noguru
Well-known member
That is not suprising.
The Dilemma of the Geological Layers and their Fossil Contents
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
That is not suprising.
Actually, the original says that all life in the land was wiped out. But, as you know, "eretz" can mean various things, including just one local area.
So that doesn't say the entire earth was covered. It says "the land" was covered.
Moreover, it says every living thing on the land was killed, except that which was on the Ark. No plants on the Ark, just animals. And yet, after the flood, we again see plants. If it meant "the Earth", they all would have died, since the Bible says all living things on the land died.
There's just no way to stretch it around to mean "the entire Earth." Hence, a worldwide flood is not Biblical.
I can accept that you don't believe it happened, but trying to say the biblical flood wasn't global is stupid.
I can accept that you don't believe it happened, but trying to say the biblical flood wasn't global is stupid. Or perhaps you believe the flood only destroyed the cities in Naphtali...
Gen 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
"of the earth"; [0127] 'adamah
1) ground, land
a) ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
b) piece of ground, a specific plot of land
c) earth substance (for building or constructing)
d) ground as earth's visible surface
e) land, territory, country
f) whole inhabited earth
g) city in Naphtali
Why are you so certain the meaning in this passage is not f)?
Then it "teaches" something that never happened. Big issue. Raises big questions on whether it should be taken literally or not.
Realistic. It's why most Christians don't think it was global. As you learned, the Hebrew word can mean any portion of land.
And obviously, if every living thing died on the earth, no more plants. So we know it's local.
Could be any of those, um? But the fact that living things on the globe survived, tells us it couldn't be global, since God says that all living things on the land, not in the Ark died.
If we can trust God, then it can't be that one.
I can't respond to this. It's bizarre.
It's very simple...
1. "eretz" can mean a number of things, only one of which means "all the land on earth"
2. The Bible says all living things on the land died in the flood.
3. But when Noah sent out a dove, it returned with a branch in it's beak, showing that plants survived.
4. Either God is wrong, and not all things died in the flood, or there were areas of the earth that was not flooded.
Add to that, the evidence showing that there was no global flood, and there is no way to construe a world-wide flood.
1. "eretz" can mean a number of things, only one of which means "all the land on earth"
2. The Bible says all living things on the land died in the flood.
3. But when Noah sent out a dove, it returned with a branch in it's beak, showing that plants survived.
4. Either God is wrong, and not all things died in the flood, or there were areas of the earth that was not flooded.
Add to that, the evidence showing that there was no global flood, and there is no way to construe a world-wide flood.
No, it's a little more complicated than that.
Genesis 7:22
All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.
Unless you think plants have nostrils then your number two is wrong.
No, it is really very simple---there was no global flood, no Noah's ark, not a 2 by 2 march of the animals, etc.
Come on Jukia. Have you ever tried to kill insects?
I had a cockroach in the freezer for a good two months before I found it.
Boy was he angry.
God gets a little more inclusive than that:
Genesis 7:23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Now if you want to argue that God doesn't think plants are alive...
John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Genesis 7:23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Now if you want to argue that God doesn't think plants are alive...
John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
My daughter, in 4th grade, wanted to do a science project on temperature and insect activity. She cooled and warmed cockroaches (you can buy them in pet stores as lizard feed), and then put them on a grid to see how many squares they would cross in a certain time.
She got a nice curve, but then got to thinking...
So she put some in the freezer. After two hours, they were still able to move when they thawed out, albeit spastically, and slowly. Tough critters.
Read the verse before it sonshine.
Genesis 7:22
All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.
So which verse is contolling? The one that says "every living substance" was destroyed or the one that seems to require nostrils?
Since God says both, then both are true.
When scripture seems to contradict scripture, it is because we have added something to it.
If you accept that all living substance was destroyed, then there is no contradiction.
When scripture seems to contradict scripture, it is because we have added something to it.
If you accept that all living substance was destroyed, then there is no contradiction.
Does that mean there had to be a flood, an ark, etc.?