>The argument centers around the meaning of the word "?erets". Are there places in the Old Testament where it is obvious that this word does not refer to the entire planet?
>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.<
Yes, this is one of many clearly limited uses of the word, based on modern geographic knowledge. In fact, the NIV translates it as land more often than world. In addition, there are several phrases such as "land of Egypt", rendered simply "Egypt" in some versions, that use the word in a clearly limited sense even from the viewpoint of ancient geography.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
46860 Hilton Dr #1113
Lexington Park MD 20653 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.davidson.alumlink.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 15:27:43 EST