The Tower of Babel

radhead said:

No one seems to understand what I'm saying. Religion makes greed and hatred okay.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but imo you seem completely unacquainted with the teachings of the New Testament. If you think that it teaches that greed and hatred are okay, would you quote such a passage from it?

.

peepnklown said:

You most likely find the tale strange because it’s taken from other sources and is not original to the author/s who wrote the Torah. You have the tale of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (Sumerian myth). This is the foundation of the Genesis tale. It was written during the time of the Neo-Sumerian Empire (the ruling dynasty was based in the city of Ur; sound familiar?). Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc all basically followed the same religious beliefs and practices (syncretism was involved as well). Mesopotamian religious beliefs and practices as well as Egyptian religious beliefs and practices have always influenced the Israelites/Hebrews. The tale also most likely was influenced by the ziggurat, Etemenanki. The etymological error most likely came from the Hebrew term babal (mixed, confused, etc) with the Akkadian term babilu (Gate of God). In the end, you’re asking a question that cannot be answered by Jews or Christians because it’s not their tale.
You need to look to Mesopotamia.

Click to expand...

Actually, if the Bible is true and the scattering actually happened then I would expect that it would be remembered by the nearby cultures. They would have passed on their knowledge of that experience it in some way or other.

So I agree with you that it's not a "Jews or Christians" tale, because the event predated Abraham. I feel the same way about the Flood and Creation stories; they belong not to just Jews or Christians but to all of humanity, and have been remembered in various forms in cultures all over the world.

Nicholas Deka said:

I always found the story of the Tower of Babel to be strange and I wanted to inquire what other thoughts about it might be.

Click to expand...

I think that it's talking about the percentage of how humans rely on the verbal part of a language to get the meaning from. It is said that when we talk to each other, around 30% of the meanings is actually carried by the voice itself. We may have to rely on other factors (tones, or gestures if in physical contact and so forth) in order to understand each other's intention.

Moreover, to different person different ascent may have different effect. Some can get what you mean even when you are with a strong ascent but not others. I speculate that it is possible that there's some kind of invisible "soul talking" deep inside us that we can understand each other in addition to the actual verbal communication. The Tower of Babel story could mean that it's the point when humans will have rely heavily on the bodily verbal communication and rely on much less (than before) on the "soul talking" in order to understand each other.

It could be just me though to think it this way.

Nicholas Deka said:

I always found the story of the Tower of Babel to be strange and I wanted to inquire what other thoughts about it might be. For quick reference, I'll post the whole little story right here:

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.” So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth.
​

First I'll ask if it is mentioned elsewhere in The Bible. Is there more about the tower elsewhere with any other information at all?

Is there anything that Christians or Jews learn from this story? Is it just a story to explain where all the languages came from?

It seems to have negative connotations though. Is this the start of racism? I know that sounds bad, but the story clearly says that people were working together as one people. Afterwords they were scattered around the world and speaking different languages. Is that not the beginning of other races in the world? It's certainly more significant than different nations. If so, then is God (at this point in history, perhaps he changes things later) advocating racism because he doesn't want us to all work together?

And what is there to be concerned about when thinking of us all working together? Why would God want to be divisive in this manner? Here comes the speculating, as without any other evidence at hand I can only guess.

What God states is bad in this story is that, "nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them". And in Luke 1:37 it states that "nothing will be impossible with God". I know this isn't going to go over well, but how do I interpret this story other than God being worried that we won't be dependent on Him? Does this mean that if God hadn't done what he did at the Tower of Babel we wouldn't need Him? Why not just let people work together? Isn't that we're supposed to do now?

Click to expand...

To begin at a place that I suppose is as good as any, there is a hint in the text that the builders of the city and tower of Babel are doing their construction in opposition to the God who created all things in the beginning, a theme concerning going or being eastward (away from Eden, where God dwells). An angel had been posted on the east side of Eden to prevent fallen Adam and Eve's re-entry (Gen. 3:24). Cain, murderer of his brother Abel, eventually dwells in the land of Nod, east of Eden (4:16). When Abram and Lot later separate due to the greatness of their herds and flocks, Lot chooses the Jordan Valley which the text states is watered like the garden of the LORD, and to get there, Lot "journeyed east" (ch. 13), apparently outside the Promised Land. And later than that, Moses' Tabernacle (a type of Eden and place where God's glory dwelt in the Holy of Holies) of course also has one entrance. It faces the sunrise. In such thematic context though granting there is a textual variant, the city and tower of Babel is built on the plain of Shinar (ch. 11) which is somehow "eastward." See Umberto Cassuto on Genesis.

Of course there are other clues in the text suggesting what the author is saying about Babel. Structurally, the Babel narrative falls within genealogies following Noah after the flood (10:1ff, so all the succeeding generations are of the race of Noah, a kind of "Adam" figure in the narrative). But note that in places in the preceding genealogy (ch. 10), the people are said to have been dispersed and clustered according to their respective clans and languages (10:5, 20, 31), burying the Babel narrative chronologically somewhere earlier inside the genealogies, perhaps particularly concerning hunter Nimrod (10:8-10), of whom it is written "the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, etc. ... in the land of Shinar," cf. 11:2, 9).

So what is the Babel narrative doing out of chronological order between the genealogies of Noah-sons Japheth, Ham, and Shem on the one side and a different genealogy from Shem to Abram on the other? In Noah's day, the Creator God had destroyed all that had the breath of life in it because the "the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (6:5), yet after the Flood God promised not to destroy the earth with a flood again (ch. 9). Yet the nature of fallen Adam's descendants did not differ from the nature of Noah's. And the Babel narrative is glued to a genealogy of the unrighteous in contrast to God's program with Abram.

On this thread it has already been reasonably suggested that the Babel builders' fear of being "dispersed over the face of the whole earth" (11:4) conflicted with the Creator God's program for man of multiplying and filling it (1:28, 9:1, 7--another area where the primeval narrative links Adam and Noah). Thus the builders wanted to "make a name for" themselves (11:4), sandwiched in distinct genealogies stemming from Noah-son Shem (10:21 and 11:10), whose name means "name." In confusing languages of the builders, God succeeds in preventing the attempt at thwarting His program, but by contrast promises to "make" Shem-descendant Abram's (later Abraham's) "name great" (Gen. 12:2) and cause Abram to be a source of blessing and cursing for "all the families of the earth" (v. 3) depending on their response to Abram (as the Balaam narratives suggest near the end of the book of Numbers).

With the caveat that the following parallel texts are much later than the Babel narrative, God promises to "make great the name" of David (2 Sam. 7:9), and God also makes a name for Himself (Isa. 63:12, 14, Jer. 32:20, Neh. 9:10) via the plagues in Egypt and Red Sea miracle (as for example Jericho resident Rahab relates, Josh. 2:10). The idea is similar to that at Babel, further suggesting (in addition to Genesis 11-12) that the builders' desire to "make a name for" themselves was a form of pride in opposition to the Creator God whose glory is good.

Ironically the Babel tower builders wanted to make a tower (note the extant ancient ziggurats in the Middle East) "with its top in the heavens" (again 11:4), whereas God is so great that despite all the builders' efforts He must "come down to see" to city and tower (v. 5). Commentary writer Gordon Wenham notes the Babel narrative forms an "ABBA line" chiasm with "the whole earth had one language" (v. 1) and "the language of the whole earth" (v. 9) forming the outlying lines and "the LORD came down ..." (v. 5) as the center--of divine judgment (p. 235).

The judgment of God in the form of language confusion also has the effect of dispersing the descendants of Noah over the face of the earth (11:9 again, cf. Numb. 10:35 "O LORD ... let your enemies be scattered"), restoring God's program and restraining man's evil. The Creator God will accomplish His plan despite evil man's efforts to the contrary--or so the narrative suggests. And despite man's efforts independent of God, "in [Abram] all the families of earth shall be blessed" (Gen. 12:3).

peepnklown said:

You most likely find the tale strange because it’s taken from other sources and is not original to the author/s who wrote the Torah. You have the tale of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (Sumerian myth). This is the foundation of the Genesis tale. It was written during the time of the Neo-Sumerian Empire (the ruling dynasty was based in the city of Ur; sound familiar?). Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc all basically followed the same religious beliefs and practices (syncretism was involved as well). Mesopotamian religious beliefs and practices as well as Egyptian religious beliefs and practices have always influenced the Israelites/Hebrews. The tale also most likely was influenced by the ziggurat, Etemenanki. The etymological error most likely came from the Hebrew term babal (mixed, confused, etc) with the Akkadian term babilu (Gate of God). In the end, you’re asking a question that cannot be answered by Jews or Christians because it’s not their tale.
You need to look to Mesopotamia.

Click to expand...

Nicholas Deka said:

Is there more about the tower elsewhere with any other information at all?

Click to expand...

Commentary writer Gordon Wenham claims unequivocally that "unlike the case with the flood story, no good Near East parallel to the tower of Babel story is known" (p. 236 of the first volume).

Wenham goes on to point out that parallels to the (polytheistic) Sumerian epic "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" are not close, but that the epic is perhaps best read as seeing a forthcoming time when all nations would speak Sumerian.

Claiming out of hand that dependence flows from the Sumerian story to the Genesis Babel account seems unpersuasive especially where dependence could go the other way or where the Genesis account could have been written partly in reaction against the Sumerian or, as seems most probable in Wenham's apparent view, wholly independent of it. Or at least there are varied possibilities worth at least some consideration. Thematic tightness of the Genesis Babel narrative within its Genesis context (as I tried to argue in my previous post on this thread) also places the Genesis Babel account carefully within a Genesis context for purposes internal to Genesis (and part of prolegomena to the Pentateuch) regardless of more or less contemporary outside similarities (and dissimilarities).

Otherwise aside from late Jewish interest in the Genesis Babel narrative, the rest of the Tanakh (our Old Testament) seems very largely to ignore the account, perhaps other than later condemnations of Babylonian idolatry and pride or prophetic visions of a future when peoples of many languages would worship the God of Abraham--but these would seem to have at most an oblique or ambiguous relationship to the Genesis Babel account.

Nicholas Deka said:

What God states is bad in this story is that, "nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them". And in Luke 1:37 it states that "nothing will be impossible with God". I know this isn't going to go over well, but how do I interpret this story other than God being worried that we won't be dependent on Him? Does this mean that if God hadn't done what he did at the Tower of Babel we wouldn't need Him? Why not just let people work together? Isn't that we're supposed to do now?

Click to expand...

It is the same reason as that for Adam being kicked out of the Garden.
Today, every Christian tries to be God-like. That is good. God likes to see it happen.
But when atheists tried to be God-like, it would be very bad.

Nicholas Deka said:

But if we propose to make it good then it won't be "impossible". God's words, not mine.

Click to expand...

The word "if" in the sentence makes it bad.

Nicholas Deka said:

What God states is bad in this story is that, "nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them". And in Luke 1:37 it states that "nothing will be impossible with God". I know this isn't going to go over well, but how do I interpret this story other than God being worried that we won't be dependent on Him? Does this mean that if God hadn't done what he did at the Tower of Babel we wouldn't need Him? Why not just let people work together? Isn't that we're supposed to do now?

Click to expand...

In general, God wants us to do what He does.

But something we should not do, yet we, globally, are trying hard to make it happen. The worst thing is, just like those people who built the Tower, we ARE gradually able to do it better and better.

For example, human cloning.

Nicholas Deka said:

The other part, about working together because they were separated seems unnecessary, since the problem at hand was them working together.

Click to expand...

Since the time of Tower of Babel, human beings on the earth are NOT able to work together until the early 20th Century when a fast global communication became possible. Today, I can easily read what a Russian learned through a professional journal as soon as it is published. And I can talk to him face to face in a professional convention, or even better, through Skype at anywhere, anytime.

This, is the really "working together" in a global sense.

I take the Tower of Babel story as something of a metaphor. They were using technology to try to reach heaven but only ended up shattered and confused. We can't reach God through knowledge and technology.

First, I was once misled into believing that the builders of the tower were attempting to literally reach heaven and see God and that God seeing them getting near-panicked, and made that accomplishment impossible via confusing their languages. I always viewed that explanation as quaint since obviously that goal would be an impossibility for what would seem to be obvious reasons.

1. Heaven is a spiritual realm where humans cannot enter. we are told in the NT, unless physically transformed.

2. Humans would either freeze or suffocate in the thinning atmosphere once they reached a certain altitude.

3. The whole structure would eventually collapse under its own weight.

In any case, when attempts were made on reaching the moon, some religious leaders proclaimed that God would react in a similar manner as he did at Babel because God had clearly restricted mankind's domain to Earth and reaching out towards the stars or planets was trespass. At that time I tended to share that view and was nervously expecting God to shift into action at any moment.

After the moon was reached of course, befuddled and embarrassed religious leaders began crooning an entirely different song to the tune that mankind did have the right to explore its immediate vicinity. Complete silence would have been far more dignified.

Reason for God's opposition to it:

The reason God was opposed to the building of the tower I have read, is because it went completely contrary to God's Edenic commandment to fill the Earth. Abiding by that commandment required that mankind spread out. Yet, the tower builders wee centralizing mankind around one specific geographical location.

The statement that if allowed to succeed in such a centralization then there is nothing which they could not accomplish can be only understood if we allow for hyperbole for emphasis. Obviously God knows human limitations and knows that mankind is not almighty as he is since he made mankind limited in power as he made all his other creatures such as the angels who are greater in power to man but still limited. So the reference hasto be understood to the great accomplishments in opposition to god that such a geographical unity would make possible if allowed to continue. So in order top prevent it a communication barrier was used-the confusion of languages which had a double effect as intended-a compliance with the Edenic mandate to fill the Earth, and a prevention of total human unity in opposition to God as Satan was scheming to bring about.

Largely agree with Redrock, it is impossible for humans to build a big tower that can reach God, and one of the reason God dispersed them is because God want humans to spread as Redrock said.

I do think another reason is, it is very easy for a "unified" system to go against God. A unified system will make a small amount of people very powerful, and any of their mistakes will ripple out fast, vs a none unified system.

Example of such system is communist China, communist Russia, under the system everyone working in one accord (or seems to), and it is almost impossible for Gospel to spread till the system became lose. Same thing is happening in USA, the power of the federal government over state became strong and strong and one rulling of the US supreme court prevents all public schools to teach religion.

Willis Gravning said:

We can't reach God through knowledge and technology.

Click to expand...

Yeps. And the same goes for the undetectable 7-headed dragon, leprechauns and pixies!


(sorry, but that was just to obvious and to easy, to not point it....)

DogmaHunter said:

Yeps. And the same goes for the undetectable 7-headed dragon, leprechauns and pixies!


(sorry, but that was just to obvious and to easy, to not point it....)

Click to expand...

The creator, or God, if you choose, isn't undetectable.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse

Radrook said:

The creator, or God, if you choose, isn't undetectable.

Click to expand...

Please describe the test that allows for independent verification of the existance of this entity.

DogmaHunter said:

Please describe the test that allows for independent verification of the existance of this entity.

Click to expand...

The only way not to detect a creator in nature is to declare oneself intellectually lobotomized. Which of course is a favorite atheist tactic albeit much too glaringly dishonest to be convincing since the lobotomized condition suddenly and quite miraculously disappears as soon as the subject of a creator is changed..

Radrook said:

The only way not to detect a creator in nature is to declare oneself intellectually lobotomized.

Click to expand...

Bare assertions are not such tests. Using (badly) disguised ad hominims won't get you anywhere either.
You're essentially just repeating your claim, instead of supporting it.

Which of course is a favorite atheist tactic albeit much too glaringly dishonest to be convincing since the lobotomized condition suddenly and quite miraculously disappears as soon as the subject of a creator is changed..

Click to expand...

"dishonest"? Says the guy who thinks bare assertions are enough...



I can only repeat my question....
You claimed that the "creator" isn't undetectable.

Please describe how this entity can be detected.