A global flood is simply untenable

[WilliamLhk]

God's actual wording is how we know it's not a global flood. God doesn't say that He flooded the globe; He says the land was flooded. "Global" is a modern revision by men who were not satisfied with God's word. I'll stick to what the literal Word says, without latter day revisions of men.

So God destroyed every breathing creature on land. Agreed. But none "standing/yqom" on the seas. Sounds about right.

And since He destroyed by water every breathing creature on land, it must mean that the whole inhabited earth/tebel was flooded. (Tebel does not mean globe.) Of course, the rains and arising waters from the deep also affected the sea, but "flood" by definition refers just to water on land.

But the huge deposits of fossilized clams do show how much the sea was affected too.

 

[The Barbarian]

So God destroyed every breathing creature on land. Agreed. But none "standing/yqom" on the seas. Sounds about right.

And since He destroyed by water every breathing creature on land, it must mean that the whole inhabited earth/tebel was flooded.

Just "land." So not the entire globe. If He meant tebel, He would have said so. If we have to change the meanings of words to make an argument work, that's a pretty good clue that the argument is faulty.

"Global" is a modern revision by men who were not satisfied with God's word. I'll stick to what the literal Word says, without latter day revisions of men.

 

[BeyondET]

Seed is offspring. Seed is also, in the male case, sperm, containing the sperm from which a child is conceived.

Genesis 38:9 KJV — And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

Women aren't usually said to have seed in the bible, probably because no eggs were visible in the process of conception, but sperm was "planted" in the woman. For a woman to have offspring without a man, a woman's seed, it would have to carry her DNA, else it would be some new creature. I don't doubt God could do it, but that doesn't seem to be what's described in scripture. Rather, the description found in gen 3 talks about offspring of the woman.

No sperm is visible during the conception process either. It has to swim for a while.

So you believe He can but natural laws override God's ability. A sperm cell had to be used, was it Joseph?

 

[BeyondET]

WilliamLhk said:
God said He "destroy[ed] every living thing" "that I have made," except for the ones in the ark. Gen. 7:4, 23; 8:21 Only possible if the flood was universal over all earth. You are the one who is confused.


So "in the beginning God created the land," according to you. Which was not the whole tebel. Hear the Word according to the Barbarian.

And God was not being fully truthful when He said He "destroy[ed] every living (lit.standing)thing" "that I have made," except for the ones in the ark. Right. (To further clarify, God defined that which would die would be "all in whose nostrils was a breath of a spirit of life, all that was on dry land..." 7:22)

I'll stick to what the literal Word says, without latter day revisions of men. Especially those who revive the serpent's first recorded words, "Did God really say...?" Ones always wanting to sow doubt.

Every living thing He has made would that include sea animals?
Wonder why sharks got a break huh.

 

[BeyondET]

God said he "destroy[ed] every living thing" "that I have made," except for the ones in the ark. Gen. 7:4, 23; 8:21 Only possible if the flood was universal over all earth. You are the one who is confused.

Whatcha you think of sea lions a kind of land and sea animal?

 

[Derf]

No sperm is visible during the conception process either. It has to swim for a while.

More likely to be visible prior to swimming for awhile, like in my citation.

So you believe He can but natural laws override God's ability.

No, the conception was no doubt a miraculous event, but the pregnancy and birth were normal, afaik. So God started a natural process with a supernatural beginning, which is normal for miracles.

A sperm cell had to be used, was it Joseph?

No sperm, probably, since it WASN'T the seed of the man.

 

[WilliamLhk]

Just "land." So not the entire globe. If He meant tebel, He would have said so. If we have to change the meanings of words to make an argument work, that's a pretty good clue that the argument is faulty.

Changing the meanings of words is precisely what you have been doing all along.
It is a common practice these days: accuse the other of what you are yourself doing. As well as the practice of claiming the authority to define the meanings of words.
In the OT, the use of the word aretz, like all other words, must be determined by the context. Anyone such as you who claims the authority to narrow the meaning of a word to a single definition of their choice cannot be trusted to accurately translate the Word.

 

[WilliamLhk]

Whatcha you think of sea lions a kind of land and sea animal?

Every living thing He has made would that include sea animals?
Wonder why sharks got a break huh.

See my post #138 on page 7, second paragraph from bottom.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I have no problem with it turning out to be a local event. I don't really have a dog in this hunt. Jesus never said, "believe the entire earth was flooded to receive eternal life and perish if you don't believe it."

There are plenty of passages that refer to the whole earth that really just meant "the known areas". I think it is pretty common to read a lot more into it than is actually there.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

He specifically says the earth, HaAretz הָ אָ רֶ ץ Gen. 6:13 & 17
Kol כֹּ֥ל Asher אֲשֶׁר־ BaAretz בָּאָ֖רֶץ = All which in Earth יִגְוָֽע׃ shall die
All the dry ground/land (Eretz/Aretz means earth or land) was flooded.
Gen 7:19-23, (Note what I've bolded, all as on all the earth, but only that which was on dry land, the face of the ground. Same word, Kol כֹּ֥ל which means all or every).
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground"

 

[The Barbarian]

Just "land." So not the entire globe. If He meant tebel, He would have said so. If we have to change the meanings of words to make an argument work, that's a pretty good clue that the argument is faulty.

Changing the meanings of words is precisely what you have been doing all along.

No. I'm accepting scripture as it is. God says the land (eretz) was flooded. He didn't say the whole world (tevel) was flooded. YE creationists have to change the meaning of words to make their new doctrines plausible.

It is a common practice these days: accuse the other of what you are yourself doing.

Yes, you did. But that's easy to correct, as you see.

As well as the practice of claiming the authority to define the meanings of words.

That's easy to correct, too...
erets: earth, land
Strong's Hebrew: 776. אָ֫רֶץ (erets) -- earth, land

tebel: world

Strong's Hebrew: 8398. תֵּבֵל (tebel) -- world, inhabited, inhabited worldzzz

Accept the word as they are, and you won't be troubled by this any longer.

In the OT, the use of the word aretz, like all other words, must be determined by the context.

And in this context it says the land was flooded. Not the world. The confusion, I think comes from the NT, where the Greek word κόσμος was translated as "world" in most Bible translations. It actually meant "the known world." This is why it's mentioned that Caesar Augustus ordered a census of the whole world (κόσμος). Obviously, it wasn't the whole world; it wasn't even the known world. It was the empire.

Anyone such as you who claims the authority to change the meaning of a word to a new definition of their choice cannot be trusted to accurately translate the Word.

 

[The Barbarian]

No sperm, probably, since it WASN'T the seed of the man.

Right. We should just accept that it was a miraculous action by God, by means beyond our understanding.

 

[The Barbarian]

Jesus never said, "believe the entire earth was flooded to receive eternal life and perish if you don't believe it."

Today's winner.

 

[WilliamLhk]

Barbarian said: That's easy to correct, too...
erets: earth, land
Strong's Hebrew: 776. אָ֫רֶץ (erets) -- earth, land

First time you've admitted that aretz can mean something other than land.

Now, let's read what Strong's really says, not your selectively edited version:

אֶרֶץ ʼerets, eh'-rets; from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):—× common, country, earth, field, ground, land, × nations, way, + wilderness, world.

 

[The Barbarian]

First time you've admitted that aretz can mean something other than land.

I think part of the problem is, you don't pay attention.
Barbarian, earlier:
You're a little confused. God used "eretz" for the word translated as "earth." "Eretz" means "land." It could mean "my land", "hereabouts", the land of Israel, etc.

It can mean just "earth" (dirt, not "Earth") or it can mean some land somewhere, or "locally" or a specific nation, etc. What it's not used for is "global." There is the same ambiguity in English as there is in Hebrew. So we use "earth" for some dirt or a piece of land, and "Earth" for the globe. But "tevel" is what would be used for the entire Earth in Hebrew.

Notice when God creates the world, he creates the earth and the waters. Here, He uses "eretz" because it means "land", not the entire world.

 

[Derf]

I think part of the problem is, you don't pay attention.
Barbarian, earlier:
You're a little confused. God used "eretz" for the word translated as "earth." "Eretz" means "land." It could mean "my land", "hereabouts", the land of Israel, etc.

It can mean just "earth" (dirt, not "Earth") or it can mean some land somewhere, or "locally" or a specific nation, etc. What it's not used for is "global."

Of course not. That's why it needed to be modified by "kol" to explain that it was the whole earth. That's what makes it global, potentially. And to make sure it was understood, the same word described how much of the heavens the land being addressed was under.
Genesis 8:9 KJV — But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

And
Genesis 7:19 KJV — And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

And in case we don't yet get it, Peter explains using a more global word, "kosmos", which is NOT Greek for "land", but for something more encompassing.
2 Peter 2:5 KJV — And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

But alas, Peter knew many would reject the truth of the global flood:
2 Peter 3:5 KJV — For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth (land) standing out of the water and in the water:
2 Peter 3:6 KJV — Whereby the world (whole earth, or all the earth, but not just "land") that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

So, while you are right that eretz doesn't have to mean the whole earth, it certainly can mean that, especially when modified by whole ("kol").

 

[The Barbarian]

And in case we don't yet get it, Peter explains using a more global word, "kosmos", which is NOT Greek for "land", but for something more encompassing.
2 Peter 2:5 KJV — And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

That's another problem for the "whole world" story. You see, the same koine Greek word is used to describe the extent of Caesar Augustus's call for a census of the whole world (kosmos). In that time, it referred to the Roman empire.

As you see, if the flood was global, the word would be "tevel."

 

[Derf]

That's another problem for the "whole world" story. You see, the same koine Greek word is used to describe the extent of Caesar Augustus's call for a census of the whole world (kosmos). In that time, it referred to the Roman empire.

Which had some pretty high mountains.

As you see, if the flood was global, the word would be "tevel."

This seems to equate the two:
1 Samuel 2:8 KJV — He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.

 

[WilliamLhk]

I think part of the problem is, you don't pay attention.
Barbarian, earlier:
You're a little confused. God used "eretz" for the word translated as "earth." "Eretz" means "land." It could mean "my land", "hereabouts", the land of Israel, etc.

It can mean just "earth" (dirt, not "Earth") or it can mean some land somewhere, or "locally" or a specific nation, etc. What it's not used for is "global."

Now, let's read what Strong's really says, not your selectively edited version:

אֶרֶץ ʼerets, eh'-rets; from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):—× common, country, earth, field, ground, land, × nations, way, + wilderness, world.

Notice when God creates the world, he creates the earth and the waters. Here, He uses "eretz" because it means "land", not the entire world.

In Genesis 1:1, aretz meant the whole earth, because that was before the land was separated from the waters.

 

[eleos1954]

Some I would agree but there's always room for rationalization of super natural powers. Leprosy was only healed by the supernatural powers of God, today its not the only sufficient treatment. I don't believe that every account in the bible of the powers of God can't be rationalize or explained, or pondered upon using the natural processes.

parthenogenesis has only been recorded once in humans but is something that happens in animals. Virgin birth isn't impossible in physical life.

Everything I've found says it's impossible within the human race ... it's not a natural processed ... I do not believe humans are animals ... sure there are some commonalities ... but humans are very distinct in many ways from that of animals.