I’m not interested in your opinion of scholarly commentary.
I have told you already; neither Noah nor his family were of the Nephilm, the genealogies identify them as the descendants of Seth.
And that makes them not Neph, how exactly?
And that makes them not Neph, how exactly?[/quote]
You cannot possibly be serious. This is a blatant trolling question. If you really don’t know then look it up, I’m sorry I do not have the time or inclination for discussions with Fundamentalists.
OK, bye. 
Again.
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).
[/quote]
You SAY that, but do not show how. You can keep saying it without providing proof. Please, do show me what context I have ignored. In terms of the nefilim, that is a separate issue and I already promised to deal with it.
I actually disagree 100000% here. If you take the time get your translation perfect, you can keep the syntax and grammar…it just takes longer.
We are not talking say, Chinese-English, where, especially classical Chinese you often have to flip the sentence around, but Hebrew->English which, if done well, its syntax can be kept in tact. Fox does it. Take some time, compare a few paragraphs of a text of his translation with some others, you’ll see the word order and syntax in his will often differ greatly: because he is way awesomer.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
Again, you need to actually SHOW where I did this, not just keep saying it.
You should look her up if you are that interested in all this strange religious stuff, which you seem to be. And all cool stuff matters.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
Nope, you’re not getting it…
When “all the heavens” is modified by another phrase which limits its coordinates, it does not necessarily refer to something global.
However, when it is NOT modified, and it that phrase IS the spatial coordinates…well that IS necessarily universal. Think about in in English:
“All the mountains under the heavens are big”
vs
“In Texas blah blah blah all the mountains in the heavens are big”
they izzz different yo, its pretty simple.
[quote]
I can quote them directly from the Soncino edition or the Neusner edition, which would you prefer?[/quote]
I appreciate the offer, but no need! I will just go straight to the texts, in their original languages.
Woops! typo, my bad. Sorry.
naw, you brought good kosher references :roflmao:
[quote]
[1] 'Debates over whether the flood reached as high as the garden of Eden are found in rabbinic literature:
Gen. R. 33.6[/quote]
מהיכן הביאה אותו רבי אבא בר כהנא אמר משבשושין שבא"י הביאה אותו רבי לוי אמר מהר המשחה הביאה אותו דלא טפת ארעא דישראל במבולא והוא שהקדוש ברוך הוא אומר ליחזקאל (יחזקאל כב, כד): “ארץ לא מטוהרה היא ולא גושמה ביום זעם” רב ביבי אמר נפתחו לה שערי גן עדן והביאה אותו א"ר אבהו אילו מג"ע הביאה אותו לא היתה מביאה דבר מעולה או קנמון או פלסמן אלא רמז רמזה לו אמרה לו לנח מוטב מר מזה ולא מתוק מתחת ידיך.
Yes, both the fact whether Israel or the Garden of Eden were covered by the flood are brought into question here.
But, the face value interpretation of this interpretation is that those 2 places specifically were not covered by the flood (by the time this was written, the authors already had no idea where the garden of eden was).
So essentially, this would be “the exception that proves the rule”. They would not need to specify these TWO places (out of a gazillion other places) as being special for not having been covered by the flood. This is not a good example of the flood not having been considered to be global by the rabbis, but actually shows they DID see it as global.
It would be like saying “there are two kinds of pizza I do not like, mushroom and squid” um, if there was only ONE kind of pizza I liked (similar to a LOCAL flood) then why would I specify two I do not like? Thats pretty in your face simple Fort.
SLIGHTLY different text, but pretty much the same.
I must apologize; it is after midnight and I have to finish translating a page (in Chinese) tonight, so I will address these others tomorrow (if you want). And going from English to Hebrew to Aramaic to Chinese is hurting my head a bit (Chinese, imho, makes Aramaic look like Spanish honestly).
But from what your footnotes said, the only 2 places specified that were not covered by the flood were Israel and the Garden of Eden (the 2nd being a place they actually had to clue as to its whereabouts by Talmudic times).
EVEN if you believe the flood was local, and EVEN if you think somehow, the biblical text taken at face value states it was local, I do not think, any human being could think these references allude to the flood being local.
If these rabbis believed the flood was local:
-
Why would they NEED to specify these 2 places were not covered? (if it was local, only where Noah was, then OF COURSE these two places were not covered! there would be no need to say that! let alone bring a prooftext from Ezekiel 22:24 (highlighted above for you, thats where the rabbi gets his prooftext for it not having covered Israel) if the flood were local! There would simply be no need for this entire passage to be written, let alone a prooftext to be brought (we bring prooftexts, to well, prove something that NEEDS proving).
-
Two particular places would not be singled out as having escaped the flood were it local, why not specify more, like Egypt, Syria, the land of the WhoeverITES or what have you? That simply makes no sense (think of the pizza).
Fort, we may disagree about the biblical text and we may even have been rude to each other during this thread…but you really must admit that these sources do not make it seem like the flood was local (for the above reasons).
I will be happy to go through the other references you provided, and I appreciate your clear citations. I would be interested to see IF there are any rabbinic interpretations that say the flood was local (you got me curious), but the above mentioned ones…simply do not. If you have any others please send them my way too if you would like.
[quote]
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[/quote]
Thankfully there’s no nonsense in the Good Book regarding meekness or humility or the post count here would plummet. Which translation of the Bible are you guys using for your literal interpretations? Just so we’re all singing from the same hymn sheet.
How many times do I have to say it? 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).
There is no such thing as a perfect translation, and there is no necessity to bend the language in contrived ways to keep the syntax and grammar. It’s an artificial constraint which makes certain of Fox’s renderings incomprehensible to the English reader. Ask a standard English reader what a ‘slaughter-site’ is, and they won’t say ‘It’s a place where ritual offerings of animals were made’, they’ll think of something like an abattoir, thus being completely misled by the translation.
[quote]When “all the heavens” is modified by another phrase which limits its coordinates, it does not necessarily refer to something global.
However, when it is NOT modified, and it that phrase IS the spatial coordinates…well that IS necessarily universal.[/quote]
As I have pointed out twice, you are making this up. You are saying that it is universal only if modified by specific ‘spatial coordinates’. That simply isn’t true.
[quote]Think about in in English:
“All the mountains under the heavens are big”
vs
“In Texas blah blah blah all the mountains in the heavens are big”[/quote]
As in English, there are ways of modifying ‘all the mountains under heaven’ which do not involve ‘spatial coordinates’.
[quote]Yes, both the fact whether Israel or the Garden of Eden were covered by the flood are brought into question here.
But, the face value interpretation of this interpretation is that those 2 places specifically were not covered by the flood (by the time this was written, the authors already had no idea where the garden of eden was).
So essentially, this would be “the exception that proves the rule”. They would not need to specify these TWO places (out of a gazillion other places) as being special for not having been covered by the flood. This is not a good example of the flood not having been considered to be global by the rabbis, but actually shows they DID see it as global.[/quote]
If the flood didn’t cover those areas, then it wasn’t global. That’s the point. It doesn’t matter that they clearly thought everywhere else was covered, what matters is they clearly didn’t think that Eden and Israel were included in the flood.
I am not saying they believed it was local in the sense of being confined to a particular area, I am saying they didn’t believe it was universal. Call it ‘non-global’ if you wish. The point remains the same; they didn’t read the text as referring to flood covering every single area of the earth. The scholarship I quoted (and I can quote others saying the same), makes this clear. It’s like the reference to Og in Genesis Rabbah; he is represented as a survivor of the flood who wasn’t in the Ark, an interpretation which was arrived at as a result of identifying Og as a descendant of the pre-flood rephaim. Complicated explanations were then contrived to explain how Og survived the flood.
2 Peter 3
God’s Promise Is Not Slack
3 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Looks like we know where Forty stands. 
Really? Craig spouts some real empty circuituous fluff. yes, he throws some nice sound words like “teleological argument” and other categories, but it really is insubstantial. teleology argument in biology, he runs up against some a priori problems, namely, causality and intent.
Just watch his debates against Hitchens - the guy has no point. just filler.
his cosmological argument is just not based on facts. his moral argument isn’t logical.
in the end, of course, he cannot argue faith based on evidence.
[quote=“zender”]Uro, Uro, Uro, 
You just don’t understand. :loco: Your science forgets that with God, all things are possible[/quote]
yes, so laws of physics may be suspended. Time may move backward. Pigs can fly. Where are these miracles in the present-day? Why did they all happen long time ago. Your statement conveniently sidesteps everything with a magic wand.
Fine, now show us the magic wand.
/facepalm
Really? Craig spouts some real empty circuituous fluff. yes, he throws some nice sound words like “teleological argument” and other categories, but it really is insubstantial. teleology argument in biology, he runs up against some a priori problems, namely, causality and intent.
Just watch his debates against Hitchens - the guy has no point. just filler.[/quote]
William Lane Craig is right up there in the pantheon of the smarmiest, most dishonest apologists of modern times, though he’s still bested (“worsted”?) in smarminess and dishonesty by presuppositionalists like Sye Ten Bruggencate.
Really? Craig spouts some real empty circuituous fluff. yes, he throws some nice sound words like “teleological argument” and other categories, but it really is insubstantial. teleology argument in biology, he runs up against some a priori problems, namely, causality and intent.
Just watch his debates against Hitchens - the guy has no point. just filler.
his cosmological argument is just not based on facts. his moral argument isn’t logical.
in the end, of course, he cannot argue faith based on evidence.[/quote]
I’m an atheist. I’m not convinced when I hear William Lane Craig, but I’ll bet most of the Evangelicals at Biola loved his every word. Craig is a very polished debater. He’s been doing exactly this for decades. When I hear the arguments about “something from nothing” “fine tuning” or the “watchmaker” argument, I cringe a bit, but believers eat that up. I’m sure Christians cringed whenever they heard Hitchens. It’s never comfortable hearing the opposing side well presented.
If 50 atheists and 50 evangelicals, listen to the same debate, I’m guessing about 50 would claim each won. A couple might give points to the other side based on the number of references cited or the ability to stick to the topic and refute arguments. This might win a debate, but it doesn’t mean the debater is on the right side. It’s much like in a political debate, where it’s all so scripted, and everyone thinks their candidate did so much better.
I’m guessing most adults have made up their minds on most of life’s big questions. Then they spend the rest of their time looking for reinforcement, or they consider the question settled and ignore the topic.
It would take so little effort on God’s part to convince us all. A few miracles for the 21st Century would be great, but that’s apparently not the way He works. Maybe He really does help Jeremy Lin succeed at basketball, and He helps Rusty Kuntz hit home runs. 
It’s a different kind of cringing, though. Christians are probably cringing at their cherished beliefs being bashed and their god being mocked. Atheists are cringing that those oft-debunked fallacious arguments are being trotted out yet again (“Oh, no… not the fine-tuning argument again!”).
Hitchens was an asshat whom Paine would have dismissed as a big girl’s blouse.
[quote=“zender”]
It would take so little effort on God’s part to convince us all. A few miracles for the 21st Century would be great, but that’s apparently not the way He works. Maybe He really does help Jeremy Lin succeed at basketball, and He helps Rusty Kuntz hit home runs. [/quote]
Yeah,and maybe he’s just a figment of some ancient [strike]schizophrenic’s[/strike] [strike]twisted genius’s[/strike] magic man’s imagination.
Well, most believers are betting that this belief is going to give them some form of life after death that nonbelievers won’t get. They think they’re going to get to see their family and friends again. They have a lot riding on this. I think this is the main reason for most religions, and I must say the idea of an afterlife is very appealing. If one of my daughters died, I’d grieve a lot less thinking that I’d see her again soon.
I’m sure some atheists are mocking religious beliefs. Others are simply saying that they are unjustified in believing when there isn’t enough good evidence for it. I think both methods can persuade people to change their beliefs, but neither will work very often.
If you belive in Santa, Uri Geller, homeopathy, or young-earth creationism, and everyone around you laughs about it, at some point you may reconsider your belief. If you have some doubts and assume all your friends are believers, and then a trusted friend calmly explains why he no longer believes, that may make you reconsider.
And I’m sure it works both ways, but in the 21st Century, we know better than ever how the world came to be and works. Those 1st century texts seem implausible to most who have a basic understanding of science. If a 12th grader doesn’t have a better understanding of Geography, Health, Science, Math, Anatomy, and Astronomy than anyone in the 1st Century, they are not college material. I think it’s getting harder to talk someone into a religion if they weren’t raised in it, but I think the style William Lane Craig uses attracts a few converts, and keeps many of the faithful, faithful.
Here are some miracles redone as pranks on Just for Laughs. My kids like these.
To this day, I’m not sure what is the point in insisting on a young earth. why would it be important to a Christian (other than being a literalist who maybe counted up the generations of Adam to Noah, etc. to “estimate” the earth). I mean who cares? isn’t it good enough to obey the Ten Commandments per Jesus’ words? why take so much time and effort to insist on a 6k earth. will it change your belief in God?
To this day, I’m not sure what is the point in insisting on a young earth. why would it be important to a Christian (other than being a literalist who maybe counted up the generations of Adam to Noah, etc. to “estimate” the earth). I mean who cares? isn’t it good enough to obey the Ten Commandments per Jesus’ words? why take so much time and effort to insist on a 6k earth. will it change your belief in God?[/quote]
Dr. Jack,
As has actually been stated many times before, I think that, statistically, the segment of Judeo-Christian faithful who adhere to this kind of Adam and Eve Riding Stegosauruses horseshit is stupefyingly small.
Just like the members (and I do mean members) of the same group who handle snakes, burn Henry Freakin Porter books, and think that G_d and Science are on two different football teams.
They are, however
A. Loud
and
2. Perfect sensationalist fodder for cheap media exploitation.
To this day, I’m not sure what is the point in insisting on a young earth. why would it be important to a Christian (other than being a literalist who maybe counted up the generations of Adam to Noah, etc. to “estimate” the earth). I mean who cares? isn’t it good enough to obey the Ten Commandments per Jesus’ words? why take so much time and effort to insist on a 6k earth. will it change your belief in God?[/quote]
Dr. Jack,
As has actually been stated many times before, I think that, statistically, the segment of Judeo-Christian faithful who adhere to this kind of Adam and Eve Riding Stegosauruses horseshit is stupefyingly small.
Just like the members (and I do mean members) of the same group who handle snakes, burn Henry Freakin Porter books, and think that G_d and Science are on two different football teams.
They are, however
A. Loud
and
2. Perfect sensationalist fodder for cheap media exploitation.[/quote]
Chiefie,
That’s not my question. It’s irrelevant whether they are fringe for the purposes of my query. I’m just wondering why it is so important to this group of persons (however small) to hold on to this tenet.
I’m also not necessarily inclined to believe it’s small. Would like to see some numbers. But there seems to be Americans, Irish, Australians in this group.
To this day, I’m not sure what is the point in insisting on a young earth. why would it be important to a Christian (other than being a literalist who maybe counted up the generations of Adam to Noah, etc. to “estimate” the earth). I mean who cares? isn’t it good enough to obey the Ten Commandments per Jesus’ words? why take so much time and effort to insist on a 6k earth. will it change your belief in God?[/quote]
Dr. Jack,
As has actually been stated many times before, I think that, statistically, the segment of Judeo-Christian faithful who adhere to this kind of Adam and Eve Riding Stegosauruses horseshit is stupefyingly small.
Just like the members (and I do mean members) of the same group who handle snakes, burn Henry Freakin Porter books, and think that G_d and Science are on two different football teams.
They are, however
A. Loud
and
2. Perfect sensationalist fodder for cheap media exploitation.[/quote]
Chiefie,
That’s not my question. It’s irrelevant whether they are fringe for the purposes of my query. I’m just wondering why it is so important to this group of persons (however small) to hold on to this tenet.
I’m also not necessarily inclined to believe it’s small. Would like to see some numbers. But there seems to be Americans, Irish, Australians in this group.[/quote]
Hmm, interesting.
As far as the numbers go, don’t forget, there are pretty much accepted to be 2.2 billion Christians in the world. Never even mind The Chosen and the Muslims. If they were all [strike]whacked out fruitcakes[/strike] Young Earthers, you probably wouldn’t even have science departments in Universities, and there certainly wouldn’t be any government funding for scientific research as we know it.
As to the why?
Son, beats the crap out of me.
I can’t even figure out why people eat MCDonald’s. 