This is of course just another side interest given that what the Noah story actually saus depends heavily of the interpretation of a word that has many meanings.
There is plenty of room for interpretation. It's kind of funny, though, to see you insisting on the common interpretation in order to... disagree with the common interpretation.There's no room for interpretation here, Genesis says it was a global flood.
But nobody had ever bothered checking but for the investigate the veracity of Genesis.And yes, actually, people would have figured out that the Black Sea flooded thousands of years ago even without Genesis.
Yes, but like I said, the root word that is being translated is "eres" which can mean land of pretty much any size from everything to a small plot to just dirt. Some might see the discovery of the flood of the black sea basin as an excellent opportunity to lend new insight into the potential meaning of "eres" in the Genesis text. Like me, for one. Others wish to be hardliners on both sides and insist that no evidence can move them from their chosen belief.A different quote from genesis uses a phrase that translates to "upon the face of all the earth," much more clearly indicating a global flood.
See above."upon the face of all the earth" ̀al-penê kol-haÉares (Genesis 7:3; 8:9)
It says he will put an end to all people of the "earth", which still falls back on the definition being used, and that he would destroy the "earth" which is what got me thinking on the subject in the first place. See, "eres" also is defined as "dry land", for instance, in the original text when God dried the land and separated it from the ocean is was also called "eres", so God destroying "eres" could just as easily mean submerging it in water for good, which is actually what happened to the Black Sea basin.A later part says something about "all of existence" being destroyed, which seems pretty clear.