T
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Um, are you thinking of this as a literal thing that actually happened? I don't think that makes sense, for a number of reasons. If instead, it is a symbolic story, then this detail may be just put in to fill it out a bit.
Some of the problems with it being literal are described in the link below. Compared to those, the problems with the "one window", are not nearly as large.
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Papias
Some of the problems with it being literal are described in the link below. Compared to those, the problems with the "one window", are not nearly as large.
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Papias
Upvote
0
BeforeTheFoundation
Regular Member
I know that many people are very attached to the KJV, and I am not going to criticize that. However, it often uses language that is incredibly outdated and therefore overly difficult to understand. Try, for instance, the NIV (a version that I would rarely recomend, but here it is good)
I think that should help you clear it up. Notice the ESV:
and the NRSV:
make more sense now.
As far as the glass is concerned the simple answer is no. Clear glass is not developed until the First Century or so. While opaque glass is older, glass for a window would not have been around.
I second what Papias says about not taking this story too literally, but that does not mean that we cannot figure out what the original author had in mind.
BTF
I think that should help you clear it up. Notice the ESV:
and the NRSV:
make more sense now.
As far as the glass is concerned the simple answer is no. Clear glass is not developed until the First Century or so. While opaque glass is older, glass for a window would not have been around.
I second what Papias says about not taking this story too literally, but that does not mean that we cannot figure out what the original author had in mind.
BTF
Upvote
0
tomana wrote:
Um..... non sequiter? Jonah has nothing to do with the flood. Heck, it's not even in the same book.
Papias
P.S.
no thanks. We could get arrested for that, and besides, I hardly know you.
Um..... non sequiter? Jonah has nothing to do with the flood. Heck, it's not even in the same book.
Papias
P.S.
no thanks. We could get arrested for that, and besides, I hardly know you.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hi tomana,
While I'm no gifted man in understanding the ways that people spoke of things thousands of years ago, I do believe that God was saying that the window, or opening, was to be one cubit high.
A cubit is app. 18 inches. Literally it's supposed to be the length from a man's longest finger tip to his elbow, I believe. So, as I understand it God is saying to Noah to make an opening and to finish it, or make the top, one cubit above the beginning of the opening.
When we build an opening or doorway today you always start from the bottom, putting in the sill and then place the header beam, or finish it, at the top. You have to start at the bottom because if you don't have the lower foundation in place, then you'll just be nailing the header into thin air. It usually doesn't work very well. Last time I tried it I had a knot on my head for two weeks. LOL
God bless you,
In Christ, Ted
While I'm no gifted man in understanding the ways that people spoke of things thousands of years ago, I do believe that God was saying that the window, or opening, was to be one cubit high.
A cubit is app. 18 inches. Literally it's supposed to be the length from a man's longest finger tip to his elbow, I believe. So, as I understand it God is saying to Noah to make an opening and to finish it, or make the top, one cubit above the beginning of the opening.
When we build an opening or doorway today you always start from the bottom, putting in the sill and then place the header beam, or finish it, at the top. You have to start at the bottom because if you don't have the lower foundation in place, then you'll just be nailing the header into thin air. It usually doesn't work very well. Last time I tried it I had a knot on my head for two weeks. LOL
God bless you,
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
BeforeTheFoundation
Regular Member
Yes, really.
This is absolutely true, which is why I am not upset that you do not believe me and why I have always maintained that it is possible that I am wrong on any and all matters. Obviously I do not think this to be the case. If I believed myself to be wrong then I would change my mind.
Ok... What does this have to do with the flood?
This is better transliterated as 'dag'. The 'w' implies that there is a waw (Hebrew letter) but there is not one. It is quite likely a masculine form of the Hebrew dagah. Both always mean fish. Usually this is used in terms of food, as in the fish of the Nile that is for food, etc. The distinction in Jonah is that it is a dag gadol or a 'great/large fish'. Gadol is an incredibly common word which basically means great, large, mighty, etc. This is the only distinction that is made about the dag to separate it from any other mundane fish.
I would prefer to use my years of studying Hebrew.
Again, the Hebrew dag is not the most common word by any stretch of the imagination, but it is common enough. It is the small creature with fins that swims in the water and is edible. That is its meaning.
I would be very interested to see what scholars cite this.
But there is another word for Leviathan. If that were what was intended it would be that word that was used.
Oh, and I forgot to mention this before. Welcome to the forum.
I hate to say it but you jumped in on a very controversial topic which often gets tempers rather flared.BTF
Upvote
0
I think you might need to check the meaning of the word proof, because the meaning you attach to it makes me scared to death you'd ever be called for jury duty. In fact please recuse yourself from such a calling.
Two facts about Megalodon. They've been extinct for about 1.5 - 2 million years. Kinda makes it tough for a modern day human to have been a victim. Plus I seriously doubt anything swallowed by one survived the teeth before being sent down to the stomach. They weren't vegetarians despite the nonsense put about that all animals were vegetarians at one stage.
The Jonah swallowed by a fish is a literary construct - allegory if you will.
By the way from what I remember - the Hebrew was "dag gadol" which means literally "big fish". This is pretty clear cut.
Upvote
0
BeforeTheFoundation
Regular Member
The main reference that I used was years of studying Hebrew. I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, but a lot of this is really basic Hebrew grammar that I don't really need to 'look up'. For instance, the reason that you cannot find dag gadol in Strong's is because it is two words, not one. gadol modifies dag. dag means 'fish', gadol means 'great' or 'big'. Unlike in English the modifier, the adjective 'big' comes after the noun 'fish'.
As far as the reference text is concerned I am using the Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (that is a dictionary of two languages). This is the go-to lexicon for Biblical Hebrew.
) Once again le is a preposition, your translation says 'unto Dagon' that is a perfectly good translation of the preposition. dagon itself is a proper noun for the god of the the Philistines. It is related to dag (they both come from what we call the same root). Indeed, this makes sense as the Philistines were known as 'the sea people'. Their god is related to the word for fish, that makes sense, but it is a separate word.
I hope that this helps. I love the Hebrew language. It is the most exciting and interesting language that I have ever learned. If you have any more questions please feel free to ask, but I am heading to Israel to dig for two weeks so I won't be around for a while.
As far as the reference text is concerned I am using the Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (that is a dictionary of two languages). This is the go-to lexicon for Biblical Hebrew.
I don't know where you are getting 'dâgôn' from in Jonah 2:1. I am looking at the Hebrew right now. 'Fish' appears twice in the verse, once as dag gadol (the first time it appears when "The LORD provided a large fish") and once as hadag. The 'ha' at the beginning is the definite article ('the'). It appears in what we call construct form (basically that means it is possessive, it is "the fish's belly"). In verse 2 it appears as hadagah. The ha is once again 'the' and the ah at the end is a feminine ending (see my first post). finally in verse 11 it appears as ladag. The la at the beginning is a preposition 'to' or 'for'. In this case it is "The LORD said to the fish".
ledagon (I am not going to bother to find the correct accents sorry
) Once again le is a preposition, your translation says 'unto Dagon' that is a perfectly good translation of the preposition. dagon itself is a proper noun for the god of the the Philistines. It is related to dag (they both come from what we call the same root). Indeed, this makes sense as the Philistines were known as 'the sea people'. Their god is related to the word for fish, that makes sense, but it is a separate word.This is saying what I just said that dagon (Strong's number 1712) is a word that comes from another word dag (Strong's number 1709). That is a slight oversimplification as I don't think that dagon comes directly from dag but rather that they both come from dagah a verb that means 'multiply' or 'increase'. Either way it amounts to the same thing.
That is because Strong's gives definitions of individual words, not phrases. Strong's is a great resource, but you always have to remember that just like in English when you put two words together the meaning is different than the two words separately. dag is 'fish' gadol is 'large' or 'great'. You will not find dag gadol in Strong's because it is a complete phrase.
I hope that this helps. I love the Hebrew language. It is the most exciting and interesting language that I have ever learned. If you have any more questions please feel free to ask, but I am heading to Israel to dig for two weeks so I won't be around for a while.
Upvote
0
BeforeTheFoundation
Regular Member
tomana said:
Your judgmentalism is uncalled for and annoying.
Where did I claim this? I have not used that phrase/word/whatever you think it is because it is not something that exists. I have talked about dag and dagah. "daw-gaw" is nothing.
I don't know what your point is here. One potential problem is that the Hebrew and the English verses are different the English 1:17=the Hebrew 2:1. but the verse that talks about the LORD preparing a great fish does not say dagah I know this because I am literally looking at the Hebrew right now. It says dag which is synonymous with dagah but it is different. The one speaking of praying from the fish's belly does indeed use dagah, which is exactly what I said earlier.
You need to actually read what I wrote. I did not claim that dag gadol was the same as Dagon. In fact, if you read what I wrote I said the exact opposite.
See?
me said:
tomana said:
Look, I don't mean to be rude, but I really know Hebrew, I have studied it for years. I have two advanced degrees related to it. I am employed in a job which every day has me studying and reading Hebrew and other ancient languages so the notion of you warning people off from my post because you looked something up in Strong's Concordance and google is as offensive as someone saying that they are going to ignore a Doctor's expertise because they looked it up in a medical dictionary and now they know it just as well as the Doctor does.
This does not mean you cannot do your own studies, and it does not make me automatically correct, but at the very beginning you said that you were going to "prove to you scientifically (with physical proof) that Jonah easily was swallowed by a sea creature (the KJV translated the Hewbrew word "Dawg" as "fish), just like the bible said happened." You then started talking about Hebrew and I pointed out, using my expertise in the field, the problems with your Hebrew. I did this by actually looking at the Hebrew text and lexicons.
Again, I really do not mean to offend you, but I really know what I am talking about here and your insinuations that you can do my job just as well by using "your favorite search engine" is rather offensive to my profession.
Upvote
0
BeforeTheFoundation
Regular Member
It appears as though you edited out the 'pharisee' comment while I was writing my response. I will take this as an acknowledgement that such a comment was uncalled for.
Upvote
0
BeforeTheFoundation
Regular Member
tomana said:
Actually if you actually read the post I already answer this. I included it because you edited it after I had already begun to respond. I opened my response window in a second tab so I could look at both. I must have opened it in the window when your comment was still included. If you look at when you posted and then when I posted, you will see that this is quite feasible. See, I say as much in that post, look:
Me said:
I have been nothing but kind to you. You were the one that started with the accusations of 'being a pharisee' etc. I have been saying things like this:
me said:
When others were being too harsh, I decided that we could actually dialogue and get past the different approaches that we have.
me said:
Here I made very clear that my opinions were exactly that, opinions and they could be wrong.
me said:Oh, and I forgot to mention this before. Welcome to the forum.
Here I deliberately welcomed you to this place, extending the proverbial olive branch if you will.
me said:
Because it seemed that you might be interpreting my comments in a harsh way I deliberately tried to counteract that.
me said:
Here I tell you that I would love to help as we both journey on the path to Truth.
Here I again recognize that my opinions are only opinions.
This is a debate forum however. When you said things that I disagreed with, I made them known. I cited the reasons that I disagree and showed you that I knew what I was talking about. These things are perfectly reasonable.
tomana said:
So no, this is not the reason. I have been kind all the way through, but when you insulted me I defended myself. You specifically called my credibility into question by warning anyone that stumbled upon this thread against what I was saying, I parried that remark. And when I responded to your accusations it still had the pharisee remark in it and yes, I told you that it was uncalled for, and it was, which you have admitted. Then I even very kindly acknowledged that you admitted it and forgave you. We all make mistakes, all you have to do is search for my other posts, there have been times that I have apologized for things as well. That's fine.
I believe that the Bible also says something about judgmentalism does it not?
I don't even know what exactly we are talking about anymore. I entered this thread because you asked a question about what a verse meant. I figured because I can read the original language that I could help shed light on that. Instead you took me on a whirlwind tour about minute grammatical pieces in Jonah all in an attempt to prove that Jonah really was swallowed by a creature, a claim that I might add I never denied (though in fact I don't think that it happened).
Look, you can believe whatever you want about what the dag gadol 'really' was, my only point is this: The Hebrew there is very simply, it means 'great fish'. That is my territory, I am a linguist with a specialty in Hebrew. I read it every day at work, I have studied it for years. The phrase means 'great fish'. That has been my entire point. Instead of listening to that, however, you decided to ignore everything that I said and return kindness with accusation, even in your last post the only thing you had to say was that you assumed that my motives were impure.
BTF
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
