Communication difficulties?

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Communication difficulties?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:23 pm

It seems God must have experienced self-imposed communication difficulties when speaking to humanity when various people wrote down much of the Old Testament. Most of the writers who thought they heard from God had the Hebrew language. At the time human languages were rather poorly developed and I learn that the Hebrew language had no word for a sphere. Thus I understand that at Isaiah 40:22a* the Hebrew word was used that means a 'circle' (ie something two dimensional instead of three dimensional). Perhaps this was because the people at the time did not really know what a sphere was - or, if they did, did not talk about spheres. Either way, it seems that God was either unable to persuade the writer of Isaiah that his creation included a spherical rather than a flat Earth, or else the person in question could not convey to the rest of humanity what God revealed because he did not have the words to do so. (YECs reject the notion that God communicated in a way that 'accommodated' the limited knowledge of those who received and wrote down his messages ie God meant 'exactly' what he said. So either he said Earth was spherical but the message got lost in 'translation' or else God thinks Earth is - mainly from HIS perspective presumably - a circle rather than a sphere - which is not very scientific.)

Or a person THOUGHT he had heard from God.

One may ask why didn't God communicate (infallibly) with humanity in today's more informed and scientific era. Someone else may suggest that almost nobody today would be persuaded that it really was God.

* "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (NIV)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Communication difficulties?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:43 am

Of course, YECs of necessity have a rather tight timescale for the evolution/development of oral and written language, indeed the multiplicity of languages that the Bible suggests appeared after the Babel incident in Genesis 11 (when the world's existing language, whatever that was, was 'confused').

It is claimed by historians and scientists that written Hebrew is first known from the 10th century BCE:
http://phys.org/news182101034.html

Well, of course YECs must throw THAT date out of the window. The language of much of the Old Testament must pre-date the scriptures (and I assume there may have been an oral Hebrew language before a written one) - but must NOT pre-date the 'date' of creation, around 4004 BC according to YECs.

So when do YECs claim that language, and the written Hebrew language in particular, first appeared?

Well, I don't know. I searched in the AiG, ICR, and CMI websites with the term 'Hebrew language'. But nothing readily appeared suggesting when the Hebrew language may first have been present in the near East. I guess they either don't know when they think this happened or they have never even thought about the question.

What about that pottery shard that is discussed in the 2010 link above?

Well, the ICR attempted to turn the findings in their favour:
http://www.icr.org/article/new-artifact ... ity-bible/

"This newly translated artifact demonstrates that the Hebrew language was alive and well, in both spoken and written form, during the time that many portions of the Bible were written." What does Thomas say about the 10th century BCE date that is quoted in the link at his first footnote? Surprisingly he does not try to dismiss it as incorrect. "The newly deciphered Hebrew inscriptions date from the 10th century BC, long before Daniel." There's also a footnote which reads: "This was confirmed with carbon dating, which is understood to yield reliable dates for artifacts a few thousand years old like this one". Though the footnote also links to a questioning article by John Morris about carbon dating which I didn't entirely follow though its bottom line appears to be "Thus carbon dating says nothing at all about millions of years, and often lacks accuracy even with historical specimens, denying as it does the truth of the great Flood".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron