PDA

View Full Version : Noah - the Clean and the Unclean



klaus54
02-27-2015, 02:38 PM
One fact that struck me long while reading the Flood myth was the use of "clean" and "unclean". We're these terms from the Mosaic Law, which was given over a millennium later according to Ussher?

For me this anachronism is significant evidence that the Noah story was not meant to be "literal" but rather a theological lesson on YHWH's judgment on sin.

I'd like to hear how Genesis literalists dig their way out of this.

K54


Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Truthseeker
02-27-2015, 04:14 PM
One fact that struck me long while reading the Flood myth was the use of "clean" and "unclean". We're these terms from the Mosaic Law, which was given over a millennium later according to Ussher?

For me this anachronism is significant evidence that the Noah story was not meant to be "literal" but rather a theological lesson on YHWH's judgment on sin.

I'd like to hear how Genesis literalists dig their way out of this.

K54


Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Ussher said that it was Moses who created the Law?

klaus54
02-27-2015, 04:25 PM
Ussher said that it was Moses who created the Law?

Not Ussher! I said Ussher's dates. I chose Ussher because many KJV-onlyers use those dates.

But how could you say something so dumb?

The Law was given to Moses, over 1000 years after ye greate fludde. So how would Noah understand this terminology?

Very simple question.

K54

P.S. Of course it all could be a Federal Gubmint conspiracy.

Duragizer
02-27-2015, 04:40 PM
Average YECs/gap creationists may not have an easy answer for this one, but I do know that those who continue to hold to the dietary laws -- such as my parents -- will just say that God established the laws against eating unclean meat from the beginning and that God's giving of the laws to Moses was more of a reminder than new information.

Truthseeker
02-27-2015, 05:28 PM
Not Ussher! I said Ussher's dates. I chose Ussher because many KJV-onlyers use those dates.

But how could you say something so dumb?

The Law was given to Moses, over 1000 years after ye greate fludde. So how would Noah understand this terminology?

Very simple question.Do you think that the story of Abraham and Isaac going to sacrifice has no bearing on when Moses' Law took effect?

Boxing Pythagoras
02-27-2015, 05:41 PM
Why is this in Nat Sci? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in Theology or Apologetics?

Teallaura
02-27-2015, 06:14 PM
Could just be the obvious - when the writer put pen to paper he used 'clean/unclean' contextually as 'dinner/not dinner'. No unclean animals are domesticated - the writer may simply have used the terminology of his time to make the thing clear to his readers.

Ancient writers tended to be substance over form so it's perfectly consistent with known practice of the time.


:shrug:

klaus54
02-27-2015, 07:34 PM
Average YECs/gap creationists may not have an easy answer for this one, but I do know that those who continue to hold to the dietary laws -- such as my parents -- will just say that God established the laws against eating unclean meat from the beginning and that God's giving of the laws to Moses was more of a reminder than new information.

Well, that's interesting. But, why would God make such a big dramatic deal of codifying the Law with Moses and the Levites?

Other than (possibly) the Ark myth there is no other mention of the Law before Moses. As important as the Law was to the Hebrews, one would think there would be some mention of the dietary laws before the Exodus.

My explanation makes more sense to me.

K54

klaus54
02-27-2015, 07:35 PM
Could just be the obvious - when the writer put pen to paper he used 'clean/unclean' contextually as 'dinner/not dinner'. No unclean animals are domesticated - the writer may simply have used the terminology of his time to make the thing clear to his readers.

Ancient writers tended to be substance over form so it's perfectly consistent with known practice of the time.


:shrug:

That ain't bad, Teal, that ain't bad.

K54

klaus54
02-27-2015, 07:39 PM
Why is this in Nat Sci? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in Theology or Apologetics?

Because it deals with the possible occurrence of the literalness of the Greate Floode story.

It's a theological/exegetic argument against a literal (world-wide) flood.

This line of reasoning goes hand-in-hand with the complete lack of geological and genetic evidence for such a flood.

I.e., it's complementary to the natural science.

K54

klaus54
02-27-2015, 07:41 PM
Do you think that the story of Abraham and Isaac going to sacrifice has no bearing on when Moses' Law took effect?

No.

God directly ordered and then stopped the sacrifice.

Pretty obviously not connected as there are centuries in between Abraham and Moses.

And there's a LOT more to the Mosaic Law than animal sacrifice -- which was fairly common in the ANE.

K54

Truthseeker
02-27-2015, 07:52 PM
Do you think that prohibitions against stealing and murder did not exist until Moses?

klaus54
02-27-2015, 08:52 PM
Do you think that prohibitions against stealing and murder did not exist until Moses?

In most all cultures, no.

But what does this have to do with Mosaic dietary laws?

Do you always try to confuse the issue when an exceedingly simple to understand topic is brought forth?

"Clean/Unclean" -- how would Noah know what these meant before the Law?



16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.


P.S. IIRC, Noah lived before Abraham.

Paprika
02-28-2015, 12:12 AM
As important as the Law was to the Hebrews, one would think there would be some mention of the dietary laws before the Exodus.

You say that, but claim in the OP that the only such mention is an anachronism.

:duh:

Also, this should not be in NS.

Roy
02-28-2015, 02:35 AM
No unclean animals are domesticatedPig

Roy

P.S. Camel, rabbits, white mice

shunyadragon
02-28-2015, 05:41 AM
No.

God directly ordered and then stopped the sacrifice.

Pretty obviously not connected as there are centuries in between Abraham and Moses.

And there's a LOT more to the Mosaic Law than animal sacrifice -- which was fairly common in the ANE.

K54

I think the influence of supposed ANE culture is really overrated. The fact that we are universally human pretty much trumps cultural claims of some sort of exclusiveness.

There are facts of cultural evolution that is similar in the Orient as in the Middle East. Cultures naturally evolve from Animism> Polytheism> Monotheism, and from Animal and human sacrifice to symbolic sacrifice as cultures evolve from the Neolithic>Bronze Age>Iron Age>Advanced Civilizations.

Pastoral Cultures in arid and semi-arid regions are predominantly goat and sheep as sources for meat. In mesic higher rainfall regions swine predominate. Different breeds of cattle over lap these climates where suitable. This is true in the Middle East, Africa and the Orient.

The Bible just simply reflects these normal natural trends. The Hebrew tribes were predominately pastoral semi-arid to arid hill country in the interior around Palestine and raised mostly goats and sheep. Other cultures in the higher rainfall coastal regions raised swine.

These very natural relationships between cultures and the environment can easily explain what is described in the Bible as Revelation and Divine Law.

rogue06
02-28-2015, 09:03 AM
Could just be the obvious - when the writer put pen to paper he used 'clean/unclean' contextually as 'dinner/not dinner'. No unclean animals are domesticated - the writer may simply have used the terminology of his time to make the thing clear to his readers.

Ancient writers tended to be substance over form so it's perfectly consistent with known practice of the time.


:shrug:


http://m5.paperblog.com/i/51/513198/biogas-from-pig-farms-can-be-efficiently-used-L-HKz7sp.jpeg
Sus scrofa otherwise known as swine, hogs or just plain old pigs

Archaeological evidence indicates that pigs were first domesticated some 15,000 years ago in the Mid East. That's probably about 2000 years earlier than sheep and maybe 5000 years before cows.

Cow Poke
02-28-2015, 09:10 AM
My explanation makes more sense to me.

Shocking. Shocking, I say! :smile:

shunyadragon
02-28-2015, 09:20 AM
http://m5.paperblog.com/i/51/513198/biogas-from-pig-farms-can-be-efficiently-used-L-HKz7sp.jpeg
Sus scrofa otherwise known as swine, hogs or just plain old pigs

Archaeological evidence indicates that pigs were first domesticated some 15,000 years ago in the Mid East. That's probably about 2000 years earlier than sheep and maybe 5000 years before cows.

I believe sheep and goats were the earliest in the Middle East and in Central Asia.



The first animals known to have been domesticated as a source of food are sheep in the Middle East. The proof is the high proportion of bones of one-year-old sheep discarded in a settlement at Shanidar, in what is now northern Iraq. Goats follow soon after, and these two become the standard animals of the nomadic pastoralists - tribes which move all year long with their flocks, guided by the availability of fresh grass.

Cattle and pigs, associated more with settled communities, are domesticated slightly later - but probably not long after 7000 BC. The ox may first have been bred by humans in western Asia. The pig is probably first domesticated in China.

The first reason for herding sheep and goats, or keeping cattle and pigs in the village, is to secure a regular supply of fresh meat. The hunter is dependent on the luck of the chase; if more animals are killed than can be immediately consumed, meals from the surplus will be increasingly unpleasant as the days go by. The herdsman, by contrast, has a living larder always to hand and a supply of dairy products as well.

These animals also provide for almost every other need of Neolithic man. While they are alive, they produce dung to manure the crops. When they are dead, leather and wool for garments; horn and bone for sharp points, of needles or arrows; fat for tallow candles; hooves for glue.


Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab57#ixzz3T3qj1O1 e

Some sources give earlier dates for domestication for both. I will have to check more. Most cite earliest domestication of pigs in the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys by sedentary agricultural cultures. domestication of sheep and goats were in pastoral cultures.

Cerealman
02-28-2015, 09:51 AM
I believe sheep and goats were the earliest in the Middle East and in Central Asia.



The first animals known to have been domesticated as a source of food are sheep in the Middle East. The proof is the high proportion of bones of one-year-old sheep discarded in a settlement at Shanidar, in what is now northern Iraq. Goats follow soon after, and these two become the standard animals of the nomadic pastoralists - tribes which move all year long with their flocks, guided by the availability of fresh grass.

Cattle and pigs, associated more with settled communities, are domesticated slightly later - but probably not long after 7000 BC. The ox may first have been bred by humans in western Asia. The pig is probably first domesticated in China.

The first reason for herding sheep and goats, or keeping cattle and pigs in the village, is to secure a regular supply of fresh meat. The hunter is dependent on the luck of the chase; if more animals are killed than can be immediately consumed, meals from the surplus will be increasingly unpleasant as the days go by. The herdsman, by contrast, has a living larder always to hand and a supply of dairy products as well.

These animals also provide for almost every other need of Neolithic man. While they are alive, they produce dung to manure the crops. When they are dead, leather and wool for garments; horn and bone for sharp points, of needles or arrows; fat for tallow candles; hooves for glue.


Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab57#ixzz3T3qj1O1 e

Some sources give earlier dates for domestication for both. I will have to check more. Most cite earliest domestication of pigs in the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys by sedentary agricultural cultures. domestication of sheep and goats were in pastoral cultures.

P bone?

klaus54
02-28-2015, 10:33 AM
You say that, but claim in the OP that the only such mention is an anachronism.

:duh:

Also, this should not be in NS.

1) Yes, it should be in Nat. Sci. since it complements the lack of scientific evidence for a global flood.

2) If the Noah were told the terms "clean/unclean", which weren't defined until at least the time of Abraham, then that is the very definition of "anachronism".

Perhaps "prolepsis" is a better term.

K54

anachronism [uh-nak-ruh-niz-uh m]; noun

1. something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time:
The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.

2. an error in chronology in which a person, object, event, etc., is assigned a date or period other than the correct one: To assign Michelangelo to the 14th century is an anachronism.


prolepsis, noun;

1. Rhetoric. the anticipation of possible objections in order to answer them in advance.

2. the assigning of a person, event, etc., to a period earlier than the actual one; the representation of something in the future as if it already existed or had occurred; prochronism.

3. the use of a descriptive word in anticipation of its becoming applicable.

4. a fundamental conception or assumption in Epicureanism or Stoicism arising spontaneously in the mind without conscious reflection; thought provoked by sense perception.

5. Pathology. the return of an attack of a periodic disease or of a paroxysm before the expected time or at progressively shorter intervals.

klaus54
02-28-2015, 10:35 AM
Shocking. Shocking, I say! :smile:

Soitenly!!!

:wink:

K54

klaus54
02-28-2015, 10:39 AM
I think the influence of supposed ANE culture is really overrated. The fact that we are universally human pretty much trumps cultural claims of some sort of exclusiveness.

There are facts of cultural evolution that is similar in the Orient as in the Middle East. Cultures naturally evolve from Animism> Polytheism> Monotheism, and from Animal and human sacrifice to symbolic sacrifice as cultures evolve from the Neolithic>Bronze Age>Iron Age>Advanced Civilizations.

Pastoral Cultures in arid and semi-arid regions are predominantly goat and sheep as sources for meat. In mesic higher rainfall regions swine predominate. Different breeds of cattle over lap these climates where suitable. This is true in the Middle East, Africa and the Orient.

The Bible just simply reflects these normal natural trends. The Hebrew tribes were predominately pastoral semi-arid to arid hill country in the interior around Palestine and raised mostly goats and sheep. Other cultures in the higher rainfall coastal regions raised swine.

These very natural relationships between cultures and the environment can easily explain what is described in the Bible as Revelation and Divine Law.

You pretty much agree with me, with general Neolithic/Chalcolithic/Bronze Age culture substituted for the more specific ANE.

The fact remains that pre-Judaism clean/unclean terminology was an aspect of the Mosaic Law, long after Noah.

K54

K54

klaus54
02-28-2015, 10:40 AM
Moderators: Would this be better in Archaeology?

I don't want it in a Theist-only area.

Thanks!

K54

rogue06
02-28-2015, 11:31 AM
I believe sheep and goats were the earliest in the Middle East and in Central Asia.



The first animals known to have been domesticated as a source of food are sheep in the Middle East. The proof is the high proportion of bones of one-year-old sheep discarded in a settlement at Shanidar, in what is now northern Iraq. Goats follow soon after, and these two become the standard animals of the nomadic pastoralists - tribes which move all year long with their flocks, guided by the availability of fresh grass.

Cattle and pigs, associated more with settled communities, are domesticated slightly later - but probably not long after 7000 BC. The ox may first have been bred by humans in western Asia. The pig is probably first domesticated in China.

The first reason for herding sheep and goats, or keeping cattle and pigs in the village, is to secure a regular supply of fresh meat. The hunter is dependent on the luck of the chase; if more animals are killed than can be immediately consumed, meals from the surplus will be increasingly unpleasant as the days go by. The herdsman, by contrast, has a living larder always to hand and a supply of dairy products as well.

These animals also provide for almost every other need of Neolithic man. While they are alive, they produce dung to manure the crops. When they are dead, leather and wool for garments; horn and bone for sharp points, of needles or arrows; fat for tallow candles; hooves for glue.


Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab57#ixzz3T3qj1O1 e

Some sources give earlier dates for domestication for both. I will have to check more. Most cite earliest domestication of pigs in the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys by sedentary agricultural cultures. domestication of sheep and goats were in pastoral cultures.
At the risk of citing Wikipedia (which is actually pretty good in these sort of matters):


Archaeological evidence suggests that pigs were domesticated from wild boar as early as 13,000–12,700 BC in the Near East in the Tigris Basin[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#cite_note-13) being managed in the wild in a way similar to the way they are managed by some modern New Guineans.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#cite_note-14) Remains of pigs have been dated to earlier than 11,400 BC in Cyprus. Those animals must have been introduced from the mainland, which suggests domestication in the adjacent mainland by then.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#cite_note-15) There was also a separate domestication in China which took place about 8000 years ago.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#cite_note-Giuffra-16)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#cite_note-17)


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#History)


It appears that pigs have been domesticated for 14,700 to 15,000 years in the Tigris region (confirming what I said) and 13,400 years in Cyprus. That is considerably earlier than in China. Moreover, pigs, an unclean animal, have been domesticated for a very long time so the idea that domestication is the basis for separating between clean and unclean does not appear to be justified.

Roy
02-28-2015, 12:57 PM
It appears that pigs have been domesticated for 14,700 to 15,000 years in the Tigris region (confirming what I said) and 13,400 years in Cyprus. That is considerably earlier than in China. Moreover, pigs, an unclean animal, have been domesticated for a very long time so the idea that domestication is the basis for separating between clean and unclean does not appear to be justified.All this begs the question of why pigs were domesticated, if they weren't eaten. Ok, they're exceedingly useful for producing non-food products (paintbrushes, glue, leather, manure, bone tools), but not sufficiently moreso than other animals to justify domesticating them for non-dietary purposes. They can't be ridden, they can't help in hunting, they don't catch vermin, they don't lay eggs, and they don't fit in small cages. Is the ability to hunt truffles and eat peelings really that necessary?

I suspect that the prohibition against pork is a later development.

Roy

rogue06
02-28-2015, 01:12 PM
All this begs the question of why pigs were domesticated, if they weren't eaten. Ok, they're exceedingly useful for producing non-food products (paintbrushes, glue, leather, manure, bone tools), but not sufficiently moreso than other animals to justify domesticating them for non-dietary purposes. They can't be ridden, they can't help in hunting, they don't catch vermin, they don't lay eggs, and they don't fit in small cages. Is the ability to hunt truffles and eat peelings really that necessary?

I suspect that the prohibition against pork is a later development.

Roy


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/14/article-0-1C48C1D000000578-333_634x416.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/14/article-0-1C48C1E700000578-783_634x415.jpg
Chinese farmer riding his pig to market



http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lookandlearn-preview/XM/XM10/XM10141/XM10141741.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/IpiSoKR.jpg
From 1915



http://anchoredpaperplane.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/postcardgriseriding-2.jpg
Another vintage photo



http://lucy-yates.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/article_44268.jpghttp://images.thezooom.com/uploads/2012/04/Pig-Riding-240x301.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/30/9f/d4/309fd4d3619632f6ace0b86cdf04435e.jpg
A few random photos



http://www.johnlund.com/Images/Hog-Riding-Harley.jpg
Oops. That's a pig riding a hog :wink:




And no, I'm not seriously arguing that pigs were breed for riding. I'm just being a lao jerk, which is just one of the things we rogues do :smug:

klaus54
02-28-2015, 01:18 PM
The gal with an Uzi is especially funny. Is that a kosher pig?

:lol:

K54

Adrift
02-28-2015, 04:21 PM
John Walton in his commentary on Genesis writes:

While the initial instructions indicate that "pairs" of all living creatures are to be taken into the ark, when more specific instructions are given, one pair of unclean animals and seven pairs of clean animals are to be taken. The distinction between clean and unclean animals was not an innovation established at Sinai, but here is seen as early as Noah. Evidence from Egypt and Mesopotamia offer no system equivalent to the Israelite system of classification. While there are dietary restrictions in those cultures, they tend to be much more limited--that is, certain animals restricted only to certain classes of people or on certain days of the month. Even here one cannot assume that the classification has implications for their diet. Up to this time no permission has been granted to eat meat (see 1:29). When meat is granted to them as food after the Flood (9:2-3), there are no restrictions along the lines of clean and unclean. Thus, I conclude that the classifications concerns sacrifice, not diet, in this period.

So, essentially what he's suggesting is that there was a distinction between clean and unclean in sacrifice to the one true God before Moses. Assuming the God of Noah was also the God of Moses, God would know which animals would later be declared clean or unclean to the later Israelites. This becomes, then, a type of foreshadowing.




Why is this in Nat Sci? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in Theology or Apologetics?

Because it deals with the possible occurrence of the literalness of the Greate Floode story.

It's a theological/exegetic argument against a literal (world-wide) flood.

This line of reasoning goes hand-in-hand with the complete lack of geological and genetic evidence for such a flood.

I.e., it's complementary to the natural science.

K54

I don't think this does what you think it does. I believe one can hold to a literal interpretation of the text, and still maintain that the incident is localized and not world-wide (I believe scholars like John Walton, John Sailhamer, and Tremper Longman III provide sufficient reasons to correlate a literal reading of the text to a localized event). I believe this really is a theological/textual question, and not one that's specific to the Natural Science subforum.

HMS_Beagle
02-28-2015, 04:27 PM
The gal with an Uzi is especially funny. Is that a kosher pig?

:lol:

K54

At first glance I coulda sworn that was Michael Jackson. Maybe it's time for those reading glasses... :sigh:

klaus54
02-28-2015, 04:33 PM
John Walton in his commentary on Genesis writes:

While the initial instructions indicate that "pairs" of all living creatures are to be taken into the ark, when more specific instructions are given, one pair of unclean animals and seven pairs of clean animals are to be taken. The distinction between clean and unclean animals was not an innovation established at Sinai, but here is seen as early as Noah. Evidence from Egypt and Mesopotamia offer no system equivalent to the Israelite system of classification. While there are dietary restrictions in those cultures, they tend to be much more limited--that is, certain animals restricted only to certain classes of people or on certain days of the month. Even here one cannot assume that the classification has implications for their diet. Up to this time no permission has been granted to eat meat (see 1:29). When meat is granted to them as food after the Flood (9:2-3), there are no restrictions along the lines of clean and unclean. Thus, I conclude that the classifications concerns sacrifice, not diet, in this period.

So, essentially what he's suggesting is that there was a distinction between clean and unclean in sacrifice to the one true God before Moses. Assuming the God of Noah was also the God of Moses, God would know which animals would later be declared clean or unclean to the later Israelites. This becomes, then, a type of foreshadowing.




I don't think this does what you think it does. I believe one can hold to a literal interpretation of the text, and still maintain that the incident is localized and not world-wide (I believe scholars like John Walton, John Sailhamer, and Tremper Longman III provide sufficient reasons to correlate a literal reading of the text to a localized event). I believe this really is a theological/textual question, and not one that's specific to the Natural Science subforum.

Thanks for reference.

But it sounds like a convoluted way out of a dilemma. It's more obvious to me that the Noah myth was written sometime after the Mosaic Law was given.

K54

klaus54
02-28-2015, 04:41 PM
...

I don't think this does what you think it does. I believe one can hold to a literal interpretation of the text, and still maintain that the incident is localized and not world-wide (I believe scholars like John Walton, John Sailhamer, and Tremper Longman III provide sufficient reasons to correlate a literal reading of the text to a localized event). I believe this really is a theological/textual question, and not one that's specific to the Natural Science subforum.

A local flood is the ONLY way to concord the text with a physical event.

However, you still have that twisted attempt to justify the clean/unclean business.

I want y'all at least to realize the possiblity of the Flood being a myth derived from older myths. And the Noah being written down (from oral traditions) after the Law fits the text and historical context very well.

Of course there's the overwhelming evidence against a global flood (remember the Hebrews no understanding nor word for "planet") and a "local" flood has similar problems.

E.g, why wouldn't all that water flow into the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf?

Also you'd need a source for all the water.

K54

Adrift
02-28-2015, 05:27 PM
Thanks for reference.

But it sounds like a convoluted way out of a dilemma. It's more obvious to me that the Noah myth was written sometime after the Mosaic Law was given.

K54

Perhaps.

Adrift
02-28-2015, 05:34 PM
A local flood is the ONLY way to concord the text with a physical event.

However, you still have that twisted attempt to justify the clean/unclean business.

I want y'all at least to realize the possiblity of the Flood being a myth derived from older myths. And the Noah being written down (from oral traditions) after the Law fits the text and historical context very well.

Of course there's the overwhelming evidence against a global flood (remember the Hebrews no understanding nor word for "planet") and a "local" flood has similar problems.

E.g, why wouldn't all that water flow into the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf?

Also you'd need a source for all the water.

K54

I don't lean global flood, so your argument is not necessarily with me, but I also don't agree that one necessarily need derive the concept of clean/unclean from a later authorial source. I do admit, though, that that is one theory. I'm very familiar with the documentary hypothesis, and think certain variations of it make much sense of the text, but I don't think its the only sense one needs to take from the text. That's why I think this is more a theological/textual issue than a Natural Science issue.

rogue06
02-28-2015, 08:03 PM
I've moved the thread to Apologetics which seems to be a better fit.

Don't worry klaus, it is not a Theist-only area.

Teallaura
02-28-2015, 08:28 PM
Pig

Roy

P.S. Camel, rabbits, white miceI'll give you pig and camel, I stand corrected on that point. Rabbits and mice, not so much.

I don't think it refutes my original point, however. There's very good reason not to eat pork on board a big wooden ship where big cooking fires aren't a great idea. Not true of camel but I don't think the single exception would matter.

Teallaura
02-28-2015, 08:31 PM
At the risk of citing Wikipedia (which is actually pretty good in these sort of matters):


Archaeological evidence suggests that pigs were domesticated from wild boar as early as 13,000–12,700 BC in the Near East in the Tigris Basin[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#cite_note-13) being managed in the wild in a way similar to the way they are managed by some modern New Guineans.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#cite_note-14) Remains of pigs have been dated to earlier than 11,400 BC in Cyprus. Those animals must have been introduced from the mainland, which suggests domestication in the adjacent mainland by then.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#cite_note-15) There was also a separate domestication in China which took place about 8000 years ago.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#cite_note-Giuffra-16)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#cite_note-17)


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pig#History)


It appears that pigs have been domesticated for 14,700 to 15,000 years in the Tigris region (confirming what I said) and 13,400 years in Cyprus. That is considerably earlier than in China. Moreover, pigs, an unclean animal, have been domesticated for a very long time so the idea that domestication is the basis for separating between clean and unclean does not appear to be justified.

I mentioned domestication, granted, but 'dinner/not dinner' was my main point as the writer's audience would have understood the reference.

Doug Shaver
02-28-2015, 09:21 PM
We're these terms from the Mosaic Law, which was given over a millennium later according to Ussher?
I don't think either the flood or the exodus really happened, but I don't see much of a problem here with the chronology. The authors didn't claim that the distinction between clean and unclean foods originated with Moses. It would be silly to think the Hebrews never had a law against adultery before the Ten Commandments were handed down.

shunyadragon
03-01-2015, 04:56 AM
P bone?

P bone?

DesertBerean
03-01-2015, 08:07 AM
I mentioned domestication, granted, but 'dinner/not dinner' was my main point as the writer's audience would have understood the reference. But....but....weren't we not allowed to eat meat until AFTER the flood?

Teallaura
03-01-2015, 01:28 PM
But....but....weren't we not allowed to eat meat until AFTER the flood?
Yep, right after. Which is why you'd need more of them, isn't it? ;)

But it's a fair point. Perhaps 'sacrificial/not sacrificial' would be better. :ponder:

whag
03-04-2015, 11:49 AM
Because it deals with the possible occurrence of the literalness of the Greate Floode story.

It's a theological/exegetic argument against a literal (world-wide) flood.

This line of reasoning goes hand-in-hand with the complete lack of geological and genetic evidence for such a flood.

I.e., it's complementary to the natural science.

K54

The flood story doesn't make any more sense regionalized. What exactly was the point of drowning a specific population when the depravity problem had already migrated across the planet?

KingsGambit
03-04-2015, 12:24 PM
The flood story doesn't make any more sense regionalized. What exactly was the point of drowning a specific population when the depravity problem had already migrated across the planet?

The way I see it, from the vantage point of that population, other people literally did not exist so their concept of "global" would be only what they knew of. :shrug:

Adrift
03-04-2015, 12:39 PM
The way I see it, from the vantage point of that population, other people literally did not exist so their concept of "global" would be only what they knew of. :shrug:

Or, perhaps the localized region had some special significance and prominence to the authors and readers of the Torah (like...being the Promised Land).

whag
03-04-2015, 12:41 PM
The way I see it, from the vantage point of that population, other people literally did not exist so their concept of "global" would be only what they knew of. :shrug:

Their perception of the world's population is irrelevant to what I said. I asked what's the point of drowning that region when depravity had already radiated across the globe tens of thousands of years prior? My point being that regionalizing the event does nothing to fix the problem.

Cow Poke
03-04-2015, 12:42 PM
Their perception of the world's population is irrelevant to what I said. I asked what's the point of drowning that region when depravity had already radiated across the globe tens of thousands of years prior? My point being that regionalizing the event does nothing to fix the problem.

It would LOCALLY!

whag
03-04-2015, 12:46 PM
It would LOCALLY!

He didn't say He regretted making that local population. =P

KingsGambit
03-04-2015, 12:47 PM
Their perception of the world's population is irrelevant to what I said. I asked what's the point of drowning that region when depravity had already radiated across the globe tens of thousands of years prior? My point being that regionalizing the event does nothing to fix the problem.

Ah. I see what you're getting at. I don't really think the interpretation that the flood was local but may have bypassed people living elsewhere in the world makes a whole lot of sense out of Genesis 6:7-8. But then it should come as no surprise that I don't see concordism as the best approach here anyway.

whag
03-04-2015, 01:03 PM
Ah. I see what you're getting at. I don't really think the interpretation that the flood was local but may have bypassed people living elsewhere in the world makes a whole lot of sense out of Genesis 6:7-8. But then it should come as no surprise that I don't see concordism as the best approach here anyway.

What approach makes the best sense to you?

whag
03-04-2015, 01:10 PM
Or, perhaps the localized region had some special significance and prominence to the authors and readers of the Torah (like...being the Promised Land).

Their perception of the region isn't nearly as instructive as God's perception of the region, and His intent in drowning it, which seems murky in light of the general revelation (if that's actually a thing).

Adrift
03-04-2015, 01:18 PM
Their perception of the region isn't nearly as instructive as God's perception of the region, and His intent in drowning it, which seems murky in light of the general revelation (if that's actually a thing).

I don't understand this post. I don't know what sort of distinction you're trying to make between the author/reader's perception and God's perception, or what you mean by general revelation.

whag
03-04-2015, 01:31 PM
I don't understand this post. I don't know what sort of distinction you're trying to make between the author/reader's perception and God's perception, or what you mean by general revelation.

Re: author, it seems more human authored, so there's necessarily a distinction between the source data (God) and expression (many human story tellers and scribes to write the info down). Re: general revelation, we've since discovered through natural means that human beings were settled elsewhere on the planet, putting God's regret for making "human beings" in a whole different light. You see the distinction.

Jedidiah
03-04-2015, 01:37 PM
The flood story doesn't make any more sense regionalized. What exactly was the point of drowning a specific population when the depravity problem had already migrated across the planet?
Your point fails if the proposed local flood antedates the migration from the local area.

Adrift
03-04-2015, 01:38 PM
Re: author, it seems more human authored, so there's necessarily a distinction between the source data (God) and expression (many human story tellers and scribes to write the info down). Re: general revelation, we've since discovered through natural means that human beings were settled elsewhere on the planet, putting God's regret for making "human beings" in a whole different light. You see the distinction.

Hmm. I still don't get what you're getting at or how it engages with my post, but that's okay.

Truthseeker
03-04-2015, 03:21 PM
People may migrate from the final resting place of Noah's ark, but I think they would not go where it was far from the Mediterranean Sea. Here I must confess there is no evidence of a sudden and massive flooding since the last time the Mediterranean basin was dry. You see, there is evidence that where the Atlantic Ocean would mix with Mediterranean water, the Strait of Gibraltar, there was a dam of sorts. One day it burst open, but that was millions of years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis

whag
03-04-2015, 03:30 PM
Your point fails if the proposed local flood antedates the migration from the local area.

Your reply suggests that all human beings were at some point concentrated in that area.

Jedidiah
03-04-2015, 03:38 PM
Your reply suggests that all human beings were at some point concentrated in that area.

Yup. A distinct possibility.

whag
03-04-2015, 04:00 PM
Yup. A distinct possibility.

A distinct impossibility given our understanding of human migration. Human beings radiated from Africa 60,000 years ago. They did not all coalesce in one region.

Jedidiah
03-04-2015, 07:23 PM
But they radiated from somewhere.

whag
03-04-2015, 07:41 PM
But they radiated from somewhere.

I acknowledged that in my post. I said they radiated from Africa to various continents. They didn't all settle where you believe they settled.

Early human beings were explorers. You deny this amazing evidence?

Soyeong
03-05-2015, 12:10 AM
The fact that laws like the Noahide laws or the Sabbath were given before the Law was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai makes it perfectly reasonable that God had given other commands before then as well. How did Abraham know how to walk before God blamelessly? Or for that matter, how did Noah know how to act righteously and blamelessly? The easy answer is that Noah knew about the distinction between clean and unclean animals because God had either told him or told someone else who told him. Why would God command him to make that distinction on the ark if Noah didn't already know the difference?

Furthermore, I think there exists the possibility for obvious exceptions to food. If you tell a guest that they are free to eat anything in your fridge, did you give them permission to eat your tupperware and shelves, or are those an obvious exception that didn't need to be mentioned? If you came upon roadkill swarming with flies, do you acknowledge it could be eaten, yet agree that it is in a different category from what you normally consider to be food? The same goes for animals like bats, snakes, lizards, or vultures or with plants like poison ivy. As such, it could easily have been that unclean animals were known as an obvious exception to the other animals that were given to Noah as food.

ETA:
There are also some Jews that hold that the Torah preexisted the creation of the world and was sort of like the blueprint that God use to create it.

Jedidiah
03-05-2015, 09:51 AM
I acknowledged that in my post. I said they radiated from Africa to various continents. They didn't all settle where you believe they settled.

Early human beings were explorers. You deny this amazing evidence?

I made no claim as to where they settled. I fail to understand that point. Early human beings did become explorers. That was not true at the earliest point according to scripture. They were ultimately "encouraged" to to become explorers according to those stories. A universal, but not global, flood is consistent with that.

whag
03-05-2015, 10:02 AM
I made no claim as to where they settled. I fail to understand that point. Early human beings did become explorers. That was not true at the earliest point according to scripture. They were ultimately "encouraged" to to become explorers according to those stories. A universal, but not global, flood is consistent with that.

That makes no sense. The time of the flood would be 4000BC, and we were well distributed across the planet by then.

Are you proposing that the flood took place in Africa before human beings dispersed 50,000yo? Also, please explain what you mean by "universal flood."

Carrikature
03-05-2015, 11:02 AM
The fact that laws like the Noahide laws or the Sabbath were given before the Law was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai makes it perfectly reasonable that God had given other commands before then as well. How did Abraham know how to walk before God blamelessly? Or for that matter, how did Noah know how to act righteously and blamelessly? The easy answer is that Noah knew about the distinction between clean and unclean animals because God had either told him or told someone else who told him. Why would God command him to make that distinction on the ark if Noah didn't already know the difference?

Furthermore, I think there exists the possibility for obvious exceptions to food. If you tell a guest that they are free to eat anything in your fridge, did you give them permission to eat your tupperware and shelves, or are those an obvious exception that didn't need to be mentioned? If you came upon roadkill swarming with flies, do you acknowledge it could be eaten, yet agree that it is in a different category from what you normally consider to be food? The same goes for animals like bats, snakes, lizards, or vultures or with plants like poison ivy. As such, it could easily have been that unclean animals were known as an obvious exception to the other animals that were given to Noah as food.

ETA:
There are also some Jews that hold that the Torah preexisted the creation of the world and was sort of like the blueprint that God use to create it.

The far simpler answer is that the clean/unclean aspect is a later addition.

Jedidiah
03-05-2015, 01:58 PM
That makes no sense. The time of the flood would be 4000BC, and we were well distributed across the planet by then.Do you have evidence that the flood you do not believe in took place around 4000BC?


Are you proposing that the flood took place in Africa before human beings dispersed 50,000yo? Also, please explain what you mean by "universal flood."I am proposing that a universal flood (one that killed all humans with the exception of those on the arc, but did not flood the entire globe) might well have taken place at whatever the location of the earliest humans was - Africa seems to be most likely.

Soyeong
03-05-2015, 02:07 PM
The far simpler answer is that the clean/unclean aspect is a later addition.

It order for that answer to be more reasonable, you need to assume that God did not give any instructions before Mt. Sinai. Not only does the Bible record that He did, it it would have been necessary for God to have given instructions that weren't recorded in order for Noah and Abraham to know how to behave. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to think that all of the laws give to Moses were new to them. A covenant presupposes an already existing relationship that is being made stronger, it does not create a bunch of unexpected new terms that come from nowhere. So to assume that it was a later addition is completely unwarranted.

rogue06
03-05-2015, 02:23 PM
Do you have evidence that the flood you do not believe in took place around 4000BC?

I am proposing that a universal flood (one that killed all humans with the exception of those on the arc, but did not flood the entire globe) might well have taken place at whatever the location of the earliest humans was - Africa seems to be most likely.
The Persian Gulf is one of several possible areas as it appears that it was mostly dry land during the last Ice Age.

KingsGambit
03-05-2015, 02:27 PM
Australia was first settled ~40,000-60,000 years ago so a universal (among humanity) flood would have to be at least that old.

Carrikature
03-05-2015, 04:37 PM
It order for that answer to be more reasonable, you need to assume that God did not give any instructions before Mt. Sinai.

No, I don't. I need only assume that God didn't give those instructions. What I don't need to assume is some other interpretation that's not actually supported by the text.



Not only does the Bible record that He did, it it would have been necessary for God to have given instructions that weren't recorded in order for Noah and Abraham to know how to behave.

But not necessarily those instructions.



Furthermore, it is unreasonable to think that all of the laws give to Moses were new to them.

It's not actually unreasonable, but nor is it necessary to hold such a position for my response to be accurate.



A covenant presupposes an already existing relationship that is being made stronger, it does not create a bunch of unexpected new terms that come from nowhere.

The terms of the existing relationship can be extremely varied, though, nor is it abnormal for new terms to be defined and included in a formal covenant. This is pretty common in contract negotiation. They don't have to come from nowhere to be new.



So to assume that it was a later addition is completely unwarranted.

No less unwarranted than making up dinner/not dinner delineations. There are Christians ITT proposing alternative meanings for the clean/not clean distinction. My solution is just as warranted as those.

whag
03-06-2015, 12:56 AM
Do you have evidence that the flood you do not believe in took place around 4000BC?

Cute, Jedidiah. Holster that sarcasm until you could use it well, k?

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Hill.html

As you can see, most Christians put Noah in that region for well established reasons. It's a rare view that the flood occurred in Africa 50,000yo.



I am proposing that a universal flood (one that killed all humans with the exception of those on the arc, but did not flood the entire globe) might well have taken place at whatever the location of the earliest humans was - Africa seems to be most likely.

50,000 years' worth of generations between Noah and Nimrod doesn't sound right to me given that Ham was Nimrod's grandfather according to Genesis 10.



The Table of Nations

10*This is the account*of Shem, Ham and Japheth,*Noah’s sons,*who themselves had sons after the flood.

The Japhethites

2*The sons[a]*of Japheth:

Gomer,*Magog,*Madai, Javan,*Tubal,*Meshek*and Tiras.

3*The sons of Gomer:

Ashkenaz,*Riphath and Togarmah.

4*The sons of Javan:

Elishah,*Tarshish,*the Kittites*and the Rodanites.[b]*5*(From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)

The Hamites

6*The sons of Ham:

Cush,*Egypt, Put*and Canaan.

7*The sons of Cush:

Seba,*Havilah,*Sabtah, Raamah*and Sabteka.

The sons of Raamah:

Sheba*and Dedan.

8*Cush was the father[c]*of Nimrod,

whag
03-06-2015, 11:29 AM
Australia was first settled ~40,000-60,000 years ago so a universal (among humanity) flood would have to be at least that old.

Do you see how it's problematic with respect to Babel? If Ham was on the ark, and Nimrod was Ham's grandson, and Nimrod lived during the time that ziggurats were a thing, how then does putting Ham back 40,000 to 60,000 years increase the story's plausibility?

Jedidiah
03-06-2015, 12:42 PM
Cute, Jedidiah. Holster that sarcasm until you could use it well, k?

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Hill.html

As you can see, most Christians put Noah in that region for well established reasons. It's a rare view that the flood occurred in Africa 50,000yo.



50,000 years' worth of generations between Noah and Nimrod doesn't sound right to me given that Ham was Nimrod's grandfather according to Genesis 10.
Can I apply some of that sarcasm here please.

whag
03-06-2015, 12:50 PM
Can I apply some of that sarcasm here please.

Not until you explain how 50,000 years could possibly transpire between Ham and Nimrod. =P

Jedidiah
03-06-2015, 07:06 PM
Not until you explain how 50,000 years could possibly transpire between Ham and Nimrod. =P

What year was construction on the Tower of Babel started?

What year was the flood?

whag
03-06-2015, 09:24 PM
What year was construction on the Tower of Babel started?


4,000 years ago approx. Definitely not tens of thousands of years ago. There's no ziggurat remnants that date back that far.


http://biblehub.com/timeline/



What year was the flood?

According to you, when all human beings were in Africa. That'd be 50,000 years ago or longer. We already went over this. You amened KG's post about it.

Jedidiah
03-07-2015, 01:15 PM
4,000 years ago approx. Definitely not tens of thousands of years ago. There's no ziggurat remnants that date back that far.

http://biblehub.com/timeline/

According to you, when all human beings were in Africa. That'd be 50,000 years ago or longer. We already went over this. You amened KG's post about it.

First of all you keep hitting me with Young Earth garbage. I am not a Young Earther. You can stop that and I will stop poking fun at it.

Are you suggesting that the Tower of Babel was the same as the ziggurats we know of? I suspect that it was much older than your YE source claims. And I suspect that it would have been a lot less sophisticated than ziggurats of a more current date.

Finally I have made no claim of the dating of the first humans. I suspect that it would have been much older than 50,000 years. I have not looked into that for some time.


I am proposing that a universal flood (one that killed all humans with the exception of those on the arc, but did not flood the entire globe) might well have taken place at whatever the location of the earliest humans was - Africa seems to be most likely.

I made no specific claim about when or where the flood took place (I do believe it was a local event that wiped out the human race at that point) nor where the race originated. Actually I have made few if any actual claims, merely possible alternatives. The most popular idea puts Africa as the area in which man originated. That may be, or given a small original population being dispersed through the world that may simply be the area where there were sufficient numbers to begin leaving fossil remains. The real evidence for an African origin is the fossil remains of so called pre man. Since as I explained earlier I am an evolution skeptic that is not as convincing to me as it is to you.

Let me summarize what I do believe. Human beings originated with one created couple. They lived somewhere and reproduced. Ultimately before they left the general area, the flood wiped out the most of them (According to the Bible account people at the earliest point were not adventurous and did not leave the area. Even after the flood they seemed reluctant to spread far until the Tower event.) I make no claims to any detailed knowledge of all this.

whag
03-07-2015, 03:16 PM
First of all you keep hitting me with Young Earth garbage. I am not a Young Earther. You can stop that and I will stop poking fun at it.

There's difference between YEC and agreement among scholars as to the period and geography referred to in the text. That's not YEC but scholars, archaeologists, and historians taking into account much more than genealogy math! Do you know what those pieces of evidence are?

In the case of Babel, the consensus is that this was ancient Sumer--the advent of large-scale architecture. They even have myth that sounds like Babel.



Are you suggesting that the Tower of Babel was the same as the ziggurats we know of? I suspect that it was much older than your YE source claims. And I suspect that it would have been a lot less sophisticated than ziggurats of a more current date.

Read up on it. I'm not making it up, and it's not a YEC view.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel



I have made no claim of the dating of the first humans. I suspect that it would have been much older than 50,000 years. I have not looked into that for some time.

How much older? Why do you suspect that?




I made no specific claim about when or where the flood took place (I do believe it was a local event that wiped out the human race at that point) nor where the race originated. Actually I have made few if any actual claims, merely possible alternatives. The most popular idea puts Africa as the area in which man originated. That may be, or given a small original population being dispersed through the world that may simply be the area where there were sufficient numbers to begin leaving fossil remains. The real evidence for an African origin is the fossil remains of so called pre man. Since as I explained earlier I am an evolution skeptic that is not as convincing to me as it is to you.

Everything evolves. Your dog's ancestors were all wild wolves.

Your skepticism is born of ignorance and denial. Sorry.


Let me summarize what I do believe. Human beings originated with one created couple. They lived somewhere and reproduced. Ultimately before they left the general area, the flood wiped out the most of them (According to the Bible account people at the earliest point were not adventurous and did not leave the area. Even after the flood they seemed reluctant to spread far until the Tower event.) I make no claims to any detailed knowledge of all this.

And all that contradicts known early human migration patterns. There's no evidence we coalesced anywhere but were always intrepid explorers as long ago as 50,000 years ago sailing on rickety rafts from Africa to Australia.

This view you're cobbling together needs serious maintenance. Might want to start actually accepting biological evolution first.

We evolved. That's what all those weird hominid skeletons are. Then there's the DNA....

NormATive
03-07-2015, 07:23 PM
ETA:
There are also some Jews that hold that the Torah preexisted the creation of the world and was sort of like the blueprint that God use to create it.

I have heard this during Minyans in the past from Kabbalist teachers. These are the same people who think there is numerology in the Tanakh.

NORM

shunyadragon
03-08-2015, 01:38 PM
Cute, Jedidiah. Holster that sarcasm until you could use it well, k?

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Hill.html

Interesting source. It gives a criticism Glen Morton's (Glen of Tweb fame) proposal that the flooding of the Mediterranian was Noah's flood. Glen responds. It also give critique of the Black Sea flood as Noah's flood. The problem with these prroposals is the time frame is really weird and screwed up to fit any Biblical perspective.

Jedidiah
03-08-2015, 03:27 PM
There's difference between YEC and agreement among scholars as to the period and geography referred to in the text. That's not YEC but scholars, archaeologists, and historians taking into account much more than genealogy math! Do you know what those pieces of evidence are?

In the case of Babel, the consensus is that this was ancient Sumer--the advent of large-scale architecture. They even have myth that sounds like Babel.




Read up on it. I'm not making it up, and it's not a YEC view.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel




How much older? Why do you suspect that?





Everything evolves. Your dog's ancestors were all wild wolves.

Your skepticism is born of ignorance and denial. Sorry.



And all that contradicts known early human migration patterns. There's no evidence we coalesced anywhere but were always intrepid explorers as long ago as 50,000 years ago sailing on rickety rafts from Africa to Australia.

This view you're cobbling together needs serious maintenance. Might want to start actually accepting biological evolution first.

We evolved. That's what all those weird hominid skeletons are. Then there's the DNA....
I will have to get back to you on this stuff. What knowledge I had is long forgotten.

shunyadragon
03-08-2015, 05:41 PM
Interesting source. It gives a criticism Glen Morton's (Glen of Tweb fame) proposal that the flooding of the Mediterranian was Noah's flood. Glen responds. It also give critique of the Black Sea flood as Noah's flood. The problem with these prroposals is the time frame is really weird and screwed up to fit any Biblical perspective.

Add note: I believe most Christians who believe there was some kind of flood, believe it occurred in the Middle East. Those the believe in a real Adam and Eve may be split between Africa (ie, Head waters of the Nile), and the Middle East (ie, Tigris-Euphrates Valley).

whag
03-09-2015, 07:04 AM
I will have to get back to you on this stuff. What knowledge I had is long forgotten.


OEC doesn't allow for playing with the timeline and geography however you see fit. You're still required to play according to the rules of epistemology. Babel's locked in a particular space and time. Can't get around that.

I wonder why you even acknowledge the evidence for human beings originating in Africa but reject the knowledge we evolved there. Those fossil skeletons are precisely why we call that continent our birthplace. In light of that, why do you even think we originated there?

Jedidiah
03-09-2015, 02:21 PM
OEC doesn't allow for playing with the timeline and geography however you see fit. You're still required to play according to the rules of epistemology. Babel's locked in a particular space and time. Can't get around that.Exactly why I am going to do some research on the stated time for Babel before responding.


I wonder why you even acknowledge the evidence for human beings originating in Africa but reject the knowledge we evolved there. Those fossil skeletons are precisely why we call that continent our birthplace. In light of that, why do you even think we originated there?I do not have as specific belief as to where our origin was. I simply stated that Africa is the most likely local. I should correct that to say according to current thinking.

whag
03-09-2015, 04:57 PM
I do not have as specific belief as to where our origin was. I simply stated that Africa is the most likely local. I should correct that to say according to current thinking.

In other words, you're arguing from the standpoint of what you believe to be false "current thinking," since "current thinking" accepts the consilience of evidence for human evolution. See how you're doing what you charged me with doing in smart alleck fashion?

Jedidiah
03-09-2015, 05:41 PM
In other words, you're arguing from the standpoint of what you believe to be false "current thinking," since "current thinking" accepts the consilience of evidence for human evolution. See how you're doing what you charged me with doing in smart alleck fashion?

You have a problem with me doing some research before answering? Perhaps I should forget the whole thing.

whag
03-09-2015, 05:56 PM
You have a problem with me doing some research before answering?

No, I don't care what you do. That has nothing to do with what I said. I said you charged me with dating a flood:

"Do you have evidence that the flood you do not believe in took place around 4000BC?"

Now you're researching anthropology you don't believe in? That's precious.


Perhaps I should forget the whole thing.

Don't research it for me. I already know the significance of geography and timeline. Do it for you.

Jedidiah
03-09-2015, 08:51 PM
No, I don't care what you do. That has nothing to do with what I said. I said you charged me with dating a flood:

"Do you have evidence that the flood you do not believe in took place around 4000BC?"

Now you're researching anthropology you don't believe in? That's precious.

Don't research it for me. I already know the significance of geography and timeline. Do it for you.You put words and beliefs in my mouth that I have yet to express. Isn't that precious?

whag
03-10-2015, 04:21 PM
You put words and beliefs in my mouth that I have yet to express. Isn't that precious?

No, I actually quoted you directly. Does dating the flood according to the consensus timeline of scholars Christian and skeptic have anything to do with "the flood I don't believe in"? Moreover, you're suggesting the flood could have occurred in Africa based on human origin evidence you "don't believe in."

Jedidiah
03-11-2015, 01:50 PM
Read up on it. I'm not making it up, and it's not a YEC view.



50,000 years' worth of generations between Noah and Nimrod doesn't sound right to me given that Ham was Nimrod's grandfather according to Genesis 10. Quite a mixture of YEC and skeptical approaches.

The scholarly post you gave me to show your date for the Tower of Babel:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

“The Tower of Babel has been associated with known structures according to some modern scholars, notably the Etemenanki, a ziggurat dedicated to the Mesopotamian god Marduk ., . “ good solid scholarship. But then the source you originally used for the date of the tower was clearly YEC.

http://biblehub.com/timeline/


Before Time
In the Beginning was the Word
John 1
Before 4000 BC
The Creation
Genesis 1
Before 4000 BC
The Garden of Eden
Genesis 2
Before 4000 BC
The Fall of Man
Genesis 3
Before 3000 BC
Cain kills Abel
Genesis 4
Before 3000 BC
From Adam to Noah
Genesis 5
Before 2500 BC
Wickedness Provokes God's wrath
Genesis 6
Before 2500 BC
The Great Flood
Genesis 7
Before 2500 BC
The Flood Subsides
Genesis 8
Before 2500 BC
Covenant of the Rainbow
Genesis 9
Before 2500 BC
Shem, Ham and Japheth
Genesis 10
Before 2100 BC
Job's Suffering and Faith
Job 1 - 42
Before 2100 BC
The Tower of Babel
Genesis 11



50,000 years' worth of generations between Noah and Nimrod doesn't sound right to me given that Ham was Nimrod's grandfather according to Genesis 10.

I am not sure if this is just dumb or dishonest. In any case I am finished with this discussion. Go claim that you have beaten me.

whag
03-11-2015, 04:36 PM
Quite a mixture of YEC and skeptical approaches.

The scholarly post you gave me to show your date for the Tower of Babel:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel


http://biblehub.com/timeline/


I am not sure if this is just dumb or dishonest. In any case I am finished with this discussion. Go claim that you have beaten me.

You must have forgotten you posited an African flood that killed all the unscattered early hominids. That puts your timeline at 50,000 years, no later. You even amen'd King's Gambit's post saying the flood couldn't be any younger since we see people in Australia 50,000 years ago!

So there's a bit of a math problem here. If Noah lived 50,000 years ago, and Noah's son Ham begat Cush who begat Nimrod, that's considerably less than 50 millennia.

So the African Noah you posited makes no sense. And, yes, I did "beat" at you on this point.

Jedidiah
03-11-2015, 05:43 PM
You must have forgotten you posited an African flood that killed all the unscattered early hominids. That puts your timeline at 50,000 years, no later. You even amen'd King's Gambit's post saying the flood couldn't be any younger since we see people in Australia 50,000 years ago!

So there's a bit of a math problem here. If Noah lived 50,000 years ago, and Noah's son Ham begat Cush who begat Nimrod, that's considerably less than 50 millennia.

So the African Noah you posited makes no sense. And, yes, I did "beat" at you on this point.

Keep twisting and distorting.

whag
03-11-2015, 06:08 PM
Keep twisting and distorting.

Keep pretending an African flood 50,000 years ago makes a lick of sense.