Man was in Pangaea

[dad2]

You were the one that introduced eschatology into the thread in your post #5 above.

In context, the fact that the future will be like the past is quite relevant. The present world stands out as the exception.

I found another interesting point on the supercontinent issue last night.

I do not know how long the change took. I have assumed it was sudden, like the sudden confusion of tongues. However, I suppose we could have a maximum timeframe that was also possible. An example is perhaps the change took place in 'the days of Peleg'

So we know the flood happened. Later we see a lot of (if not most or all) people had moved to the east. For some reason, this large population was on the move and coming from the east.

Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

So why were they journeying one might ask? Why not stay where they were? They seem to migrate for some reason and then start over and build a city. Why? We don't know. If we consider that these changes happened in the days of Peleg, and that was the days when the earth was divided, it seems to make sense. Perhaps wherever they were was near water (such as what today is the Persian Gulf area or something) and the separation had already started and scared them!? Maybe they realized that with that sort of massive land movement starting to happen, mankind would get scattered all over on various land masses that were now starting to move?! That would fit with the short description we have in Gen.

Gen 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

Apparently having people separate and scatter was God's plan.

Gen 11:8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

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.

So I assume that Pangea was still together when they got scatters for the most part. Then man migrates all over. Then the continents separate and finish the scattering job. That is a good working scenario for the time after the flood.

 

[dad2]

As I already told @37818, the very first verse says SIGN-ify.

That relates to the days of Peleg, how?

 

[KenH]

That relates to the days of Peleg, how?

I am bowing out. My interest in this thread was piqued by your statement in your post #5 about people living for centuries in the future. So I will not be discussing eschatology further in this thread and I am not going to argue over when and how quickly continents moved as it is not a subject I have been spending time studying. God created the heavens and earth and I rely on that fact.

 

[dad2]

We cannot know, for sure, what the earth looked like before the flood. During the flood there could have been a massive shift in the Earth's mantle, with massive uplift and change. God does not give us geological data for us to know (frankly, I don't think God cares if we ever know).

WE can know how long people lived and that we all were created at the same time, and that plants grew fast and that spirits lived on earth among men and married women, and where the ark landed etc. We know man was scattered. We have many clues about what happened.

Where have I ever said that God did not create all things? Of course God created all things. The laws of nature, which God established, are only suspended by God himself.

Who says that when the millennium comes our current laws are merely suspended? Who says that the laws that were in Adam's day were merely 'suspended'? There is no reason to believe that. They were changed. It is different now and will be different again in the future. I never mentioned anything about some little suspension.

I never made that claim.
I said that the Bible is not written to be a Science book. It is not meant to be read as a science book. It is meant to be read as a Revelation of Yahweh to mankind.

The bible has the record of beginnings. Science does not. Why would we degrade and relegate the bible to a science level? Science cannot deal with creation issues period. Get over it.


[/QUOTE]Humans can only observe the earth and record what we see. [/QUOTE]
Great then they should be quiet about what will be or what was! The bible does tell us about all of these things. Science is stuck in the present only.

[/QUOTE]We write a hypothesis and we test the hypothesis. That is science. Science is limited and narrow in focus. It originally was umbrellad under philosophy. [/QUOTE] Who cares what it is or what you think it is? It is useless. Irrelevant in creation matters. Basically it is a waste of a word. If you have science that applies to the topic just post it. I would say that the bible agrees with all real science. Example: science can tell us the world was together at some time. Science cannot tell us about life at that time, or when it changed etc. That is all total belief and not any actual science.

Clearly you never read the link I provided from a deeply respected, God fearing, scientist on radiometric dating from a Christian perspective. This scientist now has two instruments on the last two mars rovers. He knows what he is talking about regarding rocks. You must not have read his paper.

I might as well ask Mickey Mouse! How would some rover worker know about what nature was like in Adam's day? How would they know if there was even any radioactivity as we know it then? Try to comprehend that science really does not deal in these things and cannot. Period.

Back at you. The Bible says God divided people by languages. It never talks about "Pangaea."

Pangea is just a word modern man uses to envision the time when we know the world was together. Don't put too much stock in that word. We do know man was together and that God scattered them good and proper.



[/QUOTE]The truth of the matter is that neither the Bible, [/QUOTE]

False. The world being together and then God scattering man all over and the earth being split is absolutely bible.

nor science, supports your assertion.

Real science does not in any way oppose the bible record. That record by the way is not anyone's 'assertion'. Only God's assertion.

 

[dad2]

I am bowing out. My interest in this thread was piqued by your statement in your post #5 about people living for centuries in the future. So I will not be discussing eschatology further in this thread and I am not going to argue over when and how quickly continents moved as it is not a subject I have been spending time studying. God created the heavens and earth and I rely on that fact.

No problem if you have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the bible record and the world that was then why would we expect you to post??

Of course things will again be similar to the world that was in the time after Jesus returns to earth to rule. The fast growth of plants, the long lifespans, spirits living among men etc.

 

[AustinC]

WE can know how long people lived and that we all were created at the same time, and that plants grew fast and that spirits lived on earth among men and married women, and where the ark landed etc. We know man was scattered. We have many clues about what happened.



Who says that when the millennium comes our current laws are merely suspended? Who says that the laws that were in Adam's day were merely 'suspended'? There is no reason to believe that. They were changed. It is different now and will be different again in the future. I never mentioned anything about some little suspension.



The bible has the record of beginnings. Science does not. Why would we degrade and relegate the bible to a science level? Science cannot deal with creation issues period. Get over it.

Great then they should be quiet about what will be or what was! The bible does tell us about all of these things. Science is stuck in the present only.

Who cares what it is or what you think it is? It is useless. Irrelevant in creation matters. Basically it is a waste of a word. If you have science that applies to the topic just post it. I would say that the bible agrees with all real science. Example: science can tell us the world was together at some time. Science cannot tell us about life at that time, or when it changed etc. That is all total belief and not any actual science.


I might as well ask Mickey Mouse! How would some rover worker know about what nature was like in Adam's day? How would they know if there was even any radioactivity as we know it then? Try to comprehend that science really does not deal in these things and cannot. Period.

Pangea is just a word modern man uses to envision the time when we know the world was together. Don't put too much stock in that word. We do know man was together and that God scattered them good and proper.

False. The world being together and then God scattering man all over and the earth being split is absolutely bible.

Real science does not in any way oppose the bible record. That record by the way is not anyone's 'assertion'. Only God's assertion.

@dad2, it is very clear that you have no support for your assertions. It is also clear that you imagine you have solid support.
Since you have none (and I provided the Bible text you are clinging to), it now stands that you are being very prideful and belligerent on an empty hypothesis.

You are free to hold your empty hypothesis, but don't imagine that any other Christian should follow your claims or give them any legitimacy. Simply acknowledge that you hold a position that no one in the church holds and we will end this thread.

 

[37818]

I really don't like to argue over eschatology as there are no telling how many(hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands?) of ideas that have been hashed about for many centuries.

I like William Hendriksen's commentary because it makes the most sense based on taking the Bible as a whole, and not taking symbolic verses here and there in Revelation and then interpreting everything else in the Bible based on symbolic verses in an apocalyptic book at the end of the Bible, especially since the bottom line is that NONE of us have seen the end of the world and I am quite certain that NONE of us know exactly how it will all take place.

Please continue to explain your understanding. Such as ". . . signified it by his angel unto his servant John: . . ." I had not heard of that term to mean symbolism before.

It is true symbols signify meanings.

 

[dad2]

@dad2, it is very clear that you have no support for your assertions.

It is clear that there is no science that opposes a realistic belief in the Genesis record.
It is also clear that you have no bible case. Just whining apparently.

Since you have none (and I provided the Bible text you are clinging to),

I have also provided the passages. Since it is pretty well just Gen 11, and 10 that deals with the earth being divided and the tower of Babel, that is not hard to do. Not sure how you think that also 'providing the bible text' helps you in any way in your attempt to cast aspersions upon the story.

Simply acknowledge that you hold a position that no one in the church holds and we will end this thread.

I hold a position that no one 'in the church' or out of it can dispute apparently. Certainly not you so far.

 

[AustinC]

It is clear that there is no science that opposes a realistic belief in the Genesis record.
It is also clear that you have no bible case. Just whining apparently.


I have also provided the passages. Since it is pretty well just Gen 11, and 10 that deals with the earth being divided and the tower of Babel, that is not hard to do. Not sure how you think that also 'providing the bible text' helps you in any way in your attempt to cast aspersions upon the story.



I hold a position that no one 'in the church' or out of it can dispute apparently. Certainly not you so far.

It is not a realistic belief to take from Genesis 11 and declare that God moved land masses thousands and thousands of miles apart in one move. Honestly, that idea is just about as stupid as it gets. The Bible doesn't say such a thing and science does not observe such a thing.
Even if you went to a convention of all Christian scientists and pastor's, you would be laughed out the door with your theory.

So, understand that you are not being realistic. You are speaking fantasy and calling it reality...based on a Bible text that does not give you any support.

 

[37818]

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 11:7-9, ". . . Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 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. . . ."

The interpretation Genesis 11 takes place before Genesis 10:5.

 

[dad2]

It is not a realistic belief to take from Genesis 11 and declare that God moved land masses thousands and thousands of miles apart in one move.

? Who declares that to be unrealistic and why? If we know the land was all together one time, and it moved by the present time, then obviously they had to have moved.

Honestly, that idea is just about as stupid as it gets. The Bible doesn't say such a thing and science does not observe such a thing.

It does say the earth was split actually and when. It does say man was scattered. Why pretend otherwise?

Even if you went to a convention of all Christian scientists and pastor's, you would be laughed out the door with your theory.

Would they all be bible believers? Would any of the scientists specialize in these matters? Would any scientist know whether the laws were the same back then? If not, laughing would be maniacal. Why do we not hear any of them here stating a case? I think you are worried about the opinions of men for nothing.

So, understand that you are not being realistic.

Explain how God scattering the peoples and the world splitting as the bible records is not realistic exactly? The word divide means this


"Brown-Driver-Briggs'
1) to divide, split

1a) (Niphal) to be split, be divided

1b) (Piel)

1b1) to split, cleave

1b2) to divide"
Interlinear Search for 'Genesis 10:25' - NAS with the BHS and NA26 - StudyLight.org

You are speaking fantasy and calling it reality...based on a Bible text that does not give you any support.

How is the clear bible not support? How is it fantasy? You don't get to declare it so. You could make a case if you had some idea about the issues and what you are talking about. We wait.

 

[AustinC]

? Who declares that to be unrealistic and why? If we know the land was all together one time, and it moved by the present time, then obviously they had to have moved.



It does say the earth was split actually and when. It does say man was scattered. Why pretend otherwise?



Would they all be bible believers? Would any of the scientists specialize in these matters? Would any scientist know whether the laws were the same back then? If not, laughing would be maniacal. Why do we not hear any of them here stating a case? I think you are worried about the opinions of men for nothing.


Explain how God scattering the peoples and the world splitting as the bible records is not realistic exactly? The word divide means this


"Brown-Driver-Briggs'
1) to divide, split

1a) (Niphal) to be split, be divided

1b) (Piel)

1b1) to split, cleave

1b2) to divide"
Interlinear Search for 'Genesis 10:25' - NAS with the BHS and NA26 - StudyLight.org



How is the clear bible not support? How is it fantasy? You don't get to declare it so. You could make a case if you had some idea about the issues and what you are talking about. We wait.

Everyone gets to call it unrealistic.

Literally no one has supported your position in the history of the Church. That should be a red flag to you.

So, either the whole Church is wrong, and only you are right. Or, you are being obstinate and prideful. Which of the two is more likely?

 

[dad2]

Everyone gets to call it unrealistic.

Literally no one has supported your position in the history of the Church. That should be a red flag to you.

How would you know what people believed?

So, either the whole Church is wrong, and only you are right. Or, you are being obstinate and prideful. Which of the two is more likely?

What church, what whole church? I have no idea what you are referring to. Unless you are making stuff up show the source. The bible has been here for a long time. Is there some 'church' that said there was no Peleg or split of the world? Is there some 'church' that says God did not scatter people? No Babel? Try to make cohesive statements.

 

[AustinC]

How would you know what people believed?


What church, what whole church? I have no idea what you are referring to. Unless you are making stuff up show the source. The bible has been here for a long time. Is there some 'church' that said there was no Peleg or split of the world? Is there some 'church' that says God did not scatter people? No Babel? Try to make cohesive statements.

Your feigning being dumb here.
Note, no local church, no historic church, no person, believes what you believe. You cannot produce one theological document or one peer reviewed science article that teaches what you are asserting. Let that sink in and then ask yourself if the entire world is wrong, but you are correct.

Could it be that you are simply being obstinate and prideful?

 

[dad2]

Your feigning being dumb here.

Actually it is a moot point. Even if you could produce some church that felt there was no split as the bible says there was, it would be of no value. Not like anyone was there.

Note, no local church, no historic church, no person, believes what you believe.

You seem to be hung up on using the word church and pretending you are the authority on what they all think on the matter. No support was posted though, funny that.

You cannot produce one theological document or one peer reviewed science article that teaches what you are asserting.

That is weird. Science cannot and does not even cover it. You want to pretend there should be peer reviewed articles about Genesis?? You have nothing to contribute in the way of a bible case or science on the topic.

Better to admit your ignorance and inability to discuss the issue intelligently than to falsely accuse and make pretentious strawman posts.

So here is your opportunity. If you have something relevant and rational, post it. We wait

 

[AustinC]

Actually it is a moot point. Even if you could produce some church that felt there was no split as the bible says there was, it would be of no value. Not like anyone was there.


You seem to be hung up on using the word church and pretending you are the authority on what they all think on the matter. No support was posted though, funny that.


That is weird. Science cannot and does not even cover it. You want to pretend there should be peer reviewed articles about Genesis?? You have nothing to contribute in the way of a bible case or science on the topic.

Better to admit your ignorance and inability to discuss the issue intelligently than to falsely accuse and make pretentious strawman posts.

So here is your opportunity. If you have something relevant and rational, post it. We wait

*Proverbs 23:9*
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words.

 

[dad2]

*Proverbs 23:9*
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words.

As if you had some wisdom you just somehow couldn't post.
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.

Your posts so far have been like Joktan

Joktan = “smallness”

Interlinear Search for 'Genesis 10:25' - NAS with the BHS and NA26 - StudyLight.org

 

[AustinC]

As if you had some wisdom you just somehow couldn't post.
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.

Your posts so far have been like Joktan

Joktan = “smallness”

Interlinear Search for 'Genesis 10:25' - NAS with the BHS and NA26 - StudyLight.org

*Proverbs 26:4-6*
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet and drinks violence.

 

[dad2]

*Proverbs 26:4-6*
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet and drinks violence.

Lurkers. Notice that when the self righteous false accusers do try to use the word they do so in a way vipers do? (trying to hurt or destroy rather than shed light or speak life).

Anyhow thanks for showing you have no bible case to offer whatsoever. (it goes without saying that you also have no science)

Cheers

 

[AustinC]

I await the documents from Bible scholars that tell us God separated Pangaea after the fall of Babel.
I await the documents of Christian scientists stating the continents rapidly separated after the fall of Babel.

I wonder where these documents are that prove @dad2 is correct. Does anyone know where the Bible scholars are that support @dad2?