The TRVE history of the Flood...

DavidJay is a zealot who proclaims victory with every post. When you are on that kind of 'winning streak' you might stick around for quite a while.

It is our tradition here not to respond to the moderator when he gives us direction.No excuses, no explanation. We can make any follow up remarks in the proper forums or directly to the moderator through PM.The moderator has been extremely patient with you so far...

I note that what is left once you start making truthful statements is a substantially weaker argument for accuracy. According to Ussher's chronology, the Exodus was about 850 years post flood. Shem, who is described as living to about 600 apparently did not overlap with Moses at all. Abraham did not write the Torah, and did not overlap with Moses.Your correction leaves a gaping hole in your argument. Moses recorded oral stories about the Flood and did not overlap with any witnesses. Moses connection with Adam and Eve is even more tenuous and to the days before the creation of man, of course there is no connection.

Even with your correction, the result is a bit of a stretch. Moses authorship of the Torah is tradition, rather than something actually something stated in the Bible.

ICANT, we've had the discussion before. You have never been able to show that divide could not apply to separating folks rather than separating dirt. All you have been able to show is your own stubbornness on the issue.Further, your past discussions with arachno-guy have left the impression that you are not to be taken as an unquestioned expert on Hebrew. Beyond that, I know there is no semantic position that you won't take in lieu of providing evidence for your own translation. Nobody needs to take anything you say seriously until you provide some support for your own offerings. Your own personal word does not cut it.

No magic...What word would you use instead for moving a continent at greater than the speed of light... supernatural? Unearthly?The term I would use is "made up without any Biblical support".Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Just what else did the Bible author get wrong?In fact, if the author was not omniscient, how would he know anything about the Flood? Or about creation. How far do you want to go with this?I'll take it one step further. If the writer was fallible, then why do you lean on word choice the way you do. Maybe the whole thing is just wrong.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why would it have to be instantly? Nothing in the Bible requires that. Of course you've already acknowledge making up a time of a nanosecond. Why could it not have been in two seconds? Or in an hour? Fortunately, God left you to fill in the details for us. Am I right? You must be the most evasive poster ever to scribe here. Apparently posting a direct answer to a question is some kind of losing proposition for you.Again, you tell us that the author of the Bible was not omniscient and your interpretation even assumes that the author was mistaken. Given that, and your propensity to make up the details, perhaps I should continue the discussion with people who at least have a reason for what they say.

Easily answered. Consider the third cited usage: So why would this be a literal splitting of the tongue and not a request to separate folks as was done in the Tower of Babel incident? This is not my argument, but the one given by AIG. Did the Continents Split Apart in the Days of Peleg? | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

Palag

​

This Hebrew word palag is used only three times in Scripture outside of Genesis 10. In 1 Chronicles 1:19 it repeats Genesis 10:25. In one case it refers to a splitting of a water channel when it overflows in poetic Job 38:25. The other usage is in Psalm 55:9 where it refers to splitting of people. David was speaking of his enemies and was asking the Lord to judge them with the splitting of their tongues. Obviously, David was conjuring thoughts of the Tower of Babel and tongue-shifting there.

​

Peleg’s name was a direct derivation of palag, and considering the context of Genesis 10, it makes sense this Hebrew name was indeed referring to the linguistic division. So there would be no reason to distance from this plain interpretation.

---

Given the paucity of usages in the text, with at least two of the four having context suggesting the same interpretation, your argument cannot be considered conclusive.And of course there is also the issue that we know that the Bible does tell us that the folks of earth were scattering according to language, so saying that David asking that the same thing be done to his detractors is at least reasonable.I would further add that the usage to mean splitting of a water course really does not serve your purpose very well. You don't need to split a land mass to divide a water course. I don't see any reason why a word that means to divide a people could not also be used to talking about dividing up a water course, and you have not made a case that it does not.