Approx 2000 B.C.   A Division of Language:

 Scroll side to side to see painting.  Article is on left side below image.

              It took little time after the great deluge until men were repopulating the Earth.  Within two years of the flood Shem became a father to Arpachshad, as Genesis 11 says, but then Shem's line is more carefully tracked in the Bible, as the Hebrews sprang from it. (The word Semite is a lingual variant of Shem-ite.)  Japheth and Ham were busy repopulating as well.

              There are many personality types, and one certain type is well described by the word TYRANT I suppose.  Today I guess we use the word megalomaniac.  A man named Nimrod (rough meaning: We'll rebel) was born from Cush, Ham's son.  Ham was Noah's son - one of 3 sons Noah had. (Gen 10:6-8)  As Nimrod grew he became mighty among men and, having founded Babylon, he went on to found more cities yet.  Eight are mentioned in some works, and Nimrod aspired to be the first dictator after the flood.              

              The word from God at that point was to go out and form colonies, but people were dawdling, not wishing to part from their friends and family and the comforts of home.  (the historian Josephus's opinion) Nimrod saw opportunity in this, and urged them to follow him and ignore God's commands.  The scriptures actually characterize Nimrod as a 'Mighty Hunter in Defiance of the Lord' in some translations.  But there were concerns by some, it is said, that God might flood them again if they didn't obey. (Josephus's opinion)  To reassure them,  Nimrod put them to work building a tower meant to be so tall that a subsequent flood would not be able to reach the top (Josephus), so tall it would reach to the heavens. (Genesis)  Babel is said to translate roughly to 'Gate to Heaven'.  They apparently thought God wouldn't then be able stop them from doing whatever  they wished.   

              Whatever the motivations, these men, all of one language, cooperated to build the tower of Babel of baked bricks mortared with a petroleum related substance called bitumen, which is water-proof.  God was displeased with this project and their attitude.  He enacted a fundamental physical change in the brains of men such that different families suddenly found themselves speaking different languages and so were unable to easily cooperate.  The project was abandoned, men seeing the power of God towards their disobedience, and they dispersed their various directions to form colonies as they had originally  been directed by God to do.

              I'm not personally a Mormon, but there is in the Latter Day Saints Book of Mormon in a book called 'Ether' an account of a small group who through prayer to God was allowed to retain their pure pre-flood language.  They were directed to build enclosed rafts - like small versions of the Ark - and with these they travelled a very turbulent ocean, driven by God's wind - for 344 days before arriving at some point of what is now America and getting off to colonize.  Their story ends hundreds of years later with a divided people grown numerous but wicked fighting each other to basically the last man, over a million dying in the process of these wars.  Their story is said to have been recorded on 24 plates found by later Israelite colonists to America, again according to writings in the Book of Mormon.  Is it true?  Unfortunately, the plates are not still on Earth, but millions believe.  It would be interesting to see an example of the pre-flood language in writing, and I'm sure it probably does physically exist.  Some think they have found examples, as you can find by searching the internet.  A language called 'proto-Canaanite' is sometimes put forth as a possible candidate of an existing example of the original written language of man, but I don't think the question is fully answered yet in anyone's mind.  

              Outgrowths of this Tower of Babel period are several, but importantly:

              A)  Stories maintain that Nimrod (probably 'Marduke' in Babylonian) had a wife, the beautiful but wicked Semiramis, who established and was powerful in the first post-flood false religion.  She apparently alleged that her son was born to her as a virgin birth.  She may also have had Nimrod killed for not appointing her ill-suited first son as his heir apparent.  In some accounts she told her false religion's priests that 'the gods' were pleased with Nimrod and desired him to join them by passing from life to death', thus gaining their priestly support in getting Nimrod to take certain hallucinogenic drugs which their ceremonies used, and then making the duped tyrant a human sacrifice to the false gods. 

             Due to the language dispersion, some scholars maintain that Semiramis and son are known in various languages as Isis and Osiris (Egypt), Ushas and Vishnu (Hindu), Venus/Venu and Adonis (Greek), etc., contributing much to the pantheon of false Gods that many cultures shifted to worshiping in ancient times.  If one of these cultures gained dominance over another, sometimes the gods would be blended into an even bigger pantheon.  So if two cultures having adulterated versions of 'Semiramis and son' happen to blend, then you have the problem of there being 4 god-characters (but actually based on only two historical persons).  So it becomes hard to trace them back to their real sources in history.  But regardless, Semiramis basically became enshrined as the Queen of Heaven before the languages were divided.  And these Mother/Son cults, rooting back to the time before the division of languages, spread widely, entrenching themselves in many cultures after the languages divided.

              Parts of Italy were once Etruscan, for example, before the rise of the Romans (the Romans were refugees from fallen Troy according to the Roman historian named Livy) who decided to join an existing tribe of 'aboriginal people' headed by a man named Latinus from who's name the word 'Latin' sprang.  The Etruscans seem to have originated from a city of Nimrod's called Resin, in Shinar (ancient Sameria lay in Shinar- now basically Iraq.  The Plains of Shinar were settled very shortly after the flood).  Perhaps because of these Etruscans, said to descend from Babylonian stock, there was a pre-existing predilection for a mother/son cult in the people who would first be gathered into the Roman Catholic Church.  It is at any rate clear that Mary (no doubt loved greatly by Jesus our lord) is treated almost as a goddess by some elements of the Catholic church, beyond anything scriptures would seem to suggest is the will of God.  Jesus referred to her merely as 'woman' in John 2:4 and John 19:26, and is there anywhere he calls her 'mother' when speaking to her?  She was 'greatly blessed', but was she meant to be a virtual goddess and holy? 

               You have to tread carefully here - this woman is Jesus's human mother.  I hope to meet her if I get to go to heaven.  He loved her as we all love our mothers, I believe.  And she was chosen directly by God for this very important job of being Jesus's mother.  This is an honored and chosen woman. 

           But would Mary herself approve of the way she is venerated? Angels will not allow themselves to be venerated (good angels that is) and Jesus said that the greatest on Earth is less than the least in heaven. Here's Jesus speaking in Mathew 11:11:  "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist!  Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."  So does this not mean that angels are greater than Mary?  Mary was born of a woman.  Yet angels will in no manner allow themselves to be worshiped.   So could Mary possibly approve of people worshiping her own image, or praying to her to ask her to intercede for them with Jesus?  Is Mary asleep in death, or alive in heaven?  This 'state of the dead' question is pretty widely contested among Christians.  But, all we can know concerning the question of whether Mary should be venerated and prayed to is this: The answer is "Yes, if God says yes.  But all of the scriptures seem to say no.  She had a monumentally important place in human history, yet worshiping her in any way seems to be an invention of man."

      I'll take a quick rabbit trail here and talk about something.  Do you know that there are some ways in which Solomon seems to be a foreshadowing of Jesus?  He was the wisest of earthly kings,  he was the richest of earthly kings, he was allowed to build and touch the temple of God, whereas even King David his dad was not allowed to do that.  There are other ways however in which Solomon can be likened to the anti-Christ.  He received 666 talents of gold each year as tribute, for instance.  He was given a high position but ended up straying from God.  So it's a limited analogy.  But anyway...  

  The reason I mention that Solomon seems to be a foreshadowing of Jesus in some ways, is because Solomon had a mother who attempted to intercede with him at the request of Solomon's enemy (the enemy was one of his many brothers, named Adonijah, who had tried to steal the kingdom from Solomon earlier, but hadn't gotten away with it.) 

  This enemy brother Adonijah now wanted to be given possession of a certain virgin who had been a nursemaid to King David, Solomon's dad, when David was very old.  She had only taken care of the aged David, and kept his cold legs warm.  They had not been physically intimate.  But Adonijah knew that if he could have that woman given to him as his wife, then that would strengthen his claim to being the proper man to have the throne of Israel and be the true successor to King David.  Solomon's mother didn't see the trick he was up to.  She was just being manipulated, used by Solomon's crafty enemy.  When the mother came to Solomon's throne to speak to him, he received her warmly, as a loving son would.  But, when he heard what she was asking, and who she was asking it for, he instantly got the connection and saw through the plot.  Furious, he immediately sent men to execute his evil brother - whose life he had already spared once - for plotting to steal the kingdom this second time. 

  So, we are given a picture of a somewhat Jesus-like king (Solomon) whose Mother was used as the intercessor by someone who actually meant it as a way to harm the rightful king, and steal his kingdom.  I wonder if praying to Mary, asking her to intercede with Jesus, is like when Solomon's mother was tricked - by Solomon's enemy - into doing wrong against her own son.  Is this account a veiled warning to us from God?  I'm only conjecturing, but could it be?

  But back to the topic, which was discussing some of the outgrowths of the Tower of Babel dividing of languages event, and the dispersal afterwards of colonies to far flung locations in obedience to God's initial desires for them:           

              B)  Far flung colonies were started in this dispersal period, colonies which constituted the beginnings of many our present people stocks.  Cultures which appeared around the 2000 BC time frame are good possible candidates for this early wave of far-flung colonies stemming from the language divisions.  If this is true, it should be expected that geographically distant peoples of this time period should appear to have arisen suddenly with many of the trappings of civilization. The earliest examples of their writing would likely show quite a lot of cultural sophistication - after all, they weren't first beginning to write, they were first beginning to write in their new 'confused language'. Also, they should have much in common with each other from a religious or mythological perspective. (Around 300 cultures once canvassed did have a world flood legend.)  Also, they might have used similar ship designs, weapons, housing, and pottery ideas, and farming techniques. 

              C)  Large scale animal extinctions and near extinctions should have taken place beginning at this time as hunting became a convenient way of holding on until the new farmland was developed.  Also, the killing of dangerous species would have been expedient to safe living in these newly settled areas.  Since the animals were still spreading outwards from the site of the ark, and probably not up to strong numbers yet, and assuming no real efforts in the area of game management, there should have been a good number of eliminated species at this time of 2000 BC to 1500 BC.

               In the USA and Canada the years from 1620 A.D. (Early American Colonies) to the early 1900's when game management laws began to take hold (approx a 280 years period) we saw the elimination of millions of buffalo (nearly all of them) and the sky blackening passenger pigeon flocks did go extinct, the almost total extermination of grizzlies from California (the Grizzly State) occurred, the near eradication of wolves in the lower 48 states happened, overhunted elk populations shifted from plains to mountains, decimation of whale populations occurred on all the seas, total extinction of some sea cow / manatee species was seen, the fur seal and ocean otters were almost finished off, etc., etc., etc.  Plant life wasn't immune either.  Sections of the great North American forests were stripped entirely clear to make way for farming.  We'll never know how many plant types were lost, or what food or medicinal uses they had to offer. 

               The message seems clear: colonization quickly leads to extinctions and vast perturbations in the animal kingdom.  It has been seen everywhere that it has occurred in modern times, anyway.  Ever looked at 's8int' on the internet?  That site is one of the most powerful extra-Biblical testimonies God has anywhere on the internet, in my opinion.

                Migration to plentiful lands while maintaining access to older more developed markets means the environment is going to change fast as settled populations take advantage of cheap prices from the frontier peoples, who have easy access to the natural resources.  Two hundred years of logging had nearly all of the largest tree species in some sort of jeopardy in the United States. Trees can't run!!  And men invent very efficient ways of converting natural resources into wealth in whatever form nature provides those resources.   

              I think that what happened in the North American continent during these last 300 years might have happened in the areas to which the many colonies extended outward in the time after the division of languages.  It might have happened in 800 or 900 years vice in 300 years, just because the foreign markets were smaller, shipping less developed, and the technology more labored intensive and time consuming, but human nature is unlikely to be any different today than it was then.  With the same sorts of needs, desires, and availabilities, its pretty much a given that portions of the animal population, moving slowly outward from the ark without the purpose of colonization, were quickly overtaken and expunged from the zoological record by the leap frog proliferation of human colonies and the hunters that sustained them. 

             After all, did whoever killed the last mammoth have any idea it was the last one?  And if they had known, would they have just said "If our tribe doesn't kill it and eat it, we know that somebody else's tribe is going to."

              Why might dinosaurs have disappeared?  Probably before the flood many species were hunted, or treated as stock, or as people-threatening predators, and so they became extinct then, before the flood.  Likely more of the very same occurred after the flood, exacerbated by humans being placed on a purposeful mission to populate quickly (to multiply upon the Earth) and expand far geographically (colonize) in a short period.  It was time to spread and conquer, and animal preservation was not likely a priority on anyone's mind.

              Could we humans have wiped out the dinosaurs?  It's uncertain which species from the fossil record were extinct before the great flood.  But there was well over 1500 years before the flood, during which men lived long, and more intelligent beings than us existed as well.  It is highly likely that they developed something equivalent to a high-powered rifle early on in that time period.  What would we develop if every major genius of the last 600 years still had 300 years to live?  The pre-flood men sometimes lived 900 years or more.  Genesis Chapter 5 lists the ages of Adam and the 9 descendants of his, which led to and included Noah, at the time of their death.  Actually, Noah's age at his time of death is listed later in Genesis 9:29, but it was 950 years.  The working knowledge of these people would have been incredible.  Yet Noah feared for his life from the powerful men/angel hybrids (Nephilim) of his time in the last evil days before the flood, some sources say (Josephus for one).  So apparently the world was not very respectful of the vast knowledge these ancient fathers likely possessed.

               After the flood we could have killed off some types of dinosaurs as well.  Competition with other creatures could have killed off some types.  Adapting to the differences of the post-flood world may have killed off many types.  Disease may have killed off some types while their numbers and range was still small, shortly after the flood.  Even things like volcanoes, tsunamis, or earthquakes could have killed off small but important pockets of the reemerging post flood species.  I've always hoped we'll get to see about those things someday!  I'd enjoy learning the answer.

               I think it's especially important, though, to note that the most intelligent force in existence - God - felt that the most effective way to prevent men from living and working in unity was to give them different languages.  No one would better know the truth of this than God.  So, if there is a lesson to be had there, I would suggest that there is no better way to divide a nation than to introduce a second or a third language into common usage within that nation.  To allow a second language to gain common acceptance within a nation is to use God's very own tool for division against that nation's hopes of unity.  

                I read the scriptures concerning the end times, and I see all of these nations gathering to attack Israel and Jerusalem, and I ask myself "Where is the USA?  Why aren't we helping Israel?  Are we destroyed in war, or do we not feel compelled to aid them, or are we actually among those attacking them?"  One of the possibilities is that our national character will have been greatly diluted by the character of some other nation which has taken up residence within us.  And I see allegiance to the Pope as a possible factor, if indeed the Catholic Church turns out to be 'the woman that rides the beast'.  So, I'll just say it bluntly - if the USA is going to be greatly peopled by persons coming from Mexico, then I hope they will learn English and use it, so that we can remain one people, under God.  And I hope we can communicate the idea to any immigrants to the USA that if the Papacy ever calls for cooperation with or neutrality in a war against Israel, then that is a sure sign to leave that denomination, or at least ignore that particular Papal directive.  Israel is the apple of God's eye.  It is His chosen people.  So, as Jesus would love what His Father loves, so must Christians do the same.

               I certainly think we should note, as Americans, that these fellow believers in Jesus from Mexico are generally anti-birth control, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage. So I won't pretend to know what God is allowing with this great change in our national make-up.  They work hard.  They don't tolerate many of our vices and sins in their culture.  Yet they do have cultural vices of their own.  I'd say our best move is to emulate the best in each other, and each clean house on our national and cultural sins.  Maybe there's a way Jesus could make us both more righteous before Him.  But we should not be of divided language within the borders of Christian nations, I think, lest we risk civil divide by the evil forces of the spiritual world using the language barrier as a tool for fomenting internal revolt.  Let ideas and principals be all that can lead to such as that.  And we must have God's heart towards the world. 

               Even if it seems awkward to so endorse a people (the Jews) who have no particular liking for us Goyim, we should do it for love of God.  The Jews of Israel may not understand why we feel that way.  They may consider it a useful and convenient departure from reason on our part, for all we know.  But we should always know why we support Israel - it is because what is precious in our God's eyes must always be precious in our own.  We must love the nation Israel as Joseph - brought to a position of influence - loved Benjamin.  We must love Israel as Ruth loved Naomi.  And one day, in return, perhaps they will love us as Esau greeted a returning Jacob (Israel).  Perhaps they will say, if we come to their land to live with them "Who are these you have with you?"  And perhaps we will answer "The children whom God has graciously given your servant." as in Genesis 33, v.5.