I find that, generally speaking, it is safe to go with the plain meaning of the words. The different layers of meaning that one might also find should not contradict the plain meaning. And…
Matthew 13:14
And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;
[quote=“Stripe”]
I find that, generally speaking, it is safe to go with the plain meaning of the words. The different layers of meaning that one might also find should not contradict the plain meaning.[/quote]
Well, as has been shown, the plain meaning of the words shows a flood that covered the entire earth as the authors knew it, period.
Whatever interpretations people may come up with, that is fine…but those that say it was a “local flood” clearly contradict the plain meaning of the received text of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible in Genesis.
You’re preaching to the converted. 
Furthermore (this thread is fun!) Fort’s use of the nephilim surviving the flood as some sort of proof that the text indicates the flood was local, is really (really really really) problematic.
Reason #1:
The verse quoted from Genesis:
Ch. 6
ד הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וְגַם אַחֲרֵי-כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם: הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם. {פ} 4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. {P}
Is from before the flood. Nephilim is from Chapter 6, Flood story begins in Chapter 10. Quoting a verse from 1919 that says most Jews live in Eastern Europe is not proof that most Jews live in Eastern Europe in 2012…chronology is a cool thing.
Reason #2:
I will just quote one of his footnotes, since Fort’s OWN quotation shows how problematic his use of this verse as proof is:
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
[5] ‘The nephilim of Num 13.33 are the people whom the men saw when they were sent to spy out the land of Canaan while Israel was in the wilderness. These beings described as giganteV in LXX present the reader with the problem of how giants survived the Flood, in contrast to the Watcher tradition that conveys that all the giants were physically killed.’, Wright, ‘The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature‘, p. 81 (2005).[/quote]
This report of the spies who saw these “giants” was a false report AS THE BIBLE ITSELF SAYS, see here, how god was SO angry at the spies for making a false report and even madder at the children of Israel for believing it that he threatened to kill them all! (Fort quoted Ch. 13, I quote Ch. 14, so right after, when Moses is speaking with God about the Israelite’s fears).
Numbers 14:
יא וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, עַד-אָנָה יְנַאֲצֻנִי הָעָם הַזֶּה; וְעַד-אָנָה, לֹא-יַאֲמִינוּ בִי, בְּכֹל הָאֹתוֹת, אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ. 11 And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘How long will this people despise Me? and how long will they not believe in Me, for all the signs which I have wrought among them?
יב אַכֶּנּוּ בַדֶּבֶר, וְאוֹרִשֶׁנּוּ; וְאֶעֱשֶׂה, אֹתְךָ, לְגוֹי-גָּדוֹל וְעָצוּם, מִמֶּנּוּ. 12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and destroy them, and will make of thee a nation greater and mightier than they.’
So bringing proof from what is REPORTED BY THE BIBLE to be a FALSE report as proof of something having existed is quite absurd.
No proof, from the Biblical text itself that the flood was local.
You gotto look up the context of the verses you are quoting Fort before quoting them.
Google “Ken Ham” and you will see that later generations of the Ham family are equally deserving.
I have a confession to make.
I googled Ken Ham. 
I know that sounds dirty, but I was just following instructions from above. :aiyo:
Methuselah was born 687 years after Creation Week. Adam died when he was 930, so Methuselah could very well have known Adam, as well as Noah, whose lifetime overlapped his by 600 years!
Yes, imagine all the technological innovations that must have taken place during Methuselah’s lifetime! :neutral:
Is it true that according to the Bible the division between Jews and Gentiles/ Arabs (or whatever) was established as a result of this event? Ham (the evil doer who plonked his ba) went on to have kids named Nimrod the great warrior king and all that, and the other two brothers went on to have kids like Abram (later Abraham) who established Judaism by having a psychotic breakdown in desert and nearly cutting his son’s throat etc…
Is “that” the story, essentially?
We’re talking about parents who had children who became famous. It’s not complicated.
What people of the ANE believed is the socio-historical, religious, cutural, and linguistic background of the Bible. That is the context in which it must be understood, and the burden of evidence in any specific case is on the one who claims that these people, living in the ANE, did not use the language, history, or comprehend the culture or religion of the social environment in which they lived, and actually held beliefs which belonged to a different era, culture, and socio-historical background. For a brief scholarly introduction to the issue, I direct you to Walton’s ‘Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible’ (2006), a slim volume of only 330 pages which will educate you sufficiently to enter a discussion on the subject.
[quote=“Confuzius”]Fort, 2 things:
No I don’t. That’s why I don’t appeal to or rely on my ability with Hebrew. I rely on commentaries and lexicons by those who do.
No it doesn’t.
You deliberately quoted verses in which those phrases weren’t found, and you deliberately avoided quoting the verse in which they are found. That is not only suppression of evidence, it is intellectual dishonesty. I shouldn’t have to correct you on this. Here’s Ezekiel 38:20 and Genesis 7:21, 23, in both English and Hebrew.
Genesis 7:
21 And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all humankind.
וַיִּגְוַ֞ע כָּל־בָּשָׂ֣ר׀ הָרֹמֵ֣שׂ עַל־הָאָ֗רֶץ בָּע֤וֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבַ֣חַיָּ֔ה וּבְכָל־ הַשֶּׁ֖רֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵ֣ץ עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְכֹ֖ל הָאָדָֽם׃
Genesis 7:
23 So the LORD destroyed every living thing that was on the surface of the ground, including people, animals, creatures that creep along the ground, and birds of the sky. They were wiped off the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark survived.
וַיִּ֜מַח אֶֽת־כָּל־הַיְק֣וּם׀ אֲשֶׁ֣ר׀ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה מֵאָדָ֤ם עַד־בְּהֵמָה֙ עַד־רֶ֙מֶשׂ֙ וְעַד־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיִּמָּח֖וּ מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיִשָּׁ֧אֶר* אַךְ־נֹ֛חַ וַֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר אִתּ֖וֹ בַּתֵּבָֽה׃
Ezekiel 38:
20 The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground, and all people who live on the face of the earth will shake at my presence. The mountains will topple, the cliffs will fall, and every wall will fall to the ground.
וְרָעֲשׁ֣וּ מִפָּנַ֡י דְּגֵ֣י הַיָּם֩ וְע֨וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם וְחַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה וְכָל־הָרֶ֙מֶשׂ֙ הָרֹמֵ֣שׂ עַל־הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וְכֹל֙ הָֽאָדָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הָאֲדָמָ֑ה וְנֶהֶרְס֣וּ הֶהָרִ֗ים וְנָֽפְלוּ֙ הַמַּדְרֵג֔וֹת וְכָל־חוֹמָ֖ה לָאָ֥רֶץ תִּפּֽוֹל׃
Note the following phrases which are used in Ezekiel 38:20, and in the description of the flood in Genesis 7:21, 23.
I read the verse immediately before; you know, the context.
Ezekiel 38:
19 In my zeal, in the fire of my fury, I declare that on that day there will be a great earthquake in the land of Israel.
20 The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground, and all people who live on the face of the earth will shake at my presence. The mountains will topple, the cliffs will fall, and every wall will fall to the ground.
Where’s the great earthquake? In the land of Israel. Global earthquake? No, local earthquake. Earthquake over the entire planet? No, earthquake in one nation. Which nation? Israel. A great earthquake in the land of Israel. Pop-fic is ok for pop-fic ideas about the invasion by Gog and Magog, and the battle of Armageddon, but if you want to talk about Ezekiel 38 you need to actually read the text of Ezekiel 38.
As the great Christopher Hitchens once said, that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You are confusing categories. I am not saying ‘the entire planet’ means ‘the stuff down here as opposed to the stuff up there’. As I have told you previously, the Hebrews had no concept of ‘the entire planet’.
You’re so close; when ‘all the stuff down here’ was believed to be covered, that was a cosmological event. It was not a geographical event, and it did not mean every geographical area down here was covered. I have already cited the Sumerians as an example. If it’s still not clear to you, I thoroughly recommend you read the work by Walton which I cited previously.
It isn’t poorly translated in most Bibles; it’s rendered in a manner which conveys to us what it would have conveyed to the original recipients. The only difference is that we have no distinction of cosmological and geographical categories as they did, so when we read ‘the whole earth’ we think of it in geographical rather than cosmological terms. But since to us covering the entire world with water is the ‘end of the world’ in the same sense as the cosmological event understood by the Hebrews, it doesn’t really matter. The survival of the Nephilim is enough to show us that the text wasn’t intended to refer to the complete annihilation of every human outside the Ark, and that’s clear in the overwhelming number of English Bible translations and identified in countless commentaries, so there’s no excuse for getting it wrong.
The details are neither malleable nor vague; you can’t deny the linguistic and textual facts.
Rationally speaking, it is accepted by mainstream scholarship that the text is discussing a local flood event in cosmological terms. The physical evidence for such a flood, and the independent literary witnesses to such a flood, are decisive on this point. Denying their existence and trying to claim the flood was geographically local and written using concepts completely unknown to the original writer, is not rational.
Whoa! As a mod I would expect you to actually have read the thread before rendering such an accusation.
I REquoted the exact SAME verses in that post…the same verses I quoted BEFORE YOU POSTED THE EZEKIEL. Since your Ezekiel quote was to show how “those same phrases” blah blah blah are in both texts. I requoted THE EXACT SAME PHRASES I had originally to show how your verse was, at the very best, an absolutely lame and silly verse to quote as a refutation. It is not MY fault if you did not notice they were the same verses and therefore start saying I am guilty of intellectual dishonesty. If you are really busy and this thread is simply too much for you to keep up with maybe you should take a little break.
Furthermore, in my original post, which you responded with the Ezekiel, I actually STATED I was not quoting verses that were ambiguous (this of course, is BEFORE you brought your Ezekiel). So you clearly did not take the time to read that either.
So again, full of shit post by you and , as a mod I would expect a lot more. Hell, as a poster I would expect more.
After you man up, I will happily tear apart the rest of what you wrote, especially since you actually do not quote any meaningful phrases, just a word-3 words (lexicons don’t do the trick buddy).
(and pop-scifi magog and magog? You don’t know much about the Old Testament do you? Especially not the Jewish interpretations (philo and josephus…lol) return to that later as well)
[quote=“Confuzius”]Reason #1:
The verse quoted from Genesis:
Ch. 6
ד הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וְגַם אַחֲרֵי-כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם: הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם. {פ} 4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. {P}
Is from before the flood. Nephilim is from Chapter 6, Flood story begins in Chapter 10. Quoting a verse from 1919 that says most Jews live in Eastern Europe is not proof that most Jews live in Eastern Europe in 2012…chronology is a cool thing.[/quote]
You are again suppressing the evidence contradictory to your claim. The verse doesn’t just say ‘The Nephilim were in the earth in those days’, it says ‘The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that’, referring to the time after the flood. I refer you again to the half a dozen commentaries I cited previously on this point. This is not a matter of my interpretation. If you are right and all the scholars who understand the passage differently are wrong, then you’re going to need to provide evidence for this. I’ll start to pay attention when you’ve submitted your idea to professional scholarly peer review and had it recognized.
There are three problems with your argument. The first problem is that Numbers never says the spies were lying when they reported they had seen the Nephilim. The second is that we know the record doesn’t want us to think the spies falsely reported they had seen the descendants of Anak, *(‘we saw the descendants of Anak there’, Numbers 13:28), because prior to this a statement by the narrator and not a claim by the spies, actually confirms that they did see the descendants of Anak; ‘they came to Hebron where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, descendants of Anak, were living’ (Numbers 13:21). So the narrator says they saw the descendants of Anak, and the spies say they saw the descendants of Anak; this is not depicted as a false report.
The third problem is that when the spies say ‘We even saw the Nephilim there’ (Numbers 13:33), it is the narrator who again confirms they are telling the truth, informing the reader with a parenthetical aside ‘the descendants of Anak came from the Nephilim’ (Numbers 13:33). So the narrator tells us the spies saw the descendants of Anak, the spies say they saw the descendants of Anak, the spies say they saw the Nephilim, and the narrator confirms they saw the Nephilim, telling us that the descendants of Anak came from the Nephilm. What we have then is an independent reference to the continuity of the Nephilim before, during, and after the era of the flood. That is precisely why the half a dozen scholarly commentaries I cited previously understand the Nephilim to be depicted in two places as having survived the flood. This is not simply my idea, I am jut citing the standard scholarly commentary.
I resigned as a mod a couple of days ago. If you looked at this forum you would see that it doesn’t have a mod listed. Behold.
You are not addressing my point. I said the phrases in Ezekiel were the same used in the description of the flood. You quoted the same verses you had quoted previously, which didn’t use those phrases, and denied that the phrases in Ezekiel were used in the description of the flood. I have now pointed out that you avoided quoting the verses in the description of the flood which actually used those phrases which are also in Ezekiel.
Of course I read that, you will note that I didn’t even contest it. But I said there were phrases in Ezekiel 38:20 which are also used in the description of the flood. You said there weren’t. I’ve proved there are.
I have shown that the same words and phrases used in Ezekiel are also found in the description of the flood. That is exactly what I had claimed, and that is exactly what the evidence I quoted shows. If you want to deny it, you need to try and prove that the words and phrases I identified as common to Genesis 7:21, 23 and Ezekiel 38:20, do not actually appear in those verses. Good luck with that.
[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“Confuzius”]Reason #1:
The verse quoted from Genesis:
Ch. 6
ד הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וְגַם אַחֲרֵי-כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם: הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם. {פ} 4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. {P}
Is from before the flood. Nephilim is from Chapter 6, Flood story begins in Chapter 10. Quoting a verse from 1919 that says most Jews live in Eastern Europe is not proof that most Jews live in Eastern Europe in 2012…chronology is a cool thing.[/quote]
You are again suppressing the evidence contradictory to your claim. The verse doesn’t just say ‘The Nephilim were in the earth in those days’, it says ‘The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that’, referring to the time after the flood. I refer you again to the half a dozen commentaries I cited previously on this point. This is not a matter of my interpretation. If you are right and all the scholars who understand the passage differently are wrong, then you’re going to need to provide evidence for this.[/quote]
“Suppressing”? Oh, so did I not include the words “and also after that” in my translation? Oh wait, I did, so I suppressed nothing, again, your post is full of shit and false accusations.
And the words (which I did not suppress, but somehow you feel like acting as though I did…my post is RIGHT there, even quoted by you) does not indicate when. You can bring whatever commentaries, secondary sources or fringe xian apologists…the text does not indicate they survived the flood
Oh, so you are going to post lazily and hurl accusations just because I do not fit your criteria? (oh wait…I actually DO have peer reviewed publications out there…but I am not some asshole who goes around parading his credentials…I let the facts speak for themselves)
So 2 posts in a row by you, with false accusations. This one, even saying you will not “pay attention” to my posts (though you keep responding, sounds like a 5 yr old’s "neener neener’ I must say).
Ifya can’t actually hang dude, don’t be a hater…just admit it when you make a mistake.
I did not claim you didn’t include them. Suppression of evidence does not mean simply leaving things out, it means citing the part of the text which is convenient to your argument and deliberately omitting any reference to the part which contradicts you.
I’m sorry, but that’s just your opinion. I’m going to go with the scholarship on this one. That which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Not at all. Firstly I doubt anyone would accuse me of posting lazily, and secondly I do not hurl accusations’ just because you do not fit any criteria. I charged you with intellectual dishonesty because you only cited the part of a passage which appeared to support you, whilst omitting any reference to the context and the part which contradicted you.
What I have said is that I’m going to start paying attention to your idea (that is, taking it seriously), when you have submitted them to processional scholarly peer review and had it recognized. That is not unreasonable, since you are contesting the established scholarship, and you are doing so on the basis of your own personal opinion. That does not mean I’m going to stop reading what you write, and taking the time to analyze it carefully against the standard scholarship, as I have done all the way through this discussion.
Remember, I don’t have to defend my personal point of view or knowledge and experience, because I’m not arguing from my personal point of view or knowledge and experience. I’m simply citing the standard scholarship, and the burden of evidence rests with you to prove that they’re all wrong and you’re right.
Please give me facts by all means. I look forward to it.
I resigned as a mod a couple of days ago. If you looked at this forum you would see that it doesn’t have a mod listed. [/quote]
So since you are no longer a mod, all of you posting etiquette goes out the window? Thats lovely.
[quote]
You are not addressing my point. I said the phrases in Ezekiel were the same used in the description of the flood. You quoted the same verses you had quoted previously, which didn’t use those phrases, and denied that the phrases in Ezekiel were used in the description of the flood. I have now pointed out that you avoided quoting the verses in the description of the flood which actually used those phrases which are also in Ezekiel.[/quote]
Again, false accusation (I liked you better as a mod I must say…you actually read stuff) I never, how did you say…“deny that the phrases in Ezekiel were used in the description of the flood” go back and check if you like.
I showed that phrases, which WITHOUT A DOUBT refer to a global rather than local event were in Genesis and not in the phrase you quoted.
You have shown they share some of the same WORDS, and you take many of those words out of context.
You could take this thread, then take an English translation of Ch. 10 of War and Peace and guess what buddy? SOME OF THE WORDS WOULD BE IN BOTH PLACES! OMG! We must be talking about Russia here and war! Oh wow, great proof!
Seriously, I used to think you knew your stuff, and maybe you do…but not when it comes to the Old Testament.
Now lets go through War and Peace and find some shared vocabular, certainly that will prove something.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]We’re talking about parents who had children who became famous. It’s not complicated.[/quote]Great!
So why could the eight people on the ark not have produced descendants who became famous?
[quote]What people of the ANE believed is the socio-historical, religious, cutural, and linguistic background of the Bible.[/quote]That’s nice. Where are you going to show how this demands the bible be written in agreement with everything society might demand?
[quote]That is the context in which it must be understood, and the burden of evidence in any specific case is on the one who claims that these people, living in the ANE, did not use the language, history, or comprehend the culture or religion of the social environment in which they lived, and actually held beliefs which belonged to a different era, culture, and socio-historical background.[/quote]Sorry, the text is quite explicit. Demanding that I accept the notions of the society you believe existed over the plain meaning of the written word doesn’t cut it.
[quote]For a brief scholarly introduction to the issue, I direct you to Walton’s ‘Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible’ (2006), a slim volume of only 330 pages which will educate you sufficiently to enter a discussion on the subject.[/quote]Or we could just have a friendly conversation. 
I did not claim you didn’t include them. Suppression of evidence does not mean simply leaving things out, it means citing the part of the text which is convenient to your argument and deliberately omitting any reference to the part which contradicts you. [/quote]
And what did I “omit” as you put it? Is there another part of the text there I did not quote?
[quote]
I’m sorry, but that’s just your opinion. I’m going to go with the scholarship on this one. That which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.[/quote]
The text does not say it, believe whatever you wish. Since you cannot read the received Hebrew text, I imagine you would have to rely on secondary sources.
What did I omit? Gimme verse and chapter. You haven’t provided what I omitted, though you keep hurling these accusations.
[quote]
Remember, I don’t have to defend my personal point of view or knowledge and experience, because I’m not arguing from my personal point of view or knowledge and experience. I’m simply citing the standard scholarship, and the burden of evidence rests with you to prove that they’re all wrong and you’re right.[/quote]
No, you pick and choose which bits of, as you call, “standard” scholarship that you like. You belong to a specific sect of xianity that is hardly mainstream (no worries…I’m part of a sect of Buddhism that is hardly mainstream) and you quote scholarship that confirms your churches beliefs.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]As the great Christopher Hitchens once said[/quote]Who? :eh:
[quote]that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.[/quote]Great! So before dismissing what I said, how about you deal with the evidence I produced. 
[quote]The details are neither malleable nor vague; you can’t deny the linguistic and textual facts.[/quote]That’s true. It does, very explicitly say, “The whole Earth”, “Every living thing”, “All the high mountains” and “One of eight people”.
[quote]Rationally speaking, it is accepted by mainstream scholarship that the text is discussing a local flood event in cosmological terms.[/quote]To you, appeals to popularity are rational? :ohreally:
[quote]The physical evidence for such a flood, and the independent literary witnesses to such a flood, are decisive on this point.[/quote]You have a flood in mind?
What hills did it cover? Why did birds need to enter the ark to be saved? Why did Noah spend hundreds of years preaching and building an ark instead of relocating? Why can there never be another flood like it? What were the “fountains of the great deep”? How did it rain for so long? How was the ark deposited on a mountain?
This should be good… 
What? :loco:
Not at all. I’m not hurling insults, or repeatedly using deliberately offensive language as you’ve used against me. I made a single charge of intellectual dishonesty, and explained why I believed it was justified.
I apologize gladly for misunderstanding you. Are you saying that you agree with me that the phrases in Ezekiel were used in the description of the flood? If so, then what are you going to do about that fact?
You’re begging the question; you haven’t proved that they ‘without a doubt refer to a global rather than local event’. And are you aware that ‘face of the earth’ actually does appear in Ezekiel 38:20, as well as in Genesis 7:19 which you cited? I even highlighted it.
Not just some of the same words as the description of the flood, but the phrases as the description of the flood. Please prove that I take them out of context.
This is not analogous. I am not saying that the subject in both Genesis and Ezekiel is the same, or that the context is the same, or that the event described is the same. Your analogy is false. What you are doing, on the other hand, is claiming that a phrase like ‘not until hell freezes over’, when used in book A, means something completely different when used in book B. That’s a claim requiring evidence.
They could have. So what? The Nephilm aren’t the ‘famous people’. You keep missing this point. There are two groups spoken of; the Nephilim who are described as being already around at the time of the flood and after the flood, and the famous people who are described as the descendants of the sons of God and the daughters of men. I have explained this previously.
I’m not saying that at all.
Your statement is not rational. The text is explicit, but it doesn’t say what you claim. I am not demanding you accept the notions of the society I believe existed, I am explaining to you that the text must be understood in its socio-historical context. To do anything else is ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, or just plain laziness (or lying). I am not demanding you accept any notions ‘over the plain meaning of the written word’, I am pointing out that you don’t understand what the plain meaning of the written word is. Nor do you want to accept it, because it would be inconvenient to you.
I am being perfectly courteous, and I am citing works which can help you. But I don’t believe you want a friendly conversation.
Careful, that’s not what I said. I didn’t say you omitted anything. I said you omitted reference to the part which contradicted you.
That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Again, I’ll go with the scholarship on this one.
Yes, as I have made absolutely clear all the way through this thread. Moreover, I rely on qualified professional scholarship, not my own opinions or ideas. Until you have any firm grounds on which to contest that scholarship, I can’t take your claims seriously, read and respond to them as I may. It’s like listening to fred smith on climate change, or Ken Ham on evolution.
You are misquoting me. As I have pointed out, I didn’t say you had omitted any part of the text. I said you had omitted reference to the part which contradicted you.
Evidence please. I cited extensively from a very broad range of the standard critical scholarship; not apologist works, not sectarian pop-theology. This is verifiable; look up the references I have cited.
Christopher Hitchens. He was a prominent atheist.
You haven’t provided any. You’ve simply quoted the English text and claimed it means X. That’s it.
Again, you are simply quoting the English text and claiming it means X. This is not the same as providing evidence. You are not even addressing the English text which indicates survivors, still less the Hebrew, still less the established scholarship.
No, appeals to popularity are not rational. I am not making an appeal to popularity.
Yes, the Mesopotamian mega-flood of around 2,900 BCE, which left physical evidence and which is attested in the Sumerian King List, the Atrahasis Epic, and the Enuma Elish. I have cited scholarship on this previously in this thread; clearly you didn’t read it.
The hills local to the Mespotamian flood plain.
They didn’t. Plenty of birds outside the Ark survived perfectly well on their own.
He didn’t.
There have been many floods like it.
Underground water.
A stalled frontal system caused by a cyclonic storm event, of the kind which caused nearly two months of rain in the Northern Jordan Valley in 1969.[1]
It wasn’t.
[1] Inbar, M. 1987).- Effects of a high magnitude flood in a Mediterranean climate : a case study in the Jordan River basin, in L. Mayer and D. NASH (Ed.) : Catastrophic flooding, Allen & Unwin, London, 333-353.
Ya might wanna fasten your seatbelt…
[quote=“Fortigurn”]They could have. So what?[/quote]Then it’s not impossible that they were all wiped out elsewhere.
[quote]I’m not saying that at all.[/quote]So, what are you saying?
[quote]Your statement is not rational. The text is explicit, but it doesn’t say what you claim.[/quote]It doesn’t say “The whole Earth”, “Every living thing”, “All the high mountains” and “One of eight people”? Uh, dude. Yes, it does.
You should try reading it sometime. 
[quote]I am not demanding you accept the notions of the society I believe existed, I am explaining to you that the text must be understood in its socio-historical context.[/quote]No, I don’t have to accept your idea of what society was like. The bible explicitly says exactly what I said it says. Never once is the certitude of these statements as fact denied by the bible. And the bible also preaches against the denial of these events.
So feel free to use the beliefs of people as if they might counter what is plainly written, but you’re not going to be at all convincing.
[quote]To do anything else is ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, or just plain laziness (or lying).[/quote]Gee, I think I’m going to cry.
[quote]I am not demanding you accept any notions ‘over the plain meaning of the written word’, I am pointing out that you don’t understand what the plain meaning of the written word is.[/quote]The text says “The whole Earth”, “Every living thing”, “All the high mountains” and “One of eight people”. You’re the one denying these statements mean what they plainly say.
[quote]Nor do you want to accept it, because it would be inconvenient to you.[/quote] :roflmao:
How do you figure that?
[quote]I am being perfectly courteous, and I am citing works which can help you. But I don’t believe you want a friendly conversation.[/quote] :loco:
[quote]He was a prominent atheist.[/quote]Ah. So he’s not an atheist any more, right? 
[quote]You haven’t provided any. You’ve simply quoted the English text and claimed it means X. That’s it.[/quote]Well, the great thing about words is, they have meaning. So you don’t have to rely on what I say about them. You can study them for yourself.
[quote]Again, you are simply quoting the English text and claiming it means X.[/quote]Those things do plainly mean those things.
[quote]You are not even addressing the English text which indicates survivors[/quote]We’ve already settled that.
[quote]still less the Hebrew[/quote]Neither of us speaks Hebrew.
[quote]still less the established scholarship.[/quote]The established scholarship is on my side. The flood was global.
[quote]Yes, the Mesopotamian mega-flood of around 2,900 BCE, which left physical evidence and which is attested in the Sumerian King List, the Atrahasis Epic, and the Enuma Elish. I have cited scholarship on this previously in this thread; clearly you didn’t read it.[/quote]Clearly.
So … this megaflood. How was it different to the one in America?
[quote=“Stripe”]The hills local to the Mespotamian flood plain.[/quote]Really? And it managed this, how?
[quote]They didn’t. Plenty of birds outside the Ark survived perfectly well on their own.[/quote]Unfortunately the bible says birds were taken aboard in order to preserve their kinds.
[quote][quote]Why did Noah spend hundreds of years preaching and building an ark instead of relocating?[/quote]He didn’t.[/quote]Sorry, bible says otherwise.
[quote][quote]Why can there never be another flood like it?[/quote]There have been many floods like it.[/quote]So, God lied?
[quote][quote]What were the “fountains of the great deep”?[/quote]Underground water.[/quote]Yeah, no kidding.
[quote][quote]How did it rain for so long?[/quote]A stalled frontal system caused by a cyclonic storm event, of the kind which caused nearly two months of rain in the Northern Jordan Valley in 1969.[1][/quote]So, what was that just a coincidence or something?
[quote][quote]How was the ark deposited on a mountain?[/quote]It wasn’t.[/quote]Sorry, bible says otherwise.