Did Noah's Flood Kill All Humans except his family?

I need to reply to this. Mitch, if you were totally honest you would admit that I have zero chance of ever convincing you of this and never did have a chance. It is like another guy with whom I had zero chance–that is ok, no view gets 100% support–life and theology don’t work that way. So telling me what will and won’t cut it, just be honest, nothing will cut it with you. I could lay everything out for you and it would be like Jesus said:

Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? 32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. Luke 7

If I dance for you, it will make no difference and if I cry for you it will make no difference. I have learned this over the years and it is why, when I first came here last summer, I told Ted Davis that I didn’t want to spend my last days debating about things no one will accept anyway–like I did back on the old ASA list before Ted got mad at me and shut down the free wheeling forum, turning it into boredom boiled down to its purest essence. I will answer questions but I expect you to be specific telling me why what I answered doesn’t work. I don’t care to cast my pearls in front of the unconvinciable–it wastes your time and mine.

Just like I answered Pevaquarks post but he won’t explain why the breach at Gibraltar doesn’t sound very much like the fountains of the deep breaking forth–the deep was he sea. I wasted good time answerinig him in good faith–and I answered you in good faith–you should have the courtesy to go through my answers using data to say why clothing on an H. erectus to save him from the cold, isn’t really clothing!!!

This argument is total nonsense. Your example was only a measly 11 children. Lots of people where I live have more than 12 children. And this was even more common in the past.

You are altering the text and not taking what it says seriously. And I can only repeat myself that I just don’t see you giving sufficient justification for doing so. It’s just like the way creationists add sisters and incest never spoken of in the text just so they can force the Bible to fit their beliefs. Rejected.

I didn’t ignore it. I simply disagree with your interpretation. It proves absolutely nothing. I disagree with the whole idea that Genesis 2 is speaking of a special creation of Adam and Eve just as I disagree with the idea that Adam and Eve are golems of dust and bone. This is the creation of all mankind over billions of years, because that is what it took to create Adam and Eve as it takes to create all human beings. God formed their bodies of the stuff of the Earth according to the laws of nature which includes the process of evolution, and then He spoke to them in order to bring their minds to life. The magical treatment of this story will never interest me. I would throw the book into a garbage can first.

You have to remember the differences between us. I am not someone raised to take the truth of the Bible for granted and thus trying to justify it to science. I simply asked myself whether there could be any value to this book taking the findings of science for granted. I came to the conclusion that the answer was yes because magical understandings of the text are not required for it to have value, let alone these distortions of the text in order to force the book to contradict evolution. But where there is no conflict with the findings of science I see no reason to reinterpret the text away from what it actually says.

Nonsense. The Bible is neither an historical text nor a scientific text. And it is insisting that it is either of these things which makes it a laughing stock. Yes the book of Genesis has an historical intent, but it is hardly anything like a historical text. And it has no scientific intent at all. We are talking about about stories from before any such specialization of human activities and writings into such things as history or science. And thus it is absurd to expect it to fit into such categories.

In other words… you don’t have any good answer to the question of WHY? Why do we need to ignore all the scientific evidence and change the text of the Bible to make it force a fit of this flood 5 million years ago to Noah’s flood? I have heard no good reason for this and you haven’t provided one and without that I will certainly not agree.

Indeed the premises of our thinking looks to be wildly different. What appears to be important to me is of little importance to you and what appears to be important to you is of little importance to me. That is generally the case with any two people, because the varieties of people are vast and possibilities exceed the numbers of atoms in the universe.

gbob - Glen - brother, your sense of purpose is inspiring, never stop. Do you have any headspace for the posit that nihilism and God are compatible?

Mitch going to tell a parable. A man went on a trip to a far away place, and found a cleft in the rock that was barely passable, thinner than the cleft at Petra. He walks through that cleft and finds the other end opens to a ledge on a high cliff. Below he sees dinosaurs. Tyranosaurus, apatosaurus, velociraptors, Duck bills etc. He goes back to civilization, tells his friends that they have to come see what he has found, and they follow him and when they get on the ledge, and he shows them the dinosaurs, One says, this isn’t interesting, thee are no pteradactyls–and he walks away. A second says, 'You can’t explain how they survived here." and he walks away. Everyone seems to want to miss the big point. Even if I can’t explain everything to your oh so perfecting standard, it doesn’t change the fact that I did find a flood that matches the Biblical description of Noah’s flood. My inability to satisfy someone on X does not mean that Y isn’t still true.

Another story seen in the Wall street this morning, in the cartoon. A hiring manager is talking to the job candidate and says, “You are the perfect candidate, except your handshake was a bit weak” Yep, that is a reason to reject that candidate.

Are you kidding me? That is 2 children and 9 tribes. In case you haven’t noticed the ‘ite’ is a suffix for a whole lot of people. And we don’t know if Jebu of the Jebusites as a grandkid or not. I am not altering the text, I am reading what is there. It is Sidon, Heth and the 9 ‘ites’.

As I said, I never had a chance with you. Your theology comes first, observational data comes second. I have known that since our discussions of quantum.

And you think I was? My father was an atheist and my mother a sociopath attempted murderess. You really assume knowledge you don’t have and then act as if it can’t be doubted.

As I said, it is fine to hold your own view, the views among Christian about almost everything is legion. What I don’t understand is if you are comfortable in your view, why is it so important to whomp on my view? I suggest maybe you are not as confident of your position as you make out. I might be wrong–I am not assuming that to be the case, it just seems that you really don’t want my view to be true–and that is your right.

That is of course, an assumption. Nowhere does the Bible actually say, “this is historical nonsense”. So, don’t act like God told you that the Bible was neither a historical nor book in concordance with science. I am always amazed at how certain people are that they know the mind of God as to what he intended. And that is what you are saying–that you know beyond a doubt what God intended. The only problem is no one explains where they obtained that certainty; where they obtained their knowledge.

Maybe your assumption is erroneous. Maybe it was meant to be history and you weren’t determined enough to find that history.

No, it is that you have already made up your mind and are not open to any other way of looking at things–I remind you of your words:

That pretty much says my view is not for you and that this assumption rules the rest of your ideology.

Yes, and it is best to argue against another position by using the assumptions of THAT position, showing logical contradictions, not by trying to impose your assumptions on the other system of thought as if one’s own assumptions are unquestionable certitudes Assumptions are taken by faith–it is your faith that Adam and Eve were not Golems of dust. It is my faith that they might have been so explore the consequences. Note that I didn’t say that they were made of dust and bone for I can not prove that. But if I can do what thousands have said was impossible–find a flood that matches Noah’s description, it certainly makes me wonder if God could also do exactly what is claimed in Genesis 2-3!

Some of the questions you raise are issues that need to be answered, but not answered within the confines of your assumptions, but answered within the confines of my assumptions. To require the answer I give which flow from my set of assumptions to fit in with your assumptions (like no golems made of clay or bone) is the wrong way to evaluate another system of thought.

1 Like

Hi Martin. Oh gosh, you embarass me. lol. I am about the least inspiring person on earth being abut as feisty as you. lol

Bring it on Martin. I would love to see such a combo. I might not agree or I might. Let’s see what your assumptions going into this interestingly different possibility are-- This almost sounds dialectical when I refresh my mind on the meaning of nihilism to get a technical definition… lol

Start a new thread and I will find it.

While I am working on a couple of things, I thought I would show some of the wildlife that lived on the bottom of the Mediterranean sea when it was dry. I do this so that people won’t think that there is no way anything could have lived there. These are reconstructions from fossils, so exact coloration is not to be obtained but that doesn’t mean the animals were here. All of these were found in Messinian sediments. Some of those sediments have been uplifted above sealevel bringing their fossils with them so they could be found.

First Myotragus–a goat. The only way this goat could have made it to this island was to have walked across the dry basin and then by luck, was above sea level when the flood came. Now, they could have retreated up the mountain as the waters rose, numerical modeling says the waters rose in the basin around 7 m per day. This is a model and different assumptions would change that number, but it gives an idea of how herds could retreat up-slope day after day while the basin filled with water. While they only survived on Mallorca they would likely have been widespread during the Messinian Salinity Crisis–I will discuss him later.

Early elephant called Gomphotherium

gomphothere-Gomphotherium

A couple of Hyaenids, Hyaenictitheriium and Lycyaena

A big cat Machairodus and below is size compared to man


Micromeryx, a deer with fangs

Pika’s
Sardinian_pika

Baby hippos

A bovid lived in the Messinian sediments.

1 Like

Are you kidding me? That is a bizarre interpretation. ‘ite’ is not ‘ites.’ Much more reasonable understanding is that this is only one child who was eventually the origin of an entire tribe. But I guess if you are looking for excuses to ignore the time frame given for Adam and Eve then you can find wiggle room almost anywhere. But I don’t see good reason to reject both the Bible and the findings of science in order to support this magical interpretation of things which is so disconnected from the reality we experience it is like living in a comic book or fantasy novel.

My theology and reading of the Bible starts with science, that is for sure. Science definitely comes first. I have said so many many times. I was a scientist before I was ever a Christian and I always will be. No magical fruit, no talking snakes, and no golems of dust and bone magic either. But it is demonstrable that your theology comes first and the Bible and science comes second and third with you.

I don’t need to make any assumptions in order to speak about myself. As for science and theology a graduate education makes one aware of how much is out there, while enabling the coming to conclusions about the things one studies in most detail in the direction of our interests.

Yep. That is what I have been saying over and over again. Like I said what appears to be important to me is of little importance to you and what appears to be important to you is of little importance to me. We can certainly leave it at that.

Concerning genealogies one thing I was wondering that could play a part and hinting at compressed records is the fact that often only the sons are mentioned. The daughters for the most part seem to be skipped and if they are skipped is it possible even sons were skipped who simply did not seem worth mentioning.

Is it possible that those could be missing and if so that the records are indeed highly compressed at times?

1 Like

Mitch, that is a nit hardly worth mentioning. Are you reduced to this kind of nit-picking? Have a good evening Mitch, when one is reduced to this kind of nonsense, there isn’t much more to say.

I found this in my notes, which makes loads of compressed genealogy in Genesis 10:

10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,

And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.

10:1 . 'el-leh . . towledah . . ben . noach shem cham . yepheth . . . . ben yalad ‘achar . mabbuwl
2 . ben . yepheth gomer . magowg . maday . yavan . tuwbal . meshek . tiyreya’
3 . . ben . gomer 'ashkenaz . riyphath . towgarmah
4 . . ben . yavan 'eliyshah . tarshiysh kittiy . dodaniym
5 . 'el-leh . . 'iy . . gowy parad . . ‘erets ‘iysh ‘iysh . . lashown . . mishpachah . . gowy
6 . . ben . cham kuwsh . mitsrayim . puwt . kena’an
7 . . ben . kuwsh ceba’ . chaviylah . cabta . ra’mah . cabteka’ . . ben . ra’mah sheba’ . dedan
8 . kuwsh yalad nimrowd . chalal . . . gibbowr . . . 'erets
9 . . . gibbowr tsayid paniym . yehovah 'al ken . . 'amar . . nimrowd . gibbowr tsayid paniym . yehovah
10 . . re’shiyth . . mamlakah . babel . 'erek . 'akkad . kalneh . . ‘erets . shin’ar
11 . . . ‘erets yatsa’ yatsa’ 'ashshuwr . banah niyneveh . . ‘iyr rechobowth . kelach
. recen beyn niyneveh . kelach . huw’ . . gadowl 'iyr

Notice that yalad is only used twice in this passage. But ben is used all over the place. Since Farrell was claiming that the use of yalad proved that the genealogies are complete and that the Bible REQUIRES a 6000 year old earth, this is clearly not the case. Even Farrell admitted that ben meant ancestor of. Thus the lack of yalad in Chapter 10:1-12 means that there is plenty of room for time to be inserted here.

This is from my notes:
The first possibility we have of a gap is Genesis 5:10-12, since it doesn’t say that Enosh ““named”” him Kenan.

Other gaps are possible also between: Kenan and Mahalalel; Mahalalel and Jared; Jared and Enoch; Enoch to Methuselah; Methuselah to Lamech, since none of them are said to be ““named”” by their progenitor.

There is some evidence from Luke. I saw this on the net::

Consider the following verse from Genesis 11, 3502 is yalad

Genesis 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat [H3205] Salah:

The word “begat” (H3205) means to produce or bring forth, and in this verse specifically means to produce offspring. Thus Genesis 11:12 is teaching Arphaxad brought forth an offspring or descendant named Salah. Now the important question that needs to be addressed is whether such a descendant must be an immediate offspring (e.g., a direct son of a father) or whether a later descendant can be in view (e.g., a grandson or great grandson). Unfortunately many theologians simply assume “begat” must always without exception refer to an immediate descendant, which for Genesis 11:12 would require that Salah be a direct son of Arphaxad. But was Salah really the direct son of Arphaxad? Let’s look at the genealogy of Luke 3 for an answer to this question,

Luke 3:35-36 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad , which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Here in Luke 3 we find that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad, and Salah was (at least) a grandson of Arphaxad. That is, Luke 3 is crystal clear that Salah was not an immediate son of Arphaxad. This means “begat” in Genesis 11:12 cannot require Salah to be a direct or immediate son of Arphaxad since Luke 3 makes him at least a grandson! So whenever we find the word “begat” (Hebrew yalad) in the Old Testament genealogies, we cannot assume an immediate son is being specified. The offspring could be, as in Genesis 11:12, a grandson! https://sites.google.com/site/calendarstudies/begat-hebrew-yalad-

from the Theologicall Wordbook of the Old Testament about yalad:

The word does not necessarily point to the generation immediately following. In Hebrew thought, an individual by the act of giving birth to a child becomes a parent or ancestor of all who will be descended from this child. Just as Christ is called a son of David and a son of Abraham, yālad may show the beginning of an individual’s relationship to any descendant.Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., Jr., & Waltke, B. K. (Eds.). (1999). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 379). Chicago: Moody Press.

2 Likes

Over the next 3 days I will post three items on the technology issues. But before I post the first one I want to re-iterate my view of how the Scripture should be interpreted. The Bible says God won’t lie (yes we have been over that before), but that statement has implications.

  1. while we don’t know how God inspired the writers of the Bible, whatever his part, it must be true, which implies the message must be true if it is to be divinely inspired.
  2. God has to be able to communicate to both Neolithics and modern man in a way that is truthful for both. In my mind it means that there has to be a way to view the Bible favorably within the light of modern science–most of my posts have been done with that as my aim
  3. The above implies some simple things translators should do. If there is a choice of word meanings, don’t chose the meaning that automatically makes the Bible false. An example of translating eretz as earth in Genesis 6-9 leads modern people to think the flood was global and that makes what the Scripture says false. Chosing to translate it as ‘land’ leaves the question open as to whether the flood was global or local. In Job 37 choosing to translate a word as ‘doors’ instead of another alternative ‘lid’ makes the Bible say stupid things about nature.

Thus, I think it is very important to lay out the alternatives and think about the implications of each possible word choice and how it impacts what Scripture says about nature and history. Translation shouldn’t only be done without some such consideration. A case in point, the bad numbers in Numbers. Translators chose to translate ‘aleph’ as ‘1000’ which leads to 2-3 million Hebrews and their cattle and sheep, wandering the Sinai like a locust plague. A more reasonable word choice would be head of a clan, or chief.

This needs to be considered as we go into the technology issues.

Technology Part 1

I am going to do this in 3 posts, one per day. This is a slightly modified version of Pathway Paper #5 which I briefly sold in 2005 after I came back from Scotland but before I left for China. It is an issue no one has really pushed me on here but it is something that can’t be left unaddressed, but which I did address 15 years ago… This is probably the most controversial part of my views, which already challenge much of what Christians believe. When I have presented these ideas, it usually gets a bit raucous. Intellectual honesty makes me, no, requires me to deal with the issue of technology in Genesis 4. The technology listed in Genesis 4 include musical instruments, tents, farming, cattle herding, and even metal work (maybe, and that is a really big maybe not in my opinion–from Scripture). This is obviously possibly problematical for my view, or so many think.

I believe Genesis 2:5 rules out an agricultural setting at least at the time Adam and Eve were created.

Genesis 2:5 says, "… and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.

Based on one phrase alone, ‘plants of the field,’ Eden is clearly placed PRIOR to the Neolithic time which is when so many place him. (I will extend the term Neolithic to include back to 20kyr as Mitch seems to prefer) The Scripture itself says this is wrong, there were no plants of the field. It is also on a land on which it had not rained. This rules out all the usual locations suggested for Eden. It had clearly rained on Turkey, the Levant, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Mesopotamia. Thus Scripture itself says Neolithic Adam is wrong. The Neolithic was full of farming. Indeed the earliest wheat farming took place around 9600 BCE. The events of Eden were before this time. At a time when there were no ‘plants of the field’.

So how do I square this circle? There are two possible answers to this. First, let’s assume all of this technology did exist in the pre-flood world. If you hold my feet to the fire insisting I must literally accept the English meanings of the King James Bible, then the easiest explanation is what I would use. I would say this technology issue is meaningless to my view simply because it would all be lost after the flood and would need to be re-invented. This is the easiest least time consuming explanation. As I wrote to Skove (slightly modified),

" Think about this: if you and 8 friends, knowing what you all know are the sole survivors of a global flood on earth at this time (play along with me about the global flood). Yall 8 are the only people alive, and you have landed you know not where. How much of today’s technology do you think you could pass on to your kids. Plant a garden? 3 months before you get crop. By then you are starved to death. Plant a garden go hunting? As a gentleman farmer who tried gardening and working the week in Houston, I can tell you the critters ate my crops almost every year. Deer and squirrels got my peaches, cows ate half of my corn. Weeds chocked out everything else. Farming is something that can only be don FULL TIME, which raises a real question in my mind about Abel being able to farm and not starve to death. I am working on a post on that issue too.

Let’s continue. Do you know how to make stone tools?, Fletch an arrow? do you know what fletching is? Do you know the best kind of wood is needed to make an arrow? Just any old tree won’t work. (Bois d’arc and Yew). Do you know how to straighten an arrow shaft? Make a fish weir?, Do you know where iron deposits are? Do you know where coal is? Can you mine it even if you can walk to those sites? How do you feed yourself while you are mining coal and iron ore? Assuming you have coal, and iron ore, and you build a kiln, and put it all in and set it on fire. Will you get molten iron? Do you even know the answer to that question? Do you know what is missing that is required to get iron out of rocks?

I could go on and on. I am extremely educated in geology, ancient technology and even know the theory of making stone tools, but I am not sure I could do it. Making arrow heads requires long periods of practice. Very few modern humans can even make Neanderthal Levallois tools. People have lost eye sight from rock slivers shooting into the eye.

So, whatever technology they had, it would be lost. Hunger today rules everything when 8 people are left on a virgin world. Because of all this, the lack of technology in early mankind is totally irrelevant. If you and 8 of your chosen friends survived alone on earth, it would be millions of years before our technology arose again. That is a simple fact–yet so many people think we humans are so smart as to be able to recreate farming instantly . Farming requires storage like pottery–a pile of wheat left on the ground will be eaten by bugs and mice. Harvest requires lots of peoeple–8 people on earth couldn’t feed themselves. All I can say is that God had to help them.

I know someone will mention Noah’s grape vine. I made great jelly from an intentionally planted wild grape vine at the ranch I got loads of grapes off of it. Just getting those grapes didn’t make me a farmer!"

That is absolutely the easiest answer to this issue. Humans had it and lost it. Some might say, 'How convenient!". If people don’t like that explanation, then the second option takes a bit more time, but over the next few days I will post on the various technologies, showing that the technologies spoken of in the Bible were invented long before the farming era. If we take what Scripture says about the inventions of Adam and Eve’s descendants, then they were not Neolithic farmers. These inventions were made way back in time. . Thus, the value of the second approach is in showing more data why Adam and Eve were not Neolithic.

I will show that people other than H. sapiens, did tend herds in a certain sense. One thing to remember is that people think shepherding is taking care of the animals, and it is, but for the purpose of killing the animals. The Good Shepherd analogy breaks down at this point. God is shepherding us out of this world; the human shepherd is going to eat those he cares for. The whole point of shepherding is to eat the animal or sell it to others so they can eat. I think of one of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes where aliens come to earth, offer us cures for our diseases, help with our technology, always doing good for mankind. But they had a book, which was entitled. “How to Serve Man”, and which, when translated turned out to be a cookbook–a set of recipes on how to prepare men for their tables. One certainly got the impression in the show that those about to be eaten were less enthused about the aliens loving care of them. ‘Tending’ the herds and it doesn’t require Johnny Farmer to be on site.

What would Abel have tended to down on the bottom of the Mediterranean? Maybe the Messinian aged Myotragus. Myotragus is only found so far on Mallorca in the Western Mediterranean, but that may be only because he survived there when the basin flooded. But it doesn’t matter if it was that or not. The word tson can mean sheep, goat or cattle and there are bovids that likely lived in the basin as well.


As noted, most authorities claim that the Biblical narrative regarding Cain and Abel show a Neolithic (early farming) time setting. If this is true, and Adam and Eve are the direct parents of Cain and Abel, as the Bible indicates, then Adam must be a late entrant into the world. The data of anthropology says, “Not so fast, Cowboy!”

The Bible says,

And again she bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground ” Gen 4:2 ASV

And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle. 21And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and pipe. And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron ” Gen 4:20-22 ASV

Dick Fischer writes of this:

" Could sophisticated musical instruments (Gen. 4:21) predate simple bone flutes? How could metal working (Gen. 4:22) have preceded the Neolithic (late Stone Age) period?" 110

and

" Genesis 4:22. One of Cain’s descendants, Tubal-Cain, was ‘an instructor of every worker in brass and iron.’

“This is the proverbial smoking gun! Adam belongs after the old Stone Ages, at the end of the Neolithic, at the threshold of a period called the Neolithic when traditional stone tools were augmented by crude copper implements. Adam’s descendants saw the dawning of the Bronze Age.” 111

To satisfy Mitch, I will define the Neolithic as being between 20,000 and 2000 years ago. So, while Dick is not a young-earth creationist, he is a young-earth Adamic person, holding that Adam was recently created. Apart from the troubles we saw above, where language, religion, pain in childbirth, sweat and clothing goes much further back than 6,000 years ago, the trump card in my debates with Dick has always been the passage above. Today, we take that passage on and show why it does not mean a Neolithic Adam

Is this the only way these passages could be read? I don’t think so. In Pathway Paper #1 we discussed the need for the Bible to be true throughout all time. God has a meaning for what he inspired, the writer wrote words inspired by God, but may have had an understanding of those words different than what God intended. Today, when we read the Word with the understanding of a 21st century person, we will understand those words differently than did the Iron-age writer. The hermeneutical approach which requires that we understand the Bible based upon the original intent of the writer ignores the fact that the writer may not have understood exactly what God intended. Thus, we will approach these passages from this point of view, i.e., there is a true meaning but it may not be the traditional interpretation of the Scripture.

Let’s start by looking at the claim that Abel was a keeper of sheep. The word for keeper is abad. The word is a participle and can mean to pasture, tend, graze, feed, shepherd, to associate with, or be a friend of. Of these possible meanings, there seems to be two classes. The first class has the meaning of shepherd. These meanings are ‘to pasture”, “graze”, “shepherd”, and “feed”. The other class has a slightly different meaning. “Tend”, “to associate with, and ‘to be a friend of,” do not have the connotation of the shepherd. How do we know which meaning we should use? For reasons which will become clear below, I will suggest the term ‘tend’ is an appropriate meaning here.

But what about the word ‘sheep’? The word translated sheep is tso’n. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon defines that word as “small cattle, sheep, sheep and goats”. Given this range of definitions, we can’t be sure exactly what it was that Abel tended to. It could have been goats for all we know. Like Mandarin, Hebrew isn’t always entirely clear on the distinction between wild goats and wild sheep, nor apparently, even cattle. Both goats and sheep climb cliffs in similar way and live in hills cropping the vegetation close to the ground.

One thing we ought to do is look at when humans began ‘tending’ tso’n (sheep/goats) but we also ought to look at what does it mean to ‘tend’ sheep/goats? A shepherd watches over the sheep and fends off the other predators, like lions, and wolves. But the shepherd is also a sheep/goat predator. In deed, he is the chief predator of the sheep/goat. The animals are kept for his personal use and he kills them when he and his family need food. A herding family will get the vast majority of their calories from eating them with percentages above 75%.112

Now, what are we to think when we learn that Neanderthals in the Caucasus mountains gained 85% of their meat intake from a type of tso’n ?113 Is this not ‘tending’ t’son ? But this is not all. Neanderthals obtained a high percentage of their meat from goats and sheep at numerous other sites. Goat and sheep bones represent 60% of the layer 2A deposits at the Neanderthal site of Mezmaiskaya Cave in the Caucaus mountains.114 Adler states,

Outside the Caucasus, high frequencies of mountain goat in Middle Palaeolithic contexts have been observed in Uzbekistan at Teshik-Tash (Capra sibirica: 1 80% NISP [Gromova 1949]) and Obi-Rakhmat (Capra sibirica: 47.4–66.7% [Wrinn n.d.]), at the Spanish sites of Gabasa 1 (Capra pyrenaica: 33.7–52.2% NISP per layer [Blasco Sancho 1995]) and Axlor (Capra ibex: 25.6% combined ungulate sample [Altuna 1989, 1992]), and at Hortus in southern France (Capra ibex: 75.4% NISP combined sample [de Lumley 1972]). ”115

Given this, how on earth do we say that Neanderthals don’t fit the definition of being a ‘tender of tso’n ”? A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences points out that the isotopic composition of Neanderthal bones showed that they derived most of their calories from meat, not from plant foods.116 This further supports the idea that they were somehow ‘tending’ to the animals they chose to eat.

But this data, this high percentage of bones of a single large animal actually contradict ethnological observations of modern hunter gatherers. Modern humans seem much less efficient at hunting than these Neanderthals. Hawkes et al, looked at the caloric economy of modern hunters. If one reads what they conclude, it is entirely a mystery why the Neanderthals were so efficient at large game. Hawkes et al., write,

" The average acquisition rate a man could expect to achieve for his own household was 0.08 kg/hr if he specialized in large prey and 0.04 kg/hr if he specialized in small (table 4). By these calculations, a hunter seeking to maximize his household income should not specialize in small animals instead of large, but he should include small animals among the prey he takes (Hawkes, O’Connell, and Blurton Jones 1991). Each time he encounters a small animal, he can expect to earn its average postencounter acquisition rate while he pursues it. The measured postencounter rates for small animals ranged from 0.23 to 1.5 kg/hr (Hawkes, O’Connell, and Blurton Jones 1991). This means that each time a hunter encounters a guinea fowl and passes by in order to continue earning 0.08 kg/hr searching for big game, he is reducing his household income. Even if neighbors made claims on small animals, a man who pursued them and kept less than half of the lowest-return small prey would still earn a greater nutritional benefit for his own household than he would get from specializing in big game. ”117

They go further,

" These comparisons are based on mean rates. They ignore the most important reason that big-game hunting is an ineffective strategy for provisioning a family: It does not provide a reliable nutrient stream. The daily risk of failure for a Hadza big-game hunter is consistently = 96% (table 3). Big-game encounter hunters can expect to fail 45 days for each success, while small-game encounter hunters would go only 1–3 days between successes (table 4), and plant collectors would rarely if ever come home emptyhanded (table 5) ."118

Clearly, Neanderthals present a mystery. They were so successful at obtaining one big game species, their bones show that they ate almost nothing but meat. This means that they didn’t fail to get big game meat 96% of the time, as modern human hunters do. Indeed, they seem to be able to get meat upon demand—as, say, herders can. This information is quite fascinating and utterly ignored by apologists.

What does it mean to tend sheep/goats? Does one have to walk with them through the pastures to be tending them? Could another form of tending them mean chasing them into an enclosure where they are kept until one wants to eat them? Such an arrangement would ensure a supply of food but also take minimal work. Humans have done this with fish for a long time in the form of fish weirs. Stones are arranged in a shallow stream such that a fish can get into an enclosure but then have a hard time finding the way out. Such weirs, as they are called, are an easy way for a human to feed himself in the wild. But such an arrangement is often used with wild animals. Chase them into a concealed corral and shut the gate. Then it is easy pickings. Would that not be ‘tending the tso’n ?

There is another way this tending the tso’n could be understood. Some hunter-gatherer tribes follow their prey herds. While they are not herders, as we understand the term, they do form an association with the herds and follow them (something a shepherd does as well). Bahn relates,

“Gordon points out the frequent confusion between following herds of caribou and accompanying them and mentions that Burch has agreed that the Chipewyan did indeed follow the herds annually. It is high time that the fallacy that ‘people cannot follow the herds’ was laid to rest.”119

It seems entirely reasonable to say that anyone behaving as the Chipewyan did were doing precisely what Abel was said to be doing—tending the herd.

Some will object that farming and animal control didn’t begin until long after 10,000 BC. But there is some very intriguing art at two paleolithic sites which may indicate that animal control (or at least partial control) goes much further back. Randal White wrote an article critical of the idea, but frankly, the evidence presented in the article and in the ensuing discussion on the pages of Current Anthropology, presents a good case for animal control much longer ago. There are two cave pictures of horses, apparently with bridles, one from St. Michel d’Arudy and the other from La Marche. Both of these are from the Upper Paleolithic and are associated with anatomically modern humans. However, it shows that animal control may go deeper into the past than the Neolithic and that means that Abel’s time frame could also move further back in time.

Here are the pictures of two horses, In the first, note the rope-like pattern on what looks like a bridle.

image
Figure 6 St. Michel d’Arudy Horse(with bridle?) -16-14 kyr ago

Piette, 1894

This isn’t all the evidence for animal control going back that far. Reindeer herders castrate many of the male reindeer in order to reduce aggressiveness when the deer rut and to preserve meat quality throughout the winter.120 What happens is that rutting males produce lots of testosterone, and will attack anything in sight. They become uncontrollable during this time. They will fight with other bulls to acquire a harem, and when they are successful at acquiring the harem, they work endlessly for months keeping the other males away. They don’t eat and they lose weight(what some men won’t do for sex!). In the wild, bulls often don’t live through the winter because they start out in a highly deteriorated state. Herders, not wanting these effects castrate many males to reduce the fighting and to make the herd more docile. Most deer don’t grow antlers after castration, but reindeer are an exception. But the antlers they grow are different. And this brings us to another piece (not provable) of evidence supporting animal husbandry much longer ago than many have heretofore beleived. Paul Bahn says,

On the other hand, it is interesting that a reindeer antler found in Finland in the 1970s and dated to 34,000 years ago has been identified by a Saami reindeer herder as belonging to a castrated male and thus ascribed ‘to a reindeer-herding system’ ”121
image
Hadingham, Secrets of the Ice Age, (New York: Walker, 1979), p. 111 (15kyr ago)

Figure 7 La Marche Horse (with bridle?)

There are other interesting possible indicators of animal control in the upper Paleolithic. At Font de Gaume, France, a mammoth is pictured in what appears to be a hut or cage.122 At the 17,000-year-old site of Lascaux, there there is a painting of horses and a cow, with what appears to be a fence or gate.123 At Mas d’Azil, there is a carving of a horse which appears to have a rope around it’s head.124

Now, let’s look at Cain, the ‘tiller of the ground’. The word.’tiller’ basically means ‘work’. A person familiar with Hebrew with whom I consulted noted that the word can be used in reference to someone working the land without actually planting. Context would define it. But, context, in this case, might not be very helpful because the time is referring to the origin of the human race (at least if one believes that Adam is the progenitor of humanity. Let’s look at how hunter gatherers work the land.

Many people who have not studied anthropology think that there is a clear division between hunter-gatherers and farmers. When one looks at what actually happens, it isn’t so clear cut. Harris relates,

" Studies of modern hunter-gatherers show that there is a correlation between population density and the specialised use of particular foods. Examples include the systematic exploitation (in some cases even involving the sowing) of wild grasses and other herbaceous plants for their seeds, and the replanting of wild yams and other tubers to ensure continuity of supply ."125

This behavior probably went way back in time. Pringle informs us,

The early date for plant domestication in the Near East is not entirely unexpected, says Ofer Bar-Yosef of Harvard University. For example, inhabitants of Ohallo II in what is now Israel had made wild cereal seeds a major part of their diets as early as 17,000 B.C., according to published work by Mordechai Kislev, an archaeobotanist at Bar Ilan University in Ramat-Gan, Israel. Moreover, as close observers of nature, these early foragers were almost certain to have noticed that a seed sown in the ground eventually yielded a plant with yet more seeds. “These people knew their fauna and flora very well,” says Bar-Yosef, "and they probably played with planting plants long before they really switched into agriculture ."126

But the evidence of working the land goes back further. At the Neanderthal site of Amud Cave, we read this,

There is clear and repetitive evidence for the exploitation of mature grass panicles, inferred to have been collected for their seeds.”127

When Cain brought his first fruits, what fundamental difference does it make if he planted the grass? He still had to do the work of gathering it as does any modern farmer. The description of Cain’s sacrifice is not really less for him having done the work of gathering but not of planting.

But the best evidence of working the land with fossil man comes from the 73,000-year-old Neanderthal site of Combe Grenal in France. Anderson-Gerfaud describes a plant-harvesting tool associated with the Neanderthals.

" However, we were able to identify at least one plant-harvesting tool from the Middle Palaeolithic–a convex scraper on a blade from a Wurm I level (Typical Mousterian) at Combe-Grenal, described earlier. This particular tool was significant in that it was clearly used with a curved, ‘harvesting’ motion, and edge damage on the edge opposite the one used suggests that it may have been used in a haft. We then examined the tool with the scanning electron microscope to search for any minute fragments of residue material which might clarify its use. A residue located near the working edge, in a slight depression in the tool surface was found by comparison with microscopic cellular fragments (e.g. siliceous phytoliths) we extracted and studied from living plants) to be from a grass, or possibly a sedge (Cyperaceae) or a rush (Juncus). ”128

What is the difference between this and a Neolithic farmer using a similar scythe to harvest his crop? Not much really. While it is highly unlikely that this Neanderthal tool was used to harvest cereal grain, it leaves one wondering how far back ‘working the land’ goes into prehistory.

But this isn’t all, even further back between 75,000 and 130,000 years ago at Klasies River Mouth Cave in South Africa, evidence of ‘farming’ is present. Shreeve tells us,

" The key change occurred at the beginning of the Middle Stone Age, when people began to manage the environment instead. Rather than take the surrounding landscape as a given, they molded it to fit their needs. The proof, he believes, is in the plants. Increasingly through the Middle Stone Age, the Klasies River Mouth region would have been taken over by open savanna landscape with few fruiting trees. The productivity of plants was concentrated underground instead, in ‘geophytic’ buds and bulbs. Left to their own devices, geophytes are a very slowly renewing resources. In order to rely on them for sustenance, the surrounding vegetation would have to be systematically burned off to speed up new growth. This is exactly what African pastoralists do on the savanna today, to encourage the growth of new grass for their cattle.
"Obviously, such management requires the ability to make fire at will. It also demands a perceptual leap: the sense that the habitat, and with it the very future, can be designed. We know that the Klasies people knew fire. We know they were depending on geophytes to survive, especially during Howiesons Poort times. ‘Putting two and two together,’ Deacon said, 'we get a picture of people “farming” patches of starch-rich plant foods with fire and supplementing this diet with meat from hunting and scavenging and from collecting shellfish when at the coast
.'"129 (emphasis mine)

The final evidence for working the land for plants comes from a logical deduction presented by Bernard Campbell, an anthropologist at the University of Rhode Island. He notes that when H. erectus populated the temperate regions, regions with a severe winter, certain conditions must have been met or they could not have successfully lived in these regions. First he notes that the large variation of daily temperature places large stress on both plants and animals. Clothing would be an essential as we noted earlier. But, the low winter temperatures (-23o C in the Tbilisi, Georgia area where H. erectus lived 1.8 myr ago) prevents plants from growing during the winter months. Thus, the late winter months and early spring would give little in the way of plant material to eat. Food storage would be a must to save food for these lean times.130 And this means, that some sort of ‘working the land’ must have existed in humans from the time when H. erectus lived at Dmanisi, Georgia on. That was 1.8 million years ago.

What we have shown here is that the usual interpretation of Genesis 4:2 doesn’t necessarily require a Neolithic Adam. Indeed, We might very well be eisegetically reading into the verse what we know from our post-agricultural revolution vantage point. Even the divinely inspired author may have understood it as we do, because he, too, while writing the passage, was inserting his view into it. And modern translators continue the tradition by making it appear that this was a Neolithic setting. It might or might not have been. Now, one might object that Cain and Abel wouldn’t have ‘owned’ the sheep or the land. This is true. But in reality, ownership is in the mind of the human, not in the mind of the sheep or land. The sheep doesn’t wake up thinking, “That geezer over there owns me. I want my freedom back.” Humans are territorial and if they view that the territory upon which their plants and sheep lay was their land, then that is ownership.

One final note: Anyone who thinks Neanderthals were stupid non-human brutes needs to seriously retool their anthropological knowledge–but it has been that way for a long time. 10 Surprising Facts About Neanderthals

References

  1. Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution, (Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, 1996), p. 118

  2. Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution, (Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, 1996), p. 239

  3. MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos accessed 10-14-06

  4. Daniel S. Adler, Guy Bar-Oz, Anna Belfer-Cohen, and Ofer Bar-Yosef, Ahead of the Game : Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus ,” Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 1, February 2006, p. 91

  5. L. V. Golovanova, et al, “Mezmaiskaya Cave: A Neanderthal Occupation in the Northern Caucasus,” Current Anthropology, 40(1999):1:77-86, p. 85

  6. Daniel S. Adler, Guy Bar-Oz, Anna Belfer-Cohen, and Ofer Bar-Yosef, Ahead of the Game : Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus ,” Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 1, February 2006, p. 96

  7. Michael P. Richards, Paul B. Pettitt, Erik Trinkaus, Fred H. Smith, Maja Paunovi, and Ivor Karavani, “Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal predation: The evidence from stable isotopes” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, June 13, 2000.

  8. K. Hawkes, J. F. O’Connell, and N. G. Blurton Jones… Hunting and Nuclear Families. Current Anthropology 42(2001):5: 681-709, p. 686-687

  9. K. Hawkes, J. F. O’Connell, and N. G. Blurton Jones… Hunting and Nuclear Families. Current Anthropology 42(2001):5: 681-709, p. 686-687

  10. Paul Bahn, “Comments,” Current Anthropology, 30(1989):5:618

  11. ( Carrie Bucki, Greg Finstad and Tammy A. Smith, Reindeer Roundup: A K-12 Educator’s Guide to Reindeer in Alaska,” (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2004), p. 18 http://www.uaf.edu/snras/afes/pubs/misc/MP_04_07.pdf)

  12. Paul Bahn, “Comments,” Current Anthropology, 30(1989):5:618

  13. Jan Jelinek, The Evolution of Man, (New York: Hamlyn, 1976), p. 434

  14. Jan Jelinek, The Evolution of Man, (New York: Hamlyn, 1976), p. 292.

  15. Jan Jelinek, The Evolution of Man, (New York: Hamlyn, 1976), p. 311

  16. D. R. Harris, “Human Diet and Subsistence,” in S. Jones et al, editors, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 72-73

  17. Heather Pringle, “The Slow Birth of Agriculture,” Science, Vol 282, Issue 5393, 1446 , 20 November 1998 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1446

  18. Marco Madella, Martin K. Jones, Paul Goldberg, Yuval Goren, Erella Hovers, “The Exploitation of Plant Resources by Neanderthals in Amud Cave (Israel): The Evidence from Phytolith Studies ,” Journal of Archaeological Science 29(2002):7:703-719

  19. Patricia Anderson-Gerfaud, “Aspects of Behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic: Functional Analysis of Stone Tools from Southwest France,” in Paul Mellars, The Emergence of Modern Humans, (Ithica: Cornell Univ. Press, 1990), pp. 389-418, p. 400

  20. James R. Shreeve, The Neandertal Enigma, (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1995), p. 217-218

  21. Bernard G. Campbell, “An Outline of Human Phylogeny,” in Andrew Lock and Charles R. Peters, Handbook of Human symbolic Evolution, (Malden Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1999), p. 46

1 Like

Been looking at animals who lived on the Mediterranean sea floor and found this interesting case. It seems Crete and Cypriot frogs were able to survive the catastrophe.

“Water frogs inhabiting Cyprus represent a distinct evolutionary species of Messinian origin that is formally described in this paper. The systematic status of Cypriot frogs is evidenced by specific characters in their mitochondrial (mt) and nuclear (nu) DNA sequences, and the fact that they form a well supported monophyletic clade in both mtDNA and nuDNA phylogenies. While genetic data revealed clear and reproducible differences between this new taxon and all other western Palearctic water frog species including Pelophylax bedriagae in the Levant and two Anatolian water frogs lineages ( P. cf. bedriagae ‐1 and P. cf. bedriagae ‐2), there is no diagnostic morphological or morphometric character that allows a clear discrimination between Cyprus frogs and frogs from the adjacent mainland. If several morphometric indices are combined as predictor variables in a discriminant analysis, however, both females and males of Cypriot water frogs are correctly distinguished from the other eastern Mediterranean lineages. While phylogenies based on concatenated sequences of two mitochondrial genes (ND2 + ND3) suggest a sister group relationship of Cypriot and Anatolian water frog lineages, our nuclear data hypothesize a sister group relationship between Cypriot frogs (sp. n.) and Crete frogs ( P. cretensis ), thus speaking for the same isolation time of both island populations” Jorg Plotner, et al, “Genetic data reveal that water frogs of Cyprus (genus Pelophylax) are an endemic species of Messinian origin.” Zoosystematics and Evolution, Vol. 88:2, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/zoos.201200021

1 Like

Love this subject and very curious about it … loooooong article. will read…thanks

1 Like

Bluebird!, you should be cautious of new ideas. But one shouldn’t let the caution blind one to the fit between the statements of the Bible and the geological facts on the ground. If it would help, my views have been published in probably the premier Christian/Science publication Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Thus, they have passed peer review, even if the reviewers held their noses. They couldn’t get around the data I was presenting. here is a list of my articles on anthro and this flood.

Morton, G. R. (1997). The Mediterranean Flood. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 49:4:238-251

Morton, G. R. (1998). Bonobo Trails. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 50:2:84

Morton, G. R. (1999) Dating Adam. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 51:2:87-97.

Morton, G. R. (1999) Neandertal Hybrid, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 51:3,:145

Morton, G. R. (1999) Planning Ahead: Requirement for Moral Accountability, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 51:3:176-179

Morton, G. R. (2002) “Language at the Dawn of Humanity,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 54(2002):3:193-194

Morton, G. R., 2006, “The Dilemma Posed by the Wee People” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 58(2006):2:142-145

This one talks about small brained folk (brains the size of the australopithecines 380 cc. They made stone tools, and local legend in the area (these guys seem to have lived to about 12-14,000 years ago) has some sort of language.

Pleistocene deposits in Sector VII contain relatively few stone artefacts; only 32 were found in the same level as the hominin skeleton. In Sector IV, however, dense concentrations of stone artefacts occur in the same level as H. floresiensis-up to 5,500 artefacts per cubic metre. Simple flakes predominate, struck bifacially from small radial cores and mainly on volcanics and chert, but there is also a more formal component found only with evidence of Stegodon, including points, perforators, blades and microblades that were probably hafted as barbs (Fig. 5). In all excavated Sectors, this ‘big game’ stone artefact technology continues from the oldest cultural deposits, dated from about 95 to 74 kyr, until the disappearance of Stegodon about 12 kyr, immediately below the ‘white’ tuffaceous silts derived from volcanic eruptions that coincide with the extinction of this species. The juxtaposition of these distinctive stone tools with Stegodon remains suggests that hominins at the site in the Late Pleistocene were selectively hunting juvenile Stegodon.“” M. J. Morwood, et al, ““Archaeology and age of a new hominin from Flores in eastern Indonesia,”” Nature,431(2004):1089

They made tools, and press reports from the discoverers note that they used fire. For an explanation of the mental capacities needed for fire, see my article Morton, G. R. (1999) Planning Ahead: Requirement for Moral Accountability, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 51:3:176-179
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/planningahead.htm

*H Floresiensis makes the best case for small brained hominids being intelligent and capable of having a technology. *
""It is a new species of human who actually lived alongside us, yet were half our size. They were the height of a three-year-old child, weighed around 25kg and had a brain smaller than most chimpanzees. Even so, they used fire, made sophisticated stone tools, and hunted Stegodon (a primitive type of elephant) and giant rats. We also believe that their ancestors may have reached the island using bamboo rafts. The clear implication is that, despite tiny brains, these little humans were intelligent and almost certainly had language.“” Skeleton Reveals Lost World Of 'Little People' | ScienceDaily
These people are the size of Australopithecus. And since I have long suggested that Adam lived millions of years ago, which would mean that either he was H. erectus or Australopithecine, it seems logical to make some comments on these wee people.

I have long said that brain size should not be the sine qua non of intelligence. Many have disliked my views precisely because they found it unbelievable that such small people as the Australopithecines could really be human. But this discovery vindicates that long asserted view. These people seem to have done all the things we would associate with any other human society, yet they are so different, being directly descended from H. erectus, and not from H. sapiens. What applies to them, should apply to their larger H. erectus ancestors.

So what are the traits that make us think they are human? I am struck by a 3 word sentence in the description of the skeletal material from one of the two Nature articles:
““Cranial base flexed.”” P. Brown et al, A New Small-Bodied Hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia,“” Nature, 431(2004): 1055

This is important because one of the physical traits believed to be necessary for language is a flexed cranial base.

I need to do an article on H. floresiensis–my hero for small brained Adam. Sorry for the long articles. I have terminal cancer and little time to get all the data out so that it can be found by determined readers.

1 Like

Gbob…very interesting. I watched your video 1 and then started into the PBS video mentioned at very last word of your epistle—seems like almost same video.

Again, very interesting. While I am NOT a young-earther, I do believe that the Bible generally (with exceptions) is referring to things that actually did occur. I am not saying “your” idea here is the final word on the matter, but very though-provoking. I also am intrigued — and you probably have already heard/read this – in the possibility of this “Edeb” having been the Persian Oasis which is now at the bottom of the Persian Gulf and has many of the features mentioned in the Genesis description. See Swamidoss’ reference and also find the footnoted article he references when talking about it.
I am not “sold” on the idea that we “know” for a fact every little thing that has happened along the Mediterranean/Persian Gulf in the last 6 million years. But we do know some things that happened, and we know that the earth is relatively old. The late Sumerologist Kramer speculated on a flood in early third millennium BC, and others have suggested things. There likely have been pretty significant floods in Mesopotamia many times over the millennia (NOTE: If a flood event destroys YOUR community/home/family --it is a momentous and earth-shattering event so far as you and your neighbors are concerned.)
I do think you have an interesting idea here and appreciate your contribution.

Tents, and Music Technology part 2

Before I present what I wrote in 2005 I want to ask a question for readers to think about. Most Christians, conservative and liberal, believe in some sort of Adam. Some believe he was a member of a tribe; some believe he was Neolithic farmer picked out for special recognition: some think he is the genetic ancestor of humans but not the first human. The fact is they all get the idea that there was an Adam from Scripture. Yet a lot of people ignore everything about Adam except his existence. If we all believe some type of Adam existed, why do we ignore the data about his descendants?

I have always found this very odd. I am my description–70, 3 boys, geophysicist, live in a medium size town (maybe small by today’s standards), interested in science and theology. If someone decides to describe me as 45, 2 girls, shopkeeper living in a town of 2.5 million and an avid sports fan, they wouldn’t be describing me. Thus, to ascribe to Adam and his family traits not described in Scripture is to make Adam someone else. As we will see in this post, things claimed to be invented by Adam’s descendants were invented long before Neolithic Adam lived. Neolithic Adam is a choice of interpretation which makes Scripture false, because it says things actually invented thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago, were invented in the Neolithic. This makes a mockery of both science and the Bible. Since interpretations are a conscious choice, this implies that it is a conscious choice to force the Bible into a position where it is false. Why do we do this to ourselves?

We worship the God of a religion based upon a book we proclaim is scientifically and historically false. That is so illogical that it should gobsmack us all.

From Pathway Paper #5

20“And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle. Gen. 4:20 (ASV)

Let us first look to when tents appear in the archaeological record. I can assure every reader, that tents were not a Neolithic invention. People have been living in tents for 400,000 years or more! How could a descendant of a Neolithic Adam be the ‘father of such as dwell in tents and have property’ when such things were in existence long before that?

Mankind has regularly set up tents for at least the past 400,000 years. Here is a sampling from among many more that I could draw upon. All examples are pre-Neolithic so when reading each case, think about how it falsifies the claim by many that a Neolithic Adam invented tents.

From Kostenki I (19,000 years ago)
“At Kostenki II, dated to 19,900 years ago, the circular footings of a structure survive.”131

From Arcy-sur-Cure (40,000 years ago)
"Thus, at Arcy-sur-Cure, protected by the overhang of the Cave of the Reindeer, the Chatelperronians built and rebuilt circular huts three meters in diameter, with a floor of flat stones, over the course of at least 5,000 years. Part of the framework of these huts might have consisted of mammoth tusks set in holes, and the roof might have been made of skins or bark, flat stones or lumps of soil. These dwellings are different from those of prehistoric Russia and the Ukraine–true pit houses whose construction required skeletal parts of almost 150 mammoths."132
image
Figure 8 Postholes around Neanderthal hut Reindeer Cave,
Arcy-sur-Cure. Mammoth bones M, river pebbles (striped)

Ian Tattersall relates,

"Hearths are a regular feature of Mousterian sites, and occasionally postholes (and at one site a natural cast of a tent peg) have provided evidence that from time to time Neanderthals rendered their camping sites more comfortable by the rigging up of shelters. Indeed, there is a very recent report of a Neanderthal structure quite deep within a cave, indirectly suggesting that some form of artificial lighting was available."133

The above reference is to Bruniquel, France, where 47,000 years ago, Neanderthals went several hundred meters into a cave. They built a rectangular structure and burned a bear. Mark Berkowitz said,
"A discovery by Francois Rouzaud of the French archaeological service suggests

  • Neandertals were more sophisticated in their use of fire than previously believed. A burnt bear bone found deep in a cave in southern France has been dated to at least 47,600 years ago, before modern humans reached western Europe. It proves Neandertals were able to use fire for illumination. Earlier evidence showed only that they used fire in simple hearths. The bone came from a 13- by 16-foot structure made of stalactite and stalagmite fragments. Built by Neandertals, its purpose is unknown*."134

[GRM Note: radiometric dating of Bruniquel in 2016 says it is 176,000 years old, not 47,600. see Early Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in southwestern France | Nature]

Molodova 40-60 kyr135
Large horizontal excavations at Molodova I have revealed the remnants of several large tent rings up to 8 meters in diameter comprised mainly of mammoth bones. Inside these rings are dense scatters of lithics, faunal remains and ash scatters/hearths. Recreating the depositional history and related taphonomic processes of this site is one key to understanding long term use of the site as well as area specific activities.”136

From Lunel-Viel, (200,000 years ago)
"The earliest indications come from one of the 12 Mindel/Riss interglacial occupation levels at Lunel-Viel. There, a line of six groups of large stones occurs about 10 m inside the present cave entrance. Two to four large stones constitute each group, and the line creates a division between the occupied area at the mouth of the cave and the less used interior part of the cave. These groups of stone most plausibly represent rocks used to stabilize poles wedged between the cave floor and ceiling. In fact, one such small rock circle at Lunel-Viel surrounded a small post hole 15 cm deep and about 2.5 cm in diameter confirming the construction nature of these rock features. The line of six rock groups may represent a form of wall that blocked the living area from cold damp air currents coming from the cave interior when Preneandertals sought refuge in the cave during inclement weather. Bonifay also uncovered what appears to be portions of paved areas sometimes associated with hearths or work areas on several levels. At Lunel-Viel a true dry stone wall almost 3 m long was also excavated. This separated one part of the cave which did not appear to have been habitable due to its high humidity and low roof from the clearly inhabited zone. There were also pits dug along the underground lakeshore, constructed hearths, bone dumps on the periphery of habitation zone and other indications of a strongly specialized use of domestic space inside the cave."137.

The Neanderthals were making stone pavements at that time (200,000 years ago).
"The possibility of lower Paleolithic stone pavements, presumably constructed to protect cave
inhabitants from ground moisture and mud during times of inclement weather, is a topic on which opinions vary, as they also do concerning specific sites. The densest, best defined cobble and artefact accumulations are certainly unusual and enigmatic, requiring some explanation. However, while the excavators are often convinced of their intentional human origin, others are more cautious and posit possible, gradually built-up, unintentional origins for at least some of these deposits. The most widely accepted candidate for a clearly defined pavement has been excavated in the Mindel/Riss deposits of Grotte d’Aldene. This continuous 6 m2 pavement was primarily composed of adjoining rounded limestone cobbles that had been split and flaked on the sides that were set into the ground with their rounded surfaces facing up. Waste flakes, stalagmitic slabs with smooth surfaces up and flint tools also formed part of this pavement. The continuous nature of the pavement, the occurrence of flaking on the underside of the cobbles and their limestone material make it seem unlikely that these are randomly abandoned tools meant to be used for practical tasks. As Barrall & Simone argue, these factors, as well as a good size sorting together with the tight, almost conjoining fit between the constituents, and the presence of incontestable flakes, prove that this is certainly an intentional habitation structure.’ Lumley & Bottet excavated other stone concentrations in several Riss II and III deposits of stratum 30(J) at Baume Bonne. The best example at this site, with over 185 cobbles per square meter, had well defined edges forming an oval 5 m long by 2.5 m wide containing up to 70 retouched flint tools per square meter, leaving little doubt as to its association with human activity.
"138

And from Bilzingsleben, a 425,000 year old German Homo erectus site:

At Bilzingsleben each hut opened to the south had a hearth in front of the door

Why facing south? To keep the cold north winds out of the hut.

[GRM note:I am throwing this in because it shows H. erectus had religiion!
There is an even earlier altar, which is not controversial, found at Bilzingsleben, Germany. An entire Homo erectus village was excavated at this site which dates to 425,000 years old. The excavators, Dietrich and Ursula Mania have found a 27-foot-diameter paved area that they say was used for "special cultural activities"49. Gore writes:

"But Mania’s most intriguing find lies under a protective shed. As he opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and pieces of bone that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle. "‘They intentionally paved this area for cultural activities,’ says Mania. 'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the horns of a huge bison, near it were fractured human skulls.'"50

I would contend that the symbolism here, if found in a modern village, would be enough to cause one to turn and flee for his life. Such an arrangement of objects would immediately be interpreted as evidence of religion, and a hostile religion at that. Bilzingsleben dates to around 425,000 years, not the mere 28,000 years that Rana and Ross prefers for the oldest evidence of religion or the 6,500 years for evidence of sacrifice that Fisher allows. If Rana and Ross wish to claim that religion doesn’t go back further than 28,000 years, they should explain why the above five examples don’t qualify as examples of religion? It is clear that evidence of religion in the anthropological record prior to 28,000 years is not rare. Rana and Ross can’t prove their case by ignoring these sites and this data. END of Insertion]

The oldest claim to a built windbreak was made by Mary Leakey at the site called DK which dates to 1.8 million years. It is controversial, but the remains there do look like the remains of a modern hut left by nomads today. For a full account see Johanson and Shreeve.140

OK, so a descendant of a Neolithic Adam couldn’t possibly have invented tents. But could they be the first ones in tents with cattle? Well, that depends upon what the verse means. The translation above may not be the best. “Tents” is ok, but ‘cattle’ might not be. The word, translated as ‘cattle’ is tso’n and it can be translated as cattle, flock, herd, possession, purchase, substance. Numbers 31:9 illustrates the issue. It says,

And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and they took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods.” Num 31:9 ASV.

Now, the word translated ‘cattle’ in this verse is not miqneh which was used in Genesis 4:20, be-hay-mah, which means beast. The word translated ‘flocks’ is miqneh, which was translated cattle in the previous verse. And the word ‘goods’ is chayil and can be translated as ‘strength’, ‘might’, ‘efficiency’, ‘wealth’, or ‘army’.
Gen 26:14 translates miqneh as possessions. It says:

For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds.”

The word translated ‘flocks’ is our old sheep and goat word, tso’n. This word is translated this way 54 times.

What all this shows is that the meaning of these words is somewhat obscure. If sheep/goats can be also a flock, which implies birds, but can also be sheep or goats or cattle. But miqneh is translated 60 times as ‘cattle’, three times as ‘flocks’, five times as ‘possession’ or ‘possessions’, two times as substance (also meaning possessions) and once as ‘herds’ and once as ‘purchase’. With this range of possible meanings, it is entirely possible that the verse should read:

And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and have possessions

Which clearly doesn’t require a Neolithic/farming setting. The ancient tentmakers among the archaic humans also had possessions. One is not required to think in terms of herds or flocks, even if the original writer thought that was what was God was saying to him.

Harps and pipes141

21And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and pipe.” Gen. 4:21 (ASV)

Using this verse, arguing for a Neolithic Adam, Dick Fischer asks,

“*Could sophisticated musical instruments (Gen. 4:21) predate simple bone flutes?”*142

Fischer misses an important point here, a simple bone flute is more complex than what the Bible is describing. The word translated ‘pipe’ means “perhaps a flute, reed-pipe, or panpipes. Pan pipes are merely tubes of proper length taped or tied together. It is much less complex than the Neanderthal flute which was found at Dvije Babe in Slovenia. But that gets ahead of ourselves.

The plain fact is that no descendant of a Neolithic Adam could have invented the flute or pipe because it was invented tens of thousands of years earlier.

But music is found much earlier than that, although the number of instruments become much fewer. The reason for this is the durability of wood and skin artefacts. The only objects which appear from much earlier than this are those made of very durable material, such as bone, although bone is not as durable as many would surmise. Because of the progressive destruction of perishable musical instruments, the bone flute and bone whistles become the major survivors from earlier periods.

Five thousand years ago in the Orkney Islands (north of Scotland), bone flutes were made. This was from a time equivalent to the Neolithic Adam, yet the Orcadians had flutes. Here is a picture I took of it.

image
Figure 9 Bone flute from Orkney Islands, Scotland

I would note that the holes are not even and not even circular. Yet this is in a museum as an example of a flute made by modern humans. Remember this picture when we show the Neanderthal flute below.

Other early flutes made by modern men prior to the proposed Neollithic Adam include those from the Magdalenian period dating 13-15,000 years ago, a beautiful eagle bone flute was found. Marshack describes it,

"In cabinet number one at the Musee des Antiquites Nationales in 1965, there lay a tiny gray, broken bit of hollow eagle bone. It was some 4 1/2 inches long (11 cm), had been cut by a flint knife at one end, and was broken at thee other. It came from a level approximately 13,000 to 15,000 years old, was dated as late middle Magdalenian and came from the same site of Le Placard that gave us the two earlier Magdalenian batons. Worked or decorated bird bones are not uncommon in the Upper Paleolithic. Some have blow holes cut into them, indicating their use as whistles or flutes, and they can be blown to give a high, piping, flute sound."143

This beautiful flute is engraved on the outside by two linear sequences of parallel lines, and six sets of nested chevrons. The flute, as a flute, is very simple and could only make one sound. It had no finger holes to alter the pitch. Thus, technically this was a whistle.

The oldest picture of a flute may be from an 18,000 year old French site. Coles and Higgs observe,

At Les Trois Freres (Ariege), a semi-human figure seems to be playing either a musical bow (although musically this is not in the correct position) or a flute. The association of the semi-humans at this site, with grouped animals, seems to indicate some ceremonial activity, whether it be sympathetic magic or not and music by this time had been in existence for some thousands of years."144

Another type of whistle used in ancient times was a reindeer phalange which was drilled through. When blown, it whistles. Megaw observed of these,

"The earliest evidence we have for blown instruments are those made from reindeer phalanges pierced on one surface which when blown across between the tips of the articular condyles emit a shrill whistle. Often regarded – largely on the evidence of modern parallels – as decoy whistles, these objects, whose method of playing is exactly that of the modern cross-flute, have been found in Upper Palaeolithic occupation sites in France, at for example La Madeleine and Solutre, and in Central Europe at Dolni Vestonice and the cave of Pekarna. They have also occurred on comparable sites in North America."145

Megaw’s description of the phalanges is accurate, but phalanges are not the earliest evidence of blown instruments, but that comes later. The claim for the “earliest” is one that is found quite often, and is usually wrong. I cited Megaw in order to convey what a phalange whistle was. Megaw continues (I will insert the approximate age of the various sites, that I could find, in Megaw’s text),

"To return to our catalogue: at the Hungarian cave site of Istallosko,[Istallosko-This dates at 31,000 B.P. but this particular flute may have been from younger levels. (see147–GRM] in an occupation level dated to Aurignacian II, the excavators found not only two pierced reindeer phalanges but also the femur of a cave bear having three holes, one in the centre of the posterior surface and two on the anterior. The larger of these near the proximal epiphysis measures some 11mm. across, close to the size of the lip hole of a modern cross-blown flute, and as the position of the epiphysis does not allow the lips to cover the open end it must be presumed that here was an early ancestor of the notch flutes of present-day primitive groups. Be that as it may, Istallosko does not stand alone, for several other Central European cave sites of an Aurignacian II date have produced pierced long bones. Lokve in what used to be Fiume had a curved bone – once more that of a cave bear – with three ‘finger holes’ pierced on one side. The bird’s ulna from Drachen, Mixnitz, has three large holes and several smaller – a more doubtful candidate. … On the other hand in a bone from Salzhofen in Austria we have a closer analogy to Istallosko with two holes on one side and three on the other. Returning to France, in the Aurignacian levels of the cave of Isturitz [~27,000 B.P. based on it being a Perigordian site See ref. 143, p.96-97–GRM], Basses-Pyrenees, was found part of the cubitus of a large bird, which the excavators think may have been a vulture. The broken end preserves part of a sub-rectangular hole, while below it are two other complete holes. In the later series of excavations of the Aurignacian III levels at the same site some seven other pierced bird bones were found, one having indications of four holes of which three must have been finger holes. The simple notch decoration which ornament it was found on other examples as well. Coming full circle the nearest parallel to Istallosko is to be found in a reindeer radius from Badegoule dated by its association with Solutrean leaf-shaped blades[Solutrean was approx. 20,000 years B.P.–GRM]. At the damaged distal end is one large hole repeated by a smaller on the opposite side which also has a second hole at the proximal end."146

Of the Isturitz find, the original report, written in French, describes it thusly,

"Enfin, j’ai decouvert en 1921, une piece qui est sans doute unique, un gros os d’Oiseau, malheureusement brise a une de ses extremites, mais qui porte encore sur une seule rangee trois larges trous, comme dans une sorte de flute (pl. VII). C’est, sans doute, le plus ancien instrument de musique connu."148

Translation:

At last, I uncovered in 1921 a piece which is without doubt, unique, a big bird bone, unfortunately broken at the ends, but because still carried three holes, like that of some sort of flute. It is without doubt the most ancient musical instrument found.” [trans. by David Morton]

Gravettian sites in eastern Europe, also have yielded several flutes. Coles and Higgs report,

"Also in Moravia are the important Gravettian sites of Predmost, Pavlov and Brno. At Pavlov a large number of hut plans have been identified, oval, round and five-sided in shape, with some postholes and hearths. The associated industry included decorated bone and ivory objects including animals and human figures, and a number of phalange whistles; the occupation has been radiocarbon dated to c. 25,000 B.P."149

At Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia, flutes are found. This site is approximately 27,000 years old. Coles and Higgs relate,

"Decorative objects include perforated shells and other pendants, and tubular beads; bone tubes, one with a plug of resin, probably were panpipes."150
The oldest known flute, made by anatomically modern humans today, comes from Abri Blanchard from 30,000 years ago.151

I have been able to find many more examples of musical instruments which were made by Neanderthal. The most recent find was from Divje Babe. It is a flute, which is made in the same fashion as the Upper Paleolithic flutes made by modern men noted above. Thus the tradition of flute making continues unaltered across the Neanderthal/Modern man transition. David Keys writes,

"Deep inside a cave in Slovenia, in the north of former Yugoslavia, archaeologists have unearthed the world’s oldest true musical instrument - a flute which appears to have been made by Neanderthals around 45,000 years ago."152 (18)

Here is a drawing of the Neanderthal flute,

image
Some people don’t think it is a flute. They say it is the regurgitated remains of a hyena dinner. However, this is a better made flute than the one in the Orkneys Museum in Kirkwall, Orkney which is made by modern humans. The holes are rounder and more regularly spaced.

But like lots of claims for being the oldest, it isn’t. Neanderthals made phalange whistles (just like anatomically modern man. One was found at La Quina(19), which dates to 64,000 years ago.153 This is a musical instrument from prior to the time Hugh Ross used to say any should exist. Dr. Ross has repeatedly stated that it is Biblically unacceptable for there to be any evidence of spirituality prior to 60,000 years (although he has recently changed to a 100,000 year time zone. As long as Christians make these types of claims, we will set the Bible up to be disproven all too easily. He writes:

"In the case of the cave drawings and pottery fragments, the degree of abstractness suggests the expression of something more than just intelligence. Certainly no animals species other than human beings has ever exhibited the capacity for such sophisticated expression. However, the dates for these finds are well within the biblically acceptable range for the appearance of Adam and Eve – somewhere between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago according to Bible scholars who have carefully analyzed the genealogies. Since the oldest art and fabrics date between 25,000 and 30,000 years ago, no contradiction exists between anthropology and Scripture on this issue."154

But this is not the end of the Neanderthal musical instruments. They extend much further into the past. [GRM Note: the oldest art in the world is from Spain dated to 64,000 years ago predating modern humans by 20,000 years. ]

The oldest flute I have been able to find is a from Haua Fteah in Libya. It is had at least two perforations and thus was much more complex than the first flute I mentioned above, the Le Placard Eagle bone flute. McBurney notes,

"To these may be added a remarkable bone object most plausibly explained as a fragment of a vertical ‘flute’ or multiple pitch whistle, from spit 1955/64. In this position although directly associated only with a few non-diagnostic chips, splinters and splinters of bone it is none the less attributable to the Pre-Aurignacian owing to the clear indications provided by the overlying spits 1955/61-58, to be discussed in the next chapter. These last show every affinity with the material culture as described and certainly indicate the continued existence of the tradition in the area. 155

Stringed instruments, which is what the harp refers to, do not preserve well in the archaeological record. They are usually made of perishable material like wood. The only thing that can be said about their existence in prehistory is that mankind has been making string and cord for a long time (using them for strings of beads) and surely somewhere along the way someone would have noticed that a taut string when plucked, makes sound. The Neanderthals made a necklace, and thus string. So, the likelihood of some descendent of a Neolithic Adam being the first to discover that strings can make music is very, very low.

But again, all the items discussed here were pre-Neolithic. Again, the common view, even if they believe the account of Adam and Eve’s descendants is literal, it is a johnny-come-lately story. Everything was invented before by Adam and Eve’s tribal parents not their descendants. (assuming one believes A and E were born of a pre-existing human tribe). Unfortunately, those who believe this tribal theory are generally are quite willing to dismiss Scripture as having no real historical or scientific content–Thus it doesn’t bother them. Adam and Eve must be much older than is commonly believed.

references
50. Rick Gore, “The First Europeans,” National Geographic, July, 1997, p. 96-113, p. 110
131. Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p.204
132. Andre Leroi Gourhan, The Hunters of Prehistory, transl. Claire Jacobson, (New York: Atheneum, 1989), p. 131
133. Ian Tattersall, Becoming Human, (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998), p. 158
134. Mark Berkowitz, “Neandertal News,” Archaeology, Sept./Oct. 1996, p. 22
135. Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p.204
136. A. Nowell, F. d’Errico, A. Sytnyk , “The Art of Taphonomy and the Taphonomy of Art: An analysis of Molodova I, Level IV: Putative Symbolic Evidence ,” Abstracts for the 2003 Meetings http://www.paleoanthro.org/abst2003.htm
accessed 6-22-03
137.Brian Hayden "The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 132n
138. Brian Hayden,“The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals”, Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p.132-133
139. D. Mania and U. Mania, “Latest Finds of Skull Remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia)” Naturwissenschaften, 81(1994):123-127, p. 127
140. Donald Johanson and James Shreeve, Lucy’s Child, (New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1989), p. 152-153
141. parts of this are taken from http://home.entouch.net/dmd/music.htm
142. Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution, (Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, 1996), p. 118
143. Alexander Marshack, The Roots of Civilization, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), p. 147.
144. J.M. Coles and E. S. Higgs, The Archaeology of Early Man, (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), p. 226-227
145. J.V.S. Megaw, “Penny Whistles and Prehistory,” Antiquity XXXIV, 1960, pp 6-13, p. 6-7
146. Ibid., p. 7-8
147. J.M. Coles and E. S. Higgs, The Archaeology of Early Man, (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), p. 290
148. E. Passemard, 1944, “La Caverne d’Isturitz en Pays Basque,” Prehisoire 9:1-84, p. 24.
149. J.M. Coles and E. S. Higgs, The Archaeology of Early Man, (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), p. 298
150. Ibid.
151. Goran Burenhult, editor,American Museum of Natural History The First Humans, (San Francisco: Harper,1993), p. 103 and Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 322
152. David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent, “Independent” Sunday 2/25/96, p. 15 Manchester England.
153. Paul Mellars, The Neanderthal Legacy, (Princeton: University Press, 1996), p. 404
154. Hugh Ross, “Art and Fabric Shed New Light on Human History,” Facts & Faith, 9:3 (1995)p. 2
155. C.B.M. McBurney, Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica),(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 90

Of course my word is not the final word. But why should ‘accommodation’ or ‘young-earth creationism’ be considered the final word? Science is about challenging the status quo, finding new ways to look at the world, finding new data and new fits between data and theory. Christianity over the past 200 years has removed itself from any intellectual excitement or novelty. We are as stuck in ruts as my pickup was on my ranch once.

So find things wrong with my view and fix them, but what bothers me is that so much of the criticism is merely to find something wrong so the critic can stay in his rut. Find a new view, totally different from mine that fits the facts. Maybe I have missed another big local flood that happened more recently, but for us to sit and just say, “it isn’t history” and therefore do no more research is very bad for Christianity. It cedes the intellectual world to the materialist without a fight. I think Christianity is worth fighting for because I believe it is true and that God is a miraculous god–not TV evangelist style miracle but far more interesting…

I absolutely agree with you, Gbob. And I do like the idea you are presenting, but I also find the Persian Oasis locale interesting too. It does mean (at very least) that places —perhaps a number of places — existed, evidently in that general Mediterranean/Mesopotamian region – that could and did fit the bare-bones description of the early chapters of Genesis. That too is intriguing. It at very least suggests that the biblical writer of the first chapters of Genesis (authorship a separate debate!!) had memory --perhaps a very distant one – of actual geography and actual events. I think Swamidoss’ idea was for a more recent event, and his ideas also seemed, at very least, intriguing. When I saw more recent, I do not mean he has a YEC view of things.

At any rate, thanks for adding to the discussion!!

My pleasure.