The Genesis flood narrative; the one we’ve all been talking about all along. The rest of your post looked like it was written by fred smith.
In Genesis 7:4 (which you quoted), we see פן ה אדמה, ‘face of the earth’. In Ezekiel 39:20 (which I quoted), we see פן ה אדמה, ‘face of the earth’. Can you explain to me why you think these aren’t the same Hebrew words in both verses?[/quote]
Perhaps you did not notice “face of the earth” was not the entire phrase I highlighted:
[quote=“Confuzius”]
Genesis ch. 7
ד כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה, אָנֹכִי מַמְטִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם, וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה; וּמָחִיתִי, אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי, מֵעַל, פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.'[/quote]
“every living substance that I have made” אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִ
It is different, your verse was not as inclusive as this.
[quote]
Where did you address it?[/quote]
stuff up there, down here, cosmology, etc…
[quote]
No that’s not how it works. You have to address all the evidence contrary to your view: the ANE milieu, the Nephilim, and the phrases indicating a cosmological rather than a geographical referent for the flood. You haven’t addressed any of this. There are three lines of evidence contradicting your interpretation of certain phrases as having a geographically global referent. This means you have to address all three in order to sustain your argument that these other phrases have a geographically global referent. You can’t claim that your points are legitimate unless falsified, you have to actually take the time to verify them.[/quote]
You’re right! Thats not how it works, you have to, um, how did you say? “address all the evidence contrary to your view”. Once you are done doing so with the verses I provided which your brushed under the rug, I will in turn. Take your own advice dude. But we got off track with your sidestepping my challenge. One thing at a time. When we finish this, we can talk ALL about the nefilim you want.
[quote]
But you’re using the same Fundamentalist arguments, supporting the same fringe Christian beliefs, and claiming like Fundamentalists that your arguments are legitimate until falsified. Why? Now let’s look at your verses.[/quote]
Whether some fundies do some of what I am doing is of no concern to me. If you have not noticed, I am STICKING TO THE TEXT. This entire time I have been arguing about the plain meaning of the received text. If fundies stick to something like this, fine for them!
And my arguments are legitimate…this is why I bring prooftexts. But yes, please, lets continue.
[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“Confuzius”]
Gensis ch. 6:
יז וַאֲנִי, הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת-הַמַּבּוּל מַיִם עַל-הָאָרֶץ, לְשַׁחֵת כָּל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם: כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-בָּאָרֶץ, יִגְוָע. 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.[/quote]
I see you didn’t highlight ‘upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life’, or ‘everything that is in the earth’, indicating that you don’t believe these to be unambiguously global in their referent, which is good. If that’s the case, then there’s no point in highlighting ‘from under heaven’, the meaning of which is qualified by context. But let’s look at where else this is used.
Deuteronomy 2:
24 Get up, make your way across Wadi Arnon. Look! I have already delivered over to you Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land. Go ahead! Take it! Engage him in war!
25 This very day I will begin to fill all the people under heaven [כָּל-הַשָּׁמָיִם] with dread and to terrify them when they hear about you. They will shiver and shake in anticipation of your approach.
So ‘all the people under heaven’ here means all the nations in the land of Canaan, not ‘all the people on the planet’.[/quote]
The translation you quote is a bit off and because of this, you included it as a (faulty) prooftext. Explanation:
כה הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, אָחֵל תֵּת פַּחְדְּךָ וְיִרְאָתְךָ, עַל-פְּנֵי הָעַמִּים,
תַּחַת כָּל-הַשָּׁמָיִם–אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן שִׁמְעֲךָ,
וְרָגְזוּ וְחָלוּ מִפָּנֶיךָ. 25
I have highlighted what your translation rendered as “under heaven [כָּל-הַשָּׁמָיִם] with dread and to terrify them when they hear about you”.
The exact translation actually is (and I am doing it phrase by phrase so you can check me if you want):
עַל-פְּנֵי הָעַמִּים on the face of the nations
תַּחַת כָּל-הַשָּׁמָיִם under all the heavens
אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן שִׁמְעֲךָ that hear of you
So, “all the nations under heaven THAT hear about you” qualifier. Every nation that hears about Israel, will be filled with dread. Every single one in the entire world.
Or, even if we go with your quoted translation, are more interpretive and translate אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן שִׁמְעֲךָ as “WHEN they hear about you” this is still a qualified statement.
There is no qualifier in the verse I quoted.
If I was to say “Everyone in the world believes in Jesus” is not the same as saying “Everyone who encounters Jesus loves him”. With the first, both those who encounter him and do not love him, the second, only those who encounter him. My verse is more inclusive with “everyone in the world” and yours is less inclusive with “everyone in the world WHO ENCOUNTERS”. These are different; the former is more conclusive as it is not modified, the second is automatically modified by the אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן שִׁמְעֲךָ
Next…
[quote]Genesis ch. 7
ד כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה, אָנֹכִי מַמְטִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם, וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה; וּמָחִיתִי, אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי, מֵעַל, פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.'[/quote]
What I am doing is reading the verses carefully, which you do not.
Yeas, the word כל “every/all” is in there, but not every LIVING SUBSTANCE. You are not reading carefully and picking which words to focus on. I am focusing on all of them.
[quote]
Same phrase used in Deuteronomy 2:24 to refer to the people of Canaan.[/quote]
Which as shown, its scope has already been limited by other words. In my verse, there are no words to limit the scope.
Next?
I watched Evan Almighty tonight. It explains everything.
For another back-slidden atheist?
Naw. 
[/quote]
The glasses icon stands for “cool.”
It is definitely not “cool” to dismiss Christopher Hitchens. The man was a narcissist extraordinaire true, but probably better informed on a range of issues (especially religious issues) than almost anyone you will ever come across.
Are we to take it that have you disrespect atheists generally, or did you simply confuse a cool icon for a wink icon?
Anyway, here’s Sam Harris, you’ve likely never heard of him either…
Yes I did notice. It was still worth pointing out because it’s yet another phrase used in the description of the flood which is clearly used with a non-universal referent elsewhere.
Since when was ‘every’ more inclusive than ‘every’?
I haven’t seen anything you wrote which I didn’t reply to.
There’s nothing I haven’t already addressed. You’re pointing to words and phrases which could have a universal or non-universal referent, and simply claiming they have a universal referent. I am pointing out that the context indicates they don’t have a universal referent. You aren’t addressing any of that context.
You’re not actually ‘sticking to the text’. You’re just quoting it and saying ‘It means X’, without providing any evidence for your claims. That’s exactly what Fundamentalists do.
I’m sorry I’m going with the professional translators on this one. The part you didn’t quote was ‘they will shiver and shake in anticipation of your approach’. That qualifies precisely which people are hearing of Israel, and shivering and shaking; the people Israel is approaching, the people living in Canaan.
So what? You have to provide evidence that this means כל ‘every/all’ has the meaning you ascribe to it. So once again we have nothing more than your opinion, we have translators and scholars lined up in contradiction, and we have you cutting out a bit of a verse which is inconvenient to your argument. It’s not getting any better, is it? Until you have something more reputable in the way of argument, there’s nothing more to say here.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
There’s nothing I haven’t already addressed. You’re pointing to words and phrases which could have a universal or non-universal referent, and simply claiming they have a universal referent. I am pointing out that the context indicates they don’t have a universal referent. You aren’t addressing any of that context.
You’re not actually ‘sticking to the text’. You’re just quoting it and saying ‘It means X’, without providing any evidence for your claims. That’s exactly what Fundamentalists do.[/quote]
No, I am sticking to the text. Not ONE SINGLE PLACE have you shown my translation to be faulty. I even break up the words for you to use google translate or even bible works ifya need. If you are unable to verify what I say thats due to your own ignorance, do not blame me for not holding your hand all the way through the process (even though breaking up each verse, with the words, quoting chapter and verse, for you to verify, is kinda hand holding…you’re welcome).
[quote]
I’m sorry I’m going with the professional translators on this one. [/quote]
Well, that would be me. Don’t make assumptions on who you are talking to.
In verses 24-25 there is no word “in anticipation of your approach” I GUESS (since I am not sure how to translate: poor english translation->original Hebrew" you mean these words “וְרָגְזוּ וְחָלוּ מִפָּנֶיךָ” which means (loosely) “and will feel anguish from your face (presence)”. Those words are irrelevent…but ACTUALLY, prove my point even more:
The verse has spatial specifications, the verses from the flood do not.
If you actually want to win this argument, you need to do one of two things (I am helping you out here sir, since you seem to need it):
- Prove there is spatial specification within the verses I quoted from the flood.
or - Find verses with almost identical language WITHOUT spatial specifications.
Its really that simple. If you cannot do it, it simply means you are absolutely wrong.
[quote=“urodacus”]True, but that’s only if all the land is flat.[/quote]Struggling with the highly technical term “average” aren’t you? 
But you seem to have conceded the point. There is in fact enough water to flood the Earth. We just need the valleys to go up a bit and the mountains to go down a bit. Right? 
Chapter and verse, please. 
What narrative shows none of the eight people on the ark could have been Nephilim?
[quote=“Stripe”][quote=“urodacus”]True, but that’s only if all the land is flat.[/quote]Struggling with the highly technical term “average” aren’t you?
But you seem to have conceded the point. There is in fact enough water to flood the Earth. We just need the valleys to go up a bit and the mountains to go down a bit. Right? [/quote]
but they didn’t. Right?
or are you claiming that there was also a major shift in land height, of the order of several kilometers?
Which never happened, BTW. If it had, for one thing, the flood would not be remembered as the Flood but as the Ginormous Seismic Disaster: weeks of shaking and earthquake and volcanoes and that sort of crazy shit. No record of that, either in your Bible or in the geological record.
Oh, I forgot. God did it, same as God made the dinosaurs bones appear to be in age-correct strata even though the earth is only 3,600 years old. He’s one smart cookie.
Your turn to concede.
Uro, Uro, Uro, 
You just don’t understand. :loco: Your science forgets that with God, all things are possible. 
So while you’re calculating the volume of water required to make the earth a sphere 15 cubits higher than Mount Everest WAS at the time of this flood, and you’re squeezing your slide rule for how many meters of rain per hour were required to reach this height, you are forgetting that the geology of the earth did change during the flood when God opened up the massive undersea fountains of the great deep and raised the water level from below.
Your beloved science just doesn’t work when God is in the equation. :neutral:
[quote=“urodacus”]or are you claiming that there was also a major shift in land height, of the order of several kilometers?[/quote]Not me. I’m just sharing what I read elsewhere. 
[quote]Which never happened, BTW. If it had, for one thing, the flood would not be remembered as the Flood but as the Ginormous Seismic Disaster: weeks of shaking and earthquake and volcanoes.[/quote]You’re an evolutionist, right? This is called an argument from consequence. Evos have a natural affinity with them.
[quote]No record of that, either in your Bible or in the geological record. [/quote]Shows how little you know of either. 
You answer my post with a reference to a creationist paper.
Nice one! Now i really AM convinced. You have totally swayed me, and henceforth I shall renounce my evil ways and walk in the Light of the Lord . I TOTALLY LOVE my imaginary friend in the sky, with whom ALL THINGS are possible.
Sorry, I don’t know the original Hebrew for that.
I haven’t claimed it’s faulty, simply inadequate. We are not disputing the meaning of the individual words, but what they mean together in context. Your method of ignoring context when interpreting the words is not the way the text is rendered by professional translators.
Neither of us is disputing the meaning of the individual words. It’s the meaning of the words in context that we’re disputing. Your method is to split the words up, render each word according to is typical literal meaning, and ignore the context. That’s how the average Fundamentalist uses Strong’s Concordance, whilst fondly imagining they’re doing a better job than a professional translator. That’s not how professional translators work.
I’m sorry, but you’re not following standard translation methodology. You’re attempting a literal rendering of the text, which is something I could do. That’s not what professional translators do. Unless you start acting like a professional translator, I have no reason to accept your claims to be one.
Those words aren’t irrelevant at all. You and I both know that ‘from your face’ means exactly what you say it means, ‘your presence’ (the NET footnote says ‘Heb. from before you’). So those who fear are those people who are going to be in the presence of the approaching Hebrews, namely those people in Canaan. They are going to ‘feel anguish in your presence’. So it’s talking about the people who in the land of Canaan who are being approached by the Hebrews
Great, so now at least you’ve acknowledged that the phrase ‘under heaven’ on which you relied previously as referring unambiguously to a universal flood, isn’t actually unambiguous. That’s progress.
[quote]1. Prove there is spatial specification within the verses I quoted from the flood.
or
2. Find verses with almost identical language WITHOUT spatial specifications.[/quote]
I don’t need spatial qualifications. I just need other passages in the flood narrative which indicate the flood was local. I’ve already done that; the Nephilim. I have also demonstrated that you can’t read the cosmological language in the Genesis flood narrative as a geographical reference to a concept of which the Ancient Near East was completely ignorant. These are two reasons why your interpretation of the text is wrong.
You keep trying to represent this as being about me; you’re forgetting that it’s about Philo, Josephus, rabbinical expositions of the flood as local, and mainstream scholarship. Ignoring all that doesn’t help your case.
Can you show where Josephus spoke of only a local flood? Looks to me like he in no way contradicts the biblical presentation of the floo as global. Not only that, but he offers an answer to the continued existence of the Nephilim and seems utterly unconcerned that other cultures also have versions of the flood narrative:
-
NOW this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many angels (11) of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.
-
Now God loved this man for his righteousness: yet he not only condemned those other men for their wickedness, but determined to destroy the whole race of mankind, and to make another race that should be pure from wickedness; and cutting short their lives, and making their years not so many as they formerly lived, but one hundred and twenty only, (12) he turned the dry land into sea; and thus were all these men destroyed: but Noah alone was saved; for God suggested to him the following contrivance and way of escape : - That he should make an ark of four stories high, three hundred cubits (13) long, fifty cubits broad, and thirty cubits high. Accordingly he entered into that ark, and his wife, and sons, and their wives, and put into it not only other provisions, to support their wants there, but also sent in with the rest all sorts of living creatures, the male and his female, for the preservation of their kinds; and others of them by sevens. Now this ark had firm walls, and a roof, and was braced with cross beams, so that it could not be any way drowned or overborne by the violence of the water. And thus was Noah, with his family, preserved. Now he was the tenth from Adam, as being the son of Lamech, whose father was Mathusela; he was the son of Enoch, the son of Jared; and Jared was the son of Malaleel, who, with many of his sisters, were the children of Cainan, the son of Enos. Now Enos was the son of Seth, the son of Adam.
-
When God gave the signal, and it began to rain, the water poured down forty entire days, till it became fifteen cubits higher than the earth; which was the reason why there was no greater number preserved, since they had no place to fly to. When the rain ceased, the water did but just begin to abate after one hundred and fifty days, (that is, on the seventeenth day of the seventh month,) it then ceasing to subside for a little while. After this, the ark rested on the top of a certain mountain in Armenia; which, when Noah understood, he opened it; and seeing a small piece of land about it, he continued quiet, and conceived some cheerful hopes of deliverance. But a few days afterward, when the water was decreased to a greater degree, he sent out a raven, as desirous to learn whether any other part of the earth were left dry by the water, and whether he might go out of the ark with safety; but the raven, finding all the land still overflowed, returned to Noah again. And after seven days he sent out a dove, to know the state of the ground; which came back to him covered with mud, and bringing an olive branch: hereby Noah learned that the earth was become clear of the flood. So after he had staid seven more days, he sent the living creatures out of the ark; and both he and his family went out, when he also sacrificed to God, and feasted with his companions. However, the Armenians call this place, (GREEK) (16) The Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day.
-
Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: “It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs.” Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: “There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote.”
-
But as for Noah, he was afraid, since God had determined to destroy mankind, lest he should drown the earth every year; so he offered burnt-offerings, and besought God that nature might hereafter go on in its former orderly course, and that he would not bring on so great a judgment any more, by which the whole race of creatures might be in danger of destruction: but that, having now punished the wicked, he would of his goodness spare the remainder, and such as he had hitherto judged fit to be delivered from so severe a calamity; for that otherwise these last must be more miserable than the first, and that they must be condemned to a worse condition than the others, unless they be suffered to escape entirely; that is, if they be reserved for another deluge; while they must be afflicted with the terror and sight of the first deluge, and must also be destroyed by a second. He also entreated God to accept of his sacrifice, and to grant that the earth might never again undergo the like effects of 'his wrath; that men might be permitted to go on cheerfully in cultivating the same; to build cities, and live happily in them; and that they might not be deprived of any of those good things which they enjoyed before the Flood; but might attain to the like length of days, and old age, which the ancient people had arrived at before.
-source.
Where does Josephus teach about a local flood?
I haven’t claimed it’s faulty, simply inadequate. We are not disputing the meaning of the individual words, but what they mean together in context. Your method of ignoring context when interpreting the words is not the way the text is rendered by professional translators. [/quote]
I have never ignored context, show me once where I did? You keep saying this, but not showing it.
[quote]
Neither of us is disputing the meaning of the individual words. It’s the meaning of the words in context that we’re disputing. Your method is to split the words up, render each word according to is typical literal meaning, and ignore the context. That’s how the average Fundamentalist uses Strong’s Concordance, whilst fondly imagining they’re doing a better job than a professional translator. That’s not how professional translators work.[/quote]
Dont use no Strong, DBB or even Even Shoshan (Hebrew-Hebrew) I just have been looking at the text. Again, show me where I ignored context?
Actually there are many methedologies (most of which, I assume you are not so familiar with since you do not know the language) and mine most closely follows Everett Fox, maybe you have not heard of him, but his translations are closest to the original text in terms of grammar, syntax and even terminology for example: words that have similar meanings but are entirely different words, 99% of translators will either translate them the same, or if they translate them differently, will not be consistent, such as the words אדמה ארץ both of which can be translated as land or earth. Most translators, when these words appear more than once in close proximity, will not be consistent with rendering them as a specific word in English. They will also change the syntax and word order of a sentence to make it easier to understand in English (which is extremely lazy) Fox, on the other hand, is as close to the text as humanly possible.
If you do not have his translations, you should. And if you have them but do not rely on them, you should.
So actually, my methedology is extremely sound and well rooted in scholarship. My other main influence (whom you would have heard of, perhaps) is Nehama Leibowitz.
So tell me where I am ignoring context.
[quote]
Those words aren’t irrelevant at all. You and I both know that ‘from your face’ means exactly what you say it means, ‘your presence’ (the NET footnote says ‘Heb. from before you’). So those who fear are those people who are going to be in the presence of the approaching Hebrews, namely those people in Canaan. They are going to ‘feel anguish in your presence’. So it’s talking about the people who in the land of Canaan who are being approached by the Hebrews[/quote]
RIGHT! I never argued that. It actually proves my point even more: it gives spatial limitations to the “all” words. Such words are not in the Noah story, no spatial limitations. Thank you, once again, for reiterating my point (though you seem to have missed it).
[quote]
Great, so now at least you’ve acknowledged that the phrase ‘under heaven’ on which you relied previously as referring unambiguously to a universal flood, isn’t actually unambiguous. That’s progress. [/quote]
What makes the Noah “under all the heavens” unambiguous as being universal, is that “under all the heavens” IS THE SPATIAL LIMITATION given for the flood. There is no other spatial limitation given, which means it is unambiguously under ALL the heavens, ie global.
Not sure you’re making any progress, you keep misconstruing what I say and reiterating my points for me, though I am much obliged to you for the latter (I guess).
[quote]1. Prove there is spatial specification within the verses I quoted from the flood.
or
2. Find verses with almost identical language WITHOUT spatial specifications.[/quote]
Ah, so you admit you cannot find spatial limitations for the Noah verses, but can ONLY provide verses from other parts of the bible that have similar language, with spatial limitations. Its nice to see you actually admit you are wrong.
So in essence:
Noah story language leans to a global reading, ok, we’re good there.
So allya got left is the Nefilim? Thats next on the agenda, I will happily go back and address everything you posted concerning them since that is the only argument you got left.
[quote]
You keep trying to represent this as being about me; you’re forgetting that it’s about Philo, Josephus, rabbinical expositions of the flood as local, and mainstream scholarship. Ignoring all that doesn’t help your case.[/quote]
Which rabbinical expositions please? And PLEASE, when you quote, give me:
For Talmud:
Babylonian vs Jerusalem
Tractate (name of talmud volume)
Page number
Folio side (either a/b or 1/2 is how it works)
Example: Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 42b (just an example, BT works for Babylonian Talmud too).
For Midrash
Name of book (like “Bereshit Rabba”)
Chapter
Section (though sections vary, one version it may be chapter 1 section 5, and another version chapter 2 section 1, that is OK, I can figure it out if you give me a reference)
Example: Bereshit Rabba Chapter 1 section 3.
This way, I can verify whether or not text actually says what you are saying, (well, honestly, says what the person you are quoting says it is saying, will not lay the blame on you if it is incorrect).
Though I find it interesting you bring up the rabbinical tradition, since you yourself mentioned earlier on in this thread that the vast majority of rabbinical interpreters believed the flood to be local, but this is fun so lets keep playing! But if you are going to be bringing modern, apologetic interpreters (from the Reform and Conservative movements) please, PLEASE do not bother.
I forgot to mention mishnah (since mishnah is PART of the talmud, but when we say talmud we are most often referring to gemara)
For Mishnah
Tractate
Chapter
Mishnah #
Example: Mishnah Bava Metziah, Ch. 7 mishnah 12 (again, sometimes there is a bit of variation between how they are broken up depending on the version, but I can locate it if you give me whatever reference your secondary sources have listed)
When he appeals to other records of the flood which mention survivors who were not in the Ark, as you quoted here.
Note that Josephus appeals to these as accurate records of the flood, in order to substantiate its historicity. There is also the prayer of Noah as recorded by Josephus.[1] [2]
I have read this section of Josephus many times, but I do not see him making any reference to the Nephilim, only to the sons of God and the daughters of men, and to their offspring.
[1] ‘However, in the light of Noah’s remark in the prayer, I think Josephus takes it that there were more survivors of the Flood, namely, honest people besides Noah, who were also judged fit to survive.’, Jonquière, ‘Prayer in Josephus’, p. 59 (2007).
[2] ‘Similarly, Josephus tells us that Noah asks God in his prayer that the people who were rescued may found cities and build up new lives.’, p. 60.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]When he appeals to other records of the flood which mention survivors who were not in the Ark, as you quoted here.[/quote]Weak, Forty. Very weak.
Now can you tell us why there were no Nephilim on the boat?
I have told you numerous times. You ignore the socio-historical context (the ANE world had no concept of the planet as you are insisting on), and the literary context (the survival of the Nephilim).
Yes I am familiar with Everett Fox, but I don’t see you doing what Fox does. And yes I’m familiar with many translation methodologies; I have spent years on email lists where professional Bible translators discuss these issues in detail.
That’s not being extremely lazy, that’s called translation. There is no necessity to render the text as closely as possible in grammar, syntax, and style, to the source language. It doesn’t make the translation more accurate, and can make it less accurate.
No it isn’t; you’re not taking into account either the socio-historical context or the literary context. And as I keep repeating, I am not contesting your translation of the individual words, I am contesting your interpretation of them.
No I haven’t, but it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t reiterate your point, you’ve changed your argument completely. Previously you said that the phrase ‘under the heavens’ is unambiguously universal. Now you say it isn’t, and claim this supports your original argument.
You’re now making a circular argument, saying ‘under the heavens’ should be understood as universal because ‘under the heavens’ means universal. As I have already shown, and as you agreed, ‘under the heavens’ is used for the people in the land of Canaan, so the phrase ‘under the heavens’ in and of itself does not have any spatial limitation. Its meaning is determined by context.
No that is not what I am saying. I am saying, as I have always said, that the language to which you previously pointed as unambiguously universal is language you now acknowledge isn’t unambiguously universal, and I am saying, as I have always said, that there are qualifiers in the socio-historical context and literary context which indicate that they are not to be read as universal here. As I have told you repeatedly, there is no need for the ‘spatial limitations’ you require in the flood narrative, when socio-historical and literary context indicates these phrases are not to be read as universal.
See footnotes;[1] [2] [3] in these notes, PA is the Palestinian Amora, PRE is Pirke de R. Eliezer, TB is the Talmud Babylon, and R after a book name refers to a Midrash (Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, Canticles/Song of Solomon Rabbah are all cited).
I can quote them directly from the Soncino edition or the Neusner edition, which would you prefer?
No I didn’t, I said the opposite; I said that the global flood interpretation was the majority interpretation among the rabbis.
I hope this qualifier doesn’t mean that the rabbinical commentaries in the footnote I have provided are going to be classified by you as ‘modern, apologetic interpreters (from the Reform and Conservative movements)’ because they didn’t believe the entire world had been covered by the flood.
[1] ‘Debates over whether the flood reached as high as the garden of Eden are found in rabbinic literature: Gen. R. 33. 6; Lev. R. 31. 10; Cant. R. 1. 15. § 4; 4.1, § 2; cf. PRE. 23. Of the Syrian fathers, Mar Ephrem said it only reached the outer confines of Paradise; see A. Levene, op cit., p. 84.’, Lewis, ‘A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature’, p. 39 (1968).
[2] ‘Resh Lakish (PA. 2) and R. Johanan (PA. 2) differ over whether the land of Israel was included, for JR. Johanan insisted that it was not.1) R. Levi (PA. 3) agreed appealing to Ez. 22:23, "a land… not rained upon in the day of indignation."2) Some authorities insisted that the flood did not reach as high as the Garden of Eden.3)’, pp. 142-143; footnotes 1, 2, and 3 say ‘1) T.B. Zeb. 113b. 2) Gen. R. 33. 6; PRE. 23. 3) Gen. R. 33. 6; Lev. R. 31.10; Cant R. 1.15. § 4; 4.1. § 2; cf. PRE. 23 and Nachmonides, Gen. 8:11. Some Syrian fathers shared this view, among whom was Mar Ephrem who said it only reached the outer confines of Paradise.’, ibid., p. 143.
[3] ‘The source from whence the dove obtained the olive branch brought controversy. R. Abba bar Kahana (PA. 4) insisted she brought it from the young shoots of the land of Israel. R. Levi (PA. 3) contended for the Mt. of Olives which had not been submerged.’, ibid., p. 146