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 
William, these are the two that I’ve commented on:
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2015/05/fundamentalist-baptist-pastor-bill_22.html
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2015/05/fundamentalist-baptist-pastor-bill_26.html
LikeLike
Did Christian Translators distort and alter Isaiah 53 to conform to Christian Theology?
Jews say that Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, the nation, as the Suffering Servant. Christians say the chapter is referring to Jesus. Let’s compare the Jewish and Christians Bibles on this passage. Did Christian translators alter the original Hebrew to make the passage conform to Christian theology, creating a “messianic prophecy” out of a chapter that no Jew had ever considered messianic?
Isaiah 53:2-5
The Jewish Bible:
“…he had neither form nor grandeur…he was despised and isolated from men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness. As one from whom we would hide our faces; he was despised, and we had no regard for him. But in truth, it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried-but we had regarded him diseased, stricken by God, and afflicted. He was pained by our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities…”
The Christian Bible (NJV):
“He has [instead of had] no form or comeliness…He is [instead of was] despised and rejected [instead of isolated] by men. A man of sorrows [instead of pains] and acquainted with grief [instead of accustomed to illness]. And we hid, as it were, our faces from him. Surely he has borne our griefs [instead of ills] and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed him stricken, [instead of diseased] smitten by God, and afflicted, but he was wounded for our transgressions.”
Analysis:
Isaiah referred to an event that had already occurred and therefore used the past tense. Christian translators manipulated the text by changing the tense to the present tense to apply it to Jesus. Christian translators avoided the problem that Jesus was never reported to have suffered from “illness or disease” by mistranslating these words as “sorrows and grief.” This manipulation of the text shifted the meaning of Isaiah’s words to support Christian theology.
—Asher Norman, orthodox Jewish author,
“Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary
Last year I studied Biblical Interpretation. Three general points I observed might be relevant to the Christian approach to Isaiah 53:
1. The New Testament more often than not quoted the Greek version of the OT, the LXX. This differed quite significantly in places from the Hebrew text (why it differed of course raises all sorts of issues – in fact it was not until Jerome in the 4th century that the Church started using a Hebrew based translation – Augustine had a solution of sorts to deal with the inconsistencies they found – ‘both version were inspired by God!’);
2. Hebrew has less words than most languages, there is one Hebrew word that could be translated into 40 different English words. Often the translators tend to make an educated guess based on the context. Of course ones inherent bias is bound to affect the choices made;
3. The NT authors played fast and loose with the OT text and seemed at liberty to reinterpret texts in ways they never appeared to be intended. Because Christians assume that the NT is inspired, this is seen as the work of God, however if the NT writers had been students of Biblical Interpretation, they probably would have failed their course.
Thanks for all your comments. They are most thoughtful.
Cheers
Peter
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’d think, Peter, that an all-wise, omniscient god would have foreseen all of these issues and addressed them in such a way that there would have been no confusion. I forget – just what is it again about this god that’s worship-worthy?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Analysis by Gary: What does this passage say: Answer: The Church Council ruled that Gentiles are not required to keep all 613 laws of the Torah, but Jews, even Christian Jews, must!”
rofl….He is still at it like a guy that thinks if he makes a hundred weak and false accusations against someone then a few will stick
The passage says nothing of the sort. Furthermore Paul tells no one including jews that they must stop practicing the law. Paul, Jesus and Christianity teaches that being a follower of Christ is a FULFILLMENT of the law. What does change in the NT is that we are no longer under the law…..We do not obey our way to salvation or being right with God. We receive all our Christian graces based on Christ.
Jews then are free to practice their culture and observe laws but – even as the very passage you quoted but read with no comprehension states- it is not necessary to be saved or in right standing with God (or the gentiles would not be told what they were told). I keep the sabbath to this day being a gentile (and not even a Seven Day Adventist) as many Christians do but not because I think it saves me to do so. Jews did well to continue adhering to the law and as Paul himself says and you didn’t even read.
1 timothy 1:11
“We know that the law is good if one uses it properly”
You do well to post to Nate’s blog though. When I am not around you know your “points” will get rubberstamped but they are as weak as your Sabbaths are ALWAYS on a Saturday fiasco.
LikeLike
“Gary, the Archaeological evidence is now so conclusive it is not possible to objectively claim that the Bible is real history. …………… even David and Solomon seemed to have been greatly exaggerated.”
Ooops
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm
“Six official clay seals found by an archaeological team at a small site in Israel offer evidence that supports the existence of biblical kings David and Solomon.”
oops
http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/Archeologists-uncover-palace-from-Kingdom-of-David-320226
The history of skeptics making claims against the Bible and being wrong is now so conclusive it is not objectively possible to take their word for anything
LikeLike
According to Jews, there is no place in the Jewish Bible or in the teachings of Jesus where it is taught that people are saved by faith. Salvation comes through our deeds, obeying God’s Law: If you are a Jew, keeping the 613 laws of the Torah. If you are a Gentile, keeping the 10 laws of Noah.
The concept of salvation by faith was invented by Paul.
LikeLike
“According to Jews, there is no place in the Jewish Bible or in the teachings of Jesus where it is taught that people are saved by faith.”
The word for faith in the OT/Tanach is trust. Nowhere in the Bible where God’s blessings and salvation is tied to trusting in him?
Psalm 17:7 (KJV)
7 Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their TRUST in thee.”
Psalm 34:22 (KJV)
22 The LORD redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that TRUSTETH in him shall be desolate.
Psalm 86:2 (KJV)
2 Preserve my soul; for I am holy: O thou my God, save thy servant that TRUSTETH in thee.
Your knowledge for the Bible as I have said before pretty much sucks. Psalms is very much the Jewish Bible in case you didn’t know.
LikeLike
Take it up with the Jews, Mike, I’m just telling you what they say. I’m sure you and your evangelical friends understand the Hebrew Bible better than the Jews themselves. The Jewish concept of trust involves obedience. If you are not being obedient you are not trusting.
If you look at the teachings of Jesus, Jesus teaches that good deeds are the basis of eternal life and eternal reward. You won’t find Jesus telling his followers to have faith and pray the Sinner’s Prayer to be saved.
In James’ gospel, James clearly teaches that salvation apart from works is impossible.
So Jesus and James continued to teach that the Law must be obeyed. James chastised Paul for teaching that Jewish Christians did not need to follow all the laws of the Torah. The Jerusalem Church Council, headed by James, commanded Paul to go to the Temple and undergo a Jewish ritual of repentance for his sin of teaching anti-Law doctrines. If the Temple sacrifices and rituals had been “fulfilled by Jesus’ atonement” why would the head of the Church require Paul to undergo a Jewish ritual in the Jewish Temple. Why didn’t he tell Paul to come down the aisle during the altar call and repent of his false teachings in front of the congregation in the Christian house of worship?
This is proof that Jesus never taught that he had fulfilled the Law in the sense that the Law was abolished.
LikeLike
So you’re using a study sponsored by the University of Mississippi, the buckle of the Bible Belt, as your unbiased proof? Let’s see what they had to say: “The new finds provide evidence that some type of government activity was conducted there in that period.” Hold the presses, folks, I think we’ve GOT something here!
““This is indisputable proof of the existence of a central authority in Judah during the time of King David,” the archaeologists said.” – At no point in the article, out of all of the uncovered artifacts, was there any mention of anything bearing a name, such as David.
Both articles point to some authority being there, but none point to a David. I hope you don’t like cigars, because you missed yours this try —
LikeLike
“The concept of salvation by faith was invented by Paul.” – Mikey was quoting Paul’s letter to Timothy, I almost hate to tell him that both Timothy’s are forgeries, written after the death of Paul, when people finally realized that their Yesua was going to be somewhat delayed in this return – took the wrong road, or something – I do hope he doesn’t emerge in Mississippi, Heart of the Bible Belt, they don’t take too kindly to Jews down there. I can just hear him – “Oh no, not AGAIN!”
LikeLike
Hi Arch,
There have been some archaeological evidence found pointing to a Hebrew royal house or king named “David” but this isn’t proof of the existence of the biblical David and Solomon as Mike claims above.
Nothing related to Solomon’s great temple has ever been found, and as far as I know, nothing related to Solomon at all! This is amazing in that the Bible claims that Solomon ruled over a great empire, stretching from the Euphrates to the Nile, yet no record of Solomon or of this great Hebrew empire exists in the writings of the contemporaneous kingdoms of Mesopotamia, Egypt, or the ancient kingdoms in modern Turkey and Greece!
Jesus believed that he was the descendant of an imaginary king, the Jewish equivalent of King Arthur. A god would have known better.
LikeLike
“This is indisputable proof of the existence of a central authority in Judah during the time of King David,” the archaeologists said.” – At no point in the article, out of all of the uncovered artifacts, was there any mention of anything bearing a name, such as David.”
ROFL…..
Even your beloved Finkelstein accepts David’s existence (pretty hard not to after the Tel Dan Stele…stop embarrassing yourself and look it up…thats old news). His major contention is …well um….WAS…lol….. that there could not be an established monarchy in the time period like the BIble claimed. the last finds have established evidence of just that kind of “authority” where your boy said it could not exist.
Will you babble on? Well of course. Its what you do 😉
But your babbling abut the Kingdom of David not being established by archaeology has been rebutted by the cold hard facts of recent discoveries since last we discussed this
But don’t be so obviously troubled. Remember…
Its supposed to be about finding truth. 😉
LikeLike
“If you look at the teachings of Jesus, Jesus teaches that good deeds are the basis of eternal life and eternal reward. You won’t find Jesus telling his followers to have faith and pray the Sinner’s Prayer to be saved.”
Ummm your level of bungling knows no end does it? Just about the most popular text in all of scripture
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned.
Clearly teaching Salvation on the basis of faith. This is even worse than your Sabbath blunder and proves your Jewish writers suck as well.
Nice try with the sinner’s prayer thing BTW but Paul mentions no such thing as the sinner’s prayer.
You’ve struck out yet again
LikeLike
“There have been some archaeological evidence found pointing to a Hebrew royal house or king named ‘David’” – Just because there may have been a king named David – not an uncommon Jewish name – does not by any means prove that he chopped off the head of a giant, with or without a beanstalk, or established a great empire. When you’re a little nation, as Israel is and always was, you have to inflate yourself to appear as significant as possible.
As for your description of Solomon, the empire you mention sounds like that of the great Akkadian king, Sargon, who, after he had conquered all of Mesopotamia, went on, with his armies, to open a trade route between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean, establishing forts all the way down the Levant, nearly to Egypt. Many, many biblical myths were based on Mesopotamian history – the legend of Noah leaps to mind.
BTW – Sargon, as a baby. was set adrift in the Eurphrates in a reed basket smeared with pitch for water proofing – recycling seems to have been an early practice in Mankind’s history.
LikeLike
In any effort to “find truth,” the Bible is the last place I’d look for it.
LikeLike
“Just because there may have been a king named David – not an uncommon Jewish name – does not by any means prove that he chopped off the head of a giant, with or without a beanstalk, or established a great empire.”
well theres a limit to archaeology and what history records. For example though some records might show someone with your name existed in this time i doubt (thankfully for you) It will show your characteristic inability to follow a logical point which is very much a reality in the here and now.
Thing is your sources being discredited by their flop on the issue of the kingdom of David (and quite a few other previously alleged mythological people, places and kingdoms now known to be real) your other proclamations of facts are equally vacant.
I suspect even you realize that which is why as predicted you blather on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hate to break this to you, Mike, but “J-o-h-n” spells John, not Jesus:
How’s your long-term memory?
LikeLike
The teachings in the Gospel of John were written at the very end of the first century or the beginning of the second century. They reflect Pauline Christianity. That is why the authors of the Synoptics do not include Jesus’ statement “quoted” in John 3:16.
LikeLike
“I hate to break this to you, Mike, but “J-o-h-n” spells John, not Jesus:”
I hate to break it to you Arch but your mental skills are not up to snuff.
If Gary is asking me to look at the teaching of Jesus its obvious he is appealing to teachings that we have
LikeLike
“well theres a limit to archaeology and what history records.” – That never slowed the authors of the Bible down though, did it?
LikeLike
The passages you quoted from pseudoJohn are not quotations from Jesus, and that was the subject of Gary’s statement – try to stay on track (talk about mental skills not being up to snuff –).
LikeLike
“Take it up with the Jews, Mike, I’m just telling you what they say. I’m sure you and your evangelical friends understand the Hebrew Bible better than the Jews themselves. The Jewish concept of trust involves obedience. ”
So does the New testament’s…Lets face it You are TOTALLY clueless (and citing jews as an authority on what Jesus taught as you did earlier either marks you as quite foolish or just plain intellectually dishonest). The new testament concept of trust does not leave out obedience.
John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
and maybe you should ask your Jewish sources why it is that Jews were to be blessed by being Abraham’s off springs when
A) the act Abraham was blessed for was not obedience to the law (neither at the time or in the future)
B) being born to someone is not a fulfillment of the law or an act of obedience
Paul raises and discusses both issues but of course you don’t know that.
LikeLike
I hate to break it to you . Really Mike!
I sense you love to point it out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jews say that Paul was dead wrong to say that Abraham was blessed by God on account of his faith. They say that if you look at what “God” says in Genesis, he blesses Abraham for obedience, not “faith”.
LikeLike