The Book of Babble

by cellomould 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

cellomould

In Genesis chapter 10, we read the following:
These are the sons of Ham, according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, by their nations. 21 Also to Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, and the older brother of Japheth, children were born.
22 (24) The sons of Shem were (25) Elam and Asshur and (26) Arpachshad and (27) Lud and Aram.
23 The sons of Aram were (28) Uz and Hul and Gether and Mash.
24 Arpachshad became the father of (29) Shelah; and Shelah became the father of Eber.
25 (30) Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
26 Joktan became the father of Almodad and Sheleph and Hazarmaveth and Jerah
27 and Hadoram and Uzal and Diklah
28 and Obal and Abimael and Sheba
29 and Ophir and Havilah and Jobab; all these were the sons of Joktan.
30 Now their settlement extended from Mesha as you go toward Sephar, the hill country of the east.
31 These are the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, according to their nations. 32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and (31) out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.
Now Genesis chapter 11 will introduce the Tower of Babel:
1 Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.
2 It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land (1) of Shinar and settled there.
3 They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly." And they used brick for stone, and they used (2) tar for mortar.
4 They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top (3) will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves (4) a name, otherwise we (5) will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."
5 (6) The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
This is something that eludes even diligent 'bible students' who claim to read the bible from cover to cover. No amount of explanation can render these two passages into harmony.
Did the descendents of Noah have one language, or several?
If the languages were really confused by God, then the account of chapter 10 is quite anomalous. How could the language groups be traced back to Noah's descendents? (This is a question for those who presume that chapter 10 meant to speak of the languages present after the Tower of Babel)
The bible itself thus can be used to disprove at least two things:
(1) That one person (Moses) wrote the entire book of Genesis. These are clearly two independent passages, perhaps written hundreds of years apart and compiled later.
(2) That God's intervention as recorded in the bible is anything more than metaphorical.
cellmould
cellomould

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+11&language=english&version=NASB&showfn=on&showxref=on
That's a good reference for several different bible translations, by the way.
pomegranate

I believe there is another reasonable explaination:
At which generation after the flood did the Babel event happen? I believe the Bible shows us here:
Gen 10:1-5
10:1 This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood.

2 The sons of Japheth:
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.
3 The sons of Gomer:
Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.
4 The sons of Javan:
Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim.
5(From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)

Please note that verse 4 + 5 above shows WHEN people from Japheths line spread out into territories by LANGUAGE. At the sons of JAVAN, did language come to be recorded as a dividing factor. Which would be TWO generations from Japheth, when the Babel language event happened.
The generation of Elishah, Tarshish, would be the generation of Babel. Before their generation, same language. During and after their generation, multiple languages as verse 5 verifies.
The same would be true for each of Noah's sons. The lineages presented span MANY generations after Noah's sons. At some point during those generations, Babel happened.
Also, look here:
Gen 10:21-25
21 Sons were also born to Shem, whose older brother was Japheth; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber.
22 The sons of Shem:
Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram.
23 The sons of Aram:
Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshech.
24 Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and Shelah the father of Eber.
25 Two sons were born to Eber:
One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.

The above shows which generation from Shem (Peleg's) was when the dividing by language occurred.
Before Peleg, same language. After Peleg, multiple language by way of Babel.
So, the list of generations would contain BOTH before and after the Babel event, which is why it is written:
These are the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, according to their nations.
Edited by - pomegranate on 28 July 2002 20:30:6
cellomould

Pomegranate,
That would be reasonable, if humans could have developed technology at an explosively rapid rate. In Genesis we also have the account of Cain and Abel, who domesticated agriculture and livestock, respectively. If Cain and Abel could do it, so could the sons of Noah.
To build a large tower would require a huge investment of time and resources (human power and animal power included, no doubt). Food production would have to be very stable in order to free up large amounts of time for workers and artisans.
But remember, you are claiming this could be done in 3 generations. Wait...sorry, 2 generations, you say.
Evidence shows, to the contrary, that plant and animal domestication took thousands of years. For example, the domestication of dogs began around 100,000 years ago. Ancestors of cattle, sheep, pigs, etc, also were domesticated many thousands of years ago; this involved drastic changes in the animals' behavior, diet, and physical characteristics.
Imagine that your family is the only surviving family in some global catastrophe. There are no more supermarkets or farms, much less computers and drive-in cleaners. Why would you suppose any of your previous lifestyle could be accomodated into the new? Everything you know about our society would die with you. Let's say you are an expert physicist. You won't have time to teach physics to any of your children because you will be too busy struggling to feed them. Whatever stories you tell them will be just stories.
Are you familiar with many wild grass seeds in your area? Which of them are edible, if any?
What if this catastrophe was like the biblical flood? What plants would have survived after being submerged under over a mile of water for over a year? What would you eat then? (After all, God said to bring animals only. He only implied that you would bring vegetation to feed them and think about saving the seeds rather than throwing them overboard.)
And even if you remembered the names of several major rivers in your state, how many of them would you have time to visit with your children? Especially if they are many miles apart? What if this catastrophe changed the courses of all the rivers and/or replaced them?
Do you suppose your grandchildren will be building cities or trying to figure out how to fashion a needle and thread for simple clothing? Which animal bones would make good needles? And how many animals do you have to spare anyhow, considering that they have nothing to eat and you only had 2 of each kind in the first generation?
Oh, I suppose that solution lies in that most of the animals will die. You will have lots of bones... If you can find them, that is. You don't suppose that you thought about building an enclosure for each type of animal so that they don't wander too far off?
If you had thought of that, you would take advantage of all the felled trees in your vicinity. You would cut the pieces to size with a saw...no, you can't find one...better yet, a sword!
Simply find the angel guarding the garden of Eden and ask him if you can borrow a sword to cut the tree trunks or branches into smaller pieces to build enclosures for the animals that you left...hundreds of miles away where your ark landed...oops...
Or was the garden destroyed in this flood??? So you'd be better off keeping the animals in the ark for at least a couple of generations to develop a good stock. Reschedule for later the visit with the children to the original site of the Garden of Eden, although the garden will not be there, and neither will the Tigris, Euphrates, or the angel with the flaming sword. Hopefully you can remember where it is located, since you have never been there; you only heard about it from your grandfather.
But don't wait too long for that visit, since your kids will need to see the sword to know how such a weapon is used...wait, we said the sword was no longer there because the Garden is gone! Forgot!
Okay, the kids (or grandkids, or great-grandkids, etc etc, since you will be hanging out near the ark for quite a while, unlikely to discover a mine nearby) will have to learn on their own how to extract metals from ore and make weapons to kill each other. God could not possibly want to teach them that anyhow.
So does God intervene and help you out? You are naked and starving without him, it seems. If he does help you (and it would take quite a supernatural assistance to keep many animals near you as well as spread them all over the world, australia and new guinea included, because they sure as hell couldn't walk there) why does he bail on you so soon?
As clever as you and I are, could we make up a more fascinating tale of good, evil, and old-fashioned survival skills?
Hehehe hehe hehehehe this has been fun
cellmould
History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.
Jared Diamond - Guns, Germs, and Steel
pomegranate

That would be reasonable, if humans could have developed technology at an explosively rapid rate. In Genesis we also have the account of Cain and Abel, who domesticated agriculture and livestock, respectively. If Cain and Abel could do it, so could the sons of Noah.
To build a large tower would require a huge investment of time and resources (human power and animal power included, no doubt). Food production would have to be very stable in order to free up large amounts of time for workers and artisans.
But remember, you are claiming this could be done in 3 generations. Wait...sorry, 2 generations, you say.

Well, there was a big difference back then with a "generation" :
Gen 11:11
Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.
Evidence shows, to the contrary, that plant and animal domestication took thousands of years. For example, the domestication of dogs began around 100,000 years ago. Ancestors of cattle, sheep, pigs, etc, also were domesticated many thousands of years ago; this involved drastic changes in the animals' behavior, diet, and physical characteristics.
What evidence are you talking about?
Imagine that your family is the only surviving family in some global catastrophe. There are no more supermarkets or farms, much less computers and drive-in cleaners. Why would you suppose any of your previous lifestyle could be accomodated into the new? Everything you know about our society would die with you. Let's say you are an expert physicist. You won't have time to teach physics to any of your children because you will be too busy struggling to feed them. Whatever stories you tell them will be just stories.
First, someone that's a farmer post catastrophe' would not have a problem. Just start farming again. The rest of your dialogue I can't follow, it's very obscure.
What if this catastrophe was like the biblical flood? What plants would have survived after being submerged under over a mile of water for over a year? What would you eat then?
Yeah, I guess that's a real problem for God huh? Well, from my observation, it doesn't take long for vegetation to grow back even after the intense heat of a fire. So being submerged under water surely would have been a better preservative for plant life and seeds.
(After all, God said to bring animals only. He only implied that you would bring vegetation to feed them and think about saving the seeds rather than throwing them overboard.)
The above is completely wrong.
Gen 6:20-21
21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
The rest of your dialogue was interesting speculation that I really can't rebutt. Present facts, and I'll try to reply with what I understand.
Or was the garden destroyed in this flood???
I believe the garden was destroyed by drought long before the flood. For good reason.
But don't wait too long for that visit, since your kids will need to see the sword to know how such a weapon is used...wait, we said the sword was no longer there because the Garden is gone! Forgot!
You know, rather than to dump 40,000 of your supposed inconsistencies at me, why not do one at a time? I answered your first question with one answer, which works. I think it would only be fair to present one more of you "problems." Is this inundating on me supposed to make you look more intelligent or something?
As clever as you and I are, could we make up a more fascinating tale of good, evil, and old-fashioned survival skills?
You have no idea who I am, let alone my abilities for being clever. Like I said above, one at a time instead of piling crap on top of me. Because, basically, that's all I have seen here cell.
Hehehe hehe hehehehe this has been fun
I suppose if you like talking to yourself. Wanna let me in here or what?
cellomould

Fact 1:
New Guinea, a large island separated by water from Australia, has the highest density of languages anywhere in the world.
This fact alone makes us question whether the Tower of Babel was responsible for language diversity.
Interestingly, many unrelated languages appear in New Guinea very close together but in geographically isolated populations. In Eurasia, you could travel, for example, from India to Iberia without seeing more than one language family. New Guinea has several language families.
Browse for example:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=Papua+New+Guinea
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Papua+New+Guinea
cellmould
cellomould

If you check out that site, be sure to visit also:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=FRR
Within the Frisian dialects are the most related languages to English. Hence the designation of English as a Germanic language; both evolved from the same group of languages.
SYN

Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

He. Hehe. HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE. *splutter* LMAO...
Nice, insightful comments, Cellomould. Keep up the good work.
cellomould

Pomegranate,
I did post that long soliloquy mostly for my own amusement. I don't think that serious debate is necessary for this topic. I do wish to provide people with evidence that challenges their paradigm, but their curious brain must desire a challenge and peruse the evidence.
So I will add a fact or two to this thread once in a while. The facts can speak for themselves (and should be verified by the reader), but do feel free to comment if the subject interests you. (Whether you agree or disagree.)
cellmould
cellomould

Fact 2: Linguistic efforts to save dying languages are motivated by drastic differences in grammar and vocabulary in some of the most unexplored languages of the world.
An example from Nicholas Ostler, who directs a linguistics foundation in England:
"Ica, spoken in northern Colombia, seems to have nothing comparable to a personal pronoun system - I, we, you, he, she, it, and they. Otherwise I would have thought [that] a linguistic universal."
Other examples are reduplication (making a word signify plural by repeating it) and plural variation (four forms for each noun: single, dual, trial, and plural).
Wayt T Gibbs "Saving Dying Languages" Scientific American August 2002

The Book of Babble

Share this