Yes, they were never going to succeed – not even by a wide margin. Man gets into all sorts of folly, yet this one (if it were true) seems to be the only time God had to alter all of humanity because of it.
Because they didn’t have the equipment to climb down a mountain.
The thing is that the Lord never expressed disapproval for what they attempted. Perhaps the scattering of the people was simply a necessary test rather than a punishment. Perhaps their effort to reach the heavens could be translated as an effort to reach space rather than gain some equality with God. Perhaps the point of the scripture was to be encouraging to human’s scientific/space efforts and acknowledge that there will be challenges.
More to the point, it’s not the “reaching God” that the story posits to be improper. It’s the notion of supplanting God’s plan and deciding when/where/how to reach God, on our own initiative, that the story sees as blameworthy.
No – the lesson is that God already had a plan in place, a plan that included descent from Shem (“the name”), but that people were saying “we don’t need that plan; we’ll make a name ourselves.” It’s not the “equaling” that’s in play; it’s the attempt (just as in the Garden of Eden) that man wishes to “do it my way”…
No?
I think that’s at least part of the error. Even the name, “Babel”, implies this. It means, God’s door or gate.
Isn’t that equaling, though? They are usurping God’s authority. Think about it.the lesson is that God already had a plan in place, a plan that included descent from Shem (“the name”), but that people were saying “we don’t need that plan; we’ll make a name ourselves.” It’s not the “equaling” that’s in play; it’s the attempt (just as in the Garden of Eden) that man wishes to “do it my way”…
No. Really. And yeah, I get that in ancient Akkadian, the name of the town means “gate of god”. But, that doesn’t imply that they called themselves equal to God, does it? After all, in Jewish tradition, we have a mountain called the “mountain of God” and Jerusalem is called the “city of God”. They weren’t equating themselves with God, now, were they?
No… that’s not self-deification, it’s the sin of pride – the same sin that our first human parents committed.
Two things wrong with your logic.De_Maria:
No. Really. And yeah, I get that in ancient Akkadian, the name of the town means “gate of god”. But, that doesn’t imply that they called themselves equal to God, does it? After all, in Jewish tradition, we have a mountain called the “mountain of God” and Jerusalem is called the “city of God”. They weren’t equating themselves with God, now, were they?
How does that disprove my point? Isn’t self-deification, at it’s core, the sin of pride?
OK: so, to your first assertion – the “natural inference” is yours. You’re welcome to your personal opinion. Doesn’t make it correct, though.
This is a good point. However, you’re getting things backward. The question isn’t whether self-deification is pride, it’s whether pride is self-deification (as you’ve claimed).
That sword cuts both ways.
But it is God who proclaimed that mountain His and God who proclaimed that city His. Have you not read the Old Testament?
Nope. I’ve just told you what I claimed.