A contradiction in the book of Genesis? (confusio linguarum in the tower of Babel)

[Escipión]

First of all, excuse me if I make any mistake in my writing, since my mother tongue is Spanish.





The confusio linguarum was the moment God confused the men working on the tower of Babel by making them speak different languages, so that they wouldn't understand each other and thus they wouldn't be able to finish the construction.

But, before that, after the universal flood sent by God and the death of all living creatures except for Noah and his family and the animals he'd put into the ark, the Bible says that the descendants of Noah's sons repopulated the known world. Much has been written about who went where and from which branch of Noah's family the different peoples and races we know today might have derived, but that doesn't have to do with the point I want to make.

Genesis 10 is a detailed explanation of the different generations and its components that came after Noah and his three sons. And it shows very clearly that already in those times there was a variety of languages. Each descendant is the father of a new nation, and each nation has its own language associated.

4 The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim. 5 (From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)

31 These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.


Surprisingly, Genesis 11, which tells the story of the confusio linguarum, begins with a very clear statement that explicitly contradicts that said in the previous chapter:


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

This is a contradiction. I don't find it problematic whatsoever in relation with my faith, since in my humble opinion the literal interpretation of the Genesis is an error. But I wonder how can this clear contradiction be explained and justified by the fundamentalist.

 

[USincognito]

This is probably a better forum than Creation and Evolution Escipion. I hope you get some interesting replies.

 

[shernren]

It's a good question. =)

 

[metherion]

I have a thought on how it might be explained.

I will post it in a day or two if it is not posted by someone else. After all, I would be playing the Devil's Advocate instead of letting someone who really holds the viewpoint answer.

Metherion

 

[shernren]

Looking a bit at the original words. In the Hebrew the "language" of chapter 10 is the word lashon (H3956). The "language" of chapter 11 is the word saphah (H8193). The latter word is more commonly translated "lips"; it also has a completely unrelated sense of "border", e.g. the brink or bank of a river. The former is more commonly translated "tongue", and is used to describe a "wedge" of gold (that Achan stole in Joshua 7).

However, both words are regularly used in their sense of "language":

He established it as a statute for Joseph
when he went out against Egypt,
where we heard a language (8193) we did not understand.
(Psalms 81:5 NIV)

This is what the LORD Almighty says: "In those days ten men from all languages (3956) and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, 'Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.' "
(Zechariah 8:23 NIV)

So the fact that the two are different words alone doesn't solve the problem.

 

[Nachtjager]

Yet another problem from Genesis. For my two cents, this is yet another contradiction caused by the combination of the different texts into one volume as per the documentary hypothesis and the five different sources of the early writings of the OT.

I AM a Christian, so nobody pile on please, but I believe, for what it's worth, that there was no literal "Tower of Babel" and that we're dealing literally with an ancient Hebrew myth here. If God really wanted to stop anyone from building a tower to heaven, why would He cause them to speak differently? That just doesn't make sense. Why not just knock it over? Why not just let them continue to build the thing throughout the ages until it reached the stratosphere just to show them the futility of trying to reach Heaven by merely erecting a tall building? The concept had to be laughable to an all powerful God such as ours. Man could build a tower to reach into the clouds and thereby reach Heaven? And for attempting to build a structure that wouldn't have accomplished its goal regardless, he divided their tongues? That's just dopey today, but it made sense in ancient Israel to a bunch of sheep herders who did still think that Heaven was located somewhere just beyond the clouds.

The Tower of Babel story was used by early priests to impart upon early Hebrews that God did not look kindly on man attempting to gain entrance into Heaven by their own works, and that is certainly true. That is the point of the story. Man attempted to outsmart God, so God caused chaos and confusion and threw their world into dissarray. That still holds true today when man tries to outsmart God, doesn't it?

I don't believe there was a literal Tower of Babel or that it caused a great division of languages, but it does serve to teach a valuable lesson, just as the parables of Christ did.

Take care and God bless!

 

[HypnoToad]

The problem is that you're reading chapters 10 and 11 as a strict chronological sequence, when it's not structured that way - the text is a topical sequence. The text covers one whole topic, and then goes on to another topic. This means that there will sometimes be events that are not in chronological order.

For example, Genesis 1 covers the creation week - it ends on the seventh day. But when we go on in chapter 2, it goes back to the sixth day and discusses more on the creation of man. It is chronologically out of order.

A similar thing happens with chapters 10 and 11. The genealogies of chapter 10 cover a time span from Noah to AFTER the tower of Babel incident. Once that topic is over, it goes back and discusses the tower of Babel.

Notice in chapter 10, when it talks about Peleg (verse 25). "Peleg" means "division" and the the text states he was given that name because he was born "when the earth was divided" - this is a reference to the event at Babel. It is then, AFTER that, when you have your reference to different tongues in verse 31.

 

[Jadis40]

Something else needs to be pointed out. Linguists dedicate their time to the study of languages, how they evolve, and where they originated. Considering the number of languages in existence today, and the numerous families they can be broken into, I also see the account of the "Tower of Babel" as being based on something that may have actually happened, but not a literal account.

One case in point is the Indo-European language family, which includes English and Sanskrit.

I found this on this website, I thought it was interesting:

http://www.geocities.com/paris/leftbank/6507/chronicle120.html

[FONT=Arial,Verdana]We can learn more about the earliest Indo-Europeans from other aspects of their reconstructed vocabulary. Some words, for example, describe [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Verdana]an agricultural technology whose existence dates back to 5000 B.C.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Verdana] By that time the agricultural revolution had spread north from its origins in the Fertile Crescent, where the first archaeological evidence of cultivation dates back to at least 8000 B.C. From this region agriculture also spread southward to sustain the Mesopotamian civilizations and westward to Egypt. The Indo-European words for "barley," "wheat" and "flax"; for "apples," "cherries" and their trees, for "mulberries" and their bushes; for "grapes" and their vines; and for the various implements with which to cultivate and harvest them describe a way of life unknown in northern Europe until the third or second millennium B.C., when the first archaeological evidence appears.[/FONT]

As a side to this, Hebrew is in the Afro-Asiatic language family.

 

[shernren]

The problem is that you're reading chapters 10 and 11 as a strict chronological sequence, when it's not structured that way - the text is a topical sequence. The text covers one whole topic, and then goes on to another topic. This means that there will sometimes be events that are not in chronological order.

For example, Genesis 1 covers the creation week - it ends on the seventh day. But when we go on in chapter 2, it goes back to the sixth day and discusses more on the creation of man. It is chronologically out of order.

A similar thing happens with chapters 10 and 11. The genealogies of chapter 10 cover a time span from Noah to AFTER the tower of Babel incident. Once that topic is over, it goes back and discusses the tower of Babel.

Notice in chapter 10, when it talks about Peleg (verse 25). "Peleg" means "division" and the the text states he was given that name because he was born "when the earth was divided" - this is a reference to the event at Babel. It is then, AFTER that, when you have your reference to different tongues in verse 31.

Yes, I was expecting that sort of response, but it just doesn't work, not if you look at the text in detail. There are three references to "languages" in ch. 10:

(From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)
(Genesis 10:5 NIV)

These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.
(Genesis 10:20 NIV)

These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.
(Genesis 10:31 NIV)

Now the note in Genesis 10:5 is put after the second generation from Japheth (Japheth -> Gomer etc. -> Ashkenaz etc.; [Japheth] -> Javan -> Elishah etc.) So the comment about the maritime peoples each having their own language must have been true by the second generation down from Japheth.

This is reinforced by another piece of evidence from Ham's line. Nimrod, we read, was the grandson of Ham, and the first center of his "kingdom" was Babylon - literally "Babel" in the Hebrew. Now in Genesis 11:1 and 2 it is strongly implied (if not plain obvious) that the "plain" in Shinar they found was unsettled until they got there - so Nimrod must either have been the leader of those who built the tower of Babel, or must have arrived there after the confusion and started rebuilding. Either way, we cannot place the tower of Babel incident after Nimrod's beginning his city, so that this is another indicator of the tower of Babel happening within two generations of Japheth, Ham, and Shem.

And if we take Peleg's name as referring to Babel - something which the Bible is at best silent about - that leaves us with the tower of Babel happening at about 200 years after the Flood. Peleg must have been named when he was *born*, and according to the chronologies that is 200 years after the Flood - and in 400 years after the Flood he dies, so that's a very narrow window for the tower of Babel to occur.

All this points to the tower of Babel having to take place within two to three generations of Japheth, Ham and Shem, or within 200 to 400 years after the Flood, for the Genesis 10 table of nations to make sense. However, when we come to Genesis 11, we read firstly that "the whole world" - what, two hundred people? - moved to Babel and started building, and that God confused their languages. With that few people, how could all the languages we see in the world today possibly have been founded? There are about 7,000 different languages in the world; were all of them formed at Babel? Never mind the questions of how they could even have had enough people to think of forming a city (what with the entire earth having just been submerged under salt water for over a year, all the rotting carcasses, and the surely high infant mortality rate), would they have had enough people for a few thousand languages?

Never mind, of course, the fact that not a single people group outside the Middle East is mentioned in Genesis 10 - did Noah had a fourth son that nobody would talk about? Or are the Amerindians, Australian Aborigines and the Aztecs chopped liver?

 

[metherion]

Xianjedi used the argument I guess would be used.

About the not chronological thing.

Metherion

 

[Nachtjager]

At the risk of being pounded here, again, the Tower of Babel is a Hebrew parable, dare I say it - a myth. It is not a literal historical event. It teaches a lesson not to try and outsmart God, that's all it was ever meant to do. Okay, lemme' have it!

Take care and God bless!

 

[HypnoToad]

Yes, I was expecting that sort of response, but it just doesn't work, not if you look at the text in detail. There are three references to "languages" in ch. 10:

(From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)
(Genesis 10:5 NIV)

These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.
(Genesis 10:20 NIV)

These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.
(Genesis 10:31 NIV)

Now the note in Genesis 10:5 is put after the second generation from Japheth (Japheth -> Gomer etc. -> Ashkenaz etc.; [Japheth] -> Javan -> Elishah etc.) So the comment about the maritime peoples each having their own language must have been true by the second generation down from Japheth.

No it doesn't require them having their own language by the 2nd generation.

For one, genealogies often skipped generations and only listed the more prominent people. "Son of" doesn't require a "father and son", they used it of grandsons, greatgrandsons, any descendant.

Further, verse five can mean that they eventually had their own language, not that they had one right at that moment.

 

[shernren]

No it doesn't require them having their own language by the 2nd generation.

For one, genealogies often skipped generations and only listed the more prominent people. "Son of" doesn't require a "father and son", they used it of grandsons, greatgrandsons, any descendant.

Further, verse five can mean that they eventually had their own language, not that they had one right at that moment.

In your interpretation, Genesis 11 pretty directly states that Peleg was born 101 years after the Flood, and died 310 years after the Flood. This means that the Tower of Babel incident could only have happened within that timespan if you make the interpretation that Peleg's name represents the division at Babel. Furthermore, Josephus the historian also argues that Nimrod was the grandson of Ham - in the same work in which he testifies about Jesus, The Antiquities of the Jews.

So within your chronology we have a constraint of the Tower of Babel happening within 100-300 years of the Flood. Right?

 

[John1and1]

At the risk of being pounded here, again, the Tower of Babel is a Hebrew parable, dare I say it - a myth. It is not a literal historical event. It teaches a lesson not to try and outsmart God, that's all it was ever meant to do. Okay, lemme' have it!

Take care and God bless!

Instead of letting you have it, let me have your evidence

Take Care and God Bless

 

[John1and1]

Concerning the opening post... where is the contradiction if chpter 10 is meant to be a geneology going back in time and then forward? This is exactly what and all it is. This is no contradiction at all

 

[HypnoToad]

So within your chronology we have a constraint of the Tower of Babel happening within 100-300 years of the Flood. Right?

Seems ok at first glance.