How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument

[otseng]

Though now I come to think of it the 8,000 BC claim seems a lot. But it's before your Babel -tower date anyway.

I'm not adamant on any dates that are ancient. Nobody really knows the exact time when something happened thousands of years ago for any event. I'm just quoting what the sources say. But, I will say I believe languages originate from a single source on the order of thousands of years ago.

I note that you don't have any problem with relying on the hope of finding of supportive evidence eventually but seriously

If archeological evidence is found later, that'd be great. But lack of any archeological evidence now does not disprove the idea.

you think you are going to find a tower of Babel foundation predating Sumer and the Egyptian first dynasty?

It's entirely possible it could be found later.

Prior to mid-nineteenth century, there wasn't even any archaeological evidence for the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. Yet, eventually, archaeology confirmed the Biblical accounts of these empires. Likewise, it could happen again to confirm other accounts in the Bible.

"Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, almost everything that was known of ancient Assyria and Babylonia derived from textual descriptions in non-Mesopotamian sources, principally the Bible and ancient Greek histories and geographies. Arabic, Persian, and European historical traditions on ancient Mesopotamia all relied on these texts."
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm

Isn't going to happen,get over it.

Repeatedly telling me to "get over it" is not a valid argument. Instead, you'll need to present evidence that supports your argument in debate.

Despite superficial resemblance it is nothing to do with ziggurats.

"The design of Egyptian pyramids, especially the stepped designs of the oldest pyramids (Pyramid of Zoser at Saqqara, 2600 BCE), may have been an evolution from the ziggurats built in Mesopotamia."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat

If ziggurats predated pyramids and they were also in the area, it's reasonable ziggurats had an influence on the development of Egyptian pyramids.

Nor are the raised Temples of the Maya which are of A.D date anyway. These are nice pictures but do hot help (rather hinder) you case for a tower of Babel which is really shown a myth already.

It could all be a coincidence that cultures around the world independently built ziggurat-like structures. But, as you have more of these seeming coincidences, it becomes less likely they all happen by chance.

So far, I've presented two things that happen to have similarities across cultures worldwide - a global flood and ziggurats. I'll be presenting more later.

I suggest you give up Genesis literalism and accept that it is a book of Myth.

Repeatedly suggesting me to give up my position is also not a valid argument.

I suggest you give up believing these myths and polemics and trying to make them work by fiddling the evidence.

Ditto. Please present evidence and valid arguments to show languages all originated independently.

Well, if you accept that date of 3400 to 3200 BCE for Egyptian glyphs, it immediately says Mesopotamian writing existed before that at 8000 BCE.

So what? It still means that Egyptian is known to exist before your (claimed) date of this (claimed) tower which you can't show and seems (like Ark -sized shipbuilding) to be long before any such buildings were known.

I'm just pointing out your source disproves the claim that Egyptian predates other writings. I'm not saying I agree with the dating of your source. And you don't appear to agree with its dating either.

Only if you ignore or deny the evidence which not only shows the Babel story for the divergence of language does not work, just as the strata evidence shows that your Flood -model does not work, and the surrender before the demand for surrender does not work, but the evidence of the diversification of modern languages is the credible explanation, just as deep time tectonic creep (shown in modern research) is the better explanation and a surrender after the demand for surrender (as the Assyrians say) makes more sense than the Biblical polemic spin of God smiting anyone. I actually have the extra -Biblical evidence; you don't.

So far, I've presented evidence of timing of first written languages, commonality of global flood myths, and ziggurat-like structures across the world. What specific evidence have you presented that support languages originated independently?

[TRANSPONDER]

Though now I come to think of it the 8,000 BC claim seems a lot. But it's before your Babel -tower date anyway.

I'm not adamant on any dates that are ancient. Nobody really knows the exact time when something happened thousands of years ago for any event. I'm just quoting what the sources say. But, I will say I believe languages originate from a single source on the order of thousands of years ago.

It's not a significant point in the argument which is written Egyptian and Sumerian cuneiform predate your supposed date for your supposed Tower of Babel and thus the spoken languages too, thus refuting the Biblical claim for the diversification of languages. If written Sumerian goes back to 8,000 B.C. it makes no difference to that argument. It just strikes me as so early that I must check it out.

I note that you don't have any problem with relying on the hope of finding of supportive evidence eventually but seriously

If archeological evidence is found later, that'd be great. But lack of any archeological evidence now does not disprove the idea.

Well, perhaps not. The existence of languages before this Babel -date of yours does that. The state of archaeological knowledge would suggest it unlikely that a large ziggurat would be built around 3,500 B.C or whatever you proposed, but one never knows. However, the burden of proof is on you to validate the Biblical Babel , because right now, you have nothing.

you think you are going to find a tower of Babel foundation predating Sumer and the Egyptian first dynasty?

It's entirely possible it could be found later.

Prior to mid-nineteenth century, there wasn't even any archaeological evidence for the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. Yet, eventually, archaeology confirmed the Biblical accounts of these empires. Likewise, it could happen again to confirm other accounts in the Bible.

"Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, almost everything that was known of ancient Assyria and Babylonia derived from textual descriptions in non-Mesopotamian sources, principally the Bible and ancient Greek histories and geographies. Arabic, Persian, and European historical traditions on ancient Mesopotamia all relied on these texts."
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm

There was hardly any proper archaeology in those days and the Bible was, sure, the only source for contemporary information about Babylon and Assyria or indeed Egypt (not for Persia Greece etc. where we have proper histories). But Archaeology has moved on and it's being recognised that the Bible is a polemical document not to say Mythical in parts and cannot be trusted, which is the topic.

Isn't going to happen,get over it.

Repeatedly telling me to "get over it" is not a valid argument. Instead, you'll need to present evidence that supports your argument in debate.

Repeatedly demanding that I present evidence that supports my argument while ignoring that I have presented evidence that does so and refutes yours is the invalid argument. I'm aware that your denial goes deep but I feel obliged to point to the pretty obvious conclusion - the Bible is not reliable and Genesis is myth. Nobody can say I didn't tell you.

Despite superficial resemblance it is nothing to do with ziggurats.

"The design of Egyptian pyramids, especially the stepped designs of the oldest pyramids (Pyramid of Zoser at Saqqara, 2600 BCE), may have been an evolution from the ziggurats built in Mesopotamia."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat

If ziggurats predated pyramids and they were also in the area, it's reasonable ziggurats had an influence on the development of Egyptian pyramids.

I couldn't see that quote (on a quick read).Is that a quote or a paraphrase?





I did see an idea that a similar idea of putting one platform on another may have been the origin of the ziggurat, but the origins of the Egyptian pyramid are known; they had a flat slab over a tomb until Djozer's time, when a succession of smaller slabs were put on top. There is not the slightest reason to think that they were copying ziggurats and the purpose is quite different, one being a tomb and the other the temple.

Nor are the raised Temples of the Maya which are of A.D date anyway. These are nice pictures but do hot help (rather hinder) you case for a tower of Babel which is really shown a myth already.

It could all be a coincidence that cultures around the world independently built ziggurat-like structures. But, as you have more of these seeming coincidences, it becomes less likely they all happen by chance.

So far, I've presented two things that happen to have similarities across cultures worldwide - a global flood and ziggurats. I'll be presenting more later.

I could say 'save wasted effort' but by all means peddle the argument that superficial similarities means common origins. The existence of flood -legends crops up as evidence for the Biblical flood (it isn't) and even less does the superficial similarities of tall structures needing to decrease as they get higher in order to avoid collapse show that they had a common origin. Especially with Maya temples across the Atlantic and dating to after the Roman Empire.

I suggest you give up Genesis literalism and accept that it is a book of Myth.

Repeatedly suggesting me to give up my position is also not a valid argument.

But it is a valid conclusion from the evidence and arguments presented, both of which you keep ignoring.

I suggest you give up believing these myths and polemics and trying to make them work by fiddling the evidence.

Ditto. Please present evidence and valid arguments to show languages all originated independently.

Already done. The existence of written Egyptian and Sumerian before the supposed tower of Babel (remind me, was that 3,500 BC?) refutes the Babel story, as well as having to explain how totally different and unrelated languages as well as written methods came about, even without God being worried that if they built a tower and all spoke the same language they could be a problem. It's just absurd.

Well, if you accept that date of 3400 to 3200 BCE for Egyptian glyphs, it immediately says Mesopotamian writing existed before that at 8000 BCE.

So what? It still means that Egyptian is known to exist before your (claimed) date of this (claimed) tower which you can't show and seems (like Ark -sized shipbuilding) to be long before any such buildings were known.

I'm just pointing out your source disproves the claim that Egyptian predates other writings. I'm not saying I agree with the dating of your source. And you don't appear to agree with its dating either.

I don't recall that I claimed that written Egyptian predates all other writings. In fact I have the idea that the first Sumerian symbols predate written Egyptian. I just have doubts about that date of 8,000 B.C. As I said,that is irrelevant to the argument that Egyptian and Sumerian were being written (and thus spoken) before this supposed Biblical tower of Babel and thus refutes that hypothesis.

Only if you ignore or deny the evidence which not only shows the Babel story for the divergence of language does not work, just as the strata evidence shows that your Flood -model does not work, and the surrender before the demand for surrender does not work, but the evidence of the diversification of modern languages is the credible explanation, just as deep time tectonic creep (shown in modern research) is the better explanation and a surrender after the demand for surrender (as the Assyrians say) makes more sense than the Biblical polemic spin of God smiting anyone. I actually have the extra -Biblical evidence; you don't.

o far, I've presented evidence of timing of first written languages, commonality of global flood myths, and ziggurat-like structures across the world. What specific evidence have you presented that support languages originated independently?

To repeat. Egyptian and Sumerian is evidence that they originated for reasons other than the supposed tower of Babel event. Knowledge of modern language - evolution is a mechanism for how it happened. Thus all the evidence actually supports my apologetic and debunks yours, as has been the case (as I recall) with all the points we have debated so far. .

[TRANSPONDER]

sorting the dates out

I was getting a bit confused so I thought I'd try to sort out the dates claimed by Genesiss -literalists for the events therein and the dates set out by archaeology

Starting with the creation, this is dated anything from 5,500 to 4,000

This would conflict with the earliest dated of tool making and pottery in Mesopotamia (Ubaid -and Half 6,500 -4300) and never mind the prehistoric stone age farming comminities that came before that.

We get the predynastic period in Egypt 4210 Bc down to 1st dynasty 3,218 -3,075

In Sumer we have ziggurats starting 3,000 BC

The Flood is variously dated (anything from 7,000 to 2,350 but the consensus is 3,800-3,300 BC

The flat mastaba tombs of Egypt's predynastic culture to 1st-2nd dynasty turned into a pyramid Djozer 3rd dynasty 2,630 and the pyramids of the 4th dynasty 2619- 2494. Just sayin' in passing that they were built long after the supposed flood, so the various efforts to find evidence for the Flood in the pyramids is futile not to say ludicrous.

The point here is that written Egyptian is before the ziggurats but not before the supposed tower of Babel. Mesopotamian script may be earlier (though not 8,000 years ago never mind 8,000 BC. must be a mistake), but the point is that written Egyptian and Sumerian only shows diverse languages and scripts before the ziggurats (and long before Babylon) and around the supposed time of the tower of Babel.

It would be easy to propose a Genesis - timeframe with the Flood handily banished to about 4,000 BC, the tower of Babel 3,500 BC and the diverse scripts (eg. written Egyptian) after that plus the apparent similarity of the step pyramid several hundred years later suddenly deciding to copy that of a ziggurat With a bit of science -denial to make the dates fit, I'm sure I could come up with a convincing Babel- chronology and splitting up of languages myself.

But the archaeology scuppers that. The written Egyptian is one thing but the culture which surely used the same language continues unbroken back to the Badari culture long before the supposed date of Genesis -Babel, let alone the age of the ziggurats. Even if an unknown ziggurat turned up of 3,500 BC date (1) there would still be clear evidence of a different Egyptian culture doubtless speaking the language written down as Egyptian script about the same time claimed for Babel - but that culture had already long existed. Not to speak of other cultures that eventually develop writing for their language which they were surely speaking even before the supposed Babel - date.

Even though One might argue claimed Babel (with no hard evidence) before written Egyptian, undoubted spoken Egyptian in a continual culture surely (and evidently) predates the claimed Babel event.

Again, the (extra -Biblical) evidence does not actually support the Bible. Especially the Temples of Central America. hat about 800-12 00 AD? what on earth can have to do with Ziggurats?

(1) which as I said is as improbable as finding iron framed Ark -sized shipbuilding of 3,500 BC, given what is known of the culture and technology of that time as revealed by archaeology.

[otseng]

However, the burden of proof is on you to validate the Biblical Babel , because right now, you have nothing.

If you're saying physical (archaeological) evidence, it's not a necessity to have it. Even when the actual city is not excavated, the concept of some single source of languages, stories, etc still applies.

But Archaeology has moved on and it's being recognised that the Bible is a polemical document not to say Mythical in parts and cannot be trusted, which is the topic.

That's quite a claim. If we really want to go into all the archaeological evidence that supports the Bible, we could be debating this for a very long time.

Repeatedly demanding that I present evidence that supports my argument while ignoring that I have presented evidence that does so and refutes yours is the invalid argument.

I think we have differing definitions of what constitutes evidence. You need to provide quotes, photos, facts, documents, etc and the link to the source to qualify as evidence. Simply stating what you believe is not evidence.

When I asked you "What specific evidence have you presented that support languages originated independently?"

You responded with:
"To repeat. Egyptian and Sumerian is evidence that they originated for reasons other than the supposed tower of Babel event. Knowledge of modern language - evolution is a mechanism for how it happened. Thus all the evidence actually supports my apologetic and debunks yours, as has been the case (as I recall) with all the points we have debated so far."

This is not specific evidence, let alone answering the question.

I don't recall that I claimed that written Egyptian predates all other writings. In fact I have the idea that the first Sumerian symbols predate written Egyptian. I just have doubts about that date of 8,000 B.C. As I said,that is irrelevant to the argument that Egyptian and Sumerian were being written (and thus spoken) before this supposed Biblical tower of Babel and thus refutes that hypothesis.

We don't need to debate about specific dates. Let's distill the argument...

Here is what I assert which the Bible claims - all languages of the world come from a single source that originated from the Mesopotamian region on the order of thousands of years ago.

The opposing view would be - the first languages independently arose without any influence from other cultures.

Would you agree with these?

Starting with the creation, this is dated anything from 5,500 to 4,000

The Bible actually does not claim this. It is only by interpreting passages that people come up with this number.

The only thing I would claim is the earth is on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years old. It is not on the order of billions of years old.

I was getting a bit confused so I thought I'd try to sort out the dates claimed by Genesiss -literalists for the events therein and the dates set out by archaeology

These is no consensus dates on ancient events. So, there will be conflicting dates. I don't think we should be bogged down by trying to fit all the dates together. Rather, it's the general idea that should be debated, like what I proposed above.

[Diagoras]

So far, I've presented evidence of timing of first written languages, commonality of global flood myths, and ziggurat-like structures across the world.

Regarding common flood myths:
An explanation?

[TRANSPONDER]

However, the burden of proof is on you to validate the Biblical Babel , because right now, you have nothing.

If you're saying physical (archaeological) evidence, it's not a necessity to have it. Even when the actual city is not excavated, the concept of some single source of languages, stories, etc still applies.

This is just saying 'ignore the archaeological evidence, just stick with the Genesis -claim'.

But Archaeology has moved on and it's being recognised that the Bible is a polemical document not to say Mythical in parts and cannot be trusted, which is the topic.

That's quite a claim. If we really want to go into all the archaeological evidence that supports the Bible, we could be debating this for a very long time.

Which is a nice way of saying 'let's not bother with me having to produce any archaeological evidence to support Genesis, let's stick with misleadingly broad claims that can be made to look like the fit Genesis'. I'll explain lower down how you're doing this.

Repeatedly demanding that I present evidence that supports my argument while ignoring that I have presented evidence that does so and refutes yours is the invalid argument.

I think we have differing definitions of what constitutes evidence. You need to provide quotes, photos, facts, documents, etc and the link to the source to qualify as evidence. Simply stating what you believe is not evidence.

Says mr 'I don't think we should be bogged down by trying to fit all the dates together. Rather, it's the general idea that should be debated," Specifically evidence that the Egyptian pyramids of the 3rd dynasty are not originated from the ziggurat and I set out the globally accepted evidence of the development of the pyramid and the dates, you ignore that and say I should provide quotes to validate generally accepted archaeology. What would you say to a Flat Earthist who denies the earth being not flat unless you provide 'quotes, photos facts and documents and links'? "Science -denial" But the real point is that even your broad Genesis -based claims do not work as we shall see.

When I asked you "What specific evidence have you presented that support languages originated independently?"

You responded with:
"To repeat. Egyptian and Sumerian is evidence that they originated for reasons other than the supposed tower of Babel event. Knowledge of modern language - evolution is a mechanism for how it happened. Thus all the evidence actually supports my apologetic and debunks yours, as has been the case (as I recall) with all the points we have debated so far."

This is not specific evidence, let alone answering the question.

It isn't but you quotemined me. I said more than that. The existence of written Egyptian at about the time of the supposed date of the tower of Babel (for which there is no hard evidence) together with the evidence of a pre -existent culture is evidence that a language that wasn't 'Mesopotamian' (by which I suppose you mean Sumerian) and that modern languages provide a mechanism for the diversification of languages. Thus the evidence we do have (and neither of us have "quotes, photos, facts, documents, etc and the link to the source") undermines Genesis and supports different and independent languages (Egyptian as the example) before any credible date for Babel,let alone known ziggurats. I have set out the state of archaeological knowledge which you can either accept or deny and you have done nothing but said (in so many words) 'these temples look the same so they must have a common origin' and have that as the tower of Babel event which has no extra -Biblical supportive evidence. All the evidence actually undermines the Genesis -claim, which is why you ignore and dismiss it.

I don't recall that I claimed that written Egyptian predates all other writings. In fact I have the idea that the first Sumerian symbols predate written Egyptian. I just have doubts about that date of 8,000 B.C. As I said,that is irrelevant to the argument that Egyptian and Sumerian were being written (and thus spoken) before this supposed Biblical tower of Babel and thus refutes that hypothesis.

We don't need to debate about specific dates. Let's distill the argument...

Here is what I assert which the Bible claims - all languages of the world come from a single source that originated from the Mesopotamian region on the order of thousands of years ago.

The opposing view would be - the first languages independently arose without any influence from other cultures.

Would you agree with these?

Let's not bother about inconvenient evidence, let's just make broad propositions loaded to support the Genesis -claims, hey?. I'll agree this much
(a) "all languages of the world come from a single source that originated from the Mesopotamian region on the order of thousands of years ago." or -
(b) they didn't. The evidence I've given at least twice now shows that Egyptian (culture and language) NOT having originated after or from the supposed Babel event in Mesopotamia around 3,500 B.C. (without mentioning any other etymologically different languages like Chinese) supports "They didn't".

Starting with the creation, this is dated anything from 5,500 to 4,000

The Bible actually does not claim this. It is only by interpreting passages that people come up with this number.

The only thing I would claim is the earth is on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years old. It is not on the order of billions of years old.

You may dismiss the dating, archaeological sequencing,king lists and everything that isn't convenient. Mr science -denial. But science does in fact have a list of dates for the development of cultures in both Egypt and Mesopotamia and those who have argued for The Babel event have tried to propose a date. In fact I think you proposed one yourself in an earlier post and I needed to put it all into context. If you weren't so eager to dismiss and ignore all that and go with .. 'well, these temples look rather similar and are ancient so that proves the Tower of Babel' sort of argument, you'd see that it actually fits rather well, Except that the archaeological evidence of sequences of cultures even without reliable dating shows that pyramids developed from the regrettable term 'mastaba' and not from ziggurats and the culture that eventually wrote their language in hieroglyphic Egyptian is continuous Egyptian culture and which shows no evidence of deriving from a Mesopotamian Babel - event really undermines the Genesis -claim.

Incidentally, didn't I ask whether you quoted something from a source or paraphrased it? Will you explain or shall I go back and look again?

I was getting a bit confused so I thought I'd try to sort out the dates claimed by Genesis -literalists for the events therein and the dates set out by archaeology

These is no consensus dates on ancient events. So, there will be conflicting dates. I don't think we should be bogged down by trying to fit all the dates together. Rather, it's the general idea that should be debated, like what I proposed above.

There's better consensus than would suit you, Mr. science - denial so you want to dismiss it and rely on broad claims, which seem to be languages must have a common origin (possibly, but it is back in prehistoric Africa not in Mesopotamia about 3,000 B.C) and a (very) superficlal resemblance between ziggurats, ONE 3rd dynasty pyramid and Mayan temples of a lot later time (though not as late as I'd thought) is to be taken as evidence that they all derived from the tower of Babel; and if there in no evidence for that, well, rely on Faith and assume it will be discovered in time, and ignore any inconvenient archaeological evidence that suggests that it won't be.

As I said, you have Nothing and all the evidence (when one understands what it actually says - which us why you wave it away) is against the Tower of Babel and anything but another Myth in a chapter full of them.

[TRANSPONDER]

Otseng told the truth!

"Incidentally, didn't I ask whether you quoted something from a source or paraphrased it? Will you explain or shall I go back and look again?"

I had another look and the quote was there in Wiki. Someone (two cites given) does suggest that the step pyramid of Djozer (Egyptian 3rd dynasty) was influenced by Ziggurats. We must consider all options. The evidence is that all through the 1st and 2nd dynasties the kings put flat slabs over their tombs. The king Djozer (or his architect Imhotep hose abilities keep his name alive) had the idea of building one slab on another - the single example of a 'step pyramid'. An evident transitional form to the known pyramid through other transitional forms such as the 'bent pyramid' where they had to reduce the angle to avoid collapse (there is another pyramid that had collapsed) is what the 'step pyramid' is.

Now, the two cited Authorities may just be suggesting that ziggurats may have put the idea into Imhotep's head, but the evidence is all against the 'step pyramid' being evidence of a linguistic and cultural dispersal of Mesopotamian peoples to Egypt (and everywhere else, including China where they suddenly have up Sumerian for Chinese) where they suddenly began speaking Egyptian and decided to use pre -existing flat tombs in a pile -up method to recall that collapsed tower of theirs for a totally different purpose related to the purpose of the earlier flat tombs. The vague similarity might in a distant influence be related but all the evidence and indeed reason is against it being down to diaspora of a people from Mesopotamia who suddenly became Egyptian. It is just against all the evidence and is hardly reasonable.

Just as I've argued that the evidence of the continental drift, on liquid Magma (which is what comes out of volcanoes) rolling over strata keeping the strata -formation in pushing up mountains at the point of continental contact fits the evidence better than the continent -sized cataclysm of the hydroplate -theory occurring in less than two years (of the Biblical Flood) and Noah's Ark surviving that without losing a single breeding -pair.

Moreover the hydroplate doesn't explain mountain ranges like the Rockies/Andes on the leading edge of the diverging continents if the fountain was causing the mountains pushing the continents apart which would put the Rockies on the east.

I've also been trying to make this hydroplate theory reproduce the geology (of the Grand canyon in particular). It is the basic rock (basalt) on which is deposited strata, tilted and then planed off flat (the great anomaly - a global feature of strata that has gone missing). Supposedly this reservoir -roof is the land that people live on and the water beneath (in the basalt mantle rocks) bursts through, tilting the 'roof' which breaks into continental plates, the strata being planed level by the flood waters which destroy creation except for the Ark floating on top of this flood. After about a year of this, the mountains get pushed up (apparently by the roof -plates being pushed apart by the flood- waters) giving the impression of the waters going down (clever eh? ) while leaving the level strata above the anomaly containing the fossils of the drowned critters, after which Noah finding land appearing lets the animals out. Supposedly the mountains having pushed up on the West, a rushing flood from these new mountains carves the Colorado river in a series of meanders (not a straight cut channel) which implies that the West side is lifted a little.

But the real problem is that the animals are let out on one of these split up continental hydroplate roof - slabs which must have already divided. So how do they get to the various continents in particular groups? The theory of The animals being released on Pangaea which then splits up won't work since the Hydroplate theory requires Pangea to be split up by the initial flood -fountain.

This is not only the problem with ad hoc (as I use the term - improvising explanations as one goes along) hypotheses, but engineers trying to be research scientists. We saw that neat little model of under-ground reservoir - water bursting through a roof and falling back in a flood. Looks good in a little model of a river valley and couple of cliffs, but try to relate that to something the size of the Atlantic and 2 continents on a round world and it really doesn't work, even when the sequence of evidence not only doesn't really fit the geology, but leaves the species stranded because Pangaea must have already split up.

So that's why I think that the Flood doesn't work and Babel doesn't work, never minding that the Creation doesn't work, Eden doesn't work, the whole story of all the Canaanite tribes descended from Noah through Lot and in fact the whole of Genesis, doesn't work.

Just as the Nativities are demonstrably not credible as an actual event, Genesis is not credible. It is the best guess of writers trying to compile a story of human and Hebrew origins (putting themselves and their God on top) and using Babylonian Myth adapted to suit their Spin. Genesis is a creation myth and really does not fit the evidence, even though Bible apologists do an ingenious job in trying to fiddle the evidence (geological and archaeological) to fit the myth. It's not going to stand up to serious analysis and it's time to accept it as just a creation myth. And the same goes for the Nativity, while we're at it.

Right...let's have a check...damn' my eyes. They get no better.

[otseng]

Mr. science - denial

First off, please cease with the labeling, false attribution, and name calling.

This is just saying 'ignore the archaeological evidence, just stick with the Genesis -claim'.

If you're saying you always need physical evidence to believe in something, then there's a lot that cannot be believed. Many things are posited to exist through indirect evidence, which is what I'm arguing for with the tower of Babel. One example is we don't have any physical evidence of the Colossus of Rhodes. But that doesn't prove it did not exist.

All the evidence actually undermines the Genesis -claim, which is why you ignore and dismiss it.

As evidenced in your post, the issue is more you missing what I've posted.

I'll agree this much
(a) "all languages of the world come from a single source that originated from the Mesopotamian region on the order of thousands of years ago." or -
(b) they didn't.

OK, good to see that we can debate "A". Your "b" would actually only be "¬A" (not A).

You obviously do not agree to the second claim "B" that I proposed. So, we'll need to settle this.

The claim "the first languages independently arose without any influence from other cultures" ("B") would be the opposing view of "A". I can't think of any other possibilities other than "A" or "B".

If it's widely accepted that all original languages originated independently, then it should be easy to produce the evidence to support such a claim. By denying to defend "B", you are implicitly admitting there is no evidence for "B".

BTW, this debate is not just limited to me and Transponder. Anyone can join in too to defend position "B".

The evidence I've given at least twice now shows that Egyptian (culture and language) NOT having originated after or from the supposed Babel event in Mesopotamia around 3,500 B.C. (without mentioning any other etymologically different languages like Chinese) supports "They didn't".

What I claim to be the tower of Babel is an event in which all languages evolved. I have never claimed I know exactly when the tower of Babel existed.

This topic is actually much more complicated than you simply producing one source and saying your case is won. And I'm not saying it's going to be easy for me either. But, it's something that looks to be an interesting challenge for both sides to try to defend their case.

If you weren't so eager to dismiss and ignore all that and go with .. 'well, these temples look rather similar and are ancient so that proves the Tower of Babel' sort of argument, you'd see that it actually fits rather well, Except that the archaeological evidence of sequences of cultures even without reliable dating shows that pyramids developed from the regrettable term 'mastaba' and not from ziggurats and the culture that eventually wrote their language in hieroglyphic Egyptian is continuous Egyptian culture and which shows no evidence of deriving from a Mesopotamian Babel - event really undermines the Genesis -claim.

I think more this traces back to you not reading thoroughly what I had posted.

[TRANSPONDER]

Mr. science - denial

First off, please cease with the labeling, false attribution, and name calling.[/quote

Are you talking as a moderator or as a religious apologist who dismisses science as 'ad hoc' when it doesn't suit you?

This is just saying 'ignore the archaeological evidence, just stick with the Genesis -claim'.

If you're saying you always need physical evidence to believe in something, then there's a lot that cannot be believed. Many things are posited to exist through indirect evidence, which is what I'm arguing for with the tower of Babel. One example is we don't have any physical evidence of the Colossus of Rhodes. But that doesn't prove it did not exist.

That's what I said with dismissing your demand for photos quotes and the like, because it's about indirect evidence giving the more probable hypothesis. e.g though I can't produce photos or quotes to prove that the predynastic culture spoke Egyptian, the indirect evidence make it a more probable theory that they did before writing shows that it was Egyptian, rather than dispersal of Mesopotamians post Babel arriving and them all suddenly speaking a new language.

All the evidence actually undermines the Genesis -claim, which is why you ignore and dismiss it.

As evidenced in your post, the issue is more you missing what I've posted.

Rather I tend to skip over irrelevant stuff and address the relevant points. I'll have a look at that but if you think I have overlooked a good and relevant point of yours, feel free to make it again. I find I'm always having to restate mine, as you habitually ignore them.

I'll agree this much
(a) "all languages of the world come from a single source that originated from the Mesopotamian region on the order of thousands of years ago." or -
(b) they didn't.

OK, good to see that we can debate "A". Your "b" would actually only be "¬A" (not A).

You obviously do not agree to the second claim "B" that I proposed. So, we'll need to settle this.

The claim "the first languages independently arose without any influence from other cultures" ("B") would be the opposing view of "A". I can't think of any other possibilities other than "A" or "B".

If it's widely accepted that all original languages originated independently, then it should be easy to produce the evidence to support such a claim. By denying to defend "B", you are implicitly admitting there is no evidence for "B".

BTW, this debate is not just limited to me and Transponder. Anyone can join in too to defend position "B".

I trust that nobody is going to fall for your effort to get people defending an irrelevant position. I already suggested that the current state of science on human origins is that humans as they are today started in Africa. Presumably those distant ancestors spoke a language of sorts. Not likely to be 'Mesopotamian' as per the 'Babel' theory. So the actual alternatives are; the Babel theory of 'mesopotamian' (which I suppose means 'Sumerian') post- Babel diversified into a lot of different languages or, that didn't happen, which the Egypt - culture evidence indirectly suggests, was the case. That, and not the misdirecting false position that you propose, is the actual discussion.

The evidence I've given at least twice now shows that Egyptian (culture and language) NOT having originated after or from the supposed Babel event in Mesopotamia around 3,500 B.C. (without mentioning any other etymologically different languages like Chinese) supports "They didn't".

What I claim to be the tower of Babel is an event in which all languages evolved. I have never claimed I know exactly when the tower of Babel existed.

This topic is actually much more complicated than you simply producing one source and saying your case is won. And I'm not saying it's going to be easy for me either. But, it's something that looks to be an interesting challenge for both sides to try to defend their case.

I am well aware of what the Babel -hypothesis claims and it was rather myself setting out a chronological context into which the Babel event might fit. I recall that you did mention a date of around 3,000-3,500 BC. You may not be concerned about putting the theory into the generally - accepted ancient Chronology, but I was and it does show that the predynastic Egyptian culture undermines the Babel -theory for how various languages originated. If you want to make a case to refute that, go for it. I Think I have been pretty fair in showing that to be the more probable and evidence -supported hypothesis that undermined the Babel -scenario. I rather suggest that one debunk of the hypothesis (as pre -Babel Egyptian fitting the evidence better) is as you put it 'case won'.

If you weren't so eager to dismiss and ignore all that and go with .. 'well, these temples look rather similar and are ancient so that proves the Tower of Babel' sort of argument, you'd see that it actually fits rather well, Except that the archaeological evidence of sequences of cultures even without reliable dating shows that pyramids developed from the regrettable term 'mastaba' and not from ziggurats and the culture that eventually wrote their language in hieroglyphic Egyptian is continuous Egyptian culture and which shows no evidence of deriving from a Mesopotamian Babel - event really undermines the Genesis -claim.

I think more this traces back to you not reading thoroughly what I had posted.

Easy to say. If you were making another point by posting pictures of Mayan Temples and waving to a superficial resemblance between those and ziggurats (I already made my case that the step -pyramid is nothing to do with Ziggurats except possibly putting the idea into the head of the designer to adapt Egyptian tombs in that way. Which even then doesn't support the 'Babel -hypothesis as the flat tombs already existed) you should be able to explain in a sentence or two what it was you were claiming. And I'll address that point.

[otseng]

Mr. science - denial

First off, please cease with the labeling, false attribution, and name calling.

Are you talking as a moderator or as a religious apologist who dismisses science as 'ad hoc' when it doesn't suit you?

It's the forum rules that dictates proper behavior here.

Further, saying something is "ad hoc" does not make me a "science denier". Attacking scientific theories does not make me a "science denier". Not accepting consensus view does not make me a "science denier".

If you're saying you always need physical evidence to believe in something, then there's a lot that cannot be believed. Many things are posited to exist through indirect evidence, which is what I'm arguing for with the tower of Babel. One example is we don't have any physical evidence of the Colossus of Rhodes. But that doesn't prove it did not exist.

That's what I said with dismissing your demand for photos quotes and the like, because it's about indirect evidence giving the more probable hypothesis. e.g though I can't produce photos or quotes to prove that the predynastic culture spoke Egyptian, the indirect evidence make it a more probable theory that they did before writing shows that it was Egyptian, rather than dispersal of Mesopotamians post Babel arriving and them all suddenly speaking a new language.

OK, so we both then agree that direct, physical evidence is not required in our debates.

I find I'm always having to restate mine, as you habitually ignore them.

Contrary to what you might think, I do not ignore what you state.

So the actual alternatives are; the Babel theory of 'mesopotamian' (which I suppose means 'Sumerian') post- Babel diversified into a lot of different languages or, that didn't happen, which the Egypt - culture evidence indirectly suggests, was the case.

I'm trying to get at if "that didn't happen", then what did happen?

It seems to go back to "I don't know how it happened, but it ain't sure what the Bible says."

I recall that you did mention a date of around 3,000-3,500 BC.

Yes, I produced a source that says that. Here's what I presented:

"Some scholars use internal and external evidence to offer 3500–3000 BC as a likely range for the date of the tower,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_ ... r_of_Babel

My point was according to this wiki source, it is older than this wiki source:

Egyptian - 2690 BC
Sumerian - 2600 BC
Canaanite - 2400 BC
Chinese - 1200 BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... n_accounts

It could be that all of these dates are wrong, but I'm just presenting what the evidence says.

In your source, it might be conflicting with the dates that I cited above.

Your source says:

" Since the 1990s, the above-mentioned discoveries of glyphs at Abydos, dated to between 3400 and 3200 BCE, have shed doubt on the classical notion that the Mesopotamian symbol system predates the Egyptian one. However, Egyptian writing appeared suddenly at that time, while Mesopotamia had a long evolutionary history of sign usage in tokens dating back to circa 8000 BCE."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs

However, even if we accept these dates and statements as true, it does not refer to a "written language" (as in sentences), but is referring to glyphs, symbols, and tokens.

You may not be concerned about putting the theory into the generally - accepted ancient Chronology, but I was and it does show that the predynastic Egyptian culture undermines the Babel -theory for how various languages originated.

As for generally accepted theories and dates for origins of written languages, there is none. As I've mentioned, there's two camps - a single origin of all languages and multiple independent origin of languages.

Writing was long thought to have been invented in a single civilization, a theory named "monogenesis".[3] Scholars believed that all writing originated in ancient Sumer (in Mesopotamia) and spread over the world from there via a process of cultural diffusion.[3] According to this theory, the concept of representing language by written marks, though not necessarily the specifics of how such a system worked, was passed on by traders or merchants traveling between geographical regions.[4][5]

However, the discovery of the scripts of ancient Mesoamerica, far away from Middle Eastern sources, proved that writing had been invented more than once. Scholars now recognize that writing may have independently developed in at least four ancient civilizations: Mesopotamia (between 3400 and 3100 BCE), Egypt (around 3250 BCE),[6][7][3] China (1200 BCE),[8] and lowland areas of Southern Mexico and Guatemala (by 500 BCE).[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing