bible point

[natasha levchenko]

did our languages come from the "Tower of Babel"?

 

[muziko]

Theologically speaking, the Tower of Babel can help explain our diversity.
Scientifically speaking, I'm a doubting Thomas.

Try to appreciate both views, they're both pretty interesting.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

did our languages come from the "Tower of Babel"?

Probably not.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

did our languages come from the "Tower of Babel"?

Perhaps the tower of Babel is symbolic of the root of our languages?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

did our languages come from the "Tower of Babel"?

No .....

 

[Brickjectivity]

Here's a free e-book on google books about it from Harvard, though it is over 100 years old:
Introduction to the Natural History of Language - Thomas George Tucker - Google Books

Its got a smattering of information where you can read some of the ideas about phonology, linguistics etc. They do pose ideas about where languages come from. Its not current at all but not bad for 'Free'.

 

[Skwim]

From

THE DATE OF THE TOWER OF BABEL
AND SOME THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
by Paul H. Seely
​

PAGE 11
As we have seen, if Gen 11:1-9 is accepted as historically accurate, the building of the tower of Babel can be dated approximately between 3500 and 2400 B.C. The problem which arises is that when Gen 11:1-9 is interpreted in context it is saying that until the building of the tower of Babel, that is, until 3500 B.C. at the earliest, all people on earth spoke the same language. It is quite evident from archaeology, however, that this is not the case.

When we step outside the world known to the biblical writer, it becomes immediately obvious that diverse languages were in existence prior to and during the building of the tower of Babel.


PAGE 13
At Keniff Cave, Rocky Cave South, and numerous other sites in Australia, there are well-stratified stone and bone remains dating from c. 20,000 B.C. to A.D. 1500. Most relevant to our discussion are the dozen sites which are radiocarbon-dated from c. 5000 to 4000 B.C., i.e., before the tower of Babel began to be built. The people who left tools at these sites must have had a language; and the language they spoke may be related to other languages of Oceania, but certainly not to Sumerian, Chinese, or Japanese.

At numerous sites in North America, such as Danger Cave in Utah, stratified remains of Indian cultures are radiocarbon-dated from 9000 to 3000 B.C. At Sierra Madre Oriental and other sites in Mexico, human and cultural remains are carbon-dated from 7000 to 1400 B.C.65 Since these Indians apparently came from Asia originally, we would expect their languages around 5000 B.C. to relate to Asian languages, but not to ancient Near Eastern languages. In any case, whatever languages they may have spoken, they were in America speaking them before the tower of Babel began to be built and, all during the time from 3500 to 2000 B.C.
SOURCE​

 

[natasha levchenko]

archaeologists have unearthed several pyramid like,stepped temple towers not far from Shinar(later called Babylonia). the Bible states that the tower builders laid bricks, not stone. in Mesopotamia, stone was a rarity or even entirely absent.
good or bad, but i am a linguist . during my studding i read a lot of theories about language origin at the University. lot of ideas.....The New Encyclopedia Britannica explains: “The earliest records of written language, the only linguistic fossils man can hope to have, go back no more than about 4,000 or 5,000 years.” Where did archaeologists discover these “linguistic fossils,” or “records of written language”? In lower Mesopotamia. Genesis 11:7"Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not listen to one another's language.”
The Bible does not state that all modern languages derive from a single mother tongue. it describes the sudden emergence of several new languages.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I was taught that cuneiform writing likely developed in Mesopotamia, probably from an accounting system, and was developed into a more complete system of expression. The area had a lot of clays and many clay-based technologies were invented, so cuneiform was one of them. It seems like the permanence of clay is one thing that encouraged the development of writing, because people could expect it to last a very long time.

It is not known why or even if other ancient cultures who lacked clay technology did not develop writing. They mummified people, and they left tools and other remains but if they wrote anything it has since decayed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And reading the Wizard of Oz one learns of flatlands, aunts and uncles, farms, farm dogs, tornados - all items clearly evidenced in Kansas. Who says the munchkins aren't real??

 

[muziko]

The New Encyclopedia Britannica explains: “The earliest records of written language, the only linguistic fossils man can hope to have, go back no more than about 4,000 or 5,000 years.” Where did archaeologists discover these “linguistic fossils,” or “records of written language”? In lower Mesopotamia.

Spoken languages go back much farther and are not confined to just Mesopotamia. Some societies simply didn't create a writing system before then while others adopted the writing systems of others after times of conquest.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

did our languages come from the "Tower of Babel"?

This is a good question. A few years back I was thinking about making an argument for God based on the origins of language. I didn't (and still don't) understand nor find it reasonable to think that humans can start off having no language at all, to having a language and being able to comprehend languages. Here is an example...from me personally...

I speak English. It is the only language I know and understand. Now, if another man speaks Arabic as his first and only language, how will we ever communicate with each other? We both don't speak or understand each others language, so there is no comprehension that can come from it. None. He can't teach me his language unless he understands my language, and vice versa. So verbal communication will NOT be a factor at all.

And on another note, I live in Arizona, and lets just say with the Hispanic population, you will hear the Spanish language from time to time :yes: I used to live in an apartment building on the first floor, and I had some noisy (understatement) neighbors upstairs. I went upstairs to tell them to knock off all the dang noise, and found out that the woman spoke Spanish and didn't speak English. So, she began to speak to me and I began to speak to her, and we both didn't understand each other. So I had to use an online English/Spanish translation to let her know that they were making to much dang noise. The moral of the story is the fact that our language comprehension was simply not there. So I can't imagine how you can start off with two individuals that don't know ANY kind of formal language to all of a sudden not only learn their own language, but learn each OTHERS language.

And with that being said, language is something you learn, and you can't learn a new language (or a first language) if you don't have someone that SPEAKS your language to teach you. So if you start off with two humans that never learned a language before, teaching and learning is out the window. I don't think naturalists/evolutionists can offer a plausible answer to why and how regarding this dilema.

But, if you have an intelligent design to "program" the language to within his new creatures, to where they were created with the new language embeded in them, it is easy to see how we can comprehend langauge.

That is just my take on it, and I challenge anyone to offer a rebuttal to it. I think it is a solid case for ID.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This is a good question. A few years back I was thinking about making an argument for God based on the origins of language. I didn't (and still don't) understand nor find it reasonable to think that humans can start off having no language at all, to having a language and being able to comprehend languages. Here is an example...from me personally...

I speak English. It is the only language I know and understand. Now, if another man speaks Arabic as his first and only language, how will we ever communicate with each other? We both don't speak or understand each others language, so there is no comprehension that can come from it. None. He can't teach me his language unless he understands my language, and vice versa. So verbal communication will NOT be a factor at all.

And on another note, I live in Arizona, and lets just say with the Hispanic population, you will hear the Spanish language from time to time :yes: I used to live in an apartment building on the first floor, and I had some noisy (understatement) neighbors upstairs. I went upstairs to tell them to knock off all the dang noise, and found out that the woman spoke Spanish and didn't speak English. So, she began to speak to me and I began to speak to her, and we both didn't understand each other. So I had to use an online English/Spanish translation to let her know that they were making to much dang noise. The moral of the story is the fact that our language comprehension was simply not there. So I can't imagine how you can start off with two individuals that don't know ANY kind of formal language to all of a sudden not only learn their own language, but learn each OTHERS language.

And with that being said, language is something you learn, and you can't learn a new language (or a first language) if you don't have someone that SPEAKS your language to teach you. So if you start off with two humans that never learned a language before, teaching and learning is out the window. I don't think naturalists/evolutionists can offer a plausible answer to why and how regarding this dilema.

But, if you have an intelligent design to "program" the language to within his new creatures, to where they were created with the new language embeded in them, it is easy to see how we can comprehend langauge.

That is just my take on it, and I challenge anyone to offer a rebuttal to it. I think it is a solid case for ID.

I call it learning. I.e. you learn a new language like how a baby whose parents aren't from this country but only learns the country of the land, not of their parents. The Development of written language came after speaking language. Sounds get incorporated into symbols, the symbols get put together with other symbols and become a language. Anyone outside of that group won't understand it, but if anything you realize that all languages have some common root. French, Spanish, Italian are part of the romance languages. I speak french, but I can pick up some spanish and italian, because of their latin backgrounds.

Same as how English is connected to the germanic languages. They have a root form, as people move from region how the words are pronounced change, and the change in pronounciation gives rise to new forms of the language. If I told you right now I wanted to get some a Hoagie, you might have no idea what that means.

It wouldn't have been two people speaking different languages, of course you dont' believe in evolution so you would say that there was just Adam and Eve (though where did Cain get his wife from???).

But evolutionarily, there were Homo Sapians, Neantherdals, and other species of homo around who probably had some form of a spoken language. Interactions between these groups would have been a good way for groups to pick up new sounds, and expressions. And again migrations, groups that stay in a particular region would speak a certain way, groups who get expose to other regions would speak a particular way...I guess you can say the language evolved.

The tower of Babel is interesting because it's the second time you see God say 'US' after the story of Creation, and one where it's admitted that Mankind working together is capable of accomplishing anything and God for some reason didn't want that. It's never explained in the actual story why God felt threatened by that.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I call it learning. I.e. you learn a new language like how a baby whose parents aren't from this country but only learns the country of the land, not of their parents.

But on naturalism, how can you even begin to learn anything when you there is no way possible to comprehend what is being told to you? If you are in an algebra class and you have a Chinese instructor who doesn't speak a lick of English, and he is attempting to teach you alegebra, no matter how long you sat there as he taught, at what point will you say "Ohhhh, now I get it"?

It wont happen.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But on naturalism, how can you even begin to learn anything when you there is no way possible to comprehend what is being told to you? If you are in an algebra class and you have a Chinese instructor who doesn't speak a lick of English, and he is attempting to teach you alegebra, no matter how long you sat there as he taught, at what point will you say "Ohhhh, now I get it"?

It wont happen.

Well Math is "universal" I may not understand the language the person teaching it is speaking *I've had some very poor english speaking math instructors and science instructors*, but the I understood the numbers because I was taught 1 was 1, 2 was 2. Now if you are talking about the written language that is more complex but it seems evident that written language came about after spoken language.

Not to mention that the way that we learn growing up is related to the things around us.

I'm shown a cup and given a word for it. That way I relate the word cup with that object. Over time the brain which is lazy in it's own way, just sort of accepts that as reality to the point that anything I see that looks like a cup will get called a cup.

IF I want to learn to another language, then I would approach it (the younger you are the better, it's much harder for older people to learn new languages), the same way I learned the language I speak now. Relating the words to the object.

So I relate the word one with 1, it's why people say things like "it looks like" when describing an object, they form that parralel connection. That seems to be the strength of the human brain, it's not the processing speed (computers have us beat), but our ability to pick up patterns and relationships and go from point A to point B with it.

I think the way you are looking at it, ignores that languages have evolved, they didn't just pop up out of nowhere, there was a transition, they started from simple bits and scratches (I feel that drawings, dance, and art may have had a role to play in the development of writing), to the variety we have now. And even that variety ranges from simplistic to easy. There are places around the world, ancient tribes who barely vocalize vowels and words like we do and who may not even have a written language.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well Math is "universal" I may not understand the language the person teaching it is speaking *I've had some very poor english speaking math instructors and science instructors*, but the I understood the numbers because I was taught 1 was 1, 2 was 2. Now if you are talking about the written language that is more complex but it seems evident that written language came about after spoken language.

Right, you were taught, as you just mentioned, so you were taught in a way that you understood because you could comprehend the langauge that was speaking to you. If you were taught by someone that didn't speak your langauge, you wouldn't know that 1 was 1, or 2 was 2.

Not to mention that the way that we learn growing up is related to the things around us.

I'm shown a cup and given a word for it. That way I relate the word cup with that object. Over time the brain which is lazy in it's own way, just sort of accepts that as reality to the point that anything I see that looks like a cup will get called a cup.

That still wouldn't work Frankie. I will assume you don't speak Arabic. So if you were in a room with a guy that spoke Arabic and there is a table in the room with a cup on it, and the Arabic guy pointed at the cup and said "blah". Now what does "blah" mean? Does it mean cup? Does it mean coffee? Does it mean thirsty? Does it maen water? You don't know, and there is no way the guy can get you to know what he means because for every word, every sentence, every phrase, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

IF I want to learn to another language, then I would approach it (the younger you are the better, it's much harder for older people to learn new languages), the same way I learned the language I speak now. Relating the words to the object.

That may work with you, but it won't work if someone who doesn't speak your langauge if you were relaying the information to him/her.

So I relate the word one with 1, it's why people say things like "it looks like" when describing an object, they form that parralel connection. That seems to be the strength of the human brain, it's not the processing speed (computers have us beat), but our ability to pick up patterns and relationships and go from point A to point B with it.

I am talking in terms of people that don't speak your language. Relating words with objects won't work if a person doesn't know what you are talking about.

I think the way you are looking at it, ignores that languages have evolved, they didn't just pop up out of nowhere, there was a transition, they started from simple bits and scratches (I feel that drawings, dance, and art may have had a role to play in the development of writing), to the variety we have now. And even that variety ranges from simplistic to easy. There are places around the world, ancient tribes who barely vocalize vowels and words like we do and who may not even have a written language.

Give me an example of how you and a person that speaks Arabic will begin to comprehend what each other are saying if neither of you spoke the opposite language. Please enlighten me.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Right, you were taught, as you just mentioned, so you were taught in a way that you understood because you could comprehend the langauge that was speaking to you. If you were taught by someone that didn't speak your langauge, you wouldn't know that 1 was 1, or 2 was 2.

Not to mention that the way that we learn growing up is related to the things around us.



That still wouldn't work Frankie. I will assume you don't speak Arabic. So if you were in a room with a guy that spoke Arabic and there is a table in the room with a cup on it, and the Arabic guy pointed at the cup and said "blah". Now what does "blah" mean? Does it mean cup? Does it mean coffee? Does it mean thirsty? Does it maen water? You don't know, and there is no way the guy can get you to know what he means because for every word, every sentence, every phrase, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.



That may work with you, but it won't work if someone who doesn't speak your langauge if you were relaying the information to him/her.



I am talking in terms of people that don't speak your language. Relating words with objects won't work if a person doesn't know what you are talking about.



Give me an example of how you and a person that speaks Arabic will begin to comprehend what each other are saying if neither of you spoke the opposite language. Please enlighten me.

By learning? You realize no one is born talking right? So how does a baby learn to talk? You also should realize that spoken word is like 30% of how we communicate.

 

[muziko]

....But, if you have an intelligent design to "program" the language to within his new creatures....

So God programmed English into me? :sorry1:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

By learning? You realize no one is born talking right?

Ahh, right..now consider this; When a baby is born, the baby is learning from someone that already knows the language, right? So if you go back in time you will either have people that already knew the language and taught everyone else, or you will eventually get to a point where there was no formal language, because no one knew anything. And my point is you can only get to a formal langauge if the process started with someone that already knew the language (God).

So how does a baby learn to talk? You also should realize that spoken word is like 30% of how we communicate.

The ability to think and learn is embeded in every human being from birth. You ask how does a baby learn to talk, but how did the parent learn to talk? If you push that question down to past-generation to past-generation and you reach the point of verbal origins...at which there is no formal langauge, how do you get from no formal language to formal language? How does this even begin to transpire?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So God programmed English into me? :sorry1:

Hahaha. My point is, God programed formal language to Adam and Eve. It isn't as if when Adam and Eve were created they had to undergo English and grammer classes. They were created as cognitive human beings with finite knowledge. If God (or any naturalistic view one may have on human origins) didn't create humans with the ability to think and learn, and no formal language, then how could verbal communication even potentially begin to transpire? It just wouldn't. It couldn't. It didn't.