70 replies to this topic

[David Henson]

redhen, on 06 February 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

I think the only mention of this Peleg though is in the OT.

Most likely.

Quote

But not necessarily so.

Absolutely. I'm inclined to doubt it. Too little information. Its possible, but, that's all I know.

Quote

Do you have any extra-Biblical sources for this "scattering that took place after the tower of Babel." ?

I think language and religion itself are powerful indicators, then there are the common thread in mythology. People in northern Burma have stories of old that we all at one time lived in one large village and spoke the same tongue, we started to build a tower to the moon but since it required working on separate levels they lost touch with one another and gradually acquired different customs, and speech.

In northern Siberia the Yenisei-Ostyaks have the legend of the people who had saved themselves from a flood by floating on rafters until a strong north wind scattered them so that they began to speak different languages and form different peoples. The early Aztecs thought that after the Flood a giant built a hill that reached to the clouds. This angered the gods who then cast fire or a stone down upon them from heaven. The Maya have Votan, the first human helping to build a huge house that reached into the heavens. It turned out to be "the place where God gave every tribe its particular language." The Maidu Indians from California claim that at a funeral ceremony everyone suddenly started speaking in different languages.

Quote

Is it your belief that during this time, all of humanity lived on one continent (Pangaea) ?

I wouldn't say that it was a belief of mine, I would say that it certainly seems plausible and could possibly explain a great deal.

[Seeker79]

Paranoid Android, on 06 February 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

Oxford Press is a publishing company.  it has several translations in print.  If you are referring to "The New Oxford Annotated Bible", it's just a regular RSV (Revised Standard Version) with some annotations and essays attached (and the Apocrypha).

Hehe and you would be right of course.

[Seeker79]

Seeker79, on 06 February 2013 - 04:17 AM, said:

And you would be right David. In life expectancy calculations of ancient societies infants and young children are included in the average. Haveing a fairly high infant mortality in those times, our picture of life expectancy is severely scewed. If a child made it past 5, in most ancient civilizations, their life expectancies jumped tremendously. It wasn't that people died at a much younger age than we do now, it's was simply difficult to get a child out of child hood. People that made it, actually lived close the the ages that we have now, especially if you take out violent deaths, or deaths during child birth. Statistics can be horribly misleading or amazingly Revealing.

To me this is consistent with the idea that those before the fall would have led a healthier longer life.

Just to add to this, infectious disease and famine, brought the expectancy slightly down in condensed agricultural based societies while hunter gatherers either pre agriculture or that did not have any contact with agricultural based societies did not have nearly as much famin or disease problems. Ironically last night when I was starting to read this thread I was watching a national geographic program called "the real Jesus". As I was writtiing my posts to David a scientist was on showing that most children during that time were malnourished.

Edited by Seeker79, 06 February 2013 - 05:36 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

Seeker79, on 06 February 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Hehe and you would be right of course.

Don't get me wrong, the New Oxford Annotated Bible is a great resource.  I'm not the greatest fan of the RSV, but it's a solid translation.  The annotations are what makes the Bible great source material.  I bought a copy of this on recommendation of various people, and in Australia no outlet sells it so I had to get it ordered special through the bookshop.  As such, the price cost me double that of any other Bible I've ever owned.  It was worth every cent, I'd pay it again if I have to.

That's not to say that it's perfect, it's just one of several resources I use to get an overall picture of the Bible rather than just one limited view.

[Seeker79]

Paranoid Android, on 07 February 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong, the New Oxford Annotated Bible is a great resource.  I'm not the greatest fan of the RSV, but it's a solid translation.  The annotations are what makes the Bible great source material.  I bought a copy of this on recommendation of various people, and in Australia no outlet sells it so I had to get it ordered special through the bookshop.  As such, the price cost me double that of any other Bible I've ever owned.  It was worth every cent, I'd pay it again if I have to.

That's not to say that it's perfect, it's just one of several resources I use to get an overall picture of the Bible rather than just one limited view.

I emailed professors at several universities they all came back with the same recommendation. When I'm in the mood I love to read it with the notations. Especially the notes and how different the stories are when put into context then when I was taught. My kid comes back from religous education at my wife's church every Sunday, and I sit down with him and go over what he has learned and I make sure he is getting the most accurate picture I can find. Its been a blessing.

[Paranoid Android]

Seeker79, on 07 February 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

I emailed professors at several universities they all came back with the same recommendation. When I'm in the mood I love to read it with the notations. Especially the notes and how different the stories are when put into context then when I was taught. My kid comes back from religous education at my wife's church every Sunday, and I sit down with him and go over what he has learned and I make sure he is getting the most accurate picture I can find. Its been a blessing.

The Oxford Annotated Bible is not without its own bias, though.  As I said, it's one source I use, of many.  I also have another annotated Bible, also well researched, but from a theological point of view rather than an academic.  It provides a more traditional religious slant rather than a purely academic.  It too has its bias, so on top of that I have several other commentaries and texts I use, as well as a copy of the Bible in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (and since I don't read those languages, I have a dictionary to look up precise definitions, and in particular alternative interpretations of the words).

Only after consulting all these sources am I reasonably satisfied that I have researched appropriately.  Contextual research is a long process, not quick or easy.  The version you have is (as you say) very good, but to use it at the expense of other forms of research is, in my opinion, limited.

[RavenHawk]

David Henson, on 05 February 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

That's an awful lot of material, could you break it down for me and repost the possible similarities?

Yeah, there is a lot of material and it is still a work in progress.  I had hoped that you would just look through it and tell me what the possible similarities were.  When I have time, I'll sit down and try to get more into your post and I'll let you know.

[RavenHawk]

David Henson, on 06 February 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

You don't have those sorts of problems with Bible dating. The Jews reported everything accurately, even their most serious flaws and failures. The dates were given and preserved much more carefully.

I have to disagree here to a point.  From Abraham on, I would say it is pretty accurate but the first 11 chapters, the chronology has much to be desired.  It's in these chapters that people like Bishop Ussher came up with the age of the Earth at being 6000 years old.  And I don't think that the first chapters of Genesis were meant as an exact chronology.  They are just a collection of important stories and events.  The time lapse between verse 3 of chapter 1 and verse 9 could be billions of years and the creation of Adam and Eve could be anything up to 200,000 years ago.  Noah's flood could be resultant from some glacial melt off from 12,000 to 100,000 years ago??  The level of sophistication in oral communication at that time would be very primitive compared to today.  When Moses wrote these stories down for the first time from oral history, they were probably translated into contemporary language.  So we may never know what exactly happened.

[RavenHawk]

freetoroam, on 05 February 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

have read bits of the old testament and was confused with the years they seemed to live back then, what do you think about them?

I think that they could have lived that long.  We have genetic forensic anthropologists that can tell us when certain mutations entered our genome.  I bet that they'll find some mutation that affects aging within the last 100,000 years and it will coincide with a glacial melt off or major flooding.  Noah's flood marked the end of long lives.  Aging became shorter and shorter.  The flooding stirred up something in the environment that effected our genes.

[Seeker79]

Paranoid Android, on 07 February 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

The Oxford Annotated Bible is not without its own bias, though.  As I said, it's one source I use, of many.  I also have another annotated Bible, also well researched, but from a theological point of view rather than an academic.  It provides a more traditional religious slant rather than a purely academic.  It too has its bias, so on top of that I have several other commentaries and texts I use, as well as a copy of the Bible in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (and since I don't read those languages, I have a dictionary to look up precise definitions, and in particular alternative interpretations of the words).

Only after consulting all these sources am I reasonably satisfied that I have researched appropriately.  Contextual research is a long process, not quick or easy.  The version you have is (as you say) very good, but to use it at the expense of other forms of research is, in my opinion, limited.

That's usually the case with most things isn't it. Im just trying to ensure my children have different perspectives and options. They will ultimately make up their own minds when they are adults, my role is simply to prevent any kind of indoctrination. I want them to think critically about their choices and the information they receive a virtue that I see you share. Once a week after dinner we read from the bible and discuss the meaning of the story. The bible suits me for educating my children on morals and it makes my wife happy, but I also read to them from Buddhist writings, the begavagita, I can't find my quaran or we would use that to, and we also discuss native American legends and philosophy mostly when we are gardening or when teaching them bushcraft.

It's good to see you posting again, I was aware of your recent life changeing event and I was afraid you would not be back. You are such a credit to Christianity it be shame for Christ  not to have the kind of representation you provide on um.

[aryannatimothy]

Good read.

[J. K.]

I have seen many arguments that the Biblical account of the Creation/Flood/Dispersal was borrowed from other sources.  It seems to me that those proponents are skipping over the possibility of oral history being involved.  Sure, maybe they weren't written until the time of Moses, but that doesn't mean he created the stories himself.  The stories could have been passed down through the generations, which would result in the stories evolving differently after the languages were scrambled.

[Frank Merton]

Very few scholars nowadays think Moses wrote the Pentateuch.  It is a compilation of texts written at various times.

There are lots of resources on this, so those who persist with the traditional story about Moses really have no excuse for not becoming better informed.

[RavenHawk]

Frank Merton, on 07 February 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

Very few scholars nowadays think Moses wrote the Pentateuch.  It is a compilation of texts written at various times.

There are lots of resources on this, so those who persist with the traditional story about Moses really have no excuse for not becoming better informed.

Here's a nice little introduction:

http://en.wikipedia....tary_hypothesis

[freetoroam]

RavenHawk, on 07 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

I think that they could have lived that long.  We have genetic forensic anthropologists that can tell us when certain mutations entered our genome.  I bet that they'll find some mutation that affects aging within the last 100,000 years and it will coincide with a glacial melt off or major flooding.  Noah's flood marked the end of long lives.  Aging became shorter and shorter.  The flooding stirred up something in the environment that effected our genes.

Considering we descended from apes, are you saying it affected how the our cousins evolved into humans and how our lives were shortened through stage of evolution?
Forget the Noah and the Adam and Eve tripe, I am not even going there! lets just deal with facts here.