Summations Only

Again, as I have pointed out to you several times now, that has NOTHING to do with the land being one continuous mass.It really is that simple.AbE:And just in case you also could not read what I wrote:Genesis 1 has NOTHING to do with the Biblical Flood Myths, was written hundreds of years later and by a different culture and tradition.Edited by jar, : Repeat information

Hi kbertsche, I don't think I have committed to a time frame yet.Right now I would like to determine if the text says all the land mass was in one place prior to the flood.And that the land mass was still in one place when the flood took place.And that the land mass was divided in the days of Peleg.Lets clear that up before we move on.So why don't you answer the post you are replying to in the post I am replying too.God Bless,

Hi jar,Yes I can read English and Hebrew also.Can you answer a question?All you have to do is say Yes or No.Does the following text say the water was gathered into one place? Yes/No

quote:

---

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

---

God Bless,

Again, as I have pointed out to you several times now, that has NOTHING to do with the land being one continuous mass.It really is that simple.AbE:And just in case you also could not read what I wrote:Genesis 1 has NOTHING to do with the Biblical Flood Myths, was written hundreds of years later and by a different culture and tradition.

Hi jar,
Yes I can read English and Hebrew also.Can you answer a question?All you have to do is say Yes or No.Does the following text say the water was gathered into one place? Yes/No

quote:

---

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

---

I read it, I just disagree with that assertion.If the land mass was in one place that would require a lot less water to cover it. The land mass would be much smaller than it is today and the sea level could have been much less than it is today.So yes it would have a lot to do with the flood of Noah. Yes you have asserted that several times already.So why don't you present your argumentation that there can be thousands of islands and the Aral Sea, Caspian Sea, Dead Sea, Sea of Galilee, Great Salt Lake, and the Salton Sea all of which are not connected to any ocean but all the water is still in one place according to you.God Bless,

Stop misrepresenting what I say.As I have pointed out to you several times now, that has NOTHING to do with the land being one continuous mass.It really is that simple.Genesis 1 has NOTHING to do with the Biblical Flood Myths, was written hundreds of years later and by a different culture and tradition.And I am not Alice; I do not go down Rabbit Holes no matter how attractive.

quote:

---

There is much confusion about what the Bible says about the flood of Noah.

---

Absolutely. Note that this is a pristine, technical writings - every word is important and impacting; nothing is superfluous; nothing is negatble.The fulcrum opening verse exposes this.

quote:

---

1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation.

---

Consider:SAID TO NOAH
The address was not to the world. If it was referred to all mankind, a warning would be given to all mankind - not just to Noah. Note that the term 'THIS GENERATION' refers only to the people in Noah's vicinity, namelt THIS region; THIS people.COME THOU AND ALL THY HOUSE
Only Noah's household; THY HOUSE refers only to Noah's possessions and his domestic animals.

quote:

---

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean two [and two], each with his mate; 3 of the fowl also of the air, seven and seven, male and female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

---

Note, no non-domestic animals are included - not a oner - no snakes, bears, crocodiles, tigers! Note the term 'ALL THE EARTH' does not refer to the whole world but only the region in Noah's immediate surrounds and what he was able to do. Proof:

quote:

---

5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

---

The term 'DID' [past tense] cannot possibly refer to the entire world; Noah did NOT collect ALL the animals of the earth. That the animals 'CAME' to Noah signifies these were domestic animals which knew their master. Lions and snakes do not do such; they would have to be rounded up for eons if this was meant. Note also:

quote:

---

7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the ground. 9 there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, male and female, as God commanded Noah.

---

Only Noah, his family and the animals referred to previously [no wild animals; domesticated owned animals are only listed]. Obviously, all the earth's animals could not fit into the dimensions of the boat - the reason the dimensions were specified.

quote:

---

10 And it came to pass after the seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

---

Do the math. Seven days is only supportive of a regional flood, listed here as 'THE EARTH'; read, earth here does not refer to the whole world!

quote:

---

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

---

Here, WINDOWS OF HEAVEN refers to rain, exactly as it would rain in your hometown when the windows of heaven opens.

quote:

---

13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 they, and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.

---

Much confusion comes from terms such as "and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind " This means nothing more than those creepy things whch are foods for animals or what some such ground based life forms are also consumed by humans; Noah's household would obviously have such sustainence foods. 'upon the earth' refers only to the area of Noah's household. It cannot in any wise refer to every insect in the world by the afore clarified verses. Proof is seen in the next verse:

quote:

---

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh wherein is the breath of life.

---

'AND THEY WENT IN' [past tense; it was done]. Remember the dimensions of the boat? Remember this applied only to Noah's household? Proof that this is the correct interpretation is seen in the next verse:

quote:

---

16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God commanded him; and the LORD shut him in.

---

Clearly, 'ALL FLESH' refers to only those that could fit in the ark; and then 'shut in'. The notion this referred to ALL LIFE [trillions of species and sub-groups] is an obviously wrong reading.Other verses confused:

quote:

---

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered.

---

This refers only to Noah's region, proven by its previous verses:

quote:

---

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth.

---

The waters did not bear up the boat till 'after' forty days; meaning this was not a global flood!Note also:

quote:

---

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered

---

A cubit is a foot [elbow to fingers]. This says the mountains were small hills and mounds only.It must also be understood the writings describe how it appeared to the people of Noah's region, in which time none ventured outside of their towns and villages all their lives. The writings is extremely authentic; the people would see a forty day rain and its waters as covering all 'their' world. Tasmania and New York did not exist at this time.

quote:

---

21 And all flesh perished that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and cattle, and beast, and every swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth, and every man;

---

The term 'SWARMETH' refers to those animals not of Noah's possessions, which are not consumable. The term 'UPON THE EARTH' is numerously before referred to as the earth in Noah's region only.

quote:

---

23 And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

---

Note now 'ON THE GROUND' is used to describe 'EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE', and qualified as what 'THE EARTH' refers to. Note that the fish were uneffected - namely this was NOT about ALL LIVING CREATURES ON THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH.

I'd say that your interpretation is plausible, but I think it may press the text a bit too far.Yes, the text says that God gathered the waters together in one place (maqom echad). But the main point here does not seem to be one vs. many. Rather, the main point is that God controlled and tamed the chaos.Yes, the text says that the land was divided in the days of Peleg. But I think it's a stretch to interpret this as the division of the continents. It could just as well be a large earthquake.

quote:

---

Genesis 1 has NOTHING to do with the Biblical Flood Myths, was written hundreds of years later and by a different culture and tradition.

---

Your proof of this?

Of course, but it is also irrelevant to this topic.

Jar and ICANT,Please stop repeating yourselves. Move the discussion forward please.Thanks
AdminPD

Is a 3,500 year Egyptian stelle made of stone which describes a WAR with ISRAEL irrelevant - or is it of the utmost relevant to the book of Exodus - which of course was written by numerous people later on!?A lie by omission is - surprise, surprise - a lie. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

99% of Archeological determinations are made by 'NAMES' - not by relics or C14.The name, "NOAH' has been determined as authentic of its period. So have all these - in fact these names never appeared before in any recording of historical archives, displaying the power of the Hebrew writings' unequalled and unmatched authenticity:

quote:

---

Genesis Chapter 10
1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood. 2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5 Of these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. 6 And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. 7 And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan. 8 And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; wherefore it is said: 'Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.' 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah--the same is the great city. 13 And Mizraim begot Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim--whence went forth the Philistines--and Caphtorim. {S} 15 And Canaan begot Zidon his firstborn, and Heth; 16 and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite; 17 and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite; 18 and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite; and afterward were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad. 19 And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, unto Lasha. 20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, in their nations. {S} 21 And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children born. 22 The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram. 23 And the sons of Aram: Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. 24 And Arpachshad begot Shelah; and Shelah begot Eber. 25 And unto Eber were born two sons; the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. 26 And Joktan begot Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah; 27 and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah; 28 and Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba; 29 and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the sons of Joktan. 30 And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest toward Sephar, unto the mountain of the east. 31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations. 32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations; and of these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. {P}

---

Sorry to disagree, but that is not true.It certainly isn't true for standard archaeology (which I practice), and it isn't even true for classical archaeology.But if you have evidence to the contrary, you might present it in a new thread. That seems off-topic in this thread.

I can't agree with your interpretation of the text about Peleg: There then immediately follows the story of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9) which I take to be the explanation of the separation in Gen. 10:32 and of the different languages in Gen. 10:31, because otherwise the whole thing wouldn't make any sense.So there seems to be an obvious intepretation of what it means to say that "the earth was divided", i.e. that "the nations were separated on the earth after the flood", which should be preferred because it is obvious. Why would anyone think of anything else --- and why would anyone write like that unless they meant it to be interpreted that way?Consider also that according to your interpretation what is being referred to would be one of the most momentous, dramatic, and cataclysmic events in the whole history of the world --- and yet you suppose that it is mentioned only in passing as an explanation of how Peleg got his name. It's as though the Bible were to say: "And Noah got his name because in his time there was much rain" or "Adam was so called because of the incident with the tree" and left us to infer the rest of the story from that. Whereas according to my interpretation the explanation of Peleg's name referred to an almost equally dramatic event which is explained.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.