Punished for Babel?

[Full Circle]

So then, explain to us how the historical evolution of linguistics over the face of the earth does not account at all for a one-time scattering from Babel.

So you are a linguist? That must be a very interesting field of study.

As far as the topic of this thread how does your head not explode when you read what xtians believe? I didn't know whether to laugh or cry as I read so I had a beer and now I feel better.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Yes if course you need to be convinced. You've ruled that out already though.

I haven't ruled it out. I've given you the criteria that a claim must meet to be credible. I will consider anything you have to say. If the things you say continue to derive from the same types of unreliable processes, don't expect a different outcome though.

Are you referring to the "true-ness" characteristic that 2+2=4 has? Are you sayin that because 2+2 always equals 4, that true-ness is something you think needs an explanation for in a worldview, and to you, that explanation is God?

Yes the truth of what we can logically accept, if that is 2+2=4. In my considerations, that process leads to the conclusion that God is everything claimed of him in the bible.

So you think that this truth is a product of God?

[MikeTheInfidel]

The story is incoherent on several levels. The biggest one is that it says that all of mankind was speaking the same language. This is Genesis 11. One chapter back, in Genesis 10, it talks about the descendants of Noah's sons settling into their own territories, each with their own language.

Did you actually read that, or did you find this notion on one of your atheist sites.

I actually read it, you nitwit, and it you spent 5 minutes picking up the damn book and looking, you'd read it, too.

Genesis 10:5 "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."

Genesis 10:20 "These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations."

Genesis 10:31 "These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations."

There is literally only one verse left in Genesis 10 after 10:31. And what does the very first verse of Genesis 11 say? "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."



What, did they just forget the other languages at that point, just in time for God to make them speak different languages again? Don't make me fucking laugh.

[fr0d0]

I haven't ruled it out (1). I've given you the criteria that a claim must meet to be credible (2)

So you think that this truth is a product of God? (3)

1. Why did you say that I couldn't give you any reason then??

2. Please remind me of the criteria

3. I have no idea what you're asking.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I haven't ruled it out (1). I've given you the criteria that a claim must meet to be credible (2)

So you think that this truth is a product of God? (3)

1. Why did you say that I couldn't give you any reason then??

2. Please remind me of the criteria

3. I have no idea what you're asking.

I was saying that you, personally, have not given me a reason. (Suggesting that you've had opportunity through our correspondence and have not done so). I was not saying I would reject anything that comes from you. Only that you could not give me any reason (when asked earlier) nothing more.

2. Discernible from non-existance, correlates with my experience of reality, can be verified by myself and others does not stem from unreliable processes, and is just as vulnerable at being falsified as it is to being confirmed.

3. For you to explain why you think the absolute true-ness characteristic of the sum of 2+2 is a characteristic of God or if that is what you were saying. I was asking for clarification.

[fr0d0]

1. I have given you reason. You haven't found it to be satisfactory.

2. Your criteria seem to be illogical.
- Correlated with your experience of reality... do you mean is material? When God is immaterial/ supernatural?
- Can be verified independently? When God cannot be verified independently?

These criteria, if I've understood you correctly, only serve to show your lack of understanding of what constitutes God. You're way ahead of yourself. You need to work out what a God would look like if his attributes were consistent.

3. That is not what I'm saying. Or I cannot associate that statement with what I've said.

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.

[Godscreated]

---

Did you actually read that, or did you find this notion on one of your atheist sites.

---

I actually read it, you nitwit, and it you spent 5 minutes picking up the damn book and looking, you'd read it, too.

Genesis 10:5 "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."

Genesis 10:20 "These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations."

Genesis 10:31 "These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations."

There is literally only one verse left in Genesis 10 after 10:31. And what does the very first verse of Genesis 11 say? "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."



What, did they just forget the other languages at that point, just in time for God to make them speak different languages again? Don't make me fucking laugh.

I've spent hours reading the Bible this week, read both the 10th and 11th chapters last night. As I explain the 10th chapter is a genealogical chapter covering hundreds of years of genealogy and chapter 11 covers over 500 years. You should study the time lines given, you take scripture as written one day after another and that is not how it was written. The greatest laugh is on you for spouting off about something you know nothing about. How did you ever get through history classes with your disregard for time.

[The Reality Salesman01]

@fr0d0

Thanks for clarifying your position. It seems that we may have, at least in some respects, irreconcilable differences. The latter part of your post, however, deserves a chance at establishing common ground. Out of hopes for a more effective attempt, I'll have to ask you to wait until tomorrow. I will respond when I wake up though. Good night.

[MindForgedManacle]

I actually read it, you nitwit, and it you spent 5 minutes picking up the damn book and looking, you'd read it, too.

Genesis 10:5 "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."

Genesis 10:20 "These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations."

Genesis 10:31 "These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations."

There is literally only one verse left in Genesis 10 after 10:31. And what does the very first verse of Genesis 11 say? "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."



What, did they just forget the other languages at that point, just in time for God to make them speak different languages again? Don't make me fucking laugh.

I've spent hours reading the Bible this week, read both the 10th and 11th chapters last night. As I explain the 10th chapter is a genealogical chapter covering hundreds of years of genealogy and chapter 11 covers over 500 years. You should study the time lines given, you take scripture as written one day after another and that is not how it was written.

STOP. Now listen. Do you realize that Mike made no claim that the supposed process to a single language was fast? Oh wait, you just assumed that he did so as to ignore what he said. Furthermore, do you actually think that 500 years is enough time - in an era where social diffusion and technology wasn't anything like today - to BOTH erase all but one language. Really?


You're making your case even more obviously stupid and reliant on no evidence.

The greatest laugh is on you for spouting off about something you know nothing about. How did you ever get through history classes with your disregard for time.

Indeed Godschild. You didn't realize how ironic what you said was. I'm sure @BadWriterSparty is getting a kick out of it though.

[Drich]

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.