quote:
In the time the tower was constructed, it could have only have been as tall as the smaller skyscrapers of today. So why has god not destroyed these?
Why would God have to destroy these?
quote:
Why would god even be threatened by this "tower"? He hasn't appeared threatened by our towers.
Why do you think God was threatened by the Tower of Babel to begin with?
quote:
- 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?
Why would they not have believed in God? It shouldn't be viewed as illogical that early post-flood man built a tower to God. There are no shortage of other colossal ancient structures built for religious purposes. This may seem silly to modern man but was clearly not viewed as silly in antiquity.
quote:
- 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?
Personally, I think the premise that they tried to build a tower that reached to heaven, literally, is absurd. One would have to suppose that these post-flood men were complete idiots. I think it's more of an expression, or simply meant to be the most spectacular temple of the time, that, in their minds, would be used to commune with God. The OT, written in Hebrew, is loaded with figures of speech and expressions. I see no reason to restrict that possibility with this passage, particularly since it is logical if it is the case, and completely nonsensical if it is not.
quote:
- Why try building a huge tower in the lowlands [except perhaps for defensive walls] where every brick had to be made from mud, ?
Why not? Why would they not do it this way? Were mud-bricks not the resources available to them there?
quote:
- Finally, why would any god not just have a tremendous belly laugh at the futility of his subjects? [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]
I think the point of the story is that they did not disperse over the whole earth, as commanded in Genesis 9:1. Notice that in 11:4, part of the Babel story, it says, "And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth," which makes it clear that they were disobeying the command to spread over the earth and instead were staying all together in one spot. Unless the building of modern day skyscrapers in some way violates a command from God, there is no reason why God would destroy them.
quote:
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.
Good luck trying to prove this one. I think this is just a baseless assumption, intended to make sport of religion. No?
quote:
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?
I'm not sure how Paul thinks this is an important question. Wouldn't the most logical outcome be that the folks who could understand each other, stay together?
quote:
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?
This is just mocking aimed at Evangelicals.
quote:
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.
This does not logically follow. Why would there have to be proof of this tower and lingiuistic division and dispersion from the middle east? Let's address the first point shall we? Let's suppose there was a tower of Babel, why then would it have to still be standing? If people lived at the spot where is was built after the project was cancelled, why would they not simply appropriate it's building materials for other building projects? How many cancelled building projects in modern day times are left in tact for posterity? It seems logical to me, that they would simply use it's building materials elsewhere.
And in fact, actually, the tower may have been completed, given the wording of the text. But once again, perhaps they simply destroyed it for use elsewhere. Would make sense too, since it seems likely they would have gathered that God was displeased with their project if they then had their languages scrambled.
Division and dispersion of languages being pinned to the middle east, is a bit much to ask for. One could counter with, "show me evidence that it didn't disperse from there." Which would be an equally unproveable claim. No?
It seems to me that the real point of this post is to make sport of the Bible, without seriously analyzing the plausibility of it's claims. There is nothing here by any reasonable logical standard that condemns the Bible. Once one actually reads the text in question, it becomes clear that the argument here, is based heavily on ignorance of the basic claims of the text.
This message has been edited by idontlikeforms, 01-01-2006 01:53 AM
This message has been edited by idontlikeforms, 01-01-2006 01:56 AM
™ Version 4.2