[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[Cygnus]

She's quite correct. Science is completely unable to analyze God or His actions. It is methodologically naturalistic, which means that it can only comment on nature. She's accepting the way God does things.



Since she's a Christian, and since the Bible doesn't say the flood was worldwide, that's a pretty good bet.

I don't know what bible you're reading...but the bible does say the flood was world wide.
What your sect tends to do is use the wrong nuance of certain words in the account...changing the story...to fit your need rather than follow the simple flow of the story that a 5th grader can understand what happened.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't know what bible you're reading...but the bible does say the flood was world wide.

Nope. No translation said so before YE creationism was invented in the 1900s. The word in the Bible was "eretz' which means "land." For example, it is used to mean the land of Israel. It does not mean "world."

 

[Knotical]

Nope. No translation said so before YE creationism was invented in the 1900s. The word in the Bible was "eretz' which means "land." For example, it is used to mean the land of Israel. It does not mean "world."

Ok, how in the world could that possibly mean the land of israel when that nation did not even exist at the time of the flood?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes
Nope. No translation said so before YE creationism was invented in the 1900s. The word in the Bible was "eretz' which means "land." For example, it is used to mean the land of Israel. It does not mean "world."

Ok, how in the world could that possibly mean the land of israel when that nation did not even exist at the time of the flood?

"Eretz" is just a generic word for "land." It can mean "a specific country", "my property", "far as the eye can see", etc. It never meant "world." The word for "world" in the Bible is "tevel."

 

[Knotical]

Barbarian observes
Nope. No translation said so before YE creationism was invented in the 1900s. The word in the Bible was "eretz' which means "land." For example, it is used to mean the land of Israel. It does not mean "world."



"Eretz" is just a generic word for "land." It can mean "a specific country", "my property", "far as the eye can see", etc. It never meant "world." The word for "world" in the Bible is "tevel."

Split hairs much?

You don't think it is at all possible that by using the word "land" it would mean all of the land covering the planet? You don't think God would cover all of the land in this world with water?

 

[Barbarian]

Split hairs much?

"Land", "world", what's the difference? A lot, actually. The Greek word κόσμος (world) is always used in scriptures for "tevel", while γη or περιοχή is used for "land."

You don't think it is at all possible that by using the word "land" it would mean all of the land covering the planet?

Seems unlikely, given the way the ancients translated it. And given that the evidence clearly rules out such a flood, it's difficulty to see why using the word in an unscriptural way would be appropriate.

You don't think God would cover all of the land in this world with water?

I'm just pointing out that He didn't say that He did.

 

[Cygnus]

Nope. No translation said so before YE creationism was invented in the 1900s. The word in the Bible was "eretz' which means "land." For example, it is used to mean the land of Israel. It does not mean "world."

With all due respect...you do understand that water seeks it own level. Now imagine the highest hill/mountain in the "local" area covered with 15 cubits of water (22.5 feet)......how could that possibly be a local flood?

18The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubitsd deep.

Find a 5th grader and have them read the text....ask them if the flood was local or global.

One more thing...The context of the scripture contains heaven...and its opposite...which would be earth. The opposite oh heaven would not be Isreal or some other local area.

The best you could do is say the bible tells of a world wide flood..and you disagree with the bible.

 

[Knotical]

I'm just pointing out that He didn't say that He did.

Then how do you explain Genesis 9:11?

 

[Barbarian]

With all due respect...you do understand that water seeks it own level. Now imagine the highest hill/mountain in the "local" area covered with 15 cubits of water (22.5 feet)......how could that possibly be a local flood?

In the Middle East, thousands of years ago, the Mediterranean broke through into what is now the Black Sea, but was then dry land. It covered a vast area of land to a depth of thousands of feet.

One more thing...The context of the scripture contains heaven...and its opposite...which would be earth.

It says "heaven" and it says "land", but it never says "world." So that doesn't help you, either. In scripture, "world" is used only for the entire Earth, not just part of it. The word some of the land is "eretz" which is what the flood story uses.

The best you could do is say the bible tells of a world wide flood..and you disagree with the bible.

If you have to misrepresent what I said to make your point, isn't that a clue about your ideas?

 

[Barbarian]

Then how do you explain Genesis 9:11?

Genesis 9:11 uses "eretz" not "tevel." So God is promising not to destroy the land again. It doesn't use the Hebrew word for "world."

 

[Knotical]

Genesis 9:11 uses "eretz" not "tevel." So God is promising not to destroy the land again. It doesn't use the Hebrew word for "world."

And you are basing this on what?

 

[Barbarian]

Strong's Concordance.

 

[Knotical]

Let's backup a step, shall we? What would be the purpose of including a representative of all living land animals, bugs, and birds on the ark if God was not going to flood the entire surface of the planet? Why would we limit our understanding of what God did to just a small region of the planet instead of realizing that He is capable of flooding the entire planet? Aren't we, once again, trying to fit God into a box that we can try to understand instead of realizing that He is much bigger than we can possibly fathom?

 

[Cygnus]

In the Middle East, thousands of years ago, the Mediterranean broke through into what is now the Black Sea, but was then dry land. It covered a vast area of land to a depth of thousands of feet.

BUZZZZZZZZZZ...that might have happened...but it doesn't fit the biblical description...which means you can't hide behind it.

It says "heaven" and it says "land", but it never says "world." So that doesn't help you, either. In scripture, "world" is used only for the entire Earth, not just part of it. The word some of the land is "eretz" which is what the flood story uses.

The bible simply doesn't compliment what you're saying. You're placing the word "land" "earth" out of scriptural context. Anybody, even a 5th grader can see your error....and you error all for the sake of evolutionism being right.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's backup a step, shall we? What would be the purpose of including a representative of all living land animals, bugs, and birds on the ark if God was not going to flood the entire surface of the planet?

Because God wanted to save the sorts of animals living in that land? I don't think it includes bugs...(Barbarian checks) No, it doesn't. Apparently, God either thought bugs could fend for themselves, or perhaps would repopulate the land from unflooded areas.

Why would we limit our understanding of what God did to just a small region of the planet instead of realizing that He is capable of flooding the entire planet?

I think it's a mistake to assume that if God is capable of doing something, that means He must have done it. Aren't we, once again, trying to fit God into a box that we can try to understand instead of realizing that He can do His will in many different ways?

 

[Barbarian]

BUZZZZZZZZZZ...that might have happened...but it doesn't fit the biblical description...which means you can't hide behind it.

Happened at the right time, in the right area, and nicely fits the Biblical description. We don't know for sure if it's the flood of the Bible, or if the Flood is a parable. For a Christian, it doesn't matter, just as it doesn't matter if there was a real Good Samaritan who helped out a Jewish traveler when his own people would not.

The bible simply doesn't compliment what you're saying.

As you now see, it does precisely so.

You're placing the word "land" "earth" out of scriptural context.

I showed you the context. "Eretz", which is used for the flood story, refers to some expanse of land. "Tevel" which is used when speaking of the whole world, is not used in that story.

Anybody, even a 5th grader can see your error....

I think even a 5th grader knows the difference between "land" and "world."

And your error is all for the sake of creationism being right.

 

[gr8grace3]

I showed you the context. "Eretz", which is used for the flood story, refers to some expanse of land. "Tevel" which is used when speaking of the whole world, is not used in that story.

New American Standard Bible
The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Strong's Concordance
erets: earth, land
Original Word: אָ֫רֶץ
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: erets
Phonetic Spelling: (eh'-rets)
Short Definition: land

So just some expanse of the earth/land/Eretz was formless and void? Or was the whole earth/land/Eretz formless and void?

 

[Barbarian]

So just some expanse of the earth/land/Eretz was formless and void?

That's what it says literally. If it meant the entire world, it would have used the word for world.

Or was the whole earth/land/Eretz formless and void?

It doesn't say so.

 

[Cygnus]

Because God wanted to save the sorts of animals living in that land? I don't think it includes bugs...(Barbarian checks) No, it doesn't. Apparently, God either thought bugs could fend for themselves, or perhaps would repopulate the land from unflooded areas.

There was no requirement for bugs on the ark, not to say there wern't any....bugs don't breath through nostrils, they use spiracles.

It is true, if the flood was local...why not just move the animals? Why build a huge ark?

 

[Knotical]

Let's look at the logistics of this a little bit. God caused a flood that was so deep they were unable to see dry land (including mountain ranges) for weeks after the rains ceased. If the water was that deep how could only be localized, considering many of the mountains in the region which we are referring are high enough that logic would dictate that most, if not the entirety, of the world was under water?