Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Babel: The Mother Culture?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 115 (365964)
11-25-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by anglagard
11-25-2006 3:11 PM


Tower of Babel - When? and Where?
That is related to one of the things I wonder about Genesis literalism, namely why we assume all these events took place in the Middle East.
I mean, since the flood was global, that seems to indicate that the entire earth was inhabited. So there is no reason to believe that Noah lived in the same geographical region as Adam and Eve.
Furthermore, the ark was floating around for about a year; wherever it started out, it could have been set down anywhere. So there is no reason to believe that the ark started or ended up in the same geographical region.
Finally, I can see why Babel could be in roughtly in the same place as the ark's resting place -- when I was a literalist I was taught that one of the sins of the Babel-people was that they refused to disperse and replenish the entire earth. But then the people were dispersed during the confusion of tongues -- why should we believe that the ancestors of the Hebrews were the people who stayed put? It could be that they were one of the groups that were moved a long distance -- so Babel may be no where near the present Middle East.
So, Eden could have been anywhere, Noah could have lived anywere, the ark could have rested (and Babel could have been located) anywhere. Is there really something magical about the Middle East that the most significant events in human history took place there?
Edited by Chiroptera, : ">" is not proper punctuation.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by anglagard, posted 11-25-2006 3:11 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2006 11:41 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 115 (365968)
11-25-2006 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rob
11-24-2006 10:59 PM


The meaning of Babel.
Well, yes, most of us agree. The story of Babel, like the story of the Flood, like the Genesis story of creation, like the Exodus, like the stories of King David, like the stories of the life and resurrection of Jesus, are best considered as allegories to illustrate important spiritual truths.
However, there are people who insist that the events in Genesis are literal history, including the story of Babel. No one is necessarily dismissing that the story of Babel is a metaphor for an important truth. What most of us are arguing is precisely how assuming that the tower of Babel was an actual historical event poses some problems with what we know about reality.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rob, posted 11-24-2006 10:59 PM Rob has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 18 of 115 (365969)
11-25-2006 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2006 2:30 PM


The significance of the story isn't found so much in the building of the Tower. The tower is just symbolic of man wanting to set himself apart from God. A physical building was never the issue.
That is not what the text clearly says. What you claim is extra biblical interpretation. Nevertheless that is not what the topic is about.
The topic is about if the originating culture was so advanced why did so many cultures lose such simple but useful technology. For example, the new world people's did not yet have the wheel or arch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2006 2:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2006 12:21 PM iceage has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 115 (365985)
11-25-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2006 2:30 PM


I find your statement about Egyptians puzzling. If you wish to use archaelogical evidence to prove that Babylon and Egypt were contemporaneous high cultures, which they were, then what are you going to do with the text that says that "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." (Gen. 11:1)
They had different languages. The archaelogical evidence shows this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2006 2:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2006 12:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 115 (366048)
11-26-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by anglagard
11-25-2006 3:11 PM


Re: Tower of Babel - When?
If some flood is responsible for virtually all sediments, how could one locate where any Mesopotamian region was prior to the wholesale reworking of the Earth's crust? Or are you suggesting the sediments were deposited prior to any flood? Also, when was this supposed tower built? Do the pyramids pre-date or post-date the flood and tower?
I have no idea what you are asking about the sediment, but as far as the Pyramids, those were built in the postdiluvian era, however, I often wonder what this passage is referring to:
"Now this Seth, when he was brought up, and came to those years in which he could discern what was good, became a virtuous man; and as he was himself of an excellent character, so did he leave children behind him who imitated his virtues. (9) All these proved to be of good dispositions. They also inhabited the same country without dissensions, and in a happy condition, without any misfortunes falling upon them, till they died. They also were the inventors of that peculiar sort of wisdom which is concerned with the heavenly bodies, and their order. And that their inventions might not be lost before they were sufficiently known, upon Adam's prediction that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water, they made two pillars, (10) the one of brick, the other of stone: they inscribed their discoveries on them both, that in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone might remain, and exhibit those discoveries to mankind; and also inform them that there was another pillar of brick erected by them. Now this remains in the land of Siriad to this day." -Flavius Josephus
Siriad is reputed as the old-world biblical name for Egypt, but I can't say for sure.
Why is the tower symbolic and the flood real? Scottness says in post 11 s/he thinks the story is literally true, there was an actual tower. Where is the dividing line between symbolic and real to YECs and who decides where it lies in this matter?
No, you misunderstood me. The Tower if Babel is real, it was actually built. I'm saying, the building of the tower has come to be symbolic of man's desire to be his own god. God didn't condemn them for making a giant ziggurat. He charged them for the intent they harbored in their heart. There really was a tower of Babel, but I'm saying the building of it is symbolic.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by anglagard, posted 11-25-2006 3:11 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by anglagard, posted 11-26-2006 5:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 115 (366057)
11-26-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
11-25-2006 3:21 PM


Re: Tower of Babel - When? and Where?
I mean, since the flood was global, that seems to indicate that the entire earth was inhabited. So there is no reason to believe that Noah lived in the same geographical region as Adam and Eve.
The Flood was global to destroy all life on earth, save 8 people, 2 of every unclean specie, and 7 of every clean specie. But it is entirely possible that human life extended much farther than merely the mesopotamian region.
Furthermore, the ark was floating around for about a year; wherever it started out, it could have been set down anywhere. So there is no reason to believe that the ark started or ended up in the same geographical region.
It didn't. It started somewhere in Iraq, and if not Iraq, as far as west as Canaan and as far east and Iran, possibly closer to the red sea. It ended up on Mt. Ararat, which is in modern-day Turkey.
But then the people were dispersed during the confusion of tongues -- why should we believe that the ancestors of the Hebrews were the people who stayed put?
You have to remember that we're all essentially related through Adam and Eve, even if if you don't believe in the Bible, surely you agree with that conceptually. Now, Shem was just one son that remained in that immediate are, while Ham and Japheth took to the seas and traveled tp many lands. Shem's line extends very far as well. In order to really appreciate the genealogy, you have to start at Genesis 10, otherwise known as, "the Table of Nations."
So, Eden could have been anywhere
No, the Bible clearly places it between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers. There isn't a whole lot of mistaking where that is located. That's modern-day Iraq-- biblical Babylon.
Noah could have lived anywere
Possibly.
the ark could have rested (and Babel could have been located) anywhere.
The ark and Babel are carefully placed.
Is there really something magical about the Middle East that the most significant events in human history took place there?
Magical isn't the word. Human life began there. I'm sure you will object and tell me that it started in Kenya, or whatever, but all evidence points to the middle east.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 11-25-2006 3:21 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 11-26-2006 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 115 (366064)
11-26-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2006 11:41 AM


Re: Tower of Babel - When? and Where?
Hey, nem.
Most of this is off-topic -- I merely wrote my post to indicate that we may not even know where Babel was located, a question which itself may be only tangentially related to the OP -- so I won't waste much more bandwidth on this.
I will just take one of your statements as an example of the problems with the post:
quote:
It [the ark] ended up on Mt. Ararat, which is in modern-day Turkey.
Now I know for a fact that most literalists, or at least most of what passes for scholarship in literalist circles, do not believe that the mountain that happens to be named Ararat in Turkey is the same Ararat mentioned in Genesis. Certainly we were so cautioned when I was a literalist.
And that is what I find problematic in this post. It seems that the interpretations are simplistic even by literalist standards.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2006 11:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2006 12:50 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 115 (366070)
11-26-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by iceage
11-25-2006 3:42 PM


The significance of the story
quote:
The significance of the story isn't found so much in the building of the Tower. The tower is just symbolic of man wanting to set himself apart from God. A physical building was never the issue.
That is not what the text clearly says. What you claim is extra biblical interpretation. Nevertheless that is not what the topic is about.
Does this mean your official position is that God was mad that people made a tall building? One would wonder why He hadn't smote the builders of the Sears Tower, if that's, in fact, your official position.
The topic is about if the originating culture was so advanced why did so many cultures lose such simple but useful technology. For example, the new world people's did not yet have the wheel or arch.
What exactly was lost? http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/wheel.htm
Some might argue that technology to build the pyramids have been lost, and this, taking place after the Deluge. How did that get lost by the same token?

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by iceage, posted 11-25-2006 3:42 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by iceage, posted 11-26-2006 1:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 115 (366071)
11-26-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
11-25-2006 6:22 PM


Archaeology
I find your statement about Egyptians puzzling. If you wish to use archaelogical evidence to prove that Babylon and Egypt were contemporaneous high cultures, which they were, then what are you going to do with the text that says that "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." (Gen. 11:1)
They had different languages. The archaelogical evidence shows this.
I agree that they have different languages. The whole world did have one language until the confusion. And each began to understand their own clans language. Heck, even the Akkadians, Sumerians, and Egyptians have all recorded this 'confusion' somewhere in the annals of their respective histories.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2006 6:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 11-26-2006 2:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 115 (366077)
11-26-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Chiroptera
11-26-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Tower of Babel - When? and Where?
Most of this is off-topic -- I merely wrote my post to indicate that we may not even know where Babel was located, a question which itself may be only tangentially related to the OP -- so I won't waste much more bandwidth on this.
Then how did places and physical identifiers, such as, but not limited to, Ninevah, Ur, the Euphrates and the Tigris come to associate 'themselves' as the beginning of civilization? All of this was established before the Bible was ever penned. That means, there is at least some truth to it. Anyone could make the argument that the Bibles stories are exaggerations or what have you, but no one can really challenge the historicity.
Also, how is it OT? I'm just answering what people previously wrote. If I'm OT, then they were the ones that took it off course, not me. I may be taking it further off course by engaging it, but I'm merely following the dialogue. What exactly is OT though? It seems to be on target.
quote:
It [the ark] ended up on Mt. Ararat, which is in modern-day Turkey.
Now I know for a fact that most literalists, or at least most of what passes for scholarship in literalist circles, do not believe that the mountain that happens to be named Ararat in Turkey is the same Ararat mentioned in Genesis. Certainly we were so cautioned when I was a literalist.
Then where is the biblical mount Ararat located, if not in Turkey? You could make the argument that there never really was an ark to begin with, but surely you would agree that they had an actual location in mind. As well, if Babylon wasn't really in Iraq, then where was it really? Surely, they had actual places in mind.
And that is what I find problematic in this post. It seems that the interpretations are simplistic even by literalist standards.
What is so simplistic about it?

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 11-26-2006 12:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 11-26-2006 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 26 of 115 (366079)
11-26-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2006 12:21 PM


Wheel and Arch
Iceage writes:
That is not what the text clearly says. What you claim is extra biblical interpretation. Nevertheless that is not what the topic is about.
nj writes:
Does this mean your official position is that God was mad that people made a tall building? One would wonder why He hadn't smote the builders of the Sears Tower, if that's, in fact, your official position.
My official position is that is what the text clearly says.
This is only odd if one takes the illogical and blasphemous position that the myths in the OT represent the workings of God. They do not any more than the earlier myths of Gilgamesh describe God. They are myths and when literal bible believing sorts attempt to fold this into a view of God they have to take a position that is absurd.
Iceage writes:
The topic is about if the originating culture was so advanced why did so many cultures lose such simple but useful technology. For example, the new world people's did not yet have the wheel or arch.
nj writes:
What exactly was lost?
As the main topic stated and I stated many of these simple inventions did not get transfered to other cultures.
Again for example, the wheel and the arch, two of the most important inventions of humankind, were not discovered in the New World., until European contact. I believe the same is true of other isolated cultures such aborigines.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2006 12:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 115 (366081)
11-26-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2006 12:50 PM


Re: Tower of Babel - When? and Where?
quote:
Also, how is it OT?
I wasn't accusing you of being off-topic, nem, just pointing out that my post was barely on topic, and that a lot of this (like the location of Eden) could very well drift off-topic.
-
quote:
Then how did places and physical identifiers, such as, but not limited to, Ninevah, Ur, the Euphrates and the Tigris come to associate 'themselves' as the beginning of civilization?
Were any of these mentioned before the events of, say, the Flood? I mean, some of them were used as place identifiers, like saying that Navajo moved to Arizona from Canada in the 17th century even though Arizona and Canada, as political entities, did not exist at that time.
Yes, I realize the Euphrates and the Tigris were mentioned as giving the location of Eden. However, it was pointed out to me when I was a literalist by a literalist pastor that these rivers would have been obliterated by the Flood. Remember that in standard creationism, the Flood dumped a mile thick layer of sediments in Arizona through which the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon; furthermore, some creationists even believe that the high mountains themselves formed during the Flood. A lot of geography changed. The geology of the region containing the modern Eurphrates and Tigris are themselves Mesozoic in age; standard creationism would identify this as Flood sediments.
-
quote:
Surely, they had actual places in mind.
I'm sure they did. And, in fact, that is part of my point. Genesis makes more sense as a collection of creation myths where consistency was not considered an important issue by a people who did not realize how much bigger the world is than the region with which they were familiar.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2006 12:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 28 of 115 (366090)
11-26-2006 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rob
11-24-2006 10:59 PM


Re: Welcome To EvC
Don't you think it is more likely that the events described are a distortion of what actually happened?
Such as a (relatively) advanced society starts using co operation to create (relatively) advanced structures. When the co operative society breaks down it cannot maintain the (relatively) dense population and there is a dispersion of the population.
No more co operation.
What I just dreamed up in a minute or two (I would contend) is a more likely senario than a mean spirited god going out of its way to make life hard for people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rob, posted 11-24-2006 10:59 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rob, posted 11-26-2006 4:59 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 29 of 115 (366093)
11-26-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2006 12:27 PM


Re: Archaeology
Nemesis writes:
Heck, even the Akkadians, Sumerians, and Egyptians have all recorded this 'confusion' somewhere in the annals of their respective histories.
Care to back this one up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2006 12:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 30 of 115 (366112)
11-26-2006 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Larni
11-26-2006 2:32 PM


Re: Be babbling on about Babel...
What I just dreamed up in a minute or two (I would contend) is a more likely senario than a mean spirited god going out of its way to make life hard for people.
God is not mean spirited. But he is just. You missed the point. It is difficult to grasp.
God doesn't make life hard for us in the sense you imply. He made things in a certain way. He made them for perfection. For Himself. When we reject that, then we bring a hard life upon ourselves. But God does make life hard in this same way as well, though indirectly (and most sovereignly), because he created things to only work one way.
He wants the best for us, and He knows what that is...
If He allowed us to get away with our own plans for eternity (anything will be possible for them), then He would not be good. he would at that point be no different than a parent who gives his child anything the child wants.
That's pretty much what we are (particularly in America); a bunch of spoiled rotten brats. Nobody likes a brat. Especially a brat.
God offers to take responsibility for the mess (and did). Not just at Babel, but on the cross. Personally, I am glad that I accepted the invitation.
You can know Him if you ask Him. Faith is only the mustard seed that you must swallow to open the mind enough to believe that He is there to ask. Once you meet Him, then it's not the kind of blind faith it takes to believe other worldviews.
There are lots of lessons to learn from Babel. One, is that God will not allow man to do whatever he pleases. And that is because God is good and loving. The fact he allows us as much lee-way as He does, must be the result of patience born of an omniscient view of the whole show.
Though we might interfere in all manner of details in one anothers lives... it appears that God (though omnipotent) is well aquainted with what corrections are actually necessary to stay in control. Jesus certainly demonstrated self control. And God saw fit to intervene only when necessary. He stepped in to history many times really and intervened. But not enough to mess with your free will.
It is comforting to me to know that this universe has a referree. One who will restore some things after this life. Without that belief (in ultimate justice), how could I sacrifice anything in this life?
Edited by scottness, : No reason given.
Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Larni, posted 11-26-2006 2:32 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by AdminPD, posted 11-26-2006 5:05 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 34 by Larni, posted 11-26-2006 5:32 PM Rob has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024