Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!
Offline Here is something I find quite puzzling. If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures, how did our languages come into existance? The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules. So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules? THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make. Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level. But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas.
How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language? You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language. The same problem exists for creating a written language.
Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem. Why don't we all speak the same language?
Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy. Why did we evolve to have this feature? What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box? I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.
Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence.
OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being. Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah. Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth. This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account. They infused their own language and culture into the original story.
Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.
- Login to post comments
Offline TWD39 wrote:danatemporary wrote:Speaking of the fertile land between two rivers, of *the Sumerians ..
Thorkild Jacobsen's translation from one of the oldest bodies of religious texts in the world: " .. taking in, then sending an envoy to Aratta)."
For anyone who can but does not. With a quick internet search on 'google', one finds this . .
In those days...the people entrusted [to him] could address Enlil, verily, in but a single tongue. In those days...did Enki...estrange the tongues in their mouths as many as were put there.. The tongues of men which were one (Jacobsen 1997; cf. Kramer 1968, 1970; Cohen 1973).
Though a lot to take in but you do realize these accounts, of the region, both pre-date and precede the biblical account ?
Quote:Is there conclusive proof that the oldest created written record of Genesis was formed after the sumerian tablets?Of course there is proof it's know as radio-carbon dating, if you'd bother to do any research to begin with ,you won't have left yourself open to this one.
Quote:The OT stories could have been handed down carefully through oral tradition. As mankind scattered after the Babel incident, the stories became diluted and details altered to fit whatever culture they devised.Interesting theory but you have 'no proof of that' (little sarcasm to point out, it answers nothing when 'you' do this). This is an argument from ignorance. If 'you' were to make the argument the snake in Eden, would be the Genesis (no pun intended) of all the 'snake(s)' legends of the world. Humor me. Hindu myths do not indicate this by there specific stories of Kadru wife of Kashyapa, not wanting to lose a bet (someone you might relate to) tried to get her children, a thousand snakes, to change the color of the tail of the solar horse that drew the sun across the sky. I needn't get into detail or the outcome but there is one significant point not the miss. It was related to the sun in some way. In Egypt, Apep (Apophis) ever threatening the passage of the sun, through the twelve gates And so forth. If they were all derived from the Genesis account. That would actually weaken your position a bit. Because for that to be true ( besides having to ignore history and calender dates), then an underlining 'solar imagery' in the Genesis account, must be found. Only causing all the more problems for you with the 'Bible is 100% correct', as you've alleged.
Not in the way you're suggesting at all. The influence of one religion had on another can be tricky, but not impossible go over. Titles of other Gods being incorporated into the titles for the Hebrew God. The Bible can only be better understood when properly situated within its ancient context. We are the luckiest of generations to be able to immediately have access to so much. There is always the context to consider, as to, the intended audience. It should remain no harm by illuminating the biblical text for modern audiences so culturally removed from their origin. Nothing to be afraid of. An example, “The Cloud Rider”Throughout the Ugaritic texts, which I can attest because I've read them, Baal is repeatedly called “the one who rides the clouds,” or “the one who mounts the clouds.” The description is recognized as an official title of Baal. I would seem part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Yahweh in some way. Consequently, Yahweh, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). Though upon examination it is not a word for word exchange (at least not in the English translation). For a faithful Israelite only one God who “rode” on the clouds: Yahweh. Until we get to a passage like Daniel 7, that is. Strong parallel can be found in the Ugaritic materials, which it provides that for us: 9 As I looked on, the thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His garment was like white snow, and the hair of His head was like lamb's wool. His throne was fiery flames; its wheels were blazing fire. 10 A river of fire streamed forth before Him; thousands upon thousands served Him; myriads upon myriads attended Him; the court sat and the books were opened . . . 13 As I looked on, in the night vision, One like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven; he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented to Him. 14 Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; all peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed. The plurality of thrones in the passage tell us plainly that we have here what scholars of the Hebrew Bible call a divine council scene — the high sovereign in his throne room, meeting with the heavenly host. A little removed from a Trinitarian view, with some. The literature of Ugarit has many such scenes, and the biblical divine council and the council at Ugarit are very similar. In point of fact, the flow of Daniel 7 actually follows the flow of a divine council scene in the Baal Cycle:Ugarit / Baal Cycle. Further evidence again the Bible being so ancient; nothing came before. Daniel 7 El, the aged high God, is the ultimate sovereign in the council. Compared with The Ancient of Days, the God of Israel is seated on the fiery, wheeled throne (See : Ezekiel 1). El bestows kingship upon the god Baal, the Cloud-Rider, after Baal defeats the god Yahm in battle. Then there's Yahweh, the Ancient of Days, bestows kingship upon the Son of Man who rides the clouds after the beast from the sea (yamma) is destroyed. It is known Baal, held the Cloud-Rider title! To the Jewish audience reading books like Daniel understood the implications of the prophet Daniel was describing a parallel closely found to follow the Baal cycle.. There are hints the Jews intimately knew the religions that they came in contact with. In relevant speculations on the part of Jewish writers speculated that the “second god” was the archangel Michael, or perhaps Gabriel. Some Jewish writers even wrote that Abraham or Moses occupied that position! For Christians given to typology the answer was obviously Jesus, I imagine. What else could it be. It is well known that Jesus’ favorite title for himself, according to the text, was “son of man.” As Jcgadfly pointed out is either a Messianic title or that of a prophet. It seems perfectly evident in Matthew 26, according to the text, as Jesus stood before Caiaphas. When asked to give the Sanhedrin a straight answer about who he was, Jesus quoted Daniel 7 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” By quoting this passage, Jesus was making an overt, unmistakable claim to be deity—he in fact was the one who rides on the clouds. That this is no exaggerated interpretation is evident from Caiaphas’ unsurprising reaction: Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.” The statement is only blasphemous if one is claiming to be the rider on the clouds. That idea may have been acceptable to Jews at the time, but it was simply intolerable that this man Jesus would claim to be that. But, I digress. By this case you can see, while fully acknowledging things like the Hebrew בֹּ֔שֶׁת at its' root is the word 'shame' This word is also seen in a direct connection with Baal worship. All of this should be said, while being mindful of the fact of these two passages, as follows:
Hosea 9:9-11
9 They have gone deep in depravity As in the days of Gibeah;He will remember their iniquity, He will punish their sins.
10 I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your forefathers as the earliest fruit on the fig tree in its first season.But they came to Baal-peor and devoted themselves to shame, And they became as detestable as that which they loved. 11 As for Ephraim, their glory will fly away like a bird—No birth, no pregnancy and no conception!
Jeremiah 11:11-15
11 Therefore thus says the Lord, “Behold I am bringing disaster on them which they will not be able to escape; though they will cry to Me, yet I will not listen to them. 12 Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they surely will not save them in the time of their disaster. 13 For your gods are as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to the shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal.14 “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster. 15 “What right has My beloved in My house .When she has done many vile deeds?
Quote:If the Bible is a mere copy of earlier texts, why is God changed to a non-physical entity?You should know the answer to that, the children in Sunday School well may not have missed it. Simpliest explaination should suffice by passages like the following:
Deuteronomy 5:6-9a
6 ‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 7 ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.8 ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 9a you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God
Jeremiah 11:12-14
12 Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they surely will not save them in the time of their disaster. 13 For your gods are as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to the shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal.
14 “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster.
Jeremiah 2:28
“But where are your gods Which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you In the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities Are your gods, O Judah.
. . .
p.s. -- Twd39 also said, 'For example, why would Epic of Gilgamesh contain dimensions for a boat that wouldn't work or be sea worthy?
If the Sumerian boat were ever constructed, the boat would have be very large and circular, if large-scale models were made, it would fair far better than a long Noah's ship (assuming you could carve enough trees to produce such an object).
Paragraphs please if you expect me to read, much less respond to all that.
- Login to post comments
doesn't mean it isn't proof. 
I don't recall the atheist community making a big deal out of it. Most of us put virtually no stock in what other people believe, we arrive at our beliefs on our own rather than following what someone else says blindly. I know I certainly didn't go nuts over it. Nor have I ever criticized or put down the charitable works of many Christian charities, I have on occasion criticized specific ones for specific practices but in general, I think the ability to organize and provide a lot of charitable assistance is one of the few good things about churches. I have pointed that out many times and I suspect I give far more to Christian charities than you do, evil sinning atheist that I am.
Few people on this site ever say "all theists are ______" we generally judge people as individuals. You are an arrogant, narcissistic, belligerent, ignorant asshole. Now I am happy to tolerate arrogance, narcissism and belligerence and even ignorance as long as it is not willful. Your ignorance however appears to be completely willful which I find to be the most despicable personality trait a person can have.
We are all aware that many theists are very nice people and some very intelligent people are theists for some inexplicable reason- many (probably most) of the great people on this site were once theists of one brand or another.
You however, routinely fall into the language of bigotry when your arguments are soundly destroyed and make sweeping generalizations. Rarely have you gone more than two or three posts before making a derogatory comment about "all atheists". I don't mind a few insults, but at least grow a spine and be specific and direct about your insults. Instead, you take a passive-aggressive approach and insult the group rather than any one person. Grow up and stop being a bigot.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
No, a person who pets alligators is still merely lucky. Animal behavior is unpredictable and they can turn on you anytime.
Your ignorance regarding STDS is striking. The only way you could achieve the minimal to non-existant risk factor that you boast is to always use protection with all forms of sex. How many guys are willing to use a condom during oral sex? Not many. As for choosing your partner, you would need to monitor them closely, have documented proof from their doctor that they were tested and came clean after their last sexual encounter. In the heat of the moment, I doubt you stop and ask for your partner's paperwork. Even the highly regulated porn industry has failed to contain HIV and STDS 100%.
My claim was that if you follow the Bible's laws on sex, then you have no worries about STDS along with being able to have a healthy relationship.
No the reason I believe Strobel was never an atheist to begin with comes from listening to his story and seeing just how ignorant he is about atheism and evolution. The same goes for Cameron.
Again, Wommack presented a story with pictures of folders saying they were MRI scans and doctors looking at scans (I can call up similar pictures via Google Images). I can get an actor to play a doctor for a video (I've played one on stage - am I an MD now?)
What more proof do I need? A move from no proof to some proof would be nice.
You don't advertise unless you're trying to sell something - Wommack, like so many others, is selling Jesus and himself as a package deal. The "stories of healing" are his ads.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Go back to my original first post. I was merely presenting my reasons why I think God is kind. I never attacked, insulted, or called anyone out personally in the OP. YOU are the one who took this down an ugly path with a quick extremely arrogant and rude response. Then had the nerve to say that you enjoy mocking Christians. So drop the self-righteous act. You're not fooling me.
BTW, you never destroyed my arguments. I could give a laundry lists of points I made that were conventiently ignored because the responses were nothing more than forcing more questions on me and directing attention away from the original topics. That's intellectual dishonesty and I find it disgusting.
Love to see on item off the "laundry list". If the responses were "forcing more questions on you" maybe it was because you weren't phrasing your ideas in a way that made any sense. People ask questions to get to answers - "God said so" isn't enough.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You're expecting all to acquiesce to anything you've said.
You cannot conclude this is some sort of a tactic on people's part.? You are entirely ignorant of how the board goes after one another, I can immediately tell. You aren't going by much, if you restrict your knowledge of the board to (only) your own personal experience. Correct me if I am wrong but you honestly cannot think nor expect (on an 'Atheist' Internet forum,) people would be expected to acquiesce to anything you 've said? IMHO, This almost sounds like a conspiratorial bordering on delusional mind frame that is emerging, if you honestly believe that! Asking questions is normal, a day-to-day normality, if you'd examine some of the older discussions, (it's not a tactic). Get back to me when you can. (I've already demonstrated I am more than willing to wait my turn).
You can consider them a little lucky. However, those with knowledge and experience have a severely lower risk factor handling them than you or I would. Steve Irwin's ultimate demise came from a stingray. He handled an incredible amount of crocodiles, and was never killed by one.
Same deal with sex. Let's read on and see what you say next.
Nice job trying to lump in minimal with non-existent. The risk IS minimal if you practice safe sex. Also, the fun is much greater than if you practice no sex.
Now, which diseases can you contract from oral sex? There are several, but most of them are not transmittable from saliva. In the odd instance that somebody's mouth is bleeding, perhaps there is added risk, but how often does your mouth bleed if you haven't vigorously brushed/flossed in the past 10 minutes?
You should be this thorough when verifying the authenticity of the stories in the bible!
True, it's not perfect. However...
...neither is simply waiting until marriage. Some people have lied to you about waiting. Some people could have gotten infected by other means. Some people could have gotten a disease from being violated.The bible's laws on sex? Like taking your older brother's wife if he dies? Or perhaps a hand-maid named Zilpah? By the way, what Onan did would reduce the likelihood of pregnancy (while not a recommended method of reliable birth control)....but then he got killed for it by god. Or how about raping someone and paying her father 50 shekels? That's all in there good sir, the 7th commandment is NOT the only commandment in that book regarding sex.
Oh, and by the way, my upbringing, and the shameful way that most christian denominations frame sex, was responsible for my inability to have any healthy relationships for a long time.
EDIT - Also to add, regions with abstinence-only sex education show almost no variation in adolescents being sexually active vs. regions that have proper sex education in schools. We are sexual creatures, and we are going to have sex, no matter what others say. However, it shows an alarmingly higher rate of unwanted pregnancy and disease, often the result of not using protection (obviously due to being taught that it is both morally reprehensible, and ineffective). This teaching is responsible for suffering of people due to disease, and the suffering of children born to people who could not afford, or were otherwise incapable, of caring for them.
You continuing to assert this doesn't make it so. I would have to disagree with the above statement (although it's rare that you even make a coherent argument in the first place)
Actually your assertions on the ridiculous Tower of Babel story, miracle claims, and lists of former atheists have been all either destroyed, or at least smacked a little. So far nobody's been extremely specific regarding Lee Strobel, but I'm sure researching a little bit of it, we will find that he indeed wasn't who he said he was. Kirk Cameron often mentions specifically that he is a "former atheist, an evolutionist". He then says something along the lines of himself being young and famous, being able to do what he wants with reckless abandon. Then says he found god and Jesus, and is now a good person. He also demonstrates constantly that he has no idea how evolution works (or he does, and is deliberately dishonest to make money for his ministry, I'm not sure which). The second anybody uses the term "evolutionist" you know immediately that they're either highly unintelligent, or full of crap.
Address my post about the lineages please. I called you out quite clearly on your own dishonesty, and you have yet to defend yourself there.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
cause STDs are just simpler life forms doing their best to survive in a hostile world, the poor wee things.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I'm not talking about your first post, you have had 400 odd posts since then. I remember being quite respectful with my initial responses to you because it was hot outside and I was bored so I took you serious for much longer than I normally would. If there is any point that you think I ignored (or anyone else) feel free to point it out specifically. It is quite possible in a thread that moves this quickly that some important point is missed. I am more than happy to address anything. Tell me specifically what point I missed and I will provide a response with evidence.
P.S.
I don't need to fool you, you have already sufficiently fooled yourself.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Nice of you to demonstrate you ignorance of all things in nature again. Animal behavior is rather predictable and it is perfectly possible to wrestle alligators rather safely. (an entire industry revolves around "alligator wrestling" where the practitioners do everything they can to make it appear more dangerous than it actually is.)
You have evidence?
And no, following the "bible's laws" don't protect you, if the person you have sex with has an STD, you are at risk of getting it, whether they are your spouse or just some random person. If you are having sex with someone who is not infected with an STD, you are not at risk. The only applicable questions are whether or not a person has an STD, whether or not they would know they have an STD and whether or not they would tell you the have an STD. If someone I am fucking fucks someone else, they will tell me about it. If your spouse is fucking someone else are they going to tell you?
The porn industry is not highly regulated, yet despite that, instances of STD's are extremely rare and there has been one, count them, ONE outbreak of HIV all stemming from the same performer. There are people who literally have sex with HUNDREDS of people for the porn industry, yet avoid major STD's. Maybe god supports porn stars?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
No, he doesn't. If god supported porn stars, then NONE of them would get STDs. But the ones that do are of god, and are to serve as a warning to the rest (the vast majority of whom will NEVER get one!).
Also, yes, fine, married people do get STDs, even if they hold out. They could have gotten it from a toilet seat, or a bad coincidence while being sprayed with blood. But these people following god's law also get their STDs as a warning from god to the porn stars and fornicators! They did not get it due to unfortunate circumstance at all.
None of the above is indicative of how a godless world would function! [/idiot]
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
It never ceases to amaze me how people will give credit for something to an omnipotent, perfect creator, yet fail to see all the ways in which perfection doesn't exist.
They say the universe is perfect, except it isn't, and the heat death is apparently inevitable. They say the Earth is perfect, except no human could have survived walking around 2 billion years ago, and in a few billion years Earth will be swallowed by the sun. Long before then it'll be uninhibitable. They say HIV is perfect, and then some mother gets it from a transfusion during birth, and a 8 year old girl in Africa gets it by being raped.
These people should be locked up as the loons they are.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm sure the lady who owned the chimp told many people how safe and loving chimps are. That is until the chimp suddenly decided to rip off her friend's face. Even trained handlers accept a degree of risk. That's why you don't see alligators in petting zoos. That's why the alligator shows are popular because there is an element of danger.
If you have sex with multiple partners, you are putting your physical life at risk, plain and simple. That's a fact you can't get away from.
I wouldn't want to trade in those moments of fun for a lifetime of genital warts or genital herpes. Then you'll get to live out the remaining part of your life kicking yourself for being so stupid. Placing your entire life on the faith of a piece of latex especially if you believe this life is all you get is really stupid, IMO. Condoms do break, ya know.
According to this article, it tosses around numbers like 70% or 80% protection rate. That doesn't sound extremely minimal or non-existent to me.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/13999099/ns/today-today_health/t/do-condoms-really-protect-against-stds/
Gum disease is pretty common and bleeding gums is a symptom. There could be tiny breaks in the skin that the naked eye can not see which would allow a virus to infect the body.
Really, I've never once heard of two virgins marrying and contracting a STD. The only extremely rare instance I could think of is if a partner worked in the medical field and got exposed to HIV from a patient, something that rarely happens these days. Sex was designed for married couples to bond intimately through physical and emotional connections. Studies show that condom use only creates a false sense of security and leads to more sexual activity, hence more disease and more teen pregnancy. Society's relentless promotion of sexual images through all forms of media share a large part of the blame.
As for your references to the OT, again you show your ignorance on Biblical matters. Those laws are Mosaic laws, designed as part of God's overall plan to rescue all humanity from the bondage of sin through Christ. Christ gave us a new Convenant. Those laws no longer apply as a result. You don't see Christians out there sacrificing lambs either.
The Bible's teaching on sex are true, and simply work. You just can't admit that there is something GOOD in the Bible. Sex with multiple partners does not lead to a healthy marriage. Need a non-Christian example? Jake the Snake Roberts once said on his dvd documentary that he was constantly having sex on the road with the WWE, and eventually it became harder and harder to keep it exciting. And he said he could no longer go home and make love to his wife. It was meaningless.
to be cont....
TWD,
I just want to start out by saying I'm not mocking God. You, however, are fair game.
1. Sex was designed for married couples? Really? Who married all the animals? Or are you going to say that God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" was a marriage ceremony?
2. The 10 commandments no longer apply again? You keep vacillating on that point. Did Christ abolish the laws or fulfill them?
3. No, Christians don't sacrifice animals any more. They also no longer need to make restitution or even apologize to those they offended. They just need to ask God for forgiveness and promise not to do it again (until they need to).
4. I have admitted that there's something good in the Bible. You can't seem to see where Biblical advice is wrong.Wiping out the male population of a town so you can take and rape the virgins, handing one person to another for sex because you "own" them (which is also wrong) and forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist as his punishment is wrong.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Wrong again. Let's look at Towel of Babel again. Here was my points:
1. Atheists accept (usually without question) archaelogical finds as long as they don't support the Bible. ex. camels, builders of the pryamids.
2. If an archaeological find does support the Bible, the atheist simply writes it off claiming that references to names and places is worthless and no different than fiction.
3. I pointed out then that even if the tower was fully intact today, you would simply claim that the building does not prove that the tower of Babel story took place. The response was that I was actually right on this account. Therefore, YOU can no longer say that I can't even craft a single coherent argument!
4. Lack of evidence is not proof that something never happened. It's simply lack of evidence for whatever reason. You can not claim as 100% fact that events like the Exodus never occured.
5. I did proof supporting proof for the tower such as Herodotus description of the tower. Of course, this was completely ignored.
Your statement on Lee Strobel is quite telling though. You claim that the list of former atheists was destroyed by your superior arguments and Strobel can't possibly have been an atheist. Yet, you admit that you don't have proof to make such a claim. Just merely your biased assumptions. Not a model of honesty.
The list was quite plentiful. Are you going to claim that every one of them were never atheists?
I already did. One lineage is legal, the other biological. Your response was something like, nopers, you're wrong again, idiot! haha. It would be pointless to go to the time and energy to drag out specifics since this will be your default defense anyways.
TWD, your problem is that you believe that lack of evidence is proof that it must have happened. the Herodotus account is equally likely to talk about his visit to Babylon. Babylon existed - there is nothing that says the tower of Babel was in Babylon (save perhaps in your mind).
Also, shouldn't the legal and biological lineages of Jesus be consistent throughout (at least among the humans)?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
In ancient and repetitive news: TWD will accept the most baseless, anecdotal evidence for god, but rejects centuries of proven and documented science, then says we are the ones with the problem. lol
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Of course there is proof it's know as radio-carbon dating, if you'd bother to do any research to begin with ,you won't have left yourself open to this one.
Interesting theory but you have 'no proof of that' (little sarcasm to point out, it answers nothing when 'you' do this). This is an argument from ignorance. If 'you' were to make the argument the snake in Eden, would be the Genesis (no pun intended) of all the 'snake(s)' legends of the world. Humor me. Hindu myths do not indicate this by there specific stories of Kadru wife of Kashyapa, not wanting to lose a bet (someone you might relate to) tried to get her children, a thousand snakes, to change the color of the tail of the solar horse that drew the sun across the sky. I needn't get into detail or the outcome but there is one significant point not the miss. It was related to the sun in some way. In Egypt, Apep (Apophis) ever threatening the passage of the sun, through the twelve gates And so forth. If they were all derived from the Genesis account. That would actually weaken your position a bit. Because for that to be true ( besides having to ignore history and calender dates), then an underlining 'solar imagery' in the Genesis account, must be found. Only causing all the more problems for you with the 'Bible is 100% correct', as you've alleged.
Not in the way you're suggesting at all. The influence of one religion had on another can be tricky, but not impossible go over. Titles of other Gods being incorporated into the titles for the Hebrew God. The Bible can only be better understood when properly situated within its ancient context. We are the luckiest of generations to be able to immediately have access to so much. There is always the context to consider, as to, the intended audience. It should remain no harm by illuminating the biblical text for modern audiences so culturally removed from their origin. Nothing to be afraid of. An example, “The Cloud Rider”Throughout the Ugaritic texts, which I can attest because I've read them, Baal is repeatedly called “the one who rides the clouds,” or “the one who mounts the clouds.” The description is recognized as an official title of Baal. I would seem part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Yahweh in some way. Consequently, Yahweh, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). Though upon examination it is not a word for word exchange (at least not in the English translation). For a faithful Israelite only one God who “rode” on the clouds: Yahweh. Until we get to a passage like Daniel 7, that is. Strong parallel can be found in the Ugaritic materials, which it provides that for us: 9 As I looked on, the thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His garment was like white snow, and the hair of His head was like lamb's wool. His throne was fiery flames; its wheels were blazing fire. 10 A river of fire streamed forth before Him; thousands upon thousands served Him; myriads upon myriads attended Him; the court sat and the books were opened . . . 13 As I looked on, in the night vision, One like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven; he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented to Him. 14 Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; all peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed. The plurality of thrones in the passage tell us plainly that we have here what scholars of the Hebrew Bible call a divine council scene — the high sovereign in his throne room, meeting with the heavenly host. A little removed from a Trinitarian view, with some. The literature of Ugarit has many such scenes, and the biblical divine council and the council at Ugarit are very similar. In point of fact, the flow of Daniel 7 actually follows the flow of a divine council scene in the Baal Cycle:Ugarit / Baal Cycle. Further evidence again the Bible being so ancient; nothing came before. Daniel 7 El, the aged high God, is the ultimate sovereign in the council. Compared with The Ancient of Days, the God of Israel is seated on the fiery, wheeled throne (See : Ezekiel 1). El bestows kingship upon the god Baal, the Cloud-Rider, after Baal defeats the god Yahm in battle. Then there's Yahweh, the Ancient of Days, bestows kingship upon the Son of Man who rides the clouds after the beast from the sea (yamma) is destroyed. It is known Baal, held the Cloud-Rider title! To the Jewish audience reading books like Daniel understood the implications of the prophet Daniel was describing a parallel closely found to follow the Baal cycle.. There are hints the Jews intimately knew the religions that they came in contact with. In relevant speculations on the part of Jewish writers speculated that the “second god” was the archangel Michael, or perhaps Gabriel. Some Jewish writers even wrote that Abraham or Moses occupied that position! For Christians given to typology the answer was obviously Jesus, I imagine. What else could it be. It is well known that Jesus’ favorite title for himself, according to the text, was “son of man.” As Jcgadfly pointed out is either a Messianic title or that of a prophet. It seems perfectly evident in Matthew 26, according to the text, as Jesus stood before Caiaphas. When asked to give the Sanhedrin a straight answer about who he was, Jesus quoted Daniel 7 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” By quoting this passage, Jesus was making an overt, unmistakable claim to be deity—he in fact was the one who rides on the clouds. That this is no exaggerated interpretation is evident from Caiaphas’ unsurprising reaction: Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.” The statement is only blasphemous if one is claiming to be the rider on the clouds. That idea may have been acceptable to Jews at the time, but it was simply intolerable that this man Jesus would claim to be that. But, I digress. By this case you can see, while fully acknowledging things like the Hebrew בֹּ֔שֶׁת at its' root is the word 'shame' This word is also seen in a direct connection with Baal worship. All of this should be said, while being mindful of the fact of these two passages, as follows:
Hosea 9:9-11
9 They have gone deep in depravity As in the days of Gibeah;He will remember their iniquity, He will punish their sins.
10 I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your forefathers as the earliest fruit on the fig tree in its first season.But they came to Baal-peor and devoted themselves to shame, And they became as detestable as that which they loved. 11 As for Ephraim, their glory will fly away like a bird—No birth, no pregnancy and no conception!
Jeremiah 11:11-15
11 Therefore thus says the Lord, “Behold I am bringing disaster on them which they will not be able to escape; though they will cry to Me, yet I will not listen to them. 12 Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they surely will not save them in the time of their disaster. 13 For your gods are as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to the shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal.14 “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster. 15 “What right has My beloved in My house .When she has done many vile deeds?
You should know the answer to that, the children in Sunday School well may not have missed it. Simpliest explaination should suffice by passages like the following:
Deuteronomy 5:6-9a
6 ‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 7 ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.8 ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 9a you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God
Jeremiah 11:12-14
12 Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they surely will not save them in the time of their disaster. 13 For your gods are as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to the shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal.
14 “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster.
Jeremiah 2:28
“But where are your gods Which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you In the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities Are your gods, O Judah.
. . .
p.s. -- Twd39 also said, 'For example, why would Epic of Gilgamesh contain dimensions for a boat that wouldn't work or be sea worthy?
If the Sumerian boat were ever constructed, the boat would have be very large and circular, if large-scale models were made, it would fair far better than a long Noah's ship (assuming you could carve enough trees to produce such an object).