... on Tower of Babel Against a Preaching Atheist

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on One Real Stake with Creationism (quora) · HGL's F.B. writings : Debating Bas Verschoor on Göbekli Tepe : Noah's Altar or Nimrod's Babel? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Tower of Babel Against a Preaching Atheist

The Tower of Babel Myth Busted!
ThePreachingAtheist
Ajoutée le 29 avr. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAnvT0vbL8

2:30 you can prove scientifically there were other languages around at the time?

GREAT, GO AHEAD

• first point, when exactly does it seem to you the story is talking about
• second point, if the point in time in archaeology is prewriting (or pre deciphered writing), how do you prove there was more than one language?

3:07 bricks for stone and tar / asphalt for mortar allows you to date?

only if the brick and tar architecture you consider dated is the first ever of the type

what if it was a rehash?

What if brick and tar were shunned for centuries after Tower of Babel, but later reused and you are dating that later reuse instead of original one?

3500 - 3000 BC

Well, that is actually too early for Babel, even Syncellus chronology gets to at earliest 2800 sth BC, but if you mean archaeology which is now dated to 3500 - 3000 BC, well, that could very well be the later rehash of an earlier ToB architectonic element.

3:43 "would show up from time to time"

Depending on how [much] longer after original this copy was.

My Syncellus table for 3600 BC (noted due to Nabta Playa) has carbon dated 3600 BC between 2249 BC and 2208 BC - with beginning of ToB even 2824 BC and its end in 2780 BC. So 572 years at most after original.

One of my other tables has 3600 BC between 2065 BC and 1997 BC. It has Babel approximately between 2751 BC and 2683 BC and therefore the maximal distance in time is 754 years, the minimal is 618 years.

For yet another one, we are dealing with 3600 BC between 2062 BC and 1972 BC with Tower of Babel ending before 2688 BC. 716 years or less.

And a fourth one - these latter three all use St Jerome rather than Syncellus - has 3600 BC between 2027 BC and 1994 BC. A benchmark for late ongoing Babel event was 2779 BC. 785 years is this maximal timespan.

Btw, here is my work on Nabta Playa where I link to the tables:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Nabta Playa, Hieraconopolis and Buto
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/08/nabta-playa-hieraconopolis-and-buto.html

800 years is a time in which such a technology can remain remembered even if laid aside.

3:55 I don't think Tower of Babel was a Ziggurat, none of the preserved, they are all too late.

So, if and when Göbekli Tepe is excavated enough to see if there were drainage pipes or even houses with such architecture, we'll see again. Btw, GT is when I locate Genesis 11:1-9 in time and space.

5:03 Archaeologists cannot determine what people back in x knew of didn't know.

So the argument is a non-proven right here, even if it clears up as to implication later.

And if "all they knew" was supposedly a flood ... well, if the Flood never happened, how did they start supposing it did?

Ah, yes. 5:20 you are not proving there were diverse languages in the time of GT, you are inventing on why sth you think wrong was invented. In order to explain sth, like you are doing here.

Look, if you think their invented explanation is counterfactual, why should we take yours for God's truth? Or even for an Atheist equivalent of it?

5:46 Nice knowing the language on that site in Thailand is not known to have been different from Hebrew at "5000 BC".

Between 2412 BC and 2371 BC sometime, with Syncellus; the St Jerome chronologies have: early limit 2292 BC to 2476 BC, later limit 2259 BC to 2408 BC.

Anyway, this is after Babel. Therefore even a proven non-Hebrew language would not make your case.

We could predict if any writing were found for that 5000 BC contraption and it was deciphered, it would probably not be Hebrew.

6:01 You pretend they do not know what language it was, but even so you pretend they know certainly it was not Sumerian?

Well, Sumerian is a post-Babel language anyway, but nice to know how you can prove someone you don't know what he spoke spoke sth other than Sumerian?

I don't think it is very LIKELY these guys in Thailand spoke Sumerian. But supposing I bet a beer on them doing that and your not proving opposite, how would you propose to gain your beer? By them not writing in Cuneiform? You can write Sumerian in Latin alphabet, that is also not Cuneiform. By them not writing at all? Well, gives no clue either for or against Sumerian, does it?

6:29 Farming seems to have been no real hit as far as archaeology is concerned prior to GT.

Note, there were arguably proto-mongoloid people in China before that - see Liujiang man.

I am not sure when to place Liujiang man, but as he wasn't carbon dated, the early dates indicate nothing on my tables of being very close to Flood.

Could even have been post-Babel, since U-Th dating is worthless anyway.

6:39 Looked up proto-sinic logograms earlier, actually, the dates are all post-Göbekli Tepe and therefore in my view post-Babel.

Also, a logogram would not show pronunciation, could therefore have had a Hebrew (pre-Babel) one.

7:09 Jomon culture. It stretches 14 000 BC (pre-Babel) to 300 BC. But you don't get larger villages before 5000 BC (post-Babel, as mentioned).

So, Jomon area was an outpost of united mankind, and after Babel, populations swelled by relatives coming there from Göbekli Tepe.

No proof against Babel.

7:34 The stratified and carbon dated sites, well if it is between 5000 and 2000 BC, that is after Babel.

7:54 Ayer's Rock in Australia and Palaeo-Indian sites in Americas which would be pre-Babel have also left no linguistic traces which conflict with them having spoken the pre-Babel language Hebrew.

Their traces are in fact non-linguistic, as far as I know.

8:08 You don't find extensive civilisation in other parts of the world previous to Göbekli Tepe.

Culture, yes. Artefacts, yes. But they could be outposts of humanity from the centuries between Flood and Babel.

And there certainly was language there, but an artefact won't prove it was a non-Hebrew one. Or a non-Sumerian, since you seem to fancy Sumerian as pre-Babel language, though arguably it was not.

8:22 "science has shown" - this is your summing up?

No new arguments up to 10:23?

As for "thousands of years", that is systematic misdating of carbon 14, due to lower initial content.

[It also involves misdating later and earlier parts with different amounts of misdating, due to carbon content rising, 40 years of Babel extending to 1000 year of Göbekli Tepe dates of 9600 BC - 8600 BC.]

9:29 I actually agree you can make Genesis 11 a kind of test case!

If you had had good proof it was wrong - but you haven't - you would have proven Bible is not inspired - but you haven't that either.

9:38 Ha, "it's not rocket science"

You know why there is no TALL BUILDING in Göbekli Tepe? On my reconstruction it is because Nimrod was attempting rocket science. He would have failed, he would have tried, if given the chance, to use Uranium, and would have blown up most of mankind in a mushroom cloud at Göbekli Tepe.

God allowed the tower to get finished - at Cape Canaveral and Baikonur Cosmodrome. With much better rocket science than would have been provided by Nimrod at Göbekli Tepe.

9:56 No, this was not a hissy fit, or whatever you said (watched with automatic subtitles, not sound), and you are not a messenger bringing truth to me.

And how do you know the relevant Muslims even all believe Tower of Babel?

If you go to Tower of Babel and check the section Islamic tradition, it is not even in the Quran:

Although not mentioned by name, the Quran has a story with similarities to the biblical story of the Tower of Babel, although set in the Egypt of Moses: Pharaoh asks Haman to build him a stone (or clay) tower so that he can mount up to heaven and confront the God of Moses.[Pickthal, M. "Quran" (in English), Suras 28:36 and 40:36–37. Amana Publishers, UK 1996]*

Another story in Sura 2:102 mentions the name of Babil, but tells of when the two angels Harut and Marut taught magic to some people in Babylon and warned them that magic is a sin and that their teaching them magic is a test of faith.[ "Surat Al-Baqarah [2:102] – The Noble Qur'an – القرآن الكريم". Quran.com. Retrieved 2013-11-07.] A tale about Babil appears more fully in the writings of Yaqut (i, 448 f.) and the Lisān al-ʿArab (ar) (xiii. 72), but without the tower: mankind were swept together by winds into the plain that was afterward called "Babil", where they were assigned their separate languages by God, and were then scattered again in the same way. In the History of the Prophets and Kings by the 9th-century Muslim theologian al-Tabari, a fuller version is given: Nimrod has the tower built in Babil, God destroys it, and the language of mankind, formerly Syriac, is then confused into 72 languages. Another Muslim historian of the 13th century, Abu al-Fida relates the same story, adding that the patriarch Eber (an ancestor of Abraham) was allowed to keep the original tongue, Hebrew in this case, because he would not partake in the building.[Morris Jastrow, Ira Maurice Price, Marcus Jastrow, Louis Ginzberg, & Duncan B. MacDonald; "Babel, Tower of", Jewish Encyclopedia; Funk & Wagnalls, 1906.]

Although variations similar to the biblical narrative of the Tower of Babel exist within Islamic tradition, the central theme of God separating humankind on the basis of language is alien to Islam according to the author Yahiya Emerick. In Islamic belief, he argues, God created nations to know each other and not to be separated.[The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Islam – Google Books. Books.google.co.uk. 2002. ISBN 9780028642338. Retrieved 2011-06-18.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel#Islamic_tradition

You may check Jewish Encyclopedia for that one as well, it has a section on Mohammedan literature:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2279-babel-tower-of

So, no, the ones who blow people up are NOT true believers in Genesis 11.

That is also one reason why Muslims (including moderate ones and including even atheist ones) have a hard time even relating to nationalism.

* Wikipedian footnotes in quote replaced by inserting full text of references.