Talk:Tower of Babel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lord

Ba'al or Bel is Babylonian for Lord, meaning, in this case, Dingir Marduk. There is no Sumerian God namend Bel. The interpretation Bab elum as Gate of God is most probably a Neo-Babylonian learned speculation. --Yak 15:15, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

No, its based on the word elum, which is "of God", el being a word meaning simply god, though when capitalised as El it can mean "THE god" or a specific Semitic deity - El (god). --User talk:FDuffy 14:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning, Babylon coming from Bab ili (gate of the god(s)), it is, as noted above, most probably a fake etymology from a older name babil or babel. This should probably be removed from the Historicity section. See also [1] USferdinand 08:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the wiki you just linked to, anything we say here must be verified, not just someone saying it is 'probably fake'. I've never seen a reliable source that it is 'probably fake', only reliable sources that say it is probably correct. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually think the Cuneiform digital library initiative is a fairly reliable source (UCLA and Max Planck). I would be happy to see those reliable sources saying Bab-ilu is the etymology of Babylon. It does not matter much for the particular sentence here, since, if the Babylonians felt like creating a backward translation, the sentences: "The Greek form of the name, Babylon, is from the native Akkadian Bāb-ilu, which means "Gate of the god". This correctly summarizes the religious purpose of the great temple towers" can still be true.USferdinand 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Also see the Oxford Guide to People and Places in the Bible (2001), Babel, Tower of by David G. Burke, which notes that "this etymology [gate of God] is probably not original" USferdinand 19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Joseph?

deleted this:

• Others draw upon the Hamiltonian source sighting its reference to 'yosef', that is 'Joseph' in English.

sighting should probably read citing, but I still don't get it (what's "the Hamiltonian source"?) dab 07:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merge

Should this be merged with Babel?

I think it should. They seem to contain duplicate information. thx1138 12:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've merged Babel here and disambiguated it. --User talk:FDuffy 14:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Babel" article has been reverted by Wiki alf, but you didn't use the Edit summary to explain your action. Retodon8 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mario Brothers 3

Arguably, the tower in Sky Land in Super Mario Brothers 3 for the NES is a reference to the Tower of Babel, as you have to climb it to reach the sky part of the level, and need to climb it each time you want to go back up there. --InsaneSonikkuFan

Or it's just supposed to be a really tall tower. Unless you have a quote from the game designers saying they actually modeled the tower after the Tower of Babel, this is just speculation. SuperAtheist (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bible Translation

Which Bible translation the example comes from needs to be cited. Hackwrench 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia

Hi all. I noticed Wikipedia is listed in the See also section. Is there any justification for it being there? It seems out of place to me. ~MDD4696 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I put it up there. Wikipedia is a very similar project to the Tower of Babel... it's an extremely ambitious project launched without the expressed blessing of God and therefore destined to both some success (a very good online encyclopedia/a very tall tower) and the eventual failure of its highest-reaching goal (a free encyclopedia to every person in the world/a tower to heaven), despite the use of a common language by everyone working on it (i.e., only English speakers on this Wikipedia). They're very similar, in my opinion. I think that the link should stay. Matt Yeager 23:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, except for the fact that your personal unproven and unverified belief that wikipedia will fail because an invisible magical man in the sky hasn't expressly blessed its creation has no place in an encyclopedia. SuperAtheist (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You know what happened to the Tower of Babel. I think analogies without a good explanation are unsuitable for "see also". JFW | T@lk 00:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Move to include this in the Category:Abrahamic mythology 134.161.241.176 21:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Use of this ambiguous term seems like pov pushing; numerous alternative categories have been created to deal with Bible articles. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The story can be "mythological" according to scolars and still be true. KHM03 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

from the Abrahamic mythology page :

Abrahamic mythology category covers objects and topics from a relatively cohesive set of ancient traditions and stories (eg., mythologies) in the Abrahamic religions.

NOTE: Categorising a story as a myth does not necessarily imply that it is untrue. Religion and mythology differ, but have overlapping aspects. Many English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" to mean fictitious, fictional, or imaginary. However, according to many dictionary definitions, these terms can also mean a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people, and this Wikipedia category should be understood in this sense only. The use of these terms in this category does not imply that any story so categorized is historically true or false or that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false. (Note: This description is itself the subject of an ongoing dispute concerning neutrality.)

Doens't seem to be too much of an issue... 134.161.241.176 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that since hindus and muslims and buddists et. al can live with a mythology category, so can christians. 129.186.203.5 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a huge debate on whether to include biblical stores in the mythology categories several months ago and the consensus was that they should not be there. Please do not bring up the subject again. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, 3 or 4 voices does not make a concensus, it's way too small a sample. Ask for a RfC about whether to add it or not. -M^ask 18:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

JESUS CHRIST! no matter WHAT you will insist on yet another poll, yet another excuse to not include the correct damn categorization. This is stomach turning! 134.161.241.176 18:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I havent insisted on one yet, so another is not the appropriate wording. I stumbled across here after seeing the rapid reverts on Recent Changes. Votes are generally frowned upon, as we try not to have votes, but rather get a feel for cencensus. That means more then simply a majority. One of the things it requires is an appropriatly sized sample. Thats why we changed Votes for Deletion to Articles for Deletion. -M^ask 18:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

With language like that, the guy is clearly seeking to cause a disruption... The categories this article is in are already subcategories, the MOS says not to add super categories so all of this foaming at the mouth is really academic, if mildly entertaining... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

ah, the old moving goalpost strategy. Good job destroying wikipedia guys!

Just for the melodramatic anon:

Image:LiamLynchWhatever.jpg

-M^ask 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Many cultures other than christianity, (read persian and arab) have abrahmic mythology. I don't know if the tower of babel counts as such, but it is a mythological meme that is present in many non-christian stories. Removing the category on the christian centric basises given above is just blatant POV pushing. As a christian who studied theses "myths" in a conservative christian university I can say that you are not doing the community any service by removing this category. The reuse of these elements in other myths is COMMON KNOWLEDGE to theologins and doesn't give them any nightmares, it just points to a common earlier basis for such stories. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your church may well consider them "myths" - but its still a pov, not something that can be stated as fact. You can certainly mention that many people consider it a myth. But wikipedia is not supposed to take sides when there are multiple widely-held pov's out there, and many churches state pointblank that this is categorically "not" a myth. Then you have Communist countries (and apparently your church with them) that state that it categorically "IS" a myth. Wikipedia is all about NPOV, that means it cannot take one side or the other in the dispute, it can only state what everyone's view is. That's hard to do with a category, and unnecessary too, since we have a compromise (please read carefully above) that allows subcategories (like Torah events) and supercategories, so the issue is on the subcategory page, not this page. Anyone who wants to look up events in the Torah can easily use the subcategory to do so. The purpose of Categories is not to subtly push pov by using disputed terminology, if this was allowed you'd see a whole lot of articles categorized with terms that one party or another found insulting or pov. That gripe from the anon above about "moving goalposts", if I understand it correctly, means the wikipedia standard policy about not having articles in both a subcategory and a supercategory at the same time, is not good enough for him, because after all, his "goalpost" is to somehow get a definitive statement that the Bible "IS" mythology with no question allowed, with that word appearing on the article one way or another. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I did have a long post here about how with many different contradicting version of a story at least some of them have to be myth. And how it is pretty obvious to anyone with a bit of intelligence that the story has to be allegorical rather than literally true because the chinese were writing using a different language 500 years earlier. But, after re-reading your post I began to realize that you and reason are seperated my a monumental gulf that can never be crossed. You are standing up for something that noone ever attacked. Noone claimed the bible was myth, you are attacking a straw man. You seem to think you are standing up for your religious beliefs,(yes that is an accusation of pov pushing. However your illogical attack on me for what I never claimed is so far past that point that it is irrelevent.)

Picking this particular story to make a stand for complete biblical innerrancy without understanding the actual state of the debate is not bright. Before you attempt to jump into this debate again mentally unarmed please take a look at [[2]] for a bit of history and a somewhat conservatively biased (it is a bible study site) introduction to the current state of biblical inerrancy beliefs. Or read your own church's commentarys, you might be surprised. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm making a stand for neutrality, not biblical inerrancy. Calling this a myth is not neutral, its a pov. The article should not state that the Bible is inerrant, but it should not state that it is myth either. It should not take any stand. Why is "neutrality" so hard to fathom? You accuse me of being divorced from reality, but I can hardly even follow your arguments.... Where does "chinese" appear anywhere in this article??? "Tower of Babel" is the Biblical term, it is about the Biblical story primarily as found in the Bible, and similar accounts are only thrown in for comparative purposes. Finally, don't speak with such confidence about what "my church" teaches, since you obviously don't have any idea what that might be yourself... I can name several churches that state that the Tower of Babel was a historical fact and not a myth by any definition, but I didn't state anything about what I personally believe. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Just because you believe something yourself does not make it neutral. I believe the same as you, however I am attempting to put my personal beliefs aside and choose neutrality. Furthermore you simply don't understnad the meaning of the word myth.
Myth: a traditional story accepted as history from [3].
Myth: a common or shared historical experience from [4]
Myth: stories drawn from a society's history that have acquired through persistent usage the power of symbolizing that society's ideology and of dramatizing its moral consciousness from [5]

We've been through this to the tune of two or three megabytes already... It still doesn't change... As long as "myth" continues to also mean "fictional", it's ambiguous... (You know what ambiguous means - it's when words have more than one meaning)... There are plenty of more neutral words that could be chosen besides "myth" if you are trying to say it's a traditional story... for example "traditional", or "story"... Myth is a loaded word; it is, like "superstition", a word that has historically been used by those who are attacking these beliefs or attempting to tell people not to believe in them any more, or to believe in something else... It can't shake off its history... Again, in your response above you refer twice to "what I believe" and even state that you believe the same thing - but I'm just wondering where you got any indication of "what I believe" because I am acting as a neutral editor to assure that no loaded, historically-used-as-attack words get tagged on here like a label and pretend that it's "neutral" just because some people seem desperate to convince everyone that it now suddenly has no sinister meaning any more (the other meaning is still in the dictionary, and is still used not only by most speakers, but widely on wikipedia). ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Myth issue

Guys, I take no paticular stand on this, I only got involved because I spied some edit warring and a poll, which per m:Polls are evil I don't want to see votes or really anything close to it here. It would be helpful if everyone would just write out their opinion on the Abrahamic Myths categorization, just a paragraph or two, and see if you can all work together. Try for a compromise iff possible, see if theres something that can be included in the article to clear up any misgivings about the myth label. If Codex is the only one disagreeing and 5 or 6 people want it in, yeah, you'll get it in, but try to come to a compromise instead. Alternately, if theres only 2 or 3 of you trying to force something in there, thats hardly a consensus. Civil debate is something that's missing in a lot of the world today, and wild accusations aren't to be flung around (The 'ruining wikipedia' comment is a pretty good example of that. Debate, not yelling or forcing. -M^ask 05:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Myth is a loaded word. Currently in wikipedia we are portraying the religions of Celts, Greeks, Mesopotamian, and Meso Americans as Myth. As the article on myth explains. It is not an exact word. However an exact word could not be used to describe this symbol, because it is true to some and false to others we cannot choose a more precise word from either conotation. If we label some stories with supersition and some with history we are imposing a far stronger POV. That said Abrahmic myth is a terrible name for a category, especially on a page which is entirely peripheral to this story cycle. But everyone seemed to be arguing about it here. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

An after note: anyone who is worried about a label which questions the authenticity should really read the article, the article does a pretty good job of questioning authenticity even without a label. :) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget the fact that muslims, buddhists and hindus are all major, modern religions, and all have mythology categories.... To say that it is unacceptable to use the very same term for christianity is VERY POV and biased... 134.161.241.176 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct, and even Christianity has a mythology category... But please note, none of those categories include sacred texts, like the Quran, Lotus Sutra, Bhagavad Gita, so why should Christianity and Judaism be forced to include sacred texts as "mythology"? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I call BS. Shaitan Qareen Iblis Genie Ifrit Marid in fact, all but 3 of the Islamic ones ARE from the Quran... Might want to fact check a little bit.... That is only ONE of the categories.... Try again. 134.161.241.176 22:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

there can be no question whatsoever that the Bhagavad Gita is part of Hindu mythology, and Genesis is part of Hebrew/Jewish/Abrahamic mythology. Literalism is a matter of faith and faith alone, viz. the faith in the historical occurrence of a particular set of myths (see also Mere Christianity). Even such belief does not prevent them from being myths. It is very unreasonable to even have to discuss this. Once again, Codex, like on Talk:Assyria and elsewhere, you are trying to twist equal treatment of the world's mythologies and religions to look like anti-Jewish or anti-Christian bias. It only looks that way from a faith-based "Abrahamic literalism" point of view. Of course, if you happen to believe that the stories of Genesis are more true than that of the Mahabharata, equal treatment will look to you like lumping together "true" and "mythic" stories. WP can assume no such preconceptions about biblical or any other mythemes. Every myth can be, and was, taken as "true", in a mythic mindset. dab (ᛏ) 08:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with the ad hominem and the characterisation that I am twisting anything, I have not twisted anything nor am I asking for any special treatment for the sacred scriptures of one widely practised faith over another. All I have been consistently saying is that no Encyclopedia I have ever seen before now has ever mentioned the Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Buddhist Holy Books as "mythology", and for very good reason - it's because vast numbers of millions of people still consider each of them true. Every encyclopedia I have ever seen has reserved polemic words like "mythology" for beliefs that are no longer widely practised. The only reason we are suddenly seeing these polemic kinds of words applied to various living religions now, is because wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can write. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ad Hominem? Pointing out that you are arguing from a christian centric viewpoint is hardly ad hominem when you have been doing it on this very page for the past 2 weeks. The topics you pick to argue are christan, the viewpoint you choose is fundamentalist? What more can be said? You are the one making misleading arguments, you don't care about Hindu, muslim and Buddhist works being called mythology or you would be over Hindu mythology curing the world of this terrible bias. No you are acting like POV defender for christianity, therefore it is hardly ad hominem to point this out. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if maybe you have some kind of reading comprehensuion difficulty or what, but one more time, once again, nowhere at any time have I ever made such arguments. I looked at Category:Hindu mythology once and not being an expert in Hinduism, I did not recognise one single article listed there well enough to say whether or not it belongs. That is best left to people who are expert in that religion. I have been repeatedly called to task for not being an expert in Hinduism, but the fact remains, it is wrong to use historically polemic language like "mythology" to describe the sacred texts of ANY religion that is widely practised today, be it Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, all of which are official in some countries, and to pretend that this polemic language is "neutral". Other encyclopedias do not do this, and this is all I have stated from the very beginning. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean other encyclopedias like Brittanica Online [6]? Lets list just a few of the religious mythology articles from just this one source! I will only list some that deal with "contemporary religions" (a somewhat pov designation itself):

• Gods and mythology worldview (syria and palestine) [7] ( ohh my that includes christianity and judaism and look at that article title)
• Varuna [8] (Every one of the hindu Gods is refered to as Mythic, yes they are still worshipped in modern times)
• Biblical Leviathon [9] (and I quote "in Jewish mythology, a primordial sea serpent. Its source is in prebiblical Mesopotamian myth, especially that of the sea monster in the Ugaritic myth of Baal (see Yamm). In the Old Testament, Leviathan appears in Psalms 74:14...)
• I can't do any more there are just too many. Brittanica has a great search feature try it yourself.

Brittanica online has huge article trees dedicated just to exploring the interconnection of some of these myth systems. They are similar to our categories but better anotized. Anyway, you can stop making stuff up to support your argument now. I have covered each one of your objections in detail. There is nothing else to say, every one of your arguments has proven false. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to every printed (non-online) Encyclopedia I have ever seen from the 20th Century. But I didn't see any problem with the examples you gave from Brittanica. I wouldn't know anything about Varuna, or if this is a sacred text or what, so I don't feel qualified to speak of the appropriateness of that. But 'Leviathan' most definitely qualifies as 'mythology'; it may be referenced in a couple of poetic Bible verses, but by and large, the vast majority of it is an extra-Biblical story, not a Biblical one, and most of the subject fits well in the "mythology" category. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are trying to imply that the Encyclopedia_Brittanica is not a print publication? Perhaps you are making this statement so that you can rule out any further links I might provide disproving you. The encylopedia is a modern, 20th century (18th edition 1985) well respected encyclopedia. In fact it is considered something of a yardstick by which we measure how professional wikipedia is written. Please see the above linked wikipedia article.

Your second argument, that Leviation qualifies as mythology because it is not mentioned in the bible often and has many extra biblical sources is disengenious as well. The first reason is that the same criteria would make Tower of Babel a myth as well, since a lot of extra-biblical and non-canon stories exist which mention the tower. For example see: Koran (sura ii. 96), Lane's "Arabian Nights," chap. iii., note 14, and Al-Tha'labi's "Ḳiṣaṣ al-Anbiyya," pp. 43 et seq. I can provide more if you would like. By your own logic this would make babel eligable for a myth category. Unless you believe Arabian Nights to be literal history.

As for the leviathon. The leviathon also plays a prominent role in the story of Jonah, which is not just "a couple of poetic verses" it is clear that the Leviathon is a literal beast in this story and that the poetry is refering to the same beast. see [10] (Jewish encyclopedia). --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that wikipedia should categorize this article as "mythology", because your source is that Encyclopedia Britannica categorizes "Leviathan" as mythology. The multiple logical fallacies here should be apparent. Getting back on topic, there are numerous religious organizations with hundreds of millions of followers that teach the Tower of Babel was a historical event, and you are also arguing that their point of view should not be respected, beause apparently you think you have found some kind of superior knowledge to them to be able to state that it was not a historical event. But wikipedia should be neutral, and should not use such biased and non-neutral language to take sides and declare any one scripture to be "mythology", your own pov notwithstanding. It must not take any stand whatsoever on whether it is historical or mythological, but should just present all the evidence and let readers make up their own mind instead of trying to make it up for them. Your attempts to use wikipedia as a platform for pushing one pov against another are going to be resisted. By the way, it might be more to the point if you can find an Encyclopedia that calls "Tower of Babel" mythology, not Leviathan. Tower of Babel is primarily a Biblical story (note the word primarily). Leviathan is not. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please reply to my arguments rather than attacking me personally. Notice that I have never changed the contested area myself. You have! I have been attempting to convince you using logic, so that we can reach a consensus. You don't know what my POV is, in fact you missed the mark by miles.

Both the leviathan and Babel have archeological evidence to support them, yet are refered to in various "mythologys", even though you can find toothed "whales" roaming the sea in modern times. Mythology is simply a classification method for old stories. A way to group them together by region, culture and yes even religion. It is difficult for me to understand what or why you are attacking here. My religion, christianity, is not going to be labeled MYTH anytime soon, and it doesn't need you to protect it from this.

You say that the bible is the primary source of the story. So it is obvious that you have not been reading my links or citations. Let my synopsize, The Tower of Babel in the bible is only a part of a larger story cycle that of Nimrod (king). Parts of it appear in the bible but the story is much larger. see The Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg (1909)., You can read the entire thing from Project Gutenberg, here is a link [11]. The story cycle of Nimrod is refered to in my own inline reference bible as a "Legend". The writings pertaining to Nimrod, and his building of the tower of babel, along with assorted other adventures first appeared in written form in the jewish traditions known as Midrash. The Midrash themselves are not part of the bible rather they are a compilation of even earlier local oral traditions that is story telling from pre-literate times. This is one of the reasons that the story reoccurs so frequently and with so many different forms, legend and mythology of the region as a whole. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

On a side note; You have forced me to get the citations for many of my earlier statements, I should really put some of this information into the article itself. Especially since we have a very large article on Nimrod already. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not attacking anything here. I am merely defending neutrality, and will continue to do so as long as I am able. As long as there is demonstrably one sizable body of opinion that says "This is historical and not mythology", and there is another sizable body of opinion that says "This is mythology and not historical", and it cannot be proven one way or another, usage of a category to push one pov or the other is not going to be acceptable or neutral, regardless of what anyone's personal feelings are. If someone added this article to the category "History of Iraq", no doubt you would object. And so would I, because I stand for strict neutrality, and such a category would be pushing one pov over another, since we can't say for sure it is or isn't History. I feel exactly the same way about labeling this as "mythology" as about labeling this "History of Iraq". If you want to thoroughly discuss the issue of who considers this story to be history or mythology, and why, there is plenty of room to address that in the article. A category is a lot harder to npov, beause it's either there, or it isn't; enshrining a disputed, controversial word as a category that major schools of thought concerned with the subject have explicitly rejected, and other schools in turn have used to attack them, just isn't going to pass as "neutral". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical and mythological are not mutually exclusive. Babylon is both historical and mythological. The god Marduk is both historical and mythological. Noone has ever claimed babylon did not exist (well not since the 1800s). What are you talking about? I really don't understand your POV. In your world do schools teach mythology and history in seperate segregated classes? As far as I know you are the only person who is offended. Most of pre-modern history is mythology and all of mythology is history. Societies passed on information through the generations with heroic tales and legends, myth. Babel is as much a part of History of Iraq as anything!

Take Johnny Appleseed for instance, he is categorized in American Folklore AND listed in births for 1774. History and myth coexisting! Does this overwhelm your mind? Cause the rest of us can handle it. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, now you're going for that old ad hominem again, because it is most certainly not just me. You probably haven't been to many countries around the world, and probably live in a country where Christianity is not official. I just heard a deacon giving a sermon in my Church only yesterday where he most vehemently stated that the Tower of Babel was a historical fact and definitely not a myth. This is an Orthodox Church, where 95% of the community attends, not one of your western Churches where there only a few old ladies in the pews. There are about 13 countries in the world where the majority are Orthodox. Now let's look at Catholics, didn't the current Pope just write a book where he said people were wrong to call the Bible mythology? Ok, I've already covered hundreds of millions of adherents, haven't even addressed the Protestants who believe in the Bible yet.... But then we have those who despite all this try to use the same attack words that have been used for centuries against the Bible, like "mythology", and try to argue that I am the only person in the world who disagrees. People have been debating for centuries whether the Tower of Babel could have happened or not -- for centuries. I am not aware of any new information that has come out lately, the only new thing is that one side of the debate has told the other side "Well, we've decided it really IS mythology, because that's what we think, so you're not allowed to disagree anymore." Yeah, right. Like I said, there's plenty of room to address all this in the article from all possible sides, but pov pushing with non-neutral categories is not negotiable. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was myth, I am merely trying to keep you from censoring encyclopedic information. Babel is already included in History of Mesopotamia. You just said you would fight to protect this article from being labeled as history either! Please reply after my other messages. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And please stop accusing me of POV, I would include it in both history and myth categorys. Each one presents a valid thread for future investigation. I do not want to segregate information, I am not afraid that people will accidently click too far and learn too much about a subject. (hmm maybe i have found out why you crusade?) :) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact: History of Mesopotamia already includes a link to Babel. You couldn't be more wrong about this. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WHat in the world are you talking about? History of Mesopotamia is a redirect to Mesopotamia, and yes, Mesopotamia has a link to the article Babel, which is a historical name for Babil, and at times has redirected here, but currently does not. What is that supposed to prove? Is that the only way you could get "History" and "Babel" to link? That's quite ingenuous! I'm usually not too overawed by arguments relying on refering to other wikipedia articles as a source or a precedent. But at any rate, I said I would oppose this article being added to a "History category". Noone has tried to do so, so that's a moot point, and a red herring. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep ignoring my main argument and attackin straw men, I am done arguing with you. I have been reading your other posts and it is pretty obvious that you are a christian POV crusader. But, you do seem somewhat out of your element arguing with someone who knows the material better than you and who won't put up with fabrications. I have provided you with rebuttle of every argument, I have cited references. You have made up facts, attacked straw men and seem to disagree only with the English Language. You are avoiding the main points of my arguments and focusing on pointless minor details. *sigh* this doesn't help wikipedia get better. Just wasting my time when I could have been contributing. Ciao --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it would be simple enough to test the term 'Myth' for POV. Here's an easy question: Is the Battle of Troy a myth? If your initial reaction is to say "No, of course not, archaeologists found out that really happened!" then it seems pretty clear to me that calling the Tower of Babel thing a myth would be NPOV with regards to biblical inerrency. Me being a Christian that thinks the Tower story is probably considered a myth. 72.95.110.41 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better test for POV on the word 'myth'. Is everyone else's religious stories myth, but yours are not myth? That's POV. Even if the Illiad were true, it would still be a myth, because it was a story that was an important part of a religion. It is not the truth or falsity of a story which dictates whether or not it is a myth, it is whether or not this story is an important part of a religion.--RLent (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... The lead para of the Mythology article says, "The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[4][5] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.[5][6] In the field of folkloristics, a myth is conventionally defined as a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[7][6][8] Many scholars in other academic fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[8][9][10] In a very broad sense, the term can refer to any traditional story." (see supporting cites in the References section of that article).

Why don't the people who think that calling this (or Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, the Exodus, etc) a myth, just provide credible, cited evidence that any of this things happened? Otherwise, I fail to see how calling stories like this with little to no evidence what they are: myths. Just because millions of people happen to have fallen for these stories as actually true doesn't mean we should cater to them just because they're offended that someone is calling their "sacred" beliefs what they are: myths. I don't see how you can call any of the greek myths "myths" and then call the Tower of Babel or Noah's Ark "not a myth". Name one difference between the story of the Tower of Babel and any other widely accepted myth. What..that more people believe it's true despite the evidence to the contrary? So a myth's status as a "myth" is directly related to the number of people who falsely believe it's really true?SuperAtheist (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tower of Babel in Art

Shouldn't be a section in this article dedicated to representation of Tower of Babel in art (especially in painting)? Tavilis 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be one. The Tower is featured in art that is not strictly dedicated to it. ArdClose 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Help in translation

Hello! I was wondering if someone could tell me the meaning of "seest", since I´m doing the translation of this article to portuguese, but I can't seem to find the meaning of this word. Cheers.

Hi! "Seest" is an archaic English form of the verb "to see". In 1600, the ending -est or -st on verbs was still used with the second person singular / familiar pronoun, which was "thou". So, "thou seest" in today's English would be "you see".

Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry to bother you again, but what does "stades" mena, as in "thirteen stades"?Cheers.

I just found the answer at Ancient Greek units of measurement - apparently, one stade, or stadion, means 185.4 meters. Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Tower of Babel as Allegory

The Tower of Babel story deals with the themes of civil hubris and the rise and fall of empire. The key elements in the story are the "one language" which is the basis of empire (as the Latin language was the basis of the Roman empire, the English language the basis of the British empire and so on); the "one speech" which points to a common ideology or mode of thought; the "city" which represents civil society; and the "tower" which represents human ambition. To "reach unto heaven" is to realize the highest aspirations of humanity. God, however, does not allow humanity to fulfil its heavenly aspirations in terms of a purely material project ("..brick ..and mortar"). Instead the city (civil society) is allowed to descend into a state of chaos and dissonance ("that they may not understand each other's speech"). The archetypal empire is then "scattered.. upon the face of all the earth, and they left off to build the city" signifying the end of the imperial project. A detailed allegorical analysis may be found at http://www.understandinggenesis.com (unsigned comment)

This was not allegory, but reality. According to Anne Catherine Emmerich Proto-Indo-European is a language from before Babel. More explained here: [12]

I found proper successor of Pokorny's Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch and Brugmann's/Delbrück's Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen called Indogermanisches Wörterbuch by Gerhard Köbler. Its Vorwort contains complete PIE grammar. This book is available here: http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Anyone can download all PDF,TTF and main page to use it offline. 83.5.76.137 18:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

claims without any actual followup

The Estonian myth of " the Cooking of Languages " (Kohl, Reisen in die 'Ostseeprovinzen, ii. 251-255) has also been compared, as well as the Australian myth of the origin of the diversity of speech (Gerstacker, Reisen, vol. iv. pp. 381 seq.). What are these two myths that are being compared?

Proposed addition to paragraph on internal contradictions of story.

I propose adding content to the following paragraph at the end of the Historicity section:

Traditionally, the peoples listed in Chapter 10 of Genesis (the Table of Nations) are understood to have been scattered over the face of the earth from Shinar only after the abandonment of The Tower, which follows as an explanation of this cultural diversity. Some, however, see an internal contradiction between the mention already in Genesis 10:5 that "From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with his own language" and the subsequent Babel story, which begins "Now the entire earth was of one language and uniform words" (Genesis 11:1).

Please provide your inputs on the wikipedia standards for including references to the historicity of the single language portion of the narrative. In addition to the internal contradiction, there is an external contradiction presented by archeology in that more than one language is known to have existed before the ziggurats were constructed. The Tower of Babel narrative is usually considered to be based on the Great Ziggurat of Ur or the Ziggurat in Eridu as indicated in the referenced articles. These Ziggurats were constructed approximately in the 21st century B.C. Archeologists have evidence of at least two languages (Sumerian and Egyptian) which predate these buildings by a thousand years as shown in the article oldest language.

This makes several faulty inferences. First, that the 'Tower of Babel' is "usually considered" to be based on the ziggurats in Ur or Eridu. There is one scholar, David Rohl, who has made a case (fairly compelling IMO) for the one in Eridu, but that's hardly "usually considered". There is no such agreement as to its location, or even if it was based on any one thing at all. Second, the ziggurats you mentioned seem to be much older than the 21st c. BC. In the Ur-III period around 2050 BC, it appears that Amar-Sin tried to restore one or both of them, but both structures are known to have existed beforehand both through archaeology and through historical record of earlier kings. Finally, the development of languages is still a mysterious subject and there is no precise way to date this to 3000 BC or to say how Sumerian and Egyptian came to be the oldest, but it does not necessarily represent a "contradiction" to the Biblical narrative since different languages also could have been used before the deluge. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That was quick. Good point on "usually considered." Perhaps you could suggest better wording. Some authors have used the archeological evidence of the ziggaruts as proof of the historicity of the Tower of Babel narrative. In regards languages, I was not suggesting that they developed in 3000 B.C. I was merely pointing out that we have archeological evidence of at least two distinct languages as early as 3100 B.C. (there were no doubt thousands of actual languages being spoken around the world at that time and much earlier). The point I was trying to bring up is that the narrative states that there was only one language in the world prior to the Tower of Babel episode. If the narrative is true, we would not expect to find evidence for multiple languages prior to the construction of the tower. The articles referenced give dates for the construction of the ziggaruts that are well after the evidence of multiple languages. Is this not an external contradiction with the story? (Como)

More specifically, some authors may have identified one or another of the ziggurats as the inspiration for the story, or as the original tower. We don't really have any examples of ziggurats that have been so identified except for Rohl's thesis of the one in Eridu, and the more classic view associating it with the one in Babylon. The one in Ur isn't even mentioned. Again, the development of language is mysterious and any assumptions we might make about the situation in 3100 BC would be just that, assumptions. All we have are the beginnings of writing in Egypt and Mesopotamia around that time, trying to fix any dates in the 4th millennium is notoriously imprecise, but claims have been put forth for both of these being earlier. And more specifically, the Genesis narrative indicates that Noah's descendants could all speak the same language after the flood, up to the time of Babel. It does not say how many languages were spoken before the flood. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture and modern influence

The Popular culture and modern influence section is ridiculously long and loaded with information that is entirely unnecessary and unrelated to the actual subject of the article. Barring serious objections, I'm going to make cuts there in a few days.

What's worth saving, in my mind:

• The intro to the section,
• the first 2 sentences of the Babylon 5 reference,
• the first part of the reference to "The City Coat of Arms", by Kafka, and
• the reference to "That Hideous Strength" by Lewis.

These are the only cultural references I can find with a real, strong relation to the actual Tower of Babel story. Vague allusions, fan interpretations, and minor references in an otherwise totally unrelated work are not in any way notable or neccessary for inclusion in an encyclopaedia.

That said, I'm quite willing to keep other references that may be more related than I'm aware of. I'm not in any way fully versed on each and every point in the section.

Dbratton 22:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I see that anon user 210.49.137.167 seems to have removed the section and replaced it with just an "É" (which was subsequently removed). I'm not sure if this was vandalism, a mistake, or purposeful, but it was certainly one way to go about what I suggested. Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether an abbreviated section should be restored, or shall it just be left as it is? My preference is the total removal, inadvertent though it may have been. The article is stronger and more to the point without the dozens of vague references to games and movies. Dbratton 10:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so happy about losing the entire Popular Culture section. Even if most of it is irrelevant to the subject it should be worth noting items that have drawn inspiration from it. I would not mind seeing, at the very least, a simple list of titles that were inspired by the Tower of Babel, even if it is simply using the name for something else. For example a list item would contain Doom, followed by the link to the "Tower of Babel" article on Doom.wikia.com. (Sorry, I'm a newb so I don't know how to link out to another wiki.) And of course, other things like Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash very STRONGLY makes use of the Tower of Babel in its storyline, and it and many other items deserve at least a line or two (or a higher ranking on the list). Zaximus 02:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed some trivia being added and was a bit surprised to see the exhaustive list of trivia had been disappeared. IMO, the Tower of Babel is a rich meme that has changed over the centuries, from God's strong hand in Bible times, to now being used to represent globalisation (both for and against). It is relevant to include the trivia that illustrates how it is being used today to conjure visions of global destruction by our own hands, or mankind shaking his fist at God, etc. Perhaps it needs to be covered separately; Tower of Babel (meme) ?

And as recent edits will show, the trivia contributions will always keep come back. Here is a link to the version with the most complete list of trivia, as of 20:12, 28 October 2006. [13]. John Vandenberg 07:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The (currently) first external link goes to a site that lists hundreds of popular culture references - might be best to leave them there rather than try to reproduce all that information here? Escha 21:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Proof?

Humanity unites to build the worlds talled structure and they engineer the building to be so high and massive that it reaches the heavens? But there is no actual records of such a tower, no ruins, no known site for it? Did they actually try to build this tower, because this article goes in length for religious debates and where it fits in with the story of the bible but it doesn't actually talk about the ACTUAL tower. What's up with that? The article is about the tower, it should say right near the start wether or not evidence of the tower existed or if it is accepted that it was just a story JayKeaton 12:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Accepted"? Well yes, it's accepted by some that it is "just a story", and it is accepted by others that it existed according to the actual records, and among this last group there are even competing ideas of where the ruins are right now. It all depends on whom you ask, and whose books you read - one of those "our books versus their books" situations. That's exactly what makes this a delicate NPOV issue - the "significant" opinions are highly divergent. (see WP:NPOV policy.) I think our current article does an exemplary job of bringing out all of these points I just mentioned in the most neutral way possible. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So there is conclusive publicated proof that the tower never existed and there is also conclusive publicated proof that it did in fact exist? This is all a little confusing :( JayKeaton 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously nothing has been "proven" either way to everyone's satisfation, or there would be no disagreements about it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have always heard this that the story in the Bible is true, but God's intervention ends there. However after its mention the tower was finished, but not at its intended hight. Some Babylonian Texts claimed that there was a tall tower in Babylon. After Babylon burned the tower remained and when Babylon was flooded by its conquerers mud brick in the tower melted and it came crashing down, leaving only the foundation. --Grand Moff Whilhuf Tarkin (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This might actually make more sense as an explanation then many of the other theories I've heard. Some of the heights quoted in the article might be historically relevant but are nearly physically impossible in pre-modern society. This tower may have existed but I'd be shocked if it were higher than 700 ft or so. And perhaps most importantly the accounts of the dimensions all seem to contradict each other. Fatrb38 (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well in fairness many of histories largest and greatest structures have simply vanished over time, like certain temples, pyramids, the collosuss of Rhodes. It's not unusual for there to be literally no trace of many ancient structures. Relativly speaking we have uncovered very few of the ancient world's structures as it is. Indeed, many of the structures (that is to say outline of structures since actually finding an intact one is incredibly rare) we have uncovered were found simply due to their mention in the bible, and prior to being found were largley belived to be myth, others have appeared in the documented texts of other cultures as well. 86.41.147.114 (talk)

"::So there is conclusive publicated proof that the tower never existed and there is also conclusive publicated proof that it did in fact exist? This is all a little confusing :( JayKeaton 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)" publicated isn't a word. Americans please stop adding "icated" and "ized" to adjectives (or indeed verbs) in attempts to make new verbs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.112.82 (talk)

Babel tower height, revised?

How come this article doesn't cites babel tower may had just around 35 feet, or 4 floors?

If you can find a reliable source that states this, feel free to add it yourself. :) Daniel^C/_T+ 09:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Other traditions

Should the Sumerian myth be moved to the other traditions section? — Omegatron 00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Arrogance?

I beleive the summary at the top of the page ("God, observing the arrogance of humanity in the construction...") is biased, as it never directly quotes in the bible that humans were being arrogant in their quest for the heavens. In fact, does the new testament and the later cannon's quote that mankind should be as one? Feel free to discuss this on my talk pageHere Gollod 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The EU building

Someone needs to write about the The EU's "Parliament" Building in Strasbourg, which was based around the Tower of Babel, and its heavy links to New World order, and the Satanic occult.

When asked why the building was designed to mimic the tower of babel by a jounalist, the EU official replied, '‘What they failed to complete 3000 years ago – we in Europe will finish now.’

Any comments on my talk page would be appreciated, and I strongly beleive people should be alerted to this and its relevence.

By sonic-skunk

Can you find an WP:RS for that quote? If so we might could mention it somewhere, but it would need to be verifiable. Til Eulenspiegel 15:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

References

http://www.nextcrusade.com/eu.html http://www.albatrus.org/english/living/ourtimes/europe_new_babylon.htm http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/232507-post4.html http://www.wps6.co.uk/~dev_lfld/view_page.asp?page_id=174&section_id=1&menu_id=227

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1749207.stm

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/european_union.html http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Despatch/Despatch15_2_28-37.pdf

There are so many sites about this with hard-evidence of its biblical significance. Take a look at some of the sites.

this is so pathetically cranky that it might even deserve a note for its twisted fascination  :) --dab (𒁳) 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

citations in the lead

There are interpretations in the lead. They need citations. An editor removed the request for citations without providing the citations. Leadwind 13:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead's getting better, and thanks for the help! Please don't delete referenced, scholarly material just because you disagree with it. Jonathan Tweet 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, but I can tell you that the "Jesus Seminar" hypotheses are highly controversial and should not be pushed as if they were now somehow suddenly conclusively established to the unanimous satisfaction of all scholars (I must have missed that development). If you use this opinion, it should be phrased as "According to Stephen L. Harris..." and probably does not need to be favored in the intro. Til Eulenspiegel 14:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Understanding the Bible is the most popular nonsectarian college-level textbook on the Bible, and has been in use for over 20 years. Harris's participation in the Jesus Seminar doesn't make his textbook no longer a reliable source. If you have a reliable source that contradicts Harris, cite it. Leadwind 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From wp:rs: "In general, the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers" (emphasis mine). UtB is a university level textbook and a reliable source. The Jesus Seminar never even addressed the Tower of Babel as it's not about Jesus. Leadwind 17:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

More work on the lead. The first paragraph is now the story itself, without interpretation. The second paragraph is the common interpretation. The last is the historical commentary. We might know that Nimrod was arrogant, but that's not in the story, so it goes in the second paragraph. Leadwind 02:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Nimrod being a "mighty hunter" deserves to be in the first intro paragraph? Seems irrelevant and out of place to me. CharacterZero | Speak 06:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - no point mentioning it in the lead - deleted it.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation that Josephus is a typical source

Leadwind wants a citation that Josephus' account of the tower being ordered to be built by the arrogant tyrant Nimrod is 'typical' of non-Biblical accounts, which I admit is mildly annoying, since I don't see why there would be any dispute that most of the non-Biblical accounts after Josephus were heavily indebted to his (or at least a very similar) version of events. I know opinions are supposed to be cited, but I'm not sure why it is necessary for this kind of statement; I have no doubt that a source could be found that Josephus' account is indeed typical, but I'm not even sure where the best place to begin looking is. Leadwind, is there some alternative view that you are getting at, that does not consider Josephus to be typical, to help me understand where you are going, or where you want the article to go? Til Eulenspiegel 17:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The modern scholarly understanding is that this story explains the origins of languages and the origin of the name Babel, while denigrating Babylon. This business about flawed humans, etc., doesn't seem original to the story but rather a later interpretation. If we're going to give later interpretations, we should also provide the original one. If we don't provide the simple, original interpretation, then we shouldn't treat Josephus's interpretation as normal. Jonathan Tweet 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious, I also edit under the name leadwind. Usually I only use on name per page, but with Tower of Babel I've confused it up pretty bad (which is fitting, right, for tower of Babel?) Jonathan Tweet 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps we can tweak the wording to be more acceptable to you. After reading carefully the section entitled "Midrash" which quotes several views given in rabbinic literature, including the Mishnah as well as Josephus, do you think it would be fair to say: "The typical Jewish and rabbinic interpretive account of the story, as found for example in Flavius Josephus, explains the tower's destruction in terms of mankind's deficiency in comparison to God." ? And since Christian sources, especially those written during all those centuries when the belief was practically universal that the Tower of Babel was historical, generally do make this same point, would it be fair enough to say in the summary: "The typical Judaeo-Christian interpretive account of the story, as found for example in Flavius Josephus, explains the tower's destruction in terms of mankind's deficiency in comparison to God." ? (That would entail adding the descriptor "Judaeo-Christian" to qualify "typical" and "interpretive"). If you still find that too ambiguous, the word "traditional" might be added in there. Til Eulenspiegel 22:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the interpretation of the construction is easier to find support for than the interpretation of its destruction, and logically should come first anyway. Here is my proposal:

"The traditional Judaeo-Christian interpretation of the story, as found for example in Flavius Josephus, explains the construction of the tower as a potentially hubristic act of defiance towards the God who created them. The tower's destruction is sometimes seen in terms of mankind's deficiency in comparison to God: within a religious framework, mankind is considered to be an inherently flawed creation dependent on a perfect being for its existence."

Like this, the part about the destruction is now obviously the weakest part, and maybe ought to be trimmed or removed all the way. Til Eulenspiegel 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead is looking better. Leadwind 02:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Book of Jubilees

See Jubilees.

An editor has a problem with this paragraph and repeatedly deletes it.

The Book of Jubilees, one of the [[Pseudepigrapha]], recounts Genesis and the first twelve chapters of [[Exodus]], elaborating on the text (similar to a [[Midrash]]) and offering a [[Pharisaic]] perspective on it.<ref name ="Harris">[[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.</ref> <!--this sentence explains what Book of Jubilees is and why it includes the tower of babel story.-->

Maybe the problem is that the term "Pseudepigrapha" has two meanings. Primarily, it means "falsely ascribed to a respected author," which is negative. In Bible studies, however, it refers to one of various Jewish religious books written between 200 BC and 200 AD, and it's capitalized. Some of the "Pseudepigrapha" are pseudepigraphal, but not all of them. Since the source is a university-level textbook (see WP:Reliable Source), we ought to be free to refer to it. Leadwind (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: Or maybe the problem is "Pharisaic." Lots of people have a negative opinion of the Pharisees. Anyway, I don't want to keep warring. This editor and I are unlikely to agree. Would someone care to break the tie? Leadwind (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My problem is actually that it is off topic. This article is about the Tower of Babel, not to discuss all the various and disputed opinions that can be cited on the Book of Jubilees, which belongs on that article. We usually put minimal information along with a link to the title of the Book, we don't include a mini-discussion of every single book that is linked here. I don't think we need to include a sentence that supposedly "explains what Book of Jubilees is and why it includes the tower of babel story" that really amounts to POV pushing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

TE, please try to describe the Book of Jubilees and why it includes Tower of Babel in NPOV fashion. Once we see your version and mine, maybe we can find a compromise. Leadwind (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

TE, if you can't offer an alternative, let's go with my text. Mine's cited. Don't delete cited information without showing that it's wrong. Leadwind (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No can do. You simply haven't addressed my above reasoning that it is off topic, and POV pushing. The EOTC regards Jubilees as a canonical text, despite what your personal view is on its canonicity, you have to remain neutral and concede that they also are entitled to have a significant view on this topic since they are the only ones who have the complete text, and they keep it in their Bible canon. All we need to do is simply link the topic, instead of introducing a POV debate over contested information on this article which is barely tangential to that topic. As I said above, we don't include a mini-discussion of every single book that is linked here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that Jubilees as it stands right now is perfectly neutral to the significant points of view and does not take sides as your proposed edit does. It should simply be linked for the reader to find out more about, please don't bring that debate to this article in aone-sided manner. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A description of BoJ is not off-topic in a section called BoJ. Find any RS that contradicts Harris. Leadwind (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The EOTC contradicts Harris. There is not a shred of anything Hellenistic or Maccabean in the Book of Jubilees whatsoever, which is why the EOTC considers the Hellenistic / Maccabean hypothesis to be pure disinformation about its actual contents. You are blatantly pushing a POV hypothesis as if it were certified truth, with information that does not at all explain anything valid about the Tower of Babel, so I am going to have to challenge the neutrality of this section. It is only considered Pseudepigrapha or "false writing" by the Protestant, Catholic churches, so you are making Wikipedia to endorse their view of the canon and to declare the Ethiopian Orthodox faith incorrect. I insist on strict neutrality and no side-taking. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I made it more npov with a slight change in order to reflect the Jubilees article, if we can both accept this compromise it should hopefully end our dispute. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But you made it no longer conform to the cited source. How about we match what the RS says? Leadwind (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The POV of your source is disputed, so the wording must attribute it to who considers it Pseudepigrapha and Pharisee, not state that it is Pseudepigrapha and Pharisee. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Who's disputing the POV? Find a source that says any different from Harris. Until then, we can just cite his information as RS. Leadwind (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated the source that disputes the POV numerous times, Ethiopian Orthodox scholars are on record as considering that western assertions that Jubilees is 2nd century or Pharisaic and that these theories are bald disinformation and baseless assertions, because they were found in the Dead Sea texts who were NOT a Pharisee group. You are deliberately turning a blind eye, as if I hadn't mentioned the EOTC at all, so I am afraid the disputed tag will have to remain until you can see past your own nose and acknowledge that there really are other significant perspectives on Jubilees besides the western one that you evidently subscribe to. This is a very shoddy area of research because as I have said there is not a shred of internal evidence that Jubilees is Hellenistic, it began as one European scholar hypothesizing that it is Hellenistic without really offering any convincing reason, and all the other western scholars simply adopted his view without questioning it because they thought it sounded good, and presto, they have established a 'consensus' among themselves that Jubilees is Hellenistic that totally ignores established Ethiopian scholarship; this is the unfortunate and ugly side of Biblical research, but WIKIPEDIA MUST REMAIN NEUTRAL. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to tell me who disagrees with Harris. I'm asking you to cite a reliable source. Please read WP:RS. You're not allowed to thwart other editors' RS-cited information just because you say someone disagrees with it. You need a RS. Leadwind (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Book of Jubilees is part of the canon, and one of the most important and revered books. I am sorry that you do not believe me or would demand a source for this easily verifiable information. Harris' point of view is not universal, and it is beyond arrogant to pretend his view is universal without dispute by pretending that those who disagree with his assessment a priori either do not count, are not significant, or do not exist. In cases where a POV is not universal, the opinions are not to be stated as fact but per NPOV must be phrased to attribute them to whose opinion it is; this is the meaning of the tag. Don't pretend that his POV hypotheses are universal when you know they aren't. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If your information's easy to verify, then please simply verify it with a reliable source. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother "proving" that Jubilees is canonical part of the Ethiopian Bible and considerably sacred to the Ethiopian Church. Any child could find this information. Per my reading of RS, I am not required to provide any RS when all I'm actually trying to do is get you to attribute your own source properly with a tag, per WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup introduction..

I would like to clean up the introductory sections a little bit, both in organization and wording. For example the section "Narrative" would be better named "Biblical Narrative," or something along the lines. Also there really is no section for the biblical interpretation of it (although you guys have done great work on the extra-biblical stuff). Some of the facts given in the intro are later given in the "Other Sources" section and can be deleted or edited down. More citations are needed too. So, a basic cleanup of the "front end" of this article...

Does this seem ok to everybody to do this? Swisher6 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This is verging on an RFC. The sad truth is that none of this should be necessary on this article, which is intended to discuss the Tower of Babel, not the Book of Jubilees. You insist on reporting as if infallible fact a scholar who says that Jubilees is a Pseudepigrapha or "false writing" as the Pope calls it. This view is rejected by the Ethiopian Church, but you seem intent on having Wikipedia give the stamp of approval to the Roman Catholic dsignation and refuse to attribute the POV. I have tried to get you to read WP:NPOV several times, but since you are so intent on pushing a POV here in this unrelated article, I am now going to have to quote Wikipedia's official definition of "NPOV" below, so now maybe you will read it.

"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions...

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."...

Get it? It would be a fact to say that "x,y, and z consider Jubilees to be a Pseudepigrapha". It is subject to dispute to say "Jubilees IS a Pseudepigrapha, because the Pope says so, and so does scholar x". I know this may be hard for your POV to swallow. But Wikipedia does not endorse sides in a sectarian dispute, and the Ethiopian Church most definitely disputes the categorisation of "Pseudepigrapha" and states instead that it is a holy and canonical book, one of the most revered in the Ethiopian canon. Pretending that you have never heard of this, or don't have the means to verify it, is begging incredulity, and pleading ignorance. I could easily fill this page to several times its current length with reliable sources that explain what books, including Jubilees (AKA Kufale), are considered canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. If you could read Amharic, you could even pick up an "81-book Bible" like the one I have right here and find Jubilees right in there, just after the Book of Enoch. I was really hoping to avoid this kind of dispute since we should be discussing cited views on Tower of Babel here, and disputes on views pertaining to Jubilees should go to Talk:Jubilees. But, you insist on including a off-topic mini-discussion of Jubilees' canonicity within this article, in order to push as fact the Roman Catholic POV that it is uncanonical. In order to do this, you also have to state WHO considers it Pseudepigrapha and written by Pharisees, since not everyone does. I believe many scholars say it is Essene, not Pharisee, considering it was found also at Qumran. And for you to pretend the Ethiopian canon does not exist, should not exist, or is insignificant, is a typical case of "Systemic Bias". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In reality your edit is no different from writing an "explanation " like "The Book of Mormon is a forgery by Joseph Smith [¹]" right next to the Book of Mormon quote. No doubt you could cite many "reliable sources" from various theologians and secular scholars alike that assert this. But it would still be unfairly misattributing the POV as fact. The best you could do is write "X, y and z consider the Book of Mormon to be a forgery by Joseph Smith [¹]." But is such a discursion really appropriate to the depth of this article anyway? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting, if you will read the current version I wrote carefully it indeed accurately reflects what Harris has said, and there is no justification for reverting to a POV version. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop altering cited information. Please take this straight to RfC or Wikiquette alert. Leadwind (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. I am not altering cited information, please look at my version again, it cites the exact same information that is relevant to the Tower of Babel, it only moves the contrasting Ethiopian Orthodox view further down to the rest of the explanation. I have demonstrated that not every Church categorizes the book as Pseudepigrapha, you cannot push the Roman Catholic POV on the canon here and state that is infallibly "IS" pseudepigrapha. RFC is coming. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) The opening paragraph of the Book of Jubilees section is quite clear on which church views this writing as canonical. There is plenty of information about the Pseudepigrapha other places in WP, and a link to Jubilees and the EOC from this page. We don't need it here. Those familiar with the Catholic or Protestant Bible should have no problem allowing Jubilees as a traditional text here. Til Eulenspiegel is correct in this case.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I rather prefer Harris over Til Eulenspiegel. Leadwind (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Themes

This seems a bit odd to me (from the Themes section):

Man versus God: City of man vs. the City of God; Kingdom of Nimrod vs. the Kingdom of Christ

The Torah talking about city of man vs city of God? For the OT authors, the city of God was Jerusalem - there was no "versus" involved. And the Kingdom of Christ? In the OT? PiCo (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, if you keep pointing out bad stuff, I'll keep cutting it. Leadwind (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Other voices, other towers

Here's a piece from the section tracing tower-myths around the world:

"The traditions of the Karen people of Myanmar, which Frazer considered to show clear 'Abrahamic' influence, also relate that their ancestors migrated there following the abandonment of a great pagoda in the land of the Karenni 30 generations from Adam, when the languages were confused and the Karen separated from the Karenni."

Frazer is mistaken - the Karen were heavily, and very successfully, prosyletised by Baptist missionaries from the early 19th century, and adapted their own myths to the biblical ones from the beginning. I doubt they have a single story left which is genuinely their own. (Incoidentally, although the section doesn't mention it, I imagine this is a reference to the Sko Karen of the delta and the White Karen of Tenasserim, and excludes other Karen peoples. There's a lovely story about the fall of Pyu, which tells how a Pyu woman had her winowing basket ripped out of her hands by a whirlwind, or "sko", and ran through the streets calling out "Sko! Sko", upon which the entire city fell into a panic and ran off into the forest, believeing that the Sko Karen were attacking them - and that, according to the story, is how the Pyu lost their kingdom).PiCo (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict Frazer at all - read what he wrote about the Karen. To say he considered the Karen traditions to have 'Abrahamic' influence is actually an understatement. The term 'Abrahamic' was not widely used when he wrote his book, but I think it accurately summarizes his view. So if what you wrote above is correct, Frazer is not mistaken, but if you think he is, I hope you would have a source that says so! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Frazer's not mistaken in so far as he's quoting the Karen myths known to him at his time. His mistake was in not realising that the stories were relatively recent - the Karen had already been in contact with the Baptists for a century or so and had very enthusiastically adapted the bible stories to their own culture (so that the tower, for example, turns into a pagoda). Unfortunately I can't give you the names of the books - I read them when I was living in Burma in the late 80s but don't have them any more - but you seem to have acess to an excellent library and they might be available there. PiCo (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Frazer doesn't actually comment at all on how recent he thinks the Karen stories may or may not be; he just considers them to have assimilated or borrowed the "biblical" and "Christian legends" (ie, Abrahamic), "disguising them with a thin coat of local colour." (p. 383) The source he cites for the legend was published 1868, although he is writing in 1919. So it doesn't sound like your sources would contradict him, if you could find them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see. In that case I can agree. Incidentaly, are you aware of the Kuki Chin, from the other side of Burma, who have decided in the ast few decades that they're really one of the Lost Tribes of Israel? Because it happened so recenty there's been some studies of the actual process. Fascinating stuff. PiCo (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree, that apparently your lost sources would not contradict what Frazer wrote. Since this is supposed to be a discussion about improvements to this article, I don't want to get drawn into discussing my opinions about what you said regarding the Kuki Chin here, since we don't have anything on them to mention in this article, except to say that I have not heard much about this, and it could be fascinating. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, let's just cut this material. Without current citations to back it up, it's not worth keeping. Leadwind (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit of an extreme and knee-jerk excuse for deleting scholarly and interesting material on the article topic, that is both fully cited and fully relevant. Nobody but you has suggested censoring the cited material you (or perhaps your own doctrines that you push) personally don't care for. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Although Frazer wrote his book Folk-Lore in the Old Testament in 1919, modern scholarship on Tower of Babel-like myths and legends is still highly indebted to it today, as a comprehensive survey of all such legends around the world. Several websites (both pro-Bible and anti-Bible) reproduce the entire work in extenso, and it can also be found for free on Googlebooks.

Ignatius Donnelly had attempted to do something similar in the 19th century, but practically all of the other notions in his writing (eg "Atlantis") were utterly rejected by the mainstream as fringe stuff. However, Frazer covered every Tower legend that Donnelly had mentioned, plus many, many more; he left practically no stone unturned in his attempt to build an exhaustive survey of all legends bearing any resemblance to the Tower of Babel, and he also indicated those he felt were particularly obvious as showing missionary or Biblical influence, such as the Karens'. I don't know if anyone else has attempted to do this more recently, so it is only right that our section on similar stories around the world should mention him so extensively. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we not building the Tower Today?

Is God fed up with our curiosity? Is YHWH sighing at our fruitless efforts to discover the heavens when we should be using our abilities to enjoy existing on YHWH's Creation? Lets go back to the basics using today's technology. Simplicity is the key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahovictor (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

we are putting mind above heart. tech above god. this wiki is a good example. techies think people were so stupid back in the day because they didn't have computers that they couldn't comprehend that people in other areas spoke different languages, and so they needed this myth to explain it. no...people hide big, important, dangerous truths in myths like this. also - well put, Mahovictor. we need to focus on ending poverty, getting rid of nukes, fixing the environment. seeing the god in each other/everything. unfortunately, the AI race is speeding up due to the Screen New Deal/covid panic. Mbsyl (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There is NO Babylonain Tower ,and NO confusions of Languages story in Quran[30:22]

The two verses Suras 28:38 and 40:36-37 in Quran, are talking about The Pharaoh whom he was "IN EGYPT NOT Babel " asked "Haman" his Minster to build for him a clay tower so that he could mount up to heaven and confronted the God of "Moses".

where as Sura 2:102 talks about the Two Angels "Harrut" and "Marrut" Not talking about building any Tower, or a star gate machine.

In regards to the writings of these scholars you have mentioned al-Tabari, Abu al-Fida, and Lisan Al Aeab by Yaqut. Unfortunately all their writings in regard to this subject" Tower of Babel and confusions of Languages did happen" are Islamicly "false" because they contradict the Quran itself and comply with the bible. Since No where in Quran that Humanity had one single Language but rather it is stated in Quran [30:22] that groups of mankind from beginning were created with different tongues, colours as signs of God NOT Cursed. The scholars’ writings were influenced by Biblical stories rather than Quran

Please stay with the Quranic literal Texts, its Contexts , and subject their claims to Quranic X ray texts to be examined and checked if they comply or Not Comply with the Quranic texts and its context first.

In this respect ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning Quran and the Bible , and instead focus on textually-hard and testable evidences, and linking the evidence together .. that is far more better than going the diverse never agreed Opinions of al-Tabari, and Abu al-Fida which are just based on hear saying and speculation rather than Quranic texts testable proved evidence.

Happy haytham (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"False, man-made religion"

"However, the Tower of Babel was not built for the worship and praise of God, but was dedicated to false man-made religion, with a motive of making a 'celebrated name' for the builders. - Genesis 11:4." This implies that the motive was making a celebrated name for the builders. No such thing is described in the text: the motive is clear. That motive is explicitly mentioned: "lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth". The Tower of Babel was not formed as a man-made religion, but as a symbol for the unity of mankind. Nothing implies that these people knew they were angering God. The lead also mentions that the people were sinning against God - which is not obvious at all. What the text says is that God does not want humanity to be capable of such great works as the Tower of Babel; it does not say that they sinned, nor does it say that the Tower of Babel was built as a symbol of a "false, man-made religion". The lead is incredibly POV at this point, and it should be fixed. DDSaeger (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Instant Language Change? I don't think so!

Languages were not made instantaneously! They occurred when people separated and took centuries to actually change. Even today, languages share extreme similarities and can be understood by many whom have no prior knowledge of the language! Example French: Non Spanish: No// Italian: No// English: No// More: English: Yeah, Yes.// German: Ja (sounds almost identical to "yeah")// Dutch: Ja (same as German)// More: English: I can see// German: Ich kann sehen (sounds very similar, could be easily understood by any English speaker, vice versa)// Dutch: Ik kan zien (same as German)// More: Spanish: Marc va a tener la llave.// French: Marc va avoir le cle. (Tenir would also work in French, however, it means "to hold" not just "to have"// Italian: Mark va avere la chiave. (Note the similarities of "avere" to "avoir" and "chiave" to "llave"// More: English: I have.// German: Ich habe.// Dutch: Ik heb// I certainly hope that God, our so-called "creator" wouldn't think that "Ich habe" sounds so much different from "I have" that we couldn't communicate with Germans...C'est simplement stupide! I hope that you understood that, or God was indeed right and we are idiots! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.157.44 (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to the note at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tower of Babel article."; see also WP:SOAP. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Harris" :
  • [[Stephen L. Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
  • [[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
  • [[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], ''Understanding the Bible''. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Metropolis-new-tower-of-babel.png

The image Image:Metropolis-new-tower-of-babel.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Language Creation Society seal.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Babel, Babble

Is it correct to assume that the term "Babble" comes from the story of the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of languages. If not I can understand why it's not mentioned here but the Babble page doesn't have an etymology section. 72.245.29.212 (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"The English word "babble" does indeed come from the biblical Babel. I suggest you look it up in a good dictionary. PiCo (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

European Parliament building Strasbourg

Surely the European Parliament in Strasbourg France[14], should not go without mention in this article. Similarity to Pieter Bruegel the Elder painting of The Tower of Babel is uncanny, and surely not a coincidence. Here is a Google image for those who have not seen it[15]. Main stream media may have chosen to avoid comparisons, but this is not lost on the more enlightened! [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.139.81 (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true the architect based his design on the Tower of Babel but the overhead Satalite image you chose doesn't show the similiarities very well. 83.71.87.194 (talk)

Factual Inaccuracies in the Header

• "..intended as the crowning achievement of the city..." The Bible account does not say this. It says "let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." The purpose is to prevent being scattered.
• "...crowning achievement of the city of Babilu, the Akkadian name for Babylon." It is my understanding that the name comes from a Hebrew word.
• "According to the biblical account, Babel was a city that united humanity, all speaking a single language..." The Bible says "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." It says nothing of Babel's role in bringing this about and implies that this condition was in existance before Babel ever came to be.
• "it was the home city of the great king Nimrod," The Bible says it was the beginning of his empire - which is not the same as saying he lived there.
• "and the first city to be built after the Great Flood." The Bible merely lists it first in the empire of Nimrod - it says nothing about whether any cities were built before this anywhere else.
• "God, seeing what the people were doing, gave each person a different language to confuse them and scattered the people throughout the earth." It does not say that each person was given a different language, only that their languages were 'confounded' so that they did not understand each other.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are all good points, thanks Tauri! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tower of Babel and Freemasonry

Someone needs to read up on what Freemasonic tradition says about the Tower of Babel, since some Masonic historians have apparently made it known that the men of the Craft were in the past accused of building the Tower of Babel. Also see comparisons with the New World Order. ADM (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Borges

Is some mention of Jorge Luis Borges's Library of Babel worth including in the article, perhaps in the "In Western culture" section? Shreevatsa (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Original language

I made an edit to the lead of this article that identified Hebrew as the original language spoken before the dispersion. That edit was reverted by Til Eulenspiegel. The reason stated for that revert was that 1. not all agree that this language was Hebrew 2. the question of which language was the one language is discussed below.

I have not found such a discussion in this article, nor am I aware of other opinions. I asked Til Eulenspiegel to comment here, and will welcome any input on this subject. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly mentions Syriac. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Your edit stated that Hebrew is the original language, even though the Bible, which was being quoted, does not state this. The information was cited to Rashi. I have no objection to including this information in the appropriate place, but to cite it in the intro, without attributing the opinion in the wording, constitutes an endorsement of Rashi's opinion. However, there are other authorities who have different opinions. One mention in this article is Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, who asserts, with just as much reason as Rashi, that the original language was Aramaic. You can find some other opinions mentioned on the articles Confusion of languages and Adamic language, various authorities down through the ages have asserted that the one language spoken before the confusion according to Genesis was more similar to Gaelic, or a Germanic or Indo-European language. Latter Day Saints sources hold that this language was called "Reformed Egyptian", which is apparently quite different from either Hebrew or Ancient Egyptian. I can also tell you that Ethiopian Orthodox sources hold that Ethiopic is the original language before Babel, and other authorities claim that Arabic, and more recently, Sumerian, was the one language spoken before Babel. We can mention all this, but we should refrain from endorsing any of these assertions, per WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Syriac again, from a very different source: [17]. Or Chaldean? Or 'Edenic' (sources could be found for these also). Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, and agree. I still think there should be a section dedicated to the question of which was this original language, and that Rashi should be mentioned there prominently (as representing the point of view of Judaism). Debresser (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

TE, you and I agree on something. You can't put in statements from primary sources without explaining the context. And yes, a section about what the original language was is worth including. Leadwind (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon, actually, the entire Mormon religion is quite a recent invention. Is the reference of the tower in that book really that warranted? I really don't think so.210.133.127.14 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's recent, but that's OK. It's legit to tell the reader what uses later writers have put the Babel story to. Leadwind (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica Online

Tower of Babel, Encyclopedia Britannica Online. A good, neutral reference piece on this topic. Leadwind (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by persons in need of clinical counseling

Just recently sections have been being blanked and I note myself a swarm of unnecessary requests for citations. What's the matter with you? Can't there be a Bible without asking YOUR permission, can't people have a religion without YOUR say-so? You are trying to interfere with freedoms of speech and religion. I can only imagine you are doing so because you are a very angry man. As most adults have learned to live with the fact that different religions exist. I suppose you are an adolescent. You have a serious anger problem, young man. I recommend you get couseling immediately before you lose any further control; heaven knows what you may do.Dave (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. And who in the world are you referring to? I count about 7 editors and a bunch of IPs who have edited in the last month, not one person. I know I edited and removed some vandalism. If you have specific problems please specify them, Wikipedia isn't about freedom of speech or religion. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Counselling for people who've vandalised a page on Wikipedia? Someone needs a reality check. They also need to check out what this discussion page is about. (I'll give you a hint: it's not about guiding these horrible, raging criminals who wiped out a page on Wikipedia for all of 2 minutes.) 86.162.54.189 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph contradicts the story before it is even explained. The Tower of Babel is the explanation for the origin of the different languages - yet in the first paragraph you say "according to the bible", then include facts (in the same sentence!!) from nonbiblical sources! That is extremely deceptive and plainly a mistake. I tried to fix it, but it's clearly pointless. How about we describe the story a little bit before contradicting it and pointing out that it's absurd? Honestly, this is why I've had wikipedia in my adblock filters for years now. Pointless. Enjoy your fiefdom Doug. --24.7.235.0 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We expect editors to leave edit summaries, particularly when they are deleting cited text. There is no reason for the lead not to contain stuff from non-biblical sources, and there's nothing deceptive about that. However, the lead should be a summary of the text and not have information not contained in the text. So comments about Babylon in the lead need to summarise material about Babylon in the article.

What the lead is not supposed to be is a summary of the story, that should be in the main article. See WP:LEAD. If you want to fix it by moving and adding material, fine, it needs fixing. But don't get all upset because an unexplained edit removing cited text is reverted if you aren't going to come here at the time and calmly discuss it. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Burj Dubai a new Tower of Babel?

Is Burj Dubai a new Tower of Babel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.66.200 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it's a really tall building, but that's the only similarity. thx1138 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Language Question

Is the word מגדל בבל‎ for the city Babel the same root/word used when Babylonian captivity is written about? Nitpyck (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, same word. TFighterPilot (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of Jubilees

This is pretty peripheral and I don't want to get into an argument over it, but the date for Jubilees is actually far from uncertain. It can't be after c.100 BC, this is known from the handwriting of the oldest extant manuscript (found among the Dead Sea Scrolls); and it can't be earlier than about 160 BC, since it quotes from another book that was written about then. See James C. VanderKam. The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha) Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. ISBN 1850757674. ISBN 9781850757672. pages 18-21.

Sheer and utter nonsense, I will stay on this topic for as long as it takes until you stop POV pushing and endorsing your favorite personal POV.Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

VanderKam is a leading modern expert in Hellenistic Judaism - if you have problems with his pov, fine, but you need reliable sources. PiCo (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This article already stated that Jubilees "is often categorized as one of the Pseudepigrapha and dated to the late 2nd century BC..." - which is way more than necessary for this topic. Your edit just tipped the neutrality right over the edge. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

TE, what's your RS for disputing the date of the Book of Jubilees? If you don't have an RS, then the date isn't really disputed. Leadwind (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you possibly assume good faith that Ethiopian Orthodox Christians believe in God, and believe this book is His Word as given to Moses and as preserved by them since Sheba visited Solomon? Or are you demanding "proof" that they believe this, and intent on denying it until then? At any rate, the relevant talkpage for this would be Talk:Jubilees. There is no need to push a gratuitous pov on this article, when the speculative date is already mentioned. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP uses reliable sources for information like a book's date of authorship. Scripture isn't a reliable source. If you don't have a reliable source questioning the date, then it's not really in question. There's no contradiction between a book being written in the 2nd century BC and a Christian Church thinking that Moses wrote it. Leadwind (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church actively disputes the 2nd century BC date and its opinion regarding the origin of its scripture is every bit as significant as the Latter Day Saints view of theirs, or Scientologists of theirs. There is no special exception to NPOV here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's something you want the article to say about the date, just find an RS that agrees with you and cite it. The book you're citing here says that the book was written long after Moses, regardless of what Ethiopian Christians might think. If you can't find an RS that disagrees with Harris, then there's no dispute. Leadwind (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. Harris and other scholars speak for one POV, but we do not endorse one POV and say "there is no dispute" when it's well known there is a dispute. We still have to be neutral, not take sides. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And it's not "regardless of what Ethiopian CHristians might think". This is their Bible. It may surprise you to learn that these people actually exist, are human beings, and their opinion does count and is relevant to the topic, just like the opinion of Mormons and Scientologists regarding their doctrines. Welcome to wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to quote any RS saying that anyone disagrees with Harris. Do you disagree with him personally? In any event, if you can't find an RS that disagrees with him, then you have no case. WP is about RSs. Welcome to Wikipedia. Leadwind (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Harris et al are a reliable source for one POV. You don;t get to deny that there is another POV that disputes this, and declare your POV to be the new "neutrality". And "Psuedepigrapha" os a characterization made by European churches, wikpedia does not endorse your church's characterizations over another church's canon, but it must remain neutral. I think deep down, you know these things, right? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Harris doesn't represent any church. He represents mainstream academic scholarship. I have no idea what the Ethiopian Christians think because you have never offered any RS that disagrees with Harris. Leadwind (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You have already stated that what Ethiopian Christians think is irrelevant because apparently they are not entitled to any opinion, and must be told by European scholars how to interpret their own Bible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just waiting for an RS from you. And waiting. And waiting. Leadwind (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. I could probably find sources speaking for the Ethiopian Orthodox POV. I just don;t see why I should bother when you have already pre-dismissed them out-of-hand as irrelevant; it seems attempting to satisfy you with Orthodox sources would only be an impossible and humiliating task as you tell me all of your erudite reasons why you still don't think they should count, but your entirely speculative sources should. I'm not interested in playing that kind of game with you, or attempt to satisfy anyone who has already revealed their opinion that they do not care what the Ethiopian Christian POV is no matter what sources there might be for it . You are intelligent; you already know perfectly well what this book is to Ethiopian Christians without my having to "prove" it to you, I think. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I never rejected anyone's POV. It's your own source that says Moses didn't write Jubilees, regardless of what the Ethiopian Christians might think. I'm just waiting for an RS. As far as I can tell, the Ethiopian Christians agree with Harris. I've never seen any evidence otherwise. Leadwind (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The link to Jubilees is sufficient for this article, rather than using it as a place to push a POV, jumping right in and telling readers whom they are and are not to believe (which the article Jubilees does not do). I've already said that discussion needs to take place at Talk:Jubilees and won't discuss here further. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see instead of a response here, the extraneous information was reverted (edit warred) back into the article with the summary "don't delete without a reason backed up by guidelines or policy". Actually this is backed up by all policy, guidelines and style manuals. We don;t go into a detailed explanation telling people what they are supposed to believe about Jubilees on every article where Jubilees is linked. I might add that you are doing so in a way that endorses a discernible and sectarian "point of view" which no article is supposed to have. The link is sufficient to direct readers to the article itself, and any debate about how to present various opinions that subject should be taking place on Talk:Jubilees, not here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide some policy or guideline that says this information should be excluded. Otherwise, it should be included. This isn't a sectarian POV; it's mainstream scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, all policy says it should be excluded, and nonw says it should be included, because (aside from pushing your PIV which is disputed by major faiths) it is OFF TOPIC TO THIS ARTICLE. This article or talkpage must not be turned into a proxy debate on the various Church's views on the status of Jubilees, just because you don't like both POVs being expressed neutrally at Jubilees, or don't like the way the consensus is moving at Talk:Jubilees - the only place where this debate should be taking place. This is the last time I'm going to tell you again what the policy rules are; I fear now this may be headed into some kind of arbitrative step on account of your incessant reintroduction of this off-topic POV pushing material here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree the date of the Book of Jubilees is basically irrelevant to this article. Also, we do (or at least did, somewhere - I've been inactive a while) have a guideline or policy which says that material included in one article should not be included elsewhere as well. The date of the Book of Jubilees is most relevant to that article, not this one. On that basis, I have to think that there is no particular reason to include it here. Also, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is a large and significant body within the field of greater Christianity. The fact that one group does not include it in their canon does not mean necessarily in and of itself that it is unreliable. Some books which were excluded from the Bible are, actually, more reliable than many that are. For this article, a simple link to the Book of Jubilees should probably be enough. John Carter (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

TE, this page isn't a palce for a proxy argument over the book's origin. There is no such debate. Academic scholars agree who wrote it and when. That's not POV, that's reliable information. Leadwind (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

John, thanks for weighing in. "we do (or at least did, somewhere - I've been inactive a while) have a guideline or policy which says that material included in one article should not be included elsewhere as well." There is no such guideline. In fact, the guideline is that summaries of information from one article should appear in other articles. In this case, the reader should be told what the Book of Jubilees is so that they know the relevance of the quote. It is a Mormon text? A Hollywood script? A book of the Old Testament? Who wrote it? When? This is basic information that we should summarize here and expand in the main page. Leadwind (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Kabbalah

I've removed this para from the article because (a) the content looks like someone has been reading too much Von Danniken, and (b) the sources don't meet wikipedia standards of accesibility:

Some Kabbalistic mystics provide intriguing and unusual descriptions of the Tower of Babel. According to Menachem Tsioni, an Italian Torah commentator of 15th century, the Tower was a functional flying craft, empowered by some powerful magic or technology;<<<http://www.seforimonline.org/unsorted/%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%99.pdf>>> the device was originally intended for holy purposes, but was later misused in order to gain control over the whole world. Isaac of Acre wrote that the Tower builders had reached, or at least planned to reach the distance of 2,360,000,000 parsas or 9-10 billion kilometers above the Earth surface, which is about the radius of the Solar System, including most Trans-Neptunian objects.<<<http://www.seforimonline.org/unsorted/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%aa%20%d7%a2%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%9d.pdf>>> Similar accounts are also found in the writing of Jonathan Eybeschutz and the ancient book Brith Menuchah,<<<http://www.hebrew.grimoar.cz/merimon_sefardi/berit_menucha.htm>>> according to which the builders of the Tower planned to equip it with some shield technology ("shielding wings") and powerful weapons. Many Kabbalists believed that the ancient peoples possessed magic knowledge of the Nephilim, which allowed them to construct such powerful devices. Moreover, according to some commentaries, some Talmudic sages possessed a manual for building such a flying tower.

These sources are all in Hebrew, which means that the average reader is NOT able to look them up. Til E., maybe, but not the average reader. As I don't read Hebrew myself I have no idea what they say, and I'm suspicious of what the narrative thread connecting them makes of them - it sounds very New Age-ish to me. Which is a pity, as I'm sure the Kabbalists had a lot of interesting things to say, just that I doubt they would involve space-ships and shield technology (beam me up Scotty!)PiCo (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

These sources explicitly say that the tower was flying to gigantic distances by some magical force. The actual calculations of the distances are somewhat blurry though. It's the plain meaning of the original Hebrew, without any new-Age reinterpretations. I fact, I suspect that those new-Age authors based their theories on these legends. Jonathan Eybeschutz (18th century) explicitly wrote that the Tower of Babel was a spaceship (literally "aether ship", ספינת האוויר) that was intended to fly to the Moon. Regarding accesibility, all these texts are published and can be found in book stores and on websites. All Encyclopedias in the world contain references to sources written in many different languages. Russian and Hebrew Wikipedias are full of links to English sites and books. Otherwise we would have to say that the Basque or Irish Gaelic Wikipedia may only include links to Basque and Irish sources. That's absurd. English is merely one of 5000 spoken languages and should not be privileged anyhow. A speaker of any language should not be expected to be able to read English or any other so called "global" language, and visa versa. I'm bringing back this piece with some additional English sources and without questionable calculations about distances. Laplandian (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The links above don't look like reliable sources even if they were in English. You'll still need to find reliable sources, whatever the language. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As you haven't replied, and used not just the sources above but also blogs, etc, I've removed all but the first paragraph. Have you read WP:RS? We don't use blogs as sources, the websites you've provided don't meet our criteria either so far as I can tell. We have a notice board at WP:RSN where you can present your case if you think they meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I provided references to the original well known Kabbalah books from 13th-18th centuries. What can be more reliable??? I understand that the blogs are not reliable sources, but they are written by people who can read Hebrew and verify the meaning of the original sources. I don't care much about this issue and don't have time to look around, but if I happen to find research articles in any European language, I'll link them and restore this paragraph. Laplandian (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the reference to three parallel dimensions be to three orthogonal dimensions? If the dimensions were parallel they'd be the same dimension. John Link (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

inaccuracies

hehe. this story has been interpretted incorrectly. the entire thing is a metaphor. actually, it is a metaphor within a metaphor. i'm so sad that people have not yet figured this out. the tower never existed in the first place. now if you can tell me what it means, i'll give you a cookie. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a published reliable source for your pov, I'm afraid we can't do much with it... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just posing a question for discussion, regardless if nobody has a clue within a month, i'll post it in this discussion thread. actually, it is referenced in the bible several times. not in genesis however. regardless, the analysis is correct and factual. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember, our note at the top of the page here says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tower of Babel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." That's why our own personal opinions are kinda useless here, unless they appear cited in literature somewhere... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Allusion to Babel in silent film "Metropolis"

Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" (1927) provides an important allusion to Babel - the skyscraper which is the headquarters of the city's masters is referred to as the New Tower of Babel (Freder tells a limo driver, "To the new Tower of Babel - to my father -!"). Babel represents the exploitation of workers, who are maimed and killed in the factories. Another biblical allusion is that young Freder hallucinates that the factory is Moloch, to which Ammonite infants were sacrified.

The restoration of the print in 2010 has sparked renewed interest in the film.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(film) http://www.filmsite.org/metr.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshogren (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Shinar/Sumer

The Historical Context section requests a citation for the identification of Shinar with Sumer. Such can be found at NAB,Gen.10:10, n.7. I have not added it as the article mentions KJV and citing a different translation some my find inconsistent.Mannanan51 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

As a Metaphor

in the bible, the tower of babel is a metaphor that somehow made it into the final copy, but possibly shouldn't have. maybe constantine had no idea it was such, and so included it haha.

the metaphors here are: building bricks = labor of mankind, tower to the sky = what they can achieve, god = clergy at the time, confusion of languages = divide and conquer.

in short: mankind can achieve anything if they work together. the rulers or 'clergy' of the time saw this as a threat and therefore dispersed mankind across the land and divided it into several kingdoms.

there's a LOT more to it than that, but i thought i'd leave that up to YOUR imagination. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

in addition, all adjacent passages include the names of kings and sons. the only exception is the first portion of genesis 11, dealing with the tower of babel. this supports the fact this passage serves as a moral/metaphor and is not a historical account. there is also a large time gap just before and after this passage. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

whoever undid this edit: you should realize that all these points can be referenced. especially that the clergy were subservient to the kings, and the word of god was sometimes actually the word of a king (many such examples in the bible even), and as historical fact, the land was at war and was divided into several kingdoms. if someone knows where to find this information, would be nice. also, it is not in the 'spirit' of the bible to interpret it only literally, and only works to support the claims of the book itself. not even going to delve into the logic of this. i'm also pretty sure this same interpretation can be found, written by some scholar or another, if someone knows where to look that up. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

for example: here is a quotation from Flavius Josephus: "Nay, to this disobedience to God’s will they even added the suspicion that God was plotting against them in urging them to emigrate, in order that, being divided, they might be more open to attack. They were incited to this insolent contempt of God by Nebrodes, . . . an audacious man of doughty vigor. He persuaded them to attribute their prosperity not to God but to their own valor. . . . 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." and "The people were eager to follow this advice of Nebrodes, deeming it slavery to submit to God; so they set out to build the tower with indefatigable ardor and no slackening in the task; and it rose with a speed beyond all expectation. . . . Seeing their mad enterprise, God was not minded to exterminate them utterly, because even the destruction of the first victims had not taught their descendants wisdom; but He created discord among them by making them speak different languages, through the variety of which they could not understand one another. The place where they built the tower is now called Babylon from the confusion of the primitive speech once intelligible to all, for the Hebrews call confusion "Babel.""

of note here: "being divided, they might be more open to attack" (divide and conquer), "He persuaded them to attribute their prosperity not to God but to their own valor" and "set out to build the tower with indefatigable ardor and no slackening in the task" (the labor of mankind), "deeming it slavery to submit to God".

also, in the article itself: "He wrote that it was Nimrod who had the tower built and that Nimrod was a tyrant who tried to turn the people away from God.", etc.. the same passage seems to be quoted in the article using a different interpretation.

the only thing missing now is a reference to the clergy/god being the word fo a king in ancient times, which it often was. there are some examples of this in the bible. could use some help though, thanks. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

one account can be found on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet note: "It is also possible that it was meant as a slur on Ahab's prophets, such as Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah."

it shows that kings had their own prophets who were at times in opposition to 'independant' prophets. i vaguely recall a few other stories, but cant reference them easily. anyways, this is a well understood FACT and shouldnt even need a citation. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but your conjecture sounds like an original synthesis. However, we can certainly consider citing any RS that makes specific mention of the article topic (Tower of Babel). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

in fact, most or at least many citations on wiki are a synthesis or OR. the authors of those papers/books did their own research and came to a conclusion which isn't shared by many others. this whole issue about NP:OR is a bit overblown if you ask me. as long as enough references can be found to support and idea in it's entirety it should also be considered valid content. if it isn't then all source like Josephus, etc should also be removed as credible sources from the wiki. 64.250.81.218 (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

also forgot to include: genesis 11 "and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." it spells it out right there, when mankind works together, they can accomplish anything (like building the tower).

if what you're asking for is a SPECIFIC reference to the prophecy that was made, and who it was made by so that it can be confirmed he was in fact the prophet of a king, and not independant then i'm afraid you're out of luck. if such is your method of thinking, then you will never learn the truth and achieve enlightenment. it is a very rigid method of thinking. i suppose i should include my reasoning for this: the names of these prophets are deliberately left out to hide the truth (as in the tower of babel, all names are left out).

thus, my question is: should there not be a section included for how the story is interpretted as a metaphor, since many if not most of all bible verses are metaphorical/moral in nature? 64.250.81.218 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There could potentially be a section attributing the sources that have specifically called this story a "metaphor", and briefly explaining why they have this POV, provided you have found such sources first. They should be significant, on topic, and not undue weight. So far I haven't seen a whole lot from you in the way of such sources, mostly a lot of unconnected rambling, and stating that our OR cornerstone policy is overblown "if we ask you". It's the same policy that has been used, is used, and will be used, to keep random uncited personal speculation out of the article, though. And if you will read WP:OR carefully, we use the in-house term "original" to refer to original by a wikipedian, ideas never before been published anywhere but that first broke on wikipedia, original. We do not use the term 'original research' to refer to Josephus; since he was not a wikipedian, then anything he ever wrote, no matter how wrong or off track, is by definition not 'original', but rather 'historiography'. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've since looked at the rest of genesis. most of it is a metaphor... almost every single story... why are 'scholars' not publishing this information? is this some sort of conspiracy? incompetence? not sure... in any case... this is simply a tale of 'divide and conquer'... need more proof that 'gods' refers to rulers/kings? genesis 6:1, the descendants of Noah are referred to as 'supernatural beings' or 'the sons of god/gods'... in essence, speaking on behalf of gods, as the head of their sect... why this is still an ancient mystery is beyond me... it's so obvious in the context... anyways, do what you will... i don't know of any specific scholars who have presented this point of view. someone more versed in theological history should know better than I. 70.48.210.219 (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

How many times does it need to be stated here that we don't go by your opinion, we only go with published material? That's great that you have looked at the passage and pronounced it a metaphor - so that solves everything, everyone else can should stop debating it now that you've finally sussed it for us, right? Also - if you want to know how "scholar" is defined, get an English dictionary before coming on wikipedia and trying to invent a new definition of "scholar", being "anyone whose opinion you personally agree with". And as for your blatantly calling for your personal "point of view" to be reflected - Wikipedia since the beginning has only advocated the "neutral point of view". Yes, Wikipedia's famous "neutral point of view" that first made it popular, has come under attack lately, and been weakened, by activists who strongly feel wikipedia should reflect only their points of view and no one else's. But the struggle continues, as long as wikimedia policy continues to pay lip service to "neutral point of view". So if you want to add your favorite "point of view" as you say, at least find out where you got this "point of view" from, so we can see whether or not it is a source wikipedia can attribute your "point of view" to. Thanks. 13:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.156.142 (talk)