Babel Contradiction?

Q. Gen 10 describes all the descendants of Ham, Sham, and Japheth.  It says in several places that they each have their own language – v5, 20, 31. Why does Gen 11:1 say, “Now the whole world had one language and a common speech”?

A. First let us look at the verses you quoted:

• Gen 10:5 From these the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.
• Gen 10:20 These are the sons of Ham, according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, by their nations.
• Gen 10:31 These are the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, according to their nations.
• Gen 11:1 Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.

On the surface, Gen 10 states that nations of the sons of Noah already had their own languages. This is followed by Gen 11 which states that the whole earth used the same language. So apparently there is a contradiction. Is the author of Genesis confused?

No, a superficial contradiction exists only if Gen 11 follows Gen 10 chronologically, but such is not the case. Gen 10 tells of how the nations from the sons of Noah were separated according to their languages by their lands.

• Gen 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these, the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.

Gen 11: 1-9 then retraces the history to an earlier time to explain why the nations were separated in the first place, by God confusing their one language to become many languages. This literary device is similar to a flashback in a movie to fill in explanatory details.

Notice that the sons of Shem are already given in Gen 10:21-30, in particular, the line through Arpachshad (v 24-29).  However, this Arpachshad line is given again in Gen 11, starting in v 10 but this time extending further to Abram in v 26. Why the repetition? This reiteration is to change the focus from the many nations descended through Shem to just one of his descendants – Abram, whom God chose to be the father of the nation Israel.

Similarly, the fact of the separation into many nations and languages is given first in Gen 10, then the reason for the separation is given in Gen 11, followed by lowering the microscope from the many generations of Shem to just one, Abram, to continue the salvation history. There is no contradiction.

Is Salvation Contingent?

Q. The Aramaic version of John 3:15-17 says “may” have eternal life. It is the same as NIV but different in other versions. Does “may” here denote a sense of contingency where salvation is contingent on something in addition to believing (John 16:8-11)? 

A. First, since the NT was written in Greek, let’s consult the Greek NT rather than a translation, be it Aramaic* or English. For the sake of English readers I will use an interlinear instead of just the Greek text. In both Jn 3:15 and 16, the English “may have” is translated from the same Greek word “eche”. Let’s look at what it means.

The word eche has a Strong’s Concordance Number of 2192, and a lexicon definition of “to have, i.e. to hold, or own, possess”. The meaning of its parsing (analyzing a sentence into its parts and describing their syntactic roles) tag is as follows:

V – Verb

P – Present tense

S – Subjunctive mood. The present subjunctive shows continuation or repetition. The action expressed by the verb is ongoing or repeated.

A – Active voice. The active voice is used when the subject of the sentence is the agent of the action described in the verb.

3 – 3^rd person

S – Singular

Therefore, grammatically the “may have” in the Interlinear does not mean something contingent, but shows “continue to have”.

Next, note how this word is translated in other leading English translations of John 3:15:

NAS: believes will in Him have eternal

KJV: perish, but have eternal life

For John 3:16, we have:

NAS: in Him shall not perish, but have eternal

KJV: perish, but have everlasting life

The New American Standard Bible (NAS) and the King James Versions (KJV) are both word-for-word form equivalence translations, considered more “accurate” than the New International Version (NIV) which is a thought-for-thought function equivalence translation.

This raises the question of why some translations give the impression that something in addition to believing is required. My knowledge of Greek is limited, not sufficient to question the work of translation committees of scholars. One possibility might be that the subject of the sentences in Jn 3:15-16 is “everyone (Greek pas)”, but not everyone will have eternal life, only those who are “believing in Him”. The contingency is therefore not something in addition to believing, but whether they are “believing in Him” or not. I would not take the Aramaic translation as more reliable than the Greek NT itself. Hope this helps.

*PS Some scholars believe the Gospel of John was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek, based on John being a fisherman and uneducated and untrained (Acts 4:13), but fluent in Aramaic, his native tongue. I have read the arguments but am not convinced. The conservative majority view is that John’s Gospel was written in Greek, the common language used throughout the Roman Empire at that time, to spread the good news to as many as possible. Those interested can do their own research e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_original_New_Testament_theory