The Tower of Babel based on plans of an ANTEDILUVIAN building?
by raymond frantz 12 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat
Neolithic and pre-neolithic sites all over the world point to extrordinary structures all over the world. Many are yet to be discovered. Some predate 10,000 BCE by quite a margin. Some may go back 100,000 years or beyond according to experts. Some of the oldest which in some circles are thought to predate human history are the hardest to imagine or begin to explain. ?? I do think they were constructed with human hands and maybe help. Megalithic places like Gobekli Tepe, Puma Punko, Machu Picchu, demand technology and efforts beyond hunter gatherers for sure. As a tool maker for 40 years I can tell you, nothing on this earth had the abilities to create these works of art without extra earth-input...nothing, no one. A nd later structures like Ba'albek, Lebanon defy explanantion as well. I believe men had exposure to higher math, special tools we now do not have , and training in building structures like the T.O.B. and certainly for a long time prior to this structure. For some strange reason the Bible and the Koran which are mans oldest and holi est books obscure our history along wit h also providing valuable elements of history . I have been reading and studing everything I can for about 4 years on this now and will as long as I live.
-
peacefulpete
well ...."Antedeluvian" issues aside the tower story is most certainly a play off the 7th century Babylonian descriptions of the building of ziggurats that touched the heavens. The author was most likely writing in the exilic period projecting his contempt for the Babylonians into the distant past. The "one language" aspect is likely drawn from the Summerian legend of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta or some Babylonian parallel that no longer exists. That the stories are sandwiched together is likely the result of some redaction and editing. The story itself has been displaced in the text and nothing to do with a Flood legend other than the unfortunate location in the geneaology in which it was dropped. Take a look at chapt 10 and 11 without the story and note how it was clumsily dropped in. Perhaps it was hastily put there because it stood alone as a legend without a context and the redactor forced one or maybe it was a simple random manuscript fragment slip.