Noah-Lots of Water in the Oceans and Subterranean Oceans

[The Barbarian]

Okay, you win...

Why not just accept that God has it right?

Strange though that there's no room in your dictionary for multiple usages of the word erets when most words in any other dictionary have multiple uses...

Erets, for example, can mean "my land", "this particular nation (erets Israel)", "hereabouts", "far as the eye can see", etc. "Tebel", on the other hand, means "whole world." Why not just accept it the way God said it?

Still, you insist on one and only one.

Why go to all sorts of contortions to make it a particular way, when if God meant the world, He would have said "world?"

 

[The Barbarian]

We don't have any physical evidence that Christ rose from the grave. We only have witnesses who are long gone.

It is written in God's word. While the miraculous chemical reactions you suppose are not. And that matters.

It is rather ironic that you're the one telling me to have some faith in God, while at the same time you deny the power of God to create the world in six days or cause a world wide flood.

God has the power to do whatever He wishes. He is not, however, obligated to meet your expectations by doing whatever you wish He had.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 Everything wiped-out “under heaven.”
No not everything under heaven it was just everything in A local area.

"Under Heaven" assumes a flat Earth. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not a Bible scholar but I have done some reading. As far as the manuscripts that have been found, there are three, the Masoretic text, the Syriac text, and the Aramaic text which only contains a portion of the scriptures. The Masoretic text is one of the most reliable and complete text. It is based upon the Hebrew and Aramaic writings. The Septuagint is not a manuscript. Rather it is a Greek translation from the Masoretic text. If there are differences in the Septuagint with the Masoretic text, then scholars often go back to the original source of the Masoretic text.

If you want to know which one is right between the Masoretic, Syriac or Aramaic text, then most scholars take the oldest text (the Masoretic) as the most reliable. This is NOT to say that the Syriac or Aramaic text are corrupt. Rather there is surprisingly little disagreement between the different text and certainly no issues that affects key doctrines. In fact, there are thousands and thousands of pages that have been preserved for us with little or no differences of these versions. The few variances that do crop up in and between the texts generally are scribal errors in numbers or where a change might have occurred from an earlier manuscript to a newer one. Where verses are not in older manuscripts but in more recent manuscripts (such as at the end of Mark or the woman caught in adultery), these are often included in modern translations but with a footnote that they are not in the earlier copies of the manuscripts.

Here is an excellent video on the Bible: Fragments of Truth (

).

The LXX is not a translation of the masoritic text. However, I do appreciate the logos Bible software video.

The Septuagint (LXX) was not translated from the Masoretic Text. The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, while the Masoretic Text was compiled and standardized by Jewish scholars, the Masoretes, between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. The LXX was based on older Hebrew texts that predate the Masoretic Text, and there are differences between the two. Some of these differences are due to variations in the underlying Hebrew manuscripts available at the time of the Septuagint translation.

 

[Jipsah]

Why go to all sorts of contortions to make it a particular way, when if God meant the world, He would have said "world?"

That's why I've come to believe that "but in the Greek, it says..." is simply a tacit admission from the person who says it that they haven't clue one about what they're talking about.

 

[Job 33:6]

View attachment 351751​

 

[Job 33:6]

"Under Heaven" assumes a flat Earth. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

Here's a good one:

Daniel 4:20 ESV
[20] The tree you saw, which grew and became strong, so that its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth

The Bible can't state it more clearly. Some people have a problem with what the Bible says.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's why I've come to believe that "but in the Greek, it says..." is simply a tacit admission from the person who says it that they haven't clue one about what they're talking about.

In the Koine Greek used in the NT, it says that Caesar conducted a census of the world. "κόσμος" meant the known world, not the entire Earth.

 

[The Barbarian]

Either that or there have been a lot of floods in the world. One of those.

This is not what the Bible says ..........

Trust me on this; there have been a lot of floods in the world.

 

[Jipsah]

In the Koine Greek used in the NT, it says that Caesar conducted a census of the world. "κόσμος" meant the known world, not the entire Earth.

Yeah, I knda inferred that. Didn't consider that the original translators might have missed one there, but got gist of it in any case.

 

[Jipsah]

Some people have a problem with what the Bible says.

I'm sure not gonna navigate by it. But then I've already been chided for my failure to believe that everything one needs to know about electronics can be found in holy writ as well.

 

[David Lamb]

That's why I've come to believe that "but in the Greek, it says..." is simply a tacit admission from the person who says it that they haven't clue one about what they're talking about.

Why should you think that must be the case? Granted, some people may use "but in the Greek, it says..." as a mask to hide the fact that they don't understand the bible, but surely, as the song says, "that ain't necessarily so." There surely can be people who genuinely mean what they say/write about what the Greek says.

 

[Job 33:6]

Another interesting thing about the ark. It was made of bitumen covered papyrus reeds.

Make for yourself an ark of gopher or gupru wood (Akkadian word for shepherds huts); you must make the ark with qinnim or qannuu. qanum strongs 7070 for reeds: see exodus 25:32, then you must cover it with koper or kupru (Akkadian word for pitch or bitumen), inside and outside.
Genesis 6:14

But when she could no longer hide him, she got a papyrus [reeds] ark for him, and she coated it with tar and with pitch [bitumen], and she placed the boy in it, and she placed it among the reeds on the bank of the Nile.
Exodus 2:3

strongs concordance:
make
for yourself
an ark - tabat (same word used in Exodus 2:3 for Moses' "ark")
of wood - a se
shepherds huts, reed hut or tables - goper (loan word)
reeds - qinnim or qanum (loan word)
make
in
the ark
and cover
it
inside
and outside
with pitch - koper (loan word)

Collectively:
make for yourself an ark of wood/stalks of shepherds huts of reeds and cover it inside and out with bitumin.

A loan word is a word thats taken and naturalized. Like kindergarten is actually german, or cafe which means coffee in french.

Koper is a loan word from the akkadian kupru which means pitch or bitumen.
Goper is suspected to be a loan word from akkadian gupru which is debated as table or shepherds hut.
Qinnim in some translations is qanim or qanum which means reed. Qanim is loan word from akkadian meaning reed.

In short, Noah's ark was made of similar materials and in a similar fashion to the ark in which Baby Moses was placed in the Nile.

Support for this position comes from the mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh where the ark was constructed with materials/reeds from deconstructed huts, and coated in bitumen.

 

[Diamond72]

world wide flood.

The world wide flood took place at the time of Pangea. There have actually been six extinctions in the history of this planet. If people would study their Biology book Eden was a world onto itself. They call this a biodiverse Eco system. Noah saved all of Eden on the ARK. The whole eco system.

 

[HarleyER]

If the Creator made the world to function according to physical laws that came from him (not scientists) then what sense does it make for God to have to break his own laws to accomplish his purposes?

Thank you for your comment.

It isn't ignorance that I'm speaking from. I find most Christians have absolutely such little faith in God and much faith in the world around them.

The Scriptures are filled with examples of God function outside the physical laws, giving new eyes, floating ax handles, feeding over a million people for over forty years in the wilderness, raising from the death, on and on.

God is not bound to "physical laws" nor what scientists tells Him (and us). He proved this over and over. Some just don't want to believe it looking for worldly rational explanations.

And I don't need to know Greek to understand that.

 

[HarleyER]

It is written in God's word. While the miraculous chemical reactions you suppose are not. And that matters.

Not everything is written in God's word. What matters is people speculating either one way or another. I'm just say there are alternatives.

God has the power to do whatever He wishes. He is not, however, obligated to meet your expectations by doing whatever you wish He had.

I suppose that comment works two ways.

 

[HarleyER]

The LXX is not a translation of the masoritic text. However, I do appreciate the logos Bible software video.

The Septuagint (LXX) was not translated from the Masoretic Text. The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, while the Masoretic Text was compiled and standardized by Jewish scholars, the Masoretes, between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. The LXX was based on older Hebrew texts that predate the Masoretic Text, and there are differences between the two. Some of these differences are due to variations in the underlying Hebrew manuscripts available at the time of the Septuagint translation.

Thanks for the information. I'll have to look into a bit more as it is confusing in my mind. For example, this raises an issue in my mind as to how is the Masoretic Text different from the older Hebrew text the Septuagint was translated from? Certainly, I can't imagine there being much difference in the text if for no other reason than the Jews were very meticulous when copying scrolls.

A friend of my holds a doctorate in textual criticism and has written extensively on various textual documents. I'll have to talk to him to see if he can shed some light on this.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not everything is written in God's word.

A lot of things people just make up, isn't written in God's word.

What matters is people speculating either one way or another. I'm just say there are alternatives.

Speculation is free and responsible, so long as one doesn't present it as evidence or proof.

God has the power to do whatever He wishes. He is not, however, obligated to meet your expectations by doing whatever you wish He had.

I suppose that comment works two ways.

Right. Comes down to evidence, in the absence of any scriptural statement.

Unless, as you say, it's presented as mere speculation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks for the information. I'll have to look into a bit more as it is confusing in my mind. For example, this raises an issue in my mind as to how is the Masoretic Text different from the older Hebrew text the Septuagint was translated from? Certainly, I can't imagine there being much difference in the text if for no other reason than the Jews were very meticulous when copying scrolls.

A friend of my holds a doctorate in textual criticism and has written extensively on various textual documents. I'll have to talk to him to see if he can shed some light on this.

I'll see if I can find some resources on this. My impression is that, essentially, the further back in time you go, the more you find that much like today, even in deeper history, there have historically been multiple "Bibles" rather than just 1 Bible. Or similar to how we have different translations, there are different traditions. But sometimes they say different things.

Sometimes the LXX might have a verse that the MT does not, or vise versa. Sometimes they have a different number of verses. Or sometimes, different sources might say different things. Like in the above video.

Dr Heiser has a lot of good articles and content on this subject.

 

[Diamond72]

God function outside the physical laws, giving new eyes,

The point is that God restores the eyes to His plan and purpose. People are blind in a spiritual sense and that becomes manifest in the physical world. To accuse God goes back to Joseph Smith and Calvin. They say God wanted Adam and Eve to sin. They say it was God's plan for them to sin and that is not true.

To say God would cause someone to be broken or blind is simply NOT true. God wants to restore us. Jesus came to fix what was broken. Ezekiel 34 16 “I will seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away, bind up the broken and strengthen what was sick; but I will destroy the fat and the strong, and feed them in judgment.”

God wants us to turn away from our sin and live right before Him.

I had a good friend once that was blind. To suggest that God caused him to be blind is crazy.