Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

Thanks for the feedback. I stumbled upon the solution to this question in 1995, after reading the first chapter of Genesis for the umpteenth time. I was studying the question of whether the earth was going to be destroyed, as the Fundie's proclaim.For me, the key was the word "firmament". What is a firmament? Answer that, and the rest falls into place quite nicely; providing you read carefully.It all begins in the water. The water is divided by the firmament. Sun, moon and stars go in the firmament (under the upper water). Earth appears "under" the firmament (in the lower water). And there is water under the earth (Exodus 20:4). The Universe is described as "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them" (Ex. 20:11). Thus, Earth and Sea are separate realities.Put this in your memory banks.----------
db

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
... The water is divided by the firmament. Sun, moon and stars go in the firmament (under the upper water). Earth appears "under" the firmament (in the lower water). ... Earth and Sea are separate realities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
Thanks for that. ... I'm going to have to look into this more...

---

This may help.http://www.geocities.com/anudei/Creation.html------------
db

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
doctrbill; You have admitted that your interpretation is in conflict with two bible reference works that clearly contradict what you say.

---

My views are not built on the opinion of others.... scriptures I posted showed, the whole earth is referred to at times in the bible.I showed that the expression: whole earth cannot possibly refer to the planet.For our point of debate, it doesn't matter if the ancient Hebrews didn't know how big the earth was or if it was flat or round, ...You are confusing my argument with someone elses.... the point is ... whether or not they were only referring to a part or all of it. The point is, whether the word "earth" ever describes the planet. It does not.The words used, according to bible references can mean all of the earth.These references show the religious bias of men on Church payroll.The context in the scriptures I posted was also clear in referring to all the earth.You make me laugh.Daniel 2:35 "the stone ... became ... a large mountain and filled the whole earth." is referring to the Messianic Kingdom that ... will extend its ruler ship to cover the entire earth.You demand too much of this passage. You want the "the stone" and "the mountain" to be metaphorical; and you want "the earth" to be actual. You want to eat your cake and have it too.The whole point of Jesus' message was that salvation was available to all, so restricting 'whole earth' in Daniel would be in conflict with the basic message of Christianity.This is your real objection. Isn't it? Not a scientific objection, but a religious one!Plus your thought that 'earth' can never include the sea is unreasonable, for it would require that the Hebrews believed that Jehovah's rulership of the earth ended at the sea shore.Rulership by Jehovah (the God of Israel) did end at the sea shore.
In battles for control of the Mediterranean, Israel, and his God were defeated.... they believed Jehovah had mastery over the sea,...They also believed that non Jews were sub-human.... your idea of limiting all bible references to the earth to strictly a portion there of, in complete conflict with scripture, bible references and common sense.Definitely in conflict with your references.
But not in conflict with scripture.
Common sense, and holy scripture, convicted Galileo.
Besides, my sense is uncommon. How about yours?

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
... you wish to deny evidence of the great Mesopotamian flood, yet claim a more recent global flood, for which there is no evidence.

---

WmScott's reply:
... as the archeology evidence shows, there is not a universal flood sediment layer to be found in the Mesopotamian valley.Really?! And why is that?
Why would evidence of your "universal flood" fail to be found in that valley?------------------
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:
Sea water like lake water, doesn't have much of a sediment load, ...

---

On which planet? I worked for a mining company which exploits lake sediments. Some of our pits exceeded 30 meters in depth.

quote:

---

a brief marine flood would not leave behind a sediment layer, ...

---

A flood without turbidity? A flood free of wave action? Gently rising water which drops giant boulders but stirs up no silt? Whatever it is you are smoking, I want some!

quote:

---

a global flood or a large regional flood would have had to have been caused by flood waters basically free of river borne sediment,...

---

Are you saying that the rivers did not participate in the flood?

quote:

---

As for your belief that the word earth in the bible only refers to a portion there of, ... you have not supplied any reasonable reasons ...

---

See Genesis 1:10. Earth appears in the sea and is defined as "dry land."You cannot, on the one hand, claim that Earth refers to dry land only [excluding sea (so whales stay out of the ark)] and on the other hand say it means the entire planet [including sea], so that your global flood is justified.

quote:

---

I am afraid my common sense is very common.

---

I am afraid I must agree.------------------
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:
As for your belief that the word earth in the bible only refers to a portion there of, ... you have not supplied any reasonable reasons ...

---

I successfully rebutted your so-called biblical evidences. Furthermore, I referred you to the initial, and only, definition of earth which appears in the Bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill
Earth appears in the sea and is defined as "dry land." (Gen. 1:10).

---

I then pointed out a contradiction in your premises. I wrote:

quote:

---

doctrbill
You cannot, on the one hand, claim that Earth refers to dry land only [excluding sea (so whales stay out of the ark)] and on the other hand say it means the entire planet [including sea], so that your global flood is justified.

---

It is strange that you reject the YEC implications inherent in the Bible, and at the same time cling to its so-called historical record of the flood. I can understand why you might wish to avoid confronting your crisis of faith. But the Bible cannot support, and at the same time deny, your "theory."------------
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
This really is a silly debate ...
I mean this is ridiculous ...
you fail to cite a single reference ...
I don't think you have a leg to stand on ...
you are going to have to come up with some facts ...
I haven't seen one that supports your argument ...
you failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted ...
You didn't do any reasoning or supply any information ...
In short, you have failed to even explain the basic reasoning behind your idea, let alone support it.

---

This tirade is untrue, but I will, for the audience, provide a brief review of salient points.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott

​

Exodus 19:5 "the whole earth belongs to me"

​

Daniel 2:35 "And as for the stone that struck the image, it became a large mountain and filled the whole earth."

​

Considering ... the context of the above verses, it is very obvious that the bible makes references to the entire earth.

---

The scope of these verses is no more global than that in the following:Isaiah 51:25 - The king of Babylon destroys, all the earth.
Ezekiel 32:4 - The beasts of the whole earth eat the king of Egypt, and are filled.

quote:

---

wmscott
... one of my reference books stated. "In the Hebrew ... the word used for earth as a planet is e'rets."

---

Just because "so and so says," doesn’t make it true. Besides, you don't seem entirely convinced of this yourself.

quote:

---

From message 128 by wmscott
You misunderstand the word 'earth' in the scripture, the earth that is being referred to is ... not the entire planet. Which is why no mention of fish or other marine life is made, they don't live on the 'earth'.

---

Come now William. Does "earth" include "sea" or not?

quote:

---

wmscott
There is plenty of evidence that the Hebrew word 'erets' can be used to refer to the entire earth.

---

To an entire region, yes. To all the known lands, probably. But you want it to mean planet, don't you?The Hebrews had several words which we translate as earth, and yet none of them imply, or are ever employed to suggest, that it is shaped like a ball. In fact erets, as you have pointed out, has evolved from a word meanting "firm," which could hardly be applied to water. The Bible never calls Earth a planet, never mentions that it rotates and never discusses the continental land masses on the "other side" of it. They had perfectly good words with which to describe all of these attributes, had they known of them. But they did not know of them and they did not use those words in any combinatin with erets. They describe earth and sea as separate entities. (We apparently agree on this one). What we call planets, they called stars, and earth was never imagined to be a star.

quote:

---

wmscott
I see no restriction in the use of the Hebrew language

---

How you use it is one thing. How the Hebrews used it is another. More important still, for the purposes of this discussion is - how they did not use it.)Seems to me you are excluding sea from the definition of earth in order to save the whales. Then you must reintegrate earth and sea in order for the flood to be global.Do you truly think you can have it both ways?Or am I entirely missing your point?------------------
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:
As I and the references I cited have been saying, the Hebrew word for earth has MORE THAN ONE MEANING!

---

It is never translated - planet, because it never meant planet.Our local library has access to nearly one hundred Bible commentaries, each by a different "authority". Imagine how hare-brained it would be of me to base my opinions on a single one of these!

quote:

---

wmscott
... referring to all the land would in effect mean the same as the whole planet when referring to a global flood.

---

This might be true if it said, "all the land on the planet".

quote:

---

wmscott
The context clearly contradicts your line of reasoning at Exodus 19:5 and Daniel 2:35 among many others.

---

Exodus 19:5. The speaker here is Jehovah, war-god of the Hebrews. The speech is directed to Jews only. For the purpose of argument I will insert the word land where so many wish to retain the old word "earth" and we will see how well it works. [first line is from the Revised Standard Version, last line is from the Living Bible. Just reads easier that way.]You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to myself. Now if you will obey me and keep your part of my contract with you, you shall be my own little flock from among all the nations of the land; for all the land is mine.The "land" in question is the land promised to Abraham. Do you imagine that the speaker here is creator of the universe? Do you think that the audience is all the people who have ever lived? Do you believe that the land in question is all the land on the planet? If so, your conclusion lacks evidence, defies logic, and ignores both the stated and implied parameters of the context. Your interpretation would be a theological view, not a contextual analysis.Daniel 2:35 This is a dream sequence where a rock turns into a mountain so big that it fills the whole earth. And you want this to say that whole earth means the Planet?I am only interested in seeing evidence that erets means "planet." I may analyze a few more texts but would prefer that you pre-digest this stuff before offering it to me.

quote:

---

wmscott
I stand by my earlier "tirade," in fact since you have still failed to support your interpation, I could repeat every word again since it still applies, but to save space and time.
<<< Insert Earlier Tirade Here >>>

---

While you are lacing up your gloves, consider this. Early translators of the Bible did not believe that Earth is a Planet. Martin Luther did not believe it. The King James translation committee did not believe it. The Roman Catholic Church did not believe it. Do you think you are a better scholar than were those men whose words you read with such reverence?OK now: Hit me with your best shot!------------------
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:
There is plenty of evidence that the Hebrew word 'erets' can be used to refer to the entire earth.

---

I’m not saying that ‘erets’ can not be used that way.
I am saying that it was not used that way.

quote:

---

wmscott:
you failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted

---

I have dealt with a significant number of your quotes, and received little in return but complaints about my attitude. My attitude is skeptical. Deal with it.

quote:

---

wmscott:
We do a number of verses throughout the bible where the entire earth is obviously being referred to, it is very obvious that the bible makes references to the entire earth. It can mean the planet, ...

---

You have offered poems, dreams, theisms, and appeals to faith. But so far no real evidence that any biblical author ever stated, alluded to, or imagined that earth might be a globe, rotate on its axis, orbit the sun, or wander among the stars. Evidences to the contrary abound.I am still waiting to see scriptural evidence in support of your belief.Has anyone out there discovered this evidence?Anyone?------------------
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
I will take from this response that none of those nearly 100 bible commentaries support your position, or else you would have quoted them. I take it as quite revealing that out of so many conflicting opinions, none of them apparently supports your theory.

---

I find it revealing that you are unaware of those which corroborate my opinion. I came to see it this way before discovering that certain commentators agree.If my theory were on trial here then I would trot out my evidence.Your annoying repetition of my so-called failure does not make it so. You are beginning to sound like a broken record!Please desist from your satanic chant regarding my scholarship.

quote:

---

wmscott
... the bible refers to the entire earth at times, not that they knew the size or shape of the earth. My point is that when the bible refers to flooding the earth, it means a global event rather than a limited one.

---

I have not been impressed with your "evidence," and you have pretty much ignored my rebuttals.

quote:

---

wmscot
... regardless of whether or not the flood was really earth wide, the bible writers believed it was.

---

This sounds like equivocation. I am convinced that you believe the flood was planet-wide. I am not convinced that Bible writers believed it.By the way. Bible is a proper noun, and should always be capitalized.------------------
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
Mister Pamboli
... perhaps by passage you meant the chapter rather than verse.

---

No real Bible scholar would have misunderstood Pamboli’s use of the word ‘passage’.

quote:

---

wmscott - Re: Kosmos
the word does having the meaning of humankind as a whole,

---

Kosmos is derived from kosmeo, the root of our word cosmetic. Kosmeo is translated adorn, garnish, and trim. Kosmos is translated primarily as world, but is once rendered adorning. It suggests the transient, ephemeral, accouterments of human civilization. The word world from the Old English weorold (age of man) is certainly appropriate. Jesus’ famous statement, I am with you to the end of the world, is in modern versions rendered, I am with you to the end of the age. Kosmos is about world order, not integrity of the environment.

quote:

---

wmscott
the physical earth was not destroyed in the flood,

---

God said to Noah, I have determined to make an end of all flesh; ... behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Gen. 6:13. You seem to be confused about the meaning of destruction.

quote:

---

wmscott
As for myself, I believe God's word,

---

Really? You believe the biblical date for the flood (sort of), but do not believe in the biblical date of creation? Do not believe Adam was the first man? Do not believe God destroyed the earth?

quote:

---

wmscott
Clearly the Bible writers believed it was a real event that affected all the earth, or all the world of mankind, the cosmos.

---

You don’t sound very clear on this.

quote:

---

wmscott
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.

---

Even less than that. It refers to the Babylonian Empire. But when "all the earth" is mentioned in a verse you like for your theory, it has to mean "the whole planet" or "all the dry land" on the planet. Isn't that special!?

quote:

---

wmscott
I am still unaware of any commentators supporting your position because you still haven't posted any of them.

---

My position is not on trial. Yours is.

quote:

---

wmscott
I have been trying to goad you into supporting your argument, then I could go after the supporting arguments.

---

Once again. It is your theory which is under consideration here.

quote:

---

wmscott
it isn't whether you believe in a earth wide flood, the question is what did the Bible writers believe.

---

You are on the right track but the station, to which you are headed, isn’t there.

quote:

---

wmscott
Since you have still failed to answer any of my objections, I will repost them. For unless you can answer them, I consider your position disproved.

---

The task at hand is to prove your theory, not to disprove mine.

quote:

---

wmscott
You have still failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted.

---

So you say.

quote:

---

wmscott
you believe that some verses only refer to part of the earth, therefor no other verse can refer to all the earth

---

Wrong. I believe that no verse refers to the planet. Show me any passage where the word earth clearly refers to the planet. Neither Bible writers nor early Bible translators thought of earth in that way.

quote:

---

wmscott
The context clearly contradicts your line of reasoning at Exodus 19:5 and Daniel 2:35

---

Repeat the lie often enough and you will believe it, but it won't make it true. The land mentioned in Exodus is the land promised to Abraham. Jehovah owns that land. The dream land mentioned in Daniel is filled by a magic mountain. We've been over this before. You want to try a fourth time?

quote:

---

wmscott
Failure to cite a single reference that supports your unusual interpretation.

---

My interpretation is not up for scrutiny. Yours is.

quote:

---

wmscott
Genesis 1:10 it is referring to all the land.

---

Your assertion. Your burden of proof.

quote:

---

wmscott
explain what 'earth' is being referred to in Genesis 1:2 before the creation of land.

---

Read Genesis 1:2 in the Living Bible, or the Anchor Bible. These offer a rendering which eliminates the apparent contradiction of verse 2 and verse 10. Applying two different translations of erets in the same sentence is confusing to readers, including yourself.

quote:

---

wmscott
Genesis 26:15 "As for all the wells that the servants of his father had dug in the days of Abraham his father, these the Philis'tines stopped up and they would fill them with dry earth.

---

This passage is irrelevant to discussion of erets. The Hebrew word here rendered "earth" is aphar or "dust". One more evidence that Bible translators of the seventeenth century played fast and loose with the word earth.

quote:

---

wmscott
Hebrews 11:7 "Noah, condemned the world" ... In using the word Kosmos Paul was clearly not referring to an event that effected only a portion of mankind living in one region of the earth.

---

In using the term Kosmos, Paul was clearly not referring to destruction of the environment. If he were, he might have used genesis or physikos both of which are translated "nature" and "natural".------------
db

quote:

---

wmscott
Gen. 6:13 is not a reference to destroying the physical earth. ...
The biblical references to destruction of the 'earth' in regard to the flood ... refers to the destruction of the wicked world of mankind, not the literal earth.

---

"What a tangled web we weave ..."!
First, you want us to believe there was a global (earth-wide) flood which destroyed all life. Then you want us to believe that the Hebrew word "erets" means Planet Earth. Now you want us to believe that references to this "earth" are not literal!? That the earth in question was not physical?!

quote:

---

wmscott
at verse 12 where the 'earth' is said to be ruined because of the abundant wickedness, 'earth' in both verses is the "system of things" or the world of wicked men.

---

It means planet wherever you want it to mean planet.
It doesn't mean planet to you here because you don't like the word "destroy." You want to believe that "destroy" refers only to the "all flesh...corrupted" in the previous verse. Yet, the god says, "I will destroy them with the earth." What do you make of that?

quote:

---

wmscott
You have to look at the context to determine the meaning of the word used.

---

In the context of the flood, you want erets to mean "the planet". Also in the context of the flood, you don't want it to mean the "physical" planet or the "literal" planet. Your choices seem to be guided by religious prejudice. They are apparently not guided by the ancient language, nor by an understanding of the ancient worldview.

quote:

---

wmscott
Honestly doctrbill ... Learn to read the Bible with a little intelligence and some faith.

---

Honestly wmscott ... Learn to read the Bible with a lot of intelligence and more faith in your own powers of reasoning (less in the reasoning of others).

quote:

---

wmscott
Do you accept the bible does refer to all the land on earth?

---

Ask me a silly question. Ask me about Christopher Columbus.

quote:

---

wmscott
On Daniel 2:35 ... I will not be able to show how the usage here shows that reference is made to the whole earth, or more correctly, the whole world of mankind.

---

You got that right.

quote:

---

wmscott
... in the Living Bible at Genesis 1:2 what 'earth' is being referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10?

---

My mistake! I meant to direct you to verse one.
"When God began creating ..." Think about how this rendering affects the sense of what follows. This is one of the few places where I like what these guys have done with the ancient lingo.

quote:

---

wmscott
You may need to clarify your position in regard to specific Hebrew and Greek words, on whether any refer to the entire physical earth,

---

You have asserted that one of these words means "the planet." I realize you get this second hand, but you must know by now that proving it is important to the biblical side of your argument.------
db

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott
At Genesis 1:2 what 'earth' is being referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10?

---

Creationists want to depart from the traditional translation here and use two different English words for the one Hebrew word in question. The problem began when creationists realized that the Bible does not support their modern view. The fact that evangelical creationists have published such a revision doesn't make it valid.They call the first erets "earth" because they want it to mean "planet", and they call the second erets "land" because they don't want it to mean planet.This was not a problem before invention of the telescope. At that time people realized that earth must be a planet after all. Interpretation of Genesis has been different ever since but there have been no new discoveries in the text to support Copernicus.If one reads the first sentence of the Bible as, "When God began creating ..." (Anchor Bible & Living Bible) then this particular "problem" loses its significance.Rather than attempting to re-write The Book, why not try to understand what the ancients thought of the universe. No need to answer this; I am quite aware of how religious tradition enslaves the mind. Nevertheless, if you will:Imagine an invisible dome (firmament AKA Heaven) which is inserted into a limitless dark and formless body of primeval water. This dome holds "the heavens" (sun, moon and stars) while they revolve around the earth and sea. Imagine this tidy little universe (Heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them) ensconced in that dark primordial water which is called "the deep" (Hebrew -tehom). Then, and only then, one may begin to understand what the ancients envisioned when they looked up, into the Deep Blue "waters above the heavens." (Psalm 148:4)-----
db

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott
Lots of fancy foot work, but you still haven't answered the question. At Genesis 1:2 what 'earth' is being referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10?

---

Have you been paying attention? This is the third time I have addressed this question.It is the same land in both instances. The fact that your favorite "translation" words it "earth" at verse two and "land" at verse ten doesn't change the meaning of erets.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott
doctrbill: It is impossible for the 'earth' in verse two to be land since at that point there was none.

---

OK.

quote:

---

wmscott
The only 'earth' that this verse could possibly be referring to is the planet earth.

---

There is no land, but there is a planet?

quote:

---

This simple little fact disproves your entire argument.

---

The first paragraph of this chapter (verses 1 and 2) also mentions creation of the heavens, which are said to have been created (again?) on the fourth day."When God began creating ...", earth was "without form" (unformed). Creation begins with the introduction of light. If the heavens and the earth already existed, then how is what follows an account of their creation?Every story needs an introduction. The first paragraph of chapter one is that introduction. If you have been studying more than one commentary, then you know that this point of view is not mine alone.

quote:

---

The Bible does have references to the entire earth or planet, and your objection to a global flood based on a restricted interpretation of the word earth in the Bible, is shown to be in conflict with scripture.

---

I do not restrict interpretation except where it departs from good scholarship. It is plentufully evident that earth was not believed to be a planet, by anyone, until relatively recent times. Bronze Age Hebrews did not have unique knowledge of cosmology. Your theory is a modern one, and cannot be supported from the scripture without inventing new definitions for old words. What you call my theory is simply the classical understanding of this scripture.I have dealt with the scriptures which you offered in evidence and showed that your interpretation represents a theological bias. The God of the Jews lays claim to all the land not all the planet. Elsewhere in scripture this real estate is specified as that which is bordered by the northern Euphrates, the western Mediterranean, and the Nile of Egypt. Aside from those parameters, this deity lays no claim, other than to refer to that parcel as, "all the earth." Then again, the gods of Babylon, Syria, and Egypt also claimed that land, and the prophet notes that the king of Babylon has conquered "all the earth." So it's a contest for control of the middle east.The more things change, the more they stay the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott
RE: "... heavens,... created (again?) on the fourth day."
There is no big mystery here, this is believed by many to refer to a clarification of the atmosphere so that the lights in the heavens could be seen clearly from the ground.

---

Even though the scripture plainly indicates otherwise.

quote:

---

scott
The 'creative days' are time periods or stages in development.

---

Now you want to redefine 'day' as if it could be a million years, even though THE CONTEXT includes the phrase, "there was evening and there was morning, the nth day".

quote:

---

Genesis is an account of the development of the planet,

---

Repeating this assertion does not make it true. You have yet to show a single text, or context, in which the word "earth" is identified as, or may be taken to mean, "planet." I have rebutted your Proof Texts.

quote:

---

The very fact that Jehovah is credited with the creation of the universe or heavens should clue you in to the fact that the account deals with all the earth.

---

Jehovah is not credited with creation in the first chapter of Genesis. Your theological arguments are lost on the scientific community, and will not fly among the majority of Christian scientists either.

quote:

---

... you have overlooked the fact the creator of the earth and inspirer of the Bible certainly knows the true form of the earth.

---

I have overlooked nothing.

quote:

---

So even if you are correct in what the ancient Hebrews believed about the earth, it would make the Bibles references to the whole of the earth that much more miraculous if as you claim, it was written by men who didn't know the extent of the earth.

---

You have yet to demonstrate that the Bible indicates earth to be a planet.I will ignore the remainder of your post, which consists almost entirely of attempts to insult me.I have examined your scriptural evidence.
It does not threaten my position.
Theological arrogance underpins your belief.
Scriptural evidence does not support your argument.Seems to me you should choose one; science, or religion. You have not been combining them very well.