The Tower of Babel Story Discredits Inspiration

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Before we understand what the original readers thought they were reading----whoever exactly those original "readers" were----we'd probably need to be sure as to what we 'now' think were the original literary modes of the author and of the society that handled his [final] piece of work. And if we can't know this, and there might remain the possibility that we can't in the fullest measure, then for us today, the common laymen is going to be more than easily short-changed when simply flipping open her brand new leather bound, easy-to-read English bible translation. Too bad, so sad, but that's reality and life, I guess!

 

[Caliban]

Well that is a part of that same issue of reading complexly. "All the world" doesn't necessarily mean "All the world" in the modern context.

But it didn't happen at all. Not even locally. That isn't how those languages changed.

 

[Sanoy]

But it didn't happen at all. Not even locally. That isn't how those languages changed.

What do you think it describes and why do you think it didn't happen? (That should probably be added to the OP as well)

 

[Caliban]

Before we understand what the original readers thought they were reading----whoever exactly those original "readers" were----we'd probably need to be sure as to what we 'now' think were the original literary modes of the author and of the society that handling his [final] piece of work. And if we can't know this, and there might remain the possibility that we can't in the fullest measure, then for us today, the common laymen is going to be more than easily short-changed when simply flipping open her brand new leather bound, easy-to-read English bible translation.

Again, I agree with you. But, I can see no path toward an inspired text. All anyone can say is that it is a complicated, nuances text that can re interpreted in a variety of ways. So in what sense is it "inspired"? That seems impossible to believe. Remember...."not a God of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33).

 

[Caliban]

What do you think it describes and why do you think it didn't happen? (That should probably be added to the OP as well)

True, I could have added it to the OP. Linguists track the slow changes in language usage over long periods of time. These languages, starting with Proto Indo European share many cognates and and phonemes. There was never a time when the world spoke one language. Nor did the geographical areas depicted in Genesis share one common language which had catastrophically linguistic event.

The attached image illustrates the evolution of language.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Again, I agree with you. But, I can see no path toward an inspired text. All anyone can say is that it is a complicated, nuances text that can re interpreted in a variety of ways. So in what sense is it "inspired"?

That's the billion dollar question, isn't it? Or at least one of them. The other is an even bigger humm dinger and that's this: that even IF we could know to our more modern satisfaction that the Bible itself is generally reliable, maybe even seemingly imbued with the enchantment of inspiration we all clamor for, and even IF the common man could understand even half of the bible with exacting conceptual clarity, this would not solve other, more existential problems we each will still have to face on the other side of this humanly experienced reading of a Holy Book (or in this case, the Holy Book). No, unfortunately, we'd still have to deal with the yawning chasm of Lessing's Ditch and other epistemological and aesthetic complications in the Bible that are, at the end of the analysis, quite contrasting to modern intuitions about what this whole Faith Project in Jesus Christ could be or should be. Yet, like Wayward Sons, we Carry On! But why do we?

That seems impossible to believe. Remember...."not a God of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33).

While I do empathize with the notion you're imputing here, I might have to cite you for an interpretive misapplication (and maybe a misunderstanding) about the biblical quote you've just given. I'm sorry to do that to you, but you made it clear to me that this verse doesn't quite have the perspicuity that many seem to think it does.

 

[Sanoy]

True, I could have added it to the OP. Linguists track the slow changes in language usage over long periods of time. These languages, starting with Proto Indo European share many cognates and and phonemes. There was never a time when the world spoke one language. Nor did the geographical areas depicted in Genesis share one common language which had catastrophically linguistic event.

The attached image illustrates the evolution of language.
View attachment 258734

There are some big pieces missing here. You didn't state what you think is described by the text, you didn't identify the relevant region or time period, and you went back to referring to the whole world. You need to aim your objection at something.

 

[Caliban]

There are some big pieces missing here. You didn't state what you think is described by the text, you didn't identify the relevant region or time period, and you went back to referring to the whole world. You need to aim your objection at something.

No problem. The events in Genesis 11, if based on the time period of likely Ziggurat structures, places the time frame between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE in Mesopotamia. There is evidence of highly distinctive language prior to this period: Sumerian, Akkadian (i.e. Babylonian + Assyrian), Amorite, and - later - Aramaic.
Mesopotamian Languages — Department of Archaeology

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

If you are a Non-Christian member please follow the link:
Non-Christians: Read and Agree before Posting
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

MOD HAT ON

If you are a Non-Christian member please follow the link:
Non-Christians: Read and Agree before Posting
MOD HAT OFF​

Grumman Tomcat, I think thus far, everyone on this particular thread, except the explorer himself in the OP, is a Christian.

 

[Sanoy]

No problem. The events in Genesis 11, if based on the time period of likely Ziggurat structures, places the time frame between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE in Mesopotamia. There is evidence of highly distinctive language prior to this period: Sumerian, Akkadian (i.e. Babylonian + Assyrian), Amorite, and - later - Aramaic.
Mesopotamian Languages — Department of Archaeology

That's part of what's needed. I agree with the time period, and would say it even takes place during the Uruk expansion. But you still need to state what you think is described by the text.

 

[Caliban]

That's part of what's needed. I agree with the time period, and would say it even takes place during the Uruk expansion. But you still need to state what you think is described by the text.

The text isn't clear about whether or not there was one unifying language through the entire world. If world does not indicate the planet but, a smaller geographic location familiar to the first readers, then I suppose an argument could be made for a localized event. But, even that assumes a miraculous linguistic event that contradicts with the archeology of cuneiform tablets, inscriptions, and historical language analysis.
Matthiae, P., and Carl Clifford Lamberg-Karlovsky. Art of the first cities: the third millennium BC from the Mediterranean to the Indus. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003.

 

[Sanoy]

The text isn't clear about whether or not there was one unifying language through the entire world. If world does not indicate the planet but, a smaller geographic location familiar to the first readers, then I suppose an argument could be made for a localized event. But, even that assumes a miraculous linguistic event that contradicts with the archeology of cuneiform tablets, inscriptions, and historical language analysis.
Matthiae, P., and Carl Clifford Lamberg-Karlovsky. Art of the first cities: the third millennium BC from the Mediterranean to the Indus. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003.

Bingo.

You will have to go into further detail about that last part.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Which competing historical narrative would you like to introduce to support your assertion?

 

[Yttrium]

But, even that assumes a miraculous linguistic event that contradicts with the archeology of cuneiform tablets, inscriptions, and historical language analysis.

What if the scattered people merged into various other pre-existing civilizations? The language-changing event could effectively disappear as far as world history is concerned. Meanwhile, the value of the lesson about hubris remains valuable.

 

[Uber Genius]

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.

You failed to make any rational argument!

Was looking for alternative inferences for language arising followed by premises in support and evidence supporting premises. Did you forget to attach the argument?

 

[Acts2:38]

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.

These are all people secular and not, who came to the same conclusion. That the bible is credible about this.

Works Cited

• Aalders, G. Ch. 1981. Genesis. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• Allen, Steve. 1990. Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, and Morality. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
• Bowie, Walter Russell. 1952. The Book of Genesis. The Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Abingdon.
• Dyer, Gwynne. 1990. Seeking the Mother Tongue. New Zealand Herald, September 17.
• Jones, William. Quoted in A. T. Roberston, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (London, England: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919).
• M’Clintock, John and James Strong. 1968. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
• Muller, Max F. Science of Language. Quoted in Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History(Wheaten, IL: Van Kampen Press, 1950).
• Rawlinson, George. 1873. Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament. Boston, MA: Henry A. Young & Co.
• Smith, George. 1880. Chaldean Account of Genesis. Quoted in Stephen L. Caiger, Bible and Spade—An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology (London, England: Oxford University, 1946).
• Speiser, E. A. 1964. The Anchor Bible—Genesis. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.
• Stigers, Harold G. 1976. A Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zoadervan.
• Wiseman, Donald J. 1980. Babel. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. J. D. Douglas, ed. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.

I did pull this up from this link
The Tower of Babel: Legend or History?

Feel free to read it or not. But it may help you in your decision making.

 

[Caliban]

Bingo.

You will have to go into further detail about that last part.

I'm here to discuss this but, it seems you have something specific on your mind that you want me to discover. Tell specifically what you want to discuss and I will be pleased to elaborate. I feel like I'm trying to figure out your concern.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm here to discuss this but, it seems you have something specific on your mind that you want me to discover. Tell specifically what you want to discuss and I will be pleased to elaborate. I feel like I'm trying to figure out your concern.

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

 

[PloverWing]

I'm interested in more of your perspective. I do not think the text reflects true historical events but, I can't help identifying the natural reading of the text which presents as historical narrative. I am open to another reading.

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:

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.

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.