Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In his 1880 book, Chaldean Account of Genesis, British Museum scholar George Smith published his translation of an inscription from an archaeological fragment. The inscription tells of an ancient ziggurat and says: “The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded”.

It this a good way to corroborate the account of the Tower of Babel? What are some other ways?

P.S. Is there any picture of this fragment online?

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Flimzy, David, Narnian, Dan, Jayarathina Madharasan Dec 26 '13 at 19:19

  • This question does not appear to be about Christianity within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Whether he's a trust-worthy source isn't on-topic here. Whether his conclusions on that particular issue, however, may be on topic here. You're committing the same logical fallacy (but in reverse) that @Anyonymous attacks in his answer. – Flimzy Dec 22 '13 at 9:50
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about the reliability of a particular historian. – Flimzy Dec 22 '13 at 9:50
@Flimzy I do not think it's the same logical fallacy. The asker wants to know whether the historian is credible, so that he or she may use the historian for something. In that case, the asker's own logical fallacy would be "appeal to authority", because even historians are human and can make mistakes. Plus, in academia, it is best thought of as credible than incredible, as the latter can potentially ruin a person's career; on the other hand, the historian in question is already dead, and his research may be outdated. – Double U Dec 22 '13 at 15:46
@Anonymous: I suppose one could say that 'appeal to authority' is the reverse of 'ad hominem' :) – Flimzy Dec 22 '13 at 21:34
Does the question need to be reworded to include "by some definition of perspective (Catholic, protestant, etc.)" in order to be on-topic? – mojo Dec 23 '13 at 20:05