mefisto

Chaupoline,
In the bible it says: You explained this by saying:

I asked why you neglected to state that god made the original statement to which you replied:

I am trying to figure out what basis you are using to override a direct statement of god? God explicitly states that they are one, you say they were not.

The Evil One

Now see this is very useful. Because what you put in brackets does not say the same as the words you've translated.

make a name =/= act in unison
scattered abroad =/= individuals looking out for our own interests

Underlining my point that this utopian fable is somehting you've invented, not somehting you've found in the text.


"Utopia" is generally considered to be a perfect society, where everyone is happy, there is no strife or want, and things couldn't possibly be any better. There is in the text no hint of any of this with regard to the tower society. There is no hint that the desire for a utopian society is why "humanity rallies together": instead it's very clear from the text why humanity rallies together: they want to "make a name", ie do a deed of renown.


"They all have one language" means "they all have one language". "There is no need for lies and coercive tactics" is somehting you have made up.


No. the narrator doesn't. The narrator states that human beings working together can accomplish great things. This is a long, long way from a vision of a utopian society.



But that's not what the text says. The text doesn't say that's "just the way things are". It says that things used to be different, and that God deliberately and specifically changed them because he was scared of the tower-builders.

You can only come to the conclusion that you've come to by ignoring the actual words of the text. Which you're free to do, by the way. Go at it, have fun. but don't pretend that your made-up story has anythign to do wioth the text, because it doesn't.

Amaleq13

Obviously, I agree that Chaupoline is clearly offering an eisegesis rather than an exegesis but I have to admit that it parallels the text quite nicely until the conclusion. The presented ending abandons any pretense of paralleling the text and, instead, follows from Chaupoline's own beliefs.

Chaupoline

You missed the bold print in your reply.

I'll try to rephrase the conclusion better then.

Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how we relate to other people. Our conceptual system thus plays a central role in defining our everyday realities. Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use in thinking and acting, language is an important source of evidence for what that system is like.

- George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (or via: amazon.co.uk)

"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.

Language is more than just syntax. “Confound their language, that they may not understand one another speech” speaks about the inability to relate to one another’s conceptual system of reality. Verse 8 states that the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth, and then the people went right back to building their city, but abandoned the creation of the metaphorical Tower of Babel. Although they still were able to work together to build the rest of the city, they were not the same as was envisioned by verse 6. Although we all speak and understand English, we are still not all one language as stated in verse 6.

The Story of the Tower of Babel is a fable to explain why people can not work together effectively. The reason given is because even though we may speak the same language as one another, we still have different views from one another. These differing views causes confusion in the transfer of meaning to one another.

Why is this then the case? God did it to us.

Amaleq13

No, my reply directly refers to everything following "The blame is placed as coming from God..." since that is where it stops paralleling the text and follows your personal beliefs instead.

Your parallel story is that fable but there is no reason to think that this was the intent of the author of the biblical story. That story appears to be an origin myth attempting to explain the existence of different languages. Unlike your fable, it indicates that people did work together effectively. In fact, they worked together so effectively that God realized only divine intervention could stop them.

That is a much better parallel than the previous conclusion of your fable, IMO.

RAFH

It still doesn't match the biblical story. Yours is a fabrication of your own. Your entire interpretation is yours and yours alone. I've never heard it previously.

I am always amazed at how people interpret the bible. They cherry pick what they want, they ignore what doesn't fit their paradigm, if need be they will stretch the words, invent meetings, change context, connect to other texts. And they always have THE Inspired Understanding. They and they alone KNOW what it all means. You ask how they get to their interpretation, even quote them the obvious problems and conflicts, and they answer you don't know how to the read it. You don't know how to interpret it. They say you have to read it word for word, OK, then you read it word for word, then they say you shouldn't read it word for word but with the understanding it means this or that. In other words, you have to pre-establish what it means to know what it means. If something conflicts, it doesn't really conflict. If there is something evil, its not really evil. If the literal reading doesn't jive, it should be metaphorical, if the metaphorical meaning doesn't jive, it should be read literally, if neither of those works, the translation is wrong. Its always something. What ever it is, its wrong unless its interpreted per their belief.

Its the most egregious practice of intellectual dishonesty there is.

Chaupoline

Nice rant. Did you copy and paste it? Where is your evidence to back up your claims or is this all there is?

Chaupoline

This must have been the intent of the author because prior to the Tower of Babel story the people did not work together effectively. From the point Cain slew Abel onward the people acted in a manner where they did not communicate effectively with one another. Language was already confused, from the moment that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden in their fable. These are like Coyote stories. Faux explanations for why the world is the way it is, while attempting to teach a lesson. Prior to Abraham, this is the literary style of Genesis. The 'God did it' explanation is another way of saying that this is just the way it is.

Thank you, but this was the same conclusion only worded diffrently.

The Evil One

Can you cite an instance of ineffective communication, or confused language, from the text?

Amaleq13

Like The Evil One, I would be interested in specific supporting evidence for this from the text but not if it is just more eisegesis. The author is quite explicitly attempting to explain how different languages developed subsequent to the Flood when "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech" (11:1, KJV)

No, it is another example of the belief that, ultimately, God controls everything.

It certainly is not. Your first conclusion blamed the people ("...because we do not understand one another perfectly and we do not all work together.") and claimed that the blaming of God was really just a repetition of that acknowledgment ("this is just the way things are"). Neither of those statements suggests that divine intervention was the reason why the effort failed and both appear to be deliberately designed to avoid what you offer in your second effort ("God did it to us").

Your story and the actual story are simply not the same story.