Bingo the Clown-O

The 70 grandsons of Noah are ‘humanized counterparts’ of the 70 sons of El in passages like Deuteronomy 32:7-9 and Psalm 82.

They barrow from Canaanite mythology where the Most High divides up humanity among El's children.

It’s just folklore. Evidently someone down the road swapped out the sons of El (who were gods) for the grandsons of Noah (who were humans).

Bingo the Clown-O

It is the opinion of Clowns such as myself that Luke/Acts barrowed heavily from Josephus.

Don’ forget this guy:



Now there’s some scary shit right there. :hysterical:

TedM

Only for 'creative' skeptics. The fact is the bible writers are claiming to be writing history. Nearly the entire Bible is presented as historical fact. Those that disbelieve need to admit that they conclude 'this is a lie', 'this didn't happen' every step of the way. Nearly every book, every verse. It isn't one Joseph Smith Toto. It is a continuous line of liars, political controllers, attention-seekers, etc..according to skeptics, and a tremendously gullible public that believes the lies year after year, century after century.


I don't think it is a killer argument against skeptics. I think it says something about skeptics though. Their lack of faith in other people. Their belief in conspiracies. Their unflinching denial of anything supernatural. And perhaps their arrogant sense of superiority to those who don't agree.

TedM

Can you provide a link? The first quote in my OP said there is no other record of such lineage in any known ancient writings. That Genesis 10 is unique. I'd be very interested in any signs that this chapter was borrowed from some other ancient writing.

Zwaarddijk

Well, first of all the actual "flood" (with more than significant probability) didn't actually occur. (If there's some events that correspond to it, I would guess the rise of the sea-levels at the end of the last large glaciation.)

The genealogy seems to be a just-so story regarding the origin of tribes the ancient Hebrew (and maybe Sumerians, etc) had had contact with. Some of these tribes may very well have gone extinct soon after the tradition originated, assimilated into other tribes, split into smaller tribes, names may easily have been passed on to other tribes - even in late antiquity and early medieval Europe, some tribe names have moved around between by and large unrelated groups in the same areas.

You find some terms shifting around in that manner in the ancient middle east as well: Edom originally referred to Idumea, the area south and south-east of Israel. With time, the importance of this group waned, and the term was reapplied (maybe as a code-word, originally) to Rome (wikipedia says at the time of the bar Kochba revolt in the article on Edom, somehow I seem to recall earlier sources doing it).

The Ishmaelites likewise assimilated into other tribes, but the term was restored a bit later for another Semitic people, the Arabs. When someone these days tries making wide-reaching claims about ancient history based on these names, the problem of the names having been rather willy-nilly switched around at times due to a variety of reasons is also kind of problematic.

Those are just two names the referents of which we know have shifted. Considering the number of names in the OT we don't have much attestation for in ancient writings, ...

At the time most of the OT was written, there probably was no reason whatsoever for the ancient Hebrews to care about the Romans, who would have known the Romans were going to be a superpower at the time? - and you don't find any (possible) reference to them until some very late books. What does happen, though, is that a word for an earlier neighbor tribe is reinterpreted to refer to the superpower once it's actually having a notable impact in the area. At first, there's indications that the Israelites were happy to be allied with the Romans against other (common) enemies. Only as the Jews later grew less happy with the Romans did names of hated tribes come to be applied to them.


I guess a common, recent ancestry is a reasonable explanation for cultural and linguistic similarities, and the authors realized this? Putting the ancestry close - but just behind the line that separates in-group (Jew) from not a member (gentile) is a, well, obvious thing to do in order to deal with that.

There probably were loads of tribes in the middle east of antiquity that never are mentioned in any genealogy of the tribes. Likewise, many of these tribes may have been called different things by different neighbours, just like Germany is called Deutschland, Saksa, Allemagne, Nemecko, Tyskland, ...


Using these just-so stories about local tribes to reconstruct the migrations of mankind in its entirety is ... well, misguided.

sotto voce

Americans should know the answer to this. Hubbard, Smith, Baker Eddy, Taze Russell, Elbert Eugene Spriggs, Ellen White, William Sadler had something in common with Muhammad and Constantine. No, not insanity.

Truth.

Though there's more.

Toto

Details, please.

Sort of like modern marketing campaigns.

Have you studied the history of how cigarettes were marketed to the American public?

"Lack of faith"? Why should a skeptic have faith that most failable humans are gullible and/or less than truthful?

No real conspiracy, other than the documented church, is required.
What's wrong with this?

I think you are revealing your own psychological feelings here.

Bingo the Clown-O

No. I’m sorry but I am totally unwilling to do that at this time. I will however provide a titillating clue: This clue for anyone who genuinely wants to know where the 70 grandsons of Noah came from.

Please consider this:

I have a free, slightly-used, George McGovern voodoo doll for anyone who can correctly identify the Mystery Source.

TedM

I"m not interested in clues, Bingo, especially when Genesis 10 doesn't even mention the number 70. Your 'link' definitely does sound like Voodoo to me.
I"m looking for something more substantive than that. Thanks anyway.

TedM

Details aren't needed. It's the ability to apply a common sense interpretation, which you apparently are lacking. Genesis 10 need not say 'this is the history of nations' for the reader to know that's what the writer was claiming, Toto. It wasn't some kind of allegory. And Luke even says right out that he was writing a historical account.


No. Did all the advertisers present different stories that everyone thought was historical?

Very revealing..



It blots out possibilities that are beyond explanation.


I won't be responding till perhaps later. My interest is in the migration of peoples as described in Genesis 10 and the evidence for or against. All this other stuff is another issue.