Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-22-2012, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...
What I don't like about the response of posters here is the presumption that I believe the Flood was historical, the presumption that I believe that Genesis 10 is historical, etc. and that somehow I'm trying to argue to support those presumptions.

Why do you guys do that?

If these are not historical, why should chapter 10 of the same narrative be historical? The sources you gave to support this idea do assume that the flood is historical.

:huh:

Quote:

... Yes, I need to do more research to understand this. That's what this thread is--my research. Get it?

Re read my OP. I'm not going to do it for you.

Zwaardjik seems to be the only one who can read here.

So your research methods involve throwing out a poorly thought out question on a hostile message board?

:wave:

TedM · 10-22-2012, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...
What I don't like about the response of posters here is the presumption that I believe the Flood was historical, the presumption that I believe that Genesis 10 is historical, etc. and that somehow I'm trying to argue to support those presumptions.

Why do you guys do that?

If these are not historical, why should chapter 10 of the same narrative be historical? The sources you gave to support this idea do assume that the flood is historical.

Their assumption is not relevant. They are making linguistic claims, DNA claims, and appealing to traditions of the people in various nations, etc.. I want to know if those claims have any validity and that's what I asked for. Genesis 10 gives a lineage that apparently is unique. I want to know if it has any truth to it. Even if the flood was completely made up that doesn't mean the nations didn't come from one man, whom we can call Noah, or we can call Superman. It doesn't matter.

Quote:

... Yes, I need to do more research to understand this. That's what this thread is--my research. Get it?

Re read my OP. I'm not going to do it for you.

Zwaardjik seems to be the only one who can read here.

So your research methods involve throwing out a poorly thought out question on a hostile message board?

No my request was not poorly thought out. You response is because you are the one making unnescessary assumptions. Not me. I asked for evidence against their claims of scientific support for the nations of Gen 10. If all you can do is fall back on a tired and illogical 'the flood never happened and therefore Noah never existed and therefore his descendants could not have populated the earth' then you are the one who is thinking 'poorly'. Perhaps you should consider into your own contribution to 'hostility', when you make unnecessary assumptions.

stephan huller · 10-22-2012, 01:23 PM

I don't know what more to say. Ted is arguing that while the flood narrative might be a myth what comes after might have historical merit. The author was simply trying to connect the names of people which circulated at the time and were associated with clans or tribes and made the link with Noah. An obvious example, the name Shem and Syria (al-Sham). Since Herodotus uses Συρία it would seem that the author made Shem a son of Noah. I don't understand the point of this thread.

stephan huller · 10-22-2012, 01:29 PM

It is worth noting that the Jewish tradition took over the myth that Noah's wife was named 'fire.' What do you want to do with that one, Ted? Deucalion was understood to have rescued 'fire' because his father was Prometheus. I really don't know where all of this is supposed to lead. Do you really think there is a tablet or a scroll out there from the time of the flood which supports Ezra's methodology?

outhouse · 10-22-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

.. I want to know if those claims have any validity and that's what I asked for

and you ignored it, when I told you there wasnt any credibility or validity

do you really want to learn? I have my doubts

stephan huller · 10-22-2012, 01:32 PM

I just checked to see if the Deucalion myths also contained the idea that this man was the father of nations. Apparently so:

Quote:

Deukalion had several sons and daughters. The most famous of these were Hellen, the eponymous king of the Hellenes (i.e. Greeks), and Pandora (named after her grandmother), Protogeneia and Thyia, three maidens loved by Zeus. Deukalion's descendants were rulers of most of the kingdoms of mythical Greece. His most famous great-grandsons included Sisyphos, Salmoneus, Athamas, Diktys and Polydektes, Ion and Endymion. The intervening generations consisted mostly of eponyms (i.e. figures who gave their names to tribes or places) with little or no mythology.

Why prefer the Hebrew myths over the Greeks as Celsus said almost two thousand years ago? There is no reason. It's just self-serving.

TedM · 10-22-2012, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't know what more to say. Ted is arguing that while the flood narrative might be a myth what comes after might have historical merit. The author was simply trying to connect the names of people which circulated at the time and were associated with clans or tribes and made the link with Noah. An obvious example, the name Shem and Syria (al-Sham). Since Herodotus uses Συρία it would seem that the author made Shem a son of Noah. I don't understand the point of this thread.

That's reasonable-sounding. The point was to see if anything those authors wrote (a lot is in there and I didn't read every line myself) cannot be explained in the manner you have done. Is it reasonable that someone in 5th century would have access to the information they wrote if it can be shown to be historically accurate, or is it more reasonable (from a historian/DNA/linguistic) standpoint to conclude that Genesis 10 was written far earlier than the 5th century? Just askin.

TedM · 10-22-2012, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

.. I want to know if those claims have any validity and that's what I asked for

and you ignored it, when I told you there wasnt any credibility or validity

do you really want to learn? I have my doubts

Hey, at least it's better than yet another MJ-HJ thread, don't you think?

Perhaps the author will come to the thread to engage in specific objections folks might have here. I have invited him.

Toto · 10-22-2012, 01:58 PM

TalkOrigins has one mention of the "Table of Nations."

A visit to the Institute for Creationism Research

The account points out some of the most glaring errors in Gen 10: humans spread out from Africa, not Mesopotamia. Gen 10 does not mention significant places of human habitation, such as Asia or the Americas. The linguistic claims made are contrary to modern research.

Quote:

The ICR display states that all of these fossils "probably represent Post-Flood ethnic and/or language groups, and demonstrate man's genetic diversity." It is further asserted that humans migrated to all parts of the globe during a post-Flood/ post-Babel ice age: "During the 'Ice Age' so much water was frozen that sea level was lowered several hundred feet. Ice shelves covered much of the oceans poleward of 45 degrees. This made the continents accessible, thus allowing migration to occur. Furthermore, no competition for the uninhabited land was necessary, and since food was scarce, migration was encouraged. Human migration was enforced by the confusion of languages at Babel. The 'Table of Nations', in Genesis 10, informs us of the basic migration patterns." In fact, Genesis 10 does not indicate place names beyond the Middle East: Egypt, Canaan, Assyria, Gaza, and Sheba are named; India, China, Australia, and other points north, south, and east are not.

...

The origin of languages is attributed solely to the account in Genesis 11:1-9: "The archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidences are all compatible with the Biblical record of dispersion from the Tower of Babel," and "Evidence suggests a link between genetics and linguistics. One linguist, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, suggested that genes and language diverged simultaneously into populations."

Since the ICR chose to mention the geneticist Dr. L.Luca Cavalli-Sforza, an expert in the field of genes, migrations, and languages, I was interested in what Cavalli-Sforza really has to say on the subject. Cavalli-Sforza disagrees categorically with the ICR on the origin of humans: "Three hundred thousand and perhaps more years ago various types of archaic sapiens already peopled various parts of the world...Neanderthal appears in the Middle East about sixty thousand years ago, when there is no sign of modern humans in the area (Cavalli-Sforza 1995:56), and "Genes, people, and languages have thus diverged in tandem, through a series of migrations that apparently began in Africa and spread through Asia to Europe, the New World, and the Pacific (Cavalli-Sforza 1991:104).

The ICR, eager to connect language development with the tower of Babel, asserts that "The observable data indicate that no period of prehistoric language development ever existed." One wonders how would one accumulate 'observable data' in a pre-literate society? Cavalli-Sforza also addresses the issue: "Languages have very scarce 'fossil' information, usually limited to situations in which writing was developed, taking us back at most 5000 years...Whether human languages had a single or multiple origins is considered by most linguists to be insoluble" (Cavalli-Sforza 1994:96).

The ICR is obviously delighted with the relationship of genes and languages: "The close relation with language and genetics would be consistent with the creation model. The possibility of a single split-up time would be an added bonus for the creation theory." What they leave out is the evidence summarized by Cavalli-Sforza and consistent with evolutionary theory: "Human evolution is punctuated by the splitting of populations into parts, some of which settle elsewhere. Each fragment evolves linguistic and genetic patterns that bear the marks of shared branching points." (Cavalli-Sforza 1991:109). "This [archaeological] record -- bones and stone implements for the most part -- shows that Africa was indeed the original homeland of hominids. From there migrations must have proceeded from Africa to Asia via the isthmus of Suez and, later, from Asia to Europe" (Cavalli-Sforza 1991:107). "The most important difference in the human gene pool is that between Africans and non-Africans...This suggests that the split between Africans and non-Africans was the earliest in human evolutionary history..."(Cavalli-Sforza 1994:93).

It appears that the only people who think there is some historical validity to the Table of Nations are creationists who believe that the Bible is history.

Zwaarddijk · 10-22-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't know what more to say. Ted is arguing that while the flood narrative might be a myth what comes after might have historical merit. The author was simply trying to connect the names of people which circulated at the time and were associated with clans or tribes and made the link with Noah. An obvious example, the name Shem and Syria (al-Sham). Since Herodotus uses Συρία it would seem that the author made Shem a son of Noah. I don't understand the point of this thread.

al-Sham is not a cognate to Shem. Your point in general holds, but the al-Sham example seems rather far-fetched and not based on facts. al-Sham's root is an arabic root shiin-alif-miim - related to "left", Shem comes from Hebrew shin-mem (related to the semitic for name, I'd guess). al-Sham is also a much later term - not really gaining any widespread use until the Muslim conquests. Associating Shem with al-Sham is probably a mistake, but the basic idea you're heading for seems sound.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-22-2012, 01:23 PM	#43
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't know what more to say. Ted is arguing that while the flood narrative might be a myth what comes after might have historical merit. The author was simply trying to connect the names of people which circulated at the time and were associated with clans or tribes and made the link with Noah. An obvious example, the name Shem and Syria (al-Sham). Since Herodotus uses Συρία it would seem that the author made Shem a son of Noah. I don't understand the point of this thread.

10-22-2012, 01:29 PM	#44
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is worth noting that the Jewish tradition took over the myth that Noah's wife was named 'fire.' What do you want to do with that one, Ted? Deucalion was understood to have rescued 'fire' because his father was Prometheus. I really don't know where all of this is supposed to lead. Do you really think there is a tablet or a scroll out there from the time of the flood which supports Ezra's methodology?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.