The FLOOD, God's Great Failure?

[Skwim]

There is too much that I have said, to go back and isolate where I told you the meaning of Ra!
And it isn't important whether I told you it or not!

But your whole argument here has been around it's meaning. That it doesn't really mean "evil," but something else.

I may have told someone else, and forgot who!

Well, just to make sure I didn't miss your definition I went back through all your posts in this thread, and guess what, you told no one.

But regardless, the word Ra does not mean evil in the way that you believe it does!

So, just what is this meaning of "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 that is also shared with "Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" ?

How many times does this need to be asked before we get a straight answer from you? But never mind, I'm really not expecting an answer anymore.

You seem to be ignoring everything that I have already told you and repeating the same challenges!

Only because you have refused to address the points I presented with any kind of rationality. Pretending there is a singular meaning applicable to all the various interpretations of "ra" in Isaiah 45:7, but refusing to tell us what that meaning is.

Because your apologetics here consists mainly of having made up stuff, none of which you're able to defend, I can't believe that whatever religious denomination you belong to would be very proud of your appearance here, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps this is standard operating procedure for it: Say whatever you have to to eliminate the implications of those Bible passages that reflect poorly on your theology.

Again, you don't get what I am saying! Yes, the translations that use evil, calamity, disaster, etc are all correct, and none of them contradict each other! They are all TECHNICALLY correct! If they use the word evil, and their intent is the obscure meaning, then it is correct! Because they are using it to mean disaster! However, they are also wrong! Because people like you will misunderstand them! They used an accurate word but it was a poor choice!

Save the tap dancing. You've already shown us your bias and lack of principles.

.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Le

But your whole argument here has been around it's meaning. That it doesn't really mean "evil," but something else.


Well, just to make sure I didn't miss your definition I went back through all your posts in this thread, and guess what, you told no one.


So, just what is this meaning of "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 that is also shared with "Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" ?

How many times does this need to be asked before we get a straight answer from you? But never mind, I'm really not expecting an answer anymore.


Only because you have refused to address the points I presented with any kind of rationality. Pretending there is a singular meaning applicable to all the various interpretations of "ra" in Isaiah 45:7, but refusing to tell us what that meaning is.

Because your apologetics here consists mainly of having made up stuff, none of which you're able to defend, I can't believe that whatever religious denomination you belong to would be very proud of your appearance here, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps this is standard operating procedure for it: Say whatever you have to to eliminate the implications of those Bible passages that reflect poorly on your theology.


Save the tap dancing. You've already shown us your bias and lack of principles.

.

You are not being intellectually honest! The debate is about what the scripture means! The debate isn't about whether I told you the meaning of Ra or not! I acknowledged that I could have been mistaken, and I said "maybe I told someone else", I did not say: "I told someone else" Maybe I read the definition and was going to tell you, but forgot! You are getting bogged down by details that have nothing to do with the main issue! I have clearly explained that the word evil is used in some Bibles but does not mean evil, like wicked! Although if you want to get overly scrupulous (which you are) you could pick apart the word wicked too!

The word Ra doesn't mean evil in the way that could be described of Satan, Hitler, and Dahmer! Got it?

It means calamity!

Some translations use the word evil, and they are technically correct, but it is a weak word choice!

Have I made myself clear? I don't think you are a dumb person who can't grasp this! Are we done here?

 

[Jenny Collins]

But your whole argument here has been around it's meaning. That it doesn't really mean "evil," but something else.


Well, just to make sure I didn't miss your definition I went back through all your posts in this thread, and guess what, you told no one.


So, just what is this meaning of "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 that is also shared with "Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" ?

How many times does this need to be asked before we get a straight answer from you? But never mind, I'm really not expecting an answer anymore.


Only because you have refused to address the points I presented with any kind of rationality. Pretending there is a singular meaning applicable to all the various interpretations of "ra" in Isaiah 45:7, but refusing to tell us what that meaning is.

Because your apologetics here consists mainly of having made up stuff, none of which you're able to defend, I can't believe that whatever religious denomination you belong to would be very proud of your appearance here, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps this is standard operating procedure for it: Say whatever you have to to eliminate the implications of those Bible passages that reflect poorly on your theology.


Save the tap dancing. You've already shown us your bias and lack of principles.

.

If you don't like my answers, why do you keep talking to me?

 

[Skwim]

If you don't like my answers, why do you keep talking to me?

In talking to new people I always give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intellectual honesty, and a decent chance to demonstrate it, sometimes even to the point of tying to draw it out of them. Alas, not this time.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Jenny Collins]

But your whole argument here has been around it's meaning. That it doesn't really mean "evil," but something else.


Well, just to make sure I didn't miss your definition I went back through all your posts in this thread, and guess what, you told no one.


So, just what is this meaning of "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 that is also shared with "Bad times," "Calamity," "Disaster(s)," "Discord," "Hard times," "Troubles," and "Woe" ?

How many times does this need to be asked before we get a straight answer from you? But never mind, I'm really not expecting an answer anymore.


Only because you have refused to address the points I presented with any kind of rationality. Pretending there is a singular meaning applicable to all the various interpretations of "ra" in Isaiah 45:7, but refusing to tell us what that meaning is.

Because your apologetics here consists mainly of having made up stuff, none of which you're able to defend, I can't believe that whatever religious denomination you belong to would be very proud of your appearance here, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps this is standard operating procedure for it: Say whatever you have to to eliminate the implications of those Bible passages that reflect poorly on your theology.


Save the tap dancing. You've already shown us your bias and lack of principles.

.

I did not say there is a singular meaning to Ra! You did! I said that when a word has different possible meanings, that a responsible translator will consider the context! I think that somebody here did explain the context to you already! You tried to tell me that God created evil, and implied that meant he created badness! I explained to you that the scripture didn't mean evil the main sense of the word, and you have been bickering with me ever since!

 

[Deeje]

I enjoy all your posts but just wanted to point out one thing: You say that all people alive today are sheep or goats! I think it is during the great tribulation that people will be judged as sheep or goats! At this time there are no sheep or goats, only people who have those tendencies! Sheeplike people can become goats and goatlike people can become sheep at this time! "he who endures to the end will be saved"

I agree, the separating is going on right now, but the final judgment will not occur until Christ makes that call. Some who are presently 'goat-like' in their thinking, may change and turn around....others who think that they are sheep, may be in for a rude awakening. (Matthew 7:21-23) I am grateful that Jesus is the judge.

 

[arthra]

Even if the Epic of G was written first, it doesn't mean the Bible account was borrowed from it! There was the flood which happened, and it was recorded in more than one place! Bible account, and Epic of Gilgamesh! If E of G, was written first, the wrong version went into print first! Illustration: Say there was some event, and the National Enquirer did an article! It gave wrong details! Later responsible people write a book about the event and get it right! But even so, it is entirely possible that the E of G wasn't the first account! The real event may likely have been put in writing by Noah and/or his offspring! And those writings may have been used to write the official account found in the Bible!

Jenny!

Thanks so much for responding to my post!

I wanted to suggest you might enjoy reading an article on the subject at

Gilgamesh flood myth - Wikipedia

You can see I think some of the interesting parallels in the legends...

I hope we can have some friendly future interactions!

 

[Jenny Collins]

I

Jenny!

Thanks so much for responding to my post!

I wanted to suggest you might enjoy reading an article on the subject at

Gilgamesh flood myth - Wikipedia

You can see I think some of the interesting parallels in the legends...

I hope we can have some friendly future interactions!

I have a friend who is Bahai, he goes by B Knott Wildered and he is on different sites!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Their selfishness and greed is what caused them to disobey God, not because they were confused about whom (who?) to follow! God did not sic the Serpent on them! You are speaking in exaggeration! I like it when people talk to each other without exaggeration and sarcasm, as it is more intellectually honest

So you find me intellectually dishonest? You just referred to a god and a serpent from a creation myth as if they were real.

And you're blaming the victims again to shield your god from the opprobrium that an ordinary human being would experience for leaving naive babes in the company of a evil serpent trying to bring them and all of their progeny for all time down.

Sorry, but I'll never see that as anything but unethical. It's setting the kids up to fail, and here you are blaming them for failing. I assure you that virtually all children would fail a test like that. Part of you knows that. You and I would have failed before a proper upbringing, and so would our kids.

I understand why you need to sanitize all of this and reconcile it to your faith based assumptions that those stories represent the mind of a good god that loves man.

Bit perhaps you can understand how those stories read to somebody that has no such need and can just read the stories, tell you what they say, and make impartial judgments about them. The Garden story does not depict the deity in a favorable light.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God is all knowing but he can choose to use that ability or not! He can see into the future but often doesn't choose to use the ability, doesn't want to interfere with free will! I am sitting in a chair right now, and I CAN stand up but choose not to! God CAN see how things will turn out, but doesn't always choose to

This is called mythopoesis. It's how the Bible was formed. You're assigning abilities and intentions to your god according to the present need. Now you need this omnisicient god to sometimes not know some things

I noted that with omniscience and omnipotence comes omni-responsibility and asked you how do you get around that? Was this the answer to that? Sometimes, God chooses to not know or see things?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Quite a few of the Bibles don't render it "evil" and even if many do, didn't I already explain that it is not the equivalent of our English word in meaning? By the way, you seem to question the meaning of Ra! Did you know there are Lexicons and Concordances?

Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to communicate to the world in local languages if you weren't planning to return to earth to update them before they became ancient and largely untranslatable without ambiguity. Languages evolve.

You might see these kinds of objections as the spears of a malicious iconoclast trying to tear down a beautiful and consistent system of thought. I'm just telling you what one can see from without. It's not what you see.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Let me explain something: All languages have words that have various shades of meanings, including English! As I already explained, one example in the Bible is the word "hated" It does not convey the meaning "to loathe" in all cases! The Bible speaks of Leah as the "hated wife" meaning she was loved less! God is spoken of as "hating" wicked people! In that sense, it means a strong aversion for them, but it doesn't carry spite or malice, like when humans oftentimes hate! I already explained what the word ra meant, and different translations translate it differently! When they do this, they are not contradicting each other over meanings, just using different words which mean the same thing! In this case "evil" is not used in the typical sense of the world! When you compare other Bibles and they say "disaster" and "calamity" that doesn't contradict the others, but it sheds light on what evil means in this case! Just so you know, some Bibles render verses better than others! An example of a word that is badly translated in the KJV is obeisance! It renders it as "worship" in places, and at the time that the KJV was written, the word "worship" was a good translation of that word! However, since that time the word "worship" has changed and it doesn't belong in the Bible! People misunderstand it, and think where it is applied to Jesus, it means he is worthy of worship! He is God's son and inferior, not part of a Trinity! Does not deserve "worship"
So you see, it is important, to not just open a Bible, see an English word and jump to conclusions!

Yes, language and its evolution is a very human activity. This whole matter has the unmistakable fingerprint of humanity all over it. The Bible and its evolving history are just like other human endeavors.

I'm still looking for the divine element - the part where somebody chooses to NOT communicate in words that change in meaning and can eventually no longer be deciphered unambiguously, the part that doesn't look like countless numbers of people inventing their religion as they go along, often including errors and contradicting other contributors.

Think about how much more effective God could have been had He emblazoned a dazzling, unchanging, internally consistent whole into our nervous system that we knew perfectly and intuitively from birth.

 

[Skwim]

So you find me intellectually dishonest? You just referred to a god and a serpent from a creation myth as if they were real.

And you're blaming the victims again to shield your god from the opprobrium that an ordinary human being would experience for leaving naive babes in the company of a evil serpent trying to bring them and all of their progeny for all time down.

Sorry, but I'll never see that as anything but unethical. It's setting the kids up to fail, and here you are blaming them for failing. I assure you that virtually all children would fail a test like that. Part of you knows that. You and I would have failed before a proper upbringing, and so would our kids.

I understand why you need to sanitize all of this and reconcile it to your faith based assumptions that those stories represent the mind of a good god that loves man.

Bit perhaps you can understand how those stories read to somebody that has no such need and can just read the stories, tell you what they say, and make impartial judgments about them. The Garden story does not depict the deity in a favorable light.

Thing is, as a Christian evidently committed to saving god, the Bible, and Christianity from any and every kind of disparagement, she has to believe everything in the Bible no matter how illogical it may be. Unfortunately, this has driven her to make some of the most convoluted, and illogical statements I've seen in their defense.
Personally, I can't bring myself to debate with convoluted, and illogical.

.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't know what the "Bible language meaning" means? Really? I will explain! The Bible was written in three languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek! And it was translated into English, and all other modern languages! So the pure meaning of a word is its original meaning of the tongue it was written in! For instance, some may scoff at Isaiah 40:22 because it says "circle of the earth" Bible users share this scripture to show that the Bible is a sophisticated, accurate book, even referring to the roundness of the earth at a time when most thought it was flat! But all of these atheists scoff at the scripture and say: "The earth wasn't a circle, it was a globe!" Then they try to say that scripture meant that the Israelites thought it was a flat circle! However, the Hebrew word used is chug and can mean globe as well as circle! Many deny this, but there are reference books which prove that it can also be rendered globe or sphere, and there are some Bibles that actually do use the word globe! But if you ask me, circle is just fine, it is very clear that it means it is round! Just nit picking and fault finding! But that is what I mean by "Bible language words" It is important to not get all troubled by a word in English that may not even be the best word choice! All Bibles are not equal! KJV uses the word unicorn, when the beast is likely a rhinoceros

The Hebrew word for circle is "chuwg" and has a means of circle. You indicated, "there are reference books which prove that it can also be rendered globe or sphere, and there are some Bibles that actually do use the word globe!" Please provide some and explain how such opinions are proof of anything other than that people have opinions.

The Hebrews had a word for sphere - "dur" - and used it elsewhere, but not when describing the earth. Isaiah 22:18 says Yahweh ”will turn and toss you like a ball (ka-dur)” Isaiah 22:18 Hebrew Text Analysis

The same is true about Isaiah 40:22: He sits above the circle of the earth is from "Chug". Isaiah 40:22 Lexicon: It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The Bible writers clearly thought that the earth was flat. Take a look at a few models of it and tell me how many show a spherical earth: biblical cosmology - Buscar con Google

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Even if the Epic of G was written first, it doesn't mean the Bible account was borrowed from it! There was the flood which happened, and it was recorded in more than one place!

By whom outside of Noah's neighborhood was the account of the near sterilization of earth recorded? Emperor penguins?

And which cultures besides the Sumerians that were presumably exterminated by the flood knew about it before Noah and recorded the event?

The faithful don't seem to be able to see the glaring inconsistencies in their claims.

 

[Fred75]

Then I assume you see no success either.

.

Umm... I think your assessment of the pictures was EXACTLY the point. That God failed in creating man the first time, and that things didn't go any better the second time around. Way to underscore the point made in the OP. You're a champ.

FRIEND/S, PLEASE ALLOW ME TO SHARE MY DREAM OF YESTERYEARS...., My Dream, The Three(3) Days: My Dream of the "Apocalyptic Tide"

 

[Fred75]

PLEASE READ MY STORY: My Dream, The Three(3) Days: My Dream of the "Apocalyptic Tide" IT'S ABOUT FLOOD, WAVES AND VOLCANO.

 

[Kenny]

And the god of Abraham god couldn't do this without killing everything else? Hardly sounds like an omnipotent god to me, Not at all. In fact, if this is the case he comes across as a pretty incompetent god.

.

I think that is a matter of opinion and perspective and bypasses all possible facts and mitigating circumstances.

He may come across to you as non-omnipotent and incompetent to you but someone else may view it as competent in omnipotent.

 

[metis]

How about "allegory"?

 

[Skwim]

I think that is a matter of opinion and perspective and bypasses all possible facts and mitigating circumstances.

The fact that he failed to successfully change humanity by wiping virtually everyone off the face of the earth is no opinion. Biblewise that's a fact. And to me, failure is counter to any definition of omnipotence I've ever seen.

He may come across to you as non-omnipotent and incompetent to you but someone else may view it as competent in omnipotent.

And I recognize that, but I would ask those people if his failure, as I've pointed out, is an act of an omnipotent god. Wouldn't an all-powerful god have succeeded? And in turn wouldn't any such a failure be a mark of incompetence?

in·com·pe·tence
inˈkämpədəns/
noun
noun: incompetence; plural noun: incompetences
inability to do something successfully; ineptitude.
​

God was unable to successfully change humanity, and that he sought to do so is evident in having saved Noah and his family.

.