Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Heleilu · 12-10-2001, 02:39 PM

Does anyone know the supposed date for the Tower of Babel? I've seen 2242 BCE, but I don't know if that's the most accepted date.

Kosh · 12-10-2001, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Heleilu:
<strong>Does anyone know the supposed date for the Tower of Babel? I've seen 2242 BCE, but I don't know if that's the most accepted date.</strong>

Heleilu,

I wouldn't expect much success with this approach.
If I remember correctly, the Babel myth includes
God spreading people out across the planet, as
well as confounding the languages.

The real trick is get them to accept the data
and the fact that the migration (and the languages) did occur naturally.

There isn't much to argue against "Godidit"

Toto · 12-10-2001, 03:28 PM

If you are not a Biblical literalist, you probably don't believe that this happened on any date.

If you are a Biblical literalist, you will be relying on the timeline construced by Bishop Usher.

I put Usher Tower and Babel into a google search, and found <a href="http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/hist409/scopes.html" target="_blank">this</a>, from the Scopes Trial:

Quote:

MR. DARROW--You have heard of the Tower of Babel, haven't you?

MR. BRYAN--Yes, sir.

MR. DARROW--That towers was built under the ambition that they could build a tower up to Heaven, wasn't it? And God saw what they were at and to prevent their getting into Heaven, He confused their tongues?

MR. BRYAN--Something like that. I wouldn't say to prevent their getting into Heaven. I don't think it is necessary to believe that God was afraid they would get to Heaven.

MR. DARROW--I mean that way?

MR. BRYAN--I think it was a rebuke to them.

MR. DARROW--A rebuke to them trying to go that way?

MR. BRYAN--To build that tower for that purpose.

MR. DARROW--Take that short cut?

MR. BRYAN--That is your language, not mine.

MR. DARROW--Now, when was that?

MR. BRYAN--Give us the Bible.

MR. DARROW--Yes, we will have strict authority on it--scientific authority?

MR. BRYAN--That was about 100 years before the flood, Mr. Darrow, according to this chronology. It was 2247--the date on one page is 2218 and on the other 2247, and it is described in here

MR. DARROW--That is the year 2247?

MR. BRYAN--2218 B.C. is at the top of one page, and 2247 at the other, and there is nothing in here to indicate the change.

MR. DARROW--Well, make it 2218 then?

MR. BRYAN--All right, about.

MR. DARROW--Then you add 1500 to that.

MR. BRYAN--No, 1925.

MR. DARROW--Add 1925 to that--that would be 4,143 years ago. Up to 4,143 years ago, every human being on earth spoke the same language?

MR. BRYAN--Yes, sir, I think that is the inference that could be drawn from that.

MR. DARROW--All the different languages of the earth, dating from the Tower of Babel,--is that right? Do you know how many languages are spoken on the face of the earth?

MR. BRYAN--No. I know the Bible has been translated into 500, and no other book has been translated into anything like that many.

MR. DARROW--That is interesting, if true. Do you know all the languages there are?

MR. BRYAN--No, sir, I can't tell you. There may be many dialects besides that and some languages, but those are all the principal languages.

MR. DARROW--There are a great many that are not principal languages?

MR. BRYAN--Yes, sir.

MR. DARROW--You haven't any idea how many there are?

MR. BRYAN--No, sir.

MR. DARROW--And you say that all those languages of all the sons of men have come on the earth not over 4,150 years

MR. BRYAN--I have seen no evidence that would lead me to put it any farther back than that.

MR. DARROW--That is your belief anyway? That was due to the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel? Did you ever study philology at all?

MR. BRYAN--No, I have never made a study of it--not in the sense in which you speak of it.

MR. DARROW--You have used language all your life.

MR. BRYAN--Well, hardly all my life--ever since I was about a year old.

MR. DARROW--And good language, too; and you never took

any pains to find anything about the origin of languages?

MR. BRYAN--I never studied it as a science.

MR.. DARROW--Have you ever by .any chance read Max

SIR. BRYAN--No.

MR. DARROW--The great German philologist

MR. BRYAN--No.

MR. DARROW--Or any book on that subject?

MR. BRYAN--I don't remember to have read a book on that subject, especially, but I have read extracts, of course, and articles on philology.

I also found this <a href="http://www.bbltimeline.com/tl/" target="_blank">Bible Timeline</a>, which is a ebook that you might want to download.

You could try to refine my search- I came up with a lot of garbage.

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Heleilu · 12-10-2001, 03:53 PM

The obvious creationist argument is that all the language families found today go back to the Tower of Babel. This can be falsified three ways:
1. If a language family demonstrably goes back farther (Proto-Indo-European) then the Tower of Babel hypothesis is invalid.
2. If written documents, in a language that continued to be used for millennia, predate the Tower of Babel then the Tower of Babel hypothesis is invalid.
3. Taking into account that nomads' languages appear to be more conservative than sedentary languages, at least until they settle down and become "native", then if there is insufficient time for American Indian and New Guinea languages to diverge then the Tower of Babel hypothesis is invalid.

12-10-2001, 02:39 PM	#1
Heleilu Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Takaliapa, KR Posts: 188	Tower of Babel Does anyone know the supposed date for the Tower of Babel? I've seen 2242 BCE, but I don't know if that's the most accepted date.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-10-2001, 03:53 PM	#4
Heleilu Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Takaliapa, KR Posts: 188	The obvious creationist argument is that all the language families found today go back to the Tower of Babel. This can be falsified three ways: 1. If a language family demonstrably goes back farther (Proto-Indo-European) then the Tower of Babel hypothesis is invalid. 2. If written documents, in a language that continued to be used for millennia, predate the Tower of Babel then the Tower of Babel hypothesis is invalid. 3. Taking into account that nomads' languages appear to be more conservative than sedentary languages, at least until they settle down and become "native", then if there is insufficient time for American Indian and New Guinea languages to diverge then the Tower of Babel hypothesis is invalid.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.