The claim from that link.
The name Peleg is demonstrably not Semitic. Rather, it is of Sumerian origin, and thus, the name Peleg could not have existed as a Semitic name before the Semitic speaking people entered the land of "Shinar" (Sumer) and encountered the irrigation canals of the Sumerians. Peleg is introduced as a descendent of Noah before the Semitic tribe enters Shinar. Therefore, the bible contains a lie.
Peleg, the son of Eber, first appears in Genesis 10:25:
In Eblaitic (3000 - 2000 bce, upper North West Mesopotamia), prs means "divide." In Ugaritic (1500 - 1000 bce, coast of the Mediterranean) plg is "canal" and prs means breach, opening, relating to the Eblaitic prs, "divide."
The authors of Genesis knew that prs meant "divide" and thought that it was equivalent to the Sumerian PAR, composed of pa and eg. In fact, PAR may have meant "divide," and may have been pronounced pa+eg, in the sense of dividing the arable land into irrigatable sections. However, palgu (and thus Peleg) would not exist without PAR. In fact, Perez would also not exist.
That's two birds with one stone.
There are plenty of examples of this sort of thing throughout the Tanakh, including Daniel's prophecy concerning Paras (Persia). To suggest that the authors of the Hebrew scriptures were not in close consultation with the cuneiform lexical lists available to them is absolutely absurd. To suggest that their philological implications are all correct is laughable. To suggest that they weren't trying to say something more to those wise and educated enough to find such Big Problems is refuted in multiple passages of the Tanakh itself.
Other examples of these metatextual passages seem to suggest that the passages were intended to be interpreted metatextually, while considering the available attestations of the word. Through this "metalexical" narrative construct, the Tanakh, the keys to the destruction of the machine were inbuilt
Reddit - Dive into anything
The Big Problem with PelegThe name Peleg is demonstrably not Semitic. Rather, it is of Sumerian origin, and thus, the name Peleg could not have existed as a Semitic name before the Semitic speaking people entered the land of "Shinar" (Sumer) and encountered the irrigation canals of the Sumerians. Peleg is introduced as a descendent of Noah before the Semitic tribe enters Shinar. Therefore, the bible contains a lie.
Peleg, the son of Eber, first appears in Genesis 10:25:
It is common in the Tanakh for people to be named after a word, such as in Genesis 38:29:
The problem with Peleg is that it was the Akkadian word for the Sumerogram for "canal," PAR, composed of 𒉽𒂊. The first of these is pa (𒉽), probably relating to a patrilineal claim ("father's"), and the second, eg (𒂊), refers to a "levee." Thus, the Akkadian word is derived from a phonetic pronunciation of the Sumerograms, which means no Semite could have this name before encountering a Sumerian canal.
In Eblaitic (3000 - 2000 bce, upper North West Mesopotamia), prs means "divide." In Ugaritic (1500 - 1000 bce, coast of the Mediterranean) plg is "canal" and prs means breach, opening, relating to the Eblaitic prs, "divide."
The authors of Genesis knew that prs meant "divide" and thought that it was equivalent to the Sumerian PAR, composed of pa and eg. In fact, PAR may have meant "divide," and may have been pronounced pa+eg, in the sense of dividing the arable land into irrigatable sections. However, palgu (and thus Peleg) would not exist without PAR. In fact, Perez would also not exist.
That's two birds with one stone.
There are plenty of examples of this sort of thing throughout the Tanakh, including Daniel's prophecy concerning Paras (Persia). To suggest that the authors of the Hebrew scriptures were not in close consultation with the cuneiform lexical lists available to them is absolutely absurd. To suggest that their philological implications are all correct is laughable. To suggest that they weren't trying to say something more to those wise and educated enough to find such Big Problems is refuted in multiple passages of the Tanakh itself.
Other examples of these metatextual passages seem to suggest that the passages were intended to be interpreted metatextually, while considering the available attestations of the word. Through this "metalexical" narrative construct, the Tanakh, the keys to the destruction of the machine were inbuilt
