The Tower of Babel Story Discredits Inspiration

[Caliban]

Genesis presents the dispersion of human language as historical narrative. Since Genesis 11: 1-9 is not a representation of historical fact, the doctrine of inspiration (as well as inerrancy) is untenable.

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.

Please feel free to object to my claim and discuss. I had to start the conversation somewhere. A clear reading of the text seems to indicate historical narrative as opposed to Hebraic Poetry or other literary devices; if you disagree let me know what literary device you think is more likely.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Genesis presents the dispersion of human language as historical narrative. Since Genesis 11: 1-9 is not a representation of historical fact, the doctrine of inspiration (as well as inerrancy) is untenable.


Please feel free to object to my claim and discuss. I had to start the conversation somewhere. A clear reading of the text seems to indicate historical narrative as opposed to Hebraic Poetry or other literary devices; if you disagree let me know what literary device you think is more likely.

I'm so upset and shaken by what you said, I'm going to lie down and take a nap.

 

[Caliban]

I'm so upset and shaken by what you said, I'm going to lie down and take a nap.

Well, when you wake up, let me know why you disagree.

 

[A Realist]

Babel

 

[Caliban]

Babel

Any other thoughts?

 

[A Realist]

Yeah.....pronounced "bob el".

 

[Caliban]

Yeah.....pronounced "bob el".

In which language? Each languages pronounces and spells it differently.

 

[eleos1954]

Genesis presents the dispersion of human language as historical narrative. Since Genesis 11: 1-9 is not a representation of historical fact, the doctrine of inspiration (as well as inerrancy) is untenable.


Please feel free to object to my claim and discuss. I had to start the conversation somewhere. A clear reading of the text seems to indicate historical narrative as opposed to Hebraic Poetry or other literary devices; if you disagree let me know what literary device you think is more likely.

"Genesis 11: 1-9 is not a representation of historical fact"

so you say .... so ... what are you using as "historical fact" then

 

[Hieronymus]

Genesis 10 genealogy is apparently quite accurate and considered authoritative.
It apparently covers just about every tribe on the planet.

 

[Caliban]

"Genesis 11: 1-9 is not a representation of historical fact"

so you say .... so ... what are you using as "historical fact" then

It is traditionally interpreted as historical narrative. Why do you think otherwise?

 

[Caliban]

Genesis 10 genealogy is apparently quite accurate and considered authoritative.
It apparently covers just about every tribe on the planet.

So if Genesis 10 is considered historical it stands to reason that Gen. 11 is historical narrative as well.

 

[d taylor]

After a world ending flood why would the, people of earth not be speaking one language, Lets say if the tower occurred 100-150 years after the flood. Why is that hard to believe the earth would have only one language.

 

[Der Alte]

Genesis presents the dispersion of human language as historical narrative. Since Genesis 11: 1-9 is not a representation of historical fact, the doctrine of inspiration (as well as inerrancy) is untenable.
Please feel free to object to my claim and discuss. I had to start the conversation somewhere. A clear reading of the text seems to indicate historical narrative as opposed to Hebraic Poetry or other literary devices; if you disagree let me know what literary device you think is more likely.

Nothing to discuss.If you had said "Genesis 11: 1-9 is not a representation of historical fact, the doctrine of inspiration (as well as inerrancy) is untenable [because "reasons,""explanation"documentation" etc.]" Then you might have something worthy to discuss.

 

[Caliban]

Nothing to discuss.If you had said "Genesis 11: 1-9 is not a representation of historical fact, the doctrine of inspiration (as well as inerrancy) is untenable [because "reasons,""explanation"documentation" etc.]" Then you might have something worthy to discuss.

You might be misunderstanding me. the Bible presents the story as historical. But, the events are clearly fictional therefore, inerrancy and theistic inspiration are untenable. It's precisely the fact that it IS presented as historical that calls inspiration into question.

 

[Caliban]

Th

After a world ending flood why would the, people of earth not be speaking one language, Lets say if the tower occurred 100-150 years after the flood. Why is that hard to believe the earth would have only one language.

That's not the problem. The problem is that world languages clearly evolved and share common cognates. Proto Indo European for example, contribute to many of the Western Languages. The Story in Genesis is a mythical attempt to explain HOW and WHY people speak different languages but, it is inaccurate.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Genesis presents the dispersion of human language as historical narrative. Since Genesis 11: 1-9 is not a representation of historical fact, the doctrine of inspiration (as well as inerrancy) is untenable.


Please feel free to object to my claim and discuss. I had to start the conversation somewhere. A clear reading of the text seems to indicate historical narrative as opposed to Hebraic Poetry or other literary devices; if you disagree let me know what literary device you think is more likely.

The research into the origins of the traditional Mandarin Chinese language is interesting, because it is a picture language, and the researchers have found that some of the pictorials in the language show simplified scenes from Genesis. It seems that when the language was originally put into written form, the Genesis accounts, including the Tower of Babel were fresh in their memories. The thing about the traditional Chinese language is that Chinese culture, because they were isolated from the rest of the world, it was not merged with any other culture, and so the language remained as it was when it first originated, while English is a mixture of Saxon, Viking, and French language forms.
Here's a good link for consideration:
Chinese Characters and Genesis

 

[d taylor]

Th

That's not the problem. The problem is that world languages clearly evolved and share common cognates. Proto Indo European for example, contribute to many of the Western Languages. The Story in Genesis is a mythical attempt to explain HOW and WHY people speak different languages but, it is inaccurate.

Lets see the world was destroyed by the flood. So humanity began to build a structure to save (some) if this flood was to come again. Now spread out over the earth is seen, smaller constructs of towers, from different cultures . I believe i have also read that this confusion of language is in accounts of different people groups over the earth.

Mexico: And as men were thereafter multiplying they constructed a very high and strong Zacualli, which means "a very high tower" in order to protect themselves when again the second world should be destroyed. At the crucial moment their languages were changed, and as they did not understand one another, they went into different parts of the world. (Reference: Don Fernando de Alvara Ixtlilxochitl, Obras Historicas Mexico, 1891, Vol. I, p. 12.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Genesis presents the dispersion of human language as historical narrative. Since Genesis 11: 1-9 is not a representation of historical fact, the doctrine of inspiration (as well as inerrancy) is untenable.


Please feel free to object to my claim and discuss. I had to start the conversation somewhere. A clear reading of the text seems to indicate historical narrative as opposed to Hebraic Poetry or other literary devices; if you disagree let me know what literary device you think is more likely.

Inerrancy has always been an additive word within Christian Theology, superfluous to any seeming need for assurance on the part of the faithful. However, I'm inclined to still keep a basic sense of inspiration around to describe the nature of the biblical writings, even those that are culturally and time bound like the Flood and the Tower of Babel stories. Besides, it's not as if the biblical writers themselves actually went into any detail to explain just what inspiration could amount to. At best, we find a few epistemic traces scattered here and there in the bible by which we might attempt to derive and surmise what the Israelite/Jewish people otherwise generally took for granted.

As for your second paragraph, I don't think it's so clear for anyone that the text in question was intended to be either Hebraic poetry or historical narrative of a nature that we'd recognize it by today's historical methods. But, that's ok. Why would we expect it to be anyway?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Inerrancy has always been an additive word within Christian Theology, superfluous to any seeming need for assurance on the part of the faithful. However, I'm inclined to still keep a basic sense of inspiration around to describe the nature of the biblical writings, even those that are culturally and time bound like the Flood and the Tower of Babel stories. Besides, it's not as if the biblical writers themselves actually go into detail to explain just what inspiration could amount to. At best, we find epistemic traces scattered a few places in the bible by which we derive and surmise what the Israelite/Jewish people took for granted.

As for your second paragraph, I don't think it's so clear for anyone that the text in question was intended to be either Hebraic poetry or historical narrative of a nature that we'd recognize it by today's historical methods. But, that's ok. Why would we expect it to be anyway?

In support of your post:
When Jesus gave the story of the rich man and Lazarus. When the rich man asked Abraham to sent Lazarus back from the dead to warn his brothers "not to come to this horrible place", Abraham told him that they have Moses and the Prophets, and if they won't believe them, then even someone going back from the dead won't convince them of anything.

This shows me that Jesus believed that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, and that he wrote them under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and therefore what was written was absolutely true and factual. Therefore, if Jesus believed that Genesis was a true historical record, who am I to say anything different?

To me, it would be the utmost blasphemy to say that Jesus was mistaken or lying about it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In support of your post:
When Jesus gave the story of the rich man and Lazarus. When the rich man asked Abraham to sent Lazarus back from the dead to warn his brothers "not to come to this horrible place", Abraham told him that they have Moses and the Prophets, and if they won't believe them, then even someone going back from the dead won't convince them of anything.

This shows me that Jesus believed that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, and that he wrote them under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and therefore what was written was absolutely true and factual. Therefore, if Jesus believed that Genesis was a true historical record, who am I to say anything different?

To me, it would be the utmost blasphemy to say that Jesus was mistaken or lying about it.

Forgive me, brother Oscarr, for not being Pentecostal about it all.