The fallacy of word play

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:05 pm

.
Some attempting to defend the flood tale as describing a local flood claim that the term earth is intended to mean ground. For their benefit, the following quotation replaces 'earth' with 'ground' in the Genesis statement.

Genesis 6:11 Now the ground was corrupt in God's sight, and the ground was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the ground, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the ground. 13 And God said to Noah, I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the ground is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the ground.

Does that make sense?

Is it rational to play with words in an attempt to make ancient tales sound plausible?

Why employ such tactics if the tales are true?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:05 pm

Zzyzx wrote: .

Genesis 6:11 Now the ground was corrupt in God's sight, and the ground was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the ground, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the ground. 13 And God said to Noah, I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the ground is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the ground.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does.

The bible explains that when God created our planet earth* he had definite plans for it, namely for it to be filled with peaceful people living in harmony and worshipping Him in united happiness. When he looked down at the earth during Noah's time it was being used in a way far from what He had envisioned. It was full of violence, bloodshed and sexual perverts. It was spiritually defiled... ruined.

*The word translated here as "ground" is rendered "earth" in many translations.

To illustrate: A woman buys a beautiful while blouse, pure silk, beautifully made. She come home one day and sees her husband cleaning the violet with it. It's torn, filthy dirty and cannot be used for its intended purpose. Would she not say the blouse has been ruined.

If you can ruin a blouse, and you can ruin a carpet, you can ruin a planet! The planet, by not being used for its intended purpose being covered in the blood of the innocent, was ruined in Gods eyes and justice demanded an accounting.

REVELATION 11:18.

[God will] bring to ruin those ruining the earth." NWT

RELATED POSTS

What were the NEPHILIM and why did Good destroy them?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 690#875690

Post by **Tcg** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:14 pm

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

It doesn't make any sense at all. The story continually uses universal language in describing this event. Here is just one example:

Genesis 7:23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

The only land dwelling survivors of this flood were those who were on the ark. This would not have been the result of a local flood. This point is driven home by including birds in the list. It is absurd to think that birds would need to be housed on an ark to survive a local flood.

Tcg

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:19 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote: The bible explains that when God created our planet earth* he had definite plans for it, namely to be filled with peaceful people living in harmony and worshipping Him in united happiness. When he looked down at the earth during Now he time it was far from what He had envisioned. It was full of violence, bloodshed and sexual perverts. It was spiritually defiled... ruined.

And so why do you so passionately defend ancient myths that claim that some God had definite plans for planet earth, only to have all those plans fail miserably?

This requires that you accept the idea of a totally inept God who can't even maintain or implement his very own plans.

So why defend this obviously failed mythology?

I sincerely don't understand why people continually try to justify an obviously failed mythology.

liamconnor · Post by **liamconnor** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:19 pm

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

this maneuver is definitely a 'word play', though that may be too soft a term. Rather, they have manipulated the Hebrew. A "word violation" would be a better description.

There can be no doubt that the author of Genesis was describing (in his imagination) a worldwide flood.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:23 pm

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

My motives are my own. Isn't it better to address the post rather than the poster?

RELATED POSTS

There Is there a difference between a plan and a purpose?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 491#836491

Diagoras · Post by **Diagoras** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:36 pm

Zzyzx wrote:Is it rational to play with words in an attempt to make ancient tales sound plausible?

Well, yes... if you sincerely wish them to be true, and the literal interpretation doesn't make sense in light of modern scientific knowledge.

It's human nature to avoid the unpleasantness of being proved wrong, so changing stories to fit known facts will avoid unpleasantness - at least in the short term.

Those that go through doubt and admitting that they were wrong are therefore to be admired for having the courage to face that unpleasantness. Hopefully any guests reading this forum who's experiencing doubt may realise they're not alone , and perhaps take that leap.

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:29 pm

.

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
Genesis 6:11 Now the ground was corrupt in God's sight, and the ground was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the ground, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the ground. 13 And God said to Noah, I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the ground is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the ground.
Does that make sense?
Yes it does.

Kindly explain to readers how the 'ground is filled with violence' makes sense.

Let's keep in mind that 'ground' was substituted for 'earth' by someone trying to promote the flood being LOCAL -- and saying that the word earth was mistranslated and should read 'ground'.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:10 am

Zzyzx wrote: .
Kindly explain to readers how the 'ground is filled with violence' makes sense.

I just did.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 070#972070

SallyF · Post by **SallyF** » Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:38 am

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Is it rational to play with words in an attempt to make ancient tales sound plausible?

Why employ such tactics if the tales are true?

I strongly suggest that this tactic is employed precisely when people of faith recognise that biblical tales are just plain false.

It is very rational to carefully and deliberately distort fantasy tales.

It is - in my view - dishonest.

Debating Christianity and Religion

The fallacy of word play

The fallacy of word play

Re: The fallacy of word play

Re: The fallacy of word play

Re: The fallacy of word play

Re: The fallacy of word play

Re: The fallacy of word play

Re: The fallacy of word play

Re: The fallacy of word play

Re: The fallacy of word play

Re: The fallacy of word play