Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)

Just another example of the fact that the bible cannot and should not be taken in a literal sense.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 even be threatened by this "tower"? He hasn't appeared threatened by our towers.Here is the article which you can find at:
linkThe 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. Werner Guilford asks the following:
The bible story of why humanity speaks thousands of different languages ranks right up there with the story of Santa Claus and the stork bringing the children. A nice bedtime story for the kids, were it not for the tendency to blame a vengeful deity. Somebody has to set the record straight and absolve God from all responsibility in this case. Let's give it a try.
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:
- 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 build a tower in the lowlands when they could get ahead by starting on the top of a mountain a few hundred kilometers north?
- Why try building a huge tower in the lowlands [except perhaps for defensive walls] where every brick had to be made from mud, ?
- 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]
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.
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.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?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?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 message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-25-2005 06:03 PM

Biblicalists,Why EXACTLY did God object to the tower of babel?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Actually,nothing really. God does not chastize the builders of the tower...According to the Bible,he simply confused their languages to scatter them across the Globe. This event is often pointed out by keen observers 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.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 12-01-2005 01:55 AM

But why did he do that?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Why is it that languages so neatly arrrange themselves around the world.

I want to ask this again, what specific criteria did the people building the tower of babel transgress to incur divine intervention?Must've been something.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

--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.------------------

True Creation says: 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.I don't think you have shown anything of the kind, the second part of the issue is extremely important to the type of argument you frequently use on the forum.What you can show, and what I wholeheartedly agree with, is that ancients built a tower and it collapsed. I'm sure it happened all over the ancient world. However, to relate any of these towers to the biblical tower of Babel requires a great deal of induction. Some of the sites you have referred to elsewhere go in for this induction at some length, but it remains entirely speculative as you seem to agree.There is some tempting evidence, but it is no more than tempting. Unfortunately the Biblical account is actually too vague about location, construction and so on to enable us to find conclusive proof archaeologically.Of course, the Biblical story goes beyond saying that there was a tower and it collapsed. We are told that it was Jehovah who destroyed the tower and that it was from this event that the people of earth ceased to speak one language and spoke many others.More proof of the existence and identity of the tower of babel may be possible in several stages. Locate a collapsed tower, the collapse of which can be archaeologically dated to a point before which the evidence of varied languages can be found. Find within the remains of the tower or stratigraphically related to it evidence of a language which can be cross related to similarly dated language evidence elsewhere.However, even this evidence wouldn't conclusively prove that the tower was "the" tower mentioned in the Bible. One would certainly be interested in the correlation, but even mild skepticism might lead one to conclude it is wishful thinking. There would be a great deal of induction required.Now, to relate this to your general arguments: they are often interesting but show a very selective skepticism. This is what I meant in an earlier post when I asked if this is the standard of evidence you expect of evolution. You are quite confident to say that the Tower of Babel has been found, on the basis of what can only ever be an inferential argument. But you are extremely skeptical, from what I have read, of evidence for the age of the earth, which is based on a far greater volume of evidence which is more testable.The conclusion I draw is that you share the extremely partial skepticism of many creationists: evidence which supports your position is regarded fairly uncritically, but a far greater standard of proof is applied to evidence which does not.There is a certain comfort to be had for creationsists in the difficulty of faslifying biblical accounts of interesting events. But the reasons for this are twofold and can clearly be seen in the Tower of Babel story.Negative evidence - that the tower did not exist, that if it did it was not destroyed by Jehovah - is not possible by its nature.Positive evidence - that languages were widespread and varied before the dating of any candidate tower may yet fail the test for a creationist, because one could always retreat to a position of "well, it must have been another tower, which we haven't yet found." But the positive evidence may receive another challenge - the challenge that the scientific inferences required to support it are open to the usual weaknesses of inductive reasoning.Thus, we end up in a situation where inductive reasoning which supports your position (as in the links you posted relating to the Tower) is acceptible to you, but inductive reasoning (as for the age of the earth) is not. But the difference between the two appears only to be that one accords with your position and the other is egregious to you.So, I guess, the question to ask is simply put - what are your standards of evidence for evaluating the claims of creationism and evolutionary or materialist versions of history?

show me molecular evolution from single cell to multiple cells. i dare ya. show me it actually happening. dont just give links or say baseless arguments, SHOW ME!! also the bible is fact it is not however a a scientific journal.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
show me molecular evolution from single cell to multiple cells. i dare ya. show me it actually happening. dont just give links or say baseless arguments, SHOW ME!! also the bible is fact it is not however a a scientific journal.

​

---

1/ Before I take the time to reply at length, what would you accept as evidence of a transition of single to multicellular organisms?2/ Present evidence of the divine aspects of the bible.You used the word fact. I ask you to use it in the scientific sense, ie show, evidentially, to such a high degree, that it would be unreasonable for me to deny supernatural involvement. Really, KP, this is what it means to call things "fact". If you can't do this, & you still are calling it "fact", alarm bells of unreasonability should be ringing. It means you are claiming something is fact, whilst absolving yourself of the intellectual responsibility to back up that claim to yourself.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
1/ Before I take the time to reply at length, what would you accept as evidence of a transition of single to multicellular organisms?

​

2/ Present evidence of the divine aspects of the bible.

​

You used the word fact. I ask you to use it in the scientific sense, ie show, evidentially, to such a high degree, that it would be unreasonable for me to deny supernatural involvement. Really, KP, this is what it means to call things "fact". If you can't do this, & you still are calling it "fact", alarm bells of unreasonability should be ringing. It means you are claiming something is fact, whilst absolving yourself of the intellectual responsibility to back up that claim to yourself.

​

Mark

​

---

1) actually seeing it occur.
2) intelligent designalso its fact because it is recorded history. you cant just say its wrong because its old, on that mentality we couldnt use any history books or previous experiences as usable information.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
1) actually seeing it occur.
2) intelligent design

​

also its fact because it is recorded history. you cant just say its wrong because its old, on that mentality we couldnt use any history books or previous experiences as usable information.

​

---

1/ As you very well know, evolution is a slow process, & such large changes are not going to take place "before your eyes", again, as you very well know.Did you think it was clever to ask something of evolution that it itself doesn't claim? What have you proved to yourself? It's a bit like me saying I need to see God do a miracle, & nothing else will do. I tell you what, I'll apply the same criteria to the bibles divinity (point 2/) shall I?2/ ID is a conclusion, not evidence. Try again.Also, please produce the independent, unbiased historical records that show the bibles divine nature.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

1/ As you very well know, evolution is a slow process, & such large changes are not going to take place "before your eyes", again, as you very well know.
--its not completly ignorant to assume that if evolution occurs so much that we evolved into different species that it would constantly occuring. im sure if you took enough samples under your theory it would provide pure evidence of molecular evolution from single celled to multiple celled organisms. i mean for all these different organisms with totally different purposes and ways of gaining energy im sure that single celled organisms would still be evolving into multiple celled organisms every so often. unless of course evolution doesnt occur.Did you think it was clever to ask something of evolution that it itself doesn't claim? What have you proved to yourself? It's a bit like me saying I need to see God do a miracle, & nothing else will do. I tell you what, I'll apply the same criteria to the bibles divinity (point 2/) shall I?
-- evolution doesnt claim molecular evolution? or is every action of a cell visible except evolution from single cell to multiple cell? also your very existence is a miracle; every day you have a good chance of dying. mans ever changing and advancing soceity is definetly a miracle in my eyes.2/ ID is a conclusion, not evidence. Try again.
--a conclusion based on facts; like all theories of scienceAlso, please produce the independent, unbiased historical records that show the bibles divine nature.
--the bible makes several references to its divine nature or am i misundertanding your q?------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
1/ As you very well know, evolution is a slow process, & such large changes are not going to take place "before your eyes", again, as you very well know.

​

--its not completly ignorant to assume that if evolution occurs so much that we evolved into different species that it would constantly occuring. im sure if you took enough samples under your theory it would provide pure evidence of molecular evolution from single celled to multiple celled organisms.

​

---

And the conclusion would be?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

i mean for all these different organisms with totally different purposes and ways of gaining energy im sure that single celled organisms would still be evolving into multiple celled organisms every so often. unless of course evolution doesnt occur.

---

So, you want a half single celled, half multicelled example, or something similar? If so, please say exactly what you will accept as that example.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Did you think it was clever to ask something of evolution that it itself doesn't claim? What have you proved to yourself? It's a bit like me saying I need to see God do a miracle, & nothing else will do. I tell you what, I'll apply the same criteria to the bibles divinity (point 2/) shall I?

​

-- evolution doesnt claim molecular evolution? or is every action of a cell visible except evolution from single cell to multiple cell? also your very existence is a miracle; every day you have a good chance of dying. mans ever changing and advancing soceity is definetly a miracle in my eyes.

---

What has molecular evolution got to do with observing macroevolution in our lifetimes? Molecular evolution deals with the evolution of molecules, & has nothing per se to do with single celled to multi celled transitions.I hear the sound of goalposts moving. You wanted to SEE the transition occur, I pointed out to you that evolution claims to moves very slowly, & you will never see a complete transition. As such it was an unfair expectation to challenge evolution on something it never claimed in the first place. Now you are saying something about molecular evolution? What has that got to do with my original contention that evolution never claimed to move fast enough to produce such a transition?Nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

2/ ID is a conclusion, not evidence. Try again.
--a conclusion based on facts; like all theories of science

​

---

And if I asked you to produce those facts would they answer my original question? No.I want evidence of the divine nature of the bible, not ID. You said it was fact, I’m asking for the evidence that is required to make it so, stay focussed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

Also, please produce the independent, unbiased historical records that show the bibles divine nature.
--the bible makes several references to its divine nature or am i misundertanding your q?

​

---

The bible isn’t an independent source, it is the document in question. You say the divine nature of the bible is recorded in history, I’m asking for non Christian, non biblical texts to corroborate the bibles divine aspects. The bible can’t do it, it’s circular argument. It would be like saying evolution proves evolution. Or the defendants plea in court must be true because the defendant said so.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.