Occam's Aftershave

Dave, I've got the same question for you here that you <edit> refused to answer at ATBC and again at RD.net

You're on record as saying all these written records of Genesis were carried on the Ark by Noah, which is how they survived the Flood.

You're also on record as saying the Tower of Babel incident happened approx. 200 years after the Flood, around 2550 BC.

Well, the Bible tells us that before Babel there was only ONE language. Says it right there in the Bible Dave.

Then it says their language was confounded, so no one person could understand another's speech. Says it right there in the Bible too Dave.

.
Note that it doesn't say groups Dave, it refers to individuals being confounded in "one another's speech".

Question time Davie:

1. How did the post-Babel people understand the records that were written before Babel, when no one after Babel could read the language? Did God keep one poor slob who could understand the writing? In that case, who was that guy, and what language was the tablets in? How did he pass on the great "ancient wisdom" if no one could understand him?

2. The written record before 2500 BC (i.e. before Babel) that you reference through Smyth consists of multiple sources in multiple languages Dave - Egyptian hieroglyphics, Sumerian cuneiform, Elamite, etc. All of which are different languages Dave. And the records kept in these languages go right through the date 2500 BC with no appreciable changes. In other words,

The historical record shows that the same languages (plural) that existed before 2500 BC continued to exist and be used after 2500 BC.

Please explain to us how the actual written historical record jibes with your Genesis Babel story Dave. You're great at making up fantasies for kids - go on and make up another fantasy for us.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to afdave: Why do you believe that Jesus ever said anything about tithing and divorce?

What evidence do you have that the earth is young?

Occam's Aftershave

Dave...oh Dave?

You're not going to bail out of yet another thread when the questions you couldn't answer got too numerous, are you?

Oh well...Disappointing, but certainly not unprecedented.

James Brown

Is the phrase "to be examined" just a code phrase for "to be ignored"?

Constant Mews

It should be noted that Dave's response to posters is highly erratic; I would not expect an answer.

Johnny Skeptic

No, it is not the claim of the Bible, but the claim of supposed but uncorroborated COPIES of the originals. It is not a question of what the Bible IS, but what the Bible WAS. The Bible WAS a collection of original writings. No one knows how faithfully the originals have been preserved. Now it may appeal to your emotional needs to try to make God conform to what you want him to be, but that does not work. If a God exists, he is not obligated to provide Christians with copies of the originals that faithfully represent the originals. This is especially true since he obviously felt that he was not obligated to provide any texts at all to hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing the Gospel message. In the first century, God discriminated against people who lived far away from Palestine by refusing to tell them about the Gospel message. Since spreading the Gospel message is obviously not one of God's top priorities, why is it one of your top priorities?

Dave Hawkins

No, not ignored. I answered most of your objections, but evidence is scanty and we may only be able to speculate about some details. My point, however, is that solid evidence does exist, scanty though it may be, and difficult though it may be to reconstruct. But there are also some "elephants in the living room" and we cannot ignore these -- "elephants" like these colophons in Genesis, the matching colophons in Babylonian tablets, the error of 19th century skeptics in assuming that writing was a late invention, that the patriarchal narratives are legendary, that Israel's history is "evolutionary", and the incredible historical and scientific accuracy of many aspects of the Book of Genesis. The Book of Genesis is a remarkable document (collection of documents, rather) that we cannot lightly dismiss.

Johnny Skeptic

And what may I ask does that have to do with whether or not the story of Adam and Eve that we have today faithfully represents the original story?

Why do you believe that Jesus ever said anything about divorce and tithing?

Constant Mews

Please cite this "solid evidence". We have no evidence of the existence of these tablets; no evidence of any record-keeping on the part of the patriarchs; no confirming evidence that the patriarchs even existed; no evidence that the 19th century scholars were wrong in their assessment of the late date of writing; no evidence of the Flood; and no evidence that there is any "incredible historical and scientific accuracy" of any aspect of Genesis. Not one.

Please cite five incredible historical and scientifically accurate aspects of Genesis.

VoxRat

Merriam-Webster:
I believe I've made this point before at RD.net, but it's a new crowd.