Bible in a Year! v. February

[bosk1]

Your argument makes no sense.  Babel was only two generations or so after the flood.  Whether or not the continents were separate at that time is completely irrelevant because they hadn't spread that far.  Read chapter 11 again.  They had only spread as far as the plain of Shinar.  Whether there was one mega-continent or several separate ones, they simply had not spread past Shinar at that point in time.

[Ħ]

Ok let's assume for a second that you are right and that the flood split the continents apart, but not far enough to where the people couldn't gather together.

Now after Babel happens (where, according to you, the continents are drifting but really aren't that far apart), you have about 4000-5000 years til present day.  Assuming natural continental drift resumed a steady rate after the flood, there would be no way the earth would look like it does now.  5000 years is just not enough time.

[bosk1]

I never said I assumed slow continental drift.

[GuineaPig]

I think this warrants its own thread.  It is related to the topic at hand, but it soon won't be.

[Ħ]

I never said I assumed slow continental drift.

So then....

We're basically in agreement.    I think the Bible teaches that the flood came down and "primed" the earth for separation (so to speak), and shortly after, God divinely "accelerated" the tectonic plate movement.  It sounds like you are saying pretty much the same thing. 

The only difference between me and you is that I explain the accelerated tectonic plate movement with 10:25 and you explain it with...something else.

One more thing, because I really wanna be picky about 10:25....I am going to do a concordance runthru of the word "earth," and see how many times it is used to describe the physical land mass versus how many times it is used to describe the people/nations that inhabit it.  The Bible is its own dictionary, and depending on the results, it will shed light on how we ought to read the word "earth" in 10:25...

[Ħ]

First off there's no way I'm checking every reference, so I just checked the ones in Genesis, and every verse referred to the physical land mass, except for only one wishy-washy verse that could have gone either way in Gen 18:25.

Using Strong's online concordance, it provides the Hebrew word for "earth" in Genesis 10:25, which is erets.

Erets has the following definitions::

1) land, earth
    a) earth
        1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
        2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
        3) earth (inhabitants)
    b) land
        1) country, territory
        2) district, region
        3) tribal territory
        4) piece of ground
        5) land of Canaan, Israel
        6) inhabitants of land
        7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
        8) city (-state)
    c) ground, surface of the earth
        1) ground
        2) soil
    d) (in phrases)
        1) people of the land
        2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
        3) level or plain country
        4) land of the living
        5) end(s) of the earth
    e) (almost wholly late in usage)
        1) lands, countries
            a) often in contrast to Canaan

It is possible that 10:25 is referring to the people of earth based on Strong's definitions...However, I doubt this because pretty much every single other reference in Genesis for "earth" is a reference to the physical land.  

But it seems like we are really butting heads on the interpretation of this single verse...yeshua and Jamesman and whoever has an opinion on this, what are your thoughts?  A fresh look would be nice.

[Jamesman42]

NLT (my preferred translation):

Eber had two sons. The first was named Peleg (which means “division”), for during his lifetime the people of the world were divided into different language groups. His brother’s name was Joktan.

Genesis 10:25

[Ħ]

The Hebrew word there is the same Hebrew word used in Gen 1:1, so I think that is just the NLT translators taking a bit of liberty, since NLT is translated thought-for-thought.

No offense to your preferred translation, I'm just saying.

[Jamesman42]

OFFENSE TAKEN

[bosk1]

So then....

We're basically in agreement.  

No, we're not in agreement at all.  I don't think there is any textual support for the idea that the flood primed the earth for tectonic separation that happened sometime after.  Not saying it didn't happen.  But there is no textual basis for drawing that conclusion.

The Bible simply never mentions there ever being a single continent.  Ever.

In contrast, what I believe most likely is that:
(1) There never at any point in history ever was a single continent and the continents have always been substantially where they are now.  This position is not really addressed by the text either.  OR
(2) If there was a split.  It happened during the flood and was virtually instantaneous.  The text doesn't directly address this either (again, because it doesn't mention a single continent, much less the breaking up of that single continent).  But if such an event happened, it would be consistent with the kinds of things described in the flood cataclysm.  
Again, that doesn't mean either of these are correct.  Your theory might very well be correct.  But you are claiming it is supported by the text, when it isn't.

[Ħ]

Oh ok.  Now I see where you're coming from.  But the Bible does support the idea of a once-uniform continent, and of a split.  All it takes is a single verse to make something true--looking at 10:15 again...it says that the earth was divided, yes?  Now if it is indeed that land that is divided, then the verse is stating that there was a specific period of time where the land was divided.  Which means that BEFORE that period of time, it was not divided.

Does that make sense?  For example, if I say...."At 12pm Saturday, Johnny broke his leg."  Implied in that statement is that before 12pm Saturday, Johnny's leg was not broken....and hence.

[rumborak]

I can't imagine your point of view being much fun, bosk. I mean, don't you find it tiring to be in constant battle with factual evidence? That is, every time science uncovers another mechanism, be it geological, physical, astronomical, you have to add another epicycle to your belief system?

rumborak

[Ħ]

Any scientist will tell you there are no concrete facts (much less "factual evidence").  I am halfway through my science major, and every science professor I've had has said that.

[rumborak]

Please, no metaphysical discussion about "facts". I think the hard sciences stand on pretty damn solid ground.
You can always take a nihilistic approach and construct your own reality, but it's not gonna be much fun since physics cares little about our little minds. Just as little as it cared about Ptolemy's wondrous explanation of planetary motions.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Oh ok.  Now I see where you're coming from.  But the Bible does support the idea of a once-uniform continent, and of a split.  All it takes is a single verse to make something true--looking at 10:15 again...it says that the earth was divided, yes?  Now if it is indeed that land that is divided, then the verse is stating that there was a specific period of time where the land was divided.  Which means that BEFORE that period of time, it was not divided.

Does that make sense?  For example, if I say...."At 12pm Saturday, Johnny broke his leg."  Implied in that statement is that before 12pm Saturday, Johnny's leg was not broken....and hence.

Yes, and insistent that "At 12pm Saturday, Johnny broke his leg" really means that Johnny broke the leg on his favorite coffee table because Johnny likes to talk about furniture a lot, really ignores what is being communicated and illogically assumes a meaning that isn't supported by the context.

I can't imagine your point of view being much fun, bosk. I mean, don't you find it tiring to be in constant battle with factual evidence? That is, every time science uncovers another mechanism, be it geological, physical, astronomical, you have to add another epicycle to your belief system?

rumborak

As I've told GP already, if you have anything to add to the actual discussion at hand, which is about what the texts we are studying actually say, by all means, contribute.  If you want to argue the truth of the text or some other topic, take it to another thread.

[rumborak]

So, you're gonna discuss the texts, which are about this universe, outside the context of this universe and its demonstrable constraints? Well, that surely is gonna be a fruitful discussion  

rumborak

[Ħ]

Oh ok.  Now I see where you're coming from.  But the Bible does support the idea of a once-uniform continent, and of a split.  All it takes is a single verse to make something true--looking at 10:15 again...it says that the earth was divided, yes?  Now if it is indeed that land that is divided, then the verse is stating that there was a specific period of time where the land was divided.  Which means that BEFORE that period of time, it was not divided.

Does that make sense?  For example, if I say...."At 12pm Saturday, Johnny broke his leg."  Implied in that statement is that before 12pm Saturday, Johnny's leg was not broken....and hence.

Yes, and insistent that "At 12pm Saturday, Johnny broke his leg" really means that Johnny broke the leg on his favorite coffee table because Johnny likes to talk about furniture a lot, really ignores what is being communicated and illogically assumes a meaning that isn't supported by the context.

Maybe I'm reading your e-tone incorrectly, but....I don't know what I said you to make you so mad at me  

But I'm done discussing this, the verse is crystal clear.

[bosk1]

I'm not mad.  I'm just losing patience with you insisting something is there that isn't. 

[Ħ]

ya ok

sorry

i just got the impression that you were "speaking" in a condescending, belittling, mocking tone

ive had a lot of experiences with childhood bullying and i dont really take well to that

but this isnt really gettgg anywhere so lets drop it

[GuineaPig]

BrotherH, I'm simply confused by your position.  You seem to believe geologists about Pangaea, but then reject almost everything else there is a geological consensus on.  If Pangaea, why not Rodinia?

[Ħ]

BrotherH, I'm simply confused by your position.  You seem to believe geologists about Pangaea, but then reject almost everything else there is a geological consensus on.  If Pangaea, why not Rodinia?

I would answer, but I have this ever so slight warning in the back of my mind that you aren't really curious--you just want me to slip up somewhere so you can cut me down so you can feel good about yourself.  This is a thread where we discuss various readings in the Bible, and what we understand about it from all our various backrounds.  Although located in P/R, I wanted this thread to be a safe place, where we can share our diversity peacefully.  I never wanted it to become a flame-fest where we mock others for their beliefs.  When you or rumborak or whoever come in and try to disrupt that mutual respect, it ruins the whole point.  There are people participating in the reading with valuable knowledge, insight, and perspective, like Jamesman, that aren't really participating in the discussion, and I have a hunch it's because there is an impending fear of getting scrutinized for making even the slightest claim.

[Jamesman42]

I will say it is annoying to see posts from rumby and GP where, while holding their opinions because that's what they believe, they come into the thread with the kinds posts I've seen earlier in this thread.

It's not to knock unbelievers views (of some which may be correct anyway), but it's the tone and context in which they are being brought into. It's a fine line, though, but I feel rumby and GP crossed it, honestly.

[bosk1]

Well, rumborak won't be crossing it anymore for at least a week.

[hefdaddy42]

the NRSV is a nondevotional academic translation that tends to make the Biblical words "fit" into common academic views of where the Bible came from

This is not really an accurate picture of what the NRSV is or how it came to be produced.

Well there's two events that greatly deface the earth--the flood with Noah, and the division of Pangea.  I'm sure you've heard a lot about the former, but people don't ever talk about the latter as a Biblical event, even though it's there.  Just check Gen 10:25.  Eden along with the tree of life was probably destroyed.

I would say that it is a real stretch to claim that Genesis 10:25 is a Biblical reference to Pangea.

Common writing style...first the king is criticized, and then Satan through the king is criticized.  You know it's talking about Satan in Isa 14 once the king is addressed as Lucifer, and you know it's talking about Satan in Eze 28 once the garden of Eden is alluded to.

Lucifer just means "morning star," it is poetry.  Neither Isaiah 14 nor Ezekiel 28 are about Satan.

Question to Hef and all Bible not-necessarily-literalists:  What do the heavily extended lifetimes of the Old Testament Biblical characters mean?  Exaggerations for story-telling?  Possibly a real thing?

They mean that the good old days were awesome but now life sucks.  Of course it is an exaggeration for story-telling.

All the people in the world in were in one place in Genesis 11: Babel.  If the earth was physically broken up by this point due to the flood, a uniform meeting would have been impossible...crossing the oceans between each continent to unite in one place would be impossible with their poor transport technology.  Therefore, at Babel, Pangea must have been whole.

Does it really say that all the people in the world were in one place in Genesis 11?  Genesis 10 goes to quite a lot of trouble explaining how the descendants of Noah spread out to different places, and specifically the area of Babel in the land of Shinar was under the rule of Nimrod the hunter, son of Cush, son of Ham, son of Noah.  Everybody else was other places.  The only thing in Genesis 11 that talks about all of the people in the world is verse 1: "The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary."  There is nothing in Genesis 10 that corresponds with an interpretation of Genesis 11 that ALL the people went to Shinar, built the Tower of Babel, and then were dispersed.

And bosk1 is completely right that the text simply doesn't address the idea of a proto-continent.  It just isn't there.

[hefdaddy42]

With yesterday's reading (19-21), we come to the first appearance of the E source according to the Documentary Hypothesis.  Chapter 19, featuring the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah and some truly commendable actions from Lot, was almost all from the J source, but chapter 20, detailing the dealings of Abraham and Abimelech, is entirely from the E source.  Chapter 21, featuring the birth of Isaac and the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael among other things, is mostly from E, with a smattering of J and P.

With today's reading (22-24), we learn more about the family of Abraham, the death of Sarah, and coming of Rebekah.  But here is piece of controversy from the Documentary Hypothesis: in chapter 22, featuring the (almost) sacrifice of Isaac, many scholars feel that the E source originally featured Abraham following through with the sacrifice!  Here is the thinking: most of the chapter is clearly from the E source.  Throughout most of the chapter, the deity is referred to as Elohim, a trait of E.  However, just as the knife is raised, the text says that the angel of THE LORD (using the Divine Name) stops him, and also the section featuring verses 11-16a dealing with the sparing of Isaac also use the Divine Name, which E does not do (until the revelation of the Name to Moses).  This section includes, therefore, both a contradiction and a change in reference to the deity.  So this section has apparently been inserted here by the Redactor.  Also, note the wording of 16b-17: " because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies."  Also, note verse 19:"Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set out together for Beer Sheba where Abraham stayed."  No mention of Isaac.  Moreover, Isaac is never mentioned again in the E source.  There was also a later Midrashic tradition that Isaac had been sacrificed.  So apparently, the original story from the E source featured Abraham actually sacrificing Isaac.  However, this didn't jibe with the other sources, so when assembling them, the Redactor glossed over that part and had God avert the sacrifice.

What does it all mean?  Nothing, really.  But it's neat.

[bosk1]

But it's neat.

Eh.  You say "neat."  I say "bollocks."  Tom-ay-to; tom-ah-to. 

Personally, aside from the fact that I don't buy into the Documentary Hypothesis, I don't think the "contradiction" exists here.  Here's why:

-The "you have not withheld your son" line does not indicate Isaac was sacrificed, but merely that he was as good as sacrificed in Abraham's eyes.  Abraham did not withhold Isaac.  The knife was on its way "home" when God intervened. 
-The lack of mentioning of Isaac in verse 19 isn't very tell-tale either.  There are plenty of instances where not everyone in a company of people is mentioned.  Abraham is mentioned because he is the central figure in this part of the narrative.  The servants are mentioned because that is who he is going to join.  Sure, Isaac could have been mentioned for clarity.  But there's no reason why he has to be either--especially if the reader already knows he's with Abraham.
-Perhaps most importantly, the repeating in verse 17 of the promise to multiply Abraham's descendants makes no sense if he sacrificed Isaac.  We are already told that the promise will not come through Ishmael.  Abraham had no other descendants.  Isaac had to be alive.  Perhaps Isaac is never mentioned again in the "E source" because it is not a separate source at all, and what is being pointed to as a separate source just happens to be those passages that do not mention him.

Anyhow, I'll just leave it at that.  And since this is the Internet and not everyone may be able to tell, I'll jsut put out there for the record that there is no hostility between me and hef whatsoever.  We're just having a friendly debate about our personal views.

[Jamesman42]

I agree with what bosk said, Abraham was the focal point of the narrative, so if Isaac isn't mentioned, it makes sense that he wasn't.

And bosky, this is just mean:

I'll fight you to the death, hefpunk42. I ain't afraid of no sucka!

[bosk1]

That's just how I roll.

[Ħ]

God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac confuses me.  What is the point? (honest question)

[Jamesman42]

Some see it as a typology to the later sacrifice of the Son being slain for the world's benefit/blessing (just like God blessed Abraham and his descendants through almost sacrificing his own son). Some see it as a test of Abraham's faith. And those two ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[bosk1]

I definitely think both of those are true.  But as far as taking the reading in isolation, the testing of Abraham's faith is the most obvious.  The question that blows my mind is:  was the test for God or for Abraham?  I think much more the latter.  For Abraham's faith to grow, he had to put it into action, and he was tested in a way that is really a "fish or cut bait" moment, as in, "if you really trust me and believe I am capable of doing all I promise, prove it by giving up that which is most precious to you."  It may sound cruel on the surface, but what an ultimately amazing act of grace is once again demonstrated by God in this passage.

[Jamesman42]

What do you mean by "was it a test for God or for Abraham"?

[ack44]

-Perhaps most importantly, the repeating in verse 17 of the promise to multiply Abraham's descendants makes no sense if he sacrificed Isaac.  We are already told that the promise will not come through Ishmael.  Abraham had no other descendants.  Isaac had to be alive.  Perhaps Isaac is never mentioned again in the "E source" because it is not a separate source at all, and what is being pointed to as a separate source just happens to be those passages that do not mention him.

I'm really curious as to whom E would attribute the link of Abraham's descendants to if there really was a version where the sacrifice went all the way. Any ideas of where to look for theories, hef?

[bosk1]

What do you mean by "was it a test for God or for Abraham"?

Questions like, what is faith, what is its role in a Christian's relationship to God, how is it applied in daily life, etc., are difficult, meaty questions, IMO.  I know a lot of people who believe, as I do, that the "test" was for Abraham's benefit.  I.e., he was tested because that test was needed to cause his faith to grow (and, perhaps, his confidence in his own faith).  But some might look at the wording of the text where God is speaking and basically says, "Because you were willing to sacrifice your son, now I know that you have faith," and take from that that God didn't know whether Abraham's faith was sufficient and had to test Abraham to learn whether or not he did.  I don't really buy that, but it's a much deeper issue than it appears to be, and raises the issues of what God's omnipotence means, free will, predestination, etc.  So, anyway...that's all I was referring to. 

[bosk1]

I'm really curious as to whom E would attribute the link of Abraham's descendants to if there really was a version where the sacrifice went all the way. Any ideas of where to look for theories, hef?

Okay, here's the deal:  Some scholars refer to this "E" source.  But in reality, E is just short for Edgar, which was actually Moses' name.  But when he was a kid, the big kids in Pharaoh's household always made fun of him, so he hated that name and just shortened it to his initial and decided to go by his middle name, which is Moses.  Kind of like J. Edgar Hoover shortened his first name to an initial and just went by Edgar.  Same thing here.  E. Moses Garcia just became "Moses."  And there you have it.