Noah-Lots of Water in the Oceans and Subterranean Oceans

[d taylor]

 

[Ted-01]

That word for "entire world" is "tebel." The Bible uses "erets", which means land as in "erets Israel", the land of Israel.

I get that you and others believe this is the only possible understanding, however many language experts, throughout centuries (literally) do not agree with this. I'm talking about Hebrew scholars of both linguistics and philology as well as translators. So, that's why I wonder why people want to argue with centuries worth of language experts... I don't get that.

They also say that the context of the narrative itself, clearly defines erets as to be referring to the globe, not something local. They say that while the word "erets/z" is be used up to 5 different (meanings) ways in Hebrew Scriptures, other indicators point to it meaning a global.

But you believe what you want, I was only meaning to discuss with like-minded folks.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's where it came from...

Hebrews first accepted that idea, but by the time of Christ, every educated person knew the world was a sphere,and there was no solid sky over a flat Earth, with windows in it.

 

[The Barbarian]

I get that you and others believe this is the only possible understanding, however many language experts, throughout centuries (literally) do not agree with this.

Words have meanings. "Erets" means land, "Tebel" means the entire world. Those definitions are because "language experts" noted that is how the Hebrews used them. I realize that people want to argue with centuries worth of language experts... but I don't get that.

They also say that the context of the narrative itself, clearly defines erets as to be referring to the globe, not something local.

"They" seem to be arguing with the Hebrew people of the time. Why not just use the word as it was used?

The semantic range of אֶרֶצ ('eretz') revolves around the idea of "land" (cf. BDB). It can mean "land" vs. sea & air, "country", or "ground".

What is the difference between "eretz" and "adamah" in Gen 2:6?

These two words are variably translated as ground, earth, land etc. How should we understand the difference between the words in this passage? Genesis 2:6 And a mist was going up from the land (...

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

Strong's Concordance
tebel: world
Original Word: תֵּבֵל
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: tebel
Phonetic Spelling: (tay-bale')
Definition: world

Strong's Hebrew: 8398. תֵּבֵל (tebel) -- World, Earth

biblehub.com

 

[The Barbarian]

We are not told in Genesis what shape the continents were before the world-wide flood, but I would think that a flood of such proportions would bring about some pretty dramatic changes.

A film of water a few miles deep would not move hundreds of millions of cubic miles of rock thousands of miles. There's no way that little water would have so much energy. And the energy would have to be released as heat. The seas would boil.

Just not physically possible. I guess you could always call in another unscriptural miracle or so...

But then all stories would be equally plausible.

 

[Apple Sky]

The Earth is not flat; the people of that time thought it was, so they used that language of a flat earth covered by a heaven with a solid sky with windows in it.

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.” (Ge 7:19 NKJV)

I'd like to see this happen on a ball earth

 

[The Barbarian]

I'd like to see this happen on a ball earth

The Hebrews assumed the Babylonian idea of the universe. So it made sense to their conceptions, although there's no evidence that they assumed every area of the earth, inhabited or not, was covered.

 

[Apple Sky]

The Hebrews assumed the Babylonian idea of the universe. So it made sense to their conceptions, although there's no evidence that they assumed every area of the earth, inhabited or not, was covered.

This is why all the countries of the world have there own epic detail of the deluge.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is why all the countries of the world have there own epic detail of the deluge.

Either that or there have been a lot of floods in the world. One of those. C'mon.

 

[Apple Sky]

Either that or there have been a lot of floods in the world. One of those. C'mon.

This is not what the Bible says ..........

 

[Ted-01]

Words have meanings. "Erets" means land, "Tebel" means the entire world. Those definitions are because "language experts" noted that is how the Hebrews used them. I realize that people want to argue with centuries worth of language experts... but I don't get that.


"They" seem to be arguing with the Hebrew people of the time. Why not just use the word as it was used?

The semantic range of אֶרֶצ ('eretz') revolves around the idea of "land" (cf. BDB). It can mean "land" vs. sea & air, "country", or "ground".

What is the difference between "eretz" and "adamah" in Gen 2:6?

These two words are variably translated as ground, earth, land etc. How should we understand the difference between the words in this passage? Genesis 2:6 And a mist was going up from the land (...

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

Strong's Concordance
tebel: world
Original Word: תֵּבֵל
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: tebel
Phonetic Spelling: (tay-bale')
Definition: world

Strong's Hebrew: 8398. תֵּבֵל (tebel) -- World, Earth

biblehub.com

Okay, you win...

Strange though that there's no room in your dictionary for multiple usages of the word erets when most words in any other dictionary have multiple uses... as you quote in red text shows multiples. Still, you insist on one and only one.
Also, interesting that your link shows:
"Depending on its context, אֶרֶץ can be translated as ground, earth, land, piece of ground, territory, country, region, earth, or underworld.1"
(Earth as in planet).

Another strange thing is that you argue for the Tebel is what the Hebrews used for entire world, but your link discusses erets vs. adamah.

Oh well, you win anyway!!

 

[Jipsah]

It is rather ironic that you're the one telling me to have some faith in God

Yep. Making up stuff that God could have done to cause something to happen that there's no particular reason to believe happened at all isn't an act of faith, is it?

, while at the same time you deny the power of God to create the world in six days

Not true. No one says He couldn't have, since the statement , or variation of, "God can't..." is intrinsically idiotic. We don't say He couldn't have, we say He didn't.

or cause a world wide flood.

Could have? Of course. Did? It doesn't appear so.

You tell me that I place my faith in "man's revision" of God's word

God's Word says a "day" for God is quite different than a human day, doesn't it? Ohg, I forgot, the Scriptures that say that don't support your dogma, so you ignore them and continue to babble abut "six 24 hour days!"

, yet I have no idea what you are even talking about.

THere's a shocker.

What do you suggest, that I use your version?

Maybe the one that understands that the Laws o nature were designed and enacted by the Designer of Nature - God. Science just observed them and wrote them down.

And what version tells me man evolved from slime

None. What version that God didn't have them evolve? "Oh no, He can't have done that" Remember what I said about "God can't"?

or that only part of the earth was flooded?

Did Caesar Augustus tax all the world? (it's in the New Testament.)

ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι· καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου. (2 Tim 3:5)

만물이 그로 말미암아 만들어졌고, 그가 없이는 만들어진 것이 하나도 없었다 (John 1:3)

 

[Jipsah]

and an exhausted concordance.

 

[Jipsah]

View attachment 351751​

And all on a flat earth bun.

Right.

 

[Jipsah]

Strange though that there's no room in your dictionary for multiple usages of the word erets when most words in any other dictionary have multiple uses... as you quote in red text shows multiples. Still, you insist on one and only one.

And you object to the meaning he chose because it doesn't fit your doctrine. Right.

Oh well, you win anyway!!

"Don't be a sore loser" - Jipsah 12:18

 

[Jipsah]

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.” (Ge 7:19 NKJV)

I'd like to see this happen on a ball earth

How wouild it be diffrent?

 

[Jipsah]

-
​

In Genesis it is plainly stated that the flood covered the earth.

Right there just as good King James wrote it, right?

The flood did not cover the seas/ocean that surrounded the single piece of circular land. Just the land and only life on the land died, nothing in the seas died.

The problem you have here mate is that your acceptance of the silly notion of a flat earth has made your opinions on everything else unreliable as well.

 

[CoreyD]

The scientists from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois have discovered a reservoir of water that is three times the size of all of Earth's oceans, deep beneath the planet's surface. This underground water supply rests some 700 km beneath our feet.

This hidden ocean, concealed within a blue rock known as ringwoodite, dares our understanding of where Earth’s water came from. The size of this subterranean sea is triple the volume of all the planet’s surface oceans combined. If this subterranean ocean were to be combined with our present ocean, it would cover the entire planet except for a few mountain peaks.

This new discovery not only enthrals with its scale but also proposes a new theory about Earth’s water cycle. It recommends that instead of arriving via comet impacts, as some theories have posited, Earth’s oceans may have slowly seeped out from its very core.

Genesis 7 states “11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.”

Some would like to say there wasn’t enough water to cause a worldwide flood. This seems to run counter to what scientists from Northwestern University have discovered.

While this explains where ocean originated from, but does not explain where the floodwaters went.
The floodwaters of Noah's day would have gone where nature's waters go - the earth's mantle and oceans.

This can help explain what happened.

The Bottom of The Ocean Has Started Sinking Under The Weight of Melting Glaciers

Decades of measurements and predictions of sea level rise could have underestimated the scale of the problem, experts warn, due to scientists not accounting for the weighty, warping effects of our ever burgeoning oceans.

www.sciencealert.com

Existing assessments of sea level rise haven't factored in that as the total ocean mass increases due to melting glaciers and ice sheets, the weight of all that extra water pushes down on the sinking ocean floor, deforming the seabed – and disguising just how much the oceans are truly swelling.

"The Earth itself is not a rigid sphere, it's a deforming ball," geoscientist Thomas Frederikse from the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands told Earther.

 

[DennisF]

It is rather ironic that you're the one telling me to have some faith in God, while at the same time you deny the power of God to create the world in six days or cause a world wide flood. You tell me that I place my faith in "man's revision" of God's word, yet I have no idea what you are even talking about. What do you suggest, that I use your version? And what version tells me man evolved from slime or that only part of the earth was flooded?

Nice try but that duck doesn't fly.

ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι· καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου. (2 Tim 3:5)

Did you mean
те, кто был воспитан в благочестии, отказавшись от своей власти; И это то, что мы предотвращаем?

I am not impressed by your use of a Web translator. Or are you actually proficient in Koine Greek and expect the barbed Aryan to be too, to have an equal standing in the argumentation? (There is nothing wrong citing Greek and Hebrew (and paleo-Hebrew) words when the meaning of the words themselves are in question and should be discussed - but quoting scripture verses in Greek? 埃加德 !)

What is better at getting to the root of an issue is to come up with the right key questions. For instance, in your argument with the barbed Aryan, you would need to consider this:

If the Creator made the world to function according to physical laws that came from him (not scientists) then what sense does it make for God to have to break his own laws to accomplish his purposes?

To make the argument you are making, wouldn't it be better to suggest instead that science might not have advanced enough yet to explain this underground water as the Noahic floodwater? It is an argument from ignorance but it doesn't put God at odds with his own creational upholding behavior. On the other hand, some further study of geological processes might turn up some additional insights having a bearing on the Flood question.

 

[The Barbarian]

To make the argument you are making, wouldn't it be better to suggest instead that science might not have advanced enough yet to explain this underground water as the Noahic floodwater? It is an argument from ignorance but it doesn't put God at odds with his own creational upholding behavior. On the other hand, some further study of geological processes might turn up some additional insights having a bearing on the Flood question.

Reasonable position.