Earth of Genesis 1:9

Hi GM, Why imagine that. It does not say that.But if you had two Pangea's the water would not be gathered into one place. It does not say the water was in more than one place either.Do you have any evidence as to what Pangea looked like? Great we are making progress.But if the land mass was not in one place how could that be accomplished? Why?Moses was not writing a science book.He was writing a book for God's people to learn from, that they might seek after God and find Him. The only thing I have asserted is that the Bible says what it says. Which I presented the scriptures into evidence for in the OP.In the quote above I was answering a question you asked.But my belief has no bearing on what the Bible says.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."

Oh dear... It's a damn hypothetical example. It's meant to illustrate a point, a point which you have clearly missed. No-one is suggesting that there were two Pangeas.Look, perhaps you could provide us with an explanation of exactly what you mean by "gathered in one place". What do you understand this to mean? Please be aware that if you reply "It means that they where gathered in one place." I will come for you in the small hours and shove a bat down your pyjamas. You have made it quite clear that you are not interested in evidence, so I don't really see why I should bother. Do your own homwork. We are? Clearly it couldn't. That's not really my problem is it though? I'm not the one claiming that any of this actually happened. So far as I am concerned, the whole thing is a ridiculous fable, whichever way you choose to interpret it.Besides, you're content to invoke a miracle of spectacular proportions for your version, so why the reticence for the mainstream version? How did they get scattered? I dunno. Maybe God teleported them. Maybe he flew them around the globe in a magic helicopter. Who cares? It was a miracle.Either that or just a very silly story that never actually happened. If you are going to take that attitude, why include the Flud? I think that the uprooting of most of the Earth's continents would be a pretty convincing bit of evidence of God's worth. The Bible is fond of holding up God's various achievements as evidence of his glory. Why miss this one out? It makes no sense. Please stop saying this. You are making yourself look a fool and wasting everyone's time. We all agree on what the Bible says, in terms of its text. If that were all that you were alleging, there would be no disagreement. The bone of contention here is your interpretation of what the text says. That is what people are disagreeing with.You seem to be saying that you want to confine the discussion to whether or not your interpretation is an accurate assessment of the meaning of the text. You also seem to be saying that you are not interested in any discussion of whether these events really occurred or not. Is that fair?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Mod, 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: Because He clarified what He was saying in 6:12. 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. 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. And here we are talking about land, a piece of ground district, region, or tribal territory. Not total land mass. Here it is talking about a country or territory. Not total land massThere 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. 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. 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. 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."

Hi GM, I think my avatar would demonstrate the water being in one place. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not and it makes no difference whether I believe it or not.I ask the questions in the OP did the KJV Bible say the things I put forth.You keep wanting to argue if it is true or a fable. I did not mention anything about a Flud or flood in the OP.I did mention it concerning Kent and why he could not agree with me. The scriptures say God confounded the language so they naturally got off into places where they could understand the people around them.You ever wonder why we have out China town, and little Havana's in our large cities. Maybe it is because they understand the language there.And Peleg had about 73,000 days (200 years) left that the earth could be divided in. Then why do you keep telling me the water was not all in one place then? (Land was not in one place) Genesis 1:9 10.You did agree that the people were scattered over the face of the earth as it says in Genesis 11:9.You also say the earth was not divided. Genesis 10:25.You said in Message 3 "Yes, divided into nations."Genesis 10:25 does not infer or state nations.So no we don't agree on what the Bible says.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."

quote:

---

I think my avatar would demonstrate the water being in one place.

---

When I first read that statement, your avatar was a picture of horses. I was hoping that the horse was going to explain what you mean. It would probably do no worse a job.Tell me this; if a body of water with one land mass in it is "in one place", why is a body of water with two land masses in it not "in one place"? Please explain in detail.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not and it makes no difference whether I believe it or not.

​

I ask the questions in the OP did the KJV Bible say the things I put forth.

​

You keep wanting to argue if it is true or a fable.

---

You asked! You asked; Don't get the hump because I answer your questions. You asked how it could be achieved. I told you that it couldn't be achieved without a miracle. This is the same as your interpretation, which also could not be achieved without a miracle.If you don't want to talk about the feasibility of either idea, don't ask me about it.

quote:

---

I did not mention anything about a Flud or flood in the OP.

---

I am merely using that as an example. If one Earth-shattering miracle is given such an extensive treatment, I see no reason why another even more impressive and literally Earth-shattering miracle should be mentioned in such an off-hand and cryptic fashion.

quote:

---

The scriptures say God confounded the language so they naturally got off into places where they could understand the people around them.

---

Which only serves to underline the fact that these verses are talking about separating languages and nations, not the continents.

quote:

---

And Peleg had about 73,000 days (200 years) left that the earth could be divided in.

---

I've no idea what you're talking about. Don't quote mine me ICANT. Also, if you are going to quote mine someone, it's best not to do it back to the person you quote mined. They are going to notice.As I made clear before, we agree on what the Bible says in terms of the words used in the text. What we disagree on is what those words mean.I agree that Genesis says that all the water was in one place. I do not agree that it says that the land was in one place, because it does not say this. That is your assertion.

quote:

---

You also say the earth was not divided. Genesis 10:25.

​

You said in Message 3 "Yes, divided into nations."

​

Genesis 10:25 does not infer or state nations.

---

So you're going to quote mine the Bible as well? Nice.The implication (not inference, please note the difference) is clearly that Genesis is referring to division of nations, since it is followed by this; You are over-reaching. You're theory is at odds with reality and it is even at odds with the Bible. Quit torturing the poor damn Bible already. It's suffered enough.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi GM, The water has two holes in it. Woops that one went right by me.In Message 16You said they were divided into separate nations with separate languages across the face of the earth?I asked how could that be if the land mass was not all in one place.I don't want to get confused as to what you are saying so correct me if this is wrong.Are you saying your answer was and is "I told you that it couldn't be achieved without a miracle." I have no problem with Genesis 10:32 saying the families of Noah's sons was divided in the earth.
They were not all involved in the tower of Babel.I have no problem with Genesis 11:1 saying there was one language.
I have no problem with Genesis 11:8 saying the people were scattered over the face of the earth.I do have a problem with a man's name meaning the nations were scattered over the face of the earth.The definition of Peleg is channel, canal or division. He was named that because in his days the earth was divided. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg.After the language was confounded at Babel Peleg lived another 200 years. That means the people had plenty of time to disperse all over the face of the earth before it was divided. Has there ever been a time that the land mass was all in one place? Yes/NoGod 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."

I asked for a detailed explanation;

quote:

---

The water has two holes in it.

---

That was all I got.I don't get it. Why is two holes the magic number where the water is suddenly no longer "in one place"? What is it about a contiguous mass of water with one hole in it that makes it "in one place", whilst a contiguous mass of water with with two holes in it is not "in one place"? And if you were a little more generous with the detail this time, I'd appreciate it.

quote:

---

Are you saying your answer was and is "I told you that it couldn't be achieved without a miracle."

---

Pretty much yes. If we are talking about the real world, it could not be achieved without divine intervention of some kind. There is no way that the people could have been scattered to the Americas for example.Of course, as you already know, I do not believe that the Bible authors had a modern view of the Earth; they did not know that it was spherical for example. Something else that they did not know of was the existence of distant continents. To them, the known world was the entire world and, as far as they knew, it was one contiguous land mass. From their perspective there would have been no problem envisaging a mass migration over land. That would have seemed, to them, like spreading over the entire Earth. The "America problem" would not have existed for them.So in summary, a mass migration over the entire Earth would, from our perspective, clearly be impossible. It would require a miracle. From the perspective of the authors however, it would probably not have seemed problematic.I hope that's clear enough.

quote:

---

I have no problem with Genesis 10:32 saying the families of Noah's sons was divided in the earth.

---

You very much do have a problem. The problem is the the division, upon which you are hanging your case (Gen 10:25) is directly referenced at the end of the chapter and it explicitely describes it as being related to nationhood. You are attempting to hand wave this away and it won't wash.

quote:

---

I do have a problem with a man's name meaning the nations were scattered over the face of the earth.

​

The definition of Peleg is channel, canal or division. He was named that because in his days the earth was divided.

---

But there is nothing to suggest that the division was physical. The name is clearly symbolic, but there is no reason to suppose that it symbolises a physical division of the land. There is a clear and pressing reason to believe that it symbolises a division between nations, as it explicitely says at the end of the chapter.

quote:

---

After the language was confounded at Babel Peleg lived another 200 years. That means the people had plenty of time to disperse all over the face of the earth before it was divided.

---

I see what you mean. this does not support your theory. For people to migrate to the ends of the known Earth (as per the knowledge of the times) would have taken a long time, but it could have been accomplished in well under two hundred years.If God simply moved the continents, he could have done it in an instant. No time needed.

quote:

---

Has there ever been a time that the land mass was all in one place? Yes/No

---

I thought you weren't interested in evidence. I would certainly not advise you to try and involve the real world in this discussion. The evidence for humans on Pangea is, shall we say, sparse. Humans were a bit thin on the ground during the Paleozoic.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi GM, I asked a simple question.I was given a song and dance.So I will ask one more time and you can take your time to answer I will not be back from Grand Cayman until Friday.Has there ever been a time that the land mass was all in one place? Yes/NoNo explanations just a Yes or No.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."

Fine, if that's what you want...Yes there indeed was a time when the Earth's land was in one single mass. That time was 250 million years ago. That's about 249.9 million years before humans existed.Congratulations, you just disproved your own theory. You can stop torturing that poor Bible now.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Great, so you agree that the surrounding verses of the one in question are discussing the division of territories and that they use the word 'eretz' in this context. The above being the case (you know the possible problems of just translating languages on a sentence by sentence basis right?), why do you think this one singular sentence refers to some kind of otherwise undescribed breakup of the continents while all the other ones are talking about the division of humanity into territories, nations languages etc using the exact same word (eretz)? That doesn't make sense. Why could there not be a global flood followed a division of continents a few generations later? We're talking about God here, right? We're talking about Young Earth Creationists - it doesn't have to make sense, right?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It doesn't matter how many people [dis]agree with your argument. Argument from Popularity Let us delve deeper into this matter:Legend: {"Hebrew" "Pronunciation" "English Transliteration"}
Brackets [ ] demonstrate insertions for supposed clarity.Gen 1:9 And God {אֱלֹהִים aleim Elohim} said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place[יִקָּווּ iquu flown together / הַמַּיִם e-mim the waters], and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.Land is not mentioned at all in verse 9, but is assumed as it mentions "her" eruption from the sea. Also, it is important to notice that the "one place" is not entirely correlated within the Hebrew text, which clearly states that the water had "flown together".Gen 1:10 And God {אֱלֹהִים aleim Elohim} called the dry [land]{אֶרֶץ artz land} Earth ; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God {אֱלֹהִים aleim Elohim} saw that [it was] good.[/qs]Here the Hebrew text actually mentions land as "artz", as opposed to Gen 1:9 where it is inserted. All throughout the creation account Elohim is referenced. Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel {בָּבֶל bbl Babylon}; because the LORD {יְהוָה ieue Yahweh} did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD {יְהוָה ieue Yahweh} scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth {הָאָרֶץ -eartz the earth}.Babylon is the commonly accepted reference for Babel. The KJV interpretation omitted the commonly found shorthand reference to Babylon {bbl}. Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided {נִפְלְגָה nphlge she was distributed / הָאָרֶץ eartz theland} ; and his brother's name was Joktan.Clearly Gen 10:25 is referring to the land being distributed. Not so fast. I clearly demonstrated that a transliteration from the original Hebrew reveals the waters to have simply "flown together", which would lead one to believe it to be a confluence {Gen 1:10 וּלְמִקְוֵה emim andtoconfluence-of / הַמַּיִם emim thewaters}
"...and to confluence of the waters". This would lead one to believe that the waters simply flowed one into the other, which is completely consistent with our current Earth. You must realize that the Hebrew term {הָאָרֶץ eartz} is only so far as the Hebrew knowledge of the Earth was. An excellent example of this would be Alexander the Great having been recorded as conquering the world, when in reality he merely conquered a small fraction of our known world. In fact, this is even further emphasized within Isaiah when the Earth is referred to as a circle, which was the common conception of the Earth as being several circles, growing in diameter the further you traveled from the central kingdom. This is a blatantly ignorant statement. Why do you feel so qualified to interpret the original author's intention, when you have shown to have gone no further than the KJV? The text says as you quoted, it was your interpretation that was incorrect. Yes, as I have demonstrated. This is irrelevant. Please investigate the history of the Bible, and attempt to understand the books it contains in their original context and language. Who are you to give the blessings of God?

Hi GM, So we agree that at one time the land mass was in one single mass.Me because my Bible tells me in Genesis 1:9 that God had the water to assemble together in one place. Leaving something dry which could only have been land.You haven't stated your reason for believing all the land mass was in one place.You did assert: What is this assertion bassed upon?You will forgive me if I don't take your word for it won't you? Its a little early to claim victory.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."

Hi Mod, But Genesis 10:25 has nothing to do with anything in the verses around it.It states a man had a son and explains why his name was Peleg. But the kind of flood they are talking about divided the land mass.Leaving them with the problem of all the animals and people being on just one of those pieces of land.Which would create a problem of transportation.But as you stated why does it have to make sense.You see my version has all the land in one place.Man was scattered over the face of the earth.The animals had naturally scattered.Then the earth was divided instantly.Which would account for people and animals being on all land masses, as they had around 350 years to scatter as all were not at Babel.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."

Last Two Hundred Years of Geology, I'd like you to meet ICANT. ICANT, Last Two Hundred Years of Geology. Odd you hadn't bumped into each other before now, but there you go.If you click the "Forums" button at the top of the page you will be able to find threads that address this question.Alternatively, you could try looking down the rest of the intertubes. Some of them go far. The echo is fantastic. If you shout something like "Dive! Dive!" it's almost like being in a submarine.There is always the option of reading a text book on the subject.Or phone your local university.Or is it your feeling that every discussion must restart from somewhere in the general vicinity of "How do I know I'm really here?"But I digress, let's pretend for a moment that you are capable of thinking and rererereaddress this point: Is the Pacific Ocean a single body of water? Is it in one place? How many islands does it have?Bust a gut.Capt.---------------------------------------------------------------I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance.
Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit;
touch it, and the bloom is gone.- Oscar Wilde
---------------------------------------------------------------

---

Is it getting solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

Hi Michamus,Welcome to EvC. I am a son of God and as such His servant.I can ask my Father to bless anyone whom I desire.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."