The Watchtower Society and the global flood

[Pegg]

We know the hebrew was the first langauge? How do we know that? And is not aerimac arabic and sandskrit the same age? What about the langauge of other cultures? Doesn't hindiusim predate judiasm?

If the bible account is true, it says;

Genesis 10:32 These were the families of the sons of Noah according to their family descents, by their nations, and from these the nations were spread about in the earth after the deluge.
11:1  Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words

So at this time, Noahs family all spoke one language. Then a group of the descendents got together to build a city, Babel, in opposition to God. This cause God to divide them by giving them new languages and it forced them to go their separate ways.
Genesis 11:5 And Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men had built. 6 After that Jehovah said: “Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them. 7 Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not listen to one another’s language.” 8 Accordingly Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. 9 That is why its name was called Ba′bel, because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth.

But now the account goes on to list Shems descendents who include Abraham who happens to be hebrew. This is signifcant because it shows that the nations who became scattered came from Ham and Japhet, while Shems (semite's) descendents, who still speak hebrew, came to be the ones God chose to be his nation.

What was different about Shems descendents? They were not the ones who opposed God on the plains of Shinar and so were not among the ones who had their languages changed. This would indicate that mankind originally spoke Hebrew.

 

[fishy]

Christianity is founded on the principle that Gods past acts against the wicked are proof of his future acts against the wicked:

You know I thought, as do most christians, that christianity was founded on three primary precepts.
1: Jesus is God
2: Jesus died on the cross
3: Jesus arose from the dead.

 

[fishy]

And how lucky are we that this very principle cannot be applied to thousands of people over thousands of years, really that is just so fortunate for us isn't it Pegg?

I think you ignored this Pegg.

 

[Pegg]

You know I thought, as do most christians, that christianity was founded on three primary precepts.
1: Jesus is God
2: Jesus died on the cross
3: Jesus arose from the dead.

i can agree to the 3rd precept, but not so much number 1 & 2.

The difference between what christianity teaches and what the bible actually states is quite different.

 

[fishy]

possibly, yes.

This would appear, on the face of it, to be disingenuous. Because nobody could, in all honesty.

 

[Pegg]

I think you ignored this Pegg.

If in 2,000 years, one small group of christiains was able to be split up into 30,000 different denominations with different teachings, why do you think the principle can't be applied to the flood legend over 4,000 years among several different nations?

 

[fishy]

i can agree to the 3rd precept, but not so much number 1 & 2.

The difference between what christianity teaches and what the bible actually states is quite different.

Now that is a problem for you then. If you and the beliefs of your 100yr old group do not agree with a religion called Christianity, that has been defined for 2000yrs, then you should in all honesty call yourself and your beliefs something that more accurately describes those beliefs. Perhaps you are bibelists, but given the fact that christianity has been defined for 2000yrs the way I described it, neither you nor your "new faith" have any right to suddenly redefine a word that has been understood for 2000yrs.
You are quite entitled to your beliefs, but if you reject the basic precepts of the religion known for 2000yrs as Christianity then you have no more right to call yourself a Christian than you have the right to call yourself Hindu. Just saying

 

[Pegg]

Now that is a problem for you then. If you and the beliefs of your 100yr old group do not agree with a religion called Christianity, that has been defined for 2000yrs, then you should in all honesty call yourself and your beliefs something that more accurately describes those beliefs. Perhaps you are bibelists, but given the fact that christianity has been defined for 2000yrs the way I described it, neither you nor your "new faith" have any right to suddenly redefine a word that has been understood for 2000yrs.

And how do we determine what those beliefs are?

The document which sets out the terms of christianity IS the Bible. Therefore, what it states must be considered the precepts of christianity. Anything besides that is not really 'Christianity' at all.

You are quite entitled to your beliefs, but if you reject the basic precepts of the religion known for 2000yrs as Christianity then you have no more right to call yourself a Christian than you have the right to call yourself Hindu. Just saying

If i were a hindu, how would I know what it means to be a hindu? Would not the hindu writings set forth the beliefs that I would follow?

If i were a hindu, could I follow the precepts of some other religion and still be a hindu? Not really.
And its the same with Christianity. A christian should be following the precepts as set forth in the scriptures...where in the scriptures do you find Jesus dieing on a 'cross'? You dont. The scriptures are clear that he died on a 'stauros' or a 'tree' meaning an 'upright pole' such as a 'stake'

the cross is actually found in Egyptian hieroglyphics and depictions of their gods and goddesses often show a cross in the shape of a T with a circle at the top. It is called the ansate, or handle-shaped, cross and is thought to be a symbol of life. In time, this form of the cross was adopted and used extensively by the Coptic Church and others but it has nothing to do with Jesus.

 

[darkendless]

If in 2,000 years, one small group of christiains was able to be split up into 30,000 different denominations with different teachings, why do you think the principle can't be applied to the flood legend over 4,000 years among several different nations?

Thats doesnt make the flood any more realistic.

 

[Pegg]

Thats doesnt make the flood any more realistic.

but it does show how, over time, original teachings do become distorted and varied which is what we see in the many flood legends around the world.

 

[darkendless]

but it does show how, over time, original teachings do become distorted and varied which is what we see in the many flood legends around the world.

Well of course. But if anything that invalidates biblical teachings as distorted. Isn't that counter-productive for those trying to find evidence for a flood?

 

[fishy]

there are many nations who have a flood mythology

they vary in detail quite a lot...but that is what happens when numerous people retell the same story over long periods of time... 'chinese whispers' is a game kids play which demonstrate how the original sentence changes slightly from person to person.


if a simple sentence can be changed in a few short minutes among a small group of kids, imagine the changes that could take place over hundreds of years among thousands of people. I really dont believe that the fact other nations have a flood legend, means the bible account cannot be real. I think it shows that the flood really did happen and it was such a powerful event that it became seared into the conscience of those ancient civilisations. Of couse i dont believe all the accounts can be true, but I do believe the bible holds the true account of what happened.

Do you understand how this:

If in 2,000 years, one small group of christiains was able to be split up into 30,000 different denominations with different teachings, why do you think the principle can't be applied to the flood legend over 4,000 years among several different nations?

Does not in anyway bear any relationship to your post that I was replying to.

I will try to spell it out to you.
if a simple sentence can be changed in a few short minutes among a small group of kids, imagine the changes that could take place over hundreds of years among thousands of people.
The Torah, which is the basis for the abridged plagiarised OT, was an oral tradition handed down over thousands of years, before it was ever recorded in written form and yet you claim it's veracity despite your rejection of other oral histories based upon the results of chinese whispers. If the problem of the inaccuracy associated with the principal of oral tradition is true , as you believe, then exactly the same charge is valid in relation to the Torah.

 

[Pegg]

Well of course. But if anything that invalidates biblical teachings as distorted. Isn't that counter-productive for those trying to find evidence for a flood?

i've always felt that the many flood legends found in different, non abrahamic, cultures is evidence for the biblical flood

afterall, someone has to have the story right and the bible's accuracy has stood the test of time.

 

[Pegg]

Do you understand how this:

Does not in anyway bear any relationship to your post that I was replying to.

I will try to spell it out to you.
if a simple sentence can be changed in a few short minutes among a small group of kids, imagine the changes that could take place over hundreds of years among thousands of people.
The Torah, which is the basis for the abridged plagiarised OT, was an oral tradition handed down over thousands of years, before it was ever recorded in written form and yet you claim it's veracity despite your rejection of other oral histories based upon the results of chinese whispers. If the problem of the inaccuracy associated with the principal of oral tradition is true , as you believe, then exactly the same charge is valid in relation to the Torah.

It could very well be that the early hebrews did have some wrongful ideas about the flood and they may have orally transmitted the story with similar inaccuracies as other nations....but Moses didnt write down the oral tradition of the jews.

When Moses put the Torah down in writing, he was being instructed by God as to what to write. So his information wasnt based on the oral traditions...it was based on the facts as he heard them from God and was inspired to write about.

This is why what is written in the bible is superior to any oral teachings. The bible is not founded on oral teachings.

 

[darkendless]

i've always felt that the many flood legends found in different, non abrahamic, cultures is evidence for the biblical flood

afterall, someone has to have the story right and the bible's accuracy has stood the test of time.

Well I see it as no one getting the story straight. Several cultures have reported floods of varying magnitudes over thousands of years but there is very little corroboration between their stories.

Thats without taking into account geological histories of certain areas of even Australia which show no signs of extensive flooding for at least tens of thousands of years.

 

[fishy]

It could very well be that the early hebrews did have some wrongful ideas about the flood and they may have orally transmitted the story with similar inaccuracies as other nations....but Moses didnt write down the oral tradition of the jews.

When Moses put the Torah down in writing, he was being instructed by God as to what to write. So his information wasnt based on the oral traditions...it was based on the facts as he heard them from God and was inspired to write about.

This is why what is written in the bible is superior to any oral teachings. The bible is not founded on oral teachings.

Who taught Moses how to right in Hebrew, when he had spent his entire life in Egypt? Or did some of the hebrews he was leading through the desert after 70yrs of captivity and slavery retain that knowledge passed down to them from their parents. The OT is an abridged version of the Torah (THE book of the Jewish religion) and after all the Jewish religion accepts without question the Oral Torah as the basis for the written Torah, I believe.
Hence I must contend that a "religion" that has existed for 100yrs is not in a position to redefine the book of a religion that is 5000yrs old and any attempt to so is pure hubris.

 

[Agnostic75]

Paul mentioned Noah.......

But Paul did not have sufficient evidence that God caused a flood to occur.

 

[Agnostic75]

A detailed article about flood stories of ancient cultures is at Flood Stories from Around the World. The differences are much greater than the similarities.

Consider the following:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?

Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

How did the human population rebound so fast?

Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.

Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account?

Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. [Bailey, 1989, pp. 5-10; Isaak, 1997] For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.

There were definitely civilizations in China around 2500 B.C., and long before that.

 

[Agnostic75]

A detailed article about flood stories of ancient cultures is at Flood Stories from Around the World. The differences are much greater than the similarities.

Consider the following:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?

Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

How did the human population rebound so fast?

Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.

Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account?

Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. [Bailey, 1989, pp. 5-10; Isaak, 1997] For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.

There were definitely civilizations in China around 2500 B.C., and long before that.

 

[fishy]

And how do we determine what those beliefs are?

Well most people would be able, with just a very small amount of thinking, to determine that those beliefs would be consistent with the beliefs they have espoused for 2000yrs, which btw are in direct conflict with your beliefs. This is incontrovertible proof that your particular society cannot sustain the it's pretense of being Christian. As I've said before, your little sect can call itself whatever it wants, but instead it demonstrates it's absolute disregard for the commandments of it's god, by claiming to be what it is not.
Some call that lying.