Thread: strongs number 6388 v 6389

These two words seem to be the "same" but different, each is translated as peleg but have a different meaning? If the hebrew letters are the same how do we distinguish?

Do both words have the same root meaning of earthquake?

6388 looks like it's connected to 6385 and means river or divide, so i'm guessing depending on the context it's used determines if it's earthquake or river...

.... maybe

Language is what it is, and we have to struggle sometimes.

"see" -- (n) a bishopric
"see" -- (v) to perceive

Which is it? Look at the context.

is the hebrew different? If the Hebrew is different then that explains the different words - if it is the same then context alone would not be a sufficient guide to avoid ambiguity (in all cases).

It seems to me the name "Peleg" is related in some way to "peleg" which is related to a root "palag" (H6385). So, the words seem related to me.

But why should Hebrew be in any way special as a language? Why should it have zero "ambiguities"? Originally, it seems there were no "vowel points." This means that consonants were the only letters. Some words look identical, only their pronunciation differs. Some words sound similar, but their letters are actually different. Then their are the double-similarities.

What to do? What to do? If it were so, so hard to determine--practically impossible--then we'd be in trouble. But it's not. What soul-saving issue depends on a single letter (or vowel point) of the Hebrew Bible? None that I know of.

Does God owe us "ambiguity free" labor where his Word is concerned? If the Bible contains ambiguities, then it contains them. Period, full stop.

But if someone loses faith in God or his Word because of an ambiguous dagesh, or a tittle, or a yod, or ... (BartEhrman?), then I think his problem is pride. That God didn't measure up to what he thought a "reliable" God should do.

I thought all ministers had to study either Greek or Hebrew if the choice is 50:50 then half the ministers out there should be able to help me, no? I know Greek was the most daunting prospect of doing theology but with a reformed view of scripture it is almost a necessity- no?

Eoghan, one has helped. Rev. Buchanan has provided a thoroughly adequate answer, to which it seems there is nothing more to add. Is there something specific which you feel still needs to be addressed?

And it's certainly not an either/or. Both languages are most necessary for a minister or theologian.

I think the issue has to do with Strong's methodology. These words are homographs. That is, you cannot distinguish them by their spelling. They are even pointed the same (their vowels are the same) -- except that Peleg (the name) doesn't have a plural.

What is interesting to me is that the name Peleg is associated with the verb PLG (to divide), rather than the noun peleg (channel or canal).

You were wise to ask, however, since Strong's is no substitute for an actual knowledge of the languages. He can only point out questions for you to ask. He cannot give you answers. And Rev. Buchanan's answer is dead on. Context must distinguish the words.

I'm going to use the "see vs. see" illustration. It's a good English example of homographs.

The reason I am so interested in the word is that I believe this may be a reference to continental drift. As a creationist I do not hold with the millions of years usually attributed to geological processes. One of my colleagues in the Biblical Creation Society worked on pre-cambrian pipe rock which showed worms moving up through sediment which then became rock - 40 feet of it! There were stationery surfaces which may have lasted hours or days before the poor worms had to start burrowing up again as more sediment was dumped on them.

Anyway I digress. After the flood there must have been massive readjustments in the earths crust, knowing there was just one land mass at the start Genesis 1 it must have fragmented some time in living history.

Now I know that scripture is not a scientific treatise on geological history but what it does say is true. So if the land was riven asunder and water filled channels divided it (seas) then Genesis 10:25 may well be a commentary on it.


P.S. I was surprised that nobody referred to the oldest known translation of the Hebrew by Hebrew scholars much closer to the language and culture

Eoghan,
Are you familiar with Walt Brown's work on the Flood?

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html

Interestingly I came acrossa translation of the Seder Olam (~69BC) which while primarily aimed at a chronology of the OT does comment on the Peleg issue.

i) Peleg means earthquake
ii) Genesis 10:25 was understood to mean the seperation of the continents
iii) There was speculation that the seperation was concurrent with the confusion of languages