bible point

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Not an anthropologist or an archaelogist, but from what I've seen of ancient ways of writing and ways that animals communicate together, before we got the type of writings we have now, it was probably some form of body language it was pictures after that it was symbols.

But even if you look at how we communicate now. Our Verbal language is the least in all our methods of communication.

There's tone, there's body language. All things that seem more inherent in us than say writing.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not an anthropologist or an archaelogist, but from what I've seen of ancient ways of writing and ways that animals communicate together, before we got the type of writings we have now, it was probably some form of body language it was pictures after that it was symbols.

But even if you look at how we communicate now. Our Verbal language is the least in all our methods of communication.

There's tone, there's body language. All things that seem more inherent in us than say writing.

But you have to start off with the common knowledge. The knowledge must be an initial condition.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But you have to start off with the common knowledge. The knowledge must be an initial condition.

Common knowledge? Are you talking verbal or of the written language? Because illiteracy has always been a pretty big thing, and peoples mastery's of language (spoken language), has also always been rather rusty.

Do you know all the words in the language that you speak? Do you understand the meanings behind all of them? Common knowledge extends to the everyday usages of words, a learning event, one that is even directed by region.

For instance in America the way you say things or refer to things are different, and even things such as accents.

But again before that we used body language, how that evolved, is for another matter though. But after that we have Tone, which is very important. I can call you an idiot depending on teh tone that I use, even if you know that idiot means something negative you might not take it offensively.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

did our languages come from the "Tower of Babel"?

Are you asking for a Biblical perspective or a social science perspective?

 

[Brickjectivity]

did our languages come from the "Tower of Babel"?

Let me reprise my reply. It is not the 'Tower of Babel' from which the languages come but from arrogance, which causes confusion and division. The Tower is like so many clever ideas where we think if everyone does things our way then everything will be awesome, but somehow it doesn't work like that. These people say 'Let us make a name for ourselves and seek to become above everything else." It is a good intention to unify everyone under them, but this kind of claim always leads to division which is the point of this story. It is the 'Angels' who come down and scramble language in the story, but the cause is the arrogance of the group who wants to attract everyone else to their tower.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Let me reprise my reply. It is not the 'Tower of Babel' from which the languages come but from arrogance, which causes confusion and division. The Tower is like so many clever ideas where we think if everyone does things our way then everything will be awesome, but somehow it doesn't work like that. These people say 'Let us make a name for ourselves and seek to become above everything else." It is a good intention to unify everyone under them, but this kind of claim always leads to division which is the point of this story. It is the 'Angels' who come down and scramble language in the story, but the cause is the arrogance of the group who wants to attract everyone else to their tower.

Except the reason was they would not get separated. From the text alone you don't see arrogance and even Gods reason for it had nothing to do with mans arrogance. It seemed more out of mankinds potential to do anything. Reading over it I find the reaction of God and whoever the others where to be far more akin to the reactions of say the Greek pantheon.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Except the reason was they would not get separated. From the text alone you don't see arrogance and even Gods reason for it had nothing to do with mans arrogance. It seemed more out of mankinds potential to do anything. Reading over it I find the reaction of God and whoever the others where to be far more akin to the reactions of say the Greek pantheon.

I take your point, but that was the short explanation. The long explanation is that this was written for Jews originally not us and has no relation to Greece. What do Jews care how the various languages actually came to be? Then the story must have a point. Suppose you are a Jew, and you are doing things all day long to teach yourself humility including multiple prayers. Even your sacrifices symbolize separating pride from the person. This story is going to be about humility to you. Humility raises you higher, so that you can meet God, not towers, not pride. Suppose you are a Christian, and you are dealing with personalities in your congregation who want to divide it over the question of whether Christmas Trees are a sin. (One group feels that it is important for trees to be allowed and the other feels that trees are like idolatrous Ash-era Trees.) What is the problem, and why did the angels divide your congregation over this? The story suggests it is because you shouldn't have made a big deal out of yourself in the first place. Suppose the Tower people had never tried to make a name for themselves? They would have retained their common language.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I take your point, but that was the short explanation. The long explanation is that this was written for Jews originally not us and has no relation to Greece. What do Jews care how the various languages actually came to be? Then the story must have a point. Suppose you are a Jew, and you are doing things all day long to teach yourself humility including multiple prayers. Even your sacrifices symbolize separating pride from the person. This story is going to be about humility to you. Humility raises you higher, so that you can meet God, not towers, not pride. Suppose you are a Christian, and you are dealing with personalities in your congregation who want to divide it over the question of whether Christmas Trees are a sin. (One group feels that it is important for trees to be allowed and the other feels that trees are like idolatrous Ash-era Trees.) What is the problem, and why did the angels divide your congregation over this? The story suggests it is because you shouldn't have made a big deal out of yourself in the first place. Suppose the Tower people had never tried to make a name for themselves? They would have retained their common language.

Right I'm saying the explanation that you gave is a midrash (I think).

However a direct reading of the entire verse, reveals very little arrogance.

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

The verse that people I believe use to imply arrogance is "make a name for ourselves" but that ignores the second part of the sentence which due to the use of a semicolon would imply that while they can stand alone the second sentence is the reason for the first. They want to make a name, so that they are not scattered.

I'm not sure if there is a different translation in Hebrew, but in English, scattered tends to hold a negative connatation when used in that manner. They did not want to be broken apart from each other.

I would go further that "make a name for ourselves" is not the same as "make ourselves famous" but more establish themselves as a particular society. Though that's just a guess on my part.

What further disagrees I think with the assumption that they were doing it to be arrogant follows the reason that God gives (Or I guess El in this particular story?)

"But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

This is the verse I think that is very interesting.
1. The Lord came down (as a spirit as a man?)--We see an interaction of God with man something that falls away as time moves forward.

2. Most importantly regarding this verse is that God says "nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them"

This is the reason why man was scattered. Not because they were trying to reach heaven but because of what they could accomplish.

AND of course there is the US...who is that US?

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is the verse I think that is very interesting.
1. The Lord came down (as a spirit as a man?)--We see an interaction of God with man something that falls away as time moves forward.
2. Most importantly regarding this verse is that God says "nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them"

This is the reason why man was scattered. Not because they were trying to reach heaven but because of what they could accomplish.

So now we are talking about the miraculous? Ok, lets talk about the miraculous. I don't know everything, but I know language was related to the root of the problem. We tend to see language as the answer to our problems, but perhaps it isn't. Do the LORD's angels want to hold us back? They have not kept us from going into space, and they haven't kept us from flying airplanes or building towers two miles in height. On the other hand, they sunk the Titanic about which newpapers proclaimed "Even God couldn't sink this ship." They sunk it on its maiden voyage! (assuming angels actually were involved) By the same token why did God defeat Japan & Germany in WWII? The USA was not much different. We killed our 'Indians', and we oppressed blacks wickedly. We gave the Sudetenland to Hitler and Poland, and we would've given him France and the UK, too. What did Germany and Japan say that the US didn't say?

However a direct reading of the entire verse, reveals very little arrogance.

I can only respond with more opinion, that I think the serpent in the garden of Eden was also pride. Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made..." The craft here is the same as subtlety or cleverness. It is a clever problem that plagues humankind, pride. Pride is our own worst enemy, coming out from within. In any Edenic garden there is a serpent, and in any good person there is pride. It says "You can become like gods knowing good & evil." This may not sound like arrogance, but 'Biblical-ly' speaking it is.

They want to make a name, so that they are not scattered.

This I would say is the result of subtle pride. I use the various Christian denominations (well intentioned) as exibit A. Exhibit B is that we always feel we ought to contribute our point of view, always, but more than that we always feel that other people need our point of view. The wisest people say nothing, and silence was what the angels created in response to the tower 'Babel'.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So now we are talking about the miraculous? Ok, lets talk about the miraculous. I don't know everything, but I know language was related to the root of the problem. We tend to see language as the answer to our problems, but perhaps it isn't. Do the LORD's angels want to hold us back? They have not kept us from going into space, and they haven't kept us from flying airplanes or building towers two miles in height. On the other hand, they sunk the Titanic about which newpapers proclaimed "Even God couldn't sink this ship." They sunk it on its maiden voyage! (assuming angels actually were involved) By the same token why did God defeat Japan & Germany in WWII? The USA was not much different. We killed our 'Indians', and we oppressed blacks wickedly. We gave the Sudetenland to Hitler and Poland, and we would've given him France and the UK, too. What did Germany and Japan say that the US didn't say?

I can only respond with more opinion, that I think the serpent in the garden of Eden was also pride. Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made..." The craft here is the same as subtlety or cleverness. It is a clever problem that plagues humankind, pride. Pride is our own worst enemy, coming out from within. In any Edenic garden there is a serpent, and in any good person there is pride. It says "You can become like gods knowing good & evil." This may not sound like arrogance, but 'Biblical-ly' speaking it is.

This I would say is the result of subtle pride. I use the various Christian denominations (well intentioned) as exibit A. Exhibit B is that we always feel we ought to contribute our point of view, always, but more than that we always feel that other people need our point of view. The wisest people say nothing, and silence was what the angels created in response to the tower 'Babel'.

Right but that is pure interpretation isn't it?

You can become like God is arrogance, here we are given motive and intent. The Intent to eat the fruit. The motive to become like God.

In the tower of Babel story we are given motive and intent.

The intent to build a city that reaches into heaven

Motive: so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered.

I'm doing the reading from a strict reading, attempting to not go into interpretations. A direct reading of it, does not reveal at least to my eyes arrogance. I can see how you can gleam it from the text, statements like "make a name for ourselves" certainly seem to indicate that.

The flaw though I see with that, is simply that it is followed with the not be scattered part. Which may or may not be arrogant.

I can understand how "denominations will define it" but I have found that most christian explanations regarding the tower of babel comes from a Midrash (correct me if i'm wrong), and not what was actually directly written. Which is fine, but without the midrash explanation hammered into our heads, does it read the same?

Also I'm not trying to say that the reading is incorrect, but given the way that it reads I would say that it is more myth than an actual recording of history.

 

[McBell]

did our languages come from the "Tower of Babel"?

Ah, the Tower of Babel.
A prime example of God directly causing confusion.

But alas, No, the Tower of Babel is not the start of languages.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Right but that is pure interpretation isn't it?

You can become like God is arrogance, here we are given motive and intent. The Intent to eat the fruit. The motive to become like God.

In the tower of Babel story we are given motive and intent.

The intent to build a city that reaches into heaven

Motive: so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered.

I'm doing the reading from a strict reading, attempting to not go into interpretations. A direct reading of it, does not reveal at least to my eyes arrogance. I can see how you can gleam it from the text, statements like "make a name for ourselves" certainly seem to indicate that.

Good thing to say. It is interpretation, yes. If I were to insist on something beyond a verbatim reading I'd start by assuming that the story must have a point, because assuming there is a point makes the narrative by itself seem empty. I will not, however, presume there is any point to the story other than to take up space on paper.

The flaw though I see with that, is simply that it is followed with the not be scattered part. Which may or may not be arrogant.

I can understand how "denominations will define it" but I have found that most christian explanations regarding the tower of babel comes from a Midrash (correct me if i'm wrong), and not what was actually directly written. Which is fine, but without the midrash explanation hammered into our heads, does it read the same?

Also I'm not trying to say that the reading is incorrect, but given the way that it reads I would say that it is more myth than an actual recording of history.

There are many possible interpretations. Some people would say that multiple interpretations ought to be encouraged, and I think I agree with that. Your point about 'The midrash explanation' is something I'm unfamiliar with. I understand that a 'Midrash' is a Jewish word for interpretation and is probably a Hebrew word. Also, considering the 'Not be scattered' part, it could be just a phrase tossed in there to round out the story. Maybe the story is told for the purpose of, say, objecting to the religion of the southern Israelites by the northern Israelites? In that case it could be a political phrase. That is not an interesting interpretation to me, however; and I'd prefer to guess for what good reason the story was included and use that as a guideline.

 

[natasha levchenko]

This is a good question. A few years back I was thinking about making an argument for God based on the origins of language. I didn't (and still don't) understand nor find it reasonable to think that humans can start off having no language at all, to having a language and being able to comprehend languages. Here is an example...from me personally...

I speak English. It is the only language I know and understand. Now, if another man speaks Arabic as his first and only language, how will we ever communicate with each other? We both don't speak or understand each others language, so there is no comprehension that can come from it. None. He can't teach me his language unless he understands my language, and vice versa. So verbal communication will NOT be a factor at all.

And on another note, I live in Arizona, and lets just say with the Hispanic population, you will hear the Spanish language from time to time :yes: I used to live in an apartment building on the first floor, and I had some noisy (understatement) neighbors upstairs. I went upstairs to tell them to knock off all the dang noise, and found out that the woman spoke Spanish and didn't speak English. So, she began to speak to me and I began to speak to her, and we both didn't understand each other. So I had to use an online English/Spanish translation to let her know that they were making to much dang noise. The moral of the story is the fact that our language comprehension was simply not there. So I can't imagine how you can start off with two individuals that don't know ANY kind of formal language to all of a sudden not only learn their own language, but learn each OTHERS language.

And with that being said, language is something you learn, and you can't learn a new language (or a first language) if you don't have someone that SPEAKS your language to teach you. So if you start off with two humans that never learned a language before, teaching and learning is out the window. I don't think naturalists/evolutionists can offer a plausible answer to why and how regarding this dilema.

But, if you have an intelligent design to "program" the language to within his new creatures, to where they were created with the new language embeded in them, it is easy to see how we can comprehend langauge.

That is just my take on it, and I challenge anyone to offer a rebuttal to it. I think it is a solid case for ID.

i really liked your thoughts, very interesting. languages are really difficult for studding.

 

[natasha levchenko]

Are you asking for a Biblical perspective or a social science perspective?

for Biblical perspective

 

[sandy whitelinger]

for Biblical perspective

Then yes it was the beginning of various languages. One of God's first commandments to man was to repopulate the earth. Up to the Tower of Babel man was tending to congregate together. God solved this problem by confounding the languages which caused man to separate and spread out.

 

[averageJOE]

[youtube]_ldI2FJQ_oE[/youtube]
Messed-Up Bible Stories - 5 - Tower of Babel - YouTube

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Theologically speaking, the Tower of Babel can help explain our diversity.
Scientifically speaking, I'm a doubting Thomas.

Try to appreciate both views, they're both pretty interesting.

Either you are not familiar with the story or you don't know what the word diversity means when it comes to genetics.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Either you are not familiar with the story or you don't know what the word diversity means when it comes to genetics.

The Bible doesn't address genetics.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

The Bible doesn't address genetics.

Doesn't mention a lot of things, so what?

The explanation of our diversity is genetics and epigenetics.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The explanation of our diversity is genetics and epigenetics.

No. An explanation of our diversity draws upon genetics and epigenetics.