Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

"biblical date" of the flood.Just began to read this thread. Hope I'm not repeating anyone.Some Bible students speculate that the flood happened around 3500 BC. I can make the case for a more recent occurence but the Bible itself offers nothing conclusive on the subject.Even if we assume, as some do, that it occured 5500 years ago, it still falls short of the 7000 years you suggest.

William Scott wrote:"I highly favor the more recent biblical date for the flood"Did I miss something, or have you revealed what you believe that date to be?"Basically anything man can do, man can screw up."Such as writing, translating, and interpreting the Bible?

I'm degreed as a Biologist and educated as a Bible expert. Both of these are just hobbies now.PS. Not a "real" doctor, just like to play ...
And was "converted" from creationism by virtue of a course called Philosopy of Biology, which was taught at the same Christian school where I studied Theology.

​

[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-15-2002]

Scott wrote:
----------------------------------
"First off, Noah could have only had a small cross section of animals on the ark. The rest survived on their own, that view is compatible with scripture by the way."
----------------------------------How is it compatible with the following?"I will cause it to rain upon the earth ... and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Genesis 7:4 King James Version."He blotted out every living thing ... man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark." Genesis 7:23,24 Revised Standard Version.----------------------------------
"The flood occurred at the end of the last ice, which I believe happened at the date the bible gives for the flood, or perhaps earlier." ... "If the bible date is correct ..."
----------------------------------IF?----------------------------------
"... not all the animals were on the ark, many survived outside on their own."
----------------------------------A reasonable assumption but incompatible with scripture - "He blotted out every living thing ..."----------------------------------
"The biblical date for the flood is 2370 BC."
----------------------------------Your choice. One of many interpretions.----------------------------------
"The date is arrived at by adding up the generations and working back from later dated events in the bible."
----------------------------------Biblical events are dated by linking them to calculated timelines drawn on cultures outside that of the Hebrews. Those timelines are themselves approximate at best. For example we cannot know for certain when Jesus was born, much less IF he was born!----------------------------------
"I allow for the possibility that the bibles we have today could be missing some names, maybe even a lot of names ... But considering what a huge omission that would be, I strongly favor the biblical date."
----------------------------------You cling to this timeframe, based on questionable interpretation of an ancient document, whilst ignoring a mountain of data which refutes it! How "scientific" is that?----------------------------------
"On screwing up the bible, the writers were inspired and God has seen to it that his word has survived intact, the question is how intact, do we now know every textual error that has creeped in over the years, or are there a few left?"
----------------------------------A certain uncertainty!----------------------------------
"Any errors left would have to be small, but a small string of omission in one of the genealogies would have a big impact on dating the flood."
----------------------------------Among other things.----------------------------------
"On errors in interpreting the Bible, those errors are so wide spread and common, it is a profession. But the bible speaks for itself if you are willing to lisen."
----------------------------------Hear Ye. Hear Ye."He blotted out every living thing ... "

quote:

---

Scott wrote:
"Noah could have only had a small cross section of animals on the ark. The rest survived on their own, that view is compatible with scripture by the way."

---

doctrbill wrote: - "How is it compatible with the following?"

"I will cause it to rain upon the earth ... and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Genesis 7:4 King James Version.

​

"He blotted out every living thing ... man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark." Genesis 7:23,24 Revised Standard Version.-----------------
db

Originally posted by wmscott:
"You misunderstand the word 'earth' in the scripture, the earth that is being referred to is the earth or dry ground we walk on, not the entire planet. Which is why no mention of fish or other marine life is made, they don't live on the 'earth'.I am glad to see that you understand this.
Your thinking is progressive but I believe you could go farther.
For example, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon is called, "the hammer of the whole earth" which, "destroyeth all the earth" (Jeremiah 50:23; 51:25).
In this case, "whole earth" refers to a region of political influence; and "all the earth" is clearly neither a reference to our planet, nor inclusive of all "dry land".Scott:
"... the flood was never meant to kill off the trees. A brief submergence in the winter time when the trees were dormant would not kill most trees."
I claim no expertise in botany but am aware that trees breathe air.Scott
"... what died in the flood, everything that breathe air ..."I am also an amateur gardener, and I believe that a combination of submersion, changes in salinity, and erosion of the substrate would be adequate to destroy most species.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------PS. - I believe that an unusually large annual inundation of the Mesopotamian Valley, via the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, is adequate to explain the biblical flood.
I hope we can continue to explore this "worldwide" flood and come to understand just how limited a worldview is expressed in the sacred pages of the ancient scripture.------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

quote:

---

Originally posted by no2creation:
"Genesis 7
19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. ...

​

... where has all this water gone?"

---

A. "Mountains" and "hills," in this passage are given for the same Hebrew word - "har"; and probably refer to the Sumerian mud brick temples (ziggurats) of the Mesopotamian Valley. Consider the fact that the temple of Jehovah is also called a mountain (har).B. The word "Earth" refers to the land, not to the Planet. A great flood could easily cover one of these early buildings (har) constructed on the flood plain of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. There is no need to bring Everest into the equation.C. The water "receded from the earth" Genesis 8:3 Revised Standard Version. Did it go into space? No. Earth refers, not to the planet, but to that particular land which was flooded.
At the time of the flood, no one believed that Earth was spherical. That became a popular "theory" about 2,000 years later. But even as late as the beginning of the seventeenth century, Christian authorities refused to believe that Earth is a planet!If drainage doesn't seem adequate to get rid of all that water, then consider Aristotles "chemistry" which would allow the water to become atmosphere. See:http://www.geocities.com/anudei/DarkWater.htmlExcerpt:
The idea that water is a prime element continued in the "chemistry" of Aristotle who believed there were four primary "elements," earth, air, water and fire. The relationship of these to one another is explained by Plato in what has been called the Platonic Cycle. In this "chemistry," any one of the elements can be transformed into another. In which case, the theory of watery origin remains valid. Observe...

​

...fire condenses into air, air liquefies to water, water solidifies to earth, earth sublimates into fire. In the reverse order, fire condenses to earth, earth dissolves into water, water vaporizes into air, and air becomes rarified into fire again. Science Since Babylon, de Solla Price [emphasis mine]

​

By this "science", the Greeks specualted that even the sun, moon and stars had originated from water.
------------
db

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill;
"I claim no expertise in botany but am aware that trees breathe air"

---

quote:

---

Wm Scott
Not when they are dormant. A submergence of a few months in an ice age winter when the ground is frozen hard and ending before spring, would pass almost unnoticed by the plant kingdom.

---

I didn’t say I was ignorant of Botany.
Most plant species cannot tolerate submersion, much less being frozen, for any length of time. Adding salt to the formula virtually ensures lethal damage.Scott
no major erosion is expected from a flood caused by a progressive rise and then lowering of sea level. Have you never observed the rock carving capabilities of wave action? Consider the tremendous tidal surges which must have encircled the planet (working within the myth, of course). Think about the errosive damage tidal waves can accomplish!Scott
The "earth" in genesis refers to all the land. On what grounds do you make this assumption?
When God drove Cain "from the face of the earth," did Cain get on a boat? Genesis 4:14Scott
An ark would not be necessary for a limited area flood.Have you tried selling this to the people who live along the Mississippi River?Scott
Noah knew what a mountain was, the ark is reported as grounding on one. The Hebrew term is har which may also mean hill. And in Noah’s time, temple towers were called "mountains". (see below)Scott
The reference to the temple of Jehovah as a mountain refers to mount Zion that it was built on The building itself, to the best of my knowledge is not referred to as a mountain.Zion means Fortress, or Castle. Thus mount Zion may read Castle mount. Interestingly, the geological feature was called a "mountain" (or "hill"); The city built on it (Jerusalem) was called a "mountain"; And the towering stone Temple structure within the city is also, apparently, called a "mountain."Jerusalem shall be called ‘The Faithful City’ and ‘The Holy Mountain’ and ‘The Mountain of the Lord of hosts’ Zechariah 8:3 Living Bible.Ye shall have a song, as in the night when a holy solemnity is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one goeth with a pipe to come into the mountain of the LORD Isaiah 30:29.the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains ... ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob’ Isaiah 2:2,3Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest. Jeremiah 26:18 . the great Temple[/B] now stands Living BibleBiblical use of the word mountain is not as simple as one might think.>The Bible refers to governmental units as mountains:To Babylon, Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain ... which destroyest all the earth Jeremiah 51:25. all the earth[/B]?To Israel, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel Ezekiel 36:1.>The Bible describes mountains which see and hear and melt:The mountains saw thee and they trembled Habakkuk 3;10
Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord Ezekiel 6:3.
the mountains shall be melted with their blood. Isaiah 34:3Fact:
The ziggurat temples of Mesopotamia were called mountains by their Sumerian builders (the progenitors of all middle eastern cultures, including the Hebrew). These temple mounts satisfy all of the requirements of the metaphorical use of the word, mountain.Noah may indeed have known what a mountain was, but Noah did not write the story. Besides, the important question here, I think, is -
Do we know what those mountains were?-----------
db------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

quote:

---

Originally posted by no2creation:
1. If the earth was referred to as 'only the lands', is the same true for the rest of the bible?

---

Yep.2. Do Creationists believe in the Platonic Cycle?I don't think so, but I believe the Alchemists did.If so, then their claim of the earth being 4000 - 12000 years would be false. Since the "Platonic cycle", times the precession of the vernal equinox through the heavens, lasts 25,800 years.Sorry. I don't know what you are saying here.How I think the story 'COULD' have happened:
There was a large flood that covered the inhabited land. Noah was a smart man; he may have taken the necessary precautions and built a large boat. Then one year it rained, and rained and rained. A flood took place, during which Noah had filled his boat with two animals of each from his farm (and some essentials for survival). Knowing they all wouldn't fit on his boat, and that he needed two of each for reproduction. The flood probably decimated most of the land, including people, animals, and buildings.Sounds about right to me.What I have a hard time believing is:
1. The flood lasted for 40 days (it could be conceivable but seems highly unlikely)More like a year, actually.2. It destroyed absolutely everything except Noah and his animals
3. The flood covered 100% of the earth (popular belief by many)
4. Noah’s Ark contained two of every animal in existenceI agree, of course.
The great flood is only a story, if it was based on an actual event, then the author exaggerated the facts.
Or we have exaggerated them by virtue of our ignorance of the life, times, and language of the people who composed it in the first place.----------
db

​

[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-19-2002]

Originally posted by wmscott:
... ziggurats were referred to as mountains ... If fear of a flood was the motivation behind building ziggurats, the pre flood people probably didn't build any ... So there probably weren't any ziggurats to be referred to as mountains covered by the deluge.(db's holy words appear in bold face.) That's a lot of subjunctives my friend.
Mesopotamian cities, with their ziggurats, were constructed on flood plains (good farming) and were employed as flood escape facilities for a couple of weeks each year during the annual flood. After the Great Flood, Mesopotamian governments took care to set these cities even higher. Bye the way, Sumerian civilization predates the flood by thousands of years.On submergence in the flood causing erosion,See the strawman? I did not suggest that submersion causes erosion.look at the flooding of the Black Sea, the original shoreline and beach dunes from the former freshwater lake remain intact to this day As one might expect in the absence of sustained wave action.On a completely flooded earth there would be no tidal surges since it requires a coast line to concentrate the force of the tides to create a tidal surge."Actually, all that is needed is a restriction of some kind such as reduction in depth like one might get over the flooded "mountains"."Only normal mid ocean type tides would be expected, which would do nothing to the submerged former land areas beneath the wavesThis begs the question. What happens as the water is rising and subsiding? Wave action, that’s what!On 'earth' not referring to all the land you used Genesis 4:14 "Here you are actually driving me this day from off the surface of the ground"Living Bible says, you have banished me from my farmIn this scripture Cain is speaking, not God.IrrelevantCain implied that God was driving him off the surface of the ground, apparently referring to all land and not just a local area.Your inference. Not implied by the text.God answered Cain's complaint by providing the "mark of Cain" which wasn't an actual mark, just a command on not killing Cain.Irrelevant.Why would God have Noah build a 450 foot long ark,Why would God bring a flood?In the bible the global flood is a real event that wiped out an entire world.That entire world did not encompass an entire planet.Jesus ... refers to the flood as a real event and compares his return with it. If one believes Jesus was the son of God, one really should believe in the flood, he did.Appealing to faith does little to establish the scientific accuracy or scriptural veracity of your theory.P.S. You have not established that "Earth" refers to "all the lands". You know that I can oppose this. I believe that you cannot defend it.P.S.S. How about sticking to the thread here? You are not trying to lose your messages in the shuffle are you? ------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
"If you reject all the indications in the bible that the flood was global ..."

---

I have not yet rejected them. You have failed to show them. I await your evidence.

quote:

---

"... I am unable to prove to you that the word 'land' means more than a local area, since you are already ignoring all of the scriptural evidence I would use."

---

Are you saying that you've already played your hand? Or,
Am I ignoring evidence which you refuse to show because I'm ignoring it?
Catch 22.

quote:

---

"Your interpretation is certainly different from most.
In light of 1 Timothy 6:3-4 ..."

---

"If any one teaches otherwise ... he knows nothing"[/B]
Quoting the Bible to insult me?

quote:

---

"... I see no point in continuing to argue over the interpretation of a single word ..." ."

---

That "single word" is key to your premise. You have painted yourself into a corner.

quote:

---

"On appealing to faith to support the flood, when having a discussion with someone, it is wise to build on what the person already knows and accepts."

---

So, faith is important to your "theory".

quote:

---

"I had assumed ... that you had a faith"

---

I do have a faith. Faith in modern science. I also have faith in biblical scholarship.
You apparently have neither.PS. You persist in breaking this thread. Are you afraid that someone may easily follow our discussion? Or have you yet to figure out how this works?------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

quote:

---

Since you make no reference to the science side of the flood issue, it would seem that my previous post answered your questions in that area.

---

Not at all. You have plenty of objectors in that area. I am leaving it to them.

quote:

---

As for not showing evidence for use of the word land as referring to more than a local area you are already aware of it and interpret it differently.

---

Depends on how you define local.

quote:

---

if you insist, the description of the flood in genesis 6:1-11:9 is describing a global flood.

---

The Hebrews had no word comparable to our term global. They did not imagine the universe that way. There was Earth and there was Sea. Two separate entities, not two components of a spinning ball.

quote:

---

... the bible is describing much more than a local flood.

---

Depends on the parameters you set for local.

quote:

---

11:4 "... all the surface of the earth."

---

This expression describes a limited territory. I will present the evidence here, some of it for the second time.Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the destroyer of all the earth
This king of Babylon is called the hammer of all the earth
The LORD threatens to feed the king of Egypt to the beasts of the whole earth
Do you believe that these guys actually dominated the planet?
The prophet Jeremiah laments that he is hated by the whole earth
Do you believe that he was hated in the western hemisphere?

quote:

---

hard to believe they were afraid of being scattered over a local area.

---

You really like the word "local" don't you? Do you suppose there is also the possibility of a district, or regional flood?
As I recall, I asserted that it was a Mesopotamian phenomenon. That would hardly qualify as local in my book.

quote:

---

We also have the rainbow covenant in chapter 9, which was a promise by God not to flood the world again.

---

Destruction of my hometown would be the end of my world.

quote:

---

Now if the deluge was just a local flood, then each local flood in history would be a breaking of this covenant.

---

The promise would not be broken if that particular region never again suffered a flood of that magnitude.

quote:

---

I saw no benefit in discussing what you already know and chose to interpret differently.

---

If biblical interpretation is important to your theory, then you must be prepared to defend your own choice of interpretation. Yes?

quote:

---

It is best to be some what flexible in Biblical interpretations, Interpreting the bible is an art, not a science.

---

Well put. Good thing I am both scientist and artist.

quote:

---

On the dating problems, I favor the biblical date but allow for the possibility that the flood occurred much earlier.

---

Evidence from the Mesopotamian Valley suggests an extraordinary flood circa 3600 BC depending on whom you read. The so-called biblical date you have offered is relatively close, on a geologic scale, to this time-frame. For further reading see -http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/3000bc.html#6

quote:

---

3700 BC: Mesopotamia; Burrows’ flood,
Jesuit Paleographer, Burrows who accompanied Wooley on his 1930’s archeological dig at Ur dates Mesopotamian/biblical flood at 3700 BC (January 1930 Dublin Review)

​

3500 BC: Mesopotamia; Leonard Woolley’s flood
3500 Leonard Woolley, head of the joint British American team excavating Ur, dates the flood layer found at the base of the ruins of Ur at 3500 BC.

---

Just a suggestion here - Perhaps you should avoid using biblical quotes as evidence.------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

quote:

---

Originally posted by no2creation:
I must apologize, since I can't seem to find all the info on the "Platonic Cycle". I'll have to find the book, but it describes how ancient civilizations had viewed the stars according to their location on earth (mainly the north star). Astronomers can use drawings/writings and other evidence from the civilization combined with the Platonic Cycle ...

---

After checking out the site you cited I see what you are talking about. The actual term chosen for the earth's wobbling cycle was "Platonic Year." Unfortunately, the casual refernce to this as the "Platonic cycle" has confused some readers.Vincent de Solla Price's use of the expression "Platonic Cycle" refers to the interchangeability of the four elements in Aristotles "chemistry", more acurately, alchemy.The two have no relation whatever. But I am glad you made me aware of the fact that the 26,000 year "wobble" has been given the name, "Platonic Year."---------
db

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott: I agree with you on the word land being used with different means,

---

I assume that you intended to say different meanings. But that is not at all what I am saying, and you continue to avoid addressing my primary assertion; Which is, that
nowhere in the Bible is the word Earth used in the sense of a global i.e. spheroidal, planetiodal reality.
Shouldn’t you settle on whether to call it earth or land?

quote:

---

in the cases you like to cite, such as "Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the destroyer of "all the earth"" it refers to the known world at the time or the known civilized world.

---

It refers to the Babylonian Empire; Nothing more.

quote:

---

Your argument then is that at the time of the flood the known world consisted of an area in the Mesopotamian valley.

---

The Babylonian Empire included the land of Israel.

quote:

---

You have also made reference to the flood layer found by C. Leonard Wooley as being evidence of this flooding event that inspired the Genesis story.

---

I do not recall mentioning that, but since you bring it up ...

quote:

---

The lack of a flood deposit at Eridu limits the great Ur flood to a very limited extent indeed, far to small to have been the great deluge of bible history.

---

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

quote:

---

In fact the flood layer at Ur was created by a river flood that failed to even flood the entire city.

---

In fact, Woolley’s trial pit began under the bottom of the Royal Cemetery, at -... the lowest levels of the Ur mound in order to learn something of the city’s origins. After cutting through three feet of occupational debris, his diggers hit sterile river mud. Woolley calculated that the mud was above the original level of the surrounding plain. One possible explanation could have been that he had reached the top of a natural hillock ‘hidden’ by the larger, man-made mound of the city that had been built atop it.

​

But Woolley commanded his crew to keep on digging. Reluctantly, they complied. Sure enough, the record of human habitation recommenced eight feet further down."This "... eight-foot-thick water deposited clay, devoid of artifacts, lay just above another level that was studded with pre-Sumerian objects."
Sumer: Cities of Eden, (Time Life Books. pg. 32,88.)Given that these artifacts are pre-Sumerian and located four meters beneath the bottom of the Royal Cemetery, one might reasonably deduce that this layer of mud pre-dates the City of Ur.

quote:

---

Since it failed to even flood the entire city of Ur, ...

---

There is reasonable doubt as to whether Ur existed at the time.

quote:

---

it is hard to believe it could be described as flooding the earth even using your limited definition.

---

Again: Biblical use of the word earth never suggests the planet.

quote:

---

Other than claiming that this was a small flood that inspired a very exaggerated tall tail, there is no way to match the description found in genesis with the archaeological evidence of the flood deposits in Mesopotamia.

---

You are entitled to your opinion.

quote:

---

Due to the small size of the Ur flood and the other conflicting details, it is necessary to look elsewhere for the biblical flood.

---

We have evidence of a great flood -
In the valley of Eden;
In the same valley where Abram met God;
This is the valley from which Babylon conquered the whole earth.
It is the very same valley where the legend of the Great Flood was born;
Do you doubt that this valley comprised an entire biblical world?

quote:

---

I see no support for limiting the genesis word 'land' to that area ...

---

Is it to be land or earth? Please choose one. On the one hand you say "Earth," hoping that it may imply a global flood. On the other hand, you say "Land," hoping to explain why air breathing sea creatures weren't in the ark.I sympathize with the challenge you face. I once wrestled with it myself. It is not easy to understand the Bronze Age World View. But using these words interchangeably confuses the issue.The Hebrew word in question here is ERETS which is translated either way, as "Earth" or as "Land" but never as "planet."-------
db------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Do you still mean the Hebrew word 'erets' is never used to refer to the entire planet,

---

Yes.... are you now restricting you assertion that it lacks a reference to just the earth being a sphere?No.The sphere question is a bit off course from the flood issue itself. No it isn’t. If earth is a sphere, then it includes the sea by definition. As you have pointed out, earth is set in contrast to "heaven". What you fail to point out is that earth is also set in contrast to "sea" (Gen. 1:10; Ex. 20:11). Furthermore, by today's science we are aware that Earth is part and parcel of the heavens. This concept was unknown or unacceptable to those who penned the Book of Genesis. here is what one of my reference books stated. "In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used for earth as a planet is e'rets. Your reference book is biased and wrong.The Hebrew word "Erets" ... can refer to the entire planet earth ... the definition found in Strong's Hebrew dictionary ...an unused root probably meaning to be firm;If what Strong suggests is true, then the meaning could hardly include the sea. The sea is most assuredly not firm.The only way the usage of these two Hebrew words could supply any support for the theory that the Bible is describing a limited flood, is if only the Hebrew word 'adhamah' was used in describing the extent of the deluge and the word 'erets' was not used.This is the same argument as that regarding created versus made, and just as silly.... there is no linguistic support for the belief the flood account was mean to be description of a partial flooding of the earth.There is neither linguistic nor contextual support for the belief that the flood account was meant to be descriptive of a total flooding of the planet.... verses ... where the entire earth is obviously being referred to, ...
Genesis 1:29-30 "29 ... to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food."Do bugs have souls then? Do whales eat green vegetation?Previously you excluded the sea from your definition of earth.
You asserted that Earth could only mean dry land because otherwise air breathing sea life would have to be on the ark.
Now you want to include the sea because you need the word Earth to mean planet. Joshua 3:11"The ark of the covenant of the Lord of the whole earth" Jehovah did not rule the planet, nor was Nebuchadnezzar the "hammer" of the planet (Jer. 50:23). Yet both verses use the expression: "whole earth". Psalm 97:3-6 "4 His lightnings ... The earth saw and came to be in severe pains. The planet saw lightning and felt pain? How poetic. 5 The mountains themselves proceeded to melt just like wax More poetry. How quaint! Isaiah 40:22 ... Note the expression 'circle of the earth'. Circles are flat. Isaiah 51:13 " the foundation of the earth,"Like this helps your case!? Daniel 2:35 "... the stone ... became a large mountain and filled the whole earth." Is this supposed to convince us that earth means the planet?... three verses in Matthew where the entire earthly globe is referred to. (Mt 5:18, 35; 6:19)The "footstool" of God is the ark of the covenant, or the Temple, or Jerusalem itself. (1 Chr. 28:2; Ps. 132:7; Lam. 2:1). In those passages where it is called earth we may understand it to mean land, as in holy land.Considering what the reference works state, and the context of the above verses, it is very obvious that the bible makes references to the entire earth.Obvious to you, perhaps. Believe it or not, there are reference works which provide clearer, more unifying, interpretations.One of them even referring to the circle of the earth, or sphere as some bibles translate it.Most Bibles are created to support the status quo.
Some Bibles are intentionally biased.
All Bibles are created by men.So I see no restriction in the use of the Hebrew language for the flood description not to refer to the entire planet.The Hebrews had a perfectly good word, GULLAH which could have been used to describe the spherical earth. Yet, it was never used in that way. If you wish to understand restrictions on the language, look at restrictions on the science of the age. The Bronze Age.You made reference to the flood layer found by C. Leonard Wooley in the link you posted in your earlier post. ... I found a site that has a theory very much like yours, only I thought it better in a number of details. Perhaps you may want to check it out. Climate, Culture, and Catastrophe in the Ancient World You evidently failed to notice the graphic of the Karun River diversion, a possible mechanism for the unusual flooding of cities in the Mesopotamian Valley. Interesting that you wish to deny evidence of the great Mesopotamian flood, yet claim a more recent global flood, for which there is no evidence.------------
db------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

​

[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-28-2002]