Can God be the author of confsion? (Babel and the confusion of languages)

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

Is God or is God not the “author of confusion”?

In Genesis, we are told that God Himself said, “Let us go down and confuse their languages…” (some translations have “confound”) in the context of the Tower of Babel.

However, in the New Testament, we are told that God “is not hte author of confusion”.

So, how do we reconcile these passages?

Is God or is God not the “author of confusion”?

Was it actually not God but the devil who caused the “confusion” of languages, even though the text seems to attribute this to God? “Let US **go down/b…” To me, the “go down” part even goes further to signify that it was God Himself who confounded the languages, in a very active way. (This is assuming that the Babel story is to be taken literally.) If God were passively allowing the confusion of languages through the devil or some other means, I would suggest that “going down” (to actively participate in this confusion) would not have been used as a phrase here.

Of course, there is, I suppose, the possibility that “Us” here is not referring to God Triune but to God and His angels, both good and bad(?), and, thus, could have included satan, though, as I understand it, the “Us” has traditionally been taken as the former – the Triune God. In fact, why would the devil fret about men becoming “like Us” (like God)? Wouldn’t he, in fact, want this to happen so as to destroy God’s good plans for us?

So, again, is God or is God not the “author of confusion”?

Or, perhaps the terms “confusion” mean different things in these two contexts? Perhaps, in the NT context, “confusion” means more “disorder” and, in the OT Genesis passage, “confusion” means more a mixing up, say, of sounds that signify things? After all, even though the sounds (and perhaps even the grammar) may have changed, languages still have their own very precise order. They are not entirely confused. People who spoke their own language group after the confusion were still able to understand one another. Also, words for things are mere signifiers and are not objectively in any real/essential way connected to the objects themselves, so, God’s changing of the words for things is, arguably, not “misnaming” these things but simply “changing” their names in a subjective way.

However, perhaps God is disrupting the original “order” of language, so, could we still technically consider this “disordered confusion”? So, then, if God is not the author of confusion, we would be forced to say that, in the Babel passage, the author is someone other than God, either the devil or some natural, Providentially sent/allowed, phenomenon.

Thoughts?

Gratias.**

 

[1ke]

This is now your FOURTH new thread you’ve started on the exact same topic. These need to be merged into ONE thread.

 

[1ke]

So, how do we reconcile these passages?

With a dictionary.

confusion as it pertains to people:

*a situation in which people are uncertain about what to do or are unable to understand something clearly

the feeling that you have when you do not understand what is happening, what is expected, etc.*

confusion as it pertains to God in the passage “God is not the author of confusion”:

a state or situation in which many things are happening in a way that is not controlled or orderly

This is assuming that the Babel story is to be taken literally

Which we’ve repeatedly told you is an assumption you cannot make because the Church does not teach that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are to be taken literally. There is a stronger argument for allegorical over literal.

 

[EveningSkye111]

Salvete, omnes!

Is God or is God not the “author of confusion”?

In Genesis, we are told that God Himself said, “Let us go down and confuse their languages…” (some translations have “confound”) in the context of the Tower of Babel.

However, in the New Testament, we are told that God “is not hte author of confusion”.

So, how do we reconcile these passages?

Is God or is God not the “author of confusion”?

Was it actually not God but the devil who caused the “confusion” of languages, even though the text seems to attribute this to God? "Let US go down

Didn’t you just start an almost identical thread the other day?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

With a dictionary.

confusion as it pertains to people:

*a situation in which people are uncertain about what to do or are unable to understand something clearly

the feeling that you have when you do not understand what is happening, what is expected, etc.*

confusion as it pertains to God in the passage “God is not the author of confusion”:

a state or situation in which many things are happening in a way that is not controlled or orderly

Which we’ve repeatedly told you is an assumption you cannot make because the Church does not teach that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are to be taken literally. There is a stronger argument for allegorical over literal.

But, then, what parts are to be taken literally and what parts are to be taken figuratively? Particularly in this passage? For those that are taken figuratively, how, precisely, are we to interpret them figuratiely?

I decided to start a separate thread as my comment on the previous one that generated this line of thinking did veer somewhat from the main line of the previous thread, so I decided also to start another topic. (Also, some other threads related to this one were apparently deleted some time late last night…)

 

[1ke]

But, then, what parts are to be taken literally and what parts are to be taken figuratively? Particularly in this passage?

The whole of Genesis 1-11 can be read figuratively.

For those that are taken figuratively, how, precisely, are we to interpret them figuratiely?

Remember when I said get a good Catholic bible, a bible study on Genesis, and Catholic commentary?

As it is written somewhere in Paul’s letters… you get milk when you are a baby and solid food when you are an adult…

You start bible study with an **overview **of the salvation story (for example Jeff Cavins or Ascension Press bible timeline), and how to read the bible.

Then you study **one **of the Synoptic Gospels and then Acts, then go to the Pauline Epistles and study those, then John’s Gospel (which is highly theological and symbolic), then some of the books of the old Testament such as Genesis, Exodus, some of the historical books such as Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, then major prophets such as Jeremiah, Isaiah, and lastly the apocalyptic literature and some of the other literature like Psalms, or books such as Job, Ruth, the other NT books you haven’t studied yet, etc.

Then take up some thematic bible studies such as the Kingdom, social justice, women, suffering, or any number of other topics.

 

[1ke]

then they have to concede this God created the unpleasant things, too.

Created and allowed are not the same.

God allows consequences of free will. He does not cause them.

 

[Johnny_Local]

I think if people are going to say that God created everything and point out that God created all the “good” things in the world…then they have to concede this God created the unpleasant things, too.

I might point out that “unpleasant” is not necessarily the antithesis of “good.”

 

[AndreaDorrie]

There is no Scripture text that states that one verse cannot contradict another. Just because the Bible is inspired of God does not in and of itself guarantee or promise that all the writers had the same complete view of truth or that the Holy Spirit enlightened each writer with the exact same disclosure of revelation.

Bible verses do indeed often contradict, even purposefully. Proverbs 26.4 and 5 contradict one another, even though they stand side by side. The first tells us “do not answer fools according to their folly,” while the following one contradicts this statement and says we must “answer fools according to their folly.”

Does this make the Bible false? No, the Bible does indeed teach us truth from God, but it doesn’t do it using modern methods. For instance, placing two contradicting proverbial sayings, both inspired by God, next to one another is an ancient Semitic writing technique. Even today’s Jewish rabbis are known for “beating around the bush” and not giving straight-forward answers. This is a Jewish way of saying that the “truth” is found somewhere in the middle, that dealing with a “fool” depends on the circumstances.

It is the same with the text in Genesis and the one from the New Testament. The truth about both statements depend on the circumstances or context. In Genesis, the inability of people to work in unity is blamed on their speaking different languages. In Biblical writings before the Babylonian exile, Jewish writers often attributed both good and evil to God. When God merely allowed bad to occur, the old Jewish way of saying this was to “blame” God for it. For instance, God is at first blamed for Pharoah’s obstinate refusal when dealing with Moses in Exodus, but later we are told that God merely allowed Pharaoah to act this way to God’s own glory. (Exodus 4.21; 9.16) But both the language regarding this aspect of God’s allowance and the Jewish theology changed as the pre- and post-Babylonian periods neared.

At Isaiah 45.7 both light and darkness, order and chaos are ascribed to God, but this is an example how in one verse it is clear that the author is stating that God has control over chaos or confusion, to allow it or stop it at will. By the time of Ezekiel and the Second Temple era, personal responsibility for evil was part of God’s providential revelation, and the type of language attribution of Genesis and Exodus ceased in Scripture.–See Ezekiel chapter 18.

The verse you quoted from is 1 Corinthians 14.33, and it states that God “is not the God [Author] of disorder but of peace.” This epistle was written in 51 AD, during the Second Temple era. St. Paul and other Jewish Christians and Jews had by then ceased using language that reflected the once incomplete revelation of God mentioned in Genesis. God was never the author of the disunity that arose from different languages (even people who speak the same language often rarely agree about things–like politics and religion–so language is not the cause). The account in Genesis reflects an older way of looking at things. God merely took advantage of sinful humanity’s inability to act in unity by the situation that developed at Babel.

The events at Babel were providential like Isaiah stated. Yet as the prophet Ezekiel brought out, people are individually responsible for their own evil or sin or disunity. The texts in Genesis and Corinthians do not contradict theologically when taken as a whole and read in light of continuing revelation, but on the surface they do. They are meant to show how revelation continually advances and enlightens us, and how we need to study what happened “in the middle” to appreciate this fact.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no Scripture text that states that one verse cannot contradict another. Just because the Bible is inspired of God does not in and of itself guarantee or promise that all the writers had the same complete view of truth or that the Holy Spirit enlightened each writer with the exact same disclosure of revelation.

Erm… no. In fact, the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit does not teach contradiction.

Bible verses do indeed often contradict, even purposefully. Proverbs 26.4 and 5 contradict one another, even though they stand side by side. The first tells us “do not answer fools according to their folly,” while the following one contradicts this statement and says we must “answer fools according to their folly.”

The footnote to these proverbs in the NAB reads, “There is no contradiction between these two proverbs. In their answers, the wise must protect their own interests against fools. Or perhaps the juxtaposition of the two proverbs suggests that no single proverb can resolve every problem in life.”

 

[e_c]

Bible verses do indeed often contradict, even purposefully. Proverbs 26.4 and 5 contradict one another, even though they stand side by side. The first tells us “do not answer fools according to their folly,” while the following one contradicts this statement and says we must “answer fools according to their folly.”

Or as two different psalms say, “You judge/do not judge us according to our faults.”

The stronger the apparent contradiction, the more important it is to make distinctions.

The thread does seem very repetitive…

 

[AndreaDorrie]

Georgias,

As the very last paragraph of my post explains (which is in line with the NABRE footnote) I wrote that the texts do not contradict theologically. If you look back at that last paragraph you will see where I am talking about the difference between a surface reading (which can appear contradictory) and the more in-depth reading.

When I mention that texts can contradict, I do not mean that they contradict the essential teach of the Church. I am stating that, at first blush, many texts read alone do indeed say opposite things at times.

For instance, Exodus 20.13 commands that we not kill, but just a few chapters later, God commands that swords be taken up to kill at Exodus 32.27. Do the verses read side-by-side this way contradict? Yes, reading them this way does present a contradiction. But read in context with the full revelation of Scripture the contradiction can be settled.

Unfortunately, people read posts like some do Scripture. Read out of context my comments can also be made to read as you presented them, but as the final paragraph explains I did not intend what you got out of them.

With that said, I am happy to leave this forum now permanently to your wisdom.

 

[spiderweb]

In 1 Corinthians 14:33 St. Paul is talking about what God has revealed to the Prophets. In this context, he is saying that God does not tell one prophet one thing and another prophet something else contradictory, for “God is not the author of confusion”.

Also consider that God did many things which were good, but had the side effect of causing confusion. The Son of God becoming man caused much confusion among the people and still does for many people even today as just one example. Just about everything Jesus did and said caused confusion and still does today: Is Jesus God or just another prophet? What does it mean to be saved? How is one saved? How is Grace applied? Etc., etc., etc.

As far as the tower of Babel; I agree with others that you shouldn’t take it too literally. However, even if it is taken literally, it makes God the author of diversity of language, but not the author of confusion. The people themselves could have taken the time to learn and understand each other, but did not and instead went their separate ways. But I think there is sufficient evidence in the story itself that tells us that it is not literal. First, it is impossible for man to build a physical tower to heaven (11:4), we need a savior for that. Second, that God says that nothing would then be impossible for man to do (11:6), that’s just a blatantly false statement. Third, that God would actively put a stop to things which were impossible out of…. Fear or perhaps jealousy that it could or would be accomplished is a ludicrous idea. To understand it as strictly as you are trying to leads to huge problems.

The text is clear that the Lord (Yahweh) is the one speaking (11:6), and as you stated, the common Christian understanding of “Us” when referring to God in the Old Testament is that it is a veiled reference to the Trinity, and not to God and the devils. That would be something like the Pharisees attributing the power of Jesus to cast out demons to the power of Beelzebub (Matt 12:24), except in the case of Babel, it would be attributing the power and sovereignty of God, to the actions of demons. As I said, trying to understand it in a strict literal way can lead to huge problems theologically.

 

[mikekle]

In 1 Corinthians 14:33 St. Paul is talking about what God has revealed to the Prophets. In this context, he is saying that God does not tell one prophet one thing and another prophet something else contradictory, for “God is not the author of confusion”.

Also consider that God did many things which were good, but had the side effect of causing confusion. The Son of God becoming man caused much confusion among the people and still does for many people even today as just one example. Just about everything Jesus did and said caused confusion and still does today: Is Jesus God or just another prophet? What does it mean to be saved? How is one saved? How is Grace applied? Etc., etc., etc.

As far as the tower of Babel; I agree with others that you shouldn’t take it too literally. However, even if it is taken literally, it makes God the author of diversity of language, but not the author of confusion. The people themselves could have taken the time to learn and understand each other, but did not and instead went their separate ways. But I think there is sufficient evidence in the story itself that tells us that it is not literal. First, it is impossible for man to build a physical tower to heaven (11:4), we need a savior for that. Second, that God says that nothing would then be impossible for man to do (11:6), that’s just a blatantly false statement. Third, that God would actively put a stop to things which were impossible out of…. Fear or perhaps jealousy that it could or would be accomplished is a ludicrous idea. To understand it as strictly as you are trying to leads to huge problems.

The text is clear that the Lord (Yahweh) is the one speaking (11:6), and as you stated, the common Christian understanding of “Us” when referring to God in the Old Testament is that it is a veiled reference to the Trinity, and not to God and the devils. That would be something like the Pharisees attributing the power of Jesus to cast out demons to the power of Beelzebub (Matt 12:24), except in the case of Babel, it would be attributing the power and sovereignty of God, to the actions of demons. As I said, trying to understand it in a strict literal way can lead to huge problems theologically.

You are right, it was impossible to literally build a structure to reach heaven, even if they kept going, eventually they would have reached a point where none of them could breath, but God didnt punish them for attempting something that was possible, he did so because they were trying to ‘reach’ heaven thru their own means…this can be attempted in many different ways too, the tower was just an example of man trying to achieve heaven without God, many people do the same things today.

If God was truly against really tall buildings, I doubt we would have sky scrapers today, so the verse is not literal, but its meaning can be debatable.