Dale,
Several years ago I used Strong's Concordance to count the number of times
that the KJV used each of the various translations of the word 'erets. My
recollection was that it was translated `land' 62% of the time and `earth'
29% of the time, which leaves about 9% for other renderings. More modern
translations probably render it as `earth' even fewer times than the KJV.
Even when the KJV does say `earth', it is often obvious that the entire
planet cannot be the intended meaning. (For example, in the Flood story
itself read Gen. 8:9 in light of Gen. 8:5.)
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Dale K. Stalnaker wrote:
> Paul,
>
> 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.
>
> Dale Stalnaker
>
>
>
> Dale Stalnaker
>
> At 02:16 PM 10/31/01 EST, you wrote:
> ><< Just wanted to point out that Paul Seely has made the front page of AiG's
> > web site today with his response to one of their articles. I just wanted to
> > publically think Paul for putting forth the effort to continue his dialogue
> > there. I think that the efforts to attack the YEC front from what they
> > think is their strength (correct understanding of Scripture) are possibly
> > much more valuable than all the efforts some of us expend attempting to show
> > their science is, well, suspect. Regards, Joel >>
> >
> >Thank you, Joel.
> >
> >My point was simply that they criticize concordists for setting aside
> >Scripture and reading modern science into the biblical text, but they do the
> >same thing themselves with the sphericity of the earth. Of course, their
> >reply attempts to obscures everything.
> >I could have written more, but did not think they would publish more. I have
> >submitted a paper to Perspectives answering one of their other articles more
> >fully. And I have an even better letter coming out soon in the Creation
> >Research Society Quarterly.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 15:56:35 EST