Why Doesn't God Destroy the New Tower of Babel, or Change Everyone's Language?

[Diogenes]

Man has now far exceeded the Tower of Babel, sending people to the Moon, hundreds of satellites into orbit, and more out of the solar system. God was supposedly threatened by a little Ziggurat and man's boldness in Genesis 11. Is he sleeping? Dead?

[1213]

...As well as being science -denialist as science says plainly that diversity of language did not happen like that. Languages evolved on divergent courses and were 'scattered' in various tribes before they had proper languages at all, and that was before they even started farming and building stone huts, never mind Ziggurats.

Fact is that Genesis is False start to finish, unless one makes it "Metaphorical" ('not true') or denies science,at least whereit contradicts the Bible.

I think that is a ridiculous claim. I don't see any good reason to believe scientists are correct about how languages evolved.

[TRANSPONDER]

...As well as being science -denialist as science says plainly that diversity of language did not happen like that. Languages evolved on divergent courses and were 'scattered' in various tribes before they had proper languages at all, and that was before they even started farming and building stone huts, never mind Ziggurats.

Fact is that Genesis is False start to finish, unless one makes it "Metaphorical" ('not true') or denies science,at least whereit contradicts the Bible.

I think that is a ridiculous claim. I don't see any good reason to believe scientists are correct about how languages evolved.

They are certainly correct about language evolution since written records.We can see it happening as surely as we can see biological evolution in the fossil record. So logically and evidentially, we can reason that the evolution of languages goes way back to the start of civilisation and beyond, because humans had spread all over the world by then and would appear, reasonably, to have already been diverse at the time monumental building was beginning.

Now, this was debated at length on the 'Bible inerrancy' thread, and it all depended on what the date of Babel supposedly was. Reasonably, I credit more that the writers of Genesis used the ziggurat of Babylon for their tale and there is some incidental and indirect evidence that the Babylonian material was borrowed for Genesis and Exodus when the Hebrews were in Babylon during the exile. But, that aside, the first ziggurats were appearing around 2400 BC and by that time writing of cuneiform and even earlier Egyptian glyphs were beginning a long process of observable evolution, but with distinct and continual linguistic basics. The pre -writing cultures were also distinct so there is no good reason to suppose the languages were any different from what they were later on.

So all the evidence is totally against the Babel explanation of the diversity of languages, as well as the architectural evidence being against the existence of some particularly tall and particularly early tower intended to reach to heaven, and if the ziggurats of Sumer are detectable, an even bigger earlier one should surely be detectable.

In addition to which, the sheer plot of the story is utterly absurd unless one believes in a heaven with God living there, somewhere in the clouds where humans might think a very large tower might reach, and even more absurd that a god might be so put out by this that he overrode human Free Will (as He so often does in the old stories) to put an end to the building project.

So, no, the science - based view of evolution and language is not silly, but the story of the tower of Babel is about the silliest thing in the Bible. And I'm not accusing it of that, I'm merely pointing it out; it makes no sense.

Now, of course one can Interpret so as to make it reasonably work somehow to make the Bible True, even if the theology is false - rather what happens with the 'local Flood' apologetic (there may have been an actual local Flood, but it did not do what God intended and so that it was anything to do with - or is evidence for - any god, fails). So even if we concoct some story of a people building a very big ziggurat where the people thought (mistakenly) that they were about to reach to heaven, that debunks the god - claim even if it validated what is actually true - the Babylonians though a ziggurat enable humans to come into contact with the gods.

Now, you may dismiss all of that and proclaim some Biblefaith claim, and you may feel that you scraped a draw, at least, but in fact not. You'd need to produce some better evidence than Biblefaith and science -denial to make a reasonable case for the tower of Babel - story. And, as usual, it is not about what you or I prefer to believe, but what persuades others, and that depends on whether they can reconsider arguments or are locked into Faith, as well as what arguments get out to them.

[brunumb]

I don't see any good reason to believe scientists are correct about how languages evolved.

Your inability to see the reasons why scientists are correct about how languages evolved is irrelevant. People have expertise in that field of study and the opinions of people with religious biases don't really diminish their conclusions.

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't see any good reason to believe scientists are correct about how languages evolved.

Your inability to see the reasons why scientists are correct about how languages evolved is irrelevant. People have expertise in that field of study and the opinions of people with religious biases don't really diminish their conclusions.

I've already cancelled three posts relating to just making up'doctrine'on the hoof or invented excuses with not a shred of support like animals learning to be pacifists to be fit for heaven. but this business of making up anything and expecting it to be considered a valid epistemology is the other side of the coin, or perhaps a second barrel of the scatter - gun, from science -denial. I have seen this consistently from rejection of the fossil evidence for evolution (though the cetan sequence has apparently made the case for speciation) to rejection of what history says about the events during the time Jesus was supposed to be born, and even the evidence of what the Bible apparently says.

Aside from dismissal of what is known, we get this not uncommon alternative dismissal "I don't understand this, so it isn't true" like why DNA is not a written computer program or why the odds of an unplanned earth and biosphere are 1/1 and not 'astronomically against'. Oh yes, I forgot the persistent refusal to understand that evolutionary speciation is nothing to do with breeding between different species. Though I have to say that these old ones aren't seen so much these days.

But what really shows that evidence(and logic) doesn't matter to Theist apologists but only serves to be twisted to support the Faith was exemplified by a couple of discussions formerly, where Josephus was dismissed as unreliable where inconvenient but treated as holy writ if he could be cited to prove that Jesus and James were mentioned outside the Bible (and nothing to do with Damnaeus) and where an out of context remark by an evolutionist about it being a 'fairy-tale' was clung to by a theist for 80 pages despite repeated explanations with full quotes that it was popular misunderstanding of straight line apes to human that was the 'fairy tale', but a complex tree of various human ancestors.

I hardly need show how what the Bible itself says is dismissed (e.g on slavery) or explained (interpreted) away like the contradictions of the resurrections. Point being that this is all faithbased and is supposed to remain as the go -to hypothesis if all the questions can be batted away as misunderstood, mistranslated, or just the opinions of scientists, while logically, it is the excuses of theist apologetics that carry no weight until validated, and they know that as, 'science evidence' gets twisted to support the faith -claim. An example? Tyre not rebuilt; they point to ruins outside the modern city. But they don't check and see that the old city is buried under the present one (1) and the seaside ruins in or out of the sea are beyond the modern city and I believe are of Roman date anyway.

This looks like a string of'objections to the Bible, but it's about this reversed mindset regarding logic and evidence and why science -denial is really what it comes down to.

(1)I loved the excuse that Tyre was never rebuilt; they just built a new city on top and called it Tyre.

[theophile]

Man has now far exceeded the Tower of Babel, sending people to the Moon, hundreds of satellites into orbit, and more out of the solar system. God was supposedly threatened by a little Ziggurat and man's boldness in Genesis 11. Is he sleeping? Dead?

Babel finds context in Genesis 1 where God makes the end-state vision clear: a world filled with life where all kinds of life can flourish.

This means diversity and difference -- of language, custom, etc., and it requires a humankind that is spread throughout the earth. Hence God brings confusion upon Babel and scatters the people. God doesn't destroy the tower, per the flood narrative as if Babel is evil, but only confuses and scatters them to recreate the conditions for the world God wants to bring about.

So Babel, while not necessarily evil, nevertheless represents a path diametrically opposed to God's own. Kind of like the Borg in Star Trek, which would eliminate difference and have everyone speak the same way, versus the Federation, which protects and invites lifeforms of every kind.

So it's not about heights of development or technological progress or anything like that, especially when such efforts help us fulfill the mandate of Genesis 1. Rather it's about how we go about making such progress, the kind of society that underlies it, and that we expand to others in the process.

[Diogenes]

Babel finds context in Genesis 1 where God makes the end-state vision clear: a world filled with life where all kinds of life can flourish.

This means diversity and difference -- of language, custom, etc., and it requires a humankind that is spread throughout the earth. Hence God brings confusion upon Babel and scatters the people. God doesn't destroy the tower, per the flood narrative as if Babel is evil, but only confuses and scatters them to recreate the conditions for the world God wants to bring about.

So Babel, while not necessarily evil, nevertheless represents a path diametrically opposed to God's own. Kind of like the Borg in Star Trek, which would eliminate difference and have everyone speak the same way, versus the Federation, which protects and invites lifeforms of every kind.

So it's not about heights of development or technological progress or anything like that, especially when such efforts help us fulfill the mandate of Genesis 1. Rather it's about how we go about making such progress, the kind of society that underlies it, and that we expand to others in the process.

Interesting thought, but of course not in the least bit tethered to the actual scripture found in Genesis1:

"Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens....
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.

The passage sets forth the exact opposite of your claim. God is clearly concerned about the people's technological progress, "... nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them," so He confused their language to halt their building.

[TRANSPONDER]

Man has now far exceeded the Tower of Babel, sending people to the Moon, hundreds of satellites into orbit, and more out of the solar system. God was supposedly threatened by a little Ziggurat and man's boldness in Genesis 11. Is he sleeping? Dead?

Babel finds context in Genesis 1 where God makes the end-state vision clear: a world filled with life where all kinds of life can flourish.

This means diversity and difference -- of language, custom, etc., and it requires a humankind that is spread throughout the earth. Hence God brings confusion upon Babel and scatters the people. God doesn't destroy the tower, per the flood narrative as if Babel is evil, but only confuses and scatters them to recreate the conditions for the world God wants to bring about.

So Babel, while not necessarily evil, nevertheless represents a path diametrically opposed to God's own. Kind of like the Borg in Star Trek, which would eliminate difference and have everyone speak the same way, versus the Federation, which protects and invites lifeforms of every kind.

So it's not about heights of development or technological progress or anything like that, especially when such efforts help us fulfill the mandate of Genesis 1. Rather it's about how we go about making such progress, the kind of society that underlies it, and that we expand to others in the process.

So, you opt for the 'metaphorically true' apologetic. This is of course taking things the way they are and crediting it to God. Which is reversal of burden of proof, as though it was ever going to be anything else.

Just as the story that explains how languages came to be (in defiance of the scientific explanation) and discusses the condition of humankind, such as diversity is to be appreciated and unity threatens to be boring as the Borg (who are actually pretty cool ). But also it Is about 'technological progress' specifically about reaching heaven, which really demands to be 'metaphorical'. And it does really rewrite the story: it was not about diversifying language to avoid a boring homogeneity, but about diversifying humans so they could not co - operate on technology that God felt threatened him, so you don't get to rewrite the story to change what it's about, unless you concede that it's a discussion about the good and bad of human society and there is nothing in the reality to do with any god or Bible pronouncement about it.

This has happened before, and i won't mention the particular thread or I might get into trouble, but it took Bible passages and related then to stuff about ancient gods of other cultures that were absolutely nothing to do with it (1).

Here again, there is no validity in saying whether the human condition is in line with God's purposes in the Bible until you validate the Bible and the god in it as otherwise, this is the old fallacy of assuming as a given what you are trying to validate. The ultimate circular argument and basic fallacy of theist apologetics.

Or, to put it another way, telling us why You believe it is not a reason why we should, and is why I have called this 'preaching'' (or'witnessing') in the past. And I stand by that

(1) it reminds me of the time I got a secondhand copy of 'the best of Trekkie' (the Startrek Fan zine. and I'd hate to read 'the Worst of trekkie') One entry was a couple of Christians who dug out Bible passages and related them to the personality of various Trek characters. The Editor complimented them on the work they'd done, but was clearly unable to see what the point was. I can tell her or him; to drag the Bible into anything, relevant or not.

[theophile]

Babel finds context in Genesis 1 where God makes the end-state vision clear: a world filled with life where all kinds of life can flourish.

This means diversity and difference -- of language, custom, etc., and it requires a humankind that is spread throughout the earth. Hence God brings confusion upon Babel and scatters the people. God doesn't destroy the tower, per the flood narrative as if Babel is evil, but only confuses and scatters them to recreate the conditions for the world God wants to bring about.

So Babel, while not necessarily evil, nevertheless represents a path diametrically opposed to God's own. Kind of like the Borg in Star Trek, which would eliminate difference and have everyone speak the same way, versus the Federation, which protects and invites lifeforms of every kind.

So it's not about heights of development or technological progress or anything like that, especially when such efforts help us fulfill the mandate of Genesis 1. Rather it's about how we go about making such progress, the kind of society that underlies it, and that we expand to others in the process.

Interesting thought, but of course not in the least bit tethered to the actual scripture found in Genesis1:

"Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens....
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.

The passage sets forth the exact opposite of your claim. God is clearly concerned about the people's technological progress, "... nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them," so He confused their language to halt their building.

This verse is saying what I'm saying. God's concern is first and foremost about us becoming one people with one language. i.e., a state where all of us are essentially the same. No difference or diversity... God is concerned that this coupled with progress will be a real issue for God's plans, since it would mean a reduction in the variation and full expression of life that God wants.

It's not progress alone that concerns God. Progress is a good thing. It's the spirit of that progress that matters.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

It is just a story to show us that you cannot find God in the sky. It was a pagan idea.

[Wootah]

Man has now far exceeded the Tower of Babel, sending people to the Moon, hundreds of satellites into orbit, and more out of the solar system. God was supposedly threatened by a little Ziggurat and man's boldness in Genesis 11. Is he sleeping? Dead?

At Babel, the languages were not just a curse but a blessing in disguise. Now the different languages can all praise God and the song is more marvellous.

Also, most people today are small-minded and do not even reach for the heavens. Who is seriously trying to reach the heavens?

Lol so much could be said about Babel but would you even care?