Did Babel cause all languages?

[wildernesse]

This seems to have been buried and forgotten in the other thread about Evolution.

Did the tower of Babel cause all languages? Specifically, did it cause French, Russian, English, German--either the modern languages or any prior forms of these (such as Old English)?

If the Bible is completely literal, should real Christians be against linguistics as well as biology, chemistry, geology, and physics? Should Christians want to put disclaimers in English books and dictionaries stating that the idea of words being descendants of other words is simply a theory that goes against truth? Should we be standing up and outlawing Chaucer because it promotes the idea that our language evolved/changed over time into something completely different?


--tibac

 

[ZiSunka]

Did the tower of Babel cause all languages? Specifically, did it cause French, Russian, English, German--either the modern languages or any prior forms of these (such as Old English)?

You already know the answer to this.

Babel caused different languages to come into being, but not specifically those languages. Different languages have no moral implications at all, nor does pure science. Your view of Christianity is warped.

And your mocking and condescending tone does little to help your cause of making Christians look foolish. There's very little need for us to look foolish when you are doing such an exemplary job doing it to yourself.

 

[wildernesse]

Thank you for your response, lambslove.

What are those different languages that Babel caused?

As for why I feel the need to point this out, it has nothing to do with trying to make Christianity look foolish. I also said nothing about the moral implications of any of this. If no one agrees with my last paragraph, then I wonder why similar actions are being taken against evolution which uses similar reasoning and logic to come to its conclusions.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?

--tibac

 

[lithium.]

It's funny how people think that is when, and how all languages started. There is evidence of China having the oldest history, and I think they have the oldest language known. I will have to look to make sure.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by wildernesse
Thank you for your response, lambslove.

What are those different languages that Babel caused?

As for why I feel the need to point this out, it has nothing to do with trying to make Christianity look foolish. I also said nothing about the moral implications of any of this. If no one agrees with my last paragraph, then I wonder why similar actions are being taken against evolution which uses similar reasoning and logic to come to its conclusions.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?

--tibac

I don't know. What languages were spoken in those ancient days?

I don't follow what you are saying about evolution. Can you explain what you are getting at?

 

[wildernesse]

Evolution states that populations of organisms change over time, and that later populations of organisms may be very different from their ancestors. The fossil record gives some evidence for this--we can see organisms change through time.

Linguistics states that languages change over time, and that later languages may be very different from their ancestral languages. Historical writings give some evidence for this--we can see languages change through time.

The Bible literally states that God created the world in a very specific way and some people use that as a means to try to discredit evolution. The Bible is equally explicit about how differing languages came to be--but very few people protest linguistics and the study of language.

Why not?

--tibac

 

[wildernesse]

I don't believe the story of Babel actually occurred, so it's not up to me to tell you what languages it created.

You, on the other hand, said that Babel created some languages and not others. Which languages do you think were created? Ancient languages? Which ones and how can you tell.

--tibac

 

[caley]

Originally posted by wildernesse
Evolution states that populations of organisms change over time, and that later populations of organisms may be very different from their ancestors. The fossil record gives some evidence for this--we can see organisms change through time.

Linguistics states that languages change over time, and that later languages may be very different from their ancestral languages. Historical writings give some evidence for this--we can see languages change through time.

The Bible literally states that God created the world in a very specific way and some people use that as a means to try to discredit evolution. The Bible is equally explicit about how differing languages came to be--but very few people protest linguistics and the study of language.

Why not?

--tibac

This is one of the best arguments I have ever heard for Christians adopting evolution (It hasn't convinced me; I just think it's a great argument).

 

[Orihalcon]

well, i think there is evidence of a really big ziggurat somewhere in the vicinity of ancient Babylon, most likely the tower of babel. as for everyone there suddenly speaking a new language overnight, wel...

 

[seebs]

The interesting thing about linguistics isn't just that "languages change", but that you can clearly trace those changes back a LONG ways.

It is pretty safe to say that some languages now spoken have come into existance more recently. Now, the big question is, did the main language groups happen at Babel, or did they happen further back? I guess a key component of an answer to that would be to have an answer to the question "exactly what year was Babel" - because, it seems to me, there's a great deal of evidence for language going back further than many YEC's think Babel was.

Furthermore, it's interesting to compare gradual changes in language to the kinds of changes we see in other things which change over time.

 

[Orihalcon]

now, on to the stupid question: who the hell decided to start using the name Jones and add an -ing to it?

one of the stupidest phrases i can think of: i'm jonesing to chill with my homies and my bling bling

my my how languages change...

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Sup bro.

 

Thats the thing. Languages change and evolve, and it does not take some mastermind intelligence somwhere to orchestrate it does it. SO why would the evolution of living creatures require any intelligent input.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by wildernesse
Evolution states that populations of organisms change over time, and that later populations of organisms may be very different from their ancestors. The fossil record gives some evidence for this--we can see organisms change through time.

Linguistics states that languages change over time, and that later languages may be very different from their ancestral languages. Historical writings give some evidence for this--we can see languages change through time.

The Bible literally states that God created the world in a very specific way and some people use that as a means to try to discredit evolution. The Bible is equally explicit about how differing languages came to be--but very few people protest linguistics and the study of language.

Why not?

--tibac

Apples and oranges, kid.

Language is not the result of shifts in the gene pool. New languages are not created by new species of humans, old languages just get more complex with new words and new pronounciations.

You can trace the "evolution" of languages, the transitions of languages from one to another through the written word. Organic evolution has no such record to analyze. Fossils make a pretty poor record of such transitions.

And the "evolution" of language is the result of intelligence, not chance. So you've actually proved our point, not yours.

Nice try though.

 

[JesusServant]

If I'm right, you're comparing how each language evolves, therefor we evolved... and if language evolved, then it wasn't changed by God... If I follow

How do you know that when God split us into speaking different languages, that one wasn't the earliest form of Latin, one the eariest form of Chinese, etc. etc. 

A better skeptical view for you to take would be when God was talking about doing this, he said "for nothing will be impossible to them".  In other words, if I don't break up their communication now, they'll be able to do anything.  What do you think he meant by that?

 

[wildernesse]

Originally posted by lambslove
Apples and oranges, kid.

Language is not the result of shifts in the gene pool. New languages are not created by new species of humans, old languages just get more complex with new words and new pronounciations. [/quote]

I never said that language is a result in the shift of the gene pool or that they are created by new species of humans. I would suggest that new languages are created in the same way that new species are created--as populations are separated, they develop independently based on their environment. In the end, they are quite different from their common ancestor (look at French and Spanish from Latin). French and Spanish are like species of languages that share a common ancestor.

You can trace the "evolution" of languages, the transitions of languages from one to another through the written word. Organic evolution has no such record to analyze. Fossils make a pretty poor record of such transitions.

Maybe the fossil record was a poor example. Perhaps a more analogous comparison would be that we can see the evidence of evolution in our DNA and in the DNA record of other organisms.

And the "evolution" of language is the result of intelligence, not chance. So you've actually proved our point, not yours.

I don't think that the changes in language are a result of intelligent choice. Slang in particular is something to think about--the popular words that pervade our society are not consciously decided on.

Nice try though.

I really don't think that you understand my arguments at all. Maybe you should actually read my OP to see what this thread is about. In this thread, I am not discussing common descent or design (except in response to your previous post). I am questioning why people who believe in a literal Genesis do not protest the study of languages and linguistics in the same manner as they protest the study of evolution.

If the story of Babel is true, then modern day linguistics is rubbish. The idea that modern languages can be grouped into families (Slavic, Germanic, etc.) is false, because the differences of languages is caused by Babel. However, there aren't Christian research groups (to my knowledge) out there proposing alternate theories of how we arrive at so many divergent modern languages. I want to know why the study of language is neglected by Christians who believe that the story of Babel really occurred.

Anyway, lambslove, you've not responded to my question about what languages were created at Babel and which ones weren't and how you know that.

Your defensiveness and condescension in response to my posts really does concern me. I don't feel that it is warranted.

--tibac

 

[wildernesse]

Originally posted by JesusServant
If I'm right, you're comparing how each language evolves, therefor we evolved... and if language evolved, then it wasn't changed by God... If I follow

How do you know that when God split us into speaking different languages, that one wasn't the earliest form of Latin, one the eariest form of Chinese, etc. etc. 

A better skeptical view for you to take would be when God was talking about doing this, he said "for nothing will be impossible to them".  In other words, if I don't break up their communication now, they'll be able to do anything.  What do you think he meant by that?

I'm comparing the evolution of languages with the evolution of biological species--as an example. I did not say that if language evolved it was not changed by God.

I did say that if you believe in a literal tower of Babel story, how do you account for the descent of modern French from Latin because this occurred in a significantly later time than Babel.

I don't know that God didn't split us into different speaking groups--but I do think that it is highly unlikely that it happened the way Genesis describes. If God split the languages into so many groups so that communication couldn't take place, why do you think it is possible for people to speak more than one language? It would seem that we would be subverting God's plans if we began translating things so that all people could understand. Maybe this is a topic for another thread.


--tibac

 

[Warrior FC]

Comparing evolution to languages?

That is rediculous....Man comes up with new lingo all the time and it has no relation to evolution.

 

[lithium.]

 

[JesusServant]

Originally posted by wildernesse
I'm comparing the evolution of languages with the evolution of biological species--as an example. I did not say that if language evolved it was not changed by God.

I did say that if you believe in a literal tower of Babel story, how do you account for the descent of modern French from Latin because this occurred in a significantly later time than Babel.

I don't know that God didn't split us into different speaking groups--but I do think that it is highly unlikely that it happened the way Genesis describes. If God split the languages into so many groups so that communication couldn't take place, why do you think it is possible for people to speak more than one language? It would seem that we would be subverting God's plans if we began translating things so that all people could understand. Maybe this is a topic for another thread.


--tibac

Maybe the point I bring up could go in another thread, but to me, it explains why God did it.  So I'll leave you with the question and not give my hypothesis to the reason.

I don't see how French coming from Latin has any bearing on Genesis though.  Genesis did not say that every language that exists now and to come would be created by God.  I fail to see your point and how one supercedes the other.

 

[ZiSunka]

Maybe the fossil record was a poor example. Perhaps a more analogous comparison would be that we can see the evidence of evolution in our DNA and in the DNA record of other organisms.

Well, that's a non-truth. Show me real evidence of evolution in the DNA of any organisms.

I don't think that the changes in language are a result of intelligent choice. Slang in particular is something to think about--the popular words that pervade our society are not consciously decided on.

Not intelligent choice, but the natural workings of intelligent beings. Without the intelligence of those beings, language would not even exist, let alone evolve.

I am questioning why people who believe in a literal Genesis do not protest the study of languages and linguistics in the same manner as they protest the study of evolution.

Okay, I'll say it again. Apples and oranges. You are comparing a process that is tracable and verifiable to a process that has to be taken on faith because no sound evidence exists for it's existence. How else do you want me to say it?

If the story of Babel is true, then modern day linguistics is rubbish.

With your extremely limiting understanding of your thesis, this would seem to be true. But linguistics is a verifiable science that is based on fact and not on conjecture, and has ample evidence to support it's veracity and it's existence. Evolution has not been blessed with anywhere near the information that lingusitics has. It would be as easy to prove that the stars where once fairy princesses as it would be to prove based on existing evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds, which is the current hypothesis of whatever happened to the dinosaurs.

Anyway, lambslove, you've not responded to my question about what languages were created at Babel and which ones weren't and how you know that.

I already said I don't know, and I will add that I don't care enough to waste any part of my life trying to satisfy your curiosity.

Your defensiveness and condescension in response to my posts really does concern me. I don't feel that it is warranted.

I've been neither condescending nor defensive, but I have noticed that this is the statement that evolutionists on this board often resort to when they feel frustrated by their inablility to prove their point. Straw man, as you would say.