Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,636 Year: 4,893/9,624 Month: 241/427 Week: 51/103 Day: 9/11 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for the Biblical Record
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 271 of 348 (552361)
03-28-2010 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by JonF
03-28-2010 9:01 AM


Re: back to topic of linguistics
JonF writes:
Well, I guess nobody wants to present any, you know, evidence that the interpretation of that character as a phrase is valid.
Well, actually, in my previous post at Message 267, I did address the issue of how that one particular Chinese character that Peg cited could be interpreted as a phrasal construction, and pointed out that her phrasal interpretation ("boat with 8 people") is almost certainly incorrect.
The alternate meanings of the second and third components of that one ideogram, leading to a phrasal interpretation that refers to a particular kind of boat or ship, can be found here No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.mandarintools.com/chardict_rs.html -- you'll see the two "radicals" that correspond to those two components, and you just need to select each one in turn, set "0" and some higher number for the "Lower bound" and "Upper bound" fields, and click "Search by Radical/Stroke".
AbE: I don't know Chinese, so it's possible the interpretation I suggested for that character isn't right either -- the character might have been created on phonetic grounds.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : added quotation from JonF's message, and closing paragraph / disclaimer.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by JonF, posted 03-28-2010 9:01 AM JonF has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 272 of 348 (552376)
03-28-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Peg
03-27-2010 9:32 PM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
Peg writes:
So, if you agree that linguists use similarities in words to establish a link, why should the similarity between the chinese words and mesopotamian ideas not prove such a link?
Because between Chinese words and Mesopotamian ideas, there are no similarities on which any sort of linkage can be established. Peg, you have shown posted images (without citing your source -- such a bad and tiresome habit!) of two Chinese characters (out of several thousand that exist in Chinese). Your first example (character for "ship" based on ideas about Noah's Arc) is prima-facie nonsense and easily debunked. The second one doesn't fare any better:
Creation is comprised of the following components
dust + (breath of) life + (from God's) mouth + motion = Creation
No. To start with, the portion you refer to as "motion" doesn't seem to exist as a separate, meaningful character, but is used only as a "radical" in building a wide assortment of other characters (not having any overall semantic unity). The thing you cite as "(breath of) life" also appears not to exist as such. Wherever you got that picture from, it's a misanalysis of the character.
Oh, and the full character resulting from the combination (造) is actually not the noun "creation", but rather a verb ("construct, build, begin; prepare" when I look it up this way, and "to make; to build; to invent; to manufacture" when I look it up this way. (You can just paste the unicode character I've given into each of those search pages.) {AbE: Please realize that any reference to God in any portion of this character is utterly fictional and unwarranted.}
Do they only identify and establish links under some circumstances but not others...can they pick and choose which links they accept and which links they reject?
Yes, as with any other evidence-based field of research, historical linguists need to weigh the potential, plausible alternatives regarding relationships among distinct language varieties, and pick one that is best motivated by and most consistent with established knowledge about how speech patterns change over time, as well as with current knowledge about the geographical and temporal evidence associated with those language varieties.
As it is with new discoveries of intermediate species in the geological fossil record for the theory of evolution, so it is with new discoveries of ancient writings in the archaeological record, and new information about the vocabularies and speech patterns of relatively obscure living languages and dialects, for historical linguistics. These things fill in gaps in our knowledge, they occasionally force a shift in our chronologies, or more rarely, a minor adjustment to the branching relations.
And what would they base such rejection or acceptance upon?
There's lot of detail available on this, but the primary thing is the presence vs. absence of a core shared vocabulary. For example, a central piece of evidence for the Indo-European group is the commonality of terms for family members: brother, sister, father, mother, daughter, and son all have regular correlations among the various descendants of Proto-Indo-European. Of equal importance is the regularity in patterns of sound change affecting the shared vocabulary: when you see the differences between English "brother", German "Bruder", Italian "fratello", French "frère", etc, you often find other shared vocabulary among these languages that show a similar correspondences between Germanic /b/ and Romance /f/, between English // (eth) and German /d/, between Italian /a/ and French /è/ etc.
Obviously, the "magical" nature of a Tower-of-Babel type of "event" wouldn't need to give any account for this sort of detail. Before it, everyone talks the same, and after it, everyone talks different, and there's nothing more to say about that. If anyone has any further questions about how that sort of event actually worked itself out in the ancient population and led to all the evidence we know of today, they just have to make up stories on their own to suit themselves, because there is no basis on which to form any rational, objective account of the process. And of course, that is exactly what the extreme Bible literalists have been doing all along: making up stories to suit themselves.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (as indicated in text)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (disable smileys. Reminder to self: don't put unicode characters inside parens!

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Peg, posted 03-27-2010 9:32 PM Peg has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 348 (552480)
03-29-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Peg
03-22-2010 4:42 AM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Peg, posted 03-22-2010 4:42 AM Peg has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 348 (552494)
03-29-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Peg
03-19-2010 11:43 PM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
The story of Babel most certainly is based on fact which is confirmed by history, archaeology and folklore.
That there were large Ziggurats is uncontested, that the Hebrews often took from Sumerian folklore and gave it their own monotheist twist is uncontested, but that there was an actual confusion of tongues is contested. That is not a "fact," that is folklore.
But if you think so, then what was the original Adamic language that everyone spoke before the confusion? Is it still in existence?
Forget the fact that the dates don't line up with the first known languages. You also have to account for why semetic languages, mediteranean languages, Indo-european languages, and Anatolian languages, etc have similar root words that correspond to their region if there was a confusion of tongues. What linguists clearly see is the obvious evolution of language, not a confusion of language.
And the folklore found in various nations provide further evidence that the story was not only a bible story because many of these nations did not have the bible.
Of course they didn't have a bible. The bible was written over 2,000 years after-the-fact. Several biblical stories are merely borrowed from Sumerian lore.
Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the historicity of David but in 1993 archaeologists uncovered a basalt stone called the Tel Dan Stele, dating back to the 9th Century B.C. that experts say bears the words House of David and king of Israel.
the thing about this stone is that it wasnt made by the isrealites but is actually a victory monument erected by the Aramaeans.
What is your point? That one day we'll find that Enmerkar & Co. got pissed and confused everyone's language? Because you seem to conveniently be leaving out the details. YHWH or any other cognate is not used in the original story.
All this story serves to prove is that it was stolen from another civilization's folklore, just like Christmas, just like Easter, just like Halloween. By your rationale, we should assume that because there is a Christmas story must mean that Jesus was actually born on Dec 25 because a story exists saying it, when in reality it is just a story borrowed from another story and twisted to conform to a specific belief.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Peg, posted 03-19-2010 11:43 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Peg, posted 03-31-2010 8:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
rockondon
Member (Idle past 5010 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 275 of 348 (552675)
03-30-2010 3:35 PM


Its funny that even if we pretend the story of Babel was true, that God was so threatened by the potential success of the project that He felt the need to intervene. Its funny He didnt intervene in a similar fashion during the construction of every skyscraper.

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by hooah212002, posted 03-30-2010 7:59 PM rockondon has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 886 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 276 of 348 (552723)
03-30-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by rockondon
03-30-2010 3:35 PM


Its funny He didnt intervene in a similar fashion during the construction of every skyscraper.
He knew, I'm sure, that the intent of the tower of Babel was intended for the purpose of reaching heaven. I'm fairly certain he's a wise enough fella to know that skyscrapers aren't meant to reach into the heavens, what with being god and all.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by rockondon, posted 03-30-2010 3:35 PM rockondon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by rockondon, posted 03-31-2010 3:16 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
rockondon
Member (Idle past 5010 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 277 of 348 (552891)
03-31-2010 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by hooah212002
03-30-2010 7:59 PM


He knew, I'm sure, that the intent of the tower of Babel was intended for the purpose of reaching heaven. I'm fairly certain he's a wise enough fella to know that skyscrapers aren't meant to reach into the heavens, what with being god and all.
I'm sure He's a wise enough fella to know that the tower of Babel had no chance of reaching heaven, what with being god and all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by hooah212002, posted 03-30-2010 7:59 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by hooah212002, posted 03-31-2010 5:05 PM rockondon has replied
 Message 284 by Huntard, posted 04-01-2010 3:51 AM rockondon has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 886 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 278 of 348 (552915)
03-31-2010 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by rockondon
03-31-2010 3:16 PM


Just note, I am only playing devils advocate here
Ahh, but the intent was there....

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by rockondon, posted 03-31-2010 3:16 PM rockondon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by rockondon, posted 03-31-2010 8:01 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
rockondon
Member (Idle past 5010 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 279 of 348 (552939)
03-31-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by hooah212002
03-31-2010 5:05 PM


Re: Just note, I am only playing devils advocate here
Ahh, but the intent was there....
I don't think I made my point clear. God didn't have to do anything - they would have failed without his intervention.
But nooooooo....He had to cast a spell to screw over the human race.
I'm speaking hypothetically of course. After dishing out the tools of logic and reason, I think God would be deeply ashamed at anyone who believed that absurd tower of Babel story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by hooah212002, posted 03-31-2010 5:05 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Huntard, posted 04-01-2010 5:09 AM rockondon has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 280 of 348 (552940)
03-31-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Hyroglyphx
03-29-2010 1:45 PM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
Hyroglyphx writes:
But if you think so, then what was the original Adamic language that everyone spoke before the confusion? Is it still in existence?
it was hebrew and the reasoning behind this is that hebrew was the language of Noah and his 3 sons. Shem and his family did not get involved in the building of the tower, so he was not one of the people to have his language changed and his decendents are the isrealites who continued to speak the original language.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-29-2010 1:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-01-2010 12:15 AM Peg has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 281 of 348 (552969)
04-01-2010 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Peg
03-31-2010 8:04 PM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
But if you think so, then what was the original Adamic language that everyone spoke before the confusion? Is it still in existence?
it was hebrew and the reasoning behind this is that hebrew was the language of Noah and his 3 sons.
Well, assuming that God really wanted to mess things up that way with the Babel trick (which was actually a pretty stupid idea, if you think about it), I really don't see any grounds for preserving any trace of the original "Adamic" language in any human mind. Might as well treat everyone the same way, and lose the original language completely.
I think you'll also want to change your chronology, to make sure that every form of writing arises at some point after the tower, and none before. You haven't even tried to assert this, but it ends up being a necessary entailment. Think about it: all the truly independent (original) writing systems -- Chinese, Egyptian, Sumerian and Phoenician (parent of the Hebrew writing system) -- were clearly being used to represent different languages, as of the oldest extant evidence for each.
(Of course, Sumerian and Egyptian -- and possibly Chinese -- are older than Phoenician, hence older than Hebrew, but no worries... I'm sure you can toss some details into your chronology to cover these facts. Even if there is no scriptural basis for them, they can be asserted without directly contradicting what's in the Bible, right? That's the beauty of having "an accurate historical record" that tends to skimp on the little "implementation details" of all those supernatural "historical" events.)
If it made sense to speak of a "Babel event" (which doesn't make sense at all, but let's put that aside), it would also make sense to conclude that there was never any written form for the "Adamic language". All knowledge about pre-Babel events must have been preserved by oral tradition. (Seriously: does the Bible indicate that anything was ever written down by anyone before the Tower event?) Then, you just need make up another story about how all the knowledge (all that accurate historical record) embedded in the Hebrew oral tradition was sustained or re-instantiated after the Babel event. That's a piece of cake, 'cuz God can do anything.
BTW, Peg, this thread is in a science forum, and not only have you failed to show any Biblical reference to back up your latest assertion, but you are completely lacking what this thread is about: independent and corroborating evidence to back up the claim.
The Babel story is a really bad case for objective corroboration. I recommend that you seriously consider the consequences of interpreting it as allegory, parable or metaphor. Trust me, doing so is not such a bad thing, and can be more profoundly enlightening than a strict (and unsupportable) literal reading.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Peg, posted 03-31-2010 8:04 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Peg, posted 04-01-2010 2:53 AM Otto Tellick has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 282 of 348 (552982)
04-01-2010 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Otto Tellick
04-01-2010 12:15 AM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
OttoTellick writes:
Well, assuming that God really wanted to mess things up that way with the Babel trick (which was actually a pretty stupid idea, if you think about it), I really don't see any grounds for preserving any trace of the original "Adamic" language in any human mind. Might as well treat everyone the same way, and lose the original language completely.
Perhaps if everyone at the time was involved the rebellion...but not everyone was so why would God need to remove the original language?
Otto Tellick writes:
I think you'll also want to change your chronology, to make sure that every form of writing arises at some point after the tower, and none before. You haven't even tried to assert this, but it ends up being a necessary entailment.
The genesis account shows that people were writing well before the tower incident...they were writing in their original language, hebrew, so why should this be necessary? Moses got his information from either oral tradition or from existing writings. In genesis the expression this is the book of the generations of is seen, so he likely got the early geneology from existing writings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-01-2010 12:15 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Huntard, posted 04-01-2010 3:10 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 286 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-01-2010 7:01 PM Peg has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 283 of 348 (552983)
04-01-2010 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Peg
04-01-2010 2:53 AM


Re: Denial Of The Evidence
Peg writes:
The genesis account shows that people were writing well before the tower incident
You do realize that the earliest documents we have describing this event are dated well after the known origins for the egyptian and phoenician written languages, yes?
Moses got his information from either oral tradition or from existing writings.
I'll try telling you this again: There is no evidence Moses wrote any of the bible. Even so, if he got them from oral tradition, that still doesn't prove hebrew writing is older than egyptian or phoenician.
All this is irrelevant though, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Buz, and which he failed to answer:
Where is the evidence for your assertions?
You can ignore everything I've said in this post, except for that point. Show me the evidence for what you are asserting, Peg. And remember, evidence does not mean doing more asserting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Peg, posted 04-01-2010 2:53 AM Peg has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 284 of 348 (552984)
04-01-2010 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by rockondon
03-31-2010 3:16 PM


Replied to wrong message, see Message 285 for real response
Edited by Huntard, : Replied to wrong message

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by rockondon, posted 03-31-2010 3:16 PM rockondon has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 285 of 348 (552989)
04-01-2010 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by rockondon
03-31-2010 8:01 PM


Re: Just note, I am only playing devils advocate here
rockondon writes:
I don't think I made my point clear. God didn't have to do anything - they would have failed without his intervention.
But the punishment wasn't for the act of reaching heaven. It was for the hubris of the human race for even attempting such a thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by rockondon, posted 03-31-2010 8:01 PM rockondon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024