Can someone explain to me the story of the tower of Babel?

by tippysock 80 Replies latest watchtower bible

hooberus

I would also be suspicious about the Choctaw myth because of the nature of cultural diffusion. The article hooberus cites gives no cited source and makes no attempt to trace the story through the anthropological literature and in earlier writings.

The arcticle lists the following source:
8. Bushnell, David L., "The Choctaw of Bayou Lacomb St. Tammany Parish Louisiana" in Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology, vol. 48, 1909,
p. 30.
How can we tell if this is genuinely an ancient pre-Colombian myth or rather a syncretistic attempt to harmonize Christian myth with their own native myth? The Choctaw have been in contact with white settlers for hundreds of years. Unless the myth was recorded in something dating back to the 1600s, it is impossible to prove that this is a genuinely independent account. This is the same problem with the Flood myth stories that may contain details leaked by Christian missionaries, conquistadors, or others, and then centuries later are taken to be independent confirmation of the biblical story. Look at what happened with the Dogon in Africa. This is an African tribe which became a media sensation in the 1970s when it was discovered that in their legends the Dog Star (Sirius) was known to be a binary star. This supposedly wasn't known to astronomers until relatively recently, while the Dogon apparently knew this fact from their own legends. But it turns out that the Dogon were visited by an anthropologist in the 1930s who had studied astronomy and brought star maps to Mali and from whom the Dogon learned about Sirius.
The arcticle does go on to breifly discuss these things:
"Those persuaded by naturalism believe these stories are widespread because the Indians learned them from missionaries. There are several reasons why this explanation fails. (1) The first missionaries recorded some of these stories. (2) The Indians often distinguish between the traditions of their ancestors and those of the white man. (3) The heart of the Christian message is Christ, who is non-existent in Indian mythology, and (4) great exaggerations speak of long ages, which would predate missions to the American continents."
czarofmischief

Then god plays silly buggers and Bert and Fred speak different languages. But they still know each other.

Ah. But the POINT of me bringing up the extra-biblical sources was to indicate that the story is not inherently self-contradictory. It was to indicate that Nimrod's empire, mythical as I agree it was, was held together by the thinnest of threads to begin with - as can be seen by the "fact" that he was murdered. Hence, any building projects undertaken by his empire were probably put on immediate hold in the ensuing power struggle following the language "silly buggers".
Impossible or unlikely or mythical as it may be - it is not narratively contradictory to state that a language separation would lead to the disintegration of a civilization. It is the man's obligation to stick his boneration in the woman's separation... har har har...
Wurgh, I'm a little blitzed meself, my friends...
CZAR
Leolaia

The info in the article that published this account only goes back to 1908-1909 when Bushnell conducted his research. That was after generations of contact with white settlers. The four reasons given by the creationist authors are not convincing: (1) Did the "first missionaries" record this story? As far as we know, the answer is no; the story came through Bushnell's research; (2) It is also true that native Americans and other indigenous peoples did embellish native traditions through cultural contact; moreover, if foreign influence took place generations before, current storytellers would not be able to distinguish between so-called foreign and native elements in their received tradition; (3) How is the fact that Indians did not incorporate one particular theme, if not the central theme of Christian religion, evidence that smaller motifs were not also incorporated? This is a non sequiter; (4) If the antiquity of the tradition has been greatly "exaggerated," how is this evidence of genuine antiquity? It is not clear what this fourth argument is trying to say.
One easy way to detect foreign influence is to carefully provenance the myth among the Choctaw and related tribes. Why should it be, if this is a genuinely ancient tale, that the resemblance with the biblical account is found only among the Choctaw of Bayou Lacomb, St. Tammany Parish in Louisiana? Is the biblical-like version of the myth attested only in Bushnell's work? If so, this would suggest that biblical-like version arose rather late and in an isolated locale, and not distributed throughout the tribe or among related tribes as we would expect if the biblical motifs were truly ancient. I'm not able (or willing, with my limited time) to research this out, but compare if you will the common version of the Choctaw origin myth:
"The Choctaw who remain in Mississippi tell this story as an explanation of how they came to the land where they live now and of how Naniah Waiya Mound came to be. Two brothers, Chata and Chicksah led the original people from a land in the far west that had ceased to prosper. The people traveled for a long time, guided by a magical pole. Each night, when the people stopped to camp, the pole was placed in the ground and in the morning the people would travel in the direction in which the pole leaned. After traveling for an extremely long time, they finally came to a place where the pole remained upright. In this place, they laid to rest the bones of their ancestors, which they had carried in buffalo sacks from the original land in the west. The mound grew out of that great burial. After the burial, the brothers discovered that the land could not support all the people. Chicksah took half the people and departed to the North and eventually became the Chickasaw tribe. Chatah and the others remained near the mound and are now known as the Choctaw. The elders of the tribe claim to this day that the ground near the mound and the cave are sacred and that they will fall ill and die if they are away from the land too long."
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/c/choctaw_creation_myth.html
Here there is no reference to the purpose of the mound being to reach heaven or the confusion of languages. The mound was also intended to bury the bones of their ancestors which fits well with the purpose of Mississippian burial mounds, whereas the Bushnell version only refers to a mound made from rocks. If we compare the above version with the one reported by Bushnell, it is apparent that the "Tower of Babel" motifs are found in this very specific verison and not in the general version reported above:
"Many generations ago Aba, the good spirit above, created many men, all Choctaw, who spoke the language of the Choctaw, and understood one another. These came from the bosom of the earth, being formed of yellow clay, and no men had ever lived before them. One day all came together and, looking upward, wondered what the clouds and the blue expanse above might be. They continued to wonder and talk among themselves and at last determined to endeavor to reach the sky. So they brought many rocks and began building a mound that was to have touched the heavens. That night, however, the wind blew strong from above and the rocks fell from the mound. . . . The men were not killed, but when daylight came and they made their way from beneath the rocks and began to speak to one another, all were astounded as well as alarmed?they spoke various languages and could not understand one another. Some continued thenceforward to speak the original tongue, the language of the Choctaw, and from these sprung the Choctaw tribe. The others, who could not understand this language, began to fight among themselves. Finally they separated. The Choctaw remained the original people; the others scattered, some going north, some east, and others west, and formed various tribes. This explains why there are so many tribes throughout the country at the present time."
So I am very suspicious. However, it would take research in finding the actual texts and comparing them side by side to demonstrate this, but if they all resemble the first version presented above and lack the specific biblical-like motifs found Bushnell's version, this would show that Bushnell's origin myth is actually a local aberrant version of a more widespread tale.
Leolaia

More info on the Choctaw:
"The Choctaw believed that their people came forth from the sacred mound of Nanih Waiya. In relation to this creation myth is the legend of the Choctaw tribe's migration under the leadership of Chata. Several versions of their creation and migration legends have been perpetuated by the Native Americans and remain very popular among contemporary Choctaws, especially the elderly. The young, however, have a more active interest in the mischievous deed of various forest animals or in stories about the creation of the wild forests."
http://www.choctaw.org/culture/legends.htm
"This is the story of the Choctaw, a Native American People who live in Mississippi, as they tell it. Far to the west, there lay a land that had grown dry and barren. It could no longer provide food for the people who lived there. So, two brothers, Chata and Chiksah, led the people in search of a new home. In their travels, they were guided by a magic pole. Every night the people would strike camp. They would place the pole in the ground, and in the morning, it would be leaning in one direction or the other. And the people would then travel in the direction in which it leaned. Their travels went on for a very long time. Finally, when they reached one place, the pole did not lean anymore and remained upright. Here, they buried the bones of their ancestors. They had carried the bones in buffalo sacks throughout their long sojourn. From that great burial came the mound that is called Naniah Waiya. When the burial was over, the two brothers surveyed the land around them and found that it could not support all the people who had come with them. This was settled by Chiksah taking half the people and moving North, where they came to be known as the Chickasaw tribe. Chata and the rest of the people lived near the mound, and are called the Choctaw."
http://archive.zine5.com/ft40.htm
"The Choctaw Indian Nation of Oklahoma traces it's ancestry to Mississippi and some sections of Alabama. Legends tell that the Choctaw People originated from 'Nanih Waya'. A great mound of earth that is often referred to as 'The Mother Mound'. Legend says that 'in the beginning', a Great Red Man came down from above and built up Nanih Waya in the midst of a vast muddy plain. When the mound was completed, he called for the Red People to come up out of the 'The Mother Mound'."
http://www.ndnweb.com/History.html
"Exactly when the Choctaw moved into what would become eastern central and south Mississippi is not known yet. It was probably some time in the late 1500s or early 1600s, after Spanish introduced plagues of the mid-1500s wiped out an estimated 70% - 90% of the population in the Southeast. The origins of the Choctaw are not very clear at this time, but ongoing archaeological research will hopefully shed light on their origins in the near future. The Choctaw were probably a confederacy of several related remnant groups which had survived the plagues who came together in the then unoccupied area of east-central and south Mississippi. The oral history of the Choctaw give us two different versions of their origins. In one story they migrated from the west, lead by two great leaders and brothers, Chata and Chicasa, who would eventually lend their names to the peoples of the Choctaw and the Chickasaw. In another story the Choctaw were created at the sacred mound site Nanih Waiya, an earthen mound near Noxapater, Mississippi, where the they emerged through a cave from some underworld place. The Choctaw are first mentioned by name in 1675 by a Spanish priest in Florida, who, in an attempt to prevent settlement away from the established missions in Florida, warned settlers against going too far to the west because of the fearsome 'Chata'. This name is still what the Choctaw call themselves today. 'Chata' does not have any meaning in the Choctaw language, but does mean 'flat' in mainstream Spanish and apparently 'flat head' in some of the South American dialects. 'Flatheads' is one of the very early English names for the Choctaw, deriving from the Choctaw practice of flattening the heads of infants, a practice common throughout history in North America. It is therefore probable that the name 'Chata' and thus "Choctaw" comes not from the Choctaw themselves, but instead from the Spanish."
http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/hpres/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20the%20Choctaw.pdf
This last source is very interesting, as it mentions evidence that the tale of Chata creating the mound was actually influenced by the Spanish. The other myth about the Nanih Waiya mound, as the source where humankind came from, bears absolutely no resemblance with the biblical "Tower of Babel" story and may very well be more original than the "Chata" myth which was at least influenced in details by contact with Spanish missionaries. In nothing I've yet seen on the Choctaw is there anything resembling the Bushnell story apart from what Bushnell himself recorded.
Abaddon

czar
Ah. But the POINT of me bringing up the extra-biblical sources was to indicate that the story is not inherently self-contradictory.

It contradicts itself if you know anything about linguistics, and if one includes the Eden story in the narrative space it makes them as consistant and logical as the science on Star Trek.
It was to indicate that Nimrod's empire, mythical as I agree it was, was held together by the thinnest of threads to begin with - as can be seen by the "fact" that he was murdered.
Yeah, again, you are quoting non-canonical sources when the canonical source is garbage. The original story if hogwash in its own right, it doesn't need apocraphal hogwash to make it hogwash.
Hence, any building projects undertaken by his empire were probably put on immediate hold in the ensuing power struggle following the language "silly buggers".
Impossible or unlikely or mythical as it may be - it is not narratively contradictory to state that a language separation would lead to the disintegration of a civilization.
As I explained, any knowledge of linguistics and how people who don't have a mutually comprehensible language can communicate and work together can see the story is ludicrous. You can give examples of polyglot communities that disperse rather than blend if you wish to disprove my assertion.
If one looks at one of the largest examples of an ancient polyglot culture, the Roman Empire, it is notable that all but the outer reaches of the Roman Empire now speak varients of Latin. Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian and Romanian all come from Latin and have diverged over time having replaced the original languages of the area during the rule of the Roman Empire.
People would stay where they were, stay friends with the people they were friends with, and cope. Either one language would predominate and people would learn it, or a pidgin would develop and from that a creole would spring.
noko
To clarify your stand since you indicated you where stoned or was joking at it.
Oh, my ability to determine fact from fiction and narrative from metaphor is surprisingly unaffected by cannabis.
You don't bother to analyse the reasons I outlined that bring me to that conclusion, but just disagree.
I sure did, the Bible also contains the story of Christ who does represent Jah of armies and in no way does he reflect what you assert.
If the Bible contains (as I contend and which you have not refutted in any way) total fairy stories, how do you know where the fairy stories in the Bible stop and 'reality' begins?
Show me how silly and wrong my assertions are.
Your assumptions about me are actually pretty silly and wrong at best.
Evasion; I am talking about the assertions I made regarding the reliability of the Biblical Babel story. I have no interest in attacking you personally. Defend the story you are saying is true. Just saying it is true is inadequate unless you will say that you believe through faith and facts don't matter.
Oh, and what does the fact that anyone can do this mean? Could you answer that for me please? What I am getting is is what proof is there that you, or the Pope, or Fred, or anyone is right, if we can all have our own interpretation.
Well if your interpretation agrees with the truth or Christ then that would be the right interpretation I would say.
Evasion; how do you know what the 'truth' is or what Christ's opinion of the accuracy of your interpretation is? That is as much open to personal interpretation as the meaning of the Babel story.
You know perfectly well that there are diagreements over even the fundamentals of belief amongst Christians. If Christianity is the truth, why is it practised in so many different and often contradictory forms? Why can god not ensure the message is delivered clearly?
You are alleging that an entity who makes a Universe of bewildering complexity cannot communicate clearly with human beings. This is illogical.
I am alleging just the opposite, seems like you are demanding to much from only a book.
If you are claiming the Bible is only a book, how come you put faith in it? I understood you thought the Bible was a literal and relaible guide to gods will and the Earth's history, if this is not the case please clarify. Otherwise, please show me signs of clear communication from god. This should be (to fulfil the criteria of clear) verifiable events or instructive texts with a good provenance that have not resulted in Christian's squabbling over the meaning. Until then you are just claiming god communicates clearly without any evidence.
Classic presuppositionalistic answer. The Bible is true, therefore those who cannot see the truth have something wrong with their heart. How curious that the Bible has taught you to insult and judge people you don't even know; my study of its latter portions indicate this is not how it advises people to act.
How have I insulted you? Your the one that said God is an Asshole in the Bible and I whole heartedly disagree. Then again I did say the Bible has a way of reflecting the heart, your heart.
You clearly implied one's interpretation of the Bible depends on ones 'heart', and that obviously therefore there is something wrong with my heart if I don't get it right. Are you at least honest enough to accept that this is insinuating and insulting? "If you don't agree with me it is because you are bad" is what I understood from your statements.
As for 'god is an asshole', you are being (unsuprisingly) too literal. If god exists the silly, childish concept of god as outlined in the Bible is very unlikely to be accurate. The god of the Bible is obviously a human invention because it behaves like a big human.
It curses humans with mortality and pain for exercising freewill, and then tells humans to see if they can survive without god. Then, it confuses their languages when human actually begin to work together without god.
Are those the actions of anything worthy of worship? Now, rather than wondering about whether the Bible really is a true depiction of the Earth's history and god's desires (as there are many clues like the Babel story that show how ever good the intentions of the writers were it can in no way claim dvine inspiration UNLESS god is a asshole), you jump on the 'insult'. If there is a god I am defending it from being associated with innane brone age myths.
If you think about it I am mocking the childish conception of a possible god many people have; a petty thing needful of our worship.
Worship that god or show me the Bible consistantly depicts god as something different, something great and wise and fair. And god saying he's wise and fair isn't good enough. Show me from the text.
If what you claim is true you should have no problem.
It seems you've already come to an absolute determination of your own rightness. If this is the case I doubt if there's further worth in conversing with you. I have not really made any claim to knowing rightness; I have however outlined obvious areas of wrongness. Refute them, deal with them or ignore them as you will.
Not at all. Rightness comes from God through Christ is what I have faith in.
Evasion. How do you know you are right?
hooberus
"Those persuaded by naturalism believe these stories are widespread because the Indians learned them from missionaries. There are several reasons why this explanation fails. (1) The first missionaries recorded some of these stories.
That claim would require proof. 1909 claims are not proof.
(2) The Indians often distinguish between the traditions of their ancestors and those of the white man.
'Often' is not proof of the story.
(3) The heart of the Christian message is Christ, who is non-existent in Indian mythology, and
This is not proof of the story.
(4) great exaggerations speak of long ages, which would predate missions to the American continents."
This is not proof of the story.
Here;
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may04.html
Lots of other facts that refute your literalistic belief in the Bible for you to ignore. It's interesting that (in addition to the Great Pyramid being standing at the time of the Flood, along with bristlecone pines that were growing then are still growing which you ignore) you will also have to ignore there wasn't enough time for the civilisations and populations of Egypt and the fertile crescent to develop IF one assumes the dates were out by a bit and the Pyramids don't pre-date the Flood.
hooberus

That claim would require proof. 1909 claims are not proof. . . . 'Often' is not proof of the story. . . .This is not proof of the story. . . . .This is not proof of the story.

Abaddon, the comments that I posted were responses from the arcticle to common objections. They were not intended to be "proof of the story"
Re: bristlecone pines. As you should well know some time back I was taking the time to do reseach on this, and to post a response (once complete). However your behavior (generally false accusations-If you like I will post the specific one on the bristlecone pine thread) indicated to me that it would just be a waste of my time.* Since then I have posted information giving rescources for a biblical creationist perspective on dendrochronology. Therefore, if you desire an extensive answer to this issue, you should obtain the materials from those creationists who have gone into this issue. Then If you have a problem with their findings you can, discuss it (politely) with them, post it here, or whatever.
*Those that behave badly should not expect others to spend large amounts of time giving them answers.
czarofmischief

The original story if hogwash in its own right, it doesn't need apocraphal hogwash to make it hogwash.
I know. BUT - you are making assumptions about how people would behave if language suddenly scrambled itself, inexplicably and overnight. I say that it wouldn't be inconsisten with human nature to split off and go their seperate ways, especially in light of the fact that people today split along language lines. I also wanted to point out that Nimrod's empire, according to the mythology surrounding it, was not as tightly woven as the Roman Empire. He had rivals in power; who could easily have taken advantage of a sudden split to chant "Let us rebel, against NIMROD."
You are an odd one to suddenly insist on canonical sources.
The story is patently hogwash, I concur. But it is narratively consistent.
CZAR
Abaddon

hooberus
Re: bristlecone pines. As you should well know some time back I was taking the time to do reseach on this, and to post a response (once complete).

So you said.
However your behavior (generally false accusations-If you like I will post the specific one on the bristlecone pine thread) indicated to me that it would just be a waste of my time.
I'm sorry, I simply don't believe you. You are just excusing your inability. If you could, you would, you wouldn't be able to resist it. As for false accusations, I recall doubting the integrity of creationist websites, the reliability of evidence they use, the accuracy of the 'science' pushed by them, the evasion of creationists in general, the fallacious nature of creationist claims, the common characteristics of creationists, the irresolvable contradiction of their argument, etc.
I don't really recall you ever being able to show that I was wrong. Old Jerry what-ever-his name was got his knickers in a twist over the characterisation of creationist websites and then disappeared after I'd shown that such chacterisations were true. But, apparently in this sea of false and unproven creationistic claims you feel you've been falsely accused. Please let me know how. I'll either back it up or apologise.
Since then I have posted information giving rescources for a biblical creationist perspective on dendrochronology.
Which totally failed to refute or even impinge upon the reliability of dendrochronology.
Therefore, if you desire an extensive answer to this issue, you should obtain the materials from those creationists who have gone into this issue.
No; I've researched this thoroughly. It's not my business to shore up your claims; it is your business. You make wild unsupported claims about dating and then refuse to even attempt to rebutt catagoric refutations of the chronology you claim is accurate. Then, without having dealt with claims which totally invalidate your claims, you continue to believe things which have been demonstrated to be impossible and claim that you have the facts to support it. Unless you deal with the previous refutation of your claims, to me, this is just lying.
I keep on stressing the bristlecones as you continue to make claims that are impossible given the chronological evidence they provide. It is as if I had evidence I was in a certain place at a certain time, and without refuting that evidence you continued to assert I was somewhere else.
Of course, if you admitted your beliefs are faith based, and the facts don't matter, then fine.
But you base your claims in facts. And then fail to prove the facts or retract claims when your facts are rubbished. I find that dishonest, even if that's not your intention.
czar
I know. BUT - you are making assumptions about how people would behave if language suddenly scrambled itself, inexplicably and overnight.
They are assumption based upon linguistics and history. Although no community has ever HAD its languages disrupted like that, from what we know of history and linguistics - and human nature - make the idea of dispersal being the end product of it laughable.
You are an odd one to suddenly insist on canonical sources.
Oh, that's just me beiung peverse.
The story is patently hogwash, I concur. But it is narratively consistent.
I agree it's hogwash, but I don't think we will agree over it being internally consistent; I've stated why.
czarofmischief

Oh, that's just me beiung peverse

I suppose I should expect that from the degenerate Left.
Love,
CZAR
jam

I was thinking about this the other day, A interesting topic
for you new ones. Post in 2009..

Can someone explain to me the story of the tower of Babel?

Share this