Talk:Tower of Babel/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reverted Edit/Confusion of Tongues

Why was my last edit reverted? The current wording of the last paragraph in the "Confusion of Tongues" section is, "Scholars have been debating or explaining this apparent contradiction for centuries." However, the citation is of a Biblical scholar from centuries ago explaining the apparent contradiction, not debating it or commenting on how it had stumped scholars for centuries. Thus, the claim that scholars have been "debating" this for centuries is unsourced, and the claim that this is an ongoing discussion among Biblical scholars is both original research (the source never makes that claim) and is false (as I've demonstrated [1] with reliable sources). Thus, "have been debating" implies that there is no scholarly consensus concerning the apparent contradiction, which is false (see sources below), unless anyone can provide counter examples of modern Biblical scholars who disagree with the consensus of the scholars I have cited.

I had [2] tried to establish consensus concerning my change before I was able to edit this article, but no one ever responded. I am aware that was reached a few years ago in favor of the current wording. However, given that the discussion happened two years ago and that they didn't have any sources for modern scholars' opinions on the issue, I thought that I would try to change the consensus, first through the talk page, and then by making the edit once I was able to do so. Now that my edit has been reverted, I would first like to know why since there was no explanation in the edit summary, and also would like to know if anyone has any objections to the change other than that I must first establish consensus or something, which is precisely what I am trying to do.

Finally, if you're curious, the explanation to the apparent contradiction isn't complicated or anything. Genesis 10 is a genealogy which spans several centuries and gives an overview of those centuries. Genesis 11 is a specific story that took place within those centuries. Just looking at 10:5, it says, "From these [four people] the coastland peoples... were separated... everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations." Obviously, four people didn't turn into four nations with separate languages overnight. Therefore, as every scholar I was able to find who actually bothered to mention this "issue" at all concluded, the separate languages of verses 5 and 31 come chronologically after the events of chapter 11.

Sources: Constable, Thomas (2003). Expository Notes on the Bible (PDF). Galaxie Software. p. 176.

MacDonald, William (1995). Believer's Bible Commentary. Thomas Nelson Publishers. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-7180-7685-6.

Custis, Miles; Mangum, Douglas; Widder, Wendy (2012). Lexham Research Commentary: Genesis 1-11. Lexham Press. The Table of Nations (Genesis 10:1-32) -> Issues at a Glance -> Languages.

Louth, Andrew; Oden, Thomas C.; Conti, Marco (2001). Genesis 1-11; Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. p. 164. ISBN 1579582206.

KhanGressman (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The first and third fail WP:RS, I’m not sure about the second. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

William MacDonald (Christian author) doesn’t seem to either. Terrible article, all self-sourced. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I have ordered the last one "Louth, Andrew; Oden, Thomas C.; Conti, Marco (2001). Genesis 1-11; Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. p. 164. ISBN 1579582206" from the library scanned for me to check.--Akrasia25 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's the relevant quotation: "Augustine: ...[in verse 5]... we read, 'These are the children of Ham in their tribes according to their tongues...' ... And this is added in reference to all of them: 'These are the tribes of the sons of Noah, according to their generations and according to their nations.... And the whole earth was one tongue, and there was one speech for all.' And so, because this sentence was added: 'And the earth was one tongue and there was one speech for all' (that is, one language for them all), it could be inferred that at that time, when human beings had been scattered according to the islands of the nations over the earth, there was one language common to all of them. Without a doubt, this contradicts the words used above, 'according to their tribes and tongues.' For, each single tribe that had formed individual nations would not be said to have had its own tongue when there was a common one for all. So it is by way of recapitulation that there is added: 'And the earth was one tongue, and there was one speech for all.' The narrative, without mentioning it, goes back to tell how it came about that the one language common to all men was broken up into many tongues." (Louth, Andrew; Oden, Thomas C.; Conti, Marco (2001). Genesis 1-11; Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. p. 164. ISBN 1579582206)

So, Augustine centuries ago explained the contradiction. But the source in no ways indicates that this issue has been unresolved among Biblical scholarship for centuries, as is implied by "Scholars have been debating or explaining this apparent contradiction for centuries." The source instead supports that "Scholars explained this apparent contradiction centuries ago." KhanGressman (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I got the Louth book this week. Interesting and I learned a lot, thank you. Louth is credible, a scholar, and the book looks to be a RS. I am not sure that it proves your point though. Louth quotes Augustine in a good argument that the verses are not chronological (why God would write it that way?) but Louth does not say that the matter amongst ancient writers is resolved. The Louth book is actually called "ANCIENT CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON SCRIPTURE" and Louth's discipline is Patristics (study of the early Christian writers). So this book is not an RS on what post-ancient writers say on the matter. Do we have a good review that says the matter is resolved? We could say that Augustine argued that the contradiction is an unspoken flip in chronology maybe.--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That the two chapters are not chronological is the resolution (as for why, it's not uncommon in literature to give a summary of an era followed by stories that take place in that era, especially since Genesis has multiple geologies that divide up the book into thematic sections). Neither Augustine nor Louth said that the issue was still debated or unresolved (unless Louth did in the surrounding context which I didn't read very carefully), or that not all scholars accepted Augustine's resolution to the contradiction.

Certainly, it could be said that scholars centuries ago were aware of this issue. But "Scholars have been debating or explaining this contradiction for centuries" is very different from "Scholars explained this contradiction centuries ago." Louth never mentions any debate or that the attempts to explain the issue are ongoing ("have been debating" is a continuous action). KhanGressman (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I could go for something like "Augustine argued 'The narrative, without mentioning it, goes back to tell how it came about that the one language common to all men was broken up into many tongues.' Louth does not say in this book that it was resolved amongst ancient writers nor does it say that it was debated in the ancient writings. Would be good to find a smoking gun with someone (anyone) saying that this is resolved. But I am starting to see your point. hard to believe that there is not a review out there on this though. This Louth source can only be used for ancient writers and not more modern ones. I have not gone back to the original Wikipedia discussion on this (I should). Has anything really changed since then? --Akrasia25 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

From what I've read both from commentaries, such as the ones I've listed above, and from some academic papers I've been trying to look up (none of which, so far, have mentioned this particular issue), it seems that those who take chapters 10 and 11 to be part of a single, cohesive story would argue, as Augustine did, that the Tower of Babel takes place at the beginning of the time period covered by chapter 10. But then for those who take the two chapters to be completely unrelated myths, perhaps written by different authors (though there seems to be some debate about that), a contradiction between the two chapters wouldn't really need explanation.

I suppose we could say something like, "Some scholars have suggested that the narrative jumps back in chapter 11 to explain how the different languages came to be, while others have suggested that the two chapters are unrelated myths." Although, that might imply that others have suggested that the two chapters are unrelated because of this contradictions, which might be considered original research unless we have a citation that specifically mentions the contradiction as a reason to believe them to be separate myths.

I also like your purposed reading. I suppose being specific about who said what is the purpose of WP:RS/AC anyway.

(By the way, I fixed the links in my original post, so you can find the original conversation about this in the link in my original post. Otherwise, if you look for "Confusion of Tongues" under 2020, you should find it.) KhanGressman (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Well that is funny. This is not the first time that I have looked into this [3]. I was the one that added the Louth reference LOL. It is a good reference but for a poor statement. I agree with another editor that a better reference is needed for this statement. I am going to go for a bold edit in the article to break this up into two parts and see who follows the change.

First of all, after looking more closely at WP:RS/AC, I realized that I could not make any claims about academic consensus without a reliable source that specifically mentions that something is academic consensus. So, my edit would have to be something more like, "However, some scholars have suggested that the two chapters are not in chronological order."

As for the reliability of the sources, Dr. Thomas Constable was a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, Wendy Widder and Douglas Mangum both have PhDs in Near Easten Studies, and MAs in Hebrew and Semitic Studies, and Dr. Widder also has an MDiv. I couldn't find any educational background for William MacDonald, but he was a professor at Emmaus Bible College.

If that's not the definition of a Biblical Scholar -- an academic who has a graduate level degree in a Bible-related field, particularly one who taught at a seminary -- I don't know what is. Granted, they're all evangelicals, and as such, don't represent academic consensus in many things such as the historicity of the Bible, etc. So, they would certainly not be reliable sources for a claim such as "The book of Genesis is literal history," or "The Pentateuch was written by Moses." However, context matters (WP:RSCONTEXT). In this case, I'm using those sources for a claim about the literary structure of the Bible, a claim which the aforementioned scholars would be well qualified to make.

It would be like quoting a biblical scholar who happens to think that Jesus was not a historical figure, which is against scholarly consensus. It would certainly be wrong to use such a person's work to say, "Jesus was not a historical figure." But it would be completely legitimate to cite such a person's analysis of the literary structure of some story in the Gospels. In fact, it would be even be legitimate to say, "Some scholars believe that Jesus was not a historical figure" citing their work, provided the surrounding context makes it clear that it is a minority view.

Therefore, I don't think Evangelical Biblical Scholars should be excluded from "biblical scholarship" just on account of their beliefs, provided they are not being cited for a claim that goes against scholarly consensus. Unless there's some other reason that you consider those sources to be unreliable.

I can also try to find other sources, if it would help, but I would need to know what you would consider to be a "reliable biblical scholar." Do they have to be non-evangelical, secular, and/or graduate from a particular institution? That just seems like a double standard. Do they have to generally agree with scholarly consensus? That would also exclude anyone who doesn't believe Jesus to have been historical from being a "biblical scholar," not to mention St. Augustine himself who is already cited as a "scholar". So what kind of sources would you consider to be reliable? Particularly for a claim about the literary structure of a book? KhanGressman (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No time except to say I don’t see William MacDonald (Christian author) as reliable. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Oops, it’s the Plymouth Brethren pov. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I could agree about William MacDonald not being a reliable source as I couldn't find any educational credentials, and he taught at a Bible school rather than a seminary (I also couldn't find what he taught). KhanGressman (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I will add "Augustine argued 'The narrative, without mentioning it, goes back to tell how it came about that the one language common to all men was broken up into many tongues.'

And I will put a citation needed template to the bigger claim that we do not know if scholars have debated this for centuries. Louth does not say in this book that it was resolved amongst ancient writers nor does it say that it was debated in the ancient writings. Would be good to find a smoking gun with someone (anyone) saying that this is resolved.--Akrasia25 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I finally found a reliable source that talks about modern scholarship's view on these verses: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27638419.pdf pages 31-32 (or pages 4-5 of the PDF). This source claims that, "Genesis 11:1-9 is one of two accounts of the spread of the human race across the earth after the flood, the other being the genealogical account of the descendants of Noah's sons that immediately precedes it in ch. 10." The source goes on to use this contradiction as evidence that the chapters are "genuine variants of the same event, rather than one continuous account." So this is similar to Augustine's argument that the narrative skipping back to recount how the nations got their languages, retelling the same event with a different focus.

The source goes on to say about the contradiction, "These variant have traditionally been explained by attributing the genealogical version in ch. 10 to Priestly (P) tradition and the narrative version in ch. 11 to the Yahwist (J). Rent years have seen much debate about the sources of Genesis, includeing the shape and (even) the existence of the Yahwist." The author then asserts that he personally believes that J wrote Gen. 11::1-9, but that "the argument here about the meaning of the story depends not on such an attribution but on the logic of the story's form and content itself."

So, I guess according to this author, modern scholarship has traditionally attributed the contradiction to that the two chapters were written by different sources. However, this author seems to think the differences are better explained by that the two chapters relate the same event in two different ways. And then, at least evangelical scholars (I'd be interested in seeing what Christian scholars in other denominations say), would agree with Augustine and the author of this article that the narrative skips back, but would also say that the two chapters were written by the same author.

In sum, how does everyone feel about this reading:

"The preceding Genesis 10::5 state [...] "with their own tongues." Augustine explained this apparent contradiction by arguing that the story 'without mentioning it, [...] broken up into many tongues.'[cite Louth]. Modern scholarship has traditionally held that the two chapter were written by different sources, the former by the Priestly source, and the latter by the Yahwist, though that theory has been debated in recent years.[cite the article]" KhanGressman (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Or this and add links to WP articles on the Priestly and Yawist sources :"The preceding Genesis 10::5 state [...] "with their own tongues." Augustine explained this apparent contradiction by arguing that the story 'without mentioning it, [...] broken up into many tongues.'[cite Louth]. Modern scholarship has traditionally held that different sources wrote the two chapters, the former by the Priestly source and the latter by the Yahwist. However, that theory has been debated in recent years.[cite the article]"

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2022

The tower of Babel story is NOT a Myth 129.255.1.117 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aidan9382 _(talk) 20:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

The word, “myth” in all forms on this page to be changed to, “theory”.

Thank you JESUSISKING777 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No, since the Babel narrative is a textbook example of an origin myth. A theory is an explanatory model, something that may or may not be true – for instance, this article talks about different theories regarding the authorship of different parts of Genesis. But the world's languages did not come into being through any kind of calamity connected to the building of a tower. That's myth, not theory. --bonadea contributions talk 14:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:V applies to native/original names/phrases, non-Latin scripts

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 176#WP:V and foreign-language terms, non-Latin orthography in enwiki articles Elizium23 (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Genesis 11:7-9 NABRE:

Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that no one will understand the speech of another. So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called בָּבֶל‎,{{citation needed}} because there the LORD confused the speech of all the world. From there the LORD scattered them over all the earth.

Elizium23 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• @S Marshall, @Phil Bridger, @Blueboar, @RoySmith, @User:Theknightwho

Elizium23 (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means. Why is there a template in the middle of this quote? What is it intended to demonstrate? GordonGlottal (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• I have already had this conversation with you, Elizium23. I do not want to repeat myself but if you have something new to say, please feel free to raise it here.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022

The article states: “ The Tower of Babel (Hebrew: מִגְדַּל בָּבֶל‎, Mīgdal Bāḇel) narrative in Genesis 11:1–9 is an origin myth meant to explain why the world's peoples speak different languages.”

Comment: The Tower of Babel is not a “myth”.

Source: Genesis 11:1-9

Suggested edit to conform to history: The Tower of Babel (Hebrew: מִגְדַּל בָּבֶל‎, Mīgdal Bāḇel) narrative in Genesis 11:1–9 explains why the world's peoples speak different languages. Asellittojr (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Tower of Babel (Hebrew: מִגְדַּל בָּבֶל‎, Mīgdal Bāḇel) narrative in Genesis 11:1–9 explains why the world's peoples speak different languages. Asellittojr (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please first read the discussion about this linked at the top of the page as requested. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

I would suggest removing the phrase "origin myth" from this description. While many belive this is a myth, there are also many who believe it is historic. Since there is no definitive method for determining which is accurate, it seems prudent to not involve the editor's judgement by implying the interpretation that results from using this descriptive. 206.251.208.87 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We go on what reliable sources say. Origin myth is a factual description. --bonadea contributions talk 20:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023

I would like this:

“The Tower of Babel (Hebrew: מִגְדַּל בָּבֶל‎, Mīgdal Bāḇel) narrative in Genesis 11:1–9 is an origin myth meant to explain why the world's peoples speak different languages.”

To be changed to this:

“The Tower of Babel (Hebrew: מִגְדַּל בָּבֶל‎, Mīgdal Bāḇel) is a narrative in Genesis 11:1–9 meant to explain why the world's peoples speak different languages.”

It already says its from Genesis, so it’s implied it’s what Christians believe. It’s more respectful to have the “Christan’s believe that…” approach. JoshuaLee920 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I won't decline this straight away in case there's some support, but that particular sentence is well-sourced and I think the link to origin myth is helpful. So while I understand the reasoning here, I prefer the current version. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: A request similar to this was rejected by another editor, and I believe their rationale was sound. I also find preference with the current version. Those 2 things, along with 9 days of no additional discussion, leads me to believe we can safely mark this as not done now. Cheers. —Sirdog (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

Hello, I suggest two small changes to the article:

1. "Narrative" section: why not replace all instances of "LORD" with Template:LORD that outputs the typographical LORD (using small caps), as it's intended for that use.
2. "In popular culture" section, to add this item: * Phil Tippett's 2021 film Mad God opens on a Tower of Babel sequence (setting the stage for its conceit of a punished world). -- Source if needed: this review, or the official site's trailer, at the 01:00 mark.

Thanks, 77.147.79.62 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Number 1 is  Done.

Number 2 is  declined because a more better source than a blog is needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Direction of supposed migration?

In the beginning it says "human race ... migrating eastward" but in the Narrative section it says "they migrated from the east"; isn't that a direct contradiction? MAKreler (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

take out orgin myth Flamefirewate (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no valid reason given to support the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023 (2)

change orgin myth and parable to historic event Flamefirewate (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

Add to ‘In popular culture’: Chants of Sennaar is a 2023 game self-describedly based on the myth of Babel. Fishinatree0 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Tower of Babylon Myth

What proof does anyone have that the Tower of Babylon is a myth? To call it a myth because it comes from the Christian Bible is absolutely ridiculous. 2600:100C:B057:A8DA:AD11:87BC:571:8CBD (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, for one thing the story involves a deity speaking to humans. So the story cannot be explained as a factual account based upon our knowledge of the physical universe. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Jewish mythology has very little to do with history. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course many religious fundamentalists believe the story is literally true, but that pretty much proves the point. They tend to be either very ignorant people incapable of grasping the logical inconsistencies of such a belief, or else frauds who pretend to believe it to exploit the simpletons. Carlstak (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Since Christian fundamentalism adheres to biblical literalism, the entire movement is based on pseudohistory and opposition to the scientific method. Their superstitious mindset is not a reliable source about human history. Dimadick (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Points can be made without public insults and condescension, yes? LovelyLillith (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@LovelyLillith That was three months ago and factual, no insulting or condescending. And the IP never even bothered to response, that was their only edit. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

“They tend to be either very ignorant people…or else frauds” is both insulting and condescending. No matter when it was said, we can do better than that. LovelyLillith (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

From dictionary.com: "myth - a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." Are you seriously saying that the Tower of Babel narrative does not fit the definition? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The correct presentation would be biblical account not myth. This allows the reader to understand the origins and make their own presumptions. If this was really about calling all supernatural events "myths" then why is this label not placed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_Moon wikis account of Muhammad splitting the moon and many other fantastical religious accounts claimed throughout wiki? Please let us do away with the term myth or add it to every account that cannot be proven scientifically and do away with the hypocrisy. Jonnywes (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It's an academic term. If you want to add it to other articles, feel free as long as you can source it. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jonnywes I second your proposal to change the wording to biblical account. Myth is a very loaded term and is a value judgment. It presupposes Christianity as a whole is a myth, which is an unprovable conclusion. For neutrality, "biblical account" or something in the same vein is preferred and has precedent. CandleinDarkness (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Would we then have to change the titles of, say, Hindu mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology, Buddhist mythology, or Mythologies of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas? Dumuzid (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Your words not ours. Literalism is not actually a specific requirement of most faiths. On the contrary, ancient peoples had no problem with having diverse diverging mythologies. They were literary traditions. Hence the litany of differing origin stories of many Greek mythological figures. If one wants to be really critical from a literary perspective, the Tower of Babel is a heavily plagiarized tale derived from Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta; more leniently, it's a novel re-interpretation of a classic. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"Hence the litany of differing origin stories of many Greek mythological figures." It is also why there were two different myths about the death of Goliath, and two entirely different myths about the Nativity of Jesus. The Bible is a rich source about ancient myths and folklore. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think making edits despite others objections here is the best idea, changing things to your own preferences despite the sources could provoke an edit war 2001:8003:34A3:800:8879:55D1:CD0E:B2C2 (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

If you can't definitely prove it's a myth, than you have to remove that statement period. Are you about accuracy or bias? That's the real question here, do you just allow your beliefs to filter through without proof, yet when something contradicts your system of faith, you judge by a different standard??! Either provide REAL PROOF its a myth, or change the phrase. You lose complete credibility with this stuff. Just like your fluff piece of Margaret Sanger, ignoring her own writings in order to turn her into a fantasy. 74.211.95.115 (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

I would like to change the information on the Tower of Babel to a more Christian perspective. The Tower of Babel is NOT a myth or a parable. Thank you very much for reading this, I hope that my request is answered. Rxy1768 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. WanderingMorpheme 17:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Quote not verified in body

“ While the archaeological record is incompatible with this identification, many scholars believe that the biblical story was inspired by Etemenanki.”

The archaeological incompatibility is not verified in the body of the article. I request this sentence is simply removed. Would there be consensus on this? IncandescentBliss (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Add citations and represent multiple schools of thought

“Biblical scholars see the Book of Genesis as mythological and not as a historical account of events[25]” is a vast generalization with one citation. This is either sloppy or censorious. 69.130.9.115 (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, for the moment, that one citation is more than you have provided. Reliable sources would assist your cause. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)