FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-02-2005, 01:57 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 927
Default

Ehm, Chili in stead of speculating on the ethymology of the dutch word "zondvloed" opposed to "vloed" and other word games does anyone know about what the original texts say, if a special word is used or not.
demoninho is offline  
Old 01-02-2005, 02:08 PM   #12
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: N. America
Posts: 105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraph
It is my understanding that God said he would not destroy the EATRTH with water again.

So this little water displacement in Asia would most definately not qualify as Gods using water to destroy the earth.
Considering even most apologists concede that the flood had to be a local one, that "little water displacement" is applicable in context.

Unless you want to prove a global flood..
§outh§tar is offline  
Old 01-02-2005, 02:08 PM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by demoninho
Ehm, Chili in stead of speculating on the ethymology of the dutch word "zondvloed" opposed to "vloed" and other word games does anyone know about what the original texts say, if a special word is used or not.
What the original text says is completely irrelevant if this kind of flood can only happen once in a lifetime for God to be able to make this kind of promise. Real water floods occur and will continue to occur in the world but this kind of flood can only happen once in a person's life.

I would not look for special words but for the right meaning of specific words.
Chili is offline  
Old 01-02-2005, 02:17 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili
Real water floods occur and will continue to occur in the world but this kind of flood can only happen once in a person's life.
Not in a desert...

Your reasoning sounds familiar do you visit any dutch forums as well?
demoninho is offline  
Old 01-02-2005, 02:19 PM   #15
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by demoninho
Ehm, Chili in stead of speculating on the ethymology of the dutch word "zondvloed" opposed to "vloed" and other word games does anyone know about what the original texts say, if a special word is used or not.
According to a discussion on another thread in E/C, the Hebrew Bible uses the word mabbul, which is used only for "the" flood. (But where else does the Bible speak about flooding, since it was written by a desert people?)

mabbul (scroll down)

Quote:
The key verse here is 7:17. 'The mabbul was 40 days upon the earth.' After verse 7:17, the term is not used again until 9:11, when the narrative looks back, and it is not used at all in describing events after the fortieth day; instead the author chooses the term 'waters': the waters prevailed, were assuaged, decreased, were abated, were dried up.

If we think of mabbul as being simply a flood, the semantic distinction may not seem significant, since in English 'waters' and 'flood' can be very close in meaning. However, because of its uniqueness, the Hebrew term has a different resonance. Likewise, the Greek term (as in the New Testament and the Septuagint version of Genesis) is 'cataclysm', a word which connotes a sudden and violent outbreak of waters.
Toto is offline  
Old 01-02-2005, 02:32 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 927
Default

Ah thanks,

but I completely disagree with the explanation

A flood is water rising over what is normally a part of the land after the waters have reached the highest point you wouldn't speak of flood anymore (there are distinct words in dutch: ebben and kentering for receding water and the moment between rising and receding water respectively)
demoninho is offline  
Old 01-02-2005, 05:05 PM   #17
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by demoninho
Not in a desert...

Your reasoning sounds familiar do you visit any dutch forums as well?
You are right, but would that not be unfair to those desert dwellers? THAT in itself would make God unjust even if the flood is either good or bad.

No I don't. Could you lead me to one?
Chili is offline  
Old 01-02-2005, 05:49 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by demoninho
Ah thanks,

but I completely disagree with the explanation

A flood is water rising over what is normally a part of the land after the waters have reached the highest point you wouldn't speak of flood anymore (there are distinct words in dutch: ebben and kentering for receding water and the moment between rising and receding water respectively)
Let us not forget that the Dutch tend be a little obsessive when it comes to flooding....
Kosh is offline  
Old 01-02-2005, 09:58 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner
Am I the only one who finds it appalling that, in the midst of horrific tragedy, it seems that all some people can think about is how they can use this to combat Fundamentalism?
I understand that you feel it is appalling and I agree to an extent. Politicians are spinning this natural disaster and using horrific events to put themselves in a "good light". Fundmental conservatives who keep pushing people and brainwashing their followers to believe the end is near, have been using the floods in Asia for their own purposes and persuasions - such as selling expensive bibles and getting people to support all kinds of stuff.

Here's a passage from scripture that fundies are using as justification:
Revelation 16:18
Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake.
Freethinking is offline  
Old 01-03-2005, 02:23 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Western Sweden
Posts: 3,684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili
Well anders, that is very possible but I would still see a connection with "sintvloed" and the survival of this flood which is needed to reach the other side of life where only saints are found. We have "sint" as the common word for "saint."

As an aside, we have "voorgeborgte" as Limbo. Can you see how this connects with our Lymbic system as the place called Limbo?
OK, I'll bite, even though I think that people here are intelligent enough to realize that you're joking.

Few etymologic dictionaries are brave enough to trace sin and saint back to Proto-Indo-European. Those that do (e.g. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots) tend to take sin from the PIE root *es-, meaning 'to be', and saint from a root *sak- 'to sanctify. Those that don't make it clear that even the immediate ancestors of those words are different.

For Sintflut I might add that the prefix is found in most Germanic languages, giving meanings like 'enormous, complete(ly)': Old English sin(a)-, Gothic sin-, Old Icelandic sî-.

The limbic connection is that Limbo and limbic both are derived from Latin limbus 'edge, verge, fringe'.
Lugubert is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:09 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.