That's not at dispute. What I stated was that if the author had intended to mean the 'whole world', he had the vocabulary to make that ABSOLUTELY clear with no ambiguity.
Which the author did. Any question of ambiguity would have been resolved in the reader's eye by the continual contextual references I posted previously. No discerning reader would have mistaken the
erets of Genesis 1 as an ambiguous use of the word. More so the use of
erets in the Noah narrative.
Also, Gen 1:1 can (and should) be translated as 'When God began to make the heavens and the earth', since the original Hebrew text contained no vowels.
Irrelevant.
It wasn't the impossibility of a worldwide flood, but discoveries of dictionaries in Ugarit made the language easier to interpret and translate.
I disagree. New discoveries in translation did little to change minds on The Flood. Scientific discoveries did.
There's also an understanding that their cosmological view was a tad bit different then than now. There was no 'next land'.
Of course there was. The next land was just part of the world: the earth in its entirety.
There's nothing that departs from the narrative if you understand how the Ancient Hebrews viewed the 'world'......
I knew that already. It's only adding fodder to my argument: even a slight literal reading of The Flood narrative leads the reader to a global occurrence. That their cosmology was wrong remains irrelevant to the underlying intent of the author's.
One person said it HAD to be understood as the 'whole world' (as we know it) and I disagreed and showed the text supports a localized event.
Nah,
MAKAVELI25 wrote: "Supposedly your God flooded the world and killed everyone in it". Your eventual response was that "the text doesn't state the whole world was flooded". Your response indicates a some what literal reading of the text. I've therefore gone to some lengths to show that the narrator of the Noah tale was talking about a flood that killed
every living thing on Earth. No distinction need be made, as it's clear from the text that a flood that covers all the mountains under the heavens is a global flood.
Note the cosmological map I posted above to show what the Ancient Hebrews meant if the verses are taken literally. Their concept of the 'whole world' was pretty much confined to what they could see and travel by walking, which wasn't much compared to now.
Irrelevant. Again, that their cosmology was wrong doesn't debase the intent of the text. The author - BibleGod inspired as he/she was - still wanted any potential readers/listeners to know that his/her God destroyed every living thing (land-dwelling creatures and those in the seas), submerged all structures under water, and then the guy in the magic boat landed on a mountain as the flood waters receded. Nothing in
the world - not just the author's - escaped that reality. If the author wanted it understood that he/she meant only the creatures in my backyard got harmed, that would have been in the text.
'All life under the heavens' wouldn't mean the entire globe since, to them, the world wasn't a globe. The life extinguished would be confined to their observable land directly under 'the heavens'.
1 relating to the whole world; worldwide:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/global
"All life under the heavens" would have meant every living creature that existed in the world. You either read the text as an allegory or take what it says for what it says.
No, the 'entity' misses events because the text says that it isn't watching everything all the time: It had to ask Cain what happened to Abel. It had to look for Adam in the Garden. It had to ask Eve who gave her the fruit. It had to ask A & E who told them they were naked. If you read the text literally rather than figuratively, the 'entity' misses events.
Then the Bible believer has a bigger problem, because the Bible is clear: "The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good" (Proverbs 15:3)
if god don't exist then how the fukk my headphone cords be gettin tangled up in my pocket?
