Science Proves the Tower of Babel

If by prove you mean theory and by Tower of Babel you don’t really mean the Tower of Babel, then sure:

The ancestral language, spoken at least 15,000 years ago, gave rise to seven more that formed an ancient Eurasiatic “superfamily”, the researchers say. These in turn split into languages now spoken all over Eurasia, from Portugal to Siberia.

European and Asian languages traced back to single mother tongue | Science | The Guardian.

That’s pretty darn cool if you ask me and you did, which is why you are hear.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Joel L. Watts
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

7 thoughts on “Science Proves the Tower of Babel

      1. I get the tongue-in-cheek, but even though this study is one of the more plausible “deep ancestral reconstruction” attempts out there, it’s still got to be taken with a grain of salt. It’s a list of words that needs to be thoroughly scrubbed by more than just the single linguist, two biologists, and one psychologist responsible for this and its previous study.

  1. “For their latest study, Pagel used a computer model to predict words that changed so rarely”… People put too much faith into computer models. It’s only As good as the software developers. In this case, how do they verify the computer model itself? Could be good, or it could be spaghetti code developed by a bunch of 1st year programmers.

  2. The article did not do well in placing the research in context of what has gone before. The first question that came to my mind was how this research is similar to or different from the Nostratic hypothesis which has been around for a century. Nostratic is proposed as a super-family encompasing some of the same language families as Pagels. And the hundredth or so comment made the same point.

    Quote from Brittanica web site regarding the Nostratic-hypothesis:

    “The study of Nostratic is still in its early stages and, even if its basic validity is accepted, many issues of reconstruction remain problematic. In addition, the inclusion in Nostratic of some of the six families, notably Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian, has been questioned, while at the same time some further language families are good candidates for inclusion (especially Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleut, and Chukchi-Kamchatkan [Luorawetlan]).

    The Nostratic theory is among the most promising of the many currently controversial theories of linguistic classification. It remains the best-argued of all the solutions hitherto presented for the affiliations of the languages of northern Eurasia, a problem that goes back to the German Franz Bopp and the Dane Rasmus Rask, two of the founders of Indo-European studies.”

Leave a Reply, Please!