George Murphy wrote:
>Dick Fischer wrote:
>> The best way to decide the meaning of a verse is to compare it with
>> another verse where the meaning is obvious.
>This is a bit too simple. Looking at the different ways in which a
>word is used in Scripture does help us to understand its _range_ of
>possible meanings, but not every one of the meanings in that range
>can be applied in any given case. Yes, _kol-ha'arets_, "the whole
>earth", can mean a relatively small territory, as in I Sam.30. In
>Gen.11:1 it means the whole inhabited world, or at least the known
>inhabited world.
Here is yet another place where the Bible translators got it painfully
wrong.
Gen.11:1-2: "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one
speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that
they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there."
The dispersion of the sons of Noah has just been diligently recorded in
Genesis 10. How could they all be in the land of Shinar one chapter
later? The word translated "earth" should have been "land" just as it is
in the next sentence. It wasn't the "whole inhabited world" or even
the "known inhabited world." It was simply the inhabited city of Babylon.
>The flood stories say simply that the waters prevailed upon "the earth"
>(Gen.7:24. No _kol_.) Comparison with many other passages show
>that this could mean a limited region, but comparison with Gen.1:1
>shows that it could also mean literally the whole terrestial realm.
If the flood didn't cover the earth, and we should know by now that it did
not, and if the Bible is telling the truth, and I presume it does, it means
that the waters prevailed upon the land. Or is that also too simple?
>The situation is a little like that with _yom_ in Genesis 1. Ps.90:4 shows
>that the word _can_ mean a period of a thousand years, but there are of
>course many places in Scripture where it obviously means an ordinary 24
>hour day. One might say that in Gen.1 it _can_ mean a period like 1000
>years, but it would obviously be wrong to say "by using the Bible's own
>yardstick the days of creation were each 1000 years long."
No, I will use the Bible's own yardstick.
Ps 90:4: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when
it is past, and as a watch in the night."
A thousand years can be as a 24-hour day or a watch in the night which
is 3 to 4 hours. Meaning God's time and man's time are not the same.
A day of creation is not measurable in man's simple terms. Not 24 hours,
not a thousand years.
>The bigger issue is this: As long as people keep insisting that all
>biblical texts must be read as some kind of historical narrative, a great
>deal of time will be wasted, no matter how elastic they try to make the
>language.
All biblical texts are obviously not historical. Proverbs would be a good
example. Some are, like Genesis - even the first eleven chapters. It's
just that the King James translators made such a hash of it through their
own ignorance that some people, even some theologians, don't believe it.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution, http://www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_3784552==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
George Murphy wrote:
>Dick Fischer wrote:
>> The best way to decide the meaning of a verse is to compare it
with
>> another verse where the meaning is obvious.
>This is a bit too simple. Looking at the different ways in
which a
>word is used in Scripture does help us to understand its _range_ of
>possible meanings, but not every one of the meanings in that range
>can be applied in any given case. Yes, _kol-ha'arets_,
"the whole
>earth", can mean a relatively small territory, as in I
Sam.30. In
>Gen.11:1 it means the whole inhabited world, or at least the known
>inhabited world.
Here is yet another place where the Bible translators got it painfully
wrong.
Gen.11:1-2: "And the whole earth was of one language, and of
one
speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that
they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt
there."
The dispersion of the sons of Noah has just been diligently recorded
in
Genesis 10. How could they all be in the land of Shinar one chapter
later? The word translated "earth" should have been
"land" just as it is
in the next sentence. It wasn't the "whole inhabited
world" or even
the "known inhabited world." It was simply the inhabited
city of Babylon.
>The flood stories say simply that the waters prevailed upon "the
earth"
>(Gen.7:24. No _kol_.) Comparison with many other passages
show
>that this could mean a limited region, but comparison with Gen.1:1
>shows that it could also mean literally the whole terrestial
realm.
If the flood didn't cover the earth, and we should know by now that it
did
not, and if the Bible is telling the truth, and I presume it does, it
means
that the waters prevailed upon the land. Or is that also too
simple?
>The situation is a little like that with _yom_ in Genesis 1.
Ps.90:4 shows
>that the word _can_ mean a period of a thousand years, but there are
of
>course many places in Scripture where it obviously means an ordinary
24
>hour day. One might say that in Gen.1 it _can_ mean a period
like 1000
>years, but it would obviously be wrong to say "by using the
Bible's own
>yardstick the days of creation were each 1000 years long."
No, I will use the Bible's own yardstick.
Ps 90:4: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday
when
it is past, and as a watch in the night."
A thousand years can be as a 24-hour day or a watch in the night
which
is 3 to 4 hours. Meaning God's time and man's time are not the
same.
A day of creation is not measurable in man's simple terms. Not 24
hours,
not a thousand years.
>The bigger issue is this: As long as people keep insisting that
all
>biblical texts must be read as some kind of historical narrative, a
great
>deal of time will be wasted, no matter how elastic they try to make
the
>language.
All biblical texts are obviously not historical. Proverbs would be
a good
example. Some are, like Genesis - even the first eleven
chapters. It's
just that the King James translators made such a hash of it through their
own ignorance that some people, even some theologians, don't believe
it.
--=====================_3784552==_.ALT--