Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)

--Lets take a look-see then shall we? --This is what the account of the Tower of Babel and the city is. Note - It wasn't only the tower he stopped production of:Genesis 11:4 - And they say, `Give help, let us build for ourselves a city and tower, and its head in the heavens, and make for ourselves a name, lest we be scattered over the face of all the earth.'
Genesis 11:5 - And Jehovah cometh down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men have builded;
Genesis 11:6 - and Jehovah saith, `Lo, the people [is] one, and one pronunciation [is] to them all, and this it hath dreamed of doing; and now, nothing is restrained from them of that which they have purposed to do.
Genesis 11:7 - Give help, let us go down, and mingle there their pronunciation, so that a man doth not understand the pronunciation of his companion.'
Genesis 11:8 - And Jehovah doth scatter them from thence over the face of all the earth, and they cease to build the city;
Genesis 11:9 - therefore hath [one] called its name Babel, for there hath Jehovah mingled the pronunciation of all the earth, and from thence hath Jehovah scattered them over the face of all the earth. [qs]The Tower of Babel
Along with Noah's Ark and several other patently silly stories (in the light of modern understanding), that creationists purport to love, I suspect that they wish they didn't have to defend such myths as the Tower of Babel.

quote:

---

mindspring.com

​

The only thing the Bible believers have to go on is the obscure references of the tower of Babel...which incidently was never discovered,either intact or in ruins and dont tell me that it was the alledged Flood since it occured after the flood in biblical mythology and the yet unproven assertion,both in fact and in theory that the oceans all dried up after the alledged flood.

​

--And this is a link with the discussion of the Tower of Babel and Ziggurats.
-- http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html

---

"To start with, we have to make the fairly safe assumption that the Babylonians at that time were not the most stupid people on the face of the Earth. The assumption is safe, since they managed to have an empire, albeit a modest one, had a written language, kept books, etc. So, if they were not
stupid, then:"
--Where does he come to the conclusion that it was the babylonians that built it?"- Why did they want to build a tower and waste a tremendous amount of resources to peek into the living room of a god they didn't even believe in?"
-- Genesis 11:4 - And they say, `Give help, let us build for ourselves a city and tower, and its head in the heavens, and make for ourselves a name, lest we be scattered over the face of all the earth.'"- Why would they build a tower in the lowlands when they could get ahead by starting on the top of a mountain a few hundred kilometers north?"
--For one, there wouldn't have been much of a difference, as uplift had not increased to about its current hight, also, it says they found a plautau to build on, It seems this is what they were looking for."- Why try building a huge tower in the lowlands [except perhaps for defensive walls] where every brick had to be made from mud, ?"
--See above."- Finally, why would any god not just have a tremendous belly laugh at the futility of his subjects?"
--He probably did, but he wanted to scatter them accross the world."[And why has God not responded similarly to modern skyscrapers--or are we expected to believe that the pile of mud bricks was way higher? And why would God even care, unless He actually did live just a few hundred feet overhead, and a human who reached His home could seriously challenge His supremacy? RJR]"
--Because of the reason they built it:
Genesis 11:4 - And they say, `Give help, let us build for ourselves a city and tower, and its head in the heavens, and make for ourselves a name, lest we be scattered over the face of all the earth.'"Well, at least we can answer that question. There is absolutely no humor in the Bible (or any other religious text that I know of). It's tough being a god--you are not allowed to laugh."
--Psalm 59:8 But you, O LORD, laugh at them; you scoff at all those nations."And Eric Goodemote adds the tag-line:
It's quite odd that the Chinese, in their 8000 year recorded history, failed to mention [the collapse of the tower] in any of their chronicles. Perhaps they were too busy cleaning up after the global flood, which they also forgot to mention."
--I'm not sure about a Tower legend by the Chineese or something of the like, though I have given you 7 accounts of Chineese Flood legends."And Paul C. Anagnostopoulos wants to know: Why aren't all languages spoken everywhere? Why did the people who got Hindi decide to move en masse to India? Cherokee to North America? Why did all the Hebrew speakers stick around the Middle East?"
--Irrelevant question, the reason they split is because they could not speak or engage in conversation with other people, and this question is irrelevant because its a circular problem. You would be to ask why does he live here and they live there no matter where they were to live."And yet another sacrilegious correspondent asks: How high would such a tower have to be? Could fundamentalists build one? What about satellites, moon shots, and interplanetary missions? Haven't they already gone higher than said tower?"
--For one, the tower resembles a ziggurate, and also it was not finished, I gave the reasons for the build above."unless a creationist can prove that the tower of babble was indeed constructed, and is the origin of languages, than I take the tower of babble as proof that the bible is nothing more than fiction, and SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A PARTICULARLY LARGE GRAIN OF SALT."
--I have shown that the Tower was built, but what would you even expect to find to show that it is the origin of the races and languages? I do not know of a way the scientific realm can reach this paradigm.------------------This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 12-01-2005 01:59 AM

"Actually,nothing really. God does not chastize the builders of the tower...According to the Bible,he simply confuse their languages to scatter them across the Globe. This event is often pointed out by keen observer as a moment where God decides to pull a mischievious practical joke on his creation. And since different languages lead to different cultures,this is also seen by them as the indication,if it is to be believed,that God laid himself the seed of war bwrween cultures."
--Actually, he prevented them from corrupting themselves, if one goes, they all are done for, but if God spreads them, if one goes, they won't take the world down with them. Its quite simple, also see my replly to quicksink.------------------

"2/ Would you then agree there is no independent evidence, historical or otherwise of the divine nature of the bible?"
--I think that this isn't what you would be looking for, you would be looking to see and test the 'accuracy' and infallability of the bible, as it has falsifications, divine nature does not.
--(added by edit) Potential falsifiability is a key in figuring plausability and validity in scripture. As many people seem to ask many questions that either cannot (or I know of no scientific technique or mechenism by which is testable) be tested or provide potential falsification in the scientific realm. Some of these questions would be like the evidence that can be provided that adam and eve originated in the middle east, or that the tower of babel was the origin of the races, ect.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-16-2002]

Sorry, my copy has disappeared twice because I did not put my password and username in correctly and it didn't save it in my cache when I wen't back, so I will only do breif answers.Hey percipent, could you make it so that when this happens and you come to the area where it says you did this wrong, make it display what you have written? This would be an amazing help."You wouldn't be looking for accuracy or infallibility. There are accurate books which are not divinely inspired. Infallibility - if different from accuracy - presumably means that it would be entirely internally and externally consistent."
--We would be looking for historical and scientific accuracy, but infallability is more opinionated based on its accuracy, as everything is not testable or provides potential falsification."The external consistency of the text - how it squares with the real world - is what you seem to regard as a question "that either cannot be tested or provide potential falsification."
--See above."The internal consistency of the Bible is a matter of considerable debate resting on interpretation and exegesis: human (and therefore fallible) processes. The apparent infallibility may be the result of human misinterpretation of the text, which unlike scientific experiment or observation, cannot be repeated or tested or falsified."
--There are people who will tell you that the bible is self-defining. That is, it defines itself by obvious gestures and emphesis within its text. I, however, do not agree with this at the extent of Luke defines Genesis or vice versa. This argument should be, if used, within chapter. Also it requires obvious reasoning, common sence, logic, and human understanding in analogetic phrasing and the like. Such is my definition in context of 'heart' in the bible."You are of course aware that interpretations of Biblical passages have evolved, often dramatically, over the centuries."
--Yes, even the flat earthers, or those who took it's literalism to the extream many years ago when they thought that the Heart gives function as we know the brain does."The interpretations often contradict each other and cannot all be true. So one may end up begging an important question - what objective criteria do we use to decide which interpretation we apply our criteria for infallibility to?Amusingly, I have seen some arguments along the lines of "interpretation X of this passage must be the right one because otherwise it would contradict interpretation Y of another passage." The best which can be said of such a line of reasoning is that it suggests that there are possible internally consistent interpretations - but not that these are true."
--See above."Accuracy and apparent infallibility are therefore not evidence of divine nature."
--Thats right, those who suggest there is direct evidence of divine inspiration will usually be running into a brick wall, I have yet to meet someone who can do this. What can be put to the test in scripture is accuracy according to the factors I have listed above."Finally, there can be competing and incompatible claims for infallibility. What (preferably falsifiable) criteria would you use to decide between claims of the infallibility of the Holy Qu'ran and the New Testament?"
--See above, the same criteria should be met in the same with any Holy book.------------------

"Mister Pamboli stole my thunder somewhat. A historical text could be accurate, but if it said at the end "God did miracles", I would expect evidence of it, this aspect would be unsubstantiated until evidence was provided. ONLY evidence of those miracles is evidence of those miracles. Internal consistency elsewhere is means it was proof read, nothing more.Until evidence of the bibles divinity is brought forward, it is a hopeful assumption, not fact."
--Evidence for divine or supernatural nature is not exactly something your going to be able to look for accept by faith. As the bible could be the most accurate book known to man, but that still does not say the bible was inspired by a divine nature. Evidence of miracles if supplying potential falsification along with experimental and testabillity.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-17-2002]