Babel or Exodus Myths?

Creation vs. Evolution: Babel in Eridu? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Dispute with Douglas Petrovich · Babel or Exodus Myths? · Babel Skyscraper, Portal or Rocket? · Creation vs. Evolution: "On the Evolutionary Timescale" is NOT in my vocabulary

Under the Doug Petrovich video.

John Makovec

So the Bible reuses old Babylonian myths. And those myths have some part historical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Exactly what Babylonian myth features "tower of Babel" story?

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't know. But we know, that Mesopotamia build towers as structures of their religion. We know, that floodstory was used in Gilgamesh epos. We know, that people are able to create myth and legends.

So it's quite probable, that someone "explained" origin of different languages by "too high tower" in that region.

In case of flood, there are multiple different options based on local historical events - migration of people in relation to end of ice age... Connection of Black sea (and rising of waters there) and there was of course multiple local flood, because nature sometimes creates them.

And we know, that some legendary stories have a true information in it, but those supernatural parts are pure fiction.

It is a specualtion? Sure, but based on evidence we can observe in world around us. It's better explanation, than "god did it".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "So it's quite probable, that someone "explained" origin of different languages by "too high tower" in that region."

To my best knowledge, the one who did was Moses + his sources back to Heber and Peleg's time.

"migration of people in relation to end of ice age"

It so happens, the Flood story is not about migrating on land, primarily.

"And we know, that some legendary stories have a true information in it,"

Do we know any legendary story that hasn't?

"but those supernatural parts are pure fiction."

How are we supposed to "know" that?

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Even if Moses would be author, he was - by biblical story itself - born long after supposed Babel & Flood. So even if he included those stories, he also used - in case of flood - older stories from that region and changed them to fit Hebrew religion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec Or he preserved them.

Hebrew version is the one version that does include both Tower of Babel (not very flattering to "mankind") and Noah's drunkenness and nakedness (not very flattering to the main flood survivor).

One argument for it being original. Another one is, it has genealogies (farily boring ones to the general reader / listener) from Flood to "normal historic" times like Abraham and Early Dynastic Egypt.

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure, preserved & edited to fit their religion. Imagine, that you are an ancient Hebrew priest. You hear a great story about flood. Why not to change it a little bit and use to it to help your narrative?

People were bad, there was flood, Noah was good, now there is rainbow.

And you include also the "clean" and "dirty" animals, what is concept known to you currently. And actually it seems, that original story was about pairs of animals and the increased number of clean animals were added later. (Otherwise, Noah would kill of sheeps after the flood by sacrifise, right?)

Do we have archeological evidence more supporting flood than non-flood? No, we don't. Do we have biological evidence and other verifiable evidence as support for flood than agains it? Yes, we do. But if you want to have Noah's flood as historical, you can have it, because no natural evidence can't be more, than all-powerfull being can't handle.

From this, it's more probable, that Hebrew used stories from nations around them. Especially, if those nations were occupied or enslaved by other nations around them. They knew their culture and when you wanted to be independent state, it's logical, that you also wanted an independent religion structures.

About geneaology... there is a lot of geneaology in the Lord of Rings. If you start with today, you can create whatever geneaology you want, if there is no other source of evidence available for other people to fact-check it.

And to question Bible or Torah.... I would be afraid, that it would be blasphemy. So would you risk your life?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "Sure, preserved & edited to fit their religion. Imagine, that you are an ancient Hebrew priest. You hear a great story about flood. Why not to change it a little bit and use to it to help your narrative?"

I note this is speculation.

"People were bad, there was flood, Noah was good, now there is rainbow."

Yes.

"And you include also the "clean" and "dirty" animals, what is concept known to you currently."

Wait a bit ... what about "and to question Bible or Torah.... I would be afraid, that it would be blasphemy. So would you risk your life?" - How is that priest not risking his life with the rest of the priests?

"And actually it seems, that original story was about pairs of animals and the increased number of clean animals were added later. (Otherwise, Noah would kill of sheeps after the flood by sacrifise, right?)"

God can well have given an extra instruction to that precise purpose after seeing Noah would sacrifice.

"Do we have archeological evidence more supporting flood than non-flood? No, we don't."

We have several biotopes all over the world labelled "Permian" (at least in Russia and in South Africa), "Triassic" and a few more (Permian and Triassic are fairly favourite biotopes with me, bc Permian critters are so ugly and bc I like Karroo).

We also have Neanderthals and Denisovans, purebred, up to the carbon date 40 000 BP and none after that.

With a carbon rise starting with a level of atmospheric 1.4 pmC in 2957 BC (year of Flood in Roman Martyrology for Christmas day), there is no real big problem for 2957 BC being carbon dated 38 000 BC. 1.4 pmC will give the needed 35 000 extra years as instant carbon mirage.

"Do we have biological evidence and other verifiable evidence as support for flood than agains it? Yes, we do."

Would you mind to clarify what you mean and also examplify what you mean by "yes we do".

"But if you want to have Noah's flood as historical, you can have it, because no natural evidence can't be more, than all-powerfull being can't handle."

Is your native language a Slavic one? Double negatives don't cancel out but reinforce?

"From this, it's more probable, that Hebrew used stories from nations around them. Especially, if those nations were occupied or enslaved by other nations around them. They knew their culture and when you wanted to be independent state, it's logical, that you also wanted an independent religion structures."

So precisely for reasons of independence - why copy so much from others?

"About geneaology... there is a lot of geneaology in the Lord of Rings."

There is no boring passage (outside appendices, and such ones put in them for certain reasons) that states "Aragorn, son of Arathorn, son of" etc back to "son of Elros who was son of Eärendil". If there had been, after ten rereads of LotR, I'd be at least half as good at Aragorn's as I am on Jesus' genealogy.

"If you start with today, you can create whatever geneaology you want, if there is no other source of evidence available for other people to fact-check it."

Which precisely there was. Whatever point of OT history you want to accept it starts being actually historic, you have genealogies starting out with those in Genesis 5 and 11 and leading up to people alive back then.

"And to question Bible or Torah.... I would be afraid, that it would be blasphemy. So would you risk your life?"

This is fairly good observation for a Torah already standing, but how do you explain it applies to a single priest adding stories to it and telling people to remember always having heard what they had never heard?

A question also arising for a people having no memory of having survived a Flood suddenly adopting such a "memory".

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Historically the priests were much more powerfull, especially in societies like Egypt. If you were a pharaon, it would not be wise to conduct acts against your priests.

Also, if you look at temples in Mesopotamia, it's is also very expensive building.

Do you consider Egyptians priests to be supported by "real" god? If this "tool" is functional and people are able to consider stories created by those priests to be true, why should be a religion created (supposedly) by ex-egyptian prince different?

Giordano Bruno was burned, because his opinions were against church. Questioning priests were often like questioning gods themselves. It was (and sometimes it still is) a powerfull tool.

There is more problems like population, biology, etc, etc, etc. That's why Noah's flood is considered non-historical by more than 99 % of scientific community. But if you use a wildcard "supernatural being not limited by natural laws", than evidence does not have any value, because "devil can give you false natural evidence", right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec Egyptian priesthood had NOTHING to do with doctrines about the past, but ALL about, at best doctrines of the otherworldly, and at worst just the ceremonies you do in a temple.

"Giordano Bruno was burned, because his opinions were against church."

Yes, but that was 3000 years after I believe Hebrews accepted Genesis as history and 2000 years after you believe they did so.

You cannot project the sociology from 1600 AD to the times of Moses or Ezra!

Plus, you even get it wrong.

"Questioning priests were often like questioning gods themselves."

Giordano Bruno, who was a priest, and Galileo Galilei, who wasn't, had their chances to argue their cases relative to Bible and observable facts. The fact they questioned the opinion of the then (majority of more than 99% of) priests was fairly irrelevant. Giordano believed in one Son and one Holy Ghost per Solar System, and Galileo showed a decided lack of talent connecting Jupiter's four moons to rejecting Tychonic as well as Ptolemaic Geocentrism.

"There is more problems like population, biology, etc, etc, etc. That's why Noah's flood is considered non-historical by more than 99 % of scientific community."

Thank you for acknowledging:

• that there is at least a (less than) 1 % of the scientific community who are Creationist
• that it's the scientific community having, for some reason, an opinion about history.

If you'd be more specific, I'd love to give answers about "more problems like" ....

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The science is ongoing process. It would be a miracle, if 100 % from hundreds of people agreed on anything based on indirect observation and deduction. And existence of opposition is great, because it allows you to test the mainstream.

If 99 from 100 doctors would tell me, that this drug will kill me, but 1 is going to tell me, that he has a faith in God and he sees the drug as a good idea... you can call it "argumentum ad populum", but I will not take that drug. The same with 100 engineers about bridge going to fall. Again, they all could be mistaken, but this could be the case about the 1 engineer with another opinion.

Bruno was killed by Church. That was my point. If God had problem with him, He could call him himself. But as long as I know, we have a ton of prophecs claiming, that God is speaking through them and people killing other people, because God - via priests - told them.

The people are not so different from times of Egypt. In states, where church or religion has the power, it's still connected with power & politics.

People in Egypt build big tombs to help them go to the "other side". Christians today build Temples to help them go to the "other side".

Miracles, if you can't prove them possible, are great evidence of non-historicity. Many things in Old Testament are possible itself for small group, but not in the final story with 2 000 000 people living 40 years in desert. It's a story puzzled from many different stories to create a great narrative.

Of course you can find many archeological evidence, for different pieces. If I write a historical novel, it will be full of things you can confirm archeologically. You can prove Spiderman.... New York & Central Park. Do you know how we (also) know, that Spiderman is not historical? There are no radioactive spiders, who can give you superhuman powers. (But if God exists, he could be real, right?)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "The science is ongoing process. It would be a miracle, if 100 % from hundreds of people agreed on anything based on indirect observation and deduction. And existence of opposition is great, because it allows you to test the mainstream."

Only if you sufficiently heed the opposition.

"If 99 from 100 doctors would tell me, that this drug will kill me, but 1 is going to tell me, that he has a faith in God and he sees the drug as a good idea... you can call it "argumentum ad populum", but I will not take that drug."

This is like you are saying you are not going to heed the opposition, because you deal with all kinds of expertise as with medical cautionary advice. Bad parallel, since believing either on these questions will not kill you, and one which on top of that means, you are going to marginalise instead of heed the opposition.

You know, what drugs are likely to kill and what drugs are likely to cure is a bit more testable by direct experiment than what we are talking about.

"The same with 100 engineers about bridge going to fall. Again, they all could be mistaken, but this could be the case about the 1 engineer with another opinion."

What if 100 engeneers say a bridge will last and one says it will fall? Had an example of that in Italy a few years ago, Genua, as I recall.

"Bruno was killed by Church. That was my point. If God had problem with him, He could call him himself. But as long as I know, we have a ton of prophecs claiming, that God is speaking through them and people killing other people, because God - via priests - told them."

Your nightmare version of social history of religion and power is just that - a nightmare version. You cannot push Inquisition killing back further than them dealing with Albigensians (a sect who were against conception and family, promoted abortion and abandoning family and a few more horrible practises and had de facto taken power in South France or many parts of it).

As long as you know ... well, you are insufficiently knowledgeable about history.

"The people are not so different from times of Egypt."

That's a major howler. If you compare anything to Egyptian priesthood, it's more modern scientists.

"In states, where church or religion has the power, it's still connected with power & politics."

Yes, so? When science and medicine has the power, it will also be connected to power and politics.

"People in Egypt build big tombs to help them go to the "other side". Christians today build Temples to help them go to the "other side"."

That's (and absence of total atheism) is about as far as the similarity goes.

"Miracles, if you can't prove them possible, are great evidence of non-historicity."

It so happens, this is not in any way a discovery made by logic or observation. It's simply a metaphysical a priori postulate.

"Many things in Old Testament are possible itself for small group, but not in the final story with 2 000 000 people living 40 years in desert. It's a story puzzled from many different stories to create a great narrative."

How big was the desert ... Sinai peninsula? 60,000 sqkm. = 60,000,000,000 sqm.
This is 3000 sqm per person. Food and hydration = mannah (a miracle).

Now if you happen to believe miracles are impossible, you will have to conclude Exodus is impossible.

I do not believe miracles are impossible, and I believe Exodus narrative is one proof they have happened and therefore are possible. Because I believe faking that kind of origin would be impossible sociologically and psychologically.

If Israelites in 1000 BC emerged from Canaanites and had no background in anything like Exodus, they would be very hard set to accept that story as sth they had always remembered.

"Of course you can find many archeological evidence, for different pieces. If I write a historical novel, it will be full of things you can confirm archeologically. You can prove Spiderman.... New York & Central Park. Do you know how we (also) know, that Spiderman is not historical? There are no radioactive spiders, who can give you superhuman powers. (But if God exists, he could be real, right?)"

Spiderman is more about how evolution is impossible, and therefore why God is necessary. Radiooactivity withy or without spider bite will probably mutate you, but to cancer, not to superpowers.

We both know that Spiderman is not one text of history and was always received as an infinitely updatable corpus of fiction texts. We also know this is not how ancient people saw Exodus - within the audience, that is.

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, you would need God for Spiderman to exists. Radioactive spiders can't change your genetical code, especially in a way described in the comics.

Bridge in Genoa... I don't know, how many relevant studies there were. But from wiki page it seems, that there was a series of problems with that bridge.

If Israelites in 1000 BC emerged from Canaanites and had no background in anything like Exodus, they would be very hard set to accept that story as sth they had always remembered.

Mormons believe, that their prophet communicate with an angel... And they take it as real history.

If I compare two scenarios:

• a) a new kingdom created in power vacuum created its religion to legitimise itself and unify it's people to cut-off foreigh priests created it's own history book in age, where there was no available history books. And they used already existing stories (edited to fit their narrative), they also used other stories from desert...
  
  
• b) there were a set of impossible events (enabled by God's support) percisely recorded in Old Testament....

I must go with - maybe improbable a), because b) is impossible (and also does not make me sense).

a) is quite natural. Propaganda is nothing new in the world. Nazi germany worked with semi-truth quite skillfully.

And a) is possible also if God exists. Because if God can cause impossible (naturalistically) impossible events, than God can cause improbable scenarious - as forming new nation from tribes with help of new religion).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "Bridge in Genoa... I don't know, how many relevant studies there were. But from wiki page it seems, that there was a series of problems with that bridge."

Very possible, but it still seems the majority of experts were not shouting to authorities in Genoa to shut the bridge down for car traffic.

"Mormons believe, that their prophet communicate with an angel... And they take it as real history."

I take it as real history he claimed it. They take it as real history his communications were without witnesses other than Joseph Smith, precisely as Muslims take it as real history Mohammed claimed revelations, and yet none of them except he ever saw Jibreel.

"created it's own history book in age, where there was no available history books."

What about memory?

Like, even if no one had a history book which said sth else than Moses, if he hadn't existed, how did he get accepted as not just having existed, but even having been remembered all of the time?

"And they used already existing stories (edited to fit their narrative), they also used other stories from desert..."

That leaves you to explain what was in these already existing stories - and how they came about.

If we suppose Flood is as described in Genesis and that post-Flood events concerned with all mankind up to Babel happened as described in Genesis, lots of neighbouring peoples' stories are easily explained by that story pre-existing, and someone saying "no, you tell it wrong, Utnapishtim didn't get drunk!" or "no, there was not just one God both sending and warning about the Flood : Enlil sent it, Enki warned Utnapishtim". So, what exact previous stories do you propose to explain the Exodus story? What exact changes do you propose?

"because b) is impossible (and also does not make me sense)."

As to "impossible" that is materialistic metaphysical prejudice. You have no observation to back "impossible" up.

"a) is quite natural."

Only if you can show an easily obtained story which could be changed with a few strokes to give the Exodus one - or the Babel one, or the Flood one.

"Nazi germany worked with semi-truth quite skillfully."

Communist Russia and East Block even more skilfully.

"And a) is possible also if God exists."

It seems impossible if human memory exists.

"Yes, you would need God for Spiderman to exists"

No, I would need the impossible views on how mutations can improve organisms accepted by earlier Evolutionists for Spiderman to at least approximate sth existing. God being a God of order wouldn't do it.

"than God can cause improbable scenarious - as forming new nation from tribes with help of new religion"

The problem is not with a religion being new, it is with a religion imposing, while new, on people to remember a past they never had.

Update(s)

John Makovec

[several comments]

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure, aliens do exists, Elvis Presley is alive and we are controlled by Lizard people....

Because how would otherwise be possible for such stories to be created.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Mutations can have positive, neutral, negative effect. We have natural selection to discard negative.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Human memory is just particles in the brain. So it's easier to give someone false memories of resurrection, then ressurect someone.

If resurrection of 3 day old dead body is possible, than gave few people false memories is easier. And I skipped all ways how stories are enhanced when told from people to people.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And as long as you can't demonstrate, that God taking through bush is possible (this can be explained by mental disorder), we have many people with mental disorders, but no bush with taking God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "Sure, aliens do exists, Elvis Presley is alive and we are controlled by Lizard people.... Because how would otherwise be possible for such stories to be created."

I am sorry, but this is not to the point.

"Mutations can have positive, neutral, negative effect. We have natural selection to discard negative."

If by "positive" you mean "good", OK. In some situations changing or losing a function is good. If by "positive" you mean "adding new functions" - no, that has never been observed.

"Human memory is just particles in the brain. So it's easier to give someone false memories of resurrection, then ressurect someone."

There is a limit to how many people can be manipulated to false memories at a time. Or as to how fast you can do it.

No, it is not easier to give someone false memories. You don't control someone else's memories any more than you control dead bodies.

God can control both (by the way, changing linguistic side of memories isn't exactly false memories, but it does change the language competence and therefore does change the language he speaks, this is about Tower of Babel).

"And I skipped all ways how stories are enhanced when told from people to people."

Yeah, you skipped, because going into detail on this one doesn't serve your purpose.

Name one way and show how it could apply.

[new comment]

A man with a mental disorder won't be able to divide the Red Sea for his people. Missed your last one.

[new comment]

Wait, I think I saw your point ...

"aliens do exists,"

Demons pose as aliens.

"Elvis Presley is alive"

Or has lookalikes.

"and we are controlled by Lizard people...."

Or the people known to have more or less control have struck Icke as horrible enough to be such. Satire.

In other words, how stories originate is not as haphazard or anything goes as you pretend.

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Stories enhanced when told from people to people... legends... literaryterms(dot)net/legend/

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Also, if you are a story teller, you can use a first-person narrative. "A first-person narrative is a mode of storytelling or a peripheral narrator in which a storyteller recounts events from their own point of view using the first person i.e. "I" or "we", etc."

If one story teller takes a story from another person, then he can change it to fit his way of story telling. He can take the core story, but enhance it. Make it more funny, etc.

Sometimes we can call it "The size of your fish getting bigger every time you tell the story. TFM."

Also, there is an effect, where by repeating the same story without paper, you actually change it in your mind...

"We change our memories each time we recall them, but that doesn’t mean we’re lying"

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If you want an example of positive mutation, google "Neofunctionalization".

Also, you have new strains of viruses. Those mutations are definitely benefitial for the viruses, because it helps it to spread better. Because those are simple organisms (or even non-living), the mutation rate is greater and you can observe it in the nature in real-time.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl For omnipotent being able to resurrect people, there is no limit how that being can change someone's brain.

So if there is an omnipotent being, it's possible, that this being added false memories.

If we presume an omnipotent being able to interact with us and reorganize brain after 3 days of decay, we actually can't reject this possibility.

Actually, if this being has only one power (or use only one power) - to change memory of people - we can better explain the Bible. And it explains, why model of history created by observing nature accepted by 99 % of people who study relevant fields does not fit Biblical story.

2 000 000 people living 40 years in the desert? Easy... it's just 2 000 and someone change their memory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "there is no limit how that being can change someone's brain."

Except his truthfulness.

Changing the linguistic aspect of every one's every single memory at Babel was no lie : He didn't change what they remembered, just in what language they remembered it.

You do not have an omnipotent being at your disposal and you cannot claim brains could change indefinitely.

Your view about legends is less useful than mine, you are not anyway near as expert in the field as I.

Neofunctionalisation has not been observed to create new cell types or new organs.

Virus strains don't get new functions, just new traits that once again help to elude immune systems.

You haven't observed any virus getting the equipment to actually reproduce itself.

You haven't observed any virus getting DNA (or sth else superior to just RNA, which is their common fare).

"Actually, if this being has only one power (or use only one power) - to change memory of people - we can better explain the Bible."

I get it, you prefer a near omnipotent (in one field) deceiver, a k a an omnipotent devil, over an omnipotent actually benevolent GOd.

"And it explains, why model of history created by observing nature accepted by 99 % of people who study relevant fields does not fit Biblical story."

Observing nature does not give rise to any model of history ever.

That they accept a wrong model based on Hume diminishes their credibility on "relevant fields".

"2 000 000 people living 40 years in the desert? Easy... it's just 2 000 and someone change their memory."

And "just 2000" conquer Canaan just how after the desert?

John Makovec didn't answer the last one. I'll refer to Lycodichthys dearborni for neofunctionalisation : it seems a new proteine with antifreeze function came by gene duplication and one gene assuming a new role, but there is only one other Lycodichthys species, I don't know if it has the same antifreeze function, but it is also in the antarctic, so one can ask if dearborni gained or antarcticus lost or if it is common to both. As to general reliability of witnesses, CMI had an excellent article: Countering the Assault on Eyewitnesses, by Paul Price.

https://creation.com/eyewitness-testimony