Tower Of Babel

[Ron Beron]

My understanding was that the tower is what we call a step pyramid. One of the purposed of a step pyramid, in relation to deity, was to allow the god (or gods) to step down to earth. I don't recall where I read this as I've read so much that I can't remember where half of what I think I remember came from.

Just as with the story of the garden, we are very far removed from the cultural context in which the events took place. Being so far removed it is very easy for us to misunderstand parts of a story that were very obvious to those who participated in that culture. Unlike today where writers often times go to great lengths to add detail to a story, ancient writers assumed that you knew the context in which they were writing.

Step pyramids were actually established in Egypt and were essentially platforms placed one upon the other.

The earliest such pyramid was built by Imhotep and was certainly unique for its time. Babylonians constructed Ziggurats which did not use the stepped approach, but were constructed of less stable mud brick.

The first known ziggurat was built in Erech which some have connected to both Nimrod and Enoch.

[Bikeemikey]

Why not just assume the whole thing is symbolic with little literal accuracy... the building, the cursing the whole lot?

I have always been confused by the tower of babel...

I became even more confused when my CES teacher proposed that it was the first university... obviously he liked academic inquiry.

[CASteinman]

Why not just assume the whole thing is symbolic with little literal accuracy

The third chapter of the Book of Ether makes this difficult for me.

[Stone holm]

The third chapter of the Book of Ether makes this difficult for me.

I have to agree with CASteinman on this the Tower and the confusion of tongues is too closely tied to the Jaredite story to be myth. Which is something once again that causes Von Daniken type thinking to swirl through my brain because I have always wondered about those darn stones as well and thought there was more to that story as well...sigh...should never have read so much Von Daniken in my gentile youth.

[volgadon]

The book of Jasher, as I recall, gives the reason to get to "heaven", which was the then-visible city of Enoch, suspended in the atmosphere above the earthbound inhabitants. The upshot was confounding of the lingo into many languages and the removal of Enoch's city for a time (still ongoing)....

Umm, no.

[blackstrap]

One might as well try to build a tower to reach the moon . The tallest manmade structures today reach about 2000 feet. God could easily have said " give it the old college try " . I feel there was an attempt at usurping God's authority rather than just building a tall tower. By the way, where did all those people come from so soon after the flood???

[Rivers]

The third chapter of the Book of Ether makes this difficult for me.

I have no problem with the Tower of Babel story being based on an actual event that happened. I just can't accept it as an origin story for all the world languages.

[Maidservant]

then standing at the lakeshore by our cottage with a big stick and saying loudly "Part" to no apparent avail.

*recalls many childhood hours of practicing walking on water, in the bathtub*

[bcuzbcuz]

I tend towards literalism when it comes to the Old Testament, and so I believe there was a tower and that tower was about to or had the potential to give mankind something that it was not supposed to have at least not at that time. Further it must have been something significant because the consequences were very severe. So what was really going on back then?

Undoubetdly people built towers both during "Old Testament" times and before. The "literal" part of history is that mounds of walls and buildings can be found all around Mesopotamia. But from these mounds and buildings, there is sufficient evidence that the brick technology from 4000 years ago was not very good. The Chinese used "compacted earth" for foundations, some of which still exist in the famous "Wall of China". The oldest brick structure at

Khasekhemwy--Hierakonpolis

, is an example of how time has destroyed mud bricks.

If there was a "tower of Babel" and it was made out of bricks, the bricks themselves would not have been capable of high enough weight tolerances to build very high, certainly not up to the clouds and definitely not high enough to be out of sight. If the story of the tower is symbolic, a tower that represented mankind's chutzpah in the sight of God, then the tower doesn't need to be very tall at all, only the intentions are grand.

Show me a well made brick from 4000 years ago and I may rethink my premise.

Edited April 24, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[Stone holm]

Undoubetdly people built towers both during "Old Testament" times and before. The "literal" part of history is that mounds of walls and buildings can be found all around Mesopotamia. But from these mounds and buildings, there is sufficient evidence that the brick technology from 4000 years ago was not very good. The Chinese used "compacted earth" for foundations, some of which still exist in the famous "Wall of China". The oldest brick structure at

Khasekhemwy--Hierakonpolis

, is an example of how time has destroyed mud bricks.

If there was a "tower of Babel" and it was made out of bricks, the bricks themselves would not have been capable of high enough weight tolerances to build very high, certainly not up to the clouds and definitely not high enough to be out of sight. If the story of the tower is symbolic, a tower that represented mankind's chutzpah in the sight of God, then the tower doesn't need to be very tall at all, only the intentions are grand.

Show me a well made brick from 4000 years ago and I may rethink my premise.

The relative absurdity of building a tower tall enough to go anywhere extra terrestrial, fact that so many others built such towers without similar Divine consequences, the hubris that appears to have been endemic back then amongst autocrats, is what tends to make me believe that something else was involved. In certain esoteric organizations there are legends of underground temples to The Lord. I suspect that we tend to think of the ancients as simpletons which is unlikely.

[CASteinman]

I have no problem with the Tower of Babel story being based on an actual event that happened. I just can't accept it as an origin story for all the world languages.

I suppose that might be compatible with the scriptures.

[Stone holm]

I suppose that might be compatible with the scriptures.

Not really given that the Book of Ether is very clear about them praying that their language not be confounded. Again my literalism tends to favor that something dramatic and sudden happened here which was intentionally designed by the Lord to prevent them from being able to continue their collaborative efforts as before at the rate they had before.

[CASteinman]

Not really given that the Book of Ether is very clear about them praying that their language not be confounded.

I thought the same thing as first. But after thinking about it a bit it occurred to me that the Book of Mormon is not quite so emphatic about this being ALL of the World's populations involved. At least, I don't immediately recall this emphasis. So it might have been a subset of the human population.

This is reminiscent of the belief by many that the Book of Mormon was about the whole of North and South America vs just a smaller area in Mesoamerica.

So, although my knee-jerk reaction was to say "nah... because the Book of Mormon says ....", after a moment, I reconsidered my position on that.

I do tend to believe what the Book of Mormon says about it it more than the Bible. I also tend to believe the details of the time in the Book of Ether more than details provided by Mormon in his commentary. If the Book of Ether account makes it clear that it is all the world's population -- then this is a problem for me and I have to set it on the shelf.

Edited April 24, 2013 by CASteinman

[volgadon]

If it doesn't suggest that, which may well be true that it doesn't. What does it suggest? That God really thought that they would construct a tower capable of reaching "heaven" , or do we take the even more scientifically sketchy notion that the City of Enoch was floating in orbit so close to the Earth that there was a possibility of building a tower to connect with it? Or do we simply blow off the express language about the concern? and simply say that God was punishing "hubris". That is a pretty severe consequence for cockiness, don't you think?

Hubris is not mere cockiness. It is the kind of pride and overbearing presumptiveness by which man sets himself in opposition to God. It is what the Book of Mormon frequently warns against. It was also the supreme sin in ancient Mesopotamia. The gods, it was believed, punished hubris severely. One Akkadian book of omens considers it an ill omen if a city is built on an elevated place. I am not blowing off the express language of the concern. Far from it. Looking at the literary structure, we see measure for measure. If you examine the text closely, you will find that God's actions parallel those of the builders. Basically, themotivation for building the tower was to make a name for themselves and declare their invincibility, thus none- not even God- would dare scatter them. Their actions caused God to do exactly what they tried to avoid by their own might. He scattered them, and revoked the near-divine condition of one language. They certainly made a name for themselves, only it was a byword. The text also pokes fun at their supposed technological advances. Stone is vastly superior to mud brick.

Edited April 24, 2013 by volgadon

[nosmelone]

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Hugh Nibley under the assumption that the great tower mentioned in Ether was not actually the tower of Babel but instead it was the tower of Nimrod?

[Stone holm]

I thought the same thing as first. But after thinking about it a bit it occurred to me that the Book of Mormon is not quite so emphatic about this being ALL of the World's populations involved. At least, I don't immediately recall this emphasis. So it might have been a subset of the human population.

This is reminiscent of the belief by many that the Book of Mormon was about the whole of North and South America vs just a smaller area in Mesoamerica.

So, although my knee-jerk reaction was to say "nah... because the Book of Mormon says ....", after a moment, I reconsidered my position on that.

I do tend to believe what the Book of Mormon says about it it more than the Bible. I also tend to believe the details of the time in the Book of Ether more than details provided by Mormon in his commentary. If the Book of Ether account makes it clear that it is all the world's population -- then this is a problem for me and I have to set it on the shelf.

Okay, yes I could go with that -- I thought you were suggesting that a confounding of languages didn't occur. I can accept the notion that just the community of people where the tower project was in progress being confounded. Obviously our modern languages evolved due to geographical separation, etc. Was just reminded of that fact as my children have finally taught me to say "soda" instead of "pop", and just returned from a vacation where apparently all places which only serve breakfast and lunch are called "pancake houses".

[volgadon]

I think that using a word like "literal" can be problematic when reading texts in translation across cultural differences and several millennia. It too often means a reading rooted in modern western material culture as seen through the lens of the English language.

That is exactly the issue. Not too dissimilar to portrayals of the Last Supper when supper is viewed "literally," and the portions grow larger.

[J Green]

That is exactly the issue. Not too dissimilar to portrayals of the Last Supper when supper is viewed "literally," and the portions grow larger.

Lol. In Afghanistan, the local craftsmen would make cutouts of the Last Supper to sell to the service men and women, and I would laugh at the little touches like that -- the plates heaped with food, etc.

John Walton expresses this issue nicely:

It is interesting that many people who discuss Genesis 1 express an interest in interpreting the chapter "literally." By this they generally mean that it is to be taken exactly for what it says rather than to understand Genesis 1 simply in metaphoric, allegorical or symbolic terms. Of course we recognize that writers intend to communicate by means of metaphor or allegory. When someone insists that Genesis 1 should be interpreted literally it is often an expression of their conviction that the interpreter rather than the author has initiated another level of meaning. (John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009], 39.)

I think reading something "literally" should be about understanding the purpose of the author, which often means understanding his or her language and culture first.

Cheers.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Amen, J Green.

I gave a talk in Sacrament a few weeks ago, in which I included:

"Even the most devout and sincere believers in the Bible realize that it is, like most any other book, filled with metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable, which no intelligent person could be compelled to accept in a literal sense. […] The Lord has not taken from those who believe in his word the power of reason. He expects every man who takes his “yoke” upon him to have common sense enough to accept a figure of speech in its proper setting, and to understand that the holy scriptures are replete with allegorical stories, faith-building parables, and artistic speech." -- Joseph Fielding Smith

Edited April 25, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Maidservant]

There is literal and there is historical.

Literal is actually a literary device. (Or I'm thinking; not an expert.)

You can have a literal portrayal of an historical event.

You can have a metaphorical portrayal or a stylized portrayal of an historical event.

You can have an accurate portrayal of an historical event.

You can have an inaccurate portrayal of an historical event.

But the historical event continues to have happened as an event regardless of the portrayal of that event or those events.

I think it's safe to say that the Genesis text is largely metaphorical and non-literal. There may be some differing understandings or beliefs on the spectrum of if there are any literal elements included. My personal understanding is that there are zero literal portrayals or so close to zero as to be functionally zero.

However is Genesis a metaphorical portrayal of an actual event that happened in history? If yes, what was that event or those events? If no, then--?

So, yes, it's metaphorical, but still historical? Or is it also not historical?

My personal understanding here is yes and no.

I am no longer convinced that Genesis ever meant to be about one historical Adam and one historical Eve--the story we see on the surface.

The history that Genesis covers--is us. Our passage and progression from the pre-mortal life, through mortality, and beyond. So we can know our history by diving into Genesis.

[Bikeemikey]

Amen, J Green.

I gave a talk in Sacrament a few weeks ago, in which I included:

Can you post a reference-source for that quote... I would like to steal it.

Thanks.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Can you post a reference-source for that quote... I would like to steal it.

The internet is your friend! Check out the bottom of page 15 of this Dialogue article.

[J Green]

Amen, J Green.

I gave a talk in Sacrament a few weeks ago, in which I included:

That is one sweet quote, Jeremy!

[volgadon]

Lol. In Afghanistan, the local craftsmen would make cutouts of the Last Supper to sell to the service men and women, and I would laugh at the little touches like that -- the plates heaped with food, etc.

Love that.

John Walton expresses this issue nicely:

It is interesting that many people who discuss Genesis 1 express an interest in interpreting the chapter "literally." By this they generally mean that it is to be taken exactly for what it says rather than to understand Genesis 1 simply in metaphoric, allegorical or symbolic terms. Of course we recognize that writers intend to communicate by means of metaphor or allegory. When someone insists that Genesis 1 should be interpreted literally it is often an expression of their conviction that the interpreter rather than the author has initiated another level of meaning. (John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009], 39.)

I think reading something "literally" should be about understanding the purpose of the author, which often means understanding his or her language and culture first.

Cheers.

Yeah, peshat actually means the author's intended sense.

[Stone holm]

There is literal and there is historical.

Literal is actually a literary device. (Or I'm thinking; not an expert.)

You can have a literal portrayal of an historical event.

You can have a metaphorical portrayal or a stylized portrayal of an historical event.

You can have an accurate portrayal of an historical event.

You can have an inaccurate portrayal of an historical event.

But the historical event continues to have happened as an event regardless of the portrayal of that event or those events.

I think it's safe to say that the Genesis text is largely metaphorical and non-literal. There may be some differing understandings or beliefs on the spectrum of if there are any literal elements included. My personal understanding is that there are zero literal portrayals or so close to zero as to be functionally zero.

However is Genesis a metaphorical portrayal of an actual event that happened in history? If yes, what was that event or those events? If no, then--?

So, yes, it's metaphorical, but still historical? Or is it also not historical?

My personal understanding here is yes and no.

I am no longer convinced that Genesis ever meant to be about one historical Adam and one historical Eve--the story we see on the surface.

The history that Genesis covers--is us. Our passage and progression from the pre-mortal life, through mortality, and beyond. So we can know our history by diving into Genesis.

Well the garden of. Eden is one of those mixed situations. On the one hand we have been advised by one Prophet that as to the idea that Adam was made of the clay of the Earth and Eve of a rib, that is fable. But as to there being one Adam and one Eve, that is not. Even though in the Temple it is true that Adam and Eve represent us all. A fact that used to be much clearer than it is now. So as I believe I indicated in the beginning, there are some exceptions to my literal minded ness. On the other hand, the Tower story cannot be written off as fable because of its being so intertwined with the Book of Ether.