B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Karl,

I've never read anything about rocket ships in the Scriptures. So I'm assuming your remark was intended to be sarcastic and/or antagonistic. That's unnecessary.

Is it your belief that anytime the word "land" is used that it means the entire globe rather than an area of land or region?

Dustin...

Dustin:

seekinganswers wrote:I've never read anything about rocket ships in the Scriptures. So I'm assuming your remark was intended to be sarcastic and/or antagonistic. That's unnecessary.

It was intended to be neither. Rather that statement was to point out that you’re hanging too much on a three words taken out of context.

seekinganswers wrote:Is it your belief that anytime the word "land" is used that it means the entire globe rather than an area of land or region?

Dustin...

The Hebrew word for “land” is used in more than one context, just like the English one. Contexts include “dirt” meaning the land that is farmed, land as referring to a country, and land as contrasted to the sea. In Genesis 6–8, like Genesis 1:25, refers to the dry land, while Genesis 2:7 to the ground.

Read according to the context.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

Your statement about rocket ships looks like mockery, regardless of what you intended. Your clarification certainly doesn't help.

Between you and Steve, you dismiss a lot of details. Cain after the flood. The giants both before and after the flood. The giants are not the offspring of the sons of God/gods and daughters of Adam. The context of the flood being part of one genealogy and not another. That the events in one genealogy occurred someplace other than "the face of the earth" but the events of the other occurred in "the face of the earth." The fact that those "three words taken out of context" mean precisely the same thing in every context of Scripture, save the one where you have assumed (not proven) different.

Either the details mean something or they mean nothing. Your dismissal implies you believe the details mean nothing. Then what's the point of being a scholar?

To me, the details mean everything. In my professional work, a millionth of an inch is an intolerable error.

I have published a long list of such details. They would take several pages, but there's no point because you would just dismiss them all. It seems that you have a prior commitment to a Planet Earth covering flood, regardless of what Scripture actually says and means.

Paul chastised the Thessalonians for their prior commitment to tradition and praised the Bereans for actually searching Scripture and testing what others are seeing. Tradition is your standard. I try to make Scripture mine. I was hoping for some help in that regard, but I see that my hope was misplaced.

Thank-you for your time. I won't burden you further.
Jeff

Jeff:

JLVaughn wrote:Karl,

Your statement about rocket ships looks like mockery, regardless of what you intended. Your clarification certainly doesn't help.

Well, where were they if they were not on the earth?

JLVaughn wrote:Between you and Steve, you dismiss a lot of details.

The Bible gives true knowledge, but not exhaustive knowledge. There are many details that the Bible leaves out. What I’ve learned is not to add to what Scripture says. Nor take away. What’s wrong with having to say “I don’t know”?

JLVaughn wrote: Cain after the flood.

There is nothing in the Bible about Cain after the Flood. Nothing.

JLVaughn wrote: The giants both before and after the flood.

So? What about them?

JLVaughn wrote: The giants are not the offspring of the sons of God/gods and daughters of Adam.

Where in the Bible does it say that they were?

JLVaughn wrote: The context of the flood being part of one genealogy and not another.

So? The one genealogy was cut short by the Flood.

JLVaughn wrote: That the events in one genealogy occurred someplace other than "the face of the earth"

Scripture doesn’t say that. Where does Scripture say that Cain’s children were also cut off from the face of the earth?

JLVaughn wrote: but the events of the other occurred in "the face of the earth." The fact that those "three words taken out of context" mean precisely the same thing in every context of Scripture, save the one where you have assumed (not proven) different.

???????

JLVaughn wrote:Either the details mean something or they mean nothing. Your dismissal implies you believe the details mean nothing.

Since when can we add details that are not in the Bible?

JLVaughn wrote: Then what's the point of being a scholar?

Much in many ways.

JLVaughn wrote:To me, the details mean everything.

Some of the details are how the language is used to describe the events recorded in the Bible. That’s the focus of this group.

JLVaughn wrote: In my professional work, a millionth of an inch is an intolerable error.

In my study of Biblical Hebrew, an inaccurate description of what is said is an intolerable error.

JLVaughn wrote:I have published a long list of such details. They would take several pages, but there's no point because you would just dismiss them all.

Oh oh, another guy with an agenda. Should I add you to the list of people to whom not to respond?

JLVaughn wrote: It seems that you have a prior commitment to a Planet Earth covering flood, regardless of what Scripture actually says and means.

That’s what the text unambiguously states, so why shouldn’t I accept what Scripture says?

JLVaughn wrote:Paul chastised the Thessalonians for their prior commitment to tradition and praised the Bereans for actually searching Scripture and testing what others are seeing. Tradition is your standard.

What makes you think that tradition is my standard? Don’t you recognize that the very reason I wrote my own dictionary is because I didn’t accept tradition?

JLVaughn wrote: I try to make Scripture mine. I was hoping for some help in that regard, but I see that my hope was misplaced.

Thank-you for your time. I won't burden you further.
Jeff

Now I read the final sentence, after spending the time to answer the above.

My scholarship is in what the words actually mean in their contexts.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

I'm wondering if you missed my question. Here it is --

Is it your belief that anytime the word "land" is used that it means the entire globe rather than an area of land or region?

Thanks,

Dustin...

Dustin:

seekinganswers wrote:Karl,

I'm wondering if you missed my question. Here it is --

Is it your belief that anytime the word "land" is used that it means the entire globe rather than an area of land or region?

Thanks,

Dustin...

I answered this question yesterday, do you want me to repeat myself?

OK, because copying and pasting is so easy in the computer age, here it is again:

“The Hebrew word for “land” is used in more than one context, just like the English one. Contexts include “dirt” meaning the land that is farmed, land as referring to a country, and land as contrasted to the sea. In Genesis 6–8, like Genesis 1:25, refers to the dry land, while Genesis 2:7 to the ground.

Read according to the context.”

Karl W. Randolph.

[Edited]

Karl,

Your demeanor has certainly changed. You're extremely sarcastic and demeaning now. I guess being a moderator you can get away with that.

You didn't answer my question. Maybe I need to be more specific for you...OR...TYPE...SLOWER. Is it okay that I'm sarcastic too?

I'll post my question again with specifics. Maybe that will help.

Do you think that "land/ground" in Genesis 4:14 in the context of Cain refers to the planet earth/globe?

Dustin...

Dustin:

seekinganswers wrote:Your demeanor has certainly changed. You're extremely sarcastic and demeaning now. I guess being a moderator you can get away with that.

No, I’m not one of the moderators. If I were, I would be getting after you for not signing your full name to your posts, which has been a rule, a requirement, before this forum was relocated to this site.

seekinganswers wrote:You didn't answer my question.

The question I answered was as follows: “Is it your belief that anytime the word "land" is used that it means the entire globe rather than an area of land or region?” Is your question below exactly the same as what I just copied and pasted? If not, how can you say that I didn’t answer the question you posed?

seekinganswers wrote: Maybe I need to be more specific for you...OR...TYPE...SLOWER. Is it okay that I'm sarcastic too?

To be deliberately sarcastic is a way to get in trouble with the moderators.

seekinganswers wrote:I'll post my question again with specifics. Maybe that will help.

Do you think that "land/ground" in Genesis 4:14 in the context of Cain refers to the planet earth/globe?

Dustin...

OK, this is a different question than what you asked before, therefore it gets a different response.

Whereas I wrote before that you needed to give context to your question to get a more specific answer, here you have provided context. Here it is that Cain will be driven off the fields that he previously used to grow his crops. In other words, he’s driven off his farm. The curse is that from then on he’ll be a wanderer on the earth, never again to have another farm where to grow his crops. Therefore in Genesis 4:14 Cain is driven from the land in the way that he’ll never again have a place to call his own.

Actually, this is the second time I answered that question too, though the first time I embedded my answer as a small part of a larger, more generalized answer.

In other contexts, “land” is used to refer to a country, in yet other contexts it’s used to refer to the land that’s not covered by water, i.e. dry land as contrasted to the ocean / sea. Therefore, without giving a specific context, you’ll get a generalized answer that I gave before.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

You say:

No, I’m not one of the moderators. If I were, I would be getting after you for not signing your full name to your posts, which has been a rule, a requirement, before this forum was relocated to this site.

and...

To be deliberately sarcastic is a way to get in trouble with the moderators.

First of all, I didn't know I was supposed to sign my full name. That's my fault for not reading the rules carefully enough. My apologies.

Second, your making the comment about "rocket ships" was deliberately sarcastic. So if the moderators "get after" me, then they need to "get after" you as well. But rather than anyone having to get after anyone, let's just not be sarcastic. I'm sorry that I reacted to you in that way.

You say:

OK, this is a different question than what you asked before, therefore it gets a different response.

I can see what you're saying. I just assumed that since the context of our entire conversation was Genesis 4 and Genesis 6, then you'd answer based upon that context vs. something broader. I should have been more specific in my question at the outset.

You say:

Here it is that Cain will be driven off the fields that he previously used to grow his crops. In other words, he’s driven off his farm.

Karl, I'm having a hard time seeing this in the text.

While the word can possibly mean a plot of land, what in the context of Genesis 4 defines it as a plot of land? This same word is used in Genesis 6:1, 7, 20. If you substitute "land" for "field" or "plot" then you have a very strange reading of the text.

What's more, I read through every section of Scripture in Genesis that uses this word. When it is meant to mean something myopic such as a small plot of land or field, the text identifies it as such. For example, in Genesis 9:20 we read that Noah began to be "a man of the soil and he planted a vineyard." Another one is Genesis 47:18-20.

And if the context of Genesis 4 meant that Cain was driven off of one field only, then why does it say that he became a wanderer on the earth? And why did he leave the region he was in and go all the way to Nod?

Dustin E Curlee

Dustin:

seekinganswers wrote:Karl,

You say:

OK, this is a different question than what you asked before, therefore it gets a different response.

I can see what you're saying. I just assumed that since the context of our entire conversation was Genesis 4 and Genesis 6, then you'd answer based upon that context vs. something broader. I should have been more specific in my question at the outset.

Genesis 4 and Genesis 6–8 are two different contexts. You are collapsing contexts if you try to read them together. My original answer was to try to account for all different contexts.

seekinganswers wrote:You say:

Here it is that Cain will be driven off the fields that he previously used to grow his crops. In other words, he’s driven off his farm.

Karl, I'm having a hard time seeing this in the text.

While the word can possibly mean a plot of land, what in the context of Genesis 4 defines it as a plot of land? This same word is used in Genesis 6:1, 7, 20. If you substitute "land" for "field" or "plot" then you have a very strange reading of the text.

Quite true, because this word is used in a wide range of contexts. It’s used in a wider range of contexts than any single word in English with a similar meaning. When we translate, we should take cognoscense of that fact to translate accurately according to the meaning intended.

seekinganswers wrote:What's more, I read through every section of Scripture in Genesis that uses this word. When it is meant to mean something myopic such as a small plot of land or field, the text identifies it as such. For example, in Genesis 9:20 we read that Noah began to be "a man of the soil and he planted a vineyard." Another one is Genesis 47:18-20.

Actually this is very close to the meaning in Genesis 4, that Cain could no longer be a man of the soil.

seekinganswers wrote:And if the context of Genesis 4 meant that Cain was driven off of one field only, then why does it say that he became a wanderer on the earth? And why did he leave the region he was in and go all the way to Nod?

Dustin E Curlee

Here are examples of where Scripture doesn’t give us details: how far away was Nod? It could have been as close as five miles, a distance which can be walked in an hour and ten minutes. When did he move to Nod? It could have been before he murdered Abel, even by centuries. How many other brothers were born to Adam and Eve before this murder? What was the population of the earth at that time? How old was Cain at the time he murdered Abel? Unanswered question after unanswered question, where Scripture leaves out the details. It’s possible that Cain was about 500 years old at that time, and the population of the earth over 100,000. We don’t know because we haven’t been told.

Karl W. Randolph.