(July 18, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Drich Wrote: Not to cut anyone short but the standing question I see is: does gen 10 contradict gen 11 in a word no. Why? See the following link.

https://www.christiancourier.com/article...-the-earth

I have discussed several times already in the past, so rather than look up my meger efforts I will borrow what has been said here.

Read the article. It is essentially saying what Godschild has been saying, and is thus still damaged by my previous post, i.e that within several centuries in ancient times - where neither technology nor cultural interactions were exactly commonplace or easy - somehow all other languages died out, with just a single language being spoken by all, and yet the actual data concerning the development of languages across cultures shows nothing like this, and the idea itself was already ansurd. O-o

(July 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(July 18, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Drich Wrote: Not to cut anyone short but the standing question I see is: does gen 10 contradict gen 11 in a word no. Why? See the following link.

https://www.christiancourier.com/article...-the-earth

I have discussed several times already in the past, so rather than look up my meger efforts I will borrow what has been said here.

Read the article. It is essentially saying what Godschild has been saying, and is thus still damaged by my previous post, i.e that within several centuries in ancient times - where neither technology nor cultural interactions were exactly commonplace or easy - somehow all other languages died out, with just a single language being spoken by all, and yet the actual data concerning the development of languages across cultures shows nothing like this, and the idea itself was already ansurd. O-o

Ah, no. Maybe you should re-read the article. Because The article speaks about Prolepsis. In short prolepsis means that the information given may not be in chronological order. Understand we did not have the numbers that denote book chapter and verse till about 1500 years ago. Meaning the idea that the events described in genesis 10:37 must chronologically precede everything that happened in genesis 11 is foolishness. Why? Because again the numbers denoting book chapter and verse do not apply to the original literary writing style of the ancient Hebrews. For the did not write events by a chronicle standard. They wrote topically. Again read the article.

---

(July 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(July 18, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Drich Wrote: Not to cut anyone short but the standing question I see is: does gen 10 contradict gen 11 in a word no. Why? See the following link.

https://www.christiancourier.com/article...-the-earth

I have discussed several times already in the past, so rather than look up my meger efforts I will borrow what has been said here.

Read the article. It is essentially saying what Godschild has been saying, and is thus still damaged by my previous post, i.e that within several centuries in ancient times - where neither technology nor cultural interactions were exactly commonplace or easy - somehow all other languages died out, with just a single language being spoken by all, and yet the actual data concerning the development of languages across cultures shows nothing like this, and the idea itself was already ansurd. O-o

Ah, no. Maybe you should re-read the article. Because The article speaks about Prolepsis. In short prolepsis means that the information given may not be in chronological order. Understand we did not have the numbers that denote book chapter and verse till about 1500 years ago. Meaning the idea that the events described in genesis 10:37 must chronologically precede everything that happened in genesis 11 is foolishness. Why? Because again the numbers denoting book chapter and verse do not apply to the original literary writing style of the ancient Hebrews. For the did not write events by a chronicle standard. They wrote topically. Again read the article.

(July 19, 2013 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Read the article. It is essentially saying what Godschild has been saying, and is thus still damaged by my previous post, i.e that within several centuries in ancient times - where neither technology nor cultural interactions were exactly commonplace or easy - somehow all other languages died out, with just a single language being spoken by all, and yet the actual data concerning the development of languages across cultures shows nothing like this, and the idea itself was already ansurd. O-o

Ah, no. Maybe you should re-read the article. Because The article speaks about Prolepsis. In short prolepsis means that the information given may not be in chronological order. Understand we did not have the numbers that denote book chapter and verse till about 1500 years ago. Meaning the idea that the events described in genesis 10:37 must chronologically precede everything that happened in genesis 11 is foolishness. Why? Because again the numbers denoting book chapter and verse do not apply to the original literary writing style of the ancient Hebrews. For the did not write events by a chronicle standard. They wrote topically. Again read the article.

Ah. However, that only escapes the part of my post referring to it happening prior. But for the rest of my post, the damage is still done: the actual data regarding both the development and spread of languages supports the opposite case as put forward in the case of Genesis: there was no mass introduction of languages anywhere in the evidence. And the evidence we do have goes directly against that.

Thanks for the article by the way. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

(July 18, 2013 at 10:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 2. Your criteria seem to be illogical.
- Correlated with your experience of reality... do you mean is material? When God is immaterial/ supernatural?

I’m afraid so Frodo. You see, I’m unwilling to grant that immaterial is real. You would have to make it seem reasonable for me to believe it before describing an entity. Then we would ponder all sorts of other questions! The very same that troubled Descartes. Immaterial affecting material, formal causes without material causes. The entire concept is fraught with question begging uncertainties.

(July 18, 2013 at 10:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: - Can be verified independently? When God cannot be verified independently?

I know that is true so far. I know that I personally have been unable to verify any Gods, and that’s kind of a deal breaker in itself.

(July 18, 2013 at 10:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: These criteria, if I've understood you correctly, only serve to show your lack of understanding of what constitutes God.

I would say that it demonstrates my inability to accept what you understand constitutes God. I would say that your inability to demonstrate that your idea is true, doesn’t give you any more authority on the matter.

(July 18, 2013 at 10:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're way ahead of yourself. You need to work out what a God would look like if his attributes were consistent.

I have heard no attributes that are consistent with reality. How does God cause the universe into existence without a material cause? At what point did he change his mind and decide to do so? How was God subject to change before time was created? Why is God subject to logical consistencies and not the other way around? I could type an endless list of things. I’m not willing to invoke an entity to be a comforting piece of false knowledge for things I don’t understand.

(July 18, 2013 at 10:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'll repeat what i mean, in case i hit home this time. God is logical as anything which exists has to be logical. Existence X relies on the internal logic of X, for if it didn't, X couldn't exist.
The theory works in both directions. We observe a logical universe <> if this universe was created then it's origin must be logical.
Actuality/potential has to be logical to be actuality/potential.

Yes. I agree that this is what we observe. I don’t see where you arrive at God. Its an assumption that you’ve conformed to fit your observation. It doesn’t have a necessary place, you just don’t think it needs to get thrown out. I don’t think it necessary to jam that God piece into a place that, to me, doesn’t have a requirement for it.

God isn't necessary/ undeniable as that would contradict the logic of his existence. He has to be necessary only when acknowledged. Your materialism trips you up at every step. And you insist on using it exclusively.

All you need to confront is the logical model that cannot by its nature be natural. You're refusal to go there ends this discussion now.

(July 19, 2013 at 8:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: God isn't necessary/ undeniable as that would contradict the logic of his existence. He has to be necessary only when acknowledged. Your materialism trips you up at every step. And you insist on using it exclusively.

All you need to confront is the logical model that cannot by its nature be natural. You're refusal to go there ends this discussion now.

I don't understand why it can't be natural. You seem to think that the logical laws are prescriptive to the universe. You are convinced that there must be a God, so you are convinced that It is the one writing the prescriptions you think necessary for the universe. You say they can't be natural as if they are an entity that exists somewhere, like The Law of Non-contradiction is an actual supernatural constraint being kept in place by a God.

You take issue with me saying that the Laws are naturally there, EXIST is a non-sensical word to describe the laws. You say the laws are immaterial, if that's the case, the law of "don't run a red light" and "don't give money to gypsies" is immaterial too, as it can't be put in a jar. This is absolute absurdity. You ignore that maybe those laws exist out of necessity. Causes and effects, which by the way, always go in that order. That's another one, and it backs up the red light rule. I'm confused as to how you can see things the way you describe. I just can't make sense of it.


I say the laws are observed through our experience and are descriptive of the universe and beneficial to our ever growing thirst for knowledge. I don't have to invoke an entity to explain why I can think. It's an observation made about my experience that correlates with reality. I have no problem doing this, and then understanding that there are still things that I don't know.

You however, account for God's existence by saying it is necessity, and judge me for saying the same thing about these "laws", but to get to God, requires an unfounded assumption. This doesn't at all make any sense. A God, the way you describe it, has no properties or discernable attributes. It is an arbitrary word plugged in next to logic. The word God is indistinguishable from something that is false, and quite UNnecessary. I don't at all see where you consider yourself justified in making this assumption.

I apologize that I have not diligently read through each and every post here. But I've checked on the progress of the various ideas. I don't think anyone has brought up the following points.
1. Genesis is a compendium of material from numerous more ancient oral traditions that were collected as another larger oral tradition and then centuries later put down in writing close to the Greek classical period of history or possibly as late as the Roman - don't recall exactly.

2. all the different original oral traditions were carried forward by different more ancient tribal societies which would merge together at various times with other tribes and merge their oral traditions - fixing the disconnects between their stories with their own surmises at the time to connect them.

3. for the most ancient materials we may presume a whole lot of merging and re-merging over long millenia of time and loss of any coherence to the original meaning and purpose of the story which has taken on new meanings and new purposes with each new merging with new tribal associations.

4. what we have now is just the state of the materials as they were when they were finally written down - the explanation about the one language and the multiple languages is considered by scholars to be the insertion of one of the later or final redactors of the material to make sense of a story fragment that had lost all it's connecting meanings.

5.so basically a very long version of what in the last century we called the "game of telephone" which probably isn't used any more but hey, I'm old

Quote:The Bible makes ZERO mention of your assertion.

That never even slows the shitheads down. You see, they think they have a special understanding of this bullshit because they "believe."

I think the reason is that they are fucking stupid. Nonetheless, they make it say what they want it to say. No matter how ridiculous their interpretation may be.

May I add, that in the opinion of most Christians, the methods by which the stories have come down to us are not a problem as they consider the value of scripture to be it's ability to speak to their spiritual life through the interpretive framework of our human lives and our human world today. Most Christians use contemporary frames of reference to interpret meaning from the bible that informs their own religious journey.

Humans are the animals who for some reason have decided that an intellectual life built on thoughts, ideas and the creation of meaning, is essential to being what we conceive as human. We can use many different tools to create meaning. Christians use the bible to create meaning. Some are all hard core about it and others are more intuitive about it.

the bible ends in the most depressing and catastrophic end possible, the decline in religion shows that people want a happy ending, or no ending at all... religious minds think very linearly, the 'seven' day week they always thinking about 'the-end' why? because their way is tyranny in disguise and they are trapped, miserable and oppressed zombies, feed them the cure and if they don't recover...