From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Wed Oct 08 2003 - 21:04:30 EDT
Commentaries on Gen. 10:25 point out that "Peleg" in Hebrew is based on a
verbal root that means "to split" or "to divide." So the name is another of
those plays on meaning the writers of Genesis were so fond of. Some
commentators see the name as carrying out a prophetic function, anticipating
the "splitting" or "dividing" action that is next described. The division
of "eretz" (not necessarily the entire earth) has been interpreted by some
rabbinical commentaries as a reference to the scattering of peoples from the
Tower of Babel. Given the presentce of earthquakes in the region, it may
possibly refer to such an event. I think going beyond such a physical event
such as some proposed (like the splitting of Pangaea) would be a most
extravagant eisegesis.
My main quarrel with YECs is their propensity to read into the texts of
Scripture whatever they wish to find there.
Bob Schneider
> >
> > Jay Willingham wrote:
> >
> > >> > One could hypothesize that Pangea's division began in the
> > time of Peleg
> > of
> > > > Genesis 10:25, "Two sons were born to Eber: One was named
> > Peleg, [ 10:25
> > > > [Peleg] means [ division ] . ] because in his time the earth was
> > divided;
> > > > his brother was named Joktan."
> > >
> > Stephen J. Krogh, P.G. <panterragroup@mindspring.com> wrote
> > >
> > > Why would "one" want to? I suppose you could also "postulate" that
WWII
> > > occurred before the Civil War, but that wouldn't make sense either.
BTW,
> > > please bottom post.
> >
> > Jay Willingham wrote:
> >
> > The history of the last 200 years is a bit easier to prove
> > empirically than
> > that of millenia ago.
>
> Do you have any physical evidence that suggests that the continents split
> after pelegs time, and how recent was Pelegs time? If you ignore the
> Geology, then sure. But why would you do that? Maybe you need to look for
> another event, say, something that happened at a similar time to the day
of
> Peleg, rather than something that occurred several million years prior.
>
> > God had laid out what happened in the Bible and I tend to believe his
> > testimony. That does not mean my interpretation of it is any better
than
> > anyone else's.
>
> What was laid out is very sparse. I believe you are straining the text to
> fit an interpretation. No where does it say that the continents split
apart
> at the days of peleg. It is not necessary.
>
> > It also does not mean I blindly believe anyone else's interpretation of
> > scientific truth, either.
> >
> > I am looking for ways of reconciling scientific and Biblical truth.
>
> This is not the way. Maybe try going in a different direction. If you must
> find a correlating event in geology, how about lands or peoples being
> separated by some sea level change, like the Bearing Strait and the
> formation of the Aleutian Islands - all that is left of the land bridge
> between north America and Asia. At least that would be a better place to
> start.
>
> > What makes sense to man does not necessarily make sense to God.
>
> Oh, really now. God is a god of confusion? How can we tell if God is
making
> sense or He isn't? I know man's interpretations don't make sense. If you
> ignore the creation itself, how can you be sure that your interpretation
is
> even relevant.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 13:12:45 EDT