Thanks for your further comments.
I'll change the order a little, if I may. In response to my statement:
> >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?
you said:
> 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.
Forgive me, but I don't understand what you are saying here. Surely,
'breath of life' refers to the animals, not the land! But, more to the
point, in order to make sense of a local flood scenario we appear to
have just two possibilities: either (a) all animals and birds were
somehow confined to that particular region of planet Earth - in which
case the biblical statements concerning their imminent and complete
demise are upheld, or (b) as free agents, they were everywhere - in
which case, the same statements are denied.
You appear to reject the first of these (and with good reason!). Perhaps
you would explain, therefore, why you deny that all animals and birds
were destroyed by the Flood. Wasn't the whole purpose of the exercise to
achieve a complete cleansing? Isn't this confirmed by Gn.8:17!
You then said:
> 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.
Clearly, God 'destroyed' neither planet Earth - nor any part thereof!
But in the sense that the terrain was no longer what it was - suggested
by the 'breaking up' of the 'fountains of the great deep' (Gn.7:11) - he
effectively eradicated the old order.
> >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.
Need we be troubled by the thinking of the early Hebrews? We are
attempting to focus on the meaning of 'eretz' as it is found in the
Flood narrative. Noah and his contemporaries would certainly have had
first hand experience of what it meant to them! However, in respect of
Gn.1:1, I'm glad you agree that - as far as we are concerned - my
original statement is correct.
> >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 in favor 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.
When the unbiased reader meets a statement like Gn.6:7 - where he is
informed that all animals and birds are to be to be destroyed along with
man - will he not logically conclude that the Flood was global? If not,
why not? Does the statement lack clarity in your view?
> >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.
Perhaps not, but from the narrative we deduce that the going must have
been pretty rough!
> 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.
The truth of the context stands on its own - as I have attempted to
demonstrate above. Unless you can find a reasonable answer to the 'birds
and animals' enigma, I believe my understanding of Gn.6-9 is vindicated,
and that the Flood was undoubtedly global.
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm