Agreed. The use of 'kol erets' depends on its context.
By the way. As said from the beginning of our discussion the difference of
opinion that you and I depend is just that, and only that. Our salvation
does NOT depend on the stance we take. I do not know about you, but I am
getting precisely what I wanted to begin with. A debate with an
articulate, well-read Christian who differs with me and the position I
take.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn R. Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>; EVOLUTION@calvin.edu
> Subject: starvation all over the world
> Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 10:09 PM
>
> At 05:28 PM 6/1/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >>>>>56 And the famine was over all the face of the earth<<<<
> >
> >You seem to think this is impossible. Why? If God could cause as flood
> >over all the earth, as I believe he did, this is not impossible. Why do
> >you think it is?
> >
> I didn't say it was impossible, I said that we know from history that
this
> didn't happen at that time. Where is the evidence of Amazonian indian's
> ocean going boats? Where is the evidence that Eskimoes came to Egypt?
We
> find boats in Europe, Arabia and China from that time that were ocean
going
> but none from the New World. Why? I contend that it is because they
> didn't exist and that the biblical phrase doesn't mean the entire earth.
>
> >>>>> So, we know from history that the Amazonian Indians didn't come to
> >Egypt to
> >> buy grain, neither did the Chinese, or the San Bushmen from South
> >Africa.
> >> Obviously, the entire world didn't go buy grain from Egypt. The
phrase
> >> does not mean what you think it does.<<<<
> >
> >Yes it does. I have no idea what these people did about the famine.
Other
> >than denying it happened, Do you?
>
> Well the Scripture says in Genesis 41:57 "And all countries came into
Egypt
> to Joseph for to buy corn;"
>
> So I do know what the claim is. If 'kol eretz' means the entire world,
> then the claim is that the entire world came to Joseph to buy corn.
There
> is no archeological evidence of this occurring. Either the Bible is
wrong,
> or your understanding of what 'kol eretz' (all lands) means is
incorrect.
> I would prefer to believe that you are in error rather than beleive that
> the Bible is in error.
>
>
> You keep denying that the experts in
> >linguistics, languages and the Bible are right in their belief that the
> >flood covered all the earth. By what right do you deny the experts
their
> >expertise?
>
> I am listening to many experts who point out that 'erets' means 'land'
not
> 'planet earth'. I have discussed this with a fellow from Dallas
> Theological Seminary (a very conservative institution) and he tells me
that
> what I am saying is entirely within the legitimate possibilities.
>
> You said on an earlier post as creationists we are not
> >respecting the observations of the experts and that is wrong. Why do
you
> >now deny the opinions of other experts that indicate the universal
nature
> >of the flood and infer they are wrong? (If one is to attempt a solution
for
> >the science/scriptural issues, one must be willing to read in a lot of
> >fields and NOT dispute the experts in the various fields. I can't see
how
> >a layman can come in and tell the experts that they are wrong when the
> >expert has more info than the layman.)
>
> I agree with your last sentence and that is why I have discussed this
with
> experts who have told me what I was doing was ok. I would refer you to a
> book The Extent of the Flood, by Arthur C. Custance. You can find this
on
> the Web by a search on Custance.
>
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> & lots of creation/evolution information
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm