The Tower of Babel Story Discredits Inspiration

[Caliban]

No, nothing to discover except that an objection without a well defined target is a nominal objection.

I think it is defined well enough to initiate discussion and illustrate the point that scholarship and a modern appraisal of language conflicts with the biblical account. That's clear enough to start a conversation--not to end it.

 

[Caliban]

To my ear, the stories in early Genesis have a different sound to them than the histories in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. The passages that say "So-and-so, son of so-and-so, ruled over Israel for X years", that sounds like someone trying to create a historical record. I don't hear that in the early Genesis stories.

Also, with the early Genesis stories more broadly (perhaps not with Babel itself), there are the odd ways they don't quite fit with each other. Genesis 1 and 2 tell the creation story in two different orders. The Cain story has Cain worried about the people he will encounter after the murder, even though it seems that the only people alive are Cain and his parents and siblings. The Flood story has trouble deciding whether Noah took 2 or 7 of the clean animals. If we notice those issues, the people who compiled Genesis would have noticed the same issues -- it was their stories, after all. Yet, they chose to include the stories, in the form that we see them. Preserving the stories must have been more important than exact accuracy and consistency to the people who chose to preserve them.

Part of my perspective is that I don't agree with this view of inspiration:



I'm familiar with the idea of verbal inspiration, but I don't agree with it. I see the Bible as a much more human product than this view portrays. My view is the one I described in the earlier post: The people of ancient Israel and the early Christian church experienced God, and they wrote down some stories, histories, and poetry that expressed their encounters with God. Some of what they wrote was historical narrative, and some was poetry or fictional stories or apocalyptic imagery or some other form of writing.

I'll add that it's possible that there are some historical inaccuracies in what the Bible writers wrote down. (I don't think that's what's going on in the Babel story, but it's relevant in other passages.) People make mistakes. And it's possible to read books that have a couple of mistakes here and there, and still come away with extremely valuable information -- we do it all the time, when we read textbooks and newspaper articles and so on.

If the Bible contains mistakes (and some of these are huge), why would anyone trust what is says about the existence of a god? How is that not selectively choosing what one likes and agrees with. It is an obvious case of confirmation bias to me. If I can point to one place in the Bible and say, "well, that's a historical error," how can I ever trust what it says in other areas--say the resurrection. At least the fundamentalists are consistent. They seem to understand that if one permits contradictions and inaccuracies, the whole thing falls apart theologically.

 

[Sanoy]

I think it is defined well enough to initiate discussion and illustrate the point that scholarship and a modern appraisal of language conflicts with the biblical account. That's clear enough to start a conversation--not to end it.

I don't think the target has been well defined. When I asked you to state what you think the text describes you replied that the text isn't clear in regards to essential components. One is left wondering what this modern scholarship and appraisal is and what it conflicts with.

In the OP, you welcome both a conversation and any objections to your objection.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If the Bible contains mistakes (and some of these are huge), why would anyone trust what is says about the existence of a god? How is that not selectively choosing what one likes and agrees with. It is an obvious case of confirmation bias to me. If I can point to one place in the Bible and say, "well, that's a historical error," how can I ever trust what it says in other areas--say the resurrection. At least the fundamentalists are consistent. They seem to understand that if one permits contradictions and inaccuracies, the whole thing falls apart theologically.

There can also be disconfirmation bias. So, how would we control for that either way?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't think the target has been well defined. When I asked you to state what you think the text describes you replied that the text isn't clear in regards to essential components. One is left wondering what this modern scholarship and appraisal is and what it conflicts with.

The OP welcomes both a conversation and any objections to your objection.

The situation with language is analogous to biological evolution. Some people simply will never be convinced of biological evolution, no matter what, so the creation story in early Genesis will not be discredited in the eyes of some. Further, that portion, it could be argued, does not read as literal history since no human was even alive at the time.

However, the Tower of Babel story has fewer mythical elements in it. It is feasible that it was meant as literal history. But we know that languages evolve, and they didn't just randomly appear.

To no one's surprise, we have several pages of Christians denying the obvious. Your last bastion of defense is the resurrection. It is the last thing you can ever give up. You'd might as well retreat there now because defending the Bible, particularly Genesis, is impossible.

 

[PloverWing]

If the Bible contains mistakes (and some of these are huge), why would anyone trust what is says about the existence of a god? How is that not selectively choosing what one likes and agrees with. It is an obvious case of confirmation bias to me. If I can point to one place in the Bible and say, "well, that's a historical error," how can I ever trust what it says in other areas--say the resurrection. At least the fundamentalists are consistent. They seem to understand that if one permits contradictions and inaccuracies, the whole thing falls apart theologically.

Two thoughts on trusting the Bible about the existence of God.

1) I teach, so I end up reading a lot of textbooks. Along the way, I'll find occasional goofs. "That's a typo -- it says 12, but it should say 21." "Hmm, that paragraph didn't explain logic programming very well." But if the goofs aren't too big or too frequent, the textbook can still be valuable to me. I just write a note in the margin and keep reading.

2) We don't read the Bible all by ourselves in isolation, like it's a heavenly artifact that's our only clue to God. We read it together in a community of Christians (or Jews), and we understand it in light of our own individual, communal, and historical experiences of God. This Bible story is just like the way I experienced God in the face of a homeless person last week. That story is just like the way I needed to forgive that person who was cruel to me. This letter from St Paul talks about worship in the same way as many Christians through the centuries have talked. That admonition from James' epistle reminds me of what St Francis did. And so on. Maybe there's a statement in the histories that a certain king reigned for 49 years, when it should have been 48, or whatever. The portions of Scripture that tell us that we should embrace the poor in our midst, or that we can experience God in bread and wine, or that we should forgive as we have been forgiven, have rung true in the Christian church through the centuries, and that is a large part of why we trust the words of Scripture when they speak of God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The situation with language is analogous to biological evolution. Some people simply will never be convinced of biological evolution, no matter what, so the creation story in early Genesis will not be discredited in the eyes of some. Further, that portion, it could be argued, does not read as literal history since no human was even alive at the time.

However, the Tower of Babel story has fewer mythical elements in it. It is feasible that it was meant as literal history. But we know that languages evolve, and they didn't just randomly appear.

To no one's surprise, we have several pages of Christians denying the obvious. Your last bastion of defense is the resurrection. It is the last thing you can ever give up. You'd might as well retreat there now because defending the Bible, particularly Genesis, is impossible.

 

[Caliban]

Two thoughts on trusting the Bible about the existence of God.

1) I teach, so I end up reading a lot of textbooks. Along the way, I'll find occasional goofs. "That's a typo -- it says 12, but it should say 21." "Hmm, that paragraph didn't explain logic programming very well." But if the goofs aren't too big or too frequent, the textbook can still be valuable to me. I just write a note in the margin and keep reading.

2) We don't read the Bible all by ourselves in isolation, like it's a heavenly artifact that's our only clue to God. We read it together in a community of Christians (or Jews), and we understand it in light of our own individual, communal, and historical experiences of God. This Bible story is just like the way I experienced God in the face of a homeless person last week. That story is just like the way I needed to forgive that person who was cruel to me. This letter from St Paul talks about worship in the same way as many Christians through the centuries have talked. That admonition from James' epistle reminds me of what St Francis did. And so on. Maybe there's a statement in the histories that a certain king reigned for 49 years, when it should have been 48, or whatever. The portions of Scripture that tell us that we should embrace the poor in our midst, or that we can experience God in bread and wine, or that we should forgive as we have been forgiven, have rung true in the Christian church through the centuries, and that is a large part of why we trust the words of Scripture when they speak of God.

I am a teacher as well, and, I understand the overlooking small discrepancies that do not change the meaning of the text in any significant way. But, I not talking about textual errors involving a copyists misspelling or small miscalculation. I am addressing large error in the text. Genesis 11 CLEARLY claims that there were people who attempted to construct a large structure and that God confounded their language and thereby caused linguistic variety in the region, if no the world. This is a radically different argument than whether to not a number is 48 or 49--that is a clear false equivalency.

I understand that people receive community through religion and if such things help the homeless, thats great. But, I am addressing the idea that I am asked to read the Bible as actual history and trust its claims. There are many folks on this thread who say, "but that's not real history--it metaphor." Great, I agree. I speaking to the argument that claims this is Historical Narrative.

 

[Caliban]

There can also be disconfirmation bias. So, how would we control for that either way?

Well, in my case, I was a Christian for 40 years. Most of those in the Reformed tradition. I approached the Bible as the word of God. However, I've had many of my assumptions about the reliability of the Bible overturned. I'm not saying that I am immune to bias but, my instincts have been in favor of biblical authority for most of my life. I am now skeptically asking questions and relating my current position. We control for our biases by recognizing them and listening to other points of view.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, in my case, I was a Christian for 40 years. Most of those in the Reformed tradition. I approached the Bible as the word of God. However, I've had many of my assumptions about the reliability of the Bible overturned. I'm not saying that I am immune to bias but, my instincts have been in favor of biblical authority for most of my life. I am now skeptically asking questions and relating my current position. We control for our biases by recognizing them and listening to other points of view.

Alright. That sounds like an honest and as forthcoming of a statement one could get. However, moving back to the Tower of Babel topic, even though we could be talking about almost any portion of the various stories genealogically laid out in the book of Genesis, how is it that we assume that God even "told" Moses (or whomever was personally involved in the writing process of Genesis) to "write" an account of people, places and events that happened before Moses' own lifetime?

For me, to count the Tower of Babel story as a "bona-fide mistake" would require for me to assume a whole lot about the actual production of the various biblical writings that, I think, none of us really knows.

As far as biblical authority is concerned, for me, that concept is an 'emergent' property of the biblical writings rather than a dogmatic one. If I believe in the authority of the diverse biblical writings, it's not simply because some folks or other in the Church "told me so." Rather, it's because through time, study and life experience the Biblical 'ball-of-wax' has gained my attention and trust as an authority. I start from the bottom up instead of the top down.

 

[Caliban]

Alright. That sounds like an honest and as forthcoming of a statement one could get. However, moving back to the Tower of Babel topic, even though we could be talking about almost any portion of the various stories genealogically laid out in the book of Genesis, how is it that we assume that God even "told" Moses (or whomever was personally involved in the writing process of Genesis) to "write" an account of people, places and events that happened before Moses' own lifetime?

For me, to count the Tower of Babel story as a "bona-fide mistake" would require for me to assume a whole lot about the actual production of the various biblical writings that, I think, none of us really knows.

As far as biblical authority is concerned, for me, that concept is an 'emergent' property of the biblical writings rather than a dogmatic one. If I believe in the authority of the diverse biblical writings, it's not simply because some folks or other in the Church "told me so." Rather, it's because through time, study and life experience the Biblical 'ball-of-wax' has gained my attention and trust as an authority. I start from the bottom up instead of the top down.

It's more simple than that. Genesis 11 makes a claim that is unambiguous about the nature of linguistic diversity in the region/world. The claim is refuted by modern scholarship. Maybe a syllogism will help:

Disclaimer: Premise one assumes Genesis 11 is Historical Narrative, since that is the claim I am refuting,
P1 holds.

P1. Geneses 11 claims God directly caused linguistic diversity in the Mesopotamian region around the 3rd and 2nd Century BCE.

P2. Modern Linguists identify the evolution of multiple languages through Mesopotamia predating the #rd and 2nd centuries BCE.

C. The Genesis account of linguistic variation contradicts known facts and is not a trustworthy source.

 

[Caliban]

I made an edit to the Op to include the following syllogism:
Disclaimer: Premise one assumes Genesis 11 is Historical Narrative, since that is the claim I am refuting,
P1 holds.

P1. Geneses 11 claims God directly caused linguistic diversity in the Mesopotamian region around the 3rd and 2nd Century BCE.

P2. Modern Linguists identify the evolution of multiple languages through Mesopotamia predating the #rd and 2nd centuries BCE.

C. The Genesis account of linguistic variation contradicts known facts and is not a trustworthy source.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I made an edit to the Op to include the following syllogism:
Disclaimer: Premise one assumes Genesis 11 is Historical Narrative, since that is the claim I am refuting,
P1 holds.

P1. Geneses 11 claims God directly caused linguistic diversity in the Mesopotamian region around the 3rd and 2nd Century BCE.

P2. Modern Linguists identify the evolution of multiple languages through Mesopotamia predating the #rd and 2nd centuries BCE.

C. The Genesis account of linguistic variation contradicts known facts and is not a trustworthy source.

I would have thought that Gen 11 suggests 20 to 30th centuries BCE, not 3rd and 2nd.

 

[Caliban]

I would have thought that Gen 11 suggests 20 to 30th centuries BCE, not 3rd and 2nd.

No. There were no structures or recorded civilization during the 30th--20th centuries BCE. The wheel was invented around 10,000 BCE.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's more simple than that. Genesis 11 makes a claim that is unambiguous about the nature of linguistic diversity in the region/world. The claim is refuted by modern scholarship. Maybe a syllogism will help:

Disclaimer: Premise one assumes Genesis 11 is Historical Narrative, since that is the claim I am refuting,
P1 holds.

P1. Geneses 11 claims God directly caused linguistic diversity in the Mesopotamian region around the 3rd and 2nd Century BCE.

P2. Modern Linguists identify the evolution of multiple languages through Mesopotamia predating the #rd and 2nd centuries BCE.

C. The Genesis account of linguistic variation contradicts known facts and is not a trustworthy source.

Look, I understand you're a practicing teacher and all of that, and I fully respect this fact, but do you not see how this doesn't address the problem that I set out for you above, especially when the locus of concern here is on whether or not the bible is Inspired?

 

[Caliban]

Look, I understand you're a practicing teacher and all of that, and I fully respect this fact, but do you not see how this doesn't address the problem that I set out for you above, especially when the locus of concern here is on whether or not the bible is Inspired?

No, I don't see it. I am under the impression that you disagree with premise 1 as it resales to literal history.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No. There were no structures or recorded civilization during the 30th--20th centuries BCE. The wheel was invented around 10,000 BCE.

20 centuries is 2000 years.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, I don't see it. I am under the impression that you disagree with premise 1 as it resales to literal history.

Yes, you are partly correct. I see the propositions and narrative details of Genesis chapter 11 as natural human sentences made by someone living and educated within the intellectual environs of his respective time and place. And I don't see any reason why I would need to assume, not even for the sake of Inspiration, that it is much more than that.

So while your 2nd premise is what it is, the 3rd premise, more hermeneutically considered, isn't going to simply flush away all resonance of inspiration, revelation or other metaphysical purpose which the passage might have for the average human reader who comes by it thousands of years later. It may still "represent" some level or some kind of truth that is a part of the biblical message.

 

[Sanoy]

The reason I study ANE scholarship and texts is because I want to know the past events that inspired them to write. It takes little effort to object to an ancient text and a lifetime to pursue it's clear meaning. If Gen 11 means that there was only one spoken or written language in the entire world at the suggested time period, and all languages and writing began at this very instance then the Biblical account is obviously and apparently wrong. However knowing whether the Bible account actually informs us of this is another thing entirely. To know that "This never happened" is to know what "this" is and I don't think the actual "this" is apparent at all in this tiny note within a geneology.

 

[Moral Orel]

I like how some movies start with "Inspired by true events". It doesn't mean anything in the movie actually happened, it was just inspired by things that actually happened. "Hey Orel, did you hear about that lady that drove her van into the river with her kids inside and they all drowned?" "Yes I did, and that inspired me to write a story about a gorilla!"

I used to steal Mitch Hedberg jokes. I mean I still do, but I used to too.