The other thing you fail to consider since you want to talk about context, is the reality that Genesis may not have been written until after the Babylonian captivity.

Remember that tower I mentioned earlier? It was built during the captivity. And people of multiple languages helped build it.

In other words, it is highly possible (especially when you consider that the book of Job is a near plagiarism of Babylonian lore) that this story is a mistelling of an actual event.

You're right that the point of the story is much more important than the reality of the story.

The difference is your faith, like that of many creationist, hinges on every word of the Bible being absolute truth.

Mine only hinges on John 3:16 being true.

When we want to.

El Oso said:

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I've read the bible cover to cover more times than you have.

I've done it as recently as last month (It actually took me longer than the month, but that was the end of the last time).

When I read the Bible closely in a historical or inerrant way, I come away with a lot more questions than answers.

---

When you read it, were you seeking wisdom or looking for something to 'disprove'?

El Oso said:

---

The difference is your faith, like that of many creationist, hinges on every word of the Bible being absolute truth.

Mine only hinges on John 3:16 being true.

---

So you depend on the part you like being true?

Both. Wisdom comes from proof and disproof.

What a terrible inference on your part.

Is the entrance requirement to heaven a belief that Genesis 1 is 100% true or that John 3:16 is 100% true?

I can believe that God created the world but that Genesis 1 is a version of how he did it so that I can understand it.

The Bible isn't a science book. I have no desire to turn it in to one.

El Oso said:

---

What a terrible inference on your part.

Is the entrance requirement to heaven a belief that Genesis 1 is 100% true or that John 3:16 is 100% true?

I can believe that God created the world but that Genesis 1 is a version of how he did it so that I can understand it.

The Bible isn't a science book. I have no desire to turn it in to one.

---

No one is saying what you claim.

Try reading what is actually presented.

I did. You flat out claimed about 3 posts up that I only believe the parts I agree with.

My response is a direct rebuttal of your claim.

You've already proved you have bad inferencing skills. Now I'm wondering about your comprehension skills.

Maybe you just got confused as to what the responses are to since I've stopped quoting you.

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Is God subject to physics or not?

---

No.

---

Why?

---

God created all things. The laws of physics hold that nothing can be created from nothing. Therefore God is not subject to the laws of physics.

---

By what authority do you make this declaration? I just take your word for it?

---

Genesis 1:1.

---

why Genesis 1? By what authority is the Bible is the final authority on physics creation?

---

I will ask again

---

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's all.

"Ask again" all you want you pompous *******. I was on a flight home. Some of us work for a living.

---

I believe I am asking why The God of Genesis and not the Hero Twins of the Navajos or Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs or Marduk of the Babylonians. Why is our creation story more authoritative than theirs?

---

Let's compare the archaeological evidence supporting the Bible to that supporting any of those other religious writings and see if we can answer your question.

---

You found the garden of Eden? The tree of life, the angel with a flaming sword? The tower of Babel?

---

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

archaeologist Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert

But if you'd like to quote a professional archaeologist saying something similar about the writings on Quetzalcoatl, by all means have at it.

---

No garden of Eden? No tower of Babel? No tree of life?

Quote any archaeologists you like on those.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

There is no proof whatsoever that your spouse loves you or has ever loved you.

Is there any proof that you are a lovable person? If so, show me.

For all the things science can do, faith and love are not in that group.

SciGuy and Quash, I am confident that you both remember the feelings, the innate knowledge that you both had at one time that there was something more to our world than space dust and primordial ooze. I pray that you both find a way to swallow your pride and actually seek out the truth rather than support for your preconceived notions.

---

Start from a factual position: my preconceived notion was in religion.

As to what science can do in the realms you declared off limits.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/
https://examinedexistence.com/why-we-fall-in-love-the-science-of-love/
https://gumroad.com/l/faith
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-faith-column/2009/02/religious-concepts-science

Feelings are not beyond the scope of scientific research.

---

proof?

---

Evidence.

"God is all powerful. God is able to overcome physics." Is self referential statement. It's trutj is attested to by the Bible which is not accepted science. Efforts to cram God into science result in silliness. Efforts to keep God all powerful in love result in faith. I choose faith.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

There is no proof whatsoever that your spouse loves you or has ever loved you.

Is there any proof that you are a lovable person? If so, show me.

For all the things science can do, faith and love are not in that group.

SciGuy and Quash, I am confident that you both remember the feelings, the innate knowledge that you both had at one time that there was something more to our world than space dust and primordial ooze. I pray that you both find a way to swallow your pride and actually seek out the truth rather than support for your preconceived notions.

---

Start from a factual position: my preconceived notion was in religion.

As to what science can do in the realms you declared off limits.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/
https://examinedexistence.com/why-we-fall-in-love-the-science-of-love/
https://gumroad.com/l/faith
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-faith-column/2009/02/religious-concepts-science

Feelings are not beyond the scope of scientific research.

---

proof?

---

Evidence.

---

true. And both sides present evidence.

Look around with an honest, investigative mind. You just might find a smoking gun.

El Oso said:

---

Exactly. The technology made it a non starter from the start, yet still God directly intervened to stop it.

6 The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

It seems to me you have two problems on your hands:
1. It's a story with a point and not necessarily an actual event or

2. It disproves the power of God because he thought intersecting multiple languages would confuse and stop human growth. Yet look at us now. 13 different countries worked together on the International Space Station and we have the Hubble Telescope which may have found the hand of God.

---

3. We have the LHC that is an international cooperative effort to understand the quantum world.

If the story were true, why didn't God let them build it. Wouldn't they be disappointed to find there was no god in 300 feet in the sky? It's clearly a made up story.

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Is God subject to physics or not?

---

No.

---

Why?

---

God created all things. The laws of physics hold that nothing can be created from nothing. Therefore God is not subject to the laws of physics.

---

By what authority do you make this declaration? I just take your word for it?

---

Genesis 1:1.

---

why Genesis 1? By what authority is the Bible is the final authority on physics creation?

---

I will ask again

---

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's all.

"Ask again" all you want you pompous *******. I was on a flight home. Some of us work for a living.

---

I believe I am asking why The God of Genesis and not the Hero Twins of the Navajos or Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs or Marduk of the Babylonians. Why is our creation story more authoritative than theirs?

---

Let's compare the archaeological evidence supporting the Bible to that supporting any of those other religious writings and see if we can answer your question.

---

You found the garden of Eden? The tree of life, the angel with a flaming sword? The tower of Babel?

---

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

archaeologist Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert

But if you'd like to quote a professional archaeologist saying something similar about the writings on Quetzalcoatl, by all means have at it.

---

So, the writings in the OT are in part written within a historical setting. There are a lot of historically accurate aspects to Michener's Texas, but the story is still fiction.

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Is God subject to physics or not?

---

No.

---

Why?

---

God created all things. The laws of physics hold that nothing can be created from nothing. Therefore God is not subject to the laws of physics.

---

By what authority do you make this declaration? I just take your word for it?

---

Genesis 1:1.

---

why Genesis 1? By what authority is the Bible is the final authority on physics creation?

---

I will ask again

---

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's all.

"Ask again" all you want you pompous *******. I was on a flight home. Some of us work for a living.

---

I believe I am asking why The God of Genesis and not the Hero Twins of the Navajos or Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs or Marduk of the Babylonians. Why is our creation story more authoritative than theirs?

---

Let's compare the archaeological evidence supporting the Bible to that supporting any of those other religious writings and see if we can answer your question.

---

You found the garden of Eden? The tree of life, the angel with a flaming sword? The tower of Babel?

---

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

archaeologist Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert

But if you'd like to quote a professional archaeologist saying something similar about the writings on Quetzalcoatl, by all means have at it.

---

No garden of Eden? No tower of Babel? No tree of life?

Quote any archaeologists you like on those.

---

The garden itself cannot be located. As for the Tower:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-babylonian-tablet-provides-compelling-evidence-tower-babel-did-021378

Lots of colleges offer majors in biblical archaeology, which would be difficult to do if the field of study didn't exist.

So, about the archaeological evidence supporting Quetzalcoatl ...

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a to a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

Hypothetically, if the Bible were credible history and not historical fiction, how would the available evidence differ?

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Is God subject to physics or not?

---

No.

---

Why?

---

God created all things. The laws of physics hold that nothing can be created from nothing. Therefore God is not subject to the laws of physics.

---

By what authority do you make this declaration? I just take your word for it?

---

Genesis 1:1.

---

why Genesis 1? By what authority is the Bible is the final authority on physics creation?

---

I will ask again

---

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's all.

"Ask again" all you want you pompous *******. I was on a flight home. Some of us work for a living.

---

I believe I am asking why The God of Genesis and not the Hero Twins of the Navajos or Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs or Marduk of the Babylonians. Why is our creation story more authoritative than theirs?

---

Let's compare the archaeological evidence supporting the Bible to that supporting any of those other religious writings and see if we can answer your question.

---

You found the garden of Eden? The tree of life, the angel with a flaming sword? The tower of Babel?

---

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

archaeologist Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert

But if you'd like to quote a professional archaeologist saying something similar about the writings on Quetzalcoatl, by all means have at it.

---

No garden of Eden? No tower of Babel? No tree of life?

Quote any archaeologists you like on those.

---

The garden itself cannot be located. As for the Tower:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-babylonian-tablet-provides-compelling-evidence-tower-babel-did-021378

Lots of colleges offer majors in biblical archaeology, which would be difficult to do if the field of study didn't exist.

So, about the archaeological evidence supporting Quetzalcoatl ...

---

You have it backwards. The Garden is believed to have been located in a marsh using the exact coordinates of the Bible. The problem is it's been buried and nobody can get permission for the dig.

That Babylonian tablet is the one I was referencing in my comments with Old Bear. It's definitely not from the Tower. It dates to the captivity. If you want to use it as proof of the Tower that would only prove it is a misplaced story in the Bible. The Tower is right after Noah. The tablet places it in the time of Daniel.

That's a remarkable error for inerrantists.

El Oso said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Is God subject to physics or not?

---

No.

---

Why?

---

God created all things. The laws of physics hold that nothing can be created from nothing. Therefore God is not subject to the laws of physics.

---

By what authority do you make this declaration? I just take your word for it?

---

Genesis 1:1.

---

why Genesis 1? By what authority is the Bible is the final authority on physics creation?

---

I will ask again

---

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's all.

"Ask again" all you want you pompous *******. I was on a flight home. Some of us work for a living.

---

I believe I am asking why The God of Genesis and not the Hero Twins of the Navajos or Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs or Marduk of the Babylonians. Why is our creation story more authoritative than theirs?

---

Let's compare the archaeological evidence supporting the Bible to that supporting any of those other religious writings and see if we can answer your question.

---

You found the garden of Eden? The tree of life, the angel with a flaming sword? The tower of Babel?

---

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

archaeologist Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert

But if you'd like to quote a professional archaeologist saying something similar about the writings on Quetzalcoatl, by all means have at it.

---

No garden of Eden? No tower of Babel? No tree of life?

Quote any archaeologists you like on those.

---

The garden itself cannot be located. As for the Tower:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-babylonian-tablet-provides-compelling-evidence-tower-babel-did-021378

Lots of colleges offer majors in biblical archaeology, which would be difficult to do if the field of study didn't exist.

So, about the archaeological evidence supporting Quetzalcoatl ...

---

You have it backwards. The Garden is believed to have been located in a marsh using the exact coordinates of the Bible. The problem is it's been buried and nobody can get permission for the dig.

That Babylonian tablet is the one I was referencing in my comments with Old Bear. It's definitely not from the Tower. It dates to the captivity. If you want to use it as proof of the Tower that would only prove it is a misplaced story in the Bible. The Tower is right after Noah. The tablet places it in the time of Daniel.

That's a remarkable error for inerrantists.

---

Why is the Bible one and only truth of the worlds orgin and not the Navajo Hero Twins OR any of these myths - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths?

Waco1947 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Is God subject to physics or not?

---

No.

---

Why?

---

God created all things. The laws of physics hold that nothing can be created from nothing. Therefore God is not subject to the laws of physics.

---

By what authority do you make this declaration? I just take your word for it?

---

Genesis 1:1.

---

why Genesis 1? By what authority is the Bible is the final authority on physics creation?

---

I will ask again

---

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's all.

"Ask again" all you want you pompous *******. I was on a flight home. Some of us work for a living.

---

I believe I am asking why The God of Genesis and not the Hero Twins of the Navajos or Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs or Marduk of the Babylonians. Why is our creation story more authoritative than theirs?

---

Let's compare the archaeological evidence supporting the Bible to that supporting any of those other religious writings and see if we can answer your question.

---

You found the garden of Eden? The tree of life, the angel with a flaming sword? The tower of Babel?

---

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

archaeologist Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert

But if you'd like to quote a professional archaeologist saying something similar about the writings on Quetzalcoatl, by all means have at it.

---

No garden of Eden? No tower of Babel? No tree of life?

Quote any archaeologists you like on those.

---

The garden itself cannot be located. As for the Tower:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-babylonian-tablet-provides-compelling-evidence-tower-babel-did-021378

Lots of colleges offer majors in biblical archaeology, which would be difficult to do if the field of study didn't exist.

So, about the archaeological evidence supporting Quetzalcoatl ...

---

You have it backwards. The Garden is believed to have been located in a marsh using the exact coordinates of the Bible. The problem is it's been buried and nobody can get permission for the dig.

That Babylonian tablet is the one I was referencing in my comments with Old Bear. It's definitely not from the Tower. It dates to the captivity. If you want to use it as proof of the Tower that would only prove it is a misplaced story in the Bible. The Tower is right after Noah. The tablet places it in the time of Daniel.

That's a remarkable error for inerrantists.

---

Why is the Bible one and only truth of the worlds orgin and not the Navajo Hero Twins OR any of these myths - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths?

---

I've never made that claim in my entire life. You're asking the wrong person.

My apologies El Oso. You are right. The thread gets so long I attribute to the wrong person. I probably meant old bear. Again my apologies for my misunderstanding.

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

What "religious tabloid" do you think the article was published in? It's a video interview from Smithsonian.net, which I'm pretty sure isn't a "religious tabloid."

Waco1947 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Is God subject to physics or not?

---

No.

---

Why?

---

God created all things. The laws of physics hold that nothing can be created from nothing. Therefore God is not subject to the laws of physics.

---

By what authority do you make this declaration? I just take your word for it?

---

Genesis 1:1.

---

why Genesis 1? By what authority is the Bible is the final authority on physics creation?

---

I will ask again

---

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's all.

"Ask again" all you want you pompous *******. I was on a flight home. Some of us work for a living.

---

I believe I am asking why The God of Genesis and not the Hero Twins of the Navajos or Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs or Marduk of the Babylonians. Why is our creation story more authoritative than theirs?

---

Let's compare the archaeological evidence supporting the Bible to that supporting any of those other religious writings and see if we can answer your question.

---

You found the garden of Eden? The tree of life, the angel with a flaming sword? The tower of Babel?

---

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

archaeologist Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert

But if you'd like to quote a professional archaeologist saying something similar about the writings on Quetzalcoatl, by all means have at it.

---

No garden of Eden? No tower of Babel? No tree of life?

Quote any archaeologists you like on those.

---

The garden itself cannot be located. As for the Tower:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-babylonian-tablet-provides-compelling-evidence-tower-babel-did-021378

Lots of colleges offer majors in biblical archaeology, which would be difficult to do if the field of study didn't exist.

So, about the archaeological evidence supporting Quetzalcoatl ...

---

You have it backwards. The Garden is believed to have been located in a marsh using the exact coordinates of the Bible. The problem is it's been buried and nobody can get permission for the dig.

That Babylonian tablet is the one I was referencing in my comments with Old Bear. It's definitely not from the Tower. It dates to the captivity. If you want to use it as proof of the Tower that would only prove it is a misplaced story in the Bible. The Tower is right after Noah. The tablet places it in the time of Daniel.

That's a remarkable error for inerrantists.

---

Why is the Bible one and only truth of the worlds orgin and not the Navajo Hero Twins OR any of these myths - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths?

---

We were going to have this conversation after you cited the archaeological evidence for the Hero Twins, remember?

El Oso said:

---

I did. You flat out claimed about 3 posts up that I only believe the parts I agree with.

My response is a direct rebuttal of your claim.

You've already proved you have bad inferencing skills. Now I'm wondering about your comprehension skills.

Maybe you just got confused as to what the responses are to since I've stopped quoting you.

---

Come on now, you just wrote this crap:

"Is the entrance requirement to heaven a belief that Genesis 1 is 100% true or that John 3:16 is 100% true?"

Since I never even hinted at Genesis being about Salvation, that's pretty obviously a cheap post out of bounds, and you know it.

Attacking me with the follow-up slime is just as immature.

Grow up, and - seriously - address what I wrote. You don't look good throwing a tantrum.

TexasScientist said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Exactly. The technology made it a non starter from the start, yet still God directly intervened to stop it.

6 The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

It seems to me you have two problems on your hands:
1. It's a story with a point and not necessarily an actual event or

2. It disproves the power of God because he thought intersecting multiple languages would confuse and stop human growth. Yet look at us now. 13 different countries worked together on the International Space Station and we have the Hubble Telescope which may have found the hand of God.

---

3. We have the LHC that is an international cooperative effort to understand the quantum world.

If the story were true, why didn't God let them build it. Wouldn't they be disappointed to find there was no god in 300 feet in the sky? It's clearly a made up story.

---

You're still missing the point. You assume the Tower of Babel story was God afraid of humans learning how to do things, while the text makes clear the problem was men believing they could prove they were as great as God.

Scientific research, at least the real kind, starts with acknowledging human limits and searching to understand the perceivable universe. By definition, the opposite of the arrogance to which God reacted in Genesis.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

quash said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Is God subject to physics or not?

---

No.

---

Why?

---

God created all things. The laws of physics hold that nothing can be created from nothing. Therefore God is not subject to the laws of physics.

---

By what authority do you make this declaration? I just take your word for it?

---

Genesis 1:1.

---

why Genesis 1? By what authority is the Bible is the final authority on physics creation?

---

I will ask again

---

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's all.

"Ask again" all you want you pompous *******. I was on a flight home. Some of us work for a living.

---

I believe I am asking why The God of Genesis and not the Hero Twins of the Navajos or Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs or Marduk of the Babylonians. Why is our creation story more authoritative than theirs?

---

Let's compare the archaeological evidence supporting the Bible to that supporting any of those other religious writings and see if we can answer your question.

---

You found the garden of Eden? The tree of life, the angel with a flaming sword? The tower of Babel?

---

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

archaeologist Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert

But if you'd like to quote a professional archaeologist saying something similar about the writings on Quetzalcoatl, by all means have at it.

---

No garden of Eden? No tower of Babel? No tree of life?

Quote any archaeologists you like on those.

---

The garden itself cannot be located. As for the Tower:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-babylonian-tablet-provides-compelling-evidence-tower-babel-did-021378

Lots of colleges offer majors in biblical archaeology, which would be difficult to do if the field of study didn't exist.

So, about the archaeological evidence supporting Quetzalcoatl ...

---

You have it backwards. The Garden is believed to have been located in a marsh using the exact coordinates of the Bible. The problem is it's been buried and nobody can get permission for the dig.

That Babylonian tablet is the one I was referencing in my comments with Old Bear. It's definitely not from the Tower. It dates to the captivity. If you want to use it as proof of the Tower that would only prove it is a misplaced story in the Bible. The Tower is right after Noah. The tablet places it in the time of Daniel.

That's a remarkable error for inerrantists.

---

Why is the Bible one and only truth of the worlds orgin and not the Navajo Hero Twins OR any of these myths - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths?

---

We were going to have this conversation after you cited the archaeological evidence for the Hero Twins, remember?

---

Archelogical evidence does not prove origin story of the Bible for the Navajos for the Aztecs. They are myth created to explain where did our people come from. They are myths grounded in theology and values systems to explain why we worship as do and why we treat one another as we do.

El Oso said:

---

You have it backwards. The Garden is believed to have been located in a marsh using the exact coordinates of the Bible. The problem is it's been buried and nobody can get permission for the dig.

That Babylonian tablet is the one I was referencing in my comments with Old Bear. It's definitely not from the Tower. It dates to the captivity. If you want to use it as proof of the Tower that would only prove it is a misplaced story in the Bible. The Tower is right after Noah. The tablet places it in the time of Daniel.

That's a remarkable error for inerrantists.

---

Even if, arguendo, I accept the date on the tablet, that in no way proves that was the first time that story was presented. Geez, even today books go into new editions, I suspect important accounts would have been copied over and over in the past. Finding a tablet from the time of Daniel in no way disproves an earlier origin.

You keep misreading what I type.

It's gotta be deliberate.

I've not one time said the Babylonian tablet is the authentic event.

I did say it was possible and I stand by that statement.

I'm of the opinion that the Tower story never happened. It's a parable. So is The Flood (at least on a global scale). So is Jonah. Job is borrowed from Babylonian lore. Jesus taught in parables. Its more important that I learn a lesson from the story.

That lesson validates my faith. It seems to be more important to yours that they are historically accurate.

El Oso said:

---

You keep misreading what I type.

It's gotta be deliberate.

I've not one time said the Babylonian tablet is the authentic event.

I did say it was possible and I stand by that statement.

I'm of the opinion that the Tower story never happened. It's a parable. So is The Flood (at least on a global scale). So is Jonah. Job is borrowed from Babylonian lore. Jesus taught in parables. Its more important that I learn a lesson from the story.

That lesson validates my faith. It seems to be more important to yours that they are historically accurate.

---

The thing that matters to me is credibility. It seems strange to believe a specific and vital claim in one place, but not another, solely because you want one to be true.

Neither of us was around during the time of the events described in Genesis. I say there's reason to believe the descriptions are accurate, or at the very least honest descriptions from people who were there. I say that, because while we cannot prove every last detail in the Bible, a lot of the claims have been supported.

Critics denied Jericho existed ... then they found it.

Critics denied there was a real High Priest named Caiaphas ... then his crypt turned up.

You're free to believe what you want, but in my experience the Bible is remarkably trustworthy, and that makes it even more valuable when I need to trust the Word.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a to a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

Hypothetically, if the Bible were credible history and not historical fiction, how would the available evidence differ?

---

Did he say "historical fiction"? The bible can be written with some knowledge of history such that biblical archaeology is a thing. Heck, I used to subscribe to the mag Biblical Archaeology but it got repetitive and I cancelled after two years.

But as TS notes there some real reaches. And the fact that there some confirmations means the settings are historically accurate, but that's about it.

I've not made 1 emotional argument. They've all been historic. You don't like them because they shake what you believe.

If I could prove faith, I wouldn't need it.

El Oso said:

---

I've not made 1 emotional argument. They've all been historic. You don't like them because they shake what you believe.

If I could prove faith, I wouldn't need it.

---

I reworded my answer, but the idea that your doubt does anything to "shake" my belief is absurd.

Didactic fiction designed or intended to teach.

Many (most) Catholic theologians will agree that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are written as didactic fiction. These chapters are not to be taken literally. (One can choose to do so if they would like.) They are stories about man's account of creation. It does NOT diminish the elemental truth behind these points:

• God created the universe ex nihilo.
• God created man with free will.
• Man fell from grace.
• Man should obey God.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

This article, published in a religious tabloid, doesn't give credibility to the story. The tabloid claims it is quoting a video interview with Dr. Andrew George where he states "this is a very strong piece of evidence that the tower of Babel story was inspired by this real building." It's in reference to an inscription about a to a temple tower. It has nothing do with the truthfulness of the story or if the temple tower is the tower of the story.

The existence of courses in Biblical archaeological studies has nothing to do with the reliability or credibility of the Bible history book. It's a religious book written with a historic setting as a backdrop.

---

Hypothetically, if the Bible were credible history and not historical fiction, how would the available evidence differ?

---

Did he say "historical fiction"? The bible can be written with some knowledge of history such that biblical archaeology is a thing. Heck, I used to subscribe to the mag Biblical Archaeology but it got repetitive and I cancelled after two years.

But as TS notes there some real reaches. And the fact that there some confirmations means the settings are historically accurate, but that's about it.

---

That's what I mean by historical fiction.

El Oso said:

---

You keep misreading what I type.

It's gotta be deliberate.

I've not one time said the Babylonian tablet is the authentic event.

I did say it was possible and I stand by that statement.

I'm of the opinion that the Tower story never happened. It's a parable. So is The Flood (at least on a global scale). So is Jonah. Job is borrowed from Babylonian lore. Jesus taught in parables. Its more important that I learn a lesson from the story.

That lesson validates my faith. It seems to be more important to yours that they are historically accurate.

---

Looking for the emotion, just seeing a rational response.