> Can I do that? Can I write a book that says 10,000 years ago, this happened and a God named SsurebreC fixed it and that this was a lesson and it's up to the world to follow his example? Can that be proven wrong?

My point was not that it proves it's true, but that's why God judged these people but not future people for the same infraction. God used the first incident to show us his judgment on the attitude and behavior, so that we understand. The Bible is a theological interpretation of historical events. As such, the theological interpretation can't be proved right or wrong by science, because it's not a scientific question, any more than whether I prefer chocolate over vanilla can be proved in a lab.

> Global claims are written and - when taken literally - are false

Then you didn't read what I said. First of all, it was their theological perspective (as far as they knew, all the known world was flooded, so they spoke the truth). Secondly, it was their geographical perspective. They thought the world was a flat disk about 3,000 miles in diameter. They were speaking the truth. As you read the text it has many cultural references and language of limited scientific understanding (for instance, the "firmament," the "windows of heaven" in Gn. 7.11). It's OK, they were speaking in their world and to their world. If Noah built a boat, and there was a flood so severe that all he could see in any direction was water (none of the local mountains were visible), he would easily and clearly say that the whole earth had been flooded and that every living thing had been killed. It was obviously hyperbole; he had not taken a walk over the region to confirm that was truly the case, but it was true as far as was observable. It was true by every scientific measure available to the one who experienced it.

> When the claims are read as local events then that's fine though I feel like the point is lost.

The point wasn't lost at all. God judged those he intended to judge (but not others, which might have been unfair). The people Noah knew of that were hopelessly corrupt were killed. God accommodates their understanding of geography and the world in the genres and literary devices in which they speak. God's intent is not to school them in geography, but in morality. He accommodates their limited view of the earth, but that's incidental to the message. The message (God judges sin, he favors righteousness, and he is the sovereign) comes through loud and clear.

> Why do you think these examples are still not trivial?

Because they are clear examples that God is a righteous judge who will not turn a blind eye to wickedness, and that God demands that people see him for who he is and not who they wish him to be.

> It does, it says God created man named Adam/Eve in Genesis 2.

I take Genesis 1 & 2 to be a functional account of creation (the role and function that the different pieces of the cosmos play) rather than an account of material creation (how the material universe came to be). The ancients presupposed material creation; their cosmogonies (Atrahasis Epic, Babylonian Creation Epic *Enuma Elish*), were about how the cosmos functioned. I take Genesis the same way. Genesis 2.5-6 describes an undeveloped and nonfunctioning world where there is no productivity under the control of humanity. The chapter traces the progress from non-order to order. God assigns to humanity the roles of caring for sacred space (Gn. 2.15, priestly words, not agricultural ones). God provides sprouting food, and the humans are assigned the role of having a relationship with God by "working and caring for" what He has made. Humanity brings order out of chaos, in the image of God, just as God did in chapter 1. It also describes bringing function to what is non-functional.

So the man and woman of Gn. 2 were not necessarily the first hominids, but possibly representatives of the homo sapiens species that were spiritually capable and morally culpable, and so they are now capable of a relationship with God and of making moral decisions, and that's what Gn. 2 is about.

> I think a lot of the meaning behind Christianity when things are read literally.

I disagree. A lot of the meaning behind Christianity is the concepts of its theology when read according to the intent of the authors. "Literally" is a fairly useless word in this context.

> The Bible is full of "first event" stories.

Can I do that? Can I write a book that says 10,000 years ago, this happened and a God named "Sure Breeze" fixed it and that this was a lesson and it's up to the world to follow his example? Can that be proven wrong?

> first I would say that "literally" is a poor choice of term and is inadequate for any conversation about the Bible

It's not because I'm making a specific point. Let's forget about rest of the Bible. Let's only focus on Noah and Babel. Global claims are written and—when taken literally—are false. When the claims are read as local events then that's fine, though I feel like the point is lost. God chose to punish a trivial part of the planet with a flood? Okie dokie. A small tower fell and people split afterwards? Alright.

> We have to understand the writing from the point of view and intent of the author.

I think you more or less said what I said. Excellent, I'm glad we agree. Why do you think these examples are still not trivial? People in a small area were bad, God sent a flood to kill everyone, allowing one small good family to escape. God said he won't do it again. Is this any kind of a point? Floods continue happen, people die.

> But the text doesn't insist Adam & Eve were the first hominids.

It does, it says God created man named Adam/Eve in Genesis 2.

Gn. 2.15: The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

Where does this they weren't the first or only?

> I am often disappointed in the knowledge level of Christians about their own Scriptures.

I think a lot of the meaning behind Christianity when things are read literally.

Remember that though the Bible was written for us, it was not written to us. This part was written 3300 years ago, but its oral tradition goes back about 4000 years. It's a different culture of a different era and written in a different language. The people of that day and region would have understood it perfectly. By our time, we live in a completely different culture, and we need some research to make it clear.

It's no different even today of translating Chinese culture to American. They have different values and perspectives than we do. We have cultural markers (Babe Ruth, McCarthyism, Monica Lewinsky, Chicago pizza) that are second nature to us, but would have to be explained to a foreigner. We have signs that say "No Standing" that would make a foreigner go "Huh??", because we know they're about no parking, not about no standing.

God allows his word to be translated and retranslated so that people of other times and cultures might understand (as opposed to the Qu'ran, which is NEVER to be translated). Cultures and languages change, so we do the requisite research, and we get it.

The Bible is multi-layered. On the one hand, it can just be read and basically understood with simple reading by normal people. On another level, it can be studied with all the depth you want to give it, and then it yields up even more treasures. A story like this one requires a little bit of interpretive work to understand what a ziggurat was (since we don't build them, and haven't for millennia) and how they expected it to work. With that little bit of research, the story comes more clear.

So, if the story was written in the Bible the way you worded it, it would make a lot more sense. Why is it more confusing and somewhat misleading when presented to us supposedly by God?

> Convenient? God does something because of a reason. Same situation happens (worse, even) with no response.

The Bible is full of "first event" stories. The first time something happens, God deals with it directly as a kind of case law example to show us what he thinks of it. After that, it's up to us to follow his example (sort of like a precedent) and take it from there. The Tower of Babel is that kind of story. So are many others in the Bible.

> You then agree with me that Noah is false as literally written.

Well, first I would say that "literally" is a poor choice of term and is inadequate for any conversation about the Bible. It doesn't really take us anywhere. The story of Noah is written as if it's historiography and not mythography. It is written within its cultural context where "all" and "world" reference their immediate environs in the Middle East. Mesopotamian geographers had no way of knowing that Babylonia and Assyria were part of the Eurasian landmass that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Arctic to Indian Oceans. The ancient geographers imagined that the continent they lived on was much smaller. On the World Map (found by archaeologists in ancient Babylon), the cosmic ocean *marratu* is drawn just beyond Assyria, Urartu (Akkadia—in the northern part of the Tigris-Euphrates river valley), and the mountains where the Euphrates rises [the Ararat chain].

This is where "literally" is just a lousy word. As far as Noah was concerned, he was writing the dead-on truth. He had no other words to express what he saw was happening. We have to understand the writing from the point of view and intent of the author.

> What about Adam/Eve - same thing right.

No, that's a completely different matter. But the text doesn't insist Adam & Eve were the first hominids. They may have been two that were chosen out from the rest and put into the garden (Gn. 2.15).

> Don't get me wrong - I agree with you - but you have way too many Christians beliefing in these fictional accounts as literal.

I am often disappointed in the knowledge level of Christians about their own Scriptures.

> Right. The objective was to stop this particular effort, not all such efforts.

Convenient? God does something because of a reason. Same situation happens (worse, even) with no response. Other than invention of cameras and the scientific method - why not? Well, because we all get the point - all except the majority of our global population who never heard of this story.

> "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.

You then agree with me that Noah is false as literally written. The language to indicate things like "world" and "all" is factually wrong. Noah was a local flood. What about Adam/Eve - same thing right. First people on Earth are just from this one tribe. All these Christians claiming this as literal as factually incorrect. Don't get me wrong - I agree with you - but you have way too many Christians beliefing in these fictional accounts as literal.

> This happens now where people build towers to make a name for themselves. Still not stopped.

Right. The objective was to stop this particular effort, not all such efforts. By stopping one and telling about it, we all get the point (or are supposed to). The telling of the story here fits the agenda of Genesis well and sets up the Abraham story of Genesis 12.

> Yep - no consequences today. Why is that?

The objective was to stop this particular effort, not all such efforts. By stopping one and telling about it, we all get the point (or are supposed to). The telling of the story here fits the agenda of Genesis well and sets up the Abraham story of Genesis 12.

> The. Whole. World.

First of all, Genesis 10.4, 10, and 31 tell us that other languages already existed, so we have to interpret the Bible correctly and in its context. You have to read more than 1" deep.

What does "all" mean? In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.

Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others.

There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8). We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global".

So we can reasonably interpret that "The.Whole.World." is a reference to the then known world of Mesopotamia. And remember that the Hebrew word translated "world" (eretz) also often means "land," which is more narrowly defined.

> Why are these factually incorrect things in the Bible written as if they're literal facts?

They're not factually incorrect. You're just not thinking any more than 1" deep in your interpretive framework.

> They wanted to make a name for themselves instead of making a name for God.

This happens now where people build towers to make a name for themselves. Still not stopped.

> Their motivation was not to honor God but to bring prosperity and honor to themselves.

Yep - no consequences today. Why is that?

> What most likely happened here is that "the united cultures of the Sumerians are invaded by the Babylonians (Semitic language segment) and dispersed

No no no, it's right there in the Bible. Genesis 11:1: "Now the whole world had one language and a common speech."

The. Whole. World. Now I agree with you, the Bible was written by ignorant people who likely thought "the whole world" means "100 square miles away from me" so I can pardon their stupidity in using such language but then what else did they get wrong? Noah? Where, once again, the whole world was flooded? Just like in Genesis 7:19-23 had a literally fictional account where all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered with water, how every other living thing died, etc.

Why are these factually incorrect things in the Bible written as if they're literal facts?

Hm. Did you read what I wrote? What I said above is, "What most likely happened here is that "the united cultures of the Sumerians are invaded by the Babylonians (Semitic language segment) and dispersed, heightening an existing clash of languages, creating a disintegration and mixing of language as the Sumerian civilization collapsed and people groups were mixed by the permeation of foreign languages" (Paul Penley). By doing so, God shut the project down. Cooperation and progress were impossible. It's not a story describing the origin of all languages, but a localized confusion of a major language in Mesopotamia."

In other words, this is not a story of where languages came from, but the disruption of a harmful project by dispersing people among other language groups.

In the first verse (Gen. 11.1), the common language represented the united cultures of the Sumerians. Genesis 10.5, 20, and 31 tell us there were already various languages around. The "one language" was the cultural context of Sumer. Walton, Matthews and Chavalas tell us, "The account of a time when all mankind spoke a single language is preserved in Sumerian in the epic entitled 'Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.' It speaks of a time when there were no wild beasts and only harmony among people: 'The whole universe in unison spoke to Enlil in one tongue.' It then reports that speech was changed and 'contention' was brought into it. There is nothing else in this account that parallels the Tower of Babel, but confusion of language by deity can be seen as an ancient theme." The confusion of language was brought about by dispersal at the hands of an invading army, not by God creating languages at this point.

Linguists sill debate whether all languages came from a simple original language or whether languages emerged independently among several groups of early peoples.

Do you actually believe that's how different languages arose?