[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[Barbarian]

The fact is, when the Bible talks about the whole world it uses a word for "world." When it's talking about a particular area, it uses a word for "land." That's the context.

Whatever people who deem themselves wise enough to revise scripture might insist, the fact remains that the text does not say that the flood was worldwide.

And even if "earth" might be used to mean the whole world, assuming that it has that meaning in the absence of any indication that it meant so, still amounts to men trying to put their own interpretation into scripture.

The flood in what is now the Black Sea, was sufficient to bury mountains thousands of feet high. And we know there were settlements in that basin, drowned when the Mediterranean Sea burst though and flooded it.

 

[Cygnus]

The fact is, when the Bible talks about the whole world it uses a word for "world." When it's talking about a particular area, it uses a word for "land." That's the context.

Whatever people who deem themselves wise enough to revise scripture might insist, the fact remains that the text does not say that the flood was worldwide.

And even if "earth" might be used to mean the whole world, assuming that it has that meaning in the absence of any indication that it meant so, still amounts to men trying to put their own interpretation into scripture.

The flood in what is now the Black Sea, was sufficient to bury mountains thousands of feet high. And we know there were settlements in that basin, drowned when the Mediterranean Sea burst though and flooded it.

Let scripture be as it is, and you won't have to redo it.

You have been shown.... The word for land has several nuances. It doesn't always mean "land" in the form you insist it to be.
This shows complete disrespect for language as you force your definition upon the Word of God.

Don't believe me? I checked out your claims. Did my due diligence...The folowing is only several from Strongs concordance pertaining to the word 776 erets. Click on it.
1. a. earth, whole earth (opposed to a part)
b. earth, opposed to heaven, sky
c. earth = inhabitants of earth
2 land =
a. country, territory,
b. district, region
....and the nuances go on and on.

Gen 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
The entire heavens consist of every area of the earth. Not a local area.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I'm pretty sure the bickering here will get this thread closed down if it doesn't stop. People have the right to differing opinions and simply saying the Bible says it says nothing. The Bible doesn't say anything. We infer meaning from the text. Hopefully correctly. When you address issues, you're doing well. When you address persons, you've crossed a line. Respect opposing views and disagree with grace and love. (yes love) <---posted as a mod.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, I was less kind than I should be. Going back and removing the unkind stuff. I won't mind at all if you fix any of the older posts that you think are less kind.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Yes, I was less kind than I should be. Going back and removing the unkind stuff. I won't mind at all if you fix any of the older posts that you think are less kind.

Thanks. Now I'm speaking as me. I hope I am exhibiting a kinder me in my posts to you and to others. We deserve respect and can differ with grace. If I fail at this, feel free to point this out (gracefully )

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks. Now I'm speaking as me. I hope I am exhibiting a kinder me in my posts to you and to others. We deserve respect and can differ with grace. If I fail at this, feel free to point this out (gracefully )

I have noticed this, and I'm trying to match your gentler approach. I tend to be blunt, but your example has me trying harder. As I said, if you think my earlier posts lack kindness, I don't mind you changing them. I just can't edit them, now.

I will strive to do better.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I have noticed this, and I'm trying to match your gentler approach. I tend to be blunt, but your example has me trying harder. As I said, if you think my earlier posts lack kindness, I don't mind you changing them. I just can't edit them, now.

I will strive to do better.

I'm with you on that! (the striving to do better - we can all use a bit of that)

 

[calvin]

The fact is, when the Bible talks about the whole world it uses a word for "world." When it's talking about a particular area, it uses a word for "land." That's the context.

Hello calvin here.
With respect, when you say "that's the context", are you not pre supposing that the context is of a local flood in the first place? That seems to this little red herring generator to be a circular argument.
If not what context are you referring to?

 

[Barbarian]

With respect, when you say "that's the context", are you not pre supposing that the context is of a local flood in the first place?

No, I'm noting that when scripture says "world", it uses "world", not "earth." While "eretz" can mean "world", it's not the world that is normally used that way for the entire world. And since "eretz" usually is applied to a specific area of land, it seems perverse to say that it has to mean the whole world when it clearly doesn't. As you might know, there is no evidence whatever for a worldwide flood, but there is evidence for a huge regional flood in the Middle East a few thousand years ago.

I'm just wondering why anyone would want to use the word in a different context than it is in scripture.

 

[Cygnus]

No, I'm noting that when scripture says "world", it uses "world", not "earth." While "eretz" can mean "world", it's not the world that is normally used that way for the entire world. And since "eretz" usually is applied to a specific area of land, it seems perverse to say that it has to mean the whole world when it clearly doesn't. As you might know, there is no evidence whatever for a worldwide flood, but there is evidence for a huge regional flood in the Middle East a few thousand years ago.

I'm just wondering why anyone would want to use the word in a different context than it is in scripture.

Do you still fail to realize the different nuances of that word? You've been given several examples and you still refuse to understand.

 

[Papa Zoom]

It covered the whole earth:
https://www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

It was a local flood:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Other:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/exploring-the-extent-of-the-flood-part-one
http://www.str.org/blog/no-global-flood-video#.WSJo3-xtncc (7 minutes and worth watching!)

other forum discussions:
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/world-wide-flood-vs-local-flood.671120/
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/was-the-flood-local-or-worldwide.85918/

My conclusion: I dunno

 

[calvin]

You certainly earned your pay today Thank you.

 

[Barbarian]

Do you still fail to realize the different nuances of that word?

I'm pointing out that when the Bible speaks of the whole world, it doesn't use "land"; it uses "world." Fortunately, it has nothing to do with your salvation, so if you want to believe there was a global flood, it won't matter.

 

[Cygnus]

I'm pointing out that when the Bible speaks of the whole world, it doesn't use "land"; it uses "world." Fortunately, it has nothing to do with your salvation, so if you want to believe there was a global flood, it won't matter.

I've pointed out and shown you ...in several places...where erets refers to the entire world. What you have been posting is in error.

 

[Barbarian]

In the Bible, "eretz" is used to describe Israel, and also to describe Egypt. Unless you want to argue that those countries each comprise the whole world, your argument has a fatal flaw.

 

[Cygnus]

It covered the whole earth:
https://www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

It was a local flood:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Other:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/exploring-the-extent-of-the-flood-part-one
http://www.str.org/blog/no-global-flood-video#.WSJo3-xtncc (7 minutes and worth watching!)

other forum discussions:
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/world-wide-flood-vs-local-flood.671120/
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/was-the-flood-local-or-worldwide.85918/

My conclusion: I dunno

That's all well and good....but one understanding is incorrect.
I visited your first link aand saw their argument was extremely weak. They started out with ". Most would say that the flood covered all the earth, but in Hebrew, the word for "earth" can mean locality as well:"...which is true about the word....BUT certain people here think it's the only meaning of the word.
Then they provided verses to back up their point. Big deal. I've presented verses that back up the usage of the word as entire globe.
After that they shifted course and tried to ask some why questions. Questions such as...2. If the flood was global, how did it recede?
Didn't they know it was already answered in the bible?
Psalm 104;
5He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. 6You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; 8they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. 9You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.

Thanks for the link...but they did a pretty poor job of establishing a local flood.

 

[Cygnus]

In the Bible, "eretz" is used to describe Israel, and also to describe Egypt. Unless you want to argue that those countries each comprise the whole world, your argument has a fatal flaw.

In post 116 above earth is used...."5He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Are you saying in this instance the Psalmist is refering to Isreal, Egypt or some other local area?

As i said, when you read the account of the flood..depth of water, everything under heaven..the language is global not local.

 

[Papa Zoom]

That's all well and good....but one understanding is incorrect.
I visited your first link aand saw their argument was extremely weak. They started out with ". Most would say that the flood covered all the earth, but in Hebrew, the word for "earth" can mean locality as well:"...which is true about the word....BUT certain people here think it's the only meaning of the word.
Then they provided verses to back up their point. Big deal. I've presented verses that back up the usage of the word as entire globe.
After that they shifted course and tried to ask some why questions. Questions such as...2. If the flood was global, how did it recede?
Didn't they know it was already answered in the bible?
Psalm 104;
5He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. 6You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; 8they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. 9You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.

Thanks for the link...but they did a pretty poor job of establishing a local flood.

Actually what I was trying to show was the diversity of opinion on the matter. If you didn't visit it the STR link, give that one a try. He doesn't say either way (local or entire world) but he does show how to think about it. It's an interesting topic to discuss. However, in the end everyone has to come to their own conclusion. Most of my friends are YE and WW flood. I'm OE and Local. (they'd say I'm loco) But I know I could be wrong.

 

[Knotical]

Now let's take a look at the flood through the lens of 2 Peter 3:3-7.

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the father fell asleep, all continues just as i was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men.

What conclusions might we take from that?

 

[Cygnus]

Actually what I was trying to show was the diversity of opinion on the matter.

I understand. I can do the same thing with the resurrection of Christ.