Adam and Eve.....and Egypt

by gumby 55 Replies latest watchtower bible

City Fan

Gen 10:25 could refer to dividing of peoples at Babel but could refer to dividing the earth itself by water. The verb Peleg is translated as stream or channel and an archipelago are many islands divided by water. The word 'earth' here could mean land or ground.
I've seen a flood apologist argument that follows this line of thinking. God's command to multiply and fill the earth would have been a lot easier if sea levels were considerably lower than today's levels. There would then be land bridges between continents now separated by water. Once people had crossed these land bridges then sea levels rose and the earth was divided.
During the last ice age a land bridge appeared between North America and Asia. Sea levels have risen over 300m since the end of this ice age creating islands and separating continents.
If we stick to the traditional way of interpreting this verse then he was named Peleg to remember the dividing of the earth and its peoples and languages at Babel. I don't think the division could have been after his birth as he would be given that name by his father Eber at birth or just after. So according to the bible the division of language at Babel happened sometime in the first 100 years after the flood.
The geographical problem remains that the men who built Babel migrated from the east which was from the wrong direction.
AGuest

may you have peace!
Let's just go with your assumptions for a moment. What you are saying is that the tower of Babel was built by Noah's sons and some of his grandsons. Is this what Genesis 11 tells us? Genesis 11:2 says "And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there."
Well, it says that? if you assume the word ?quedem? to mean ?from the east?? which is what you would do if you are relying on (1) a particular translation of the Bible, and (2) the English rendering. I say this because the HEBREW word? Strong?s 0694? also means ?eastward?. So? how are which to know which is true? ?as men migrated FROM the east,? or ?as men migrated eastward?? Well, common sense is one way to know. Or? you can simply ask.

Since you most probably won?t ask, I would suggest the common sense approach - because from the Mesopotamian valley, where Noah and sons first settled? Shinar? and Ur (from where Job came) is east. Southeast, true, but the statement is ?as men migrated eastward?? would imply that they went farther east than that. And? they did.
According to the bible there was no one else on the earth apart from Noah's family. But there is a problem with the geography of this verse. To get from the region of Ararat to the plains of Shinar they would have travelled south/south-east, Ararat being north and a little west of Babylon. So who were these 'men' who migrated from the east?
Again, that is assuming the verse says ?from the east?. I would ask you to check out the Hebrew word? quedem? Strong?s 06924.
Which of Noah's decendants went east? Well according to Genesis chapter 10 Japheth became the father of the coastland peoples of Ionia. Ham became father to the peoples of Egypt, Ethiopia and Canaan. Shem's decendants correspond to the peoples of the near east including Elam, Assyria and Aram (Syria). We can only assume then that decendants of Shem would have travelled far enough east to be the men who migrated from the east to settle in Shinar.

Well, let?s see who it was that was in the East (Genesis 10:30). Going backward:

Sons of Joktan? Joktan? Eber? Shelah? Arpachshad? Shem. And based on Genesis 10:21, it was the sons of Eber, through Joktan (and not Peleg, who was a forefather of Abraham) who migrated to the East. Yes? So, yes, I would say that based on what is written? it would have been the descendants of Shem.

HOWEVER? it is also stated that Nimrod?s kingdoms were ALSO in Shinar? but that he went NORTH from there and built Nineveh, in Assyria, AFTER establishing his kingdom in Babel. And NIMROD? was a son of CUSH? and therefore, the THIRD generation? if you start with HAM: Ham, Cush? Nimrod. So, apparently SOMEONE from Ham's "camp" went east, too. Yes?
And so, it is logical to assume (though we need not; we can simply ask!) that the confusion of language had to have taken place? at the latest? during Nimrod?s? or the third? generation. I am not counting Noah as a generation ? no need for this purpose.

But again, it was the SONS of the sons of Javan who tongue we?re speaking of here, right? And ?these?? the sons of Javan? were the FOURTH generation: sons of, say, Tarshish (a son of Javan)? Tarshish? Javan? Japheth? for Nimrod would correspond with Tarshish.
This would have taken many, many generations not two or three.
Why do you think this? Is the distance that great?
This also fits in well with verses such as Genesis 10:32 which says "These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood." According to this verse mankind spread across the earth after the flood not after babel.
But perhaps you are being a bit too literal: True, they began spreading after the flood. That is how they CAME to Shinar, yes? But perhaps you believe the Bible to be written in absolute chronological order. It is not. The very two chapters that we are discussing, Genesis 10 and 11 attest to that: Shem?s descendancy is discussed in both: Genesis Chapter 10 is speaking from the perspective of Noah?s descendancy, through HIS sons? for the purpose of establishing Noah?s line. However, Chapter 11 speaks from the perspective of SHEM?s descendency. Why? To establish the lineage? of Abraham. Noah was very important? it is quite true.

ABRAHAM, however? is the father? of Israel: Israel, the chosen nation of God? in essence, starts? with him? Abraham? and not Noah. Because it was by means of a promise made to ABRAHAM? and not Noah? that such nation was chosen to bear the Seed ?through? to it?s birth. Noah already had the seed? which was transferred to HIS son, Shem. Thus, it is Shem?s lineage that is discussed in further detail? to get to Abraham? in Chapter 11.

What you have? is what you have in MANY cases in ?the Bible?? an overlap of information. The Revelation is almost ENTIRELY overlapped? for all that John saw, he saw in a matter of moments. But you cannot READ about what he saw in a matter of moments, can you? John was not saying ?I saw? and after that I saw?? as if to depict sequences. What he saw? he saw almost all at once? three-dimensionally. But? one cannot WRITE down what one sees? three dimensionally. It can only be written? ONE dimensionally. So John was saying, ?I saw? and I saw? and I saw?? One thing did not necessarily occur after the other, except where he indicates it. But primarily? he saw almost everything of a particular vision? all at the same time.

If you do not understand what I am saying, my Lord directs me to have you look? straight in front of you? and then write down what you see. If you do? you will see that you have to write it in a ?chain? ? ?I saw my computer and I saw my keyboard and I saw my lamp and I saw my desk.? But? you did not see the keyboard AFTER you saw the computer? or the lamp AFTER you saw the keyboard? or the desk AFTER you saw the lamp. You saw ALL of these things? at one time. But? you cannot WRITE it that way.

The Revelation is written in such a manner. And what you are reading in Genesis is similar: one Chapter is coming from one perspective? that of the sons of Noah? and the other, Chapter 11, from the sons of Shem. To do Shem? it goes back to a certain point, that of what occurred in Nineveh, during the generation of either Cush or Nimrod, the second or third generation from Japheth.

I hope this helps you understand, dear City Fan.

I bid you peace.

A slave of Christ,

SJ
City Fan

Hello Aguest,
So? how are which to know which is true? ?as men migrated FROM the east,? or ?as men migrated eastward??

Yes I would use common sense. Whichever is used, they are both wrong. The region of Ararat is almost due north of Babylon. When I said it was also a little east of Babylon I meant it was a very little east of Babylon. Look at a map and see where the Turkish/Armenian border lies in respect to Babylon. Also, as you correctly stated, Nimrod would have gone 'North' to build Nineveh even though Nineveh is farther west than Ararat! To travel from Ararat to Mesopotamia you would have to travel down the Euphrates valley which runs North/South.
It is interesting to note that the Septuagint translation 250BCE of the Hebrew into Greek renders the translation ?from the east?. I would think these Greek speaking Hebrews would know the correct translation of this verse.
I would also choose to use ?from the east? as a correct translation as it is far easier to travel from the east towards Babylon than eastward across the Jordanian/Syrian deserts.
because from the Mesopotamian valley, where Noah and sons first settled

Could you give me the bible verse reference for this statement?
I would say that based on what is written? it would have been the descendants of Shem.

You?re right. One of Shem?s descendants was Elam which is a region of Persia .
Why do you think this? Is the distance that great?
I?m not really talking about distances but numbers. Let me give you an example. If Peleg was named in memory of the division of languages at Babel then this event, according to the bible, occurred in the first 100 years (give or take a year) after the flood. Even with very rapid population growth we?re only talking about a couple of thousand people alive by this stage. What I?m saying is that for a group of people to migrate east, settle, then grow to a size where they can travel westward and build 6 cities, it would take a much longer time period than 100 years. Not only does Nimrod, or someone else, organise this small group of people to start to built the tower of Babel but even when they have been scattered across the earth he can still build Nineveh and several other cities.
By the way, do you think God?s idea of confusing languages at Babel to stop mankind doing ?whatever they proposed to do? actually worked?
LittleToe

I still understand that verse to be saying that it was during Peleg's lifetime.
It wasn't unusual for people to be renamed, so I think the argument of him being named at birth holds little water.
Just my 2p
AGuest

may you have peace!
I wrote:
So? how are which to know which is true? ?as men migrated FROM the east,? or ?as men migrated eastward??
To which you responded:
Yes I would use common sense. Whichever is used, they are both wrong.
I am not sure I agree, dear CF.
The region of Ararat is almost due north of Babylon.
Are you sure? Are you not basing your assumption on modern maps, modern including the time of my Lord's walk on earth... but certainly not the time of which we are discussing? Have not boundaries changed... and changed... and changed... over the milleniums, as lands are populated, conquered and repopulated?
When I said it was also a little east of Babylon I meant it was a very little east of Babylon. Look at a map and see where the Turkish/Armenian border lies in respect to Babylon.
A map depicting what era? I again refer you to my question: what were the boundaries of those days?
Also, as you correctly stated, Nimrod would have gone 'North' to build Nineveh even though Nineveh is farther west than Ararat! To travel from Ararat to Mesopotamia you would have to travel down the Euphrates valley which runs North/South.
But the Mesopotamian valley includes Nineveh as well as Babylon... even Ur, yes?And since there was water all throughout that region, it would be logical to assume that initially folks settled where there was water... that there would have been settlements down the entire valley... which veers east... yes? And for THEM... east... would have been in the general direction of the rising of the sun, yes? So, assuming Noah left Ararat and traveled south to the valley... the logic of which I will discuss below... and then his sons traveled in various directions, including southeast... would not such travel southeast be constituted as "east"? Because the only directions used for those times were east, west, south and north... or eastward, southward, etc.. But there was no "northeast" or "southwest", etc., at that time. As for Nimrod, was there some law precluding him from going North, once he went east? I would seem logical to ME... that some folks stayed in a fairly "general" area... which constituted their "land" or "kingdom".
It is interesting to note that the Septuagint translation 250BCE of the Hebrew into Greek renders the translation ?from the east?. I would think these Greek speaking Hebrews would know the correct translation of this verse.
The Greek also renders the Hebrew word "wisdom" as "sophia"... which discussion I am engaged in elsewhere. Since the HEBREW word means BOTH "from the east" and "eastward"... it leaves it up to the writers of the GREEK... to choose. Does it not? That they chose one over the other is the issue, and to that I would reply that whether the Greek speaking Hebrews knew the correct translation... is something the Masoretic Jews would apparently disagreed with you on... on a very great level. And according to Jewish tradition, THEY (the Masoretes) were supposedly the "experts"... from the time of Moses. THEY vehemently disagreed with the Septuagint... to the point of writing commentary on the discrepancies called the "Masorah" or "Masoretic Text." Now... I ask you: who are we to believe? The Greek-speaking Jews who said the Hebrew writings said one thing, or the Hebrew speaking Jews who said it said another? Should we entirely believe either?
I would also choose to use ?from the east? as a correct translation as it is far easier to travel from the east towards Babylon than eastward across the Jordanian/Syrian deserts.
Perhaps. But I wouldn't choose "from the east" in this case. Since the word means both... from the east and eastward... I... would choose the latter. Why? Because my LOGIC says folks couldn't travel FROM the east... if they had not yet traveled TO the east. And according to the account, no one HAD... unless you choose to use "from the east." That choice is the ONLY thing that makes the rest of what is stated illogical. In response to my statement that:
because from the Mesopotamian valley, where Noah and sons first settled
you ask...
Could you give me the bible verse reference for this statement?
If you're asking whether I can give you a bible verse reference that says "Noah and his sons first settled in the Mesopotamian valley,"... no, I cannot. I can, however, give you this: Noah... became a farmer. A farmer... needs fertile land. Noah's progeny also spread south and east. What land is south... and east... of Ararat... and fertile? The Mesopotamian valley. Now, you might say, "Well, that doesn't prove anything." True, it does not. It's simply logical. I will tell you, however, that the most ancient civilization known to us... that of the Sumerians... SUMERIA... encompassed that entire region... the region we know as "Mesopotamia"... or "Babylon"... or "Chaldea"... or SHINAR... as it was called during various times... and Ur... the city in which Abraham was born... was a Sumerian city. And Abraham... was a descendant... of Noah... by means of Shem. (I was about to continue, but I have been given an even easier way for you to know... which has been given me by my Lord, who asks why I am in this discussion, when the answer is quite clear): To leave Ararat... Noah had to travel west; he could not have easily gone any other way, for the mountains would have prohibited him. But regardless of where Noah wanted to go... most of the animals... migrated toward water and grazing land (except the predators: because the goats could and did stay in the mountainous regions... along with other small animals... the predators stayed, too, for the goats and small animals were food for them). The larger, straw eating animals... migrated to toward water and grasslands). And the only place where the two would be found... that was fairly easily accessible... was the valley southwest of Ararat. Because initially, until reaching the valley, the animals were the only source of food for the people, wherever the animals migrated to find grass eat, so, too, the people migrated. Thus, the valley served as a place for the animals to find food and water. And after reaching the opening of the valley... the migration... is eastward. Southeast, true, but predominantly eastward, more so that south. For to go straight south... they animals... and the peoples... would have reached the arid lands of Arabia... where no food OR water existed for any of them. Instead... they followed the rivers... which flowed... eastward. Once in the valley, Noah as well as his descendants... were also able to farm... and rely less on the animals for food. However, as the peoples grew... they went out from one another, but the primary groups always staying near water. It was when Abraham was taken from Ur... which is EAST... that they become nomadic desert people.
You?re right. One of Shem?s descendants was Elam which is a region of Persia .
Then it's no surprise that Abraham was born in Ur... which is journey EAST from the valley.
I?m not really talking about distances but numbers. Let me give you an example. If Peleg was named in memory of the division of languages at Babel then this event, according to the bible, occurred in the first 100 years (give or take a year) after the flood.
I am not sure how you figure that: Shem... begat Arpachshad when he was 100... two years after the flood (so, he was 98 at the time of the flood)... and was 135 when Arpachshad begat Shelah... and 165 when Shelah begat Eber... and was 199 when Eber begat Peleg. So, we've got just under 200 years, right there. And Shem corresponds... to Ham and Japheth... Shem's son Arpachshad... to Ham's son Cush and Jappeth's son Javan... Arpachshad's son Shelah... to Cush's son Nimrod and Javan's son, say, Elishah Shelah's son Eber... to Nimrod's sons and Elishal's sons So.... Shem Ham Japheth Arpachshad Cush Javan Shela Nimrod Elishah Eber Peleg
Even with very rapid population growth we?re only talking about a couple of thousand people alive by this stage. What I?m saying is that for a group of people to migrate east, settle, then grow to a size where they can travel westward and build 6 cities, it would take a much longer time period than 100 years.
Could be. The U.S. has built how many cities in how many years? Heck, how quickly were the first 13 colonies established? There is also the question of the SIZE of some of these "cities", since the word also denotes "town" as well. For a "city" is, in truth, by definition, simply a place with a community of citizens. In ENGLISH, it is used to denote the SIZE of the population... but that is not necessarily the case in other lands. As for growing to a size where they CAN travel... I am not sure how that is an issue. I mean, Terah took Abram, Lot and Sarah and moved from Ur... to Haran. Quite a long... and westward... trek. Lot had no wife... and Sarah and Abraham had no children. So, it was only the four of them. However, when Abraham, Sarah and Lot left Haran to go to Canaan... they took people with them.
Not only does Nimrod, or someone else, organise this small group of people to start to built the tower of Babel but even when they have been scattered across the earth he can still build Nineveh and several other cities.
I think you have it confused: it does state that Babel... was the BEGINNING of his kingdom. But... there is also the understanding that the name here, Babel... was in fact, Babylon. So, his kingdom started with Babylon... the major city of which was "Babel". Even so, the others would have been built DURING his kingdom. And seeing that the languages were thereafter so confused that the people left off from building and were scattered, would imply that the others were built BEFORE the Tower at Babel. Because once the Tower started... and languages were thereafter confused... he would have had quite a time building the others.
By the way, do you think God?s idea of confusing languages at Babel to stop mankind doing ?whatever they proposed to do? actually worked?
Well, His purpose was to confuse their language so that they may listen to one another's language. And to a great degree, I believe He succeeded: how many languages do YOU speak? But I think you are coming from the point of whether His action caused them to leave off from making a celebrated name for themselves... and/or from having in mind to do things that are "unattainable" for them. And my answer to that would be "no, it has not stopped mankind." But I don't believe my Father intended to stop them, beyond the building of that one tower. And so, I now leave you with these things... and bid you peace. A slave of Christ, SJ
City Fan

Hi there LT
I would have to disagree with you, but not with 100% certainty!!!
Yes he could have been renamed during his lifetime, but why only him?? Weren't other people alive when this event occured. It's just a bit more logical (to me anyway) to say that Peleg would be given that name at birth to remember an event that had just happened, or even maybe that had happened within a few years of his birth. If it happened towards the end of his life say in his 180th year then surely it would be too late to have renamed himself?
By the way LT we share something in common!
All the best!
LittleToe

City fan:In the case of the story of Ruth, the two husbands have names that likely refer to their mode of death.
Chilion possibly means "fall down" and Mahlon "sickly". These aren't the kind of names that you would generally like to give someone, to their face, during life. Nor as an everlasting memorial to them (Eccl.7:1).
I suspect there would have been special significance in him being named, beyond the fact that he was of the line of Shem. Shem was still alive, yet he didn't get a name change. Perhaps Peleg was involved in the work somehow.
By the way LT we share something in common!
Then I look forward to a PM, else to meeting you in Bury at the end of next month
City Fan

Hi there aguest.
I think you've used a lot of assumptions and guesswork in your post. I don't think someone like yourself who believes in a literal global flood and someone like myself who believes it to have been a localized flood will ever agree on the details of this subject. And I don't think you have really understood any of my arguments but that could be my fault!
A map depicting what era? I again refer you to my question: what were the boundaries of those days?
Of course I know that in ancient times the Turkish/Armenian border did not exist, I'm simply asking you to look at a modern map at this area as that is where mount Ararat is. And unless mountains have moved since, then that is where it was millenia ago. By all means try and find a more ancient map but you'll find the positions of Ararat and Babylon exactly the same. Bounderies may move, but cities and mountains don't.
And since there was water all throughout that region, it would be logical to assume that initially folks settled where there was water... that there would have been settlements down the entire valley... which veers east... yes?
Well no actually. The Tigris valley runs north/south. To go from Babylon to Nineveh you would travel almost directly north.
would not such travel southeast be constituted as "east"? Because the only directions used for those times were east, west, south and north...
Well if as you said Nimrod travelled north to get back to where they first settled then they would have travelled south to get to Babylon in the first place. Wouldn't they? By your argument southeast could just as easily mean south. In response to my evidence from the Greek Septuagint translation you wrote:
THEY (the Masoretes) were supposedly the "experts"... from the time of Moses. THEY vehemently disagreed with the Septuagint... to the point of writing commentary on the discrepancies called the "Masorah" or "Masoretic Text."
The Masoretic text doesn't disagree with the Septaguint on this verse. You have two possible translations from the Maroretic 'from the east' or 'eastward' but what I am saying is that 1000 years or so before the Masoretic text Hebrew scribes had already translated this verse into Greek as 'from the east'. You could also say that the Masoretes had their own agenda as can be shown by their change to Deutoronomy 32:8, for example, to hide it's polytheistic origins. But that's another topic.
who are we to believe? The Greek-speaking Jews who said the Hebrew writings said one thing, or the Hebrew speaking Jews who said it said another?
Considering the 70 or so Jews who translated the text into the Greek Septaguint were Hebrew scholars from Israel, I can't see the point of this argument. The next part of your argument is all guesswork and supposition and again the geography is all wrong. Again have a look at a map and see where Nineveh lies in relation to Babylon. For my argument about there not being enough time for populations to grow to the point at which several cities could be built you wrote:
Shem... begat Arpachshad when he was 100... two years after the flood (so, he was 98 at the time of the flood)... and was 135 when Arpachshad begat Shelah... and 165 when Shelah begat Eber... and was 199 when Eber begat Peleg. So, we've got just under 200 years, right there.
I think you'll find there are only 101 years from the flood to the birth of Peleg, not 200.
Even so, the others would have been built DURING his kingdom. And seeing that the languages were thereafter so confused that the people left off from building and were scattered, would imply that the others were built BEFORE the Tower at Babel. Because once the Tower started... and languages were thereafter confused... he would have had quite a time building the others.
This is exactly my point. How could such a small band of wanderers build all these cities or even towns in such a short space of time. So I'm not sure why you half quoted me as saying " As for growing to a size where they CAN travel" when my full sentence said "where they can travel westward and build 6 cities", my point again being that there was not enough time for them to build these cities.
LittleToe

The cities may have been cities at the time of writing, but tI think it far more likely that they settled villages.
The town nearest where I live is often called a city, but it is really only a small town with a population of about 8,000.
I don't think we can use modern day definitions of "cities" to determine the population of ancient cities.
Edited because my Math was out.
AlanB

I find all of this stuff fascinating. I am convinced there is something we do not know about our history, there are many challenging books on the subject.
Regarding Peleg, the book of jubilees has an interesting account, that suggests that after Peleg was born, Noah called a big gathering of his family, perhaps as a celebration of Peleg's birth. During which Noah aportioned the earth by lots to each son and grandson. So in his day the earth was divided. He made each swear an oath not to steal the land of his brother.
The following link will take you to an english translation of the book.
http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Books/Old_Testament_Apocrypha/book_of_jubilees_ii.htm
This account can be found in Chapter 8 from around verse 8
Why were we not taught this fascinating stuff at the KH? I may still be there.
A

Adam and Eve.....and Egypt

Share this