Chapter Summaries Introduction Chapter 1. A Man Called Adam Chapter 2. A Place in History: Adam and Associates Chapter 3. Locating the Garden of Eden Chapter 4. Original Sin: Just Say No! Chapter 5. Pottery Tales Chapter 6. Adam and the Legend of Adapa Chapter 7. Cain’s Lament: Don’t Let Them Kill Me! Chapter 8. Pre-Flood Cities Are Post-Flood Cities Chapter 9. Wives Tales Chapter 10. The Great Flood: Local or Global? Chapter 11. Geological Flood Evidence Chapter 12. Revelations in Clay Chapter 13. “We Have Found the Flood” Chapter 14. Fountains of the Deep Chapter 15. Surviving the Great Flood Chapter 16. Of Patriarchs and Kings Chapter 17. Parallel Verses Chapter 18. The Post-Flood Period: Out and About Chapter 19. The Tower of Babel: Less Confusing Chapter 20. Searching for Babel Chapter 21. Further Explorations Chapter 22. A Father of Nations in a Land of Turmoil 1 Suggested Reading Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham Chapter Summaries Introduction When putting together a jigsaw puzzle, what is the most important piece? Something in the middle? An edge, a corner perhaps? No, it’s the box! On the lid of the box is a picture of what the puzzle will look like when the pieces are assembled. In searching to solve Bible, science, and history puzzles in most instances we don’t have the box. The big picture can only be seen when we put the pieces together. All we have are small bits scattered around, some easy to find, others well hidden. Besides the regular pieces, which when fitted together complete our picture, we are further confronted by illegitimate pieces tossed into the pile that may look authentic, but won’t fit. Now we are faced with evaluating each piece perhaps without knowing whether it belongs or not. So here we have a puzzle to put together with some pieces missing, some spurious pieces added, and no picture to examine on a box we haven’t seen. It sounds difficult, but we can do this. Let’s take four examples of bits of information we could come across any day that may be likened to pieces of a puzzle. In this case we are looking for a big picture of the world in which we live. 1. A story was published in The Washington Post from information provided by NASA scientists that they had analyzed data received from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The space probe was designed to gather precise measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation, the technical term for the light left over from the Big Bang. With new information provided, the age of the universe can be measured at 13.7 billion years with a margin of error of only 1 percent. Will this piece fit our big picture? 2. A guest speaker at a nearby church says the rate of magnetism around the earth is decaying, getting weaker. This implies it was stronger in the past. According to the statistics presented, projecting the present rate of decay back 10,000 years would mean the earth’s magnetic field would have been “as strong as the magnetic field in a magnetic star.” “That would limit the age of the earth to 10,000 years,” the speaker states. Is this a perceptive analysis, or completely erroneous? 3. A New York Times article is titled: “Little Girl, 3 Million Years Old, Offers New Hints on Evolution.” It begins: “If the fossil Lucy, the most famous woman from out of the deep 2 human past, had a child, it might have looked a lot like the bundle of skull and bones uncovered by scientists digging in the badlands of Ethiopia. The paleontologists who are announcing the discovery in the journal Nature today said the 3.3-million-year-old fossils were of the earliest well-preserved child ever found in the human lineage. It was estimated to be about 3 years old at death, probably female and a member of the Australopithecus afarensis species, the same as Lucy’s” A valuable piece of our puzzle, or should we cast it aside? 4. One issue of a pamphlet titled, “Acts and Facts” published by the Institute for Creation Research contains an article that states: “Creationists acknowledge the same genetic switch activating the sixth sense in sharks, and face and head development in people. But a similar switch doesn’t mean common ancestry. If this were true, the fossil record should document the amusing sea-creature-to-people transition.” Is this a legitimate argument, or something for the scrapheap? Whether a data bit or piece of information is perceived as “true” or “false” often can be affected or even dictated by our own individual “world view.” How we perceive reality can be shaped by education, religious training, upbringing, common sense, superstition and a host of other factors that may have nothing to do with the actual truth or falsity of any piece of information. In many ways our world view defines what we believe and what we are willing to accept or reject. But what if our world view, however it was shaped, wherever it came from, is just plain wrong? (Not yours, of course, but somebody’s.) How would such a person be able to analyze his or her own world view and know if it was right? Whether we are science educated or scientifically challenged, perhaps each of us can accept the premise that scientific methods, if properly applied, should give us reliable results at least most of the time. Scientific methods are simply tools we can use to evaluate information. In addition to science consisting of a body of knowledge, it is also a process. Science is a method or system by which we make observations, gather data, formulate theories, arrive at conclusions, etc. A method can be labeled "scientific" if it adheres to certain commonly-accepted rules that have been established to ensure accuracy. We might make an observation or witness a phenomenon. We may be able to make repeated observations and record precise details as to what we observed, although often times we do not have that luxury. We can make wild or educated guesses as to the cause of a particular phenomenon. Plain old guesswork may be used in the initial phase, and trial balloons sent up. The next phase may involve gathering data or conducting experiments. Using observations or experimental results, some of the derived data points may be connected up yielding one or more working hypotheses, which can then be tested. Some initial suggested answers usually are found wanting, and are put aside. Normally one or more of the working hypotheses can be supported by the data collected, and garners support as others begin to accept it, elevating it to the status of theory. In addition, pieces of information strung together should be internally consistent. 3 In the four examples cited above, (1) and (3) are consistent with a global and universal habitat that is billions of years old, and if that is compatible within our world view, those items are likely to be accepted at face value. If, because of our religious convictions and what we may regard as “true,” our world view restricts this universe to an age of approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years, then items (2) and (4) are likely to be favorably received and (1) and (3) ignored. Whatever our world views may be at the moment, whatever we have been taught to believe, whatever our level of education, let us try to set it all aside for the time being and consider that there may be some things we have not heard of before, that possibly run counter to our present world view, that have merit. Yes, but how do we know what we are exposed to is true or not? Of course, unless we know something is a fictitious tale, we would like assurances that what we are exposed to, and especially what our children are exposed to, has a basis in fact - especially in the area of religious beliefs where a wrong decision may have eternal implications. Alas, having faith that something is true and proving it true can be two different matters. In lieu of the intercession of Divine Providence, the best we can do is to weigh the cumulative data and evidence and, whether well- educated or not, evaluate it for ourselves and decide accordingly. At this point, some will say that all it takes is faith. Religious beliefs do require a measure of faith. On the other hand, cults, false religions, and atheistic beliefs likewise are based on faith. Many are born into families with their religion mandated from birth. Others become persuaded by emotions, or by a welcoming, loving congregation, or an appeal to common sense. So a “Thomas-like” approach (John 20:26-28) may not be a bad idea. Show me the goods, Lord, and I’ll believe. Separating what may be true from what is likely false is not an insurmountable task. There are tests we can apply. Does the information come from a credible, knowledgeable source? Is it plausible? Is it verifiable? Does it accord with Scripture? Is it internally consistent with other pieces of information we have already confirmed? And we can seek the opinions of others. They may see logic flaws we don’t. In the pages to follow, a voluminous amount of historical data and evidence will be displayed that point toward conclusions that have somehow managed to elude the Christian community at large for lo these many centuries. We will discover that Genesis 2-11 can be considered historically sound; these much-maligned chapters have historical integrity. Genesis is not concerned with the introduction of Homo sapiens to the animal kingdom as many have commonly misunderstood. What was handed down to the Israelites as the history of their generations, somehow, was taken by our early church fathers as an abbreviated history of our species. This interpretation has endured in spite of numerous archaeological, biological, anthropological, and genetic discoveries to the contrary. We will discover in the pages following that all of Genesis 2-11 concerning Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the Genesis Flood, the Tower of Babel incident, and the early life of Abraham fit neatly within the historical confines of the ancient Near East, present-day Iraq, within a time frame beginning about 5000 BC to roughly 2000 BC. 4 Abundant literature provided by the Sumerians and Akkadians who lived in the region during that time frame confirms the Genesis account. Some ancient Near Eastern inscriptions parallel biblical passages word for word and phrase for phrase, and are valuable pieces of our puzzle - in this case, a much smaller puzzle. Here we are only concerned with Genesis and its historical background. Yet this small picture still must fit within “the big picture.” Furthermore, we will see that those who shunned the idea that the Genesis narrative can be taken literally, did so prematurely. It is not necessary to assign the early passages of Genesis to some condescending category such as allegory, mythology, poetry, or tradition in order to achieve a semblance of harmony. Writing in 1891 for the Journal of Biblical Literature, Prof. Crawford Toy, who was aware of the Babylonian creation texts, wrote an analysis of Genesis 2 and 3. He wrote: This history is not an allegory or a parable. The allegorical interpretation is a favorite one with those who see that our author is a philosopher, and cannot bring themselves to believe that so advanced an Israelitish writer could have held literally to such crudities. But the text offers no support to this manner of interpretation. As the penalties of chapter iii are simple historical realities for the author, so the course of events to which he ascribes them has a similar historical character in his mind. The serpent of the beguilement is the serpent of the curse, and the tree is as real as the man. Early Genesis is abbreviated history to be sure, and some passages are still open to varying interpretative schools of thought. Taken as a continuum, however, as a complete body of information, we will see that these ten chapters, from Genesis 2-11, have historical and archaeological underpinnings hitherto largely unreported. Genesis commentaries stacked on shelves in seminaries, libraries, and Christian colleges should have been useful, but for the most part, they follow the accumulated errors of predecessors. Even when ancient Near East material came to light, either it was given only passing remarks buried in the footnotes, or scarcely incorporated. Not phased by an abundance of archaeological evidence, new generations of Bible scholars largely followed erroneous but time- honored tradition. For those who, because of their science or academic training, may have thought Genesis was at best naïve or at worst mistaken, here is the evidence otherwise. For others who may have considered Scripture to be disconnected from science and history due to their religious convictions, that is a misunderstanding which needs correcting. In assembling these pieces in the following pages this is not to imply that still more corroborating pieces of information can’t be found. By all means, this book should encourage those who wish to explore further. In the following chapters, we will assemble a significant number of pieces of a puzzle from which will emerge a complete picture – one that takes a high view of Scripture, fully respecting the current findings of modern science, consistent with ancient history. And the picture is not likely to be one you have seen before. Richard James Fischer 5 Genesis Proclaimed Association www.genesisproclaimed.org Chapter 1. A Man Called Adam Adam was a real-live, flesh-and-blood human being - or else he wasn’t. As much as we might like an intermediate position, something in between, or a happy compromise, it’s not possible. We either can believe there was an Adam wearing his fig leaf, or we can have an Adam who was only a figment. As much as the issue can be couched in theological double-speak, there is no escaping a fundamental fact of life, or non-life. A real Adam either existed, or he didn’t. The rationale for eliminating Adam from the roles of those who once breathed air is simple. The Neolithic surroundings of Adam’s immediate family prohibit him from having lived far enough back in time that he could be the forerunner of those who lived in times quite ancient. Adam’s sons raised grain and livestock. Stone Age men foraged for food where they could find it and chased reindeer herds. Seeing a logical impasse, it made sense to some to simply remove Adam from life’s scene and establish him as a theological ruse. Gone but not forgotten. On the other hand, a flesh-and-blood, real Adam is not exactly without difficulty either. The other side of the problem is that traditional, conservative, Christian beliefs about Adam are based not entirely upon scriptural evidence, but also upon an unworkable assumption. Traditionalists see Adam as both a flesh-and-blood human being, and as the father of all humanity everywhere. The premise that Adam was the father of all human beings on the face of the planet is likewise fraught with contradictions. Remains of early humans and their precursors have been found dating beyond millions of years. The cultural surrounding of Genesis places Adam and his successors after the Old Stone Age and at the threshold of the Bronze Age, a time frame called the Neolithic Age (New Stone Age). References to tents, farming, livestock, musical instruments, implements of bronze, and even iron in the Genesis narrative give us a rough timeframe where Adam and his immediate generations belong. And here is the fact of “life.” Placing Adam in history also places him in the stream of humanity, not at the apex of humanity as has been commonly assumed. The answer to the theological question of Adam is to recognize the historical Adam as the father of the Adamites- Semites-Israelites-Jews. To be sure, there are pockets of humanity who can claim Noahic ancestry, and both Arabs and Jews regard Abraham as their father. But there is no conceivable person living between 6,000 and 7,000 years ago who could have been the ultimate father of all the people who presently inhabit the globe. When we consider that, some of the apparent Bible and science conflicts actually disappear. Chapter 2. A Place in History: Adam and Associates When the British began excavations in 1849 in what had been Assyria, diggers filled crates with some 25,000 clay tablets they shipped off to the British Museum, thinking they were just decorated pottery. Little care was exercised loading them into baskets without padding, and 6 they were sent off across the desert on the backs of pack animals with the inevitable result. Archaeologist Andre Parrot lamented: ... the voyage was more disastrous for those documents than had been the taking of Nineveh by the Medes. What ended up in London in a pile of dust were the broken fragments of the most valuable history of Mesopotamia. This had been the library of King Ashurbanipal (668-626 BC) who collected meticulously and stored carefully his collected treasure trove. It was the Assyrian king himself who decided which pieces of literature were important enough to copy for posterity. Candidate material included writings from before the flood. We might have found them fascinating, but the king was unimpressed: I study stone inscriptions from before the flood, which are obtuse, obscure and confused. And so, the king spared future historians the laborious task of sorting through tedious pre-flood literature. Thankfully, through the years of expeditions in Mesopotamia, better trained archeologists have used greater care, and although few clay tablets survived unscathed, the history of the region can be fairly well evaluated today on the basis of a wealth of recovered material. Bible and Assyrian scholar Archibald Sayce remarked: The ancient East has risen as it were, from the dead, with its politics, and its wars, its laws and its trade, its arts, its industries and its science. Genesis is too specific in detailing the culture of Adam's day to allow us to propel him back in time so that Adam can be ancestral to everyone on earth. Also, the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are a prohibitive factor showing a connected line of patriarchs from Adam to Abraham, who is dated to roughly 2000 BC. But even if we could slide Adam back over a hundred thousands years so that he could start the Homo sapiens species, or even one of the races, there is no place in the history of hominids where Adam could have commenced his line of descendants in isolation, absent any other type of human beings. Even at 100,000 years ago, Neanderthals occupied northern Europe. Both archaic Homo sapiens and Neanderthals make their appearance earlier than what are considered to be truly modern Homo sapiens, and they continued for tens of thousands of years after that. If Adam lived in the Neolithic Period as indicated by Genesis, then Adam entered a populated world. Chapter 3. Locating the Garden of Eden Genesis names four rivers which delineate the location of Adam's home. Genesis 2:11-14: "The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush." (Because cush also means "black," translators guessed at "Ethiopia." This is in 7 some translations.) "And the name of the third is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates." Although one could get the impression that one river separates into four, "and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads" (Gen.2:10), it can also be interpreted that four rivers become one, a confluence of rivers, which better suits the topography of Mesopotamia and the nature of rivers. ... the term "heads" can have nothing to do with streams into which the river breaks up after it leaves Eden, but designates instead four separate branches which have merged within Eden. The fourth river is easiest to identify as the well-known Euphrates, which today is joined by the other rivers before emptying into the Persian Gulf. At this point in history, roughly 7,000 years ago, the gulf region extended further north and all the rivers emptied directly into the Persian Gulf. The Hiddekel is the Tigris, the "great river" Daniel stood beside (Dan. 10:4). It originates in the region of Assyria, flowing southeast until it joins the Euphrates at a point east of Assyria, just as stated in the Bible. M'Causland identifies the Gihon as the "Gyudes" of the ancients, the modern Karkheh joined by the Kashkan River in the region of Cush, or Kush, in Eastern Mesopotamia. Today it is called Khuzistan, a province in the southwest corner of Iran, formerly home to the Kassi of the cuneiform texts. Driver places Havilah "most probably" in the northeast of Arabia on the west coast of the Persian Gulf: "The gold of Arabia was famed in antiquity." Hastings identified Havilah as “the ‘sandy’ region of northern Arabia, which extended westward towards the frontier of Egypt.” In an article titled, “Has the Garden of Eden been located at last?,” archaeologist Juris Zarins identified an ancient river bed in this region from LANDSAT space photos: Genesis was written from a Hebrew point of view. It says the Garden was "eastward,” i.e., east of Israel. It is quite specific about the rivers. The Tigris and the Euphrates are easy because they still flow. At the time Genesis was written, the Euphrates must have been the major one because it stands identified by name only and without an explanation about what it "compasseth.” The Pison can be identified from the Biblical reference to the land of Havilah, which is easily located in the Biblical Table of Nations (Genesis 10:7, 25:18) as relating to localities and people within a Mesopotamian-Arabian framework. Supporting the Biblical evidence of Havilah are geological evidence on the ground and LANDSAT images from space. These images clearly show a "fossil river,” that once flowed through northern Arabia and through the now dry beds, which modern Saudis and Kuwaitis know as the Wadi Rimah and the Wadi Batin. Furthermore, as the Bible says, this region was rich in bdellium, an aromatic gum resin that can still be found in north Arabia, and gold, which was still mined in the general area in the 1950s. 8 Farouk El-Baz, a Boston University scientist, studied pebble distributions in Kuwait and was led to the same conclusion, a river once flowed into this country from the Hijaz Mountains in Saudi Arabia. He dubbed it the “Kuwait River.” In an article for Biblical Archaeological Review, James Sauer associates the Kuwait River with the Pishon: Bible scholars have identified Havilah with the Arabian Peninsula because it is rich with bdellium (fragrant resins) and precious stones, but they have been unable to pinpoint the location of the river in this arid region. The recent discovery of the Kuwait River adjacent to the Cradle of Gold, the only Arabian source for such “good gold,” has led James Sauer to suggest that this dry riverbed may be the Pishon. Put in perspective, the most ancient cities of southern Mesopotamia, Eridu and Ur were located near the junction of these rivers, and Eridu when it was first settled on the Persian Gulf was furnished fresh water via canal from the Euphrates. Chapter 4. Original Sin: Just Say No! A contention exists among some traditionalists that there was no death even in the animal world until Adam sinned. To support this idea, about one half of one verse in Romans is cited: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ...” (Rom. 5:12a). Did sin inflict both man and animals in the eyes of Paul? One consideration is that the fossil record is replete with over half a billion years’ worth of animal death from the Cambrian period until now, and traces of animal life can be found long before then. Further, that is not what the complete verse implies. What follows the oft-cited text is the second half of the verse, usually overlooked. Romans 5:12b: “and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” According to Paul it was men who suffered the consequences - not animals. Continuing with Romans, in 1656, Isaac de la Peyrére argued eloquently in Men Before Adam that a literal interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 indicated the world was populated before Adam. The key was verse 13: "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Peyrére reasoned that the law was given to Adam shortly after his creation, and if there was "sin in the world" at that time, there must have been people to do it: ... it must be held that sin was in the world before Adam and until Adam: but that sin was not imputed before Adam; Therefore other men were to be allowed before Adam who had indeed sinn'd, but without imputation; because before the law sins wer [sic] not imputed. Although men and sin were in the world before Adam, the manner of sin was in the form of offenses against nature, violations of "natural law," and all died a natural death. It was not until God imposed moral law, with Adam the first to be subject to it, that men were capable of 9 "legal sin," trespasses against God's law. Beginning with Adam's Fall, human beings died both a natural death and a "legal" or spiritual death. Ten years before Peyrére wrote Men before Adam, the Westminster Divines penned their Confession of Faith. They sought to avoid any implications that all of humanity did not commence with Adam by putting the law on Moses. But if Mosaic law, and not Adamic law, was intended by Romans 5:13, it could mean that sin was not charged before Moses! No, the interpreters were not stepping into that trap. The Divines clearly recognized that the moral law, the "covenant of works," was given to Adam and said so: The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him ... was the moral law. If moral law was given to Adam, and already "sin was in the world," then wouldn't this involve people? The Westminster Divines were unwilling to entertain that possibility. They believed humanity started with Adam, and sin was passed to his posterity by "natural generation." The harmonizing device employed (although not mentioned specifically in the Westminster Confession) was to maintain that imputation of sin was through the law of Moses, but that it somehow applied retroactively to Adam and his descendants. This made no sense, of course, but they were torn between the illogical and the unthinkable. So, according to the Divines, the moral law was not "comprehended" until the Ten Commandments were delivered by God to Moses. Peyrére railed against the position taken by the Divines and their insistence that "the law" was the law of Moses: The Interpreters being between two such inconveniences, were at a stand, nor did [they] know which way to turn themselves; But because it seemed less prejudicial to affirm, that sins were not imputed before Moses, and until Moses, than to affirm that there were any men before Adam! Therefore they preferred the first inconvenience before the second. In Peyrére's mind, since the law transgressed was the law given to Adam of Genesis, the sin was perpetrated by those who co-existed and pre-existed Adam. Sin was not imputed to those forerunners, however, until Adam disobeyed God's law. Before the Law of God, or till that Law of God was violated by Adam, sin and death were in the world, yet had gained no power over it: they had got no lawful possession, they had got no absolute power. The reason is, because before that time there was no Law given by God. Clearly, sin was imputed from Adam to Moses. What brought the flood? Was the flood not judgment for sin? Or for that matter, what about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? And if the subject of Romans 5:13 was Adamic law, the sin that "was in the world" was committed by men other than Adam. 10