True. Unless they work for those schools you mentioned, in which case they probably find a way. I’m sure some people see all phylogenetic trees as evil, even if they are for languages instead of animals.
You may reject it, but I do not. I simply try to use words as they need to be used. A fable is not a true event, thus not a true story, but it might be, like much fiction (made up stuff) useful to illustrate a true point. Nevertheless, the false story is not true in the sense of reality, that it happened. Some fiction is more true than other fiction in the sense of reality; we think whether it happened or not, it could have happened… we would not be surprised if something very similar actually did happen. Some of CS Lewis fiction was not intended to convey factual truth, but conceptual truth, yet we know it is really unreal stuff. On the other hand, Jesus parables, which were not intended to convey a factual truth, yet carries much more validity because of the possibility of fact, of reality. If he had talked about planets forgiving each other, the concept, while interesting, would not have carried the same weight, perhaps no weight at all. So when I say “false” I mean it in the sense of fiction. When someone makes up a story, we sometimes make a decision to judge it as pure fiction, meaning completely untrue.
Nor am I saying that you are. While there are different names for different types of fiction, including the ones you mentioned, nevertheless the unifying factor is their unreliability in terms of fact. When a legend becomes accepted as likely truth, it achieves a different title, such as oral history. There are also different categories of history, and different historical genres. But many stories are not written with a particular category in mind. They are written, or told, as being either true, or made up, or a combination of the two. Then the point of the story follows.
So arguing about what it is called misses the point.
Well, the bible explains it, if you accept the explanation. You have read about the tower of babel, so it is surprising that you would say the bible does not explain it.
Differently yes in some cases. I do understand your concept of truth in unreal or untrue stories. I do not have another way to distinguish the truth of a story from the truth of the message or lesson within the story. Much fiction still provides realistic lessons, context, and even historical accuracy, ie. historical fiction, which is a made up story based on real history context, and even including historical characters.
This is an interesting speculation, but if there was a fall not expressed by the story in Genesis, then one would have to present a potential option that meets the requirements of the true message in the “made up story”. And a very good explanation would be required as to why a “made up story” is better than the presentation of the real events. ergo, why is it used in scripture rather than the simple plain truth.
The fact that you find my characterization of the re-interpretation of Genesis 1 to 11 odious, is interesting and revealing. I find it odious also, but that is a poor reason for accepting or rejecting such. The story of David’s adultery, Abraham’s poor defence of his wife Sarah, Absalom’s attempt to decimate and possibly kill his father, and Solomon’s worship of false gods are all odious, but yet I accept them as true.
The babel story is not inadequate to me, but I do not accept it as the only reason for language diversity, but the beginning of it. Part of YEC however, is that chronologies and dates are often wrong. But, I may be wrong; I have not heard the YEC perspective on this point, and it is possible that there was also language diversity prior to this event, but that the natural tendency of people to not understand one another was increased in this case for a variety of reasons, and was sufficient in this case to stop the building of this tower to heaven, and to cause these people to separate and spread around the earth rather than to consolidate and cooperate.
Metaphor implies untruth to teach truth. ie. “that man is a tree”. Obviously, he is not a tree. The meaning is he is immovable, strong, well rooted. Is he a tree? No. If he was actually a tree, then it would not be a metaphor. As a metaphor, it is possibly true. But if not assumed to be a metaphor, it would be false.
However, Genesis is not a simple metaphor. It is a story, not a mere characterization. At most, it could be a compilation of numerous metaphors. So if it is a fable, then fables are characterized by the fact that they are not true; they are merely made up stories. If it is a legend, then they are a greatly exaggerated (hyperbole) telling of events and abilities of a possibly real person, or of an imaginary person who may represent a compilation of several real persons. Again, mainly made up and not strictly true, and mostly wishful thinking.
In order for Genesis 1 and 2 to be portraying truths, for us to know they were portraying truths, they would have to be linked to a truth which would not rely on Genesis 1 and 2 to be clear. We have a big problem in the case of Genesis 1 and 2, because they do not provide an example of dissonnance between God and man, nor a mere illustration, but they provide the origin and cause of the dissonnance. If there is not origin and cause of this, then Genesis 1 and 2 simply do not help to illustrate anything. They are only relevant if real, otherwise they are quite useless. Especially useless if they counter the supposed reality. You see, the paradigm proposed by most of those who want to relegate Genesis 1 and 2 to myth-hood and fable, is that our sin and dissonance with God is simply part of our evolved nature, and that death and destruction and fighting and killing are normal evolutionary processes, not something contrary to the way God created nature.
Using the example of pinnochio, it would be like using an illustration of pinnochio’s nose growing longer every time he told the truth, or turning back to wood every time he listened to his conscience.
Sorry this wasn’t clear. My point is that many YEC would argue with the dates and chronologies proposed that counter the babel story.
> The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence? Don Batten
Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found. (Batten)
> If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2 this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood(Batten)
What about the chronology? You have cited an Ussher-type time-frame. Ussher actually had it at 105 years after the Flood. This short time-frame for Babel seems to depend on the assumption that it happened at the birth of Peleg (his name means ‘division’ and the ‘earth was divided’), but these are not necessarily connected, as explained by Ruth Beechick, a modern chronologist). Floyd Jones, another modern chronologist and author of The Chronology of the Old Testament (available from the CMI store), puts the time frame as 340 years after the Flood, at the death of Peleg, rather than his birth (this means that the total time since creation to now is the same as Ussher).
> Of course 340 years would be plenty of time to get lots of people (many millions). The time available therefore seems to be between 105 and 340 years without affecting the overall chronology (since the Bible does not actually give the date of Babel). The population considerations you mention would add to the weight of evidence that a longer time-frame makes more sense. (Batten)
And I did not claim that you were, Eddie. Your paradigm is different, although you end up in the same general area of myth-hood, fable, historical fiction… due to your understanding of literary genres, your hermeneutics, etc.
However, I doubt very much the errors in fact by Batten are legion… but I thought you were a philosopher and not a scientist? Sanford was a previous evolutionist, not sure about Batten and Carter… so how to comment on their fixation on literalism-inerrantist reading? It seems to me a generalization that is impossible to comment on, other than to simply state that it is irrelevant. Or to state that evolutionists are committed to their old age, common descent from microbes to biologists, and nothing would ever disuade them that another alternative is possible.
However, that is also a generalization, and not very fruitfully contributing in terms of learning anything.
Yet, given that you give very good contributions (usually) to these discussions, if you are not among those who I mentioned above, then to what exactly do you attribute that God created nature differently than the way we observe it today?
Your quote of Batten says that the time of Babel happens after the death of Peleg rather than at his birth? Can you elaborate as to why this would be the case?
The biblical trend of “birth-comments” (in effect, comments that are made explaining that person’s name, or explaining the thoughts of the parent at that time, or for some other reason.) are too numerous to count.
Seth was named so because he was the “appointed” or “replacement” son of Abel. Esau was named so because of his thick mat of red hair, and Jacob because he grabbed his brother’s foot. Zareh, Judah’s son, was named because the midwife wrapped a scarlet thread around his foot, and Pharez was named because of the “breach” that came upon his mother during birth. Ephraim is named so because God made Joseph to be fruitful in the land of his affliction, and Moses was named so because he was taken out of the water.
What makes Peleg (for in his days was the earth divided) an altogether different case? What makes him the exception?
-Tim
Well it is all about me getting the last word, Eddie 
so if you have to stop then you must. But you have said there is truth in the account, even if it is not literally true. What is the truth then portrayed in the story by “God created everything good” and the curse of thorns and sweat and pain resulting from man’s sin?
As for Batten, I lifted a bunch of quotes out of context, and not in order, so while it reveals his perspective, these quotes do not reveal his reasoning… therefore if you have read nothing else, you have no idea of the quality of his reasoning.
Nevertheless Eddie, I appreciate you and your contributions.
@TimothyHicks
As you can see from the repeat quote, > …340 years after the Flood, at the death of Peleg, rather than his birth it said, at his birth, not after his birth. So I do not think Peleg is the exception.
Shem begat Arphaxad 2 years after the flood. Arphaxad begat Selah at age 35. Selah begat Eber at age 30. And Eber begat Peleg at age 34.
2 + 35 + 30 + 34 = 101 AF (after flood)
If Peleg was born in the year 101 AF, and his comment regarding him (in his days was the earth divided) has to do with the Tower of Babel, then it means that the Tower of Babel was constructed sometime before 101 AF or during 101 AF. I’m not sure how the 340 year-number is arrived at?
Don’t mean to be argumentative, I’m just confused on this point.
-Tim
Thanks Eddie.
The reason why I came to the conclusion of 101 AF (or a date prior to that) for the construction of Babel is because I’m not sure why Peleg would get his name later in life? Typically the “birth comments” about biblical personal names, mean they have something to do with how their parents felt, what their situation was (Ephraim was named because God cause Joseph to be fruitful in the land of his affliction), or some distinguishing mark of the baby itself (Esau’s red hair, or Jacob grabbing his brother’s ankle).
The only other case is the unique scenario of acquiring a name later in life (Abram and Sarai becoming Abraham and Sarah later in life). Or Jacob becoming Israel (for thou has struggled with God). It’s a divine name change if you will.
So typically I’m predisposed to think that the “birth comments” of a particular biblical character reflect a name given at birth… Not a name acquired later in life. Peleg could of course be an exception.
-Tim