From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The thing that surprised me the most is that when i first read Genisis 10:24-25 i thought it ment that the people of the earth seperated when the contnets divided. So if you are wondering why i belive this is bcause almost evry soiety in the world has a flood legeond.asdasdg

6-14-2009 When I read "because in his days the earth was divided" I also thought of continental drift. What better time for that to happen then just after the tower of Babel when the people were to be dispersed? In my mind that theory is strengthened when I read that Peleg means canal, brook, river and is the root letter for sailing in Hebrew. (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)SJW

Undid revision by Beyond My Ken[edit]

This user claimed to have deleted my work because I supposedly deleted references without explanation. However, I would like to call to attention every one of those refs I Moved (not deleted):

In short, I did not delete any refs. This user, however, deleted all my refs WITHOUT EXPLANATION. If he has a problem with my refs, he can bloody well come to the discussions page like anyone else is required. LutherVinci (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Misworded section, "And the Earth was divided"[edit]

You obviously have not read my sources. What I meant to say is that the theory is this: Pangaea split around the time Peleg was born, 101 years after the Flood. The only geologists that agree that such an event could have happened, however, also agree that this split happened during the Flood, not after. Also, the original way I worded it, I think, gives the reader equal opportunity to believe one theory, or the other. In general, I think you should try to verify the sources before you make any hasty judgments. Do I make myself clear? LutherVinci (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Clear, you say..? Hmmm...... I bet WP:FTN would make it clear...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
At any rate, the way you reworded the paragraph swings from a fringe theory (which I was not at all endorsing, but rather condemning in the original wording) to being just plain wrong. Neither Peterson nor Snelling ever said that Peleg lived during the time of the flood. Peterson claimed the theory that the continents broke up rapidly during the time of Peleg, 101 years after the flood. Snelling, a geologist, agreed that the continents split rapidly, but insisted that it had nothing to do Peleg, it happened entirely during the Flood. Do you finally understand both our mistakes? I would appreciate you not to overreact. LutherVinci (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight for a Fringe theory[edit]

User:LutherVinci's version seems to involve Undue weight being given to what is an extrememly Fringe theory - namely, the theory that in the days of the patriarch Peleg, is when Pangaea split up into the continents we have today (all on the basis of the single line in Genesis "in his days the Earth was divided").

On the contrary, throughout the history of Biblical interpretation, this line has been taken to refer to the Earth being divided among the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth. The article mentions this being in Jubilees; actually it is in a great number of other historiographic sources and interpretations as well, that ought to be dug up and added.

Multiple other editors have deleted LutherVinci's "Pangaea" addition, but he keeps reinstating it each and every time. I figured that since he has at least cited this "theory" to a couple of "geologists", we could give it a brief mention in keeping with due weight, but alas, that too is unacceptable for LutherVinci; he wants the paragraph to read his way and his way only.

The paragraph he wants is itself extremely confusing and self-contradictory, to wit:

"Another, more Creationist theory is that Peleg lived at the time when Pangaea split into our modern continents. This would be assuming, of course, that continental drift occurred through supernatural, rather than conventional means.[1] Some geologists suggest that geology on the ocean floor demonstrates a catastrophic, rather than uniformitarian continental drift.[2] These same geologists, however, contend that this breakup happened during the Flood, so the name Peleg actually refers to dividing up the Earth as mentioned previously.[2]"
  1. ^ As proposed by Dennis R. Peterson in Unlocking the secrets of Creation, page 42
  2. ^ a b Snelling, Andrew. A catastrophic Breakup

According to the first sentence, the "theory" is that Peleg lived when Pangaea split up. However, the last sentence says the breakup happened during the Flood. Which is it? Would this mean they think Peleg lived at the time of the Flood, when Pangaea supposedly broke up?

I'm also not sure this ought to be called a "more creationist theory". Even most Creationists would probably call this one a "fringe theory". There is no known denomination of Jews, Christians or Muslims that teaches such a geological interpretation of "the Earth was divided". So who does? A couple of fringe "geologists" only. If it is to be mentioned at all, per WP:UNDUE it should only be in the briefest possible terms, similar to my version:

"Despite Peleg's traditionally being five generations after Noah in Genesis, a theory current in some modern creationist schools of thought holds that his name meaning "division" actually refers to the breakup of the continent of Pangaea into modern continents at the time of Noah's Flood. (ref) As proposed by Dennis R. Peterson in Unlocking the secrets of Creation, page 42; Snelling, Andrew. A catastrophic Breakup (/ref)"

I do sincerely hope this controversy doesn't have to proceed to the Fringe theories Noticeboard, but if the edit-warring continues as it has, I feel there will be no other recourse for a satisfactory solution. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry... sorry that you wasted do much of your time over a "controversy" which is really not a problem, but rather a big misunderstanding. Both you and I are of the same mind, we both search for (and continually find) biblical truth. Having said that, I must confess that I worded the paragraph in question incorrectly, giving the false impression that Peleg lived at the time of the Flood, which nobody (not Peterson, Snelling, or I) was ever trying to convey. There is no question as to when Peleg lived, everyone knows that his birth and the Flood are separated by 5 generations, and 101 years.
Peterson claims (a claim which I am hesitant to believe, but I felt it was worth mentioning) that the continents split at the time of Peleg, NOT at the time of the Flood. However, as Peterson expresses in his book, there is currently no geological evidence for this. Then we have Dr. Snelling. Snelling is a Geologist who wrote an extensive paper in Answers in Genesis detailing what he believes is evidence that the continents indeed broke up rapidly, but during the Flood, NOT at the time of Peleg.
I have read many creationist books on the subject, (if you want me to, I can add them as references) and it seems to me that this is truly a dividing topic; (ironic, isn't it?) Did the continents split during the Flood or Peleg? Peleg or the Flood? Perhaps some day the answer will come from above as it always does.
But before I try to add more refs in, I would like to wonder why you haven't even bothered to check the refs already there? This entire encounter could have been avoided if you would have read the articles cited and realized how I worded it incorrectly. So next time, please, please try to check other people's work and try to see it from their point of view, before turning down a possible friend and ally. Do I make myself clear?LutherVinci (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI, only you have been reverting my edits, these "multiple other editors" don't exist.LutherVinci (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You first added this Pangaea cruft on Nov. 13. User:Beyond My Ken reverted you twice the same day, but that was apparently because he mistakenly thought you had deleted other material, so he reinstated it himself when he realized he was wrong about that. Then User:DragonflySixtyseven removed it entirely on Feb. 15 as "undue weight". You returned on Mar. 19 and reverted him/her. At that point, seeking a compromise, I decided to trim the material per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, rather than remove it entirely, but you have been reverting me since then. I am still willing to find the mutually agreeable way to describe these fringe ideas given their due weight, which ought to be about one brief sentence or so, mentioning who these people are, and what each of them believes in relation to the article topic, Peleg. Once again, this is not a divisive issue for the Christian Church, as I am not aware of any Church that teaches that Peleg has anything to do with geology. If you know of one, that might lend this due weight. As far as we know, all churches without exception do not teach this, and there is no significant number of people believing this, just a few theorists, who can certainly be named, but extensive quoting something that hardly anyone takes seriously is just plain and simple UNDUE. And you have twice used the closing phrase "Do I make myself clear?" with me; please do not use it again, because it is language appropriate for a master addressing a slave. Thank you, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry for the language, but I feel that it is necessary to make sure you understand me because so far you still seem to take everything I say negatively.
I am going to cut to the chase on the this one: You continually reword the paragraph in a way which is contrary to the sources cited, Nobody EVER suggested that Peleg lived during the time of the Flood, so to insist that this is some kind fringe theory is an insult to Dennis Peterson, Dr. Andrew Snelling, and myself. Many sources [1] suggest (although I don't believe them myself) that Peleg lived during the time Pangaea split, while most creationist geologists contend that this event actually happened entirely during the Flood, 101 years earlier. Before I move on, I want to make sure you understand me thus far, so am I presenting my resolution in an understandable manner?LutherVinci (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Of which the only one I've seen is Unlocking the Secrets of Creation by Dennis R. Peterson, but "other sources" are mentioned and addressed in The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris
FYI, before you respond, I invite you to read my ENTIRE response (including the part you already responded to) because, judging from your gross overreactions, I can only guess that I am not making myself clear enough. LutherVinci (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem reading and understanding your words, please stop insulting my intelligence. As I have already patiently explained, I call the notion that Pangaea broke into modern continents in the days of the biblical patriarchs Peleg or Noah a "fringe theory", because it perfectly meets the definition of one. Within Christendom, it is a fringe theory, because there is no known branch of Christianity (or Judaism or Islam for that matter) that has any such doctrine. Outside of Christendom, it would be even more of a fringe theory, for obvious reasons. Without any significant body of support, it is therefore what we call on the "fringe" of world belief systems.
Rather than trade insults, what we now have to apply ourselves to and concentrate on, is how to find an acceptable way of describing this notion with due weight, considering it meets the criterion for a fringe theory. You evidently don't think the current wording that I put there now is accurate, so let's tweak it and make it accurate. How about something like the following, which is partly adapted from your own words above:
"A theory current in some modern creationist schools of thought[1] interprets this verse to suggest that Peleg lived at the time the continent of Pangaea split into modern continents, although some other creationist geologists[2] contend that such an event had happened during the Flood, five generations before Peleg."
  1. ^ Unlocking the Secrets of Creation by Dennis R. Peterson; The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris
  2. ^ Snelling, Andrew. A catastrophic Breakup
I avoided stating that Peleg lived 101 years after the flood, because I have no idea how you arrived at this computation, despite your claim that it was "common knowledge". It's not "common knowledge" either; for example the Ethiopian Orthodox Church's Bible (Jubilees) contains precise dates that have Peleg being born 258 years after the flood. Safer to just leave it at "five generations". Also, mentioning Snelling here could be a slight stretch of WP:SYNTH, because he is saying the continental breakup happened at the time of Noah, but is not being quoted for his views on the subject and scope of this article (Peleg). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see at last we are both talking sense now. Yes, I agree with this mutation, it accurately expresses the view of both sides. As for chronology, I suppose it doesn't matter, but for the record I and Archbishop James Ussher (from whom we get traditional creationist chronology) came to this computation by adding up the amount of time-spans mentioned in Genesis 11: "...and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood... Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Salah... Salah lived thirty years, and begot Eber... Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg..." Thus, although it may or may not be worth mentioning in the article, The Bible says that Peleg lived 101 years after the Flood. (In The Genesis Flood, Whitcomb describes how it makes historical sense that the Tower of Babal would be almost exactly a century after the Flood).
Well, at any rate, the problem is solved, so I'll be seeing you! Cheers. LutherVinci (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Peleg, water, division, and continental separation[edit]

The creation scientist, Dr. Walt Brown, has an intriguing suggestion, that the name Peleg, which is also the root of archipelago and pelagic sediment, denotes DIVISION BY WATER.

His hydroplate theory proposes that the separation of the earth's continents did indeed happen simultaneously with the bursting forth of the fountains of the deep in Genesis 7, the original source of the "windows of Heaven" opening up. (40 days and nights)

According to his theory, after the continents drifted apart on the subterranean layer of water bursting forth, their slow settling (after the flood waters drained into the deep ocean basins, laid open by the "bursting" spoken of in Genesis 7:11), made the oceans rise in compensation of that continental settling into the mantle.

Land bridges connecting the continental divides of the Americas and Asia are commonly discussed. Lower the oceans about 300 feet and you connect Alaska with Siberia and Australia with Indonesia with Southeast Asia.

Peleg was FOUR generations removed from Shem [Shem, Arphaxed, Sala, Eber, Peleg]. Nimrod (of Babel fame) was only TWO generations removed from Ham [Ham, Cush, Nimrod].

Therefore, although Peleg may have been born early enough to see the Tower of Babel, and witness the divine birth of Earth's modern basic language groups, it also likely that he lived far beyond that, to see mankind dispersed from Babel as far as the Americas and Australia, only to have the rising of the oceans cut them off from each other for good.

"The earth was divided (by water) in Peleg's day." I Chron. 1:19 [Make's one go "Hmmmm."] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonWillcox (talkcontribs) 23:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam Clark's Commentary on Genesis 10:15, Peleg.[edit]

In addition to some more recent creationists holding the view that this division concerns the physical division of the continents, Adam Clark also thought this was likely when he published his commentaries early in the 19th century. He does not claim the view to be original with himself, but of the theories of which he was aware, he leaned toward this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Two administrators have reverted a detail form the article.[edit]

The data is not being described as academic or factual. It is merely one of many interpretations of the phrase. Wikipedia, surely, tells of what interpretations people make of their religious texts, nonsense or no. It was sourced. (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing only goes so far. I can find sources for amusing speculation on Donald Trump's hair. With amusing pictures. They do not belong in Wikipedia.
Academic interpretations of the Biblical text are fine. Speculation that the ancient authors were actually describing modern views on continental drift belongs in the same bin as theories on the separate life of Trump's hairpiece.
Please gain a consensus for inclusion before reguffing. --Pete (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)