Tower of Babel - /another thing/ God didn't have to do.

by Awakened07 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Awakened07

  We all know the story of the tower of Babel, and there are lots of things one can discuss around the topic, like for instance how God actually didn't allow mankind to 'experiment' with governing themselves, but chose to intervene whenever they seemed to get close to being united.

  However - that is not the topic of this thread (and has been covered in other threads already).

  So - what do I mean when I say "Another thing God didn't have to do"?

  The first of the things I'm referring to, is the diversity of life itself, as it happens through evolution by cumulative steps of naturally selected, inherited traits over the generations of a population (I'm not going to go into detail here).

  So - over to the other thing that God didn't have to do:

  Confuse mankind's language.

  Basically, my point is that the people who were building the tower of Babel would eventually become many. They may over time have built a huge city, but nevertheless they would eventually have had to disperse out over the globe. It would probably have happened sooner rather than later, because with the sanitary conditions of the day, there were bound to be sickness and diseases spreading in a closely knit, large metropolitan society. In addition, shortage of food and other supplies would probably become a problem eventually. Disputes would have occurred. So some families or tribes would have taken the hint and moved some way away.

  Either way - eventually they would have had to disperse. Only so many people can occupy one space at a time.

  - And what happens when people disperse - are separated by landmasses? Their language changes. It happens. It's inevitable. It "evolves", if you will.

  Case in point; if I were (able) to talk to a person living in my country a thousand years ago, I wouldn't be able to understand him, nor he understand me (actually, in many instances, 500 years would be more than enough). God did not confuse my country's language - time did.

  Do a search for your own language and see how long ago it changed into it's current form. You may be surprised.

  Within one country of the same initial language, dialects develop. People living on opposite sides of a mountain may slowly start changing a word here, a diphthong there. Over larger distances, and larger amounts of time, languages gradually evolve.

  So - if God hadn't intervened at Babel - the end result would have been the same. People would eventually have dispersed, and their different languages would have developed automatically.

  God didn't have to lift a finger. So why did he?

  "Well - you're missing the point" I hear you say. "Confusing their languages was just a means to an end; he wanted them to move out right away because they were wicked, and were building a tower in defiance of God".

  OK.

  How much worse than how mankind's history has turned out could it have been? Could they, by the way, have built a tower that literally reached into heaven and could become a problem for God? Of course not. What if they failed to govern themselves then - were too 'wicked'? Well - then God had already shown that mankind (with Satan's "help") were unable to govern themselves. It would already have been settled - ca. 4000 years ahead of time. But - now I'm getting into the territory that this thread was not about, so I'll stop there - it was just to address a potential question.

  My contention in this thread is that God could leisurely sit back and watch mankind disperse and develop several languages automatically, as an effect of natural occurrences over time. No need to intervene at all.

  And that's of course what I believe happened.

  (I'm sure many Christians no longer hold this story to be anything but a myth, an allegory, but I'm pretty sure JWs and many others still see it as historical fact)
• 

  AnneB

  If jumping to conclusions were an awarded event you'd make an excellent contender.
• 

  Awakened07

  I like it when people reply, but I must say I prefer replies I can make something out of - something that explains the poster's point of view so I can see where I'm wrong.
• 

  candidlynuts

  .
• 

  AnneB

  I prefer replies I can make something out of

  In that case try taking it one point at a time. You have so much in that post that it's beyond the scope of one thread to straighten it all out.
• 

  Awakened07

  In that case try taking it one point at a time. You have so much in that post that it's beyond the scope of one "post" to straighten it all out.

  Not really. The main point of the topic - as I tried to point out - was how languages developed. That's one point.

  I mentioned other things because they have been discussed here recently, and as I wrote the contents of this thread I realized they would probably turn up again (by other posters) when I raised this topic, as those other things are rather closely related to the story of the tower of Babel.
• 

  AnneB

  Not really.

  Whatever you say; it's your thread.

  I'm just glad I didn't actually start into discussing the material with you.
• 

  marmot

  My take on this is that it was a myth created to explain the variety of languages present in the world to the writers of Genesis. Linguistic shift is a fascinating subject and it occurs entirely naturally from birth onwards, it doesn't need some miracle to confuse the languages and - no - humanity did not all speak Hebrew at one point.
  
  That's why I also shake my head at people who lament over all the "dying" languages in the world today. There's this unwholesome fear that if these languages are lost then everyone is going to speak English and all individuality and culture will be lost.
  
  We couldn't MAKE that happen if we wanted to. Just look at the Roman empire where the majority spoke Latin as the lingua franca and consider how many languages and unique cultures evolved from that.
• 

  BlakeSeeley

  Interesting post.

  I learned something recently while doing some research. Maybe others here already know it, but I discovered that when theologians and Bible scholars call events in the Bible “myths,” they don’t mean “fable.” I thought they did.

  When used in the context of Biblical studies, when a scholar or exegete calls, for example, the story of God’s confusing the languages at Babel a “myth,” that means the story is true but a device is used to present it…it could be allegory, it could be prose, it could be poetry, etc.

  I think you hit the nail on the head in asking “why” did God do it in the first place? Did he really have to?

  From what I read up on, there is another possibility in understanding this story that helps us see whether or not this was “another thing” God didn’t have to do, as you put it.

  A popular school of thought regarding the Babel account is that it qualifies as “myth” in the sense that the device of humor and wordplay are used to explain what the author knew about why people were so diverse in their cultures, languages, etc.

  The “truth” of the story is not whether it was an actual event or not – the author does not concern himself with writing history. The Babel account is part of the so-called “J” or Yahwist sources of Genesis. These portions show concern with emphasizing that God’s promises to Abraham were fulfilled in the empire of David. Modern scholars believe (not sure where I stand on this dating) that these parts were written about the 10 th or 9 th century BCE using the literary form of storytelling.

  We might not see much of the wordplay in the English that makes the Babel story stand out as using a humor device to tell the story (I know I didn’t), but some scholars point to the constant irony in this short story to help the reader see what they mean.

  As they explain it, God says “fill the earth,” people say “no.” People decide to build great big tower that reaches into the heavens to “make a name for themselves,” human’s efforts are in reality so puny that God has to “come down” to see the tower.

  It’s like the people were saying: “You are not the boss of us.” God replies: “I am SO the boss of you.” The story ends with God forcing the people to disperse and populate the earth by confusing their language.

  Back to your first post: Is this something God didn’t have to do? According to the above interpretation (one of many…not necessary THE ONLY one) it has little to do with God’s confusing our language and more to do with God able to make his purposes come true despite people’s arrogance. If scholars are correct, and this so-called “J” source is trying to show us that nobody can thwart God’s plan to fulfill his promises to Abraham, then if it was an actual event God obviously felt it necessary to do before Abraham even coming into the picture. If it is allegory, the point is still God will do whatever is necessary to fulfill his promises to us, even intervene in human history, because the story of God and Abraham is a story of love.

  Like they say, love conquers all.
• 

  marmot

  I don't have the cognitive dissonance safety net to fall back on anymore when I hear the theory that the god of the bible did all this "because he loves us". Does not compute, regardless of how many tortuous theological arguments you can dredge up.