis that suggests that Noah went around preaching. You rely on some verse that calls Noah a 'preacher of righteousness'. Well...he may have been that, but that doesn't mean went around preaching about the flood. You just hope he did...because a God that would condemn a whole load of people without giving them a chance to repent is rather disagreeable.

I believe you know "the way" I am referring to. The New Testament tells us that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for all of our sins.

A god that demands that an innocent man die to pay for the sins of others...is a pretty weird God, I'd say.

It also tells us that all who believe in their hearts that He did so, and that God raised Him up from the dead, will be saved.

Guess I'm off to hell...I'm like Thomas. Jesus is going to have to stand in my living room to get me to believe. Even then, I probably wont believe, I'll probably think I'm hallucinating or something...so I'm doomed I guess.

I do not believe God has "inspired" Bible translators.

Would have made sense if he had. A little bit of an oversight on the part of God.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

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!

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

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.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

lot of smoke in here...

God sure likes to keep things vague!!!!

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

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.

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

GWEEDO

AChristian

I believe God had Noah take animals, including birds, onto the ark for a couple of reasons. First of all, Noah and his family would have needed some animals and birds immediately after the flood, to serve as food, as sacrifices to God and as beasts of burden. This, of course, does not explain why God said that His purpose in having Noah take all the various kinds of animals in his land onto the ark was, "to keep their various kinds alive throughout the land." (Gen. 7:3) I believe the reason God had Noah do this was that He intended for Noah to symbolize Jesus Christ, whom the Bible calls "the sustainer of all things." (Heb. 1:3)

I think you just said it AC:

This, of course, does not explain why God said that His purpose in having Noah take all the various kinds of animals in his land onto the ark was, "to keep their various kinds alive throughout the land." (Gen. 7:3)

I think the bible is pretty clear:

"to keep... various kinds[of animals] alive throughout the land." (Gen. 7:3) is why God told Noah to take animals onto the ARk

There was no need for Noah to take animals onto the ark to preserve them alive throughout the entire land if a local flood happened.

This is an extremely weak point in your argument. I cant get my head around it.