Which Bible is unique?

The Samaritan Torah? The Hebrew Bible? The Hebrew Bible as used by the tribe of Dan ("Ethiopian Jews")? The Christian Bible? The Christian Bible as used by which Church? The Aramaic-Arabic recitation (the Quran)?

And which translation is the word of G-d?

Luther's? King James? Any of the Aramaic versions of the Christian Bible?

I have read both Luther's and King James and found several differences. I have also read a lot of the original Hebrew and it is different from both still.

I have yet to read the Samaritan Torah, but I have heard there is an English translation out now. (It tells the story of Adam to Moses from the perspective of a different Israelite tribe.)

I never understood why Muhammed and the Christians were so sure about which of the Jewish tribes had the correct account of G-d's word.

for all I know they all may be fine.  I'm not familiar with the Samaritan Torah.  They can all be fine Leauki.  The bible I have is quite consistent with another written in Polish or Chinese.  But it's the original Greek and Hebrew was handed down that was inspired. 

You make it much harder than it is Leauki.  There are many many Jewish scholars over the years and they have no such problems with the translations.  In fact, I just recently had the privilege to sit under a very old Jewish man who is proficient in many languages and he has no such problems.   His name is Gary Cohen.  In fact, he's probably the most intelligent person I've ever met in person.  He just recently wrote all the notes in the New King James Version that has just come out or is coming out. 

There are over 5,000 original copies of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments as originally written.  They all say the same EXACT thing.  If the modern translations don't stay true to them then they wouldn't be something worth reading.....for instance I don't like the much touted "The Message" bible or the JW's "New World Translation," because they did not honor the original language and made the bible say what they wanted it to say. 

Other than that most of the versions or translations  are completely reliable for the average reader. 

Which "over 5000 original copies" do you know about?

The oldest extant copies are among the Dead Sea scrolls and we have already discussed, in detail, some of the differences between those and the translations.

And then there is this big issue I had already addressed before with words changing meanings. Remember the word "earth", which 500 years ago meant "land" and only came to mean "planet Earth" by the 19th century? And suddenly Christianity had a world-wide flood to contend with. The flood is G-d's universal truth? The original Hebrew text doesn't say it (and neither does the Quranic version).

Just reading your interpretations of the Bible gives me an entirely new version that I cannot find in the actual Hebrew text. And you are telling me that the Bible is unique?

(One major difference between the Samaritan Torah and the Jewish Torah is that the Samaritan Torah commands the northern tribes of Israel to build a Temple on Mount Gerizim rather than Mount Moriah where the tribes of Yehuda, Simeon and Benjamin build theirs.)

The Dead Sea Scrolls are indeed the oldest but the great thing about them (and proves the authenticity of the bible) is they totally backed up the over 5,000 original copies known to be in existence (all protected and preserved) when these scrolls were discovered in 1947.  So it just showed that what we had in our hands that day in 1947 was what these ancient scolls  said as well.  Proving to us the bible translations we had in our day were highly reliable and accurate. 

I understand that and agree with you.  We must look at the timing and the context at which it was written.  But where I see you go off is when you get too much into wording alone and don't take either context or other scriptures into account which will help clear up confusion.  That's why I say sometimes you get too much into semantics.  It's like you only see one individual tree at a time and can't see the whole forest.  The meaning of words is very important but has to be part of the picture not the whole picture. 

like what?  My interpretation should have nothing to do with it.  You and I could read the same scripture but have diff interpretations especially if we're going with our own opinion.  I try not to do that.  Sometimes that comes into play but I try my best to be objective by looking at what the rest of the scriptures have to say and put the pieces together.  That's how the scriptures work...like a puzzle.  When I use my own opinion (and I try to convey that when I do) I'm usually not correct because I've let my own biases and experiences cloud my answer.  I'm a truth seeker.  I'm really not interested in my opinion and certainly not that of others especially at the expense of the truth. 

ok that would be a case, if you're right, that I would put with the other two examples I gave you.  If all the original copies say one thing and then this one says another.....I would have to go with the majority which is exactly what the ancient biblical scholars did. 

The Samaritan Torah would have had to be written after the Assyrian captivity because that's where they came out of and that was well after the original Hebrew version by Moses.  In other words they ammended the original which is what the JW's did with our modern translations to suit themselves. 

 I know all about the controversy between the two groups and that's why in the NT book of Acts the Samaritans did not recieve the Holy Spirit  like the Jews did until they were associated with the Apostles (Peter and John) so they wouldn't start a rivial Christian group like they did during Jesus' day.  Peter and John laid hands on them to bring them under the one roof of Christianity so they were all united. 

So again, the original text would be the correct version.  It always is.  Everything has to be compared to the original source. 

Do you not remember the issue with the Vav and the Yud?

The Christian translations translated with "pierce" or "dig" a word which in the Jewish Bible was "k'ari" ("like a lion", Kaf Alef Resh Yud). The Hebrew for "dug" (but not "pierced") would have been "karu" (Kaf Resh Vav).

Which version is correct? I think the Jewish version is correct.

And then finally the Dead Sea Scrolls gave us a third version: Kaf Alef Lamed Vav.

To me this supported the Jewish version, since a Vav looks very much like a Yud (it is just a tad longer). Whereas an Alef does not simply appear or disappear in a word (just like the "r" in "word" does not simply disappear).

So who is right about this passage?

I actually take context into account. I figure out which peoples were involved and what their culture was like. I know what the place names mean (Aram, Canaan, Arabia, Misraim etc.). That alone gives me an edge.

Both versions of the Torah were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as far as I know. There is no reason to assume that the northern (Samaritan) version is younger than the southern version. They were both Moses' Torah and both predate the rest of the Bible. The kingdom of Israel split into two, one centered around Judaea, one around Shomron (Samaria). Three tribes lived in Judaea, two tribes lived in Samaria/Shomron/Israel (call it what you will), one tribe moved back into Egypt, one tribe was divided between Judaea and Samaria (the Levites), and the other six tribes are lost. (Just for completeness' sake, the "ten lost tribes" are those six plus half of Levi plus Dan, who went back to Egypt, plus the two Samarian tribes.)

I don't see how one Torah can be older than the other.

vaguely remember.  Isaiah 53?   I remember looking up the words that you brought up and not seeing a problem with our English version and that it fit quite well.  At the time I remember giving you what I saw using the original Hebrew and how it fit but you had your mind set.   There was no inconsistency no matter which translation you pick.  I would always go for the Hebrew definition understanding we are only trying to find the right word for it in our own language. 

I don't know either without checking first but even so...they could have both been included, I don't know but that doesn't mean that the Samaritan's is correct because they found it with the original.  The Dead Sea Scrolls were about a thousand years older than the copies we had in our hands at the time. 

Easy.  The Samaritans didn't even come into existence until the Assyrian captivity which was after Solomon's reign.  So if there are changes from the Hebrew Torah to the Samaritan (and I'm only going by you saying there is)  it has to be because the Samaritan's changed it.  And the place of worship was a bone of contention between the two groups.  They even mentioned this to Jesus in the NT (John 4). 

So since we have the originals Mosaic text in the Hebrew I would have to start there. 

Very true, and for me that is reason enough not to buy into it as a belief system.  I make no judgements on those who do, that is their choice.

Unique or not as far as I'm concerned it contains circular logic which makes it unreliable at best and certainly provides me with reason enough not to use it as a belief system.  If you choose to go into reading the bible with the assumption that there is a god then it may not contain circular logic but you have to go in with some assumptions first, which I choose not to do.

Yes myself.  The story of creation in genesis when I last read it (not 10-20 years ago but it's been a while) seemed inconsistent because there were essentially two stories of creation.  The idea that Noah could have built a boat large enough to hold two of every species is impossible as far as I'm concerned.  The list goes on.  I don't need to constantly re-read the thing to remember some of the inconsistencies and remind myself why I chose to not believe in it's teachings.

That's not interesting at all.  Again the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim.  Can you prove that there was a burning bush that told moses what to do?  I don't need to prove it didn't happen.  If you choose to believe it happened that's fine, I don't.

That's your assumption.  I spent a number of years attempting sunday school every week and after that going to the services so my current views on the bible are not based on deceptions.

And that is a base assumption that one must have when going into reading the bible.  It's fine if you happen to have that assumption, I however do not.

You had asked something like how it could be explained that the stories mesh so well, I provided a possible scenario.  I was merely presenting a "what if" scenario.  You are assuming that they weren't in collusion to write the books, but what if they were?  And the opposite could be applied.

I don't care what the "opposition" says.  I'm not one of those idiots out there who see it as their mission to tear down Christianity.  That isn't my place, if someone chooses to believe in the words of the bible I have no problem with that as long as they aren't trying to shove it down my throat and I do my best not to shove whatever I believe down anyones throat.

Now I'm completely confused.  Earlier you were saying that you were a literalist when it comes to the bible and that there is basically only one way to read it.  Now you're saying that two people can read the same passage and come away with different interpretations.  It can't be both ways.  Either there is only one way to read it or it can mean different things to different people.

I'm just curious here because I don't know, how does anyone know what the "original" text was?  Do they have dates on them as to when they were written?  Do we know which ones were written first and which ones were copies of that "original", etc?

No, there isn't any inconsistencies.  Besides if there is a question in your mind how do you  know the confusion doesn't lie with you and not the scriptures?   Let me just go with what you gave me ok?

There's only ONE story of creation.  It's found in Chap 1 and it's chronological, telling us what day each part of creation was made. Seven days and all was complete.   Chap 2 focuses on just Adam and is considered a topical description of what was most important.  The bible does this alot.  Repeats itself to get the message across.  It's like taking a picture and then taking another picture immediately after but zooming in on the subject matter.

On the ark.  This has been proven by animal experts as completely acceptable.  So why wouldn't you believe it?  Do you know how big the Ark was?  Do you know how big the animals were?  Do you know how many animals were around at that time?  How do you know the animals weren't all babies?  So instead of having two huge elephants, he had two baby elephants, etc?  Look at the biggest ships we have today.  Queen Mary?  Look at the Aircraft Liners and they hold huge planes.    Do you think it could hold all the animals?   

Sorry, but you are believing someone else.  Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up the same old stuff that every skeptic brings up......and when confronted with the truth they shrug and say....doesn't matter I still don't believe it because in all reality they don't want to believe it which brings up the question I asked you before.  Why do you suppose you don't believe in the first place? 

but you do have an assumption do you not?  You are assuming the bible is no diff than any other book even while I can show you quite clearly it's very unique.  That in itself should make one curious as to why and what makes it unique if they really wanted to know that is.  You do not.  That's ok.  That's where you are at the moment.  I'm ok with that. 

but I also answered that by reading of the texts it's clear they are not in collusion.  They all have their own unique twist with seeming contradictions on what happened but they do mesh perfectly.  Even tho many take a diff approach than you pointing out those differences. 

I am a literalist (as much as you can be) when it comes to the reading of scripture.  But that doesn't stop even two literalists from having a diff interpretation at times.  Hopefully one can show the other with other scripture the correct interpretation.   Most of the time it has to do with application.  There is only one correct interpretation of the bible (it interprets itself) but many applications can be made.  For instance.....in the book of Revelation Jesus is said to be knocking at the door and if anyone lets him in he will come in and dine with him.  Rev 3:20. 

Many misinterpretate that and say that Jesus is knocking on the door of our heart.  If we just open our heart to him he will come in.  It's ok to make that an application but that is not the correct interpretation.  The correct interpretation (by context) is that he's seen outside of his own church.  The church is too busy and they have no time for Christ.  He's shown outside his own church knocking on the door.  A famous painter way back in time painted a picture of what this might have looked like.  He showed Christ standing outside of a church with no doorknob.  The doorknob was only on the inside. 

The scholars thru the years have dated these ancient manuscripts by the paper that it was written on and the writing styles.  Some of the ancient texts were written on animal skins, bleached clean and then it went to paprus reeds and then vellum for one thing.   Some of the ancient texts are only fragments, some are small just a page or two and others with much more writings intact. 

You "vaguely remember"?

The problem was that your English version used the word "pierced" to translate a Hebrew word that meant "dug" and was translated as "dug" into several other languages (and as "encircled" into Latin).

The Masoretic text had "like a lion" instead.

And, finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that the word was neither "dug" (KRV) nor "like a lion" (K'RY). Instead it was K'RV.

In Hebrew letters:

"dug"/KRV: כרו

"like a lion"/K'RY: כארי

Actual text (from Dead Sea Scrolls): כארו

My guess was that the Dead Sea Scrolls accidentally wrote the י as a ו which is easy to do. (It happens to me all the time.)

The other guess was that the Dead Sea Scrolls added a letter א to the word for no apparent reason.

Either way, that gives us three versions of the same text, the Christian version, the Rabbinic version, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Which one is the word of G-d?

For Jews it's easy. The Jewish version is the word of G-d FOR JEWS. Since nobody else has to be bothered with Jewish law, it doesn't matter whether they disagree that the Jewish Bible is the word of G-d.

It's no wonder that Christians and Muslims had to come up with new holy books to explain all this stuff.

Edit: Found the H.

none.

Like I keep saying....only the originals were inspired.  Only the originals.  So while the copies I believe are protected by the Holy Spirit as the word of God, only the bible in it's original language is the real inspried word of God and we don't have the originals only original copies of the originals.  Unless, that is, we find the ark of the testimony.  Then we'll have an original.  I betcha we'll find that sooner or later. 

Have you ever heard of a man named Dr. Robert Dick Wilson?  He mastered 45 languages and dialects in the 1800-1900's.  His testimony stands as a remarkable testimony to the reliability of the bible.  He stands unsurpassed in his scholarship.  One of the schools he attended was at the University of Berlin in Germany where he made a decision to dedicate his life to the study of the OT.  He said this:

"I was twenty five then and I judged from the life of my ancestors that I should live to be seventy; so that I should have forty-five years to work.  I divided the period into three parts.  The first 15 years I would devote to the study of the languages necessary.  Fo the second 15 years I was going to devote myself to the stufy of the text of the OT and I reserved the last 15 years for the work of writing the results of my previous studies and investigations so as to give them to the world." 

He did exactly that almost to the very year he had projected.  His scholastic accomplishment were amazing.  He read the NT in nine diff languages including a Hebrew translation which he had memorized syllable for syllable.  He also memorized large portions of the OT in the original Hebrew.  He was called the "the outstanding authority on ancient languages in the Middle East." 

He answered why he did all this when asked.  He said this:

"Most of our students used to go to Germany, and they heard professors give lectures which were the results of their own labours.  The students took everything because the professor said it.  I went there to study so that there would be no professor on earth that could lay down the law for me, or say anything without my being able to investigate the evidence on which he said it.  Now I consider that what was necessary in order to investigate the evidence was, first of all, to know the language in which the evidence is given.  So I determined that I would learn all the languages that throw light upon the Hebrew and also the languages into which the Bible had been translated down to A.D. 600, so that I could investigate the text myself. 

Having done this I claim to be an expert.  I defy any man to make an attack upon the OT on the ground of evidence that I cannot investigatge.  I can get at the facts if they are linguistic.  If you know any language that I do not know, I will learn it." 

As a professor at Princton, Wilson won international fame as a scholar and defender of the Christian faith.  The emphasis of Wilson's teaching ws to give his students such an intelligent faith in the OT Scriptures that they will never doubt tham as long as they live. 

Leauki,

check this out...it's a piece of work written in 1922 by Wilson.  It's quite long and thought provoking but worthy of your time and attention. 

http://www.christianbeliefs.org/articles/wilson-hc.html

I can live and agree with that.

But it does mean that even the Bible cannot tell us what G-d really wanted, no matter how literal we take it, since we don't know whether any copy we have is true to the original. (Perhaps the Samaritans got it right? Or the Muslims?)

Thanks, I'll read it tomorrow.

I know nothing about the Samaritan's copies or versions without going on a hunt.   How many original copies of either fragmented or complete copies do we have?   How does that compare with the copies we have of the other?  How old are they? 

It seems to me that the Hebrew Version that goes all the way back to Moses has to be the correct version as it's the older version.  We have old Hebrew fragments dating way back on skins and paprus.  Which is older?  I'd have to say the Hebrew text is because of the timing of the whole Samaritan era. 

And the Muslims?  No.  They didn't even show up until 600's with Mohummed  and their writings were deveoloped way later than that.   I believe the Muslims were a spin off from the Hebrews and the Christians using a bit of both OT and NT in their own writings. 

The oldest Hebrew version we have is the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain parts of the Jewish Torah and the Samaritan Torah. There is no obvious reason to assume that one of the two is "older" than the other, they both go all the way back to Moses (if they do).

Both the Jewish and the Samaritan Torah are the "Hebrew text" that "goes all the way back to Moses" and both have been found among the oldest writings we found.

The Quran ("recitation") was based on Muhammed's understand of those same holy scriptures. His reading of scripture is just as important as anybody else's understanding of it. As an Aramaic-speaking trader with Syria he was a very good position to interpret a Hebrew and Aramaic text, even though he could not read.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls contradict both the Christian Bible and the Masoretic Bible in parts.

Christian Bible: KRV ("they dug")

Masoretic Bible: K'RY ("like a lion")

Dead Sea Scrolls: K'RV (means nothing)

Which of the three is the word of G-d?

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not contradict but authenticate what we already had. 

Ps 22:16-Pierce is:

from 717 (in the sense of violence); TWOT - 158a; n m

AV - lion 79, untranslated variant 1; 80

1) lion

1a) pictures or images of lions

How about this one Leauki which we didn't bring up before:  Zech 12:10 and means.......

a primitive root; TWOT - 449; v

AV - thrust through 8, pierced 1, wounded 1, stricken through 1; 11

GK - 1991 { rq'D;

1) to pierce, thrust through, pierce through

1a) (Qal) to pierce, run through

1b) (Niphal) to be pierced through

1c) (Pual) pierced, riddled (participle)

The whole point of our earlier discussion (I think) was I was trying to show that way before it was done, it was predicted (in the OT scriptures)  that Christ would be pierced in his death.  As you know stoning was the only death sentence handed down by the Jews during the writing of the above.  Crucifixion was something the Romans brought in not the Jews.  Just another proof that the OT scriptures were inspired.  Prophecy is nothing more than history written ahead of time.  If it doesn't come 100%  true then we should dismiss it.

KFC, that is completely non-sequitur. Where did you copy that?

DQR is indeed the root for "pierce" but it's not the word we were discussing here.

The root for "lion" ('RY) is indeed correct, but the root DQR doesn't appear in the statement I was referring to.

Christian Bible: KRV ("they dug")

Masoretic Bible: K'RY ("like a lion")

Dead Sea Scrolls: K'RV (means nothing)

Those are three letter combinations that are relevant here. DQR is a different root and has nothing to do with KRV ("they dug").

You say the Masoretic Text is like a lion correct?  Well the version I use (Christian) is taken from the masoretic text is it not? 

I get my words from the Strong Concordance and my lexicons.  So it's looking like my Christian bible is the same as the Masoretic Text which is like a lion. 

So what's your point anyhow? 

They are two diff scriptures written by two diff men but both were translated "pierced" in the English.  One means dug and the other means thrust through.  Both were speaking about Christ and his crucifixtion which wouldn't come for another 500-700 years. 

My KJV version says wounded instead of pierced for Ps 22:16 but in the notes it says "pierced."  I guess they might have been thinking if a lion bites it would be the skin being pierced?  So when it says "a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet"   We could translate that to say "like a band of hungry lions, they have dug into my hands and feet."  What's the diff? 

My point is we are seeing a prediction of a death unknown to the writers who wrote this down.  I'm not exactly sure what your point is tho. 

You are not getting it.

It is the word translated as "dug" that really means "like a lion". No word in the sentence means "pierce". And no word means "dig".

"Dogs surround me, a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like a lion they are at my hands and feet."

The "diff" is that the sentence might mean a lot of things, but it simply doesn't mention "piercing" or "digging".

Again:

Christian Bible: KRV ("they dug")

Masoretic Bible: K'RY ("like a lion")

Dead Sea Scrolls: K'RV (means nothing)

The Douay Rheims has verses 16 and 17 as.....

"My strength is dried up like pottage, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws: and thou hast brought me down into the dust of the earth. 17 For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath beseiged me. They have dug my hands and my feet."

Kfc posts:

Yes, it's true. David lived more than a 1,000 years before our Lord's birth.

David was endowed with the gift of prophecy and he composed the Psalms under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. He foretells in detail the the future crucifixation with all its sorrowful scenes and circumstances. In the one you're discussing, if you read the entire passage, it's as though David heard the Divine Redeemer utter these words as recorded in St.Matthew....."All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn, they have spoken with their lips and wagged their heads (in token of their scorn). They have pierced my hands and my feet. They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture they cast lots." 

Beside the lance that pierced Christ's side, David's Psalms mention the the gall and the vinegar and the nails that held Him to the Cross.

There were two stories when I read it.  I don't remember the specifics but one had one progression like man, beast, woman, and the other had a different progression like man, woman, beast.  There was also the issue of plants being created before the sun which we all know from science class that plants can't survive without the sun to do photosynthesis.  Then there's the notion that in a literal interpretation of the bible the earth is roughly 10,000 years old which according to science is way off.  Why does the bible make no mention of the dinosaurs which we know existed because of all the fossil evidence, we also know that dinosaurs and humans didn't exist at the same time.

This what I mean by inconsistencies.  Some of it is how the bible seems to be inconsistent with itself but a lot of it is that the bible doesn't mesh with science and I am more willing to believe in science (and I'm not lumping theoretical physics in with this) since it is based on emperical evidence.

What "experts"?  I'm sorry but it is completely impossible for Noah to have loaded two of every species onto the boat plus food and water for all of them enough to last the entire duration.  Not to mention that it would be impossible for only 1 family, no matter the size, to care for that many animals.  And that doesn't even consider how you stop the carnivores from eating all the herbivores.

Noah didn't have the construction techniques that we have today, and even with todays construction there is no way you could construct a boat to hold two of every species, there is just no way even if they were all babies. 

I don't believe this based on someone else any more than you believe what you believe based on what someone else has said.

The basic assumption by anyone taking a critical look at any work is to have that work prove itself to you not to go into it with a major assumption like there is a god going into it.  You don't go into a critical analysis of the theory of gravity with the assumption that gravity exists do you?  Of course not because if you did then the argument is easy: "gravity exists because it is assumed that gravity exists."

But if God wanted everyone to believe one thing and only one thing don't you think something as powerful as God (as you describe him) could have created language so that there was only one possible interpretation of the text so that there wouldn't be any differences?  Just a thought.

Maybe that'll be Indy's next big adventure.  Sorry I couldn't resist.

Or perhaps no one got it right.

There are no such "experts" and Noah also didn't rescue two of each type of animal on the world. Plus he was (obviously) not the only one to survive the flood with his family. And the Bible doesn't say that he did or was.

See this for a beginning of an explanation:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/320746/Noahs_Flood_the_Beginning_and_the_End

In short:

There was no world-wide flood and the Bible doesn't mention one.

"Noah" is not a name but a word that means "landed".

There are many legends about floods, some are set in Iraq. Noah's flood is set in northern Iraq, in the region that the Hebrew Bible calls "Aram Naharain" in ("high land of the two rivers" in Aramaic). Some flood stories put the flood into southern Iraq.

The idea of a world-wide flood came up when messianic sects (including early Christianity) needed a concept of grave sins and redemption. It was reinforced when the Latin and Germanic (English and German) words for "land" came to mean "planet Earth" due to changes how people used those words.

Muslims, who received the story of Noah from the same sources as Christians, traditionally understood the flood story to be about a local flood.

I hope that explains it.

It seems to me to be a bit, arrogant to assume that (your) God is male. It would seem reasonable to assume that if God is all, and all is he, then that would entail being feminine. Unless that is where Mary falls, even though Mary was never a deity.

~Alderic

My Douay Rheims version has the name of the man that found favor with Almighty God as NOE.  It's here that God tells Noe that the earth is filled with iniquity and He will put an end to ALL flesh which is one indication that it was indeed a worldwide flood.

Genesis 6:8-13, 17 "But Noe found grace before the Lord. 9 These are the generations of Noe: Noe was  a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God. 10 And he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japeth. 11 And the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.) 13 He said to Noe: the end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth." 17 Behold I will bring the waters of a great flood upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, under heaven. All things that are in the earth shall be consumed."

The phrases,  the earth is "filled" with iniquity and "all" flesh was corrupted blow away the idea of a local flood. For probably as much as a thousand years before leading to the time of Noe, religious life was just about non-existent. It wasn't only the local northern Iraq area where the earth was filled with iniquity..it was life (all flesh) all over the world that had corrupted its way upon the earth.   

The other proof comes in the single verse of 7:20 which if taken at face value proves indisputably that the flood was universal.

you know, if you want to be credible AND take the bible literally you should quote the original hebrew (or... latin? for new testement) instead of the translation of a translation of a...