>From: Adrian Teo
Based on Mike's comments
>> Geologic evidence does not speak of a cataclysmal flood .
>> Scriptural evidence speaks of a cataclysmal flood, there can not be
>> interpretation here -- "(Gen. 6:17 NASB) And behold, I, even I am
>> bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in
>> which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on
>> the earth shall perish."
>> Our conclusion must be that the flood, and the events before and
>> it, must be filed under the category of miracles.
>May I suggest, Mike, that the operative word in the above passage is
>(erets)", and can also be taken to mean "land". IOW, is it not possible
>the flood was local rather than global?
>From Stongs Concordance........
from 02986 in the sense of flowing; TWOT € 1142; n m
AV € flood 13; 13
1Ë flood, deluge.
1aË Noah's flood that submerged the entire planet earth under water
for about a year
If it was local, Noah had 120 years to migrate out of the area to safe
ground! Why waste
all that effort building a ship? He only had to move less than 1500
feet a day to reach the farthest point on the globe.
from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; TWOT € 167; n f
from 03634; TWOT € 985a; n m
AV € every thing, all, whosoever, whatsoever, nothing,
1Ë all, the whole
1aË all, the whole of
1bË any, each, every, anything
1cË totality, everything
I think Strong makes a good point --if the flood was local, why didn't
Noah just move then instead of building an Ark?
I agree that we must be careful in how we define earth, but we also need
to look at its definition with respect to the word "everything."
If the flood was local, why then did God choose to use the word
"everything"? Per the above definitions, it seems to me to apply to all
life on land.