4 ms·

Well, we disagree on how to interpret Scripture. The most interesting tidbit about the Flood (to me, anyway) is the fact that Methuselah means (I've been told)

Well, we disagree on how to interpret Scripture. The most interesting tidbit about the Flood (to me, anyway) is the fact that Methuselah means (I've been told) "After this, the end" -- which I take to mean that God gave Methuselah extraordinary longevity as an indication of his patience in waiting for that evil generation to repent.

timbit42 5y ago
Yes, so they changed his name as well. The most interesting tidbit about the Flood for me is that the idea of it being global is a recent belief. Long ago it was not thought as such. The only reason to think it was global is the Hebrew 'eretz' translated as 'earth', which is a poor word to choose because it means a lot more to modern ears than to the ears of those it was written for. When we think of earth, we think of planet, but those it was written for would not have thought that. Also, if you look through Genesis, the only place 'eretz' is translated as 'earth' is in the Noah story. Everywhere else it is translated as 'soil', 'ground' or 'land'. If you replace 'eretz' and therefore 'earth' in the Noah story with 'ground' or 'land', suddenly it doesn't say the flood was global, and neither does it in the original Hebrew because it never did, and it wasn't.
- pmdulaney 5y ago
  I suppose we bring some of our own theology to bear on 'eretz'. If you believe that after the flood only 6 persons remained alive on the earth, then that suggests that the flood was global.
  - timbit42 5y ago
    Six? Don't you mean eight? No, I don't believe all humans were killed by the flood. There are no reasons to think it was. There are at least 5 other copies of Noah's flood story: Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, Ziusudra, Berossus, and Moses of Khoren, some of which are older than Genesis and were direct or indirect sources for Genesis, and none of them are global floods. I'd suggest reading the other sources. They are obviously the same story but the differences are interesting. Regardless, eretz definitely doesn't mean planet. If you are interested, I'd recommend Robert M. Best's book Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic.
    - pmdulaney 5y ago
      Thanks for engaging with me. I had heard of Gilgamesh, but not the others. And I suppose you're right about the six vs eight -- I don't have a Bible with me. I realize that my views could be viewed as fideist and anti-intellectual. On the other hand, it would be a shame if great learning were to keep someone from accepting the simple truth of the Gospel. Or am I extrapolating too far to think that someone who rejects a world-wide Noahic flood also rejects the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?

timbit42 5y ago

Yes, so they changed his name as well. The most interesting tidbit about the Flood for me is that the idea of it being global is a recent belief. Long ago it was not thought as such. The only reason to think it was global is the Hebrew 'eretz' translated as 'earth', which is a poor word to choose because it means a lot more to modern ears than to the ears of those it was written for. When we think of earth, we think of planet, but those it was written for would not have thought that. Also, if you look through Genesis, the only place 'eretz' is translated as 'earth' is in the Noah story. Everywhere else it is translated as 'soil', 'ground' or 'land'. If you replace 'eretz' and therefore 'earth' in the Noah story with 'ground' or 'land', suddenly it doesn't say the flood was global, and neither does it in the original Hebrew because it never did, and it wasn't.

pmdulaney 5y ago
I suppose we bring some of our own theology to bear on 'eretz'. If you believe that after the flood only 6 persons remained alive on the earth, then that suggests that the flood was global.
- timbit42 5y ago
  Six? Don't you mean eight? No, I don't believe all humans were killed by the flood. There are no reasons to think it was. There are at least 5 other copies of Noah's flood story: Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, Ziusudra, Berossus, and Moses of Khoren, some of which are older than Genesis and were direct or indirect sources for Genesis, and none of them are global floods. I'd suggest reading the other sources. They are obviously the same story but the differences are interesting. Regardless, eretz definitely doesn't mean planet. If you are interested, I'd recommend Robert M. Best's book Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic.
  - pmdulaney 5y ago
    Thanks for engaging with me. I had heard of Gilgamesh, but not the others. And I suppose you're right about the six vs eight -- I don't have a Bible with me. I realize that my views could be viewed as fideist and anti-intellectual. On the other hand, it would be a shame if great learning were to keep someone from accepting the simple truth of the Gospel. Or am I extrapolating too far to think that someone who rejects a world-wide Noahic flood also rejects the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?