sotto voce

Is that fascinating? To whom is it fascinating? To anthropologists, perhaps. But don't anthropologists base their studies on artefacts, genetics and other desultory sources? Why would an anthropologist even think of opening a religious book, except when not being an anthropologist, seeking meaning of a personal and private sort?

Zwaarddijk

I started writing a response on where the article at http://www.soundchristian.com/man/ goes wrong with linguistics - it not only goes wrong, it misunderstands historical linguistic research quite significantly. However, when my post was tl;dr^MAX, I decided on not posting it, because I had barely gotten to the actual arguments in the article, only explained the concepts needed to understand where it's wrong. I figured I might as well ask if anyone's actually interested in getting a short introduction to the methodology of historical linguistics before throwing it out here. If you're willing to read several thousand words and think a bit, do tell. Otherwise I'd just waste effort :|

There are some clear errors in there that easily could be pointed out, but it's imho better to try and explain why the methodology the author is using is rotten to the core and useless, rather than to actually point to individual mistaken claims. Still, I can't help but point out several problems:

There's any number of mistaken claims in the list of how the "Japhethic" tribes are related one to another, e.g. all the Germanic tribes are more closely related together than to other tribes. There is no evidence of any "semitic" component to Germanic tribes, an idea that btw is popular among the American Christian Identity racist movement, and among British Israelites - a movement that wants to think White Anglo-Saxons are the lost tribes. A bullshit notion if there ever was one.

Furthermore, we do not know whether Etruscan is related to Basque.

Trojan ancestry for Swedes and Danes is also entirely unsubstantiated bullshit.

In the box about proto-languages towards the end, the source presents a strawman argument about the claims of historical linguistics regarding how proto-languages further relate.

An article that can, to some extent, help understanding how bullshit like this may seem credible is this: http://zompist.com/chance.htm . Try thinking not about cognates, but about random similarities between names in the genealogies and names of tribes instead - they're very likely, especially with the inconsistent and free changes they permit for the names when looking for such correspondences. Also note how further descendants of Ham, Sem and Japheth are not exhaustively listed, and tribes whose names would fit - but are in the wrong part of the world - are omitted, names that are lacking in the right part of the world are omitted, and so on. This is cherry-picking the evidence and omitting things that indicate that it is wrong.

Clivedurdle

Has anyone name checked the people listed against people in the time of Ezra?

As church paintings had the local dignitaries appearing as the disciples etc, why not chuck in a few local names?

TedM

I think the writers of the Bible were in fact presenting their information as literal history, and that the intent was that their readers see it that way. Too me that is fairly obvious, with some exceptions of course. Skeptics who feel otherwise are simply kidding themselves. You think Luke was just writing midrash? You think Genesis 10 is not meant to be recording man's past history? You think the writer of 2 Peter claiming to have seen the transfiguration, or the tradition back to Moses of Israel's escape from Egypt was all meant to be seen as figurative and not history? OR that the prophets were not really claiming literal messages -- often very long winded, from God himself? I have some swampland to sell you too.

No, either these people were lying, or were repeating lies. They weren't confused about whether it originally was just a story. Let's be real here. Skeptics need to come clean and just admit that the Bible to them is a series of intentional lies said over and over by dozens of people over 1000 years, and that somehow the culture swallowed it hook, line and sinker. It is only later that folks like Ibn Ezra began questioning the history.

TedM

Thanks Stephan. I began reading last night, and will finish time permitting the following: http://biologos.org/uploads/resource...rly_essay3.pdf I think the question is how much was written earlier and how much later. I'll take in the article and give it more thought.

This is an extreme position. The names in Genesis 10 are deliberate. They came from somewhere Stephan. Either they were wholly made up, were passed down in tradition, came from other ancient writings (perhaps the Sumerians?), or they were 'inspired', or perhaps some combination. I have difficulty with believing they were wholly made up, but apparently you don't. Why?

TedM

Very interesting. More lies? This is what I was curious about--the validity of the claims. From skimming the author several times mentioned traditions within nations of their descendancy. I don't know why any nation would care to invent being descended from Put or Cush or Shem, etc... Why would they care if there wasn't some truth to it?

Also curious if the DNA studies implying a migration have any validity. I saw and was aware of the latest DNA claims that people began in Africa, but not sure if that is established or just another theory that might apply to a subset..


Yes, that's one of the major problems I have with many arguments made on these threads based on names in different languages: Seems that you can match almost anything up that you want to.. Not being a expert myself, I have no way to know.

Are there books or articles by any world-class linguist that addresses this Table of Nations linguistic arguments? Is that Tower of Babel book Toto mentioned along these lines helpful in this regard? One of the reviews said his expertise is in philosophy.

It appears from reviews that the book is more about creationism in general as opposed to the nation-spreading claims in Genesis 10, but one review does say this about linquistics:

Sounds to me from this reviewer that the linguists just can't say one way or the other because the evidence is too shoddy about the original beginnings of language.




Thanks for your feedback.

TedM

...double post error

Toto

Why? It's so obvious you can't even figure out a way to discuss it?

Luke was clearly not writing history. He or she wrote something in the form of history, but used non-historical sources, or used them in a non-historical manner. That's the opinion of academics who are also Christians.

How could it possibly be meant to? How would these writers have known? Why would they have cared about literal historical accuracy?

The Transfiguration was not a historical event. Neither was the Exodus.

"Messages from God himself" does not translate into "an attempt to be historically accurate" in my book. That's how I avoid buying swamp land.

Once again - why is the idea that someone lied and others repeated the lie so unthinkable?

We have a number of provable liars who have started modern religions. L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith. Why should history be different?

Of course, one reason that history is different is that the modern age is more concerned about mundane historical accuracy.

TedM

So, are you now admitting belief that the bible is full of intentional lies by people purporting to be writing history or not?

Toto

I don't know, and don't see how I could know. The evidence is consistent with all sorts of scenarios.

I am asking why YOU think this is so unthinkable. Why do you think this is a killer argument against skeptics?