chapka

Not necessarily, unless you can show that it also had that meaning at the time the story is supposed to take place.

For example, the fact that "Lesbian" now means gay woman doesn't mean the island of Lesbos didn't exist--just that it was strongly associated with lesbianism. It's possible that the term became associated with the meaning later as a result of the events that took place, or the story.

Chaupoline

If reality follows a pattern of cause and effect, and God is the first cause, then God is the reason for all effects. In an attempt to understand God you study the effects and piece together the pattern. The Story of Babel studies the effect. In classic Mesopotamian fashion, the reason for everything is defined through the will of God. God is the first conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories construct a matrix beneath a series of events. They create order out of chaos, which is somehow comforting. Perhaps it is more reassuring to believe that there is an institution pulling strings in the shadows than it is to accept that random terrible things can happen for no reason.
- Alexandra Robbins

But then again science also believes in the conspiracy theory too. But instead of acknowledging an initiator and associating blame they just want to study the pattern.

As has been shown time and again, human utopianism is a failure because it doesn’t bring into account human nature. If all humanity acted as a unified corporate entity then the passage would be true.

Behold, the people are 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.

However, the people are never one. We are never all on the same page, and this is why human utopianism always fails. As a way to explain this the Story of Babel was passed down orally until it was put into the Book of Genesis. Although there was an actual Tower of Babel, what is relevant is the metaphorical Tower of Babel.

And yet there are not any utopian societies that persevere.

Weltall

Actually, this was the basis for my comment about the writers of Genesis and linguistics. The writers associated the word with the Hebrew balal or balbal which means 'to confuse'. They were trying to interpret a foreign word by their own language. The Babylonians wouldn't have seen it that way. In their language Babel means 'Gate of God'.

The Evil One

Erm, but in the story God directly, and specifically, intervenes. Whether you consider God the "first cause" or not, the text specifically and directly says that God specifically intervenes, in a specific, stated manner, for specific, stated reasons. Meanwhile the supposed fatal flaw of utopianism receives nary a mention. I really don't see how you get past that.

Look, I think the story you've made up about the Inevitable Downfall of the Utopian Movement of Babel is lovely, I really do. Nice little metaphor, has a good moral and a tune you can really dance to.

It's just got nothing to do with the Genesis text, which doesn't mention either utopianism or the reason you propose it always fails. What we see in Genesis is a very clear, very simple just-so story for why people speak different languages.


... so you agree the storyisn't true, then.



But there's no utopianism in the story. That's something you've made up. So the story can't explain why utopianism fails, because there is no utopianism in it.



sounds to me like you want to have it both ways.

mefisto

Why did you leave off and ignore the fact that the bible says that the LORD said "Behold, the people are one...". (Gen 11:6)

Chaupoline

"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.

In the story, the people came from the east and built the city and tower. Let us make us a name (let us act in unison), lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth (otherwise, we are all just individuals looking out for our own interests). Verse 4 is a declaration for unity. It is the classic Together we are strong speech.

This is the point where humanity rallies together in a desire for a utopian society.

"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 are 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.

This is the description of the utopian society. The people are one - They act as one corporate entity. They have all one language - They understand one another perfectly, there is no need for lies and coercive tactics to get people to do what they have to do. Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do - Working together, humans can accomplish anything that they wish to do.

The narrator states what the utopian society is.

"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.

The narrator states that the reason why the utopian society is unsuccessful is because we do not understand one another perfectly and we do not all work together. The people are not one. The blame is placed as coming from God, since God is the initial cause of everything. By blaming God, the narrator is stating this is just the way things are.

I think that this story is true, in the sense, that it speaks of reality.

I didn’t feel that it was necessary to include that part. Who else would be making that declaration?

smokester

Well, if one were to allow that this is a figurative "story" from a people who spoke and communicated in figurative ways other than our more literal and so-called rational or enlightened ways; one might be of the opinion that this "story" has much more meaning than---"totally fucked"!

Fundies from all sides never cease to amaze me.

Amaleq13

No, the narrator states rather explicitly that the reason why the effort was unsuccessful is because God interfered.

This is eisegesis that has no connection to the text.

Chaupoline

I have stated the connection to the text. Your error is in your personification of the character of God. You are simplifying the story to fit your narrow view of God.

Amaleq13

The only connection is in your mind as that is the source of your eisegesis. The text clearly does not say what you claim it says.

My "view of God" here is entirely dependent upon the text being discussed.