>> 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!
The breath of life was confined to the animals. But the scritpure says
that God would destroy all the animals in the 'eretz', not all the
animals on the earth. Once again you have slipped unconciously into the
assumption that eretz equals planet earth. If God killed all the animals
in the LAND, then that verse is correct regardless of whether or not God
killed all the animals on earth.
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.
No, the flood was for the purpose of killing mankind, not the animals.
The animals did not have to be confined to one region. see above.
>
>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!
Only a complete cleansing of mankind, not the animals.
>
>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.
Wait a minute. I thought you were trying to say that 'eretz' must be
translated as planet earth in order to justify God destroying the entire
biosphere, but here, inconsistently, you are now saying that eretz
doesn't mean that God destroyed the entire earth. You are trying to have
it both ways. Translate eretz globally when it fits your interpretation
and then translate it locally when it doesn't. Either God destroyed
planet earth (I mean really destroyed it) or He didn't. Your
interpretation makes God out to be a liar.
>> 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.
Yes we do need to be troubled by the thinking of the early Hebrews. It
was their word, eretz, which is at issue. Their opinion of what that
word meant is terribly important to what the original meaning of the
passage is. Now, if you think that our interpretation is correct, then
you are committing an error of monumental proportions. What does the
word "shi tian" mean in Mandarin? Are you justified in making up your
own meaning for the word? What does the word 'basura" mean in spanish?
Can you willy-nilly make up a meaning for it and then stand and proclaim
that your meaning is correct regardless of what those pesky Mexicans
say? You are asking for something that is irrational to expect.
Shi tian mans world and basura means trash.
>> 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?
Your concept of 'unbiased' is a subjective judgment. What is unbiased
to you is that which agrees with your position. That is a moving
definition. The Bible says that the animals IN THE LAND are to be
destroyed, not the animals all over planet earth.
>> 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!
rough going doesn't mean global flood. My view of the flood would be
rough too. What is your point?
>
>
>> 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.
Birds and animals on the land, not on planet earth. That is a quite
reasonable explanation so your understanding is not vindicated.