Did God Destroy The Tower Of Babel, Sodom, Make Floods etc?

Tower of babel collapse : poor workmanship .. cheap materials .. leading to structural failure .. the contractor moved to a neighboring country leaving the sub-contractors to hang ..

the flood : nature is a bitch at times .. natural disasters happen ..

a reply to: EndOfDays77
Ron Wyatt ?? Seriously ?? He's a known fraud. Some info here .
A 'great Christian scam' and money making venture.
Science and archeology have proven him wrong.

there were 2 flood accounts in the noah's flood section of the text. the first flood account is of the black sea flood, which wiped out civilizations along the mediterranean, bosporus strait, black sea and the fertile crescent, including in the plains of shinar (sumer) waterways (tigris and euphrates). this was not the global flood. the global flood first appears in genesis 1: verse 2. the text there originally said "and the earth BECAME a chaotic ruin." not, "and the earth WAS a chaotic ruin." this means that verse 1, is some indeterminate time before the cataclysm that made the earth a chaotic ruin. notice the ruach of elohim floats over the deep, which draws down to reveal dry land that was already there. it was created long before verse 2. the event that caused that global catastrophe is likely the same event that spawned the ice age.

the tower of babel was not a tower - it was a ziggurat. the thing was not shoddily made or top heavy. it was torn down, deliberately, and would continue to be torn down whenever anyone tried to build on that spot at a later time, usually by invaders.

To think that we are alone in the universe is kinda bull headed, to think we have always been alone on this planet is bull headed as well. Just think there is life in every part of the earth and sky everywhere. How could it be otherwise on any other planet? Theres life in space, in volcanoes, and even in nuclear reactors called Extremophiles. Everywhere we look we find some kind of life. Why on earth would anyone believe we are the absolute greatest life in the universe?

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Who is even saying we are alone in the universe?
Nor anyone saying we must be the most intelligent.
You are straying from your own OP just talking what we have heard before.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Why on earth would anyone believe we are the absolute greatest life in the universe?

That's a totally separate issue from 'Did God Destroy the Tower of Babel, Sodom, The Flood'. If there is a God (and yes, I believe there is) that doesn't mean that He ('it') had anything to do with a Tower of Babel, Sodom, or a Noahs Ark flood.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Who is even saying we are alone in the universe?

Nor anyone saying we must be the most intelligent.

You are straying from your own OP just talking what we have heard before.

I was under the impression some were saying that the existance of alien or divine intervention was impossible, and that the only things that have ever happened have been due to coincidence so what I am saying is that it is highly unlikely that any past destruction was a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection. It is also unlikely that it wasnt just nothing but nature and no ETs/angels/god/gods have ever been around and couldnt be involved at all.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: boymonkey74

Yes we could get destroyed but by no higher power just nature.

The luck you involve with your " Just nature " conclusion in a hostile
environment? Hostile universe, hostile earth and world etc? Is far more
unbelievable and absurd than anything that can be said about God.
Just nature's randomness to see us thru. Think about the ignorance
of that for not more than 3 seconds.

Ignorance?
How is getting hit by a random meteorite or any other natural disaster, being more absurd and unbelievable, than saying for ex. god flooded the earth to the point where the highest mountain was underwater?
And all that to drawn the ''bad'' ones (including innocent animals), when all he could to do was click his fingers and make things alright, since he is omnipotent after all. How can you think a natural disaster is more absurd than this?

Every catastrophic event in our past was natural and easily explainable by the laws of nature, no need for divine intervention what so ever. Just nature doing her thing.

you should simply ask what is the evidence for those things and is it reliable and verifiable

So you have evidence that a God got mad at people for building a tower and then magically changed all their languages at once?

It is much more likely that it was ancient aliens that didn't want humans advancing (if it happened at all). The bible even says "we" for God meaning it wasn't one entity, and why would an omnipotent god be scared of humans gaining primitive technology?

originally posted by: CB328
why would an omnipotent god be scared of humans gaining primitive technology?

Excellent question. Obviously people nowadays have better building and better technology then the people of the Bronze Age and before that. Obviously we build taller buildings and think more of ourselves and our abilities now then they did back then. And yet in all these years God hasn't magically appeared to scatter or confuse the languages.

The Tower of Babel thing is just one of those creation myth stories that primitive people invented in order to explain why things around them happened the way they did. They didn't understand that people, with their language and culture, developed in isolated pockets and that is why there is diversity of language. It wasn't God getting upset because a tall (which nowadays would be considered short) building was being made.

So if we can make tsunamis perhaps ancient aliens/angels/god/gods could do the same or similar.

a reply to: FlyersFan


Don't think the bible says Babble was destroyed. Building stopped apparently due to confusion.

Although not stated specifically as being so, the 'tongues" incident in the book of Act was a reversal of the Babble effect to demonstrate to those present who it was that they were dealing with.

originally posted by: Logarock
Don't think the bible says Babble was destroyed.

The OP said it was destroyed. I say it never happened to begin with. There is no evidence of it and the 'confuse the tongues' thing is silly. We know that human language formed in isolated pockets around the world and that is why languages are different. Not because some god got angry over an alleged tall building (tall for that time period, not this one).

Although not stated specifically as being so, the 'tongues" incident in the book of Act was a reversal of the Babble effect to demonstrate to those present who it was that they were dealing with.

I'm sure some preacher somewhere came up with that to try to justify the Tower of Babble story as somehow being real.

a reply to: FlyersFan

The story of Babel is not silly. Don't underestimate the power of these parables. Real or not, Babel is about the consequences of humans for uniting and living without god. People create an advanced society, live in harmony, and god hates it because people don't need him. So he destroys it and scatters people, creating all their differences in culture, language etc. Its divide and rule, which is still going on to this very day and is extremely effective.

I completely agree that supersition ruled, because people were intentionally kept ignorant, and they were easier to control if they believed a vengeful god destroyed a city rather than something like a meteor, or even the weapons of the ruling elite at the time. Priests were more than likely privvy to science, which enabled them to perform their "miracles" and fool the masses into believing they were using the power of "god".

a reply to: FlyersFan

Yea I was simply answering the OP there, the question.

I did some research on Mesopotamian cultures. Some archeologists have pointed out the oddity of the fact that the Akkadian and the Sumerian cultures are very close in proximity and can hardly be distinguished one from other culturally and yet were so different in language. They have never been able to find a slow transition from one into the other nor a similar antecedence ect. It has been described as the same culture with complete separate language.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I'm sure some preacher somewhere came up with that to try to justify the Tower of Babble story as somehow being real.

Save for the fact that the NT writer doesn't even mention the connection. And that during his day it had been 3000 years +- since Babble. I have never heard in my life one preacher say the Act story was a reversal of Babble even though its very obvious. Thats an original idea out of my head and if anyone else has ever noticed it I am unaware of it.

Besides most "tongue" preachers would reject the idea as they hold the "gift of tongues" to be unrelated to everyday spoken language.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord


Natural disaster as an act of God wouldn't be so hard for many to stomach, even some kinds of christians, if they really understood who it was they were talking about.

I heard a guy say the other day, and have heard it before, that anyone knowing these disaster were coming and didn't warn folks is guilty of murder. These are coming from what I call the "Jonah effect" perspective. But what we need to remember is that Sodom was not warned, not Gomorrah. So what does that make God to these people?

God has been known to give folks info and then say "seal it up" or otherwise keep silent about it. Besides they were warned.

the language underwent a dyslexic flip. for example, abzu became apsu.

a reply to: Dr1Akula

Ignorance?

Oh really now?

" Extinction is the rule and survival is the exception."

" Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws. "

" An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

Carl Sagan

a reply to: randyvs

Sagan emphasized that his belief in god was dependent on whether it was defined in a theistic or a pantheistic way,
On your second quote he suggested that accepting the pantheist definition of god should make everyone a believer of god.
he frequently and firmly rejected the atheist label as he believed it was being unhelpful and vain.

“If we are to discuss the idea of God and be restricted to rational arguments, then it is probably useful to know what we are talking about when we say God. This turns out not to be easy.'' Carl Sagan

If we assume that god is essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe, then I agree, yes such a god exists, actually that's polytheism and or pantheism...

Polytheists also believed that the some laws and aspects of nature and human behavior were gods, and I'm also agnostic to that idea of god.
Sagan says he is agnostic to the possibility of some form or some idea of god, but I don't understand how does that prove your point.

What does that have to do with the biblical disasters caused by the specific god Yahweh?
What does the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe, have to do with the great flood, the tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah and Yahweh's zeal and selfishness needing to rule over and be worshiped by his creation?

The problem is the definition of god which is something subjective to people, and when we try to generalize we get confused.
If we are talking about the Judeo-muslim-christian god described in the bible then yes I am 100% sure he doesn't exist, and thanks to science, we have overwhelming evidence that the creation story in genesis never happened, ignorance is to believe otherwise.
The idea of the christian god was first thought by primitive naive dessert people who believed an imaginary being in the sky was the answer to their existence, by not knowing any better. and then their leaders wrote down some stories about god (bible) to draw attention, help their morality, control them better and give them something to hope for.
The only evidence of gods existence is the bible, BUT anecdotal evidence, faulty reasoning and spurious claims prove there never was a case.
Trying to pick and chose or adding symbolic meaning to the bible, is a desperate attempt for justification imo, and it also leads to heresy away from the orthodox original beliefs.

So yes I am not agnostic to the christian god, I am an atheist because I am 100% absolutely sure he doesn't exist and never ever did.