WILLOWTREE

Massive evasion of what I argued via brazen defiance of all logic and facts.

The links were also evaded.

Why is this done ?

Answer: Inability to refute and rage about evidence.

Until someone does not evade I will not waste anymore time in this thread.

WT

badger3k

Considering that you keep evading the questions, that's a little ironic. We'll be a little more specific, but please respond to my questions. How does the navajo myth I provided, the one of the first world and the insect people, relate to the Genesis myth?

Also, please tell me how the Sumerian culture, going back 3500+ years, and having a flood myth of their own, is predated by a book that most theologians and scholars date to around 1500-500 BCE? Do you really believe that the flood in genesis occurred, was written down in cuneiform in the Sumerian myth, then perhaps 1500 years later was written down as truth by some wandering people (maybe that Moses guy, the one who wrote about his own death and burial).

I really think you need to learn more of the facts, and about logic, before you attempt to use them. I always thought perversion was something a Christian does not like, yet you pervert the facts with regularity. If this wasn't so amusing, it would be pathetic. So please stay, you keep us entertained. Along that line, here's a few fairly random sample of myths:

Well, here's a few flood myths from the Talk Origins site:
Kwaya (Lake Victoria):kwaya

The ocean was once enclosed in a small pot kept by a man and his wife under the roof of their hut to fill their larger pots. The man told his daughter-in-law never to touch it because it contained their sacred ancestors. But she grew curious and touched it. It shattered, and the resulting flood drowned everything. [Kahler-Meyer, pp. 253-254]

Using your site's rules, apparently the only similarity is the flood.

pygmy
Chameleon heard a strange noise, like water running, in a tree, but at that time there was no water in the world. He cut open the trunk, and water came out in a great flood that spread all over the earth. The first human couple emerged with the water. [Parrinder, pp. 46-47]

Flood, people emerge from water, not saved in any vessel.

How about the Lushai
The king of the water demons fell in love with the woman Ngai-ti (Loved One). She rejected him and ran away. He pursued and surrounded the whole human race with water on the hill Phun-lu-buk, said to be in the far northeast. Threatended by waters which continued to rise, the people threw Ngai-ti into the flood, which then receded. The receding water carved great valleys; until then, the earth had been level. [Gaster, p. 97]

Flood caused by demon, abated due to human sacrifice, people survive on hill (not a vessel). No word about animals.

Here's the Toltec
One of the Tezcatlipocas (sons of the original dual god) transformed himself into the Sun and created the first humans to show up his brothers. The other gods, angry at his audacity, had Quetzalcoatl destroy the sun and the earth, which he did with a flood. The people became fish. This ended the first age. The second, third, and fourth Suns ended, respectively, with the crumbling of the heavens, a rain of fire, and devastating winds. [Leon-Portilla, p. 450]

Sounds a lot like genesis to me. Everyone became fish. :huh:

The Jivaro have four myths listed:
Two boys found that the game they had hunted for a feast kept disappearing while they were gone. One stayed in camp and discovered a large snake was responsible. They built a fire to drive the snake out of the hollow in a tree, where it lived. The snake fell in the fire, and one of the brothers ate some of its roasted flesh. He became very thirsty, drank all the water in camp, and went to the lake. He was transformed first into a frog, then a lizard, and finally into a snake, which grew rapidly. His brother was frightened and tried to pull him out, but the lake began to overflow. The snake told his brother that the lake would continue to grow and all the people would perish unless they made their escape. The snake told him to take a calabash and flee to a palm tree on the highest mountain. The brother told his people what was happening, but they didn't believe him. He fled to the top of a palm tree on the top of a mountain and returned many days later when the waters had subsided. Vultures were eating the dead people in the valley. He went to the lake and carried away his brother in a calabash. [Kelsen, pp. 140-141; see also Roheim, p. 156]
* Flood, killed everybody but one boy (?) and animals

A great cloud fell from heaven, turned to rain, and killed all the inhabitants of earth. Only a man and his two sons were saved. One of the sons was cursed by his father; the Jivaros are descended from him. [Gaster, p. 126]
*Flood killed all but three males. Don't tell the Evangalists this one - It'll blow their minds.


According to some Jivaro, the flood was survived by a man and woman, who took refuge in a cave on a high mountain along with samples of all the various animal species. [Gaster, p. 126]
*Now here we have flood, people saved, animals saved, in a cave (but I'm sure you'll read that as a "vessel"


Two brothers survived the flood in a mountain which rose higher and higher with the flood waters. They went looking for food after the flood, and when they returned, found food set out for them. To find its source, one of the brothers hid himself and saw two parrots with the faces of women enter their hut and prepare the food. He jumped out, seized one of the birds, and married it. From this union came three boys and three girls from whom the Jivaros are descended. [Gaster, p. 126]

I can see the relation - they all use water, they sometimes have people survive, sometimes not, sometimes have animals survive and other times don't, sometimes it is caused by a deity and sometimes it is not. Why, they're the same myth! Of course, I have been blind all these years not to see it!

Oh, and I'm not an atheist, thank you. I just see no proof that your version of things has any basis in reality.

Other than the myths, there is no evidence for a flood - every branch of science has been used to try to prove it and has failed, repeatedly, throughout many many years. But don't let that fact stop you from giving us your great arguments.

badger3k

I never addresses this comment, but I find it hilarious. You are saying that evidence does not matter? That's your defense? And you expect us to believe that? No wonder you can believe what you want, when nothing matters but your belief.

edit - I should say you see evidence that disproves your theory as no evidence at all, and you assume that we do the same. Not how it works. You look at the evidence from all sides and see what best fits, not start with the theory and cherry pick your evidence.

By that logic, then Herakles is the Lord we must worship. I have yet to see any "evidence" that disproves His Life and Assumption to Immortality on Mt Olympus. Father Zeus has elevated Him, and thus - I see - the flood myth in your writing is obviously a corruption of the Story given by Plato. How silly of me to miss that connection, but then, I'd forgotten about that myth. I am ashamed at my impiety. Anyone know where I can buy 100 bulls for the hekatomb?

Amaleq13

I thought they were posted so that folks could see for themselves if your assertion of "common denominator evidence" is true. Personally, I don't see it. They seem to me to only share the notion of survival after a massive flood. Given the ubiquitous nature of floods, the simplest explanation is a common experience with local flooding rather than a single event that somehow became dramatically changed all over the world. This explanation has the added benefit of conforming to the physical evidence of local flooding throughout the world at various points in time.

This is untrue. The "irrefutable common denominator evidence" is addressed above. The fact is, you have significantly misrepresented the nature of that "common denominator evidence" in an apparent effort to make it appear to describe more of the biblical story than is actually the case.

What is "impossible" about the notion that the various flood stories provided at the website were invented in response to traumatic, local floods?

Do you conclude that vampires are real because there are stories about them told in cultures all around the world?

It is "spectacular evidence" that cultures all around the world have experienced the trauma of flooding and have responded to that experience by creating fabulous stories about it.

I agree but you don't appear to be describing the evidence. They aren't telling the same story and there appears to be only two common denominators (ie a lot of water and the survival of at least one human). Floods are ubiquitous and somebody has to survive for a story to be told about it.

Jack the Bodiless

You have it backwards. To US, the evidence matters: to YOU, it does not.

We have abundant evidence which proves that the Flood did NOT happen: it ISN'T just that we "don't believe in miracles". That evidence is ignored by creationists.

...Whereas the creationists have, at best, SOME evidence that COULD be explained by a Flood.

A scientific theory must be consistent with ALL of the evidence: it must fit the evidence, and not be CONTRADICTED by ANY evidence. We have perfectly adequate explanations for ALL of the evidence.

...Whereas you do not. There is no adequate creationist explanation for the fossil record, for DNA correlation, for radiometric dating, for layered deposits going back well beyond the "creation" (ice layers, varves etc), for historical records of peoples unaffected by the Flood, for features such as dinosaur footprints and dessication cracks in deposits supposedly laid down in the middle of the Flood and buried by other "Flood deposits" (how can these form underwater?)... and so on. And on, and on, and on...
But YOU don't consider Genesis to be factual either!

You've assumed the dates in the Bible are wrong, and moved the Flood date by a thousand years.

And you still haven't explained why.

funinspace

I realize that you believe it to be true. I consider the reference to Rutherford to be an answer to my "why". Which is partially an answer to the question. And thanks for stating your opinion on a Flood date. Most Christians are usually unwilling to even present their POV in this area. Unfortunately, references to Rutherford is only marginally available on the web. Ok, you say this author's analysis is true. Could you elaborate as to the logic/reasoning he uses to get to this date? I assume by your many other statements that you believe the Bible it true as well. And from one of your other sites you frequent ( http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000272-15.html #219 ) you state:
So let's just say the Exodus started at 1453 BC for argument sake. Why do you pick 3145 BC vice 2465 BC ( 1453 + 1012 ) which appears to come straight from the Bible? I realize you cited Rutherford's book, but I don't have a copy. So what is your (or his) logic/rational in considering Ge 5, 11, 22, 25, 47, and Ex 12? That is, what do you find in these verses, that is not as it appears to simply be? Here is the verses, and the 1012 years from the Flood to the Exodus in what appears to be very simple and clear verses:
Genesis:
5:32 After Noah was five hundred years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11:10 This is the account of Shem.
Shem was one hundred years old when he became the father of Arphaxad, two years after the flood. 11:11 And after becoming the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years and had other sons and daughters.
(2 years After Flood (AF) Arphaxad born)
11:12 When Arphaxad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah. 11:13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters.
(2 + 35 = 37 AF)
11:14 When Shelah had lived thirty years, he became the father of Eber. 11:15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters.
(37+30=67AF)
11:16 When Eber had lived thirty-four years, he became the father of Peleg. 11:17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived four hundred and thirty years and had other sons and daughters.
(67+34=101AF)
11:18 When Peleg had lived thirty years, he became the father of Reu. 11:19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived two hundred and nine years and had other sons and daughters.
(101+30=131AF)
11:20 When Reu had lived thirty-two years, he became the father of Serug. 11:21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived two hundred and seven years and had other sons and daughters.
(131+32=163AF)
11:22 When Serug had lived thirty years, he became the father of Nahor. 11:23 And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived two hundred years and had other sons and daughters.
(163+30=193AF)
11:24 When Nahor had lived twenty-nine years, he became the father of Terah. 11:25 And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived one hundred and nineteen years and had other sons and daughters.
(193+29=222AF)
11:26 When Terah had lived seventy years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
(222+70=292AF)
21:5 (Now Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.)
(292+100=392AF)
25:26 When his brother came out with his hand clutching Esau's heel, they named him Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when they were born.
(392+60=452AF)
47:9 Jacob said to Pharaoh, "All the years of my travels are one hundred and thirty. All the years of my life have been few and painful; the years of my travels are not as long as those of my ancestors." 47:10 Then Jacob blessed Pharaoh and went out from his presence.
(452+130=582AF)
47:28 Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years; the years45 of Jacob's life were one hundred and forty-seven in all
Ex 12:40 Now the length of time the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred thirty years.
(582+430=1012AF)

This gives us the grand total of time from the infamous Flood to the exodus from Egypt being 1012 years. Then, of course, they had 40 years of wandering before beginning the invasion of Canaan. So where is this interpretation wrong, and 3145 BC right?

Celsus

Jack, funinspace, you're wasting you're time. All you have to do is ask Willow how he decides which chronology--MT, SP, LXX, Maccabean, or Jubilees--he uses, and rejects the others. If he's quoting a 1950s book, you know he hasn't got a clue what the actual ancient chronologies are.

Joel

WILLOWTREE

I truly appreciate your serious response.

It will take me until Friday at the latest to type a worthy response.

Due to schedule my posting days are Thursday, Friday, Saturday.

All posts in other topics do not require the effort this will take.

Maybe an Admin can chop this off and create a special topic.

Maybe your friend Celsus will also stick around as history is my major.

WT

WILLOWTREE

The above comment assumes a source of perceived antiquity is automatically error.

No matter how old the source - any source which provides the correct date of the Titanic catastrophe is correct.

Rutherford has the immeasurable benefit of a dual astronomical line-up which irrefutably fixes the Exodus date.

From this benchmark he has also shown the Babylonian king lists and the Assyrian Khorsabad lists confirm the O.T. chronology.

What Celsus is genuinely ignorant about is that the MT and the LXX use different systems. When their systems are understood - both are correct.

Chronology scholars know each system and what they say.

Rutherford is an ancient chronology scholar who has mastered both the MT and LXX systems and shown how they are congruent.

WT

BTW:

I own the Rutherford chronology.

Celsus

It does nothing of the sort. It's simply pointing out that there are 5 divergent chronological sources, and Willowtree hasn't got a clue how he picks one and not the other.
Pft. I'd ask for you to demonstrate that argument here, except I know you'd use it as a red herring to deflect from the central problem, which is that you don't know actually know a thing about ancient chronology.
Which Babylonian and Assyrian lists? You do recognise that they also conflict, right? How do you pick one of those and reject the other? I suppose you know that they are widely divergent too? You want me to show you, and then you synchronise these for us by giving an actual argument instead of appealing to a long-dead "authority"?
Rubbish. LXX and MT agree, for instance, on Jared, Methusaleh (though other LXX manuscripts differ by 20 years), Noah, and Shem. The LXX adds 100 years onto Adam, Seth, Kenan, Mahalalel, Enoch, Arpachsad all the way to Serug. It adds 6 years to Lamech It adds 50 years onto Nahor, then agrees on Terah, Abraham, and Isaac. Please explain how it is merely a "different" system. Of course, Willow hasn't got a clue how the SP and Jubilees differs from or agrees with that, and I'm not about to let him know how those work until he demonstrates he's got any clue what the SP says. But don't mind me, please synchronise these two systems, and then synchronise the SP and Jubilees ones for us. Please.
I suppose that means you aren't one then.
Do you actually know how to make an argument other than from authority?

Joel