Why did Noah's descendents forsake God so quickly?

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

Genesis 10:5 does not read like that in all bibles.

---

So what makes you think your translation is any better? The word used in Gen 10:5 is "ha.go.yim." This means a nation or people, but mostly those who either aren't Jewish, are descendents of Abraham, or with regard to Israel. None of those other meanings make sense given what was established in Genesis 9. Abraham and Israel didn't exist yet.And that's the point you are missing: Genesis 10 is describing events that cannot happen due to things that were established in Genesis 9. But if we abandon the idea that this text was a free-flowing, single piece of work, it starts to make sense.

quote:

---

Verse 1 explains it in the first few words:
And this is the history of Noahfs sons, Shem, Ham and Ja‘pheth.

---

What does that have to do with language? The languages won't be split until Gen 11 and here Gen 10 is already saying these people are speaking other languages. In fact, Genesis 11 mentions a specific city that was built by people listed in Genesis 10.But since Gen 11 starts off by specifically saying that there was only one language in the entire world, then Gen 10 makes no sense.

quote:

---

Genesis is made up of scrolls. Individual scrolls of many different subjects.

---

Nice try, but that's my point to you: The reason why these texts have so many internal contradictions, why it cannot hold a single thought in its head for any length of time...somtimes losing track of what it had just said within a single sentence...is because these texts don't have anything to do with each other.

quote:

---

When reading the bible, its not good to be of the mindset that the writers wrote a novel. They didnt write like that.

---

You're making my point again: These texts don't have anything to do with each other. The Bible isn't a single, coherent piece of work. It's as if a whirlwind wandered through a library and someone randomly gathered up sheets and tried to make some sense of the pages found.

quote:

---

the orignal writers did not write it to ever be as a book.

---

This sentence shows you have no concept of the history of the Torah at least. It was an oral history. It was never "written" to begin with. Eventually, it was.That fact, however, is irrelevant. Whether or not the story is written down or is sung by the Cantor, there is an order and progression to the passages. The first words are "In the beginning" and not "and there was evening and there was morning." Unless we accept the fact that it was cobbled together from multiple sources, bringing vastly different storylines together, we will continually to try and tell people that obviously contradictory statements are actually in perfect confluence.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hmm. You'll need to be more specific there, Iano. Which version of Christianity should we be comparing to? I'm pretty sure the commonality you describe among the other beliefs has been ascribed to at least some varieties of Christianity as well -- e.g. the notion of Catholic confession sounds to me like something that "leaves man free to carry on with the rest of his life as he wishes..." And the founding of the Church of England, in opposition to the Roman Catholic church, seemed to have a similar element, allowing the King of England to divorce and remarry without losing his soul or going to hell. But I must apologize -- I'm sure this is taking us way off topic.Getting back to the OP, perhaps it would make more sense to tackle the issue of the timing. Is everyone really agreed that there could have been only "a few hundred years" between the flood and the polytheistic culture enshrined in the pyramids, or that Noah was still alive when some of the pyramids were built?You seem to be suggesting that mankind is so horridly bad that folks can turn their backs irrevocably, even on the faith of their parents and siblings, in the blink of an eye. But fleshing out a whole population of specialized deities with their intertwined "back stories" -- not to mention coming up with a hieroglyphic writing system to set all that in stone -- that takes time, don't you think?Edited by Otto Tellick, : fixed a silly typo

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

(N.B: this is not actually true.)

Not all are unbelievers and it's those who believed, naturally, who were those utilised in the composition of the Bible. But what you say has some application - albeit to my case. There are many parts of the world were owning/distributing a Bible is a very dangerous practice and at other times, attempts have been made to eradicate it from the public realm altogether.Even if you believe the Bible untrue, it's arguments regarding men it calls unbelievers would lead you to conclude the existance of the multi-facetted god world we see around us today. That is to say, if untrue, it would be a fictional account of why things are the way they are - but a coherent account for all that.- No it doesn't. But it has a positive afterlife outcome which depends very much on how you live your life in this life. What actual matter whether a personal god or an impersonal force/energy at the root of that positive afterlife outcome?- Noting that...

quote:

---

Religiously speaking, the most important thing to do in life is believe in the gods and perform the proper sacrifices and rituals. This would avoid reprisals both from gods and fellow human beings and encourage gifts from the gods. Greek religion was this-world oriented; any postmortem benefits of religious beliefs and actions were only peripherally considered, if at all.

---

a casual search ..and bearing in mind my noting atheism to belong on the list of ways in which the truth of God is suppressed, we can describe these gods as an evolutionary stage on the way to atheism. What better way to deny having to give an account to God than to deny an afterlife in which that account will be given?- ...which, when you consider it for a moment, perfectly reflects the attributes of their creator, ie: man (were it that we were looking for evidence to support my position)- We wouldn't be dealing with just any old story. This story would involve the spiritually-driven hatred of things-God. Consider for example, the speed at which the Israelites dispensed with a knowledge of God having just been transported through a parted sea. They had barely shaken the sea-bottom sand from their sandals before embarking on a project involving a golden calf idol.(remember; if we're positing the flood true then we're also positing the biblically-described mechanisms of truth-suppression true. And arrive, quite readily, at an explanation for the multi-god universe we witness today.Beside, if God and if gods, there would be no actual facts to tie the story down w.r.t. the gods. Not in the same way that stories of travel to the New World could be tied down. I haven't the time now but I seem to recall anyway, that one can trace various gods through different cultures/eras, their names being changed along the way perhaps, but their evoution and transmorgification into 'other' gods being fairly evident.- In all the other faiths the creator would be man* and the god in question would be subject to man and so can be altered in any way and at any time by man. Biblical faith, assuming true, has God as it's creator and sustainer and has man subject to God.*This is not to say that a.n.other faith need be changed much/at all. The biblical view is that one person sits behind all false gods, to whit; satan. And if that persons ends are served by change in a god then change there shall be. And if ends served by no change in a god then no change there shall be.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

the problem with the word 'gentile' being used there is that the ancient hebrews called people from other nations 'Pagans' not gentiles. Gentile was a word that came many centuries later.

quote:

---

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament:
Hebrew evidences a tendency for 'goy' to describe a people in terms of its political and territorial affiliation, and so to approximate much more closely to our modern term ‘nation.’ ‛am [people], conversely, always retains a strong emphasis on the element of consanguinity as the basis of union into a people. (Edited by G.J. Botterweck and H.Ringgren, Vol. 2, 1975, p. 427)

---

and if you look at wikipedia you'll see that what it says about the word gentile is that it "derives from Latin gens (from which, together with forms of the cognate Greek word genos, also derive gene, general, genus and genesis). The original meaning of "clan" or "family" was extended in post-Augustan Latin to acquire the wider meaning of belonging to a distinct nation or ethnicity. Later still the word came to mean "foreign", i.e. non-Roman. After the Christianization of the empire it could also be used of pagan or barbarian cultures."So yes i would say that the translations that take this into consideration are better then the KJV...because its accurate and doesnt give the strange impression that the writer of genesis stuffed up some how. if you took a collection of steven kings novels and combined them into 1 novel continuous novel, what sort of sense do you think it will make if you tried to read it like 1 novel? It would make very little sense.
For the same reason you cant read Genesis like a novel...its a combination of several different books. You need to read them individually on their own merit. One does not necesarily begin where the previous one left off. Its not chronological. if you know that then why are you critisizing it for not being in logical order. The books were placed in the order they are in by early translators...they didnt know the order that moses wrote them...he didnt number them, the translators did.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Samples from six continents and the islands of the sea; hundreds of such legends are known:

quote:

---

Australia - Kurnai
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Babylon - Berossus’ account
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Babylon - Gilgamesh epic
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Bolivia - Chiriguano
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Borneo - Sea Dayak
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Burma - Singpho
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Canada - Cree
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Canada - Montagnais
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

China - Lolo
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Cuba - original natives
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

East Africa - Masai
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Egypt - Book of the Dead
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Fiji - Walavu-levu tradition
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

French Polynesia - Raata
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared

---

quote:

---

Greece - Lucian’s account
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Guyana - Macushi
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Iceland - Eddas
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

India - Andaman Islands
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

India - Bhil
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

India - Kamar
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Iran - Zend-Avesta
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared

---

quote:

---

Italy - Ovid’s poetry
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Malay Peninsula - Jakun
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Mexico - Codex Chimalpopoca
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Mexico - Huichol
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

New Zealand - Maori
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Peru - Indians of Huarochir
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared

---

quote:

---

Russia - Vogul
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

U.S.A. (Alaska) - Kolusches
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

U.S.A. (Alaska) - Tlingit
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

U.S.A. (Arizona) - Papago
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

U.S.A. (Hawaii) - legend of Nu-u
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Vanuatu - Melanesians
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Vietnam - Bahnar
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

quote:

---

Wales - Dwyfan/Dwyfach legend
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

---

i've given you the names of the nations, you should be able to find info on each individual one...of course i could have made up that list...or i could not have lol. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

You didn't make it up, the people you got it from do pretend it says something it doesn't, though. Some points.1) You said you could go to every nation on earth and find these stories. You didn't even list 40 nations, some of which are doubles.2) These are all very different stories.3) These aren't about local floods because?

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

I have researched flood myths extensively, and all the cherry-picking in the world won't make your original statement true.

i take it that means you are not going any further?

I have no idea what you mean by that. Please elaborate.

Except that, as you can see from reading your own link, the Greeks did believe in eternal punishment for the wicked and impious. What they lacked, apparently, was the idea of eternal bliss for True Believers. Why would anyone suppress that, if they knew it to be true, but keep the idea of eternal suffering? Spiritual masochism? But here you seem to be defending one implausible aspect of the Bible by pointing to, if anything, an even more implausible aspect and holding it up as normative.It's as though I questioned the story about the talking snake, and you replied: "Oh, that's nothing, in the Book of Joshua there's a story about a pig playing the banjo". But this is contrary to observation of how people actually behave. If we look at Christians, for example, they mostly seem quite able to hold on to the faith of their forefathers even though, if there is a God, the manifest signs of his presence over the last couple of millennia amount to, at most, a nod and a wink. But in the case of the descendants of Noah, they apparently all rejected the religion they'd been brought up in even while there were living eyewitnesses to the fact that God was quite prepared to kill everyone who was displeasing in his sight.

It seems there was room for eternal bliss in some sectors. From that same site.

quote:

---

Elysium (also called Elysian Fields or Elysian Plain) was a paradise inhabited at first only by the very distinguished, but later by the good. Elysium first appears in Homer's Odyssey as the destination of Menelaus. It is located at the western ends of the earth and is characterized by gentle breezes and an easy life like that of the gods. Closely related to Elysium is Hesiod's Isles of the Blessed, mentioned in his Works and Days, which was located in the western ocean.

---

It is interesting to note that this paradise (inevitably) fits the bill suggested for unbiblical religion in general. A positive afterlife outcome depends upon what a man does in this life.- That's not quite how things are set up Dr.A. The OP questions how, given the flood and a surviving 8, we arrive at the current scenario. I'm merely pointing out the biblical narrative from the one assumed to the answer requested.I'm not attempting to prove the Bible is true - although some evidences (eg: unbiblical gods/forces invariably demand works for a positive afterlife outcome - where one is available) support the biblical case.- The children of Noah would have been born unbelievers and would have - until such time as they became believers (if at all) denied and perverted any truth of God to which they were exposed. Such is the nature of unbelievers. The Christians you speak of would be believers.Which means you're comparing the actions of apples (for whom no evidence of God is enough) and pears (who, having faith, have all the evidence for God that they need).

Which pretty much harpoons your prior claim that they were trying to "deny having to give an account to God" by "deny[ing] an afterlife in which that account will be given".Now that you know that you were completely wrong about Greek attitudes to the afterlife, would you like to try again?Apparently they did go on believing that there would be bad stuff for the impious and good stuff for the pious. However, while believing that, someone at some point, having been brought up knowing about the one God of Noah, decided to impiously invent polytheism, while continuing to teach that the wages of impiety were eternal suffering.I am having trouble imagining such a man. I think your answer is fallacious. Consider the following discussion:Bob: Yesterday a ten ton weight fell on me. And then later that day someone cut my head off with a chainsaw.Alice: But ... but if a ten-ton weight fell on you, why aren't you dead?Bob: Why, if you'd been paying attention to what I've been saying, you'd have noticed that I also told you that someone cut my head off with a chainsaw. So you can see that I must be immune to injury, otherwise how could I be standing here?Alice: But ... but I don't believe that you had your head cut off with a chainsaw, either. If anything, that claim seems even more implausible.Bob: That's not quite how things are set up, Alice. You said: "if" a ten-ton weight fell on me. You are therefore working through the consequences of the proposition that what I said is true. Now the Boblical narrative (see what I did there) also says that I survived having my head cut off by a chainsaw. We must therefore continue this discussion on the basis that I am in fact immune to injury.Alice: But ... but ...If you can see what's wrong with Bob's argument, you can see what's wrong with yours. But surely Noah and his children would have raised their descendants to believe in God. They would have believed. If anyone in history would have totally believed in God, and thought that obeying him was vitally important, it would have been Noah and his children and their wives, who out of all mankind were saved because they did what God told them to do.Naturally they would have raised their children to believe the same way. And people do, overwhelmingly, believe what their parents raise them to believe. Religions don't change fast. Of all human ideas, they are the most immune to change. And yet it seems that Noah's descendants changed from believers in Noah's God to polytheistic idolaters even when they still had Noah around to tell them that they were wrong, not just as a matter of faith, but as a simple matter of fact. "There is one God," he could have said. "He wants you to do these things, he doesn't want you to do those things. He killed everyone in the world except me because they did those things. That's the sort of God he is. I saw it. I was there".And yet his descendants wouldn't have followed his religious beliefs even though it is manifestly the case that clinging on to the religious beliefs people were raised in is one of the most constant aspects of human nature?

So, you're the grandchild of Noah. Let's picture the scene:Life is hard, and you're hungry. Getting enough food from the livestock is a constant balancing act with leaving enough alive to have any herds at all - and, remember, these aren't healthy animals they're infested with every kind of parasite, saved from the flood by the wisdom of God. It's only been a week since the last Triceratops sunk into the mile thick mudflats that still coat half the world, and your idiot father ate the last Diplodocus before you were born.So your father swears that that following God's rules saved you all from the destruction and - look - there's a rainbow in the sky to prove it. But let's face it, you're talking about a God capricious and violent enough to decimate the entire world, slaughtering all but a handful of all people, and leaving you eking out this precarious existence with your wife and cousin. Plus your older brothers got all the pretty cousins. You got the one with elephantitis - which God, in his wisdom, chose to save from the flood.So, yeah, daddy says God is good, and you should serve and worship him, but then daddy's the kind of guy who upon finding his father - your grandfather - drunk thought it would be a good idea to get jiggy with him! Are you really going to trust this guy?Add it up: precarious, hard existence in a decimated world and a psycho God promoted by your highly dubious family. Seems to me that's a fair breeding ground for a new religion with a little less of the ol' crazy in it. After all, what have you got to lose? If you're wrong he's promised not to do it again, and at least you got to try and do something about those damned parasites.

That's not actually what the Bible says. See Genesis 9. I think maybe you're confusing Noah with Lot (Genesis 19).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.