The Watchtower Society and the global flood

[Agnostic75]

The Sumerians wrote down such stories earlier then the hebrews did...but it doesn't mean the Sumerian story is the true one.

Nor does it mean that the Bible story is the true one.

.......the original language of earth was Hebrew and for that reason, we can say that the Hebrew story was truly the original one.

I assume that very few linguists agree with you, and that most of the ones that do are Christians, or Jews. Most experts say that Sumerian and Egyptian writings predate 3,000 B.C. No Hebrew writings predate 3,000 B.C.

Have you studied radiometric dating methods a lot? If so, do you understand how the dating methods work? Have you ever taken a high school or college class in physics? I have never taken a high school or college class in physics. I choose to accept the opinions of the vast majority of experts.

Even if Hebrew was the first written language, oral languages existed before that, including Sumerian languages. Perhaps the writer of the book of Genesis used oral Sumerian flood stories as the basis for the Bible flood story.

I assume that you believe that it is appropriate for people to accept the Bible without studying science at all if that is what they want to do.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

do you think archeological dating methods are 100% accurate?

No, but I believe them to be generally close. In the case of China, there is overwhelming evidence of human populations going back 40,000 years. At least, that's what the experts say.

And the problem is that artifacts rarely, if ever, are found with inscriptions or dates...so its always conjecture and opinion and opinions dont always agree. Dating is no guarantee.

I would trust dating methods moreso than inscriptions.

not if china wasnt inhabited before the flood.

OK. If you think there were no humans in China before 4,000 BC, then I can't really argue with you. It's as if you're denying that tides are influenced by the moon. I don't know what to say.

the dna of every nation on earth traces us all back to middle eastern people

The geneticists may be a shocked by that news. You disagree that humans first arose in Africa?

 

[Agnostic75]

Failed predictions of the Watchtower Society

Failed date predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses

 

[Iti oj]

Pegg this is all just circlar logic this says this and this ergo if a is true and c is true b must be so, yet it contradicts everything I've learned in history class. Their is no record of hebrew predating anything.nor and evidence for a one langauage world. Also is their evidence out side of the bible? Also what about hinduism predating 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.

 

[McBell]

But we do know that the original language of earth was hebrew

Source please.

 

[work in progress]

Do you think that you would be able to pass the first test in a first year college geology class right now? You probably don't, and even if you did, lots of global flood geology is very complex, and is not well-understood by most first year college geology students.

Who knows the most about geology? Obviously, geologists, not laymen. The vast majority of geologists do not believe that a global flood occurred. Why should anyone take your word over the word of a sizeagble consensus of geologists?

Glenn Morton is a Christian geophysicist. He grew up believing that a global flood occurred, but changed his mind after conducting years of scientific research. He has written many articles on the global flood, many of which can be found at Green River Formation and the Global Flood Page.

I recommend that you save yourself some time and just admit that your main evidence is faith in the Bible.

I've been ignoring this thread....as it is completely pointless! But, I'd like to point out that Jehovah's Witness literature (as any fundamentalist creationist stuff) will freely use carbon 14 or any other scientific dating method if it happens to confirm their sacred beliefs.

This is just another example illustrating how most religious adherents do not value truth as often claimed -- they are all for truth, until truth contradicts their pre-existing beliefs, and then truth has to be denied, ignored or explained away in whatever manner is needed. If the scientific evidence does not challenge their beliefs, or even better, contradicts the dogma of another religion, then they are all for it!

A few years ago, a prominent evangelical ministry posted a slick, high production value video (I tried to do a brief search for it, but it's buried in Romney and other off-topic links) debunking Mormon beliefs that North American aboriginals came here from Israel, and they used carbon 14, mDNA and Y chromosome DNA evidence to support their case against the Mormons. I pointed out to the mostly young earth evangelical creationists commenting on the video, that they would have rejected the same scientific evidence if the topic was The Flood, or any other dogma they happened to believe in....but it just fell on deaf ears! Same thing goes here: JW's would be all for accepting scientific dating methods if it had no connection to their dogma or challenged Mormon, or other religious dogmas.

 

[work in progress]

Source please.

I think it's buried somewhere beneath the tower of babel.

 

[fishy]

I've been ignoring this thread....as it is completely pointless! But, I'd like to point out that Jehovah's Witness literature (as any fundamentalist creationist stuff) will freely use carbon 14 or any other scientific dating method if it happens to confirm their sacred beliefs.

This is just another example illustrating how most religious adherents do not value truth as often claimed -- they are all for truth, until truth contradicts their pre-existing beliefs, and then truth has to be denied, ignored or explained away in whatever manner is needed. If the scientific evidence does not challenge their beliefs, or even better, contradicts the dogma of another religion, then they are all for it!

A few years ago, a prominent evangelical ministry posted a slick, high production value video (I tried to do a brief search for it, but it's buried in Romney and other off-topic links) debunking Mormon beliefs that North American aboriginals came here from Israel, and they used carbon 14, mDNA and Y chromosome DNA evidence to support their case against the Mormons. I pointed out to the mostly young earth evangelical creationists commenting on the video, that they would have rejected the same scientific evidence if the topic was The Flood, or any other dogma they happened to believe in....but it just fell on deaf ears! Same thing goes here: JW's would be all for accepting scientific dating methods if it had no connection to their dogma or challenged Mormon, or other religious dogmas.

Well can't argue with that.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg this is all just circlar logic this says this and this ergo if a is true and c is true b must be so, yet it contradicts everything I've learned in history class.

I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has a 100% conviction that what is written in the bible is true and accurate. I've only got that conviction because i've examined the evidence of the bibles reliability and truthfulness.

Likely, you feel the same way about the history books. But think about this for a moment, you know that even the best scientists have had to rewrite some of their previously established scientific facts and theories..and medical scientists have had to recall some widely distributed medications...and some archeological discoveries have several differing opinions ..if the professionals in these industries can be wrong, dont you think its remotely possible that those who write the history books can also be wrong?

Their is no record of hebrew predating anything.nor and evidence for a one langauage world. Also is their evidence out side of the bible?

there is also no evidence for any ancient language in development, while secular history does not reveal the origin of the Hebrew language, it also doesnt reveal the beginnings of any of the ancient languages such as Sumerian, Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian), Aramaean, and Egyptian. This is because these languages appear suddenly, already fully developed.

there is a lot that the history books cannot tell us because they simply dont have the information. It stands to reason that if they cant put a firm date on one of the ancient languages, then perhaps they can't put a firm date on any of them.

Also what about hinduism predating judiasm?

the first bible writings were put down in 15th century BCE... and those writings speak of many surrounding nations with their various gods and customs and practices. So hinduism is an eastern religion which is described generally in the scriptures as a 'pagan' religion. Its not like the bible says that there are no other religions...it has much to say about other religions.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Pegg: Unless you know a lot about geology, physics, and linguistics, you are not in a position to claim, from and entirely scientific perspective, and from a secular historical perspective, that a global flood occurred, that God caused a regional flood to occur, that radioactive dating methods are not reliable, that Hebrew was the first language, and that no civilizations existed in China in 2500 B.C. Even few experts with Ph.D.s in geology, or physics, or linguistics know a lot about all of those issues. It is doubtful that you would have any success debating a geologist, a physicist, or a linguist.

Do you believe that it is reasonable for people who know very little about science to become Christians? If so, then science does not really matter very much to you except in cases where you believe that it agrees with the Bible.

No matter how many posts you make in this thread, your main evidence is faith, not expertise in geology, physics, and linguistics.

 

[Agnostic75]

Failed predictions of the Watchtower Society

Failed date predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses

 

[Iti oj]

Pegg I don't see how that reall awnsers the questions. Sounds like circular logic. How does the bibles truths compare to the observable and emperical...ohh and religious ideas change as much as scienctific ones do of not more so.

 

[Pegg]

No matter how many posts you make in this thread, your main evidence is faith, not expertise in geology, physics, and linguistics.

yep i can agree with you on that because i've studied the bible enough to be convinced that it is a book of truth and fact. As a book of history, the events people and places that have been confirmed by archeology far outweigh the few things that have not yet been confirmed...when you have so many true events then there is the high likelihood that the unconfirmed events are also true.

Whether the flood was a local flood or an earthwide flood does not change the fact that a flood of some kind occurred on those people at that time....so either way, the bibles account can still be true. And if our understanding of it may not be right, it doesnt mean the account is wrong.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg I don't see how that reall awnsers the questions. Sounds like circular logic. How does the bibles truths compare to the observable and emperical...ohh and religious ideas change as much as scienctific ones do of not more so.

did you know that when archeologists want to find an ancient city or monument, the use the bible for information on where to start looking? Do you think they would do that if they thought the bible was a book of fairytales?

this has been the case with some remarkable discoveries in our time and as the evidence for the bibles accuracy mounts up, its difficult to assume that any of it is not true. I'll send you some information on how archeology has proved the bible true over and over again. ...even the towers of babel have been found!

 

[Iti oj]

did you know that when archeologists want to find an ancient city or monument, the use the bible for information on where to start looking? Do you think they would do that if they thought the bible was a book of fairytales?

this has been the case with some remarkable discoveries in our time and as the evidence for the bibles accuracy mounts up, its difficult to assume that any of it is not true. I'll send you some information on how archeology has proved the bible true over and over again. ...even the towers of babel have been found!

They also use worsk by aristoitle and hericles etc etc etc. Its a refference point to start a search for real and complet awnsers they dont take the bible at face value.

Tob? Where?

 

[Pegg]

They also use worsk by aristoitle and hericles etc etc etc. Its a refference point to start a search for real and complet awnsers they dont take the bible at face value.

Tob? Where?

in the ruins of ancient Babylon and other places. That is where the name babylon comes from...Babel.

archaeologists have uncovered the sites of several ziggurats, or pyramidlike, staged temple-towers, including the ruined temple of Etemenanki, which was within Babylon’s walls.

one of the inscriptions they found relates the fall of a particular ziggurat in these words: “The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded.”

This is just like the bible account at Genesis 11.

 

[Agnostic75]

No matter how many posts you make in this thread, your main evidence is faith, not expertise in geology, physics, and linguistics.

Yep, can agree with you on that because i've studied the Bible enough to be convinced that it is a book of truth and fact. As a book of history, the events people and places that have been confirmed by archeology far outweigh the few things that have not yet been confirmed...when you have so many true events then there is the high likelihood that the unconfirmed events are also true.

Whether the flood was a local flood or an earthwide flood does not change the fact that a flood of some kind occurred on those people at that time....so either way, the Bible's account can still be true. And if our understanding of it may not be right, it doesn't mean the account is wrong.

Let me put it another way. From an entirely scientific perspective, you do not understand biology, geology, physics, and linguistics enough to claim that theistic evolution is false, that God caused a global or a localized flood to occur, that Hebrew was the first language, and that civilizations did not exist in China in 2500 B.C.

Very few individuals would consider themselves very well-versed in biology, and geology, and physics, and linguistics, and yet, you have tackled all of those fields of science. You have not tackled biology directly, but I believe that you did so indirectly since you are a very conservative Christian. You would not even be able to answer some basic questions about biology, geology, physics, and linguistics without using books, articles, or the Internet.

Would the Watchtower Society like to challenge some skeptic experts to debate, from an entirely scientific perspective, whether or not civilizations existed in China in 2500 B.C.?

When do you date the global, or localized flood?

In your opinion, does God require that Christians know a lot about science?

What about all of the failed prophecies of the Watchtower Society?

 

[Pegg]

Would the Watchtower Society like to challenge some skeptic experts to debate, from an entirely scientific perspective, whether or not civilizations existed in China in 2500 B.C.?

the society dont get into debates...they just go about their work researching both sides of the argument and presenting both sides.

When do you date the global, or localized flood?

We dont date it, the bible does through its own internal chronology.

In your opinion, does God require that Christians know a lot about science?

i think he's given us the ability to learn about the world he created through studying it....so i would say that he obviously is happy for us to learn about the world.
But i dont believe he ever intended that people remove him from the picture entirely.

What about all of the failed prophecies of the Watchtower Society?

the society are not prophets and do not claim to be prophets. They do try to understand how and prophecies in the bible apply and have in the past been wrong, but that doesnt make them prophets, nor does it make the prophecies of the bible wrong. We are fallible, the bible is not.

 

[gnomon]

in the ruins of ancient Babylon and other places. That is where the name babylon comes from...Babel.

Wait.

Are you claiming that an older civilization derived their name from a later civilization. Or, more specifically, that a civilization with an older language derived their name from a civilization with a later language?

 

[Pegg]

Wait.

Are you claiming that an older civilization derived their name from a later civilization. Or, more specifically, that a civilization with an older language derived their name from a civilization with a later language?

no. the plains of shinar, where the 'tower of babel' was built is located in Iraq...the city of babylon was built later and was still located in Iraq and some believed that it is the original 'Babel' from the biblical account.