Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2013, 01:15 PM
RE: Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
(13-11-2013 12:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Hoo boy. A literalist interpretation of the Tower of Babel?

This should be good.

(13-11-2013 11:47 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *If it was an astrological observatory, then they would have "attempted to ascend" via the tower and etc.

And yet God seems to have no problem with the millions of other observatories, prior to, contemporaneous with, and since the time of the Babylonians. Funny, that.

(13-11-2013 11:47 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *the gospel seems to be in Babylonian astrology with its virgin, justice scales, the lion, twins (substitution), a ram, a bull, a water bearer/fisher, fish itself, etc.

That appears to have nothing to do with anything.

(13-11-2013 11:47 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *apart from a few modern revisionists mainline scholars agree language families all come from where the tower was located in Mesopotamia/Babylon/Iraq

You seem to have that backwards.

The Tower of Babel is necessarily within historical timeframes, and most of the world was long-since populated. And they already had their own languages. And this is incredibly well-attested. And the proposed origins for modern major langauge families are pretty much were you'd expect - austronesian in indochina, indo-european on the pontic steppe... Even if one wishes to get silly and claim Nostratic to be a real thing (this is the exact opposite of what 'most mainline scholars agree'), that leaves sub-saharan Africa.

African language families are by definition autochthonous, so that right there doesn't even make sense. Just as with genetics, there is more linguistic diversity within sub-saharan africa than in the rest of the world combined. But if you're pretending evolution doesn't exist, well, that solves that problem!

(13-11-2013 11:47 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *the language barrier was supposed to have been reforged via the gospel at Pentecost, etc.

Right then.

(13-11-2013 11:47 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *and so on

Rolleyes

Sigh. An astrological observatory, ordained by a certain Nimrod (the person, not the 1950s slur) who happened to found... Assyria and Babylon, the captors of Israel north and south, and who "was a mighty hunter against the Lord"/an antichrist, and who is uniting folks behind his Babel structure and gathering them into a super-city against the edicts of Genesis 1 and 9 to multiply throughout the Earth. He invented urban blight, dude!

Sigh. Babel and linguistics: http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-a...inguistics

Now you can rant and rave about another webpage I've shared. Oh, joy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
(13-11-2013 01:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ...Babel and linguistics: http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-a...uistics...

This site on human linguistics, is written by people who believe a snake and a donkey can talk. The authors seem to not even possess a basic understanding of the components required for the expression language. ...site dismissed...

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2013, 01:49 PM
RE: Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
(13-11-2013 01:27 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(13-11-2013 01:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ...Babel and linguistics: http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-a...uistics...

This site on human linguistics, is written by people who believe a snake and a donkey can talk. The authors seem to not even possess a basic understanding of the components required for the expression language. ...site dismissed...

Here's some REAL science on the subject.
(No rational person would even LOOK at anything on Creation Crap Ministries).
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/08/...uages.html
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/apr...study-says
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/scienc....html?_r=0

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-11-2013, 01:51 PM
RE: Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
(30-01-2013 05:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Also, posting anything from AiG is like posting from a children's coloring book.

/thread

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2013, 02:20 PM
RE: Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
(13-11-2013 01:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Sigh. An astrological observatory, ordained by a certain Nimrod (the person, not the 1950s slur) who happened to found... Assyria and Babylon, the captors of Israel north and south, and who "was a mighty hunter against the Lord"/an antichrist, and who is uniting folks behind his Babel structure and gathering them into a super-city against the edicts of Genesis 1 and 9 to multiply throughout the Earth. He invented urban blight, dude!

Uh... huh.

Going with the Nimrod line, eh? Let's pretend, for a moment, that he actually did exist as fundamentalist literalist Biblical interpretations would have us believe. (this is a hilariously massive concession for the sake of what follows).

Babylon didn't exist prior to about ~2100 BC. But that's reality, so we can ignore that for now.

The story of the Tower of Babel is in Genesis 11. Let us consider Genesis 10:5:
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
In which nations have different tongues. Before the Tower story.

Nothin' like the Bible for contradicting the Bible.

But no, let's roll with it. All we have to do is completely ignore the history of human population migrations, human evolution, language evolution, the utter lack of material evidence, the impossible time frame, and the contradictory foundations we use to justify all of the above.

So, par for the course.

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS.

(13-11-2013 01:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Sigh. Babel and linguistics: http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-a...inguistics

Except... no. That's bull honkey.

Question: if there's any merit to that, why aren't legitimate and respected linguists even discussing such things?

"Lol conspiracy" isn't an answer.

That website isn't even coherent. At best it's arguing for a single ancestral language, which is in fact within the realm of possibility. Not in any way like the Biblical account, involving, for starters, much more time (~12000 years absolute minimum).

Now, taking the idiotic fable as literal history, we still have all sorts of problems.

The narrative occurs much too late in human history. It occurs after evidence for there being multiple languages (such as in the Bible itself! except also including but not limited to, pretty much all of modern linguistics besides - so there's that).

We have the same problem as the nonsensical flood narrative - how did things spread? For either all language all across the world were suddenly changed (for which there is no evidence whatsoever and no possible cause other than direct divine intervention), which is untenable - but we can explain away the lack of evidence by saying it was retroactive, doubling down on the magical making shit up train. Or else the languages originated from a common origin and had to spread from there to the far ends of the Earth, including to places and peoples who by all other evidence were already developing in isolation and had been for some time (ie southern africa, new guinea, most notably).

Oh, no, wait. I just remembered how we fix these problems:
[Image: 1311763417814.jpg]

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
14-11-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
(13-11-2013 01:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-11-2013 01:27 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  This site on human linguistics, is written by people who believe a snake and a donkey can talk. The authors seem to not even possess a basic understanding of the components required for the expression language. ...site dismissed...

Here's some REAL science on the subject.
(No rational person would even LOOK at anything on Creation Crap Ministries).
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/08/...uages.html
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/apr...study-says
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/scienc....html?_r=0

BB,

Advice for you--actually read scholarly articles before posting.

The first indicates that languages might [/b]have originated in Turkey, which we all know is sheer worlds apart from Iraq. Sigh.

The other two have the revisionist idea of an African origination to language. Actually reading the articles (okay, skimming them, I know you're too busy to actually skim articles like me) yields at least two important factors:

1. "The oldest language tree so far reconstructed, that of the Indo-European family, which includes English, goes back 9,000 years at most." That's right, not the African "tree" - third article.

2. From that same article, "Quentin D. Atkinson, a biologist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, has shattered this time barrier, if his claim is correct..." you see, BB, the disclaimer because this is non-peer reviewed submission of one (1, not 2, not 3, not 300) researcher.

For someone who makes an ad populum every post or so, and epically fails while doing so (since there's about 1,000 religion faculty who hawk your kind of BS worldwide and millions of us "fundies") you sure are a hypocrite who likes to tell me about one controversial researcher who undermines what another 1,000 PhD linguists teach as fact.

Epic, epic fail.

Have a nice day. Jesus loves you and so do I.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
(13-11-2013 02:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(13-11-2013 01:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Sigh. An astrological observatory, ordained by a certain Nimrod (the person, not the 1950s slur) who happened to found... Assyria and Babylon, the captors of Israel north and south, and who "was a mighty hunter against the Lord"/an antichrist, and who is uniting folks behind his Babel structure and gathering them into a super-city against the edicts of Genesis 1 and 9 to multiply throughout the Earth. He invented urban blight, dude!

Uh... huh.

Going with the Nimrod line, eh? Let's pretend, for a moment, that he actually did exist as fundamentalist literalist Biblical interpretations would have us believe. (this is a hilariously massive concession for the sake of what follows).

Babylon didn't exist prior to about ~2100 BC. But that's reality, so we can ignore that for now.

The story of the Tower of Babel is in Genesis 11. Let us consider Genesis 10:5:
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
In which nations have different tongues. Before the Tower story.

Nothin' like the Bible for contradicting the Bible.

But no, let's roll with it. All we have to do is completely ignore the history of human population migrations, human evolution, language evolution, the utter lack of material evidence, the impossible time frame, and the contradictory foundations we use to justify all of the above.

So, par for the course.

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS.

(13-11-2013 01:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Sigh. Babel and linguistics: http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-a...inguistics

Except... no. That's bull honkey.

Question: if there's any merit to that, why aren't legitimate and respected linguists even discussing such things?

"Lol conspiracy" isn't an answer.

That website isn't even coherent. At best it's arguing for a single ancestral language, which is in fact within the realm of possibility. Not in any way like the Biblical account, involving, for starters, much more time (~12000 years absolute minimum).

Now, taking the idiotic fable as literal history, we still have all sorts of problems.

The narrative occurs much too late in human history. It occurs after evidence for there being multiple languages (such as in the Bible itself! except also including but not limited to, pretty much all of modern linguistics besides - so there's that).

We have the same problem as the nonsensical flood narrative - how did things spread? For either all language all across the world were suddenly changed (for which there is no evidence whatsoever and no possible cause other than direct divine intervention), which is untenable - but we can explain away the lack of evidence by saying it was retroactive, doubling down on the magical making shit up train. Or else the languages originated from a common origin and had to spread from there to the far ends of the Earth, including to places and peoples who by all other evidence were already developing in isolation and had been for some time (ie southern africa, new guinea, most notably).

Oh, no, wait. I just remembered how we fix these problems:
[Image: 1311763417814.jpg]

1. The Bible presents information and not all of it in chronological order. Luke states his gospel is "in order" but your presentism is creating an issue between Genesis 10 and 11 not inherent to the text.

2. Your other chronological "argument" which reads more like the whine of a small child is off for two reasons:

a) you propose dates/timings for the Babel and Flood narratives that appear nowhere in the text

b) making grandiloquent statements such as "that website is incomprehensible" does less than nothing to destroy the arguments proposed therein, it rather makes you sound like a bit of a Nazi--try using facts and not slurs next time

c) grow up and learn how to debate or else keep quiet

Thanks, have a nice day. Jesus loves you more than I do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
(14-11-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(13-11-2013 01:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Here's some REAL science on the subject.
(No rational person would even LOOK at anything on Creation Crap Ministries).
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/08/...uages.html
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/apr...study-says
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/scienc....html?_r=0

BB,

Advice for you--actually read scholarly articles before posting.

The first indicates that languages might [/b]have originated in Turkey, which we all know is sheer worlds apart from Iraq. Sigh.

The other two have the revisionist idea of an African origination to language. Actually reading the articles (okay, skimming them, I know you're too busy to actually skim articles like me) yields at least two important factors:

1. "The oldest language tree so far reconstructed, that of the Indo-European family, which includes English, goes back 9,000 years at most." That's right, not the African "tree" - third article.

2. From that same article, "Quentin D. Atkinson, a biologist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, has shattered this time barrier, if his claim is correct..." you see, BB, the disclaimer because this is non-peer reviewed submission of one (1, not 2, not 3, not 300) researcher.

For someone who makes an ad populum every post or so, and epically fails while doing so (since there's about 1,000 religion faculty who hawk your kind of BS worldwide and millions of us "fundies") you sure are a hypocrite who likes to tell me about one controversial researcher who undermines what another 1,000 PhD linguists teach as fact.

Epic, epic fail.

Have a nice day. Jesus loves you and so do I.

Nice try. There is NO peer reviewed linguist who buys into the shit on Creation Ministries pathetic attempt to say language developed as they say. Rather it is YOU who needs to review the shit you post, and embarrass yourself with.
I pity you, even more than LardyJebus does, though. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2013, 03:26 PM
RE: Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
(14-11-2013 02:44 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1. The Bible presents information and not all of it in chronological order. Luke states his gospel is "in order" but your presentism is creating an issue between Genesis 10 and 11 not inherent to the text.

We've been over this before, I seem to recall.

Because even the likes of you cannot defend a strictly chronological interpretation, the sole conclusion is then that the text does not represent a strictly chronological account.

How do you know what happens in what order?

By altering as necessary to reconcile the text with what little modern {archaeology, biology, geology, cosmology, pick one} you do accept.

(14-11-2013 02:44 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  2. Your other chronological "argument" which reads more like the whine of a small child is off for two reasons:

a) you propose dates/timings for the Babel and Flood narratives that appear nowhere in the text

b) making grandiloquent statements such as "that website is incomprehensible" does less than nothing to destroy the arguments proposed therein, it rather makes you sound like a bit of a Nazi--try using facts and not slurs next time

You Godwin better than anybody I've ever talked to. I'll put your name forward for the next round of Iron Cross recipients. You truly deserve the honour.

Ahem. Continuing on -
(14-11-2013 02:44 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  c) grow up and learn how to debate or else keep quiet

Yes. You say you will mention two things. These you enumerated as a through c. That is three things. Hmm. Quality control like that, you could be an inspired Biblical author!

Notwithstanding that it's literally impossible to debate with one who refuses to acknowledge external reality. "Debate" is a thing you have rarely come near to beginning to attempt. At best it is as follows.
A: I believe X.
B: There is no evidence of X.
A: That doesn't matter.
B: Then this isn't a debate.

But, while we're on the subject of learning to debate,
(14-11-2013 02:44 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  making grandiloquent statements such as "that website is incomprehensible" does less than nothing to destroy the arguments proposed therein...
(14-11-2013 02:44 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  2. Your other chronological "argument" which reads more like the whine of a small child...

Maybe you should make up some better fairy tales, if the ones you've got now require only a small child's intellect to see through.

I "propose" dates consistent with "mainstream" (to mis-use the word) biblical literalism, to the extent of my knowledge. Not having exhaustively read the opinions of fools and madmen, I may well have misinterpreted. I concede to your far greater knowledge of the ravings of fools and madmen.

I would however greatly welcome your alternative proposal. What sorts of dates are considered reasonable by fundamentalists? I wasn't aware that any serious challenge to Ussher's methodology existed. Does the Tower of Babel story occur before the flood, or after? It would seem to be necessarily after.

And so: when do you think the flood occurred? When do you think the tower was built?

But no, let's review.

The premise of the story is that all languages trace to a single point in time and space by divine fiat. There is literally no evidence for this whatsoever, but why let that worry you? Logic and reason are the devil's playthings.

Here. Once again, we play one of my favourite games. It's called, where do you deny reality?

Do you deny:
That there is no evidence anywhere for a sudden shift in all spoken language, by people all around the world?
That there is no evidence anywhere for dispersal of languages from a central point within the historical record? For assuredly the narrative occurs within historical times.
That there is unbroken and continuous evidence for human habitation across the vast majority of the planet, displaying none of the upheaval we would expect would such a story have occurred?

(14-11-2013 02:44 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Thanks, have a nice day. Jesus loves you more than I do.

Oh, you precious little thing. It's almost terrifying how thoroughly you shut down your own brain.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
15-11-2013, 11:39 AM
RE: Tower of Babel (not really that impressive)
(14-11-2013 03:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-11-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  BB,

Advice for you--actually read scholarly articles before posting.

The first indicates that languages might [/b]have originated in Turkey, which we all know is sheer worlds apart from Iraq. Sigh.

The other two have the revisionist idea of an African origination to language. Actually reading the articles (okay, skimming them, I know you're too busy to actually skim articles like me) yields at least two important factors:

1. "The oldest language tree so far reconstructed, that of the Indo-European family, which includes English, goes back 9,000 years at most." That's right, not the African "tree" - third article.

2. From that same article, "Quentin D. Atkinson, a biologist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, has shattered this time barrier, if his claim is correct..." you see, BB, the disclaimer because this is non-peer reviewed submission of one (1, not 2, not 3, not 300) researcher.

For someone who makes an ad populum every post or so, and epically fails while doing so (since there's about 1,000 religion faculty who hawk your kind of BS worldwide and millions of us "fundies") you sure are a hypocrite who likes to tell me about one controversial researcher who undermines what another 1,000 PhD linguists teach as fact.

Epic, epic fail.

Have a nice day. Jesus loves you and so do I.

Nice try. There is NO peer reviewed linguist who buys into the shit on Creation Ministries pathetic attempt to say language developed as they say. Rather it is YOU who needs to review the shit you post, and embarrass yourself with.
I pity you, even more than LardyJebus does, though. Tongue

You may knock Creation Ministries, and even Jesus Himself and still be forgiven, yet if you're trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes that most mainline scholars DON'T think languages were birthed in Mesopotamia... Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: