However, a review of the historical context of this find, along with careful assessment of Dr. In fact, Dr. It was an actual building from antiquity.
The Bible portrays the Tower of Babel incident happening after the great flood and before the time of Abraham. There are different views regarding what dates should be assigned to the biblical timeline, but about the latest time proposed for the birth of Abraham is somewhere around BC.
Power and Religion
Traditions and many biblical scholars point to the time of Nimrod as the setting for the Tower of Babel. So, the Bible puts the Tower of Babel well back into the Third Millennium BC, more than years before Nebuchadnezzar II, who was responsible for the ending of the southern kingdom of Judah and sending much of its population into captivity in Babylon. Therefore, if the history in the Bible is factual, Nebuchadnezzar could have nothing to do with constructing the biblical Tower of Babel.
The raised relief carving of the 7-tiered tower on the tablet Screenshot from the Smithsonian Channel.
Restoration of Genesis: The Ascension and Return of the City of Enoch | Meridian Magazine
Apparently, this was built around the remains of an older structure at the site, but this earlier building was made of sun dried mud bricks, not fired bricks as described in the biblical text. If this is true, it would still put the older building whatever it looked like many centuries after the biblical tower, and even long after Abraham. Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. Another question to ask is whether the biblical Tower of Babel was really built in the city of Babylon.
It may have been located elsewhere in the kingdom of Babylon and not in the city by that name. In fact, it might not have been located in southern Mesopotamia at all. Then chapter 11 of Genesis says that the people moved east and settled on a plain in the land of Shinar, and this is where the tower was built. The city of Babylon is about miles due south of the region around Mount Ararat, not to its east. George identifying the ziggurat described on the tablet as the Tower of Babel from the Bible.
So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. From that it may be that the Bible got the idea of the confusion of tongues. But is the account on the tablet really identical to the Bible? The Bible maintains that there was only one language at the time of the Tower of Babel. In the time of Nebuchadnezzar there were many languages. Nebuchadnezzar brought various groups of people together to finish the tower.
The biblical account has one group of people who become splintered and then never finish the tower.
The only similarity is that they are both towers and many people worked on them — which would have been the case for any large tower. What about the views of Professor George? A closer look at his comments is revealing. The predominant theory holds that the Hebrew Bible Old Testament was not written until after the Babylonian captivity took place — more than a thousand years after Moses.
- My Purpose vs. Gods Purpose: For My Life.
- The Poet.
- In Search of Gold.
- Review: Tower of Babel.
- Renewing the Sacred!
- Relit, The Great Retelling.
- Children's Resources.
Variations of this view propose that the events written of in the Bible are either complete fiction or else loosely based on old legends, myths and events from other nations that inspired the biblical writers who then adapted these accounts and wove them into the biblical narrative to make them their own. Pennock systematically reveals the philosophical problems inherent in intelligent-design creationism.
Spectacular New “Tower of Babel” Discovery? – Not so Fast!
He shows in several ways that science is not inherently antireligious. Intelligent-design creationists confuse materialist philosophy and the methodological materialism of science, which says that science cannot use supernatural cause to explain the natural world. To explain by natural cause does not make a field antireligious; as Pennock wryly notes, science is no more atheistic than plumbing.
This brings us to the "design" in intelligent-design creationism. These creationists have taken William Paley's 18th-century Argument from Design and established an entire subspecies of anti-evolutionism around it. Paley found proof of God's existence in the intricacies of nature. Complex structures as the vertebrate eye "could not have occurred by chance", so they must have been designed by an omniscient God, much as the existence of watches implies a watchmaker.
Charles Darwin's major contribution to science was showing that structural complexity could be explained through natural processes and did not need the guiding hand of God. The "God of the Gaps" Problem Most Christian theologians today believe that God can be Creator and be in charge of the universe without having to line up the chromosomes during each cell division or having to adjust planetary orbits directly. In fact, mainstream Christian theology long ago ceased making design explanations of the natural world, partly to avoid the "God of the Gaps" problem: if the direct hand of God explained unknown natural phenomena, once a natural explanation was discovered for it, God was left with one less gap to fill, reducing His majesty.
Although it finds structural perfection in molecular biology and information theory rather than in the vertebrate eye, intelligent-design creationism nonetheless repeats Paley's errors. Pennock details how intelligent-design creationists zero in on currently unsolved problems, such as the origin of life and the Cambrian explosion of invertebrate phyla, and declare them to be "too complex" to be explained by a natural cause, requiring explication by an unnamed "intelligent agent".
Get A Copy
Theologically, intelligent-design creationism is still stuck with the God of the Gaps, and scientifically, it confuses the unexplained with the unexplainable. But the Argument from Design and science as materialism are easy to sell to the public, which is more concerned as Pennock wisely points out with existential issues of meaninglessness and purpose than with empirical scientific evidence. One of the strengths of Tower of Babel is that it specifically addresses these existential issues. A theist himself, Pennock presents a particularly thoughtful discussion of why neither science nor evolution renders life meaningless.
He recognizes that some atheist scientists agree with intelligent-design creationists that evolution and religion are incompatible, and he demonstrates the error of "naturalizing God" into a testable hypothesis: it redefines science in harmful ways and, for theists, devalues God.
Polls show that close to half of Americans prefer Genesis-type special creation of humans over human evolution. In an excellent analogy for such Americans, Pennock invokes the biblical Tower of Babel, where God specially created the many different languages of humankind. Linguists have learned that languages have descended with modification: they have evolved by some though not all of the same mechanisms as biological species.
Most religious people can accept language evolution. So if it is acceptable that languages evolved rather than having been specially created, why not species? Although languages are used by intelligent humans, languages change not by design or human planning but according to rules that only recently are becoming understood.
Citing Bibles through the ages, Pennock illustrates English language evolution with the first line of the Lord's Prayer — which is virtually unreadable in its Anglo-Saxon form and even in medieval versions. Pennock makes an especially interesting comparison of differences between "designed" languages like Esperanto and "natural" languages: the former are much more regular, orderly, and precise; natural languages grow by accretion and look like it.
This is directly relevant to the design argument: neither languages nor living things have the orderliness of specially designed phenomena but look far more like "jerry-built jumbles" such as would be produced by evolution. He That Troubleth His Own Home Pennock also uses the Tower of Babel as a metaphor to describe the confusion and squabbling among anti-evolutionists themselves, detailing the nuances of intelligent-design creationists, young earthers, old earthers, progressive creationists, and others.
Perhaps being mindful of the proverb "He that troubleth his own home shall inherit the wind", Johnson and other leaders try hard to hide theological differences in and outside their camp, claiming that such "details" as the age of the earth, Noah's Flood, and the like should be set aside until theism triumphs over the evils of materialist science. Intelligent-design creationists try to keep the peace by avoiding any specific empirical claim about what the designer might have done, relying instead on bashing evolution. In this way, the movement shows its inheritance from its creation science ancestor, which specialized in the negative argument of "if evolution is wrong, then creationism is right".
But Pennock cleverly shows that merely disproving evolution fails to win the day, because among other reasons there are more than 2 alternatives. Extraterrestrial intelligent design and Godly intelligent design ultimately fail as science Pennock discusses why at length ; either must be taken on faith.
Intelligent-design creationism versus evolution is not just a philosophical and theological intellectual exercise: it is also a fight over what will be taught in our public schools.