I might have answered this before. Gen. 7:18-22 makes it obvious that the
whole earth, not just a portion of land, was under floodwaters. therefore,
when 'kol erets' is used in Gen. 6-9, the context of the 'whole earth' is
correct.
glenn
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn R. Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>; EVOLUTION@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Glenn wrote:
> Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:02 PM
>
> At 12:42 PM 6/4/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >I do not have the problem you do with 'kol eretz'. In Genesis 7: 19-22
God
> >has made it clear that the flood covered the whole earth, not just a
> >locality. Therefore, the context of using 'all the earth' is correct.
> >
> >For the sake of brevity, I am going to use this one (of multitudes)
example
> >found in Gen. 18:25 "....shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
> >Based on what you say, this limits God, not to the earth, but to a
locality
> >(land). The context indicates otherwise, however.
> >
>
> I will grant that Gen 18:25 is a universal usage of kol eretz. I will
not
> grant that Genesis 41:56,57 is a limited usage. Kol eretz is also used
in
> Genesis 2:11 as "all the land of havilah', 2:13 all the land of Ethiopia,
> Genesis 19:28, 'all the land of the plain'
>
> My point is that you can only associate kol eretz with the entire planet
in
> a disputed case by means of assumption. The phrase can be used either
way.
> So you should acknowledge that kol eretz can be used in a limited sense
> and it can be used in a global sense. To claim that the only correct
usage
> is global goes beyond the observed usage of the phrase.
>
>
> >In addressing the problems mentioned about the famine, I agree with your
> >definition because of the context. 'All the countries' refers to
> >localities, not the 'whole earth'. Its possible God meant the 'whole
> >earth', but not probable. To use a NT reference, Luke 2:1 mentions "all
> >the world should be taxed" but its understood that Luke meant only those
> >under Roman jurisdiction, not the Olmecs of Mexico or the Mound Builders
of
> >North America.
>
> So if all the world in the NT can be used locally and I have shown you
that
> all the land can be used locally in the OT, why must it, with out any
> doubt, be global in usage in Genesis 6-9? I see no evidence here just
> assumption.
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> & lots of creation/evolution information
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm