Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

While I agree that linguists don't generally accept Genesis, it doesn't say 
that the languages
resulting from the Babel confusion were "in any measurable way similar to one 
another."
The fact that people couldn't understand each other suggests just the 
opposite.  So even if
there was "a single parent language," there's nothing in the story to 
indicate that the
resulting confusion of languages produced anything resembling said parent 
language.

On 1 Jun 2009 at 0:27, Jason Hare wrote:

> Hey, Mark. Linguists do not generally accept the story of Genesis.
> Languages can be traced back to several families, which are not in any
> measurable way similar to one another. It doesn't seem possible that
> there was a single parent language that produced all of these
> languages, at least from the linguistic perspective.
>
> Best regards,
> Jason Hare
> Rehovot, Israel
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Mark Spitsbergen <awakesd AT mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > To which side does the weight of the evidence rest regarding the "one
> > language" of Genesis 11:1,6: was it Biblical Hebrew, proto- Hebrew or
> > a completely unrelated language from that found in the Bible? I can
> > accept  the notion that there is a possibility that nothing of the pre-
> > bavel language remained after God "confounded their language", my
> > desire is to understand the current conclusions set forth in the
> > paleolinguist research on the subject.  The one thing that I have come
> > to expect from this list are a lot of passionate and differing views.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark Spitsbergen
> >
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


Dave Washburn

Ibuprofen, Hebuprofen, Shebuprofen, Theybuprofen, wouldn't you like to be a 
profen too?