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?

[RBD]

[Replying to 1213 in post #17]

The reason why people build the tower was to prevent people to be scattered. So, it was about preventing the freedom of the people.

Is that what the text says, or is it only your presumption? Why couldn't it have been to keep from losing the mutually beneficial cohesion of their community?

If you mean the 'mutual' benefit of one man having power, and other submitting to stay alive, then sure.

Gen 10:8
And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.


Imperial despotism began in the land of Shinar by that great and shining star Nimrod.

Nowadays people make buildings that reach heavens (sky). So, maybe God knew people could do that. But, I don't think it was then about reaching heavens.

Then what were the things which wouldn't be impossible for them, and why were those things so troubling?

Being only restrained by imagination, then totalitarianism would be needed to not only dominate the words and deeds, but also the imaginations of the people. Nimrod made the first spiritual cult on earth, as the power base of his personal empire.

The last great beast will accomplish the same thing over the earth before the LORD's return, and will do so with even more powerful through different languages, rather than only one.

Because of the LORD's supernatural work, Nimrod fell short. Which was because it was not time for Himself to come with power to destroy a true world cult empire. (Afterall, He had not yet come first to destroy all cultish imaginations by the gospel of the true God and Jesus Christ...)

2Co 10:4
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

What cult leaders attempt to do against the free will of people, in controlling their thoughts; Jesus Christ can do from within with the free will of His people.

[RBD]

[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.

Not everyone wears clothes. Anti-nudite.

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?

O ye of little faith...

[RBD]

[Replying to Mr E in post #32]

If you want to be a critic, you should strive to be an honest one. The text says "heavens" in English, but it says "sky" in Hebrew. We still call tall buildings skyscrapers to this day.

That raises another question. What would be the point of confusing people's language and scattering them across the world to stop them from building vast cities and skyscrapers when they would just learn each other's languages and build vast cities and skyscrapers anyway?

He didn't stop the building of cities and high buildings, but only that one tower built for an empire of personal cult.

Though there are cities and buildings with cults, no such city nor building is entirely a cult to itself. Certainly not the whole world. Yet.

Rev 13:7
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #40]

3. When Yahweh comes down to see the city and the tower which the people are building, on what basis does he assume that nothing will be impossible for them?

Necessary point here: Not nothing shall be impossible to them. But only restrained by their imagination.

In the text he actually says that "nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them", which means the same thing as being restrained only by their imagination.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #41]

Is that what the text says, or is it only your presumption? Why couldn't it have been to keep from losing the mutually beneficial cohesion of their community?

If you mean the 'mutual' benefit of one man having power, and other submitting to stay alive, then sure.

By what stretch of the imagination does mutual benefit mean one man having power?

Imperial despotism began in the land of Shinar by that great and shining star Nimrod.

Being only restrained by imagination, then totalitarianism would be needed to not only dominate the words and deeds, but also the imaginations of the people. Nimrod made the first spiritual cult on earth, as the power base of his personal empire.

"Nimrod appears in Genesis 10 — the Table of Nations, which traces the descendants of Noah's sons after the flood. The relevant passage, Genesis 10:8–12, reads in the standard translation:

"Cush begat Nimrod. He was the first to be a mighty man on earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord — therefore it is said, like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord. The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went to Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah — that is the great city.

"He also appears briefly in 1 Chronicles 1:10 in a genealogical list, and Micah 5:6 refers to Assyria as 'the land of Nimrod' — suggesting his association with Mesopotamia was sufficiently established to serve as a geographic shorthand by the time of the later prophets.

"That is essentially the entire biblical text. What it actually contains is remarkably sparse: a genealogy placing Nimrod as son of Cush son of Ham son of Noah, a description of him as a mighty hunter, a statement that he was the first mighty man on earth, a list of cities associated with the beginning of his kingdom in Mesopotamia, and an expansion of his territory into Assyria.

"What the text does not say is equally important. It does not say Nimrod built the Tower of Babel. It does not say he was wicked or that God condemned him. It does not describe him as rebellious against God. The phrase 'before the Lord' in describing his hunting is ambiguous in the Hebrew — it can mean in God's presence, with God's blessing, or in defiance of God, depending on how you read it. The rabbinical tradition read it one way. The plain text supports multiple readings.

"The association between Nimrod and the Tower of Babel — one of the most persistent elements of his mythology — is an inference, not a biblical statement. Genesis 11 immediately follows the Table of Nations with the Tower of Babel story, and Babel appears in Nimrod's list of cities, and later interpreters connected them. But the text itself does not make Nimrod the builder or instigator of the tower.

"Everything beyond these eleven verses is interpretation, elaboration, and invention — extraordinary quantities of all three, produced across three millennia and multiple civilizations."
https://share.google/UiGOQaLIaANz8a8OE

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #42]

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.

Not everyone wears clothes. Anti-nudite.

Is that really the best comeback you have?


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

O ye of little faith...

Do I have to quote Galileo's "sense, reason and intellect" line again?

[SiNcE_1985]

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?

It's more likely that this literally happened.

Next question.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #40]

3. When Yahweh comes down to see the city and the tower which the people are building, on what basis does he assume that nothing will be impossible for them?

Necessary point here: Not nothing shall be impossible to them. But only restrained by their imagination.

In the text he actually says that "nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them", which means the same thing as being restrained only by their imagination.

The only reason I object, is first for accuracy, but also to avoid contradicting Scripture, since the Bible teaches that only with God shall nothing be impossible:

Mat 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Luk 1:37
For with God nothing shall be impossible.


Since the builders of the tower were certainly building without God, then God would contradict Himself by saying nothing would be impossible to them...

So, of course, I was wondering of that were the intent of the retranslation...

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #41]

Is that what the text says, or is it only your presumption? Why couldn't it have been to keep from losing the mutually beneficial cohesion of their community?

If you mean the 'mutual' benefit of one man having power, and other submitting to stay alive, then sure.

By what stretch of the imagination does mutual benefit mean one man having power?

Context is how, not imagination. The same man having the imperial power was also having dissenters hunted down.

"That is essentially the entire biblical text. What it actually contains is remarkably sparse:

And sufficient to conclude the important facts and reasonable interpretation: Nimrod was the builder of the first empire beginning with Babel. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD. As in front of, and in His face. Not with with the LORD, but against His will. Which is certainly true of his tower building program.

a genealogy placing Nimrod as son of Cush son of Ham son of Noah, a description of him as a mighty hunter, a statement that he was the first mighty man on earth,

Not the first mighty man, since many were mighty men before the flood. He is the first mighty man recorded after the flood. Mighty being the LORD God Himself, or His mighty men of valor and faith.

Nimrod may have first been a mighty man of God, that then turned from the LORD to use his power for his own kingdom. King Saul would later do the same.

a list of cities associated with the beginning of his kingdom in Mesopotamia, and an expansion of his territory into Assyria.

Correct. His own kingdom as king first of Babel.

"What the text does not say is equally important. It does not say Nimrod built the Tower of Babel.

A great tower in Babel is not built without the great king of Babel. And no doubt the king used at will all the people he needed to build it, including those hunted down. Which would be the latter pattern of most great kinds of Mesopotamian.

It does not say he was wicked or that God condemned him.

The above is a reasonable teaching from the Scriptures we have, including as you say, what is not said of Nimrod in the record: That he was a servant of the LORD in his kingship. And of course Nimrod was a descendant of Ham, of whom nothing good ever came.

In any case, we do know the LORD was certainly against his tower building program.

It does not describe him as rebellious against God. The phrase 'before the Lord' in describing his hunting is ambiguous in the Hebrew — it can mean in God's presence, with God's blessing, or in defiance of God, depending on how you read it.

Correct.

Gen 4:16
And Cain went out from the presence H6440 of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

"The association between Nimrod and the Tower of Babel — one of the most persistent elements of his mythology — is an inference, not a biblical statement.

Some argue he was Gilgamesh.

"Everything beyond these eleven verses is interpretation, elaboration, and invention — extraordinary quantities of all three, produced across three millennia and multiple civilizations.[/i]"
https://share.google/UiGOQaLIaANz8a8OE

I stick to interpretation by the words and context. Your objection is flawed, as though the king of Babel had nothing to do with building the great tower of Babel, which the LORD came down to undo.

My interpretation is that Nimrod was one of the earlier great men in the presence of the Lord, along with Abel, Cain, Enoch, and Noah, who went the way of Cain from before the LORD, to stand against Him to His face.

Jde 1:11
Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

In his kingdom success, he would foreshadow Saul, Solomon, and the last great antichrist beast over all the inhabitants of the earth, before the risen LORD comes again. (For what it's worth, there can be a Scriptural case made for that great first beast of Rev 13,17, being Korah risen out of hell to live again on earth, and then cast alive into the lake of fire...)

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #42]

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.

Not everyone wears clothes. Anti-nudite.

Is that really the best comeback you have?

What? I'm supposed to make a serious answer to every foolish statement? I prefer making fun of it.

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

O ye of little faith...

Do I have to quote Galileo's "sense, reason and intellect" line again?

Get a sense of humor already.

Adam and Eve had already clothed themselves in the garden. Transgression is why souls die, not why people wear clothes. The LORD's wisdom and mercy showed them how to wear proper clothing...