I appreciate your writing, and thank you for the information. However, I
have to say that with respect to the ongoing discussion regarding the
extent of the Flood, it appears to matter little whether our thinking
involves 'planet Earth' or 'flat circular disc floating upon an ocean'.
To achieve God's purposes, was the globe (or disc) completely immersed?
or was it not? Thinking sensibly is hardly a time-dependent thing! Moses
understood the Flood had to be global, and could hardly have said more
to convince the reader of the fact.
Vernon
PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> >We first meet the Hebrew word 'eretz' in Gn.1:1. It certainly means
> >planet Earth there, wouldn't you agree?
>
> The one thing we can be sure of from the historical and biblical context is
> that 'eretz' in Gn 1:1 does NOT mean "planet Earth" William Tanner showed
> that the word "earth" in the Bible never means Planet Earth ["'Planet Earth'?
> or 'Land'?" in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (June, 97)
> 111-115]. He worked mostly from the Greek language and historical sources.
> In my own paper, working from anthropological, historical, biblical and
> linguistic (mainly Hebrew) data ["The geographical meaning of 'earth' and
> 'seas' in Gen 1:10" in the Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997) 231-55]
> I showed that when the word 'eretz' is used in the OT in a universal sense,
> its meaning is a flat circular disc floating upon an ocean.
> The theological doctrine of creation found in Gen 1:1 can and should be
> applied to planet Earth, but, it is the theology which is the revelation in
> Gen 1, not the definition of the "Earth."
>
> If Gen 1 is "VCR history" as seen and revealed by God rather than an
> accommodation to the views of the times, Christians are bound to believe in a
> flat earth floating upon an ocean beneath a solid sky. When will the
> literalists be consistent and either affirm the biblical description of the
> earth and the universe or stop implying that they are the serious Christians
> and those who do not accept the Bible literally are not?
>
> Paul S.