Summations Only

We still call the dry land "Earth." Or just "land."Yet the land today is divided into many different sections, while most of the water remains a single contiguous "place." With the exception of some rivers and lakes and such, you could sail in a boat to any of the "separate" oceans - does that mean the water is in "one place?"What's the difference? When water covers 2/3 of the Earth's surface, what defines "one place" vs "many places?" Need it only be all connected?

Okay, so lets imagine that there are no lakes or inland seas or rivers, just the oceans surrounding the continents, the oceans being contiguous and the continents having no inland bodies of water at all.Would that still qualify as "in one place?"

The verses you quoted have already been shown to have multiple possible meanings.Why do you believe that your interpretation is more likely to accurately reflect the original author's intent than other interpretations?

And yet, curiously, you've always lived on land.

Your claim is that this passage specifically means that all dry land must have also been in one place, and that no other meaning is possible.Yet the passage does not specify that the dry land was all in one place.Your claim requires the Bible to be more specific than the text actually is. The text very plainly leaves open multiple geological possibilities, simply because it doesn't specify anything about dry land other than that it existed.If I say "33% of the Earth is covered in dry land," I've used similar terminology to the Biblical passage...and yet the wording equally well describes Pangaea or the seven continents we see today or any number of other possible configurations.Your claim simply isn't supported in the text, ICANT.