Introduction
For the longest time, I refused to read about ancient humans and pre-humans. I preferred not to know because it made it easier to read Genesis 2 – 9 literally. But additional experiments and observations have only strengthened the case that man first appeared in Africa and that man had spread across the globe — to all continents other than Antarctica and nearly all islands — long before 4004 BC.
So what does all this mean for Adam and Eve? And more importantly, what does it mean for Paul’s theology that is often built on the existence of Adam and the fall of man in Genesis 3?
Now we have to be careful not to build our position on just one or two verses. There are quite a few passages that bear on the question. It’s not a simple question, and we should not answer simplistically. A lot of work has been done by Christian apologists and others to deal with the Big Bang. Much less has been done with Eden and the Flood.
Reminder: I have ever argued anything by questioning the truth, authority, or inspiration of Scripture. Moreover, the Scriptures cannot contradict real science, because God made the heavens and the earth, and they declare God’s glory — even when you look at the earth through a mass spectrometer or beneath a paleontologists chisel.
Archaeology and Genesis
In recent years, human (not hominid) remains have been found around 200,000 years old. Evidence of human behavior goes back to 50,000 years or more. Agriculture appears to have been developed by humans about 12,000 years ago. How on earth do we reconcile what the archaeologists discover with Cain and Abel? Noah and the Flood? The Young Earth Creationist community has criticized dating methods, especially carbon dating, but carbon dating isn’t of much use for artifacts and fossils this old. Here’s a chart of the methods actually used and an explanation for how they work.
These dates are approximate, of course, because we don’t have artifacts and bones for every year of history and because dating methods give a range of dates rather than a precise year B.C. But the dating methods are far more reliable than the critics argue. After all, the rate of nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes really is constant.
The Wikipedia summarizes the evidence, much of it having been discovered only very recently —
Anatomically modern humans [appeared] about 200,000 years ago. The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.
We also have to take into account the evidence that the earliest humans appeared in Africa, not Mesopotamia.
This migration out of Africa is estimated to have begun about 70,000 years BP [Before Present] and modern humans subsequently spread globally, replacing earlier hominins either through competition or hybridization. They inhabited Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 years BP, and the Americas by at least 14,500 years BP.
Most of us grew up at a time when archaeologists had only a fraction of the fossils and other evidence that is now available. Many theories from the 1960s and 1970s have been rejected, and a consensus is building along the lines described above.
Now you’ll notice that humans are believed not to have developed human behaviors such as language, until around 50,000 years ago, but humans left Africa and entered Mesopotamia around 70,000 BC. That doesn’t really make sense, and it would make far better sense to suppose that both language and leaving Africa happened around 60,000 BC.
Theories
We’ll work through the details later. For now, I just want to point out the problems and some possible solutions.
1. Traditional dating. Eden, Adam, and Eve happened around 4004 BC. The Flood was around 2348 BC. Babel was sometime around 2242 BC.
Under this theory, we have to account for the archaeological evidence that there were hundreds of thousands, maybe far more, humans on the earth by that time, scattered across nearly the entire planet.
Thanks to mitochondrial and Y-chromosome dating, we have a much better understanding of the time it took for various human migrations around the world. The science is hardly exact, but it adds greatly to the archaeological data already gathered over the years, filling in many blanks and forcing the rejection of some theories and acceptance of others. YE Creationist literature criticizes carbon dating, but carbon dating is only one of several dating techniques used. And even if we throw out every method of dating there is, there is still too much history to fit into the last 6,000 years.
As you can see, the best estimate is that Australia was settled around 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. America was settled variously from 35,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Obviously, none of these dates fit within a traditional dating of Eden or the Flood.
Conventional dating of civilizations such as Egypt, Sumer, and China date back to earlier times. Moreover, archaeologists are dating the beginning of agriculture to around 12,000 BC and the beginning of burial to around 100,000 BC.
Here’s a timeline of Chinese history. It’s awfully hard to fit it within an earth created in 4004 BC. Egyptian history doesn’t fit so well either. There’s just not enough time in a 4004 BC date.
[Polar view of the world with migrations according to mitochondrial dating. Numbers are in millennia.]
On the other hand, there are legends about a Flood with animals rescued on a boat all over the planet. The Flood was either global or else local at a time when nearly all humans could be killed by a single, local Flood.
And the Tower of Babel is traditionally considered a ziggurat in Babylon (called “Babel” by the ancients). This had to have happened before humans scattered across the planet — likely when people first appeared in Mesopotamia.
In short, to uphold the traditional view, you have to reject all dating of human bones and artifacts and reject the known history of such civilizations as China. And then you have to find a way for the people of Mesopotamia to travel all the way to the Polynesian islands and Tierra del Fuego in Chile in time to create the civilizations and make the inventions and discoveries each did. And,, of course, Australian aborigines, Polynesians, Scandinavians, Chinese, and Persians don’t look quite alike. How did these physical changes arise in such a short period of time?
And how on earth could Adam and Eve be the father and mother of all humans if there were hundreds of thousands humans, speaking, writing, and creating art all over the planet, when Adam and Eve appeared? Or did God wipe out all of humanity and start over in 4004 BC? If so, there’s no evidence of such an extinction. However, there is evidence that modern humans co-existed with various hominid species for a while, but the hominids quickly became extinct – most likely through an inability to compete for limited resources. But this happened long before 4004 BC.
Theory 2. Eden was in Mesopotamia or Judea, and Eden, the Flood, and Babel happened before humans had scattered beyond Mesopotamia.
This would mean that Eden happened around 65,000 BC, shortly after humans left Africa and began to settle Palestine and modern-day Iraq. This is also about the time that archaeologists believe humans took on such essential human characteristics as language.
Genesis 2 mentions the Garden of Eden being connected with the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, which most believe places it in Iraq (although the argument for Turkey is better, since Eden is at the source, not the mouth, of the four rivers).
This would account for the Tower of Babel being in Babylon, as “Babel” is generally considered a name for the city Babylon. And we have plenty of archaeological evidence of ziggurats being build in Babylon as a way of connecting with their gods. And there is ample geologic evidence of major floods in the areas, some quite extensive.
However, many humans remained in Sub-Saharan Africa, and they have Flood stories and hundreds of different languages of their own. Maybe they borrowed their Flood stories from Mesopotamia, and maybe God scattered them with different languages at the time of Babel even though they were nowhere near Babel.
Genesis 4 has Abel planting crops immediately after Adam and Eve are cast out of Eden, whereas archaeology finds evidence that farming goes back only for 12,000 years and required millennia to be more productive than hunting and gathering. Urbanization arose only after agriculture was developed so that city dwellers could be freed from having to hunt and gather and could develop specialized trades and skills.
So how did Abel know how to plant a field when he’d grown up in a Garden? Where did he find his seeds? How did he know how to plow? These things took time to develop.
And how can Adam and Eve be the parents of all humanity if humans had already begun to scatter from Mesopotamia?
As much appeal as this theory has, we should consider what things would look like if we were to back up even further in time.
Theory 3. Eden was in Ethiopia about 70,000 BC. Adam and Eve were Africans, not Semites, all as shown by the mitochondria and Y-Chromosome studies.
We tend to ignore it, but the description of Eden speaks of Cush, an ancient name for, you guessed it, Ethiopia.
(Gen 2:13 NET) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush.
One advantage of this date is that Adam and Eve could be the literal father and mother of all humanity, because this is about when and where humanity is first found on the planet. Moreover, a Flood in this area would easily be remembered across the planet because people would carry the story with them as they spread across the planet.
And it answers why Africans felt it necessary to leave the delta of the River Nile and cross the Sinai desert to live in Asia. If the Tower of Babel was in Ethiopia. God scattered them.
Tolbert Fanning, founding editor of the Gospel Advocate, believed that the flood was local. The flood account in Genesis may refer to what we now know about the flooding of the Black Sea when water broke through the Bosphorus. That had also happened much earlier when the waters of the Atlantic flooded what is now the Mediterranean Sea. I’m Gary. I can’t seem to seem to get rid of my old online name which pops up out of nowhere from time to time.
1). We should never again discuss IM when there is awesome stuff like this to investigate!!
2). I don’t like when you attach the article “the” to “Wikipedia.” As demotivation, it reminds me of “THE Ohio State University.”
I doubt the 12,000 BC agriculture hypotheses is settled.
I much prefer to believe the Bible and ignore the supposed “scientific” dating which contradicts Bible truth. There’s no way a Bible BELIEVER could accept twenty or thirty thousands of years when Bible truth reveals the count is nearer 6,000 TOTAL. I recommend that every reader realize that GOD made the universe in which we live, and HE has revealed it’s actual age. I like the teaching on creation done by G. Thomas Sharp of Oklahoma and by Hovind in Florida (he’s been imprisoned for supposed tax avoidance but his videos on creation are still available, I think). We’ve been viewing Hovind’s videos at church on Wednesday evenings for several weeks, with great pleasure. Since we all love the Bible, we aren’t looking for reasons to believe it’s in error.
JMF,
Or “The University of Alabama.” That’s right. The “The” is part of the name.
Gary,
You’re appearing as “Gary” now. And thanks for the reference to Tolbert Fanning. Fanning was a founder of Nashville Bible School, which “evolved” into Lipscomb University, as well as the Gospel Advocate. Moreover, he was a missionary to lands south of Nashville, planting the first Church of Christ in countless Southeast US towns.
I’m glad these are being listed as theories. I can certainly understand why some feel the need to reconcile the latest scientific theories with the bible. However, I would urge caution if we get the feeling that the bible needs to be understood in “light” of the latest science. Some subjects, like the physical resurrection of Christ, are never going to reconcile without an acceptance of one and the denial of another. It won’t be good enough to cite metaphorical language, poetry, etc. At some point we have to walk by faith rather than sight. Sorry, I realize this is off topic, but felt the need to state my opinion.
There is a discussion over at Jesus Creed of Denis Lamoureux’s chapter in Four Views of the Historical Adam. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/05/27/responses-to-no-historical-adam-rjs/ This book is aimed at what it sees as the four main views of Evangelicals regarding Adam. Denis does not view Adam as an actual person, if I understand correctly. He ascribes cultural accomodation as important to the composition of Genesis. Similarly opinion is that we cannot expect the ancient writers and their intended audience to desire or even understand and be edified by a literal scientific text. So, it is not and therefore Adam and Eve are archtypal. They represent humans transitioning from the “Eden” of the time before we were aware of death and sinfulness from sometime in the early Paleolithic to the Neolithic, the introduction of agriculture. With regard to timeline of human evolution, the link Jay gives to the Smithsonian summarizes what is known to date and is a valid and reasonable deduction from the data. The many methods of dating all corroborate and supplement one another in this. Note, there are many independent methods, not just those based on radioactivity. There are several means for checking their calibration and cross checking them with each other. I cannot imagine how that interlocking web of dependence and connection could be wrong. The story is too coherent,
Romans 5:12 contradicts ALL theories of Old Age Earth and especially “Evolution”. They depend on eons of DEATH and decomposition, which only came as a curse in response to original sin. That said, my old friend Jay, in this and in Part II, shows the considerable value of an excellent attorney applying logic and that excellent intellect to Bible Exposition. I appreciate your insights and research VERY MUCH and am so glad of your faith and commitment to God’s revealed Word. I think in the end, we come to similar conclusions, “He that cometh to God must first believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him”. (Heb. 11:6)
Congratulations on this Great Writing! Reminds me of John Calvin.
Isn’t the scientific study of origins and fossilization largely based on inference? If so, then I wouldn’t call it direct evidence since by definition a scientific fact must be based on observance not human reasoning(deductions no matter how necessary). For instance, the Apostle John calling Sunday “The Lord’s Day” does not automatically signify that the first of the week was an obligatory holy day to the Christians.
RJ,
Literally EVERYTHING we talk and think about is based on inference, other than a few axiomatic things, which we infer from experience or culture or parenting or something like that.
If I see a fossilized dinosaur in desert rock from a hole dug in a swamp, I infer that the climate has changed, the fossil was once a skeleton of a living animal, and that animal is now dead.
if I read “God created the heavens and the earth” I infer that “God” is Yahweh, God of the Jews, that “created” is from nothing, that “heavens” is the atmosphere, the realm of the stars, sun, and moon, and where God lives, and the earth is the surface of this planet not the soil (also called earth) and not the earth as planet (unknown to ANE Israelites). And yet the exact meaning of “create” is a matter of dispute among theologians, and I imagine many Christians would doubt that God created the heaven where he lives in Genesis 1.
So there is inference everywhere. The real question is how certain the inference is — that is, what other inferences are possible and do they fit as well as my preferred inference? You have to compare, poke, prod, discuss, debate, dialog, and pray — approaching the text and the fossils with the humility to recognize that there just might be a better inference out there.
David,
GREAT to hear from you after 44 years!
I’ve said nothing about evolution and see it as a huge irrelevance. I mean, disprove evolution to a certainty, and the galaxies are still more than 6,000 light years away and the fossils are still more than 6,000 years old. So talking about evolution just avoids the really hard and much more important questions.
PS — I greatly respect Calvin — just not his TULIP conclusions. (And we’ll talk a little about predestination when we get to relativity.)
SteveA,
Thanks for the comment and the link to Jesus Creed, which has very honest discussions of Adam, Eve, Eden, and archaeology — with the humility to give differing opinions a fair hearing. Good stuff.
Tom Forrester wrote,
You’ll never see me denying miracles. God made the laws of nature and he can suspend them at his pleasure == and he does this reveal himself, to show his glory, not to tempt us into disbelief. Which is why I don’t believe he created an old-looking earth, for example — but readily admit that he could have had he wanted to.
1) Cain was the farmer. Abel tended the sheep.
2) Jay, I don’t understand why the “young cosmos that looks old” reflects so poorly on God’s character, while the depiction of God required by TENS — a God pleased to look at the millions of horrible mutations (in a VERY GOOD, pre-futility creation) required for one beneficial mutation to arise — is a “huge irrelevance.” That god calls Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and other excruciating mutations VERY GOOD. That is not irrelevant to me.
Jay,
I have attempted to search the site for a place where you may have addressed the concept of God not providing substance or information which is designed by him to create disbelief. The searches did not reveal a location where you offered any conclusions. Therefore, as I ponder the statement, “not to tempt us into disbelief. Which is why I don’t believe he created an old-looking earth, for example”. As I understand you and many commentors stating that they do not believe that God would perform what I understand Paul message to entail.
I might be more able to see your conclusion if you would enlighten me about Paul’s message in 2 Tim 2 especially verse 11-12.
(2 Th 2:7 KJV) For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2 Th 2:7 NIV) For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
I have believed that you accepted the messages in the first books of the scriptures as revelation given by God to the writers, and to be fair what man was there to witness the creation. Is there any portion of the messages written that could be construed to identify that the writer doubted any portion of the message? We have been taught that we should look at scripture (through the eyes of those who it was written to) even the earliest of readers. It appears to me that they believed the message by faith in the author (God). I cannot locate within the scriptures written by multiple authors a single account of men during their writings who shed any doubt about his work of creating.
Has man’s knowledge become the tool to test the message of the creator, by the very delusions he made available?
Did not his message (displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders) contain enough power to produce the evidence now being viewed, that is being used to (deny his Word)? Hopefully, you will provide the connection where the things being discussed prove his message removing any doubts that his Word has been totally accurate.
Yes I do concede that inferences have their place in science. But they also have their limits. Concerning your hypothetical fossil, who knows. Perhaps a massive 20 year drought wiped out the swamp and the landscape was about to turn Steppe before the rains returned(and the animal died of dehydration). Implications aren’t facts themselves.