The story of the Tower of Babel is explained in Genesis 11 in just a few verses. This is a summary about Biblical account of the Tower of Babel. You can read more in-depth Bible verses from the Scripture below and use the articles and videos to understand the meaning behind this teachable event in the Bible. 

The descendants of Noah were living in the area of Mesopotami in Babylon. They settled in a land named Shinar. The population was growing and they all spoke one language. The people decided to build a tall, proud symbol of how great they had made their nation. The Babylonians wanted a tower that would "reach to the heavens" so that they could be like God and that they would not need Him. They began to construct a great ziggurat.

God did not like the pride and arrogance in the hearts of the people. God caused the people to suddenly speak different languages so they could not communicate and work together to build the tower. This caused the people to scatter across the land. The tower was named The Tower of Babel because the word Babel means confusion. This story is a powerful reminder of how important it is to obey God's Word and to not think that we can build a successful but godless life on our own! 

Genesis 11:1-91 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” 8So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

 Commentaries for Genesis 11:1-9

Genesis 111 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” 8So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth. 10 This is the account of Shem’s family line. Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of

Arphaxad. 11 And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters. 12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. 15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters. 16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters. 18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. 19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters. 22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. 23 And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters. 24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. 25 And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters. 26 After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. 27 This is the account of Terah’s family line. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 28 While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. 29 Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milkah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milkah and Iskah.30 Now Sarai was childless because she was not able to conceive. 31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Harran, they settled there. 32 Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Harran.

Retrieved on 25/04/2017 from

http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-stories/the-tower-of-babel.html

Etemenanki (the "Tower of Babel")Q285788Etemenanki: name of the large temple tower in Babylon, also known as the Tower of Babel. Its Sumerian name E-temen-an-ki means "House of the foundation of heaven on earth".

Reconstruction of the Etemenanki

The story of the Tower of Babel, found in the Biblical book of Genesis, is one of the most famous and beloved legends of mankind.The whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Šin'âr, and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, "Come, let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men built. And the Lord said, "Behold, the people are one and they have all one language, and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be withheld from them which they have imagined to do. Come, let Us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off building the city.

Therefore is the name of it called Bâbel (that is "Confusion") because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth; and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.note

Let's start our discussion of the Etemenanki with some remarks about this Biblical story. The Hebrew word Bâbel, Confusion, is often used for Babylon (Akkadian Bab-ili), but this is not sufficient to prove the identification of the tower with a monument in this big city. (Imagine a legend about the unity of mankind, which is situated by scholars in Union, Connecticut.) Fortunately, the story contains a second geographical clue: the tower was erected on "a plain in the land of Šin'âr". This country is known from other books of the Bible (Isaiah 11.11 and Zechariah 5.11) and is translated as "Babylonia" in the Septuagint. So there is nothing that keeps us from identifying the Biblical building with a monument in ancient Babylon. This must be the building known as E-temen-an-ki, the 'House of the foundation of heaven on earth', a giant mountain of bricks and tiles with, on top, a temple for the god Marduk. He had a second temple in the neighborhood, the Esagila.

Map of Babylon

The ancient Babylonians called these brick mountains a ziqqurratu or ziggurat, which can be translated as "rising building" (Akkadian zaqâru, "to rise high"). This type of temple tower is the oriental equivalent of the Egyptian pyramid and just as old, although there are two differences: the ziggurat was not a tomb, and ziggurats were built well into the Seleucid age, whereas the building of pyramids came to an end after c.1640 BCE. Ziggurats played a role in the cults of many cities in ancient Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have discovered nineteen of these buildings in sixteen cities; the existence of another ten is known from literary sources.The Etemenanki was among the largest of these, and the most important. (The largest was the shrine of Anu at Uruk, built in the third or second century BCE.) According to the Babylonian creation epic Enûma êliš the god Marduk defended the other gods against the diabolical monster Tiamat. After he had killed it, he brought order to the cosmos, built the Esagila, which was the center of the new world, and created mankind. The Etemenanki was next to the Esagila, and this means that the temple tower was erected at the center of the world, as the axis of the universe. Here, a straight line connected earth and heaven. This

aspect of Babylonian cosmology is echoed in the Biblical story, where the builders say "let us build a tower whose top may reach unto heaven".

The ruin of the Etemenanki: foundations in a wetland

The best description of the monumental tower can be found in a cuneiform tablet from Uruk, written in 229 BCE. It is a copy of an older text and is now in the Louvre in Paris. It states that the tower was made up of seven terraces and it gives the height of the seven stocks - 91 meters all in all. The ground floor measured 91 x 91 meters, and this is confirmed by archaeological excavations conducted by Robert Koldewey after 1913 (91,48 x 91,66 m). Large stairs were discovered at the south side of the building, where a triple gate connected the Etemenanki with the Esagila. A larger gate in the east connected the Etemenanki with the sacred procession road. Seen from the triple gate, the Etemenanki must have resembled a true "stairway to heaven", because the gates on the higher terraces seemed to be standing on top of each other.Using the archaeological data and the tablet at the Louvre, several reconstructions have been proposed. However, there is one caveat: it is possible that the Louvre tablet describes not the real temple tower, but an idealized sanctuary - a blueprint for a Etemenanki that still has to be build, comparable to the description of the temple of Jerusalem in the Biblical book of Ezekhiel.

Hypothetical map of the temple on top of the Etemenanki

On the highest terrace was a temple, dedicated to the Babylonian supreme god Marduk. The Louvre tablet again offers information. There were several cult rooms: Marduk shared his room with his wife Sarpanitum, a second room offered accommodation to the scribe-god Nabû and his wife Tashmetu, and there were rooms for the water god Ea, the god of light Nusku, the god of heaven Anu, and finally Enlil, Marduk's predecessor as chief of the Mesopotamian pantheon. A seventh room was called "house of the bed" and contained a bed

and a throne. A second bed was on the inner court of the temple on the highest platform of the Etemenanki. Finally, there must have been stairs to the roof. It is possible that the famous Babylonian astronomers, the Chaldaeans, did their observations at the topmost level of the building.This is the point where another text becomes useful: the Histories by the Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus (fifth century BCE). Although he probably never visited Babylon, his description of the Etemenanki tells us something about the temple ritual. (Herodotus correctly calls the supreme god of Babylon Bêl ("lord"), because his real name was not pronounced.)The temple of Bêl, the Babylonian Zeus [...] was still in existence in my time. It has a solid central tower, one stadium square, with a second erected on top of it and then a third, and so on up to eight. All eight towers can be climbed by a spiral way running round the outside, and about half way up there are seats for those who make the ascent to rest on. On the summit of the topmost tower stands a great temple with a fine large couch in it, richly covered, and a golden table beside it. The shrine contains no image, and no one spends the night there except (if we may believe that Chaldaeans who are the priests of Bêl) one Babylonian woman, all alone, whoever it may be that the god has chosen. The Chaldaeans also say -though I do not believe them- that the god enters the temple in person and takes his rest upon the bed.note

Marduk and his snake dragon

This account contains minor errors (the dimensions of the tower, the number of levels, the shape of the stairs) and belongs to a description of Babylon that contains grave errors. It needs to be stressed, because there are still scholars maintaining that Herodotus visited Babylon, that the Greek researcher does not claim that he has seen the Etemenanki: he merely writes that it "was still in existence" in his time. Yet, this is the only text we have that describes the ritual performed in the temple: a holy marriage, in which the god sleeps with a woman. Unfortunately, there is not a single scrap of Babylonian evidence that can be used to corroborate Herodotus' story.

Probably, we must simply ignore it. He goes on to make a comparison with a similar Egyptian ritual, and this betrays him: on several occasions, Herodotus offers comparisons between Babylonia and Egypt, and in those cases, he is always wrong and may be repeating a story told by Egyptian priests. The story about the woman and the god belongs to this category.

The Etemenanki is mentioned for the first time in the Annals of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, who claims that he destroyed the temple tower of his Babylonian enemies in 689 BCE. Although he certainly sacked Babylon, it is impossible that his looting soldiers

destroyed the Etemenanki. The wholesale destruction of large-scale structures is the prerogative of the modern age; ancient armies were incapable of destroying a large building.The fact that Sennacherib could send an army against the Etemenanki, proves that it was older, and it would be remarkable if it was not so by at least 1000 years. During the reign of king Hammurabi (1792-1750), Babylonia was the leading power of Mesopotamia. In his age, there were ziggurats in lesser towns like Qatara, Aššur, Sippar, Kish, Borsippa, Nippur, Uruk, Larsa, Ur, and Eridu. It would be very strange if the capital of the world would be the only city without a ziggurat. It may be noted that the creation epic Enûma êliš with its reference to the building of the Esagila (and the implication of the existence of the Etemenanki), had already been written.After Sennacherib, Esarhaddon was king of Assyria (680-669). He allowed the Babylonians to rebuilt their city. Another construction phase may have been after the war between the Assyrian king Aššurbanipal and his brother Šamaš-šum-ukin, the viceroy of Babylon (667-648). When Babylonia became independent under Nabopolassar (625-605), there was renewed building activity, and finally, king Nebuchadnezzar (605-562) is recorded as one of the builders. He finished the temple at the top, which was covered with a roof made of cedars from the Lebanon. The two last king have boasted that the tower "reached unto heaven" (cf. the Weidner Chronicle).

The building history suggests that the Babylonians were occupied with the construction of the tower for over a century. It is possible that the ambitious design of a tower of 92 x 92 x 92 meters was too grandiose, so that they needed as much time for their project as the medieval builders of the European cathedrals. For a long time, the tower must have looked unfinished, and this may explain how the Biblical story came into being. It is certainly possible that the sanctuary was never finished at all.

The Persian king Xerxes (r.486-465) has often been blamed for the destruction of the Etemenanki. During his reign, there were indeed two revolts (led by Bêl-šimânni and Šamaš-eriba, both in 484), and Herodotus states that Xerxes took away a large statue of a man from the Esagila. Some six centuries later, the historian Arrian of Nicomedia, the author of an important book on Alexander the Great, expanded this last piece of information to a remark about the destruction of the Etemenanki. After all, Arrian had to explain why Alexander started to rebuild the monument that was by then known as the "tomb of Belus". But his story can not be true. The continuous cult at the Esagila and Etemenanki is mentioned in cuneiform sources form the fifth and fourth centuries, and is confirmed by Herodotus (whatever his merits), who states that "the temple of Bêl [...] was still in existence in my time".

Alexander the Great. Portrait from Delos

The truth must be that by the time of Alexander, the ziggurat had fallen into disrepair. Buildings made of brick easily fall apart and need permanent care in the hot climate of the Near East. There is one badly damaged source, quoted here, that suggests that the Persian king Artaxerxes IV Arses (338-336) had already decided to restore the Esagila and the Etemenanki. Behaving like a Babylonian king was supposed to do, Alexander ordered 10,000 soldiers to remove the remains of the old building. Over a period of two months (April and May 323), tiles and bricks were brought to the eastern part of the city. This time, the tower was not destroyed by an army looking for loot: it was a systematic attempt to clear the building ground. Although the site was now cleared, the tower was never rebuilt. On 11 June, Alexander died. Civil war broke out between his generals, the Diadochi. During the next years, Babylon saw several armies, and it lasted until 309 until peace conditions were restored by Seleucus Nicator. However, he founded another capital for the new Seleucid empire, Seleucia. Babylon was never restored to its old status, and that meant the end of the attempts to rebuilt the Etemenanki - although one scribe in Uruk was still hoping for its reconstruction and

wrote the Louvre tablet. The Esagila remained intact well into the first century BCE and probably even later.

Antiochus I Soter

Interesting detail: the Ruin of Esagila Chronicle mentions that the Seleucid crown prince Antiochus sacrificed on the remains of the Etemenanki, stumbled and fell, and angrily ordered his elephant drivers to destroy the last remains.

Arabian authors were responsible for keeping the memory of the Etemenanki alive, sometimes comparing the greatness of the ancient city with the humble town Bâbil of their own age. However, they thought that the ancient royal palace, which was the largest ruin on the site, was the tower of Babel. The inhabitants of Bâbil told the same to the first Western visitors, in the sixteenth century.

In the nineteenth century, the real Etemenanki was rediscovered by the native Arabian population. People of the nearby village wanted to create a palm garden and discovered ancient bricks when they lowered the groundwater level. German engineers understood the significance and in 1913, Robert Koldewey started the excavation of the Etemenanki. Today,

only four channels can be seen; the rest of the site is overgrown with weed. A satellite photo can be found here.Literature

A.R. George, "E-sangil and E-temen-anki, the Archetypal Cult-centre?" in: J. Renger, Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne (1999 Saarbrücken)

A.R. George, "The Tower of Babel: Archaeology, History and Cuneiform Texts" Archiv für Orientforschung 51 (2005/2006) 75-95

Caroline Janssen, Bâbil, the City of Witchcraft and Wine. The Name and Fame of Babylon in Medieval Arabic Geographical Texts (1995 Ghent)

Hansjörg Schmid, Der Tempelturm Etemenanki in Babylon (1995 Mainz) Wilfried Seipel, Der Turmbau zu Babel. Band I: Der babylonische Turm in der

historischen Überlieferung, der Archäologie und der Kunst (2003 Graz) Bert van der Spek, "'Is dit niet het grote Babylon, dat ik gebouwd heb?"

in: Phoenix 36 (1990) 51-63.

Retrieved on 25/04/2017 from

http://www.livius.org/articles/place/etemenanki/

-Babel Tower Paperback by A S Byatt  https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=du_Nc4Jc6iMC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=babel+tower&source=bl&ots=cjVZ-dt2xI&sig=sc5FzqReRQjKdRbfxu0bsSpoVM4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9v4H3q7_TAhXsAsAKHexEAMc4HhDoAQhBMAE#v=onepage&q=babel%20tower&f=false

(en el capítulo 6 hay un punto de vista interesante de Gerard Wijnnobel sobre el tema de la torre de babel que podrías utilizar)

Review special : Speaking in many tonguesBabel Tower byA. S. Byatt, Chatto & Windus, £16.99,ISBN 0 7011 3718 5“Any mistakes in this book are all my own” would be a common enoughacknowledgment in academic works, but is curious in a novel. Yet BabelTower by A. S. Byatt is no ordinary novel. It is a richly textured,fascinatingly elaborate reflection of the social, scientific and socialscientific movements and debates of the early 1960s, and the intellectualhistory that preceded them. The novel is concerned with different mistakes,those that everyone will make because the basis of human action is not simplyunderstood, nor simply predicted. Any action we take is likely to produceunintended consequences often frustrating our original intentions.Among the many issues covered are: relationships between men and women, theirviolence and sexuality; the struggle between reason and passion, and betweenthose who take either as the basis for believing that humans are fundamentallygood or evil; the claim that order, rules and communities are vital for humanexistence, and the counterclaim that they suppress individual freedom andcreativity; and centrally, the nature of language and the role it plays increating, illuminating and constraining our lives and experiences.The characters are mostly academics, experts and professionals who live outvarious positions in these debates, and are doomed to make mistakes which aretaken to extremes in the fantasy novel within the novel. This begins as a sexy

version of a Barbara Cartland story as told by J. R. R. Tolkien, but ends as anightmare by the Marquis de Sade.Among the characters are members of the Steerforth Committee, set up toexamine the form of English that should be taught in our schools. This raisesintense passions, inviting simple-minded solutions. Some take the view that oneform of English is better than others, and you cannot think clearly withoutit—the country is finished if we do not do something about it. Others takethe view that language is an innate and inevitable capacity. Its creative useshould be encouraged if intellectual spiritual and personal well-being is tofollow. All attempts to reveal structures, or propose rules, suppress anddestroy natural capacity.Byatt’s characters represent all these views, and the subtle positions inbetween. There is Elvet Gander, Antipsychiatrist, who writes a book entitledLanguage Our Straitjacket, and sees the problems of civilisation as afunction of language. Guy Croom, Headmaster, feels that rules and orderfacilitate a child’s learning. Gerard Wijnnobel, Grammarian, despairs at theinability of many to understand the distinction between rules which describe thestructure of a language and rules we use to control ourselves and others. JohnOttokar, the initially silent Quaker, works on precise computer languages, butfinds his voice when describing Kafka’s The Castle. He describes theofficials in that book as “having a language, but they can’t think with it . . .they talk about love and influence, but they mess these words up, they don’tmean anything . . . the words of this book are all dilapidated like the Castleitself”. The many others collectively make the point that there are no simplechoices with predictable outcomes in language or life. This is forced onFrederica, the central character as she encounters the slippery, partial natureof language in describing her husband’s violent behaviour. Everything she writesis both the truth and a lie. In saying one thing, the unsaid is changed orhidden.Ultimately, the uncertainty of the complex relationship between thecreativity facilitated by the rules of grammar and conventions on how we use ourlanguage, and the creativity of the speaker or writer is made clear. Byfollowing, exploiting and even deviating from the rules we can break new ground.To do this we must know the rules, but not be beholden to, nor simply driven bythem. There are no easy answers in the debates over language, and its role inour lives, only vigilance against foolish simplicity, and against what Wijnnobeldescribes as “a reluctance of the brain to contemplate its own operations”.Byatt is not reluctant.It is impossible to do justice to this book in a short review. It offersengagement, entertainment and education. All one can say is that it is, as aMichelin guide might say, “Worth a detour”.

Retrieved on 25/04/2017 from

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020305-900-review-special-speaking-in-many-tongues/

The Babel Tower Governing Europe 

Maria Angel, Spain

This article pertains to the European Parliament’s recent approval of a law obliging Italy to remove the Crucifix from the walls of its public schools. The

measure is causing a great deal of justified indignation.Europe is being governed by institutions that are openly against God. They exalt anti-Catholic symbols while forbidding the Cross as much as possible. The Cross is not only a religious symbol, but also a cultural one, since it was under its shadow that Christian Civilization was founded. The Cross of Christ is what identifies Europeans as brothers, and must be respected by anyone who wants to live among us.

Above is the famous picture called The Babel Tower by Pieter Bruegel (1525-1569). He was born in Breda, Holland and was one of the leading Flemish painters of the 16th century. At right, he depicts himself in a portrait made in 1565. Of the 45 pictures we have of his work, the Tower of Babel is one of the best known.

Now then, the structure we see above  is the European Parliament building in Strasburg, France. To its right is one of the first postcards of the institution [taken from its official website; today no longer available there]. 

Comparing the photos, one sees that the European Parliament building seems to have closely followed the design of The Babel Tower by Bruegel. Perhaps for this reason, the Strasburg edifice is also known as the “Unfinished Tower,” signifying that the European unification is still in the making. 

The symbolism is further stressed by the motto we find on the postcard: “Many tongues, one voice.” In the biblical account, God confused the languages and scattered the peoples over the earth to punish them for their pride. When we consider the building and the motto of the European Parliament, it seems that we are witnessing an attempt to restore that old Babel Tower. Like its predecessor, the modern Babel Tower – by the affirmation of its own identity independent from God – symbolizes a rebellion and challenge to God and His norms. 

Supposedly our laws are democratically and freely made by legal institutions. In reality, however, it seems that they are inspired and controlled by behind-the-scenes organizations with an international influence and by secret societies that are occult and follow Lucifer’s instructions.

A great similarity between The Babel Tower by Bruegel and the European Parliament building... 

The photomontage below shows that they match quite well

Retrieved on 25/04/2017 from

http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/G_009_OldNewBabel.html

The Tower of Babel

The story of the tower of Babel takes place about 130 years after the flood. It is a brief story but one which raises some interesting questions. Here's the entire story, followed by my analysis. 

GENESIS 11:1-9 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another,  Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Babel - "Gate of God"

Before we get into this story, it's worth mentioning something about the origin of the word Babel. Merriam Webster's dictionary gives the following etymology of the word Babel:Middle English, from Hebrew BAbhel, from Akkadian bAb-ilu gate of godRead the full definition...

Akkadian: bab-ilu, from bab "gate" + ilu "god" Hebrew: bab-el, from bab "gate" + el "god"

Is it called gate of God because they had hoped to create a bridge between the gods of heaven and earth? What gave them this idea? We're left to guess. When we look up Babel in Strong's Concordance, it says "confusion (by mixing)", so there's no help there. It seems to me that we are missing quite a bit of back-story on this event, but I'll leave it at that, because I'd like to get on with what happened and speculate on why it was done.

Why did he do it?

Why did the LORD scatter the people? Many seem to think it was some sort of punishment, but I've come to believe that it was primarily to produce diversity in the human race. He used the people as seeds, scattering them across the whole earth. Another reason might be found in the adage: don't keep all your eggs in one basket. But why did he confound their language? I believe this was to prevent the tribes of the earth from mixing back together before their time. With their original language destroyed, each tribe must have developed their own distinct language.

Had the LORD not intervened at Babel, the human race may not have survived, and surely would not have attained the rich diversity we have today. So, far from being some kind of punishment for building the tower, it seems to me this was a strategic move made by someone who knew what he was doing.

Babel in reverse

One has to marvel at what kind of technology could garble the speech recognition of humans. But where this story gets even more interesting is that thousands of years later, in the New Testament,

we have an event which is virtually the antithesis of Babel: after having received the Holy Spirit, the apostles speak, and men of diverse languages all hear the words in their own languages:

ACTS 2:1-11 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Interestingly, this narrative begins by declaring that they were all in one place and of one accord, just like the story of Babel starts out. Also, as in the story of Babel, the word confounded is used here, but this time they were confounded for the opposite reason: men of diverse languages were all hearing the words in their own language. The vision which the apostles saw of the cloven (split in two) tounges was clearly meant to denote that they were being given the ability to speak in multiple tounges, possibly even at once, somehow.

The reintegration of the tribes

If, back in days of Babel, the plan was to separate the people, today we're seeing the opposite: a great reintegration. We are today approaching a "new world order" which, when fully realized, will bring us back under one government and one language. The book of Revelation foretells of this coming state of affairs, and describes how the whole world will fall under the spell of the "beast" governing them, and then the end will come. It would appear that everything is going according to plan. The seeds were scattered, the tribes have flourished and matured, and now they're coming back together, for one last grand play on the stage we call earth, one last lesson, if you will, before finally moving on, together as one

richly diverse family of man, to our next phase of existence: life in the heavens; and we won't need to build a tower to get there.

Retrieved on 25/04/2017 from

http://www.emergingtruths.com/tower_of_babel/tower_of_babel.html

Did Our Languages Come From the “Tower of Babel”? “Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. That is why its name was called Babel, because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth.”—Genesis 11:8,   9 .

DID that event recorded in the Bible really happen? Did people start speaking different languages all at once, as described? Some scoff at the Bible’s account of how human languages began and spread. One author claims: “The Tower of Babel myth is definitely one of the most absurd stories ever told.” Even a Jewish rabbi called it “a naive attempt to explain the origin of nations.”

Why do people reject the Babel account? Simply put, it contradicts certain theories regarding the origin of language. For example, some scholars suggest that language groups did not appear suddenly but evolved gradually from one “mother tongue.” Others believe that several original languages developed independently, advancing from simple grunts to complex speech. These and other conflicting theories have caused many to agree with Professor W. T. Fitch, who wrote in his book The Evolution of Language: “We do not yet have fully convincing answers.”

What have archaeologists and researchers uncovered regarding the origin and development of human languages? Do their discoveries confirm any of the proposed theories? Or do the findings support the Babel account? First let us take a closer look at that Bible account.

WHERE AND WHEN DID IT HAPPEN?The Bible states that the confusion of language and dispersion of the people took place “in the land of Shinar,” later called Babylonia. (Genesis 11:2) When did that happen? “The earth [“earth’s population,” footnote] was divided,” says the Bible, in the days of Peleg, who was born about 250 years before Abraham. So the events  of Babel evidently took place some 4,200 years ago.—Genesis 10:25;   11:18-26 .Some scholars theorize that modern languages stem from one original language—the so-called mother tongue that they thought humans spoke nearly 100,000 years ago.  * Others claim that today’s languages are related to several root languages spoken at least 6,000 years ago. But how do linguists reconstruct the development of extinct languages? “That is tricky,” says the Economist magazine. “Unlike biologists, linguists do not have fossils to guide them

through the past.” The magazine adds that one evolutionary linguist arrives at his conclusions by “mathematically informed guesswork.”Nevertheless, “linguistic fossils” do exist. What are these fossils, and what do they reveal regarding the origin of human languages? The New Encyclopædia 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—the site of ancient Shinar. * Hence, the available physical evidence is in agreement with the facts stated in the Bible.

DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, DIFFERENT THINKINGThe Bible account says that at Babel, God acted to “confuse their language that they may not listen to [“understand,” footnote] one another’s language.” (Genesis 11:7) As a result, the workers “left off building the city” of Babel and were scattered “over all the surface of the earth.” (Genesis 11:8,   9 ) Thus, the Bible does not say that all modern languages can be traced to a single “mother tongue.” Rather, it describes the sudden appearance of several apparently fully developed new languages, each capable of expressing the range of human feeling and thought and each different and distinct from the others.

A clay tablet with cuneiform writing, from Mesopotamia, third millennium B.C.E.

What about the language groups of the world today? Are they fundamentally similar or different? Cognitive scientist Lera Boroditsky wrote: “As linguists probed deeper into the world’s languages (7,000 or so, only a fraction of them analyzed), innumerable unpredictable differences emerged.” Yes, although tongues and dialects of one language family, such as Cantonese and Hakka in southern China, may be similar to one another, they are fundamentally different from those of another  language family, say West Catalan or Valencian in Spain.

Languages shape the way people think about and describe the world around them—color, quantity, location, direction. For example, in one language a person says, “There is a bug on your right hand.” But in another language, one would say, “There is a bug on your southwest hand.” Such differences would be confusing, to say the  least. No wonder the builders at Babel found it impossible to continue their project.

GRUNTS OR COMPLEX SPEECH?What was mankind’s original language like? The Bible reports that the first man, Adam, was able to coin new words when he named all the animals and flying creatures. (Genesis 2:20) Adam also composed poetry to express his feelings for his wife, and she clearly described what God had commanded and the consequences of disobeying Him. (Genesis 2:23;   3:1-3 ) The first language, then, enabled humans to communicate fully and to express themselves creatively.The confusion of languages at Babel hindered mankind’s ability to combine their intellectual and physical powers. Yet, their new languages, like the first language, were complex. Within a few centuries, men built bustling cities, assembled powerful armies, and engaged in international trade. (Genesis 13:12;   14:1-11;   37:25 ) Could they have made such progress without the use of an extensive vocabulary and grammar? According to the Bible, the original human tongue and the tongues introduced at Babel were, not primitive grunts and growls, but complex languages.Modern research supports this conclusion. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language states: “Every culture which has been investigated, no matter how ‘primitive’ it may be in cultural terms, turns out to have a fully developed language, with a complexity comparable to those of the so-called ‘civilized’ nations.” Similarly, in his book The Language Instinct, Harvard College Professor Steven Pinker states: “There is no such thing as a Stone Age language.”

THE FUTURE OF LANGUAGE

After reviewing the age and location of linguistic “fossils,” the fundamental differences between language groups, and the complexity of ancient languages, what reasonable conclusion could we draw? Many conclude that the Bible’s account of what took place at Babel is a fully credible explanation.

The Bible tells us that Jehovah God confused the people’s language at Babel because they rebelled against him. (Genesis 11:4-7) However, he promised that he would “give to peoples the change to a pure language, in order for them all to call upon the name of Jehovah, in order to serve him shoulder to shoulder.” (Zephaniah 3:9) This “pure language,” the truth from God’s Word, draws together a people from around the world today. It seems logical that in the future God would unite mankind further by giving them one common language, undoing the confusion at Babel.LEGENDS THAT ECHO THE BIBLE’S ACCOUNT

“Once upon a time all the people lived in one large village and spoke one tongue,” according to a story told by a hill tribe in Myanmar. While building a great tower, the builders “gradually acquired different manners, customs, and ways of speech, [eventually] being scattered all over the land.” Similar legends are found among indigenous peoples of Africa, East Asia, Mexico, and elsewhere.

If the Babel account had been an invention by Moses, the Hebrew writer of Genesis, would it have cropped up in the legends of such far-flung national and language groups? That is very unlikely. Thus, the existence of such diverse legends and tales testifies to the credibility of the Babel account in the Bible.

Retrieved on 25/04/2017 from

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20130901/did-languages-come-from-the-tower-of-babel/

Michael Laitman, PhD Understanding Babel’s TowerIn ancient times, humans were not so egoistic as to be opposite to nature. They felt nature and their fellow persons reciprocally. This was their language of communication, which, for the most part, was a silent language, similar to telepathy, on a certain spiritual level.Increased egoism, however, detached humans from nature. Instead of correcting the oppositeness, humans thought they would be able to attain the Creator egoistically, not through correction.As a result, they stopped perceiving nature and their fellow humans, stopped loving, and started hating one another. This separated us from each other and instead of being one nation, we split into many.The first level of egoistic development is marked by what we allegorically call “building of the Tower of Babel.” In the story of Babel, you may recall, people, out of increased egoism, aspired to reach the Creator, allegorically described as wanting to build a tower whose head reaches the sky.Humanity failed to direct its increased egoism toward the attainment of the governing forces because this method of attainment demanded of us to curb egoism, and we failed to do that.People’s increased egoism made them stop feeling each other and the spiritual connection; the telepathy was broken. Because they knew of the Creator from their previous level of egoism, they now wanted to exploit Him as well. That’s what was meant by building a tower that reaches the sky. As a result of their egoism, they stopped understanding each other, and their oppositeness from nature alienated them from it and from the Creator, and they dispersed.We may have compensated for it with technological development. But in doing so, we have only increased our detachment from one another and our alienation from nature (the Creator). So now humanity is becoming disillusioned with fulfilling the egoism solely by social or technological development.We are realizing that egoistic desires cannot be filled in their natural form. The very fulfillment of a desire annuls it. As a result, the desire is no longer felt, just as food reduces the sensation of hunger and, along with it, the pleasure from eating is gradually extinguished.Particularly today, as we acknowledge the crisis and the dead-end point of our development, it can be said that the confrontation of the egoism with the Creator is the actual destruction of the Tower of Babel.Formerly, the Tower of Babel was ruined by the Upper Force. Today it is being ruined in our own consciousness. We are at a similar separation point that occurred in the time of

Babel, except now we are aware of our situation. According to the wisdom of Kabbalah, the global crisis is the beginning of the reconnection of all humanity into a new and united civilization.It is time for the members of the single nation of humankind to reunite into a united people. Spiritual fulfillment provides a path and a perhaps unexpected truth.

Retrieved on 25/04/2017 from

http://www.kabbalah.info/eng/content/view/frame/60350?/eng/content/view/full/60350&main

The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguisticsby K.J. Duursma

Secular linguists are puzzled by the existence of twenty or so language families in the world today. The languages within each family (and the people that speak them) have been shown to be genetically related, but few genetic links have been observed between families. This is a problem for secular linguists. If, as they believe, man evolved from an ape-like ancestor, man would at some point have gained the ability to speak. This process of change would actually be superbly dangerous, as they admit. But still, if speech did evolve somewhere, somehow, we would expect to find that all languages are genetically related. They clearly are not. Some have therefore suggested that man evolved speech simultaneously in more than one place. This suggestion is beyond belief, considering the dangers involved in the supposed evolution of speech. So how did the language families come into existence?

The conventional view (A) and Biblical view (B) of language development. In the conventional view, language developed from a single ‘protolanguage’ and diverged into different languages as time progressed. In the Biblical model, man was created with language. This was supernaturally changed at Babel where God ‘confused’ the languages. Scripture does not directly state how many languages arose at Babel

Only Genesis provides a credible explanation. It records how God gave the people new languages to speak. Groups speaking the same language moved away together. The languages they spoke then, have slowly evolved into the six thousand-or-so languages we find today, but the distinctions between the groups of languages are still observable, as we shall see.

Determining whether or not languages share a common ancestor is not easy. A Dutch student learning Hindi might not realize that Hindi is related to Dutch. Yet, both languages have been shown to be part of the Indo-European language family. Steel has previously covered in detail the development of the Indo-European languages, clearly refuting claims that this paralleled biological evolution.1 Apparently, all languages in this family have developed from a ‘parent language’, which no longer exists.This idea was unknown in the late 18th century, until Sir William Jones suggested that Greek, Latin and Sanskrit had independently ‘sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists’.2 He also suggested that other groups of languages, such as the Celtic and Germanic languages, though quite different, might also be related in the

same way. Few question his findings today. Comparative and Historical Linguistics have more or less carried on what Jones began. Two centuries have revealed much, and the findings are encouraging for Creationists, who believe the account of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 to be a true, historical account of events.

In this essay we shall be looking at some of the evidence for Babel, and examine two rival theories as well. Before we do that, let us have a brief look at the methods involved.

Language classification

The Indo-European language family is not the only language family in the world. There are others, which are more difficult to examine. We have many writings of some European languages, covering more than 2,500 years of development. For many other languages, however, there are no writings at all. That makes the study of their development more complicated.

The traditional way of comparing languages was to compare the history and grammar structures of two languages, while keeping in mind physical and cultural similarities between the tribes. This method was useful in Europe, but it was time-consuming and proved difficult in Africa. Several decades of hard work at the beginning of this century had uncovered only the tip of the iceberg, as far as all languages in Africa were concerned.

A dramatic breakthrough came in the person of Joseph Greenberg in the middle of last century. Greenberg came up with a new method. He collected lists of words from many African languages, and compared them with each other. He noticed clear patterns. Several languages had similar sounding words for similar things, and Greenberg concluded that these languages must therefore be related. His method has become the norm in comparative linguistics.

Greenberg’s method is one of two major ways of classifying languages. Typological classification looks at grammatical structures and classifies languages accordingly. However, there may not be a genetic relationship between languages with a similar typological makeup. Since we are interested in genetic relationship we will now have a brief look at the second method, Genetic Qualification, and consider its findings in relation to our essay question.

Genetic qualification

Core vocabulary

Genetic qualification prefers to use only ‘core vocabulary’, i.e. words which are said to change little over time. The method aims to see how many of these words are similar in different languages, while keeping in mind how words usually change in pronunciation.

The core vocabulary includes, amongst others, words for body parts, numbers, and personal pronouns. When clear patterns of similarities between languages are observed, then those languages are said to be related.

Cognate wordsThe word ‘patterns’ in the previous paragraph was carefully chosen, because the core vocabulary between related languages is never identical, but similar, or ‘cognate’. Words are cognate when they are shown to be consistent to the pattern of phonetical change that has taken place in the past. For example, the word tahi in Tongan might not look like kai in Hawaiian, even though they both mean ‘sea’. But, if you also compare Tongan tapu to Hawaiian kapu (both meaning ‘forbidden’) and Tongan tanata to Hawaiian kanaka (meaning ‘man’) you begin to see a pattern: Where Tongan has an initial ‘T’ Hawaiian has an initial ‘K’, and one begins to see that the words might be related. They are cognate.3

Common phonetic changes

Deciding which words are cognate and which words are not is never easy. Different scholars have made different judgements when comparing the same lists. There is no general agreement in all cases. There are, however, a few rules to go by, as certain phonetical changes are more likely to occur than others. Stronger sounds, for example, may become weaker.

Equally, words may lose initial or final letters, or merge two consonants into one. These changes are fairly common. The opposites of these examples may also happen, but are less common. Words easily lose sound; they rarely gain it.

Findings after many decades of observation

Comparative linguistics has come a long way since Greenberg began his radical technique. His method has been used extensively across the world, and has led to the systematical genetic categorisation of most languages in the world.4 There is no agreement in detail, but the following groupings, with several variations, are common.5

European and Asian families

The Indo-European family covers most of Europe plus a part of south west Asia. In northern Europe we find the Uralic Family, which includes Finnish and Hungarian. In north-east Asia we find the Chukchi-Kamchatkan family. Central Asia and the rest of northern Asia host the Altaic family, which also contains Turkish. Southern Asia hosts the Sino-Tibetan, Dravidian, Daic and Austroasiatic families. Finally, the Caucasus may host two further families.

Pacific families

The Pacific is host to three or four families. The languages of the Australian Aborigines are usually grouped as one family, as are the languages spoken on mainland Papua. There is no agreement on the treatment of Tasmanian, which is now extinct. The Austronesian family includes languages spoken on Madagascar, the Southern part of the Malaysian Peninsula, the Indonesian Islands, the Philippines, and the Maori languages.

African families

The Afro-Asiatic (Arabic) family is found in North Africa, the Nilo-Saharan languages are spoken in the centre of Africa; the Niger-Kongo family, which includes Swahili, is found in west and east Africa and the Khosian languages are spoken in the south-west of Africa.

American families

The Americas host three major families, with many sub-groupings. The Aleut-Eskimo is found in northern Canada, from the eastern part of Alaska to Greenland. The Na-Dene group is found in north-eastern Canada and Alaska, and also includes some languages spoken in the south west of the United States. Finally, the Amerind family covers the rest of the Americas.

Picture incompleteIn this classification we count some twenty major families. However, this classification is far from complete. Several languages seem unrelated to any other language, and are treated by some as separate families. Moreover, new discoveries are made regularly, which may show two families to be related. This, in turn, may cause two families to merge into one. Ruhlen, for example, found many similarities recently between the isolated language Ket (spoken in Siberia) and some of the Na-Dene languages, which

suggests they may be related.6These discoveries do not surprise all linguists. Some believe that all families ultimately go back to one single language, which came into existence when humans first developed speech. Others argue that human speech developed independently in different places, thus resulting in several language families, while Creationists argue that the Tower of Babel Account in Genesis 11 explains the existence of the variety of families observed today.7 Let us see what evidence there is for or against each side.

Evidence for one single proto language?

‘The ultimate question, is’, says Ruhlen, ‘whether all human languages are genetically related’,8 but the evidence for this is scarce. There are a few words which, he says, are similar in all languages. However, the words he gives in his example do not have the same meaning in every language. The meanings vary from ‘one’ to ‘finger’ and ‘hand’.9 There are similarities between them, but this is not convincing evidence of genetic relationship between language families.It must be pointed out, though, that we cannot go back too far in time. Core vocabulary is stable, but does change. In some languages this change has been measured for more than 2,000 years. The result shows that 19.5% of the core vocabulary changes every 1,000 years.10 If this is the same for all languages, it means that statistically all words in a language should be replaced within a period of about 10,000 years. That would make any research beyond that period of time impossible. This, in turn, makes it impossible to prove that all language families are ultimately related.

Evidence for the evolution of speech?

Trask shows that humans differ from their ‘closest relatives, the apes’ in that their vocal tracts are much longer and differently shaped, thus making speech possible. However, the shape is also dangerous, as it could lead to choking. ‘The idea is’, says Trask, ‘that speech and language proved to be so beneficial to the species that we became specialised for it even at the cost of losing a number of fellows to death by choking every year.’11 However, Trask remains unsure as to how and when this change occurred.O’Grady and Dobrovolsky, similarly, despite describing in some detail how the brain processes speech, admit ignorance as to how and when speech developed. ‘We know considerably less about the evolutionary specialisation for non vocal aspects of language … and the interpretation of meaning.’12 Again, there is no evidence to back their view that speech evolved.

It seems clear from their writings that they take the Evolution Theory for granted. Ruhlen admits that ‘scholars supporting monogenesis or the relatability of all languages run the risk of being branded Creationists and of therefore having their work disregarded by colleagues’.9

Evidence pointing to BabelIt seems that there is little evidence to support the view that all languages evolved from one or more proto-languages.

We have seen that the history of languages cannot be traced back for more than 10,000 years. We have also seen lack of knowledge regarding the evolution of human speech. It seems that there is little evidence to support the view that all languages evolved from one or more proto-languages. There is, however, another explanation for the existence of the language families in the world today. This explanation is found in Genesis.

We will now examine the evidence supporting the Babel account found in Genesis 11. We will focus in particular on three areas where the findings of historical and comparative linguistics back this account.

Language familiesWe are unsure how many languages spread out from Babel. The Bible teaches that everyone at Babel spoke the same language; it says ‘the whole world had one language and a common speech’. Clearly not enough time had passed for other fully fetched languages to develop since Noah and his family left the Ark, especially since all the people were in one place—though slightly different dialects might have developed in the period between Noah leaving the Ark and the tower of Babel. In any case, the conclusions reached in this essay that Genesis adequately explains the findings of historical and comparative linguistics would be the same. The exact location of Babel is unknown. It is possible that one of the Ziggurats unearthed in modern Iraq is the remains of the infamous tower. As the number of people alive at the time would not have been great, about a dozen or so languages would probably have been plenty.13 Keeping in mind how languages change, we would expect, as Wieland suggests, to find several distinct language families today.‘ … it should be possible to group [languages] together into “families” like the Indo-European family of languages. But there should be no links between one “family” and another. That is because, in this model, each distinct language family is the offshoot of an original Babel “stem language” which did not arise by chance from a previous ancestral language.’14

The Babel account suggests that several languages came into existence on that day. It is presented as a miraculous intervention by God. It is unlikely to have been acceleration of normal language changes (i.e. they did speak the same language, but dialects began to form) as people in the same area generally speak the same dialect.

We have already seen that at present about twenty language families are being distinguished, with yet some ‘isolated’ languages unaccounted for. There are indications that further research will reveal that some of these families may be related to each other, resulting in fewer families.7

Clearly distinguishable families however, continue to puzzle secular linguists, who generally believe languages evolved naturally, as these distinctions are not consistent with the expectations their hypotheses demand.

If the percentage of word loss described above is correct, we expect to see many similarities, still, between all languages in each family after only 5,000 years since Babel. However, the absence of any contact between languages in one family, over such a period, could result in greater word loss, so that comparing those languages today would indicate no relation. Also, some languages have a much quicker word loss, for cultural reasons. These languages, therefore, change much quicker.15

The findings of some twenty language families, then, with several ‘isolated’ languages unaccounted for, is consistent with our expectations, as outlined above. Clearly distinguishable families however, continue to puzzle secular linguists, who generally believe languages evolved naturally, as these distinctions are not consistent with the expectations their hypotheses demand.

Timing consistentEven though he seems convinced that all languages stem from a single Proto Language, Robins talks of a ‘unitary state’ of the Indo-European language family, which is ‘as far as one can at present go by comparative and historical inference’. He adds, ‘Whatever date may be ascribed (and 3,000 BC has been suggested) aeons of linguistic history lie behind it [emphasis mine].’16 However, it seems odd to believe in those ‘aeons of linguistic history’, without any evidence, unless one takes the evolution theory for granted, as he does. The evidence indicates otherwise. We do observe an original language, or at least, traces of it, from which the Indo-European languages have derived. The 3,000 years BC, which Robins mentions, is significant, as such a time span is consistent with the Biblical account.

Moreover, recent findings, as we have seen, suggest that Ket is related to the Na-Dene languages. This suggests that the tribes are related, but that they separated when the American tribes moved from Asia across the Bering Strait into America. Wieland points out that ‘to have such close correlation’s still existing makes little sense if the migrations were as much as 11,000 years ago, as is commonly believed. From the biblical record, they would have been less than some 4,000 years ago’.17 Again, the evidence backs the Genesis account.Language design and change‘All languages are something of a ruin’; a quote Crowley attributes to Dutch linguist van der Tuuk. ‘What he meant, was that as a result of changes having taken place, some “residual” forms are often left to suggest what the original state of affairs might have been.’18 Crowley carries on to share how languages can change from sophisticated to simpler versions, and from simpler to more complex systems. He distinguishes between, ‘isolating’, ‘agglutinating’ and ‘inflecting’ languages and shows how languages change in circular patterns.Isolating languages, he says, are those where every word has only one meaning, i.e. no endings. They tend to become agglutinating when free form grammatical markers, i.e. prepositions, are phonologically reduced to endings or suffixes. Agglutinating languages thus look ‘as if the bits of the language were simply “glued” together to make up larger words’.19 Subsequent morphological reduction make the original grammatical markers unrecognizable, but the endings remain functional. The language has become an inflecting language, in which ‘there are many morphemes included within a single word, but the boundaries between one morpheme and another are not clear.’19 Finally, morphological reduction makes the language lose its ‘cases’ and the language returns to being an isolating language.

In the case of Greek, this change can be seen very clearly in history. Classical Greek was a highly inflected language; it used five cases, as well as Active, Middle and Passive voice. Koine Greek was almost reduced to four cases, and the Middle voice was used rather inconsistently. Modern Greek distinguishes only three cases, but many endings have disappeared. It is a good example of van der Tuuk’s Ruin, as it is slowly becoming an isolated language.

Crowley’s model shows that languages can change from inflecting languages, with ‘endings’, to isolating languages. These may appear to be easier in structure, but are in

fact equally complex, as the lack of subtle nuances, which the endings and prefixes often provide, leads to ambiguity.

Crowley does show that isolating languages can change further and pick up complicated case systems after they have lost them. However, this model cannot be used to explain the origin of highly sophisticated language systems like Sanskrit and Greek. History shows that when a language changes, it tends to become more user-friendly. It likes to be flexible. When it has rid itself of cases, it is free to make them up again. However, as these changes are spontaneous, unplanned, and often unnoticed, it seems impossible that a language as sophisticated and regular as the Indo-European ‘parent’ was made up from a simpler form. Language change, as Crowley’s model shows, would be unlikely to produce consistent endings for the whole of the Inflecting Language.20

Steel1 has shown how modern Indo-European languages have reduced the number of noun inflections for different case, gender and number; and different verbs inflection for tense, voice, number and person. He also showed how English has also lost 65–85% of the Old English vocabulary, and many Classical Latin words have also been lost from its descendants, the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, etc.).Steel1 also pointed out that most of the changes were not random, but the result of intelligence. For example: forming compound words by joining simple words and derivations by adding prefixes and suffixes, modification of meaning, and borrowing words from other languages including calques (a borrowed compound word where each component is translated and then joined). There are also unconscious but definitely non-random changes such as systematic sound shifts, for example those described by Grimm’s Law (which relates many Germanic words to Latin and Greek words).The fact remains that the Greek/Sanskrit parent was utterly consistent, and highly sophisticated. If chance, then, did not make this Proto Language, where did it get its consistency from? The only credible explanation is found in Genesis 11. It suggests a Designer. In Babel one of the groups was given the sophisticated, and utterly consistent, Proto Indo-European language. Sadly, as people in a fallen world began to use this language, it slowly began to lose some its consistency, as grammatical mistakes became fashionable. Today, some 5,000 years later, some of the languages which descended from it, still have some traces left of the original case system. Some have completely rid themselves of it, and have become isolating languages, while others have made up entirely new case systems, but less consistent and less sophisticated than the original.

The observation of language structure and language change, therefore, is also more consistent with the account of the Tower of Babel than rival theories.

Conclusion

The facts we observe today are consistent with the Tower of Babel account in Genesis 11, but this does not prove the correctness of the account. Since the history of languages cannot be reconstructed beyond 10,000 years, evidence for (and against) alternative views is limited.

However, if we take an objective look at the facts at our disposal we cannot but draw the conclusion that the Bible account has far more going for it than the alternatives, for which there is little, if any, evidence. We therefore wholeheartedly believe that the findings of historical and comparative linguistics have served indeed to affirm the Tower of Babel account recorded in Genesis 11, beyond reasonable doubt. As always, Scripture cannot be ‘proven to be right’ by man’s findings. We believe Scripture is right, as it originates from an infallible God. However, where man’s findings are objectively interpreted, they usually affirm the accounts in Scripture, rather than deny them. This paper has applied the findings of historical and comparative linguistics to the Genesis account, and found that the facts to our disposal are affirmative indeed.

Believing this account, however, requires believing in God, and the denial of the evolution theory, which suggests that all animals, humans, and even human language, arose by chance. For many, this might prove too big a price to pay, despite the evidence.

References1. Steel, A.K., The development of languages is nothing like biological evolution, Journal of

Creation 14(2):31–40, 2000. Return to text.2. Cited in: Crowley, T., An Introduction to Historical Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p.

24, 1992. Return to text.3. Crowley, Ref. 2, pp. 91ff. Return to text.4. Certain languages, like Basque, seem to have little in common with other languages. They are

either not classified, or treated as a separate language family Return to text.5. Ruhlen, M., A guide to the World’s Languages, Edward Arnold, London, 1987. Return to text.6. Ruhlen, M., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95:13994–13996, 1998, as cited in:

Wieland, C., Siberian Links for Amerindians, Creation21(3):9, 1999. Return to text.7. Ruhlen, Ref. 5, pp. 257ff. Return to text.8. Ruhlen, Ref. 5, p. 260. Return to text.9. Ruhlen, Ref. 5, p. 261. Return to text.10. Crowley, Ref. 2, p. 169. Return to text.

11. Trask, R.L., Language, the Basics, Routledge, London, p. 18, 1999. Return to text.12. O’Grady, M. and Dobrovolsky, M., Contemporary Linguistics, St. Martin’s Press, New York, p. 10,

1989. Return to text.13. Wieland, C., Towering change, Creation 22(1):22–26, citing p. 26, 1999. Return to text.14. Wieland, Ref. 13, p. 26. Return to text.15. Crowley, Ref. 2, pp. 155f. Return to text.16. Robins, R.H., General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey, Longmans, London, p. 229. Return to

text.17. Wieland, C., Siberian links for Amerindians, Creation 21(3):9, 1999. Return to text.18. Crowley, Ref. 2, p. 122. Return to text.19. Crowley, Ref. 2, p. 135. Return to text.20. It could possibly make such patterns for an agglutinating language, but not for an inflecting

language, as the phonological reduction would not be consistent. Return to text.

Retrieved on 25/04/2017 from

http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-account-affirmed-by-linguistics