Did the sky really go dark as biblical inerrantists insist?

Does this same logic apply to the "whole earth" being flooded and Noah being saved?
Does this same logic apply to "two of every animal" being put on the ark?How about Christ dying on the cross to save "the whole earth"?I guess if that logic doesn't apply in the instances listed above, then your supposition about the darkness needs to be supported by some Bible passage that indicates its limited scope.

quote:

---

Luke 23:44 (Amplified Bible)
It was now about the sixth hour (midday), and darkness enveloped the whole land and earth until the ninth hour (about three o'clock in the afternoon),

---

It appears that the critic is, in fact, correct.First, the "whole land", if taken literally would mean all the land...Asia, Africa, Americas, Antarctica...etc. Sounds like this would cover almost all Longitudes.Second, if "Luke" was just being poetic in his description of a local event, what part of the text tells us this? Wouldn't the inspiration by God prevent the indication that the whole world suffered this darkness? Of course, Luke, being an uneducated dolt with no experience in the outdoors, couldn't tell the difference between cloud cover and a "darkness".

I guess the implied question is: By what criteria does one determine that "whole earth" doesn't mean this entire globe that we live upon?
Where is the support in the text that differentiates this from other instances of "whole earth" within the Bible? The Gospel writer would know it the same way that Moses knew that homosexuality and eating shellfish were "abominations". He knew it the same way that Paul knew that homosexuals would not see the kingdom of heaven but crab lovers would. Inspiration by the Holy Spirit of course. Assuming the Gospel writer was so inspired, who are we to hang the description of "silly" to the idea that he was right to say that the darkness enveloped the entire planet.BTW, good looking kids in your avatar...yours?

As I stated, it is the Amplified Bible. It is supposed to provide as close a translation to the original words (Hebrew, Latin...etc) as possible while also providing the meaning intended. That's the reason behind the words in brackets. Obviously, some of the "meaning" is colored by the dogma of the translators. Ringo (new better-looking version of him/her) has also shown that the King James states the whole earth was involved.What translation of the Bible are you using?My point is that the text does not make it clear that this was a local phenomenon and, in fact, implies that the world suffered this event. So, the issue stands, either provide some clear indication that the authors were using poetic license, or rebut the implication by others that the absence of positive evidence of darkness by other cultures is evidence that the darkness didn't occur.