Members PreacherBen Posted September 7, 2007 Members Share Posted September 7, 2007 This is purely opinion, but IF there was continental divide, it probably happened during the upheaval that happened to the Earth's crust during the breaking up of the underground water sources that were part of the flood. >>>opinion only<<< Bro. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted September 7, 2007 Author Members Share Posted September 7, 2007 I've heard one form or another of most of these versions before; either from pastors preaching or from books. For most, they have their potential to be true, but at the moment there doesn't really seem to be a way to declare whether they are certainly true or certainly untrue. This is one of those areas where we simply don't have enough information to know for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Colin Stolzer Posted September 8, 2007 Members Share Posted September 8, 2007 TheBibleSender Thanks for the link. C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry Posted September 8, 2007 Members Share Posted September 8, 2007 Oh' date=' and Peleg being the time of babalon is probably a more solid theory then continental division, but neither are biblical contradictions, nor blaspheme, so I don't discount either. I think the only reason I personally tend toward an actual continental division, is [b']it says the earth was divided, not nations, or tribes, or anything like that. The wordage for me tends to simply be a literal "earth" division. All three of the following verses go together and are referring to the same thing: Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. 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. Genesis 10:32 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. Within the verses itself, it states that the division WAS of the nations, tongues, families. Why look for some other explanation than what is actually provided in the chapter itself? And when you look at the Deuteronomy passage: Deuteronomy 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. Realize it is stating that the world was divided into 70 parts (according to the number of the children of Israel - Genesis 46:27), and that this corresponds with the 70 nations actually listed in Genesis 10, there is no need to look for some other explanation. Here is one that takes all the verses into consideration and fits them together. The other conclusion doesn't - in fact, it overlooks the overall context of Genesis 10-11, overlooks that all three verses in Genesis 10 and the one in Deuteronomy are all using the same language and referring to the same event. Besides, that Pangea junk makes the assumption that all the continents actually fit together. They don't - that is a myth. You would have to reshape and resize some of them to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members qwerty guy Posted September 8, 2007 Members Share Posted September 8, 2007 Could someone explain to me why a pangea would be unscriptural?Besides' date=' that Pangea junk makes the assumption that all the continents actually fit together. They don't - that is a myth. You would have to reshape and resize some of them to do that.[/quote'] Nice way to show how it's not scriptural.... Anyway.. make sure you post Gen 10:5,25, and 32 again, I don't think you've posted it enough yet. Some of us have not had the fortune of accepting everything spoon fed us by overbearing bible college teachers, and must be too stupid to realize, that if you just erase a bunch of verses, everything thus makes sense. The more I look at the arguments for it being about Babalon (and I can't help it, the same one is being posted over and over and over) The more I realize that if it was Babalon being talked about, there is about 12 ways it could of been said to make it very clear. I hold the stance that the bible is perfect, and God is smart enough to make his word clear, and God is not the type of God to hid things and confuse people. I take the stance that the bible is literal, unless seriously obvious that it's symbolic. It doesn't say the nations are divided, it doesn't say the people, it says the earth. I understand the argument that it could mean the earth was divided into nations, like a city dividing it's land into plots and zones. This is why I am open to both arguments. But it's at least 80% chance it's talking about an actual earth division, not people. Why mention the division of people with Peleg, when it's already talked about, including when. Exactly why would God repeat himself about an event, and in a way that you have to sit with a piece of paper figuring out genealogies to even uncover it? Doesn't the bible even say doing this is silly? I like how God works.. timing, all knowing, perfection... It's an awesome God who wants to divide the people into nations so he confuses the language, and does so just before rising water divides the continents, thus keeping the nations apart. Wouldn't of taken long for them to get back together and learn each others languages if they all hung out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry Posted September 8, 2007 Members Share Posted September 8, 2007 Why did I keep quoting the verses? Because you focussed on one word and ignored the actual context and the rest of each verse, plus the parallel passage. I figured maybe you might have skipped out on reading what the verses said, so I provided them for you. P.S. Exegeis is bringing what is in the passage out - eisegesis is reading your own opinions and theories into the passage. Seems like the second one is being done in this thread, more than the first... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members qwerty guy Posted September 8, 2007 Members Share Posted September 8, 2007 Why did I keep quoting the verses? Because you focussed on one word and ignored the actual context and the rest of each verse' date=' plus the parallel passage. I figured maybe you might have skipped out on reading what the verses said, so I provided them for you.[/quote'] And provided, and provided. It's not because you thought anyone skipped them, if it was you would simply point out that you already gave this overwhelming evidence you think you have. Realistically, you feel your evidence proves your point... that's great, super for you, glad you have this issue settled. Your evidence though, for some people, is lacking. Your response, instead of just accepting that someone might just have a different view, is to beat your drum louder and louder, repeating yourself, wondering why people "don't get it". I get it, I'm just not buying it. Don't go getting angry or reposting over and over because of that. You react like if you have something decided, then obviously you're right and anyone else is wrong and stupid. It's insulting every time you do it. Hey, just for your information, you're not posting a verse that says "In the 8th year, 2 months, and 3 days of Peleg, is when God divided the languages of the people at Babalon, in the afternoon." With 5 other verses that say the same thing backing it up. With the verse not being clear, it's open for discussion. Stop reacting like a study on what the earth dividing in the days of Peleg is a study on if Jesus was really the son of God. Get a grip. Fine, you're smart.. we're stupid.. we just can't understand something so simple that it's academic to you, and we're so dumb that even when you spell it out, we can't get it. Guess you're waisting your time trying to teach us and should move on to conversations much more worthy of your obvious biblical expertise and knowledge. In reality, different languages are listed before Peleg, putting him born a couple generations past the time of Babel. Of course, this would be found in the verses you always skip. Second, it would be hard for the people to scatter across the entire earth at Babel, if the earth was not easily walked too. Go ahead and show your linage to prove the birth of Peleg is just after the confounding of language at Babel, I'd love to see how you work that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry Posted September 8, 2007 Members Share Posted September 8, 2007 Second' date=' it would be hard for the people to scatter across the entire earth at Babel, if the earth was not easily walked too.[/quote'] Genesis 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. God scattered them - He could have done it with or without land masses being connected. You read a lot of Creation Science materials. One of the things they point out is that there would have been an ice age of sorts as a result of the flood - therefore, it would have been possible to walk or travel to the other continents over the ice, even if they weren't connected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members qwerty guy Posted September 8, 2007 Members Share Posted September 8, 2007 This explains Australians how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry Posted September 9, 2007 Members Share Posted September 9, 2007 Ever heard of a boat? We don't know the history of Australia. It could have been waaaay later before anyone inhabited it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members qwerty guy Posted September 9, 2007 Members Share Posted September 9, 2007 Of course I've never heard of a boat Jerry, you have not taught us that one yet. I guess because you don't know the history of Australia, we'll wait for you to get an idea of it so that you can all instruct us in what we should believe concerning that continent. We await your further instruction overlord..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry Posted September 9, 2007 Members Share Posted September 9, 2007 You are so funny. (Well, not really.) What is the history of Australia? When was it first inhabited? If you don't know, what are you doing basing your Bible doctrine on your lack of knowledge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bakershalfdozen Posted September 9, 2007 Members Share Posted September 9, 2007 qwerty guy, enough of the sarcasm. :report: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JJJ4given Posted September 9, 2007 Members Share Posted September 9, 2007 Quite the heated debate. I would have to agree with Jerry's rendition of Gen. 10 after an honest examination. There were some who seemed to be indicating that they thought there was no seas during the time of Genesis, however, that would not coincide with these verses: Gen 1:21-23 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. I believe that before the flood there was one continent: Gen 1:9, 10 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bakershalfdozen Posted September 9, 2007 Members Share Posted September 9, 2007 :thumb Anybody ever read the book called Kon-Tiki? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.