Evidence for God from Science

I have seen some major criticisms of The Tower of Babel as a myth or a fanciful story on the origins of human language. According to the story at some point after the flood the entire human race went under a one world religion, language, and government. However I don't see any evidence that this civilization or the tower itself ever existed at some point in the past. Certainly a one world system would leave behind a trace of its civilization. I consider myself a Christian, so this is very troubling to me. If this story isn't true then it undermines the validity of the book of Genesis, which destroys the validity of the Bible and Christianity. If any of you have a satisfying answer I will greatly appreciate it.

Hi

The large majority of Biblical accounts have been backed up by archaeological finds, we have no reason to doubt the validity of any accounts we don't have evidence for yet.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ~WLC

Here are some good sites and articles to have a look through.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/

http://bibleandarchaeology.blogspot.com.au/

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... 3-jericho/

Sure the tower of babel is real... It's called the U.N. where people think they can create utopia with evil minds...

Strangely we have "so called" educated intellects that this can be accomplished without the voice of G-d.

I need some real answers, please help me!

The tower of babel CAN be real, that is if we can find evidence to prove it that would be something...however even if that be the case, the story around it is NOT REAL, if taken as it is.

Baltazorg wrote:I have seen some major criticisms of The Tower of Babel as a myth or a fanciful story on the origins of human language. According to the story at some point after the flood the entire human race went under a one world religion, language, and government. However I don't see any evidence that this civilization or the tower itself ever existed at some point in the past. Certainly a one world system would leave behind a trace of its civilization. I consider myself a Christian, so this is very troubling to me. If this story isn't true then it undermines the validity of the book of Genesis, which destroys the validity of the Bible and Christianity. If any of you have a satisfying answer I will greatly appreciate it.

There is the residual after effects still present today - move to open boarders, utopia, one world government. The idea came form some where. It is best that you dig into the historical records and see for yourself that this event was a real event with lasting repercussions. We do have a common language on the internet and software to translate any language into ones common language nowadays. Historically, one era the common language was Greek, next Latin, etc, French, English... Now there is new language software... and from here - who knows... You live in the repercussions from Nimrod's time.

For an overview... to help you find answers...


http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Defaul ... &nid=37886

http://biblicalarchaeology.wordpress.co ... of-nimrod/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod

Please help, I need evidence or something please help me.

Baltazorg wrote:Please help, I need evidence or something please help me.

Could you link us the criticism's so we can read them.

There's no reason to think we would ever discover evidence of the story. It's a mistake to imagine that there was a "great civilization" of any kind. The story talks about building a city and a tower. Ancient cities, by today's standards, were exceedingly small. Suppose there were a few thousand people--shoot, suppose there were one hundred thousand people (remember, this is not terribly long after the Flood). How much archaeological evidence do you expect to find from a single, unfinished city and a single, unfinished tower, especially when that city is older than any others we are digging up today?

The answer you are looking for is just that you are asking for an unrealistic burden of proof. As noted above, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Shy of any positive reason to deny that the story is true, then it should be taken seriously as a matter of ancient historical record. And if you hold to the inspiration of Scripture, then the very fact that Scripture witnesses the event should be persuasive enough.

I mean, if you are going to be consistent with this sort of hyper criticism, you may as well argue that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, his twelve sons (including Joseph), etc., that all of those people never existed, too!

None of you helped at all. I need archaeological evidence.

As I said, you're making an unrealistic request. There is not, nor will there be, any archaeological evidence for the ToB.

Such a large structure shall surely leave its remnants and language somewhere. I don't want to be in the position of the Mormans in terms of accepting ancient civilizations with no evidence whatsoever.

Then I take it you didn't read my first reply. I repeat the relevant portion here:

• It's a mistake to imagine that there was a "great civilization" of any kind. The story talks about building a city and a tower. Ancient cities, by today's standards, were exceedingly small. Suppose there were a few thousand people--shoot, suppose there were one hundred thousand people (remember, this is not terribly long after the Flood). How much archaeological evidence do you expect to find from a single, unfinished city and a single, unfinished tower, especially when that city is older than any others we are digging up today?

The bottom line, the city was small. The tower unfinished. You're just asking for a burden of proof that can't be met.

As for the Mormon comparison, there is simply no comparison. The BoM makes claims that are absurd -- the existence of animals and materials in America that simply did not exist. NO cities have been identified. The supposed genetic connection between Jews and Native Americans is disproven. Archaeologically, the BoM is a joke. Nothing like that is the case with the Bible. The vast majority of the cities mentioned have been identified, as have a great many of the kings. Customs have been confirmed, and even the literary forms fit the time in which the books of the Bible were written.

If you are worried about archaeological evidence for the Bible generally, and the OT specifically, then I would strongly recommend reading two books: Walter Kaiser's A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars and Eugene Merrill's Kingdom of Priests. I would also recommend a good OT Introduction. Though dated now, it's still hard to do better than Gleason's A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Work through those, and I promise you that your archaeological concerns will be more than satisfied, and any concerns about Christianity's comparison to Mormonism will evaporate--in fact, the question will likely become downright boring when you see the shear magnitude of the evidence. It would be like actually taking the time to weigh a housefly and an NFL linebacker to see which weights more. Sure, you could do the experiment, but it hardly seems worth the effort!

Thanks for the resources Jack3510!

Jac3510 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2013 2:06 pm
As for the Mormon comparison, there is simply no comparison. The BoM makes claims that are absurd -- the existence of animals and materials in America that simply did not exist. NO cities have been identified. The supposed genetic connection between Jews and Native Americans is disproven. Archaeologically, the BoM is a joke. Nothing like that is the case with the Bible. The vast majority of the cities mentioned have been identified, as have a great many of the kings. Customs have been confirmed, and even the literary forms fit the time in which the books of the Bible were written.

If you are worried about archaeological evidence for the Bible generally, and the OT specifically, then I would strongly recommend reading two books: Walter Kaiser's A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars and Eugene Merrill's Kingdom of Priests. I would also recommend a good OT Introduction. Though dated now, it's still hard to do better than Gleason's A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Work through those, and I promise you that your archaeological concerns will be more than satisfied, and any concerns about Christianity's comparison to Mormonism will evaporate--in fact, the question will likely become downright boring when you see the shear magnitude of the evidence. It would be like actually taking the time to weigh a housefly and an NFL linebacker to see which weights more. Sure, you could do the experiment, but it hardly seems worth the effort!

Hi, thought I would chime in here a few years late.

With all due respect, I think your comments about the Book of Mormon weaken the general direction the discussion was going. You talk about better archeological evidence for the Bible when compared with the Book of Mormon. But it has been said several times (and I completely agree): "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". If we're going to offer this latitude with the Bible, then the same should be extended to the Book of Mormon.

You state some things that seem absurd with the Book of Mormon. However, many throughout the world have the same view of many stories in the Bible.

I believe the primary critique of these books (which I both highly esteem) should be how they draw one closer to God and Jesus Christ. If you give the Book of Mormon an honest read, looking for its power in testifying of God and Christ, you will find that it greatly accomplishes the above goal.

As for great discussions on evidences of the Book of Mormon (which again, must be secondary to the above litmus test), listen or read works by Hugh Nibley. Listen with an open heart and you'll see some very compelling evidence!