When was the Tower of Babel Made?

I'm not sure I answered your question. Please elaborate if I have not

Gen 8:16 reads: This dosn't mean spread across all the lands, it means, leave the ark, go fourth. If he ment spread across all the lands then he would have said so. I mean, he had no truble saying things like br fruitfull and multiply, so why say somthing vague and unclear here?And, more importantly, when God states his grivance: Notice that it says nothing about arogance, or a failure to meet his decree. God specifically says that he is worried that man can do anything he imagines in his state, so he decides to screw them up before they get 'uppety' or something.Your view seems to be only an interpretation, and not based on what the scripture actually says.

Okay, now i think I realize what you are saying. You're saying that there is not enough time between the flood and Babel to get enought people based on the geanealogies, right? Here let me refer you to something I said in another forum,"Even so, when it says,"when X was Y years old he became the father of Z," this is the english translation. When read in hebrew it can also mean that when X was Y years old he became the father of a "family line which included or culminated in Z." Often times, names which are not especially noteable are left out of the genealogies. This is widely accepted by Bible scholars, who are both believing and non-believing, as an acceptable reading. It is the general acceptance that there are gaps in the genealogies of genesis. Parallels can be seen elsewhere in the Bible like in a geanealogy in Mathew 1:8 which we know left names out because the same genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 has more names and is more complete. These lists are meant to be adequate"Hope this helps

Sorry I mean to say Genesis 8:17 "Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you-the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground-so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it"Instead they decide to all settle in one place and start building. Is it really necessary to get nit picky about the why it was stopped? Are we not focusing on the if?

Your rightm this may not be the proper thread for this question. I will open a new one.... in Errancy I still think it's an interesting question tho.EDIT:Here is the new topic:http://EvC Forum: The Tower of Babel, why did God mess it up?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-06-2003]

quote:

---

Also to John, the project was organized

---

And that is exactly the problem. There is no evidence of any human culture having that high level of organization 30,000 years ago. In other words, you made up something for which there is no evidence.

quote:

---

we don't know any of the dimensions of the building

---

No we, don't. However...do you really maintain that a group of people banded together to build a pile of rocks a few feet high? See. If you argue that the tower was small enough that a few people could build it then you end up making the ridiculous.And the story quite states that there was a city-- this alone is sufficient to disprove the 30,000 years ago idea-- and that they were building with fired brick and mortar. Cities and fired brick do not show up until long after 30,000 years ago. Cities also testify that we are dealing with a large number of people, not a dozen or two.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I don't believe I said it was a few feet high. It was probably fairly tall but what I am saing did it reach all the way to the "heavens"? no

Hi,Yes I know it isn't in Jericho, I never implied that it was.What I suggested was that, as Jericho is recognised as one of the oldest cities in the world and its buildings were not very impressive, then any building before that date 10 000 BCE is unlikely to have been vastly superior to it. So why assume that it was totally obliterated?This 20-30 thousand years you keep talking about, do you have evidence from the Near/Middle East of any brick buildings from this era?Yes alot can happen in 20-30 000 years, including the location of the Tower.Brian.

By the way, this may be a little off topic but it is accepted that the most probable type of tower that babel was, was a ziggurat. Over thirty ruins of ziggrats have been found in Mesopotamia

That is pretty evasive. It obviously did not reach heaven, and that isn't the issue. The issue is whether it was large enough to leave a footprint. Sometimes it was pretty small and sometimes pretty big. How big?A tower like this has no real purpose. It is a show of power. Now, people who are living off what they find on the ground-- as our ancestors were 30,000 years ago-- do not build structures like this. Building such a thing requires a society with an excess of wealth-- ie. food and time. The were no such societies 30,000 years ago.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

By the way, this may be a little off topic but it is accepted that the most probable type of tower that babel was, was a ziggurat.

---

From what time period? Any from 30,000 bce? Nope.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Let me revise what I said about the date. I originally supposed the flood was 20-30 thousand years ago. What I should have said about babel is that it was sometime later as seems to be the case if what you say about brick and mortar is true. I already adressed that it could have been many different indeterminate amounts of time later via my post on incomplete geneologies

Babylon was built using fired-brick around 5000 BC. This is the earliest use of fired brick which I have found. The mortar isn't as much of a problem. People had been gluing things together with mud or bitumen for some time. Bitumen was used as mortar about 8000 BC, but was used to connect stone heads to shafts earlier that 38,000 BC. So, 'sometime later' puts you at about 5-6kya. This is not good for the genetic diversity line you've been towing.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

You seem to be confusing me with someone else. 25,000 years worth of gaps?------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 09-06-2003]

well, I recently found a source which seems to suggest that we are not as genetically diverse as everyone has been saying. I've been trying to defend against the idea that we are so genetically diverse but perhaps I don't need to. I posted it on another thread. It seems to be from a Harvard doctor"Scientists have observed that there is a major problem in the human population that doesn't fit Darwinian theory. The genetic diversity of humans is much less than that expected from a population that theoretically speciated several hundred thousands years ago. According to Dr. Maryellen Ruvolo (Harvard University) "It's a mystery none of us can explain." Their conclusion is that the human population must have went through a "population bottleneck" of 10,000 or fewer individuals from 400,000 to 12,000 years ago. However, Jan Klein (Max Planck Institute, Tbingen, Germany) and Dr. Francisco Ayala (University of California, Irvine) say that a population of 10,000 does not represent a bottleneck, since this is the standard breeding population of many species. Another alternative is that modern humans did not evolve from apes, but were created more recently than 400,000 years ago. Many recent studies support this hypothesis (see below). (Gibbons, A. 1995. The mystery of humanity's missing mutations. Science 267: 35-36.) "