13

Genesis 10:25 says, "

וּלְעֵ֥בֶר יֻלַּ֖ד שְׁנֵ֣י בָנִ֑ים שֵׁ֣ם הָֽאֶחָ֞ד פֶּ֗לֶג כִּ֤י בְיָמָיו֙ נִפְלְגָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ וְשֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו יָקְטָֽן׃ (Westminster Leningrad Codex)

"And to Eber were born two sons, the name of one (was) Peleg, for in his days divided was the earth and name of his brother (was) Joktan." (Interlinear)

Most commentaries refer to "נִפְלְגָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ" (land divided) as refering to the division of the nations, resulting from the dividing of tongues at Babel.

Among the descendants of Arphaxad, Eber's eldest son received the name of Peleg, because in his days the earth, i.e., the population of the earth, was divided, in consequence of the building of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:8) (Keil & Delitzsch-taken from here)

However, there are some who take "נִפְלְגָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ" to quite literally mean "division of continents". One such claim is "Divided by water" made here:

Therefore, the earth was probably divided by water in Peleg’s day. The hydroplate theory explains how and why.

So, which is it? the traditional understanding of "people groups/languages" or a "division of land" resulting in the separation of lands by water, or some other means?

curiousdannii
  • 3,007
  • 6
  • 31
  • 54
Tau
  • 6,814
  • 14
  • 48
  • 83
  • Could there potentially be a third alternative, or are we limited to these two options? – Jonathan Chell Apr 06 '15 at 10:50
  • "..there are some who take "נִפְלְגָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ" to quite literally mean "division of continents". One such claim is "Divided by water" made here:" This is over stating the case being made, the actually says "Therefore, peleg probably implies a division by water." (rightly or wrongly) :-D – Jonathan Chell Apr 06 '15 at 10:51
  • 2
    @JonathanChell The "division" implied grammatically(unless someone proves otherwise) refers to land, but contextually it appears highly improbable that "land"(motion of continents) was divided during Peleg's time. Some have suggested the land bridge opened from Asia-Americas during this time, but even their arguments lack specificity. Most commentators have opted for "division of lands"(ie:people groups) but that happened before Peleg, during the time of Noah. Therefore, how can the "division of lands" be reconciled with the language, and yet be reconciled with physical evidence? – Tau Apr 06 '15 at 16:08
  • @Tau There is some debate (see comments on James' answer) about whether you wanted just the text addressed (as implied by the body of the Q) or the text and outside physical evidence (as implied by your comment). Can you clarify by editing the body of the question. Thanks. – ThaddeusB Nov 26 '15 at 01:16
  • @ThaddeusB I won't edit the question, since whatever direction you take is going to bring you back to it. I'm not really interested in radiometric data: it is the bane of scientists as it has been proven and dis-proven in numerous incidents. If your belief is in scientific datum-then feel free to state your case; but this isn't a forum for the study of radiometrics and much greater minds than mine have similarly disproved the conclusions of radiometrics-highlighting the inconsistencies that exist in particular carbon isotopes. – Tau Dec 27 '15 at 03:06
  • @ThaddeusB (cont.) If your evidence IS textual, and you offer radiometrics as an addendum to your conclusions(I believe James did this), then it certainly fits a clear pattern of hermeneutics which one can respond to, and one is not obligated to try to answer the challenge of carbon dating; which may skew the results and 'force' a conclusion the text itself is not giving. In Summary: I'm not asking for 'science'; if one wants to offer it as additional support in addressing the text; well and fine, but it isn't a requirement(and shouldn't be) for addressing this question. – Tau Dec 27 '15 at 03:17
  • 1
    @Tau - I see the comments on James' answer have been deleted... just FYI, someone had commented on James' answer to say it was not a valid answer b/c you weren't interest in a scientific answer. There was then an argument about what you intended. That is the only reason I asked for clarification. To me, the question was plain enough as written. – ThaddeusB Dec 27 '15 at 04:13
  • @Tau - Radiometric dating does NOT use carbon isotopes and is not the same as carbon dating. You may wish to actually understand what it is and how it works before claiming that scientific conclusions were "disproven". I too had been taught this for many years, and upon actually investigating it, found that these claims were by being made 1) fringe kooks who 2) did not actually have credentials in the sciences from accredited institutions. People claiming this are an overwhelming minority and it turns out their claims about carbon-14 dating cannot even extend to radiometrics. – James Shewey Aug 06 '22 at 15:06
  • @JamesShewey Carbon isotopes have been used for radiometric dating since it's discovery-the reason being that Carbon-14 gives off a nuclide with a measurable rate of decay. Carbon isn't the only element measured; uranium-lead and potassium-argon are among other elements measured. But they ALL fall under the catagory of "Radiometric Dating" because they all require the determining of a "Radioactive Element" in determining the rate of decay, and thus the "age" of the object. – Tau Aug 12 '22 at 00:40
  • These distinctions are very important. Carbon is used for dating the age of carbon based lifeforms and can show a max age of 50,000 years. For dating the age of pangea and any divisions it may have, rocks would be used using different isotopes along with that. U–Pb dating for example can be used from about 1 million years to 4.5 billion. Suggesting that carbon isotopes are used at all in this situation as you did above is therefore extremely misleading. It these kinds of misdirections that I have seen YEC scientists use to try try to discredit dating methods and otherwise mislead good people. – James Shewey Aug 12 '22 at 17:25

2 Answers2

1

In Genesis 10:25, there are 2 words which are notable to the question at hand. The passage reads

Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg (פֶּ֗לֶג) because in his days the earth was divided, (נִפְלְגָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ) and his brother’s name was Joktan.

According to pg 928 of the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the name פֶּ֗לֶג can mean division of tongues (like in Psalms 55:10) or an irrigation canal ("streams of water in a dry place" - like it is used in Isaiah 30:25, Psalms 46:5 and Psalms 65:10).

This word derives from פלג which means "to distance onself", "divide" or to "split" and it has a connotation of making a furrow. נִפְלְגָה ("to be separated") is also derived from פלג. Other word derivatives include פְּלַגָּה ("subdivision of a tribe") and פְּלֻגָּה ("division within a family"; as it is used in 2 Chronicles 35:5.)

Perphaps the most interesting relationship is to the town of Phalga (also called Saggaratum) located on the Euphrates where the Ḫabūr joins the Euphrates. According to the HALOT, the town name and פֶּ֗לֶג were syntactically related - a view shared by Emil G. H. Kraeling of Columbia University. This town is near the Ziggurat of Mari and Saggaratum was the capitol of the kingdom of Zimri-lim who's rule was from 1775 to 1761 BC when he was conquered by Hammaurabi. This works out very nicely if you are of the opinion that the Tower of Babel was a Ziggurat and the dates would be consistent with an 18th Dynasty exodus from Egypt.

Furthermore, radiometric dating of archaeological and paleontological evidence indicates that while Pangaea did exist at one point, it was several million years before Neolithic and Calcolithic eras and occured in three phases spanning several million years which would also be inconsistent with a rapid event occuring over the lifetime of one man (peleg).

The radiometric dating methods used for dating the fossil evidence of Pangea and the continental drift are extremely accurate. While it would be possible for one dating method to be skewed by a sudden influx of a given element into the atmosphere (Potassium, in the case of Potassium-argon dating for example), it would be highly unlikely for this situation to occur for multiple unrelated elements. Accordingly, since the many dating methods are able to corroborate each other we can rest assured that these methods are accurate. The logarithmic decay curves are also known to be accurate since radioactive isotopes degrade at a known and observed constant rates and the observed laws of physics would have to have differed over time or simply be wrong for these dating methods to be inaccurate.

Accordingly, while the linguistic evidence may be ambiguous, the historic context and scientific evidence are not and the simplest explanation is that this should be regarded as the division of people groups and language.

Community
  • 1
James Shewey
  • 7,767
  • 8
  • 58
  • 107
  • I’m not an expert in radiometric dating, so I’m not claiming anything here. However, I have heard from Andrew Snelling (a PhD research geologist) that such assumptions of Uniformitarianism with respect to dating methods can be inaccurate based on the fact that there wasn’t an observer 65MYA for example. What’s your thoughts on this idea? Most of it not all secular scientists will say that the “key to the past is the present” but if there was no observer from the distant past, how then can one justify the decay rates as constant? – Cork88 Jul 29 '22 at 18:09
  • @Cork88 - My thoughts are that radiometric dating measures decay occurring on a logarithmic curve. This is not a single method, but multiple including: Ur decaying to Pb, Sm–>Nd, K->Ar & Ur->Tm. While it is possible that any single method might be possible for one to be inaccurate, it would not be possible for all. When they all agree one acts as an "observer" of the other. This decay occurs predictably and there is no reason for that rate to change. This is extra true for four independent dating methods. What is the likelihood that 4 independent methods would show roughly the same date? – James Shewey Aug 03 '22 at 18:56
  • The key term you said though was “roughly”, radiometic dating can give relative ages but not absolute, thus making it unreliable in specific ages. Andrew Snelling mentioned that the decay rates would have accelerated by billions of years within 1 year (which was the time of the flood) based on contamination. So to assume billions or millions of years from the radioactive dating would in effect be an assumption on the geologists part, since they weren’t there to observe the formation of the rock. He even did testing multiple times, even to independent research labs. – Cork88 Aug 05 '22 at 01:28
  • Yes. I use the term "roughly" because radiometric dating cannot date down to the second. It can "roughly" date to decades or centuries within a margin or error (plus or minus a few years; a reasonable expectation). But there is no reason 4 separate decay mechanisms would all suffer decay acceleration. They could suffer contamination, but then the methods would all register this and it would be clear that there was some kind of globalized contamination of the dating methods as their curves disagree. – James Shewey Aug 06 '22 at 15:08
  • Appreciate the response, I will take that into my mental notes since I am not a geologist. I’ll consider what you said in relation to opposite views, comparing back & forth. – Cork88 Aug 07 '22 at 05:02
1

The scientific evidence indicates the earth initially had been a single land mass, a super continent named Pangea which began to break apart about 200 million years ago. The scientific evidence indicates the oldest human fossils are from about 2 million years years ago. Therefore, according to the scientific evidence, the "breaking apart" took place and was completed before humans existed.

Based upon the scientific evidence, one should conclude the phrase cannot mean "breaking apart" as the text in Genesis would be describing an event which occurred about 200 million years after it took place and for which there was no human was in existence to observe, or record, or otherwise know of. That is to say, the scientific evidence is that human existence began after the single land mass had broken apart and was in the form which it is found today.

On the other hand, one could understand the creation narrative as describing a single land mass:

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1 ESV)

Followed by a breaking apart:

To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Joktan. (Genesis 10:14)

Regardless, since the text states the earth was divided, and evidence from the natural world confirms this to be a factual, it seems unreasonable to conclude it cannot mean what it says on the basis of radiometric dating which places the event before human existence. The proper statement science should make is that the Bible correctly describes the event, but incorrectly dates it, placing it about 200 million years too late and about 4,000 years before it became known through scientific methods.

Revelation Lad
  • 16,645
  • 7
  • 46
  • 104