Talk:Tower of Babel/Archive1

Babel Fish
Moved this to a separate article to clear up the Babel Fish article.--Bob_M (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

God really comes off as a jerk in this story. ollïegrïnd 06:56, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Hey, at least he didn't kill anyone. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 06:59, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That's a good point. He must have been in good mood that day. --Bob_M (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Do you mean to suggest, Heart, that this is a factual account of real historical events? --Kels 16:13, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

I've always thought the word "Babel" is a nice example of onomatopoeia. Personally, I'm waiting for someone to reference Snow Crash within this article. Yes, yes, I know I could do it...XD prettydilettante lies 16:27, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Mishkanellie obloe dec manzipal? For cremisil dort blemichaa kmlimechnerel ex p'nus triliv! he he he CЯacke ® 16:42, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

archaeologists
"As these have yet to be discovered by archaeologists, it would suggest that the "Tower of Babel" is mythical rather than rooted in fact. "

This is a silly suggestion on its face, barely worth commenting on. But I will remove it from the article unless the contributor cares to defend it.


 * Care to defend its removal? It's absence of supposedly the largest construction project in the ancient world, and yet there's nothing but the Bible's word on it.  To say nothing of the fantastic events that have never been witnessed since. --Kels 16:51, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Given that it is a reasonable addition to the article, would you care to explain why it is "barely worth commenting on"? Given that brick and mortar (or stone) tends not to be overly affected by the elements over time, it's far from unreasonable to expect remanants from this rather large scope civil engineering project to have shown up. Considering your link to the search for battle detritus, I'd make the rather reasonable suggestion that thousands of tons of bricks (or stones) are rather less adept at hiding themselves (or decaying) than dead bodies, pallisade walls (wood much?) and rusting swords. Considering that Hadrian's Wall, the Great Pyramid, and so on and so forth (ad nauseum) are still very much in evidence, where's this huge tower vanished to? prettydilettante lies 16:57, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I would note that not only would there be the tower, but there would be a sizeable settlement, perhaps city-sized, to support the construction, to say nothing of quarries, etc. to supply the stone. We have ample evidence of all these support settlements for the pyramids, and they're clearly less ambitious. --Kels 17:00, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Please provide a cite stating that it has been scientifically proven that all archaeological sites that can be discovered have been.  17:01, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Sure thing, I'll produce one right after you produce a scientific cite that proves that the bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. prettydilettante lies 17:04, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Careful, you're being deceitful.  17:09, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Hehehehe, not deceitful as such, merely adding a single small condition! prettydilettante lies 17:14, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, the implication is that I assert that it is a scientificly proovable fact that the Bible is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is deceit.  You and Kels, on the other hand, are suggesting that failure to find archaeological evidence establishes a fictional nature.   17:17, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


 * What I am suggesting is that it should be included in the article. It is significant that such a large and far-reaching construction project has yielded no evidence whatsoever, and it's worth mentioning.  Now if you assert that this is scientifically provable, then I'd ask that you commence providing said proof. --Kels 17:24, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Here is something for you to consider. Anyway, your "we haven't seen it so it must not have ever existed" argument is boring me.   21:02, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

If you had reasons to believe the Babel story independant of the bible, then indeed, I would be guilty of deceit. Given that you defend the truth in the story without recourse to anything but the bible (hence my lack of physical evidence edit), I can only surmise that you are taking the word of the bible as the truth without recourse to any other source. This being the case (and feel free to prove it isn't), then the burden is on you to prove that your source is indeed, scientifically beyond reproach. prettydilettante lies 17:26, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

"If you had reasons to believe the Babel story independant of the bible, then indeed, I would be guilty of deceit." You mean, like langauges that are different? That the people of mesopotamia build ziggurats? That this is the area that historians often refer to as the craddle of civiliaztion/Fertile Crescent? "Given that you defend the truth in the story without recourse..." More lies. I am pointing out the ignorance of labeling something a myth based on the lack of archaeological evidence. It is clear that your real interest is not forming sound logical arguments, or writing truthful articles--it is to beat up on Christianity (even though Christian texts are not the only to mention the Tower of Babel). 21:02, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm sure that I'm not the only person curious about your claim that non-Judeo-Christian texts document the Tower, HG. Examples, please.--MountainTiger 21:09, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * More deceit. I'll illustrate.  I am sure I am not the only person curious how you avoid prison while selling reefer, MountainTiger.   21:19, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * What's "refer?" Some sort of new Christian drug?--MountainTiger 21:20, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Just replaced with correct word.  21:25, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I note that you're spending more time correcting your ad hom than proving your claims, though.--MountainTiger 21:27, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I note that you're spending more time repeating your ad hom. You've been clued, now, stop and think.   21:29, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Where exactly did I attack you? I merely asked for evidence of a claim you made, then noted your hesitance to provide it.  I'm honestly interested in specific mentions of a "Tower of Babel" outside of the Bible and related texts.--MountainTiger 21:31, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Please show me where I mentioned Judeo? Of course, Genesis is a Jewish and Christian religious text, yet others were only adding "Christian" to the article (because, truth be told, that is where their master is leading them).  Also, in the Islamic traditions, History of the Prophets and Kings by al-Tabari mentions a "tower of Babil" built by Nimrod (who may have very many descendants on RW).   21:48, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Better. I added "Judeo" because the Biblical text is shared with Judaism; mentions in later Jewish texts would have the same problems as mentions in later Christian texts. The Islamic mentions are unsurprising, as Islamic tradition drew on the same regional mythology and was in contact with and influenced by Jewish and Christian communities from its beginnings. Questions remain, of course, as to why the fantastic elements of the myth (size seemingly beyond ancient building materials, divine population dispersion and creation of languages) should be believed. Indeed, if one believes that all languages sprang from this event, one would expect some form of the myth to be universal or nearly so among human cultures.--MountainTiger 21:58, 30 July 2007 (CDT) P.S. Where was my ad hom?


 * There may be people that believe that all language differences were produced at the Confusion of the Tower of Babel, but I am not one of them. I do *believe* however, that languages were confused there.  This belief is not based on science, but I think it is supported by some scientific findings.  In any event, whether or not the Tower of Babel ever actually existed is not answered by lack of an archeological find.  The "ad hom" was a parroting of your words, in which you characterized my mischaracterization of what you do as an ad hom.  So I characterized your mischaracterization of what I said as an ad hom.  My objections were to the anti-Christ folks who are only concerned about diminishing the Christian religion to the point of excluding other religious traditions such as Judaism and Islam, as well as other pagan religions from Mesopotamia.    22:02, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Heart, the instant someone comes on here arguing that the Vedas are scientifically and historically accurate accounts of history, and that all those Hindu gods and goddesses, ashuras and rakshashas were real beings, is the instant I'll start mocking them as hard as I'm mocking you now. (I went to college with a guy who actually believed this. We had some interesting arguments.) Since they ain't here, it's not much fun to pre-emptively mock them. So knock off the "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!" act, willya? --Gulik 14:16, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

An end to all this squabbling - see Essay:Credo-my authoritative account of actual events. Prove me wrong! Keepoff the grass 11:08, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Skyscraper
I'm a little confused as to why you removed the skyscraper reference, Heart. Are you, perhaps, using this as your own private playground? It remains a fact that there are many skyscrapers that attempt to reach to the heavens so the builders may make a name for themselves, as evidenced by various attempts at world record towers and the fame that goes with them, and yet nothing analogous has happened. If you maintain that Babel is a factual account, then it's reasonable to include the fact that more modern attempts have not met the same fate. --Kels 16:58, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Don't be tendentious to the point that your logic fails. "If you maintain that Babel is a factual account, then it's reasonable to include the fact that more modern attempts have not met the same fate."  It would be reasonable if you could site some promise that future attempts would meet the same fate.  What is affecting your ability to think, Kels, you used to be more logical?   17:03, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm sorry, but I am thinking logically. Why would a future attempt give this result when no past attempt (CN Tower, Sears Tower, etc.) have failed.  Why would you remove reference to this easily observable fact unless you wished to excise evidence that the Biblical account is not necessarily factual.  Please examine your own logic. --Kels 17:10, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Kels, in the *context* of the Biblical account of the tower of babel, where does the bible threaten that future attempts to build towers would result in yet another confusion of language? (PS.  I do examine my own logic.  You should do the same.)   17:11, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * First of all, Heart, I will ask you to refrain from insulting me.
 * Second of all, the quote "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." appears to be a clear concern on the part of God of humans trying such things in the future, and wishes to prevent this.
 * Third of all, there doesn't seem to be any cases of skyscraper builders facing the wrath of God in any sense, let alone a repetition of the original wrath, even though the sin remains the same as the builder of Babel. --Kels 17:22, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Ditto. What appears to be clear to you is not so clear to me (unless you're arguing that the World Trade Centers were too tall.)  The question is, what was the sin?  You seem to think the sin was building a tall building.  Rather, it was pride, making a name for oneself, building a staircase to heaven, believing that humans are gods, secular humanism.  At least that it my interpretation.   20:53, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * And yet, I don't hear much about Transhumanists getting Smote, either. --Gulik 14:07, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Robert A. Heinlein (wasn't he a libertarian?) didn't catch heat for writing Stranger in a Strange Land either. "Thou art God", y'all.
 * Additionally, many of those tall towers (CN Tower, etc.) were designed that tall in order to get bragging rights for their countries and the contractors. Pride of a very similar sort. --Kels 14:10, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Question
Given that this would have not only been the single largest construction project on Earth at the time, but also the events afterwards profoundly affected all mankind, have there ever been any non-Biblical sources that refer to either? Or is the Bible the sole source for this story? --Kels 17:33, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

The only place I've heard this story is the bible but that doesn't mean much, after all, I am fallible. What I find amusing is the conversation I just had with Mrs Trashbat (consultant Civil Engineer par exellence, she pwns me at teh science). Assuming the "tower that reaches to the heavens" is a reference to height, this is very difficult without recourse to steel and toughened glass. Conventional (read biblical) building materials are seriously limited for building very tall buildings due to weight and inflexability (unless of course you use a pyramid design with a wide base which is still limiting,). So she (from an educated POV) calls h4x on Babel too. prettydilettante lies 17:45, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


 * You'd expect all the texts before the Tower, worldwide, would be in one language. I don't believe archaeologists claim this to be the case.  Therefore, they must be part of the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy! --Gulik 14:04, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * More ad hominem attacks.  14:26, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * No, that's not an Ad Hominem attack. That's a reducto ad absurdiam arrack.  The fact that archaeologists haven't found any evidence of a world-wide unified writing system at any point in human history in which writing is known to have existed in more than a single culture seems to put a substantial dent in your assertion. --67.102.192.7 (Gulik, who can't remember his password.)

Ziggurat
The ziggurat picture is out of place. Its construction is well documented in 1250 BCE in various iranian texts. It also houses temples for 12 gods so it wasnt built by any abarhamic religion. - Icewedge 23:09, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


 * It is a ziggurat; not the only one. It is a good photo, and shows that such things of such scale were built.  I couldn't find a photograph of the ruins of Etemenanki.  I think it is illustrative.  E.g., in the absense of a photograph of the twin towers, a photo of a sky scrapper would suffice.  Before Chirst, a 90 meter building would have been considered a sky scrapper.  (Heck, a seven story building was considered a sky scraper in the musical Oklahoma.)   23:21, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Additional possible evidence of the tower of babel (for the argumentative anti-christian pseudo-intellectuals who have minds closed tighter than a you know what)


According to this plate, the Tower of Babel may have been called Etemenanki. Etemenanki is also referenced in many histories (e.g., Alexander the Great ordered that it be rebuilt, but died for some reason before construction ever started. See also Ruin of Esagila chronicle, which is reported to describe a prince who wanted to rebuild Etemenanki, made a sacrifice at the ruins, and after stumbling and falling, changed his mind for some reason.)    23:17, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


 * (I'm glad we're keeping the tone light and friendly here... human be in 23:23, 30 July 2007 (CDT))


 * So am I.  23:25, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I would be very interested in an elaboration of how you connect this material with the Tower of Babel. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 00:38, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Heart actually has a decent point here. The tower of Etemenanki (of which ruins exist) could very well be the tower that the story was based upon. So back to his original point about archeological evidence, there may be ruins of this tower after all (seven stories is a bit shy of heaven though). ollïegrïnd  08:51, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Archeological evidence was not my original point. It was the original point of the anti-christs here that lack of archeoloigcal evidence establishes myth (an argument from ignorance, of which the anti-christs are so fond of referencing in the ID debate).  Regarding "Heaven"...the hebrew word for heaven can be translated in a variety of ways, including "sky".  Also, the fact that Etemenanki and other ziggurats had dedications such as "The House of the Link between Heaven and Earth (at Larsa), "The House of the SEven Guides of Heaven and Earth (at Borsippa), "The House of the Foundation-Platform of Heaven and Earth" (at Babylon) really lends credibility to the "Tower of Babel" story contained in the Bible.  Also, the English "reaches to the heavens" may not be the best translation.  Some scholars consider "of the heavens" a better translation meaning that there was an astrological shrine at the top of the ziggurat.  Or it could be a double meaning/entendre.  And, as I said, even in the Rodgers and Hammerstein Musical "Oklahoma", a seven story building was deemed a sky scrapper.  (Remember, one definition of the Hebrew word for Heaven is sky.  See here if you doubt.   10:49, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Don't feed the Troll--Bob_M (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It seems you're the one trolling. I am countering your arguments with actual references, citations, etc.  Of course, there will be no outcry against your ad hominem and red herring (other than from me).  In all fairness, ollïegrïnd also sees past his or her own bias, something that is commendable.    12:22, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Don't feed the Troll--Bob_M (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Absurdity
Myths frequently exaggerate existing structures. HG is probably right in pointing to ziggurats as the basis for the tower. This doesn't make the fantastic elements true or false, it is simply a reasonable basis from which the tower myth may have sprung.--MountainTiger 11:05, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

what really happened
An end to all this squabbling - see my authoritative account of actual events. Prove me wrong! Keepoff the grass 11:34, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Repost:

Stuck this in wrong place origially Keepoff the grass

Um.... space travel?
We may not be able to build a Tower To The Heavens just YET, but we HAVE visited the Heavens in rocket ships. Yet JHVH-1 has failed to Smite us for this vastly more successful transgression than the poor Babylonians could ever have managed. Why is that? --Gulik 14:00, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I have an opinion, which I think I already shared. If you cannot find it, let me know, and I will explain if you're sincerely interested.   14:04, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Apparently, God's a trifle insecure.
Why else would He have been so upset by a project so obviously doomed to failure? Or did God live just a few thousand feet above the surface of the Earth back then, only moving further away once humans invented the hot-air balloon? --Gulik 14:02, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


 * If you're interested, I am sure you can form a more informed opinion after putting some time into it. I don't think the issue was insecurity, but you're entitled to your opinion.   14:06, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Statement: Ziggurats existed in prehistory.

Deduction: Therefore we must take the Tower of Babel seriously.

But:

Statement: Bridges existed in prehistory.

Deduction: Therefore we must take the Norse Gods Bridge from Asgard, the City of the Gods, to Midgard, the earth, seriously? Keepoff the grass 14:19, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Aha! But RAINBOWS also existed in history, therefore the Norse myths MUST be true!  Praise Odin!  :) --Gulik 14:26, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Nice try Susan, but logic doesn't work this guy. He's jut a Troll.--Bob_M (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Susan, somebody added "As these have yet to be discovered by archaeologists, it would suggest that the "Tower of Babel" is mythical rather than rooted in fact. " to the article. This is an argument from ignorance.  Even if nothing resembling the tower of babel were found, lack of archeological evidnece does not establish mytholoogy.  Furthermore, there is some archeological evindence that the Tower of Babel itself actually existed.  Your logic and recounting what has happened during the course of this article is incorrect.   14:24, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Trolls also exist in Norse myth. Hail Freyja! --Gulik 14:26, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

HG trolling? - a high percentage (97.85474378%) of edit time seems to be spent argifying with him. Don't feed the trollKeepoff the grass 14:26, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


 * So, others spend a high percentage of their time making up deceitful statements, ignoring logic and references, inserting POV, and I am the troll for enforcing rationality.  14:28, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

And a bully.

19:51, 31 July 2007 HeartOfGold (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bob M (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 minute (account creation disabled) (calling me a troll)

Keepoff the grass 14:36, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Susan, that was not bullying, sorry. It was a block against a person who called another contributor a troll while edit warring without citation or logic.  I wish some other sysop had done it though.   14:40, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * No. It was the use of your sysop powers to try to intimidate another editor who apparently did not have those powers. It was a "Look! See what I can do if you don't agree with me." move - and you did it twice.  It is something which would have been typical at CP.--Bob_M (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * You were blocked twice for calling me a troll. Same behavior, same result.  I thought almost everybody was a sysop on RW, so no, not trying to intimidate you.  On CP you would have been banned forever, on WP you would have been banned for being similar to other preveiously banned tendentious editors.  On RW, you were blocked for 1 minute, then another minute.  If that intimidates you, it is good if you stop resorting (soley) to name calling and start justifying your snarks.   16:04, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * You used your sysop power to try to silence me. That is an abuse of power. You and I were edit warring - a stupid activity I agree - and you used your sysop powers in an attempt to stop me. In fact, I think you lost your temper and used them in anger. That is not a fit use of your powers. Later you tried to invent another reason for the block. You should not have this power.  I'm not going to let this drop HG. --Bob_M (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * On CP you would have been banned forever, on WP you would have been banned for being similar to other preveiously banned tendentious editors. Being Not as bad as other places' jerks doesn't make you less of a jerk, unfortunately. --67.102.192.7 16:20, 31 July 2007 (CDT) (Still Gulik.)

Take a poll HG I'll bet most people would agree that you're a troll [and a bully]. (A little trolling is ok, but 24/7 it gets boring Keepoff the grass 16:17, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * OK HG. I've seen a number of people call you a troll.  If you think your block on me was justified where are all the blocks?--Bob_M (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I decided to ignore you, Bob M.  16:20, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Well I'm off the bed anyway. So no more food from me tonight HG --Bob_M (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

The people did not wish to be scattered over the earth, and so built the tower. Why had they got this idea into their collective heads already - what had omniscent God who had not expected this development said? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs 19:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bullying, wikilawyering, and trolling
Hmn. Pot. Snow. Black. 17:37, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Since you typed "for the argumentative anti-christian pseudo-intellectuals who have minds closed tighter than a you know what" as part of a header above, I have to ask, who are you calling "snow"? human be in 19:53, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It's like he isn't even TRYING any more. He really had me going with the Swarm, but this is just too blatant. --Gulik 22:38, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I got it!
This talk page is the tower of babble! human be in 22:50, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * We certainly DO seem to be having trouble communicating, that's for sure. --Gulik 14:47, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

fact:
Removed the fact tag from the following: "The Tower of Babel as an explanation for the origins of languages is considered absurd by everyone except biblical literalists." as it's obviously true." --Bob_M (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Rewrote the section on physical basis vs. supernatural action. I removed another fact tag in the process; I think that I kept the substance intact while cleaning up some of the mess.--MountainTiger 14:24, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Good job. After the battle it was in a sorry state.--Bob_M (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Wonderful article
This is a simply splendiforous article. congrats. Hamster (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolding
Couldn't help it, it's my favourite quote out of the entire Bible :P Sen (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No blood, no foul. 03:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

An explanation
A group of peasants who have never seen anything taller than a tent or middling sized tree comes to a town with a Big Stone Building and people 'babbling away in many languages.' They find someone who speaks their tongue, who tells them 'Big King Much Taxes Think Himself God' organised the construction of the BSB - and people came to trade and now everybody speaks all the languages under the sun 'not like the good old days.' Group of peasants do their trade and go off and retell the story slightly confused (their writer has ambitions to be a tabloid journalist).

The building was actually destroyed by 'persons narked at birds congregating on the tower and the wandering all over the place eating things and making a mess.' &mdash; Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.67 / talk / contribs 18:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One could speculate that that was the origin of the myth. With a bit of thought one could speculate many possible explanations including "somebody just invented the idea".  The only thing that we can really know is that it didn't happen that way.--BobIt's windy! 19:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do like that version better, it's much more believable.  01:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is missing the point.
God was not angered because they were trying to build an impossibly high tower; he was angered because he had commanded Noah and his family to spread throughout the earth as they repopulated. The people were building the tower out of rebellion against God's command to fill the rest of the world, so he forced them to scatter.
 * Ah well, now it makes perfect sense and is totally and completely believable.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Another theory
BigWigRuler sends out a general call for 'well-trained workers for well-paid jobs building my BestandBiggest Ziggurat.' They come from all around the region, speaking many languages and dialects, learning no more of the local lingo than 'put that brick here', 'how much does this cost' and similar useful phrases.

Due to an earthquake the ziggurat suffers damage, which is blamed on the language confusion and the jobs being outsourced (see Kipper and similar type texts).

This story gets transformed in the retelling into the Tower of Babel. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it's just another fairy tale.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The ziggurats exist and may well have served as 'convenient places for having markets nearby' where there was a babble of languages. Down the pub-equivalent someone asks - how come #all# our creation myths have people originating from one couple, but we speak many languages? Nearby the official architect and commissioner of municipal works complain about the confusion arising from using different measurement systems (fifteen different local usages of pounds and thirty of cubits, and why does 'gift' mean both poison and preasant 'and can anyone understand (locally perceived incomprehensible accent')


 * Just then due to 'earthquake and subsidence' (it having rained heavily) there is a partial ziggurat collapse. Everybody decides that 'God of Thunder, War and Earthquakes' is a much more plausible explanation than 'multiple mismatching measurements.' The local equivalent of then turns the story into the Tower of Babel (which the peasants and others take back home with them_. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)