The Genesis account describes the uniting of some part of the post-Flood human family in a project that opposed God’s will as stated to Noah and his sons. (Ge 9:1) Instead of spreading out and ‘filling the earth,’ they determined to centralize human society, concentrating their residence on a site in what became known as the Plains of Shinar in Mesopotamia. Evidently this was also to become a religious center, with a religious tower.​—Ge 11:2-4.

Almighty God gave their presumptuous project a setback by breaking up their unity of action, accomplishing this by confusing their common language. This made impossible any coordinated work on their project and led to their scattering to all parts of the globe.

Philology, the comparative study of languages, generally classifies languages into distinct “families.” The “parent” language of each major family usually has not been identified; much less is there any evidence pointing to any one “parent” language as the source of all the thousands of tongues now spoken. The Bible record does not say that all languages descended, or branched off, from Hebrew. In what is commonly called the Table of Nations (Ge 10), the descendants of Noah’s sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) are listed and in each case are grouped ‘according to their families, according to their tongues, in their lands, by their nations.’ (Ge 10:5, 20, 31, 32) It appears, therefore, that, when miraculously confusing human language, Jehovah God produced, not dialects of Hebrew, but a number of completely new languages, each capable of expressing the full range of human feeling and thought.

Thus, after God confused their language, not only did the builders at Babel lack “one set of words” (Ge 11:1), one common vocabulary, but they also lacked a common grammar, a common way of expressing the relationship between words. Professor S. R. Driver stated: “Languages, however, differ not only in grammar and roots, but also . . . in the manner in which ideas are built up into a sentence. Different races do not think in the same way; and consequently the forms taken by the sentence in different languages are not the same.” (A Dictionary of the Bible, edited by J. Hastings, 1905, Vol. IV, p. 791) Thus, different languages require quite different thought patterns, making it difficult for a new learner to ‘think in the language.’ (Compare 1Co 14:10, 11.) This is also why a literal translation of something said or written in an unfamiliar language may seem illogical, often causing persons to say, “But it doesn’t make sense!” So, it appears that, when Jehovah God confused the speech of those at Babel, he first blotted out all memory of their previous common language and then introduced into their minds not only new vocabularies but also changed thought patterns, producing new grammars.​—Compare Isa 33:19; Eze 3:4-6.

We find, for example, that certain languages are monosyllabic (made up of words of only one syllable), such as Chinese. By contrast, the vocabularies of a number of other languages are formed largely by agglutination, that is, by joining words placed side by side, as in the German word Hausfriedensbruch, which means literally “house peace breakage,” or, in a form more understandable to the English-speaking mind, “trespass.” In some languages syntax, the order of the words in the sentence, is very important; in others it matters little. So, too, some languages have many conjugations (verb forms); others, such as Chinese, have none. Countless differences could be cited, each requiring an adjustment in mental patterns, often with great effort.

Apparently the original languages resulting from divine action at Babel in course of time produced related dialects, and the dialects frequently developed into separate languages, their relationship to their “sister” dialects or to the “parent” language sometimes becoming almost indistinguishable. Even Shem’s descendants, who apparently did not figure among the crowd at Babel, came to speak not only Hebrew but also Aramaean, Akkadian, and Arabic. Historically, various factors have contributed to the change in languages: separation due to distance or geographic barriers, wars and conquests, a breakdown in communications, and immigration by those of another language. Because of such factors ancient major languages have fragmented, certain tongues have partially merged with others, and some languages have disappeared completely and have been replaced by those of the invading conquerors.

Language research provides evidence in harmony with the preceding information. The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “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.” (1985, Vol. 22, p. 567) An article in Science Illustrated of July 1948 (p. 63) states: “Older forms of the languages known today were far more difficult than their modern descendants . . . man appears not to have begun with a simple speech, and gradually made it more complex, but rather to have gotten hold of a tremendously knotty speech somewhere in the unrecorded past, and gradually simplified it to the modern forms.” Linguist Dr. Mason also points out that “the idea that ‘savages’ speak in a series of grunts, and are unable to express many ‘civilized’ concepts, is very wrong,” and that “many of the languages of non-literate peoples are far more complex than modern European ones.” (Science News Letter, September 3, 1955, p. 148) The evidence is thus against any evolutionary origin of speech or of ancient languages.

Concerning the focal point from which the spreading of ancient languages began, Sir Henry Rawlinson, Oriental language scholar, observed: “If we were to be thus guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.”​—The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London, 1855, Vol. 15, p. 232.