... on Historicity of Genesis

The Origins and Evolution of Language | Michael Corballis | TEDxAuckland
TEDx Talks | 14.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cklw6d6Q

Alllii F/O

There are more than 2000 languages ...don't tell me that Adam and Eve ,earn there kids all these languages ...so how the he'll human learnt all these language ? If you smart enough answer me

Beni Venetta

Can you just repeat the video if you didn't hear him??

Aquilla Fleetwood

Alllii F/O...God gave man the first language! The word "semitic" came from "Shem" who was one of the sons of Noah!
Then those people disobeyed and refused to scatter over the earth! So, God confused their language!
Then they....scattered!
Get it???
Shalom...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There are more than 2000 languages ...don't tell me that Adam and Eve ,earn there kids all these languages"

Adam and Eve taught their children Hebrew.

After Babel, there were 72 new languages.

After that languages have changed, split, merged, merged and split again etc. So, c. 4000 years later we have 6000.

Linguists consider they are splits from 32 language families. Less than just after Babel.

[other schools have considerably more unrelated language families]

Bernie Basset

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Forgetting of course that Adam and Eve is just a story. It never happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bernie Basset Genesis was by its earliest traceable audience taken as history, not as fable.

Precisely as Lord of the Rings is by its earliest traceable audience taken as fable, not as history.

satid 56

@Bernie Basset its not a story its. Reality

Doctor Drywell

@Aquilla Fleetwood lol...you are nuts.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Just because something was taken as history, it doesnt mean it is history. Nice fallacious argument.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Doctor Drywell I'll repeat what I said in extenso, and read all of it:
____________

Genesis was by its earliest traceable audience taken as history, not as fable.

Precisely as Lord of the Rings is by its earliest traceable audience taken as fable, not as history.
___________

What's fallacious about it?

If you had replaced the word "history" with "true" it would be fallacious, since some people think false things are true.

But simply history as in not a novel for entertainment, I think tracing the reception of an account to earliest traceable persons knowing it, whether it is meant to be factual or meant to be just plain fun, that is pretty much the best we can go on.

Now, history is not always the same thing as true and accurate history. Iliad is probably accurate in saying there was a Trojan war, but as probably inaccurately transferring events from battle of Kadesh and other Hittite wars to Trojan war and similarily inaccurately omitting Hittites.

I believe Genesis is history, true history, and divinely preserved in recording inerrant history. These are three different levels of "historicity" and the argument given suffices for the first level.

Doctor Drywell

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, since you believe Genesis is history, real history, you have a burden of proof to demonstrate and justify that perspective.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Doctor Drywell The fact it was from first taken as history is sufficient prima facie evidence it is history. If you want to pretend it was at first made as entertainment, the burden of proof is on you to show entertainment only was a first reception and it was later replaced by the reception as history.

This is the first step.

The accuracy is then - step 2 - proven by the fact that you do not have definite more accurate histories from neighbouring people in conflict with it.

And the divine claims are - we have step three here - proven by miracles which must be accepted if the history is accurate.

What is NOT proven?