So You Believe in a Local Flood?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on February 1, 2012 at 11:57pm

Lou Hamby said:

a viable meaning in context that applies to the flood, then why are you arbitrarily insisting on the the word Erets and others that are used over 2,000 times in Genesis alone that do not apply to the world but to a local area , or country, or people form an area, etc. etc.

Lou, you still have no idea how to determine the proper usage of a word as it occurs in the Hebrew language. First of all over 2000 times in Genesis alone? 'Erets is the word in question, and it is found only 311 times in Genesis. And it is you alone here that is the one who stands guilty of arbitrarily assigning meanings to the word 'Erets. We have presented this to you numerous times elsewhere, but you bring it up here like it has never been addressed heretofore, just like you are doing again with the supposed insect anomaly. All of your troubling anomalies can never change the meaning of the narrative (Gen. 6:7).

I am disinclined to once again go over the simple rules of grammar and syntax, as well as proper lexical principles that enable us to determine the meaning and usage of 'Erets as it occurs in Genesis 6 - 9 with reference to the Global Flood, as opposed to other clearly delineated senses that are less than global. The determining factors are firm. This has been thoroughly explained for the non-Hebrew reader in posts elsewhere, which you discount as if this is a matter to be determined by vote, rather than by sound linguistic principles.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aaron Lewis on February 2, 2012 at 1:44am

Hi Jim,

Jim Brenneman said:

LET ME ADD this very important point. Just because someone is wrong about the Flood is no reason to assume they are not Christians (I use uppercase intentionally). You may be wrong about who is or is not a Christian, but I do not assume that because of your error on this point that you in turn are not a Christian. People who were wrong were addressed by Jesus himself as His Church, and as true believers (Rev. 2 - 3). People can be in error and misread the plain sense of God's word yet still be true saints and fellow-believers.

Jim, when I refer to christians I am refering to wolves in sheeps clothing.  That is people who claim to have been born again and have not met Jesus.  They may have walked down an aisle, took a preacher by the hand, repeated a prayer after someone and been dunked in a pool of water but never been born again.  Until a person does as Saul did on the road to Damascus and accepts Jesus as Lord, does a 180° turn in their life they have not made it. Being born again means you ain't the same you was before you met Jesus.

As far as my Biblical Hebrew I have several years in the classroom and many years studying since the late 60's.  Our study was not from any of the modern text books.  The Hebrew we studied had no vowel pointings as we studied the consonants that was used and there was no tense's.  I have read some of the latest text books and most of them use many things from modern Hebrew.  Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are two different critters.  We even used the Paleo-Hebrew form.

God Bless,

Aaron 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lou Hamby on February 2, 2012 at 9:53am

Jim Brenneman said:

Lou Hamby said:

a viable meaning in context that applies to the flood, then why are you arbitrarily insisting on the the word Erets and others that are used over 2,000 times in Genesis alone that do not apply to the world but to a local area , or country, or people form an area, etc. etc.

Lou, you still have no idea how to determine the proper usage of a word as it occurs in the Hebrew language. First of all over 2000 times in Genesis alone? 'Erets is the word in question, and it is found only 311 times in Genesis. And it is you alone here that is the one who stands guilty of arbitrarily assigning meanings to the word 'Erets. We have presented this to you numerous times elsewhere, but you bring it up here like it has never been addressed heretofore, just like you are doing again with the supposed insect anomaly. All of your troubling anomalies can never change the meaning of the narrative (Gen. 6:7).

I am disinclined to once again go over the simple rules of grammar and syntax, as well as proper lexical principles that enable us to determine the meaning and usage of 'Erets as it occurs in Genesis 6 - 9 with reference to the Global Flood, as opposed to other clearly delineated senses that are less than global. The determining factors are firm. This has been thoroughly explained for the non-Hebrew reader in posts elsewhere, which you discount as if this is a matter to be determined by vote, rather than by sound linguistic principles.

Lou Said:

JIm this one I am not going to tangle with you on...however, I did mis-speak, but I copied this for the sake of conversations:

NASB Word Usage erets:
common (1), countries (15), countries and their lands (1), country (44), countryside (1), distance* (3), dust (1), earth (655), earth the ground (1), earth's (1), fail* (1), floor (1), ground (119), land (1581), lands (57), lands have their land (2), open (1), other* (2), piece (1), plateau* (1), region (1), territories (1), wild (1), world (3).

Jim easily there are 50 breakdowns of the context of erets in the flood scenario, I am not going over all of them and while I know you are a hebrew expert, there are a whole bunch of others out there that take a different perspective than you with respect to the word in context, and they are expert!!!. So I respect the fact this is a YEC site and I wouldn't expect any other thing, But Jim a cursory review on the internet is supportive as well.  So the truth is that many, many a Christian is just as convinced on internal and external evidence that the flood is either local....or there is some other explanation that none of us have hit on yet???  and Aaron these are believers...

Jim said.... "People can be in error and misread the plain sense of God's word"

You have used this phrase as well as others in response on this forum. Even the most well informed can make mistakes.  I think of the flat earther's who had a reason for their insistence based on a litteral incorrect interpretation, the fishermen weren't fooled at all..... 

So I would say Jim, that door swings both ways?   When you say you must start with what the scripture says, yet for months now I have every kind of argument from science from YEC friends including a huge contingent of AIG articles, but because I infer certain scientific observations, I am somehow out of the pale of acceptability....my discussion is meaningless???  I find that interesting given Ask The Expert, which they do refer to scripture.  When I talked to Jason yesterday about fish, he disregards my expertise in fishing  being a fisherman for over 40 years and fished all over the pacific. Will he research that a little more?  I doubt it? Having a clue as to how many fish species there are and I imbibed many species that can live in both or do use either at certain cycles in there lives, that leaves a host of aquatic life that even .05% change can affect their ability to live. You can't just explain away the whole diversity of aquatic life living today in one swell swoop?  

So some seem to imply the Bible to me does not mean the same thing as it does them?  I actually think that some people on this forum also believe that about me, that I have a view that "must" not be substitutive or as the scripture says ....but denies the power of it?".  They easily then become divisive and imply my lack of Christian reverence and my non-belief in the whole counsel of God, and they some how know my heart??? The fact there are a host of questions surrounding the WWF unanswered and many of the defenses like the Grand Canyon and other things which I have never cared to get into or the grave yards full of dinosaurs with cut marks and teeth on the bones where other meat eaters were feeding on the carcasses, and also in several sites it is a fact that bones have been laid down above and below the main grouping.  Fossils in the Grand Canyon are not found in the flood layer?  

So I put scripture on par just as seriously as you do.....many of the New Testament scriptures used here in defense of the flood "I" don't believe are being used in context...but Jim, I have said time and again I don't like to argue with Christians about scripture and usually vier off of that....I think it's sad that Christians divide themselves over some of these issues which have nothing to do with eternal security, faith and practice, and the ability to promote the gospel.  I am a professional musician that plays in the secular arena and believe God has called us into the culture to be salt and light.  The words to our music is Christian thematic, and while it is blues and jazz is not church oriented praise and worship music...but the gospel to all men is a very important part of our "hybrid" ministry.... wwww/reverbnation.com/spiritbreeze

So lastly...I appreciate the fact that you feel the need to "spoon feed" this Christian who doesn't get it....But I wish that my YEC friends observations of me and some of these observations would stop using arguments that are theoretical as if they are fact, wouldn't we all like to know more? Maybe a simple I don't know would be a great answer...because Jim, humbly I don't know but the very reason for asking the questions is I want to know and given some of the answers that don't square, it seems we all have work to do.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aaron Lewis on February 2, 2012 at 11:34am

Hi Lou,

Lou Hamby said:

"

"So I put scripture on par just as seriously as you do.....many of the New Testament scriptures used here in defense of the flood "I" don't believe are being used in context...but Jim, I have said time and again I don't like to argue with Christians about scripture and usually vier off of that....I think it's sad that Christians divide themselves over some of these issues which have nothing to do with eternal security, faith and practice, and the ability to promote the gospel."

 

I am glad to see you take scripture as seriously as Jim.

So what do you do with God's definition of ארץ given in Genesis 1:10?

In Genesis 1:9 God caused the waters to gather into one place and dry land appeared.

In Genesis 1:10 God called that dry land ארץ which is translated Earth.

So whatever the dry stuff was in Genesis 1:10 it was the same stuff that was covered with water in Genesis 7:19 by the depth of 15 cubits as recorded in Genesis 7:20.

That same stuff that was dry in Genesis 1:10 was cleansed of all life forms except those on the ark with Noah in Genesis 1:21, 22, and 23.

Now if you believe what the Bible says you must come to the conclusion that all dry land where ever it was, was covered by 15 cubits of water, and all life forms on that dry land perished and died.

On the other hand if you do not believe God's Word you are free to believe anything your mind desires to believe.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

God Bless,

Aaron

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page