Forum Monk wrote:Its well understood that erets can mean earth or land (the modifier kol meaning whole or complete). It is also clear the words earth and land can easily be interchanged in practically any context without significant loss of meaning. Therefore it is imperative to interpret the word in the context intended. Yes we have been over it before.
Merely extracting a hebrew word out of the text, and citing its several meanings according to Strong's lexicon is not the proper way to interpret the scripture. Everyone of reasonable intelligence should realize this.
Oh, so you are implying that you have reasonable intelligence then... Wow, well it is honor to be conversing with you then.. So what is the correct way to be using the Strong's lexicon?
Again this was already addressed...
"The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are
kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."4 We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.
* The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
* And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)
Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area of land, instead of our entire planet."
Source:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
Forum Monk wrote:So why when one reads the words, sometimes erets means earth and sometimes it means land (I am speaking in the many traditional translations)? Simple. The translator has done the work of intepreting the context for us and many translations are made completely independently of other, existing translations. For example, the interpretors of the New American Standard Version, did use the King James Version as a guide for determining the correct interpretation. They have independently concluded what nearly every other team of interpretators have concluded.
The KJV was written around 1611... You mean that the interpreters back then had the complete knowledge of the topography of the entire world as we understand it today?
Forum Monk wrote:Very clearly, the God intends to destroy every man on earth (the face of the globe in modern parlance). Everything under heaven is to be destroyed. Just to be sure, the entire earth is under heaven. If God only destroyed part of creation He should not have said everything under heaven.
Well you are erroneously taking things out of context ... The entire earth maybe under heaven but so is the land.. Here is the verse in question (KJV).
Genesis 6:17
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth (or land), to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth (land) shall die.
Forum Monk wrote:And finally based on the covenant of the rainbow, God has promised never again to destroy all life with a flood. "Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.". Everyone knows there have been thousands of local floods and some have literally swept away all life in a region. The local flood argument can not stand on the interpretation of erets.
We've been over this many times before.. Please read the article again...
God promised no more floods like the Genesis flood
What about the Genesis 9:11 and 9:15. If the flood was local, did God lie, since floods have destroyed local areas since the Genesis flood.
"And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11)
and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15)
The first part of the verse is a promise not to exercise universal judgment by means of a flood, "all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood." The flood, although local in extent, was global in judgment, since all humanity lived in the same locale. It wasn't until God confused the languages (Genesis 11) that people began to spread over the earth. So, God promised to never again execute universal judgment of humans by means of a flood. The second part, "never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth" can be explained by other verses found in the Genesis flood account.
Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
The passage in this instance refers to the people of the earth, since planet earth itself was not corrupt. Likewise, Genesis 9:11 is referring to the people of the earth rather than the planet itself. Ultimately, even if the flood were global, it did not "destroy the earth," but just the people on the earth. As stated above, "people" is often understood from the Hebrew word erets.
Source:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
So if you believe the flood was global, how do explain then how Noah got all the animals throughout the entire world to fit into the ark? How is Noah going to feed these animals? Do you propose he gave them salt water to drink?