Another Jaredite torpedo against the Book of Mormon ...

[_Canucklehead]

I addressed this in the other thread. It seems to have gone unanswered so I'll post it again here....

This actually might be some good evidence for a local flood. If Genesis 10:5 takes place before the tower of Babel, then the language confounded at the tower was the local language which makes more sense in the case of a local flood.

In that case, then we see other possible Hebrews usages for "all the earth" and "whole earth" ('erets ) comming into play. These could just as easily be the "whole district" or the "whole nation" etc.

Which local language do you hypothesise was suddenly split up into multiple incomprehensible offshoots by God because the people tried to build a tower too tall?

Even if you try to narrow the scope of the story (in contradiction to the the text of the story itself), you don't really gain much; it's still a ridiculously implausible tale for which there is no evidence. The history of the Book of Mormon still depends on the literal truth of a tale, the chances of which having occurred are infinitesimally small. Of course, this isn't really anything new then, is it?

[_bcspace]

Which local language do you hypothesise was suddenly split up into multiple incomprehensible offshoots by God because the people tried to build a tower too tall?

I don't.

Even if you try to narrow the scope of the story (in contradiction to the the text of the story itself), you don't really gain much; it's still a ridiculously implausible tale for which there is no evidence.

How do I not "gain"? How is it in contradiction?

The history of the Book of Mormon still depends on the literal truth of a tale,

No, it depends on the historicity of the tale, the details of which can be interpreted in different ways or are not known.

the chances of which having occurred are infinitesimally small.

Only an atheist would say that. Since I am not an atheist, that argument is a non sequitur.

Of course, this isn't really anything new then, is it?

Under the sun? No. But there is much yet to discover.

[_Canucklehead]

Which local language do you hypothesise was suddenly split up into multiple incomprehensible offshoots by God because the people tried to build a tower too tall?

I don't.

Ah, of course. I forgot the first rule of apologetics: one should never get pinned down by making statements which could actually be tested.

Even if you try to narrow the scope of the story (in contradiction to the the text of the story itself), you don't really gain much; it's still a ridiculously implausible tale for which there is no evidence.

How do I not "gain"? How is it in contradiction?

It's obvious how you'd "gain". A global tower of babel story is just as implausible as a global flood. Therefore, the scope of the story must be reduced to something akin to a "long time ago in a galaxy far, far away". If the details remain sufficiently fuzzy, ANYTHING is possible.

The history of the Book of Mormon still depends on the literal truth of a tale,

No, it depends on the historicity of the tale, the details of which can be interpreted in different ways or are not known.

As long as the details are fuzzy though, right?

the chances of which having occurred are infinitesimally small.

Only an atheist would say that. Since I am not an atheist, that argument is a non sequitur.

"Deux ex machina!" and the whole convoluted plot is saved! All is well; all is well.

Of course, this isn't really anything new then, is it?

Under the sun? No. But there is much yet to discover.

Ah, that perennial hope that "future evidence" will corroborate the most implausible of tales. So long as "there is much yet to discover", any statement, no matter how outlandish, can still be rescued.

[_bcspace]

Which local language do you hypothesise was suddenly split up into multiple incomprehensible offshoots by God because the people tried to build a tower too tall?

I don't.

Ah, of course. I forgot the first rule of apologetics: one should never get pinned down by making statements which could actually be tested.

Or, a true scientist might say "I don't know".

How do I not "gain"? How is it in contradiction?

It's obvious how you'd "gain". A global tower of babel story is just as implausible as a global flood.

So truth does not benefit all?

Therefore, the scope of the story must be reduced to something akin to a "long time ago in a galaxy far, far away". If the details remain sufficiently fuzzy, ANYTHING is possible.

Except that no one is reducing anything here. I'm simply pointing out some possibiliies. You won't address them because you know I am right about the Hebrew usage or have not the wit to debate it.

No, it depends on the historicity of the tale, the details of which can be interpreted in different ways or are not known.

As long as the details are fuzzy though, right?

Whether they are or aren't is not my doing.

Only an atheist would say that. Since I am not an atheist, that argument is a non sequitur.

"Deux ex machina!" and the whole convoluted plot is saved! All is well; all is well.

This is the crux of the matter. You have no way to refute what I've presented so you introduce a nonexistence of God hypothesis to untangle yourself.

[_Canucklehead]

"Defenders of the Tower of Babel myth" is actually a somewhat bizarre guise for LDS apologists to be wearing.

What is the "lesson" to be learned from the Tower of Babel? You have the Babylonians who desired to build a tower whose top would "reach unto heaven". This apparently worries God because, if they succeed, "nothing will be restrained from them"; therefore, in an effort to ensure the continued ignorance of his children, God scatters them and confounds their language. The obvious lesson to be learned is that one should know his place, remain in ignorance, and not presume to be able to understand the things of God. If one starts to question things that are beyond what you should be questioning, you will be attacked by the very God you are attempting to understand.

This is a great little piece of propaganda for keeping the rank and file in obeisance to the religious authorities of the time, but it seems to contradict the Mormon idea that God wishes to reveal himself to us and that we should educate ourselves and work out the mysteries of God.

The tale of the Tower of Babel is really one of the worst pieces of trash in the Bible - it reveals a petty, temperamental God: a God that cannot withstand the light of scrutiny. It is strange indeed to see Mormon apologists defending the tale. Of course, if Joseph Smith hadn't linked the historicity of the Book of Mormon to it, I'm sure that the entire story would be written off as another insertion of the wicked scribes and translators of the Bible.

[_Canucklehead]

"Deux ex machina!" and the whole convoluted plot is saved! All is well; all is well.

This is the crux of the matter. You have no way to refute what I've presented so you introduce a nonexistence of God hypothesis to untangle yourself.

LOL! You haven't presented anything to be refuted!!

All that you've stated is that the Tower of Babel must have taken place on a smaller, limited scale than what is suggested in the Bible. Rather than encompassing the entire world and all of the languages in it, you say that it must have just been a localised event (which you claim supports a local flood too). However, when asked which new languages were the result of this tale, you refused to answer.

You've presented nothing of substance for me to refute.

However, I like the way you've twisted the phrase "deux ex machina" around to claim as though it's the non-believers who must somehow untangle themselves in order to escape the (presumably??!) overwhelming evidence FOR the Tower of Babel myth.

[_bcspace]

"Defenders of the Tower of Babel myth" is actually a somewhat bizarre guise for LDS apologists to be wearing.

Why would an LDS apologist not accept the historicity of the Tower of Babel?

What is the "lesson" to be learned from the Tower of Babel? You have the Babylonians who desired to build a tower whose top would "reach unto heaven". This apparently worries God because, if they succeed, "nothing will be restrained from them"; therefore, in an effort to ensure the continued ignorance of his children, God scatters them and confounds their language. The obvious lesson to be learned is that one should know his place, remain in ignorance, and not presume to be able to understand the things of God. If one starts to question things that are beyond what you should be questioning, you will be attacked by the very God you are attempting to understand.

This is a great little piece of propaganda for keeping the rank and file in obeisance to the religious authorities of the time, but it seems to contradict the Mormon idea that God wishes to reveal himself to us and that we should educate ourselves and work out the mysteries of God.

Actually, the lesson is akin to Satan trying to exalt himself. The reality is that LDS are quite bold in the doctrine of theosis, accepting the words of Paul that it is not robbery to think that we can be equal with God because Jesus thought that way too (Philippians 2:5-6)

The tale of the Tower of Babel is really one of the worst pieces of trash in the Bible - it reveals a petty, temperamental God: a God that cannot withstand the light of scrutiny.

Perhaps it is us who cannot yet stand in His presence. Should one be driving a vehicle at age 8 or getting married at age 10?

Of course, if Joseph Smith hadn't linked the historicity of the Book of Mormon to it, I'm sure that the entire story would be written off as another insertion of the wicked scribes and translators of the Bible.

I doubt it.

See? You have already realized the futility of defending chap's hypothesis and are avoiding it altogether.

[_Canucklehead]

Of course, if Joseph Smith hadn't linked the historicity of the Book of Mormon to it, I'm sure that the entire story would be written off as another insertion of the wicked scribes and translators of the Bible.

I doubt it.

See? You have already realized the futility of defending chap's hypothesis and are avoiding it altogether.

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you've understood what I'm saying in the least (or what Chap is saying for that matter).

Chap is saying that the story of the Tower of Babel is entirely implausible, bordering on impossible, given what we have gleaned from archaeology, anthropology, etc.

You replied with a hypothesis that the Tower of Babel was a localised event (akin to the LGT of the Book of Mormon, or the localised flood hypothesis).

I replied that reducing the scope of the tale doesn't really help much because there is still no evidence that any such confounding of languages occurred. Indeed, given how languages evolve over time, it is possible to trace their origins and development, and I suspect that any competent linguist would find the Babel story risible, seeing as it proposes a sudden change in the languages of an entire civilisation.

I then added that the story is so ridiculous that apologists would probably not defend it at all, were it not for the fact that Joseph Smith hinged his book of scripture on its having actually occurred. Indeed, the tale of Babel is so ridiculous that I suspect that most apologists would probably prefer to have it ignored entirely.

So you see, I have not abandoned the original theme of this thread at all. I completely agree with the points that Chap made in his initial post.

[_bcspace]

Chap is saying that the story of the Tower of Babel is entirely implausible, bordering on impossible, given what we have gleaned from archaeology, anthropology, etc.

He's using a language argument. I've countered it and my counter remains unanswered.

I replied that reducing the scope of the tale doesn't really help much because there is still no evidence that any such confounding of languages occurred.

Doesn't need to be in terms of this debate and if it's relatively local the need receeds even further. Does the city of Troy not exist if it's not be found yet? That was the argument for many years before it was found.

So you see, I have not abandoned the original theme of this thread at all. I completely agree with the points that Chap made in his initial post.

You've not brought anything new to the table and chap has not responded yet in this thread or the other.

[_Chap]

bcspace's attempt to answer this thread is as pointless as his attempt to answer the other.

Get this - just like he argued that the story of Noah's flood has to be read as a local event (because I guess Hebrew eretz can mean 'territory' as well as 'earth' in the sense of 'all the earth') he is now setting out to save the sense of the Tower of Babel story by redefining it as a purely local event.

There is of course no motivation at all for these reinterpretations other than the hope that they might make Smith look less ludicrous for basing his Book of Mormon stories on a literal understanding of what he found in Genesis.

This is, according to bcspace, just 'a little local difficulty' in Genesis 11, and 'the earth' just means the local territory:

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there aconfound the blanguage of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Yeah right. bcspace's interpretation is really plausible, isn't it? Some people live together in a small local space ('the earth/territory') in which they all speak the same language. Then God is really upset when they build a tower, and he SCATTTERS them ... over ALL .... (wait for it) the small local space.

Does anybody out there find this remotely plausible? Remember that apart from the geographical silliness, all these people in a small area suddenly start speaking different languages!

Odd that the Jaredites end up being scattered all the way to America. It really does sound as though Smith read the story the same way as I do when he wrote the Book of Mormon, and not like bcspace at all, doesn't it?

I suppose this will develop into the usual sitzfleisch contest, in which bcspace makes an implausible argument, no-one pays any attention, and then he crows because he has not been answered.

Ho hum. One should never try to reason someone out of a position that they never reasoned their way into. And of course one does not argue these points to convert the committed, but for the benefit of the silent lookers on.

Somehow I doubt that bcspace is persuading any of those ...