Richard Aberdeen
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2026
- Messages
- 229
The Hebrew "kol eretz" (or "erets") is translated in KJV as referring to the whole earth in the story of Noah. But in the story of Abraham, found later in the same book of Genesis, the KJV translation refers to the local region of Ur and not the whole earth.
The same Hebrew word is often used as referring to country, region or land, such as the "land" of Israel elsewhere in the Bible. Hebrew, like Greek and English, contains many words with multiple meanings and thus, it is sometimes merely a translator's opinion how a Hebrew or Greek word with multiple meanings should be translated.
If the story of Noah is about a great regional flood, it remains accurate as far as history and science knows Genesis 6. At least two other cultures have a record of a great regional flood. And there is significant modern evidence that a great Mesopotamian regional flood occurred in and around the time of Noah.
It should also be noted that Hebrew, Greek and English are "masculine" languages that unlike languages such as Spanish, have no neutral tense. Thus, words like "he", "him", "man" and similar often apply to both males and females: "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he" can be fairly translated "as people think in their heart, so are they." In translation, it is the intent rather than the words, that matters most.
Various stories found in the Old Testament like the story of Noah are often claimed by scholars as having been 'borrowed' from Sumerian and Babylonian myths. It is more likely however, that different and far more detailed and accurate accounts of the same historical events were passed along by Abraham and his descendants.
Abraham came from the region of Ur not far from Babylon and thus, it is historically logical and fair to conclude that Abraham and his family were familiar with these same actual historical events. And not surprisingly, they may well have passed them along to their descendants, eventually finding their way into what is now known as the Old Testament Genesis 12.
The Old Testament contains many lists of "begats", not only a clear sign of oral history, but of a meticulously and accurately preserved oral history. Experienced historians are aware that oral history can be as good or even more reliable and accurate than written history, in particular when it is the only means available for preserving one's cultural heritage.
After the development of writing, the Old Testament is known to have been extremely meticulously preserved by highly trained scribes. And, it is filled with both positive and negative attributes of its various and sundry characters, detailing battle losses, blunders, moral failings and mistakes, as well as great and sometimes craftily and deceptively won victories. This is a clear sign of authentic rather than invented history.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Bible today is considered to be "generally reliable history", unlike other surrounding cultures which are known to have exaggerated battle victories while minimizing and sometimes entirely omitting defeats. This is a complete 360-degree turnaround from what the majority of historians and other intellectuals believed concerning the accuracy and authenticity of the Old Testament less than 100 years ago.
Just in the past century or so, evidence has been found for the existence of a literal garden of Eden, the great flood, the tower of babel, the story of Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah, the existence of Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, Joshua and much more. It represents extreme dishonesty to deny the existence of Moses, which some unbending researchers continue to do, given the rest of this recently acquired historical evidence.
Given such evidence of real biblical figures, why would someone as prominent as Moses not be authentic? This website contains well-documented biblical archaeology videos and is an excellent resource for reliable information: Biblical Archaeology.
Earliest mention of Israel Outside the Bible
The same Hebrew word is often used as referring to country, region or land, such as the "land" of Israel elsewhere in the Bible. Hebrew, like Greek and English, contains many words with multiple meanings and thus, it is sometimes merely a translator's opinion how a Hebrew or Greek word with multiple meanings should be translated.
If the story of Noah is about a great regional flood, it remains accurate as far as history and science knows Genesis 6. At least two other cultures have a record of a great regional flood. And there is significant modern evidence that a great Mesopotamian regional flood occurred in and around the time of Noah.
It should also be noted that Hebrew, Greek and English are "masculine" languages that unlike languages such as Spanish, have no neutral tense. Thus, words like "he", "him", "man" and similar often apply to both males and females: "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he" can be fairly translated "as people think in their heart, so are they." In translation, it is the intent rather than the words, that matters most.
Various stories found in the Old Testament like the story of Noah are often claimed by scholars as having been 'borrowed' from Sumerian and Babylonian myths. It is more likely however, that different and far more detailed and accurate accounts of the same historical events were passed along by Abraham and his descendants.
Abraham came from the region of Ur not far from Babylon and thus, it is historically logical and fair to conclude that Abraham and his family were familiar with these same actual historical events. And not surprisingly, they may well have passed them along to their descendants, eventually finding their way into what is now known as the Old Testament Genesis 12.
The Old Testament contains many lists of "begats", not only a clear sign of oral history, but of a meticulously and accurately preserved oral history. Experienced historians are aware that oral history can be as good or even more reliable and accurate than written history, in particular when it is the only means available for preserving one's cultural heritage.
After the development of writing, the Old Testament is known to have been extremely meticulously preserved by highly trained scribes. And, it is filled with both positive and negative attributes of its various and sundry characters, detailing battle losses, blunders, moral failings and mistakes, as well as great and sometimes craftily and deceptively won victories. This is a clear sign of authentic rather than invented history.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Bible today is considered to be "generally reliable history", unlike other surrounding cultures which are known to have exaggerated battle victories while minimizing and sometimes entirely omitting defeats. This is a complete 360-degree turnaround from what the majority of historians and other intellectuals believed concerning the accuracy and authenticity of the Old Testament less than 100 years ago.
Just in the past century or so, evidence has been found for the existence of a literal garden of Eden, the great flood, the tower of babel, the story of Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah, the existence of Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, Joshua and much more. It represents extreme dishonesty to deny the existence of Moses, which some unbending researchers continue to do, given the rest of this recently acquired historical evidence.
Given such evidence of real biblical figures, why would someone as prominent as Moses not be authentic? This website contains well-documented biblical archaeology videos and is an excellent resource for reliable information: Biblical Archaeology.
Earliest mention of Israel Outside the Bible
