Michael R. Ash: Is the Tower of Babel historical or mythological?

[Joseph Antley]

Like usual, I agree with nackhadlow.

[handys003]

Whether it was built or not is debatable. However the technology to do so was there. You have to go to about the 3 minute mark past the video intro. It explains the brick technology was capable of such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdKZKcJHRs

[etana]

Has no one read "Snowcrash"!? Stevensen has the answer.

Seriously though, I wonder if it could be an echo of the Akkadian Semitic culture and language overtaking the Sumerian which seemed to happen relatively quickly at about that time. Of course we have records of Egyptians Writing Egyptian and Sumerians writing Sumerian and Akkadians writing Akkadian and Harappans writing whatever it was that they wrote all before the tower story, so it is clearly not literally historical.

[Bunk]

Has no one read "Snowcrash"!? Stevensen has the answer.

Great book, btw.

Seriously though, I wonder if it could be an echo of the Akkadian Semitic culture and language overtaking the Sumerian which seemed to happen relatively quickly at about that time. Of course we have records of Egyptians Writing Egyptian and Sumerians writing Sumerian and Akkadians writing Akkadian and Harappans writing whatever it was that they wrote all before the tower story, so it is clearly not literally historical.

How long before Mike Ash or one of his intellectual offspring writes an article in Mormon Times about the Book of Mormon being mythological?

[David T]

Great book, btw.

How long before Mike Ash or one of his intellectual offspring writes an article in Mormon Times about the Book of Mormon being mythological?

I think there's a difference between a record being myth, and containing mythic themes and rhetorical devices. I'm pretty sure Mike Ash believes as I do that Joseph had physical plates that were literally ancient, and were compiled by a literal ancient person named Moroni, who, alongside his father, compiled a highly condensed religious history of his people based on the records he had access to, combined with tradition, personal judgement, fallible understanding, and inspiration of God.

[Bunk]

I think there's a difference between a record being myth, and containing mythic themes and rhetorical devices.

What is the difference? Is it like 90% myth and 10% non-myth? 99% myth and 1% non-myth?

I'm pretty sure Mike Ash believes as I do that Joseph had physical plates that were literally ancient, and were compiled by a literal ancient person named Moroni, who, alongside his father, compiled a highly condensed religious history of his people based on the records he had access to, combined with tradition, personal judgement, fallible understanding, and inspiration of God.

The article I envision would be an apologist saying Joseph didn't have physical plates but was still inspired of God. What percent myth would that be?

The article I envision would argue for something less that 100% myth, and argue that the Book was reworked bible verse and folk history combined with tradition, personal judgment, fallible understanding and inspiration of God. I predict this will appear before long. Certainly within my lifetime.

[mapman]

Things can be historical and mythological you know.

[HiJolly]

The article I envision would be an apologist saying Joseph didn't have physical plates but was still inspired of God. What percent myth would that be?

But the evidence for literal, physical golden plates is overwhelming. So I don't anticipate something like this happening.

HiJolly

[BCSpace]

"Gate of God"?

Have to say that the Tower of Babel is historical though I don't think it actually has to be a tower, or a stargate.

[Daniel Peterson]

The article I envision would be an apologist saying Joseph didn't have physical plates but was still inspired of God. What percent myth would that be?

The article I envision would argue for something less that 100% myth, and argue that the Book was reworked bible verse and folk history combined with tradition, personal judgment, fallible understanding and inspiration of God. I predict this will appear before long. Certainly within my lifetime.

Bunk.

The existence of the plates is very securely attested. Even Dan Vogel recognizes that, which is why he is obliged to invoke phony tin plates to account for the historical data.

[Sevenbak]

Babel was real. This is another case of the need for the BoM, in testifying of the truthfulness of the Bible, and those who don't believe it.

Either we believe the BoM, the words of Ether, or we don't.

Either we believe the Bible, or we don't.

Either we believe the words of Joseph Smith, or we don't.

In the Wentworth Letter, from which we get the Articles of Faith, the Standard of Truth, and much more, he reiterates the reality of the Tower of Babel.

"...Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim, I translated the record by the gift and power of God. In this important and interesting book, the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times, has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel..."

[mfbukowski]

It's both. There was an actual historical incident, and lots and lots of mythology has grown up around it.

It doesn't matter. We will never know anyway. The important thing is that the story teaches us important things about language and its importance for humanity. Without it there is no culture and we are not even human. With it, we have a shot at getting back to the garden if we ever understand communication with clarity.

[mfbukowski]

Would this not make the Book of Ether false and as such the Book of Mormon in total, and our faith invalid?

Not if we have the right definitions of truth and falsity. You have to see the true meaning of it all- and get out of seeing everything one dimensionally.

[mfbukowski]

Like usual, I agree with nackhadlow.

I know. How come he is always right anyway?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Not if we have the right definitions of truth and falsity. You have to see the true meaning of it all- and get out of seeing everything one dimensionally.

Do I? Why...so I can make things make sense? Compromise my beliefs? If not true I could use my money and time elsewhere.

[44Foxtrot]

There were a variety of written languages in the region prior to the time the Tower of Babel was supposed to have been built.

Since this aspect of the story is clearly not accurate, one would have to call the story a myth.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There were a variety of written languages in the region prior to the time the Tower of Babel was supposed to have been built.

Since this aspect of the story is clearly not accurate, one would have to call the story a myth.

It seems TBM's are in the minority. I believe the Noah's Ark Story

[Lightbearer]

It never ceases to amaze me at the lengths that some will go to try to deny the truth and label everything they cannot explain scientifically as an "obvious myth" even when we have modern day revelation to verify the so-called myths! Are we afraid of looking foolish to the world? I mean where does it end? Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah, the tower of Babel... Moses parting the Red Sea (or was that Reed sea?)... did Job exist? Was there more than one Isaiah? Was Jesus really the Son of God? Did He walk on water or was that a myth too?! Was He resurrected or did His disciples steal His body from the tomb? Must we devalue all the scriptures in such a manner in order to pacify the atheists and agnostics that do not believe it is reasonalbe to believe in such things? Must we label the "faith promoting" history as inaccurate and crave for the sensational, wartfilled, humanized versions for fear of "whitewashing" or "sanitizing" historical "facts." Is it a lack of faith or a cynical expression of our current society that we must profane every sacred morsel from the table of our Lord? Has apologetics become a groveling apology for our true blue faith promoting beliefs?

Yes Pa Pa you and I are "Chapel Mormons" who are despised by some here as foolish "old men" but I would rather cling to my foolish notions of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie than the drivel of what I term "New age Mormons" that must re-write history to satisfy our enemies and the critics and the Anti-Mormon hounds of hell.

[David T]

It never ceases to amaze me at the lengths that some will go to try to deny the truth and label everything they cannot explain scientifically as an "obvious myth" even when we have modern day revelation to verify the so-called myths! Are we afraid of looking foolish to the world? I mean where does it end? Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah, the tower of Babel... Moses parting the Red Sea (or was that Reed sea?)... did Job exist? Was there more than one Isaiah? Was Jesus really the Son of God? Did He walk on water or was that a myth too?! Was He resurrected or did His disciples steal His body from the tomb? Must we devalue all the scriptures in such a manner in order to pacify the atheists and agnostics that do not believe it is reasonalbe to believe in such things? Must we label the "faith promoting" history as inaccurate and crave for the sensational, wartfilled, humanized versions for fear of "whitewashing" or "sanitizing" historical "facts." Is it a lack of faith or a cynical expression of our current society that we must profane every sacred morsel from the table of our Lord? Has apologetics become a groveling apology for our true blue faith promoting beliefs?

Yes Pa Pa you and I are "Chapel Mormons" who are despised by some here as foolish "old men" but I would rather cling to my foolish notions of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie than the drivel of what I term "New age Mormons" that must re-write history to satisfy our enemies and the critics and the Anti-Mormon hounds of hell.

More light and knowledge has been brought forth to the world that helps us better ocntextualize the scriptures, understand their context, and draw a few degrees closer to their original understandning. That in no way undermines the specific personal individual directions the Spirit can take you when you read the words. I'm pretty sure that some of the great revelations of the Restoration came from Joseph asking a question based on a misunderstanding of a scriptural passage. That doesn't negate the original intent of the passage - or mean that his misinterpretation is superior!

However, I do feel that when the Lord asks us to study the words of Isaiah, he means it - and not just be content with tradition that has been built around it. Yes, it means seek with the spirit. Yes, it means people without any historical knowledge can find great treasures. But it means those of us who do have the tools, resources, and desire to more closely approach the Isaiah of history by understanding his culture and language can also be enlightened by the spirit as well. the Lord doesn't discourage or punish seeking greater light and knowledge.

The Spirit isn't limited to teaching those who don't have tools, and prayerfully and diligently use them. "To be learned is good if one hearkens to the counsel of God." - I find it the height of arrogance to assume that those who apply knowledge that has come to light to better understand the scriptures are somehow less in tune with the Spirit, and cannot also be granted personal spiritual insight that differs from the original text and context.

Joseph Smith wanted to learn more, so he attempted to learn Hebrew. He wasn't content with just letting the spirt tell him everything, and remain in intellectual ignorance. He knew as he studied, he would be given more questions he could ask, which would result in more revelation. This even led to Joseph revising his previous understanding - based on scholarship and revelation combined.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that Ignorance Is Bliss is a doctrine of the Church.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that Ignorance Is Bliss is a doctrine of the Church.

No some of us...very few it seems; believe.

[semlogo]

Clever

If you're looking for scripture inerrancy, you're in the wrong religion.

[semlogo]

It seems TBM's are in the minority. I believe the Noah's Ark Story

[David T]

So I'm curious - are we expected to stop at 19th Century Biblical Scholarship? Or when it comes to biblical translation, the 17th Century? Is anything that has been found since then that contradicts tradition and a literal reading of even the most ancient of scriptural records to be viewed as a Lie of the Devil? Have the many ancient documents that been found since that time that shed light on our understanding of biblical texts and cultures been planted by the Devil to Deceive?

[Sevenbak]

He who has ears...

"For some in the modern world, the historicity of the tower of Babel story, as with the Flood, is often discounted. One modern school of thought considers the account to be nothing more than an

[semlogo]

It never ceases to amaze me at the lengths that some will go to try to deny the truth and label everything they cannot explain scientifically as an "obvious myth" even when we have modern day revelation to verify the so-called myths!

It never ceases to amaze me how weak some people's faith is that they must cling to a literalist interpretation of Old Testament stories, despite the clear facts to the contrary and despite church doctrine that states the Bible (and even other scriptures) is NOT inerrant. Aren't we supposed to be seeking wisdom and knowledge from whatever source we may find it in? Modern science sheds some light on some of the old OT stories. There was never a global flood and the origin of different languages didn't start at Babel. So what? Is your faith so weak that it will crumble in the light of these facts? Maybe it was a local flood. Maybe Babel happened, but wasn't the origin of languages (that fits the BOM story better, anyway). The OT also claims that the earth is flat and enclosed in a crystal dome. I bet you don't believe in those two claims, and yet, you're a chapel Mormon, and not an "internet Mormon"?