Noah's Flood: the Beginning and the End

How words tell the truth and can yet deceive with age

Published on August 9, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

This article is meant to give a quick idea of the events of Noah's flood and what the story is really about. A more full-featured essay will follow, but not very soon, as I am still working on some details.

Genesis 7:6 The Beginning of the Flood

ונח בן־שש מאות
שנה והמבול היה
מים על־הארץ

VeNoach ben-shesh meot
shana vehaMavol haya
mayim 3al-haAretz

Two words in this are difficult, or at least go against the traditional English reading of the Bible.

The first is the word "shana", which in modern Hebrew (and in the last 3000 years or so) means "year". But that's not what the root of the word means.

Thinking about the word and the ridiculous age of Biblical characters it occured to me that it cannot mean "year".

So I researched a bit and read the dictionary and followed Hebrew grammar and its rules and found the following interesting details:

1. The word "shana" is the absolute form of the word "shanat", the root is Shin Nun Tav.

Both Hebrew and Arabic have a special form of the letter Hei to differentiate a Hei standing in for a Tav in the root of the word. In Hebrew a dot in the middle of the He shows that it stands for a consonant, not a vowel before a missing Tav. But that dot was only introduced in the middle ages. In Arabic the letter Hei with a certain punctuation stands for a missing Tav (and is even called a type of Tav).

So I looked up the word "year" in Arabic and found several words, including one written Sin Nun He. "Sin" is a variant of "Shin" used when the letter is pronounced /s/ rather than /sh/ (like in "Israel" or "Sarah"). And the Hei is indeed a missing Tav. So the root is likely Shin Nun Tav.

2. The verb based on the root Shin Nun Tav is "lishnot" and means "to change".

3. "shana" is hence, literally, a "change".

4. Genesis and Exodus use the Babylonian calendar.

This is important because the Hebrew calendar is lunisolar, based on years. The calendar Genesis and Exodus use is based on months. While a "change" in a calendar based on years is clearly a "year", an "alteration" in a calendar based on months is equally clearly a month.

And it turns out if the numbers given in Genesis are read as months rather than years, most ages mentioned seem very normal. And Noah was 600 months, that is 50 years old when he built the ark.

The second difficult word is "haAretz".

It's not actually difficult but a change in the English language (and most others) has made it so. The King James Bible translates "haAretz" variously as "the earth" or "the land". A Latin translation translated "haAretz" as "terra". "Terra" means in Latin exactly what "eretz" means in Hebrew. It also translates as "earth" another Hebrew word, which means something slightly different: "adama".

What is "haAretz" (and "eretz", the same word without the definite article)? This seems to be very difficult for some to understand.

During the age of exploration unknown land was marked as "terra incognita". "Terra incognita" means "unknown land". The Germanic word "earth" (or "Erde" in German) meant the same. It's the thing at our feet, the opposite of the heavens.

"Adama" is the sandy material that the surface is mostly made of. Man was made out of it, hence man was called "Adam". Man contains blood, and blood is "dam". The Bible loves a good word game.

About 500 years ago the word "earth" was more and more used to mean "earth, the planet" rather than "earth, the surface". And 100 years ago science fiction writers started using Latin "terra" to mean our planet (the actual Latin word for planet earth is "tellus").

In English the meaning of the word "earth" has changed almost completely. British English still uses "earth" to refer to the surface (which Americans call "ground"). But in German the cognate "Erde" still means "earth, the surface" in normal conversation, and the south-African animal "Aardvark" ("earth piglet") was named for digging in the surface rather than for being peculiar to planet earth.

Since the meaning of the English word "earth" has changed since the Bible was first translated into Germanic languages, and since the meaning of the Latin word "terra" has likewise changed since then, translating "haAretz" as "the earth" is now nearly a mistake. (It is not really a mistake because "earth" still has the meaning "land" or "earth, the surface", but it's widely used to mean "earth, the planet".)

But if one reads "the earth" as "the planet earth" rather than "the land", the meaning of the Hebrew text is no longer reflected in the translation.

In ancient times people also didn't know that the earth (the planet) was round. They thought of "the earth" as being something flat to live on, under the heavens, surrounded by waters or more land. The image of a ball completely covered with water is a relatively recent invention, it is not what the authors and readers of the Bible then had in mind. They saw a flooded land, surrounded by mountains that defined the limits of the land. (A land is usually defined by mountains and rivers at its borders.)

With this being cleared up, we can now have a look at the text again:

veNoach ben-shesh meot
shana vehaMavol haya
mayim 3al-haAretz

Translation (literal):

"And Noah (is) son-six hundreds change and the flood was water on the land."

Hebrew doesn't have forms of "to be" for the present tense (they are implied). "Son [some number] [some unit]" is the normal way to say an age of a person in Hebrew.

Genesis 8:4 The End of the Flood

ותנח התבה בחדש
השביעי בשבעה־עשר
יום לחדש על הרי
אררט

VaTnach haTiva baHodesh
haShevi3i baShev3a-eser
yom laHodesh 3al hari
urartu.

The first word is really difficult and I didn't figure it out for a while. It's spelt Vav Tav Nun Het. A Vav at the beginning of a word usually means "and". And the King James Bible indeed translates "And the ark rested in the seventh month [...]". However, that translation doesn't explain the Tav.

Tav Nun Het is no word. So what does the Tav mean?

I wondered for a while and then remembered that a Vav at the beginning of a verb can also, mostly in Biblical Hebrew, change past tense to future tense and future tense to past tense. (What really happens is that in Hebrew an "and" before a verb negates the tense of the word and it presumably makes sense in Hebrew that it does so.)

There should be a word for "rest" or "land" (as in "the ark rested" or "landed") in the sentence. There is no such word after haTiva ("the ark") and Hebrew is gerally Verb-Subject-Object (at least Biblical Hebrew is).

So I looked up possible verbs and found "lehanachit" ("to land", "to bring about"). I looked up the root in "501 Hebrew Verbs" and found that Nun Het Tav is the word I am looking for.

But Tav Nun Het is not Nun Het Tav. So what was I missing?

501 Hebrew Verbs also mentions that there is a colloqial form of Nun Het Tav which skips the Tav. Hence "nach" (Nun Het) alone is a usable verb for our sentence and means "to land".

In this case the Tav is simply a part of the conjugation and makes the word "nach" future tense (third person singular masculine). And the Vav makes it past tense.

VaTnach haTiva baHodesh
haShevi3i baShev3a-eser
yom laHodesh 3al hari
urartu.

Translation:

"Landed the ark in the month the seventh at the seven-ten day in the month on the hills of Urartu."

Biblical Hebrew is written without vowels. Later Biblical Hebrew is written with long vowels where the letters Vav and Yud (/v/ and /y/) are also used to represent long vowels (/u/ and /o/, /i/ and /e/ respectively). But Genesis doesn't use Vav and Yud that way. (Arabic and Aramaic also use Aleph (glottal stop) for a long vowel (/a/), but Hebrew doesn't.)

I put in the vowels according to an easy algorithm:

1. If I knew the word, I'd simply use the correct vowels.

2. If I didn't know the word, I'd guess the vowels.

The first method worked for "tiva" ("ark") and "hodesh" ("month"). It also worked for "urartu".

Urartu was a kingdom existing in today's north-eastern Iraq (in the Kurdistan autonomous region) just behind Arbil (as seen from the south-west). Today's Mount Ararat is at the northern tip of the region. In 1200 BCE the kingdom was possibly well-known, but at Noah's time it didn't exist.

Hebrew "har" is not a mountain, it's a hill. And Noah did not land on the top of the mountains or a mountain but simply "on the hills". Northeastern Iraq is a mountainous region, but the relative height of the hills of Urartu wouldn't be that impressive. "Urartu", written without vowels, can be read as "Ararat". The two are the same word. (The word begins with an Aleph, a silent glottal stop: 'RRT. Fill in /u/ /a/ /-/ /u/ and you get "Urartu", fill in /a/ /a/ /a/ /-/ and you get "Ararat".)

So here we go. The Bible tells the story of a man and his family and animals living in a valley region in northern Mesopotamia, where floods happen a lot, who when he was 50 years old built a boat to rescue his family and animals when the land was flooded. And he landed on the hills next to the flooded valley land.

That is, literally and word for word, what the Bible tells us.

And that is exactly what I believe to be totally true.

To read "change" as "year" or "earth, the surface" as "earth, the planet" is an assumption we cannot safely make, a non-literal interpretation of the original text. Both came into use a long time after the events and are based on the changed meanings of words. For the English word "earth" we can easily see how and when the meaning of the word changed, but with Hebrew "shana" it was a bit more difficult.

Updates:

There are two roots Shin Nun Tav. One was Tav Nun Tav originally. Their meanings are closely related: "to repeat" (Tav Nun Tav) and "to change" (Shin Nun Tav).

The Aramaic survivor of the Tav Nun Tav root, "tana" (Tav Nun Aleph, the Aleph standing for the vowel /a/) means "teach".

The Arabic version of "shana" (سنة) shows the original Hei-for-Tav spelling of the word. (A Hei with two dots refers to a missing Tav that reappears in construct forms.)

Both Aramaic and Arabic spell "two" ("Shnaim") with a Tav rather than a Shin suggesting that the word for "two" derives from the Tav Nun Tav root.

Planned next:

The long version of the reading of Noah's story with comparisons with Sumerian legend. (Was Noah a Sumerian king?)

The story of Abraham and how it fits into the history of Aram and Canaan and why Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew.

The story of Adam and Eve and whether to read it literally or not. (Is a snake a snake or is it symbolic for the devil? What else is symbolic?)

The story of Ishmael and his descendants after being sent into "midbar" (the "wilderness") as per Arab legend and Quran.

The relationship between Sumar and Semitic tribes and Iranians and Kurds and Semitic tribes and how it affected Judaism and Zoroastrianism. (Did G-d sent prophets to the Israelites and the Iranians?)

I can assure you that you will be surprised!

Comments (Page 4)

lulapilgrim

on Aug 14, 2008

So why then did you (and KFC) keep referring to the word "earth" as if it made it clear that the entire planet was meant?

Your story now doesn't match your previous story.

How do you explain that the Latin translation translates "eretz" as "terra" ("land") rather than "tellus" ("planet earth")?

How many times need I say that I confidently rely upon the Douay Rheims English translation of St.Jerome's Latin Vulgate which has it as "earth" throughout the Genesis chapters 1-11 account? That's all I need to know...from there I take other passages of Scripture as well as historical and scientific factors as evidence of the effects of the cataclysmic Flood to conclude that the Flood was world-wide.

Genesis 1-2 is the account of Creation week when the universe, the earth (as planet) and everything that's in it was created.

7:6 as we have discussed has it that "the waters of the flood overflowed the earth."
followed by v. 11, "In the 600th year in the life of Noah, in the second month, in the 17th day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:"

Various earth scientists have developed Flood models which convincingly describes or demonstrates what they think may have occurred during the Flood which caused what actually happened after the Flood. You should do yourself a favor and pick up from the local library Walt Brown's book, "In the Beginning, compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood." Whether you agree or disagree, the science part of the book alone is good reason for reading it.

I have been researching "all the fountains of the deep were broken up,". From it, I've come away believing the Flood of around 2348BC was the earth's defining geological event. Geologic evidence is clear that it was a catastrophe of gigantic proportions that rocks were twisted, mountains were hurled upwards, vast amounts of water was pulled up out of the earth, and the very atmosphere was drastically affected. As a consequences volcanoes erupted and glaciers moved downward from poles that were earlier had been warm.

These fountains of the deep were 46,000 miles of subterranean and interconnceted chanmbers whose waters erupted with an energy release like that of hydrogen bombs. It's consequences included the rapid formation of the Grand Canyon, mid-oceanic ridge, the continental shelves the ocean trenches, coal and oil formations, the ice age, earthquakes, frozen mammoths, and other unexplainable fossils, etc.

When the Flood began the vast water canopy collapsed and the "floodgates of the sky were opened." Torrential rains fell for 6 weeks.

V. 17, "And the flood was 40 days upon the earth and the waters increased and lifted up the ark from on high from the earth." The Ark was really a barge, the size of a football stadium!

V. 19, "And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth; and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered."

V. 20, "The waters were 15 cubits higher than the mountains which it covered." The Hebrew cubit was 18.5 inches or 563.88 cm.

V. 23 is a vital point that KFC has already pointed out, "And He destroyed all the substance that was upon the earth, from man even to beast, and the creeping things and fowls of the air, and they were destroyed from the earth. And Noah only remained, and they that were with him in the Ark."

V. "And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days."

Chapter 8 describes that the Flood ceases.

V. 1 "And God remembered Noah and all the living creatures which were with him on the Ark and brought a wind upon the earth and the waters were abated."
2, "The fountains also of the deep and the flood gates of Heaven were shut up, and the rain from heaven was restrained."

v.3 "And the waters returned from off the earth going and coming, and they began to be abated after 150 days."

V5, "ANd the waters were going and decreasing until the 10th month, the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared."

V. 8-9, "He sent forth also a dove to see if the waters had now ceased upon the face of the earth." But she, not finding where her foot might rest, returned to him in the Ark, for the waters were upon the whole earth, and he put forth his hand, and caught her and brought her into the Ark."

Immense upheavals and sinkings of the land must have taken place in order to provide a place to hold the oceans. The ocean basins had to sink and the continents to rise or there would be no dry land or a place for the water to abate. Genesis records by the end of the Flood year, the "the valleys (basins or plains) sank down and the great masses of water that were standing above the mountains (at God's rebuke) "fled" to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou hast set a bound (the shorelines) which they may not pass over, that they not return to cover the earth." Psalm 103(104):6-9.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 14, 2008

Leauki posts:

Did you know that Islam believes that the flood was local? They read the same text and arrived at the conclusion that since the Tora said it was local, it was local. How do you explain that Arabic- and Aramaic-speakers understood the story to be about a local flood?

KFC POSTS:

you keep saying that as tho that settles it.

I noticed the same thing!

First of all Islam wasn't even founded until the 7th Century AFTER Christ. So let's not take the earlier, writings and instead take the words of Islam? I gave you a first century account and you dismissed that for this 7th Century one?

Leauki posts:

The Babylonian records also speak of a local flood in the region. The Babylonians had no idea whether America was also flooded. I have no doubt that they THOUGHT that the flood was global. But they were merely local observers.

Remember, according to Genesis the antideluvian world hadn't seen rain before! When the water canopy collapsed, and the floodgates of the sky opened, torrential rains fell for weeks upon end.

The Flood story was a major,earth shattering event! There were races and tribes all over the world who as part of their own traditions told or eventually wrote stories about this life changing event...this Great Flood. From parents to children, stories of the great upheaval were passed down through the generations. As mythologies developed, legends about the Flood became part of them. These stories include various aspects of the Flood.

The picture-writing account of the Flood written in Chinese is dated about 2500BC. It correlates closely with the end of the Flood.

Leauki

on Aug 15, 2008

Remember, according to Genesis the antideluvian world hadn't seen rain before!

According to Genesis it didn't rain before G-d had _completed_ creating the world.

Once the world was completed G-d didn't add to or remove from it, hence it was _completed_.

The "seventh day" and the time after it are symbolic for the shabbat and no creative work is allowed on shabbat.

Leauki

on Aug 15, 2008

How many times need I say that I confidently rely upon the Douay Rheims English translation of St.Jerome's Latin Vulgate which has it as "earth" throughout the Genesis chapters 1-11 account?

You don't have to say it all. You just have to understand that "earth" did not mean "earth, the planet" but "earth, the surface" when that translation was written.

Hence the Latin version uses "terra" ("earth, the surface") rather than "tellus" ("earth, the planet").

Your arrogant assumption that Biblical truth changes when an English word changes its meaning is simply wrong. And if you want to rely on a translation you cannot use that formula.

Leauki

on Aug 15, 2008

I confidently rely upon the Douay Rheims English translation of St.Jerome's Latin Vulgate

So you and I have different religions. My holy book is the Hebrew Bible. Your holy book is Douay Rheims English translation read with 20th century meanings of words.

Leauki

on Aug 15, 2008

The picture-writing account of the Flood written in Chinese is dated about 2500BC. It correlates closely with the end of the Flood.

And who wrote the account? Noah's Chinese son?

lulapilgrim

on Aug 15, 2008

So you and I have different religions. My holy book is the Hebrew Bible. Your holy book is Douay Rheims English translation read with 20th century meanings of words.

Yes, we have different religions. However, we are working with the same Biblical truth in that the Hebrew Bible IS the first part, the Old Testament, of the Douay Rheims Bible.

You just have to understand that "earth" did not mean "earth, the planet" but "earth, the surface" when that translation was written.

Sorry, the most I can understand from the translation alone is that the word "Eretz" means "earth". You are content to conclude earth means land and land means the Flood of Noah was a local event.

While I say that if the word "earth" is used with other words which describe "earth" (as in Gen. 8:8-9 and Psalms 103 [104]), as well as other subsidiary details, then it seems most reasonable and credible that Genesis was a global flood.

Genesis 8: 8-9, "He sent forth also a dove to see if the waters had now ceased upon the face of the earth." But she, not finding where her foot might rest, returned to him in the Ark, for the waters were upon the whole earth, and he put forth his hand, and caught her and brought her into the Ark."

Genesis records by the end of the Flood year, the "the valleys (basins or plains) sank down and the great masses of water that were standing above the mountains (at God's rebuke) "fled" to the place which Thou didst establish for them. "Thou hast set a bound (the shorelines) which they may not pass over, that they not return to cover the earth." Psalm 103(104):6-9.

Leauki posts:

Your arrogant assumption that Biblical truth changes when an English word changes its meaning is simply wrong. And if you want to rely on a translation you cannot use that formula.

I've said (post #35) and firmly belive that Biblical truth will never change. You read Biblical truth and conclude, it was a local flood. I read the same Biblical truth and conclude the Flood was world-wide. Same truth, we agree "eretz" means "earth" yet, two different conclusions over what "earth" means.

My thinking the Flood was world-wide has nothing whatsoever to do with the English word changing or changing the English word. Rather, it's based upon applying other Scriptural passages, as well as scientific and historic details of the effects of the Flood, that I can easily conclude it was world-wide.

Leauki

on Aug 15, 2008

Sorry, the most I can understand from the translation alone is that the word "Eretz" means "earth". You are content to conclude earth means land and land means the Flood of Noah was a local event.

Again, "eretz" means "earth, the surface".

And that's what "terra" means in Latin and that's what "earth" meant in English until a few hundred years ago.

You are basically arguing that since "earth" means "earth, the planet" NOW, Biblical truth has changed.

And I disagree with that argument. I think it is an argument from ignorance and that you would change your mind if you would simply care enough about Biblical truth to learn how English words changed meaning over time.

It's easier for me to see it, of course, since I also understand German and can see how the same change of meaning has happened with the German word "Erde". But in German the change is not yet as complete. Whereas in English casual use of the word "earth" is now understood as "earth, the planet", in German casual use of the word "Erde" is still often understand as "earth, the surface" (or even "earth, the material").

I am sick and tired of you arguing that Noah's flood was global based on an English word that I _know_ didn't mean in the 15th century what it means now.

I am also sick and tried of you refusing even to acknowledge that I already told you about the change of meaning and hence you inventing all sorts of stories about why we disagree.

We do not disagree because I don't accept your favourite translation. But we do disagree because I know that the Hebrew word "eretz" means what the Latin word "terra" and that both mean what the English word "earth" used to mean: "earth, the surface".

Your argument lies solely on your assumption that (for some weird reason) today's meaning of the word "earth" does not only outway the original meaning of the word "earth" but also supersedes the Latin and Hebrew words.

Just imagine the English word "king" would change its meaning from "monarch" to "rock star" over a period of a few hundred years. It's possible.

Someone like you would then argue that

a) since the English translation of the Bible is correct, Salomo was a rock star and not a monarch

the Latin word "rex" means "rock star"

c) and the Hebrew word "melekh" means "rock star".

And anyone reminding that someone that "melekh" means "monarch" and not "rock star" would be told that since the English translation uses a word that means "rock star" the Latin and the Hebrew words obviously must also mean "rock star".

Words change meanings. But the current meaning of a word has NOTHING to do with why a word was chosen in a translation. The translators translated "eretz" with "earth" because BOTH words mean "land". The fact that "earth" NOW usually refers to entire planet has NOTHING to do with why they made the decision to translate like that.

And similarly the people who translated "melekh" as "king" did NOT do so anticipating a time when in English the word "king" might mean "rock star" instead of "monarch".

If you rely on today's meanings of words used in a translation done several hundred years ago you do rely on a holy text, but on the same holy text as the one originally translated.

Leauki

on Aug 15, 2008

You read Biblical truth and conclude, it was a local flood. I read the same Biblical truth and conclude the Flood was world-wide.

No, you didn't. You read a translation. It's less precise.

Same truth, we agree "eretz" means "earth" yet, two different conclusions over what "earth" means.

Yes. I believe it means what the Hebrew word means and what the English word did mean when the translation was written.

And you believe that it means what it means NOW and that hence the Hebrew word also means that.

English "earth" back then meant "land" (as in "earthy" and "aardvark").

English "earth" now means "planet earth".

Latin "terra" means "land" (as in "terra incognita").

Hebrew "eretz" means "land" (as in "Eretz Yisrael").

lulapilgrim

on Aug 15, 2008

Lula posts:

There is overwhelming field evidence of a global flood in the fossils that have been found.

Leauki posts: #38

Actually no, the fossils just show that the world and its life is a lot older even than the Noah legend. There is no field evidence for a global flood.

How much older would you say, Leauki? Thousadns of years or billions of years as Evolution claims?

Although it's impossible to provide exact dates from Scriptural chronology, I'd say Creation occurred at about 4004 BC or approximately 2,000 years before the birth of CHrist. The Flood began 1,656 years later, (1656 AM, Anno Mundi---year of the world), which would be around 2348 BC.

The science that backs the Scriptural explanation of earth and time is Deluge Geology which, as you might guess, contradicts the new world view of Evolution Geology called Uniformitarianism developed by James Hutton in the 1700s.

Smiliiarly as Darwinism kicks Creator God out of the origin and process of life, Uniformitarianism kicks out the Great Flood of Noah whose cataclysmic effects molded earth's rocks, valleys and mountians into what they are today.

Uniformitarianism gives its geologic column arranged to fit Darwin's Evolutionism. It's drawings are made to be seen as a record of the sequence in which different creatures evolved from lower forms. The geologic column depicts that the age of the earth is supposedly more that 4 billion plus years old. According to different ascending ages, prehistoric through today, it divides the succession of life from simple cell organisms to jelly-fish invertebrates, to fish, to reptiles to mammals and finally to a brutish ape-man creature at the top of the chart.

Problem is the chart has no physical reality meaning it doesn't exist in any part of the world. We've found a few of its strata but always with missing strata and with the theoretic sequence reversed. Around the world we've found older rocks dated by fossils lying on top of younger rocks dated by fossils. The fossils are in the wrong sequence to fit the imaginary geologic column.

If the Flood did nappen when it happened according to Scripture, then the geologic column of the Evolutionists must be re-interpreted. It can no longer stand for a record of the so-called progress of Evolution.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 15, 2008

While I say that if the word "earth" is used with other words which describe "earth" (as in Gen. 8:8-9 and Psalms 103 [104]), as well as other subsidiary details, then it seems most reasonable and credible that Genesis was a global flood.

Genesis 8: 8-9, "He sent forth also a dove to see if the waters had now ceased upon the face of the earth." But she, not finding where her foot might rest, returned to him in the Ark, for the waters were upon the whole earth, and he put forth his hand, and caught her and brought her into the Ark."

Genesis records by the end of the Flood year, the "the valleys (basins or plains) sank down and the great masses of water that were standing above the mountains (at God's rebuke) "fled" to the place which Thou didst establish for them. "Thou hast set a bound (the shorelines) which they may not pass over, that they not return to cover the earth." Psalm 103(104):6-9.

Leauki,

Please check out these passages, Genesis 8:8-9 and Psalms 103 or 104 in which the translation clearly describes earth as meaning the entire earth.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 15, 2008

Lula posts:

Same truth, we agree "eretz" means "earth" yet, two different conclusions over what "earth" means.

Leauki posts:
Yes. I believe it means what the Hebrew word means and what the English word did mean when the translation was written.

OKay. I'm convinced this is your belief.

Support your belief by either refuting or agreeing with these other Scriptural passages that KFC and I have brought to your attention in defense of our belief that the Flood was a world-wide event.

If you don't want to do that, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Leauki

on Aug 16, 2008

How much older would you say, Leauki? Thousands of years or billions of years as Evolution claims?

As many years as scientists have found. It's usually not biologists who make these calculations. It falls into the realm of physics.

I am not a physicist. If you want to know how old the earth is, ask a scientist. I am a hobby theologist and hobby linguist. I can tell you what 3000-year old legends say, but I cannot tell you how old the earth is.

Although it's impossible to provide exact dates from Scriptural chronology, I'd say Creation occurred at about 4004 BC or approximately 2,000 years before the birth of Christ. The Flood began 1,656 years later, (1656 AM, Anno Mundi---year of the world), which would be around 2348 BC.

Using stop religion and without regard to calendars used by the people who lived back then...

The science that backs the Scriptural explanation of earth and time is Deluge Geology

Science.

Smiliarly as Darwinism kicks Creator God out of the origin and process of life

I assume it is your "Christian principle of honesty" that makes you again pretend that you were never told that Darwin's theory is NOT about the origin of life?

Leauki

on Aug 16, 2008

Please check out these passages, Genesis 8:8-9 and Psalms 103 or 104 in which the translation clearly describes earth as meaning the entire earth.

Genesis 8:8 doesn't mean the word at all. It refers to "the face of the (material) earth". The word used is "adama", which like "eretz" is translated as "earth". But while "eretz" is "earth, the surface", "adama" is "earth, the material". 8:8 thus refers to the very local ground, even more specific and local than "eretz" in the other verses.

Adama is what "Adam" is made off. And "Adam" contains "dam" ("blood").

Genesis 8:8 doesn't mention the "entire earth", it doesn't even mention "the entire land", it merely mentions the material "earth". Wikipedia translates "adama" as "earth, the classical element".

Genesis 8:9 at least mentions "eretz". But it doesn't meake it clear that the "entire earth" is meant, since, again, the word for "land" is used. I read this as saying that the bird could not reach land and thus flew back to the ark.

Perhaps translating "kol-haAretz" with "whole earth" instead of "all the land" leads to confusion? The second is the literal translation. "Ha" in the beginning of a word is the definite article. "Kol" means "all" or "every". And again, back in the day, when "earth" meant "land", the translation was correct. Back then "earth" was all the visible land.

Psalms 103 also refers to "land", not "planet earth". I am assuming that you know that while the heavens are indeed "above the land", they are NOT "above planet earth", as "planet earth" is actually located IN the heavens.

Can you stop pretending that I never told you about how the word "earth" meant "earth, the surface" and not "earth, the planet" back when the translations were written and focus on a different argument against literal translation of Noah's story now?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!