|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 11, 2009 17:37:06 GMT -5
According to Joshua 24:2 Terah, Abram's father, was on the OTHER side of the flood.
Joshua 24:2 - And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.
Now how is it that Abraham survived the flood?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Feb 11, 2009 19:03:41 GMT -5
Good evening Mellontes,
He didn't. The word flood in that passage means river, not "the flood" or deluge (as in Gen. 6:17) I'm sure you already know that, . . . so . . . what did I just step on?
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 11, 2009 20:22:31 GMT -5
Good evening Mellontes, He didn't. The word flood in that passage means river, not "the flood" or deluge (as in Gen. 6:17) I'm sure you already know that, . . . so . . . what did I just step on? Steve Yeah, I heard that too. I find it fascinating that every single time the word "flood" was used before Joshua 24:2 it referred to the "deluge" as you put it. I wonder how that might impact the group that believes in a local flood, and not a global scale flood... |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 12, 2009 9:04:30 GMT -5
The Hebrew word nahar is river, isn't it? Flood, as in Genesis 7, is mabbuwl.
Just because the KJV translates nahar as "flood," doesn't change the fact that the word actually means "river." Other translations, such as the NASB, correctly translate the word as river in Joshua 24.
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 12, 2009 12:41:55 GMT -5
The Hebrew word nahar is river, isn't it? Flood, as in Genesis 7, is mabbuwl. Just because the KJV translates nahar as "flood," doesn't change the fact that the word actually means "river." Other translations, such as the NASB, correctly translate the word as river in Joshua 24. Bev Hey Bev, I know this discussion has gotten off the beaten track, but what do you do with Job 22:16, Psalm 66:6 and Psalm 74:15. To me, they speak of the Noahic flood, but use the Hebrew "nahar." It would have been nice to have been back in Noah's day with a "Good for one admission" ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by mtymousie on Feb 12, 2009 13:19:23 GMT -5
According to Joshua 24:2 Terah, Abram's father, was on the OTHER side of the flood. Joshua 24:2 - And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. Now how is it that Abraham survived the flood? IMO, the context of Joshua 24 makes a direct comparison between the "flood" that Abraham's father lived on "the other side of" and the "sea" that Moses parted. When one looks at all the places that Abraham left, then it becomes clear that the "other side" was Egypt in both cases. Us humans tend to see a word and get tunnel vision. All of us do it. When we see "the flood" we immediately think of THE FLOOD. Fortunately, context clears things up for us a bit anyway. preteristmouse |
|
|
|
Post by mtymousie on Feb 12, 2009 13:23:23 GMT -5
It would have been nice to have been back in Noah's day with a "Good for one admission" ticket. <singing>She's got a ticket to ride ... Oh great .. now I got a Beatles song stuck in my head! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 12, 2009 13:43:24 GMT -5
According to Joshua 24:2 Terah, Abram's father, was on the OTHER side of the flood. Joshua 24:2 - And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. Now how is it that Abraham survived the flood? IMO, the context of Joshua 24 makes a direct comparison between the "flood" that Abraham's father lived on "the other side of" and the "sea" that Moses parted. When one looks at all the places that Abraham left, then it becomes clear that the "other side" was Egypt in both cases. Us humans tend to see a word and get tunnel vision. All of us do it. When we see "the flood" we immediately think of THE FLOOD. Fortunately, context clears things up for us a bit anyway. preteristmouse If you ever get the opportunity of reading "Beyond Creation Science," please do so. It has some very interesting and controversial points. www.beyondcreationscience.com |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 13, 2009 0:05:08 GMT -5
The Hebrew word nahar is river, isn't it? Flood, as in Genesis 7, is mabbuwl. Just because the KJV translates nahar as "flood," doesn't change the fact that the word actually means "river." Other translations, such as the NASB, correctly translate the word as river in Joshua 24. Bev Hey Bev, I know this discussion has gotten off the beaten track, but what do you do with Job 22:16, Psalm 66:6 and Psalm 74:15. To me, they speak of the Noahic flood, but use the Hebrew "nahar." It would have been nice to have been back in Noah's day with a "Good for one admission" ticket. Different authors choose different words. Within Joshua, nahar was established in the first chapter as refering to a river (Euphrates, Joshua 1:4). Bev |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 29, 2009 21:08:39 GMT -5
The Euphrates though is mentioned as the far border of the land they were to possess. The river that they crossed over to enter the promise land from the wilderness was the Jordan. Ur of Chaldees is north of Canaan and south of Ararat, so it would seem that Abraham traveled south to get to the land which means he would have had to cross the Euphrates.
I just love puzzles!
|
|
