Twelve Questions on Genesis I to XI

John Hunt Thinks Nimrod is a Myth, dito for Babel · Three QQ from Issah Mohammed, on Babel · Twelve Questions on Genesis I to XI

Q I

What is the first thing a Catholic should do before talking with a fundamentalist?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-first-thing-a-Catholic-should-do-before-talking-with-a-fundamentalist/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered 6h ago

Be wary if some people around might mind him talking to himself.

I’m a Catholic and I’m a fundamentalist.

Q II

Is it acceptable to interpret Adam as an allegory, not a historical person?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-acceptable-to-interpret-Adam-as-an-allegory-not-a-historical-person-1/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered 13h ago

No, it is not, the Session V of the Council of Trent clearly links Original Sin to Adam as one individual and first man.

If he hadn’t been an actual individual, he could not have committed one actual sin on which a loss of grace and perfection immediately followed, and if he hadn’t been the first man, head of mankind, it is not understandable why his sin should affect all men after him.

Q III

Did Adam and Eve have children between Abel and Seth?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Adam-and-Eve-have-children-between-Abel-and-Seth/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 8h ago

Arguably yes, the words “And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters,” certainly mean Seth was not last, but do not necessarily indicate he was only the third child of Adam and Eve.

Q IV

What's up with the ridiculously high ages in the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/Whats-up-with-the-ridiculously-high-ages-in-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Apr 5

That we have ridiculously low ages now, compared to our ancestors, first ten generations (all from Adam to Noah being ancestral to all after the Flood, except Noah’s wife and daughters in law, and that’s ten generations).

Imagine mankind were reduced to a subset with diabetes type 1 and we lived in a world with no artificial insuline. Yes, men would live much shorter than now.

This is basically what happened the first thousand years after the Flood.

Carl Wieland on CMI also came up with “genes over pre-Flood environment” before I did, and obviously, when I made my tables on rising C14 levels, the common causality of more radiation from the cosmos than before and than now would have achieved three things:

• human genes and in general genes deteriorate = lower life spans
• carbon 14 is produced quicker than now, explaining why it rose quickly (1.4 pmC at Flood in 2957 BC to 100 pmC achieved at Fall of Troy in 1180 BC, with first half having the quicker rise)
• ionising particles would also have helped to cool the weather for the post-Flood ice age.

Q V

Would Noah’s ark have been as sea worthy as the steel ships of today because of the SAP turned into tar that covered from inside to outside?
https://www.quora.com/Would-Noah-s-ark-have-been-as-sea-worthy-as-the-steel-ships-of-today-because-of-the-SAP-turned-into-tar-that-covered-from-inside-to-outside/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered 29m ago

Yes and no.

In proportion to circumstances yes - and by that I mean, the Ark was not navigating anywhere. Hence the only one of the movements imposed by the waters on the ship would be “the rolling,” as the Ark would have its length parallel to the wave troughs.

The steel ships can certainly navigate, but on the other hand would not be able to survive the kind of waves you get in a world wide Flood.

Q VI

Is it possible that there were not nearly as many species on the Earth before Noah’s flood than after because of the increased size?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-there-were-not-nearly-as-many-species-on-the-Earth-before-Noah-s-flood-than-after-because-of-the-increased-size/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it

Answered Fri

There were not as many species before than after because the species diversified after the Flood.

There was one hedgehog couple on the Ark, there are 17 hedgehog species today.

Q VII

Do Young Earth Creationists really believe that God created the world 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, and how did they arrive at that number?
https://www.quora.com/Do-Young-Earth-Creationists-really-believe-that-God-created-the-world-6-000-to-10-000-years-ago-and-how-did-they-arrive-at-that-number/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 7h ago

"Do Young Earth Creationists really believe that God created the world 6,000 to 10,000 years ago,"

Yes, we do.

"and how did they arrive at that number?"

Adam was the first man, created within 168 hours from the creation of the universe (Genesis 1). Counting together the ages of fathers at birth of sons, in Genesis 5 and 11, from Adam to Abraham via Noah, noting Abraham was 75 when he had a promise about Exodus happening 430 years after the promise (see Galatians 3:17), and the Exodus happening "480 years" before the Temple of Solomon, which was around 1000 BC. There are text variants for 480 and there are explanations according to which it would cover only part of the actual years (like not counting bad years).

c. 1000 + 480 + 430 + 75 + A + B = C
A is Abraham born 292 or 942 or 1070 after the Flood, depending on text version.
B is Flood coming 2242 or 1658 after Creation, also depending on text version.
C is the BC date of Creation.

Let's put in 1070 for A and 2242 for B
c. 1000 + 480 + 430 + 75 + 1070 + 2242 = c. 5297 BC

Let's put in 292 for A and 1658 for B
c. 1000 + 480 + 430 + 75 + 292 + 1658 = c. 3935 BC

Add 2022 after Christ:
2022 + 5297 = 7319
2022 + 3935 = 5957

So, about 6000 to 7500 years ago.

Michael Somerset

8.XI.2022

Can you provide any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt to support the claims made by creationism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.XI.2022

History is not court justice.

But yes, I consider historic evidence of genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, along with evidence for Flood mentioned after Genesis 5 and for Babel mentioned in first part of Genesis 11 as fairly good historic evidence, and all doubts I have so far seen on it as unreasonable doubts. Care to take up one of yours, and see what I make of it and if I already dealt with it?

So, beyond any reasonable doubt I would have come across, to say the least.

Michael Somerset

8.XI.2022

Care to take up one of yours, and see what I make of it and if I already dealt with it?

You are the one who has made public claims. It is up to you to provide the evidence to support those claims.

You noted some Bible passages as well as the genealogies. Can you show how they all are testable and verifiable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.XI.2022

The test for a text from older times being historic rather than fictional is, the earliest known audience takes it as historic rather than fictional.

1st C. AD and late BC commentators on Genesis obviously took it as historic, do you have any earlier commentators who can be nailed down as taking it as fictional?

The verifications involve seeing if other historic accounts about same or potentially same events are more or less credible, more or less scrupulous in recording, for instance and if there are any obvious points at which frauds or misunderstandings would have been very likely to induce the tradition even if it was not their true historic memory from before.

Do you have alternative accounts that involve the same events and that you find more credible? Why so?

Do you see an obvious point at which a story told for fun could have been misunderstood as history or at which someone had the opportunity to fake knowledge of earlier events? When and who?

That is precisely the kinds of tests and verifications that history gets.

Michael Somerset

9.XI.2022

So, in other words, these Bible passages do not have any testable and verifiable evidence to back them up. I thought that would be the case.

Just because something is written in an ancient text it does not mean that it has to be taken as literal truth. The arguments you have provided can also apply to other ancient religious texts such as the Sumerian tablets or the Egyptian texts or the Indian Rigveda. That is why testable and verifiable evidence is needed to support your claims that the Biblical texts are true. Credibility is based on this evidence, not on your say so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10.XI.2022

"in other words, these Bible passages do not have any testable and verifiable evidence to back them up."

In other words, you don't know what testable and verifiable evidence means in connection with history.

"Just because something is written in an ancient text it does not mean that it has to be taken as literal truth"

History is not always literal truth. It is sometimes literal fraud.

"The arguments you have provided can also apply to other ancient religious texts such as the Sumerian tablets or the Egyptian texts or the Indian Rigveda."

For Sumerian texts, you have a point. Hence I mentioned that the relative value of two different sources should be compared. Sumerian Ark is not seaworthy for a world wide ocean, the Biblical is.

Religious texts of a certain other type, like Book of the Dead or Rigveda do not even claim to be historic, that is about past events witnessed by men. That is off topic.

For India, you would have done better to cite Mahabharata and Ramayana, and yes, I believe them to be mainly historic, with certain reversals of chronology and distortions of theology to the minus.

"That is why testable and verifiable evidence is needed to support your claims that the Biblical texts are true."

It is true that in my main answer I mentioned believing the Bible is not just historic (for this book), but even true (for this and all books).

But after you commented, I actually was providing what you are asking for.

"Credibility is based on this evidence, not on your say so."

Historic credibility is based on some old and dead guys say so.

Michael Somerset

10.XI.2022

History relies on multiple primary and secondary sources including some old and dead guys. Note I said multiple sources, not just one.

You are relying on just one source, the Bible. And no one has yet provided any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt that support the supernatural claims made in the Bible.

So, I still don’t see any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt from you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.XI.2022

St. Martin of Tours

"Note I said multiple sources, not just one."

For there being a Flood, there actually are multiple sources. By the way, the main thing is primary sources, and that means contemporary ones, while secondary sources are a standin.

That said, it doesn't make sense to pretend "one source has zero credibility, ten sources have total credibility" since 10/10 doesn't equal 0.

For most of what we know of ancient history, we do not have multiple and especially not multiple independent contemporary sources.

"And no one has yet provided any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt that support the supernatural claims made in the Bible."

Leaving aside the prophetic and doctrinal claims, since Apocalypse and Ephesians, Ezechiel and Wisdom aren't exactly historic books, by "supernatural claims" I suppose you mean miraculous events. If you didn't, if you confused the two questions of historic reliability with theological reliability, too bad, and I'll ignore that for the following, since we are here talking of history.

Testable and verifiable evidence is texts. "No one has yet provided" is your prejudice. Reasonable doubt is what I challenged you to provide. And you haven't.

There are two kinds of doubts that are not reasonable against Biblical history:

• miracles don't happen
• past events are proven by multiple independent contemporary text sources plus archaeology.

The latter is a near good position for events 1800 AD, but atrocious for events 1800 BC. Not all events leave physical traces, not all physical traces are preserved. A leper healed by Christ will not have traces of having had leprosy, otherwise the priest could not have pronounced him clean, and his flesh will be rotted in the grave a long time ago, by now.

The former is putting the cart before the horse. It's the miracle that is to prove the theology not the theology that is to prove the miracle. And pretending a historic text containing miracles is as moot as a doctrinal text containing doctrine is missing the point. Most false doctrines didn't come about through miracles.

What would constitute a reasonable doubt? Two options: prove the dating methods used by evolutionists allow no reasonable doubt or that their reasonable doubt doesn't extend to the position of Biblical chronology, or prove some other text tradition involves better genealogies and more credible descriptions of the Flood. So far you haven't even tried either.

So, I haven't seen any reasonable doubt, I have provided my evidence, you have not provided reasonable doubt. Just saying “it isn’t beyond reasonable doubt” doesn’t make that so.

Q VIII

How many years are there between Noah and Moses?
https://www.quora.com/How-many-years-are-there-between-Noah-and-Moses/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 6h ago

From Flood to birth of Abraham, 292, 942 or 1070 years.

From birth to vocation of Abraham, 75 years.

From vocation of Abraham to Exodus 430 years. 75 + 430 = 505.

292 + 505 = 797
942 + 505 = 1447
1070 + 505 = 1575

If you meant from birth to birth instead of from Flood to Exodus, add 600 and subtract 80 = add 520.

797 + 520 = 1317
1447 + 520 = 1967
1575 + 520 = 2095

Q IX

Was it a Mesopotamian disaster or a world catastrophe? The flood continues to fuel speculation worldwide.
https://www.quora.com/Was-it-a-Mesopotamian-disaster-or-a-world-catastrophe-The-flood-continues-to-fuel-speculation-worldwide/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 6h ago

If it was a Mesopotamian disaster:

• how come it is recalled (with some variation) in the Andes?
• how come a vessel taking off at 28 m above sea level landed 800 m above sea level?
• how come the Mesopotamian vessel would not have been able to float even through a “Mesopotamian” flood on previously mentioned condition?

In other words, as the Bible says, it was a world wide catastrophe.

Q X

If the ice age occurred as a result of Noah’s flood, could that possibly be how fantastic formations like the Grand Canyon occurred?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-ice-age-occurred-as-a-result-of-Noah-s-flood-could-that-possibly-be-how-fantastic-formations-like-the-Grand-Canyon-occurred/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it

Answered Mar 31

When the creation science groups like CMI or AiG have an answer on a thing, I usually don’t put that into question, unless I already arrived at a different one (Neanderthals as a human race were - me : pre-Flood, they : post-Flood).

Now, I’d consider the Ice age began after Noah’s Flood, I’d add that higher levels of cosmic radiation speeded up the process.

But as to Grand Canyon, I simply leave the answer to those guys, and theirs is, the excavation of that canyon was during the Flood, after the Flood had already piled lots of sediments on top of each other. A stream of water came to carve out a canyon in the sediments that were still soft.

Here is one article on CMI:

A receding Flood scenario for the origin of the Grand Canyon
by Peter Scheele | This article is from
Journal of Creation 24(3):106–116, December 2010
https://creation.com/grand-canyon-origin-flood

Q XI

Where and how did Noah build the Ark?
https://www.quora.com/Where-and-how-did-Noah-build-the-Ark/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Dec 10, 2019

Where?

Where he was getting into it and that would have been on top of the highest mountain known to the pre-Flood world, since 14 and a half to 15 cubits could then have been his waterline, and he could have known it covered it and all equally high mountain tops by 15 cubits when the Ark started floating. I presume he knew all of the pre-Flood geography very well, and therefore that he was chosing the highest mountain.

How?

• 1. According to God’s instructions;
• 2. Using the best technology the pre-Flood world had to offer him (not Neanderthal hunting spears from same time, like Versailles wasn’t built by the tomahawks of Chingachgook);
• 3. Certainly with the help of his three sons, possibly with help of other hired labour or volunteers who were stopped from coming along, probably also involving a hand or two from Methusalem, unless he was too old to do much - not sure how the age just before death affected pre-Flood labour capacity.

Q XII

Is the Tower of Babel the originator of languages?
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Tower-of-Babel-the-originator-of-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Answered 17h ago

First, the tower itself is not originator of languages, the language differences came when God wanted to prevent the tower from being built then and there.

Second, human language existed well before, but very important language barriers didn’t, so, God working at Babel is the originator of language differences.