Earth of Genesis 1:9

Hi ICANT,from your post in the other thread you seem to be saying that in the days of Peleg the land mass was a whole because of Gen 10:25.You are literally interpreting 'earth' to mean 'land' in these versus. Earth is not always with reference to the land. The hebrew word is Eret`s and it is used in the bible to mean the land, the earth as opposed to the heavens but also to mankind, the people of earth.an example of where it clearly means 'mankind' is at Gen 11:1

quote:

---

"Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words"

---

Then VS 7

quote:

---

"Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not listen to one another’s language"

---

so it is with the scripture in Genesis 10:25

quote:

---

" earth was divided in the days of Peleg"

---

it is more likely that the 'EARTH' in this context is referring to the 'PEOPLE' and not the land.The Hebrew word/name 'Peleg' literally means 'Division' (im sure you're aware that names had very specific meanings back then)
Peleg was born after the flood and 'during the days when the earth was 'divided' or scattered.This could easily be associated to the incident that happened at Babel when the languages were confused and the people scattered. The 'division' would be the people who became divided and scattering abroad. Peleg lived during the time of the building of Babel and would have witnessed the confusion of languages. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Actually, I think it's probably one of the most sensible things a Creationist can say; acceptance without evidence because the Bible says so is way more rational than the perversions of reality presented by the Creation "Scientists".

Good Morning Capt, The assertion mentioned was Granny's statement, "Yes there indeed was a time when the Earth's land was in one single mass." in Message 24So are you contridicting your first statement with this question?Or was there a time that all land mass was in one place?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."

So you are interpreting it out of the context that it sits in, then - by your own admission.It has absolutely nothing to do with Genesis 10:24, for example which talks about Arphaxad having a child called Salah and Salah having a child called Eber. And indeed you think it is completely divorced from 10:20-24 which is talking about people having children. Absolutely unrelated to. According to you, these three verses are not related to one another at all!

quote:

---

And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name [was] Joktan.
And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,

---

And that line of begating is completely divorced from

quote:

---

These [are] the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
These [are] the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood

---

That's fine - you can read it whatever way you want. As long as you are comfortable with nobody else agreeing with you that 10:25 is nothing to do with the verses around it. Its not a problem, though is it? We're talking about God here, the God that created everything with a word. The same God that you think divided the Earth instantly. They would say you had a problem with how the Earth was divided.You would say 'but God can do just about anything' and they would say 'does that include distributing animals around the world?'Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

there certainly would have been and it would most likely have been in the beginning when God began his creative 'days'but after the Flood, the earth would have been dramatically changed from that point on and if the land was still in one place before the flood, it certainly wasn't afterward.So during the days of Peleg in the post flood world, the earth would have already been divided by ocean.But the language of the people was still one.

Hi Peg, After all those years in Hebrew class I do understand the names of people was specific.You did not give the rest of the meaning of Peleg which is division, canal, or channel. Some might say that is the meaning of the root word. Well the root word is the one translated Peleg.Peleg was born about 30 to 50 years prior to Babel and lived almost 200 years after Babel. Therefore the people had almost 200 years to scatter from the tower of Babel. Other's had already scattered out.I do not see earth meaning inhabitants in Genesis 10:25.How do you put channels and canals in people by dividing them?If it was simply the scattering of the people why was his name Peleg?If it meant scatter or disperse his name would have been Puwts.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, Only that they are in the same group of generations.The definition of Peleg's name is just that a definition of his name.These verses are not a story.They are statements of facts. But what scripture would they use?Oh I know, they don't need one.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."

you dont.The way you are interpreting it makes no sense to me.the post flood world would already have been split apart, divided by the huge amount of water that it received during the flood.So it makes no sense that 70 odd years after the flood, God decides he needs to divide up the land. Why would he need to do that?It is most likely that during the days of Peleg (100 odd years after the flood) the people decide to build a tower of religious signifigance at a place called Babel, as genesis says, and God puts a stop to it by 'dividing' up their languages and scattering them as it says in Gen 11:1-9

Hi Peg, Glad to see you agree that the land mass was in one place at one time. And what do you base this statement on?Have you ever read about the Bay of Fundy?The difference from high tide to low tide is 55' the max on record is over 68 feet. It hasn't washed away yet.There is nothing in the Bible that states the earth was divided in the days of the flood that I can find.Do you have anything?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."

But all the facts are related to each other, except, you claim, this one single fact. All the other facts are related to the generations of Noah and how they came to form their own nations, lands, languages etc and they came to spread out. Then, for less than a single sentence (you claim) the author decides to tell us that the land mass of the earth was split apart, before the author goes on to resume the discussion of the sons of Shem after their lands after their families after their tongues.Sure thing, ICANT. That is what the author meant to convey. Which is why almost every human that has ever read that section picked up on it. It's the verse right after God instantly divides the landmass of the earth.

Which is addressed by the last 200 years of geology. Is there a particular part of that train of thought that you don't understand? No, yes.Science tells us that most of the earth's landmass was in one place many millions of years ago.The phrase in the Bible you are quoting does not. Please address my question: Does saying that the Pacific Ocean is in one place, or gathered together, mean that it can't have more than one island? If not, then why would the words of Genesis mean that?Let's try one more time: Could the words "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear" be used to describe a god creating the Pacific ocean? Complete with its several islands? (assume for a moment that it was the only ocean on the planet.)No one questions geology as currently understood, ie. that the continents were once contiguous. We are pointing out that the Bible does not say that.Awaiting your next oh-so-convenient-for-your-dead-in-the-water-idea "misunderstanding" of simple English with bated breath,Capt.----------------------------------------------------
"It is impossible to reason someone out of something
that he did not reason himself into in the first place."
- Jonathan Swift

Hi Peg, Are you basing this on the YEC flood model?Or,Are you basing it on the Bible?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 Capt, I have read a lot about Pangea.But how do you know it was millions of years ago? I know you are telling me the Bible I have studied for the last 60 years does not say God gathered all the water into one place leaving something that looks like my avatar.But the fact is that is exactly what Genesis 1:9 and 10 says.Meaning it agrees with geology that the land mass was in one place at one time. But as far as you and other are concerned the Bible can not be correct on anything because that might mean it is correct on other things.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."

See message #29. The consensus of those who study this question is widely published and easily accessible. If you have issues with it, go to a meeting. This thread is about your interpretation of language, remember? Another evasion of my direct question re the biblical description as it could be applied to the Pacific ocean. At what point would you consider it to be a fair assumption on my part that you are willfully prevaricating? You're pulling the age card on the wrong guy, Sport. I remember when the Bible still clearly explained why colored folk shouldn't be pastors. Whatever you do, do not apply this line of reasoning to yourself. Please. No, really, don't do it. The whiplash might kill you.Capt.----------------------------------------------
Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
- George Carlin

---

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

Believe what you want, but don't pretend the Bible supports an individual (without the proper priesthood authority) giving the blessings of God.Regardless, care to respond to the rest of my post? Seems you have a nasty habit of responding only to small, insignificant, off-topic parts of a persons post. I would certainly hope this isn't what is called a "stall" in debate.Regardless, silence in debate is commonly accepted as agreement, so unless you provide a rebuttal, it is typically assumed that you agree with the statements.Edited by Michamus, : No reason given.