1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.As we saw last time, in Genesis 10, people were divided into various nations with their own languages. Now all of a sudden they aren't after all. The logic of the proposition here is mysterious -- why will they be scattered if they don't build a tower that reaches to the heavens? In any event, obviously, a tower can't reach to the heavens. Shinar (Babylon) is on the Euphrates river southwest of modern Baghdad, not far above sea level. The people were well aware of the existence of mountains, as the story of the ark tells us, so they know that heaven must be a hell of a lot (sorry about that) higher than anything they can build. Nowadays, we know that it doesn't actually exist, that you can just keep going up forever. Oh well.
3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick 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; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people 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 they will not understand each other.”
Hmm. It seems God couldn't see the tower from wherever he was sitting. Also, God is evidently plural. (It's not a royal "us," this is in all translations.) He or they is worried that they'll build a tower that can reach him or them? And the way to stop it is to make them speak various languages? That's just silly. People kept on building towers after that, and they kept getting higher and higher. Once we figured out how to make steel framed buildings in the 19th Century, well . . .
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.
This is a silly pun -- the name of Babylon sounds like the Hebrew word babel, which means confused. Babylon actually means "gate of the gods." But of course the city of Babylon did get built, and its ruins are still there. Mythically, the city did have a tower, the so-called Hanging Gardens of Babylon, but if it existed, its ruins have not been found. There was a structure corresponding to the description in Nineveh, built by Sennacharib. Nineveh is further north, near modern Mosul. But this sort of muddle is commonplace in the Bible. Some archaeology corresponds partially to some of it, some contradicts it entirely, and some is just a mess.
But again, I have to ask, what is the point of this nonsensical story? What lesson are we supposed to draw from it? As I say, Jews and Christians certainly didn't stop building towers, people communicated when necessary with the aid of bilingual translators, and nowadays we even have machines that can translate pretty well. Is that against the will of God? He doesn't seem to be doing anything about it.
10 comments:
Having grown up Jewish, it somehow, yet, didn't "stick" and I don't practice. There are so many religions, but I think there is a special place in hell for Christianity. I've asked myself if I feel this way because of bias due to the Holocaust. But it seems Christianity is responsible ultimately for more deaths than any other religion, and it seems that while there are many good Christian people, there are lots of horrible ones and many proselytizing ones. There are rotten people of all faiths. So what makes someone truly Christian or Jewish or Zoroastrian or Buddhist, etc.? I think it doesn't matter. Organized religion stinks. People are people Some religions work better than others but Christianity is a mess of rehashed pagan stories and faiths. Any religion or political belief would work like a charm if it were practice by men with hears of gold. And therein lies the problem.
Let's hand over control of the world to women. All in all, they'll do a better job.
Let's hand over control of the world to women. All in all, they'll do a better job.
And how is this not sexism??
Your reasoning is specious, GBB. It's called an opinion, and the opinion is based on deduction. You're a male (as far as we know). You don't know what it's like to carry a child or give birth. If you did, you probably wouldn't send the child to war. Women are more likely to avoid war than men. Women are also less hierarchical in their thinking and behavior than men, who tend to be competitive and destructive, probably due to their biological imperative.
But explaining all this to you is, I understand, a waste of time.
Put bluntly, how could women do worse? Got any better ideas?
Mr. Cohen,
You can try to make yourself feel better about your sexist statements, but it is what it is. All you're doing in that last comment is trying to justify your sexism.
And you've already shown us your horrible bigotry toward Christians.
How 'bout blacks? Got any 'opinions' about them?
Justin's comments are not about Christians, but about Christianity. I would certainly like to see all religions disappear. Unfortunately religious people seem to take that as a personal offense.
I) Gay Boy Bob wrote to me:
"And you've already shown us your horrible bigotry toward Christians."
Let's look at what I actually wrote:
"it seems Christianity is responsible ultimately for more deaths than any other religion, and it seems that while there are many good Christian people, there are lots of horrible ones and many proselytizing ones. There are rotten people of all faiths. So what makes someone truly Christian or Jewish or Zoroastrian or Buddhist, etc.? I think it doesn't matter. Organized religion stinks."
Nowhere did I label Christians as horrible, good, bad, etc. I did say that Christianity itself is responsible for a lot of deaths in the world. Look at the Crusades, WWII (many Germans were Christians, as were many people in other countries who killed other people).
II) Gay Boy Bob wrote to me:
"You can try to make yourself feel better about your sexist statements, but it is what it is. All you're doing in that last comment is trying to justify your sexism."
Let's look at what I actually wrote:
"You don't know what it's like to carry a child or give birth. If you did, you probably wouldn't send the child to war. Women are more likely to avoid war than men. Women are also less hierarchical in their thinking and behavior than men, who tend to be competitive and destructive, probably due to their biological imperative."
These are statements based in science and sociological research. No sexism here.
III) Gay Boy Bob wrote to me:
"How 'bout blacks? Got any 'opinions' about them?"
I don't label people "black" or "white" because no one is either. In addition, I don't blanket-label entire populations of people. I can't say what "Russians" do, or "Republicans" or "Catholics" or "Native-American" people do.
Nowhere in my comments have I blanket-labeled any groups. Perhaps that is what you do. Another thing you apparently do, GBB--and this is obviously not just my opinion--is you shoot your mouth off via the Internet on this blog site with ignorant, laughable statements, attributing statements to other people that they never made.
Do you know WHY you do this?
Your comments above, GBB, and elsewhere on this blog are illustrative of the Dunning-Kruger effect: "In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is."
One writer has suggested that perhaps you are looking for attention, and only know how to provoke negative attention. I'm sorry for whatever it is in your life that has caused you to lash out the way you do. I honestly think you would do well to listen and read to what people ACTUALLY say and write, because your ability to interpret their words seems damaged. You will accrue no knowledge or wisdom if you don't know how to listen.
Would you care to identify yourself so we all know your name? Or do you prefer to continue to hide behind your three-name handle?
If you're open
Mr. Cohen,
Respectfully, your statement that I objected to clearly indicates that you think women would do a better job based solely upon their sex. Weasel all you want, but that's a blanket statement and it's clearly sexist and bigoted toward men.
And here's what you ACTUALLY said and wrote next:
"Women are also less hierarchical in their thinking and behavior than men, who tend to be competitive and destructive, probably due to their biological imperative."
Imagine this being said to a woman applying for a position that has traditionally been held by men as an explanation of why they're not qualified. How do you think that would play?
You should stop while you're behind.
And stop being so sensitive.
Dear Gay Boy Bob--
I can see why people don't respond much to you or argue with you. You think it's because you're a clever debater. I'd say your more of a master-baiter. But few take your bait because you really are too stupid to see how stupid you are.
You should try being MORE sensitive, and taking advice charitably offered you. But I shall offer you no more. You're an idiot. I hope Cervantes goes ahead and requires registration. You have no place on this blog.
Goodbye, Doofus Since you insist on remaining anonymous--and I would too, if I were you, because I think deep down you know you're really stupid--I'll sign off calling you "Doofus."
Cervantes requested that I invent a moniker, so, here we are.
And no one knows if "Justin Cohen" is a real person or not or where he lives.
It's just as real on the internet as "Gay Boy Bob".
Dear GBB:
The only "real" thing about you is your perversity. How does it feel to be a completely reactive being?
Post a Comment