The argument centers around the meaning of the word "’erets". Are there
the Old Testament where it is obvious that this word does not refer to the
When I say "obvious", I mean a context where the meaning of "erets" would
have little or
no bearing on the validity of a global flood and Young-earth creationism.
For example, is the word "erets" used in the story of Joseph, where there
is a "severe famine
in all the _world_" (see Gen. 41:57)? It would be ludicrous to think that
this famine was truly
global and affected the Chinese, Australian aborigines and American Indians
as well as people in
the middle east. This famine would be considered global to someone living
during OT times with
very limited knowledge of the extent of the world. The event would be
assumed as localized to any
educated person living during more recent times.
At 02:16 PM 10/31/01 EST, you wrote:
><< Just wanted to point out that Paul Seely has made the front page of AiG's
> web site today with his response to one of their articles. I just wanted to
> publically think Paul for putting forth the effort to continue his dialogue
> there. I think that the efforts to attack the YEC front from what they
> think is their strength (correct understanding of Scripture) are possibly
> much more valuable than all the efforts some of us expend attempting to show
> their science is, well, suspect. Regards, Joel >>
>Thank you, Joel.
>My point was simply that they criticize concordists for setting aside
>Scripture and reading modern science into the biblical text, but they do the
>same thing themselves with the sphericity of the earth. Of course, their
>reply attempts to obscures everything.
>I could have written more, but did not think they would publish more. I have
>submitted a paper to Perspectives answering one of their other articles more
>fully. And I have an even better letter coming out soon in the Creation
>Research Society Quarterly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 20:41:25 EST