Genesis 11:1 (KJV):

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

The English translation seems to be redundant here, ie language and speech.

In doing some prelim research into the meanings of these words it was intriguing to me that the word for language has the idea of "boundary" while the word for "speech" looks more like "word".

Is something being communicated here beyond the idea of language by the use of the Hebrew word "SAPHAH"?

  • Saphah is more usually translated 'lip' but also 'language'. Dabar is a saying, an utterance. So they were all of one spoken dialect and also of one kind of utterance, or concept. Later, not only what they spoke sounded different, the very expressed utterance, the very thing they were saying, was diverse.
    – Nigel J
    Commented May 13, 2018 at 20:14

4 Answers 4


Good question. The Hebrew for this verse is:

וַֽיְהִ֥י כָל־הָאָ֖רֶץ שָׂפָ֣ה אֶחָ֑ת וּדְבָרִ֖ים אֲחָדִֽים׃

The word translated "language" is שָׂפָה sapha. This word appears to have a semantic range along the lines of "termination → shore → lip → language". This last step is analogous to how European languages use "tongue" to stand for a language.

The word translated "speech" is דְבָרִים dvarim, actually the plural of דָּבָר davar. Usually this means "word" or "thing". The "one" is also plural, suggesting an adjectival sense, something like "unified".

So what's the distinction between "one lip" and "one [set of] words"?

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and College says that this is merely "an expressive phrase", which I take to be a reference to the common Hebrew poetic technique of duplication. We can't rule out that possibility, but even so, the duplicated terms aren't always identical in meaning.

In fact, several older commentators see the difference as significant. They tend to see "lip" as a reference to pronunciation and "words" as a reference to the vocabulary:

...both the pronunciation and the vocabulary were identical. (Ellicott)

...perhaps it was pronounced by the lip and other instruments of speech in the same way; so that there was no difficulty in understanding one another ... all spoke the same language and used the same words. (Gill)

Of one language. Literally, of one lip, i.e. one articulation, or one way of pronouncing their vocables. And of one speech. Literally, one (kind of) words, i.e. the matter as well as the form of human speech was the same. (Pulpit)

As far as pronunciation goes, it might be worth noting that the Hebrew writers certainly did think about that quality of language, e.g. in the well-known "Shibboleth" episode in Judges 12:5-6.

One more commentator seems to read "lip" as a reference to both pronunciation and grammar:

The two terms are not synonymous or parallel ... "One stock of words," then, we conceive, naturally indicates the matter, the substance, or material of language. ... The term "lip," which is properly one of the organs of articulation, is, on the other hand, used to denote the form, that is, the manner, of speaking; the mode of using and connecting the matter of speech; the system of laws by which the inflections and derivations of a language are conducted. (Barnes)

More recent commentaries seem not to be interested in the difference between these two words, perhaps a reflection of a trend away from literalism or making much of stylistic minutiæ.

Appendix on linguistic diversity

In your comment you ask about a possible connection between "lip" as boundary and the idea of having one language as a limitation or boundary. I wouldn't endorse that as a primary reading, but it could have been present in their minds as wordplay on having one boundary — being one nation. In support of this, I note that the verse literally reads that all the earth "was", not "had", one sapha.
(Also as wordplay, perhaps all the world also "was" one set of undiversified dvarim "things"?)

However, your idea about it being a limitation is explored by David Smith and Barbara Carvill in a wonderful book on teaching foreign languages through a Christian lens: The Gift of the Stranger. They point out that the God of Genesis is a big fan of diversity in plant and animal life, and tells humanity to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen 1:28). This is all part of His plan for creation before the Fall. But at Babel, they argue, humanity disobeyed this command: "Let us build ourselves a city ... otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth" (Gen 11:1).

Because of that, Smith and Carvill disagree with the tradition of commentators who see linguistic diversity as a punishment, a situation somehow worse than having a single universal language. (This is often tied to old ideas about Hebrew being the perfect original divine language — but then why does God ask Adam to creatively come up with names for the animals?)

On the contrary, linguistic diversity happens naturally when people spread out. At Babel, God had to jumpstart the process and give humanity a kick by making it hard to stay in one place.

(If linguistic diversity interests you, it's a good book to read. They make the case that teaching, learning, and sharing other people's languages is a way to show Christian hospitality.)

  • Very nice answer. I was wondering though about the root of sapha, ie the termination - shore - lip. To me this is referencing some kind of boundary line, that is, lip as an edge of something. Could this mean that their singleness of language was a boundary or limitation in some way?
    – alb
    Commented May 12, 2018 at 15:03
  • If you add that information about the Gift of the Stranger to your answer, i'll select it as the final answer.
    – alb
    Commented May 12, 2018 at 16:14
  • @alb Moved from comments to answer and expanded. Commented May 12, 2018 at 16:34
  • Good answer. But the idea God intended linguistic diversity by spreading out does not necessarily follow. For example, the different tribes of Israel are spread out but there are two compensating factors: 1. 3 times a year everyone comes to a central location to worship the LORD. 2. Levites are scattered throughout the land and have the responsibility to teach people about the LORD. Arguably, God's system has elements designed to prevent the diversity which potentially results from separation. In that light Babel reflects the misuse of language, building to reach God vs teaching and worship. Commented May 12, 2018 at 17:13
  • @RevelationLad A fair point, and the authors do offer the caveat that "diversity is not good in itself". But I think the more reserved version of their argument - that it's not an inherent punishment to speak diverse languages, just a means of forcing them to spread out - is pretty strong. Commented May 12, 2018 at 17:23

The great medieval biblical commentator/grammarian, Abraham ibn Ezra explains that the word "saphah" refers to the language while the word "devarim" refers to the sophistication of speech. That is to say that though normally there is a broad range of sophistication of language usage/vocabulary between the wise men and the fools, even when speaking the same language, the Bible is pointing out that the people constructing the tower all spoke the same language and additionally they spoke it on the same level.

  • A good commentator to add to the others' thoughts. It doesn't seem any more rooted in the Hebrew meanings than the others, though. Commented May 14, 2018 at 3:48
  • @LukeSawczak Why is it not rooted in the Hebrew meanings? He is saying that "saphah" means language whereas "devarim" means words.
    – Alex
    Commented May 14, 2018 at 4:20
  • I said it's no more rooted in it than the others. I think extrapolating from "words" to "level of sophistication" is just as speculative as extrapolating from "lip" to " pronunciation". Using a different set of words doesn't always imply being more or less sophisticated in your speech! It's possible but I would just add it to the list of possibilities. Commented May 14, 2018 at 4:33
  • @LukeSawczak That part is not really essential to the answer. The main point is that the verse is discussing two different things: the language they spoke, and the words they used.
    – Alex
    Commented May 14, 2018 at 18:10

Genesis (11:1) “Everyone on earth had the same language (sa-pa) and the same words (de-bar-im)”. (11:6) And the LORD said: ‘Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language (sa-pa)). This is an iteration of the same thought in verse 1 except the phrase “they had... the same words” is now expressed as “they are one”. De-bar-im is missing from verse 6. (11:7) Come, let us go down, and there confound their language(sa-pa), that they may not understand one another’s speech(sa-pa). Again de-bar-im is missing and sa-pa is used twice.

It seems to be saying that people not only used the same language but they had a universal understanding. The writer seems to be expressing that while God changed their (sa-pa) language, he did not change (their understanding) what they were trying to say (de-bar-im).

  • 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?
    – alb
    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

I would add from an article I just wrote, part of which is the same issue:

" Genesis 11:1 And the wholeH3605 earthH776 wasH1961 of oneH259 language,H8193 and of oneH259 speech.H1697 ( with Strongs numbers)

The point of contention and to the topic at hand? Those are two different words with two different creating effects in the mind of the new creature in Jesus Christ in whom dwells the Word/Speech of God. One means lip/mouth and the other essentially what is being said ..Doctrine/matters, reports.. ( this an edit from earlier ). When all you can see is non-creating speech in print, that means that that is all you will ever look for and the common sense of it is all the wisdom you will ever have until you hear God.

It appears, if you read it and you are yourself in non-creating language, ( and of course don’t know that you are inside anything but imagine your language to be the universal language ) then Genesis 11: 1 appears to make God out to be saying the same thing twice:

KJV: ( without Strongs numbers )

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

..not just one lip/pronunciation but the same speech as a whole living spirit ..non-creating speech/anti-Christ. We know it was non-creating speech because the definition of the Fall of Man was the switching of Speaks in Eve and the subsequent “hearkening to the voice of his wife” by Adam ..not simply because she said something but because she was speaking in dragon-speak/non-creating/Word-of-God-hating speech, ..and she didn’t know it. The serpents speaking event was sorcery by which he implanted in her flesh his own non-creating speech in her mind word for word for the pre-incarnate Word of God which was our native speech in Adam. She went from fluent in pre-Incarnate-Christ to fluent in anti-Christ and never saw it coming or thought anything had happened except her “opinion” of what to do with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and what to do with speech itself suddenly altered. She never thought about her former speech in that instant, but only former supposedly evil restraint.

1Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

So by the time our ancestors got to the Plain of Shinar, they were ONLY fluent in anti-Christ. And that spirit was in all the people, (Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, ). What God confounded was NOT Himself as Creating Word/Speech/Christ but the non-creating speech/anti-Christ. He confounded it by mixing up how it is pronounced, the grammar, the thought patterns ..not just a substitution cypher. God confounded their speech so that their lip/language would be changed and that spirit itself could no longer take advantage of all the people, at least not at the same time. He gave their souls a safe haven even inside anti-Christ for those whom He intended to save, even as He did later in the Babylonian captivity of Israel and even later when He made a place for them in the foreign countries. He stuck some good in the evil, but only for His people and did not empower the evil thereby.

But the points here is that they most decidedly did NOT speak pre-Incarnate Christ and God is not saying the same thing twice in Genesis11:1.

God differentiates the Word that He IS by prefacing what happened with the vital truth that their language and speech was one and He subsequently divided their language ( way of pronouncing and thinking language ) and thus confounded their language so that they could not understand the spirit of the anti-Christ whom IS their speech in their former compatriots in pronunciation. God most certainly did not confound Himself as Speech but by His Creating Speech that He IS confounded anti-Christ to protect the people.

Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

“Language” and “speech” are very plainly here two different words with two different creating effects in Christ. Only those outside of Christ would think “God is saying essentially the same thing twice in a will-neutral medium by which we process information so that our free will remains intact at all times.”

from Kukis.org ( I don’t know Mr. Kukis ) and even he claims essentially God is simply saying the same thing twice on that same page in so many words. But his site is an excellent reference for this article : link (http://kukis.org/Genesis/Genesis11.htm#The%20Confusion%20of%20Languages)

Outright lies in Ancient texts of anti-Christ masquerading as Holy Script ( comment mine):

Targum of Onkelos: “In the holy language spake they, that by which the world had been created at the beginning. And it was while they were journeying from the east that they found a plain in the land of Bavel, and dwelt there.”

Jerusalem targum: ” …for they spake the holy language by which the world was created at the beginning: while their hearts erred afterwards from the Word of Him who spake, and the world was, at the beginning; and they found a plain in the land of Pontos and dwelt there.”

end quote..

You see that? A direct claim that God confounded His Own Self as Speech. “for they spoke the holy language by which the world was created”.. given that in John 1:1 God plainly declares as an act of His creating Word/Speech that He IS His Own Speech. He doesn't "use language" as a tool or medium outside of Himself.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Below is a reference on the two different words God Speaks in Genesis 11:1.

Note sâphâh (שָׂפָה) ( language) is feminine singular, while debârîym (דְּבָרִים) ( speech) is masculine plural ( as in “Mark 5:9 and he was questioning him, What is thy name?' and he answered, saying, Legion is my name, because we are many;’)

Again from Kukis.org : (http://kukis.org/Genesis/Genesis11.htm#The%20Confusion%20of%20Languages) ..his notes

sâphâh (שָׂפָה) [pronounced saw-FAWH] lip, tongue; words, speech; dialect, language; edge, border [or, lip] [of something], shore feminine singular noun Strong’s #8193 BDB #973 This is the first occurrence of this word in Scripture; this was not the word used in the previous chapter.


debârîym (דְּבָרִים) [pronounced dawb-vawr-EEM] words, sayings, doctrines, commands; things, matters, reports masculine plural noun Strong’s #1697 BDB #182 Although this seems nearly impossible to me, this appears to be the first occurrence of this word in Scripture. ..end quote

My article is much longer and bit off topic for the rest of it, but can be at 2equal5.com

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

  • 2
    (-1) Hi Tim, welcome to BH.SE - thanks for contributing! This answer has been flagged as 'low quality', which I'd suspect will not be for a lack of thought or eloquence, but rather because most of it isn't really relevant to answering this question, and would probably take extensive rework to explain how you've arrived at some of your underlying assumptions. I'd suggest stripping this back to just material relevant to answering the question at hand. Please do take the Site Tour when you get a chance, to learn more about the site format.
    – Steve can help
    Commented Jan 14, 2021 at 12:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.