'Eretz' not the real flood issue (was Re: Leaving the Fold)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

MORTON
[snip]
I consider myself a historicist if there is such a term. I can't see any
reason to beleive something made of whole cloth. But on the other hand if
there is a scenario that matches both sets of data then I see no reason to
reject Scripture. I don't think Till or you have proven that the Bible
requires belief in a global flood. I have heard lots of assertions that
that is the case, but you all have presented no analyses supporting your
position that it does.  If such a case can be made, please make it.  I
presented an examination of the Hebrew word showing that it was more often
translated as 'land'. And Abraham was told to get out of his 'eretz'.  I
doubt very seriously that was a call for Abe to go to Mars.  So, your case,
if you chose to present one, has to deal with such things.

[snip]
MORTON
I think the problem is that everyone is under the false assumption that the
Bible teaches a global flood.  It doesn't.  But Christians keep claiming it
and atheists agree with that claim (some agree for tactical reasons, like
Till, I suspect) The Hebrew also clearly does not support indubitably a
global flood.

STEVE CR
Hi Glenn, nice to see you are still around.

Perhaps I'll let Farrell speak for himself, but I think Glenn is wrong in
his claim. He appears to say that we (all of us who think that the Bible
teaches a global flood) misunderstand the meaning of the word 'eretz' and
therefore fall into an obvious trap.

However, nearly all the analyses of the passage Gen 6-9 that I have seen do
not make that the centre of their argument. As Glenn rightly points out, it
can mean 'country' or 'land' as well as 'earth'.

It is due to the other aspects of the story that I believe that Gen 6-9 is
teaching a global flood. Glenn and I discussed this in November 96 so he
will have seen my arguments before, but I'll post them again. By the way, I
think Glenn's theory is very imaginative.

-----------------------------------------
This was my first set of points to Glenn:

I am aware of the other meaning of the word translated as 'earth' -'land',
but there still are these questions:

1.  "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high
hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen
cubits upward, and the mountains were covered." Gen 7:19-20. If the water
level reached above the level of high mountains clearly it went all over
the world.

2.  "Thus I establish my covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be
cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to
destroy the earth". Gen 9:11.  There have been many floods subsequently
which have been local. This promise only has meaning if it was global.

3.  "..by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with
water. But the heavens and earth which now exist are kept in store by the
same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgement.." II Pet 3:6-7. 
 Again clearly referred to as a global event. The word is cosmos. The
comparison is with the coming judgement.

-----------------------
Glenn's reply:

1. Answered this above.  I place the flood in the Mediterranean basin
itself.  It was dry once, (see When the Mediterranean dried Up" by K.Hsu,
Scientific American Dec. 1972 or 1973)

2. Genesis 6:13 NIV says that God is going to destroy both the people AND
the earth.  If earth is meant as Planet Earth, then why are we here?  God
said he would destroy the earth but he didn't.

3. Kosmos which is the word translated as world has the primary meaning of
"world order" or "system".  Cosmos is more often translated universe than
earth.  So are we to believe in a flood which filled the universe? Thayers
says it means "an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order."  
The second meaning is the arrangement of the stellar systems.  The third
meaning is universe, and finally the fourth meaning means earth.  What was
Peter meaning?  The harmonious order DID perish!

------------------
And my second go, leaving aside point one:

2. So what did it mean? Clearly, the passage is not teaching that God was
going to destroy the earth so that it would cease to exist. It was to
destroy the earth in the way a flood would destroy, i.e. the surface of the
earth - the plants, the animals, cities, crops, irrigation networks and so
on. God promised after the event that it would not be repeated. In 1330ish
there was a flood that killed about 7 million Chinese (Dott, Evolution of
the Earth). There have been many other major floods. The promise is clearly
important, because it is repeated many times and the sign of the rainbow is
given to reinforce the promise.

3. If the Genesis flood was one local flood amongst many local floods, why
bring it up. So his thread (in II Pet 3) is: Creation of the world-local
flood - coming judgement of all life. Not convincing to his readers. But:
Creation of the world - destruction of all life - coming destruction of all
life, is convincing. And this seems to be the clear train of thought.

Interestingly enough, I came to these conclusions completely alone, having
only read the passage through a number of times over a few weeks. Then a
few days ago, I read a commentary by Morris and Whitcomb (yes, them) at
http://www.bible.org/bibsac/5574/60b6.htm#I1". The commentary is from 1960.
It brings up all my points (plus a couple more). You
appear to be the only person I've come across who even attempts to answer
the points. The few commentaries which take this line don't even raise
them. So I assume they haven't even thought of them.

----------------------
I hope Glenn doesn't mind me posting some of our correspondence but I
thought it would be helpful in the current discussion.

On another note, I am surprised that Glenn keeps bringing up the meaning of
'eretz' implying that only those who are not aware of its real meaning can
believe that Gen 6-9 teaches a global flood.

I noticed that April thought that everyone believed that Gen 6-9 taught a
global flood, but Glenn is right that conservative opinion is changing. I
believe, that like with the young earth, the scientific problems are so
great and can be understood even by the non-scientist, that Bible scholars
are being forced to reinterpret the Bible against its natural meaning. 


Steve Carson-Rowland
Queensland, Australia

"So death, the most terrifying of ills is nothing to us, since so long as
we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist.
It does not then concern either the living or the dead." Epicurus.
"For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing."
Ecclesiasties 9:5

• Previous message: Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink.
• Next message: 'Eretz' not the real flood issue (was Re: Leaving the Fold)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]