Genesis 11:5 - Man Can Overthrow God?!

[clayrains]

""Look!" He [God] said. "If they can accomplish this when they have just begun to take advantage of their common language and political unity, just think of what they will do later. Nothing will be impossible for them! "

Of all the questions about the Bible verses and problems with the scriptures that people have, I've never heard anyone question the meaning of Genesis 11, at least not in relation to the 5th verse which I've quoted above. I don't understand why this hasn't, at the very least, made most people curious. Myself, this verse gives me more trouble than all other perceived contradictory Biblical passages I've read combined.

I honestly and personally do not feel that man could ever become equal to or more powerful than God but if you read that verse, that seems to be what it's saying. Or at any rate, this verse does not rule out any possibilities.

Does this mean that if God had not intervened by confounding our language that we could have eventually built some kind of "tower to heaven." Furthermore, once we built the tower and brought ourselves up to "God's level" could we then not cast him from his throne, banish the Almighty from the Universe and assume His throne? Afterall, the verse says "nothing will be impossible for them" not "almost nothing will be impossible for them." It doesn't seem to leave leeway for any other point of view the way I see it.

Keep in mind, I don't want to believe what I wrote in the above paragraph, but I can't explain away this meaning as long as Genesis 11:5 exists. At least, I can't explain Genesis 11:5 away without poking serious holes in other seemingly sound, logical theories in favor of God's divine nature or my entire belief system for that matter. I honestly seek an answer first and foremost, not an argument. If I debate further, I'm only playing Devil's advocate (no pun) for the sake of finding the truth. Can anyone help me?

[Cyrus of Persia]

I would like to point out two things:

1. Jesus says: "All is possible to him who believes". Our life experience says it to be nonsense. We all know that if we would just believe that we can fly with moving our hands, we cannot. If we would just believe that saying out loud to TW forums: "Dissapear!", the server most probably doesn't crash. We know that ALL is possible only in dreams, not in real life. Still it was Jesus who said that. But the common sense says, that we should take it in context of everything else what He said. For example He talked that nothing will happen without the will of His Father, etc. So we see, that taking a sentence out of wide context, will lead us only into nonsense, and lot of troubles.

2. The passage you quoted is actually a wonderful story what the UNITY can do. If people are decided to do something, and they got huge masses to work it out, it will most probably succeed (at least temporarly). As this passage is NEGATIVE example of unity (we can actually experience that unity can make also positive things happen, what would not happen without unity), then we can imaginage for example what the world would become if the Nazis would win the WWII. Or if the master of the beasts - Stalin - would rule longer, and Soviet communism would been more harder in the end. We see that virtually "nothing would be impossible for those manipulated masses". We should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups, as one saying goes.

So although this passage might say, that they could become as strong as God, i find those explanations what i posted above more convincing. But i will wait for some interesting input into the topic.

[clayrains]

"All is possible to him who believes" vs " nothing will happen without the will of His Father"

I understand what you say and what you say seems to make sense to me intitially until I examine the logic behind that explanation. Now this argument brings to mind even more problems than I orginally had...

First I'd like to comment on this quote "Jesus says: "All is possible to him who believes". Our life experience says it to be nonsense."

So Jesus telling us nonsense. Is that right? I wouldn't think so because he'd then be lying and if Jesus is God, God cannot lie.

1) Some may see the second verse above as an explanation of th the second verse above. I do too... initially, then I begin to see it as yet another contradiction that I have to explain. God/Jesus is making two exactly opposite statements in those two verses. So...

2) I thought the word of God/Jesus is infalllible. If it was, would he make two completely opposite statements? I could answer by saying "Exactly, of course he wouldn't contradict himself, read those satements in context." and I'd then
refer back to the "infallability of His Word" as proof that the two statements cannot possibly contradicting each other, but that leads me to the next question...

3) I can apply this "context" exuse to fallable humans like you or me but not to a God that is "all-knowing." If he was all-knowing, couldn't he have just as easily said "All is possible to him who believes -- and follows the will of the Father" ?

4) I aknowledge the argument that "this [anything is possible to man] shouldn't be taken literally." Niether of the two verses at the top of the page are presented as a parable of any kind, yet they are purportedly not to be taken literally. If so, how do I know that I can take God for his word on anything? And if I did, how am I to know what statements should be taken literally or figuratively? Jesus said "No man comes to the Father but through me." Should I take that figuratively?

5) I thought that God could not lie. But if "all is not [actually] possible to him who believes" then hasn't God just lied?

6) Does the Bible not say that "The Lord is not the author of confusion"? But
the more I try to read and justify the Bible, to prove it right, the more I tend to prove it wrong and the more confused I am. Also, the Bible says it was God that confounded the speech of the people building the tower of Babel. If God's not the author of confusion, how would this be possible?

7) God is a just and fair God, at least I'd like to think so. If he is just and fair
though, how can he condemn me for etermity for not believing something that I cannot logically rectify?


Those are just a few and I'd also not that I could endlessly expand on every one of those subjects. Any ideas? Again it looks like I'm being argumentative but I could never persuade someone to believe something by explaining something to them that I can't explain to myself.

[Zxcv Bnm]

clayrains, hyperbole is used frequently in the Bible, and is a legitimate way to express truth.

[clayrains]

clayrains, hyperbole is used frequently in the Bible, and is a legitimate way to express truth.You (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/member.php?u=4710) know, that's actually the shortest answer I've gotten to any of these questions but the first answer that really begins to make sense.

[Cyrus of Persia]

First I'd like to comment on this quote "Jesus says: "All is possible to him who believes". Our life experience says it to be nonsense."

So Jesus telling us nonsense. Is that right? I wouldn't think so because he'd then be lying and if Jesus is God, God cannot lie.


I think i found out what troubles you to understand this all. You want it all explained in one sentence. I was developing my argument, while i said: Our life experience says it to be nonsense. If you would just read it through, you would see that i came to conclusion, that it is not nonsense, but should be taken in context with everything else He said.

The same "problem" seems to "hunt" you with following message, where you seem to want that Jesus would talk all his teaching with one breath to make a sense. But He didn't. He once said: "Nothing is impossible...", and in other time He said: "Nothing will happen without the will of the Father". It can be that He assumed that His disciples already take His saying: "All is possible..." in the context of everything else He already said, because He did not saw the reason to repeat Himself again, or it did not created such problems in the minds of His listeners when he said that, as it might create in the minds of some other people like we see here in present case.


1) Some may see the second verse above as an explanation of th the second verse above. I do too... initially, then I begin to see it as yet another contradiction that I have to explain. God/Jesus is making two exactly opposite statements in those two verses. So...


In addition what i said above i would like you to read some Buddhist texts (if you haven't done it yet), and after a while you will see that they are even more hard to comprehend with our modern mind, than the teachings of Jesus. They are full of "contradictions" in some cases, but if you let go your Aristotelean logic (what is not "One and The Only Revelation from God About How Our Logic Must Be" ™), you start to see that it all makes a sense and "works". Until you are hindered with your mind to see what is meant, you keep puzzling with those problems *s*

P.S. There is also wonderful writing called Gospel of Thomas, where the sayings of Jesus are included (probably redacted later, but some of them seem to be original words). It's even "weirder" as those 4 gospels that we have in the Canon. But as you start to meditate and try to find out what Jesus might meant behind those "weird" and "stupid" sentences there, you might see how this starts to reveal it's truths into you.



4) I aknowledge the argument that "this [anything is possible to man] shouldn't be taken literally." Niether of the two verses at the top of the page are presented as a parable of any kind, yet they are purportedly not to be taken literally. If so, how do I know that I can take God for his word on anything? And if I did, how am I to know what statements should be taken literally or figuratively? Jesus said "No man comes to the Father but through me." Should I take that figuratively?


I have never assumed that this argument should not be taken literally. If you are quoting someone, you aren't quoting me in this case *s* It's as literal as it can be IMO, but (again) it should be taken in context with everything else what Jesus said (+ with the other NT teachings).

"No man comes to the Father but through me" is not as literal. Otherwise you should enter Jesus's body in literal sense (what would be pretty impossible to do *lol*) to come to the Father. So literally it says that Jesus is the way to God, but there are no "way", or "through" in literal sense.

Trust your intuition. There are many Bible commentaries, and there is God who can lead you into all truth as He promised. Some things take time, but don't worry *s*


6) Does the Bible not say that "The Lord is not the author of confusion"? But
the more I try to read and justify the Bible, to prove it right, the more I tend to prove it wrong and the more confused I am. Also, the Bible says it was God that confounded the speech of the people building the tower of Babel. If God's not the author of confusion, how would this be possible?


In what context the saying "The Lord is not the author of confusion" is written? IMO there are two kinds of confusions: one that leads you away from the truth (for example, confusion in the Church only disturbs people who attend the services, and i see it as the meaning why Paul said it), and this is bad. God is not author of that. But there is confusion that can mess people from acting out things that might turn out bad (like the Tower of Babel). I think we should not worry that much the words HOW something is written, but about WHAT that means, what is written. It's all about hermeneutics, language and rethoric. I will give another example:

There are many passages in the Gospels and in Acts, where it says, that "all" people gathered there, or came to see Jesus, or similar. Do you really believe that literally EVERYBODY came (including mothers in childbed, all crippled, etc)? If so, then it's really hard to see much truth written in the Bible *s* I see it as a pure matter of expression: it wants to show that very many people came, what shows that something special was going on. I'm 100% sure that no author who wrote such sentenced really wanted to say that literally ALL people came.


7) God is a just and fair God, at least I'd like to think so. If he is just and fair
though, how can he condemn me for etermity for not believing something that I cannot logically rectify?


I like to think the same and i do think the same. Also i see nowhere written that you must believe everything written in the pages of the Bible as historical and literal truth. We are judged by our faith in Jesus, not by our faith in the Bible what was even not existant (at least in the case of NT), when Jesus spoke those words.



P.S. I admit, that i use more "intuitive logic" when approaching to the books that contain something deeper than pure action, or history. This is why i don't expect you to agree with everything i said. People are different, and some are more into "rational logic" (or how to call it), what i personally see as hinderance from getting deeper meaning in scriptures (i mean all religious scriptures over the world), and philosophical books (for example the writings of Saint-Exupery).

P.P.S. I'm non-English speaker actually (what you can quess from lot of typos and weirdos in my messages). So if you would ask from me "How are you?" it would sound as nonsense for me, even if i understand what those words mean in English. You can even try and learn Estonian (my mother-language) to ask the similar thing from me in Estonian ("Kuidas läheb?" - "How's going?"), and i would still reply: "What is going? What you mean by "How is going?"?, IF i would not share some common backround information what this question means. For example some Estonians can get angry on you, if you do not expect the reply from them, and consider you as impolite person. Maybe you know the anecdote, where someone greets other and says: "How's going". The other is ill and says: "Oh, very badly", and the first replies: "Oh, that's fine" and passes by. One did not expected the reply, but used it as simple greeting. The other did not understood it.

Just one example how hard it might sometimes to get what is meant by other person. So we need to patienty figure out what the Bible is really telling to us. This is why every such book needs good hermeneutics, and theological approach, because if we hope that we understand it all just by reading the text and using our Western logic, no wonder that we get weird ideas from it :lol:

[Zeluvia]

The simplest explanation is usually the best...so how about this...

One day, around the fire, someone was telling the story of the flood, and some smartass said, well if we are all descended from Noah's sons, why doesn't everyone speak a different language?

The keeper of the lore quickly had to make up another story to explain why there were so many languages in the world.

[Cyrus of Persia]

The simplest explanation is usually the best...so how about this...

One day, around the fire, someone was telling the story of the flood, and some smartass said, well if we are all descended from Noah's sons, why doesn't everyone speak a different language?

The keeper of the lore quickly had to make up another story to explain why there were so many languages in the world.
:lol:

I think you made a typo somewhere, but i still got it :teeth:

While the simplest explanation can usually be the best, it's not usually the closest to the truth. But in this case i think you hit the mark pretty closely. Many ancient stories (like the story of languages) were written in response to the question: "Why is this, or that so?" I don't think that such explanatory stories in Genesis are different from this. Those stories do not pretend to be historically true (ancient people had different understanding about that, compared to us), but they were true because they taught something important. While the story can satisfy the curiousity of Ancient Jew, we have more to learn from it. For example: human folly does end with failure, and the real history has proved it again and again.

[kofh2u]

""Look!" He [God] said. "If they can accomplish this when they have just begun to take advantage of their common language and political unity, just think of what they will do later. Nothing will be impossible for them! "

Of all the questions about the Bible verses and problems with the scriptures that people have, I've never heard anyone question the meaning of Genesis 11, at least not in relation to the 5th verse which I've quoted above. I don't understand why this hasn't, at the very least, made most people curious. Myself, this verse gives me more trouble than all other perceived contradictory Biblical passages I've read combined.

I honestly and personally do not feel that man could ever become equal to or more powerful than God but if you read that verse, that seems to be what it's saying. Or at any rate, this verse does not rule out any possibilities.

Does this mean that if God had not intervened by confounding our language that we could have eventually built some kind of "tower to heaven." Furthermore, once we built the tower and brought ourselves up to "God's level" could we then not cast him from his throne, banish the Almighty from the Universe and assume His throne? Afterall, the verse says "nothing will be impossible for them" not "almost nothing will be impossible for them." It doesn't seem to leave leeway for any other point of view the way I see it.

Keep in mind, I don't want to believe what I wrote in the above paragraph, but I can't explain away this meaning as long as Genesis 11:5 exists. At least, I can't explain Genesis 11:5 away without poking serious holes in other seemingly sound, logical theories in favor of God's divine nature or my entire belief system for that matter. I honestly seek an answer first and foremost, not an argument. If I debate further, I'm only playing Devil's advocate (no pun) for the sake of finding the truth. Can anyone help me?

The question you raise is hardly a reflection upon the Bible which presents the puzzle.

Certainly, finding a rational meaning IS the Gordian Knot of this whole chapter 11, how it relates to Chapters 1-10.

The puzzle of this whole chapter is not diminished by your failure to "come up with" an acceptable interpretation. Ridicule of the whole book is not valid, based upon the present failure and of the failure of the many previous generations to "come up" with something rational. No one really has had a rational explanation, ever.

The puzzle is one among many, all waiting intelligent explanation.

Be patient. Have faith. Read Rev5:5, and think about the great day of the Lord, when this book, sealed with the number seven, (7), is opened.


Rev. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

[clayrains]

Cyrus, you've made me realize something really, really important that I'd overlooked before. You may have not even been trying to point this out or even agree with what I'm about to say, but I think I've found a real key to many difficult portions of the Bible. My point is that we are expecting a perfect God to operate in an imperfect realm... that is... man-made language. God's will is perfect yet his will cannot hold true to, as I think you or someone else said, "Aristotlean logic" as long as God expresses his Perfect, Divine Will through imperfect, human language. It's kind of like when you mentioned that God's entire teachings can't be put together in one short sentence. I think they could if we were able to communicate with God on a perfectly spiritual basis, on His level, like we might be able to in the afterlife. Do you agree?

[Xmansmommy]

""Look!" He [God] said. "If they can accomplish this when they have just begun to take advantage of their common language and political unity, just think of what they will do later. Nothing will be impossible for them! "

Hello clayrains! Curious to know what version that is?

Of all the questions about the Bible verses and problems with the scriptures that people have, I've never heard anyone question the meaning of Genesis 11, at least not in relation to the 5th verse which I've quoted above.

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened. :wink:

I don't understand why this hasn't, at the very least, made most people curious. Myself, this verse gives me more trouble than all other perceived contradictory Biblical passages I've read combined.

I must admit it has caused me to question God's present knowledge. But not his omnipotence. :nsm:

I honestly and personally do not feel that man could ever become equal to or more powerful than God but if you read that verse, that seems to be what it's saying. Or at any rate, this verse does not rule out any possibilities.

In all honesty, and I mean no disrespect, but I believe that's a pretty far stretch to get that from this passage. I don't believe the passage even discussed them becoming equal with God or more powerful than Him. What it does address is their desire to build them up a name. In masse they were seeking to become powerful yes. And I think God addresses it by saying that they could accomplish that goal...becoming well known and powerful. I don't believe it says that they could become as or more powerful than God Himself.

Does this mean that if God had not intervened by confounding our language that we could have eventually built some kind of "tower to heaven." Furthermore, once we built the tower and brought ourselves up to "God's level" could we then not cast him from his throne, banish the Almighty from the Universe and assume His throne? Afterall, the verse says "nothing will be impossible for them" not "almost nothing will be impossible for them." It doesn't seem to leave leeway for any other point of view the way I see it.

Mind if we look at the passage in another version?

And the LORD said, Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Again, I think the "things they have imagined to do" are the things in the previous verses. They tried to become powerful and well known. And in that sense they could have accomplished their goal.

Keep in mind, I don't want to believe what I wrote in the above paragraph, but I can't explain away this meaning as long as Genesis 11:5 exists. At least, I can't explain Genesis 11:5 away without poking serious holes in other seemingly sound, logical theories in favor of God's divine nature or my entire belief system for that matter. I honestly seek an answer first and foremost, not an argument. If I debate further, I'm only playing Devil's advocate (no pun) for the sake of finding the truth. Can anyone help me?

Looking forward to reading some of the responses here myself. :smile: