Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tower of Babel
Eli
Member (Idle past 3492 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 16 of 31 (694675)
03-26-2013 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
03-26-2013 12:20 PM


Re: Genesis 11
I'm not sure of your point? Does it have anything to do with the Tower of Babel?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 03-26-2013 12:20 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 31 (694676)
03-26-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by dwise1
03-26-2013 3:45 PM


Re: Genesis 11
So then the same thing could have happened with French, in that a change in how it was used, namely that it started being used in literature, caused an arbitrary decision to be made about its status as a language.
Even if true, that is beside the point.
The Tower of Babel story is very clear that it is not describing arbitrary classifications:
quote:
Genesis 11:7 (NRSV):
Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech.'
The story is about intelligibilitywill not understand one another's speech'.
Do you have any evidence of languages or dialects diverging beyond intelligibility because of 'technical jargon used by specialists'?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by dwise1, posted 03-26-2013 3:45 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Eli, posted 03-26-2013 9:42 PM Jon has replied
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 03-27-2013 3:09 PM Jon has not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3492 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 18 of 31 (694678)
03-26-2013 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jon
03-26-2013 7:57 PM


Re: Genesis 11
This is a learning process for me to figure out the intended implication of this story and to maybe pass it on to others once I reach a conclusion that I am satisfied with. The basic premise is not an assertion, it is an assumption.
Do I need to reword my initial claim so you understand the point?
Or do I really have to explain that people can, in fact, be mulilingual, speaking a variant of their mother language in their profession that is unintelligible to those not initiated in the profession?
Or maybe we can actually discuss the Tower of Babel and chew through whether my assumption pans out or listen to an alternative explanation that goes beyond the literal interpretion?
Would that be okay?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jon, posted 03-26-2013 7:57 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 03-26-2013 11:36 PM Eli has not replied
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 03-26-2013 11:56 PM Eli has not replied
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 03-27-2013 12:41 AM Eli has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 31 (694679)
03-26-2013 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Eli
03-26-2013 9:42 PM


Re: Genesis 11
What do you want discussed in this thread?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Eli, posted 03-26-2013 9:42 PM Eli has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 20 of 31 (694680)
03-26-2013 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Eli
03-26-2013 9:42 PM


Re: Genesis 11 and other myths
This is a learning process for me to figure out the intended implication of this story and to maybe pass it on to others once I reach a conclusion that I am satisfied with. The basic premise is not an assertion, it is an assumption.
The tower of Babel story is a myth, a just-so story. It has the scientific accuracy of attributing lightning to the anger of gods and disease to evil humours. It is based on earlier Babylonian myths.
Or do I really have to explain that people can, in fact, be mulilingual, speaking a variant of their mother language in their profession that is unintelligible to those not initiated in the profession?
I do not see the relevance of this. Language diversification occurs among populations, not small groups, unless those groups become isolated from the larger groups. One of the best examples of a profession speaking a different language would be Catholic priests, who are all expected to speak Latin. There has been no linguistic speciation attributed to this.
Or maybe we can actually discuss the Tower of Babel and chew through whether my assumption pans out or listen to an alternative explanation that goes beyond the literal interpretion?
The prehistoric California region is a classic example of linguistic differentiation. At contact, between 80 and 90 different languages were spoken within what is now California. These belonged to as many as 20 major language families, with at least seven of those language families entirely unrelated to one another (see Golla 2011).
Time depths exceed 12,000 years based on archaeological data (and there is no evidence of a large-scale flood within that time).
What we can take from this is that the Babel story is a myth and does not account for the evidence provided by either linguistics or archaeology. There is no reason other than religious belief to take it seriously.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Eli, posted 03-26-2013 9:42 PM Eli has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 21 of 31 (694682)
03-27-2013 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Eli
03-26-2013 9:42 PM


Re: Genesis 11
Or do I really have to explain that people can, in fact, be mulilingual, speaking a variant of their mother language in their profession that is unintelligible to those not initiated in the profession?
Just how does that that variant (AKA "jargon") differ from the mother language? Same verb system. Same structure (AKA "grammar"). Even mostly the same vocabulary. Even most of the jargon's specialized vocabulary is drawn directly from the mother language, just with different definitions. The only real differences, besides the different specialized definitions, would be archac and foreign terms, plus some neologisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Eli, posted 03-26-2013 9:42 PM Eli has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 22 of 31 (694737)
03-27-2013 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jon
03-26-2013 7:57 PM


Re: Genesis 11
As I said in Message 15 (part you left out of the quote in bold):
DWise1 writes:
So then the same thing could have happened with French, in that a change in how it was used, namely that it started being used in literature, caused an arbitrary decision to be made about its status as a language. Says nothing about how French had developed over time.
I was commenting on Eli's statement about changes in French's status as a language, not how it originated.
And I believe that my Message 21 answers your question:
Do you have any evidence of languages or dialects diverging beyond intelligibility because of 'technical jargon used by specialists'?
Mainly, I do not hold such a position myself and I find it very weak.
What the Bable myth does not explain is how languages split off and develop and why they are so obviously related to each others in the ways that they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jon, posted 03-26-2013 7:57 PM Jon has not replied

  
WarriorArchangel
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lynn MA US
Joined: 03-02-2013


Message 23 of 31 (694871)
03-30-2013 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eli
03-24-2013 9:24 PM


"elusive origin"
The forbidden fruit, of the tree in the middle of the 'Garden of Eden' caused Eve first, and Adam second, to experience autoerotic orgasm. Spilling the seed HaShem wanted to use to have His son born to the virgin He made.
At HaShem's morning visit, both were covering their genitals. Both were chastised and thrown out of the garden. Now outside the garden gate, in the Northern Israeli wilderness, they bore twin boys.
Cain murdered Abel in pre-meditated cold blooded murder. Cain
was told he would have to wander the wilderness. He was afraid the
"people" in the wilderness would kill him, for he killing his brother.
He was assured by HaShem they wouldn't. He and his offspring interbred with them instead. Bringing forth the first modern humans. The Cro-Magnon. Seth was born at that time. 30,000 years after Cain. He in turn inbred with his brother's offspring, making us a species of "interbred/inbred hybrids". And NOT evolved.
That truism negates ALL Gods and religions on the planet, and entails
the Almighty God. No worship need apply....
HaShem is all about electricity, genetics, psychology and technology.
He has a kingdom/house in Creation. Measured in the Apocalypse to be 1500 cubic miles. Must be a technological marvel. Bending and dilating space time, and distance...
At least now I know my "ancestor of origin", Cain. In evolution one has no "ancestor of origin". How good is that......?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eli, posted 03-24-2013 9:24 PM Eli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 03-30-2013 1:32 PM WarriorArchangel has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 24 of 31 (694892)
03-30-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by WarriorArchangel
03-30-2013 1:37 AM


Re: "elusive origin"
WarriorArchangel writes:
The forbidden fruit, of the tree in the middle of the 'Garden of Eden' caused Eve first, and Adam second, to experience autoerotic orgasm.
The Bible you're reading must be in one of those original languages from the Tower of Babble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by WarriorArchangel, posted 03-30-2013 1:37 AM WarriorArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by WarriorArchangel, posted 03-30-2013 4:55 PM ringo has replied

  
WarriorArchangel
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lynn MA US
Joined: 03-02-2013


Message 25 of 31 (694907)
03-30-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ringo
03-30-2013 1:32 PM


TheRe: "elusive origin"
"Their eyes were opened"...
We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome...
We were made by Lucifer to be sexually compatible with the modern humans, the Adam aka 'new species', that HaShem would make...
We Neanderthal ended up (stopped roaming) in Northern Israel circa 700,000 years ago...
I find it fascinating that our species is 99.8% Neanderthal genome.
When I read: "And Cain knew his wife", I asked myself, "Who the hell is she?"
Simple answer...
Cain knew his Neanderthal wife!
That truth negates/trashes ALL Gods and religions on the planet, and replaces them with the Almighty God of Israel. No worship need apply.
We have an intelligence gene. That alone puts Darwin down the toilet, because intelligence doesn't evolve, it's inherited. Embedded
in the womb, and will learn to its capacity.
Unless an ape with the intelligence gene can be found. Until then, evolution of modern man, is now, with todays knowledge, a deliberate lie....
Sorry for being truthful and sending the "theory" of evolution, straight to hell....
Ps...
We have a longevity gene also. Xtreme longevity, like for eternity.
Adam lived 930 years. But; "Mans years will be 120."
The longest so far, that I know of, is a 123 year old black woman...
Anybody going to respond? Maybe even agree/disagree on certain points...
Edited by WarriorArchangel, : No reason given.
Edited by WarriorArchangel, : To correct and clarify. I'm thankful for the opportunity to do so....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 03-30-2013 1:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Ossat, posted 04-02-2013 8:06 AM WarriorArchangel has not replied
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 04-02-2013 12:00 PM WarriorArchangel has not replied

  
Ossat
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


Message 26 of 31 (695041)
04-02-2013 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by WarriorArchangel
03-30-2013 4:55 PM


Re: TheRe: "elusive origin"
were we made by Lucifer? can Lucifer create anything?
aren't we "modern humans"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by WarriorArchangel, posted 03-30-2013 4:55 PM WarriorArchangel has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 27 of 31 (695061)
04-02-2013 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by WarriorArchangel
03-30-2013 4:55 PM


Re: TheRe: "elusive origin"
WarriorArchangel writes:
Unless an ape with the intelligence gene can be found.
Gene or no gene, apes are intelligent. So are whales, pigs, ravens. There's a whole spectrum of intelligence with modern humans (supposedly) at one end.
Apes, whales, etc. also use language. Maybe their languages were scattered at Babel too?
WarriorArchangel writes:
Anybody going to respond?
The question is: Are you going to respond intelligently or with more babble?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by WarriorArchangel, posted 03-30-2013 4:55 PM WarriorArchangel has not replied

  
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 3400 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 28 of 31 (705178)
08-24-2013 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eli
03-24-2013 9:24 PM


Every man (or, woman) that is Bible believer has no problem to consider Bible a truthful source story about the Tower of Babel, and the by-God-triggered linguistic Division of Mankind.
Granted, there are many Bible passages that must be viewed in a symbolic way, but in this case there’s no indication — from context, or other factors - we have to view this passage in that way.
On the contrary, the geographical, and anthropological indication showed here (the journey east-ward, the plain of Shinar, the use of bitumen served as mortar between bricks of baked clay) indicates that this account is a historical account.
If we take so this story we receive a big tip about the origin of languages (except the so-called Sumerian and the languages derived from it).
According the Bible (here we are in a Bible Study thread), the original language was the first form of what we call today, ‘Hebrew Language’.
But, what the Bible really say about this argument? The historical account is reported in Genesis 11:1-9. Everyone may read it in the his own Bible. I now focus only on two verses.
Genesis 11:7, 9
(Good News Bible) Let us go down and mix up their language so that they will not understand each other. [] The city was called Babylon, because there the LORD mixed up the language of all the people, and from there he scattered them all over the earth.
(God’s Word) Let us go down there and mix up their language so that they won't understand each other." [only 11:7]
(Spanish Sagradas Escrituras) Ahora pues, descendamos, y mezclemos all sus lenguas, que ninguno entienda la lengua de su compaero. [] Por esto fue llamado el nombre de ella Babel, porque all mezcl el SEOR el lenguaje de toda la tierra, y de all los esparci sobre la faz de toda la tierra.
(Young, 1898) Give help, let us go down, and mingle there their pronunciation, so that a man doth not under-stand the pronunciation of his companion. [] 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.
Note the Bible doesn’t speak about the [1] confusion of [2] tongues, like many say, but about mixing up of the tongue (שפת בלל; שפתם שם ונבלה).
The translations above mentioned are based on a particular Hebraic verb which includes the original concept of to mix, to mingle.
If we make a collation of the entire corpus of the occurrences of that verb in the Hebrew Bible we discover that the translation confusion is only a conceptually derived one.
The original meaning — instead - revolves around the concept of to mix, to mingle.
So much so that from this verb did come out the derived noun בּליל. Strong applies to it this mean-ing: From H1101 [בּלל]; mixed, that is, (specifically) feed (for cattle): - corn, fodder, provender.
We cannot apply — logically - a confusion concept to the fodder/provender, whereas a concept of mixing/mingling is perfectly suitable to describe the vegetal blend the stockbreeders use for their animals. And, since the verb along the derived noun are to retain the same basic concept we may conclude the original meaning is to mix, to mingle.
We have to mention also the homologous Greek verb the LXX used in this verses.
In fact, the Strong states: From G4862 [σύν] and χέω cheō (to pour) or its alternate; to commingle promiscuously []. It was used also to describe melting metals actions.
In every case we may note in this Greek verb the same original concept, like the Hebrew verb used in TM.
What about Vulgata?
It’s all the same meaning.
The verb used there is confundo, perfectly homologous the Greek one of the LXX. Even to the basic construction preposition + verb (σύν + χέω, in Greek; con + fundo, in Latin). The original concept of confundo was to melt with, blend something through fusion.
So, instead to consider this Bible account a metaphorical or legendary story, we may conclude is a plausible historical account that inform us about the origin of the tongues. God created various languages (family of languages?) operating by some mixing some linguistic components of the original tongue (sin-tax/radicals/vocals between radicals?).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eli, posted 03-24-2013 9:24 PM Eli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2013 12:07 PM Asteragros has not replied
 Message 31 by kofh2u, posted 08-24-2013 6:24 PM Asteragros has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 29 of 31 (705199)
08-24-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Asteragros
08-24-2013 2:12 AM


i agree but...
We cannot apply — logically - a confusion concept to the fodder/provender, whereas a concept of mixing/mingling is perfectly suitable to describe the vegetal blend the stockbreeders use for their animals.
I agree with this but see the idea of "language" as reference to one psychic, archetypal state of mind, Libidinal, [Hebrew: saphah/ meaning: boundary]).
...and of one way of thinking, of one manner of psychological "speech," ([Hebrew: dabar/ means: "content of what is bound"]; in the context of one's Subconscious mind having differentiated or split.
This is all psychological in meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Asteragros, posted 08-24-2013 2:12 AM Asteragros has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 30 of 31 (705200)
08-24-2013 12:17 PM


No Babel needed
Languages and dialects develop easily and naturally given isolation of one group from another.
Example: The US before television had distinctive regional dialects of English, although the people had relatively similar origins only a few hundred (at the most) years earlier.
Example: California Indians spoke over 300 dialects of approximately one hundred distinct languages. These developed in (at the most) 14,000 years. Most probably developed in half that time, or less.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024