The Flood Waters

[Davros of Skaro]

Complex questions need complex answers. That's the problem with a lot of people these days. We've been tricked to the point where we think a popcorn answer is sufficient for a ten-course banquet.

How hypocritical.You used to describe my posts with links to back them up as a "wall of text tactic" because it did not go with what you believe.

[Davros of Skaro]

People make more to ancient stories than what they actualy are.These are just tales of ancient man twisted over time per agenda.

The Flood & Babel stories go back to ancient Sumeria.

Floods do happen, and fossil seashells are found around mountain tops due to plate tectonics.A flood caused by Gods, or a God is redundant today.

Ancient man thought the air, clouds, and the heavenly bodies were a magical realm.People working together resulted in different languages by rulers of these realms.We know better today.Ever hear of "Seventh Heaven"?Well that's just Jupiter.

To me looking into these stories for some great wisdom just overlooks what it is.

People will say that the ancients knew something hidden & mysterious, just look at the Pyramids.

The things is that we can build the Pyramids today, but people want money (not afterlife promises), and we have labor laws.

[+Paranoid Android]

How hypocritical.You used to describe my posts with links to back them up as a "wall of text tactic" because it did not go with what you believe.

There's a difference between writing several paragraphs of an explanatory nature to flesh out a concept that was explicitly expressed, compared to copy-pasting a dozen links that may or may not be relevant to a topic, accompanied by a dozen uploaded images that may or may not be relevant, accompanied by a thousand words of text that may or may not be relevant to the topic, and finally a posted internet meme used to ridicule another's point of view.

The first is a reasoned and reasonable attempt at discussing a topic. The second is an attempt to drown us in material that is (at best) marginally related to the topic and used to push forward an agenda (which at the time, I think was "Jesus=Caesar"), which you routinely copy-pasted the same material into every thread where the word "Jesus" was brought up.

It's not hypocrisy, it's relevance.

[Frank Merton]

Absolutely and unequivocally I am making such a distinction. This view was never the intention of the author, and therefore when applying your world view to that specific view you are completely wrong in doing so. Humanism was never intended, so it's an exercise in futility in attempting to impose a humanist world view to that event.

The thing is you merely prove that humanism is a superior philosophy to anything found in the Bible. By the way, my culture is not humanist and I didn't learn about it until my college years so your assertion that it is my world view is wrong.

[spacecowboy342]

Umm, the use of the words "murder", "genocide", "killing millions", "wiping out ecosystems", and "killing unborn and other innocent children" are 100% completely tied to the humanist point of view, if you weren't aware. The fact that you even use these terms shows you are 100% interpreting this text through a humanistic world view. As noted, the author did not have this in mind when writing, and therefore it is a 100% invalid approach to reading it. Unless you subscribe to Barthes' "Death of the Author" notion as discussed earlier. I can't tell you you're wrong to take such a view, but I personally cannot remove the author from the text.

I think the humanistic world view is valid despite the fact that the ancients had never heard the word

[+Paranoid Android]

Little bit difficult to see how I can be wrong when I didn't take a side.

In the story of the Exodus, the Kenites were the skilled artisans who made things, stone cutters, woodworkers, etc. The Exodus was organized in three parts, like an Egyptian work gang - a military wing for defense and to enforce discipline, laborers to do the scut work and skilled craftsmen. The Kenites were the craftsmen and "Ken-" (or "Cin=") derives from Cain. Cain was the original Mr. Smith.

The name "Abel/Havel" appears in ancient place names, like Abel-Shittim ("Meadow of the Acacias"), probably an off-shoot of what we call the Plains of Moab, which appears to be "Abel-Mizraim" ("Meadow of Egypt").

Abel/Havel is always used in a herding context. Cain/Ken-/Cin- is always used in the context of skilled labor.

Personally, I think it's nothing more than a good story and trying to infer all these deep meanings from it is a blind alley.

Doug

The Hebrew word 'el el never appears in Exodus, so I'm not sure how you can say that the craftsmen in Exodus were related to Cain.. The word hebel never appears outside Genesis 4, so likewise I can't see how you can say they are place names (the name for Abel-Shittim in Hebrew is 'abel hashittym (with some accents over the word abel that won't copy-paste properly into the text box here). The definition given in my dictionary here does not show any relation between hebel of Genesis 4 and 'abel of this place name.

[Frank Merton]

I think the humanistic world view is valid despite the fact that the ancients had never heard the word

Humanism has its problems but it is better than tribalism and attributing everything to a deity.

[+Paranoid Android]

The story relates that he got himself drunk on wine once, hardly evidence he was a "drunkard". And the relating of that does not diminish Noah (and so the Hebrews) in any way, but his drunkenness is a device by which the example of the behaviour of his sons may be demonstrated. In this, the denigration of Canaan (and by extension, the denigration by the Hebrews of the Canaanites), is made clear. It is another example of a cultural/racial/ethnic superiority theme laid out as a cautionary tale.

Much of these early scriptural tales are of the same category, cautionary tales showing how (and why) other ethnicities are so inferior to the Hebrews.

I disagree, there is "right and wrong", but that does not translate to "superior and inferior". But I'll let it go since we don't seem like we're going to get any further in this discussion. Best wishes,

~ Regards, PA

[+Paranoid Android]

The thing is you merely prove that humanism is a superior philosophy to anything found in the Bible. By the way, my culture is not humanist and I didn't learn about it until my college years so your assertion that it is my world view is wrong.

All I'm doing is saying that applying humanist approaches to a text that is about God in the Bible is an invalid approach. The ancients when reading this weren't thinking "oh the horror, God killed everyone - would somebody please THINK OF THE CHILDREN". The ancients when writing this weren't thinking "hey, do you think people might one day ask whether God was morally corrupt by bringing the flood on innocent children"? As such, it is an inappropriate approach to look at the Flood with that philosophy. You can do so, but you'll come away with an interpretation of the text that was never intended by the author, and therefore a totally flawed understanding of what the text is about. I'm not arguing the superiority or inferiority of humanism, just that applying it to God in the flood narrative is poor textual criticism.

And I apologise by using the words "your world view".

[+Paranoid Android]

I think the humanistic world view is valid despite the fact that the ancients had never heard the word

As noted to Frank, those reading the text weren't thinking "the horror, God flooded the world - someone think of the children". Likewise those writing it originally weren't asking themselves "do you think one day people might think God evil for killing innocent children in the flood". As such, to read it and interpret the text with that mindset leads to a totally flawed and incorrect interpretation of the text. It's poor textual criticism, plain and simple.

[Davros of Skaro]

There's a difference between writing several paragraphs of an explanatory nature to flesh out a concept that was explicitly expressed, compared to copy-pasting a dozen links that may or may not be relevant to a topic, accompanied by a dozen uploaded images that may or may not be relevant, accompanied by a thousand words of text that may or may not be relevant to the topic, and finally a posted internet meme used to ridicule another's point of view.

The first is a reasoned and reasonable attempt at discussing a topic. The second is an attempt to drown us in material that is (at best) marginally related to the topic and used to push forward an agenda (which at the time, I think was "Jesus=Caesar"), which you routinely copy-pasted the same material into every thread where the word "Jesus" was brought up.

It's not hypocrisy, it's relevance.

Now you're crunching everything together into a Strawman.Thanks

[Frank Merton]

As noted to Frank, those reading the text weren't thinking "the horror, God flooded the world - someone think of the children". Likewise those writing it originally weren't asking themselves "do you think one day people might think God evil for killing innocent children in the flood". As such, to read it and interpret the text with that mindset leads to a totally flawed and incorrect interpretation of the text. It's poor textual criticism, plain and simple.

I don't get it. Are you claiming the text tells us God saved the children?

[+Paranoid Android]

Now you're crunching everything together into a Strawman.Thanks

It's not a strawman, it's a breakdown of your posting style, particularly during your "wall of text" period (though to be fair, you may or may not have also used an internet meme during this time, at least within the same post). However, any time a topic about Jesus was brought up, up came the wall of text, whether it was related to the question being asked or not. Would you like me to link to some of these? Your post history is easy to check, as long as I have access to a proper computer and not my only my phone.

[+Paranoid Android]

I don't get it. Are you claiming the text tells us God saved the children?

Not at all. I thought my point was obvious. Those reading/writing the ancient texts weren't thinking along those lines, so if we do think along these lines as we read we're going to arrive at a flawed understanding of what the authors intended, and therefore it's poor textual criticism to read it that way.

[spacecowboy342]

As noted to Frank, those reading the text weren't thinking "the horror, God flooded the world - someone think of the children". Likewise those writing it originally weren't asking themselves "do you think one day people might think God evil for killing innocent children in the flood". As such, to read it and interpret the text with that mindset leads to a totally flawed and incorrect interpretation of the text. It's poor textual criticism, plain and simple.

No I'm sure they weren't and if they were they kept it to themselves to avoid being stoned to death. I'm not interpreting the text but the symbology described which may or may not have been intended but is there nonetheless Edited May 6, 2014 by spacecowboy342

[Leonardo]

As noted to Frank, those reading the text weren't thinking "the horror, God flooded the world - someone think of the children". Likewise those writing it originally weren't asking themselves "do you think one day people might think God evil for killing innocent children in the flood". As such, to read it and interpret the text with that mindset leads to a totally flawed and incorrect interpretation of the text. It's poor textual criticism, plain and simple.

No, it isn't.

The interpretation of what the text implies is valid. That those who wrote that text thought little or nothing about the mass murder of those who did not believe as they did has no relevance to that, and has nothing to do with "textual criticism".

A modern, critical, interpretation of the text within a humanistic/secular mind-set is just as valid as a modern, apologetic, interpretation within an ideological/theological mind-set.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

Not at all. I thought my point was obvious. Those reading/writing the ancient texts weren't thinking along those lines, so if we do think along these lines as we read we're going to arrive at a flawed understanding of what the authors intended, and therefore it's poor textual criticism to read it that way.

l can only take this as meaning you would excuse such things if you thought God wanted it. You are playing what seem to me dishonest with intentions of the authors when they surely knew all the implications; they wouldn't have been that stupid. That they didn't care doesn't mean we can't criticize them for not caring, nor accept modern day rationalizations for such evils.

[+Paranoid Android]

Lord Sauron created rings. He gave three to the Elves, seven to the Dwarves, and nine he gave to the race of man. He then created one ring to rule them all. He was the creator of the rings, correct? They were his, and he had the Right to use them! Instead, the ring was cut from his finger, and then when it reappeared in the hands of a small hobbit these Hobbits then made an illegal insurgency into his country, bypassing customs and crossing the border through a little-known spider-infested tunnel. They then destroyed Sauron's rightful property, thus executing him without trial.

Man those evil Hobbits, those meddling wizards. Themes of border control, theft, illegally entering someone's property, destroying property, and ultimately the death penalty without trial.

Answer me this - am I justified in making this interpretation? Tolkien's dead now, so I can't ask him what he intended.

[Leonardo]

Lord Sauron created rings. He gave three to the Elves, seven to the Dwarves, and nine he gave to the race of man. He then created one ring to rule them all. He was the creator of the rings, correct? They were his, and he had the Right to use them! Instead, the ring was cut from his finger, and then when it reappeared in the hands of a small hobbit these Hobbits then made an illegal insurgency into his country, bypassing customs and crossing the border through a little-known spider-infested tunnel. They then destroyed Sauron's rightful property, thus executing him without trial.

Man those evil Hobbits, those meddling wizards. Themes of border control, theft, illegally entering someone's property, destroying property, and ultimately the death penalty without trial.

Answer me this - am I justified in making this interpretation? Tolkien's dead now, so I can't ask him what he intended.

I'm a bit confused by your post here, PA.

Are you arguing for - or against - the Christian God's 'right' to do as it pleases with it's 'creation'?

[+Paranoid Android]

I'm a bit confused by your post here, PA.

Are you arguing for - or against - the Christian God's 'right' to do as it pleases with it's 'creation'?

As a matter of interest, I am "for" the Christian God's right to do what it deems best, whatever that may be. However, that was not the point of my post. I'm confused how you can misunderstand my purpose. I'm interpreting LOTR in a specific way, am I correct in doing so, or is my interpretation invalid?

[Leonardo]

As a matter of interest, I am "for" the Christian God's right to do what it deems best, whatever that may be. However, that was not the point of my post. I'm confused how you can misunderstand my purpose. I'm interpreting LOTR in a specific way, am I correct in doing so, or is my interpretation invalid?

I understand, thanks for clarifying.

Your interpretation is perfectly valid. However, that has no bearing on the morality of the actions taken by any of the characters in the tale as perceived by any reader. A reader who has a sense of morality/ethics which tends towards the 'equality' end of the spectrum might suggest that, while Sauron has the 'right of creatorship' over the rings, he does not have right of ownership over those he has given away. Not being the owner, he therefore has no right to use them.

As for the ring he kept, he had the right to use it but in doing so he denied the rights of others to various other freedoms they held as 'natural'. Those other people, their rights being infringed, therefore had just as much right to prevent Sauron from using his ring, as he had to use it. Who then prevails is a matter of relative power.

In the case of Noah's Flood, God has given the Earth to humans, and given humans the freedom to act as they will. Therefore God has no right to interfere with human activity on Earth as God has rescinded ownership. The text does not state that the Earth, and mankind's freedom, was given conditionally - only that they were given.

[+Paranoid Android]

I understand, thanks for clarifying.

Your interpretation is perfectly valid.

I disagree, and I think this is the crux of our issue. My interpretation here is completely INVALID. As you probably know, it's not an interpretation I actually believe, it was an example to see where we collectively stood on the matter. JRR Tolkien clearly never intended to paint Sauron as the hero (or even anti-hero, if you wish to think of him as such). There were no issues of border control, theft of property, rights of ownership, or capital punishment without trial. These are all things I ADDED based on a world view. I don't think the interpretation I presented is valid. It is not in keeping with the intentions of the author, and therefore an inappropriate and flawed attempt at interpreting the text. By your response you have demonstrate that you do adhere more to Barthes' "Death of the Author" ideology, and as such we have no further way to discuss this, since I do not accept Barthes' philosophy as valid.

In the case of Noah's Flood, God has given the Earth to humans, and given humans the freedom to act as they will. Therefore God has no right to interfere with human activity on Earth as God has rescinded ownership. The text does not state that the Earth, and mankind's freedom, was given conditionally - only that they were given.

Actually, he did not "give" the earth to humans. At best he made us "stewards". We are caretakers until such time as God returns to reclaim what is rightfully his. I can support this theologically if I must, at no time does God relinquish his Right as owners of his creation.

[Doug1029]

The Hebrew word 'el el never appears in Exodus, so I'm not sure how you can say that the craftsmen in Exodus were related to Cain.. The word hebel never appears outside Genesis 4, so likewise I can't see how you can say they are place names (the name for Abel-Shittim in Hebrew is 'abel hashittym (with some accents over the word abel that won't copy-paste properly into the text box here). The definition given in my dictionary here does not show any relation between hebel of Genesis 4 and 'abel of this place name.

Excluding the proper names of the fictional Cain and Abel, do you know of any uses of a derivation of Ken-/Cin- that is not associated with a skilled laborer. By the same token, do you know of a non-pastoral use of the name Abel?

Doug

[Leonardo]

I disagree, and I think this is the crux of our issue. My interpretation here is completely INVALID. As you probably know, it's not an interpretation I actually believe, it was an example to see where we collectively stood on the matter. JRR Tolkien clearly never intended to paint Sauron as the hero (or even anti-hero, if you wish to think of him as such). There were no issues of border control, theft of property, rights of ownership, or capital punishment without trial. These are all things I ADDED based on a world view. I don't think the interpretation I presented is valid. It is not in keeping with the intentions of the author, and therefore an inappropriate and flawed attempt at interpreting the text. By your response you have demonstrate that you do adhere more to Barthes' "Death of the Author" ideology, and as such we have no further way to discuss this, since I do not accept Barthes' philosophy as valid.

You are confusing an intepretation of events within a story, with the story itself. You interpreted certain events within a story according to a modern, legalistic, world-view. While that might not have been the author's intent when writing the story, that fact doesn't make your interpretation [of those events] any less valid. In any story with multiple characters there are multiple pov's available to interpretation. That the author might present only one, or several closely associated, pov's does not negate this.

Yes, this is allied to Barthes thesis - but modified slightly in that I do not accept Barthes thesis as valid for an obvious fiction, but I do accept it as valid for a work intended to describe a non-fiction. In the case of a non-fiction, the author's own personal 'identity' becomes irrelevant to how the text should be examined. You might argue that Tolkein's work is a fiction, therefore I cannot argue your interpretation is valid, but you presented it as a simile for critical analysis of biblical stories - stories that are (or were) intended to be treated as non-fiction. In doing so you changed the context of Tolkein's work from fiction to non-fiction.

Had you presented an interpretation of a historical text in such a way, I would also have suggested your interpretation was valid. Or if your argument was that the biblical stories in question are fictions, then I would also agree an alternative interpretation is invalid - but that would present problems for the faith/belief based on those fictions.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Leonardo

[+Paranoid Android]

Excluding the proper names of the fictional Cain and Abel, do you know of any uses of a derivation of Ken-/Cin- that is not associated with a skilled laborer. By the same token, do you know of a non-pastoral use of the name Abel?

Doug

To my current knowledge, I don't know any use of the Hebrew 'el el or hebel that refer to either a skilled labourer or a farmer.