Freethought & Rationalism Archive

xaxxat · 12-09-2006, 07:17 PM

I smell a sock puppet...

Berggy · 12-09-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Huh??!! verse 12 "And God said: 'This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:" - it does not make a distiction between the animals that were with Noah and some other animals elsewhere, but includes the animals with the humans in the covenant.

Yes, it does make a distinction. Note the words "Me", "You" and the phrase "every living creature that is with you".

Quote:

Of course you do not address the repeated use of 'all' 'every' and so on for describing the victims of the flood.

These words are used in context of specifically Noah and his family and that which came out of the Ark into the land and of the context of Noah being specifically from the lineage of Adam and Eve, which were not the first people on earth, which means that they encompass' a small portion of the planet, which, along with genuine science today, shows that the Flood of Noah had to be regional and could never have been world-wide.

Quote:

Regarding the A&E stuff, I suppose you would want to base it on an attempt to reconcile the creation of humans in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2. If that is the case, you can save yourself the keystrokes. These are two independent creation accounts, by different authors, probably from different times. In one unnamed humans of both sexes are created after the creation of plantlife and non-human animals, in the other a man, later named Adam (though it is hard to tell from the Hebrew where the naming takes place, since man and Adam are the same word), is created, then plantlife, then animals, then a woman, who is later named Eve. In this version of the creation account these are the first humans.

The two stories were placed together, but there is no reason to reconcile them, just like there is no reason to reconcile the various Greek accounts on the creation of humans.

I can perfectly explain the difference in the accounts in Genesis 1-2 by using the Original Text, the Hebrew and Biblical context, to prove my arguement and to show that Adam and Eve were not the first people created on earth by the Gods of the Bible and no, it was not written by two different authors at two different times either as the account of Genesis 1-2 goes through chronologically very smoothly.

However, you obviously dont want to hear it do you, even though I would gladly debate you, formally, concerning this subject. Too bad

Anat · 12-09-2006, 07:54 PM

Berggy, I don't see how me, you and with you indicate the meaning you claim these pronouns have. God is establishing a covenant between himself and all that is living, a covenant that is based on the experience of the flood. So of course there would be 'Me' - indicating side A of the covenant and 'you' indicating side B (or how else would one phrase it?). But as opposed to other covenants that the audience of the story is familiar with, that are covenants between 2 rulers or a ruler and a nation, this covenant also includes the non-human living world as part of side B. And they are included "with you" - on the same level as the humans. God is commiting to both equally. Again, you do not address all the many instances where it evidently says that all humans and animals under the heavens perished. There is no reason to make the qualifications you make, when God says very clearly that "and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.'" - There is no way this can be read as - well, only those living substances in your neck of the woods.
Or (6:7) "And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.'" - Not just one lineage of humanity, but the whole act of creation itself is going to be reversed.

Or 6:17 "And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish. "

The only reason you think this refers to local events is because you assume it to be so, but that is not what God is saying, very explicitly.

And of course, there is the question of why bother about saving the animals for a local flood, and what exactly is the point of the promise of no more local floods, when it was known by anyone that such local floods do occur once in a while.

As for A&E, the discussion is hopeless due to our different understanding of what the creation accounts are. But regardless, there is no evidence anywhere that the authors of the two flood narratives nor the redactor that combined them thought there were any humans not descended from those who emeged from the ark.

Berggy · 12-09-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Berggy, I don't see how me, you and with you indicate the meaning you claim these pronouns have. God is establishing a covenant between himself and all that is living, a covenant that is based on the experience of the flood. So of course there would be 'Me' - indicating side A of the covenant and 'you' indicating side B (or how else would one phrase it?). But as opposed to other covenants that the audience of the story is familiar with, that are covenants between 2 rulers or a ruler and a nation, this covenant also includes the non-human living world as part of side B. And they are included "with you" - on the same level as the humans. God is commiting to both equally. Again, you do not address all the many instances where it evidently says that all humans and animals under the heavens perished. There is no reason to make the qualifications you make, when God says very clearly that "and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.'" - There is no way this can be read as - well, only those living substances in your neck of the woods.
Or (6:7) "And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.'" - Not just one lineage of humanity, but the whole act of creation itself is going to be reversed.

Or 6:17 "And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish. "

The only reason you think this refers to local events is because you assume it to be so, but that is not what God is saying, very explicitly.

And of course, there is the question of why bother about saving the animals for a local flood, and what exactly is the point of the promise of no more local floods, when it was known by anyone that such local floods do occur once in a while.

As for A&E, the discussion is hopeless due to our different understanding of what the creation accounts are. But regardless, there is no evidence anywhere that the authors of the two flood narratives nor the redactor that combined them thought there were any humans not descended from those who emeged from the ark.

As I have said, all of what I have showed concerning Noah can only be true if Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, but as your last paragraph indicates, you just "understand" things differently, but have to desire to prove them, which I am willing to do with you.

So lets just leave it at that. Unless you have a desire to prove your words through scriptural evidence, in a formal debate environment, concerning that Adam and Eve were not the first people created by God on this planet, which in turn proves that the Flood of Noah could not have been world-wide, then I have nothing more to say to you. This is going in circles and accomplishes nothing.

Anat · 12-09-2006, 08:27 PM

Quote:

As I have said, all of what I have showed concerning Noah can only be true if Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth,

Why? I am willing to go along with this assumption just to see how this leads to there being other survivors of the flood.

redhen · 12-09-2006, 08:44 PM

John Paul II addressed this 10 years ago.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Quote:

The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

So I would say your answer lies somewhere between Homo Sapiens and Homo Habilis. Take your pick.

Anat · 12-11-2006, 08:44 PM

So Berggy, how do you get from non-Adamic lineages to a local flood?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2006, 07:17 PM	#21
xaxxat Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Space Station 33 Posts: 2,543	I smell a sock puppet...

12-09-2006, 07:54 PM	#23
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	Berggy, I don't see how me, you and with you indicate the meaning you claim these pronouns have. God is establishing a covenant between himself and all that is living, a covenant that is based on the experience of the flood. So of course there would be 'Me' - indicating side A of the covenant and 'you' indicating side B (or how else would one phrase it?). But as opposed to other covenants that the audience of the story is familiar with, that are covenants between 2 rulers or a ruler and a nation, this covenant also includes the non-human living world as part of side B. And they are included "with you" - on the same level as the humans. God is commiting to both equally. Again, you do not address all the many instances where it evidently says that all humans and animals under the heavens perished. There is no reason to make the qualifications you make, when God says very clearly that "and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.'" - There is no way this can be read as - well, only those living substances in your neck of the woods. Or (6:7) "And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.'" - Not just one lineage of humanity, but the whole act of creation itself is going to be reversed. Or 6:17 "And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish. " The only reason you think this refers to local events is because you assume it to be so, but that is not what God is saying, very explicitly. And of course, there is the question of why bother about saving the animals for a local flood, and what exactly is the point of the promise of no more local floods, when it was known by anyone that such local floods do occur once in a while. As for A&E, the discussion is hopeless due to our different understanding of what the creation accounts are. But regardless, there is no evidence anywhere that the authors of the two flood narratives nor the redactor that combined them thought there were any humans not descended from those who emeged from the ark.

12-11-2006, 08:44 PM	#27
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	So Berggy, how do you get from non-Adamic lineages to a local flood?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.