Talk:Tower of Babel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Source for etemenanki inscription by Nebuchadnezzar?

Nebuchadnezzar wrote that the original tower had been built in antiquity: "A former king built the Temple of the Seven Lights of the Earth, but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Since that time earthquakes and lightning had dispersed its sun-dried clay; the bricks of the casing had split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps."

Does anybody know the source for this information?

THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.252.188 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Since Tower of Babel is a mythological tower in Christian mythology I think a new category needs to be added to it called Category:Christian mythology — Preceding unsigned comment added by रोहित रावत (talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:A significant fraction of people think it is not mythology and this fact that they think it is not mythology is amply sourced. Therefore, yours is a "point of view" that is the antithesis of neutral, that you are shoving your personal belief down our throat. Get serious. Mythology is used as a polemic word against Christianity by the Marxist agenda, which wikipedia cannot neutrally subscribe to pushing. I would also point out that only a few years ago, the noise from your quarter on your constantly shifting ostensible definition of the insult "mythology", was that it referred only to a "creation" story. This is the Biblical view of history and per neutrality policy and the UN Charter, everyone is free to subscribe to it or not subscribe to it, and masses do subscribe to it, and you are here to fight, and to engage in polemic and bigotry. All major world religions must be treated neutrally here, not just your personal favorite. 71.127.129.225 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Your saying that The Bible provides factual evidence that the Tower of Babel was a real historical entity? I don't think Marxism is really relevant here. And no one is particularly interested in "your throat" or what you think is "shoved down it." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Not what I'm saying AT ALL. Please reread and do not twist my position. I'm saying It is not Wikipedia's job to determine if this is non-factual or factual for readers, because of the simple fact that people and different belief systems disagree and there is no proof enough to convince everyone either way. Wikipedia must leave it "neutral" because that it the very reason we were given a "neutrality policy" here, was to cover that very circumstance without taking sides. 71.127.129.225 (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's discussed in the Oxford Companion to World Mythology.[1], in Middle Eastern Mythology By S. H. Hooke[2] and many other books and peer reviewed articles[3]. As with other biblical stories, you'll find the mythological aspect described by believing Christians and Jews in books of theology - it's nonsense to suggest that anyone who uses the term isn't a Christian. We don't have a "neutrality policy" but a "neutral point of view policy" - WP:NPOV which IMHO requires us to discuss the mythological perspective and at the moment we are in violation of that policy.

Also, categories are navigational aids, placing it is a category is a way of helping readers find like articles, not a way of saying "this isn't true". And I don't think the UN charter governs Wikipedia unless I missed something last night. Doug Weller (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Doesn't change the fact that "mythology" is a point-of-view that significant other points of view disagree with and thus any discussion of its categorization as such by some opinions, must be strictly neutrally worded. 71.127.129.225 (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

So you think "facts" and "mythology" form some kind of logical dichotomy? Maybe our Phil the Greek doesn't really exist? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Yes I think they are a dichotomy because that is what my dictionary says, but even if others' dictionaries disagree, it remains a contentious term conveying that impression, that is widely objected to. 71.127.129.225 (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Which dictionary is that? And could you show us how wide? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::any good dictionary should tell you a primary meaning, and the older meaning, of myth is falsehood, something believed but not true. If yours doesn't it's not wide enough. 71.127.129.225 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A link to the one dictionary that you have used will suffice, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::Dictionaries actually are not hard to come by. The real question here should be "why is yours missing that definition?" 71.127.129.225 (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You do have one, right? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dictionaries can be useful, and my Oxford dictionary makes it clear that the primary meaning of myth is a traditional story usually about the early history of a people, natural phenomena, etc, often involving supernatural beings. Myths as false stores is a secondary meaning. Are you saying that the Tower of Babel isn't a traditional story discussing how the different languages were created? But dictionaries can also be useless when it comes to technical words. Fortunately we don't rely on dictionaries, we mainly use for an article such as this one academic sources (including but not limited to theological ones). I'm not clear how you can categorise something that has mythological aspects, and the Tower of Babel certainly does even if the story is true, without using the word mythological or myth. We have other categories for it as well of course. To reject the term because some people don't like it is trying to enforce one pov on the article, or perhaps censorship. Doug Weller (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

::Discussion of those who categorize it as a myth must be neutrally worded since there are others who categorize it differently. Categories with ambiguous 'words to avoid' should not be used to take sides in the controversy. 71.127.129.225 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean about neutral wording. And you are using the word 'categorise' in an entirely different way than we do. Here's an example of a Christian theologian referring to "the myth of the Tower of Babel"[4] - are you calling him anti-Christian? Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Damn I'm slow today, not recognising this IP is evading his block. Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely a mythology may incorporate some true facts; whereas “all true facts” can’t include myths? It’s unclear whether you have a specific problem with Tower of Babel, or a more general problem with use of Category: Christian mythology. You seem to be suggesting that this category must be a self-contradiction since Christianity is a set of true facts whereas mythology is a set of untrue beliefs. Or are you just saying that the Bible, in its entirety, is a set of true facts and therefore cannot be used to support a categorisation of a real historical building as a myth? I wonder if you can reply before you get blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Category:Tower of Babel is already in the Category:Abrahamic mythology, which includes most of the mythological views of the Bible. I would think that to be sufficient. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A fair point. But I'd see "Abrahamic mythology" and "Christian mythology" as overlapping domains. I'd suggest that Christian mythology has very much more coverage, and thus much greater impact, in the modern world. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess my primary objection, to the extent that I have one, is that in at least the only encyclopedic source I have reviewed for content in general yet, The Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology/Prospectus, the Tower of Babel is mentioned in the field of Jewish mythology, not Christian mythology. I am not sure exactly how much specifically "Christian" mythology relates to this topic. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. Perhaps the ip editor has such strong personal views because of their faith and this is why they don't see it as "mythology" at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel's LDS? I know he believes in various fringe ideas and hates the term myth, and has some sort of fundamentalist belief, but LDS? The IP's been blocked by the way. Doug Weller (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, he's Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which has several variant books of the Bible, including the Book of Jubilees, which Til mentions in the above thread by that name. But, even there, the Book of Jubilees seems to historians to have been "Jewish" mythology, of a kind the Jews didn't exactly accept, and only later taken on by the EOC. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

So it seems I won't get my answer from the ip. I now see that User:Til Eulenspiegel has been blocked for socking. Or is he just another myth? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP is wrong. The only category of people who would be offended by the word "mythology" are fundamentalists who don't know what the word means. The 90+% of Christians who are not fundamentalists (and therefore don't care) and fundamentalists who know what the word means (and therefore know that it has no bearing on the story's factuality one way or the other) would have no reason to be offended by the category. Per WP:SLANG, we should be writing using professional, encyclopedic language; this applies both ways -- we don't use the word "myth" the way people who are ignorant of its technical definition, and we don't avoid the word solely to avoid offending such people based on their choosing to misinterpret us. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed the excellent argument by John Carter above that the "Christian mythology" category would be categorizing this page "up" from its present sub-category of "Abrahamic mythology". But I rather agree with what (I think) Martinevans123 said, that the two are overlapping but "Christian mythology" isn't necessarily a sub-category of "Abrahamic mythology". Christian mythology would include things like the legends of the saints in the Golden Legend and so on, would it not? Calling those "Abrahamic" seems somewhat anachronistic given how removed they are geographically and temporally from the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, if this article discusses specifically Christian (not Jewish or Muslim) interpretations of the myth in question at any point (I'm not a topic expert and I haven't looked at the article in much detail anyway), then adding a category that befits that would be appropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And for the record, Til Eulenspiegel was blocked for violating Godwin's law by calling me a Nazi (something that seems to happen quite a lot around here these days). His block was extended and intensified because of the sockpuppetry. But the original reason was the fascism accusations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, that's exactly what I meant. Thank you for such a eloquent summary. You don't sound much of a Nazi to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123, tell that to the several people who have called me that over the years based apparently on my username (which is an allusion to my year of birth). Although frankly "Nazi" is such an aggressive personal attack that I think using it against anyone would be grounds for a sanction, even if they were explicitly advocating Holocaust denial or something, you know, actually related to the Nazi party. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they're getting their Arianism mixed up with their Aryanism. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably much easier just to single out Verizon Internet Services ip users in Virginia? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We might have to. He socks all over the place. Just delete his talk page posts, don't reply. I've struck them as otherwise the thread makes no sense. You should see what he called me, something about being the greatest enemy of Wikipedia (along with DBachmann). He would have been blocked then but he 'retired'. I hadn't picked up on his bit about evil Marxists on Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, not a Nazi, then. Not sure my stranded reply above makes any sense now. But that's the least of our worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Benito1369 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Hello all and it's good to be able to help out when and where I can. I would like to add a comment. Now, I do hear the argument that a 'myth' as per the primary definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is as follows: "A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". You mentioned your dictionary definition as stating: "is a traditional story usually about the early history of a people, natural phenomena, etc, often involving supernatural beings." Close enough to what I see in my dictionary, but there is that qualification now: "ostensibly" which is also used in the contrasting way to what is actual fact. Now, from what I can understand from the greek and Latin, it just means a story (which could be true or not). Even in our everyday usage, when you call someone a "legend" or a "myth" it gives the sense that that person should not exist by all standards as their talents etc. seem too amazing to be true. So it definitely leans MORE towards something that is not true and is by no means a neutral term according to the above evidence. As the Bible itself never purports the information to be possibly false, and it reads as an historical account, it should be taken as such unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is definitely false as the legends of Zeus obviously are. By all accounts, it is not a myth, but rather an historical account of rebellion against God and how God punished mankind by separating them and by confusing their languages. So, I humbly request that it be considered on Wikipedia under the category of Historical Narrative which seems more fair and less prejudiced towards the material as presented in the book of Genesis which clearly is presented as History and not a possibly false (yet amazing) story. The other thing that I would also like to address on the Tower of Babel Wikipedia is that it states categorically that the Tower of Babel IS a myth when it is quite clear that there are many theologians, Christians and Pastors who could argue quite effectively to the contrary that it is a historical narrative. Just because you or anyone else as an editor thinks that the case for it being a "myth" is stronger than it being an historical narrative is stronger, doesn't mean you should publish one view of the Tower of Babel as the ONLY acceptable view. Now, I know you might want to argue that "myth" doesn't de facto mean it IS false, but quite clearly it can easily be construed that way - and many of the definitions of myth mean something that is not believed to be true - as even the definition that you purported leans more towards it being false than true (which itself is a view - as is the one that I am arguing for). So my ask is that the Wikipedia article be more neutral and logical in incorporating both views which are defended with equal respect amongst Christian scholars. It is not Wikipedia's role to act as the Head of some Theological Faculty dictating that all debate on this topic be settled in favor of one party just because they "seem" to be more influential. Remember, just because an idea is influential, does not de facto make the other view unreasonable or untrue. Both have very strong arguments. At least, if that is not allowed (which personally I would think as being quite unreasonable) then we should create another Wikipedia article where the varying views on the Tower of Babel are held out. But as it is, the Tower of Babel article is clearly biased towards those who 1) Believe that the dictionary argues for myth as a true story - which when looked into deeper doesn't seem to do that, in my opinion 2) Myth is an appropriate term to use for the Biblical Narrative of the Tower of Babel (which there are differing views about - and both sides have strong arguments to back up their position) I apologize if my response is a bit wordy, but I tried to include as much as possible while relying about logical arguments and definitions. Benito1369 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"that there are many theologians, Christians and Pastors who could argue quite effectively to the contrary"

That a bunch of lunatics would claim that the Book of Genesis is a historical narrative is irrelevant. The sources we have is that the entire book is a mythological narrative:

• "Genesis is an example of a creation myth, a type of literature telling of the first appearance of humans, the stories of ancestors and heroes, and the origins of culture, cities and so forth. The most notable examples are found in the work of Greek historians of the 6th century BC: their intention was to connect notable families of their own day to a distant and heroic past, and in doing so they did not distinguish between myth, legend, and facts. Professor Jean-Louis Ska of the Pontifical Biblical Institute calls the basic rule of the antiquarian historian the "law of conservation": everything old is valuable, nothing is eliminated. Ska also points out the purpose behind such antiquarian histories: antiquity is needed to prove the worth of Israel's traditions to the nations (the neighbours of the Jews in early Persian Palestine), and to reconcile and unite the various factions within Israel itself." Dimadick (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

Replace "myth" with "account" or "history," to avoid discriminating and dismissive language. Thank you. I appreciate your attention to this matter. 69.254.78.161 (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed in the past, current consensus is to keep it as myth. Look at talk page archives if you're interested in the discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Calling a myth "history" would make Wikipedia a lying source. Dimadick (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Logical Thinking

Heaven and Earth are two different places. If they aren't, and Heaven is on Earth, there would have been no reason to build a tower to Heaven. Therefore, think about it this way. If Heaven is not on Earth, it must be somewhere else, outside of Earth and it's atmosphere. Logic tells us that no tower could be built out of simple clay bricks that would have reached to Heaven, which is outside of the Earth's atmosphere. Once the builders reached the edge of Earth's atmosphere, they couldn't have gone any higher. Builders need oxygen to breathe and outside of Earth's atmosphere, there is no oxygen. Due to this fact, God would have had no reason to worry about the builders ever reaching Heaven, so he would not have had to do anything to stop them. Simple science proves there was a limit to how high they could have built. So, think of it this way: The Tower of Babel was no ordinary tower made of clay bricks. It had to have been made of more than baked mud and could have only been a "launch" tower. God wasn't ready for man to be able to fly around in space at that point in time, so that's why he put an end to the project and confused their speech. Doesn't this make more sense than a brick tower that would have had to have reached well past the edge of Earth's atmosphere? HaarFager (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is that it's only a story, written by people who had little knowledge about the natural world, but who had tradition and lessons to share. Please see WP:NOTFORUM: scholars can speculate and sometimes it is useful for an article, but we need reliable sources, since all the material of the encyclopedia must be a summary of those and cite them (WP:RS, WP:CITE). You are welcome to suggest some sources. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Bible teaching

John Cline: I didn't participate at the latest RFC but would also have chosen myth for the same reasons above. I wanted to reply to a comment you made there, since the RFC is now closed. The above doesn't mean that the whole article must exclusively use "myth" or must use it everywhere. To avoid repetition it is good to vary in the text and use story, narrative and scripture as long as it is clear that it is an origin myth since the beginning. Considering that WP:LEAD should be a summary, we could expect at least two mentions. However, I don't think that "Bible teaching" would be ideal, since that refers to a particular modern perception: the Bible is a collection assembled much later than the story, with the canon established by committees over long periods, etc. "Hebrew Bible" is closer, "Torah" possibly even better, but even simpler is "Genesis". As for teaching, we can assume that the intention of the scribes who wrote down and copied tradition intended it as such, yet it may still be out of context, considering how we know today that they were not the first people, their language was not the first, that they develop and diversify over time, get standardized, alphabets invented, borrowed and simplified, etc. all through human processes and culture. —PaleoNeonate – 09:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Very few of the uses of "myth" in the article are about the Tower of Babel/Confusion of tongues, though. I make it five instances: "Biblical myth" in the hatnote, "origin myth" in the first sentence, "origin myth" in the section hatnote and the first sentence in the section "Confusion of tongues", and "the myth" in the section "In popular culture". (Plus a number of instances in the references, but that's not Wikipedia's voice). "Story" is used 12 times, and "narrative" five times, including one section heading. --bonadea contributions talk 13:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think that the current state is pretty good as far as variety (repetition avoidance) is concerned, —PaleoNeonate – 20:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you PaleoNeonate, I appreciate your post-RfC comments. I accept the consensus that came out of the discussion. And though it differed from the position I held, I respect the Wikipedia model that determined the prevailing result. I hope, and believe, that others will too. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC on using Wikipedia's voice to call the Bible teaching a myth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This RfC is seeking to resolve a recurring question that riddles this talk page and archives: Is it policy compliant to introduce this topic as a myth? 14:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

The RfC has run for 30 days, and the tag, advertising it has expired. I filed a request for closure which should happen any day.[5] interested editors may continue commenting on the main question until it is formally closed.--John Cline (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Background

This is the question asked more often than any other, yet an RfC has never been opened to resolve the issue. To narrow the focus of the discussion, only the first two occurrences of "myth" are being considered:

1. The hatnote where it says: "This article is about the Biblical myth" (if opposed, myth will be changed to account story)

and

2. The lead's first sentence where it says: "The Tower of Babel (Hebrew: מִגְדַּל בָּבֶל‎‎, Migdal Bavel) narrative in Genesis 11:1–9 is an origin myth ..." (If opposed, an origin myth will be changed to a Bible teaching story)

Support the current language if you agree that the introductory use of myth is proper as show above.

Oppose the current language if you believe the introductory use of myth is improper and should be changed as parenthetically shown above.

Addendum - the suggested changes have been ammended to story, as a reasonable compromise. The point of this RfC is not to cast undue credibility favoring the Bible, or to establish an evangelical soapbox for future battle. It is simply to establish, by consensus, whether a neutral tone is useful introductory language for this topic or not. Currently, myth is used 28 times throughout the article, to the near exclusion of all other adjectives that could be otherwise used. The shear volume of sectional discussion throughout the archives that asks this question (and could be useful to read) suggests that establishing this consensus is necessary and prudent.--John Cline (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• I oppose the current introductory use of myth and believe it should be changed as shown. The whole idea of using a neutral voice is to fulfill the encyclopedic duty to present the facts comprising the topic while letting the reader decide the importance of these facts as they relate to the subject overall. It is not an encyclopedic function to teach readers what to think and introducing this topic as a myth mocks the importance of encyclopedic tone before the first words are even read.--John Cline (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support the current phrasing. It is indeed part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic function to present accepted mainstream science and scholarship as factual. As an aside, I thought it was a bit counterintuitive to have the "support" option be for the current phrasing and "oppose" for the change, but it is a very minor point. --bonadea contributions talk 16:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Even a minor point has it's place, and I'm thankful that you expressed it. All I can say is that I considered both presentations and while neither seemed intuitive at the time, I gave it my best. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support, "myth" is the appropriate term, just as it would be for the story of the Odyssey or the legends of Ragnarok. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  I honestly believe that if this article was written as neutral as either of the two you've mentioned, this RfC would never have been needed.--John Cline (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Even if the tower from the story was based on a real structure that existed, the name "Tower of Babel" is not the name of any known structure, and, according to the Bible, was "called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth," a clear mythological reference. So there is no "account" of the Tower of Babel that we know, outside of Genesis which is provided in the context of a myth. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps story would have been a better choice than account. Thank you for your comment.--John Cline (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support "story", oppose "account" (as too fact-based) or "myth" (as somewhat loaded). Use of "myth" (blue-linked or not) is not supported by our own definitions at Myth (sub:Mythology). But "account" sounds like a newspaper report (which it clearly is not). "Story" - as suggested above - seems a solid middle ground. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support the use of the term myth The Book of Genesis is full of origin myths, and it should be obvious to anyone who is vaguely familiar with it. oppose the term story as far too inaccurate. Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support the use of the term myth. It's clearly an origin myth - the case is well put by several editors above and I see no need to repeat it. We don't use our definitions as sources. Btw, "story" to me usually means something that isn't true. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment "Story" is a synonym for narrative, which makes no distinction between nonfictional narratives and fictional narratives. Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Myth Myths can have a basis in reality, but that doesn't make them true stories (or "accounts"). See for example Charybdis and Scylla who are based off the dangers of passing through the Strait of Messina (including a real, though much smaller whirlpool) but are nonetheless otherwise complete constructs used to teach a point, just as the Tower of Babel is used to explain the origin of language. BSMRD (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support myth. Article is in the category "origin myths", and sources 3 and 4 have "mythology" in their titles. Although, I disagree with one of the first commenters who said this is about presenting science as factual. This is simply a semantics issue over the misunderstanding of the word "myth" to be synonymous with "lie". A myth is a story passed down through generations, involving supernatural powers, meant to convey moral values. This term is neutral for the article and reflected in the sources. MarshallKe (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

TLDR comment I appreciate your comment MarshallKe, and agree with the points you made therein. I wish I could express myself as well as you. I accept that myth has a rightful place in this article, and maybe it is best that it's used at the first opportunity. And in the leads first sentence as well. Perhaps if I would of had the insight to narrow the discussion's focus to consider only one occurrence of myth, instead of two, and had chosen the very last occurrence instead of the first, there could have been some opportunity for compromise (I wish that I had). But when myth is the only linguistic characterization used throughout the article at every opportunity, to the exclusion of every other possible synonym that could have been used, there's a problem. Even if it's no more than saying the redundancy of its overuse is poor writing at best. I mentioned Homer's Odyssey as a worthwhile article to examine if one wanted to see an encyclopedic writing that covers a sure-enough myth without beholding the term to ad nauseum, as this article does. I accept that "a myth is a story passed down through generations, involving supernatural powers, meant to convey moral values". Can you accept that a bible teaching is synonymously similar (if not, why)? Is there really a good reason that myth should be used 28 times while bible teaching is not used once? I agree that the Tower of Babel is an origin myth in it's manner of describing the multitude of different languages that abound in our physical world. Yet where secular adherence concludes the myth's usefulness on that single tale (the global scattering of language) the bible uses the tale further, teaching other things in their own place and time. I won't bother you with any of these further things. Because: 1.) They probably wouldn't be read anyway 2.) If they were read, they wouldn't be seen as relevant, and 3.) It relates to the throwing pearls before swine myth (if you've heard of it) in as much as it's a thing you just shouldn't do. So I won't. Best regards --John Cline (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: Did a ctrl+F search for myth in the article. I don't see a repetitious use of myth to characterize the topic, I see the word myth used when describing other myths similar to Babel. This just doesn't read like an attack on religion to me. Also, this is offtopic to the RfC since it is about the introduction. MarshallKe (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you MarshallKe, You are correct. I came here for an edit request and I've lost my objectivity after reading the threads where editors did feel attacked. I'd hoped we'd find a more neutral approach and I am less than glad that we could not. I hope I haven't been an ass. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: There is no contradiction between your position and what I said in my first post – and semantics issues are almost never simple. --bonadea contributions talk 10:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I realized that consensus is strongly favoring keeping things as they are. I am hopeful that the RfC will not be closed early. Pile on and make the consensus abundantly clear. It will be worthwhile as a pointer for users making edit requests in the future.--John Cline (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support myth as being the most appropriate but I also would be OK with "story". HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support "myth", neutral on "story" but oppose "account". –Bangalamania (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment One issue with "story" as I see it is that we currently say "origin myth" (not just "myth"), which is a defined term, unlike "origin story". Or, rather, origin story has a different meaning entirely. I don't think that "Biblical story" would be as helpful to our readers as the linked term "origin myth". It complicates things a bit that the article talks about the tower itself (the physical building), and about the confusion of tongues – but that's beyond the scope of this RfC. --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support “myth” per Dimadick and MarshallKe. —JBL (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support "account." Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The use of 'myth' promotes mockery, not an encyclopedic tone. 'Story' or 'account' may be more neutral. Pyrite Pro (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Myth - The account is a myth as the term is understood by scholars of myth. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "Myth" and "Story", Support "Account", per WP:NPOV. Account sounds the most encyclopedic and more neutral. The term "myth" can be taken to be dismissive towards the Abrahamic faiths, and the term "story" is too vague. Rexh17 (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support myth per BSMRD. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 00:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support the word "myth" does not strictly imply that a story is true or false. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose use of myth, a word that immediately implies that this is a fictional when multiple major religions believe this to be true; saying otherwise violates neutrality. Account or story would work better here. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Support the use of the term "myth". This fits with the definition of "myth" that is overwhelmingly used in academic sources. It's used throughout Wikipedia and in most of this article's own sources without any great controversy. Nic T R (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Encyclopedia Britannica says it was a real tower

Why is there only a page about the myth of the Tower of Babel which suggests that the tower never existed? The Tower of Babel did exist as shown here: https://www.britannica.com/video/180010/Overview-Tower-of-Babel— Preceding unsigned comment added by Holygamer (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Some have suggested that actual ziggurats of Mesopotamia could have influenced the myth. The current article already mentions this. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

How is a historical biblical story called a myth? Not one thing in the Bible can be disproved. The book of Genesis doesn’t need an outside source. It is a historical document. And an outside source that makes a suggestion should be irrelevant. Ericawlmt1 (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no historical value to the Book of Genesis:

• "Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, see them as being written hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived, in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical."
• Do not search for truths in the Bible, there are none. Dimadick (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wording in Confusion of Tongues Section

• My request is to replace the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Confusion of Tongues" section with the sentence, "However, most scholars agree that the two chapters are not arranged in chronological order."
• The current wording of "Scholars have been debating or explaining this apparent contradiction for centuries." implies that there is no scholarly consensus concerning this passage. However, while I don't have access to the cited resource, what I understand from archived talk pages is that the resource simply mentions a scholar explaining the apparent contradiction centuries ago. As far as I can tell, it never mentions that the scholar's resolution was in any way debated. Moreover, from sources that I do own, most scholars seem to indicate that there is a large consensus that the two passages are not in chronological order.
• Here are my references:

"Most commentators agree that the difficulty occurs because the two episodes are not arranged in chronological order (see Mathews 1996, 428). From a chronological perspective, Gen 10:1–32 should come after Gen 11:1–9. There is general agreement that the Table of Nations was placed before the Tower of Babel account for literary or thematic reasons."

Furthermore, "The different languages of verse 5 probably look forward to the time after the tower of Babel (11:1–9)."

And, "The dispersion of the nations “according to . . . language” (v. 5) took place after Babel (ch. 11) all along these coasts as well as elsewhere."

KhanGressman (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It does not appear there is consensus for this change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Confusion of Tongues Section

The current wording of the first paragraph of the "Confusion of tongues" section seems to indicate that there is no scholarly consensus on the resolution of the apparent contradiction in Genesis 10:5 and Genesis 11:1-8. However, the cited reference, as far as I can tell from the previous sections of this talk page (not having access to the reference myself), just mentions a church father who explained this apparent contradiction as that the story in Genesis 11 jumps back in time after the genealogy in chapter 10 which encompasses several generations, similar to how a history textbook might give a summary of a certain era in history before sharing specific stories from within that era.

Moreover, citing from some sources I do own:

"Most commentators agree that the difficulty occurs because the two episodes are not arranged in chronological order (see Mathews 1996, 428). From a chronological perspective, Gen 10:1–32 should come after Gen 11:1–9. There is general agreement that the Table of Nations was placed before the Tower of Babel account for literary or thematic reasons." (Mangum, D., Custis, M., & Widder, W. (2012). Genesis 1–11 (Ge 10:1–32). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.)

Furthermore, "The different languages of verse 5 probably look forward to the time after the tower of Babel (11:1–9)." (MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (p. 45). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.)

And, "The dispersion of the nations “according to . . . language” (v. 5) took place after Babel (ch. 11) all along these coasts as well as elsewhere." (Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Ge 10:1). Galaxie Software.)

I suggest replacing the last sentence of that first paragraph with, "However, most scholars agree that the two chapters are not arranged in chronological order." (unless counter examples of reputable sources mentioning this as a contradiction can be found, in which case the two positions should be explained). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhanGressman (talk • contribs) 23:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In response to ScottishFinnishRadish comment on my edit request, here's what consensus on this topic has been so far. On 16 December 2019, A D Monroe III wrote in response to someone else's objections to this contradiction, "If WP:Reliable sources are presented here that support this, then the article will (indeed must) be changed accordingly. Lacking that, no change can be expected." Following that, a semi-protected edit request was made to change the wording of this section, and it was rejected on account of a lack of consensus (25 February 2020 by Eggishorn). That was followed by an attempt to reach consensus concerning this section. The conclusion was "I'm going to read the above as a positive talk page consensus for the change I proposed [which is the current reading]. The only objection I see is to the 'for centuries' formulation and Akrasia25 has verified my source." (A D Monroe III on 16 December 2019)

The disagreement about the "for centuries" part was that someone doubted whether the cited source actually mentioned the contradiction having been debated for centuries. Akrasia25 verified that Augustine of Hippo did indeed call it a "contradiction," and no further objections were made in that particular discussion.

However, I have two objections with the current reading. The first is that to say, "Scholars have been debating or explaining this apparent contradiction for centuries" is indeed unsourced. While the cited resource does indeed quote Augustine saying, "And so, because this sentence was added: 'And the earth was one tongue and there was one speech for all'... Without a doubt, this contradicts the words used above, 'according to their tribes and tongues.'", it goes on to say, "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.... After this event they were scattered over the earth according to their languages." Therefore, the cited source does not mention that there was any debate over the matter. In fact, it demonstrates that the explanation was clear to Augustine -- that chapter 10 is a summary of multiple generations after which chapter 11 explains further details of the narrative. Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, this explanation is the same explanation agreed upon by scholars today.

Therefore, scholars have not been debating about this apparent contradiction for centuries (unless counter examples can be found). Rather, scholars have been agreeing about this apparent contradiction for centuries. The current reading states that there has been debate about this issue for centuries. That claim is unsourced, and I have furthermore found other reputable sources to the contrary of that claim. Unless opposing reputable sources can be found, this should be changed. --KhanGressman (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Origin Myth

Why not just tell the truth and say it is a story from the Bible instead of making something up by calling it a myth. Calling it a myth is a myth because you don't know. It's a story from the Bible. Let people decide for themselves if it is a myth. 2600:1004:B0D6:A983:493E:1753:AD06:CFA2 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@2600:1004:B0D6:A983:493E:1753:AD06:CFA2 It'd be worth your while to study the meaning of myth. -- Jmc (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Alternate location - Lebanon (Byblos/Tartus)

There is an alternate location for Shinar as Shenir instead. That would move the Tower from Iraq to Lebanon (Mount Hermon). It would therefore be more likely the "Tower of Byblos", rather than "Tower of Babel".

Isaiah 10:9 - "Have I not taken the country above Babylon and Chalanes, where the tower was built?". Chalanes compares to Calneh (in the kingdom of Nimrod). Calneh looks like the Phoenecian Karne, or modern day Tartus. The other cities of Nimrod also look like Phonecian cities (Erech=Arqa).

On Nimrod's Akkad, this city seems to be Achar instead: https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/kbe/a/accad.html Ac´cad, one of the five cities in 'the land of Shinar,' or Babylonia, which are said to have been built by Nimrod, or rather, to have been 'the beginning of his kingdom' (Genesis 10:10). It seems that several of the ancient translators found in their Hebrew MSS. Achar instead of Achad, and it is probable that this was really the name of the city.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:C300:290:B8D1:9CC0:288:D9C9 (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Historical Context: Some biblical scholars do not say Genesis is purely mythillogical

I disagree with the blanket statement that biblical scholars do not believe that the Genesis account is historical, but merely a poetic or mythological story. Some biblical scholars say it's a historical account. 2603:6011:8B00:8570:F0B0:2FFC:306E:A5A8 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Examples? Dimadick (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Similarly. Consider the Institute for Creation Research's commentary on Genesis, which is backed by some substantial evidence. 0bav (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Etemenanki and Wajdenbaum

Does the sentence on Herodotus really warrant inclusion in this article? Philippe Wajdenbaum is, as far as I've been able to find, a little-known scholar and the cited book he wrote has received poor reviews for failing to properly support its controversial thesis that is very far removed from consensus.Swaggernagger (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've read some other bad reviews, it clearly isn't an RS, so I've removed him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Some scholars believe Genesis is a historical account. Change "biblical scholars" to "some biblical scholars" 2601:18C:8500:B340:F1DA:450C:772F:39FA (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done That would make the article considerably less neutral – see Wikipedia:False balance. --bonadea contributions talk 15:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand how this is a "false balance". To state that some biblical scholars believe Genesis is a historical account is not the same as taking a stand on the argument of whether Genesis is historical or not. It is simply stating a fact. It is a fact that there are many biblical scholars who believe the book of Genesis to be a historical account. The Fact that there are biblical scholars who believe Genesis is a historical account means that it would be untruthful not to change where the article says "biblical scholars" to "some biblical scholars". This is not the same as giving validation to flat earthers or those who believe the moon landing was a hoax. This is more like saying that flat earthers and people that believe the moon landing was a hoax don't exist , because recognizing there existence would legitimize there beliefs. I hope you can see the error in that statement , but recognize you are doing the same thing by not changing "biblical scholars" to "some biblical scholars". 71.167.120.139 (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)