Which is more likely?

[Athetotheist]

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “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. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
(Genesis 11:1-9)

Is it more likely that this literally happened, or is it more likely that this was originally someone's answer when a child asked why people in different places have different languages?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #19]

It's much more likely that the account is historical, as an off-the-cuff answer given simply to pacify a child's curiosity wouldn't carry sufficient significance to be included in the historical records (such as we have) from antiquity.

Keep in mind that this is also the "historical record" which tells us that a talking snake goading a naked woman into eating a piece of fruit is why we all wear clothes.

For fun, --I'm not sure how familiar you or anyone else might be with the book of Jubilees (dating back to the second century BCE) but it has a much more vivid description of this tower... Jubilees 10 goes into great detail and for perspective, the tower of Babel would dwarf the tallest modern skyscrapers by a factor of three.

It had been under construction continuously for 43 years-

Height: Roughly 8,150 feet (2,484 meters)—nearly three times taller than the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world today.

You actually believe that a tower of that height was constructed of load-bearing brick and mortar?

[Mr E]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #21]

Well, we all know that snakes don't talk, so spare the platitudes.

I can't believe that the incredible Burj Khalifa is constructed of concrete, steel and glass...... but there it is.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #22]

Well, we all know that snakes don't talk, so spare the platitudes.

We also know that load-bearing bricks won't support the weight of a building past a few hundred feet in height.

I can't believe that the incredible Burj Khalifa is constructed of concrete, steel and glass...... but there it is.

It would be a lot harder to believe if it were constructed of only brick and mortar.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #23]

Which is more likely?

It couldn't have happened, or you don't know how it could have happened?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #23]

Which is more likely?

It couldn't have happened, or you don't know how it could have happened?

Can you identify this section of construction for me? What's it from?

[Mr E]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #25]

That's Machu Pichu in Peru.

I can offer better examples of ancient construction that we can't replicate today- for example, the Baalbek Megaliths. Stones so large that we have no modern mechanisms that could move them.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #25]

That's Machu Pichu in Peru.

I can offer better examples of ancient construction that we can't replicate today- for example, the Baalbek Megaliths. Stones so large that we have no modern mechanisms that could move them.

The mysteries of such ancient stone structures are highly intriguing and I take a keen interest in them myself.

However, that's exactly what disqualifies them as an argument for the tower of Babel. Those ancient monuments are stone, not brick.

[bjs1]

Bonus question:
Is the modern world more like the beginning of the passage or more like the end of the passage?

Allow me to ask my own question: Does this passage say that this is how modern languages came about, or did some later readers think, “This kind of fits with how I want to see things,” and then start saying that what they came up with is what the passage was really teaching?

[Mr E]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #27]

It's not disqualifying in the least. The point being that you don't know how they did the things they did at the time they did it.

That's the reason for your intrigue.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #28]

Allow me to ask my own question: Does this passage say that this is how modern languages came about, or did some later readers think, “This kind of fits with how I want to see things,” and then start saying that what they came up with is what the passage was really teaching?

Double bonus question:
If this passage is about something other than how languages came about, what would that be?