The Tower of Babel Story Discredits Inspiration

[Caliban]

I know your response above was directed to someone else, but in adding my own two-cents, I'd say "no" and I've already given my perspective on this to two or three Fundamentalists challengers over in the following section. What I told them in relation to the creation and flood accounts I think also applies to the Tower of Babel account:

Creation & Theistic Evolution

Thanks, I'll go check it out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am confident so fas as this is my current perspective. I might place a confidence level at 80 out of 100. I am here to explore other possibilities and discuss. The thesis is admittedly controversial but, thats what a thesis typically is. I think Gen. 11 is Historical Narrative. I think that is the plain reading of the text. If that is the case, I think it has negative implications for the claim that the source text is inspired. But, I'm here to have my mind changed. I know a lot of people see it differently.

And what are your assumptions about the nature of biblical inspiration? You do realize there is more than one theory on what inspiration (or revelation) amounts to, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am confident so fas as this is my current perspective. I might place a confidence level at 80 out of 100. I am here to explore other possibilities and discuss. The thesis is admittedly controversial but, thats what a thesis typically is. I think Gen. 11 is Historical Narrative. I think that is the plain reading of the text. If that is the case, I think it has negative implications for the claim that the source text is inspired. But, I'm here to have my mind changed. I know a lot of people see it differently.

Ok. I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Just keep in mind that I've been on here for several years, and we've had quite a number of 'pretender' explorers show up and essentially make the kinds of supposed inquiries that you're making now. Regardless, I'll hang in there with you since I've always had an interest in better understanding the possible conceptual structures of these epistemological problems as they relate to various parts, or the whole, of the Bible.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

Scripture does not claim for itself to be historical fact.

It does claim to be a God-inspired reliable curriculum for righteousness.

And the story of the tower of Babel is an effective lesson in that curriculum.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks, I'll go check it out.

You'll find my numerous, relevant comments specifically in the following three threads:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is

The Flood - If even Christians don't believe what Jesus said, why should non-believers??

If Genesis 3 is a metaphor...

 

[Caliban]

And what are your assumptions about the nature of biblical inspiration? You do realize there is more than one theory on what inspiration (or revelation) amounts to, right?

My basic assumption is that the original document was inspired (God Breathed). It is/was without error because God caused human authors to compose the scriptures, thereby communicating revelatory information to humans. This did not eliminate the voice of individual human authors but, rather blended with their voice in such a way that God's word interacts with human culture. As far as I have read, modern textual critics say that the copies we have today are high similar to the originals (66 books, Genesis included).
Yes, there are different understanding of what inspiration means and how it might affect the text. I chose the Babel passage because it seems to illustrate a problem with inspiration. Since we know that languages changed naturally over time and the central claim of Genesis 11, that all men spoke one language and it was "confused" is incorrect; I have to wonder about what else in the Bible is in error. I know I am still assuming that the text should be read as historical, and that will drive some crazy but, it is still a premise I hold.

 

[Sanoy]

Genesis is a collection of books of different genres, spliced together using a toledot seam to form a linear account from extant books rather than creating a singular original work. Genre should be considered individually rather than a single genre across the entire work.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My basic assumption is that the original document was inspired (God Breathed). It is/was without error because God caused human authors to compose the scriptures, thereby communicating revelatory information to humans. This did not eliminate the voice of individual human authors but, rather blended with their voice in such a way that God's word interacts with human culture. As far as I have read, modern textual critics say that the copies we have today are high similar to the originals (66 books, Genesis included).

Yeah, that's the typical mantra. Needless to say that like you, I don't agree with it, even if perhaps not for the same reasons.

Yes, there are different understanding of what inspiration means and how it might affect the text. I chose the Babel passage because it seems to illustrate a problem with inspiration. Since we know that languages changed naturally over time and the central claim of Genesis 11, that all men spoke one language and it was "confused" is incorrect; I have to wonder about what else in the Bible is in error. I know I am still assuming that the text should be read as historical, and that will drive some crazy but, it is still a premise I hold.

Of course the Tower of Babel passage is "incorrect." Why shouldn't it be? It's just a piece of human literature from the ancient past, built of a whole cloth of different, more phenomenal understanding about the world. I mean, there's a reason that they didn't build airplanes or spacecraft, or hydrogenated cheeze-whiz and coal burning electric plants either, like we do today, right?

 

[Caliban]

Scripture does not claim for itself to be historical fact.

It does claim to be a God-inspired reliable curriculum for righteousness.

And the story of the tower of Babel is an effective lesson in that curriculum.

You are correct, the text does not explicitly claim to be a historical account. But, a plain reading of the text suggest it. We also have generations of tradition of those who have understood the text to be an explanation of how world languages vary. Until the 1800s, before the linguistics, this was taken for grated. Until then, everyone knew that God confused the languages of men. They read the text as history.

 

[Caliban]

Yeah, that's the typical mantra. Needless to say that like you, I don't agree with it, even if perhaps not for the same reasons.

Of course the Tower of Babel passage is "incorrect." Why shouldn't it be? It's just a piece of human literature from the ancient past, built of a whole cloth of different, more phenomenal understanding about the world. I mean, there's a reason that they didn't build airplanes or spacecraft, or hydrogenated cheeze-whiz and coal burning electric plants either, like we do today, right?

Yes, I fully agree. But then, in what was is it at all 'inspired'? If a common reader cannot expect to discover plain truths from the Bible, what hope can they have that it is in any sense "true"? Whatever happened to the perspicuity of the text. Does a reader need an advanced degree to draw the real message from the text?

 

[Caliban]

I think we read more into the Tower of Babel account than God intended. Gen. 10 makes clear that before Babel different tribes spoke different languages. Commentators point out that the Hebrew word used in the Babel account in Gen. 11 is different to that in Gen. 10, being more like “voice” so it more likely means something like our modern “they all spoke with one mind,” i.e. they agreed on something. Its also commonly accepted that when the Bible says “the whole world” it doesn’t necessarily mean the entire global population. In context it can mean something like “all the world I know” or even “lots of people,” like our loose modern use of “everywhere” e.g. in “Ive looked everywhere.” So the Babel account could mean lots of people agreed to build a big tower, but God brought disagreement on them. I’ve read that as a principle of Biblical interpretation, if you come to an interpretation that makes the Bible look ridiculous you’ve probably got it wrong. Hope all that helps the debate!

Or, I've got it right. You cannot have a hermeneutic that says; if the text sounds improbable or ridiculous, you're reading it wrong. That's not how textual criticism works.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I fully agree. But then, in what was is it at all 'inspired'? If a common reader cannot expect to discover plain truths from the Bible, what hope can they have that it is in any sense "true"? Whatever happened to the perspicuity of the text. Does a reader need an advanced degree to draw the real message from the text?

I'm not one to claim that perspicuity applies to any of the biblical texts. Hence the reason I'm heavily invested in the study of Philosophy (i.e. epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of history, linguistic studies and Analytic Philosophy, ancient literary genres, etc., etc., etc., along with variously nuanced applications of Hermeneutics that are needed to help us understand ANY human communication anywhere at any time.) For some reason, I seem to live in a world of people who think that all these kinds of things are somehow extraneous 'fluff' rather than being part and parcel of the very world in which we live as it is humanly perceived and thought about.

So yeah, sometimes, although not always, an advanced degree does help. Sometimes it might even be required.

 

[Caliban]

I'm not one to claim that perspicuity applies to any of the biblical texts. Hence the reason I'm heavily invested in the study of Philosophy (i.e. epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of history, linguistic studies and Analytic Philosophy, ancient literary genres, etc., etc., etc,., along with variously nuanced applications of Hermeneutics that are needed to help us understand ANY human communication anywhere at any time.) For some reason, I'm seem to live in a world of people who think that all these kinds of things are somehow extraneous 'fluff' rather than being part and parcel of the very world in which we live as it is humanly perceived and thought about.

I don't think they are fluff at all. I am also fairly vested in those things--I don't watch TV, I do stuff like this. My problem with an academic reading of the text is that is cordons off a common reader from it. This was a central concern of Martin Luther and the Reformers; that the Bible is accessible to laymen. If we now say the Bible is this complicated text that is actually metaphor hen a plain reading suggest Historical Narrative or Didactic Literature, what confidence do any of us non-expert have? And more importantly, what about the original audience? Certainly these texts were composed to benefit the first readers. Was it a mystery to them. Did they read Genesis 11 and conclude that it is a highly nuanced text which explores a microcosm of complicated social structures and the implausibility of attaining God like status on earth. No, they read the text and believed it.

 

[RDKirk]

You are correct, the text does not explicitly claim to be a historical account. But, a plain reading of the text suggest it. We also have generations of tradition of those who have understood the text to be an explanation of how world languages vary. Until the 1800s, before the linguistics, this was taken for grated. Until then, everyone knew that God confused the languages of men. They read the text as history.

That was then. This is now.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

The primary question to be asked every morning is, "What does the Master require of me today?" What is my fragment of the mission of the Body of Christ today? Getting done what the Master requires of me today is my righteous good work for today.

Is scripture reliable for me in that process? Does it give me information that helps me answer that primary question?

 

[Sanoy]

I think one can get a simple understanding of Genesis from a simple reading of Genesis, but a complex understanding is going to take a lot of scholarly research and comparative study. For example a simple reading of the story leaves us with the imagination that people are building a tower to climb to the sky. However "reaches the heavens" is an idiom. See Deuteronomy 9:1. The tower of Babel is just a ziggurat called Etemenanki which means house of the foundation of heaven and Earth. Ziggurats were a representation of the cosmic tree motif and we're believed to ascend to the heavens and decend to the underworld, as we see with ziggurat Simmiltu in the myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal, not by their structure but by the nature applied to it. The protocuneiform logogram for the abyss it's actually a depiction of the ziggurat itself.

 

[Caliban]

That was then. This is now.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

C'mon man. That's not a response. Why post at all?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think they are fluff at all. I am also fairly vested in those things--I don't watch TV, I do stuff like this. My problem with an academic reading of the text is that is cordons off a common reader from it. This was a central concern of Martin Luther and the Reformers; that the Bible is accessible to laymen.

Well then, if Martin Luther and the Reformers are allowed to trump (excuse the term) this little shin-dig, then I guess I'll just pack up my tent and go home. And more so because if we HAVE to consider what Martin Luther thought in this instance, then I guess we all fail my A.D. 43 conceptual test for authentic Christianity. (Oh Lord, No!!! How self-refuting!)

If we now say the Bible is this complicated text that is actually metaphor hen a plain reading suggest Historical Narrative or Didactic Literature, what confidence do any of us non-expert have? And more importantly, what about the original audience? Certainly these texts were composed to benefit the first readers. Was it a mystery to them. Did they read Genesis 11 and conclude that it is a highly nuanced text which explores a microcosm of complicated social structures and the implausibility of attaining God like status on earth. No, they read the text and believed it.

Ok. It's not your fault that you've been epistemologically hood-winked into framing the whole Christian enterprise in this way, but please know that I really am of an alternative, existential, more Kierkegaardian 'type' of Christian faith, even though I don't let him trump everything either. No, the Protestants don't get to rule the roost; and neither does anyone else.

 

[Caliban]

I think one can get a simple understanding of Genesis from a simple reading of Genesis, but a complex understanding is going to take a lot of scholarly research and comparative study. For example a simple reading of the story leaves us with the imagination that people are building a tower to climb to the sky. However "reaches the heavens" is an idiom. See Deuteronomy 9:1. The tower of Babel is just a ziggurat called Etemenanki which means house of the foundation of heaven and Earth. Ziggurats were a representation of the cosmic tree motif and we're believed to ascend to the heavens and decend to the underworld, as we see with ziggurat Simmiltu in the myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal, not by their structure but by the nature applied to it.

Yes, it was probably a Ziggurat. But everyone know that. I'm focused on the parts of the story which conflicts with what we know about the modern world ie, one world language, a single act of linguistic change, and the concentration of all of those language in one geographic location. Isn't that a problem for the truth claims of the text? Doesn't the text make truth claims relating to linguistic history?

 

[Caliban]

Well then, if Martin Luther and the Reformers are allowed to trump (excuse the term) this little shin-dig, then I guess I'll just pack up my tent and go home. And more so because if we HAVE to consider what Martin Luther thought in this instance, then I guess we all fail my A.D. 43 conceptual test for authentic Christianity. (Oh Lord, No!!! How self-refuting!)

Ok. It's not your fault that you've been epistemologically hood-winked into framing the whole Christian enterprise in this way, but please know that I really am of an alternative, existential, more Kierkegaardian 'type' of Christian faith, even though I don't let him trump everything either. No, the Protestants don't get to rule the roost; and neither does anyone else.

But why are the Protestants wrong? Why is Genesis 11 not to be read as historical? Help me to understand that the original reader thought it was Ahistorical.

 

[Sanoy]

Yes, it was probably a Ziggurat. But everyone know that. I'm focused on the parts of the story which conflicts with what we know about the modern world ie, one world language, a single act of linguistic change, and the concentration of all of those language in one geographic location. Isn't that a problem for the truth claims of the text? Doesn't the text make truth claims relating to linguistic history?

Well that is a part of that same issue of matching the complexity of what is being read. "All the world" doesn't necessarily mean "All the world" in the modern context. It's very easy to fall into an anachronistic backdrop if we don't have the complex ANE understanding to match it.