Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Noah - the Clean and the Unclean

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    John Walton in his commentary on Genesis writes:

    Source: Genesis by John H. Walton

    While the initial instructions indicate that "pairs" of all living creatures are to be taken into the ark, when more specific instructions are given, one pair of unclean animals and seven pairs of clean animals are to be taken. The distinction between clean and unclean animals was not an innovation established at Sinai, but here is seen as early as Noah. Evidence from Egypt and Mesopotamia offer no system equivalent to the Israelite system of classification. While there are dietary restrictions in those cultures, they tend to be much more limited--that is, certain animals restricted only to certain classes of people or on certain days of the month. Even here one cannot assume that the classification has implications for their diet. Up to this time no permission has been granted to eat meat (see 1:29). When meat is granted to them as food after the Flood (9:2-3), there are no restrictions along the lines of clean and unclean. Thus, I conclude that the classifications concerns sacrifice, not diet, in this period.

    © Copyright Original Source



    So, essentially what he's suggesting is that there was a distinction between clean and unclean in sacrifice to the one true God before Moses. Assuming the God of Noah was also the God of Moses, God would know which animals would later be declared clean or unclean to the later Israelites. This becomes, then, a type of foreshadowing.




    I don't think this does what you think it does. I believe one can hold to a literal interpretation of the text, and still maintain that the incident is localized and not world-wide (I believe scholars like John Walton, John Sailhamer, and Tremper Longman III provide sufficient reasons to correlate a literal reading of the text to a localized event). I believe this really is a theological/textual question, and not one that's specific to the Natural Science subforum.
    Thanks for reference.

    But it sounds like a convoluted way out of a dilemma. It's more obvious to me that the Noah myth was written sometime after the Mosaic Law was given.

    K54

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      ...

      I don't think this does what you think it does. I believe one can hold to a literal interpretation of the text, and still maintain that the incident is localized and not world-wide (I believe scholars like John Walton, John Sailhamer, and Tremper Longman III provide sufficient reasons to correlate a literal reading of the text to a localized event). I believe this really is a theological/textual question, and not one that's specific to the Natural Science subforum.
      A local flood is the ONLY way to concord the text with a physical event.

      However, you still have that twisted attempt to justify the clean/unclean business.

      I want y'all at least to realize the possiblity of the Flood being a myth derived from older myths. And the Noah being written down (from oral traditions) after the Law fits the text and historical context very well.

      Of course there's the overwhelming evidence against a global flood (remember the Hebrews no understanding nor word for "planet") and a "local" flood has similar problems.

      E.g, why wouldn't all that water flow into the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf?

      Also you'd need a source for all the water.

      K54

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
        Thanks for reference.

        But it sounds like a convoluted way out of a dilemma. It's more obvious to me that the Noah myth was written sometime after the Mosaic Law was given.

        K54
        Perhaps.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          A local flood is the ONLY way to concord the text with a physical event.

          However, you still have that twisted attempt to justify the clean/unclean business.

          I want y'all at least to realize the possiblity of the Flood being a myth derived from older myths. And the Noah being written down (from oral traditions) after the Law fits the text and historical context very well.

          Of course there's the overwhelming evidence against a global flood (remember the Hebrews no understanding nor word for "planet") and a "local" flood has similar problems.

          E.g, why wouldn't all that water flow into the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf?

          Also you'd need a source for all the water.

          K54
          I don't lean global flood, so your argument is not necessarily with me, but I also don't agree that one necessarily need derive the concept of clean/unclean from a later authorial source. I do admit, though, that that is one theory. I'm very familiar with the documentary hypothesis, and think certain variations of it make much sense of the text, but I don't think its the only sense one needs to take from the text. That's why I think this is more a theological/textual issue than a Natural Science issue.

          Comment


          • #35
            Moderated By: rogue06


            I've moved the thread to Apologetics which seems to be a better fit.

            Don't worry klaus, it is not a Theist-only area.

            ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
            Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.


            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Roy View Post
              Pig

              Roy

              P.S. Camel, rabbits, white mice
              I'll give you pig and camel, I stand corrected on that point. Rabbits and mice, not so much.

              I don't think it refutes my original point, however. There's very good reason not to eat pork on board a big wooden ship where big cooking fires aren't a great idea. Not true of camel but I don't think the single exception would matter.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                At the risk of citing Wikipedia (which is actually pretty good in these sort of matters):

                Source: Domestic pig


                Archaeological evidence suggests that pigs were domesticated from wild boar as early as 13,000–12,700 BC in the Near East in the Tigris Basin[13] being managed in the wild in a way similar to the way they are managed by some modern New Guineans.[14] Remains of pigs have been dated to earlier than 11,400 BC in Cyprus. Those animals must have been introduced from the mainland, which suggests domestication in the adjacent mainland by then.[15] There was also a separate domestication in China which took place about 8000 years ago.[16][17]


                Source

                © Copyright Original Source



                It appears that pigs have been domesticated for 14,700 to 15,000 years in the Tigris region (confirming what I said) and 13,400 years in Cyprus. That is considerably earlier than in China. Moreover, pigs, an unclean animal, have been domesticated for a very long time so the idea that domestication is the basis for separating between clean and unclean does not appear to be justified.
                I mentioned domestication, granted, but 'dinner/not dinner' was my main point as the writer's audience would have understood the reference.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  We're these terms from the Mosaic Law, which was given over a millennium later according to Ussher?
                  I don't think either the flood or the exodus really happened, but I don't see much of a problem here with the chronology. The authors didn't claim that the distinction between clean and unclean foods originated with Moses. It would be silly to think the Hebrews never had a law against adultery before the Ten Commandments were handed down.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cerealman View Post
                    P bone?
                    P bone?
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      I mentioned domestication, granted, but 'dinner/not dinner' was my main point as the writer's audience would have understood the reference.
                      But....but....weren't we not allowed to eat meat until AFTER the flood?
                      Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                        But....but....weren't we not allowed to eat meat until AFTER the flood?
                        Yep, right after. Which is why you'd need more of them, isn't it? ;)

                        But it's a fair point. Perhaps 'sacrificial/not sacrificial' would be better.
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          Because it deals with the possible occurrence of the literalness of the Greate Floode story.

                          It's a theological/exegetic argument against a literal (world-wide) flood.

                          This line of reasoning goes hand-in-hand with the complete lack of geological and genetic evidence for such a flood.

                          I.e., it's complementary to the natural science.

                          K54
                          The flood story doesn't make any more sense regionalized. What exactly was the point of drowning a specific population when the depravity problem had already migrated across the planet?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by whag View Post
                            The flood story doesn't make any more sense regionalized. What exactly was the point of drowning a specific population when the depravity problem had already migrated across the planet?
                            The way I see it, from the vantage point of that population, other people literally did not exist so their concept of "global" would be only what they knew of.
                            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                              The way I see it, from the vantage point of that population, other people literally did not exist so their concept of "global" would be only what they knew of.
                              Or, perhaps the localized region had some special significance and prominence to the authors and readers of the Torah (like...being the Promised Land).

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                                The way I see it, from the vantage point of that population, other people literally did not exist so their concept of "global" would be only what they knew of.
                                Their perception of the world's population is irrelevant to what I said. I asked what's the point of drowning that region when depravity had already radiated across the globe tens of thousands of years prior? My point being that regionalizing the event does nothing to fix the problem.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 07:40 AM
                                0 responses
                                3 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Starlight, 07-24-2021, 09:58 PM
                                137 responses
                                560 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, 07-20-2021, 12:05 PM
                                182 responses
                                912 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-16-2021, 07:39 AM
                                76 responses
                                423 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Mountain Man, 07-05-2021, 04:27 PM
                                74 responses
                                445 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X