Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
Where earth means 'land mass'. So the land mass was of one language?
Does earth erets always mean land mass?
I find it to mean land, whole earth (planet) and inhabitants.
We Know in Genesis 1:9, 10 it does because God says so because He is talking about the dry land.
But in Genesis 6:11 I don't think God was referring to the land mass when He said:
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Because He clarified what He was saying in 6:12.
And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Seems like God was referring to the inhabitants were corrupted and not the land mass.
Since the earth has no method of human speech I get the idea that He was talking about the human inhabitants on earth in Genesis 11:1.
You can continue with the silly earth talking bit if you wish.
Modulous writes:
Yes, it means division. The problem is with the context
Are you saying Peleg's name in the generations is out of place and not in context.
The definition of his name being given has nothing to do with context of chapter 10.
This was written quite some time after the events.
So it is just a statement of fact recorded.
Modulous writes:
Genesis 10:5 writes:
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands {eretz}; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Genesis 10:31-31 writes:
These [are] the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands {eretz}, after their nations.
And here we are talking about land, a piece of ground district, region, or tribal territory. Not total land mass.
Modulous writes:
Genesis 10:20 writes:
These [are] the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries {eretz}, [and] in their nations.
Here it is talking about a country or territory. Not total land mass
There is nothing in Genesis 10:25 to qualify earth as anything other than the land mass. It is not talking about somebody's property or country.
It only gives the definition of Peleg's name.
Modulous writes:
If you want to, you can like many amateurs since plate tectonics was discovered, translate this single verse to be talking about the breaking up of Pangea.
I don't know anything about the breaking up of Pangea and I don't know of anybody who does.
There was nobody there to record the event.
Nobody knows what Pangea looked like.
We don't even know when it happened.
There are a lot of things that have been stated based upon man's assumptions. But assumptions are the notions of man.
Modulous writes:
If we were talking about continents spreading out over the globe, why not use פרד - parad - which seems much closer to the idea you are trying to bring into the text since it implies spreading out, scattering abroad, to sunder, to seperate. Rather than just the small division a 'channel' might be imply.
That is the word used in Genesis 11:8 where the people was scattered over the face of the earth.
What would the land mass be spread out over?
It could only be divided.
It had to have the canals and channel's such as the Pacific ocean the Atlantic Ocean, Fla. straights, English channel, etc. for the land to be divided.
Modulous writes:
They would agree with you because they love finding 'proofs' that the Bible predicted scientific facts before science did!
But I believe in an old earth. Therefore I don't need the type of flood they have to have. Mine could have been one that left no trace.
But if the earth was divided in the days of Peleg there would be no trace of a world wide flood. Only a bunch of local floods. (Which is what is found)
So no they could not agree without denouncing everything they believe about creation.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
™ Version 4.2