Considering that ERETZ refers to "land"/"country", why assume GLOBAL Flood?

[verysincere]

Considering that ERETZ refers to "land" or "country", why should anyone assume that Noah's Flood was GLOBAL in scope?

Even if one translates KOL ERETZ as "the whole earth", there is no evidence that the term in that ancient culture had any connotation of "the whole planet earth" or "the entire globe". The "earth" was simply everything that was within the boundaries of the horizons. "The earth" was the opposite of "the heavens". "The heavens" was everything above; "the earth" (HAARETZ) was everything "under the heavens." How could ancient Hebrew have possibly imposed a "planet-wide, global meaning" to a word that normally meant "land"?

Just as "falling to the earth" today means "falling to the ground", ERETZ has a wide semantic domain in Hebrew but is usually translated "land", even by the 1611 King James Bible. (Would anyone argue that ERETZ ISRAEL was meant to mean "the planet Israel" instead of "the Land of Israel"?)

And when the whole world came to Egypt during the famine to buy grain from Joseph, did Australians and the Japanese join the queues? Were all the nations of the planet earth involved in the trek to Egypt?

So, considering that the Bible says nothing about a GLOBAL flood and there is zero scientific evidence for a GLOBAL flood, why not simply say that the Bible describes a great flood which wiped out Noah's world and all mankind with it? (After all, if mankind stayed in just one area after the flood when the Tower of Babel incident finally led to their disbursal, why can't one simply assume that mankind stayed similarly concentrated in the time of Noah?)

 

[SkyWriting]

... and there is zero scientific evidence for a GLOBAL flood.....

God has worked changes in my life. I don't ask "science" to check any of the Truth found in scripture. And I don't see why it concerns you so much anyway to be in agreement with the world's current trickle of knowledge.

 

[verysincere]

God has worked changes in my life. I don't ask "science" to check any of the Truth found in scripture.

I don't either. That is why my entire post (which you ignored) dealt with what the Bible had to say about the subject.

And I don't see why it concerns you so much anyway to be in agreement with the world's current trickle of knowledge.

Why are you pretending that I offered some sort of scientific argument? (I simply pointed out your hypocrisy in terms of your complaints about scientific evidence.)

But even if I had, why do you despise the evidence which God chose to provide in nature? Science is simply the study of God's creation.

I don't know whether to doubt your reading comprehension skills or your honesty. (Or both?)

[Admit it. My post was filled with scriptural evidence. But you ignore the scriptural evidence just as much as you ignore the scientific evidence. The "trickle of knowledge" problem is yours, not "the world's".]

 

[Jazer]

After all, if mankind stayed in just one area after the flood when the Tower of Babel incident finally led to their disbursal,

The Bible is a history of the people of the middle east. So the tower of Babel incident most likely refers to the Muslim people and explains why we have so many muslim nations and why they fight among themselves.

 

[Greg1234]

Considering that ERETZ refers to "land" or "country", why should anyone assume that Noah's Flood was GLOBAL in scope?

Even if one translates KOL ERETZ as "the whole earth", there is no evidence that the term in that ancient culture had any connotation of "the whole planet earth" or "the entire globe". The "earth" was simply everything that was within the boundaries of the horizons. "The earth" was the opposite of "the heavens". "The heavens" was everything above; "the earth" (HAARETZ) was everything "under the heavens." How could ancient Hebrew have possibly imposed a "planet-wide, global meaning" to a word that normally meant "land"?

Just as "falling to the earth" today means "falling to the ground", ERETZ has a wide semantic domain in Hebrew but is usually translated "land", even by the 1611 King James Bible. (Would anyone argue that ERETZ ISRAEL was meant to mean "the planet Israel" instead of "the Land of Israel"?)

And when the whole world came to Egypt during the famine to buy grain from Joseph, did Australians and the Japanese join the queues? Were all the nations of the planet earth involved in the trek to Egypt?

So, considering that the Bible says nothing about a GLOBAL flood and there is zero scientific evidence for a GLOBAL flood, why not simply say that the Bible describes a great flood which wiped out Noah's world and all mankind with it? (After all, if mankind stayed in just one area after the flood when the Tower of Babel incident finally led to their disbursal, why can't one simply assume that mankind stayed similarly concentrated in the time of Noah?)

Actually the better meaning is lands or countries. The ungodly is specified, not the particular land, abd the ungodly extended well beyond one small piece of land. So...this already makes it non-local and global.

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering that ERETZ refers to "land" or "country", why should anyone assume that Noah's Flood was GLOBAL in scope?

Because there's more to the story than just one word.

If you change your perspective and assume a local flood, then other aspects of the story cannot corroborate each other.

Like why Noah was aboard the Ark for a year, and why the need for all the animals to board the Ark, etc.

QV the story X-ing a Paragrab, by Edgar Allan Poe.

 

[juvenissun]

Considering that ERETZ refers to "land" or "country", why should anyone assume that Noah's Flood was GLOBAL in scope?

Even if one translates KOL ERETZ as "the whole earth", there is no evidence that the term in that ancient culture had any connotation of "the whole planet earth" or "the entire globe". The "earth" was simply everything that was within the boundaries of the horizons. "The earth" was the opposite of "the heavens". "The heavens" was everything above; "the earth" (HAARETZ) was everything "under the heavens." How could ancient Hebrew have possibly imposed a "planet-wide, global meaning" to a word that normally meant "land"?

Just as "falling to the earth" today means "falling to the ground", ERETZ has a wide semantic domain in Hebrew but is usually translated "land", even by the 1611 King James Bible. (Would anyone argue that ERETZ ISRAEL was meant to mean "the planet Israel" instead of "the Land of Israel"?)

And when the whole world came to Egypt during the famine to buy grain from Joseph, did Australians and the Japanese join the queues? Were all the nations of the planet earth involved in the trek to Egypt?

So, considering that the Bible says nothing about a GLOBAL flood and there is zero scientific evidence for a GLOBAL flood, why not simply say that the Bible describes a great flood which wiped out Noah's world and all mankind with it? (After all, if mankind stayed in just one area after the flood when the Tower of Babel incident finally led to their disbursal, why can't one simply assume that mankind stayed similarly concentrated in the time of Noah?)

Like AV said, there are multiple aspects about this event. Even the single word may not suggest a global event, there are many (I can immediately count 5 or 6) other related issues that "require" a global scale flood.

 

[Jazer]

If you change your perspective and assume a local flood, then other aspects of the story cannot corroborate each other.

I cannot find anything that does not corroborate. But perhaps for you this is a problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

I cannot find anything that does not corroborate. But perhaps for you this is a problem.

As I asked before, why was Noah aboard the Ark for a year?

In addition, can the Flood be recreated?

If scientists could cause it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights, etc., could they fill up this 'local area' for as long as it was filled up in Noah's time, or would the waters find a place to escape?

 

[SkyWriting]

Why are you pretending that I offered some sort of scientific argument?

Because the plain and simple reading paints a picture of a global flood. I leave it at that.
I don't feel your translation skills are better than those below:

Genesis 7:21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

Adding in the word for "Local" would seem to be an easy task for any translator. I suggest you join a translation team.
New versions are always in the works.


"The King James translation team was comprised of fifty-four godly men, and arguably the most scholarly men ever assembled for any similar endeavor."

"In 1975, the boldest, most extensive revision in modern Bible publishing history began. A 130-person team, including Greek, Hebrew, and English scholars, editors, church leaders, and Christian laity, was commissioned to work on the project. Altogether it took seven years to produce the complete New King James Version."

"The core (NIV) translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars.[10] The translation took ten years and involved a team of up to 100 scholars[11] from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included many different denominations such as Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian."

 

[NailsII]

Because there's more to the story than just one word.

If you change your perspective and assume a local flood, then other aspects of the story cannot corroborate each other.

Like why Noah was aboard the Ark for a year, and why the need for all the animals to board the Ark, etc.

QV the story X-ing a Paragrab, by Edgar Allan Poe.

I agree, the story does suggest a global event.
'Earth' appears nearly 30 times in the NIV version of Genesis 6 to 8:17.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=earth&version1=31&searchtype=all&startnumber=26

The way it is translated suggest that it is intended to mean the while planet in at least the vast majority of times.

Without being able to read Hebrew I am unable to research this further.

But for once, I agree with AVET!

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree, the story does suggest a global event.
'Earth' appears nearly 30 times in the NIV version of Genesis 6 to 8:17.

That's an interesting point.

I never thought about what other translations say.

(Not that it would make a difference, of course. )

 

[KhaosTheory]

Because there's more to the story than just one word.

If you change your perspective and assume a local flood, then other aspects of the story cannot corroborate each other.

Like why Noah was aboard the Ark for a year, and why the need for all the animals to board the Ark, etc.

QV the story X-ing a Paragrab, by Edgar Allan Poe.

You disappoint me... I thought you already knew the answers to those questions:

1. why Noah was aboard the Ark for a year -Goddidit
2. why the need for all the animals to board the Ark -Goddidit

Let's change the perspective to a GLOBAL flood and see what questions we would be forced to ask:

1. why is there no evidence of this flood - Goddidit
2. How did penguins get back to Antarctica - Goddidit
3. How did any of the fish survive -Goddidit
4. How did 7 people repopulate the earth fast enough to build the pyramids, Stonehenge, the Sumerian civilization, the tower of Babel, and settle the Americas in only a few centuries -Goddidit

Look, I'm better at creationist logic than you are!
If I were a creationist, I'd prefer to stick to the local flood perspective since it only requires believing in IMPROBABLE things whereas the other requires believing in IMPOSSIBLE things, wouldn't you agree?

 

[AV1611VET]

1. why is there no evidence of this flood - Goddidit
2. How did penguins get back to Antarctica - Goddidit
3. How did any of the fish survive -Goddidit
4. How did 7 people repopulate the earth fast enough to build the pyramids, Stonehenge, the Sumerian civilization, the tower of Babel, and settle the Americas in only a few centuries -Goddidit

Look, I'm better at creationist logic than you are!

Don't flatter yourself.

If you're better at creationist logic (more theo-logical) than I am, then you had better have had one solid education.

I'm way ahead of you with the 'Goddidit' responses.

I even call it 'pulling rank.'

DNA is a biological thing -- why not just give up now and retreat to "Goddidit"? You're only embarassing yourself.

Not on your life.

If I can't say we inherited a sin nature (or the Sin Nature) from Adam w/o having to retreat to "God did it" first, then I won't say it at all.

You'd better be eating your Wheaties, if you're going to claim you're better at creationist logic than I --

Creationism is my forte.

 

[verysincere]

Even the single word may not suggest a global event, there are many (I can immediately count 5 or 6) other related issues that "require" a global scale flood.

And all 5 or 6 can easily be dismissed. (Indeed, Christian scholars have been doing so for centuries. None of those issues "require" a global flood interpretation. Indeed, most every seminary student learns the counter-arguments.)

 

[verysincere]

Because the plain and simple reading paints a picture of a global flood. I leave it at that.

Yes, some people are impressed by the "simple".

I don't feel your translation skills are better than those below:

Genesis 7:21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

The problem is not my Hebrew translation skills but your reading comprehension skills.

You assume that the word "earth" in English can only mean "the entire planet earth". But in English, as in Hebrew ERETZ ("earth"), there are multiple definitions for the word.

Yes, every NEPHESH animal that moved on the ground perished.

ERETZ and HADAMAH both involve similar semantic fields. And both refer to that which is "everything under heaven". To the ancient Hebrews, the earth was everything within the circle that was the horizon. There was no consciousness of a "planet earth, the globe". It is the anachronism fallacy to impose a modern reading on an ancient text without contextual reasons to do so.

Adding in the word for "Local" would seem to be an easy task for any translator.

ERETZ is not translated by "local". (Once again, your reading comprehension skills are falling short.)

A footnote at the bottom of the page accomplishes the task in some Bible translation editions. Thus, "land" is often mentioned in the translation footnote or the Study Bible note if not in the main text.

I suggest you join a translation team.

Been there. Done that.

You may have some of my work already on your bookshelf. (If not, the Bible translations you do have, if compiled since the 1960's, were done by my friends and colleagues. And many of the translations published since the 1970's have utilized my work.)

"The King James translation team was comprised of fifty-four godly men, and arguably the most scholarly men ever assembled for any similar endeavor."

"The most scholarly men ever"? That's quite a claim. (What exactly made them the "most scholarly" of all history?) Nothing against England's best scholars in 1611, but I am much more impressed by the scholars WORLD-WIDE today whose skills are not only much better informed in linguistics, they have access to many more and much better manuscripts and tools. Biblical lexicography was in its infancy in 1611.

"The core (NIV) translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars.[10] The translation took ten years and involved a team of up to 100 scholars[11]

The NIV Bible is an excellent example! The late Dr. Gleason Archer was quite emphatic about the problem of far too many English Bible readers assuming that the rendering of ERETZ as "earth" carries a global connotation. (But Zondervan wasn't willing to take a chance on a less ambiguous reading and decided to restrict everything controversial to the NIV footnotes.) Bruce Waltke was and is equally adamant. The late Thomas McComiskey was most definitely "regional flood" in his exegesis. Walter C. Kaiser is well know for his regional flood position and you can even watch him demolish Ken Ham on that topic as well as other "creation science" issues on Youtube. If you don't think I'm telling the truth, why don't you watch that debate and get back to me? (Kaiser teamed up with Dr. Hugh Ross. The John Ankerberg Show was the venue.) The late Dr. Bess leaned toward "earth" at the time of the first draft but later expressed regret, but always agreed that "land" was an equally appropriate choice. Dr. Battenfield was "officially" neutral in those years but didn't like to talk about it because he was still on the faculty at Grace Theological Seminary and risked his job because of the faculty doctrinal contract that he had to sign annually. Ken Kantzer and Murray Harris were solidly on the side of a regional flood. I never talked to him about it, but I'm pretty sure that J. Barton Payne was also in the camp. Need I go through the entire list of NIV translators?

Indeed, a number of my Christian seminary friends and colleagues who worked on the NIV (and even the NASB) didn't have the kinds of faculty tenure which university professors enjoy. Any deviation from the official doctrinal statements of their school (their employer) by advocating a translation wording which deviated from tradition would have led to immediate "non-renewal" of faculty contracts, if not immediate dismissal. (And most of those men made extra money speaking at their denomination's churches every Sunday. A dismissal from one's seminary also risked losing much of one's speaking income as well.)

Or perhaps you know better. Are you telling me that these men somehow reversed their positions but didn't tell anybody about it? (Or am I the only colleague who they didn't tell?)

You see, one problem with "winging it" on topics of which you have absolutely no knowledge is that those of us who were actually there, actively working in the field of Biblical linguistics and translation, know what happened. But none of this is secret knowledge. It's called "Biblical scholarship." It's been published. Check it out. Read it. Learn. I realize that actual acknowledge is discouraged on this forum but, just for fun, why not check in to what I'm explaining to you?

"Earth" certainly provides a less controversial translation, because BOTH global and regional flood advocates can agree with it. So publishers have little reason to risk lost sales by alienating the traditionalists who wish to read a global flood into the meaning of the text. (After all, would YOU buy a Bible that didn't agree with your cherished traditions? I bet you'd be organizing a protest. And that proves my point.) Tradition is a powerful force.

But you don't have to take my word for it as an eyewitness. Everything I posted is common knowledge, easily found in the BDB and K&D Hebrew Lexicons, as well as most any modern Genesis commentary.

I'll say it again: Tradition is a powerful force. For most people, tradition outweighs what the Bible actually says. And Bible publishers know that. (The more ambiguous reading is sometimes the preferred reading, especially when a more specific rendering would ignite a firestorm.) So I expect the regional flood information to remain in the Bible footnotes for some years to come.


(If you would like to learn more of the details of the global vs. regional flood debate, it is a current topic on the Bible.and.Science.Forum. It is an invitation-only environment to enforce contractual aspects of pre-publication copyrights, but if you'd like to join, send me a private email. My articles on various flood topics have been published there.)

 

[juvenissun]

And all 5 or 6 can easily be dismissed. (Indeed, Christian scholars have been doing so for centuries. None of those issues "require" a global flood interpretation. Indeed, most every seminary student learns the counter-arguments.)

The size of the sky to you, as a frog lives in a well, is only that large. If you still have time, you may consider to learn more science.

 

[SkyWriting]

And all 5 or 6 can easily be dismissed. (Indeed, Christian scholars have been doing so for centuries. None of those issues "require" a global flood interpretation. Indeed, most every seminary student learns the counter-arguments.)

Indeed, most every critic can claim that other people know stuff without knowing it to be true. Yet your statement would ring absolutely true for seminary students on both sides of the issue wouldn't it? You just craftily combined a true statement, that seminary students learn both sides of the argument, with a false statement, all can be easily dismissed, to make it sound more palatable. I've RESEARCHED those who claim a local flood. They do not have an easy time of it:

"The Genesis text clearly establishes (along with the New Testament11) that God's judgment of humans was universal (with the exception of Noah and his family)." Duuurrrr..... OK then. Let's conclude based on what is clear then? No, not this guy. End of point. People don't know when to stop double guessing themselves. Ya'll keep publishing though. We luv ya.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, some people are impressed by the "simple".

I get to call on Occam's Razor, as so many others insist it applies to everything, then I get to borrow their argument when it suits me.

Yes, some people are impressed by the "simple".

If you think the scriptures were written for the benefit of scholars, intellectuals, and the highly educated, you missed the boat.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting - I don't feel your translation skills are better than those below:

Genesis 7:21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

The problem is not my Hebrew translation skills but your reading comprehension skills.

You assume that the word "earth" in English can only mean "the entire planet earth". But in English, as in Hebrew ERETZ ("earth"), there are multiple definitions for the word.

I don't have to assume that.
But otherwise I have to show that these other references are to heavy rain problem:


Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

1 Peter 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

Isaiah 54:9 "To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again.

Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.

Genesis 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."

Genesis 7:4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

Genesis 6:13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Jeremiah 28:16 Therefore, this is what the LORD says: 'I am about to remove you from the face of the earth. This very year you are going to die, because you have preached rebellion against the LORD.'"

Genesis 9:19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.

Genesis 10:32 These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.

Psalm 104:9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.

(The psalmist was writing after the Flood had happened)




Here in Milwaukee, we talk about heavy rain, fluctuating lake levels, rain overflows, & natural drainage issues.

So while you may claim to be a Hebrew expert, I am a local flooding expert. And the passages above are not about local flooding. I know local flooding Sir, and you don't know Jack Kennedy like I do.

What's so TELLING to me is that you argue from intellect, claim to be a bible scholar, try to make a point, and you make not one reference to to scripture to support your views. (reprinted entirely below) But instead, claim that you and all your buds were censored.

I believe you.

Your post is a fine example of arguing from a humanistic mindset with no humility toward fellow scholars, trust in God's ability to lead people, or FAITH that God has any control or influence at all.

You are all taken in by your own intelligence, and should be kept in your proper place. You may publish your own books and papers as you please.

But if you don't see the message given in the above scriptures that ALL of man was guilty, then you are just praying that God overlooked your Clan outside of the "local flood" zone and that your people weren't so bad.

Yes, every NEPHESH animal that moved on the ground perished.
ERETZ and HADAMAH both involve similar semantic fields. And both refer to that which is "everything under heaven". To the ancient Hebrews, the earth was everything within the circle that was the horizon. There was no consciousness of a "planet earth, the globe". It is the anachronism fallacy to impose a modern reading on an ancient text without contextual reasons to do so.
Originally Posted by SkyWriting View Post
Adding in the word for "Local" would seem to be an easy task for any translator.

ERETZ is not translated by "local". (Once again, your reading comprehension skills are falling short.) -v.s.

BUT I SEE ERETZ MEAN BY WHAT YOU NOT?-Sky

Even if Moses was much more consistent in his translation from the original text, he was sure in some cases to have run into the problem of Hebrew not having as many words as the original language of the Torah. Today for instance in English we have the words "earth" and "world" meaning about the same thing. Generally these come from the Hebrew "eretz" and "tebel" respectively. The Torah, however, never uses the word "tebel", so we might suppose that Moses did not have the word "tebel" at his disposal. Moses must have used "eretz" for either of two words when translating from the original language of the Torah.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]ERETZ- [/FONT]The definition of the limits of this territory varies between Biblical passages, specifically Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47.

Hadamah - the Dust, red earth of Man




A footnote at the bottom of the page accomplishes the task in some Bible translation editions. Thus, "land" is often mentioned in the translation footnote or the Study Bible note if not in the main text.
Originally Posted by SkyWriting View PostI suggest you join a translation team.
Been there. Done that.
You may have some of my work already on your bookshelf. (If not, the Bible translations you do have, if compiled since the 1960's, were done by my friends and colleagues. And many of the translations published since the 1970's have utilized my work.)
Originally Posted by SkyWriting View Post"The King James translation team was comprised of fifty-four godly men, and arguably the most scholarly men ever assembled for any similar endeavor."
"The most scholarly men ever"? That's quite a claim. (What exactly made them the "most scholarly" of all history?) Nothing against England's best scholars in 1611, but I am much more impressed by the scholars WORLD-WIDE today whose skills are not only much better informed in linguistics, they have access to many more and much better manuscripts and tools. Biblical lexicography was in its infancy in 1611.
Originally Posted by SkyWriting View Post"The core (NIV) translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars.[10] The translation took ten years and involved a team of up to 100 scholars[11]
The NIV Bible is an excellent example! The late Dr. Gleason Archer was quite emphatic about the problem of far too many English Bible readers assuming that the rendering of ERETZ as "earth" carries a global connotation. (But Zondervan wasn't willing to take a chance on a less ambiguous reading and decided to restrict everything controversial to the NIV footnotes.) Bruce Waltke was and is equally adamant. The late Thomas McComiskey was most definitely "regional flood" in his exegesis. Walter C. Kaiser is well know for his regional flood position and you can even watch him demolish Ken Ham on that topic as well as other "creation science" issues on Youtube. If you don't think I'm telling the truth, why don't you watch that debate and get back to me? (Kaiser teamed up with Dr. Hugh Ross. The John Ankerberg Show was the venue.) The late Dr. Bess leaned toward "earth" at the time of the first draft but later expressed regret, but always agreed that "land" was an equally appropriate choice. Dr. Battenfield was "officially" neutral in those years but didn't like to talk about it because he was still on the faculty at Grace Theological Seminary and risked his job because of the faculty doctrinal contract that he had to sign annually. Ken Kantzer and Murray Harris were solidly on the side of a regional flood. I never talked to him about it, but I'm pretty sure that J. Barton Payne was also in the camp. Need I go through the entire list of NIV translators?
Indeed, a number of my Christian seminary friends and colleagues who worked on the NIV (and even the NASB) didn't have the kinds of faculty tenure which university professors enjoy. Any deviation from the official doctrinal statements of their school (their employer) by advocating a translation wording which deviated from tradition would have led to immediate "non-renewal" of faculty contracts, if not immediate dismissal. (And most of those men made extra money speaking at their denomination's churches every Sunday. A dismissal from one's seminary also risked losing much of one's speaking income as well.)
Or perhaps you know better. Are you telling me that these men somehow reversed their positions but didn't tell anybody about it? (Or am I the only colleague who they didn't tell?)
You see, one problem with "winging it" on topics of which you have absolutely no knowledge is that those of us who were actually there, actively working in the field of Biblical linguistics and translation, know what happened. But none of this is secret knowledge. It's called "Biblical scholarship." It's been published. Check it out. Read it. Learn.

I realize that actual acknowledge is discouraged on this forum but, just for fun, why not check in to what I'm explaining to you?

Difficult, as you provided no citations or scholarly or specific references of any kind. Like real scholars do.
Then all my research failed to hint that anyone believes the biblical references were to a local flood.


"Earth" certainly provides a less controversial translation, because BOTH global and regional flood advocates can agree with it. So publishers have little reason to risk lost sales by alienating the traditionalists who wish to read a global flood into the meaning of the text. (After all, would YOU buy a Bible that didn't agree with your cherished traditions? I bet you'd be organizing a protest. And that proves my point.) Tradition is a powerful force.
But you don't have to take my word for it as an eyewitness. Everything I posted is common knowledge, easily found in the BDB and K&D Hebrew Lexicons, as well as most any modern Genesis commentary.
I'll say it again: Tradition is a powerful force. For most people, tradition outweighs what the Bible actually says. And Bible publishers know that. (The more ambiguous reading is sometimes the preferred reading, especially when a more specific rendering would ignite a firestorm.) So I expect the regional flood information to remain in the Bible footnotes for some years to come.
(If you would like to learn more of the details of the global vs. regional flood debate, it is a current topic on the Bible.and.Science.Forum. It is an invitation-only environment to enforce contractual aspects of pre-publication copyrights, but if you'd like to join, send me a private email. My articles on various flood topics have been published there.)

Your articles are properly published & read. Behind closed doors by invitation only. So odd that you haven't published for free where anyone could read it. ?? You don't even have to claim authorship.

Top 10 Blog Websites to Create Free Blogs | Top Sites Blog


At your request I looked into Biblical Scholarship:

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]In Biblical Scholarship, any books (or other works) [websites, forums] consulted outside of the Bible are only reference materials that may be modified, discarded, shredded, ignored, changed, burned, and manipulated in whatever way that may be of use to us. Any resource is totally subject to the precepts of the scriptures--it is NEVER the other way around, only heretics and blasphemers do that. [/FONT]

 

[FreethinkerWWJD]

You disappoint me... I thought you already knew the answers to those questions:

1. why Noah was aboard the Ark for a year -Goddidit
2. why the need for all the animals to board the Ark -Goddidit

Let's change the perspective to a GLOBAL flood and see what questions we would be forced to ask:

1. why is there no evidence of this flood - Goddidit
2. How did penguins get back to Antarctica - Goddidit
3. How did any of the fish survive -Goddidit
4. How did 7 people repopulate the earth fast enough to build the pyramids, Stonehenge, the Sumerian civilization, the tower of Babel, and settle the Americas in only a few centuries -Goddidit

Look, I'm better at creationist logic than you are!
If I were a creationist, I'd prefer to stick to the local flood perspective since it only requires believing in IMPROBABLE things whereas the other requires believing in IMPOSSIBLE things, wouldn't you agree?

Sorry, that one made me laugh a bit...

While I agree with you that creationist arguments often boil down to having to assume some pretty outlandish things; you got to give them a little credit!

Their explanations are a little more involved than simply "God did it."
However, I do understand your oversimplification for the sake of comedy.

Don't think this gets creationists off the hook though! Not by a long shot. I'm still waiting to see any solid creationist arguments that actually make sense.