Continents Only Separated In 2200 Bc?

[sunstoned]

Ooh my.

You've opened my eyes!!!

Let us throw out Christianity and the bible now. Great floods cannot be true...

I thought this was a Christian-based discussion board....

Well I wouldn't go that far. But the OP is a good example that not all that is delivered in general conference is scripture. That fact alone would upset many a member, and it opens a whole way of looking at general conference talks. I wonder what would have become to the member who would have questioned this talk in 1968.

Having to wait 40 years to see if a apostle's sermons can withstand the test of science does not seem to be the best way to build confidence in the membership. I wonder how GBH's err ring talk will be viewed 40 years from now.

[Franktalk]

If the earth were to have moved that fast, most of the earth's crust would have been molten by the end of the 200 years, and the oceans would probably have evaporated.

Scripture says the earth divided. It does not say it took the entire journey. Your math is based on on your own assumption. Also God places limits on nature to avoid the very things you point out.

Job 38:10 And broke up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

If God can't move a continent then He can't make stars, He can't make animals, He can't stop the earth, He can't make man, etc. Is that your view? The plan of salvation is God's plan and the entire universe will do back flips if required.

[mfbukowski]

Scripture says the earth divided. It does not say it took the entire journey. Your math is based on on your own assumption. Also God places limits on nature to avoid the very things you point out.

Job 38:10 And broke up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

If God can't move a continent then He can't make stars, He can't make animals, He can't stop the earth, He can't make man, etc. Is that your view? The plan of salvation is God's plan and the entire universe will do back flips if required.

Nobody doubts that, but why wouldn't God use natural processes? It is a wicked and adulterous generation who seek out a sign. If the universe did back flips, I think clearly that would be a "sign" and the world would be converted instantly.

I don't think that's the plan. God gave us a brain for a reason.

[thesometimesaint]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[BCSpace]

In the days of Peleg was the earth divided. Lets assume Peleg's days were his lifetime and that he lived for about 200 years. If the continents separated at the beginning of his life and moved to roughly their current position over about 200 years then how far would they have moved per year and would that movement been noticable to the inhabitants ie. daily earthquakes?? A movement of 4000 miles over 200 years would give an average of about 300 feet /day.

The interesting thing to me is that both science and the Bible seem to concur that the earth was one land mass at one time in the past. The question begging starts there.

If the earth were to have moved that fast, most of the earth's crust would have been molten by the end of the 200 years, and the oceans would probably have evaporated.

And the scriptural account gives the impression, at least to me, that it happened much quicker than that.

[3DOP]

This, I believe is clearly an example of someone that was wrong who was in the First Presidency speaking in General Conference?:

"In the course of time from the creation, in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:16, JST), or about the year 2200 B.C., Just prior to the confusion of the languages, the single continent of land that had continued from creation was divided to produce the hemispheres as we now know them. But notwithstanding this, the geographic location of the Garden of Eden was made known to the Prophet Joseph Smith by revelation as here in the land of America, in Jackson County, Missouri, with Independence as the center place."

--- Alvin R. Dyer, First Presidency, Conference Report, October 1968, pp. 106-110

So there is a presumption that Elder Dyer is wrong?

Who that believes Genesis would have a better explanation of what it means for "the earth to be divided" in Peleg's day? I realize a lot of people don't believe Genesis is historical anymore, but with some of this stuff, unless it IS historical, what is there to learn? What is the lesson to be learned from stories about people who didn't really live to be hundreds of years old? Why make up numbers? They seem so random. 963. 877. I am not looking them up. They don't mean anything unless they are real ages. So Peleg comes along and lives for over 200 years as I recall, and during his life "the earth was divided".

What do you think it means? It sounds kind of geographical to me. Okay...so what's the allegorical message involved with "earth division"? Why say that some dude waited until he was over a hundred to start a family and then lived a couple centuries, when he didn't? There isn't any allegorical application. I could believe that Genesis is false and leave my faith before I could propose 963, 877, families beginning at over a hundred years old, earth divisions, and a described global flood that didn't happen, has some allegorical application. For 2,000 years no Christian of any variety proposed allegorical interpretations for these things. They still don't in 2011 as far as I can see. They just say they are false and go along like its okay to have the first book of the Bible be a farce.

Edited October 14, 2011 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

What I don't understand is why those closest to the alleged event interpreted it as a division of people/nations and not land.

That's okay too. It doesn't need to be geographical, but it does in my opinion, need to be real, along with other data in Genesis that is even more stubborn in yielding any kind of allegorical message. I am NOT against allegory. I believe that a lot of Scripture IS primarily allegorical. It can even be fictional. But there is a lot of history too. What I reject is the idea that we can say that inspired Scripture gives fictional data with no message. The purpose of non-fiction can be mere information, facts, statistics. How many years from this patriarch to that one. How many soldiers from this tribe and that tribe. Facts. But no one makes up fiction that doesn't have a message. And certainly God doesn't give us messageless fiction. Peleg doesn't sound very fictional to me. It sounds like dry hard fact. Nobody makes up dry hard fiction.

Things that are boring can be okay if they have utility. How to put your stereo components together. Genealogies. You have a use for those things, but you would never ponder over them for deeper meanings. The Bible has this kind of data. But no one hides allegorical messages in boring literature because no one can meditate on what is boring and get to the depths of it. THAT is my problem with naming Peleg or the patriarchs as allegorical fiction.

Edited October 14, 2011 by 3DOP

[cinepro]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Faith.

If the scenario you hypothesize is correct, then it would require more faith to believe these things. If there were tons of evidences and all the science lined up, it would require less faith.

Since God really, really likes faith, what better way to test us?

Edited October 14, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I have plenty of faith(A least a little smaller than a grain of mustard seed. ) What I don't have faith in is that we mere mortals always understand HOW God does the things he does.

Edited October 14, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Georgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend have some interesting speculations in Hamlet's Mill on the cosmological nature of various "floods" throughout history that are worth considering.

[Cobalt-70]

I have plenty of faith(A least a little smaller than a grain of mustard seed. ) What I don't have faith in is that we mere mortals always understand HOW God does the things he does.

Scientific knowledge is as eternal as any other type of knowledge. Joseph Smith once said, "If there be bounds set to the heavens, or to the seas: or to the dry land...all the appointed...laws...shall be revealed, in the days of the dispensation of the fullness of times, according to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other Gods before the world was." (D&C 121:30-32)

In another instance, Smith said that all things are governed by natural law: "[God] hath given a law unto all things by which they move in their times and seasons; and their courses are fixed; even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehendeth the earth and all the planets." (D&C 88:42-43) If we discover these laws through science, as we have in the case of continental drift and other elements of basic geology, then, as Smith said in the previous quote, you can consider it to have been foreordained that we have discovered that knowledge in the "dispensation of the fullness of times."

Edited October 14, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Ron Beron]

A little more on the non-geological basis of the "division". In the pseudepigraphal Book of Jubilees it states, "And in the sixth year thereof, she bare him a son, and he called his name Peleg; for in the days when he was born the children of Noah began to divide the earth amongst themselves: for this reason he called his name Peleg. And they divided (it) secretly amongst themselves, and told it to Noah. And it came to pass in the beginning of the thirty-third jubilee that they divided the earth into three parts,"

Additionally, in the Anchor Bible Dictionary it relates that "the meaning of the “division of the earth” during the life of Peleg, this may be related to any of the proposed explanations of the name. If Peleg is meant to reflect the W Semitic root, “to divide,” then the division may simply refer to that between the descendants of Peleg and those of his brother Joktan. If Peleg is suggestive of the Akkadian word for “canal,” the division may refer to that between civilized canal builders and nomadic peoples. If Peleg is a geographic name in N Mesopotamia, then the division may suggest the events of Gen 11:1–9."

I think that while it can refer to a geologic condition, perhaps brought on by a flood, it more than probably relates to either a division of people which Jubilees suggest or a shifting of water courses.

[Flyonthewall]

I don't understand how scriptures and prophets can speak of the division as physical, not just political or social, and still there are doubts about it.

It is like saying: if man cannot figure out how God did something, then it must not be real. If science can't verify what God says He did, then He didn't really do what He said He did.

If I have to choose between science and the scriptures and prophets, I will choose scriptures and prophets every time.

Just my simplistic 2 cents.

[David T]

So there is a presumption that Elder Dyer is wrong?

Who that believes Genesis would have a better explanation of what it means for "the earth to be divided" in Peleg's day?

The dividing of the known world into Nations/Tribes/Peoples. This is the direct context of everything that is going on in the Genesis story at this time.Later targums, midrash, and expansions (such as Jubilees) all interpret it as tribal/political. There is nothing at all that would indicate any concept of the separation of continental landmasses. The very concept is an anachronism, and highly irrelevant to the text.

Genesis is telling the political/religious story of how and why Israel and its allies and enemies got to where they are "right now" (IE, at the composition and editing of the text). It's the book that answers all the questions children would ask, and sometimes with highly polemical answers. "Where did our enemies the Ammorites come from?" "Well, one day, our great great great uncle Lot's daughters got him drunk, and...")

[Cobalt-70]

A little more on the non-geological basis of the "division". In the pseudepigraphal Book of Jubilees it states, "And in the sixth year thereof, she bare him a son, and he called his name Peleg; for in the days when he was born the children of Noah began to divide the earth amongst themselves: for this reason he called his name Peleg. And they divided (it) secretly amongst themselves, and told it to Noah. And it came to pass in the beginning of the thirty-third jubilee that they divided the earth into three parts,"

Additionally, in the Anchor Bible Dictionary it relates that "the meaning of the “division of the earth” during the life of Peleg, this may be related to any of the proposed explanations of the name. If Peleg is meant to reflect the W Semitic root, “to divide,” then the division may simply refer to that between the descendants of Peleg and those of his brother Joktan. If Peleg is suggestive of the Akkadian word for “canal,” the division may refer to that between civilized canal builders and nomadic peoples. If Peleg is a geographic name in N Mesopotamia, then the division may suggest the events of Gen 11:1–9."

I think that while it can refer to a geologic condition, perhaps brought on by a flood, it more than probably relates to either a division of people which Jubilees suggest or a shifting of water courses.

In addition to Jubilees, this is also the view of Pseudo-Philo, Flavius Josephus, and Clementina. I think it by far makes the most sense, given that the mention of Peleg appears around the tower of Babel. So the Babel mythology explains how languages developed, and the Peleg mythology describes how, as a result, the ancient nations of the world came into existence. It seems to me like there must have been a more fully-developed Peleg myth floating around in Mesopotamia. Genesis seems to just be referencing that myth and assuming that the reader is already familiar.

[mfbukowski]

Faith.

If the scenario you hypothesize is correct, then it would require more faith to believe these things. If there were tons of evidences and all the science lined up, it would require less faith.

Since God really, really likes faith, what better way to test us?

Ok, who hacked cinepro's account?

Who really posted this??

Edited October 15, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

A little more on the non-geological basis of the "division". In the pseudepigraphal Book of Jubilees it states, "And in the sixth year thereof, she bare him a son, and he called his name Peleg; for in the days when he was born the children of Noah began to divide the earth amongst themselves: for this reason he called his name Peleg. And they divided (it) secretly amongst themselves, and told it to Noah. And it came to pass in the beginning of the thirty-third jubilee that they divided the earth into three parts,"

Additionally, in the Anchor Bible Dictionary it relates that "the meaning of the “division of the earth” during the life of Peleg, this may be related to any of the proposed explanations of the name. If Peleg is meant to reflect the W Semitic root, “to divide,” then the division may simply refer to that between the descendants of Peleg and those of his brother Joktan. If Peleg is suggestive of the Akkadian word for “canal,” the division may refer to that between civilized canal builders and nomadic peoples. If Peleg is a geographic name in N Mesopotamia, then the division may suggest the events of Gen 11:1–9."

I think that while it can refer to a geologic condition, perhaps brought on by a flood, it more than probably relates to either a division of people which Jubilees suggest or a shifting of water courses.

Thanks, great post! A "changing of water courses" could have been caused by perhaps a large earthquake or other catastrophe, or of course a flood as you suggest. I like that hypothesis because it could be narrowed down to a single year, whereas political/cultural divisions I would imagine would take longer, unless of course there was some kind of agreement or territorial covenant which was widely known.

[Ron Beron]

Thanks, great post! A "changing of water courses" could have been caused by perhaps a large earthquake or other catastrophe, or of course a flood as you suggest. I like that hypothesis because it could be narrowed down to a single year, whereas political/cultural divisions I would imagine would take longer, unless of course there was some kind of agreement or territorial covenant which was widely known.

Further, there is good evidence that a large celestial object like an asteroid would cause considerable chaos and damage on not only a regional but a worldwide level.

[wenglund]

The dividing of the known world into Nations/Tribes/Peoples. This is the direct context of everything that is going on in the Genesis story at this time.Later targums, midrash, and expansions (such as Jubilees) all interpret it as tribal/political. There is nothing at all that would indicate any concept of the separation of continental landmasses. The very concept is an anachronism, and highly irrelevant to the text.

Genesis is telling the political/religious story of how and why Israel and its allies and enemies got to where they are "right now" (IE, at the composition and editing of the text). It's the book that answers all the questions children would ask, and sometimes with highly polemical answers. "Where did our enemies the Ammorites come from?" "Well, one day, our great great great uncle Lot's daughters got him drunk, and...")

Great information. I learned something new from it today. I appreciate you sharing it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

In addition to Jubilees, this is also the view of Pseudo-Philo, Flavius Josephus, and Clementina. I think it by far makes the most sense, given that the mention of Peleg appears around the tower of Babel. So the Babel mythology explains how languages developed, and the Peleg mythology describes how, as a result, the ancient nations of the world came into existence. It seems to me like there must have been a more fully-developed Peleg myth floating around in Mesopotamia. Genesis seems to just be referencing that myth and assuming that the reader is already familiar.

Excellent follow-up to nack's post. I love being taught by the learned participants on this board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alan]

In my view the continents seperated 2200 BC as the Bible seems to indicate. I know enough about modern theories to know they are often based on the flimsiest of assumptions. Therefore, if the scriptures say one thing and scientists/geologists say another I'll go with the scriptures and that's all there is to it.

[cinepro]

In my view the continents seperated 2200 BC as the Bible seems to indicate. I know enough about modern theories to know they are often based on the flimsiest of assumptions. Therefore, if the scriptures say one thing and scientists/geologists say another I'll go with the scriptures and that's all there is to it.

Watch out. You might accidentally move a mountain with that faith if you're not careful.

Edited October 15, 2011 by cinepro

[altersteve]

In my view the continents seperated 2200 BC as the Bible seems to indicate. I know enough about modern theories to know they are often based on the flimsiest of assumptions. Therefore, if the scriptures say one thing and scientists/geologists say another I'll go with the scriptures and that's all there is to it.

If the continents separated in 2200 BC, then over which body of water did the Jaredites travel to get to the New World?

[thesometimesaint]

cobalt-70:

I accept the modern Continental Drift Theory of Plate Tectonics, and find absolutely NO evidence that the continents were together some 4000 years ago. That being said if God were to come down and tell me personally that he did do it some 4000 ago then I'd have to go with that. However that would spark all types of questions in me for him to answer.

[David T]

In my view the continents seperated 2200 BC as the Bible seems to indicate. I know enough about modern theories to know they are often based on the flimsiest of assumptions. Therefore, if the scriptures say one thing and scientists/geologists say another I'll go with the scriptures and that's all there is to it.

In my view the Bible says nothing about continents separating, let alone associating it with a date on our modern calendar, and that all historical, textual, and contextual evidence shows that in the passages in question, the Bible is speaking of a tribal/national division. I know enough to know about mainstream popular scriptural interpretations to know they are often based on the flimsiest of assumptions. Therefore, if the scriptures indicate one thing, and a new interpretation that doesn't show up for thousands of years say another, I'll go with the context of the scripture to interpret it as originally intended and understood in its day and that's all there is to it.

While new views and new interpretations (especially prophetic) are highly useful in applying scriptures to our current time, positions, and circumstances, they generally aren't the most helpful in understanding or explaining the original intent of the source they are re-interpreting.

Edited October 16, 2011 by nackhadlow