The suggestion that Methuselah lived 969 years is seen as absurd by the majority of the Western world, as are the other long life-spans recorded in Genesis. It is not just the ages attained which are disbelieved, but the chronology implied by the genealogies. The suggestion that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 might have value in dating the origins of humanity is thoroughly rejected. Herein lies the problem which this thesis will attempt to solve. The problem is that the chronology of Genesis does not seem to square with reality as we now know it. Working within the subject areas of Old Testament and Theology, the thesis provides an understanding of Genesis 1-11 that reconciles the genealogies and their chronology with the views of mainstream science and history.
There are good reasons for the current consensus that such reconciliation is impossible. Various fields of scientific and historical endeavour have produced conclusions which seem to contradict the chronological claims of Genesis. This writer’s approach to reconciling the Genesis chronology with history and science is to make the following major claim: By understanding Adam-through-Noah’s universe as distinct from and parallel to ours, one better understands the Bible, and one can reconcile Genesis’ early chronology with known science and history.
More precisely, this writer’s claim is that the whole account of Genesis 2:4-4:10 and Genesis 4:25-8:14 is set in a different physical, parallel universe. The claim is that there were two miraculous crossings from that world to ours. The first crossing was the eviction of Cain from that world to ours, explicitly mentioned in Genesis 4:11-14 with implications described and explained in Genesis 4:15-24. The second crossing was the miraculous translation of the ark of Noah from that world to ours, implied between Genesis 8:14 and Genesis 8:15 . The implications of the translation of the ark into our world are spelt out in Genesis 8:15-9:18. This understanding produces a more coherent reading of Genesis 1-11 than the traditional view, hence the term ‘better’ in the major claim.
The primary scope of the investigation will be that academic work which deals with the genealogies and the chronology of the origins of humankind, including works which test the major claim. The thesis will proceed as follows: A survey of the literature regarding the implications of the Genesis genealogies for chronology. In section 1, the presentation of arguments that an understanding of two physically distinct universes makes more sense of the Scriptures than the traditional understanding. In section 2, the development of an argument that the two physically distinct worlds are best understood as being parallel universes. In section 3, a consideration of current scientific theory on parallel universes.[1] In section 4, estimates for various important dates within Genesis are made using the Genesis genealogical data, for example the dates for the creation of Adam, the eviction of Cain, the Great Deluge, and the Babel Tower of Babel
This thesis makes a number of assumptions in considering its major claim. The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture as originally given is assumed, as is its authority in all matters on which it speaks. It is assumed that systematic theology is a viable pursuit, such that understandings of Scripture are sought which are consistent with other parts of Scripture. The extent of Scripture is considered to be the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. The general reliability and trustworthiness of scholarly works in science, history, and elsewhere is also assumed. The methodology does not require a choice between science/history and Scripture as supreme authority. Instead, the approach is to consider the plausibility of the claim that science, history and Scripture can all be treated as having authority, when the major claim is accepted.
Review of Literature on the implications of Genesis 5 and 11 for the chronology of the Old Testament
Many commentators from Jewish pre-Christ commentators[2] to early Christian commentators[3] to Ussher[4] in the 17th century and beyond[5] had no hesitation in using the Genesis genealogies to produce a chronology of the period. The manner in which one might do this is clear from the biblical texts. Take Genesis 5:21-29 and Genesis 7:6 as an example:
‘When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. [...] When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. [...] When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. He named him Noah [...] Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.’
It is a simple matter of addition to determine a timeline from such data. For example, in the case of Methuselah, we can take the 187 years until the birth of Lamech, add a further 182 years until the birth of Noah, and a further 600 years until the flood. This makes 969 years altogether, so Methuselah was born 969 years before the flood. Augustine was happy to add the years of the genealogy together in this way and make conclusions about the chronology of events.[6] This is also true of Calvin[7], and many others, notably Bishop Ussher, whose date for the creation was the 23rd day of October (on the Julian calendar) in 4004 B.C.[8]
Two factors especially militate against modern commentators using the figures in this way. The first is scepticism over whether such long lives are possible. The second is the way in which the chronology implied by the genealogies seems to contradict known history and science. We will discuss these two considerations in turn.
The Extended Lifespans
Scepticism has long existed regarding the extended life spans. Josephus[9], Augustine[10] and Calvin[11] all contended against such scepticism, showing that it is not unique to us moderns. Josephus explained the long lifespans of the patriarchs by saying that their food was then ‘fitter for the prolongation of life’, and that God lengthened their lives because of their virtue and the good use they made of their long lives.[12] Augustine argued against the view that our years and theirs were differently reckoned, ‘so short that one of our years may be supposed to be equal to ten of theirs’. He pointed out that this could not be systematically and reasonably applied across all the genealogies.[13] He asserted that people in parts of the world even in his day were heard to live to 200 years, and concluded it was not so strange to believe in the possibility of still greater lifespans. Calvin taught that one of the reasons for the long-lifespans was the power of the teaching of Adam, who had himself seen the creation event.[14]
Very few commentators defend the lengthy life spans today. Waltke and Fredricks point out that Genesis reports a decline in longevity after the Deluge which is logarithmic.[15] They conclude that the post-Deluge world is depicted as being more hostile to life than the pre-Deluge world.[16] Whitcomb and Morris suggest that before the Deluge there was a vapour canopy still in the heavens, which filtered out ‘age-causing rays’ from the atmosphere.[17] Hamilton
Perhaps the best way to see how few modern commentators defend the long life-spans is to examine Kitchen’s views on the subject of Jacob’s longevity. Kitchen is the author of the impressive work entitled ‘On the Reliability of the Old Testament’. The major claim of Kitchen’s work is that the Old Testament is reliable in its history. However, on the question of long life-spans, Kitchen does not defend them. In dating Jacob’s birth, Kitchen first dates Jacob's arrival in Egypt Egypt Egypt
There are different approaches taken by those who deny the veracity of the long ages in Genesis. Some modern commentators take the ancient approach of claiming that years in biblical times were calculated differently to the way we calculate years now.[24] But these approaches retain problems when applied uniformly across Genesis. Since the ages of the patriarchs decline steadily after the Deluge, no alternative dating successfully yields ‘equivalent’ ages for all the patriarchs which are acceptable by modern standards. Additionally, we can see in the flood story that the years of Genesis were about 360 days.[25] Indeed in Genesis 6:3, God declares he will reduce human life span to a maximum of 120 years. Thus the years in question are years as we understand them. Barnouin proposes that the numbers might have had an astronomical function, for example, Enoch’s 365 years (Gen. 5:23) corresponds to the number of days in the year.[26] But only a limited portion of the numbers has this characteristic. Others argue that the years represent ‘an individual and his direct line by primogeniture’[27]. For example, according to this view, Adam and his direct line were in charge of affairs for 930 years (Gen. 5:5), until the leadership was passed to Seth and his main line, who themselves ruled affairs for 912 years, and so on. One problem with this view is described well by Archer: ‘it is difficult to imagine by what other son Adam’s direct line would have descended before the allegedly collateral line of Seth took over.’[28] Some consider the array of difficulties and conclude that we do not know the meaning of the numbers.[29]
Using the Genealogies to Create an Old Testament Chronology
If the lengthy ages of the patriarchs are unreliable, it follows that the chronology implied by the genealogies is also unreliable. However, more can be said on the implied chronologies than this. Support for the understanding that the Genesis genealogies are chronologically useful collapsed largely from the impact of the natural sciences in the early nineteenth century.[30] Such objections to the Genesis chronology remain in modern commentary, and are supplemented by objections regarding the intent of Genesis itself. However, the external critiques (critiques drawing on known history and science to show that the chronologies don’t fit the world we know) are compelling, while the critiques regarding the intent of Genesis (arguments that the genealogies were not intended to be used for chronologies) are much weaker.
In terms of reconciling Genesis with history, the chronology implied by the genealogies (using the ancient, ‘straight-addition’ approach) puts the Deluge in the mid-third millennium B.C., providing extensive problems. If the Deluge is understood to wipe out all people on our earth, then one problem is that the known history of Egypt must be rejected, since Egyptian history extends continuously back to the mid fourth millennium B.C.[31] In terms of science, if we accept that humans are descended from one man who lived more than 120 thousand years ago in Africa[32], this man cannot be the biblical Adam - the timing is way out. This is not even to mention the geographical problem: Genesis 2 places Eden (and therefore Adam) close to the conjunction of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This is a long way from southern Africa . So Adam seems placed by the bible at both the wrong place and the wrong time. Such arguments show that the traditional understanding of the chronology found within the Bible cannot be squared with the world we have found outside the Bible.
An important source-critical argument against the reliability of the genealogies should be canvassed at this point. The discovery of cuneiform literature (early Sumerian writing) led to questions about the source of the genealogies of Genesis. In particular, the famous ‘Sumerian King List’ was compiled from about fifteen different texts and published by Jacobsen in 1939.[33] This (extra-biblical) list speaks of the time when kingship was ‘lowered from heaven’, after which two kings ruled for no less than 64,800 years. Various kings with similar length of rule (in the tens of thousands of years) are recorded as following these first kings. The opening section of the king-list concludes by saying ‘The Flood swept thereover’.[34] After the flood, the lengths of the kings’ reign is said to have reduced to modern levels, though not as quickly as the Genesis account records.[35] The parallels to the Genesis account should be obvious. Childs writes, ‘it first appeared that the biblical genealogies had lost all theological significance and were simply to be recognized as a somewhat garbled accommodation to ancient chronological tradition.’[36] Commentators since then have pointed out that the Genesis genealogies do retain a separate function from that of the Sumerian king list - that of ‘tracing the line of the chosen family’.[37] However, any attempt to use the Genesis genealogies as a source for a reliable chronology must now not only deal with the challenges of history and science. Additionally, there are now the source-critical questions of the parallels between Genesis and the Sumerian King List: If Genesis provides a reliable chronology, why is it so similar in content to earlier Sumerian literature?
Considerably weaker are the arguments sourced within the Bible against using the genealogies for chronology.
The most important of these arguments was originally posed by Green in the mid 19th century. . Green’s position was expressed as a Biblical rationale for overturning the dominant Ussher chronology in the face of scientific discoveries about the antiquity of humanity. Green’s overturning of that approach was later termed ‘The Most Important Biblical Discovery of Our Time’ by one of his Princeton colleagues.[38] He put the proposition like this:
‘If Matthew omitted names from the ancestry of our Lord in order to equalize the three great periods over which he passes, may not Moses have done the same in order to bring out seven generations from Adam to Enoch, and ten from Adam to Noah? […] if these recently discovered indications of the antiquity of man, over which scientific circles are now so excited, shall, when carefully inspected and thoroughly weighed, demonstrate all that any have imagined they might demonstrate, what then? They will simply show that the popular chronology is based on a wrong interpretation, and that a select and partial register of ante-Abrahamic names has been mistaken for a complete one.’[39]
Much modern evangelical thinking about origins rests on Green’s observation, as is discussed by Numbers.[40] However, Green was wrong. The different form of the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 is decisive evidence against Green’s approach. For each new son mentioned in the Genesis genealogy, it is also mentioned how old the father was when he had that son. (This is not the case in Matthew 1). This means that even if generations were deliberately omitted (and the age stated was an age when someone became the grandfather or great-grandfather rather than father), calculation of the timeline would be unchanged. For example, consider Genesis 5:6 'When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh'. Suppose that in fact Seth was the great grandfather of Enosh, and not his immediate father. We could then read the passage as saying 'When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the great grandfather of Enosh'. Such a reading does not change the key figure - the date of birth of Enosh stays the same with respect to the date of birth of Seth. In either case, Enosh was 105 years younger than Seth and 235 years younger than Adam.
Another argument against using the genealogies for chronology is that the Bible itself never adds the years together - for example it never says that there were 1,946 years from Adam‘s creation to Abraham’s birth.[41] However, many truths are rightly derived only from what the Scriptures imply.
Merrill points out another difficulty in the traditional understanding of the genealogies. The difficulty is that Shem was 450 years at the time off Abraham’s birth, 525 when Abraham moved to Canaan and that he died only twenty-five years before Abraham. One of Merrill’s cited problems regards why God would have called Abraham out of paganism and not Shem, when Shem was still living. Another problem is why Abraham was considered an old man at 175 when his contemporaries Shem and Eber died at ages 600 and 464 respectively.[42] These are probably the most pressing challenges within Genesis for the traditional chronological understanding. Yet there is no reason to require God to call Abraham only after Shem had died. Additionally, if one understands Genesis’ teaching to be that long-life individuals (who were few in number) lived in the midst of short-life ‘normal people’ (who were vast in number), these objections are removed.[43] Such an understanding enables one to say that Abraham is called old at 175 years because he is old by normal standards. That there are a few long-life members of Abraham’s family contemporaneous with Abraham does not change this fact. Note that this writer has not seen such an explanation of the data elsewhere, and without such explanation, the internal arguments against the traditional chronology gain traction here.
Some suggest that Luke 3:36 points to an omission of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, in Genesis 10:24 .[44] However, Bock notes a viable argument against accepting this textual variant.[45] The acceptance or otherwise of the textual variant does not alter the conclusion as to whether the author intended the genealogies to be used to establish a chronology.
Finally, some consider the chronological function of the genealogies to be that they point to the long time-periods involved. Wenham puts it this way: 'Could it be that the precision of the figures conveys the notion that these patriarchs were real people, while their magnitude represents their remoteness from the author of Genesis?'[46] This is unsatisfactory. It is founded on Wenham’s conviction that humans cannot attain the ages recorded, a conviction he is projecting back into his reading of Genesis. Note that the long life-spans continue outside of the genealogies, well into the book of Genesis, illustrating the depth of the problem. Abraham lives to a hundred and seventy-five years (Gen 25:7), Isaac to a hundred and eighty years (Gen 35:28) and Jacob to a hundred and forty-seven (Gen 47:28). Perhaps the biggest nail in the coffin for those trying to escape these lengthy life spans (or confine them to Genesis 1-11) is the meeting between Pharaoh and Jacob in Gen. 47:8-9. Jacob makes it abundantly clear to Pharaoh that his 130 years have been much shorter than his ancestors. 'Pharaoh asked him, "How old are you?" And Jacob said to Pharaoh, "The years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty. My years have been few and difficult, and they do not equal the years of the pilgrimage of my fathers." Genesis unashamedly depicts many patriarchs who lived very long lives. It unashamedly teaches that the longevity of those patriarchs steadily declined with the generations after the flood. It unashamedly places the long-life-span Jacob in the midst of the (presumably) normal-life-span Egyptians. It is a suggestion that stems from the worldview of the commentators to say that the only chronological implications of the genealogies are the remoteness of the patriarchs. Such a view does not stem from the text or the author of Genesis. In sum, the case within the bible against using the genealogies for chronology is weak. Thus something like Ussher’s chronology (though not as precise) can be constructed from the Bible.
With this background in mind, it is time to argue for the major claim of this thesis.
The major claim of this thesis involves the sub-claim that Adam-through-Noah lived in a world which was physically distinct from ours. Three arguments will be presented to this end. First, arguments that Eden
Note that these arguments assume the failure of Green’s contention that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies may have skipped generations (i.e. it is assumed that the Bible teaches Adam’s creation to be dated around 4000 B.C., and the Flood around 2300 B.C. For the detailed calculation, see section 4.) The following arguments also assume the general reliability of the physical sciences and history (especially on chronological matters).
1. Arguments that Eden
This first argument consists of three sub-arguments. First, the Edenic Paradise is described as a place where Adam and Eve could in theory have lived in perfect happiness forever. The perfection of such a physical Paradise is such that it could not have been achieved in a place that could be visited today. Long before the advent of humans, our world had tectonic activity, (causing earthquakes and tsunamis), lightning strikes, disease, annoying insects like flies and dangerous animals like lions, cancer-causing sunburn and wind-storms. None of these would be expected to exist in a perfect Paradise , yet all are understood to have been ubiquitous in our world since before humans were on Earth. There is nowhere we can find in our world where these things could ever have been escaped by humans. Therefore the Paradise in Eden
Second, the fact that Eden Eden Tigris and Euphrates rivers described in Genesis 2:14 is reversed from the flow in our world. He writes, 'Maybe the reversed flow of the rivers suggests that paradise is beyond man’s present experience. Their names (the names of the rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:10-14) affirm that there was a garden there, but maybe the insoluble geography[47] is a way of saying that it is now inaccessible to, even unlocatable by, later man'.[48] That is, Genesis itself suggests by its geography that Eden
Third, evolution has taken a long time in our world, in the order of millions of years. This does not square with a creation of Adam from dust around 4000 B.C. It squares even less well with a creation of all animals from dust around 4000 B.C. The only viable solution to this problem is to see that Adam and Eve's world was different from our world, and additionally to see that the time frames of creation in the two worlds are very different. Once we accept that there are two separate worlds, we can conclude that in our world human (and animal) evolution took millions of years, while in the pre-flood world, the creation of humans and animals was very swift. Thus we can embrace both the scientific consensus and the biblical account of human and animal creation.
Some Asides on the creation of two distinct worlds
Before moving to arguments that Cain and Abel were born in a separate physical worlds, some asides can be made. One might ask why God would choose to create us in such a convoluted way, with two physically distinct worlds. A plausible answer goes as follows: an evolution-based world works well as a world of sin and death, since the evolutionary process relies strongly on death. But an evolution-based world takes a long time to come to fruition. Therefore God, seeing in advance that his plans required a world of sin and death, established an evolutionary-based world with its long timeframes for life-creation. However, a world with quick creation of animals and humans fits the bill well as a world of perfection. So God, seeing in advance that his plans also required a world of perfection, created a non-evolutionary-based world with its short timeframes for life-creation. In his good plan he wanted both worlds. He wanted both a world of sin and death and also a world of perfection. For that reason, he decided to create two different worlds with two different speeds of life-creation.
A second answer as to why God would choose the 'convoluted' approach of creating two different yet parallel worlds comes from Acts 17:26-27 - God did it in this way, so that through one man he could make all nations of people, in order that people might reach out and find him. In other words, God’s plan was that when Adam sinned, he would set into action his plan to redeem humanity. His plan involved taking the fallen humanity of Adam, and injecting it into 70 million[49] pre-humans simultaneously, to make them human. The plan was that this would in turn lead to the (relatively) speedy rise of civilization and spread of nations among those humans - which rise and spread had not been achieved by Homo sapiens over the previous 100 millennia of their existence. God wanted to do it that way, so that people could see that God was behind it, and so turn to him, and thus be redeemed by him. More of that later.
Apologetically, it can be added here that this understanding of our world as the world of curse, sin and death helps us to respond to attacks on God's design of our world. Richard Dawkins is a famous example of a writer who uses 'poor design' of animals and humans to argue against a designer. In a section titled 'Unintelligent design', he writes,
'This pattern of major design flaws, compensated for by subsequent tinkering, is exactly what we should not expect if there really were a designer at work [...] A favourite example [...] is the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It is a branch of one of the cranial nerves, those nerves that lead directly from the brain rather than from the spinal cord. One of the cranial nerves, the vagus [...], has various branches, two of which go to the heart, and two on each side to the larynx (voice box in mammals). On each side of the neck, one of the branches of the laryngeal nerve goes straight to the larynx, following a direct route such as a designer might have chosen. The other one goes to the larynx via an astonishing detour. It dives right down into the chest, loops around one of the main arteries leaving the heart (a different artery on the left and right sides, but the principle is the same), and then heads back up the neck to its destination. [...] If you think of it as the product of design, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a disgrace.'[50]
This critique loses its power if it is understood that our world was intended from its beginning to be a world of curse and sin and death. In such a case the answer is - of course there are problems with the design of beings in our world! If everything were perfect, it wouldn't be inherently a world of sin and death and curse![51]
2. Arguments that Cain and Abel lived in a different physical world from ours
Two arguments can be presented under this heading. First, notice that Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden in such a way that cherubim and a flaming sword were required to prevent their return (Gen. 3:24). This implies that they remained in the same physical world after the time of curse. The logical explanation is that the cherubim and sword were needed because Adam and Eve were still in the same world after the curse, and because without that guard, they could have gone back to the tree of life. Thus after the Fall and curse, Adam and Eve were still in that same physical world, and so still in a world which was physically distinct from ours (given they started in a different physical world from ours). Thus Cain and Abel were born in a different physical world from ours.
Second, the details of Cain’s eviction in Genesis 4 point to him being cast out of that physically different world into our world. Cain was 'driven from the ground' (Gen. 4:11). He was driven ‘from the land’, and driven ‘out from the LORD’s presence’ (Gen. 4:14 , 16). This suggests he was moved to a very different place. It is clear that he is in a different place when he says ‘Whoever finds me will kill me.’ (Gen. 4:14) The natural reading is that Cain felt an imminent threat, not from his parents, but from a new group of people otherwise unmentioned in the account. There were no cherubim or flaming sword to stop him getting back to the world of his parents, which suggests some other kind of barrier to his return.
To where was he evicted? The short genealogy of Gen. 4:17-24 gives us the answer. He was evicted into our world. The emphasis of the genealogy is on the fact that Cain and his descendants did notable things for the advance of civilization. Cain himself built a city (Gen. 4:17). His descendants included 'the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock' (Gen. 4:20), the 'father of all who play the harp and flute' (Gen. 4:21), one who 'forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron' (Gen. 4:22), as well as one who was a polygamist and murderer (Gen. 4:23). To speak of the 'fatherhood' of a discipline implies that the discipline continued to draw on that father's pioneering work. If this pioneering work was all lost in the Great Flood, there would be little reason to include Cain's descendants' achievements. However, if these achievements were not destroyed in the flood, it makes more sense to include them here, because they have an impact in the world of the reader. Thus it the Genesis account is pointing us to the fact that Cain was cast out of the world of his parents into our world.
This makes sense in terms of the known history of our world. Given our acceptance of Adam’s date at around 4000 B.C. (and thus Cain’s date c. 3950 B.C.), we know that in our world at that time Cain would have found sufficient people present for him to fear some, marry another, and attempt to build a city for still others. Thus Cain and Abel originally lived in a physically distinct world from ours.
Some Asides on Cain
Further on Cain, Hamilton Hamilton 11:10 -11). Surely someone who repeatedly outlived friends and relatives would rightly be called a restless wanderer on earth.
What might it mean to be 'driven out of Yahweh's presence'?. This writer’s proposal is that it means Cain was driven out of the physical place of perfect relationship with Yahweh. He was driven out of the earth that houses the garden of Eden. He was driven out of that world into our world of sin and death. That seems a fitting punishment for his crime - a crime of cutting his brother off from life is punished by cutting him off from the place of the source of life. But what do other commentators do with this passage?
Wenham's comment on Gen 4:14 is to say that Cain 'seems to be suggesting that he is being driven even further from the divine presence symbolized by the garden than his parents were.'[53] This is insufficient. The question is left unanswered as to what kind of boundary is stopping Cain from returning to where his parents were living? What is it about the boundary that is so profound that once Cain crosses it, he is outside of God's presence? The solution here suggested answers these questions well. There is a place identified for Cain to be cast - our world. There is a reason that our world (where he is cast) is described as being outside of God's presence - our world is much more profoundly and enduringly a place of sin and death and curse, never having been a place of perfection. There is a justice in sending Cain to our world - such a terrible sin as fraternal murder deserves eviction into a terrible world.
3. Arguments that Noah’s pre-flood world was a different physical world from ours
Three arguments can be presented under this heading.
For the first argument, three observations are necessary. The first observation comes from Genesis 47:7-10, where we see that for a period, ‘long-lifespan-people’ lived in the midst of 'normal-lifespan-people'. Jacob was one of the last who could be called a ‘long-lifespan-person’, because his 130 years were long (while being small compared to his ancestors). Pharoah was a normal-lifespan-person, as all Egyptian leaders and all Egyptians were (A standard Egyptian history book shows that Egyptian Pharoahs didn't live to 130[54]). Thus long-lifespan-people lived for a period in the midst of normal-lifespan-people.
The second observation comes from the description of Abraham’s 175 years as ‘a good old age’, ‘full of years’ (Gen. 25:7-8). This implies that most people did not live that long – that most people lived ‘normal lives’, as we also know from non-Biblical history. Thus the Bible’s testimony is that a small number of long-lifespan people lived for a period in the midst of a large number of normal-lifespan-people.
The third observation comes from the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. The lifespans of long-lifespan-people (mentioned in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11) only declined after the Flood (Noah lived longer than Adam, but after Noah, the lifespans quickly declined). Thus the decline in lifespan was caused by the different conditions in the pre-flood world compared to the post-flood world.
Add those three observations together, and the conclusion follows that the small number of long-lifespan people were small because they all derived from one man (Noah), and long-lifespan because their ancestors had recently lived in a long-lifespan-world. The large number of normal-lifespan people were large because they derived from the large number of people known to exist in our world before 2300 B.C. (the date of the Flood), and normal-lifespan because their ancestors had never lived in a long-lifespan-world. Thus before the Flood, two differently derived groups of humans lived in physically different worlds. The worlds were different in that one sustained very long life while the other did not. Thus the world of Adam-through-Noah was a physically distinct world from ours.
For the second argument, two observations are required. The first is that the genealogies date the Flood to c. 2300 B.C. The second is that the known history of Egypt
For the third argument, consider 2 Peter 3:5-7.
'But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men'
Two different worlds are described and distinguished using two different phrases. First, there is the 'world of that time' (ὁ τoτε κoσμos, lit. 'the then world'). Second, there is 'the present heavens and earth' (ὁι [...] νuν oὑρανoι και ἡ γη, lit. 'the now heavens and earth'. Bauckham (with most commentators) gets it right when he says that 'the world of that time' (v. 6) means not only the people but the heavens and the earth of the pre-flood world too.[55] The parallelisms of 'the heavens' and 'the earth' in verses 5 and verse 7 are sufficient to make the case (i.e. v.7 ‘heavens and earth’ means the physical world as well as the people, thus ‘heavens and earth’ in v.5 has the same meaning. But in v.5 ‘heavens and earth’ refers to the same object as ‘the world’ in v. 6. Thus in v. 6 the heavens and earth as well as the people are intended.)
But having established that the 'world of that time' means more than just the 'people back then', the reader should notice the importance of Peter's contrast. Peter describes our world as the 'present' (νuν) heavens and earth, and contrasts our world with the pre-flood, 'then' (τoτε) world. But if the 'then' world referred to the same world as the one we live in, there should be no need to describe our universe as the present heavens and the earth, for no other heavens and earth have ever existed. That Peter does speak of the present heavens and earth makes it likely that Peter believes in two distinct physical universes - 'the present heavens and earth' on the one hand, and the 'world of that time' on the other hand.
Asides on longevity
In this writer’s view, there are other Biblical examples of how long-lifespan people lived for a period in the midst of short-lifespan people. Regarding the episode of Sarah and Abimelech, Wenham writes, 'That an elderly woman, long past the menopause (18:11 –12), should have been thought attractive enough for intercourse with a king is intriguing. Is something happening to Sarah that will make pregnancy possible? Is she undergoing some sort of rejuvenation?'[56] Sarah’s post-menopause, ‘old-age’ attractiveness is best explained by how recently her ancestors had lived in the pre-flood world. Another example of this phenomenon is the observation that Shem was alive for nearly all of Abraham’s lifetime, despite being centuries older (see Gen. 11:10-26, 25:7). Another more speculative comment in this regard can be made about the Nephilim. If it is accepted that the Nephilim derive from the intercourse of angels and beautiful women (Gen. 6:4), a question presents itself: Why have no ‘giant’ Nephilim been produced lately? The answer may be that modern women are not as beautiful as pre-Flood women who were descended from Adam.
Note that more can be said about the reasons for the decline in life expectancy of Noah’s offspring. The people in the world of Adam-through-Noah were derived from Adam and Eve's perfectly created biology, and thus did not have the same flaws in their make-up as those who derived from an evolution-and-death-based lineage. In our world of death and curse and evolution, all living things have physical imperfections which derive from their evolution. This was not the case with Adam, Eve, or with any of their descendants who lived in that pre-flood world. Adam was created from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, thus having no imperfections at their creation. Thus evolution-derived flaws were only introduced into Adam's line at the time when Adam's descendants married those not descended from Adam. At that point, significant declines in the life expectancy of Adam's line were to be expected. This explanation allows us to posit that Eber was the first descendant of Noah who married a woman with no descent from Noah, which would explain why his son, Peleg lived around half as long as his father (Gen. 11:15-18)
__________________
What this section has achieved is to present numerous reasons to accept that the pre-flood world was a different physical world to that of our own. Put another way, what has been argued thus far is that a multiple-world thesis is the only option if one wants to hold both an infallibilist view of Scripture and also to respect the findings of science/history.
Some might object to this whole thesis by saying that the infallibilist position on Scripture is arcane and defunct. However, it is a position still widely held, and for that reason alone, this investigation is worth pursuing. Some might say that to proceed from this point by building on this multiple-world claim is to build an empire on an unstable foundation (i.e. to waste energy and time). But this reader’s response is that it is only as unstable as the infallibilist view of Scripture itself. Some might say that this is all unfounded, untestable speculation, of the same character as creation science. But the key difference here from creation science is that the general reliability of science and history is assumed. What is going on here is the joint testing of the infallibilist position on Scripture and the reliability of science. If no position can be found which plausibly embraces this thesis’ assumptions on Scripture and science, then the conclusion should be that one of these authorities needs to be discarded. Some might say that it is already clear that one must be discarded – that the Scripture clearly teaches a young earth, and so it is wrong. But that is to pre-judge the discussion. This thesis is challenging such a claim by proposing that while Adam through Noah’s world may have been young, that does not imply that our world is also young, if the two worlds are physically distinct. One should not dismiss the claim before weighing the evidence.
Before weighing the evidence further, a comment on terminology is appropriate. From this point on, the term pre-flood world will have a specialized meaning. When the term pre-flood world is used, the meaning is the distinct physical universe, which was inhabited first by Adam, and last by Noah and his family. The italics will be used to make it clear that this specialized understanding is intended. The next section will argue that this pre-flood world was not only physically distinct from our world, but that it was also a world parallel to ours.
Given that it is accepted that there are two different physical worlds described in Genesis 2:4-11:32, it follows that these two different worlds must be seen to be 'parallel' to eachother. This can be shown in a number of ways, and as it is shown, the meaning of 'parallel' should become clear.
The first evidence of the parallelism between the worlds is that both the pre-flood world and our world are described as the 'earth', with no clear distinction between two 'earths' ever made in the text of Genesis. Cain's curse is that he is to be a restless wanderer on the earth (Gen 4:12 ), where the earth refers to our world. On the other hand, in Genesis 6:4, we learn that the Nephilim were on the earth in those days, where the earth refers to the pre-flood world. As a relevant aside, in this writer’s opinion, the addition 'and also afterward' means that the Nephilim were also on the earth in our world, with afterward meaning after the time of the flood. If so, this makes the point all the stronger: the two different worlds are so parallel to each other, that Genesis is happy to gloss from one world to the other without making the move clear. Indeed, this lack of fuss partly explains why the major claim of this thesis has not been made before.
Further evidence of parallelism comes in the description of the place of Cain's eviction. Cain's location is described as 'east of Eden 4:16 ). Thus a place in our world can be described with respect to its location in the physically distinct pre-flood world.
More complex, and more important to the question at hand is the description of the location of Eden Eden Tigris and Euphrates are well known rivers today, so that the description given in Genesis 2 is sufficient to place Eden Mesopotamia . However, the difficulty comes in trying to identify the Pishon and Gihon rivers. Wenham writes,
'In Eden Tigris and Euphrates . On this basis alone we should conclude that Eden Armenia Tigris and Euphrates . And this is a long-established, widely held view. It is, however, complicated by the mention of the Pishon flowing round Havilah (Arabia ?) and the Gihon flowing round Cush Ethiopia Iran Persian Gulf . Here three of the rivers converge, and if the fourth is an Arabian stream or the Persian Gulf itself, all four meet. [...] The greatest difficulty with this view is that, according to Genesis, the rivers as they flow from Eden Eden
In short, the commentators have no good answer as to the location of Eden Tigris and Euphrates described in Genesis 2 flowing in the opposite direction from its direction in our world. And no one can convincingly identify the Pishon and Gihon rivers. These difficulties can be overcome with an understanding that Genesis 2 is not describing our world, but describing the pre-flood world, which has both differences from and similarities to our world. The understanding here proposed is that the Pishon and Gihon rivers never existed in our world. Additionally, the pre-flood world has different physical laws to our world, and that is why the river described in Genesis 2 does what is very unusual in our world - it divides into four headwaters. Such an understanding explains why the commentators are not able to locate Eden Eden
Such an understanding also carries with it the need to assert that there are parallels between our world and the pre-flood world. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers exist in both worlds. In both worlds, the Tigris and Euphrates are close to each other and in fact meet. In both worlds, the general area could be described by the writer as 'the East' (Gen 2:8). If the pre-flood world is a different world to ours, it is also a world with parallels to ours.
As an aside, note that Haupt and Speiser’s location for Eden Eden Eden Tigris and Euphrates actually meet, and this is to be preferred to the location in Armenia Armenia
These observations taken together are sufficient to establish parallelism between the two worlds if we accept that there are in fact two physically distinct worlds taught by the bible.
However, there is one substantial line of argument which can still be made. So far, it has been considered how the pre-flood world might be distinct and yet parallel to our world. This idea will be resisted because it is so foreign. In order to help the reader accept this foreign idea, a more familiar idea can be introduced, in order to work by analogy. The more familiar idea is this: Our present world can be considered to be a world in parallel with the new heavens and earth. Many theologians teach that the new heavens and earth ‘will be’[58] physically distinct from our world, and yet the Scriptures teach that the coming world will be a parallel world to our own. Thus a theology of ‘parallel universes’ is not new. What is new is to express it in this form.
Genesis 13 aids our depiction. Recall that Abraham received a promise from God in Genesis 13:14-15. 'The Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever"'.
It was the very land which Abraham saw which he was promised to own forever. And yet Abraham died having only owned a small plot of land in which he buried his wife (Gen 23:17 -20). It is clear then that the intent of God's promise to Abraham is that Abraham will receive the same land which he saw in the new heavens and earth. Put another way, Abraham saw the land on our earth, and he will receive that very same land on the earth which he is yet to see. Thus the new earth will be parallel to our earth, with correspondences clear enough that the resurrected Abraham will be able to receive the very same land which he previously saw.
Now some will point out that many theologians do not see our world and the ‘new earth’ of ‘heaven’ as being physically distinct. Theologians debate how the new heavens and earth will relate to the present heavens and earth. Some theologians, including most Reformed[59], hold that the present world will be itself renewed in order to become the new heavens and earth. In this view, the final world will not be a world physically distinct from our own, but rather will be a rejuvenation of our same world. Other theologians including Origen, the Lutherans, the Mennonites, the Socinians, and a number of Reformed theologians like Beza, Rivetus, Junius, Wollebius and Prideaux[60] hold that our world will not only be changed in form but also destroyed in substance and replaced by a totally new world. It is only in this second view of things, where Genesis 13:14 -15 yields the kind of parallel world relationship here proposed. Only in that case does one see in existing theology examples of physically distinct parallel worlds. Nevertheless, the point remains: this is a substantial body of existing theological opinion. It is presented as evidence that 'parallel distinct worlds' are not as foreign to theology as one might first think.
Some will raise the additional point that this parallelism (between our world and the new heavens and earth) is still a different kind of parallelism to the one proposed by this writer. The reason is that it is hard to find anyone who suggests that the new heavens and earth are presently existing simultaneously with our present heavens and earth. Yet that is the present proposal regarding the relationship of the pre-flood world and ours. The proposal is that the pre-flood world and our world are parallel worlds existing simultaneously.
This writer’s response is that it is quite viable to say that the new heavens and earth have already been created. Indeed, the reader should note the evidence of the New Testament on this matter. If one allows the past tense of 1 Corinthians 2:9 to take its full weight, one will conclude that the new heavens and earth already exist: 'No mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.' Further, if the present tense of John 14:2 is embraced, one will again conclude that the new heavens and earth already exist: 'In my Father's house are many rooms'.
With all this considered, it becomes quite viable to say that there are two sets of similarly parallel worlds taught by the bible. The thesis that our world is simultaneously parallel with the new heavens and earth fits hand in glove with the thesis that our world is simultaneously parallel with the pre-flood world. In both cases, the worlds simultaneously exist while being physically distinct from each other. A strength to this solution is the fitting character of the symmetry of the sets of parallel worlds.
A critique might come regarding this schema, that it necessitates the view that God made our present world only to destroy and abandon it. The critique would be that our present creation is therefore not good (contra Genesis 1:31 ), and thus God’s goodness might be questioned.
This writer’s response is to point out that in Gen. 1:31 God saw ‘all that he had made’, that ‘it was very good’. It therefore seems best to say that all the universes God had made were jointly good, meaning they were functioning properly.[61] This goodness of God’s creation should be considered to be a goodness of all the created universes considered together, since 1:31 is attributed to all God has made, and since the universes have parallel connections to each other, thus relating their functions to one another. That some of the universes have been created in order to be destroyed – this is not a challenge to God’s goodness in creation, just as it is not a challenge to God’s goodness in creation to say that God created some people as objects of his wrath, people who were prepared for destruction (Romans 9:22). The potter has authority to make out of the same lump some pottery for noble, and some for ignoble use, whether the pottery is people or universes. (Romans 9:21).[62]
Note that this understanding of two distinct, parallel worlds means that full weight can be given to the passages which speak of this world's destruction. Wayne Grudem catalogues them well:
'The author of Hebrews (quoting Ps. 102) tells us of the heavens and earth, "They will perish, but you remain; they will all grow old like a garment, like a mantle you will roll them up, and they will change" (Heb. 1:11-12). Later he tells us that God has promised, "Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heaven," a shaking so severe as to involve "the removal of what is shaken ... in order that what cannot be shaken may remain " (Heb. 12:26-27). Peter says, "The day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and all the works that are upon it will be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10). A similar picture is found in Revelation where John says, "From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them" (Rev. 20:11). Moreover, John says, Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more" (Rev. 21:1).’[63]
Hence the proposed schema of dual simultaneously parallel universes is not only viable, but it does well as a key to understanding the teaching of various biblical passages.
A comment can be made at this point regarding the days of the creation of the world(s) under the assumptions of this thesis. Note that the days of creation of Genesis 1:2-2:3 may be understood (under the terms of this thesis) to be twenty-four hour periods, without implying that our earth or our universe is young. It is possible, for example, that around 4000 B.C., when our earth had already existed for billions of years, that the ‘formless and empty’ earth (Gen. 1:2) was the world about to be fashioned into the pre-flood world. It is possible that God worked for six twenty-four hour periods to fashion the pre-flood world out of the watery chaos of Gen. 1:2. Such an understanding (of six twenty-four hour days) is preferred by this author, since the bible asserts that God’s work/rest pattern is a model for our work/rest pattern (Ex. 23:12 ). However, the present thesis does not hinge on that view prevailing. It is possible (under the terms of this thesis) that the six creation days of Genesis 1 have other functions,[64] and that they are not intended to convey a twenty-four period of time. Detailed discussion of this question is beyond the scope of this thesis.
To conclude this section then, this point can be made: The promise of land to Abraham should push us to see that a world parallel to ours is not a weird theory. Many Christian commentators already believe that the new heavens and earth are a certain kind of parallel world to ours, even if they have not expressed it in those words. Therefore it should not seem far-fetched that the pre-flood world might be another kind of parallel world to ours, if parallel worlds are already common fare in Christian theology.
What do the scientists say? Are parallel worlds really posited by physicists, or are they just a figment of science fiction writers' imaginations? Can a parallel universe be posited when we take the findings of science seriously? It may surprise some readers to learn that parallel universes are mainstream hypotheses in modern physics. This section will quote extensively from a chapter ‘Parallel Universes’ in a book entitled Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology, and Complexity. The reader should note that this is mainstream science. The book was published by Cambridge University Press, which points to its reliability. The chapter this section will explore in detail was written by Max Tegmark, who was working at the University of Pennsylvania
The article begins strikingly:
'Is there another copy of you reading this article, deciding to put it aside without finishing this sentence while you are reading on? A person living on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets. The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect - until now, that is, when your decision to read on signals that your two lives are diverging. You probably find this idea strange and implausible, and I must confess that this is my gut reaction too. Yet it looks like we will just have to live with it, since the simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that this person actually exists in a Galaxy about 101029 meters from here.'[67]
This is indeed an implausible strange claim, and not in accord with the claims of this thesis. What evidence does Tegmark bring to this claim? He starts by discussing what he calls a Level I parallel universe. His defines it this way:
'If space is infinite and the distribution of matter is sufficiently uniform on large scales, then even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. In particular, there are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one but infinitely many with people with the same appearance, name and memories as you. Indeed, there are infinitely many other regions the size of our observable universe, where every possible cosmic history is played out. This is the Level I multiverse.'[68]
The evidence for such a multiverse is outlined as follows:
'Although the implications may seem crazy and counter-intuitive, this spatially infinite cosmological model is in fact the simplest and most popular one on the market today [...] How large is space? [...] Einstein's theory of gravity allows space to be finite by being differently connected than Euclidean space, say with the topology of a four-dimensional sphere or a doughnut so that traveling far in one direction could bring you back from the opposite direction. The cosmic microwave background allows sensitive tests of such finite models, but has so far produced no support for them - flat infinite models fit the data fine and strong limits have been placed on both spatial curvature and multiply connected topologies. In addition, a spatially infinite universe is a generic prediction of the cosmological theory of inflation [...] The striking successes of inflation listed below therefore lend further support to the idea that space is after all simple and infinite just as we learned in school.
How uniform is the matter distribution on large scales? [...] Maps of the three-dimensional galaxy distribution have shown that the spectacular large-scale structure observed (galaxy groups, clusters, superclusters, etc.) gives way to dull uniformity on large scales, with no coherent structures larger than about 1024m. [...] Barring conspiracy theories where the universe is designed to fool us, the observations thus speak loud and clear: space as we know it continues far beyond the edge of our observable universe, teeming with galaxies, stars and planets.'[69]
The evidence presented here favours there being very many other earth-like planets out there, including very many exactly the same as our earth, and including many planets just like the pre-flood world, and just like the new heavens and earth. However, this writer disputes Tegmark's conclusion that such evidence points to there being many copies of 'you' strewn across the universe. Tegmark bases this conclusion on the infinite nature of the universe together with the large-scale uniform character of the matter within the universe. His logic is to say that since there is infinite space and infinite matter, the same combinations of matter must appear repeatedly. Therefore, since you and your surroundings are a given combination of matter, you and your surroundings must be replicated out there somewhere (repeatedly). This is a faulty conclusion. It is faulty because it assumes that people ('you') are entirely described by physical attributes. Tegmark's unstated assumption is one of materialism. It is flawed because there is more to people and animals than matter alone. Even if space and matter are infinite (as supported by the evidence Tegmark musters), this does not imply that there are other 'yous' out there. Just one reason is that a key part of 'you' is your soul - a part of you that is not just matter. So Tegmark's opening description does not follow from his results. What does follow is scientific confirmation of the possibility of the existence of other worlds similar to ours. Perhaps two of those worlds could be the 'pre-flood world' and 'the new heavens and earth'. How should we assess such a possibility?
There are significant problems with this as a model for the bible's parallel universes. The miraculous 'translation' of Cain and the ark between two worlds across such a great distance seems strange. A very large miracle of God would thereby be read into the text, in a very forced fashion. Worse, the fact that the different worlds would be so far apart is at odds with the bible's treating them as somehow the same world. It does not seem right under a Level I Multiverse understanding of the physics to say that Abraham will receive in the new heavens and earth the same land which he saw in our world. For if he actually will receive land in a world 101029 metres away, it is surely not the same land.
Additionally, such an understanding poses problems in terms of how a world of eternal perfection could exist in a place which we could reach if we travelled far enough. The galaxy which we can observe has meteors which can threaten to strike earth, and suns which must in the end 'die'. It seems unlikely that a world of eternal perfection could exist within a universe with the same physical laws. The perfect world needs a sun that will never be extinguished and an earth that can never be hit by a meteor. A level I Multiverse explanation of the physics of such worlds fails to provide such perfection. The problems here seem too great. Perhaps the Level II Multiverse will fit this thesis’ claims better.
Tegmark describes the Level II Multiverse by saying,
'try imagining an infinite number of distinct (universes) [...], some perhaps with different dimensionality and different physical constants. This is what is predicted by the currently popular chaotic theory of inflation, and we will refer to it as the Level II Multiverse. These other domains are more than infinitely far away in the sense that you would never get there even if you travelled at the speed of light forever.'[70]
Tegmark describes the evidence for such a Multiverse this way:
'By the 1970's, the Big Bang model had proved a highly successful explanation of most of the history of our universe. It had explained how a primordial fireball expanded and cooled, synthesized Helium and other light elements during the first few minutes, became transparent after 400,000 years releasing the cosmic microwave background radiation, and gradually got clumpier due to gravitational clustering, producing galaxies, stars and planets. Yet disturbing questions remained about what happened in the very beginning. Did something appear from nothing? Where are all the superheavy particles known as magnetic monopoles that particle physics predicts should be created early on (the “monopole problem")? Why is space so big, so old and so flat, when generic initial conditions predict curvature to grow over time and the density to approach either zero or infinity after an order of 1042 seconds (the “flatness problem")? What conspiracy caused the CMB temperature to be nearly identical in regions of space that have never been in causal contact (the “horizon problem")? What mechanism generated the 10_5 level seed fluctuations out of which all structure grew? A process known as inflation can solve all these problems in one fell swoop (see reviews by Guth & Steinhardt 1984 and Linde 1994), and has therefore emerged as the most popular theory of what happened very early on. Inflation is a rapid stretching of space, diluting away monopoles and other debris, making space flat and uniform like the surface of an expanding balloon, and stretching quantum vacuum fluctuations into macroscopically large density fluctuations that can seed galaxy formation. Since its inception, inflation has passed additional tests: CMB observations have found space to be extremely flat and have measured the seed fluctuations to have an approximately scale-invariant spectrum without a substantial gravity wave component, all in perfect agreement with inflationary predictions. Inflation is a general phenomenon that occurs in a wide class of theories of elementary particles. In the popular model known as chaotic inflation, inflation ends in some regions of space allowing life as we know it, whereas quantum fluctuations cause other regions of space to inflate even faster. In essence, one inflating bubble sprouts other inflationary bubbles, which in turn produce others in a never-ending chain reaction […]. The bubbles where inflation has ended are the elements of the Level II multiverse.'[71]
This section of Tegmark's article underscores the likelihood that there are many universes, potentially with different physical laws. Does such a Multiverse do any better at providing a grounding in physics for this thesis’ proposed parallel worlds? A little better, but there are still problems. The miraculous 'translation' of Cain and the ark between two worlds located in such different places still seems strange. It still does not seem right under a Level II Multiverse understanding of the physics to say that Abraham will receive the same land which he saw in our world. The difference between the worlds seems too stark for that.
However, the potentially different physical laws in the different Level II universes are more compatible with this thesis’ major claim. It can be proposed that the new heavens and new earth exist in a universe where suns last forever and where meteors do not threaten the earth. It can be proposed that one of these Level II parallel universes has different physical constants or dimensionality such that that universe is perfect for eternal human habitation. It can be further proposed that within one of these Level II parallel universes, the pre-flood world existed, and was at one point safe from all threats to human existence.
In sum, the Multiverse Level II provides a slightly better model than Level I to undergird the bible's parallel worlds. Yet problems remain.
It is time then to turn to the third kind of parallel universe described by Tegmark, the Level III Multiverse. This kind of Multiverse is derived from quantum physics. Tegmark writes,
'There may be a third type of parallel worlds that are not far away but in a sense right here. If the fundamental equations of physics are what mathematicians call unitary, as they so far appear to be, then the universe keeps branching into parallel universes [...] whenever a quantum event appears to have a random outcome, all outcomes in fact occur, one in each branch. This is the Level III multiverse.'[72]
He outlines the evidence as follows:
'In the early 20th century, the theory of quantum mechanics revolutionized physics by explaining the atomic realm, with applications ranging from chemistry to nuclear reactions, lasers and semiconductors. Despite the obvious successes in its application, a heated debate ensued about its interpretation - a debate that still rages on. In quantum theory, the state of the universe is not given in classical terms such as the positions and velocities of all particles, but by a mathematical object called a wavefunction. According to the so-called Schrӧdinger equation, this state evolves deterministically over time in a fashion termed unitary, corresponding to a rotation in Hilbert space, the abstract infinite-dimensional space where the wavefunction lives. The sticky part is that there are perfectly legitimate wavefunctions corresponding to classically counterintuitive situations such as you being in two different places at once. Worse, the Schrӧdinger equation can evolve innocent classical states into such schizophrenic ones. As a baroque example, Schrodinger described the famous thought experiment where a nasty contraption kills a cat if a radioactive atom decays. Since the radioactive atom eventually enters a superposition of decayed and not decayed, it produces a cat which is both dead and alive in superposition.
In the 1920s, this weirdness was explained away by postulating that that the wavefunction "collapsed" into some definite classical outcome whenever an observation was made, with probabilities given by the wavefunction. Einstein was unhappy about such intrinsic randomness in nature, which violated unitarity, insisting that "God doesn't play dice", and others complained that there was no equation specifying when this collapse occurred. In his 1957 Ph.D. thesis, Princeton student Hugh Everett III showed that this controversial collapse postulate was unnecessary. Quantum theory predicted that one classical reality would gradually split into superpositions of many [...]. He showed that observers would subjectively experience this splitting merely as a slight randomness and indeed with probabilities in exact agreement with those from the old collapse postulate (de Witt 2003). This superposition of classical worlds is the Level III multiverse.
This is a very different kind of multiverse from the first two. Could the findings here provide a theoretical framework for the parallel worlds proposed in this thesis? Yes, they could. This theoretical framework does well in producing different universes which are different versions of the same earth. This provides a mechanism to theorize that the new heavens and new earth, as well as the pre-flood world are different Level III parallel universes. They are different physical worlds, yet they are also the same physical world as ours - different in that they are worlds where quantum events occurred in different fashions at certain times past, but the same in that they are the physical results of what happened to our same universe in alternative quantum circumstances.
To see how this might have worked, notice that radioactive decay has been occurring since the very beginning of our universe. This means that different Level III universes have been forming since the very beginning. Small changes at the very beginning will lead to massive changes in time, so that we can imagine that our universe would have potentially turned out very differently in some of the different Level III universes. In fact, we can imagine that our universe could have turned out differently enough that it became the pre-flood world, or the new heavens and earth.
One might ask how our universe could have turned out differently enough to have a sun that never dies and an earth that is never threatened by meteors. One might ask how this could happen if that universe were so different as to require different physical constants. My answer is that we can posit a Level III universe where our planet is in a different Level II universe, thus having the different physical laws required for a world of perfection. This fits the bill well for the biblical parallel universe in every respect.
Importantly, the different 'earths' in the different Level III universes are precisely the same earth as 'our earth'. They are different in that they are universes which occurred because quantum events turned out differently earlier on. Such a theoretical structure for the different parallel worlds of the bible would explain how Abraham was promised the same land which he saw. In this understanding, God will one day take the resurrected Abraham to the alternative universe (which physically exists right now) where the world turned out perfectly without decay and earthquake and lightning and drought. In that universe, Abraham will be given the same land which he saw in our world, as an eternal possession. In this theoretical structure, it can also be said that the people of the time of Adam through to Noah lived in an alternative universe on the same earth. That alternative universe was once a universe where eternal perfection was possible, but became a cursed universe after Adam's sin. God in his great might was able to bring Cain and the ark over from that alternative universe to ours, at the appropriate time.
The major presenting problem with this theoretical explanation is that each time a radioactive atom decays, a new universe is created which creates replicas of everything in the parallel world, including replicas of the people and animals in that world. That would in turn support Tegmark's original suggestion that there are many 'yous' out there, one of whom long ago put this thesis down and stopped reading. This would work profoundly against a biblical understanding. For example, the idea that the same person will die many times in different ways in different universes cannot be squared with the biblical idea that a person is destined to die once and then face judgment (Heb. 9:27 ). A solution to this problem can be suggested as follows: It can be supposed that each time a new Level III universe is created (with a quantum event), the physical world is split into multiple universes. However, only one of these multiple universes is chosen (by God in his sovereignty) as the universe where the 'life force' of people and animals continues. From our side, we experience only ongoing life, and we do not notice all the other physical universes that are continually produced. In all of the alternative universes, it is only the material side of humans and animals which continues. In those alternative universes, 'we' become lifeless decaying lumps of matter. It is not 'us' at all in those universes - there are merely bunches of atoms for a time arranged in the same way in which we were arranged when that quantum event occurred.
Such a theory does a good job of underpinning this thesis’ proposed understanding of biblical multiple universes. Here then is a summary: at least[74] three alternative physical universes have always been part of God's plan to house the 'life-filled' humans and animals. One of those universes is our world, one is the pre-flood world, and the third is the new heavens and earth. These three universes are parallel versions of the same universe, in the sense that they are alternative universes. They differ in that quantum events had different outcomes in these different universes in times long past. God brought life into being in different ways in our world and the pre-flood world, so that for a while human and animal life existed simultaneously on these two different worlds. The new heavens and new earth is yet to receive human life, but has been prepared by God as a world fit for our eternal perfect dwelling.
One might ask why God would create a world of such complexity. Why didn't God create things in a much simpler fashion than in this bewilderingly complex system? My answer is necessarily speculative, but at least suggesting an answer will make it clear that an answer is possible. It may be that God created this system of multiverses to give him the control he desired over the outcomes of our world. Given the immense array of actual physical universes produced through quantum events, God can exercise control through those quantum events (and choose the one universe in which life continues) in the fashion which suits him. This enables him to have very powerful control over the world in which life exists, since God may choose again and again which one universe out of staggeringly many will be the one we inhabit. In short, the complexity of the multiverse may be one of God's tools to enact his sovereignty. Alternatively, it could be postulated that God wants many different versions of earth-made-perfect so that he has adequate room to house all the different people who will be in ‘heaven’. Other suggestions could be made, but the point is that this is a plausible explanation grounded in physics for the parallel universes proposed by this thesis.
For completeness, it bears mentioning that Tegmark outlines a Level IV Multiverse. He argues for the possibility that the physical world is a mathematical structure. That discussion is, however, too abstract to be useful for our purposes.
In conclusion, the concept of multiple universes is not at all foreign to physicists. There are a number of different theories, accepted by a significant number of physicists, which involve multiple universes. This thesis’ suggestion of biblical parallel universes should therefore not be laughed off as the stuff of science fiction. Rather, the ‘parallel-universe’ theory of this thesis has viable theoretical support in scientific theory.
Archbishop Ussher famously calculated Adam's creation to have occurred ‘at the start of the evening preceding the 23rd day of October (on the Julian calendar) in 4004 BC.’[75] That date became more famous than others because it was entered in the marginal notes to the Authorized Version. But was Ussher correct? Is such an attempt to use biblical data to date Adam even viable? This writer believes it is. But before such a calculation is attempted, some objections should be considered regarding whether the calculation is possible at all. Reymond lists five objections[76], to each of which a response will be given in turn.: 1. The ancestral connections between people in Scripture are often abridged. This should make us wary of simply adding the numbers together. As noted above, it is important to notice in both Genesis 5 and 11 that the age of the father at the birth of the next listed son is provided. What this means is that for the purposes of calculating the total time elapsed across the genealogy, it does not matter if some generations are left out. 2. The total number of years for the several patriarchs is not totalled in either Genesis 5 or Genesis 11. This suggests that the genealogical lists are not complete. On the contrary, since all the information is given, there is no need for the author to do the adding - he knows (for example) that anyone who wants to add up the total time from Adam to Abraham can do so. But again, even if the list is incomplete (with some generations missing), it matters not. The numbers can be added together to produce the correct outcome even if generations are missing. 3. 'The name and years of Cainan (Luke 3:36 ) must be placed between Shelah and Arphaxad in the Genesis 11 list.' The issue here is that Cainan does not appear at all in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. He does appear in the Greek translation, the LXX, between Shelah and Arphaxad in Genesis 11:13. So the LXX differs in having Arphaxad as the father of Cainan, not Shelah. The LXX has the additional sentence: 'And Cainan lived 130 years and fathered Shelah. And Cainan lived 330 years after he had fathered Shelah fathering sons and daughters and he died'. Wenham's view on this textual issue seems preferable, that 'the inclusion by the LXX of Kainan stands out as a secondary addition. It was probably prompted by the desire to produce a list of ten ancestors like that in chap. 5 as well as to stretch out the period from Shem to Abram as much as possible. Its secondary nature is also suggested by the identity of Kainan’s ages with those of Shelah who succeeds him.'[77] Thus the name and years of Cainan do not need to be added. As to the appearance of Cainan in Luke's gospel, Bock concludes his discussion on the subject this way: 'There is good possibility that the name should be omitted in Luke, since p75 and D omit the name here and it reappears in 3:37 [...] Again, there is too little evidence to make a clear decision'.[78] On balance, the addition of Cainan seems late and should be ignored. Thus Reymond's concern falls to the ground. 4. 'With the addition of Cainan's name in Genesis 11, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 both list ten patriarchs, the tenth in each case having three sons.' This symmetry suggests that the principle of selectivity rather than completeness governed the compilation of the lists. Without the addition of Cainan's name, there is no problem here. 5. 'The postdiluvian patriarchs could not have been contemporaries of Abraham. But if the strict interpretation of Genesis 11 is correct, all the postdiluvian patriarchs, including Noah, would still have been alive when Abraham was fifty years of age. Why would Genesis 10:25 declare that the Babel Babel Babel 10:25 (a division other than the Babel
With those objections disposed of, it remains to perform the actual calculation. What year was Adam created? To begin with, add the ages which the previous patriarch had attained by the birth of the next patriarch, to obtain the number of years from Adam's creation to the flood. Using the MT figures from Genesis 5, this comes to 130+105+90+70+65+162+65+187+182+500 = 1656 years from Adam's creation to the flood. Continue the calculation through to the birth of Abram in Genesis 11:10-26, so that Abram was born 1656+100+35+30+34+30+32+30+29+70 = 1946 years after the creation of Adam. Before progressing, note that there is considerable debate over whether the figures in the MT are the originals. The Greek LXX, and the Samaritan Pentateuch both differ (so that there are free different sets of figures) on many of these figures. If we use the LXX, the dates are 2242 for the flood and 3282 for Abram. For the Samaritan Pentateuch, the dates are 1307 for the flood and 2347 for Abram.
The consensus among commentators is that the MT figures have the most claim to originality because they explain the other figures, and they are most difficult (all of Abram's post-flood ancestors are alive at his birth).[79] The other versions have probably sought to overcome this problem by adding 100 years to the MT age at which each patriarch fathered the next. It seems best therefore to stick with the MT. Thus the flood was 1656 years after Adam's creation and Abram's birth was 1946 years after Adam's creation.
Moving further forward in time, Abram was a hundred years old when he gave birth to Isaac (Gen 21:5), and Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to Jacob (Gen 25:26). Jacob was a hundred and thirty years old when he and his sons arrived in Egypt Egypt
The next part of the calculation is the most tricky, for here is the place where it is most likely that symbolism is being used in the record of the years passed. In 1 Kings 6:1, we read: 'In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.' Kitchen favours the view that the 480 is a symbolic number, twelve spans of forty years.[80] The number of '40 year' periods which are mentioned between the Exodus and the temple construction are surprising. There is the wandering from Egypt to Sinai to the Jordan (Num 11:33), the rule of Othniel (Judg 3:11), the 80 years (2 x 40 years) of peace after Ehud (Judg 3:30), the peace after Deborah (Judg 5:31), the peace after Gideon (Judg 8:28), the peace after Eli (1 Sam 4:18), the two lots of 20 years - Samson's judgship (Judg 15:20) and the lodging of the ark at Kiriath Jearim (1 Sam 7:2), and the 40 year rule of David (1 Ki 2:11). It seems unlikely that we should see such a repetition of periods of exactly forty years long, all packed within 480 years. If taken literally, the 40 year period can be seen to symbolise a period of a 'full generation'[81], or a period symbolizing a 'new development in the history of God's mighty acts'[82]. This possibility of symbolism seems the stronger since '480 years' represents 12x40 years, the number symbolizing God's elective purposes (12) multiplied by the period of a full generation. Perhaps then it should be said that the elected number of full generations passed between the Exodus and the building of the temple.
Another reason to take this view that the 480 years are symbolic is that if the years are taken literally, many historical problems arise. The date of the start of temple construction under Solomon is 967 B.C[83]. If one adds a full 480 years from there, the date for the Exodus becomes 1447 B.C. However, such a date runs into the problem that 'the form of the Sinai covenant (found in Exodus-Leviticus and Deuteronomy) [...] excludes any date of origin before 1400/1360. Only with Suppiluliuma I (ca. 1360-1320) [...] did this format come into use. So a Moses in Sinai in 1447 could never have seen a format still to be invented half a century into the future!'[84] Kitchen ends up concluding from these observations that the '480 years' is symbolic of a 300 year period. The approach taken here will therefore follow Kitchen. Continuing the calculation, an approximate 300 year period from the Exodus to the start of the temple's construction (which was the fourth year of King Solomon's reign - 1 Ki 6:1) brings our figure to 2966 years. The conclusion is that the 4th year of the reign of King Solomon was 2966 years after the creation of Adam.
Is Kitchen's figure of 967 B.C for the 4th year of Solomon's reign a reliable estimate? Kitchen provides a full chronology of the kings from Rehoboam to the fall of Jerusalem Jerusalem
The claims of this thesis have implications for the doctrine of humanity. This section considers whether significant changes to the doctrine of humanity are required if this thesis is accepted. This section also considers the implications of the doctrine of humanity for this thesis.
The first point to make is that Adam was the first human. 1 Corinthians 15:47 describes him that way. Understanding this 'first' as a temporal 'first' forces one to conclude that the ancestors of pure-bred indigenous Australians/Americans/Africans were not human before Adam was created. That is, our ancestors were not human before Adam's creation (around 4000 B.C.). This secures Adam’s status as ‘first human’. At the other end, according to the claims of this thesis, Cain arrived in our world and found humans already here, so that he found a wife to marry, and people to fear (Gen. 4:13-17). Thus, the ancestors of those indigenous to our world were human at least by the time of Cain’s arrival in our world (around 3900 B.C.) For further precision regarding the timing of the change from pre-human to human, the doctrine of original sin sheds considerable light.
1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:12-19 teach a key relationship between Adam and the human race: 'In Adam all die'. (1 Cor 15:22 ) 'Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned....’ (Rom. 5:12 ) The Bible teaches that a solidarity exists between Adam and the human race in terms of our sin and our death. Theologians debate the nature of the solidarity and the means by which Adam's sin and corruption is transmitted to us. Some insist on a natural, biological union between Adam and his posterity, while others say there is only a representative union.[86] The latter is the position required by this thesis’ claims, since two different sources of humanity are posited. The rejection of a natural union rules out a large number of understandings of original sin. For example the realist view is ruled out, which is the view that
'Adam possessed the entire human nature and that all mankind, being present in Adam as generic humanity, corrupted itself by its own apostatizing act in Adam. [...] The reason that all men are accountable for Adam's sin is because they actually (really) sinned in Adam before the individualizing of human nature began.'[87]
Reymond does a good job showing the flaws of this view biblically.[88] He points out that Paul teaches a parallel between the way we are connected to Adam and the way we are connected to Christ (Romans 5:12 -19 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 ). We are not united with Christ biologically, so according to the parallel, we need not be united to Adam biologically either. Such an argument goes a long way to showing that a purely representational view of our union with Adam is possible.
However, more must be said before the position of this thesis is shown to be sound in its doctrine of sin. Many views of original sin which are representational in their understanding of the Adam-race union still insist that there is a natural union as well. Reymond describes the federal imputation view this way:
'It does not deny for a moment the natural union between Adam and his posterity, but [...] urges that the natural union only determined the "direction of application" which the governing principle of representational union took.'[89]
This presents a question: Is it necessary to have a natural union between humanity and Adam for it to be clear that sin is imputed from Adam to us, not the other way around? No it is not. The fact that Adam was the first human (1 Cor 15:22 ) implies that any direction of application must be from Adam to us. The direction must flow from Adam to us, if Adam was human before anyone else. Thus the claims of this thesis square with mainline understandings of the doctrine of original sin.
More can be said about original sin here from a different angle. Note that considerations regarding original sin have implications for the timing of humanity’s ‘birth’ in our world (under the assumptions of this thesis). If God had endowed pre-humans with humanity in our world before Adam sinned in his world, then those native Africans, Americans, Australians and others would have been humans subject to death and in sin at a time before Adam had himself sinned. This would render untrue the saying that 'sin entered the world through one man' (Rom 5:12 ). So it must be concluded that God endowed the pre-humans in our world with humanity after Adam's sin.
Additionally, Romans 5:19 teaches that ‘through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners’. This means that the most logical time for the pre-humans to be made human was at the time of Adam’s sin. In that case, we could say that many pre-humans in our world were made human sinners through the disobedience of Adam. If the timing of humanity’s ‘birth’ in our world were much later than the time of Adam’s sin, it would be harder to draw a direct link between Adam’s disobedience and the making of all people into sinners.
If this is accepted, the critique might then come, as to whether the people in our world were being unfairly punished for Adam's sin. Someone might say that these pre-humans were made human sinners, subject to death, through no fault of their own, because of the sin of someone else. Is that not unjust? A response would be to say that it is no more unjust of God to make those first pre-humans humans-in-sin than it is to make any subsequent 'human-born-of-a-woman' a human-in-sin. The critique being considered here is really a critique of existing Reformed theology. For Reformed theology already teaches that babies are born in sin. And it is not materially different for God to create new humans-in-sin in a womb than it is for him to change grown animals into humans-in-sin. In both cases, it is a matter for rejoicing that a human has come into the world![90]
Before we continue, note another reason why God might choose the moment of Adam’s sin to bring forth 70 million humans-in-sin: Only after Adam's sin was it clear that God should employ a strategy to 'win' people back to him. So the time of Adam's sin was the time when it made most sense for God to execute a plan (which he had already devised) to bring people back to him. God's plan was that the spread of nations through these 70 million humans via the descendants of Adam would make it easier for us to see that God was behind it all (See section 9 for a lengthy discussion on Acts 17:26 -27, which is the passage this writer has in mind). The moment of Adam’s sin was the fitting moment for God to set in motion a plan to help people seek for him and find him.
Lastly, the question can be put whether the claims of this thesis force emendation of any of the historical understandings of the image of God. The answer is that they do, but the emendations are minor. One patristic approach to the image of God is ruled out. This approach was to see a distinction between the two terms 'image' and 'likeness'.[91] Irenaeus and Tertullian saw image as referring to bodily traits, and likeness referring to the spiritual nature of man. So if one took such a view of image and combined it with the claims of this thesis, the conclusion would follow that we were in the image of God before we were in his likeness. That is not a tenable conclusion. So the claims of this thesis do rule out following Irenaeus and Tertullian on the image of God. However, such problems disappear when part or all of our immaterial nature is included in the definition of 'image', as is the case with the vast majority of understandings of the subject since Tertullian. Today there is a general consensus among scholars that no distinction should be drawn between 'image' and 'likeness'[92]. Robert Reymond outlines the exegetical case for this persuasively.[93] So our image consists of more than our physical nature. There is no serious problem here for this thesis’ claims.
Amѐlie Kuhrt describes in detail some of the achievements of Homo sapiens labelled by this thesis as 'pre-human' (i.e. pre- 4000 B.C.) It is important to consider their achievements, to test whether it is viable to call them 'pre-human'. Kuhrt's description is worth quoting at length, since she gives it as an introduction to a history of the Ancient Near East, which is not far from the two earliest civilizations, the Egyptian and Mesopotamian.[94] Therefore this is an area and time in which some of the most advanced examples of 'pre-human' activity should be expected. If it is found to be plausible that their activity could be described as pre-human, this thesis’ claims will be supported as viable. The study of Homo sapiens of this time and place is useful for a second reason: In considering the activities of those hypothesised to be the most advanced pre-humans, we can more precisely identify the key differences between the most advanced pre-humans and the first humans. This will be helpful in clarifying the claims implied by this thesis.
Speaking of the period 10000 B.C. - 3000 B.C., Kuhrt writes,
'It was in these periods that a series of crucial developments took place: the development of farming techniques […], building skills, craft traditions such as pottery, trade networks; the establishment of village and town life (Ҫatal Hüyük, Jericho) and the initial exploitation of metals (copper).
Although most of the excavated sites of this period are villages, a number of factors counsel caution in assuming that the prevailing mode of community life was that of simple and isolated villages: the size (c. 15 ha.) of Ҫatal Hüyük in Turkey, dated to around 6000, its closely clustered houses, elaborate decoration (wall-paintings) and objects (e.g. a spectacular flint knife with carved handle) argue for a previously unsuspected sophistication in the political, socio-economic, artistic and intellectual spheres. Jericho
Many challenges for this thesis’ claims must be faced here: Is it viable to describe these settlements and advancements as pre-human? Is it viable to attribute building skills, craft traditions, pottery, trade networks, village and town life and the initial exploitation of metals to beings that were animal rather than human? This writer believes it is, but the contention must be defended. The approach will not be to try to deal with every one of these achievements individually. Rather, three challenges will be chosen, which seem to be the most pressing and the most fundamental, and these challenges will be dealt with in turn. If the three toughest challenges are met, it would seem that the claims of this thesis will be plausible. These three issues to be considered are pre-human language, art and burial practices.
It might be suggested that language is the sole domain of humans. Tattersall writes: 'if they had language, they were us in a profound sense'.[96] It might be further argued that the 'pre-humans' must have had language. This is because they had to have language to achieve many of the things listed above, and they had to have language before 4000 B.C. because human languages diverged earlier than 4000 B.C. The conclusion could then be drawn that the claims of this thesis fail, because the so called 'pre-humans' clearly had language, making them human.
To this challenge, a first response is to say that God gave Balaam's donkey the capacity to speak in human language without making the donkey human (Numbers 22:28 ). Therefore the possession of some language is not in itself sufficient evidence to show that a being is human. The proposal of this writer is that pre-humans possessed some spoken language, but that the concepts they could express were limited. The proposal is further that pre-human differences in language later developed into the full-blown languages of the human era. However, the pre-human languages differed from human languages at least in the scope of the concepts which were expressible.
Crucially, according to the bible, it is highly unlikely that non-humans can make promises to one another. This can be deduced from a consideration of marriage. It is clear that the first recorded biblical marriage was between Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2:22-24, it is written that the female 'shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.' Thus the basis for the one flesh relationship of marriage is that the first woman was taken physically from the first man. It is the manner of Eve's creation, out of Adam's rib, which is the foundational reason why any man is able to be united to his wife. Therefore, marriage did not exist before the time when Eve was created. It was not until God used (fallen) Adam and Eve as models for the humanity of the 70 million pre-humans, that marriage came into our world.
But yet central to the notion of marriage is the notion of a marriage promise or covenant. In Malachi 2:14, we have confirmed for us that marriage is indeed a form of promise, a 'marriage covenant'. The verse reads as follows: 'You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.' The conclusion to draw from this passage is that a covenant (a mutual promise to cleave to one another for life) is central to a marriage. It is implied that a marriage covenant is what a man has made when he has a wife, and that this covenant is such that the man would break faith with her if he violated the terms of the covenant promise.
For this reason, it should be considered very unlikely that pre-humans engaged in covenants or promises of any sort. The logic goes as follows: If pre-humans made each other promises, there is no apparent reason why a male and female pre-human couldn't make promises to cleave only to the other sexually, for life. And this in turn would seem so close to a marriage, that one would be forced to admit that marriage is a good name for it. One could in theory argue that such a pre-human male and female covenant would not be 'blessed by God' in the same way as a human male and female marriage. Yet this is a very fine line. A much more satisfactory approach is to conclude that pre-humans did not make promises or covenants at all, and this is the approach here taken.
This argument can be pressed further, and applied to the existence and enforcement of law. The existence of a law implies that people can make promises to obey the law, and that other people can make promises to enforce the law. But we have just seen that the making of promises is almost certainly ruled out by the bible for non-humans. For this reason, not only are promise-making-and-keeping ruled out for pre-humans but also law-making-and-enforcing. This writer is unaware of any evidence of marriage or law-making or contracts in the ‘pre-human era’ (pre c. 4000 B.C.). None is likely to be found, since writing was not invented until around 3200 BC. [97]
Thus it can be accepted that pre-humans had certain forms of language, while not having the full range of human capabilities. It is plausible that promise making, law making, contract making and marriage are examples of human activity which pre-humans did not have, while they did have limited language. Therefore questions surrounding language are not terminal to this thesis’ major claim. However, some further questions do present themselves as a result of this line of argument: How did these pre-humans trade with each other without making promises? Further, in what kind of language system is it impossible to express a promise?
Regarding trade, the ability to make and keep promises is not essential for trade to occur. A promise is not required to swap goods, or to swap the same kinds of goods on a regular basis. To see this, notice that we train dogs to bring continually a certain kind of item in exchange for food. This can be seen as a certain kind of trade.
Regarding the expression of a promise, it is the concept of a promise which this writer does not believe pre-humans could grasp. While they may have had language to express various things, the expression of a promise requires understanding of important abstract concepts. A promise not only involves understanding the concept of the future, but also the commitment to act a certain way in that future. Thus we can postulate credibly that the understanding and execution of promises was a very important difference between the most advanced pre-humans and the first humans.
Another challenge (important but less serious than that of language) comes in the observation that pre-humans could paint and carve images, and in the social organization and interaction implied in that art. Significant achievements in this area can be dated much earlier than the ambit of Kuhrt's discussion, earlier quoted. Tattersall describes some of these achievements:
'the most remarkable artistic expression of the Upper Paleolithic was that of the Magdalenian culture, which began at about 18 kyr ago [...] it was during their tenure that the finest cave art was crated, including that of the spectacular sites of Lascaux, Altamira, and Niaux, and that the most remarkable outpourings of portable art were made[...] Lascaux remains unsurpassed to this day; these are no simple renderings [...] The intensely social nature of the art of Lascaux is emphasized by the certainty that it was the work of a team [...] the Cro-Magnons have bequeathed dramatic evidence of the integral importance of symbol in their lives [...] there were dozens of symbolic systems current during the last Ice Age [...] This typically modern human cultural diversity - and, indeed, the pervasiveness of symbolic behaviour itself - stands in dramatic contrast to the relative monotony of human evolution throughout the five million years that preceded it. For prior to the Cro-Magnons, innovation was as far as we can tell extremely sporadic at best. [...] the record left us by the Cro-Magnons is so far unparalleled […] Quite apart from the more ethereal aspects of creativity and imagination, the Cro-Magnons present us with the best early evidence for the complex social organization that is so typical of modern humans.'[98]
The challenge here should be clear: Is it viable to credit all of these achievements to a species of pre-human animals? Again, the present proposal is that it is. In fact, the evidence cited here by Tattersall can be seen as strongly supporting the present claim that these beings were pre-human.
Notice how long ago these Homo sapiens had this ability to produce symbols, and represent things. Tattersall mentions that this ability was at a very great height around 16 kyr BC. He mentions that the earliest such art is dated over 32 kyr ago at the German site of Vogelherd.[99] This raises the important question as to why it took so long for this skill to develop into writing. Why was the impetus not there for writing to develop until 26 kyrs after the date of our earliest known cave painting site, and 12 kyrs after the height of cave painting? It is not as though the pre-humans didn't have the time to devote to writing - they had the time to produce these extremely ornate works of art. What was stopping them? The present thesis provides an excellent answer - an answer unavailable to those with the standard approaches to this subject. What was stopping them was that they were not human, so that they did not have the human impetuses to write. When they became human, the impetus to write came out of the need to write down promises, contracts and laws, as well as the impetus to make a name for themselves, and the impetus to rule which led to the need to administer a rule - more of that shortly. But the point here is that the physical capacities were there to write - the time was there, the technical ability to carve or paint or draw was there. What explanation will those who oppose this thesis give for the delay? No good explanation seems forthcoming. Indeed, the answers given in academia for the rise of writing (and civilization) contradict each other. Kuhrt is one of many who claim the favourable conditions for agriculture in Mesopotamia explain the rise of civilization (and the rise of writing) there in the late 4th millennium B.C.,[100] but Tattersall points out that the artists of southern France Spain France Spain
A third challenge to the proposition that there were no humans before around 4000 B.C. comes in the ‘religious practices’ of pre-humans, including the practice of pre-humans burying their dead (sometimes with elaborate grave goods). Tattersall describes some of the evidence:
'The most striking example of Cro-Magnon burial comes from the 28-kyr-old site of Sungir, in Russia
Again, this is an important challenge to the present thesis. If 'pre-humans' had religious experiences and a belief in the afterlife, it seems necessary to conclude that they were in fact human, since animals could hardly be credited with these experiences and beliefs. In response, note that elephants are well known for burying their dead. Bradshaw writes,
'Grieving and mourning rituals make up an integral part of elephant culture. A mother may grieve over her dead child for days after his death, alternately trying to revive the baby and caressing and touching the corpse. Moss and Poole have observed a mother risking her own life for a week to grieve over her stillborn child.'[103]
This can be more pronounced still with the death of an elephant matriarch: Speaking of such a death, Bradshaw writes,
'After Emily's death, the group performed mourning rituals. Later, when time had dissolved the last vestiges of her massive flesh, her whitened bones lay spare, but not forgotten. For years, the aftershocks of Emily's passing could be observed as the group visited her bones. [...] 'Several years before, I had seen the EBs (EB is an abbreviation for a certain elephant herd) start to bury the carcass of a young female from another family.''’[104]
Given the lengths to which elephants go in grieving their dead, it should come as no surprise that the most advanced pre-humans went further. Rather than seeing pre-humans' burial of their dead with grave goods as a sign of their belief in the afterlife and religious disposition (using analogies with human experience), these practices could just as well be seen as the practice deeply mourning and honouring a lost loved one (using analogies with elephant experience). The grave goods could just be an elaborate approach to mourning and honouring the dead. Perhaps the grave goods were items associated with the dead. If elephants can put the effort into revisiting the bones of their loved ones, it is quite plausible that pre-humans could put the effort into placing elaborate goods into the graves of their dead loved ones. The challenge of Cro-Magnon graves with grave goods is not nearly as acute as it first sounds.
Thus the most troubling objections regarding the habits of advanced pre-humans have been dealt with. Other habits which have not been discussed include pre-human building skills, craft traditions, pottery, and town life. Such achievements of the most advanced pre-humans do set them apart from other animals. Yet these skills do not necessitate the label 'human', by virtue of their achievement. It is not excessively challenging to imagine clever animals constructing complex homes, containers, and tools. Neither is it excessively challenging to imagine them choosing to live in reasonably confined areas. The findings described by Kuhrt above can be seen as simply the most advanced recorded versions of such animal behaviour. And that is what one would expect of the beings which God had sovereignly purposed to one day become the first humans from our world - we would expect them to exhibit the most advanced forms of animal behaviour.
To continue this section, it is worthwhile addressing this issue from another angle: Our focus will now turn to look at two traits which we would expect to see in the first humans, but which we would not expect to see in pre-humans. These are the desire of humans (especially men) to rule, and the desire of humans to make a name for themselves.
In Genesis 1:26, God declares of mankind (male and female) 'let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground'. This theme of human rule is repeated in verse 28, with a different stronger verb[105] translated 'rule': 'Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground'. In Genesis 3:16, part of God's curse on the woman is a declaration than husbands will rule over wives. 'Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you'. This has negative connotations: 'the sinful husband will try to be a tyrant over his wife'.[106] All of these passages indicate that there is something unique in humanity generally and men in particular, relating to our appointment as rulers over creation, and to our desire to rule over all things.
In Genesis 11:4, another trait is seen which seems unique to fallen humans: Humans will compete with God for fame, and compete with God for a name which will be widely revered. 'Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."' This is likely a uniquely human thing, since it reflects the account of sin in the garden where for the first time earthly beings had sought to 'be like God'. Thus understood as a product of human sinfulness, the drive to make a name for oneself is uniquely human.
This lengthens the list of traits so far identified as uniquely human. The list so far accumulated includes promise making, contract making and law making, the desire to rule all creation, and the desire to compete with God for fame. It is not an exhaustive list, but it is a striking list when applied to the question of the invention of writing. For all of these traits provide impetus for the development of writing. When promises and contracts and laws are made, it is useful to write them down so they can be checked or enforced. When a ruler is trying to extend his rule, and he needs to rule a greater and greater area, he needs to oversee a larger and larger number of servants and goods. This produces an increasingly challenging administrative task. Administration is helped considerably by the ability to write. Also, the desire for fame creates a desire to write down one’s achievements, and to defend the success of one's activities. The cumulative force of these drivers toward writing is great. Thus it can be seen how strong the impetus for writing became, once humans entered our world, around 4000 B.C. It thus becomes clear (under the assumptions of this thesis) why writing developed soon after that date.
Notice how the earliest recorded examples of writing fit into the categories laid out here. Trigger writes,
'literary, religious and professional writings appeared later than administrative, royal, and cultic texts [...] Beginning in Early Dynastic times, Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, including proclamations and records of military and administrative actions, were recorded on stone stellae[...] In Mesopotamia [...], at least by the Old Babylonian period, many merchants were literate, and writing facilitated more elaborate forms of economic transactions than elsewhere[...] Literate Egyptians used their ability to read and write to transact personal business, but literacy appears to have been more closely tied to government and temple administration than it was in Mesopotamia.'[107]
It is the transactional nature of business (the making of contracts and the accounting required to implement such contracts), the making of laws, the administration of temples and government, the recording of achievements (making a name for oneself), and the declarations of the powerful (again making a name for oneself) which are the focus here. This is precisely what is expected given the exclusive traits of humanity outlined above. The present explanation of these facts fits very well: These human traits came into existence around 4000 B.C., and over the following centuries, humans through their ingenuity developed writing to enhance the expression of these human traits.
In this way, the assumptions of this thesis explain the timing of the invention of writing. The date of around 3200 B.C. for the invention of writing is a perfect fit. It means there was a period of around 800 years between the creation of the first humans and the development of writing. Part of that 800 years allows for the fact that not all writing will have survived long enough for us to find it. The other part of the 800 years represents the time required for humans to develop writing, and to apply this new skill to various human endeavours. Thus the claims of this thesis have considerably more explanatory power than the claims of those who posit an earlier date for the first humans. Such alternatives do not explain as well the reason for the timing of writing's invention.
Turning now from the invention of writing back to the relative natures of the first humans and the last pre-humans, the following question might be presented at this juncture: A critique could be raised, as to whether this thesis endangers the theoretical humanity of some peoples or races. If our humanity is not secured by common descent from Adam, how can we guarantee that all peoples received the humanity of Adam and Eve? Perhaps someone would argue that one particular tribe or race did not receive the image of God at the time of Adam's sin. Therefore they might conclude that pureblood descendants of that tribe or race are not human today. How might one respond to such a claim? In the first place, it is to be admitted that the bible teaches of humans besides those directly descended for Adam. Since Cain was able to marry a wife (and become with her one flesh), it is clear that his wife was fully human (before the marriage). Hence under the assumptions of this thesis, there is clearly one human recorded in the bible, who is not descended from Adam. In the second place, if a question is ever seriously raised about the humanity of a modern tribe, they can be confirmed as human by observing whether they make promises, marry, make laws, have their men rule over their women in sometimes sinful ways, seek to rule widely, and seek to make a name for themselves. This list of uniquely human traits is broad enough to identify any given tribe or race as human. The question might be further posed whether individuals within such a tribe have their humanity on a secure footing. What about a person in such a tribe with mental incapacity such that they could not perform these functions? Would this endanger their humanity? No. It could be rightly argued that once the tribe has been established as a human tribe, all their children are equally established as human, regardless of their physical or mental incapacities. Seth was a child in Adam's likeness (Genesis 5:3), which implies a partial derivation of Seth's humanity from his father. Thus someone is human if their parents are human. This is enough to theoretically secure the humanity of any tribe or race that might not be descended from Adam. Thus a critique of this thesis along these lines does not find its mark.
A further objection to the present thesis might be raised that there is no evolutionary or fossil evidence that ‘pre-humans’ evolved into ‘humans’ around 4000 B.C. The definition of human is important in responding to such an objection. The definition and identification of any species is a complicated and disputed question to begin with. The definition and identification of the first human is far more so. Dawkins makes the important point that the classification of extinct fossils into their species is necessarily a futile exercise.
'Think about the first specimen of Homo habilis to be born. Her parents were Australopithecus. She belonged to a different genus from her parents? That's just dopey! Yes it certainly is. [...] There was no first specimen of any species or any genus or any order or any class or any phylum. Every creature that has ever been born would have been classified - had there been a zoologist around to do the classifying - as belonging to exactly the same species as its parents and its children. Yet with the hindsight of modernity, and with the benefit [...] of the fact that most of the links are missing, classification into distinct species, genera, families, orders, classes and phyla becomes possible'[108].
The point is that evolution occurred one generation at a time, very slowly, so as to make questions about 'the first member of species X' non-sensical. But that is true only from a physical point of view. It is very different to ask the same question about the ‘birth’ of the first humans. It is different, because Scripture teaches that humans are more than animals, and the difference lies partly in the immaterial part of our being. We have an eternal human soul, for example. We have a responsibility to rule the world under God, and we have the moral capacity to do so. Therefore, (under the assumptions of this thesis) it makes sense to ask the question - which generation of Homo sapiens were the first humans? It makes sense to ask the question - which generation of Homo sapiens were the first in the image of God? Such a question makes sense because a decisive move by God must be made to produce the first humans. He must endow them with the immaterial side of their human nature. This move by God will not necessarily be detectable by looking at fossils. Thus a lack of evidence for a physical change in Homo sapiens around 4000 B.C. is not a valid argument against the thesis that all Homo sapiens became human around that time.
A further critique of the present thesis might come with reference to Genesis 3:20 'Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.' Is this saying that Eve is the biological mother of all? If so, it would be impossible to maintain the view that at the time of Adam's sin there were around 70 million humans not descended from Adam and Eve. A response which deals with this objection is to point out the context of the verse. Commentators discuss the placement of this verse, immediately after the curse. Wenham writes:
'What prompted the man to call his wife “Life” especially at this juncture in the story? It comes immediately after the curses announcing man’s mortality (v 19), the pains of childbirth (v 16), and the struggle of the woman’s seed with the snake (v 15). Any of these curses could furnish the cue for the naming of the woman “Eve”'. [109]
Thus there are three potential curses which might form the basis for the naming of the woman – the curses of verse 15, 16 and 19. Of these three options, only the promised struggle of the woman's seed with the snake makes Eve ‘mother of all the living’ in a new way at this point in the story. This needs further explanation.
Adam already knew Eve would be a mother before Genesis 3:20 , because he was told as much in the words of Genesis 1:28 'be fruitful and increase in number'. These words were said to him and to his wife before the fall, so he clearly already knew them. This fact pushes the reader to ask why Adam would name Eve ‘mother of all the living’ at this point.
Three things are new to Adam at Genesis 3:20 - that Adam and Eve will die (v19), that the woman would have pains in childbearing (v16), and that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent (v15). However of these, only the last makes Eve in a new fashion 'mother of all the living'. That they will die does not make Eve in a new sense 'mother of all the living'. That Eve will have pain in childbirth does not make her in a new sense 'mother of all the living'. Only the promise of her offspring crushing the head of the serpent makes her ‘mother of all the living’ in a new way.
Therefore this writer believes the meaning in Genesis 3:20 is as follows: Adam is declaring that through Eve's motherly work, a man will come who will defeat Satan and thus return humanity to spiritual and eternal life. Genesis 3:15 is the first reference in the bible to a great rescuer, and Genesis 3:20 represents Adam’s expression that he understood it that way. Adam wasn't the only one to understand it that way. The apostle Paul encouraged the Romans, saying that 'the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.' (Romans 16:20). It is a clear allusion to this verse. John Calvin writes, 'that promise to crush Satan's head [Gen 3:15 ] pertains to Christ and all his members in common'.[110] In short, the contention is that Eve is the mother of all the living in the manner of their redemption, but not in the manner of their birth.
Related to this point, the presently proposed understanding of Jesus’ genealogy (Luke 3:23 -38) must divert from the standard understanding. The standard understanding of Luke 3:23-38 is to say that Jesus is linked biologically to Adam to show that Jesus identifies with all humanity.[111] However, this point loses its force under the present thesis, since not all humanity is descended from Adam. The point cannot be that Luke links Jesus to Adam to show that Jesus serves all humanity, if there are some humans not descended from Adam. A different understanding of this passage is therefore required. This writer’s proposal is that in linking Jesus biologically with Adam, Luke shows that Jesus fulfils the promise of Genesis 3:15. Jesus is the son of the woman - he is the descendant of Eve who was promised - the one who will crush the head of the serpent. The important point is that this genealogical link of Jesus to Adam is necessary under this proposal - it must be demonstrated that Jesus is descended from Adam, since not all humans are descended from Adam. Thus our proposal shows the need for the genealogy. In the standard understanding, where all men are descended from Adam, there is no need for a genealogy to show Jesus’ connection to Adam – it is a given. Thus in the standard understanding, the genealogy is in fact unnecessary, at least in its linking of Jesus to Adam. Here then is another strength of the present thesis: it demonstrates the need for the full genealogy of Luke 3:23-38.
Before this section is drawn to a close, a point can be made about how the research into the rise of 'civilization' supports the bible's claim that humans arrived around 4000 B.C. Listen to Duiker and Spielvogel, as they comment on the 'puzzle' of the rise of civilization.[112]
'Why civilizations developed remains difficult to explain. Since civilizations developed independently in different parts of the world, can general causes be identified that would tell us why all of these civilizations emerged? A theory of challenge and response maintains that challenges forced human beings to make efforts that resulted in the rise of civilizations. Some scholars have adhered to a material explanation. Material forces, such as the accumulation of food surpluses, made possible the specialization of labour and development of large communities with bureaucratic organization. But some areas were not naturally conducive to agriculture. Abundant food could be produced only through a massive human effort to manage the water, an effort that created the need for organization and bureaucratic control and led to organized cities. Some historians have argued that nonmaterial forces, primarily religious, provided the sense of unity and purpose that made such organized activities possible. Finally, some scholars doubt that we are capable of ever discovering the actual causes of early civilization'.[113]
Trigger does a good job of outlining how many of these theories fail to find a common cause of civilization's rise: Regarding the theory that iron tools or bronze working were essential to the rise of civilization: 'agricultural implements tended to remain simple in most early civilizations.'[114] Regarding the theory that the challenge of population pressure (due to limited arable land) was the driving force behind intensive food production and thus hierarchy and early civilization, Trigger writes:
'The Classic Maya, Yoruba, and Shang Chinese civilizations had no such natural boundaries'[115] (so as to restrict agricultural land and create population pressure). Regarding the theory that early civilizations originated in river valleys where the soil was easily worked, Trigger writes, 'Early civilizations are associated with vast differences in temperature, rainfall, elevation, topography, soil fertility, and microenvironmental diversity [...] There is no basis for theories that attribute the rise of civilization to the influence of a single type of environment or climatic event'.[116]
Speaking as an outsider to the discipline of early civilization, it seems to this writer that there is confusion amongst scholars surrounding this question. General causes of civilization outside of humans are very hard to come by. But even if a common cause outside of humans were to be found, the question would still be pressing as to why it took so long for humans to find it. Even more pressing is the question as to why (after 4000 B.C.) the path to 'civilization' was then repeatedly achieved by different groups of people, relatively independently of each other (for this is the current consensus). According to the current consensus, no group of humans had the requisite causes present for 100 millennia[117], then suddenly after 4000 B.C., the causes were present all over the place! The evidence points to a change within humanity as an explanation. This is why we see the explanations suggested about 'religious forces' yielding the change - because it is necessary to look within the people for the source of this change. But 'religious change' is still a flawed explanation. For why would people only become religious after being human for 100 kyrs, and why then when some became religious (so as to trigger civilization), did all became religious, at the same time across the globe? Such explanations make no sense.
Notice the timeline of the rise of 'civilizations'. Duiker and Spielvogel choose a number of the earliest civilizations and list the date they commenced. Their dates for the birth of early civilizations are: Egypt Mesopotamia c. 3000 B.C., India Peru China Central Asia c. 2000 B.C.[118] While the dates can be disputed (especially by disputing the definition of civilization), we can take these dates as evidence of significant technological progress made all over the world after the turn of the fourth millennium B.C. This data makes it clear that something remarkable happened sometime around the 4th millennium BC.
Put another way, we have investigated our world and found that human-looking-beings have been around for about 120 kyrs. We have discovered that these human-looking beings scattered across the globe, reaching Australia
We come now to a topic which has provided many difficulties for Christians over the last two centuries – the Great Deluge, and its relation to our world.
The problems in reconciling the Scriptures with science and history on this subject have been serious and in this writer’s opinion, unresolved. Genesis 7:20 is a key text, for which the King James Version provides the most accurate translation: 'Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.' Snoke emphasises the point that the text only has the waters rising fifteen cubits (around seven metres, or twenty feet)[119]. He contends from this half of the verse for a local flood, with the waters only rising twenty feet all told. However Snoke does not deal with the second half of the verse, which cannot be ignored. It says that the mountains were covered. The author of Genesis was aware that there were mountains higher than seven metres. With this in mind, it becomes clear why the majority position has been to translate and understand the passage with the NIV 'The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.' And if the passage is understood this way, then the flood should be understood to be global. For if Mount Sinai, for example, was covered by at least seven metres (so that the water at that point was hundreds of metres or more above sea level), the displacement function of water would have ensured that the flood covered the whole earth. Genesis would then be teaching that the sea level itself rose to at least seven metres above the highest (known) mountain. Only a great and sustained miracle from God would avoid such a result - for example a miracle where Mt. Sinai
A further significant problem for the local flood case within the bible is that God made a promise to both mankind and animals after the flood. Genesis 9:12-15 tells us, 'God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you...Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life."’
The animals are clearly part of the covenant not to destroy all life again. The covenant is made between God and Noah and every living creature with him – that is a plain reference to animals. Further, the promise is that God will 'never again ... destroy all life' (Gen. 9:15). This implies God has just destroyed all life once, including all the animals. If the promise were just made to man never to destroy all mankind again, we could conclude that only mankind had just been destroyed. But the promise is made to the animals and to man, never to destroy them both again, so that we should conclude that both mankind and the animals have just been destroyed. Of course, a local flood (in our world in the era of Homo sapiens) would not have destroyed all animals, which means that the bible is teaching a global flood. So it seems clear that Genesis teaches a global flood.
And yet, without even considering the problems raised by Genesis' dating of the flood, the scientific arguments against a global flood are very strong.
'Why would all those marsupials - ranging from tiny pouched mice through koalas and bilbys to giant kangaroos and Diprodonts - why would all those marsupials, but no placentals at all, have migrated en masse from Mount Ararat to Australia Darwin
'If the salts were originally dissolved in the ocean during the 'Great Flood', then as the waters of the flood retreated, the salinity of the ocean would have increased and the youngest (i.e. the latest) sediment layer would have been salt.[...] Salt layers in rocks are widespread in the UK, Germany, Poland, Russia [...] and the USA. [...] In some places like Australia
'Some 4.4 billion cubic kilometres of water would have to be added to the oceans for Mt Everest and other large mountain ranges to be covered. Besides [...] the slowing of the Earth's rotation [...], where did all of this water come from?'[122]
We now turn to consider the question as to whether these problems (and others) in reconciling Genesis’ chronology of the Flood with the world we know can be overcome.
Bauckham speaks in his commentary on 2 Peter regarding the cosmology implied in chapter 3. He says this in defence of his view that both the heavens and the earth were destroyed in the flood: 'This idea [that the heavens were destroyed in the flood] is not so alien to the Genesis narrative as many commentators allege: according to Gen 7:11 the waters of chaos, confined at the creation above the firmament, poured through the windows of the firmament to inundate the earth.'[123] Bauckham rightly understands the teaching of both Genesis and Peter to be that the pre-Deluge world had water above a 'firmament' (see Genesis 1:6-8, Job 37:18)[124]. During the flood, the windows of the firmament opened, and the water poured through, destroying the earth and the heavens too (the whole world, both heavens and earth are destroyed according to 2 Peter 3:6). Of course, our rockets have been through the sky, and not found any such firmament which could hold water aloft above our earth.
A two-worlds understanding of Genesis makes this cosmology viable. The proposal can be made under a two-worlds understanding that the pre-flood world had a different cosmology to ours. This makes sense, given that it was once possible to live an eternal life in that world. A different order of creation should be expected for such a world – perhaps the water suspended above the earth’s firmament helped mitigate the harmful radiation of the sun. Whatever the effect of the suspended water, if it is accepted that Genesis 1:6-8, 7:11, and 8:2 teach of water above a superstructure in the sky, a two-worlds understanding is essential to reconcile the teaching of Genesis with the world as we know it. For the planet on which we live does not have such a superstructure.
In Genesis 8:15-9:17, immediately after Noah leaves the ark, God has a lot to say. Genesis 9:2-3 says,
'The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.'
This passage speaks of an enduring change in the character of the relationship between human and animals - that the fear and dread of humans will fall on animals of all kinds into the enduring future[125]. But since this is a new and enduring change in relationship, we should ask what has caused it. It could be that something in animals has changed, or something in humans, or something in the environment which influences both animals and humans. But which is it, and why? Cassuto is at least brave enough to suggest an answer - that the animals have changed, because of their interactions with people in the ark event.[126] But this is not a good answer, because it is not an enduring answer. It is to be expected that the next generation of animals after the ark generation would forget the ark. Yet the statements of Genesis 9 have a longer ambit than one generation. Thus Cassuto’s explanation is flawed. Wenham does not attempt an explanation, saying only 'this seems [...] to reflect the animosity between man and the animal world that followed the fall'. But the fall does not explain why this change happened at this point.
A better, more viable answer comes in seeing that the ark passed from the pre-flood world into a different physical world - into our world. According to this understanding, the animals on the ark were the descendants of the animals once made perfect. But in Genesis 9, they were entering a world where neither animals nor humans had ever been perfect. Noah and the animals were entering the world of sin and death and curse for the first time. Since Adam and Eve had in their world been completely safe from all the animals, it follows that the animals of that world were never carnivorous. Further, Genesis 9:3 implies that humans had not been allowed to eat animals in the pre-flood world either. Therefore it follows that in the pre-flood world, animals did not hunt humans or other animals, and humans did not kill animals for food. There was no need for fear between animals and humans. But with the exit from the ark these things have decisively changed.
In a 'two-distinct-worlds' understanding of the flood account, humans and animals (which had never eaten meat) exited the ark and entered a world full of carnivores. As time went by, the natural conclusion came to pass, and the animals from the ark bred with the animals already in our world. Additionally, the humans from the ark also bred with other humans. The result was inevitable – that Noah and his entourage had to adapt to the carnivorous world they had entered. And thus there was a need for God to give Noah the instructions he did about how to live in this new world. Here then is a good explanation for the enduring change which God underlines in Genesis 9. It is an explanation which identifies why the change came at Genesis 9. There was a permanent fundamental change in animal/human relations for Noah because he had just permanently entered a fundamentally different world. Here again, the two-worlds understanding makes more sense of the biblical story than does the traditional understanding.
A further event where a two-worlds understanding better explains the Genesis text comes in God’s disclosure regarding the rainbow and clouds. God said, in Genesis 9:13-15,
I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.
The case is quite strong that the rainbow (and perhaps the clouds) were new to Noah. Admittedly a notable array of commentators including John Calvin have insisted that the rainbow itself was not (necessarily) new in Genesis 9:13.[127] Such commentators say that what was new was the meaning assigned to the rainbow by God, not the rainbow itself. However, such objections seem motivated more by the need to allay 'scientific' difficulties than by the text itself. The phrase 'I have set my rainbow in the clouds' (Gen 9:13 ) is unnecessary if Noah already knew of rainbows (and clouds). God only needed to say, 'the rainbow will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.' That he added the former comment, alerting Noah to the location of the rainbow in the clouds, suggests that the rainbow was new to Noah. And if it was new to Noah, this suggests Noah had just entered a new world with new physical laws. Indeed, if the idea of a 'new rainbow' was so foreign to the text, why have so many interpreters suggested it? John Calvin himself says of this phrase, '“I have put in the cloud.”, that “From these words certain eminent theologians have been induced to deny that there was any rainbow before the deluge.'[128] On balance, Genesis 9:13 yields itself better to the understanding that Noah has just entered a new physical world.
Before leaving this passage, it is useful to comment on whether the clouds might have been new to Noah. Whitcomb and Morris argue that there was no rainfall before the Flood, drawing on Genesis 2:4-6
‘When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- 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, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground’
Whitcomb and Morris point out that this verse is applied to the initial completed creation, and that ‘no mention is made of any change in this meteorological phenomenon after the Fall’.[129] Thus this lack of rainfall can be presumed to continue until the Deluge. In turn a lack of rainfall points to a lack of clouds, so that it is quite possible that both clouds and rainbow were new to Noah in Genesis 9:13. This would provide a good explanation for why there were no rainbows before the Deluge – with no rain, there could be no rainbows. The two-distinct-worlds claim allows more readily for such a reading than the traditional understanding. It also explains what otherwise seems very odd – the fact that the ‘whole surface of the ground’ was watered by streams that ‘came up from the earth’ (Gen. 2:6). If we try to understand that passage in a one-world understanding, we find more difficulty than in a two-world understanding. For we know that the water-cycle in our world is more long-standing than the four or five thousand years since Noah’s arrival. Thus again, our major claim provides a more likely background to the passages in question than the consensus of only one physical world.
Additional support for two distinct worlds comes through considering the question of mountains and the flood. Note, first, that the character of the pre-flood world we are proposing is that it had some different physical laws to our world. The pre-flood world was once capable of sustaining eternal life. Therefore before Adam's sin, it was a world without life-threatening events such as earthquakes, floods, famines, attacks of wild animals, droughts, soil-erosion, diseases and bush fires. One implication is that we would not expect the pre-flood world to have mountain-forming tectonic movement. Our geologists tell us that mountains are formed through the coming together of tectonic plates, a process which takes millions of years, and a process which produces dangerous earthquakes. But earthquakes are impossible in a perfect world. So in the pre-flood world with no earthquakes, it seems likely that mountains would never be formed. Unless God had established high mountains at the outset of that world and then ceased the process which made them, there would be no mountains in the pre-flood world.
This claim of a pre-flood world with no mountains finds support in the Genesis text. It gives us a solution to the difficult passage of Genesis 7:20, which was mentioned earlier. 'Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered' (KJV). The logical conclusion is that fifteen cubits' (seven metres') depth of water would be enough to deluge that world, since there were no mountains in that world, since there were no earthquakes in that world, since it was a world that once could sustain eternal life. Thus the two-worlds thesis better explains the challenging text of Genesis 7:20 than does the one-world understanding.
Further, the no-mountains claim helps us to explain Genesis 8:4-5. In Genesis 8:4, the ark came to rest on the 'mountains' of Ararat. The waters then receded for more than two months, after which time the tops of the 'mountains' became visible. If we are reading this with an understanding that these are 'real' mountains, the rate of abatement of the water is far too slow. It took more than two months for water to abate from the point where the ark ran aground, to the point where one could see the mountains on which the ark ran aground! Given that the height of the ark was 30 cubits (13.5 metres), this is a rate of abatement in the order of five metres of depth per month. This is clearly not sufficiently fast abatement to clear away a flood that covered 'real' mountains. It is much better to see that the flood deluged a world that had no 'real' mountains. In that fashion, we don't need to postulate anywhere near as much water for the whole world to be flooded. This also enables us to postulate an abatement of the flood at a rate which is reasonable, rather than suggesting that the waters receded at a rate of a kilometre in depth per month.
The objection can then be anticipated that Genesis 7 and 8 speaks of mountains. Why would those non-mountains be called 'mountains'? The answer here proposed is that the location of those flat 'mountains' in the pre-flood world corresponds to a location in our world which is mountainous. This draws on and reaffirms our understanding of the parallel nature of the pre-flood world, as compared to ours. If this answer is accepted, one then has a good explanation for many of the confusing details of the Flood account. Such an explanation is not available under the traditional one-universe understanding of these texts. Thus again, our two-worlds thesis fits better as background to these biblical stores than does the traditional one-universe understanding.
At this juncture, we wish to turn to a passage which has been notoriously difficult to understand – that of 1 Peter 3:18-21. Our purpose is to show that our two-worlds thesis helps to understand this passage.
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.
Davids lists a number of different understandings of this passage:
‘(1) The Spirits are the souls of the faithful of the OT and the “prison” is simply the place they remained awaiting Christ, who proclaims his redemption to them; (2) the spirits are the souls of those who died in Noah’s flood, who are kept in Hades, and who hear the gospel proclaimed by Christ after his death and before his resurrection (or heard the gospel in the days of Noah before being put in “prison”); (3) the Spirits are the fallen angels of Gen. 6:1ff. and the prison is where they are kept bound and hear the proclamation of judgment by Christ (or a call to repent given in the days of Noah); (4) the spirits are the demons, the offspring of the fallen angels of Gen. 6:1ff., who have taken refuge or been protected (rather than been imprisoned) in the earth and the proclamation is that of Christ’s (postresurrection) invasion of their refuge; or (5) the spirits are the fallen angels, but the preacher is Enoch, who proclaimed judgment to them.’[130]
Without ruling on who the spirits were to whom Christ preached, we can suggest an answer as to why the spirits of that era were singled out for mention by Peter. We will focus on views (2), (3) and (4), as they seem the most likely.[131] One of the problems understanding this passage is to understand why these particular spirits required a special sermon from Jesus. In views (2), (3) and (4), we can suggest that these spirits, whoever they might be, still inhabit the pre-flood world. For that reason, Jesus had to make a special journey to that world to inform them of his victory. In all cases, the reason that Jesus’ preaching is necessary, and noteworthy, is that the pre-flood world is a physically distinct world from ours. The journey which Jesus had to make for this task was a journey between physically distinct universes. Jesus’ journey and preaching shows his power over all parts of God’s creation. This is admittedly more speculative than the rest of our discussion. Yet in the standard (one-world) view, the need for these rebellious spirits (as opposed to all the other rebellious spirits) to receive a special journey and sermon from Jesus is more opaque. Under the two-world understanding, the need for this special journey and sermon is apparent. Thus again, the two-world understanding has greater explanatory power than the traditional approach.
We come now to what is probably the most difficult aspect of this thesis’ major claim to accept - the appearance of Noah and the ark in our world. The question must now be asked: Given the two-worlds understanding of the Genesis text, how should one understand the appearance of Noah’s ark in our world? The answer is this: The ark must have been translated from the world of the flood to our world, and that translation must be implied between Genesis 8:14 and Genesis 8:15. It must be the case that if someone were standing at the right place at the right time in our world in the mountains of Ararat, they could have seen the ark appear, out of thin air. The ark must have come to rest after the flood on a 'mountain' that was a few metres high, still in the pre-flood world. When Noah and the ark were translated into our world, the parallel nature of the worlds meant that the ark was lodged in the equivalent place in our world - on a real mountain. That is the conclusion, and its necessity will now be shown.
Scholars debate which modern site was intended by 'the mountains of Ararat' in Genesis 8:4, so we cannot provide details on the location or the precise height at which the ark arrived. However, the following can be said with confidence: There could not have been a flood in our world which corresponded to the Great Deluge in the other world. The ark could not have been held up by waters of a flood in our world to the height of a thousand metres or more, since a flood that high would cover our whole earth. This is the main reason to conclude that the ark appeared out of thin air, on a mountain in Ararat. If the ark ever floated in our world, that high above sea level, our world would have left evidences of complete submersion. It does not, and that is the reason to conclude that there was no flood in our world. Therefore, the ark was translated, and appeared 'out of thin air' on a high mountain. Note that this does have a precedent in the bible. Given that our two-worlds understanding is accepted, Cain too must have appeared out of thin air in our world somewhere, around 3900 B.C. That too would surely have been a bewildering sight, if anyone indeed saw it!
As an aside, one implication is that a search for the physical ark is not in vain. Indeed, the implication of the thesis here presented is that it is possible that the true remains of the ark could still be found high on a mountain somewhere in our world. The bones of Adam cannot be found, nor can the bones of Methuselah. But the wood of the ark might still be sitting somewhere on a high mountain. If the ark were truly found, it would be worth closely inspecting, since the biology of trees from the pre-flood world may be different to the biology of trees in our world. They were after all, once alive in a once-perfect world. It is even conceivable that some of the trees which made up the ark were alive in the perfect world before that world was cursed. As this writer sees it, this is the only plausible physical connection to 'paradise' that could viably be discovered today. (By 'paradise', the garden of Eden is not intended, but the broader world of perfection of which Eden
But let us return to the main discussion, the appearance of the ark in our world out of thin air. Since there was no flood in our world, the setting of Genesis 8:14 must be in the former world. That verse tells us that 'By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.' This is the last discussion in Genesis of the floodwaters' abatement and the subsequent drying of the earth. Therefore after this verse, it is possible to see Genesis set in our world.
At the other end, the most logical time for God to translate the ark into our world (and onto the mountains in our world) is before the people and animals exit the ark. This occurs in Genesis 8:15-16 'Then God said to Noah, "Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives.' Once the people and animals have exited the ark, it would seem too strange to have them all translated from their various locations into our world. It seems most natural that the ark with its people were translated together. Hence we should understand the ark to have been translated into our world before Genesis 8:15. Thus under the two-worlds understanding here presented, we must place the translation of the ark into our world between Genesis 8:14 and Genesis 8:15.
Despite the 'quirkiness' of such an understanding of the events of the Flood, it is an understanding which removes far more 'quirky' problems which exist in the traditional understanding. The ark's animals are an important example of this. Notice that two key purposes of the ark are stated in Genesis. One purpose was to save the animal species on the ark, and another was to enable the animals to multiply post-flood. Genesis 7:3 explains that animals were on the ark 'to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth'. In Genesis 8:17, God says to Noah: 'Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you-- the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground-- so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it."'
The traditional understanding is that all animals in the world today are descended from the animals that exited the ark. Under such a view, that is the way that the various species were saved - they were saved by the multiplication of the animals who exited the ark, because the descendants of those animals were the entirety of their species. However, the text of Genesis does not say that, and taking the text to that way yields problems relating to science and history which were earlier surveyed. Instead, we can take these passages to mean something quite different. We can understand that the animals on the ark were saved in order to enter a world which already had members of their species. We can understand that the ark animals were intended to breed widely on the earth, and so to keep their species alive by significantly improving their genetics. We can understand that there was something in the biology of these ark-bound animals such that when they mated with their respective kinds in our world, the result was to enhance the survival of their species.
What evidence is there for this understanding in the bible? Note that Genesis mentions two species of animal which were on the ark - the raven and the dove. Although we don't know what kind of dove and raven these were, it is nonetheless likely that their species already existed in our world before they arrived. There were many species of ravens and doves in our world which pre-existed the arrival of the ark[132] We can suggest by analogy that all of the species on the ark were going concerns in our world before the ark arrived.
Armed with these suggestions, we can respond to some critiques commonly levelled at the flood story. Plimer writes,
'Today we know about 30 million modern and extinct species of organisms [...] On the assumption that the animals came on two by two, each animal would have some 1150 cubic centimetres [...] of shipboard space for the 371 days at sea [...] How did Noah know to build a system to preserve fresh Eucalyptus leaves for the koala passengers from Australia?[...] Many writers have correctly demonstrated the problems arising from the genetic diversity of today's [...] animal population if each 'kind' derived from a pair.'[133]
Plimer's key mistake is to assume that all of the species of animals in our world (today and in the past) were on the ark. Under the understanding here proposed, this is not the case. The present postulation is that there were far fewer species on the ark than there were species in our world when the ark arrived. This is so because not all the species in our world could have been on the ark. For example, we can say with confidence that there were no koalas, nor any Australian marsupials on the ark, since there is no scientific evidence that such animals migrated from Armenia Australia
As an aside here, it is argued by some that the very notion of 'kinds' in Genesis 1:24 , 6:20 -21, and 8:19 rules out evolution. Ken Ham writes, 'Even today, an objection commonly levelled at the Bible is that it claims the species are fixed[...] By the old definition (a broad definition of 'kind'), creationists would agree'.[134] What we are proposing here is in agreement with Ham regarding the pre-flood world, that the species were fixed. But we are disagreeing with him regarding our world, where evolution has occurred. Put another way, in the pre-flood world, 'perfect versions' of the animals in their different kinds were created without a process of evolution. These 'versions' of the animals were 'perfect' in that they had no unnecessary or flawed elements to their make-up such as are found in animals derived from evolution. These perfect versions of the animals represent the 'kinds' which are spoken of in Genesis.[135] The animals in our world do not represent 'perfect kinds', and indeed the kinds have not been fixed through evolutionary history. The key point here is that the existence of such fixed kinds in the pre-flood world does not rule out evolution by common descent in our world. Again, our two-worlds hypothesis provides an understanding of the bible which is more viable than the traditional understanding, in reconciling Scripture and science.
At this point the bigger question might again be asked: Why would God do it this way? Why would he employ such a strange mechanism to bring about his purposes? Why destroy a whole world, and 'zap' a huge ark into a parallel world? How could this be demanded in the plans of a logical, orderly, all-powerful God? The answer here proposed is a biblical one: God used this mechanism as a lesson for us. The destruction of the pre-flood world and the saving of the ark shows that 'the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from trials.' (2 Peter 2:9) Thus God gives us a model to understand that when 'scoffers' come, scoffing about the final judgment (2 Peter 3:3-4), their end will be like the end of the people in the pre-flood world. Our world will be destroyed like that world was. Our righteous people will be saved like the righteous Noah was saved. God went to this great length of translating the ark from another world so that we would have a lesson about judgment. We do well to heed the lesson, and not to be scoffers ourselves. That is the main reason God did it that way.
In sum, while the suggestion of the ark's translation might seem fantastic, it solves many problems which exist in more traditional understandings.
A test of this thesis’ major claim can be made by examining the dating of the events at Babel Tower of Babel Iraq Babylon
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar Babel
One of the important questions to answer is the meaning of the phrase, the ‘whole world’ in Gen. 11:1 and 11:9. The same phrase in the Hebrew (#rHamilton Hamilton Hamilton
However, an alternative approach is available, drawing on the understanding of two distinct worlds. To grasp this approach, one should recall the earlier contention that the word #ra ‘earth’ in Gen. 6:4 is used in such a way that the Genesis writer swings seamlessly from the pre-flood earth to our earth without any sign of the change. Section 2 of this thesis canvassed similar changes of setting without notice in Genesis 4:25 and 8:15 . The present proposal is that such a thing is happening here in Genesis 11:2. In Genesis 11:1 and 9, the present proposal is that the ‘language of the whole world’ denotes the language of the whole of the pre-flood world. That is to say, Gen. 11:1 is harking back to the time in the pre-flood world when there was just one language: ‘Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.’ Gen. 11:2 seamlessly changes the setting into our world. The point of these nine verses is to recount key events in the dispersal of the original language of Adam. In this way, the need to jump between the two worlds is explained. In 11:9, the setting is in our world, but the language referred to is the language of the whole pre-flood world. So ‘the LORD confused the language of the whole world’ (Gen. 11:9) means that the LORD confused the language which was once the language of the whole (pre-flood) world.
This proposal allows for the language in question to be one of many languages at the time of the Babel scattering, while avoiding the inconsistencies of translation in Hamilton’s (and the NIV’s) approach.
The approach here proposed has the added advantage of explaining why Genesis 11 is placed after Genesis 10. One of the problems facing commentators regards the question of why Genesis 10, which speaks of many languages (e.g. Gen 10:31 ), is placed before Genesis 11, which seems to teach of only one world-language.[141] The present approach solves this problem, by denying that Genesis 11 teaches of only one world-language at the time. It also resolves another apparent difficulty in the text, as follows: In Genesis 11:2, many commentators understand the subject of the sentence to be all mankind.[142] Thus a common understanding is that all of mankind moved together, with their one language, and settled in Shinar Shinar
With that terrain covered, it is now time to examine how Genesis 11:1-9 interacts with known history. Under consideration is whether the account can be seen to be viable, both in terms of our thesis, and in terms of known history. The first issue is how it might be viable that the original language of the earth was spoken at Babel Babel
This writer’s proposed understanding of Genesis 11:1-9 is that the language of Adam did not significantly change from the time of Cain's arrival in our world until the time of the Babel scattering – thus it was still ‘the language of the whole (pre-flood) world’. It can be surmised that this is because the perfect world of Eden Babel Babel Babel
Either way, we have considerable information about the language of the people who were scattered at Babel Babel Babylon Babel Mesopotamia (Gen. 4:16), and Gen. 11:4 implies the people were trying to avoid being scattered. Further if it is accepted that Genesis 10:25 identifies the Babel event as occurring in the 'days of Peleg' (which is the most likely reading), this means the search is for a language and a people who were scattered from the region of southern Mesopotamia (Babylon) somewhere between 2180 B.C. and 1960 B.C. (these are Peleg’s dates - see above for their calculation). The search is for the language of a people who attempted to build a great tower out of their pride. Remarkably, this detailed description beautifully fits the language known as Sumerian.
To confirm this point, quotations will be canvassed from 'Ancient Iraq' by Georges Roux, at considerable length, to establish the key points about the Sumerian language and the people who spoke it. In this first series of quotes, notice how the Sumerian-speakers were leaders in the innovations which brought forth civilization. Notice also that these innovations are perfectly dated with respect to Cain's arrival in our world - they occur several hundred years after his arrival in 3900 B.C. Notice also discoveries relating to metal work.
'During the fourth millennium B.C. [...] the Sumerian civilization finally blossomed. [...] In the middle of the fourth millennium B.C. the climate of the Near East [...] slowly began to change and became increasingly cooler and drier. [...] The need to feed a much increased and fast-growing population challenged man's natural ingenuity: the plough was invented, and also the sled for dragging grain, the chariot for carrying goods and the sail for travelling faster on waterways [...] other inventions - such as the potter's wheel and the casting of copper alloys - opened the era of industrial production.
This went on for three or four centuries, but towards the end of the millennium the effects of desiccation started to be felt in southern Mesopotamia [...] To extend the areas of cultivable land artificial irrigation was developed, but the enormous common effort required to dig and maintain big canals and the need for an equitable distribution of water considerable reinforced the authority of the traditional town chiefs, the high priests. This, together, with the scarcity of fertile land, led to the concentration of power and wealth in a few hands and in a few places, to further technical progress, to remarkable architectural and artistic achievements, to the invention of writing as a means of recording transactions, but also to armed conflicts. Thus, it would seem, were born the city-states of ancient Sumer, with their fortified cities and well-defined territories, with their population of priests, scribes, architects, artists, overseers, merchants, factory workers, soldiers and peasants and their religious rulers or war leaders.'[144]
In this next series of quotes, notice how the knowledge of the Sumerian 'civilizing' inventions flowed out into other civilizations, in particular into the Egyptian civilization:
'The five hundred years which saw these developments have been divided, somewhat artificially, by archaeologists into a 'Uruk period' (c. 3750-3150 B.C.) and a 'Jemdat Nasr period' (c. 3150-2900 B.C.) [...]
The earliest texts in our possession were probably written in Sumerian [...] Progress in techniques, achievements in art, writing, all these are the symptoms of a fully mature civilization which should be called without hesitation 'Sumerian' since it is practically certain that the tablets from Jemdat Nasr and the contemporary levels of Ur and Tell 'Uqair are written in that language. Born and bred in southern Iraq
These next series of quotations bring out the mysterious nature of the arrival of the Sumerian-speaking people, and also points to the conclusion that the Sumerian-speakers arose in southern Mesopotamia , and remained there for a long time:
'Strangely enough, in Mesopotamia proper the archaic Sumerian civilization remained confined for a long time to the southern half of the country.[...] Who are these Sumerians[...]?[...] Do they represent a very ancient layer of population in prehistoric Mesopotamia, or did they come from some other country, and if so, when did they come and whence? This important problem has been debated again and again ever since the first relics of the Sumerian civilization were brought to light more than a century ago, and is still with us.[...]
The Sumerian literature [...] offers no clue as to its origins. Sumerian myths and legends are almost invariably drawn against a background of rivers and marshes, of reeds, tamarisks and palm-trees - a typical southern Iraqi background - as though the Sumerians had always lived in that country, and there is nothing in them to indicate clearly an ancestral homeland different from Mesopotamia.'[146]
The next series of quotes establishes the importance of the Sumerian language in categorizing the Sumerians:
'At the beginning of historical times three ethnic groups lived in close contact within that region: the Sumerians, predominant in the extreme south, [...], the Semites, predominant in central Mesopotamia (the region called Akkad after 2400 B.C.), and a small, diffuse minority of uncertain origin to which no definite label can be attached. [...] the line of demarcation between these components of the first historical population of Mesopotamia is neither political nor cultural but linguistic. All of them had the same institutions; all of them shared the way of life, the techniques, the artistic traditions, the religious beliefs, in a word the civilization which had originated in the extreme south and is rightly attributed to the Sumerians. The only reliable criterion by which we can separate and identify these three peoples is therefore their language. Stricto sensu, the appellation 'Sumerians' should be taken as meaning 'Sumerian-speaking people' and nothing else'.[147]
Next, the following series of quotes discuss the period when the Sumerian-speakers were first conquered. It is the period when the Sumerian-speakers assimilated with their Akkadian conquerors in many ways (though crucially not in their language). These quotes discuss how the Akkadians were then themselves conquered, before these final conquerors were thrust aside as the Sumerian-speakers regained control.
'The history of ancient Iraq Sumer Akkad , Sargon, in 2334 B.C. or thereabouts. For this reason, it is sometimes called 'Presargonic', though the term 'Early Dynastic' (abbreviated ED) is usually preferred by English-speaking scholars.[...]
Not only did Sargon and his successors subdue all the Sumerian city-states, but they conquered the entire Tigris-Euphrates basin [...] and built the first great Mesopotamian kingdom. [...] The Sargonic empire was to last for about two hundred years [...] The major innovation of (Sargon's) reign [...] was the ascendancy given to the Semites over the Sumerians. Akkadian governors were appointed in all the main city-states, and Akkadian became, as much as Sumerian, the language of official inscriptions. Yet it seems that the vanquished lugal and ensi (the vanquished Sumerian leaders) remained in function and that only newly created offices and provinces were given to Akkadians [...]
Shar-kali-sharri [...] disappeared in a palace revolution (2193 B.C.), and the Akkadian empire collapsed as rapidly as it had been built up.[...] The death of Shar-kali-sharri practically marks the end of the 'Akkadian period' as it is often called; but short as it was, the period exerted a deep and lasting influence on Mesopotamian history. The geographical horizon of Sumer
'About the Guti who overthrew the Akkadian empire and ruled over Mesopotamia for almost a hundred years we know next to nothing.[...] When, in about 2120 B.C., Utuhegal, ensi of Uruk, mustered an army and rose against 'the stinging serpent of the hills' several princes in southern Iraq followed him. The hated foreigners were defeated 'Utu-hegal sat down; Tiriqan lay at his feet. Upon his neck he set his foot, and the sovereignty of Sumer he restored into his (own) hands'[...] after seven years of reign Utu-hegal was evicted by one of his own officials, Ur-Nammu, governor of Ur, who took the titles 'King of Ur, King of Sumer and Akkad'. Thus was founded the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2112-2004 B.C. ), which represents one of the most brilliant periods in the history of ancient Iraq, for not only did Ur-Nammu and his successors restore the Akkadian empire throughout its length and breadth but they gave Mesopotamia a century of relative peace and prosperity and sponsored an extraordinary renaissance in all the branches of Sumerian art and literature.'[148]
The next series of quotes shows that in this Third Dynasty of Ur, the Sumerians made further great achievements. In particular, it is in this period that they built high towers, called ziqqurats. Especially striking is that Georges Roux ponders the purpose of these towers and concludes that the best explanation for their purpose is found in the biblical Tower of Babel
'Ur-Nammu 'freed the land from thieves, robbers and rebels' and has long been thought to have dictated what is considered to be the most ancient collection of laws in the world, although it appears from a newly found tablet that the true author was his son Shulgi.[...]'
Ur-Nammu will for ever be associated with the ziqqurats, or stage-towers, which he erected in Ur, Uruk, Eridu, Nippur and various other cities and which are still the most impressive monuments of these sites.[...] The best preserved of these stage-towers, the ziqqurat of Ur, may be taken as an example. [...]The ziqqurat stood on a large terrace in the heart of the 'sacred city' [...] Towering above the walls of the capital city, it mirrored itself in the Euphrates , which flowed along the western side. [...] Even now the [...] mound of the ruins forms a landmark visible from many miles away [...] What then, it may be asked, was the purpose of these monuments? [...]
The pioneers of Mesopotamian archaeology naively thought that the ziqqurats were observatories for 'Chaldaean' astronomers [but this obviously does not make sense] [...] it must be emphasized that the ziqqurats, contrary to the pyramids, do not contain tombs or chambers; they were built as a rule upon older, more modest structures erected during the Early Dynastic period [...] But why these platforms, why these towers? Philology throws no light on the problem, since the word ziqqurat comes from a verb zaqaru, which simply means 'to build high' [...] All considered, perhaps the best definition of the ziqqurat is given by the bible where it is said that the 'Tower of Babel' was meant 'to reach unto heaven' [...] They extended to the gods a permanent invitation to descend on earth at the same time as they expressed one of man's most remarkable efforts to rise above his miserable condition and to establish closer contacts with the divinity.'[149]
This last series of quotes shows that after the destruction of the Third Ur Dynasty around 2004 B.C., the Sumerian language was scattered, and Mesopotamia was itself dispersed into many large and small kingdoms.
'The fall of Ur at the close of the third millennium B.C. is one of the major turning-points in the history of ancient Iraq: it does not only ring the knell of a dynasty and of an empire, it marks the end of the Sumerian nation and type of society.[...] Even before Ur was captured, the Sumerian empire had collapsed, and Mesopotamia had been shattered into a mosaic of large or small kingdoms, the most important being those of Isin and Larsa in the south, Assur and Eshunna in the north [...] The rulers who replaced the Sumerians on the political stage were either Akkadians from Iraq or Western Semites - 'Amorites' in the broad sense of the term - from Syria and the western desert. [...] As they spoke Semitic dialects they adopted in writing the Akkadian language, and slowly in the south, rapidly in the north, the latter prevailed over Sumerian in private and official inscriptions.[...] (It was a) linguistic revolution.'[150]
The data could scarcely fit this thesis’ major claim and implications any better. To repeat and clarify, this writer’s hypothesis regarding the language scattered at Babel Mesopotamia around 3900 B.C.). These descendants of Cain were the ones who (especially through Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-Cain) brought forth many of the key inventions in the rise of civilization. They were later joined by Noah's descendants (Noah arrived around 2280 B.C.), who also spoke Sumerian, since that was the language of Adam and Eve. Together, it was these Sumerian-speakers who in their pride built the tower at Babel
Notice the number of points which confirm the Sumerian-speakers as the people in the Babel Babel Mesopotamia - the area later known as Babylon Babel Babel Tower of Babel Mount Ararat (wherever that might be) to southern Mesopotamia , and time to settle there with the other Sumerian-speakers, before the Tower of Babel 10:25 ). Seventh, despite the Sumerian-speakers being conquered multiple times before 2004 B.C., the Sumerian language did not disperse until the time of the Babel
Thus the approach proposed by this writer yields a conclusion in stark contrast to that of Hamilton Tower of Babel
But one last point needs to be made before we leave this subject of the Sumerian-speakers. It was noted in the introduction to this thesis that the Sumerian King List provides a genealogical chronology of the history of the world which is very similar to that of Genesis. Recall that the similarities included a genealogy, very long life-spans before a Great Flood, and life-spans declining to normal levels after a Great Flood. Recall further, that the Sumerian King List pre-dates the Genesis genealogies and flood accounts by many centuries. This has been seen to present the problem as to the source of the Genesis account: if Genesis is simply a garbled reflection of the earlier Sumerian work, this raises deep questions about its reliability.
The material of this chapter points to an answer to this challenge. The answer is simple: The Sumerian-speakers had a story like the story of Genesis 1-11, because they were the people-group to whom the events of Genesis 1-11 happened. Noah and all the long-lived patriarchs were Sumerian-speakers, so we should expect accounts of their history to exist in the language they spoke.
This does not however support an overturning of the reliability of the Genesis account. Rather, one can say that God revealed the true nature of events to Moses, so that he could reliably record them. In this way it can be understood that the commonalities (between the Sumerian King List and Genesis) reflect the fact that there was a common event behind the stories. The differences reflect the fact that Genesis is truly inspired and infallible Scripture, whereas the Sumerian King List is not. This same argument can be made about the many other Sumerian-language parallels[153] to the Genesis stories, such as the parallels to Eden Babel
Additionally, the Sumerian parallels to the Genesis 1-11 stories count as good evidence in support of the hypothesis of this chapter and in support of this thesis’ major claim. Given that this chapter has correctly outlined the relevant history, various predictions could be made about the likely existence of Sumerian-language accounts of the Genesis stories. It could be predicted since the events happened to Sumerian-speakers, there should be many Sumerian-language accounts of the Genesis events. It could be further predicted that the earliest forms of these stories should be in Sumerian. It could be still further predicted that since the Genesis account departs from a Sumerian-speaking setting after Genesis 11, the Sumerian parallels to Genesis should cease after Genesis 11. All of these predictions seem to hold true, as far as this writer is aware. This is good evidence in support of the major claim of this thesis.
A further potential objection to this thesis’ major claim can now be considered. In Acts 17:26, Paul declares of God that ‘from one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth'. This is related[157] to the claim in Genesis 10:32 that 'from these [the clans of Noah's sons] the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.' How should one understand these two claims? The consensus[158] of commentators is that Paul means that 'all mankind was one in origin - all created by God and all descended from a common ancestor'.[159] It would seem that this thesis is in big trouble here. If God made all humans physically from one man (Adam), then it cannot also be true that there were 70 million humans at the time of Adam who were not descended from Adam.
What has happened here is that commentators have failed to discuss the manner in which God made nations from one man. The assumption made by commentators is that the ‘making’ of the nations from Adam consisted only in Adam being biologically fruitful. Such an assumption is unjustified. If the point is that all nations (and not just the human race[160]) were made from Adam, then biological descent is insufficient to explain the phenomenon of nationhood. The character of the emergence of nations requires an explanation as to why the human race became many nations, and not just one nation. It requires explanation as to why we were divided into many nations and tribes and kingdoms, and not just (say) many tribes. The making of humanity into nations through the agency of one man is a far more complex question than the simple biological fruitfulness of Adam. This section explores that complexity.
This writer’s contention is that the TNIV and most translations have it correct when they translate the key phrase 'from one man he made all the nations.' Dibelius argues for an alternative, that God 'made from one man the whole human race'.[161] The NJB and NASB follow him in this. However, such a translation suffers from the problem that e;qnoj in the NT is never used for humanity as a whole, and there is no example where pa/n e;qnoj clearly yields itself better to the translation ‘human race’ than ‘all nations’. Additionally, it is quite likely that Acts 17:26 represents Paul’s reflection on Genesis 10, since Paul so often draws on the Old Testament. It will therefore be assumed that the majority of translations are correct in this matter.
With that ground covered, the viability of our major claim can be tested with respect to Acts 17:26 and Genesis 10:32. The logical flow will be as follows: First, the content of the two passages will be explored, discussing the theological implications when the passages are considered jointly. This will be done in two stages - first, focussing on the source of nations, then the source of nations. Having done that work, the terminology used in academic discussion of 'early civilization' will be discussed. That field of history is important for the present discussion, because it is the key field in which the two passages are making their claims. Finally, some relevant material in the scholarship of early civilization will be examined and conclusions will be drawn regarding the viability of this thesis.
Genesis 10:32 and Acts 17:26 considered together
Note that Genesis 10:32 says, ‘these are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.’ This is different from the statement that God 'made from one man all the nations' (Acts 17:26 ). Genesis 10:32 declares that the various clans of Noah's sons (listed in Genesis 10) were the source of the nations which spread out over the earth. Paul on the other hand does not name various clans as the source of all nations, but one man. Paul does not identify the one man, so that the man could be Noah or Adam. If Paul means that Noah was the one man, then his implication is that no nations existed before Noah's arrival in our world (in around 2280 B.C. as calculated above). For any nation existing prior to Noah could not be a nation made from the one man, Noah.
On the other hand, if Paul means that Adam was the source of nations, it would be possible that some nations (like Egypt
In this scenario, it is necessary to say that such early nations later accommodated one or more of the clans of Genesis 10. Otherwise such an early nation would be a nation which could potentially give rise to other nations, yet with no contribution from the clans of Noah’s sons. This would contradict the Genesis 10:32 claim that only the clans of Noah’s sons gave rise to nations which spread out over the earth after the flood.
Taking Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt 17:26 and Genesis 10:32 are to be reconciled with known history. At this point we must now add a discussion about the meaning of a nation – we must discuss the source of nations.
What is a nation, theologically speaking? What do Paul and the author of Genesis mean by this term? Five possible definitions of 'nation' can be considered from a political theory point of view. Hoffman and Graham point out that dictionary definitions are insufficient to handle the definition of a nation.[162] This is true both from a political theory point of view and a theological point of view. Hoffman and Graham list five alternative definitions of 'nation':
'The totality of people who are united by a common fate so that they possess a common (national) character. The common fate is ... primarily a common history; the common national character involves almost necessarily a uniformity of language (Otto Bauer in Davis, 1967: 150).
A nation is a community of sentiment that could adequately manifest itself in a state of its own: hence a nation is a community which normally tends to produce a state of its own (Max Weber in Hutchinson and Smith, 1994: 25).
[A nation is] a named human population that shares myths and memories, a mass public culture, a designated homeland, economic unity and equal rights and duties for all members (Anthony Smith, 1991: 43).
[A nation] is an imagined political community - and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign ... all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps even these) are imagined. Communitites are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined (Benedict Anderson, 1991: 6)
A nation is a group of people who feel themselves to be a community bound together by ties of history, culture and common ancestry. Nations have 'objective' characteristics that may include a territory, a language, a religion or common descent (though not all of these are always present), and 'subjective' characteristics, essentially a people's awareness of their nationality and affection for it (James Kellas, 1998:3)'[163]
The differences in the definitions hinge around the following questions: are subjective elements (like sentiment) sufficient to form a nation, or is something more objective required? If something more objective is required, what is it? Is it a common political project? Is it an actual political apparatus? Is it a common law? Is it a common language? Is it a common territory?
There are many possible nuances and options here. However, the present goal is not to argue for the right theological definition of a nation, but to test the viability of this thesis’ major claim. If the reader wants to have a tentative definition of nation in mind, Weber’s is perhaps best for the following discussion.
Early Civilization in the Academic Literature
The advance of peoples from early to advanced forms of social interaction is discussed academically under the heading of early 'civilization'. The definition of civilization is disputed. One approach comes in identifying key traits which are essential for an organization of people to be called a civilization. In Duiker and Spielvogel’s ‘World History’, we read,
'Historians have identified a number of basic characteristics of civilization, including the following: 1. An urban focus [...] 2. New political and military structures [...] 3. A new social structure based on economic power [...] 4. The development of more complexity in a material sense [...] 5. A distinct religious structure [...] 6. The development of writing [...] 7. New and significant artistic and intellectual activity'.[164]
A number of writers make definitions of this form. However, Trigger provides a good critique of such definitions, and takes a different approach. He lists V.G. Childe's 10 criteria for early civilization and points out that
'one problem with such enumerative definitions is that even small disagreements about how specific criteria are defined or interpreted affect what societies are assigned to a particular category [...] Each early civilization was the result of individual historical processes that produced distinctive material and institutional expressions. Such complex entities cannot usefully be defined by establishing a monothetic set of specific attributes that each of them must possess.'[165]
He therefore proposes a different definition of early civilization, which in style is representative of a second group of definitions:
'Anthropologists apply the term 'early civilization' to the earliest and simplest forms of societies in which the basic principle governing social relations was not kinship but a hierarchy of social divisions that cut horizontally across societies and were unequal in power, wealth, and social prestige'.[166]
Trigger’s definition of early civilization is close to the definition of a political state. His definition is stated in terms of ‘the basic principle governing social relations’ among a group of people. A political state could be defined as a group of people in which the basic principle governing social relations is that God has endowed authority on a person or persons to render right judgment over that people.[167] Notice from this observation that the question of the interaction between the definition of 'state' and 'civilization' is important in defining 'civilization'.
But Trigger’s definition finds difficulty in the end. Notice that he proposes two requirements for a civilization’s ‘basic principle governing social relations’: if this basic principle is not determined by kinship, and if it is determined by certain kinds of horizontally hierarchical social divisions, then Trigger says that we have a civilization. One problem with this is seen by pondering whether an animal ‘civilization’ could exist under Trigger’s definition. It could! We could imagine that a group of apes might arrange their social relations horizontally across their ape ‘societies’ in a way that was unequal in wealth, power and social prestige. The 'basic principle governing social relations' could 'the better fighters are higher up the food chain', which principle would fit Trigger's definition. Yet we would not call such a group of apes a ‘civilization’, because they are just apes. Trigger might answer by saying that it is obvious that he is talking about human civilizations. But at such an early stage in human development, it is surely essential to find a definition that secures the fact that we are talking about humans.
Yoffee has his own definition of civilization, which is preferable, in part because it avoids such pitfalls. He has his own critique of definitions like Trigger’s, which define a 'system' where the ‘organization of society is on a supra-kin basis’.[168] His critique is to say that in the earliest civilizations, the social system retained some kinship rules, even if some were done away with. The 'ruling dynasty of most centralized political structures was usually constituted by a royal lineage [...] Kinship ties and their various functions [...] did not disappear in states.'[169] Yoffee's alternative approach to the definitional problem is to begin by discussing 'the emergence of a political center'.[170] He then labels this governmental centre the 'state', 'as well as the territory politically controlled by the governmental center'. Finally, he refers to the 'larger social order and set of shared values in which states are culturally embedded as a "civilization"'[171]. In this way, the definition of 'civilization' is explicitly entwined with the definition of 'state', so much so that they are at times interchangeable for Yoffee. This might leave one wondering how Yoffee speaks about the fact that civilizations and states move away from being family-based entities like clans or tribes. He does so not in the definition of a civilization, but in related discussion. In that discussion, Yoffee prefers to use the terms 'differentiation' and 'integration'.
'"Differentiation" refers to the process through which social groups become dissociated from one another, so that specific activities, roles, identities and symbols become attached to them. "Integration" denotes the political process in which differentiated social groups come to exist within an institutionalized framework.'[172]
This approach deals with the questions of kin more adequately. It also defines what is clearly a human civilization, since it is grounded in the political 'state', which when rightly understood has its grounding in defence of the human common good.[173] Overall, Yoffee's seems to be the best of the approaches to defining civilization. Thus when the terms 'civilization' and 'state' are used in this thesis, they are meant in the same way Yoffee means them.
Note, however, that with these varying definitions in the published material, vastly different dates for the origins of 'civilization' emerge. These varying dates for civilization's rise are caused by the varying definitions of civilization. Broadly speaking, two groups can be identified. On the one hand, there are those whose definitions and chronology make it clear that they (like Yoffee) are looking for the arrival of the political - they are looking for the emergence of 'states'. Those in this camp end up with dates for civilizations like those of Duiker and Spielvogel's. Their dates are Egypt c. 3100 B.C., Mesopotamia c. 3000 B.C., India c. 3000 B.C., Peru c. 2600 B.C., China c. 2000 B.C. and Central Asia c. 2000 B.C.[174] Trigger's dates fit this mould as well, and are similar to these. This can be accounted for by the fact that Trigger’s definition of civilization is very close to the definition of a state, as I outlined above.
On the other hand, those who detach their understandings of civilization from a notion of a 'state' can push as far back as 45000 B.C. (or earlier) in labelling a 'civilization'. For an extreme example, Grimal writes,
'The Khormusan culture [a 'culture' of early Nubia] was [...] located some distance from the Wadi Halfa, where traces were found of a civilization which began in the Middle Paleolithic (c. 45,000 BC) and had disappeared by the Late Paleolithic (c. 20,000 BC). [...] the Khormusan was more reliant on the river valley, combining the subsistence of the savannah - exploiting wild cattle, antelopes and gazelles - with the products of fishing'.[175]
It has already been argued that such farming and herding activity need not have been the activity of humans. But the point here is that Grimal's use of the term 'civilization' is well-removed from Yoffee's use, and thus well removed from this writer’s use. These pre-historic beings that hunted and fished and herded were not organized into political states, and on that point there is consensus. The fact that certain writers use the term 'civilization' differently to others (and speak of its existence so long ago) does not in itself negate this thesis’ major claim.
Investigating specific early civilizations – Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China
With that definitional work completed, it is now time to investigate some of the earliest civilizations, and see if their existence provides evidence to refute, undermine, support or confirm this thesis’ claims. To attempt this task comprehensively, one would need to hypothesise a definition of ‘nation’, survey every civilization in history, determine when each civilization might have become a nation, determine if it is plausible that every nation which arose did so only after contact with the descendants of the clans of Noah’s sons, and consider the minimal level of contact required to say that God ‘made’ that nation through ‘one man’. This task is well beyond the scope of the present thesis. Instead, only Egypt Mesopotamia , India China Egypt Egypt
Agriculture and towns appeared in Egypt in the sixth millennium B.C.[177] However the Egyptian people did not organize themselves into a recognizable political 'state' until around 3100 B.C., in the period known as Dynasty "0". Yoffee notes an important characteristic of the early Egyptian state: 'in comparison with other of the earliest states, the establishment of the unified and centralized polity in Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt
This presents some plausible (tentative) options for defining a theological nation, in a manner which might render this thesis’ major claim viable. Perhaps this uniqueness in Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt
Note that this discussion commenced with extra-Biblical history, and ‘worked towards’ the Bible (i.e. it worked towards showing that extra-Biblical history and the Bible can be reconciled). One can also start with the Bible, and ‘work towards’ extra-Biblical history, as will now be attempted.
Acts 17:26 provides a plausible explanation for the rise of Egypt land of Nod Mesopotamia to Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt 17:26 ).
Additionally, it can be seen that Genesis 10:32 provides a plausible explanation for the spread of some nations outward from Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt
Detailed analysis of the rise of each of the groups founded through ‘Mizraim’ is impossible. For example, Wenham points out that 'attempts to identify the Casluhim are little more than guesses.'[186] Partly for that reason, this writer chooses to cease the investigation of ‘Mizraim’ at this point.
A plausible understanding has thus been provided (working both from the Bible to extra-Biblical history and vice-versa) as to how the rise of the Egypt
Turning to Mesopotamia , one can ask if its history is consistent with the notion that all nations arose through the one man, Adam[187]. The simple answer is yes, because some of Cain’s descendants very likely lived in Mesopotamia from as early as 3900 B.C. (As discussed above, Cain arrived in our world around that time not far from Mesopotamia ). Thus any nation that arose in Mesopotamia could be explained as having arisen through the agency of Cain (and thus through the one man, Adam). As we have seen, the dates for the rise of civilization in Mesopotamia are hundreds of years after 3900 B.C. Additionally, speaking of the period 3200 B.C.-2000 B.C. [188], Yoffee points out that 'Mesopotamian city-states were multiethnic communities. Sumerians, Akkadians, Amorites, Kassites, Hurrians, and many other named social groups - the names themselves refer to languages rather than ethnic groups, in the strict sense - lived together in Mesopotamian city-states.'[189] That is, Mesopotamia in the period 3200 B.C – 2000 B.C. contained only city-states. According to the tentative definition of nationhood above, this means there were no theological nations in Mesopotamia before 2000 B.C. Of course, if there were no nations, there is no potential Mesopotamian counter-example to the thesis that all nations arose from one man.
Turning to the Indus Valley civilization (also known as the Harappan civilization after one of its key cities, Harappa[190]), urban life flourished there for around six centuries between 3200 B.C.-2600 B.C.[191] McIntosh notes that ‘The nature of Harappan political organization is still unclear, though much debated, and there is not even agreement on whether it was a single state.’[192] A major problem in saying much about this civilization is the failure to decipher their writing script.[193] Despite the problems, McIntosh is prepared to venture the following commentary on the character of the Harappan state:
‘Some states are territorial in nature […] Such states have as their basis sedentary agriculture, and their people see their identity in terms of place. […] Other states are based on control of people rather than territory and are more likely to be associated with economies in which pastoralism is important […] Though the Harappans practiced agriculture as well as pastoralism, it is more likely that the Harappan state was of this second type.’[194]
That is to say, on balance, the character of the Harappan state seems likely to have been structured as a city-state (or a series of city-states), rather than a territorial state. Given our tentative definition of ‘nation’ above, this points to the Harappan state not being a (theological) nation. It is noteworthy that ‘in the early third millennium’, ‘Indus merchants are known to have travelled to Mesopotamia ’.[195] Thus the influence and potentially the genetics of the offspring of Adam could have reached the Indus Valley Indus Valley
Turning to the ancient Chinese civilization, the key for the present purposes is to consider the timing of the development of territorial states. Loewe and Shaughnessy explain that ‘the late Longshan period, that is, the latter part of the third millennium, and the earlier part of the second millennium B.C., was the period of the legendary wan guo (ten thousand states)’.[196] None of these states are likely to represent theological ‘nations’, as tentatively defined above. Loewe and Shaughnessy describe the eventual transformation of this political order: ‘Indeed, it was a long metamorphosis that these ancient states underwent to transform from garrison stations to incipient territorial states. From the days of secondary feudalization [c. 700-600 B.C.[197]], smaller states kept being absorbed into larger ones.[198] (not an environment congenial to producing a national consciousness). It is only after this era that characteristics one would expect of national states emerged. By around 350 B.C., Shang Yang had created a ‘uniform territorial administration answerable to the ruler’.[199] Another key evidence of territorial administration is the construction of defensive walls (internal to China
All this data points to territorial nations arising in China China Mesopotamia is a candidate for the invention of both. Between 1600 B.C-1200 B.C. the spoke-wheeled chariot arose in both Mesopotamia and China Mesopotamia . This is one way to see the likelihood of contact (at least of ideas) between the descendants of Noah and the Chinese. This contact of ideas had occurred by 1200 B.C, which was well before the Chinese states became territorial. Thus it seems plausible that the rise of the Chinese nations may owe something to the ideas or genetics or other contribution from the clans of Noah’s sons. Thus the present thesis seems viable with regard to the history of China
We could now continue to investigate ancient civilizations in order, moving next to Peru Peru
Significance of this discussion
A few other pieces of evidence can be mentioned before finishing this section, which point to the potential significance of this discussion. It seems to be a viable claim that nations were more successful than city-states. It is a claim which needs much more investigation, but to this point it seems viable. To put the claim another way, political entities which have governed peoples who want to be governed as one nation have been more successful than political entities based on pure power or proximity. Even the great Empires which expanded at various times in world history seem to have begun with a nation, governed as such. When the explorers of the Old World found the New World , there was a massive difference in technology and advancement. It could be that the bible’s teaching on the spread of nationhood is the best explanation for this phenomenon. It could be that while some of the New World societies had developed city-states, none of them had developed ‘nations’ (in the biblical sense, which sense I have not precisely defined). Perhaps the 'invention' of such nations is the main reason for the huge advantages of the Old World, such that the New World could not stand up to their technological achievements or political organization. Such a thesis would say that the New World did not develop beyond mere city-state government until contact was made with the descendants of Adam. The reason that the Old World was so much more advanced was because of their invention of nationhood which came through the descendants of Adam. That is to say, Acts 17:26 and Genesis 10:32, understood through this thesis’ major claim, may have high explanatory power for the character of World History. Challenges remain in making this case. But if it were made successfully, the spread of nationhood would then be rightly cited as a crucial factor, if not the crucial factor, in explaining world history. History curricula would then rightly be laid out according to this principle – ordered in terms of the spread of nationhood. Thus our thesis is of supreme significance for the discipline of history.
The significance for the inspiration of the bible should also be noted. If the claims of Acts 17:32 and Genesis 10 are correct, understood in the terms of this thesis, then the claims represent a remarkable achievement: Neither the author of Genesis nor the apostle Paul could have known (by natural means) of the lack of nationhood in South America, North America, Australia or anywhere else in the ‘New World’ before c. 2000 B.C. They could not have known (by natural means) of the lack of nations which were not descended from the area of Egypt/Mesopotamia. If such a claim by Paul and Genesis were in the end successful, the clear conclusion would be that Paul and Genesis made their claims by supernatural means.
The major claim this thesis has investigated is: By understanding Adam-through-Noah’s universe as distinct from and parallel to ours, one better understands the Bible, and one can reconcile Genesis’ early chronology with known science and history.
Overall the major claim has been supported. The proposed new understanding has resulted in better understandings of the Bible at many points. The new understanding has also enabled greater reconciliation of Genesis’ early chronology with known science and history vis-a-vis the traditional one-universe understanding.
The better Biblical understandings which have been canvassed include explanations for how to reconcile six days of creation with our old earth (Gen. 1:1-2:3), how to reconcile a solid firmament in the heavens with the sky we know (Gen. 1:6-8), why we have never found the Pishon and Gihon rivers, why the Tigris and Euphrates seem to be depicted as flowing in the wrong direction (Gen. 2:10-14), how Eden could be a place suitable for eternal life, how a creation-date for Adam of around 4000 B.C. can be reconciled with known history and science, how Eve could have been created around 4000 B.C., and still be the ‘mother of all the living’ (Gen. 3:20), how Cain could find a wife to marry and people to fear when he was the son of the first humans (Gen. 4:10-14), how Cain was a restless wanderer (Gen. 4:14), where it was that Cain was cast, why the achievements of Cain’s descendants are recorded (Gen. 4:17-24), how to explain the long life-spans of the pre-flood patriarchs (Gen. 5), why the waters of the flood could cover the mountains and kill everybody despite only rising 15 cubits (Gen. 7:20), how the rate of abatement of the floodwaters could be around five metres per month (Gen. 8:4-5), why the animals only began to fear humans after the Flood (Gen. 9:2), why humans were only permitted to eat animals after the Flood (Gen 9:3-4), why God needed to alert Noah to the presence of the rainbow and clouds (Gen 9:13-14), how the ark could secure the survival of the species of animals on board without problems of genetic-pool size, how the ark could physically fit the numbers of animals required, how a Global Flood occurred for which there is no evidence in our world, how multiple languages and nations existed before the Babel scattering (Gen. 10), how all nations might have spread from the clans of Noah’s sons (Gen. 10), the identity of the ‘language of the whole world’ scattered at Babel (Gen 11:9), how the Sumerian-speakers fit both the timing and location of the Babel story (Gen. 11:1-9), why there are many Sumerian-language texts reflecting and pre-dating the stories of Genesis 1-11, why the ages of the patriarchs decline after the Deluge (Gen. 11:10-32), how long-lifespan descendants of Adam could have lived in the midst of normal-lifespan people (Gen. 11:10-32, Gen. 47:7-9), why it was necessary for the Lukan genealogy to link Jesus to Adam (Luke 3:23-38), why the preaching of Jesus to the spirits of Noah’s era is noteworthy (1 Pet. 3:19-22), why 2 Peter 3:5-7 depicts two physically distinct worlds, how ‘poor-design’ of animals and humans in this world can be explained, and how this world has always been designed to be a world of sin and death and curse.
In addition to this better understanding of the Bible, and better reconciliation of Genesis with history and science, this thesis has achieved something else of significance. The major claim of this thesis has pointed to better explanations than our scientists and historians presently have for four phenomena: the timing of the rise of political states, the timing of the invention of writing (and why the Cro-Magnon cave painters did not develop writing), the reason the first nations arose in the area of Mesopotamia and Egypt at the time they did, and the reason the Old (Western) World was so technologically superior to the New World.
These gains and better explanations should be taken as tentative. Further work is required to deal with the difficulties which this thesis has not resolved. One difficulty is the challenge of accepting the existence of parallel universes, in particular parallel universes of the kind here proposed. There may well be further light that can be shed by physicists on the probability and expected character of parallel universes, in ways that inform this thesis. Another difficulty is the challenge of accepting that Homo sapiens were not human before c. 4000 B.C. Notwithstanding the defence of such a proposition earlier mounted, beings that could farm, trade, speak, draw, build and leave grave-goods with their dead are certainly more advanced than any animals we know today. Calling them pre-human will no doubt cause difficulty for many. Further work can be done in describing the abilities of Homo sapiens before 4000 B.C., and comparing such descriptions with analyses of abilities which must be the sole ambit of humans. A third difficulty lies in the limited number of ancient civilizations examined in section 9’s discussion of the spread of nations. Much work remains to be done to test the viability of the claim that all nations spread out from the clans of Noah’s sons. While the claim seems viable as far as this investigation went, the history of every civilization in the world could be examined to determine whether each nation possessed some link to the clans of Noah’s sons. The question of the definition of nation would need to be more deeply explored in such an analysis. A final difficulty can be mentioned which does not open itself to further research. That difficulty is the conjecture made within this thesis that God ‘translated’ the ark of Noah from a parallel universe into our world between Genesis 8:14 and Genesis 8:15. It is a necessary conjecture, but admittedly hard to accept.
Despite these difficulties, the gains from this thesis’ proposals are sufficient to say that a good case has been made for its major claim. It is worth underlining that the difficulties of this thesis are minimal when compared with those encountered when seeking to reconcile the chronology of Genesis 1-11 with science and history under traditional assumptions.
It is worth pausing here to ponder whether the gains of this thesis can be made without postulating a parallel universe. The parallel universe is probably the strangest element of this thesis, and so one can ask whether it is a necessary assumption. Notice that if one does not posit a parallel universe, many problems emerge in trying to keep the gains made in this thesis. A literal six day creation is impossible if there is no parallel universe, since our earth is old. A solid firmament in the sky is impossible with no parallel universe, since such a firmament does not exist in our world. If there is no parallel universe, the Tigris and Euphrates of Genesis 2:10-14 need to be a different Tigris and Euphrates from the ones in our world, in order to secure the location of ‘perfect’ Eden away from the long-standing imperfection of our Mesopotamia. This is very complicated and odd. Also, there are the challenges of positing that Eden Eden Eden Eden Eden Eden Eden Mount Ararat . That is, it is hard to see how 15 cubits of flooding could be enough to destroy that world, while depositing the Ark Mount Ararat , while not leaving a trace of a world-wide flood. Other problems with rejecting the parallel universe assumption include the fact that the ‘parallel’ nature of the two worlds must be rejected. This yields problems with saying in Genesis 11 that the Sumerian language of Adam was ever ‘the language of the whole world’, and problems with saying that Cain entered our world in Nod, ‘east of Eden Eden
One question which should be addressed before finishing is why this thesis has not been proposed before. The answer might be suggested that parallel universes have only been seriously posited recently in physics. However, this suggestion implies that the Bible itself couldn’t have posited parallel universes without knowledge of 20th century physics. So this answer should be rejected.
Another explanation is that outside of the inspired Bible writers themselves, the idea of a parallel universe is so foreign that human thinking will reject it unless there is no alternative. This is the explanation favoured by this author. Between the mid 19th century and the end of the 20th century there was a period of advancement in the sciences and theological processing of those advances. Through that period, and with the writing of this thesis, it has become clear that there is no other option to reconcile Genesis’ chronology with our world other than a postulation of a parallel universe. Only with the writing of this thesis (if it is deemed successful) could it become clear that many supposed problems in the Biblical are resolvable through a parallel universe understanding. That is the order in which things happened. The experience of this writer is that he came to posit this thesis’ major claim only when he could see no other option to reconcile Genesis’ chronology with history and science. He was then surprised as to how many supposed ‘problems’ the parallel universe thesis solved.
This question can be approached from a different angle, so as to lend support to this thesis’ major claim. The problems in reconciling Genesis with science and history are reasonably well understood by the general public in the cultural West. This is seen in the popular nature and in the wide circulations of the books by Plimer and especially Dawkins cited above. It is also seen in Britain
Finally, it is hardly necessary to point out that the significance of this major claim is enormous. It is hard to think of a discipline on which this thesis has no impact. For example, it has import for apologetics, the history of every nation, evolutionary biology, medicine, law (especially the interaction of law and nationhood), genetics, systematic theology, philosophy, the origin of race, linguistics the development of language, physics, and anthropology. Further work in testing this thesis could be done (to choose a few examples) in considering the fixity of the Sumerian language through time, the genetic plausibility of the proposed dual source of humanity and animals, the philosophical and biological implications of a once-perfect world distinct from our world, the implications for history curricula of a singular source of all nations, and the medical implications of the Jews being descended from people who once lived nearly a thousand years.
This writer admires men like James Ussher who were so interested in Biblical chronology. Ussher’s work on Biblical historical chronology has been posthumously mocked for generations. With a glint in one’s eye, one can wonder whether he might again be taken seriously on this subject after a couple of centuries in the dust-bin. ‘Though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again.’
Archer, Gleason. A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction. Updated and Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
Barnouin, M. "Recherches numèriques sur la génèalogie de Gen. V." Revue Biblique 77 (1970): 347-365.
Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983.
Bavnick, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church and New Creation. Translated by John Vriend. Four vols. Vol. Four. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008.
Beck, Roger G. World History: Patterns of Interaction. Geneva, Illinois: McDougal Littell, 2006.
Bock, Darrell L. Luke : 1 :1–9 :50. Vol. 1, BECNT 3a. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1994.
Bradshaw, G. A. Elephants on the Edge: What Animals Teach Us about Humanity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles : The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale, 1952.
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis : Interpretation : A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.
Calvin, John. Calvin's Institutes.
Calvin, John. A Commentary on Genesis. Edited by J. King. Translated by J. King. Geneva Series of Commentaries. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part II: from Noah to Abraham. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Central Press, 1964.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. London: SCM Press, 1979.
Davids, Peter H. The First Epistle of Peter. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI.; Edinburgh: Eerdmans; Handsel Press, 1990.
Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. London: Transworld Publishers, 2009.
Dibelius, M. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Translated by M. Ling. London: SCM Press, 1956.
F. L. Cross, E. A. Livingstone et. al. "Image of God." Page 820 in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Third ed. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Feduccia, Alan. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Second ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
Fried, M. "On the Evolution of Social Stratification and the State." Pages 713-731 in Culture and History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin. Edited by S. Diamond. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960.
Green, W. The Pentateuch Vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso. New York: John Wiley, 1863.
Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. Translated by Ian Shaw. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Gunner, R. A. H. "Number." Pages 830-835 in New Bible Dictionary. Third ed. Edited by I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J.I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester, England: Inter-varsity Press, 1996.
Ham, Ken. The New Answers Book Part 3. Green Forest, Arizona: Master Books, 2009.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis : Chapters 1–17. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1990.
Hoffman, John and Paul Graham. An Introduction to Political Theory. second ed. Essex, England: Pearson Education, 2009.
Josephus, Flavius. The Antiquities of the Jews. n.d.
Kidner, Derek. Genesis : An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. London: Tyndale Press, 1967.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. "Egypt, Egyptians." Pages 207-214 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch. Edited by T. & Baker Alexander, D. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Kramer, Samuel N. History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History. Third ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
Kuhrt, Amѐlie. The Ancient Near East: c. 3000-330 BC. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London: Routledge, 1995.
Loewe, M. and E. Shaughnessy. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge, Melbourne: Cambridge University Pres, 1999.
Lucas, E. C. "Cosmology." Pages 130-139 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch. Edited by T. & Baker Alexander, D. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Marshall, Ian Howard. The Acts of the Apostles : An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC 5. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980.
Mathews, Kenneth and K. A. Mathews. The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26. Edited by E. R. Clarenden. The New American Commentary. Broadman & Holman, 1996.
McIntosh, J. The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives. California: ABC-CLIO, 2008.
Merrill, E. "Chronology." Pages 113-122 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch. Edited by T. Alexander & D. Baker. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Mitchell, T. C. "Philistines, Philistia." Pages 921-923 in New Bible Dictionary. third ed. Edited by A. R. Millard I. H. Marshall, J.I. Packer and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996.
Morris, Henry Madison and John C. Whitcomb. The Genesis Flood : The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1961.
Numbers, R. ""The Most Important Biblical Discovery of Our Time": William Henry Green and the demise of Ussher's chronology." Church History 69, no. 2 (2000): 257-276.
O'Donovan, Oliver. The Ways of Judgment. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005.
Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. PNTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.
Plimer, Ian. Telling Lies for God: Reason vs. Creationism. Sydney: Random House, 1994.
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Second, Revised and Updated ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.
Roux, Georges. Ancient Iraq. Third ed. London: Penguin, 1992.
Saint Augustine of Hippo. The City of God (De Civitate Dei). Translated by John Healey. Vol. One. Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909.
Silverman, David. Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Snoke, David. A Biblical Case for an Old Earth. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006.
Spielvogel, William J. Duiker and Jackson J. World History. Sixth ed. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Boston: Wadsworth, 2010.
Stott, J. R. W. The Message of Acts : To the Ends of the Earth. BST. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990.
Tattersall, Ian. Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1998.
Tegmark, Max. "Parallel Universes." Pages 459-491 in Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology, and Complexity. Edited by Paul C. W. Davies and Charles L. Harper John D. Barrow, Jr. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Tomlin, Nick Spencer and Graham. The Responsive Church: Listening to our World - Listening to God. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005.
Trigger, Bruce G. Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Ussher, J. The Annals of the World. Translated by L. Pierce and M. Pierce. Green Forest: Master Books, 2003.
von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis : A Commentary. Rev ed. London: SCM Press, 1972.
Waltke, Bruce K. and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis : A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001.
Walton, J. "The antediluvian section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5." Biblical Archaeologist 44, no. 4 (1981): 207-208.
Walton, J. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2009.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16–50. WBC 2. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1994.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11 : A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. London: SPCK, 1984.
Witherington III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI.; Edinburgh: Eerdmans; Handsel Press, 1998.
Workman, G. "What is the 'Firmament' Spoken of in the Bible?" The Restorer 11, no. 4 (1991): 1.
Worthing, M. "The Length of a Year in the Patriarchal Narratives: A Proposal." Lutheran Theological Journal 33, no. 3 (1999): 117-123.
Yoffee, Norman. Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[1] Note that a discussion of four currently hypothesised parallel universes exists in Max Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," in Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology, and Complexity (ed. Paul C. W. Davies and Charles L. Harper John D. Barrow, Jr.; Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
[2] E. Merrill, "Chronology," Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch: 117-118.
[3] Merrill, "Chronology," 118.
[4] J. Ussher, The Annals of the World (trans. L. Pierce, et al.; Green Forest: Master Books, 2003), 17.
[5] Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1979), 152.
[6] Saint Augustine of Hippo, The City of God (De Civitate Dei) (trans. John Healey; vol. One; Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909), 15.12.
[7] John Calvin, A Commentary on Genesis (Geneva Series of Commentaries; ed. J. King; trans. J. King; London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 226-227.
[8] Ussher, Annals, 17.
[9] Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews (n.d.), 1.3.9.
[10] Saint Augustine of Hippo, The City of God (De Civitate Dei), 15.12.
[11] Calvin, Genesis, 229.
[12] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, 1.3.9.
[13] Saint Augustine of Hippo, The City of God (De Civitate Dei), 15.12.
[14] Calvin, Genesis, 229.
[15] See Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis : A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001), 187.
[16] Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis, 114.
[17] Henry Madison Morris and John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood : The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1961), 399-405.
[18] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis : Chapters 1–17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1990), 256.
[19] This is not a position accepted by mainstream scientists.
[20] This is clear in Jacob’s words to Pharaoh in Genesis 47:7-9, if we assume that the Egyptians lived normal life-spans. Evidence that Egyptians’ life spans were normal can be found in a list of the lengths of the reigns of the Egyptian Kings, such as in David Silverman, Ancient Egypt (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 22, 24, 26.
[21] Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), 359.
[22] Kitchen, Old Testament Reliability, 359.
[23] No assumption has been made about the authorship of Genesis. The issue of authorship makes no difference to the argument of the thesis.
[24] See M. Worthing, "The Length of a Year in the Patriarchal Narratives: A Proposal," Lutheran Theological Journal 33, no. 3 (1999): 117-123. See also Kitchen, Old Testament Reliability, 445-446.
[25] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987), 133. See also J. Walton, "The antediluvian section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5," Biblical Archaeologist 44, no. 4 (1981): 207-208.
[26] M. Barnouin, "Recherches numèriques sur la génèalogie de Gen. V," Revue Biblique 77(1970): 347-365.
[27] A view derived from the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, surveyed in Gleason Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 211.
[28] Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction, 212.
[29] E.g. Walter Brueggemann, Genesis : Interpretation : A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 68.
[30] Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 152.
[31] Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction, 212.
[32] Ian Tattersall, Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1998), 173-174.
[33] Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq (London: Penguin, 1992), 108.
[34] Roux, Ancient Iraq, 109.
[35] Roux, Ancient Iraq, 114.
[36] Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 152.
[37] Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 153.
[38] R. Numbers, ""The Most Important Biblical Discovery of Our Time": William Henry Green and the demise of Ussher's chronology," Church History 69, no. 2 (2000): 257.
[39] W. Green, The Pentateuch Vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso (New York: John Wiley, 1863), 128.
[40] See Numbers, "Green and Ussher," 257-276.
[41] Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction, 211.
[42] Merrill, "Chronology," 118-120.
[43] This long-life-in-the-midst-of-short-life understanding is supported especially by Gen. 47:7-9.
[44] Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction, 211.
[45] Darrell L. Bock, Luke : 1 :1–9 :50 (BECNT 3a; vol. 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1994), 359.
[46] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 134.
[47] The geography is insoluble both in the river-direction problem, and in the problem finding the Pishon and Gihon rivers.
[48] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 66-67.
[49] The number 70 million as the number of humans in 4000 B.C. was taken from Roger G. Beck, World History: Patterns of Interaction (Geneva, Illinois: McDougal Littell, 2006), 17.
[50] Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (London: Transworld Publishers, 2009), 356.
[51] Note that Dawkins’ critique retains its power against those who believe in a creator God but will not abide a judging God or a sinful humanity.
[52] Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 237-238.
[53] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 108.
[54] See for example, Silverman, Ancient Egypt, 22, 24, 26.
[55] Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983), 298-299.
[56] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1994), 76.
[57] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 66.
[58] The present tense is preferable here, since this writer believes that the new heavens and new earth already exist, as will soon be argued. But this argument is yet to be made, and so the future tense is used for now.
[59] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 1160.
[60]Herman Bavnick, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church and New Creation (trans. John Vriend; Four vols.; vol. Four; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 716.
[61] Walton argues that ‘it was good’ refers to ‘functioning properly’ in Genesis 1. See J. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 51.
[62] This answer points to the fact that this thesis’ main claim fits best within a Reformed theological framework, and I believe this to be true. Constraints of length restrain me from discussing this further.
[63] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1160. Herman Bavnick adds Matt 5:18 'until heaven and earth disappear'; 24:35 'Heaven and earth will pass away'; 1 John 2:17 'The world and its desires pass away'. See Bavnick, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church and New Creation, 717.
As an aside on Revelation 21:1, it might be asked why the present world is called the 'first heavens and earth', when it represents the second of three recorded 'worlds'. The present world seems to be introduced in the bible after the pre-flood world, so how can we call it ‘first’? The answer may be that the world of glory is so different in gloriousness from the pre-flood world and our world, that the first two worlds can be grouped together and called the ‘first heaven and earth’, in distinction from the new heaven and new earth. Alternatively, it may be that the first two worlds are grouped together (as jointly ‘the first heavens and earth’) because people lived in the pre-flood world and our world simultaneously (for a short time), thus making them more of a ‘single’ heavens and earth than the world of glory, which will never hold humanity simultaneously with another world.
[64] Walton, Genesis One, 54-71.
[65] Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 459.
[66] Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 490-491.
[67] Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 459.
[68] Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 461.
[69] Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 462-463.
[70] Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 465.
[71] Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 466.
[72] Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 472.
[73] Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 473-474.
[74] It is possible that the different ‘heavens’ of which Paul spoke in mentioning the ‘third heaven’ (2 Cor. 12:2) are additional alternative universes. Paul implies in 2 Cor. 12:2 that it is possible to go to such a place ‘in the body’. Thus the ‘third heaven’ (and presumably also the ‘second heaven’ and other numbered ‘heavens’) is a physical place, which might be best understood as being a different level III Multiverse.
[75] Ussher, Annals, 17.
[76] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 394-396. See also Morris and Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, 474-478.
[77] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 251.
[78] Bock, Luke : 1 :1–9 :50, 359.
[79] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 251.
[80] Kitchen, Old Testament Reliability, 307-310.
[81] Kitchen, Old Testament Reliability, 307.
[82] R. A. H. Gunner, "Number," New Bible Dictionary: 834.
[83] Kitchen, Old Testament Reliability, 307.
[84] Kitchen, Old Testament Reliability, 308-309.
[85] Kitchen, Old Testament Reliability, 30-32.
[86] For a discussion of the different views, see Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 434-439.
[87] Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 436.
[88] Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 437.
[89] Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 437.
[90] For a classical Reformed response to the critique that such a creation of someone in sin is unfair, see John Calvin, Calvin's Institutes, 2.1.8.
[91] E. A. Livingstone et. al. F. L. Cross, "Image of God," The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
[92] Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 427.
[93] Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 427.
[94] We will define the term civilization below.
[95] Amѐlie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East: c. 3000-330 BC (2vols.; vol. 1; London: Routledge, 1995), 12-14.
[96] Tattersall, Becoming Human, 166.
[97]Norman Yoffee, Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 101.
[98] Tattersall, Becoming Human, 18-28, 178.
[99] Tattersall, Becoming Human, 17.
[100] Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 12-14.
[101] Tattersall, Becoming Human, 26-27.
[102] Tattersall, Becoming Human, 11.
[103] G. A. Bradshaw, Elephants on the Edge: What Animals Teach Us about Humanity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 11.
[104] Bradshaw, Elephants on the Edge: What Animals Teach Us about Humanity, 12.
[105] Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 140.
[106] Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 202.
[107] Bruce G. Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 591, 596-597. Note that the phrase ‘early Dynastic times’ refers approximately to the year 3000-2700 B.C. See Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, 32.
[108] Dawkins, Greatest Show, 195-196.
[109] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 84.
[110] Calvin, Institutes, 1.14.18.
[111] See, for example, Bock, Luke : 1 :1–9 :50, 360.
[112] The definition of ‘civilization’ will be considered further along, but for now it is sufficient to understand that the authors see in the rise of civilization the rise of 'something new' in the organization of human societies
[113] William J. Duiker and Jackson J. Spielvogel, World History (2vols.; vol. 1; Boston: Wadsworth, 2010), 10.
[114] Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, 280.
[115] Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, 283.
[116] Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, 279.
[117] This figure of 100 millennia depends on when one begins calling us ‘human’, but for any dates which precede 4000 B.C. by a long period, the point stands.
[118] Spielvogel, World History, 10.
[119] David Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 165.
[120]Dawkins, Greatest Show, 268-270.
[121] Ian Plimer, Telling Lies for God: Reason vs. Creationism (Sydney: Random House, 1994), 83-84.
[122] Plimer, Telling Lies, 101.
[123] Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 299.
[124] There has been some debate over whether Genesis and the OT teach that a physical superstructure covered the earth. For an argument that this is not the case, see G. Workman, "What is the 'Firmament' Spoken of in the Bible?," The Restorer 11, no. 4 (1991): 14. Lucas writes persuasively concerning the Hebrew word raqia, that ‘both the etymology and use of the noun and its associated verb suggest a metal plate or dome. The verb is used in Job 37:18 when God inquires whether Job, like God, can “spread out [tarqia] the skies, hard as a molten mirror” (the mirror envisaged would have been made of polished metal)’. See E. C. Lucas, "Cosmology," Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch: 138. This writer concurs with Lucas that a physical superstructure is in view. However, the alternative view of Workman can be embraced under the main claim of this thesis.
[125] This is implied in Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 192.
[126] U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part II: from Noah to Abraham (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Central Press, 1964), 125.
[127] Calvin, Genesis, 299.
[128] Calvin, Genesis, 299.
[129] Morris and Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, 241.
[130] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI.; Edinburgh: Eerdmans; Handsel Press, 1990), 138-139.
[131] Davids puts a good case against view (1) that this view must take ‘prison’ in a nonhostile sense, and it must take apeithesasin in verse 20 as not applying to these spirits. Against view (5) is the unlikely nature of the association between Enoch and Jesus. See Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 138.
[132] Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 249, 272.
[133] Plimer, Telling Lies, 110, 113.
[134] Ken Ham, The New Answers Book Part 3 (Green Forest, Arizona: Master Books, 2009), 48.
[135] Note the implication here that Genesis 1 has as its primary referent the pre-flood world, rather than our world. This can also be seen in the cosmology of Genesis 1:6-8, which is the cosmology of the pre-flood world, not ours.
[136] Gerhard von Rad, Genesis : A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1972), 148. Also, Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 238.
[137] See Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 349. Like the NIV, Hamilton
[138] Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 350.
[139] Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 350.
[140] Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 349.
[141] For one discussion of the problem, see Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 350.
[142] See for example, Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 238.
[143] Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 153.
[144] Roux, Ancient Iraq, 66-67.
[145] Roux, Ancient Iraq, 75-78.
[146] Roux, Ancient Iraq, 79-81.
[147] Roux, Ancient Iraq, 80-81.
[148] Roux, Ancient Iraq, 122, 146, 152-153, 158-162.
[149] Roux, Ancient Iraq, 163-165.
[150] Roux, Ancient Iraq, 180.
[151] Roux is not the only scholar who makes this identification. It has been made in many places, and discussed for many years. See for example, Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11 : A Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; London: SPCK, 1984), 541. See also Derek Kidner, Genesis : An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; London: Tyndale Press, 1967), 111. See also von Rad, Genesis, 146. See also Kenneth Mathews and K. A. Mathews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26 (The New American Commentary; ed. E. R. Clarenden: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 470.
[152] Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 358.
[153] This writer also has in mind here the important Babylonian and Akkadian epics, Enuma Elish, and Atrahasis, which are likely partially sourced from Sumerian myths. These epics were not mentioned in the main text above, because this writer does not want to rule on the degree of Sumerian-language influence. Such a ruling is unnecessary for the point to be made, and outside the expertise of this writer.
[154] Samuel N. Kramer, History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981), 142-147.
[155] While the Epic of Gilgamesh is Babylonian, its origin is Sumerian. See Kramer, History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History, 148-153.
[156] Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 539.
[157] Hamilton
[158] This view is seen in J. R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts : To the Ends of the Earth (BST; Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990), 285. See also Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI.; Edinburgh: Eerdmans; Handsel Press, 1998), 527. See also David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (PNTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 496-497. See also Ian Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles : An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC 5; Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), 287.
[159] F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles : The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (London: Tyndale, 1952), 337.
[160] Dibelius argues that the ‘whole human race’ is a better translation than ‘every nation. See M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. M. Ling; London: SCM Press, 1956), 28.
[161] Contra Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, 28.
[162] John Hoffman and Paul Graham, An Introduction to Political Theory (Essex, England: Pearson Education, 2009), 266.
[163] Hoffman and Graham, An Introduction to Political Theory, 266-267.
[164] Spielvogel, World History, 8-9.
[165] Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, 43-44.
[166] Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, 44.
[167] This draws on O’Donovan’s understanding that the essence of the essence of the political is the act of Judgment. See Oliver O'Donovan, The Ways of Judgment (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005), 3, 127-135.
[168] Yoffee, Archaic State, 16. Yoffee gets the phrase ‘supra-kin basis’ from M. Fried, "On the Evolution of Social Stratification and the State," in Culture and History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin (ed. S. Diamond; New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 728.
[169] Yoffee, Archaic State, 16-17.
[170] Yoffee, Archaic State, 17.
[171] Yoffee, Archaic State, 17.
[172] Yoffee, Archaic State, 32.
[173] See O'Donovan, The Ways of Judgment, 128.
[174] Spielvogel, World History, 10.
[175] Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (trans. Ian Shaw; Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 20, emphasis mine.
[176] Spielvogel, World History, 10.
[177] Silverman, Ancient Egypt, 20.
[178] Yoffee, Archaic State, 47.
[179] Silverman, Ancient Egypt, 22.
[180] Silverman, Ancient Egypt, 22.
[181] For example, in the thirteenth century B.C., Rameses II worked ‘Apiru-folk who drag stone for the great pylon-gateway’. See Kenneth A. Kitchen, "Egypt, Egyptians," Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch: 211. Also, ‘Whereas in some periods Egypt Palestine Syria
[182] Yoffee, Archaic State, 47.
[183] Yoffee, Archaic State, 46.
[184] Note that the Scriptures see Egypt 9:24 implies that Egypt land of Egypt
[185] T. C. Mitchell, "Philistines, Philistia," New Bible Dictionary: 921-923.
[186] Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 225.
[187] And spread out through the clans of Noah’s sons.
[188] The Kassites only appeared in Mesopotamia around 1600 B.C., while the other language-groups mentioned by Yoffee were present in Mesopotamia before the fall of the Third Ur Dynasty c. 2000 B.C. See Yoffee, Archaic State, 43, 58.
[189] Yoffee, Archaic State, 49.
[190] J. McIntosh, The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives (California: ABC-CLIO, 2008), 3-4.
[191] McIntosh, The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives, v, 6.
[192] McIntosh, The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives, 391.
[193] McIntosh, The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives, 4.
[194] McIntosh, The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives, 393.
[195] McIntosh, The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives, 86.
[196] M. Loewe and E. Shaughnessy, The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC (Cambridge, Melbourne: Cambridge University Pres, 1999), 64.
[197] Loewe and Shaughnessy, Ancient China, 571.
[198] Loewe and Shaughnessy, Ancient China, 571.
[199] Loewe and Shaughnessy, Ancient China, 615.
[200] Loewe and Shaughnessy, Ancient China, 629-630.
[201] Nick Spencer and Graham Tomlin, The Responsive Church: Listening to our World - Listening to God (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005), ??
