Mysterious Ruins

J regia

Well-known member
Do you believe the ancient authors of the Genesis flood narrative thought their world was a sphere orbiting the sun, itself a mere spec of sand in a vast universe? Of course not. Importing contemporary knowledge about geology and astronomy into an ancient text results in misinterpretation such as you keep peddling here week after week. I'm still waiting for you to address my criticisms of your local flood theory in posts 84 and 87...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
So what misinterpretation are you referring to, given that the bible clearly says that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high?

And why on Earth would I believe what the biblical writers wrote, that the Earth is a flat immoveable disc with ends and corners and foundations (eg Matt 4:8 Isaiah 40:22 Job 38:15 Psalm 104:5), and that the universe is a geocentric dome-shaped tent attached to the circle of the horizon (eg Isaiah 40:22 Eccl 1:5)?

I'm still waiting for you to address my criticisms of your global flood theory.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
So what misinterpretation are you referring to, given that the bible clearly says that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high?
The authors of the flood narrative (Genesis 6-9) refer to a deluge that kills all but eight people (Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives) and the paired animals aboard the ark. Your continued reference to other members of Noah's family who escape the flood (your uncritical appeal to the genealogy found in chapter 4) is one misrepresentation of how composite authorship works, if you even acknowledge this basic fact about the origin of the Pentateuch. Another is your mistaken claim that the fifteen cubits refers to a depth measured from ground zero rather than the depth of water under which the mountains were submerged.

And why on Earth would I believe what the biblical writers wrote, that the Earth is a flat immoveable disc with ends and corners and foundations (eg Matt 4:8 Isaiah 40:22 Job 38:15 Psalm 104:5), and that the universe is a geocentric dome-shaped tent attached to the circle of the horizon (eg Isaiah 40:22 Eccl 1:5)?
I'm not asking you to believe them, but I am asking you to acknowledge that they believed such things about their world and to therefore interpret their writings from that perspective and not from that of a 21st-century geologist. To do anything but what I've outlined will result in distorted interpretations (like a local flood theory).

I'm still waiting for you to address my criticisms of your global flood theory.
That the authors of Genesis 6-9 wrote about a flood that inundated the entire known world is not a theory, it is the plain reading of the texts in question. All your criticisms concern the impossibility of a global flood, which is entirely irrelevant to a correct interpretation of these ancient texts...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Active member
Are you actually familiar with the English language?
Of course. Why do you ask?

Either way none of that changes the fact that to anyone who is actually familiar with the English language, the KJV clearly says that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high, and clearly DOES NOT say that the high hills were covered by 15 cubits.
I'm curious as to why you continually make reference to a 400-year-old translation. Are you some sort of KJV-Onlyist? In any case, your insinuation that people who don't agree with you must not be familiar with English is a pathetic argumentative strategy, a mark of desperation rather than an indication you are on any kind of solid footing. Let's put your '15 cubits high' in context:

[17] And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
[18] And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
[19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
[20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Please note that the reference to the fifteen cubits occurs after the assertion that all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered in answer to the question: Covered how deep? Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail... as the text plainly states in context. And just in case you missed it the first time: "and the mountains were covered." Covered with what? Well, the fifteen cubits of water, of course.

Nor does it change the fact that the author of the story in Gen 4:20-21 said that two of Noah's brothers obviously weren't drowned with the other members of Noah's family.
Could you please show me where in Genesis 4 that it states Jabal and Jubal are Noah's brothers? I don't see that in the KJV (or any other translation, for that matter). Are you assuming this because their father is named Lamech and Noah's father is named Lamech? On a synchronic reading of Genesis 4-5, these are different men --- one descended from Cain and the other from Seth, different sons of Adam. As I said, your suggestion here reflects an uncritical appeal to an alternative narrative in which there is no flood whatsoever, not to a narrative about other members of Noah's family who escape the flooding of the valley over yonder. The flood narrative itself leaves no room for survivors beyond those in the ark:

[21] And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
[22] All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died,
[23] And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

J regia

Well-known member
[17] And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
[18] And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
[19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
[20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
[21] And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
[22] All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died,
[23] And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
In other words the author(s) of the story in Gen 7:17-23 said that most of Noah's family (Gen 5:26-32) and their chickens and cattle were drowned by a flood which was 15 cubits high.

The author(s) of the story in Gen 4:20-21, however, said that Noah's two brothers (Jubal and Jabal) and their families weren't drowned since they are the fathers of all musicians and nomadic herders.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
That's your issue, not mine. But if you are actually interested, perhaps you should ask someone who is actually familiar with the English language to explain to you the meaning of Gen 7:20 and the meaning and purpose of the semi colon, which clearly says that the waters only rose 15 cubits.
If I didn't find dialogue on the subject of the biblical texts interesting I wouldn't be here. In any case, I don't need anyone to explain the meaning of Gen 7:20 to me either in English translation or Hebrew original, I have a good grasp of both languages (as well as a few others). Your trite 'lesson' on the purpose of a semi-colon was amusing, if nothing else. You may wish to familiarize yourself with how the clauses on either side of this punctuation mark relate to each other and I should hope you also realize that the original Hebrew was not punctuated.

The genealogy in Gen 5 includes the genealogy in Gen 4 with minor changes in spelling and order. Thus Cainan=Cain, Mahalaleel=Mehujael, Jared=Irad, Enoch=Enoch, Methuselah=Methusael, Lamech=Lamech.
There are a number of ways the two genealogies could relate to each other... Genesis 4 might be a revision of Genesis 5, Genesis 5 might be a revision of Genesis 4, or both might derive from a common now unrecoverable source. The third option should only be invoked if neither of the other two options are tenable. In this case, the second option is quite satisfactory, the first much less so. The implications of this decision are important for proper diachronic and synchronic readings, in that order. Your interpretation is an uncritical hybrid of these two types of readings, arising from your dabbling in source-critical theories you clearly don't understand.

The first person (the adam) listed in the Gen 4 genealogy is therefore the grandson of the first person listed in the Gen 5 genealogy.
No, the man (ha'adam) is not included in the Genesis 4 genealogy, which spans verses 17-22. There are seven generations in this genealogy (see verse 15 for this author's interest in the number). Your attempt to equate the man (4:1) with Enosh (5:7, 9-11) relies on a faulty model of how the two genealogies/narratives relate to each other and ignores altogether the redaction found in 4:25-26, which presents their relationship as one of grandfather and grandson.

And the story in Gen 4 therefore obviously says that two of Noah's brothers (Jabal & Jubal) weren't drowned since the story says that they are the fathers of all musicians and animal herders.
The story in Genesis 4 claims Lamech's sons are the progenitors of animal husbandry, the arts and industry while making no mention of Noah or a flood... it therefore cannot say anything about this character or event, obvious or otherwise. There are essentially two options one can glean from this silence... either the author of this section has no knowledge of Genesis 6-9 or he deliberately suppresses knowledge of this other narrative. The former is quite satisfactory, the latter not so much. Cain and his descendants do not escape a flood, there is no flood in this version of the story...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Active member
In other words the author(s) of the story in Gen 7:17-23 said that most of Noah's family (Gen 5:26-32) and their chickens and cattle were drowned by a flood which was 15 cubits high.

The author(s) of the story in Gen 4:20-21, however, said that Noah's two brothers (Jubal and Jabal) and their families weren't drowned since they are the fathers of all musicians and nomadic herders.
You've added nothing new here, just reiterated your flawed local flood theory. Quite telling, however, is your opening phrase: "In other words..." Other words, indeed! The problem is that these 'other words' tell a story that does not accurately reflect either of the two traditions (Genesis 4; Genesis 6-9) or even the best synchronic reading one could muster given the tensions between them...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

J regia

Well-known member
The story in Genesis 4 claims Lamech's sons are the progenitors of animal husbandry, the arts and industry while making no mention of Noah or a flood... it therefore cannot say anything about this character or event, obvious or otherwise. There are essentially two options one can glean from this silence... either the author of this section has no knowledge of Genesis 6-9 or he deliberately suppresses knowledge of this other narrative. The former is quite satisfactory, the latter not so much. Cain and his descendants do not escape a flood, there is no flood in this version of the story...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
If those stories have any credibility then it was because that particular flood was just a local event as described in Gen 7:20, which didn't affect Noah's two brothers and their families (Gen 4:20-21), nor the olive tree from which Noah's pet bird plucked a leaf.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
If those stories have any credibility then it was because that particular flood was just a local event as described in Gen 7:20, which didn't affect Noah's two brothers and their families (Gen 4:20-21), nor the olive tree from which Noah's pet bird plucked a leaf.
Whether the stories -- read separately or together -- are credible to a 21st-century exegete is entirely irrelevant. That you think they should be is one of the baseless assumptions feeding your skewed interpretation...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

J regia

Well-known member
Whether the stories -- read separately or together -- are credible to a 21st-century exegete is entirely irrelevant. That you think they should be is one of the baseless assumptions feeding your skewed interpretation...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Doesn't change the fact that the Hebrew bible & KJV & NASB & ASV etc clearly say that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high.

If you believe otherwise, then how high were the "mountains" which were covered?
 

En Hakkore

Active member
Doesn't change the fact that the Hebrew bible & KJV & NASB & ASV etc clearly say that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high.
I've already demonstrated this is a multi-level misreading of the pertinent texts. It's obvious you have no cogent rebuttal to any of that so keep on playing the same broken record...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Active member
I've already demonstrated this is a multi-level misreading of the pertinent texts. It's obvious you have no cogent rebuttal to any of that so keep on playing the same broken record...
So now you've gone from questioning my comprehension of English to plagiarism? You, in fact, did not say any of ^^^^ --- I did in post 153. Like I said, you have no cogent rebuttal and your responses are becoming increasingly pathetic...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

e v e

Well-known member
So what misinterpretation are you referring to, given that the bible clearly says that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high?

And why on Earth would I believe what the biblical writers wrote, that the Earth is a flat immoveable disc with ends and corners and foundations (eg Matt 4:8 Isaiah 40:22 Job 38:15 Psalm 104:5), and that the universe is a geocentric dome-shaped tent attached to the circle of the horizon (eg Isaiah 40:22 Eccl 1:5)?

I'm still waiting for you to address my criticisms of your global flood theory.
Believe it about the disc, the immovable earth, the dome shaped tent, etc., because it is true. Also compare rev (new jerusalem as cube), book of enoch as to the cube, and hieroglyphs.

The context is not upon this current earth, eden was not on this current earth, and this is why you needn’t fit 'local' (other world features) to the current cosmological ‘reality’. The flood was dimensional and the waters are dimensional and the mountains mentioned are not upon the current earth or in a heliocentric system.

The view held by the ancients is most correct.
 
Last edited:

e v e

Well-known member
I know the nonsense view, well, they wrote it by their primitive understanding.

If that is true, then the Words of God are not His words, but mere words of human beings upon this earth.

Scripture, even as badly translated and all in copies that it has become because of being written down, is the closest we have to His Words to us. Additionally, ancients were actually more aware of the proper context and the realities scripture represents than moderns. Moderns no longer have a connection to the ancients or to God's reality in the other world and the forms of exegesis, the translations that exist, and the canon-thinking of modern christianity make sure to keep it that way.
 
Top