I'll provide some more sources that agree that 'erets' does indeed include the planet Earth as one of its meanings for EVC's more objective members to read.
Once again, I'll point out that it is impossible for the writers to have the concept of a planet.
If you were right about erets, Genesis 1:1 would read that "God made the heavens and some ground." Doesn't quite have that same ring to it hey?
We all agree that it is referring to the earth in its entirety.
You're equating that with the concept of a planet and we're saying that it could not be that.
I think its absurd to think that the "whole earth" and "earth as opposed to heaven" is merely refering to the ground and not the planet.
We're not saying its "merely refering to the ground", as we've ackowledge it can refer to the entire earth, we're saying that it cannot be referring to a planet.
I think you're equating 'entire earth' with planet, and 'not planet' with not the entire earth. Both of those are wrong. 'Not planet' can still be the entire earth, and entire earth could not have been refering to the conept of a planet.
Do you still want to pretend erets never refers to the planet earth?
Will you ackowledge that the writers were incapable of having the concept of a planet and that we accept it referring to the entire earth while not being the concept of a planet?