Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • 1
    This is an interesting theory. It could also be evidence that they're just synonyms — Hebrew poetic duplication — depending on your hermeneutic. Commented May 14, 2018 at 3:47
  • 1
    You could be correct or there could be something embedded in the story that is intended to convey a deeper concept than how different languages came to be. I'm not challenging your view, just sharing another possibility. :-) Commented May 14, 2018 at 18:44
  • @Thoughts I'm confused. Doesn't your reference to 11:6 support my premise, ie that sapha in verse 1 could mean lip as in boundary, boarder, shore, coast (analogous for nation, people) and not language. The reference to "people" in verse 6 corresponds to sapha in verse 1 and "language" in verse 6 relates to "speech" in verse 1? Commented May 14, 2018 at 22:22
  • @alb de-bar-im is speech as in speaking. de-bar means speak. The "-im" makes it plural. Utterance(s) as Nigel J said is the same concept. If one can't understand a dialect, it is in essence another language. I think the point is, that while God disrupted their ability to communicate, he didn't mess with what they were wanting to say. Whatever was driving them to build the tower was not changed. He only changed their ability to coordinate the effort. Commented May 15, 2018 at 19:48