Your comment about the implications of my interpretation of the scope of
the Hebrew word eretz as it pertains to the Flood is well put.
Because there is no bonifide scientific evidence for a global flood, we
are compelled to conclude that the story in Genesis applies to a local
or at most regional event. Because Hebrew has much broader meanings for
much fewer words than English, we are often confused as to which sense
is meant for a given word. What we must avoid is the tendency to build
dogmatic positions upon highly dubious interpretations.
Everyone must understand that I believe in the inerrancy of the
scriptures. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (II Tim
3:16) Nevertheless, not all doctrine is so given. The scripture is
innerrant, doctrine is not. Given the case of the Flood, all the
evidence available to us makes it clear that it was not global, and the
language of the Hebrew does not require it to be interpreted that way.
I have never found an irreconcilable contradiction between scientific
facts and the scriptures. I have, however, found such contradictions
involving Christian doctrine. I discard all Christian doctrine that is
inconsistent with scientifically derived facts of nature where the
interpretation of the original language permits the flexibility to do
so.
Russ
Russell T. Cannon
rcannon@usa.net