Regional Flood, or Global? Let's look at the Scripture

[nephilimiyr]

But before you can move forward with a presentation of your concepts regarding the Nephilim, you must establish the "generations" issue. What is the Hebrew word being used there? I have not yet had a chance to look it up, but that is where you MUST start. If it turns out that the word used is actually just a reference to "among his contemporaries" then the underpinning of your theory comes down. My Biblesoft software is not working, so I will have to actually track down my Strong's in book form, but I would suggest you check that out to.

The fact that the genealogy was presented just prior would be an interesting support if the word or phrase you are relying on actually means his "lineage", but means nothing at all towards your theory if it means something else.

What the phrase is talking about is the genetic make up of Noah himself through his genealogies. I don't see it haveing anything to do with his contemporaries. Lets take a look, "perfect in his generations"...perfect in his contemperaries, perfect in his course of history, perfect in his genealogies. The passage starts out saying "these are the generations of Noah", just by that phrase alone tells us that the author is about to tell us something about Noah and his decendants. The phrase is written the same way the genealogies are for Cain, Adam, and Jesus Christ. And then the author does say something about Noahs decendants by saying Noah was perfect through them by saying this, "Noah was perfect in his generations.

 

[nephilimiyr]

But before you can move forward with a presentation of your concepts regarding the Nephilim, you must establish the "generations" issue. What is the Hebrew word being used there? I have not yet had a chance to look it up, but that is where you MUST start. If it turns out that the word used is actually just a reference to "among his contemporaries" then the underpinning of your theory comes down. My Biblesoft software is not working, so I will have to actually track down my Strong's in book form, but I would suggest you check that out to.

The fact that the genealogy was presented just prior would be an interesting support if the word or phrase you are relying on actually means his "lineage", but means nothing at all towards your theory if it means something else.

 

[Serapha]

I read an interesting article today concerning archaeology in the western world. It cited that archaeological digs on the American continent were very limited in the depth of strata that was investigated because the studies were simply looking at a couple of hundred years of human beings living in the Americas (for the most part).

I found that interesting... in comparison to the middle east where archaeological digs are carried out to depths of several hundred feet to reach the "bottom" of civilization.

In American, we don't look for the flood strata in archaeology because there are no evidences that people were living on this continent.

Then I read an article that cited that the coal beds of Anarticia had fossils of plants and animals consistent with India. How does the frozen continent have plant and animal remains consistent with India?

Then I read about Hartman's Cave in Pennsylvania, the oyster shell beds of the Mississippi valley, the composite bones of animals and fish in the same fossile beds in Florida, that in states where excavations have occurred at deep strata levels, that there are marine deposits on the land.


I read of "proofs" that the Americas were under water, so... how does one that believes that the flood was simply a local occurrence explain the occurrences I read about today?


Just curious.

~malaka~

 

[Vance]

Malaka,

I would recommend you look into what has been discovered about the shifting of the continents and the tectonic plates. Geologists can see very clearly how these plates shifted, broke apart, connected, etc. Many inland seas were formed through this process, including one that covered most of the middle of the US.

 

[Serapha]

I am not wasting my time with a reply. I get tired of your "attacks" against the Bible every time I post.

If you don't believe the Bible, then try athiesm for a while....

~malaka~

 

[nephilimiyr]

I am not wasting my time with a reply. I get tired of your "attacks" against the Bible every time I post.

If you don't believe the Bible, then try athiesm for a while....

~malaka~

I see nothing in Vance's post #44 that could be labeled an attack against the Bible. Niether does anything he has said here suggest that he doesn't believe the Bible but that he just believes in a different interpretation then yours. I don't see your suggestion to him as being very fair to him.

 

[Serapha]

I see nothing in Vance's post #44 that could be labeled an attack against the Bible. Niether does anything he has said here suggest that he doesn't believe the Bible but that he just believes in a different interpretation then yours. I don't see your suggestion to him as being very fair to him.

You are entitled to your opinion. I cannot post a statement without Vance indicating that it is "untrue" based on HIS opinion or HIS interpretation of science or the Bible.

You either believe the Bible or you don't. I believe the Bible... every word. Now.... vance's postings indicate that he does not believe in a literal translation of the Bible. Fine... God didn't mean it when He said, the evening and the morning... to be a day... I guess God didn't mean it either when He said He would send a Redeemer? Where does God tell you to accept part of His Word and pitch the rest? That's the old "pick and chose" method of interpretation of the Bible.



And... It is inappropriate for us to be "gossiping" about Vance, isn't it?

Sorry, vance.... that I found it necessary to discuss "you" with someone else.


~malaka~

 

[Vance]

No, problem.

The real point is that I *do* think the Bible is God's inerrant and divine Word to us. I love the Bible and think that it is the God-breathed, God-inspired message for us from the day it was written right up to today. It is the message of redemption found throughout Scripture which is our hope for survival and eternity with God.

But, no, I don't think that every thing in the Bible needs to be taken literally. And guess what? Neither do you.

I could point to a dozen verses which contain language which you would agree must be read non-literally. And not all of them are qualified with some indication that it should be read non-literally, like a parable does.

It is not a question of picking and choosing Scripture to meet our own needs. Since you also read many Scriptures non-literally, it is a matter of knowing which to read this way and which to not read this way. The Church made that mistake with Geocentrism, reading too literally, but then was willing (eventually) to admit that they had to reconsider their fallible, human interpretation. And, it was the growing knowledge of God's Creation by which they were able to correct their error.

I never INSIST that my interpretation is correct, I just insist that it is a viable interpretation and must be considered. Yes, I believe that how I interpret it is most likely correct, or I wouldn't believe it. But I took to heart the lesson of Job as I describe in my other post. I am perfectly willing to change my views if I am shown a convincing argument why I should.

 

[Serapha]

No, problem.

The real point is that I *do* think the Bible is God's inerrant and divine Word to us. I love the Bible and think that it is the God-breathed, God-inspired message for us from the day it was written right up to today. It is the message of redemption found throughout Scripture which is our hope for survival and eternity with God.

But, no, I don't think that every thing in the Bible needs to be taken literally. And guess what? Neither do you.

I could point to a dozen verses which contain language which you would agree must be read non-literally. And not all of them are qualified with some indication that it should be read non-literally, like a parable does.

It is not a question of picking and choosing Scripture to meet our own needs. Since you also read many Scriptures non-literally, it is a matter of knowing which to read this way and which to not read this way. The Church made that mistake with Geocentrism, reading too literally, but then was willing (eventually) to admit that they had to reconsider their fallible, human interpretation. And, it was the growing knowledge of God's Creation by which they were able to correct their error.

I never INSIST that my interpretation is correct, I just insist that it is a viable interpretation and must be considered. Yes, I believe that how I interpret it is most likely correct, or I wouldn't believe it. But I took to heart the lesson of Job as I describe in my other post. I am perfectly willing to change my views if I am shown a convincing argument why I should.

There is a consistent basis for my acceptance of Bible passages (as my basis is not "my" interpretation)


... and when you get time... I would like to know the basis for your interpretation. ....




Hermeneutics, by Charles C. Ryrie

The fundamental assertion of dispensational hermeneutics is that of lteral interpretation which gives to each word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage. This is also called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The principle relies on the normal meaning of words as the approach to understanding them. It is also knows as plain interpretation to keep from ruling out symbols, figures of speech, and types. These are interpreted plainly in order to communicate their intended meaning to the reader. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are normal literary tools that are used to clarify or emphasize thoughts and ideas.

This position is supported in the following ways.

1. Language was given by God for the purpose of communication with humankind. Therefore, God would give His linguistic communication in the most understandable way--literally and normally. It seems unlikely that God would go to all the trouble of revealing Himself to people in a manner that only caused people confusion and uncertainty in their understanding of who God is and how He works.

2. The Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ's birth and rearing, ministry, death, and resurrection were all fulfilled literally.

3. In order to maintain objectivity the literal method of interpretation must be emplyed. This insures that impartiality is maintained and prevents the interpreter from overlaying biblical truth with personal thoughts.

Thus, normative dispensationalism is the result of the consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation. This claim can be made by no other system of theology.


Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value, which involves recognizing distinctions in the Bible. The text taken at face value and the recognition of distinctions in the progress of revelation reveals the different economies God uses in the outworking of His program. The consistent hermeneutical principle of plain or literal interpretation is the basis of dispensationalism.

 

[nephilimiyr]

The fundamental assertion of dispensational hermeneutics is that of lteral interpretation which gives to each word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage. This is also called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The principle relies on the normal meaning of words as the approach to understanding them. It is also knows as plain interpretation to keep from ruling out symbols, figures of speech, and types. These are interpreted plainly in order to communicate their intended meaning to the reader. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are normal literary tools that are used to clarify or emphasize thoughts and ideas.

This position is supported in the following ways.

1. Language was given by God for the purpose of communication with humankind. Therefore, God would give His linguistic communication in the most understandable way--literally and normally. It seems unlikely that God would go to all the trouble of revealing Himself to people in a manner that only caused people confusion and uncertainty in their understanding of who God is and how He works.

The unfortunate reality is that most readers of the Bible read the Bible in a native tongue other than the Hebrew or Greek that it was origianlly penned, and because of the impercision and differences in languages, such translations lose much of their meaning and even allow for slight misinterpretations. Any serious student of Gods word must always keep this in mind. For most of the literalists I've come in contact with never think about this. They take their translation they work off of and apply their own brand of hermenuetics and try to apply literal sense to what they just read. In this case, reading the Bible only in their language can cause such confusion as to obscure the truth of the story the original author wanted to convey.

3. In order to maintain objectivity the literal method of interpretation must be emplyed. This insures that impartiality is maintained and prevents the interpreter from overlaying biblical truth with personal thoughts.

This is oh so true, I agree, but as long as in the service of objectivity the literal method of interpretation is consistant with knowing what the original author wanted to convey in the language he was useing at the time he wrote it.

Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value, which involves recognizing distinctions in the Bible. The text taken at face value and the recognition of distinctions in the progress of revelation reveals the different economies God uses in the outworking of His program. The consistent hermeneutical principle of plain or literal interpretation is the basis of dispensationalism.

Very well put but please think about what I wrote here.

 

[Vance]

But then how do you explain all the very obvious non-literal Scripture?

It sounds easy to just make a blanket statement that we must take everything in its most literal form, but this ignores not only the obvious non-literals ("all the world was taxed" and many other "all the world" references that obviously refer to something less than all the planet or even all the populated world), but also can lead to serious error, as when the Church adopted Geocentrism because it insisted upon a literal reading of Scripture. There are Christians today who insist on Geocentrism because they insist on a literal reading of Scripture, and would argue that if you don't believe in Geocentrism, you are abandoning literalism.

And the statement that there is a "firmament" (a firm, hard, ceiling) over the sky. And a variety of other usages that are either meant to be read non-literally or are simply errors in the text. Since I believe the text is inerrant, and a literal reading would require error, I choose to believe it can not be read literally.

For myself, I start with a plain, literal reading and then compare other Scripture to see whether this literal reading is consistent. Then I look to the evidence of God's Creation to see whether anything there would require a non-literal reading. Then I weigh all this together and decide.

If you like, when I get back on Monday, I will provide a list of non-literalisms that almost all would agree with. To my mind, if you accept a single non-literalism, you should be willing to consider others.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Well Vance, should your silence on my posts tell me we are at a stand still? If so I want you to know it's been a pleasure!

 

[Vance]

Ah, I am sorry, but I got distracted by Malaka.

Yes, the word which is translated by the KJV can be read, based on Strong's, as a person's lineage. But, it seems it can also be read as a person's contemporaries. In fact, the majority of other translations I have translate it as the "generation" in which Noah lived. We use this phrasing even today. As in the famous line from those guys in England: "Talkin' 'bout my generation!" They are not speaking of their lineage.

So, it really depends on what the writer meant here. But, I will agree completely that it could mean his lineage. The context works both ways. On the one hand, you are right that it comes very soon after his genealogy. On the other hand, it is also snuggled up against text talking about how evil was his present generation. So, association by proximity goes both ways.

Still, given that the door is open textually, I would be happy to hear what evidence supports the theory.

And, ultimately, even if the entire theory was true, it would still come down to evidence that these bad guys had spread beyond a specific region.

Heading out for the weekend, back on Monday!

 

[nephilimiyr]

Ah, I am sorry, but I got distracted by Malaka.

Yes, the word which is translated by the KJV can be read, based on Strong's, as a person's lineage. But, it seems it can also be read as a person's contemporaries. In fact, the majority of other translations I have translate it as the "generation" in which Noah lived. We use this phrasing even today. As in the famous line from those guys in England: "Talkin' 'bout my generation!" They are not speaking of their lineage.

So, it really depends on what the writer meant here. But, I will agree completely that it could mean his lineage. The context works both ways. On the one hand, you are right that it comes very soon after his genealogy. On the other hand, it is also snuggled up against text talking about how evil was his present generation. So, association by proximity goes both ways.

I am not willing to see this meaning both ways and that's the problem you and I must work out. When you see two different meanings to scripture you move too fast (IMHO) to except gridlock and want to prove what that meaning is by looking at what science says but I just look further into the story and what the Hebrew is trying to convey.

It's not just because the genealogy phrase is right there before the phrase that is in question, it's because that phrase is stated exactly the same way the other phrases concerning lineage genealogies are stated throughout Genesis. There's simply no reason to believe that the author is giving some other different meaning to it. And this is what I mean about context of the passage. We must use circular logic here.

Association by proximity will only take you so far and when circular logic is put into play association by proximity dies with it's results.

See if I wanted to see what you are saying I'd have to read the passage literaly saying that Noah was perfect in "that" generation. Since "that" isn't in the passage I have to assume that what this passage is talking about is that of his lineage. I guess it's as simple as "that"!

Now here's what you said once before

Second, if God had actually wanted to refer to a global flood without confusion, there is a specific word He could have used: tebel. This word *always* refers to the whole earth, or the whole inhabited earth. And, God did use it 37 times in the Old Testament. And while it used very often to refer to God's creation and the judgment of the peoples of the earth, it is NEVER used in connection with the flood account.

Now here's my point or what I want to ask you. If the original author wanted to convey that "perfect in his generations" meant his contempararies, wouldn't there be another Hebrew word other than "Towldah" to convey that? which is the same Hebrew word that is given to mean lineage in all the other lineage genealogies that are given throughout Genesis and that which is given in the passage we are talking about?

Still, given that the door is open textually, I would be happy to hear what evidence supports the theory.

And, ultimately, even if the entire theory was true, it would still come down to evidence that these bad guys had spread beyond a specific region.

Well there is or was evidence of this and this is the point where you will have the strongest arguement over me. However you must understand I don't look to scientific evidence untill the scripture meaning is made evident. I just believe it's fundamentally wrong to look to science to tell us what God is saying before we truely understand what his word is saying.

I'll be looking forward to next week! Have a great weekend!!!

 

[Serapha]

But then how do you explain all the very obvious non-literal Scripture?

It sounds easy to just make a blanket statement that we must take everything in its most literal form, but this ignores not only the obvious non-literals ("all the world was taxed" and many other "all the world" references that obviously refer to something less than all the planet or even all the populated world), but also can lead to serious error, as when the Church adopted Geocentrism because it insisted upon a literal reading of Scripture. There are Christians today who insist on Geocentrism because they insist on a literal reading of Scripture, and would argue that if you don't believe in Geocentrism, you are abandoning literalism.

And the statement that there is a "firmament" (a firm, hard, ceiling) over the sky. And a variety of other usages that are either meant to be read non-literally or are simply errors in the text. Since I believe the text is inerrant, and a literal reading would require error, I choose to believe it can not be read literally.

For myself, I start with a plain, literal reading and then compare other Scripture to see whether this literal reading is consistent. Then I look to the evidence of God's Creation to see whether anything there would require a non-literal reading. Then I weigh all this together and decide.

If you like, when I get back on Monday, I will provide a list of non-literalisms that almost all would agree with. To my mind, if you accept a single non-literalism, you should be willing to consider others.

Excuse me.....


I provided the reasoning behind fundamental thinking, as the interpreting is not "my" interpretation but the teachings of many fine denominations. One is to take the literal interpretation in every instance possible unless there is a particular reason why the passage cannot be taken literally. ....And I asked you for the same consideration... and what do I get in return?


"For myself, I start with a plain, literal reading and then compare other Scripture to see whether this literal reading is consistent. Then I look to the evidence of God's Creation to see whether anything there would require a non-literal reading. Then I weigh all this together and decide."



If you want want "I" do... when I run into a question... I look for the translations off the manuscripts and codexs to see if the coptic or Alexander or Syrian or vulgate say differently.


I read and study archaeology as I am planning a job change into archaeology. That gives me an historical basis that a lot of people don't get... and the anthropology for the time period, and the teachings of Judaism.

But when it boils down to it... I rarely find that there is a reason why the literal interpretation cannot be taken.

~malaka~

 

[nephilimiyr]

I take it Malaka has me on ignor.....

 

[Sinai]

The unfortunate reality is that most readers of the Bible read the Bible in a native tongue other than the Hebrew or Greek that it was origianlly penned, and because of the impercision and differences in languages, such translations lose much of their meaning and even allow for slight misinterpretations. Any serious student of Gods word must always keep this in mind. For most of the literalists I've come in contact with never think about this. They take their translation they work off of and apply their own brand of hermenuetics and try to apply literal sense to what they just read. In this case, reading the Bible only in their language can cause such confusion as to obscure the truth of the story the original author wanted to convey.

Excellent point!

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, with different parts being written in one of those languages. No word-for-word translatin can be fully "literal" and still express all the nuances of the original language.

Each of the major English translations of the Bible attempt to accurately convey what the Bible has to say--but may do it in different ways. For example, the NASB tends to do a good job of accurately translating the original meaning of a word to its current English counterpart--but may sacrifice some clarity of thought in the process. The NIV tends to do a better job of translating the thought being conveyed in the original language to a nearly equivalent thought in modern English--but may sacrifice some word-to-word accuracy in the process. The Amplified attempts to give more of the nuances of the original language by placing various English synonymns in parentheses, while a parallel Bible may place each of those other translations (or some other translations) side by side. The Complete Biblical Library gives the original language text, grammatical forms, transliteration, translation(s), and commentary. On scriptural passages that may appear to be contradicted by scientific evidence, I also like to study commentaries by ancient Jewish theologians and scribes which predate the scientific discoveries in question to see if the two are necessarily at odds.

Both you and Vance have made some very interesting observations and have raised some issues that will necessitate serious study! Thanks to you both (and also to Malaka for some of his points).

 

[Serapha]

Excellent point!

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, with different parts being written in one of those languages. No word-for-word translatin can be fully "literal" and still express all the nuances of the original language.

Each of the major English translations of the Bible attempt to accurately convey what the Bible has to say--but may do it in different ways. For example, the NASB tends to do a good job of accurately translating the original meaning of a word to its current English counterpart--but may sacrifice some clarity of thought in the process. The NIV tends to do a better job of translating the thought being conveyed in the original language to a nearly equivalent thought in modern English--but may sacrifice some word-to-word accuracy in the process. The Amplified attempts to give more of the nuances of the original language by placing various English synonymns in parentheses, while a parallel Bible may place each of those other translations (or some other translations) side by side. The Complete Biblical Library gives the original language text, grammatical forms, transliteration, translation(s), and commentary. On scriptural passages that may appear to be contradicted by scientific evidence, I also like to study commentaries by ancient Jewish theologians and scribes which predate the scientific discoveries in question to see if the two are necessarily at odds.

Both you and Vance have made some very interesting observations and have raised some issues that will necessitate serious study! Thanks to you both (and also to Malaka for some of his points).

both of you seem to be implying that fundamentalist YEC's only accept modern translations. I will just pitch my "Resources", "manuscripts", "other writings", "church history", "creationsim", "archaeology", "judaism", and "exodus" files from my favorites, that will eliminate 100+ resources from my grasp.... and just live in the little box you have created for "YEC's"

what translation should I use... since I only get one... make it a good one.



~malaka~

 

[Sinai]

both of you seem to be implying that fundamentalist YEC's only accept modern translations. I will just pitch my "Resources", "manuscripts", "other writings", "church history", "creationsim", "archaeology", "judaism", and "exodus" files from my favorites, that will eliminate 100+ resources from my grasp.... and just live in the little box you have created for "YEC's"

what translation should I use... since I only get one... make it a good one.

~malaka~

Sorry, malaka--I certainly didn't mean to disturb the chip you seem to have on your shoulder.

What part of my post did you disagree with or find offensive--other than perhaps including nephilimiyr (a gap theoriest) and Vance (who agrees with mainstream science) in my compliments to you (a YECie)?

 

[Serapha]

Sorry, malaka--I certainly didn't mean to disturb the chip you seem to have on your shoulder.

What part of my post did you disagree with or find offensive--other than perhaps including nephilimiyr (a gap theoriest) and Vance (who agrees with mainstream science) in my compliments to you (a YECie)?

I don't have a "chip" on my shoulder, I have a burden in my heart. Thus far, I have heard that YEC's are idol worshipers, apostasy, close-minded, unable to understand, misled, and probably 20 other comments that YEC's being the reason people leave christianity.


The sad part is that many people do leave Christianity because they require "facts" because, for them, and for those who are not YEC, faith is not enough. I am tired of being condemned for my faith... that isn't the purpose of this forum or this thread.

As I have posted before... anytime I cite a "proof"... it is pushed aside as folly. It's YOUR folly... not mine... I don't need "proof", you do. Even after abusive comments and condemnations, I see no reason to change what I believe one iota. I certainly don't want what any of you have.


~malaka~