At a glance
Genesis 10:25 does not state that a land bridge disappeared or that Peleg lived 11,000 years ago. Ross obtains that date by identifying the division with rising seas. This site favors division of the human world in the context of nations and scattering, while acknowledging that the verse does not expressly identify the event as Babel.
Ross’s reasoning
Ross associates the division in Peleg’s days with the loss of land connections between regions, including Siberia and Alaska and Britain and France. He places this division roughly 11,000 years ago. He then considers Noah’s date conditionally: if the relation between the two genealogies’ timespans follows a proposed relation between lifespans, Noah could be placed roughly 40,000–70,000 years ago. [1]
The division-to-land-bridge identification and the lifespan proportionality are separate premises. The latter is conditional in Ross’s text; it should not be represented as an explicit biblical formula or a date independently measured from Noah’s life.
Read the division within Genesis 10–11
Genesis 10:1–32 organizes Noah’s descendants by lands, families, languages and nations. Verse 25 gives Peleg’s name and associates his days with a division of the earth. The concluding verse relates the spread of nations to the post-Flood world.
Genesis 11:1–9 then describes one language, resistance to scattering, God’s confusion of language and dispersal. That setting gives a substantial contextual reason to understand Peleg’s division in terms of humanity’s distribution. This site prefers that interpretation over a geological severing of continents or land bridges.
The limitation matters: Genesis 10:25 does not explicitly say “Babel,” nor does it describe exactly which political, linguistic or territorial division it means. The context favors a human-geographical reading here; it does not eliminate every alternative by definition. The phrase’s possible meaning alone is not evidence for a specific sea-level event.
Why the ancient date does not follow from the verse
Evidence that a land bridge disappeared at a particular time could date that event. It would not demonstrate that this is the division Genesis attaches to Peleg. Establishing the identity requires another argument. This response does not independently assess the sea-level papers or deny that land bridges have been lost.
Genesis 11:10–26 provides ages associated with named descendants. The genealogy response explains this site’s reading of those formulas and its textual qualifications. They do not expressly instruct readers to expand elapsed time in proportion to the ancestors’ changing lifespans.
The conclusion and its limits
Peleg’s division cannot by itself establish an 11,000-year date, because the dated natural event first has to be identified with the verse. This site retains a shorter YEC chronology on its reading of the age-bearing genealogies, rather than pretending that a criticism of Ross’s land-bridge identification independently proves the age of an archaeological or geological feature.
References below identify sections of the 2025 RTB Press first edition; they do not supply printed page numbers.