You're attempting to state something as a fact citing contextual clues picked-up while reading, when the author had full use available of vocabulary that would be more easily discerned by listening audiences so there would be no possibility of ambiguity, thus, making the story easier to remember and pass down.
This was necessary since fully 95+% of the Biblical population was illiterate and this story comes from 'oral tradition'.
The story/text was to be proclaimed aloud to a group/crowd, not read in the privacy of your room to yourself.
No, I'm attempting to point out that even the most muddled-up partaker of the narrative ceases to be confused by the time the narrator tells of how all living things (bar none) are destroyed, and all the mountains submerged. You seem to have a problem with a contextual revelation of
erets only when it's convenient for you - i.e. the flood narrative. However, as can be seen
erets is used extensively from the very first verse of the Bible. It is context that aids meaning. If
erets in Genesis 1:1 is good enough for earth, then it's more unambiguous, within the narrative, in Genesis 9.
You're still misunderstanding. Their cosmology is why it cannot be a 'worldwide/global' flood. By using their worldview and historical/grammatical criticism, you find that: they knew of NO land further than the furthest camp/well/oasis/city/town, all on one disc-shaped continent, surrounded by a circular sea, under a dome with windows and gates, supported by pillars and mountains. The 'world' to them consisted of nothing further than their inhabited/observable area. Places such as Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, most of Africa, and most of Asia did not exist. Killing 'every living thing on Earth' and 'under Heaven' meant everything they knew to exist which was not much further than they could travel by walking along the bottom of their fishbowl. The author's 'world' =/= OUR 'world'. You've spent an inordinate amount of time criticizing a non-geographical, non-historical, non-scientific narrative for not being geographically, historically and scientifically accurate which is retarded. Like criticizing a Nike store for not selling Big Macs. The text being somehow 'inspired' by some 'entity' is irrelevant.
You're attempting to shift the goalposts. Poor form. This was the post that started this line of discussion:
"Supposedly your God flooded the world and killed everyone in it". The poster also added: If you're going to say that maybe
that particular tale is skewered by the perspectives of the people who recounted it then that same rationale just apply to the WHOLE book.
To which you issued you issued the following: "Umm, hate to tell you, but the text doesn't state the whole world was flooded. Would you be willing to bet all your Coli cash that I'm mistaken?"
The point? It isn't that the whole world couldn't have been flooded, but whether the Bible indicates, like Marcozen stated, that the Bible "God flooded the world and killed everyone in it". The text does indeed indicate that. So, yes, according to the Bible, God flooded the Earth, killing every living thing on earth. Not just in the general vicinity, but according to the Bible, every living thing on land and in the waters on earth. The Bible is clear that it wasn't some. There's absolutely no ambiguity here. The author wants it to be known that: a big magic boat was necessary, any living thing
on earth (both land and sea animals) perished, and the waters receded after the magic 40 number of days and nights (a long time). No need to introduce superfluous claims on behalf of the Bible.
Arguing that the author's view on cosmology was wrong is nothing but a red-herring. By way of analogy: If Darwin wrote that Black people are a missing link between other apes and White people. It would be a fallacious argument to claim that because Darwin was wrong about human evolution, he didn't intend for his readers to interpret his writings in that way. It would be awfully convenient to claim ambiguity or metaphors to only the parts that didn't gel with reality.
If the believer (or non) just reads the text, the 'LORD' isn't making that statement.
2Timothy 316 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
GROUNDBREAKING!!
