The fallacy of word play

[Zzyzx]

.
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]

This argument misses the much larger point that God "regretted' making man so much, he decided to drown every last one of them. Then he did yet another 'bout face and decided he'd save one single family.

GENESIS 6:6 in what sense did God REGRET/REPENT making man ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 645#895645





JW



RELATED POSTS

Why did God flood the earth in Noah's day?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 813#874813

Why would God choose FLOODING the earth as a method of execution ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 964#874964

Why did God ALLOW such wickedness in Noah's day?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 734#908734

Is the God of the bible Tyrannical?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 860#908860

[Danmark]

Word play, one of the more blatant tricks used, is saying in effect, "The Bible doesn't mean what it says (or say what it means), it means what I want it to mean" ....

What I find illuminating is their are two major arguments re: word play:

1. When confronted with specifics like "It will happen before you die; in this generation," when that time frame is inconvenient we get piles of words saying "'generation' does not mean what it usually means" and '"those standing here" means something different.'

2. When they like their interpretation of a literal translation, there is no resort to lengthy explanations, tortured word usage, or reference to cultural context.

[Danmark]

This argument misses the much larger point that God "regretted' making man so much, he decided to drown every last one of them. Then he did yet another 'bout face and decided he'd save one single family.

Why did God flood the earth in Noah's day?

Why would God choose FLOODING the earth as a method of execution ?

He flooded the Earth because the myth said he did and because he both loves and hates his creation and goes back and forth on whether it is good or bad. in other words, this imaginary human like tyrant is imaginary and what he does makes no sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

.. he both loves and hates his creation and goes back and forth on whether it is good or bad.

I've already addressed that point
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 860#908860






JW

Go to other posts related to ....

GOD, THE DIVINE NAME and ...THE TRINITY

[Danmark]

.. he both loves and hates his creation and goes back and forth on whether it is good or bad.

I've already addressed that point
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 860#908860

You may have addressed the point to your satisfaction, but not to mine.
You wrote:

Whether those that cast such accusations at God are aware of it or not, accusing God of being a "tyrant" and exercising his power in an unreasonably cruel and arbitrary (random, capricious, whimsical) way, was exactly the accusation that Satan made in the garden of Eden.

Citing another imaginary being hardly makes the point.

Let's be clear, my position is that there is no God, there is no Satan. In fact, the idea of a 'Satan' is incompatible with the idea of an absolute and perfect God as contemplated by Christian theology. A true God would crush a 'Satan' like a bug before he opened his mouth. This kind of nonsense reminds me more of comic books than reality.

What you have NOT addressed is the absurdity of a 'god' who keeps changing her mind and is capricious about killing everyone when she's having a fit about what she created. All of this silliness shows the 'god' of the bible is nonsense and therefore non existent, a figment of the imagination.

[JehovahsWitness]

Let's be clear, my position is that there is no God, there is no Satan.

I don't see your beliefs or lack thereof mentioned on the OP and I have have no interest in learning about them. If you have an observation about the text under discussion feel free to post it.

Otherwise, do have a most excellent day,


JW

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 25 by Danmark]

I don't see your beliefs or lack thereof mentioned on the OP and I have have no interest in learning about them.

Ahhh... so you wanted to debate as long as you could say "I've already addressed that point" and refer to a past argument that really does not address the issue; but when called on it, you opt for "not relevant." Understood. If you don't want to address the absurdity of this god that changes its mind and is warring with 'Satan,' that's fine. This is relevant to the OP:

Why employ such tactics if the tales are true?

I understand you have no argument to offer.