By Donald Hochner Edited: 3/24/10
I would like to share what I learned about Noah's flood. Some scholars maintained that the original location of the Garden of Eden, though known to Adam’s son, Seth and his descendants, was obliterated by the devastating effects of Noah's flood. The geographical conditions of that region had changed significantly, including the rivers which served as the borders of the garden. I believe Noah's flood was not global, which I will attempt to show you.
In scripture, the phrases "the earth" and "the world" pertained to a locality, and not to the whole earth. Even when America was first discovered by Europeans, it was called "the new world." This phrase did not refer to a new planet, but just a locality on the same planet.
We have been told in the biblical account that the flood would cover the "earth", that everything in the "earth" would die, and other statements about the "earth", all of which would teach the idea of a world-wide flood - EXCEPT for one thing: Hebrew word "erets", especially in the Book of Genesis. Its translated "earth" 665 times, "land" 1581 times, "country" 44 times, "ground" 119 times, "lands" 57 times, "countries", 15 times, and a few others. It seems that the “land” overflowed the “earth” in KJV (pun intended). Same thing with the “mountains” can be used as “hills” (#2022, har). It seems to me that all of them are in limited land areas rather than the entire planet.
We need to keep in mind that the people living at the time of Moses had no concept of a "global" planet ... to them the "earth" would be the extent of the geographical land area known to them. To apply this literal meaning throughout the Bible causes problems. (As does other LITERAL exegesis)
These false interpretations are assumed and encouraged so that we can continue to support "tradition" or orthodoxy - never mind what Scripture is really saying. In so doing, we allow these misinterpretations to contradict other verses where the same word is used! We end up making a mockery of Scripture by trying to get it to fit ill-conceived theology.
For example, the word is used concerning Abraham, "Get out of thy country [erets]...unto a land [erets] that I will shew thee" (Gen. 12:1). Of course we know God did not mean for Abraham to leave the earth and to go another earth or planet. Or another one, "Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country [erets], and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur and sojourned in Gerar" (Gen. 20:1). Notice the translators used “country” instead of “earth” even it is the same Hebrew word.
Other references in Genesis also show that "erets" was used to show specific lands: "The whole land [erets] of Havilah (Gen. 2:11)," “whole land [erets] of Ethiopia” (Gen. 2:13), "the land [erets] of Nod, on the east of Eden" (Gen. 4:16), Famine at the time of Joseph affected "all lands [erets]" (Gen. 41:54). Do word study. Try use the word "land" instead of global "earth" and it make a lot more sense because some Bible translations can be misleading.
Why, then, should any insist that the flood covering "the face of the whole earth (erets) must mean a universal flood? Not only that, there is another Hebrew word, adamah (Strong’s #127) for “land” or “ground.” Would we be assuming too much to say that the usage of "adamah" inter dispersed with "erets" would qualify that word? Would we be assuming too much to say that land affected was "Adam's" land, field, ground etc? (Opposed to Cain's or other tribes or nation's ground)
If we view the flood as global, then we must (if we are consistent) apply that same usage in other places were the same words and phrases are used. Here is the list of example with “the face of the earth/land/ground ” with Hebrew words, erets or adamah during Noah’s days:
Gen. 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground [adamah] which the LORD hath cursed.
Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth [adamah], and daughters were born unto them,
Gen. 6:7 A