What happened then?

Or when the Christian God created man, did they come already made with the ability to read and write......

Just wondering, because I read some interesting things about the origins of written languages, and there seems to be times when they did not exist..........................................lon g long before christianity.

So how did god get people to beleive in his word before there was written word..............

Didnt need it.

God spoke directly to them.

He used prophets, such as Jeremiah and Elijah to spread his word.

A fair number of Christians believe the world is only 6,000 years old so writing would have been present since at least very close to the beginning.

What the first words to be written were is an interesting question, but not neccessarily a religious one. Perhaps a note from Og to his wife not to wait up because Og was going on a buffalo hunt with the guys.

:D

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Didnt need it.

God spoke directly to them.

He used prophets, such as Jeremiah and Elijah to spread his word.

Does this information come from the bible or is it something you were taught?

The reason I ask is that there are a lot of Christian doctrines that have come down through the years even though there is no mention of them in the Bible itself.

To note on your last 2 posts vile.

My preacher also believes the world is only 6,000 years old, and for the 2nd post, God speaks directly to many of the people in the old testament. He speaks with Adam and Eve, with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses (although by this time, writing was invented), Job, the prophets, etc., etc.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
To note on your last 2 posts vile.

My preacher also believes the world is only 6,000 years old, and for the 2nd post, God speaks directly to many of the people in the old testament. He speaks with Adam and Eve, with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses (although by this time, writing was invented), Job, the prophets, etc., etc.

ok...I know that in the Bible God speaks to many people, I was wondering if the Bible actually said anything about why such things weren't written.

Do you think the world is 6,000 years old?

And if God spoke to them directly, what language did they speak?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Do you think the world is 6,000 years old?

I really dont know. But if you start with Adam and read the so and so begat so and so....all those....and follow the lineage to christ, is just around 4,000 years. Then the 2004 years sense the birth of Christ, gives us just more than 6,000.

God created the world, so it is probable that he made the world with age. After all he made Adam a full grown man, with age, so nothing is to say he didn't do the same with the planet.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
And if God spoke to them directly, what language did they speak?

No clue. I serisously doubt that it is a language we still speak today. If any, probably earliest form of Hebrew...but I doubt its still a language on Earth.

The concept of different languages came when the tower of Babylon was knocked down by God, and he made it that the people began to speak in different languages so they could not conspire to rebuild the tower.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

The concept of different languages came when the tower of Babylon was knocked down by God, and he made it that the people began to speak in different languages so they could not conspire to rebuild the tower.

At the risk of incurring your wrath, it was the tower of Babel.

Genesis 11
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

It's interesting what men have made of this little tale from the Bible. In Virginia a judge used this story as the basis for upholding the laws banning interracial marriage.

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Myths and the gulible are amazing.

The Word of God overlooked for personal logic amazes me.

Jere, which religion out of the hundreds available should I accept as the word of God? Why should I pick one over the other? Does not each believer think his is the true religion? Where is the proof of proper choice?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
The Word of God overlooked for personal logic amazes me.

See here's the thing jere. There is no reason to use just one or the other. Nobody is asking you to discard your beliefs out of hand. I would not expect anyone to abandon their faith simply because they have questions that are unanswered, nor should you expect anyone to forgo reason, common sense, and logic, just because the Bible says this or that, and you wish to believe it's totally infallible.

If you believe that we are all made in God's image then that includes our ability to reason, and I suspect that God wouldn't want us to abandon that ability because a church or clergyman suggests that we must, in order to truly "believe".

You have made the statement many times that the Bible is the "infallible word of god", and I have no problem with that, however; you have also demonstrated (no insult intended), that you have a rather limited knowledge of what the Bible actually says. My question is this...how is it, that your faith, or your church teaches you that it is acceptable to speak authoritatively about ideas that you are only moderately familiar with?

I want to be clear here, that I'm not trying to be insulting, or start a fight. I'm genuinely curious, because you have suggested to several people that Jesus is the way, and the proper belief in Jesus will mean salvation, and that the Bible is the infallible word of god. On the flip side, I have made many statements in this, and other threads, calling into question the Bible's accuracy, and it's infallibility, yet I have never suggested to anyone that they shouldn't believe, because I don't feel that my level of knowledge qualifies me to make that statement. How is it that you, with an even lesser knowledge of what the bible says, can make such sweeping statements about the bible's accuracy, and infallibility?

Again jere I'm not trying to be insulting, nor am I suggesting that you are ignorant or stupid for not knowing what it says in the bible. I believe that you have been taught not to question it's teachings, or look at them with a critical eye, and that skeptical outlook is a neccessary part of the learning process when dealing with any subject. All I'm suggesting you do is not accept what someone else teaches you without thinking to yourself "does this make sense?"..."does this agree with what I believe, or know from experience to be true?" This is how humans learn, not by blindly accepting the word of other humans.

Nor do I intend to insult or effect your belief in any way Jere.
I merely question and debate. :)

Originally posted by Vilepagan
See here's the thing jere. There is no reason to use just one or the other. Nobody is asking you to discard your beliefs out of hand. I would not expect anyone to abandon their faith simply because they have questions that are unanswered, nor should you expect anyone to forgo reason, common sense, and logic, just because the Bible says this or that, and you wish to believe it's totally infallible.

If you believe that we are all made in God's image then that includes our ability to reason, and I suspect that God wouldn't want us to abandon that ability because a church or clergyman suggests that we must, in order to truly "believe".

I agree in a sense Pagan.

I believe God gave us the ability to reason in order for us to know between Good and Bad.

However, I also believe, that when we are commanded to have faith in him, than that is saying if logic and science disagrees, than we are obviously to go with God's word.

[QUOTE]You have made the statement many times that the Bible is the "infallible word of god", and I have no problem with that, however; you have also demonstrated (no insult intended), that you have a rather limited knowledge of what the Bible actually says. My question is this...how is it, that your faith, or your church teaches you that it is acceptable to speak authoritatively about ideas that you are only moderately familiar with?

I want to be clear here, that I'm not trying to be insulting, or start a fight. I'm genuinely curious, because you have suggested to several people that Jesus is the way, and the proper belief in Jesus will mean salvation, and that the Bible is the infallible word of god. On the flip side, I have made many statements in this, and other threads, calling into question the Bible's accuracy, and it's infallibility, yet I have never suggested to anyone that they shouldn't believe, because I don't feel that my level of knowledge qualifies me to make that statement. How is it that you, with an even lesser knowledge of what the bible says, can make such sweeping statements about the bible's accuracy, and infallibility?

I apologize for not being a Bible scholar. What I know is that God's word is his word, and I know that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins, so that we may be saved.

I dont make these posts just to debate and argue with you and others Pagan.

I know it is an insult to some, but I do geniunely want to see others get saved. I am commanded to testify, I guess I'm just not that talented at it.

I know God's work is being done. Stark is an excellent example...I apologize for being below you in knowledge. :(....but at the same time I couldnt be more proud to be proclaming the love of Christ, and I'm glad he has led me to do just that. :)

Again jere I'm not trying to be insulting, nor am I suggesting that you are ignorant or stupid for not knowing what it says in the bible. I believe that you have been taught not to question it's teachings, or look at them with a critical eye, and that skeptical outlook is a neccessary part of the learning process when dealing with any subject. All I'm suggesting you do is not accept what someone else teaches you without thinking to yourself "does this make sense?"..."does this agree with what I believe, or know from experience to be true?" This is how humans learn, not by blindly accepting the word of other humans.

I agree about not blindly accepting the word of humans.

I, nor any other Christian (or non christian for that matter), should ever just take the word of me, or a preacher, or the pope, or anyone as the truth.

The only way to fully recieve God is to read his word and talk to him through prayer and worship.

The greatest thing in life is your relationship with Christ. I am such a strong believer in that.

Oh my there were many ways ...angels spoke to prophet and lets not forget that until the tower of Babel, everyone spoke the same language to one another...interesting issue, but I think the answer is quite obvious, as others have indirectly stated.

Funny no one mentioned Dance or Song.

Or Spirit Guides.


I personnally don't think that everyone ever spoke the same language. There were too many huge barriers and obstacles separating different groups for them to have ever met, so they used their own.

The Bible says they did.

What is your evidence?

I think that you forget that biblical happenings were restricted to a small area, and only affected a limited group.

Indiginous people all over the world had never heard of Jesus, they had their own stuff going on. Inuit in the north, Aborigines in Australia, Native North Americans, people in the rainforest, Africa. Some isolated groups today still do not have written language. The indiginous groups i have mentioned were of oral tradition, and did not use written word ever to practice their spirituality, and still do not. How would anyone know if they were all speaking the same language, if they couldn't get to each other? Chances are, based on isolated groups today who each have their own languages. Many of which are in your own backyard, there are many Indiginous languages right here in North America, where Jesus never stepped foot.

The bible is not evidence.

Why would anyone have to be in contact with anyone to speak the same language?

What does it matter rather or not an isolated group "knew" they spoke the same language as others around the globe.

Just because their are some extreme isolated groups out there does that not mean they look human? Do they have to be in contact or know that they look like other humans in the world?

I'm not a linguist expert, but Noam Chomsky is. And frankly, he slightly agrees with JJB. That all languages descended from ancient grunting and animal sounds. That they became more complicated later, language evolution. This makes sense, though. But then again, the Tower of Babel occured in a time in which countless civilizations had been set up and languages refined. So, I'll have to agree with creetwins on different languages at the time.

Here's the Biblical tale.
Genesis 11
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Note that God didn't just confuse the languages, it was at this point that God scattered men around the Earth. One presumes they were all bunched together before then.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
. One presumes they were all buched together before then.

I disagree.

It does not say that where they were scattered, there was no one there already. It does not say they were put in a place where they were to be the first. It simply says scattered among the Earth.

There is no reason to assume that when God scattered these people among the Earth, that they were the only ones there.

Sounds kind of like a fairytale.
The authors of the Bible were hard pressed to answer all questions of the uneducated peoples of their time. Formal schooling was out of question for most so they looked to their religions to answer questions about the beginning of the earth, different languages, etc. The religious leaders had to have answers or lose ground in their cloak of having direct touch with God.
Universal answers are the basis for a universal religion. Hence the Bible. To have one book that answers all questions was pretty smart. Look at the power and wealth that has been accumulated by many groups thru out the centuries.

And just were does your extensive history knowledge come from?

History is made up of two words.

HIS STORY.

And just were does your extensive history knowledge come from?
Information documented from the era, archeological findings, carbon dating, logic to peice it all together.

Thanks for answering for someone else Blib. :rolleyes:

How is it, that believing the bible is so insanely stupid...but reading "documents from the time period" is fine? Relying on the word of other men is fine?

How is the word of God so obsurd...but the word of a man is the gospel?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Thanks for answering for someone else Blib. :rolleyes:

How is it, that believing the bible is so insanely stupid...but reading "documents from the time period" is fine? Relying on the word of other men is fine?

How is the word of God so obsurd...but the word of a man is the gospel?
You forgot about "archeological findings, carbon dating"...

When I mentioned the word of other men, I meant the word of scientists and archiologists. The men who are reporting these "findings."

Thanks for answering for someone else Blib.
Sorry, I hate stupidity.

When I mentioned the word of other men, I meant the word of scientists and archiologists. The men who are reporting these "findings."
Walk into a museum, take a look at them yourself. With enough money or prestige they'd let you touch them yourself.

How is it, that believing the bible is so insanely stupid...but reading "documents from the time period" is fine? Relying on the word of other men is fine?
Because documents at the time can be cross-referenced with other documents, and archeological findings and carbon dating. We also have numerous stores of Egyptian documents, and they were known to be the historians of the time period, they documented everything, from different religions to wars, events, that's even where Atlantis hype came from, since we have some similar files to Timaeus and Critias. Although unfrotunately we don't have the Alexandrian Library... Anyways, the bible is not a document of the time, it has been translated repeatedly and we don't have the original, and it cannot be crossrefferenced with anybody else's journals but it's own. Minus the Dead Sea Scrolls, but Christians have been trying their hardest to disprove those.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Sorry, I hate stupidity.

As Do I.


Walk into a museum, take a look at them yourself. With enough money or prestige they'd let you touch them yourself.
To see the word of God, you have to pay nothing. You just read his words, and its actual truth.

Because documents at the time can be cross-referenced with other documents, and archeological findings and carbon dating. We also have numerous stores of Egyptian documents, and they were known to be the historians of the time period, they documented everything, from different religions to wars, events, that's even where Atlantis hype came from, since we have some similar files to Timaeus and Critias. Although unfrotunately we don't have the Alexandrian Library... Anyways, the bible is not a document of the time, it has been translated repeatedly and we don't have the original, and it cannot be crossrefferenced with anybody else's journals but it's own. Minus the Dead Sea Scrolls, but Christians have been trying their hardest to disprove those.

I'd like to see an example of a document that does disagrees with the HIS STORY of the Bible.

Years ago scientists didnt think King David existed...well they found evidence they did. They didn't think that Moses was ever part of the Egyptian court...well they found evidence for that too. They didnt think there was a Mt. Sinai....well the found it.

Anyhow, give me an example of a document that disputes the history of the bible.

To see the word of God, you have to pay nothing. You just read his words, and its actual truth.
Here you are again, taking word of a damn book over factual evidence.

I'd like to see an example of a document that does disagrees with the HIS STORY of the Bible.
I never said that there is real history in the bible. I just said that the bible is held to prove itself, we don't have any evidence that Jesus ever existed. He may have, but it's unprovable. And that's what I'm looking for, not fairy tales, proof. Regardless of that, the entire first book, Genesis, disagrees with everything we have now. The details also conflict, there was a Moses, guesses are that he was black though, after that, we know nothing. There was a King Solomon, King David, after that, we have nothing. And I'm not going to listen to a book that claims to be the complete undeniable truth just because it tells me to. My logic circuits don't work like that.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
To see the word of God, you have to pay nothing. You just read his words, and its actual truth.
I read the Bible, and I see no reason to think it's true.
I'd like to see an example of a document that does disagrees with the HIS STORY of the Bible.

Years ago scientists didnt think King David existed...well they found evidence they did. They didn't think that Moses was ever part of the Egyptian court...well they found evidence for that too. They didnt think there was a Mt. Sinai....well the found it.

Anyhow, give me an example of a document that disputes the history of the bible.
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species

And mine does not buy into evidence that tries to place itself abover the word of God.

I respect your quest for inner truth or w/e you would like to call it, but I dont buy into such things for myself.

I believe in the word of God. I am unshakeable in that faith, and no lack of written evidence or scientific research will begin to shake it.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I read the Bible, and I see no reason to think it's true.

I read these scientific researches, and I see no reason to think they are true.

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species

Charles Darwin was a nut job, who has been speculated as to not hardly been the expert on evolution as he is presented to be due to the well known book you just sited.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I respect your quest for inner truth or w/e you would like to call it, but I dont buy into such things for myself.

I believe in the word of God. I am unshakeable in that faith, and no lack of written evidence or scientific research will begin to shake it.

You don't buy into truth?

Look Jere, here's the thing. Questioning your faith, the bible, and religion in general is not a bad thing. I pretty much wrote off religion when I was in high school and over time I changed my mind again. But the thing is, I really questioned my faith, and my faith as it exists now is much stronger because of it. I'm sure you'll deny it, but you seem scared to even consider that other explanations/possibilities exist. I think God would rather have informed followers that believe in him with both their heart and mind, rather than just their heart.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
You don't buy into truth?

The truth of Christ, yes.

Look Jere, here's the thing. Questioning your faith, the bible, and religion in general is not a bad thing. I pretty much wrote off religion when I was in high school and over time I changed my mind again. But the thing is, I really questioned my faith, and my faith as it exists now is much stronger because of it. I'm sure you'll deny it, but you seem scared to even consider that other explanations/possibilities exist. I think God would rather have informed followers that believe in him with both their heart and mind, rather than just their heart.

Questioning God isnt a bad thing? Jesus became angered with his deciples when he told them you have such little faith.

Why question the word of God?

If there is something you dont understand, do it through prayer. I do not believe in soul searching for an answer, unless prayer has led you to do that.

I still do not see any conclusive proof that the Bible is the "word of God." It still appears to be merely a book of mans hopes and dreams. I can not completely put faith in written words. Words in a book backed up by other words in the same book?
If books are the gospel lets all call ourselves Ahab and go hunt white Whales.

There is no proof! :)

When I was about 5, I was given a children's bible with loads of pretty pictures, and since then - regardless of the book's intentions - it's been a collection of Morality Stories for me, nothing more. IMO, a bunch of people got together and figured out what they believed God would want them to write. The Bible is nothing more than best intentions on paper.

But don't hunt whales, Dan. The IWC wouldn't like it...

If the Bible were only written by men, with no guidance by God, dont you think they would slip up one time and say something that would prove that they wrote it on their own?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
If the Bible were only written by men, with no guidance by God, dont you think they would slip up one time and say something that would prove that they wrote it on their own?
Like all the glaring inconsistences we've posted time and again that you've either ignored or dismissed offhand without even consideration?

Borg,

Seriously, you keep harping this comment.

Why dont you show me something that I ignored? Show me one of the glaring inconsistences that I have failed to consider.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Borg,

Seriously, you keep harping this comment.

Why dont you show me something that I ignored? Show me one of the glaring inconsistences that I have failed to consider.
I'll pick one out of the blue and challenge you to defend your side...

Rom 4:2 "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory."

Jas 2:21 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"

So was it faith, or works?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I'll pick one out of the blue and challenge you to defend your side...

Rom 4:2 "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory."

Jas 2:21 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"

So was it faith, or works?


Here are the verses in NKJ.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by faith, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the alter?

You see, both of these verses are talking about Abrahams justfication for his sacrifice.

The only difference between the two is that in Pauls letter to the Romans he goes on to tell us that he may not boast of his works before God. James, a bondservant of God, tells us in his Epistle, of the faith and works of Abraham. He doesnt controdict anything Paul tought, he just failed to elaborate the fact about boasting as Paul did in his letter.