Talk:Tower of Babel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

check if inspired

Turris Babel-Why the Tower Could Not Reach the Moon

— Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowForester (talk • contribs) 09:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucas van Valckenborch 1594 painting of the tower of Babel

Please notice the North American Geography embedded in painting. 702-480-6588 Matthew Thornton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.96.103 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

north america? no... that's asia with the cradle of mankind at its center. :\ 70.48.210.219 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Origins of Genesis ("... is a story told in the Book of Genesis of the Tanakh ...")

The Book of Genesis is actually of the Torah, not the Tanakh. For instance the Samaritan Pentateuch contains the same story but it, itself is not considered part of the Tanakh. Therefore I suggest replacing "of the Tanakh" with 'of the Torah' or something similar for the sake of provenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.167.113 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

contradiction in Wikipedia

There is a contradiction from Book of Deuteronomy over "here" to our article over "here" maybe PiCo can fix this. If I am making a mistake please tell me. Sadya goan (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm flattered at being mentioned, but can you specify what the contradiction is? PiCo (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

BCE vs BC, CE vs AD, a question of era

I recently changed BC to BCE in this article and was, then, reverted by The C of E, who insisted that I must first obtain consensus for this kind of change. Honestly, in this case, I fell like this is be a clear case of what is appropriate for this article. The Tower of Babel is a Jewish myth, albeit one that was influenced by other myths, and one that, subsequently, became part of Christianity and Islam. Most of the places in the article that use BC (or I think should use BCE) are about persons and events that have nothing to do with the Christian era, those that use AD (or I think should use CE) are not directly related to Christ. I propose to change BC to BCE, and AD to CE. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The issue is that the precedence is to use BC, if there was an issue about using it don't you think that this would have been changed ages ago? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. There is no overall 'precedence' for BC on Wikipedia. And in fact the fact that some editors have used BCE dates in the article shows that there is an issue. Doug Weller (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

But there is on this page and there was only 1 bce reference in the article before I changed it to BC to bring it into line with the rest of the article which was using BC. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can discuss how the BC/BCE usage within the artcle should be, going forward, rather than dwell on usage made in past? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ambivalent. It seems to me that this is an issue that needs to be addressed on a much wider basis. If Wikipedia is to remain coherent, then the conventions used should be consistent across ALL content and not to be set on article-by-article basis. FimusTauri (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. I can imagine that it might be difficult to define a suitable standard for all articles, like those that are generally about the Bible. My proposal, for now, is very modest and regarding this specific article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

FimusTauri, that would lead to continual edit warring, for a start. It was decided some time ago that it would be inappropriate to impose either era style on Wikipedia and that decisions had to be made article by article. I'm positive that that isn't going to change. User:The C of E, you are aware of our guideline and that it allows for change. I'm sure you would also prefer that all articles reflect a Creationist perspective but that's not going to happen. Please confine your arguments to why this particular article should be BC instead of BCE remembering that change is allowed. Doug Weller (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Etemenanki and Asimov

That part reads as though his hypothesis can be regarded as false by the literal translation of Babel, even though it sill primarily refers to the city: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Babel. The pun probably came later, seeing that the name is thousands of years older than the bible. Needs to be changed. 95.88.144.245 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2016(UTC)

Read Genesis 11:9 "That is why it was called Babel, because there the Lord confounded the speech of the whole earth." Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My Jewish Study Bible, p. 26, includes a footnote to the name "Babel" which reads "i.e. Babylon". Possibly not much help, but that's what it says. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted section: ==Usage in conlanging==

I deleted this entire section as the content did not correlate with the sources/links, and an image too obscured for nobility with article's main topic. Overall, I'm pointing out promotional attempt per WP:SPAM & WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also identifying the promotion, the links/sources were unreliable/not relating to the content displayed on the article. Another point-out of promotion, the image is related to the source used for the content: Conlang.org. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The image is used in the conlang Wikiproject template on a lot of talk paged. Sourced to a conlang mailing list. I do wonder if all of those articles are notable. Doug Weller talk 06:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe time has come to archive?

It looks like this page had 58 sections before this one I am adding here was included. Maybe the time has come for archiving? John Carter (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

On the Etymology of Babel

Currently, the article contains this: "Babel" means the "Gate of God", from Akkadian bab-ilu (𒁀𒀊 𒅋𒌋), "Gate of God" (from bab "gate" + ilu "god")." source: "Online Etymology Dictionary". Etymonline.com. Retrieved 2013-11-07. There's three problems here. First, the information given in the sentence goes beyond the information that can found found at the citation given. Second, the citation given does not constitute a reliable source by Wikipedia standards -- it's just one person's personal website, not something peer-reviewed or published through an academic press. It's a great website, and one I look at frequently for personal use, but still it's not a good source for etymology in terms of wp:rs standards. Third, the claim goes beyond what modern scholarship believes about the etymology of babel. Modern Assyriologists aren't sure where exactly babel / babylon / babil came from. The bab+ilu(m) explanation may or may not be correct. I'll rewrite this sentence with a new academic reference to reflect his.Alephb (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Rude and Disrespectful

This article said in the lead that God viewed the tower-building project as "rude and disrespectful," and implied that this was the reason he derailed the project. If God was thinking this, this wasn't disclosed in the Tower of Babel story. So given that it was an uncited explanation of God's inner undisclosed thoughts, I removed the phrase.Alephb (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Good sir, I restored it and cited Dante's Purgatorio, which I believe is an insufficient source. You may remove it again if you like, I'll be glad. 112.211.196.151 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted. Dante is not a wp:reliable source on Ancient Near Eastern origin myths.Alephb (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Breughel's hidden face in the Tower of Babel.

This is purely subjective, but.... If you look straight on at the Breughel painting, the unconstructed bits look just that. However, if you look at the centre bit at 45 degrees, either way, and at a little more distance, the details of construction are blurred, and a face and crown emerges. Is this about the burial of Nebuchanezzar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.12.72 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Plato / Stanford.edu "Cosmopolitanism"

Here is a reference not added to support the anti-cosmopolitanism remark, as the article of Cosmopolitanism does not go far back enough to express the city-level.

Link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism/ Twillisjr (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I take your point, but we’d need some sources meeting WP:RS discussing the Tower of Babel to use your edit. Doug Weller talk 21:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

What is seen when typing a Google search for "Tower of Babel bible"

Old text: In the Biblical introduction of the Tower of Babel account, in Genesis 11:1, it is said that everyone on Earth spoke the same language, but this is inconsistent with the Biblical description of the post-Noahic world described in Genesis 10:5, where it is said that the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth gave rise...

New text: According to the Bible, language barriers were set up by God, at the time of the Tower of Babel. In Genesis 11, we read how the world spoke the same language, and God confused the languages. The Tower happened after the Flood. In Genesis 10, it is written that one of Noah's sons, Ham, had a son Cush, and he had a son Nimrod, and Babel was one of the cities of Nimrod.

Comment: the result of a Google search should not automatically pop up with someone's opinion that the Bible has inconsistencies (even if the someone is highly respected). As I read through the lengthy article, it was interesting to see how other cultures have the Tower story blended into their early histories. All I am saying is that the first thing that someone who Googles "Tower of Babel bible" sees should not be an opinion that the Bible has inconsistencies, and that this is one of them. Connie Buller (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)(this is the first time I have written to you, so I may not have followed guidelines in closing my comments with my identifiers. I truly have appreciated Wikipedia.Connie Buller (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)<Genesis 11></Genesis 10>

Cittion

In the references section, does anyone have any idea what the non-working "Cittion" template is there for? Alephb (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, it was a misspelled "citation"; fixed. —PaleoNeonate – 06:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Although most Christians

In relation to this: this is only true for a minority of Christians today. —PaleoNeonate – 15:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Tower height and “ to reach heaven”

While to it is not the consensus, it was a suggestion of a scholar, and thus this article shouldn’t invlude “ tall enough” as if that viewpoint is inplausible, when it might be. This article is unfair towards that viewpoint, and thus hinders scholarship.112.211.202.107 (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

What you would need to do, first of all, is find the book or article where the scholar makes that point. Then we could work out how significant that opinion is and go from there. Alephb (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Nimrod in another story?

It says that no one can successfully match Nimrod to a real king, but it doesn't mention trying to match him to a mythology. I believe that Gilgamesh was a powerful king right after a great flood, maybe there is a connection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:EE8B:9600:DD83:F4F9:1104:36F0 (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has run its course and even beyond and there's no objection. I merged the pages and did minor cleanup although still more cleanup is needed to streamline the whole content. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Editor2020 tagged the Confusion of tongues article and this one for merger but did not place a merger discussion on this page. The confusion of tongues article is shorter (4,358 bytes), lower-quality (start class), has few edits overall (209) and in the last year (13), and has far fewer views (2,510 in the last 60 days). The Tower of Babel article is longer (50,289 bytes), higher-quality (C class), has more edits overall (3,632) and in the last year (343), and has far more views (158,659 in the last 60 days). The articles cover the same Biblical verse (Genesis 11:1–9) and its interpretations. Merging the scholarly interpretations from that article into this one and redirecting here appears both feasible and compliant with WP:MERGE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 19:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree

• Support - The confusion of tongues story is part of the tower of Babel story; to warrant a separate article there would need to be so much material that it should not be in the main Babel story article. —PaleoNeonate – 01:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The Confusion of Tongues article seems redundant. Alephb (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Doug Weller talk 14:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Disagree

Neutral

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Historiciity

I was quite surprised to see there is no discussion in the article about the tower's historicity. I have added a few lines but I think this should be expanded, perhaps we could get some views of mythicists?ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion

The word myth includes the meaning: "a widely held but false belief." Wikipedia has generally avoided presumptive conclusions. More than a "small fraction" of people are Christian and more than a few of these believe the account to be historical. Obviously it would be equally presumptive for Wikipedia to make pronouncements on the inspiration of the biblical record except in so far as it might be stated as something many believe. Anyway, it seems to me out of character for Wikipedia to presume a position of arbitrator over such questions. Since there is no proof the event did not occur, nor is there any substantial physical evidence to establish that it did, I suggest the article include a more faith friendly statement acknowledging that many take the story as historical while others believe it is a myth.

71.198.238.84 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Dr. Jerry Scheidbach, (Doctor of Theological Studies)

In the academic sense, "myth" means a sacred story in which the truth value is philosophical, moral, or whatnot; with no commentary on its historicity or lack thereof. For this reason, C.S. Lewis referred to the life of Jesus as a myth that is also true.

The common misunderstanding of the word "myth" doesn't matter. An encyclopedia should not bow to the ignorance of the hoi polloi, but try to raise them out of it.

Also, there is no proof the event did not occur is generally a terrible argument when dealing with history. As a fellow Christian, I have to advise you that you're really handing atheists ammunition by saying that.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. That's why credentials are irrelevant here and we stick to cited professionally-published mainstream academic sources.

Signed, Pope Ian.thomson (talk) the first, M.D.H, N.D., on 18:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, a real pope. I never knew, Ian. John from Idegon (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC) LSMFT

I always wondered if the US Navy had a landing craft designated LSD-25. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Can the article reference aerial archeology using photographs show the area where the tower of babel stood?

Can the article mention that aerial archeology using photographs taken by the Russian Soyuz rocket from space show the area where the Tower of Babel stood? SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_Discovery The Discovery Civilization channel documentary on King Nebuchadnezzar - The Mystery Of Babylon --Billgdiaz (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)BD

No, as even if the story was about a real ziggurat, no one knows which. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

the legend of the Persian builder king, Kyamour,

== the legend of the Persian builder king, Kyamour, == [[Category:“ A legend assures that a Persian king, called Kyamour, or Keytaous*, reigning over Iraq, would have built a gigantic tower (probably the tower of Babel) designed to defy the Almighty. The latter, magnanimous, would have simply imprisoned the monarch for a minute. Freed by the equally legendary Rostam, this Kyamour or Keytaous, voluntarily exiled to the east, founded the city of Balkh.”

• “foundation of Balkh is considered mythically ascribed to Keyumars, the first king of the world”]]

<references /https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkh#History https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkh> --Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC) --Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC) --Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC) --Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your, comment, Kiss. I'm guessing you're saying we should include a mention of Kyamour on this page. If so, we'd need to see a reliable source (WP:RS) that makes that connection. We can't use other Wikipedia pages as a source, because if Wikipedia can cite itself it would be hard to make sure our facts are correct. Alephb (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2017 - (this edit helps to remove bias either for or against the validity of the narrative)

Change this:

    is an origin myth meant to explain why 

To this:

is an account of why

BGriswold7529 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@BGriswold7529:  Not done. The word "myth" does not mean "lie" so its use is not to make readers biased to disbelieve the story. Your change, however, would make readers biased. It would be stating for a fact that the story happened, so readers would be biased to believe it even though nobody knows whether it actually happened or not. CityOfSilver 17:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

...

Even if some meanings of the word "myth" are not explicitly refer to fiction or 'lie', at least one does: "an unfounded or false notion". In fact, this is an extremely common use of the word "myth" in everyday conversation: for example, "10 myths about the word 'myth'" (See, for example, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth ) At the very least, it is not adequately respectful of the deeply-held beliefs of probably more than half the world's population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.31.131 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

New category needs to be added to this article

Sorry, but this is not MYTH, and calling it myth is inaccurate and (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/articles_babel.html), you have one supported author who isn't a respected scholar dominating the view of this "historical event". All Myth statements need to be removed, and create a new myth section for the minority of people who believe its myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.67.38.10 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't use random websites as a source on Wikipedia. You'll need to see the policy WP:BLOGS about that. Alephb (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

And I don't know who the author you mention as not being respected is, but your source is by an ex-firefighter turned project manager and field engineer who runs his own website.[1] Absolutely useless for Wikipedia. It's a classical origin myth and we can find numerous academic sources to back that. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"myth"

a myth is delivered by word of mouth, without getting too technical, this is a legend.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.99.223 (talk • contribs) aka User:Lostubes

No, that's not right. See Myth and Legend. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Different wording should be used. The word myth generally implies "definitely false." Different wording should be used so people don't think that there's no way the event happened. Primal Groudon (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrong, see main article Myth. "Myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests or priestesses, and are closely linked to religion or spirituality. In fact, many societies group their myths, legends and history together, considering myths and legends to be true accounts of their remote past. In particular, creation myths take place in a primordial age when the world had not achieved its later form. Other myths explain how a society's customs, institutions and taboos were established and sanctified. There is a complex relationship between recital of myths and enactment of rituals." Dimadick (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a category page template, "Mythology note" that also addresses this misconception about what the word myth means in a scholarly context:

I added the template to the "Myth of origins" category this article is listed in. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

What 'The word myth generally implies "definitely false."' means is when people hear 'myth," they usually think of "untrue," because the word "myth" has several definitions and the most famous definition is "falsehood." Primal Groudon (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not the scholarly definition, though, nor is it the first one. If anyone has a misconception about what the word means, the goal should be to inform them, not to give in to the misunderstanding. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of our well-reasoned opinions, as editors, our opinions don't matter. If reliable authoritative sources call it a legend, then so must WP. If sources call it a myth, then so must WP. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Primal Groudon: I suggest you go and argue for the deletion of Christian mythology and Jewish mythology then. If you can do that then come back here and let us know. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Oops, you can't fix a ping, but thanks. ou have to star over. @Primal Groudon: Doug Weller talk 14:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Fictional towers category

Is it really necessary when there's already Biblical and Mythological places categories it can fit into? A problem with having this here is that it sets a precedent that every mythological article should now be added to its respective fictional category. Like adding Yggdrasil, Zaqqum, etc to Category:Fictional trees for example. Removing it would be less of a hassle than doing the same for every single mythology page which would take ages, when an easier alternative would be to add (as an example) the mythical trees category to the fictional trees category or simply sticking with using the two already suitable categories I mentioned first (although if a bot can be set up, then by all means). Also, the fictional towers category only has three pages and one sub-category which is mostly full of redirects leading back to one article. -- BraveNewWorld21 (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "fictional towers" even means as a category. "Fiction" is a literary genre and while it is possible to read the Bible in the context of such a genre, it is also far from the only one it fits into (note that we do not have a category for Category:Poetic towers). jps (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

One would say the false Gods existed just before the flood so we could say those aren't myths however that has no evidence however the Tower does have evidence http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141505 Logawinner (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Israelnationalnews.com does not seem to be a particularly reliable source for this contention. jps (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

Under Comparable Myths, change Africa to Botswana because there is only one comparable myth in Africa, and it refers to people living near Lake Ngami, Botswana. The rest of the section uses specific countries or cultures, so it is inconsistent to just use Africa instead of the country where the comparable myth comes from. H1212K (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Good point. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

False: "This article is about the Biblical myth"

There is no science that proves that the Tower or Babel being the beginning of language, is a myth. There is no science that proves that the Bible is a myth.

The intro statement to this article: "This article is about the Biblical myth" is not neutral and is false until scientifically proven otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C920:9880:806F:2E46:963C:E026 (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The intro talks about origin myths and has several citations. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

We call a traditional story a myth when it's demonstrably false or when it seems fantastical and we have no reason to believe its truth.

For an assertion X, the idea that there's an obligation to produce science showing that there is no science to support X before we say "There is no science to support X" is a absurdity. If there's no science, there's no science.

There is no science to support the truth of the Babel story. We do not need to show science showing the absence of science to support the truth of the Babel story before we can say "There is no science to support the truth of the Babel story," i.e., before we can identify the Babel story as a myth. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Science can't prove a negative in any case. (And we do have plenty of science to show what the origins of various languages are and that they have nothing to do with any confusion of tongues :-) ) --bonadea contributions talk 16:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between Genesis 10 and Genesis 11

It's quite obvious to anyone with a brain that the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11 is simply written out of order, and it gives a specific narrative relating to the division of languages. That is, the Tower of Babel happened before the overarching theme of the spreading out of nations described in Genesis 10. The division of the Bible into chapters is a late addition and has nothing to do with chronological order of events. Please remove all references to a possible "contradiction" from this article; it's embarrassing for the Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:54C8:EC00:E47F:34CD:8375:DF3D (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

WP follows sources, not editors' opinions, however "obvious". If WP:Reliable sources are presented here that support this, then the article will (indeed must) be changed accordingly. Lacking that, no change can be expected. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2020

The subheading 'Biblical Account' under 'Confusion of Tongues' states that a contradiction exists between Genesis 10:5 and 11:1, but the reference [37] given explicitly states the opposite. Removal of subheading? 2600:1702:35F0:B980:65C5:4C94:403:E0F6 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. But we don't have to make the same mistake as the author of that source and say there's no conflict: There's a difference between explaining an apparent conflict and there not being a conflict. (The same author writes that the Sabbatarians have no evidence for their view of the historicity of the Sabbath, when, yes, they do have evidence, despite the author's offer of counterevidence. The author conflates "I've countered your evidence" with "you have no evidence".)

I guess we could put "apparent" in front of "contradiction", but then it would also make sense to amplify the section by explaining here the manner in which this apparent contradiction is explained (and this source isn't the only provider of this explanation). Largoplazo (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. edit requests are intended to correct obvious errors and not for larger discussion. Looking into the text and the source given, it is apparent that Largoplazo is correct and more than this simple change is needed. I will start a separate discussion below. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Confusion of tongues" section

Although I closed the edit request above without changes, the anonymous editor above and Largoplazo both have good points above. This section could stand some improvement. Firstly, having a two-sentence subsection makes no sense. There is no good reason to separate the biblical account and the interpretation of that account if phrasing that account takes such a short statement. Secondly, the source given is an article on a Christian apologist web site that explains away the apparent contradiction and should not be used to support the statement that a contradiction exists. The source is also of doubtful reliability for the reasons Largoplazo gives above. Akrasia25 apparently added this reference in a good-faith effort to replace and earlier citation needed tag but a better source should be found.

I therefore propose the following change:

Confusion of tongues

This article is about the origin myth. For the film, see The Confusion of Tongues.

[[File:Confusion of Tongues.png|thumb|''The Confusion of Tongues'' by [[Gustave Doré]], a [[woodcut]] depicting the Tower of Babel]]

The confusion of tongues (confusio linguarum) is the origin myth for the fragmentation of human languages described in the Genesis 11:1–9, as a result of the construction of the Tower of Babel. Prior to this event, humanity was stated to speak a single language. The preceding Genesis 10:5 states that the decedents of Japheth dispersed "with their own tongues," creating an apparent contradiction. Scholars have been debating or explaining this apparent contradiction for centuries.

During the Middle Ages, the Hebrew language was widely considered the language used by God to address Adam in Paradise, and by Adam as lawgiver (the Adamic language) by various Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholastics. ...

References

Please comment below on this proposed change. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I do agree that the currently-cited source doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as the source is trying to argue against what's found in the Wikipedia article. Not to mention that the source itself really isn't the best source to begin with.

Though I do agree with what the anonymous editors said above: there's obviously no contradiction in the biblical account. Genesis 10 is a genealogy, not part of the narrative. The narrative skips from Genesis 9 directly to Genesis 11 without stating how much time or how many generations had passed, though it does state that the people were "of one tongue", thus indicating that it occurred before the sons of Japheth dispersed "according to his tongue".

I likewise don't agree with the use of the phrase "origin myth", as it's not clear that the confusion of tongues even is "myth" (as opposed to legend or history). The Bible presents it as history. Seeing as Wikipedia isn't the place for opinion or speculation, the article's wording certainly shouldn't favor a mythic interpretation over a historical one.

Regarding the suggested edit, I'd change the wording a little (the passive voice sounds awkward and a little confusing). How about: "[. . .] The text (Genesis 11:1) states that humanity spoke a single language prior to the confusion of tongues. Some take this verse to be in contradiction with the preceding chapter, Genesis 10:5, which states that the descendants of Japheth each dispersed with their own tongues. Scholars have been debating or explaining this apparent contradiction for centuries. [. . .]".

Second, have scholars actually debated this "apparent contradiction" for centuries? I don't have access to the cited Louth book, but is that what the book says or is that your paraphrase? I am aware that religious scholars have commented upon (and debated) the book of Genesis for centuries, but I'm not aware that people have historically seen a contradiction in these two verses. 2601:49:C301:D810:656C:8D1A:AA16:EA40 (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"Origin myth" is not the issue here. That a "confusion of tongues" is not historical or factual is not a matter of opinion or speculation, and Wikipedia can't propose that a provably mythical or fictional story could be factual. --bonadea contributions talk 15:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

We know much more today about the origins of the Hebrews, of language (and its developments throughout history), of humans and other animals, of the Earth, Solar System and universe, than was ever possible then, so yes there is a lot of evidence against it. "Myth" is also consistent with a traditional narrative of a people. —PaleoNeonate – 11:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You said it better than I did, @PaleoNeonate:. It frankly astonishes me that there are people who believe that the account could possibly be historical – this article talk page is the only place I have ever encountered that particular delusion, tbh. --bonadea contributions talk 18:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I had the University pull the chapter of Louth that covers this source and yes it has been debated for centuries. The book pulls together original writings of ancient Christian apologists for various topics in Genesis. The contradiction is debated by Augustine of Hippo who explains that maybe it was a jump forward and jump back in the story ("without mentioning it"). So sloppy editing in Genesis.

Augustine writes,

"Without a doubt this contradicts the words used above 'according to their tribes and tongues' For, each single tribe that had formed individual nations would not be said to have had its own tongue when there was a common one for all"..."--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

What gets me is that, since the same text tells us that the text was dictated to Moses by God, proponents of this explanation implicitly accept that God is a sloppy story teller. Largoplazo (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to read the above as a positive talk page consensus for the change I proposed. The only objection I see is to the "for centuries" formulation and Akrasia25 has verfied my source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

In case I didn't say so before, it works for me. Thanks for pursuing this. Largoplazo (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Me too, That Louth book seems to have a lot of good stuff in it. People have been trying to figure out what the editor was doing for centuries--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Eastward

is defined as moving toward the east (not from it, as this article presents) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosetwitcher (talk • contribs) 15:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right, and it's silly to explain the word anyway: it's an ordinary word in everyday language. The Genesis passage says "eastward", so I left that in the article and removed the parenthetical. Largoplazo (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

change:

Biblical narrative

German Late Medieval (c. 1370s) depiction of the construction of the tower

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 confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

— Genesis 11:1–9

to

   <

Biblical narrative-

Genesis 11:1-9 [Life Application Study Bible (New International Version)]

1. Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
2. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
3. They said to eachother, "Come let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used bricks instead of stone, and tar for mortar.
4. 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 and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.
5. But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.
6. 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.
7. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so that they will not understand each other."
8. So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.
9. 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

Add the following source as a reference:

Life Application Study Bible 2005 (New International Version) Tyndale House Publishers, Inc, Wheaton, IL

Note for those considering implimentation of this edit:

This source was developed after widespread agreement on the need for a new translation of the bible in contemporary English.
The source (and all publications of "(New International Version)") is a version that has been revised by an international team of scholars.
They were from many denominations to help safeguard the translation from sectarian bias. Nayt86 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There is no preferred translation for bible quotes and there is no significant difference in meaning between the two passages. The only difference in comprehension is substitution of "tar" for "slime". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Does Hanging Gardens count?

I am thinking whether Hanging Gardens could be counted or not Can you please tell? Kohcohf (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Counted as what? Largoplazo (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2020

Replace Biblical myth with Biblical story DualOpAmp (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done: Please read the page more closely. It does not say "biblical myth" it says "origin myth". An origin myth is a story told to explain some feature of society or the natural world, which is a well-supported description of the Tower of Babel story. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

this article states, “ Biblical scholars see the Book of Genesis as mythological and not as a historical account of events.” This is not true! To be sure, SOME Biblical scholars hold this view, but there are many many more who indeed DO believe the Bible is a reliable historical account. This line should read, “Some Biblical scholars see the Book of Genesis...” 2601:246:CF00:10:4CC3:F10F:891E:D809 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are several articles from scholars that would hold differing views from the one presented. Not "all" Biblical scholars hold a mythological view. Updating it to say "some" actually clarifies that this is still a debated topic among scholars. Lgramling (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Fundamentalists like Answers in Genesis are not debating anything. However firmly and genuinely held their beliefs are, they are engaged in proselytizing and justification, not anything that remotely resembles scholarly debate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

Why are all the religious stories referred to as "origin myths"? "Myth" implies that they are untrue and Greek myths and Roman myths are very different from actual religions. For stories of a religious nature, why not use "origin story"? change "origin myths" to "origin story" in all religious mentions. 40.133.164.27 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Origin myth is the term used by scholars to describe stories such as this, which are present in all world cultures. Roman and Greek myth were most certainly part of well-defined religions. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point-of-view and does not endorse any religious groups self-views on their canon. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Just pointing out, the very terminology isn't exactly "neutral". It was more or less coined by academics in "religious studies", and reflects only their jargon and opinion. But if every relevant scholar's opinion were considered, there'd be no consensus with regard to terminology nor with regard to whether or not these stories ought to be classed as "myths". The reason that there is a consensus, is because you're arbitrarily favouring the majority opinion of one particular subset of scholars: those who work in academia in the field of "religious studies". The opinions of other relevant scholars, such as those who work outside of academia or those who specialize in "Christian theology" (rather than "religious studies") are ignored or rejected upfront. But in doing so, you basically throw out all contrary opinion. It's expected that scholars of "religious studies" would agree that these stories are myths, because one of the main tenets of their discipline is to treat all the religions as if they were on equal footing. Without this tenet though, there's a wider range of opinion. If Christianity is not on the same footing as the other religions, then there's no need to place the Christian stories in the same category as the "myths".

(Coincidentally, this is why the field of "religious studies" is overwhelmingly dominated by atheists, agnostics, non-religious, and religious liberals. The field's very background assumptions are at odds with orthodox Christianity from the get go, so most orthodox and conservative Christians would rather not waste their time. And many of them have no intention of becoming career academics, but study "theology" only in preparation for their religious work. But the few who do seek academic careers within in field of "religious studies" are in the minority among a vast non-Christian majority.)

But besides all this, I am not even sure that the term "myth" is clearly defined. Some orthodox Christians would have little to no problem classing these stories as "myth", but they would have a problem classifying these stories as "mere myth", "non-historical myth", or even in the same class of myth as all the other myths. 2601:49:C301:D810:1033:DC37:F8FD:61F2 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Confusion of Tongues Section

The current wording of the first paragraph of the "Confusion of tongues" section seems to indicate that there is no scholarly consensus on the resolution of the apparent contradiction in Genesis 10:5 and Genesis 11:1-8. However, the cited reference, as far as I can tell from the previous sections of this talk page (not having access to the reference myself), just mentions a church father who explained this apparent contradiction as that the story in Genesis 11 jumps back in time after the genealogy in chapter 10 which encompasses several generations, similar to how a history textbook might give a summary of a certain era in history before sharing specific stories from within that era.

Moreover, citing from some sources I do own:

"Most commentators agree that the difficulty occurs because the two episodes are not arranged in chronological order (see Mathews 1996, 428). From a chronological perspective, Gen 10:1–32 should come after Gen 11:1–9. There is general agreement that the Table of Nations was placed before the Tower of Babel account for literary or thematic reasons." (Mangum, D., Custis, M., & Widder, W. (2012). Genesis 1–11 (Ge 10:1–32). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.)

Furthermore, "The different languages of verse 5 probably look forward to the time after the tower of Babel (11:1–9)." (MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (p. 45). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.)

And, "The dispersion of the nations “according to . . . language” (v. 5) took place after Babel (ch. 11) all along these coasts as well as elsewhere." (Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Ge 10:1). Galaxie Software.)

I suggest replacing the last sentence of that first paragraph with, "However, most scholars agree that the two chapters are not arranged in chronological order." (unless counter examples of reputable sources mentioning this as a contradiction can be found, in which case the two positions should be explained). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhanGressman (talk • contribs) 05:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

CHANGE: migrating eastward TO: migrating westward--Carrie9833 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Carrie9833 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Genesis 11:2. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2021

Edit for valid facts. ME21234 (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC) The Tower of Babel (Hebrew: מִגְדַּל בָּבֶל‎‎, Migdal Bavel) narrative in Genesis 11:1–9. They decided to build a tower which was to reach to heaven, to make them equal to G‑d, and at the same time, to make it possible for them to stay together. This symbol of their divine strength, as they thought, was to be built in the valley of the Land of Shinear:

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Origin myth - needs a new section

when it was removed the first time I didn’t replace it because I realised it was unsourced. Tonight I saw that a sourced version had been removed by an IP. I’ve restored that but we need to enlarge on it with a new section on it. 21:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 21:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"Confusion of tongues", where you posted also, should probably be linked in the lede in conjunction with this idea.

It may not be optimal to link origin myth in the first sentence since, although the tower of Babel story can certainly be classified as an origin myth, I wonder if this might not be its most essential aspect. Consider the comparative mythology section, giving some similar stories about towers which aren't necessarily origin myths. And consider that confusion of tongues is an important aspect of the story but perhaps not provably its sole purpose or meaning. For example the section on midrashic interpretation doesn't talk about language. For this reason the first sentence should probably be more basic and descriptive.

I very much agree. "The Tower of Babel... is an origin myth meant to explain why the world's peoples speak different languages" is the current first sentence. This trivializes the whole article, denying any religious, theological, or philosphical content of the story. CSMR (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:eggishorn you undid my edit here. This was not a unilateral change but discussed here and now "Confusion of tongues" has it's own section along the lines of the comment below by User:Groupuscule. However if you want to disucuss this before changing please do so. Are there any arguments in favour of the original sentence "The Tower of Babel... is an origin myth meant to explain why the world's peoples speak different languages"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSMR (talk • contribs) 09:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That being said I agree that it would be interesting and worthwhile to develop the concept of "origin myth" in the context of this article. Mr. Weller, do you have a sense of what sources would usefully expound upon that topic? groupuscule (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

To me, the Tower of Babel is a part of the larger episode of the Genesis 11 narrative, and looking at the size of this article, I really think this should have a narrower focus. I.e., what is the Tower of Babel according to religious tradition and modern historical assessment? I think it's fine to mention that it is a part of the etiological myth about language, but I really think the tower itself should be the focus of this article, and the "confusion of tongues" have its own as well. Cgill1138 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Estonian myth of the Cooking of Languages

'The Estonian myth of "the Cooking of Languages"[46] has also been compared.'

I assume that "Kohl, Reisen in die 'Ostseeprovinzen, ii. 251–255" refers to "Die Deutsch-Russischen Ostseeprovinzen, oder Natur- und Völkerleben in Kur-, Liv- und Esthland". Would someone be able to locate a more precise reference, to better explain this sentence? A cursory glance of pages 251-255 of an online copy of this text [[http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/permalink/f/89vilt/oxfaleph014158040 ]] does not reveal a direct reference to Babel. However, I have not checked further within the text; nor can I find a second volume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.92 (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Author bias

"Biblical scholars see the Book of Genesis as mythological and not as a historical account of events" implies that people who believe in the historicity of the Book of Genesis cannot, by definition, be scholars. This is obviously false. The sentence also contributes no apparent value to the article. I suggest it be removed. If there is compelling reason to keep it, then add the word "Some" at the beginning. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 21:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Some" would make the sentence very misleading indeed. --bonadea contributions talk 21:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

An alternative could be: "The Book of Genesis is mythological and not a historical account of events" in the spirit of WP:YESPOV. Adding "Some" would erroneously pretend that only some consider it as such. "Most" may be appropriate, or "Modern biblical scholars", etc... Among those alternatives, the existing sentence may already be the best compromise. —PaleoNeonate – 06:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "Most" would be appropriate here, since the view that Genesis is a historical account is a fringe view held by a tiny minority of scholars (if any). --bonadea contributions talk 08:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As belief in its historicity would require someone to defend the historicity of characters like Abraham and Joseph, is there anyone other than a hardcore believer in Biblical literalism that actually supports this? Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No because I believe it is real and so do most Christians and here is proof http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141505. Most scholars aren't scholars because they have to read the whole Bible. For example In Jonah's story it says sea monster not whale so proving that wrong proved nothing wrong with the Bible some animals like the Leviathan which there is no evidence for or against other than a random creator from a voyage to the bottom of the Marrianna Trench saw a disk shaped object and from fear and disbelief didn't say anything about it afterwards. You must look for evidence that is real evidence before you say things. Prove all things the Bible when it comes to the Bible prove it. Do not state something you can't prove. I proved this can you prove that? No you can only disprove yourself. Logawinner (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

What I see in the Israel National News article is a discussion of a structure that, the article says, might not even have been a tower, yet somehow they know that it was the Tower of Babel? Did they find a sign in ancient Babylonian reading "Welcome to the Tower of Babel"? The part about Nebuchadnezzar II tells us, at most, that that Nebuchadnezzar II believed it had been real. It isn't evidence that it had been, no more than Renaissance paintings of the tower are. Largoplazo (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

As my edits show, I am in favor of "some". The reference cited does not indicate that all biblical scholars see the book of Genesis as mythological, only that Levenson thinks it is silly to think otherwise. Readingwords (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

But "some" means that it is not even a majority view, which would be misleading to the point of outright deception. As discussed above, "most" would not be appropriate either – it would be like saying "most scholars of geology believe that the world is round". Wikipedia does not pander to extreme fringe views. --bonadea contributions talk 10:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

Change “myth” to “account”. Tru2Him (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please seek consensus for a change like this before requesting an edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

Change "myth" to "story". The current language discriminates against the Christian community. 2600:1702:7A0:8C20:CC07:1EB3:B4:FCE9 (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See discussions and answers above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)