starvation all over the world

Glenn R. Morton (
Mon, 01 Jun 1998 22:09:36 -0500

At 05:28 PM 6/1/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
>>>>>56 And the famine was over all the face of the earth<<<<
>You seem to think this is impossible. Why? If God could cause as flood
>over all the earth, as I believe he did, this is not impossible. Why do
>you think it is?
I didn't say it was impossible, I said that we know from history that this
didn't happen at that time. Where is the evidence of Amazonian indian's
ocean going boats? Where is the evidence that Eskimoes came to Egypt? We
find boats in Europe, Arabia and China from that time that were ocean going
but none from the New World. Why? I contend that it is because they
didn't exist and that the biblical phrase doesn't mean the entire earth.

>>>>> So, we know from history that the Amazonian Indians didn't come to
>Egypt to
>> buy grain, neither did the Chinese, or the San Bushmen from South
>> Obviously, the entire world didn't go buy grain from Egypt. The phrase
>> does not mean what you think it does.<<<<
>Yes it does. I have no idea what these people did about the famine. Other
>than denying it happened, Do you?

Well the Scripture says in Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into Egypt
to Joseph for to buy corn;"

So I do know what the claim is. If 'kol eretz' means the entire world,
then the claim is that the entire world came to Joseph to buy corn. There
is no archeological evidence of this occurring. Either the Bible is wrong,
or your understanding of what 'kol eretz' (all lands) means is incorrect.
I would prefer to believe that you are in error rather than beleive that
the Bible is in error.

You keep denying that the experts in
>linguistics, languages and the Bible are right in their belief that the
>flood covered all the earth. By what right do you deny the experts their

I am listening to many experts who point out that 'erets' means 'land' not
'planet earth'. I have discussed this with a fellow from Dallas
Theological Seminary (a very conservative institution) and he tells me that
what I am saying is entirely within the legitimate possibilities.

You said on an earlier post as creationists we are not
>respecting the observations of the experts and that is wrong. Why do you
>now deny the opinions of other experts that indicate the universal nature
>of the flood and infer they are wrong? (If one is to attempt a solution for
>the science/scriptural issues, one must be willing to read in a lot of
>fields and NOT dispute the experts in the various fields. I can't see how
>a layman can come in and tell the experts that they are wrong when the
>expert has more info than the layman.)

I agree with your last sentence and that is why I have discussed this with
experts who have told me what I was doing was ok. I would refer you to a
book The Extent of the Flood, by Arthur C. Custance. You can find this on
the Web by a search on Custance.


Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information