This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Mythical origins of language: Origin of language, mythology, oral tradition, deluge myth, creator deity, creation myth, confusion of tonges, Tower of Babel, VDM Publishing House{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The consensus achieved in this discussion favors describing the topic of this article as a myth. If you've come here to decry its use or suggest it be changed, you should read the discussion first.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change all instances of “Yahweh” to either “the Lord” or “God.”
The name “Yahweh” is a novel, modern invention that has no history is the Christian tradition before a couple hundred years ago.
It is a combination of the Tetragrammaton and the names of other so-called gods from the region around the Old Testament was written. This combination is not present anywhere in the original texts of Scripture.
A change was reverted, removing "some" however, the correct statement should be "Biblica scholars from the Jewish Publication Society (Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi; Fishbane, Michael A). Otherwise, it is misleading/vague and suggests all biblical scholars think exactly the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be appropriate to lie to Wikipedia's readers by implying that it is only scholars from the Jewish Publication Society who hold the mainstream, non-fringe view. Besides, where did you get that claim from? It's not supported by the source. --bonadeacontributionstalk16:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 05/1/2025 (Remove "myth" and "parable" everywhere.)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
A few people have already stated and I'm continuing the thread. I would suggest you please remove "myth" and "parable" everywhere and replace it with a different word because this whole article makes it seem like a fairytale and I came here to research about the Tower of Babel and learn more about its biblical connection, not to act as a full-time editor because some random writer decided to view this event as a myth and a parable. [1]https://www.icr.org/article/what-happened-at-tower-babel/XAmDianaX (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please see above: The consensus achieved in this discussion favors describing the topic of this article as a myth. If you've come here to decry its use or suggest it be changed, you should read the discussion first.Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis is a book of origins that was generally accepted by western civilisations for over 2000 years. Modern scholarship has a bias that does not reflect the view held by many, of Genesis being an inspired and sacred text that describes what really occurred in an accurate and concise manner. Please show respect to this widely held view. Geoffrob (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also by the findings of linguistics. We don't know exactly how all the world's different languages developed, but we do know there was not an original language that was confused. (And it's not for want of trying, back in the day!) --bonadeacontributionstalk16:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the link, thanks for the suggestion. Was his book published posthumously? Because Giambullari died in the 1550s, and we cite a publication date in the 1560s. Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. The work referred to in the article (Origine della lingua fiorentina, altrimenti il Gello) was actually published in 1549.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 