One language

Pah · Mar 17, 2005

Assuming that Genesis was written chronologically -

Wasn't the tower of Babel destroyed because everyone spoke one language? - and every group now spoke languages that other groups could not understand? Gen 11:1

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.

Gen 11:7

7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.

Now let's back up one chapter. Chapter 10 lists the descendants of Noah - nations formed by those God placed on the ark. They all spoke one language and that was the result of God annillating the rest of the nations. Gen 11:2 tells us the place of the Tower of Babel was Shinar and that was in the realm of Nimrod a descendant of Ham who was on the boat. And Ninrod was the greatgrandson of Noah.

Let me get this straight - for four generations, the language of the world was ONE and God didn't like that????? Didn't God set that up by killing the rest of the world?

may · Mar 17, 2005

At that time all the earth was of one language and one set of words. (Genesis 11:1) Living then was the man Nimrod, "a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah." (Genesis 10:8, 9) Mankinds invisible archenemy, Satan, especially used Nimrod to set up the earthly part of the Devils organization. Nimrod wanted to make a name for himself, and that arrogant attitude spread to his followers, who embarked on a special construction project in the land of Shinar. According to Genesis chapter 11, verse 4, they said: "Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth." That venture in opposition to Gods command to "fill the earth" ended when Jehovah confused the language of the rebels. "Accordingly," says the Bible account, "Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city." (Genesis 9:1; 11:2-9) That city was named Babel, or Babylon (meaning, "Confusion"), "because there Jehovah mixed up the speech of all the earth."Byington.

Pah · Mar 17, 2005

may said:
...Nimrod, "a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah." (Genesis 10:8, 9) Mankinds invisible archenemy, Satan, especially used Nimrod to set up the earthly part of the Devils organization. ...Byington.

I wonder what version of the Bible Byington was using for that translation does not appear in any of the online versions at BibleGateway.com. I also do not see scriptual authority for Satan's participation in building the Tower.

Please expalin.

Scuba Pete · Mar 17, 2005

Where there is pride, you can be sure that Satan is involved. The tower was motivated by a people wanting to become God, but not wishing to immitate him.

may · Mar 17, 2005

pah said:
I wonder what version of the Bible Byington was using for that translation does not appear in any of the online versions at BibleGateway.com. I also do not see scriptual authority for Satan's participation in building the Tower.

Please expalin.

Nim´rod).

Son of Cush. (1Ch 1:10) The rabbinic writings derived the name Nimrod from the Hebrew verb ma·radh´, meaning "rebel." Thus, the Babylonian Talmud (Erubin 53a) states: "Why, then, was he called Nimrod? Because he stirred up the whole world to rebel (himrid) against His [Gods] sovereignty."Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation, by Menahem M. Kasher, Vol. II, 1955, p. 79. So Nimrod had the same attitude as satan ,after all ,satan means resister
His city is the first city that the Bible names after the Flood, and it became the beginning of Nimrods kingdom. (Gen. 10:8-12) It was built to obstruct the carrying out of Gods will concerning the earth as mans home. It was made the seat of false religion, which is denoted by the fact that the city builders started putting up a "tower with its top in the heavens." All this project was planned and carried forward to make a name, not for the God of Noah, but for the city builders, particularly for Nimrod its king, who came to be called "Nimrod a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah."

The first human government in recorded history was founded some 4,000 years ago by Nimrod. This great-grandson of Noah made himself a king and became, as he is described in the Bible, "a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah." (Genesis 10:8, 9) By setting himself up as ruler in opposition to Jehovah, Nimrod made himself a political god. As such, he had the backing of Gods chief opposer, the false god Satan the Devil. (2 Corinthians 4:4) So Nimrods rule was a counterfeit of the real theocracy.

When the inhabitants of Nimrods empire were later scattered throughout the earth, people continued to assume that their governments were theocratic, that is, deriving authority from the god or gods they worshiped. (Genesis 11:1-9) "Theocracy" thus came to be used, says The Encyclopedia of Religion, "to describe that early phase of ancient oriental civilization in which there was no distinction between religion and the state."

Pah · Mar 17, 2005

may said:
Nim´rod).

Son of Cush. (1Ch 1:10) The rabbinic writings derived the name Nimrod from the Hebrew verb ma·radh´, meaning "rebel." Thus, the Babylonian Talmud (Erubin 53a) states: "Why, then, was he called Nimrod? Because he stirred up the whole world to rebel (himrid) against His [Gods] sovereignty."Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation, by Menahem M. Kasher, Vol. II, 1955, p. 79. So Nimrod had the same attitude as satan ,after all ,satan means resister
His city is the first city that the Bible names after the Flood, and it became the beginning of Nimrods kingdom. (Gen. 10:8-12) It was built to obstruct the carrying out of Gods will concerning the earth as mans home. It was made the seat of false religion, which is denoted by the fact that the city builders started putting up a "tower with its top in the heavens." All this project was planned and carried forward to make a name, not for the God of Noah, but for the city builders, particularly for Nimrod its king, who came to be called "Nimrod a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah."

The first human government in recorded history was founded some 4,000 years ago by Nimrod. This great-grandson of Noah made himself a king and became, as he is described in the Bible, "a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah." (Genesis 10:8, 9) By setting himself up as ruler in opposition to Jehovah, Nimrod made himself a political god. As such, he had the backing of Gods chief opposer, the false god Satan the Devil. (2 Corinthians 4:4) So Nimrods rule was a counterfeit of the real theocracy.

When the inhabitants of Nimrods empire were later scattered throughout the earth, people continued to assume that their governments were theocratic, that is, deriving authority from the god or gods they worshiped. (Genesis 11:1-9) "Theocracy" thus came to be used, says The Encyclopedia of Religion, "to describe that early phase of ancient oriental civilization in which there was no distinction between religion and the state."

Look, May, this is all well and good until you start building on Gen 10:8-9. I said that particular translation giving "in opposition" is not present in more than a half-dozen versions of the bible. I must ask you to prove that "in opposition" is in fact the correct translation and to acknowledge your error in the giving Nimrod the distinction of being the "first human government".

Pah · Mar 17, 2005

NetDoc said:
Where there is pride, you can be sure that Satan is involved. The tower was motivated by a people wanting to become God, but not wishing to immitate him.

How can I or you be sure that Satan is involved? Gen 11:4 would alllow for a purpose of glorifying God as evidenced in the mighty and decorated cathederals built thoughout history. Are all the cathederals (or churches) under the auspicies (which is a naming) of the Catholic Church or TV evangelicals built with the involvement of the devil. I'm sure some are - but all?

jewscout · Mar 17, 2005

pah said:
Look, May, this is all well and good until you start building on Gen 10:8-9. I said that particular translation giving "in opposition" is not present in more than a half-dozen versions of the bible. I must ask you to prove that "in opposition" is in fact the correct translation and to acknowledge your error in the giving Nimrod the distinction of being the "first human government".

Here's the translation given by Chabad.org's online Tanach just for the hell of it...

Gen 10:8-9 said:
And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty man in the land. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord."

and for the record...there is no mention of The satan, or Samael or anyother demonic force in the scripture or the commentary of Rashi (i'm starting to like Rashi...he's anally retentive about grammer which is helpful in understanding the translation

)

jewscout · Mar 17, 2005

pah said:
Assuming that Genesis was written chronologically -

Wasn't the tower of Babel destroyed because everyone spoke one language? ....
Let me get this straight - for four generations, the language of the world was ONE and God didn't like that????? Didn't God set that up by killing the rest of the world?

actually the destruction of the tower of Babel and the "confusing" of the languages was due to the fact that Nimrod, who based on the commentary given by Rashi, was turning people away from G-d and convinced the nations of the world to work together to build this Tower of Babel...

Gen. 11:1 said:
1. Now the entire earth was of one language and uniform words.

Rashi said:
and uniform words Heb. דְבָרִים אִחָדִים. They came with one scheme and said,He had no right to select for Himself the upper regions. Let us ascend to the sky and wage war with Him. Another explanation: [they spoke] against the Sole One of the world. Another explanation of דְבָרִים אִחָדִים (other editions read: דְבָרִים חַדִים, sharp words): They said, Once every 1,656 years, the sky totters, as it did in the time of the Flood. Come and let us make supports for it. - [from Gen. Rabbah 28:6, Tan. Buber Noach 24]

Nimrod had convinced the nations of man to act against G-d, and because they all spoke one language it made communications and conspiring easy...

Gen 11:3 said:
3. And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and fire them thoroughly"; so the bricks were to them for stones, and the clay was to them for mortar.

And they said to one another One nation to another nation, Mizraim to Cush; and Cush to Put; and Put to Canaan. - [from Gen. Rabbah 38:8]

and then HaShem comes down to see what the deuce is going on and says...

Gen.11:6 said:
6. And the Lord said, "Lo! [they are] one people, and they all have one language, and this is what they have commenced to do. Now, will it not be withheld from them, all that they have planned to do?

Rashi said:
Lo! [they are] one people All this goodness they have: that they are one people, and that they all have one language, and they have commenced to do this!- [from Seder Eliyahu Rabbah, ch. 31]

So he confused their languages so they would not be able to continue building this Tower...
Interesting to note that one of the fears the people had was...

Gen. 11:4 said:
4. And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered upon the face of the entire earth."

ultimately came to pass because the mucked up...

Gen. 11:8 said:
8. And the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of the entire earth, and they ceased building the city.

Rashi said:
And the Lord scattered them from there in this world. That which they said, lest we be scattered (verse 4) was fulfilled upon them. This is what Solomon said, (Prov. 10:24): The dread of a wicked man-that will befall him. - [from Tan. Buber, Noach 28]

so it's less about the language and more about the building of the tower and conspiring against G-d...

may · Mar 17, 2005

pah said:
Look, May, this is all well and good until you start building on Gen 10:8-9. I said that particular translation giving "in opposition" is not present in more than a half-dozen versions of the bible. I must ask you to prove that "in opposition" is in fact the correct translation and to acknowledge your error in the giving Nimrod the distinction of being the "first human government".

Nimrod was the founder and king of the first empire to come into existence after the Flood. He distinguished himself as a mighty hunter "before" (in an unfavorable sense; Heb., liph·neh´; "against" or "in opposition to"; compare Nu 16:2; 1Ch 14:8; 2Ch 14:10) or "in front of" Jehovah. (Ge 10:9, ftn) Although in this case some scholars attach a favorable sense to the Hebrew preposition meaning "in front of," the Jewish Targums, the writings of the historian Josephus, and also the context of Genesis chapter 10 suggest that Nimrod was a mighty hunter in defiance of Jehovah.

The beginning of Nimrods kingdom included the cities of Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, all in the land of Shinar. (Ge 10:10) Therefore it was likely under his direction that the building of Babel and its tower began. This conclusion is also in agreement with the traditional Jewish view. Wrote Josephus: "[Nimrod] little by little transformed the state of affairs into a tyranny, holding that the only way to detach men from the fear of God was by making them continuously dependent upon his own power. He threatened to have his revenge on God if He wished to inundate the earth again; for he would build a tower higher than the water could reach and avenge the destruction of their forefathers. The people were eager to follow this advice of [Nimrod], deeming it slavery to submit to God; so they set out to build the tower . . . and it rose with a speed beyond all expectation."Jewish Antiquities, I, 114, 115 (iv, 2, 3)

may · Mar 17, 2005

, Nimrod apparently remained at Babel and expanded his dominion, founding the first Babylonian Empire.Ge 10:11, 12.

jewscout · Mar 17, 2005

may said:
Wrote Josephus: "[Nimrod] little by little transformed the state of affairs into a tyranny, holding that the only way to detach men from the fear of God was by making them continuously dependent upon his own power. He threatened to have his revenge on God if He wished to inundate the earth again; for he would build a tower higher than the water could reach and avenge the destruction of their forefathers. The people were eager to follow this advice of [Nimrod], deeming it slavery to submit to God; so they set out to build the tower . . . and it rose with a speed beyond all expectation."Jewish Antiquities, I, 114, 115 (iv, 2, 3)

Though Josephus is a good source for the time period he lived in i'd be careful because, like many historians then and now, he had an agenda...that was to get the jews to fall in line w/ Rome...his was a Roman, not a jewish, audience.

anders · Mar 17, 2005

pah said:
Let me get this straight - for four generations, the language of the world was ONE and God didn't like that????? Didn't God set that up by killing the rest of the world?

pah, don't you ever read the Bible? You should by now have recognized this recurring method: I'll tell them not to eat that fruit, and I know they will, so I'll get an opportunity to punish them, hehe. The people of the earth that I created will behave in the way I made them, and I don't like that, so I'll drown them. How can I get an excuse for terrorizing the Egyptians? Well, I'll harden Pharao's heart so I'm certain that he doesn't do as Moses tells him - and then!

painted wolf · Mar 17, 2005

Did you know that Welsh shares a linguistic ancestor with Hindi?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4328733.stm
It is likely that most languages came from a handfull of proto-languages. But the truth is that we likely never ALL spoke the same language. Heck, eaven Orangutans don't speak the same language as other Orangutans, they have cultural 'dialcets'.

I wan't to know how four generations was enough to get enough people to fill a city let alone build one?

wa:do

jewscout · Mar 17, 2005

painted wolf said:
I wan't to know how four generations was enough to get enough people to fill a city let alone build one?

Some overactive labidoes!

anders · Apr 3, 2005

painted wolf said:
Did you know that Welsh shares a linguistic ancestor with Hindi?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4328733.stm
It is likely that most languages came from a handfull of proto-languages. But the truth is that we likely never ALL spoke the same language. Heck, eaven Orangutans don't speak the same language as other Orangutans, they have cultural 'dialcets'.

I think that the answer to the question on the link page is that the accent similarity is just a coincidence. I have for example heard claims that the accent in one part of Sweden is very close to Welsh. I vote for coincidence here as well.

There is of course a fairly close relationship between Celtic and Indo-Iranian languages. We can see it in lots of words. The link mentions "9", but also the words for "5", despite not looking obviously similar, pump vs. panj, can be regularly brought back to a theoretical common origin, something like pengqwe. But the languages have taken separate roads, so that the grammars are so different that almost no similarities remain. Of the seven features Wikipedia mentions as characteristic for Celtic languages, Hindi has one: the two-gender system for nouns. Equally, the one Hindi feature which I regard as most characteristic and distanced from all other Indo-European languages I know, the verb clusters at the end of sentences (in a way very different from German), is the opposite of Celtic, where the verb normally precedes subject as well as object.

For all reconstructions like the "IE" or "PIE" (proto-Indo-European) word for "5" above, you should regard them more as convenient formulas for linguistic calculations than representatives of a languange once spoken.

almifkhar · Apr 6, 2005

i will put it simply, the tower of babel thing happened because man wanted to be like god basically. so god made it so folks could not understand eachother, this way they could not get together and be like god. one intresting note here as far as history says as of now. mesopotiamia is the mother civilization and came about around 11,000 b.c. then all of a sudden the nile river valley comes on the scene at around 7,000 b.c., then the indus river valley at around 6,000b.c., the yangtze river valley at around 6,500b.c. and finally mesoamerica at around 5,000. another note is that the writers of the bible borrowed the story from far older sources.

painted wolf · Apr 11, 2005

Anders- thanks for the info, I find linguistic evolution a realy neet subject.

Many have compaired Chreokee and Hebrew. (mostly trying to clame were some sort of 'lost tribe' bunk:bonk

some surface similarities but with only so many sounds that is bound to happin... being an Iriquoian language you would think that the rest would 'sound' Hebrew too... but I guess not.

almifkhar- my people have been here for over 20,000 years, kinda' messes up the timeline.

wa:do

almifkhar · Apr 11, 2005

painted wolf i was referring to civilization (the advanced ones according to accademics) cities, language, farming on a mass scale if you will. yes there have been intellegant peoples all over the world living for thousands of years and i wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the native peoples in the americas have been here for far longer than 20,000 years. the difference is they didn't do what was done in the civilizations i spoke of and the timeline i was referring to was a major point that you missed.

painted wolf · Apr 12, 2005

actually the oldest civilization was in South America and was older than 5000 years ago.

It was little studied due to its location in the Peruvian Deserts and lack of large ammounts of gold.
Todays Archeologists arn't a heavy into tomb robbing so it is finally being studied. :bonk:
It was around at the same time as the building of the Egypts pyramids.

New radiocarbon dates of plant fibers indicate that the site of Caral (120 miles north of Lima, Peru) was home to the earliest known urban settlement - with monumental corporate architecture and irrigation agriculture - in the New World. The surprising evidence pushes the development of these important advances in the Americas back to as early as 2627 B.C. - a time when the pyramids were being built in Egypt.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-04/UNKN-FMae-2504101.php

So yes we were doing what everyone elce was doing at about the same time.

wa:do

One language

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

Uber all member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Well-Known Member

Uber all member

Uber all member

Religious Zionist

Religious Zionist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Religious Zionist

Well-Known Member

Grey Muzzle

Religious Zionist

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Grey Muzzle

Active Member

Grey Muzzle