Chaupoline

I see your point. I was looking at the story as isolated from what came before in Genesis, and upon closer examination I believe that you are correct in your belief that prior to the confusion of languages there was only one language and one speech. This view of one language and one speech was easier to grasp when the population was reduced because of the Flood, but the signifigance of the One language - One speech concept exists even prior to the Flood and envelops the Antideluvian world as well.

I had stated: The Tower of Babel is a metaphor for the inability of man to unite together as one and unlock their full potential.

Yes, God controls everything.

Genesis 6.5 says: The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.

This passage proved your point that even prior to the Flood the One language - One speech concept persisted. The passage also shows that just because there is One language - One speech and everyone is on the same page and devoted to the groupthink idea of progress this isn't on its own a positive thing.

Confusing the languages brought about peer review to humanity. Instead of One language - One speech there were now alternative ideas among humankind. The confusion of languages in the Story of Babel is another story depicting the evolution of humankind into its current state.

spin

Actually, your text, Gen 6:5 doesn't seem to give any indications about one language. However, one should assume -- unless otherwise told by the maintainers of the text tradition -- that, yes, there was only one language. They weren't doing history: they had no way of knowing what things were like so long before. They only knew what things must have been like.

If we were to go for fact, different languages emerged from pre-history in different parts of the world. A few languages we can see that existed before the reputed time of the flood were the language of the ancient Egyptians and that of the Sumerians. This is of course irrelevant to the non-history regarding the tower of Babel. It is not about facts at all.

How you could know this without any evidence is intriguing. Is this not a retrojection of your desires?

It certainly is aetiological in intent, as are many of the traditions that come down to us from the pre-Roman period.


spin

OneInFundieville

Over the last few years, I've read:

Empires of the Word (or via: amazon.co.uk)

The Unfolding of Language (or via: amazon.co.uk)

The Power of Babel (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Before the Dawn (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Why aren't you guys discussing any of the analysis presented in these, and like, recent research?

A lot of progress has been made in this area...

spin

Congratulations.

As I read a hell of a lot of books, and apparently not the same ones as you have, perhaps you might like to present a case for the analysis you are alluding though haven't specified.

You could be right.


spin

Chaupoline

This was in response to Amaleq13's request for evidence in the text to support my interpretation of the Story of Babel. If there wasn't a continuity within the Bible then my interpretation was simply eisegesis.

You missed the point. The Story of Babel is not a literal story. It is metaphoric and speaks about concepts regarding the evolution of humankind and civilization.

If there is One Language-One Speech as reported in the text then there is no peer review because humankind acts as a corporate entity and everyone both believes and describes reality in the same manner.

spin

I think it was simply eisegesis anyway. As I said, your text didn't indicate what you seemed to hope it would.

You claim someone missed the point. I wrote: "This is of course irrelevant to the non-history regarding the tower of Babel. It is not about facts at all."

If I state that it is not about facts at all, then obviously, it is not a literal story. In fact it is an aetiological story, which partly explains how a perfect creation such as god's can have unintelligible languages.

Your then still doesn't follow your if in any connective sort of way.


spin

Weltall

I'm sorry, I utterly fail to understand what you're trying to say here. How does one language impede peer review? How does a global language cause everyone to act as a 'corporate entity'? I think you're viewing reality through a different set of glasses than I am.

Chaupoline

Language is based on the same conceptual system that we use in thinking and acting. Our concepts structure what we perceive, and how we interact with the world around us. With One-Language-One Speech everyone has the same conceptual system as everyone else. There are not multiple conceptual systems and everyone works together and believes the same as everyone else. There is no debate because there are not any alternative views. By "confusing the language" God then introduces doubt and the people then begin to develop diffrent conceptual systems from everyone else.

Everyone views reality slightly diffrent from everyone else, because we all come up with our own conceptual systems. You and I may speak the same language, but we don't perceive reality the same.

spin

Actually, much of our thought is structured by the language as we have absorbed it. In fact, our worlds are linguistic worlds. We wouldn't perceive a table if we didn't first have a linguistic notion of what the concept of table was. What gives coherence to "our world" is that we share extremely similar linguistic notions. Hence...

Now I can agree with this, but then we rush headlong here:

(Never the same, but that's irrelevvant to your artiface.)

While I might concur to some degree some of your linguistic notions, your retrojection of them into a literature that shows no knowledge of those notions seems to be a gratuitous act on your part, one of complete irrelevance.

Yet the shared language does smooth a lot of the differences on various levels, such that we can say, to some extent, that we can view reality through the same set of glasses.

Naturally, you don't inhabit the exact same space as I do, so you cannot have the same experiences as I do, but we use extremely similar tools (senses) to gain those experiences, which tend to reduce the differences between our diverse experiences.

When someone says to you, as Weltall did, "I think you're viewing reality through a different set of glasses than I am", they are talking about something different from that which you responded about, ie you are not dealing with Weltall's comment at all. Weltall can say to someone else "I think you're viewing reality through the same set of glasses than I am" and convey a significant idea. Your escape into inherent diversity just misses the point of the statement and justifies it at the same time.


spin

OneInFundieville

Just that linguistic evidence is lining up quite well with genetic and archaeological evidence, all pointing to a story that's more along the lines of this:

Human_migration