Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

Hi Edge

Edge writes: However, it would still be an assumption that the sun will appear in the east each morning. At the same time, it is a pretty well supported assumption.

But it does not appear at the same time each morning.

Edge writes: Such a displacement is not even an assumption. It is a fantasy. There are no forces on earth that could do that except magic.

Who said anything about a force on earth.

The force that holds the universe together would have no problem moving them and it would not be magic. I think you would probably call that force dark energy or dark matter.

God Bless,

Hi ringo

ringo writes: The Bible doesn't say that either. When the earth was divided in the time of Peleg (Genesis 10:25), it clearly refers to the division of nations (Genesis 10:32), which clearly refers to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).

quote:

---

Genesis
11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

---

The Hebrew word פוץ is translated scattered and scatter in these verses, and means, scatter or disperse.

quote:

---

Genesis 10:25 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.

---

The Hebrew word פלג is used in this verse and translated divided. The definition is to divide or split.

ringo writes: It has nothing to do with continental drift. The Bible didn't predict continental drift. Nobody thought of interpreting it that way until after continental drift was confirmed by science. You're trying to reverse-engineer agreement of the Bible with science.

Well I read Genesis in August 1949 and believed the same then as I do now. I believed God and accepted His free full pardon and turned my life over to Him.

I led a prayer meeting 2 months later and talked about God dividing the earth in the days of Peleg. So later in 1955 when I read about Pangea that confirmed by belief that land mass was in one place and God divided it in the days of Peleg.

With the two different Hebrew words used in Genesis 10:25 and then in Genesis 11:8, 9 there is no way the text in Genesis 10:25 can be translated as the nations or people being dispersed over the land mass.

God Bless,

With the two different Hebrew words used in Genesis 10:25 and then in Genesis 11:8, 9 there is no way the text in Genesis 10:25 can be translated as the nations or people being dispersed over the land mass.

Of course it can. The fact that two different words are used does not mean that the same meaning was not meant in both places. It is merely one argument in favor of your position. Arguments against your conclusion include the fact that the Bible does not describe the kind of catastrophic events that might be associated with the rapid movement of contents required under your scenario.

Well I read Genesis in August 1949 and believed the same then as I do now.

I understand. I'm not going to undertake another interminable argument along these lines.

The force that holds the universe together would have no problem moving them and it would not be magic. I think you would probably call that force dark energy or dark matter.

You think incorrectly.

Again, dark energy and dark matter are not the same thing. Dark energy in particular tends to push the universe apart. We've had this discussion before.

ABE:

But it [the sun] does not appear at the same time each morning.

So what? How does that affect the nature of assumptions? The time of sunrise for any given day can be calculated decades in advance based on assumptions which have been verified by evidence.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

ICANT writes: With the two different Hebrew words used in Genesis 10:25 and then in Genesis 11:8, 9 there is no way the text in Genesis 10:25 can be translated as the nations or people being dispersed over the land mass.

Of course it CAN be translated that way and it always IS translated that way. Can you cite any translation that agrees with you?

The translators don't ignore the context like you do. As I pointed out, Genesis 10:32 uses the same word "divided" and clearly associates the division with the families of the sons of Noah. It was the people who were divided, not the land.

But even IF the Bible mentioned continental drift, it is NOT something that we would expect to be associated with the Flood.

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: Of course it can. The fact that two different words are used does not mean that the same meaning was not meant in both places.

quote:

---

Genesis 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

The Hebrew word פוץ is translated scattered and scatter in these verses, and means, scatter or disperse.

---

quote:

---

Genesis 10:25 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.

The Hebrew word פלג is used in this verse and translated divided. The definition is to divide or split.

---

But the two Hebrew words do not mean the same thing. Did you even read my post?

Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: The time of sunrise for any given day can be calculated decades in advance based on assumptions which have been verified by evidence.

What assumptions are you referring too?

The sun don't rise.

The earth rotates on it's axis taking 23 hours 56 minutes, and 4 seconds to make a complete rotation.

That is the reason the sun appears at different times.

That is the reason the appearance of the sun for any place on earth can be figured out for any date in the future.

No assumptions are required.

God Bless,

Hi ringo

ringo writes: As I pointed out, Genesis 10:32 uses the same word "divided" and clearly associates the division with the families of the sons of Noah.

Your Hebrew needs a lot of work.

The Hebrew word פרד means separate. Genesis 10:32
The Hebrew word פלג means divided or split. Genesis 10:25

ringo writes: It was the people who were divided, not the land.

The people were separated not divided or split.

ringo writes: But even IF the Bible mentioned continental drift, it is NOT something that we would expect to be associated with the Flood.

Well the Bible don't mention continental drift. It just states that in the days (during his lifetime) of Peleg the earth was divided.

That would have been at least 100 years after the flood.

God Bless,

I recommend that you look this stuff up instead of guessing. Because your erroneous statements here erode confidence in your ability to state facts in general. If you get everyday stuff that folks can check this wrong, why would anyone believe you when you talk about something we cannot check such as what the Hebrew text of the Bible says.

The sun don't rise.

And?

I did not describe the sun as rising. I referred to the time of sunrise which is the time at which the apparent altitude of the sun's upper limb has increased to be at 0 degrees above the horizon. If you want to argue that the term "sunrise" means that the sun is actually rising rather than apparently rising, what should I understand about your credibility when you talk to me about the meaning of the term "divide".

The earth rotates on it's axis taking 23 hours 56 minutes, and 4 seconds to make a complete rotation. That is the reason the sun appears at different times.

No that is not even close to an adequate explanation for the sun appearing at different times each day. If your explanation was correct then sunrise would be earlier and earlier each day, eventually over time evolving to have the sun rise at midnight. But that is not what you have observed in Florida or I have observed in North Carolina.

ABE:

Your explanation would apply to distant stars, but not to the sun.
end ABE:

By way of example, the time of sunrise in my location is 6:38 today. Yesterday it was 6:37. Not quite what your explanation would predict.

The reason for the variation in sunrise time has three major components.

1: The earth's tilt causes variation in the length of the day light at different places on the earth at different points on the earth's orbit. When the length of daylight is long, that corresponds to an early sunrise. Short periods of daylight correspond to late sunrises (and early sunsets). The amount of variation depends on your latitude. The earth's tilt also varies slowly over time.

2: The speed of the earth's revolution about the sun varies at different places in the earth's orbit which means that the amount of extra rotation of the earth required to place the sun at the horizon changes throughout the year. This variation affects everybody on earth that observes a sunrise regardless of location.

3: Yes the fact that the sun's rotation is 3.9 minutes short of 24 hours plays no role at all in the explanation. In fact if we removed the earth's tilt and the variation in orbital speed, the length of a solar day would be a constant value just a tiny bit short (about 2 milliseconds) of 24 hours even based on the current definition of one second. I won't bother with that explanation. We've discussed the "leap second" before.

What assumptions are you referring too?

Newton's three laws, theory of gravitation according to Einstein or Newton, known (measured) positions of the earth and all of the planets in their orbits at given times, earth's rotation speed, the speed of light. Verified/observed stuff like that.

Given information of the time above, we can calculate the positions of earth and the solar system planets and the time of their apparent rising and setting at times in the future. I have authored smartphone programs that display the positions of planets and stars for any time between 1900 to 2050 as seen from any place on earth, so I know what is required.

ABE:

Tying this into the topic. The point is that you definition of 'assumption' is pretty peculiar. Even if we accepted your erroneous explanation, there is an underlying assumption that the earth's rotation remains constant over time. Yes, that is what we expect based on Newton's laws of motion, but even those descriptions of physics are assume to apply universally.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The people were separated not divided or split.

How can you even write sentences like that without seeing the readily apparent issue? All three of those English words could easily be used to describe folks being dispersed and forming distinct nations after the incident at Babel. I cannot think of a better way to undercut your own argument.

See messasge 205.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

ICANT writes: Your Hebrew needs a lot of work. The Hebrew word ôøã means separate. Genesis 10:32 The Hebrew word ôìâ means divided or split. Genesis 10:25

Your English needs a lot of work. Separate, divided and split all mean the same thing, which the translators understood even if you do not.

ICANT writes: Well the Bible don't mention continental drift. It just states that in the days (during his lifetime) of Peleg the earth was divided.

You can't just ignore the context. Genesis 10 starts with the generations of Noah and ends with the generations of Noah. Verse 5 says that the Gentiles were divided by their tongues. The next chapter tells how the nations were divided by their tongues at Babel.

Two chapters talking about division of people and no mention at all about division of continents. And nothing to do with the Flood.

Just to cause more arguing....

Genesis 10:25 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. The Hebrew word ôìâ is used in this verse and translated divided. The definition is to divide or split.

What is the exact meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "earth" in the verse? Is it earth as in dirt or earth as in planet? Did the Israelites have a concept of the earth as an object floating in space?

Literalism doesn't work if the verse talks about splitting the planet like a tomato. We are obviously on a single chunk floating in space.

Are we assuming that the Hebrew earth in the verse is the same modern meaning as the surface of the planet?

What is the exact meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "earth" in the verse? Is it earth as in dirt or earth as in planet? Did the Israelites have a concept of the earth as an object floating in space?

I'm pretty sure it meant just the land. How does that help resolve the controversy?Is it your view that because the term means dirt that that 'divide' is more likely/less likely to mean a splitting into continents? If so, your reasoning is not readily apparent to me.

Hi dm

dm writes: What is the exact meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "earth" in the verse? Is it earth as in dirt or earth as in planet? Did the Israelites have a concept of the earth as an object floating in space?

The water was called seas.
The dry land mass was called earth.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

---

The dry land mass that made up the continental plates is what was divided.

God Bless,