[DreamsofPolycarp]

I have just told you that ha eretz has a wide diversities of meaning, one of which can simply be this or that geographical locality of land, which would correlate with a localized flood. I don't know how it could be any clearer than that.

You responded with something about an "invisible dam" at the seashore, and from that I inferred that you meant that the ocean was the border of "the land." Again, ANY local flood, that of Johnstown (thanks for not being a spelling cop!) would fit the description of "the land" if the Hebrew phrase really means what I say it means (and it does, at times).

I myself have an open hand on this one. I have never read Lyell's Principles, nor actually the first geolological text, though I have read a few nyeah nyeahs back and forth from the ICR people and their critics. I am most decidedly NOT a young earth advocate, and am a happy agnostic on whether the deluge was a universal one. All I am saying is that the biblical account does not demand a universal flood.

[ndt]

"I have just told you that ha eretz has a wide diversities of meaning... which would correlate with a localized flood...You responded with something about an "invisible dam" at the seashore"

Now, if you had said "a localized flood" I would have understood what you meant. You said "the entire LAND" which is the exact opposite of "localized", hence my invisible dam.

The words you use are the only way I have of knowing what you mean.