>We first meet the Hebrew word 'eretz' in Gn.1:1. It certainly means
>planet Earth there, wouldn't you agree?
Not necessarily. It could easily have meant to the ancient Hebrew, "In
the Beginning God created the sky and the land" While we today
understand that it had to mean planet earth, this does not mean that
that is what the Hebrews understood.
>Whilst I accept your point that
>some of its other occurrences in the biblical text can mean something
>less than this, then context alone must decide the issue. I submit: for
>the unbiased reader, the context speaks of a global event.
You have done it again. You are merely assuming that you know what the
context is. You have not presented a single argument infavor of your
interpretation of the context. I can submit that the context, for the
unbiased reader, is really talking about a local flood. What have we
gained by this type of standoff. I have presented evidence from
elsewhere in Scripture of the local use of the word eretz. You have not
provided a single argument other than your opinion.
I wrote:
>> As I show in Foundation, Fall and Flood, the phrase 'under all the
heavens'
>> meant from horizon to horizon, not under the sky as 20th century man
knows it.
>But do you claim to demonstrate this without reference to the demands
of
>evolution?
Job 36:32-37:4 "He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to
strike its mark. His thunder announces the coming storm; even the
cattle make known its approach. At this my heart pounds and leaps from
its place. Listen! Listen to the roar of his voice, to the rumbling that
comes from his mouth. He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole
heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. After that comes the sound
of his roar; he thunders with his majestic voice. When his voice
resounds, he holds nothing back." (NIV)
The clue here is that he unleashes his lightning beneath the whole
heaven (sounds global) until you read on and note that you can hear the
lightning. Lightning can't be heard more than about 5 miles away and
for most people that is the distance to the horizon. I can't hear
lightning from Dallas anymore as I am in Houston. Yet Dallas is 'under
the whole heavens" if I interpret this verse as referring to the globe.
Does the Bible lie about the distance thunder can be heard? Thus the use
of this term "under the whole heaven" seems to mean "from horizon to
horizon".
>It was a large vessel, commissioned by God, and robust enough to meet
>the demands of the 'mabbul' (It is interesting that though there are
>several Hebrew words meaning 'flood', this one is reserved for this
>particular event - described in the Greek as 'kataklusmos'). I think
>'ocean-going' is implied.
I don't agree but let me approach this from another way. I have the
flood in the Mediterranean Sea which is part of the ocean. But because
the Mediterranean is a local area, I have both a local flood AND an
ocean going ark. Thus, your implication in your original question that
only a global flood could have an ocean going ark is wrong. I have a
local flood with an ocean going vessel. Being ocean going doesn't
necessarily require a global flood.
>> >We
>> >are informed that he alone "found grace in the eyes of the Lord."
>> >Gn.6:8) No one else!
>>
>> I don't doubt this. But it doesn't mean that mankind was everywhere
on
>> earth at the time of the flood. In fact, I say mankind was not
everywhere.
>
>What evidence can you offer in support of this view?
I will offer indirect evidence from the Bible. God told man to fill the
earth. But man fell and was destroyed by the flood. God told man to
fill the earth again, mankind disobeyed again and built the tower of
Babel to avoid being dispersed. This time God enforced his demand. God's
reaction at the time of the Tower of Babel implies that he really wanted
mankind to spread aournd this time and one can make a case that this was
the second time God told man to disperse.
> >In my rejecting the ridiculous notion of a local Flood you might like
to
> >point out where reason and 'common sense' fail me.
>
> They fail you because you don't consider the linguistic possibilities.
Possibilities, Yes. Certainties, No!
Didn't say they were certainties. But the careful researcher MUST deal
with all possibilities. Just because something isn't a certainty
doesn't give you the right to act as if the possibility doesn't exist.
>Fair enough. But 'context' should still be the determining factor,
don't
>you think? It is surely wrong that a supposed meaning should modify the
>context!
When context is at issue, as it is in the case of Genesis 6-9, it is
methodologically wrong to claim that you know the context and then use
the context to prove that you were correct about the context. That is
circular reasoning. You simply must go outside of the passage to
determine word meanings
>In respect of land animals and birds the Flood had to be biologically
>universal - for we cannot ignore Gn.6:7, 7:21 (or can we?!). Your view
>is that man was confined to a particular locality on planet Earth. Are
>you also claiming the same for animals and birds?
No, the scripture says that God would destroy all animals in the land in
which there was the breath of life . Once again you are trying to assume
that eretz was planet earth. Remember that the Bible also says in
Genesis 6 that God would destroy the Earth.
Genesis 6:13 - I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is
filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy
both them and the earth.
The earth is still here. What is wrong? Did God lie? God didn't destroy
the earth. But in my view, with the Mediterranian Flood, God did
destroy the land. Your interpretation would make God out to have lied
about destroying the earth. Only by interpreting 'eretz' as 'land'
rather than as 'planet earth' do we avoid making God out as a liar for
not having actually destroyed the earth.