Wednesday, December 29, 2010

FacePalm of the Day #42 - Exegeting Genesis 10:25

I always thinks it's pretty sad when one atheist attempts to save the arguments of another. It's even more of a fail when they try to use scripture to do it. Case in point - Ryan Anderson attempted to rebut my response to Richard Dawkins trying to use geography to show that the Bible could not be correct about the story of Noah.  My point was that according to Genesis 10:25 we cannot say that the earth's geography looks the same today as it did during Noah's time.We don't know when the Flood took place or how the continents were arranged.

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 10:25
Ryan Anderson wrote the following:

Sure, given how the word פלג is used in Chronicles, Job and Psalms, and the references to "language" in Genesis 10:5, 20 and 31 it's pretty clear that the authors were laying the ground work for the more detailed narrative of the fall of Babel in the very next chapter and not talking about plate tectonics at all.

Here is the problem:Ryan may be right about   פלג being used only 4 places in the Old Testament but he neglected to point out  that in the KJV it has always been translated "divided" and refers to something being divided and the word does not appear in the Tower of Babel account! Implying that the earth being divided in Genesis 10:25 is referring to what happened in Babel is dishonest. But let's be fair and ask a question: is the word translated "earth" ever applied to people, languages, or cultures? The word is used 2504 times in the Old Testament.  Of those 2504 times, how many times has the KJV translated it as  "language"? ZERO!!! Why? Simple: The word does not mean "language".

On a positive note, I thank Ryan Anderson for a prime example of eisegesis and scripture twisting. When it comes down to evicence Atheists have to disprove the Bible -scripture twisting is the only "evidence" they have. Let me be clear, in order for Ryan Anderson's argument to work he has to show that Genesis 10:25 does not refer to the earth itself but instead refers to the language of people. Did it work? Nope.

Palag (Strong number - 06385)

'erets - (strong number - 0776)

Enhanced by Zemanta


  1. Dummy, Seems you are asking one question, 1) "is is ארץ ever applied to people, languages, or cultures" and and answering another 2) "is is ארץ ever applied just languages".

    But ארץ may not mean language any more than "China" means "Cantonese" but ארץ does mean "nation" as much as it means anything else. And nations are "people, languages and cultures".

    So, besides in 10:25, ארץ is used again in 10:32 to refer to nations and 11:1 to specifically refer to the nations being united in a common language. Obviously, in the ancient world (and today) nations were defined by their languages as much as by their people and culture.

    So nice try, but you are way out on a limb.

  2. So I guess name calling is tool number 2 in the atheist toolbox. I mean really. In Genesis 10:32, both the words "earth" and "nations" are being used and they ain't the same word. In Genesis 11:1 I';d say earth is being used to refer to everyone alive at the time...the way we use the word "world". However Genesis 10:25 and 10:32 are using "earth" in the same way and it does not mean "nation(s)". What lexicon are you using? I think you need a better one if you think "language" is in view of Genesis 10:25,32; 11:1. I wouldn't even call your attempt a "good try" you have fallen off the wagon.

  3. Bottom line, you believe, despite the evidence, that humanity existed 175 million years ago. Do your elders require this belief or is it simply because you know just enough about the sciences, but cling to your belief in inerrancy (with comedic results!)? That is why I called you dummy. The bible makes otherwise smart people dumb.

  4. Oh, and I use an old copy of Strong's Concordance and Holladay's Lexicon from back when I was a Christian.

  5. No, the bottom line is that Genesis 10:25 does not say what you say it does. There is no evidence that says that people were not around when Pangea made it's final split. A lack of fossils prove nothing one way or another. The only thing I find funny about this is you trying to explain the Bible. You simply can't get the Hebrew to say what you think it says. The Bible is right and you are wrong.

    Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom

    Explains your lack extremely well.

  6. Here dummy. Even the most ignorant literalists don't agree with you.

  7. But seriously, is this just your hair-brained theory or does your larger church community support this idea?

  8. Let us talk about who is the stupid. I'm not the only one thinks the Genesis 10:25 refers to the continents. I disagree with the article because it assumes that such an interpretation assumes that the continents would have broken apart all at once. I never made that contention. I'm saying that it could be just that during his time the final breaks happened and the mountains of Ararat already could have formed.

    I'm not saying that at all that the brothers who interpret the text the way they have are evil or foolish (like you) only I disagree with them. I see no reason to read Genesis 10:25 they they do. Oh and they explained their viewpoint much better than you did - more solid too. As the article said I'm not the only one who sees the text this way. Just 'cause you never looked at it this way doesn't mean it's wrong.

    Besides all of this, it's not a salvation issue - has no bearing on who is a Christian or not.

    None of this makes your butchering of the Hebrew language any less heinous.

    Please seek the Lord, and get some help.

  9. Marcus, you win, the sheer weight of your idiocy is overwhelming. People, including Noah and Peleg, lived 175 million years ago... sure...

  10. But seriously, is this just your hair-brained theory or does your larger church community support this idea?

  11. Nope. I'm not the only one who has seen Genesis 10:25 this way. My larger Church and denomination hasn't brought it up. The other thing is can you prove that there was not human being on earth when pangea split up? Didn't think so. Or even conclusive proof for when the pangea broke up? Didn't think so. Theories, sure. But where is your skepticism?

  12. Marcus, not being able to not prove something doesn't mean you should believe it.

  13. Be careful what you choose to believe. You will have to give an account for it.