Donkey,
You asked: So God went to all the trouble of "creating" Adam and Eve, but already knew he was building a failure?
Adam and Eve did not fail. They succeeded in doing what God created them to do. He created them to clearly demonstrate that human beings are all sinful creatures and, as such, are all undeserving of eternal life.
You asked: If you know up front that you are building a house that has a fatal flaw - how are you not responsible for the outcome?
You are responsible.
You wrote: If God knowingly constructed a flawed human society then he would be at fault.
He was at fault. That is why He couldn't hold our sinful nature against us. For He created us all as sinners. And that is why He felt obliged to pay for our sins, "with His own blood." (Acts 20:28)
As I think I have said before, the only way the story of Adam and Eve makes sense is to understand that God not only knew how things were going to end up in Eden, but that He deliberately set the whole thing up to make a point. What point? This one. If Adam and Eve in paradise, without a problem in the world, could not manage to obey one simple command from God, what chance does any human being have of living their entire trouble-plagued life without sinning either in word, thought or deed? No chance at all. That is the lesson that was illustrated in Eden. Human beings have a sinful nature. A nature which God Himself gave us.
Why did God give us a "sinful" nature? Because "God is love" He wanted to create people with whom He could have a loving relationship. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, in order to have loving relationships with us, God had to create us as free people. Free to choose to love God and His ways or to not love God and His ways. In other words, free to do both right and wrong, free to do both good and evil.
Because we can do wrong and often do, and because God can't do wrong and never does, we are less righteous than God. And because we are, none of us deserve to live forever. That means all human beings have, in effect, from their births been condemned by God to die. Not because of anything Adam did, but because we ourselves all fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
So, the need for Christ's sacrificial death really had nothing to do with Adam. God knew He was creating a sinful race, a race of people who would not deserve to live forever. But like many loving parents, God wanted to give His children more than they deserved. So before God created the first "sinful" human being He devised a plan for our salvation, a way for Him to offer us much more than we deserve, a way for Him to give us eternal life as a gift, without violating His own extremely high standard as to who deserves to live forever. God's extremely high standard: "The wages of sin is death." The gift God wants to give us: "The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23) The way God devised to give undeserving, sinful people this gift: "Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all." (1 Tim. 2:5,6)
Notice that the Bible tells us that Christ, "gave Himself as a ransom for all," not just for Adam. It also tells us that before Adam, or any other human being, ever existed God knew that He was going to create a "sinful" race of people who, in order to be given eternal life, were going to need a redeemer. For Peter wrote, "You were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world." (1 Pet. 1:18-20)
But how could God consider only one death, a death which only lasted from Friday afternoon until the following Sunday morning, to be as precious as many billions of human deaths, deaths which would last forever? He could do so because He considered the three days of life which His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, gave up to be more valuable than many billions of eternally lost human lives. Why? Because God knew that Jesus Christ was far more than a human being. God also knew that Jesus Christ was far more than "a perfect human being," or "Adam's equal" as JWs like to call Him. God knew that Jesus Christ, as His only begotten Son, was also God. And because Jesus Christ was God, His Father considered His death, and His three lost days of life which followed His death, to be worth far more than many billions of eternally lost human lives.
You asked: All these folk that lived before or parallel to adam and eve, did they benefit from Jesus?
They will. Because of what Christ did for all mankind, "A time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out." (John 5:28,29) "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ." (Romans 2:16) I believe at that time God will judge the hearts of all who have ever lived and died without hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ as though they had heard it. In other words, God will know how they would have reacted to the message of God's plan of salvation if during their lives they had heard it preached. Jesus Himself said that some of the men of Sodom will be judged with mercy because if they had heard Christ's preaching they would have repented. (Matt.11:23,24)
You asked: Those who died before Adam - did they have sin? What code was used to measure the sin?
There are two kinds of sin. First, the sin of "falling short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Since "all unrighteousness is sin," (1 John 5:17) and we are all by our nature less righteous than God, we are all born "in sin." (Psalm 51:5) The pre-adamic human race was guilty of this kind of sin, "falling short of the glory of God." Second, there is "the sin by breaking a command, as did Adam." (Romans 5:14) The Bible tells us that this kind of "sin is not taken into account when there is no law." (Romans 5:13) So the pre-adamic human race was not guilty of this kind of sin. However, since all sin results in death, the fact that pre-adamic men did not "sin by breaking a command, as did Adam," in practical terms, made no difference to them.
a Christian
JoinedPosts by a Christian
-
85
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey inthe single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.
specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.
mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.
-
a Christian
-
85
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey inthe single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.
specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.
mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.
-
a Christian
Derek, You wrote: A lot of the Genesis account has to be dismissed as false if taken literally. If you decide it's figurative, then you can say that it may be true. But that's it. .... The question is why would anybody do this? Genesis was written nearly 3,500 years ago. I believe it was written to be read by billions of people over the last 3,500 years and by billions more people in future centuries. If it had been written as a literal account of creation with enough specific scientific details to prove to 21st century readers that its author must have been inspired by God, what would readers in the 5th century B.C. have thought of its contents? What would readers in the 5th century A.D. have thought of its contents? What would readers in the 15th century A.D. have thought of its contents? If the writer of Genesis had written his account of creation to match our 21st century understandings of when and how the heavens and the earth came into being, if in the next 500 years some of our 21st century understandings are replaced with "new improved" understandings, what would 26th century readers of Genesis think of its contents? My point is that if Genesis was written in a literal way, with enough accurate scientific detail to satisfy you today, it's contents certainly would have been rejected by past generations as being "scientifically inaccurate," according to their understandings of science, and its contents would probably also be rejected by generations not yet born as being the same. I believe Genesis was written as it was in order to provide general information sufficient to answer "origins" questions asked by people living in all generations, past, present, and future. However, at the same I believe Genesis provides enough accurate scientific detail to satisfy readers with a knowledge of 21st century science. For instance, Genesis uses the Hebrew word for "create," Bara, only in describing God's bringing into existence the heavens and earth, life in the sea and mankind. All other kinds of life, vegetation and animals, Genesis tells us, were not directly "created" by God but were "produced" by "the land." (Gen. 1:11,12, 24) And, as I mentioned earlier, Hebrew lexicons tell us that "Bara," Hebrew for "create," refers to "the initiation" of something, while the Hebrew words translated as "produced" refer to "the fashioning of," or "the changing shape of," preexisting materials. These things being so, I believe Genesis chapter one clearly allows for the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to create all life forms on earth. You wrote: According to your take on things, the events in Eden actually only demonstrated that two human beings - no, facsimiles of human beings - fell for a trick played on them by two vastly superior beings. No, the events in Eden demonstrated that all human beings are capable of sinning, and are thus all less righteous than God (God can't sin), and are thus all undeserving of eternal life. For if Adam and Eve could sin, all humans can sin. Adam and Eve were used by God as representatives of the entire human race to demonstrate the fact that the entire human race is sinful and undeserving of eternal life. If I want to demonstrate that all rabbits are capable of breathing all I have to do is get one rabbit to take a breath, and my demonstration will be a success. I don't have to get every rabbit on earth to take a breath. For simple logic tells us that if one rabbit can take a breath all rabbits can do the same. You say I make Adam and Eve into "facsimiles of human beings." I do not. Adam and Eve were human beings in the same way that all human beings have been human beings. They have each individually, at the time of their births or possibly at the time of their conceptions, been given an eternal spirit from God. Gen. 2:7 tells us that "The LORD God formed man [Adam] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and he became a living soul." The Hebrew word for "breath" here carries a much greater meaning than just Adam's lungs being filled with air. The word means "spirit" and "divine inspiration." As such, Christians have always understood that God at this time made Adam much more than an animal. We have long understood that God "created" Adam by giving him an eternal spirit which at the time of his death would not "go down into the earth" like "the spirit of an animal" bit would "rise upward" and "return to God who gave it." (Eccl. 3:21; 12:7) Having an eternal spirit given to us by God, a spirit which will survive our death and then return to God, is what makes us human. It is what made Adam human. It is also what made men before Adam human. When God created the human race, before His creation of Adam and Eve, I believe He did so by then giving highly evolved primates eternal spirits, spirits which at the time of their deaths would not "go down into the earth" like "the spirits of animals" bit would "rise upward" and "return to God who gave them." I believe this was the creative act referred to in Gen. 1:27. These things being so, Adam and Eve were not "facsimiles of human beings." They became human beings in the same way all human beings before them had become human beings, and in the same way all human beings after them would become human beings, by being individually given an eternal spirit by God. Simply because Adam and Eve were not physically related to the humans who came before them did not mean Adam and Eve were not human. Just as the fact that all human beings who came before them were physically related to lower animals did not mean that they were not human. The Bible's definition of a human being (sorry JWs) is a God given spirit, aka a "soul," living in a physical body. I wrote: Because of our unrighteousness we do not deserve to live forever. We deserve to die. You responded: Because of the unrighteousness of two pretend humans, you mean? ... Because of the "sins" of two facsimiles of humans, God condemned their descendants and the real humans to death. No, because of our own unrighteousness. The Bible clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10) And it says that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19) To "constitute" means "to establish formally." Adam's disobedience formally established the fact that the human race is less righteous than God and thus undeserving of eternal life. So, Adam's disobedience also formally established the fact that God had justly withheld eternal life from people who lived before Adam and would be just in withholding eternal life from Adam and Eve, from all their contemporaries, and from all people who would live after them. I wrote: However, God sent His Only Begotten Son into this world to pay the penalty for our sins, to die in our place. In order to have God forgive all of our sins, and to be given eternal life by Him all we have to do is truly accept what He has done for us. You responded: To atone for this sin, he had another facsimile of a human killed. Jesus was no facsimile. He was a human being in the same way we are. Christ's body contained a God given spirit which returned to God upon His death.. (Luke 23:46) You wrote: For this atonement to take effect, we have to believe without evidence that this is the case. I have never met a Christian who "believes without evidence." All believers will tell you what convinced them that the story of scripture is true. Some will tell you of answered prayers. Some will tell you that their personal study of the Bible convinced them that it is God's Word. Some will even tell you of some miracle they have personally witnessed. I became personally convinced that the Bible is God's Word through what I consider to be strong evidence. However, the evidence which has convinced someone else may very well not convince you. I believe God gives everyone who is willing to believe in Him and who is truly seeking Him all the evidence they need to put their faith in Him. If you are such a person, and you have not yet found such evidence, I believe you will You asked: Would it not have been possible for God to use parables and fables that corresponded more closely with reality? Could God have done a better job of having the Bible written? Better to convince you maybe. But what would now be better for you may not have been best for all readers over the past 3,500 years, and for all other generations of people yet to be born. I wrote: But since we know mankind has been on earth far longer than 6,000 years "context" tells us, if the Bible is God's Word, Adam could not have literally been "the first man." You responded: That's not context. It's not even "context". It's a contradiction between the text and observed reality. Of course, when I spoke of "context" I was referring to the greater context, the context of all we know to be true.
-
85
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey inthe single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.
specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.
mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.
-
a Christian
Derek, I wrote: For it may well be that some of my opinions are wrong.
You asked: Isn't there any way to know? To know what? If everything which we presently believe to be true really is true? Obviously not. Not in this life anyway. For instance, the only way anyone will ever know for sure if there is life after death is to die. I believe we will then have opportunity to get answers to all our questions. For, as Paul said, "Then we will see everything with perfect clarity." (1 Cor. 13:12) I wrote: It may also be that God did not intend for all passages of the Bible to be fully and properly understood by all people in this day and age.
You asked: Why would he not design it to be understood? How can anybody follow a belief system they can't understand? I didn't say the Christian belief system is too complicated to be understood. In fact, it is very simple. Human beings are less righteous than God. The events in Eden clearly demonstrated that fact. Because of our unrighteousness we do not deserve to live forever. We deserve to die. However, God sent His Only Begotten Son into this world to pay the penalty for our sins, to die in our place. In order to have God forgive all of our sins, and to be given eternal life by Him all we have to do is truly accept what He has done for us. Jesus once told His disciples, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." (John 16:12) If, for instance, God used evolution as His means of creation, as I believe He did and as I believe the Bible itself indicates, God may well have known that many people would have trouble dealing with that reality. So, rather than clearly saying such a thing in the Bible I believe God told the story of His creation in broad figurative terms, terms which all Bible readers would be able to live with, regardless of their level of maturity or their particular sensibilities. You wrote: So you believe that God created Adam and Eve separately from other humans but made them exactly the same as any other humans in every measurable way. You believe this despite the fact that there is no evidence - how could there be? - and the fact that the Bible makes no such claim. On what do you base this extraordinary belief? Context. As you know, Genesis tells two different creation stories. If they both are describing the same set of events these two stories are contradictory. If they both are describing the same set of events the author was a fool. For anyone can see the two accounts tell two different stories. If, however, Genesis is describing two different sets of events, one which followed the other, then and only then does Genesis makes sense. When I say, "Context," I also refer to the fact that Genesis clearly tells us that a populated land called "Nod" existed just beyond the garden of Eden, a land filled with people who Adam's son Cain was afraid might kill him and where Cain later found a wife. (Gen 4:12-17) If the writer of Genesis meant to tell us that Adam and Eve were the first and only people on earth at the time of their creation, why would he have told us about "the land of Nod"? When I say, "Context," I also refer to the fact that the writer of Genesis carefully recorded a year-by-year chronological history of nearly all the events recorded in Genesis, a chronological history which connects with the rest of the Bible's chronological historical records, a history which was clearly designed to tell us that the Adam of scripture was created by God only 4,000 years before the birth of Christ. But since we know mankind has been on earth far longer than 6,000 years "context" tells us, if the Bible is God's Word, Adam could not have literally been "the first man." So far as my beliefs on this subject matter being, "extraordinary," as I have said before, many Christians have understood the scriptures in this way from at least the time of Roman emperor Julian who ruled Rome from 361 to 363. He has been called "Julian the apostate" for the way he understood some parts of the Bible. Today many Christians continue to understand the Bible in this way, though admittedly we are a small minority. With as much as we know today about the age of the human race, I believe this understanding will soon gain much wider acceptance. To paraphrase Christ, "I now have many more things to say to you, for you can bear them now." Earlier I recommended a good book to you on this subject matter, The Origins Solution.
-
85
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey inthe single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.
specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.
mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.
-
a Christian
Derek, What you have just done is illustrate a point which needed no illustration. For everyone who has ever read the Bible knows that some parts of it are meant to be taken literally and some parts of it are meant to be taken figuratively. They also know that before each verse there are no "instructions to readers" saying whether that verse is meant to be understood literally or figuratively. You asked for my opinion on a variety of passages, literal or figurative? I gave you my opinion. Now, no doubt, some Bible readers will disagree with my opinion on every passage you asked me to comment on. And I see no problem with that. For it may well be that some of my opinions are wrong. It may also be that God did not intend for all passages of the Bible to be fully and properly understood by all people in this day and age. However, I'm sure that someday everything in the Bible will be fully and properly understood by all. The apostle Paul wrote, "Now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity." (1 Cor. 13:12) In the meantime no one has to fully understand all of the Bible to receive God's forgiveness and eternal life. They only need to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord. Over the last 2,000 years billions of people have somehow managed to do that, despite the fact that they have not understood every passage of scripture or had answers to all of life's mysteries. I will comment on one point you just raised. You wrote: Effectively, then, you believe there are two distinct species of human: those who are descended from Adam and Eve and those who already existed? How do you reconcile this with the observable reality that all humans appear in every measurable way to be descended from a common ancestor? Though Adam and Eve were created by God at a different time and in a different way than the pre-adamic human race, they were not a different species of human. I believe they were exactly like every other human being on the planet. They had to be in order to be fairly used by God as representatives of the human race. Thus, I believe that had you examined their DNA, the results of those tests would have shown what appeared to be a very ancient origin. This may raise the question, "If they were just like us why did they, and some of their descendents, live so long?" I believe the answer is, "The Tree of Life." The Bible tells us that "the Tree of Life" was "in the middle of the garden," along with "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Gen. 2:9) God told Adam he could "eat from every tree of the garden" except for "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." (Gen. 2:16,17) That means Adam and Eve had been eating from the "Tree of Life" right along, prior to their being expelled from Eden. I believe doing so greatly lengthened their lives and the lives of their as yet unborn children. Had they not been expelled from Eden, and had they been allowed to continue eating from "the Tree of Life," they would have lived forever. However, they were expelled from Eden and, no longer being able to eat from the tree of life, they eventually died. The unusually long life spans which Adam and Eve passed to their descendents gradually diminished, probably largely as a result of their marrying non-adamites.
-
85
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey inthe single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.
specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.
mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.
-
a Christian
Derek, You asked: Which of these are literal and which are figurative? How is it possible to tell: Common sense should do.
You wrote: God created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh. Scientists assure us that our earth and universe are both billions of years old. So, if the Bible is truthful, the "days" of Genesis must be understood as figurative. Besides, Gen. 2:4 speaks of "the day [singular] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." Obviously then, the writer of Genesis was not using the word "day" to refer to a 24 hour time period. For after telling us of everything that happened during all seven of those "days" he told us that it all happened on only one day. It is obvious then that the writer of Genesis was using the word "day" to simply refer to a long period of time. We often do the same today when we say, for instance, "In my father's day." You wrote: The sky is an expanse of water above the earth (1:6-8) Gen. 1:6-8 describes the "sky" as an expanse of space between the waters on the earth and those above the earth. That is indeed what the sky is. The waters above the earth are clouds. The waters on the earth are oceans, seas, lakes, etc. The sky exists between the two.
You wrote: The earth and plant life were created before the sun, moon and stars (1:14-19) You are comparing the events of "day" three, during which "the land produced vegetation," to the events of "day" four during which "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness." Genesis "day" four has been called "the age of star gazing." Scientists tell us that It began about 4.2 billion years ago. Even though earth's thick steamy atmosphere had cleared by condensing into rain nearly 200 million years earlier, from earth's surface the sun, moon and stars remained hidden from view, blocked by earth's thick unbroken cloud cover. Scientists tell us that from earth's surface an observer would have first been able to see these heavenly bodies about 4.2 billion years ago. For it was then that the clouds first began to break up in some areas. However, the dense largely CO2 atmosphere which then existed produced very hazy skies over most of earth's surface would have allowed only an unclear view of the sun, moon and stars from earth's surface. A fully transparent atmosphere did not develop for another 3.5 billion years, until plant life had fully changed earth's atmosphere replacing hazy CO2 with clear oxygen. It is important here to note that it is the Hebrew verb "Asa" which Gen. 1:16 uses in reference to the sun, moon, and stars being "made" by God on the fourth "day." And Hebrew lexicons tell us that "Asa" does not connote "the absolute newness of the object" that has been made, as does the Hebrew verb "Bara" used elsewhere in Genesis chapter one. Rather, we are told that "Asa" primarily connotes "the fashioning of" preexisting materials. This being so, I believe the writer of Genesis was telling us that God caused the preexisting sun, moon and stars to first become visible from earth's surface during this fourth creative period of time. (see Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, by Harris, Archer & Waltke, 1980, Vol.2, pg. 701) You wrote: No plants grew before God created Adam [contradicts chapter 1] (Gen 2:5) There is no contradiction here. Genesis chapter 1 does not tell us of God's creation of Adam. It tells us of God's creation of "man," i.e., the pre-adamic human race. Prior to God's creation of Adam the land where He would create a garden home for him was barren. You wrote: Adam was made from dust, and God breathed life into him. (2:7) That is what the Bible tells us. You wrote: God placed Adam in the garden of Eden (2:8-15) That is what the Bible tells us. You wrote: God then formed animals from dust and had Adam name them all [contradicts chapter 1] (2:19.20) Again, there is no contradiction here. Genesis chapter 1 does not tell us of God's creation of Adam. It tells us of God's creation of "man," i.e., the pre-adamic human race. You wrote: God made Eve out of Adam's rib (2:21-23) That is what the Bible tells us. You wrote: A talking snake convinced Eve to eat from a forbidden tree; this fruit made her wise and caused God to expel them from the garden of Eden. (3:1-24) The Bible tells us that talking snake was actually Satan the devil. (Rev. 12:9) And the Bible does not say that eating that fruit made Eve wise. It says by her eating it, by her disobeying God, she gained a personal knowledge of both good and evil. Having a knowledge of both good and evil does not necessarily equate to being wise. You wrote: God cursed the talking snake to crawl on its belly (3:14) Nothing is said here or implied that snakes did not already crawl on their bellies. Snakes have always been among the least loved and "lowest" creatures on our planet. God saw to it that Satan would use a snake to talk to Adam and Eve to illustrate Satan's character. Because of the events in Eden, from that time forward snakes have been "cursed" by being closely associated with Satan the devil. The real "curse" however has been that which was then spoken against Satan by God Himself. For God then told Satan that He would one day raise up a Savior for the human race. And God told Satan that Savior "will crush your head." (Gen. 3:15)
-
85
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey inthe single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.
specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.
mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.
-
a Christian
Donkey, You wrote: Since you don't believe the bible and what it says there is just no point talking about it with you. Of course you know I will object to that statement. I believe every word of the Bible. Just because I don't understand some parts of the Bible in exactly the same way you do, or in exactly the same way a fundamentalist Christian does, or just because I don't understand every passage of the Bible in the simplest way possible, does not mean I do not believe the Bible. Some portions of the Bible were obviously written to be understood in a symbolic way. Other parts of the Bible were clearly written to convey information that would only be able to be properly understood by readers who were willing to put forth some effort to do so.
You wrote: [You say] Adam was not the first man.
If the Bible portrays Adam as literally the first man, why did the writer of Genesis tell us of another inhabited land which existed at the time of Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, "the land of Nod, east of Eden," a land where other people then lived who Cain was afraid might kill him, and a land where Cain found his wife? (Gen. 4: 10-17)
You wrote: [You say] Jesus came for some unknown reason - since he did not come to redeem man from Adamic sin.
The Bible is clear that Christ died to pay for our sins. (Romans 3:23; 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10)
The actions of Adam, acting as a representative of the entire human race, demonstrated that we are all sinners. Thus Adam's actions brought God's condemnation on all people. Adam's unrighteousness was able to be counted against us by God because of his disobedience, even though we are not all physically related to him, in exactly the same way that Christ's righteousness is able to be credited to us by God because of his obedience, even though none of us is physically related to him.
As Romans 5:18,19 tells us, "For just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one Man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal, a right standing with God and life for all men. For just as by one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners, so by one Man's obedience many will be constituted righteous. (Rom. 5:18,19)
You wrote: [You say] the earth was not flooded.
We know the earth was not flooded. The Hebrew word widely translated as "earth" in the Genesis Flood account in most English Bible translations is translated as "land" in most other places it occurs in the Old Testament. It is also translated as "land," as in the "land" of Noah, in some English Bible translations. Christians believe the Bible, as it was written in its original languages, was inspired by God. We do not believe all translations of the Bible were inspired by God.
You wrote: [You say] we need to understand the meaning of obscure words in foreign languages to understand the bible - but you don't understand the foreign language either yet are going to counsel us to learn a word here and there.
Any of us can "learn a word here and there." That's why they print Hebrew and Greek lexicons for Bible students. I have a few on my book shelves. By the way, they are now available for you to use on-line at no charge.
You wrote: You do not believe in the fall of man.
You are correct. That is a man-made doctrine, defined somewhat differently by different religious groups, that I believe clearly contradicts several clear teachings of the Bible.
You wrote: [You say] If Adam had not sinned he still would have died.
The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal with a dying nature just like us. The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life". (Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from eating from "the tree of life."
Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to eat from "the tree of life" their lives would have been prolonged indefinitely. (Genesis 3:22-24) But when God prevented them from eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths. A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.
Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life."However, there was no chance of that happening. For any "God" would certainly know from the beginning the eventual outcome of the "test" Genesis tells us He gave to Adam and Eve. Heck, any dope could have guessed how things would turn out.
God told Adam that if he ate some fruit he would die. God then put Adam alone in that garden for how long? Then God gave him a beautiful naked woman as his new best friend, "helper" and lover. Now this gorgeous babe tells Adam she thinks they should eat the forbidden fruit. Besides, she tells him, she's heard that if they do they wont really die at all.
God didn't need to see into the future to figure out what Adam was going to do under those circumstances. Anyone could have guessed who Adam was going to care most about pleasing? After sleeping with squirrels for what JWs tell us was quite a few years, what man wouldn't have risked his life to make sure he didn't lose that lady's love and affection? Even if God then "chose not to" look into the future, as JWs say, the God who created man would have had to have had a very poor knowledge of His own creation not to have known that Adam was certainly going to fail that "test."
The only way the story of Adam and Eve makes sense is to understand that God not only knew how things were going to end up in Eden, but that He deliberately set the whole thing up to make a point. What point? This one. If Adam in paradise, without a problem in the world, could not manage to obey one simple command from God, what chance does any human being have of living their entire trouble-plagued life without sinning either in word, thought or deed? No chance at all. That is the lesson that was illustrated in Eden. Human beings have a sinful nature. And because we do, none of us, being less righteous than God, is deserving of eternal life. And that because we are always less righteous than God we are always in need of His forgiveness even when we have not recently committed any "sinful" act.I believe this lesson was illustrated by Adam and Eve being totally unaware of their nakedness before God until after they had committed a blatant act of disobedience. (Nakedness is a condition always portrayed as shameful in the scriptures.) Then, suddenly, after they had "sinned" they became aware of their nakedness and felt the need to "hide from God." Just as we often only become aware of our shameful condition before God after committing some "sinful act." And just as we then often feel ashamed of ourselves and try to hide from God by withdrawing from Him by not praying or by not attending Church, etc., until we finally get over our guilt. However, the fact is, we are no more worthy to stand in the presence of a perfect God before committing a "sinful act" than we are after doing so. Just as Adam and Eve were, in reality, just as naked before they disobeyed God as they were after doing so. They just didn't realize it.
Why did God give us a "sinful" nature? Because "God is love," He wanted to create people whom He could have a loving relationship with. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, in order to have loving relationships with us, God had to create us as free people. Free to choose to love God and His ways or to not love God and His ways. In other words, free to do both right and wrong, free to do both good and evil.
Because we can do wrong and often do, and because God can't do wrong and never does, we are less righteous than God. And because we are none of us deserve to live forever. That means all human beings have, in effect, from their births been condemned by God to die. Not because of anything Adam did, but because we ourselves all fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
That's the bad news. Now the Good News. The Bible tells us that God was willing to accept the death of His Son Jesus Christ in place of the deaths which own His high standards had determined we all must suffer. (Matthew 20:28; John 10:11; Romans 3:24; 1 Corinthians 6:20; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 9:26; 1 Peter 1:18,19; 1 John 1:7; 4:10; Rev. 5:9.)
This is the Good News presented in the pages of the New Testament. That even though God's high standards demanded our deaths as the penalty for our sins, He is willing to accept the death of Jesus Christ in place of the deaths of all who now accept Christ's death as payment in full for all their sins. And because God accepts Christ's death as payment for the sins of Christians, He no longer considers Christians to be sinners. Rather, He considers them to be righteous ones who are now fully worthy of eternal life. And because He does, He now promises to give eternal life to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ.You wrote: You and the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate are pals.
Hey, we apostates have to stick together. And, as you might agree, we have always been pretty sharp people.
You wrote: [You say] other people existed before and while Adam and Eve existed, yet Eve was still created.
I believe creating Eve from Adam's side was an important part of the story God told in Eden. He could have "imported" a wife for Adam from outside of Eden. Or God could have taken two previously living people from outside of Eden to use in His demonstration. But "starting from scratch" in the way that He did was an important part of the story God was telling.
I believe God wanted to tell the story of His previous creation of mankind by creating a microcosm of that creation in Eden. I believe in order to tell this story properly God had to create two brand new people.
First of all, I believe God purposely derived the name "Adam" for his newly created man whom He placed in Eden from the race of people He had earlier created and called "man." (Gen. 1:27) ( The Hebrew word for "man" is 'adam.) Why would God do that? Because I believe He intended for the story of Adam and Eve in Eden to mirror His creation of the race called "man" ('adam) He had previously created. God created Adam, not from nothing, but from from the dust of the ground, which when viewed under a microscope is seen to be filled with life, just as He had previously created the human race from pre-existing life. God gave Adam a wife who came from his own gene pool, small as it was, just as the wives He had given to the men He had earlier created had come from their own gene pools. God had a very special relationship with Adam and Eve, as His relationship with the previously created human race was very special in much the same way. God gave Adam and Eve a garden home in the middle of a barren land, just as the home He previously gave to the human race was the only "garden spot" in our barren solar system, and possibly the only "garden spot" in our entire barren universe. God made all the animals in Eden subject to Adam and Eve, just as He had earlier subjected all animals on earth to the human race He had previously created. God allowed Adam and eve to be tempted by Satan just as He had previously allowed all members of the human race to be tempted by various forms of evil, temptations they too gave into. God arranged things so that Adam and Eve would acquire an intimate "knowledge of good AND evil," in order for them to gain a personal knowledge of why God's ways are best, a knowledge that would serve them well for all eternity. He had earlier done the same thing for the entire human race.
God offered to give eternal life to Adam and Eve if they could manage to live truly righteous lives, which meant obeying God even in what some might consider to be a very "trivial" matter. He had made essentially the same offer to all members of the human race He had previously created, though it was an unspoken offer and the "trivial" commands they had to obey to receive eternal life were all those which came from their God-given consciences. Because Adam and Eve showed themselves to be less than perfectly righteous God judged them to be unworthy of eternal life. God had, for the same reason, also judged all members of the human race He had previously created to be unworthy of eternal life. Because Adam and Eve proved themselves to be unworthy of eternal life, God expelled them from their garden home and condemned Adam to return to the dust from which he came. God had, in effect, earlier done the same thing to the race called "man" He had previously created. God covered Adam and Eve's shameful condition, their nakedness, with coverings (animal skins) He Himself had made, coverings which required the shedding of blood. Just as God Himself had earlier made provision for covering over the shameful (sinful) condition of the entire human race He had previously created. A provision He made by means of a "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8) I could elaborate further on this same theme. But I think you now understand how I understand the story of Adam and Eve. You wrote: [You say] men were split into language groups at the tower of Babel. No, I don't. I believe God only temporarily confused the language of the people who were building the Tower of Babel. I believe that small group of people then made up a very small part of a world population that was then already very geographically, racially, and linguistically diverse. -
85
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey inthe single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.
specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.
mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.
-
a Christian
Donkey, You wrote: I cannot help you. I was not asking for your help. And I don't think I need it. Maybe I have rained on your parade here. The point of this thread seems to have been to prove that the Bible can not be true, since its chronology of Adam's creation and its record of events such as Noah's Flood and the confusion of languages at Babel are contradicted by science. However, I believe I have shown that the only thing here that is in conflict with science is a fundamentalist Christian's understanding of some portions of the Bible, not the Bible itself. . You wrote: Your beliefs require even more faith than people who follow the English Bible. I follow the English Bible. I read several versions. You may want to do the same. You can read the New American Standard Bible to find that the word "land" is used often in the Genesis flood account rather than "earth" to indicate that the flood covered the land of Noah, not our whole planet. You wrote: You are polite and intelligent but I can see we won't get anywhere. By that I take it that you mean you realize that an intelligent, well informed person is not going to buy into uninformed Bible bashing. You wrote: I suggest you look at the situation and ask yourself why God made it so difficult to follow him since we cannot even take his holy book at face value. I don't find it that difficult to follow Him. I've never met anyone else who has, anyone who was really willing to do so anyway. So far as not being able to take what the Bible says at face value, I don't see the problem. Maybe you think God should have made sure the Bible was written in a way that any five year old could easily, properly, and fully understand everything in it without any help from anyone else. That may be your opinion. But God chose to do things another way. For the Bible itself clearly indicates that it was deliberately written in a way that would allow those who are looking for reasons to find fault plenty of opportunity to do so. Of course, it was also written in a way in that would allow those truly seeking God plenty of opportunity to find Him.(Matt. 13:11-16) The Bible tells us that God knew some people would need help understanding some of its contents. Because of this we are told, "When Christ ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men. .. It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers." (Eph. 4:8,11) These things being so, I don't believe anyone has ever had trouble following Christ because they couldn't "take his holy book at face value," at least not anyone who was truly desiring to follow Christ. For the Bible tells us that God has always provided help to such people. Just as I have here answered your questions pertaining to Bible chronology apparently being in conflict with DNA evidence of the true age of the human race. So, if you are truly willing to follow the God of the Bible but are merely having difficulty doing so because you have not been able to "take his holy book at face value," you should now be able to follow God. Or, if you prefer, you can continue to bash the Bible as being "too difficult to understand," even though you have now been given all the help you need to understand the parts which troubled you.
-
85
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey inthe single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.
specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.
mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.
-
a Christian
Frainklie,
Seems to be a page full of dictionary definitions. Which do you think I need to understand?
-
85
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey inthe single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.
specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.
mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.
-
a Christian
Seeitallclearlynow, You wrote: And as far as the idea that according to the Bible, there will be a future accounting, and a possible reward, then what some seem to be doing, in effect, is buying a sort of life insurance policy, but they are the only beneficiary; and the purchase is made under threat of death if it's not bought (into). God does not threaten to kill you unless you do things His way. God treats every one of us equally well, allowing His rain and sunshine to fall upon all of us, both those who choose to serve him and those who don't, allowing both good things and bad things to happen to all of us equally, both those who choose to serve him and those who don't, all of our natural lives. All of us, believers and unbelievers, will one day die. However, the Bible does say that after our deaths God intends to do what we all do, give extra special gifts to those He loves who also love Him. The Bible tells us that those good gifts will include eternal life in paradise. Do you really think that God should then give eternal life to everyone, including those who do not love Him or love what is right? Do you really want men like Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson messing up your eternity? I don't. I also have faith in God that He will judge all of us fairly, wisely and mercifully. To me that means that those who have not had an opportunity to come to know God will be judged by God with that in mind. To me that also means that those who have rejected the God of the Bible because of being stumbled by someone or something will also be judged by God with that in mind. Jesus said that even the people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be judged with mercy because they did not have as good an opportunity to come to know God as others have had. (Matt.10:15; 11:23,24)
-
85
DNA - belief destuction
by donkey inthe single largest reason to decimate my belief in jw?s and all biblical faith occurred when i discovered some facts about our cells.
specifically a part of the cell called mitochondria.
mitochondria are sometimes described as "cellular power plants" because their primary purpose is to manufacture adenosine triphosphate (atp), which is used as a source of energy that the cell uses.. as humans one inherits one?s mitochondria only from one's mother, this finding implies that all living humans have a female line of descent from a woman whom researchers have dubbed mitochondrial eve.
-
a Christian
Donkey, You asked: Regarding the tower of Babel, do we have a clearer date as to when this occurred? According to bible chronology the flood occurred circa 2,200 BC. Actually, Bible chronology dates the flood to about 2350 BC. ( JW Bible chronology, flawed by their incorrect 607 BC date for Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon, dates the flood to about 2370 BC. ) The Bible does not say exactly how long after the flood the tower of Babel was built. However, the events at Babel are believed to have taken place at the time of Peleg's birth, which is dated by Bible chronology. For the Bible tells us that Peleg was given his name because, "In his day the land was divided," which is generally understood as a reference to the events at Babel. (Gen. 10:25; 1 Ch.1:19) Bible chronology dates Peleg's birth to 2247 BC. However, the ancient Egyptian historian Manetho says Babel happened five years after the birth of Peleg. If he was correct, the events at Babel took place in about 2242 BC. However, none of this makes any difference to your DNA/Y-chromosome thesis. For the Bible teaches neither a global flood nor the creation of all the language groups and races of mankind at Babel. First let's tackle the Flood. That our earth has never been completely covered with water since land masses first arose from its primordial global sea has been firmly established by modern science in more ways than I can possibly here begin to mention. For a discussion of this subject matter see Problems with a Global Flood at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html .
A conservative Christian's typical response to such information is to say that they choose to believe the Word of God over the findings of scientists. This certainly sounds quite noble. And I suppose I would commend them for their stance if such a stance was called for by the Bible itself. But it is not. For a careful study of the flood account in Genesis reveals that the Bible does not tell us that the flood of Noah's day was global. And an examination of the scientific "evidence" presented by Christian fundamentalists in support of a global flood, sea shells on mountain tops and the like, quickly reveals that the presenters of this so-called evidence have a very poor understanding of science. ( By the way, sea shells on mountain tops are the result of earth's plate tectonics causing land masses to slowly rise from the sea over many millions of years. This process is an ongoing occurrence and can be proven by comparing the measured heights of various mountain peaks today to their measured heights just a few years ago.)
That the Bible itself does not tell us that a global flood occurred in Noah's day can be seen from a careful examination of the text. To begin with we do well to keep in mind that the word widely translated as "earth" in the flood narrative, giving the impression that our entire planet was flooded, is often translated elsewhere in the Old Testament as "land." ( In acknowledging this fact, the translators of The New American Standard Bible chose to translate the same Hebrew word as both "land" and "earth" throughout the flood narrative.) We can certainly understand that without our modern means of global communication and global travel ancient peoples must have had a much more limited view of their world than we do today. That being the case, it seems more likely that the flood account in Genesis recounted the story of the whole "land" of Noah being flooded than the whole "earth" being flooded.
But doesn't the Bible's story of the flood say that all the high "mountains" were covered with water? And if that was true, since water seeks its own level, wouldn't that mean the whole earth had to have been flooded? For an answer to such questions we again have to look at the ancient Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrew word which has been widely translated as "mountains" in the flood narrative is translated elsewhere in the Old Testament simply as "hills." You see, the ancient Hebrews had only one word to describe what may have been either a small mound of earth or a Himalayan peak. That being the case, the flood narrative can certainly be understood as telling us that "all the high hills in the land of Noah were covered with water to a depth of about twenty feet." (see Gen. 7:20, 21)
But what about the unmistakably "universal" language used in the account? Doesn't the Bible tell us that God destroyed "all life under the heavens" (Gen. 6:17) during the flood? Yes, it does. But it also tells us that "all nations under heaven" lived in fear because of Joshua's conquest of Canaan. (Deut. 2:25) We are also told that during a famine that occurred at the time of Joseph, "The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph." (Gen. 41:57) And it tells us that at the time of Paul the good news of Jesus Christ had been "proclaimed to every creature under heaven." (Col. 1:23) Are we to believe such statements included the nations of people which then lived in North America, South America, China and Australia?
We must remember that the world of the Bible writers was a much smaller world than our world today. Their part of the earth was then for them "the whole world." We should also accept the possibility that Bible writers may, at times, have used larger than life expressions, just as we often do today. We often use figures of speech such as, "This book weighs a ton," or "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." This common form of speech is called hyperbole. It is certainly possible that it may, at times, also have been used by Bible writers. When we use such exaggerated figures of speech for dramatic impact we are being neither inaccurate nor dishonest. The same can be said for the writers of Scripture.
But why would God have had Noah construct such a large ark if it was intended to carry only Noah, his family, and a collection of animals from his own land? Could it be that Noah was instructed to build an ark big enough to hold every person in the land that was about to be flooded! An ark with room enough for all those who might repent but didn't? We know that "God does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." How could Noah be telling a land full of people to repent and get on the ark if that ark had no room for them? God's plan of salvation today has room for everyone on earth, does it not? Should we believe that God's plan of salvation in Noah's day did not?
Another question that is sometimes asked is, "If the flood was confined to the land of Noah, why would God not have simply told Noah to take his family and pairs of animals and flee to higher ground?" Many who believe that the flood of Noah's day, as described in Genesis, was confined to the land of Noah say that the answer to this question can be found in 1 Peter 3:20,21. There we are told that Noah and his family, "were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism." So, they say that by choosing to save the lives of Noah and his family as they passed through the waters of the flood, God was symbolically pointing to a time when his people (Christians) would find salvation as they passed through the waters of baptism. Besides, if Noah and his family had simply fled their land they might not have been able to offer their neighbors the opportunity to escape the destruction which was soon to come upon them all nearly as long as they did.
Now, what about Babel? What are we to make of the Bible's story of the tower of Babel and the confusion of languages which there took place shortly after the flood? I believe that in order to correctly answer this question we must first deal with another confusion of tongues, the translation of ancient Hebrew into modern English.
Genesis 11:1 tells us that when the Tower of Babel was being built, "The whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."
As I just pointed out in my comments on Noah's flood, the Hebrew word that is often translated in Genesis as "earth," giving readers the idea that its writer was referring to our entire planet, is much more often translated in the Old Testament as "land." In fact, we find this to be the case in the very next verse (Gen. 11:2) which refers to the "land" of Shinar. I believe that Bible translators who chose to translate the Hebrew word "erets" as "earth" rather than as "land" in the Bible's historical accounts of Noah's flood and the tower of Babel are mainly to blame for many people's misunderstandings of both the Bible and the history of mankind.
The traditional interpretation of the flood and the dispersion at Babel has been that the total population of the entire world was confined to the land of Shinar in the post-flood era. It is said that these people, who supposedly amounted to all people living on earth, all spoke the same language and were all involved in building a tower. Then it is said that God confounded them, and off they went in all directions muttering Aztec, Mandarin, Swahili, and the like. They crossed oceans and reached far distant continents and changed their skin colors along the way.
This interpretation of Genesis has continued in spite of much extra-biblical evidence that has long been available which proves that it cannot be correct. To see that the JW and Christian "fundamentalist" interpretations of the events which transpired at the Tower of Babel must be incorrect, all their advocates have to do is count the mud brick ziggurats in Mesopotamia. Any number that exceeds one kills their interpretation. And the remains of over thirty such "towers" have been found all over the region, in twenty-seven different cities, hundreds of miles apart. Had the entire earth been devoid of humanity except for Noah's descendants who all lived in the land of Shinar where the tower of Babel was built, what would explain all the additional towers?
All those other ziggurats at all those other widely scattered sites could not have all been built at the exact same time as the tower of Babel. Thus they had to have been constructed either before or after the tower of Babel. If they were constructed before Babel, it would mean that Noah's descendants (if everyone then alive were Noah's descendants) had already begun to spread out and settle in widely separated communities, precluding them from all being at one place, which was the case according to Genesis 11:1,2. On the other hand, if the many other ziggurats were constructed after Babel, it would mean that after the Lord made clear to Noah's descendents that He didn't like them building such towers and after He prevented them from completing such a building project, they soon banded together again for the same purpose and successfully completed the building of many other such towers with no opposition from God. This makes no sense.
What does make sense is to understand that building ziggurats was very much the thing to do in those days. The tower of Babel was simply one of many Mesopotamian worship centers. Clearly, the building of the tower of Babel and the confusion of the participants' languages which then occurred seemed like a gigantic event to those who were there and passed the story down to their descendants. But the fact of the matter is that the tower of Babel was only one such tower among many which then existed. It was probably not even the biggest. And it was almost certainly neither the first nor the last.
So then, what did happen at Babel? Apparently some of Noah's descendants saw some of the fantastic places of worship built by their Sumerian neighbors, which were devoted to pagan gods. They then decided to follow suit and build just such a tower in an effort to reach their God. Due to their ignorance, the God of Noah's descendants tolerated the actions of the worshippers of false gods when they erected such structures in their foolish efforts to reach nonexistent pagan deities. However, God expected His chosen people to exercise better judgment. He was not pleased with their pagan copycat building project. So He put an end to it by confusing their speech. This action on God's part successfully brought an end to the spiritually misguided building project which Noah's descendants had begun and His doing so resulted in their being dispersed throughout their land.
As a final note, judging from the writings of Noah's descendants, some of which predate the time of Babel, the confusion of speech which took place at Babel does not appear to have been a permanent one.
Some may wonder why God said, concerning those who were building the tower of Babel, "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." (Gen. 11:6)
Obviously no one can say for sure exactly what God meant. But I'll take a guess.
I suspect that God thought that, if He allowed His people to copy the religious building practices of their pagan neighbors, they might then begin copying other religious practices of those same pagan neighbors. Such as burning their children in sacrifice to Him. Or forcing their young men and women to work as temple prostitutes to raise money for Him. Or who knows what else? If God's people wanted to be like their pagan neighbors so badly, that they were willing to go to all the trouble of building a copy of one of their giant ziggurat temple towers, who knows what things they might have collectively done in an effort to be like their pagan neighbors? For them, as God watched them building that tower, anything seemed possible.