GeoCreationism.com

I have not studied the Book of Jubilees much as a source. Though historically important, it is not recognized as canonized scripture in either the Jewish or Christian traditions. But, while I still take it with a grain of salt, I do believe that the Book of Jubilees, chapter 10 has something to add to our study on the Tower of Babel…
18 - And in the three and thirtieth jubilee, in the first year in the second week, Peleg took to himself a wife, whose name was Lomna the daughter of Sina’ar, and she bare him a son in the fourth year of this week, and he called his name Reu; for he said: ‘Behold the children of men have …

 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.
This verse has always been interesting to me. It suggests that under normal circumstances, stone would have been the common choice for their city and tower. Instead, they chose bricks, which they baked thoroughly. Verse 3 also suggests that not everyone used tar for mortar in their times, but they did. Apparently, they were being innovative.

When you think about the fact that building a tower and city from baked bricks and tar was sufficient in their mind to “make a name” for themselves, it suggests a level of innovation, that perhaps they were making history, or at least thought they were.

As I discuss …

Of all of Shinar’s reasons for building the Tower (Genesis 11:3-4 - The Tower of Babel - The People Scheme Against God), I am intrigued by the relationship between their legacy and their being scattered.
“Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
Who do you suppose is speaking here? We generally read this statement as if the everyone in Shinar was stating it in unison. If that is the case, then the earth is not young.

For a group to make a name for themelves, they need another group to know of it. …

 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
Wow. The arrogance of man. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I wrote in Genesis 11:2 - The Tower of Babel - One Language, but Multiple Settlements that there were multiple settlements on the Plains of Shinar that all spoke Sumerian. According to scripture, Nimrod founded or …

In my last post, I made a mistake. In Genesis 11:1-2 - The Tower of Babel - Yes, one language, I summarized Genesis 1:1-2 as follows…
The people on the Plains of Shinar spoke Sumerian. Noah’s clans moved there.
I do not think that is accurate. Here are our verses again…
 1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
Do you see the problem with verse 2? Nowhere are Noah’s clans mentioned, just people. Obviously, Noah’s clans ended up in the plains of Shinar, but if science is correct that there were people other than Noah’s clans, and …

 In Genesis 11:1-2 - The Tower of Babel - One Language?, I wrote the following…
Let us assume that science is correct, that Noah’s descendants were not the only people in the world, and that Noah’s descendants spoke some Semitic dialect (eventually giving way to Hebrew). Let us also assume that scripture is correct, but was written from the perspective of someone experiencing it, as opposed to watching it. In that case, what is the likely scenario for Noah’s people as they migrate east, likely following the Euphrates and/or the Tigris River(s) to the plains of Shinar? Well, based on archaeology and other sciences, they would have encountered city after city of people. Furthermore, the primary language spoken in these cities would have been Sumerian. There may have …

In Genesis 11:1 - The Tower of Babel - Development of Language, we discussed the possibility that the ”one language” and one “common speech” that “the whole world spoke” in Genesis 11:1 was Sumerian. This might seem to be a problem when you consider that Semitic languages go back almost as far (3rd to 4th millennium BC), because that mean there were two languages (or more) that were being spoken at the time, not just the one. If scripture is meant literally, then something must either be wrong with the scientific methods or the scripture, right?

A Young Earth Creationist would have no problem arguing that there is something wrong with the science used to establish the use of …

The Tower of Babel
 1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the …

Back in Summary of God’s Righteousness, I summarized some of God’s characteristics that we should find when we see Him being just:

He listens to the prayers of the righteous (those who believe and obey Him)
He saves the righteous (those who believe and obey Him) from the unrighteous (those who do not believe and obey Him)
His justice is immeasurable
He is genuinely deserving of praise and thanksgiving
He is unique
 - An immeasurable source of righteousness (accounts righteousness for believing Him)
 - The greatest source of justice
 - The only one deserving of praise (the rest of us are not righteous per se, but God willingly sees us righteous when we believe and obey Him)

While our righteousness is from believing and obeying God, God’s righteousness is …

In Common Scientific Misunderstandings of Young Earth Creationists, I introduced an argument by Ryland regarding Mt. St. Helens. The argument is that this eruption was an example of rapid fossilization, and so debunks evolution. The apparent age of the fossils there seems millions of years old, yet we know it to be less than 30. At the time I had not researched it, and could not find arguments against his with which to refute. Well, tonight I had a discussion with a very nice couple who reminded me about this argument, and I think it’s time I addressed it.

The first response I have found against the Mt. St. Helens argument is here at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html. It is point number …