I was listening to a recent speech that Matt Dillahunty gave in Australia (listen here if you’re interested), and in part of it he brought up the story of the Tower of Babel, found in Genesis 11. It’s a story I’ve thought about several times since leaving Christianity. I don’t recall everything Matt said about it, though I know I’ll be making some of the same points he did. I haven’t been a Christian for about 5 years now, and it’s sometimes hard to imagine that I ever believed stories like this one, though I definitely did. And a number of other conservative Christians do as well.
A few days ago, I asked my wife if she remembered what God was angry about in this story, and she gave the same reason that I thought: God was angry because people were being prideful. In case you’ve forgotten, the crux of the story is that several generations after the flood, mankind was growing numerous, and they all had one common language. They decided to build a tower that would reach Heaven (see how prideful?), so God put a stop to it by confusing their language. This caused the various groups to split up, each person going along with whomever could understand him or her.
However, after looking at the details a bit more, it turns out that my recollection was a bit off. First, the people weren’t actually being prideful at all. Instead of trying to build a tower to Heaven — God’s abode — they were just trying to build a tall one to make it easier to stay in one geographic area:
Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”
— Genesis 11:1-4
The phrase “in the heavens” is just talking about the sky, not the realm of God. For just a moment though, let’s pretend that they really had been trying to reach God with their tower. Why would that be such a bad thing? Doesn’t the Bible repeatedly tell us to seek after God? Furthermore, would they have succeeded? On September 12, 2013, Voyager 1 actually left our solar system. In all those miles, it didn’t bump into Heaven. No earth-based tower would ever run the risk of reaching God’s home. So not only were the people not attempting that, even if they had been it wouldn’t have succeeded, and it actually would have been flattering toward God.
So if God wasn’t angry at them for being prideful, why did he confuse their language and force them apart? The next few verses give us the answer:
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth.
— Genesis 11:5-9
Essentially, God was just being a jerk. He was like a kid stirring up an anthill. I mean, God forbid (literally) that people advance technologically, right? Wouldn’t want them discovering things like the germ theory of disease, after all. And why prevent wars by keeping people within the same culture? Much better, I guess, to create different cultures so mistrust and bigotry can form. Furthermore, if this was such a problem at the time, why hasn’t he stopped us again? We’ve figured out ways to overcome language and culture barriers now. We’ve done so much more than just “build a tall tower.” God’s motivation in this story simply makes no sense at all.
However, if you step back for a moment and stop trying to view this as literal history with an actual god, things become clearer. Imagine living thousands of years ago and trying to make sense of the world around you. You think the world is flat and that the sun revolves around it. You don’t understand the cause of thunder storms, earthquakes, or volcanoes. You can’t imagine how animals and humans got here without some kind of creator. And if there’s a creator, why didn’t he make life easier? Why does he allow disease and starvation? There are so many difficult questions that just have no answer. And so people began to formulate answers as best they could. It’s easy to see that one of those questions may have been “why didn’t God (the gods) give us all the same language?” And so they came up with an answer.
Looking at it from that perspective, it’s much easier to understand how a story like this came to be. These people were dealing with the world as they saw it — and to them, the only reason they could think of for God not wanting everyone to have the same language, is that they would accomplish too much. They had no idea that humanity would one day find a way around that problem, rendering their explanation invalid.
Speaking as someone who grew up believing that stories like this were actual history, I know how easy it is to just go along under that assumption without question, especially if those around us believe as we do. It’s not stupidity; it’s either isolation and ignorance, or it’s stubbornness. We can help the isolated and ignorant by just being available to discuss these things when they come up. And with the Bible, there are plenty of examples to be found.
Finding Truth 
Lol still chucklin….Some one should check on Arch. He’s probably been celebrating Christmas on the same day each year because when he was 10 it fell on a Saturday and he didn’t know it changed each year
this blog is so funny the regulars just blunder and blunder yet swear they are so intelligent.
LOL
LikeLike
This is plainly obvious to anyone who may stop by, but I wanted to respond to a few of these.
“The blundering and lying here by the nate Clan was entertaining for awhile but its just given away to the clan’s blunder after blunder to pathetic status with things like.” ABlacksmanagain
show the lie. give any example of lie, from anyone here. nate has pasted the exact text and commented on it. you may disagree with his interpretation, but you should know that any difference in opinion does not equate to “lies.” again, this is obvious, to honest people.
and you still insist genesis 11 has something to do with pagan worship, yet you cannot show that at all from the text. if anyone’s lying, it’s you. but again, this is plainly obvious.
“God primarily caring about humanity’s sin/righteousness in the Bible is just an opinion -lol Nan ‘s brief but sweet contribution” – ABlacksmanagain
I can get what you’re saying here, but you’re only mocking her on that point because you believe the bible is from a loving, merciful and just god. You believe so much that ignore that god will also punish people who do good things and dont do back things if they dont believe in him or jesus. at the same time, if someone believes in god and jesus, but has done some bad things, then they can still avoid hell and be rewarded with heaven. Taking that into consideration, it’s not hard to see why some people see god’s primary concern with having people believe in him and think highly of him, and then their sin/righteousness coming in second.
again, if you disagree, that doesnt mean you’re right or that they’re lying. again, plainly obvious.
One of the issues here is that the bible is actually pretty vague. this is evidenced not only by the amount of non-believers, but also by the amount of different types of believers. no one can agree. Mike would likely mock and criticize those in other denominations from his, because he, no doubt, has stumbled upon the actual truth, while most others have not. he is, of course, an idiot – but again, plainly obvious.
what is also plainly obvious, by the amount of times he’s been asked and the amount of times he’s refused to answer, is that he will do anything to avoid looking like he’s retreating, while discussing everything and calling everyone names, in hopes that everyone will forget he’s been asked to support his own position. namely, if there was a supernatural first cause, how does that necessitate 1 god, and why then would that god be the god of the bible?
again, if there was a supernatural first cause, how does that necessitate 1 god, and why then would that god be the god of the bible?
name call all you like. mock all you like. dodge all you like and run all you like. but no matter your excuse, these questions remain for everyone to see. and it is plainly obvious that you are afraid to answer because no matter what accusations you throw at me or anyone else, and no matter how much you try to shout that you’re smarted than everyone else, these questions still go unanswered.
so while I dont like you, and I couldnt think worse of you, I dont mind you being here. all you’re doing is making yourself look like an ass (you’re doing very well) and actually making the rest of us look better. so i hope you stick around.
answer the questions or dont. either way, here they are. ignoring them just illustrates that no matter how much gas you disperse, and no matter how much you blow yourself up like a puffer fish, you still cant and wont answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“YOu all take care and like I said lick the wounds, regroup and be ready next time” ABlacksmanagain
yeah, because the victor is always the run to run away.
come back anytime. shouting “VICTORY” doesnt mean you’ve won. winning does. and shouting it when you’ve won nothing makes you look sort of pathetic.
I’d like you to stick around, as much of a nuisance as you are, because you’re your own worst enemy.
again, if there was a supernatural first cause, how does that necessitate 1 god, and why then would that god be the god of the bible?
while you’re at it, can you show us the verse in Genesis 11 again that mentioned or alluded to pagan worship?
and since you’ve made the accusation many times, please show evidence of people lying here.
LikeLike
“LOL….Sorry but you ARE quite the nitwit. 🙂 John is a greek new testament book. What John meant and said is dependent on the Greek text as much or more than Jewish customs and traditions. Still if you would adjust your Tri focals you wold see that jewish customs and traditions of the Chagigah are covered.” – ABlacksmanagain
all this could be true. maybe the days were the same. the thing is, in order for it to be true, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to everything in the books, including the parts about virgins having babies, gods having human children, working of miracles, dead people raising from the grave and jesus flying into heaven.
you also have to somehow reconcile all the different descriptions of where the angels were met, who spoke with them, and how many, etc, etc as well as other apparent contradictions. it’s easy to do this when you assume the stories are accurate and from god and correct, whether it seems to make sense or not.
from those of us who are more skeptically minded, we find it too hard to swallow – and especially from a loud, self-righteous douche who doesnt even take the character admonitions from his own book. from a prick who might even claim that a christian doesnt have to use the christian ethic or character on non-believers, but would do so by ignoring passages in Peter and elsewhere in the OT and NT.
but even if mike disagrees with that, that’s fine.
Mike, what would it take for you to believe in Zeus? stories? claims of men, as long as they were written down a long time ago? something more? I would imagine that whatever it would take for you to believe in Zeus, is what it would take to convince most of that god and jesus were real.
so calling someone stupid because they see different days of jesus’ Crucifixion in the gospels is stretching it, since if you read it as it’s written, there are different days, and since the only reason you think it’s a problem is because you believe the bible is from god and that any imagined workaround between discrepancies should be accepted. obviously, while possible, could also still be incorrect.
LikeLike
“sorry to break it to you kid but you are presenting nothing new. Nate and I debated that a long time ago. you can go look it up its in one of these posts somewhere.” – ABlacksmanagain
I also encourage anyone to search those out.
mike, if you think that you “won” those discussions or shown anyone a fool, except yourself, then you should also go back and read through them.
LikeLike
“almost all of your argument (and William’s) rests on personal incredulity arising ultimately out of your worldview. Not only have hundreds of millions found the gospels to be viable but you run away like scared puppies anytime anyone asks you to justify an anti supernatural stance in light of reality being ultimately unexplainable on purely materialistic terms.” – ABlacksmanagain
I think this highlights one of our disconnects – I havent run from anything. in fact, it’s you who runs.
hundreds of millions have also found the gospels to be myth and fiction, so your numbers point is moot.
second, I dont reject the possibility of a supernatural first cause, my point has been that’s it’s pointless to argue over as there as too many possibilities for something we cant possibly prove at this time, if ever. maybe there are natural laws we have yet to identify. maybe the limits of your imagination and intellect do not limit the possibilities. and I have also said, if youre going to say that the first cause (if there was one as you’re thinking of it) had to be supernatural, becuase you’ve never witnessed a natural event to start itself, then we could jsut as easily say that first cause couldnt have been supernatural because we’ve never seen a supernatural event. I dont care one way of the other. I’m not running, just pointing out obviously flaw in that line of reasoning.
but for discussion’s sake, let’s go ahead and assume you’re right, that there was a first cause and that it was supernatural.
let’s talk about the supernatural. If it’s supernatural first cause, then why does that necessitate 1 god and why then would that 1 god be the god of the bible?
LikeLike
and the issue with john could have more easily been cleared up if it just said that he was going off Roman time. it would have settled much of this issue. it would have been an east fix for an all knowing, all powerful god who wanted everyone to follow, believe and obey his dictated book.
so as it stands, mike and other believers insist we take their word for it, that the human authors of the bible can be trusted, and that despite what they wrote, they actually meant something else… they must of, or else the bible wouldn’t harmonize, and it must harmonize, because it’s the direct word of god… that’s really indirect at best, being dictated to other men, and all.
huh… writing it out like that, it’s actually (not really) making much more sense. why wouldnt god do it that way, is the real question.
LikeLike
“you….
just …
can’t….
make …
this…..
silliness…
up…..
You have to come to this blog to find it.” – ABlacksmanagain
I guess that’s because this is where you are. start your own blog and people will look for it there.
LikeLike
question on how days work.
The jews viewed it differently than us. like, today is Friday and tonight is Friday night. to the jews back then, today is Friday, but tonight is Saturday night, correct?
how did the romans view it? like us or like the jews?
if they viewed it like the jews, then john could have been using roman time and still had 3 days and 3 nights as long as he was crucified on Friday night (thursday night to us). of course, that doesn’t coincide with the day of preparation to us, as it would have been passover on their Friday night… right?
LikeLike
William,
Even if John was using Roman time, he still does not have Jesus and the disciples celebrating the Passover seder, as his Last Supper is not on Passover but the Eve of Passover. The Gospels have Jesus celebrating a Passover seder. Trying to harmonize with “Roman time” doesn’t work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are two different “Days of Preparation” mentioned in the Gospels, one prior to the Sabbath (Friday before sunset) mentioned in the Synoptics and the day prior to Passover, mentioned in John. We know this because the author of Mark specifically says that his “Day of Preparation” is the day before the Sabbath (Friday)..
LikeLike
the biggest issue with the day of jesus’ death, to me, is that John says, and keeps saying “Day of preparation” which was the day before Passover, the passover feast. The other gospels say that it was Passover day.
I dont think jewish time v roman time explains that.
and just FYI, as suspected, the Romans viewed days as we do. I guess there is some discussion as to whether their started at midnight or sunrise, but I think for our purposes, we can safely say it was like we do now and be close enough, if not exact. So in order for jesus to spend 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb, he’d have to be buried sometime Thursday morning, as John says the ladies got to the tomb before sunrise Sunday morning and it was empty, so Saturday night was the last night, and I dont think we count Sunday. Thursday, Friday and Saturday – day and night each day.
that would mean that in john, the day after his death would not have been a typical Sabbath. could have been the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, except that that day follows the passover, and John repeatedly says jesus was crusfied on the day of preparation for the passover – the day they killed the lamb.
so if Thursday was the day of prep, then Friday was the passover (which they had to be clean for) and the following day, Saturday, was the high sabbath of the 1st day of unleavened bread feast and also the typical sabbath.
right?
i just dont see a sensible reconciliation. if you reconcile the differing hours of jesus death by saying john used roman time, but if he did, the roman day doesnt fit – does it?
LikeLike
John 18:28, 39 & John 19:14 – “It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.”
LikeLike
I haven’t caught up on all the comments yet, but I think Mike’s reasoning for saying that gJohn is using Roman time is incorrect. He pointed to John 1:39 and said that it only made sense to read that passage as 10AM, because it talks about them “spending the day.” I’m not sure which translation he was using, but I disagree with him about the intent of this passage.
I can’t speak to the accuracy of these translations in their use of the word “for”, and if you check out the commentaries for this verse on BibleHub, you’ll see that there’s no consensus as to whether or not this was Roman time or Jewish time. But it’s always seemed to me that this verse must be Jewish time, because it seems like he’s saying the disciples stayed with him, since the day was almost over. In other words, I think it indicates that they spent the night there, since sunset was near.
But it’s also important to consider a couple of other verses in John, that I think point even more to this gospel using Jewish time:
Jesus is definitely referring to Jewish time in this passage — still doesn’t necessarily mean that gJohn is using it, but the writer doesn’t take a second to point out the difference either.
To me, this is probably the clearest indication that John uses Jewish time. If he does, then that means Jesus was stopping for a rest around noon, which makes perfect sense. If instead, someone suggests that this was supposed to be 6AM, it makes no sense that Jesus would be weary from his journey or would need to rest at this time. And if someone suggests 6PM, it doesn’t seem to fit with everything else that happens in the chapter. If you’re interested in what some commentaries say about this verse, you can read them here.
LikeLike
The more you compare the four Gospel accounts side by side, the weirder the story gets. Some Christians (???) use the alleged “Jesus-as-Messiah” prophecies in the OT as proof that Jesus was the messiah and the Son of God. The problem is, most of the “prophecy” assertions in the Gospels are made by only one of the gospel writers: Matthew. And anyone familiar with Matthew knows that Matthew tells some whoppers! None of the other gospel authors mention zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem in their burial shrouds, but MATTHEW saw them!
I and many other skeptics believe that Matthew’s prophecies came about in this fashion: Matthew went looking for messiah prophecies in the OT and then made up stories about Jesus to fulfill them! I will post an excerpt from Dr. James Tabor’s blog below about Matthew’s invention of Jesus being buried in a “rich man’s tomb” as “prophesied” in the Book of Isaiah.
LikeLike
Excerpt from Dr. James Tabor’s blog:
Mark is our earliest account. Notice his words carefully:
And he [Joseph of Arimathea] bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb” (Mark 15:46).
This is our core Synoptic account. Mark is the source for both Luke and Matthew. But notice, nothing is said about Joseph putting Jesus in his own family tomb.
John, who offers us an independent tradition, offers a further explanation:
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there (John 19:41-42).
Notice what almost everyone has missed. The reason for this hasty and temporary burial carried out by Joseph of Arimathea was because of the imminent arrival of the Sabbath and the Passover. The tomb they chose was one that happened to be “close at hand.” Mark implicitly agrees. He notes that it is late afternoon on the “day of Preparation” with the Sabbath drawing near (Mark 15:42). John further explains that this particular Sabbath was a double-Sabbath or “high day,” with the Passover also beginning at sunset (John 19:31; 18:28).
So, as I often tell my students, “thank God for Mark and John.” Mark does not elaborate the choice of the tomb but John makes it clear that this initial burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea is a temporary and emergency burial of opportunity. That the tomb is new and unused meant that it could be used for a few hours, until the Sabbath and Passover holiday were past. This particular tomb is chosen because it just happened to be near, as John plainly explains. The idea that this tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea makes no sense at all. What are the chances that he would just happen to have his own new family tomb conveniently located near the Place of the Skull, or Golgotha, where the Romans regularly crucified their victims? It is ludicrous even to imagine, but neither Mark nor John say anything of the sort.
Everyone has assumed Jesus is placed in Joseph’s own tomb because of two words added by Matthew in his editing of Mark, namely “he laid it [the body] in his own new tomb” (Matthew 27:60). Luke does not have this. And Mark and John are crystal clear as to why this tomb was chosen. This is an obvious interpolation by Matthew and it makes no sense in the context. A tomb that happened to be near the place of crucifixion, just outside the city gates, would not have belonged to Joseph. Matthew adds this phrase, as he often does, to try and make the action of Joseph a “fulfillment” of prophecy. This is one of the major characteristics of Matthew’s gospel, something he regularly does (see Matthew 1:22; 2:15; 8:17, etc.). So the idea that this temporary tomb belonged to Joseph was most likely added by Matthew for theological reasons. Matthew believes that the text in Isaiah 53 about the “Suffering Servant,” refers to Jesus (see Matthew 8:17 where he explicitly notes this). One of the details of that prophecy is that the slain “Servant” makes his grave “with a rich man” (Isaiah 53:9). Matthew seizes on this and suggests that the tomb must have belonged to Joseph of Arimathea–a “rich man.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
The futility of entering any sort of discussion with ”Mike” is that he enters with the presuppositional belief that the biblical characters are real, and yet, like any apologist , provides no evidence, other than presupposition.
If he were arguing this with anyone who was completely unaware of the characters and events he was claiming veracity for the obvious response would be.
”Have you any verifiable evidence to demonstrate your claim?”
And of course, the answer is no.Oh, and the Davidic monarchy claims are not quite so cut and dried.
I am surprised he is unaware of this?
LikeLike
@ABlacksmanagain
Certainly at a macro level we can see cause and effect in collisions and such. But, imagine an empty universe that has nothing but marbles suspended in space. If we had a switch that could turn gravity off, then all of the marbles would just be static. There would be no actions, no cause and effect, just a static universe. Turn gravity on and everything becomes alive again with the “force” of gravity pulling the marbles towards each other.
We are in a universe that is alive so to speak and all I’m saying is that the cause for this could be inherent in the fundamental laws, the intrinsic properties of the universe (or meta-universe). I’m using gravity just as an example. I am not certain of what would ultimately be the laws/forces in a supposed multiverse. In Eternal inflation theory they say that inflation could be caused by low energy false vacuum states. Frankly, I have no idea what that means and everything I’ve read indicates that a lot more research needs to be done before anything can be claimed with any degree of certainty.
No, I don’t think laws would be a description of nature. I think it’s more like limits to what is possible within reality. Like two quarks cannot occupy the same quantum space or positive charges repel other positive charges, etc. I’m not sure if this is a good analogy or not, but there are laws of logic that appear to be intrinsic and place boundaries on what logic is capable of. These laws do not have anything backing them up, they just come with the package.
LikeLike
He is aware of MANY of the facts that he argues against – “Because Hebrews didn’t leave behind any artifacts, that doesn’t mean they weren’t in early Mesopotamia!” – which translates to, “Just because there isn’t any evidence that something I say is true, doesn’t mean it isn’t.” – he wears out the old, ‘absence of evidence’ ploy.
LikeLike
Sorry Nate, just saw this. I can see how someone could easily come to your conclusion. There is definitely concern expressed over what the people might accomplish if they continue working together. It doesn’t say what exactly so I can see where it can be left open to interpretation. You have one interpretation and Mike has another and Crown had one as well. I don’t really see what the big deal is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“John is a greek new testament book.” – All four gospels are written in Greek, proving nothing, Passover is a Jewish tradition, not a Greek one, and the Jewish sources referenced earlier would know far more about Jewish customs than you would, yet you are trying to negate them, saying we are discussing the NT, not the OT, seeming to forget that Yeshua was a Jew. You’re quite the obfuscater, but it doesn’t take trifocals to see that.
LikeLike
“the passover related sabbath was celebrated on a set date you nit so it would roll through a regular weekday and that would often create two Sabaths in that week”
And you’re trying to say, that in that particular year, the Day of Passover was followed by a High Sabbath, which was followed by an ordinary Sabbath – is that what you’re trying to say? In your list of High Sabbaths, there were none listed that followed the Passover.
John Z – do me a favor, if he comes back with a Yes, would you please run the hypothesis by your Rabbi friends? I’d love their input.
LikeLike
wasnt the day after passover, the 1st day of the feast of unleavened bread, a high sabbath (leviticus 23)?
but isnt that still moot, as john plainly says in John 19:14, that it was the day of preparation for the passover?
LikeLike
in the grave Thursday morning, thursday night, friday morning, friday night, saturday morning, saturday night – risen before daylight Sunday.
3 days and 3 nights in the grave.
so was he crucified Wednesday, dying that night?
you know i was watching a fantasy or scifi movie once with a few people. it had aliens and lazer guns. teleportation, etc. travelling to distant galaxies at faster than light speed, etc… and at some point in the film something happened – I cant quite recall what it was, but it was something like a guy had to swim underwater and it looked like he held his breath for like 4 minutes…. something like that… and I a guy I was watching the movie with said, “Oh yeah right!”…
it’s funny because the whole movie was way out there fiction, yet he just couldnt accept a guy holding his breath for a long time – because that’s ridiculous…
it’s funny that we’re discussing obvious day and time problems in a story that has virgins having children, miracles, walking on water, water to wine, and the son of god being killed, then raising from the dead and flying into heaven… because the timeline is the most ridiculous part of this story… right
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quick scan just to see if all the baloney was being continued by Mikey (it is) … and saw my name.
Mikey wrote in relation to a comment I made… ““God primarily caring about humanity’s sin/righteousness in the Bible is just an opinion -lol Nan ‘s brief but sweet contribution”
This is NOT what I said! As usual you twist and turn things to make YOUR point. YOU had said, …but the entire context of the Bible indicates it would be sinful actions referencing the Tower of Babel discussion.
My point is YOU made an assumption that the activity related to the Tower was based on “sinful actions.” The quote I offered from you was totally in relation to that … I did NOT said anything about God caring about humanity’s sin/righteousness in the bible.
Maybe you should slow down and actually read what someone has written … and in what CONTEXT… before you start throwing out accusations.
Thank Thor my email box is free from all this cr__.
LikeLiked by 1 person