Changes

:::: Not at all.  My response amounts to "When an assertion is made concerning the original meaning of the Bible, and when this assertion conflicts with observed evidence, it is likely that the assertion is in error."  I must confess to not even being sure of which passage you're referring to, as the only passage I can think of offhand that mentions the breath of life in conjunction with the nostrils is Genesis 7:22--and no translation of Genesis 7:22 I have ever read makes "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." a benchmark for all that is living.  In fact, it immediately links that qualifier to "...of all that was in the dry land."  If there is another line I'm overlooking elsewhere, please feel free to point it out; while I study the Bible, I do not claim to have it committed perfectly to memory, and it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking the line on which you base your argument.

:::: Not at all.  My response amounts to "When an assertion is made concerning the original meaning of the Bible, and when this assertion conflicts with observed evidence, it is likely that the assertion is in error."  I must confess to not even being sure of which passage you're referring to, as the only passage I can think of offhand that mentions the breath of life in conjunction with the nostrils is Genesis 7:22--and no translation of Genesis 7:22 I have ever read makes "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." a benchmark for all that is living.  In fact, it immediately links that qualifier to "...of all that was in the dry land."  (There's also Genesis 2:7, but that's referring exclusively to Adam, so I can't imagine it's the basis of your claim.) If there is another line I'm overlooking elsewhere, please feel free to point it out; while I study the Bible, I do not claim to have it committed perfectly to memory, and it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking the line on which you base your argument.

::::Moreover, I can observe that the definition you offered ("The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.")  seems rather strongly at odds with Genesis 1:20, which establishes that the creatures brought forth from the water had life.  You could add the qualifier that this only applies to creatures on dry land, as per Genesis 7:22, but as I already pointed out, Genesis 7:22 does not establish that only those creatures that had the breath of life in their nostrils were alive; merely that the ones who did and were on dry land all died.  It would be possible to argue that "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" is in the poetic mode, and meant to refer to a broader range of respiration than strictly the nostrils, but that would also undermine the definition offered.  

::::Moreover, I can observe that the definition you offered ("The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.")  seems rather strongly at odds with Genesis 1:20, which establishes that the creatures brought forth from the water had life.  You could add the qualifier that this only applies to creatures on dry land, as per Genesis 7:22, but as I already pointed out, Genesis 7:22 does not establish that only those creatures that had the breath of life in their nostrils were alive; merely that the ones who did and were on dry land all died.  It would be possible to argue that "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" is in the poetic mode, and meant to refer to a broader range of respiration than strictly the nostrils, but that would also undermine the definition offered.