Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb – theology debate with a serious dose of fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.
*This site is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox with a minimum display resolution of 1024x768.
Take a look at this pic of living person and compare it to a Homo erectus fossil skull:
Given that living modern man's skull looks like a homo erectus skull I think the evolutionist who are paleoantropologists have some explaining to do.
You will also read at the above link that pygmies have the same cranial capacity as homo erectus.
I delayed responding to this for a while; but if Ken's post above is going to remain on record, I'll leave a response on record as well.
For the record: "LeCamus" is actually "Ken deMyer", who is notorious for making up new names to post a rash of these kinds of articles. Ken's scholarship is abysmal. He is, frankly, a stupid and dishonest person; and recognized as such right across the spectrum of diverse views represented in this forum. However, claims should still be considered on their merits.
In this case, Ken is citing an article by the Muslim creationist "Harun Yahya". The picture indicated shows a young man with a curiously shaped head; for which no further details are available. But even so, you can see immediately that the Melanesian youth does not have the prominent brow ridges of the erectus fossils, and that the forehead, though it appears sloping in the photograph, is still a high forehead rising up to make room for a full sized human brain, which would make it at least 30% larger than the capacity within an erectus skull.
The claim that pygmies have the same brain capacity as Homo erectus is not true. There is some overlap in in the range, in that the smallest pygmy skulls are a bit smaller than the largest erectus skulls. But this overlap only occurs with extremes; the usual size for erectus is well under the smallest pygmy. But even this does not get to grips with just how silly this comparison really is. Within any species, the relationship between body size and brain size is not a direct proportion. This is called allometric scaling. Within humans, when body size increases by a factor x, the brain size tends to increase by a factor something like x0.7. So, if a pygmy is 20% smaller, the brain will tend to be 13.6% smaller. This is reflected in the observation that pygmies appear to the eye to have disproportionately large heads, to hold the large human brain.
The relevance here is that H. erectus was quite large for a hominid; and hence their brain size is substantially below the expected norm for a human of comparable size.
Here is a graph showing a plot of the cranial capacity of all known hominid fossils. It shows a definite trend in increasing brain sizes; and suitably gradual, with each paleospecies overlapping with the next. The low end of the range for modern humans (female) is a bit over 1000. This is quite extreme; nearly all pygmies are substantially more than this. H erectus sizes go right up to around 1265; but this is also an extreme. They go down to a bit over 700; and in particular as you look further back in the timeline of human evolution, they tend to range from 800 to 1000.
[attachment=1]
Mere size is not a basis for identifying species. H erectus also have a suite of distinctive characteristics that are well outside the range of modern human variation.
Last edited by oxmixmudd : October 17th 2006 at 11:04 PM
.
Originally posted by Tladatsi
How did you get those graphics on posting? I have tried I cannot get them to display.
If you attach a bitmap/jpeg etc to the post via the 'manage attachments' button at the bottom of the edit, you can then reference them by number using:
boxes "[" "]" around text referencing the specific attachment: attachment=1
I up loaded a file to my attachments, 7.6 kb. It is my only file there. I typed in
[attachment=1]
and that was all I got.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd
If you attach a bitmap/jpeg etc to the post via the 'manage attachments' button at the bottom of the edit, you can then reference them by number using:
boxes "[" "]" around text referencing the specific attachment: attachment=1
I up loaded a file to my attachments, 7.6 kb. It is my only file there. I typed in
[attachment=1]
and that was all I got.
If it is only 1 attachment you do not need the "=1" part.
Tiggy: show me some of this more-than-sufficient evidence that would indicate the age of the Earth?
Jorge: What makes you believe that we are capable of obtaining such information? [snip] starting from a special, miraculous, one-time creation event such an expectation is unreasonable.
I've started a new thread in Student Services, called Step by step image attachment demo. It's intended to be a place where people can try attaching images and to debug what works and what doesn't.
Last edited by grmorton : October 21st 2006 at 11:18 AM
.
I am going to go back to the topic of this thread. I have been writing a series of pamphlets called the Pathway Papers. The one I am currently working on concerns Adam and who he was. It is no secret that I have argued long and hard for an ancient Adam, an Adam 5 million years ago. One of the main problems my views have had is the assumption made by Biblical scholars that Adam lived within the past 6000 years because of the supposed iron-age setting of some of the Biblical verses. I am thinking in particular of Genesis 4:22 which says
And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
Now, clearly If Tubalcain was the inventor of metalcraft, it is less likely that Adam could have lived hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. This verse is interpreted by young-earth creationists as clear evidence of an iron-age setting, and the rapid development of technology before the flood, and then by inference, a similar rapid technological advance after the flood.
Because of this, many literalists are forced to reject any and all evidence of human-like activity long before the iron age. This supposed setting is viewed by liberals as evidence that the Bible is factually wrong or as an accommodation by God to the science of the day.
My reflections on this verse this week have shown me something entirely new. But I first must preface things.
There are several items which are Biblically marks of Adam. Language, religion, sweat, clothing and pain in childbirth. I have web pages showing that these items go hundreds of thousands of years back in time and thus, if they are part of Adam and Eve's curse, Adam must have lived prior to their appearance on earth. My web pages on these marks of Adam can be found at the following sites
For the last 2 million years, hominids have been living in very cold places like Georgia (the asiatic Georgia) where winter temperatures get to -23 C. requiring clothing. Even the Neanderthals seem to have had capes of leopard skin. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cape.htm
Pain in childbirth goes back at least to 2.6 million years and I make a case that it is there in the Australopiths. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/birth.htm
All these evidences for these Biblical items, lets look at the Genesis 4 passage of interest.
Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
23And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
Young-earthers of both varieties (the typical YEC and those who believe in a recent Adam even if the earth is old), claim that verse 20 indicates that Jabal was the inventor of herding and living in tents. The problem is that tents go back in time to at least 425 thousand years ago at Bilzingsleben, Germany (and there is little reason to think that was the first tent.
Now, the word translated as cattle is tson and may mean sheep, goats or cattle. (it also could mean possessions). Now, herders get most of their calories from the flocks and herds they keep. That is why they keep them. But what are we to do when Neanderthals did the same thing in the Caucasus mountains where they obtained 85% of their calories from sheep!
(see Daniel S. Adler, Guy Bar-Oz, Anna Belfer-Cohen, and Ofer Bar-Yosef, Ahead of the Game : Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus ,” Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 1, February 2006, p. 91)
At another cave they obtained 60% from sheep and goats (L. V. Golovanova, et al, "Mezmaiskaya Cave: A Neanderthal Occupation in the Northern Caucasus," Current Anthropology, 40(1999):1:77-86, p. 85)
It seems that Neanderthals had some system which had a similar effect calorically as herders.
Jubal is said to be the father of the harp and organ (otherwise known as a flute). But this didn't happen in Neolithic. The Neanderthals had a flute (http://www.uvi.si/eng/slovenia/backg...derthal-flute/) Here is a drawing of another view of that flute
[attachement=2] The drawing below
Compare the picture he has and the one I took of a flute made by humans at the Orkney Museum in Kirkwall, Orkney Islands.
These verses do not require a Neolithic Adam. But 4:22 seems to and if it is to be read as it always is, then the Bible would be horribly inconsistent, something many on this list beleive. But I don't think this verse can be used against that position. So, I took a long hard look at the verse.
I will use this Strongs with the Hebrew word numbers
22And ZillahH6741, she alsoH1571 bareH3205 TubalcainH8423, an instructorH3913 of everyH3605 artificerH2794 in brassH5178 and ironH1270: and the sisterH269 of TubalcainH8423 was NaamahH5279.
23And LamechH3929 saidH559 unto his wivesH802, AdahH5711 and ZillahH6741, HearH8085 my voiceH6963; ye wivesH802 of LamechH3929, hearkenH238 unto my speechH565: for I have slainH2026 a manH376 to my woundingH6482, and a youngH3206 man to my hurtH2250.
24IfH3588 CainH7014 shall be avengedH5358 sevenfoldH7659, truly LamechH3929 seventyH7657 and sevenfoldH7659.
Lets start with Tubalcain’s name, H8423. It means-offspring of Cain or thou will be brought of Cain. Cain means spear. This name seems to imply someone who followed in the path of Cain.
The RSV and ASV versions say that Tubalcain was the “forger of all instruments” The King James says “instructor of every artificer” and the New Century version says “Tubal-Cain, who made tools out of bronze and iron.” The NIV says “Tubal-Cain who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron.”
The word translated forged (H3913) is latash and means according to Brown-Driver-Briggs “to sharpen, hammer, whet” Strong’s says “A primitive root; properly to hammer out (an edge), that is, to sharpen:—instructer, sharp (-en), whet.”
Nowhere does the word ‘forged’ appear in these two dictionaries. Looking at the other uses, the word is translated 3 times as sharp or sharpen and once as whet and once as instructor (in the KJV). Sharpen seems to be a proper definition.
So far this looks like an iron foundry. But what is Tubal-cain sharpening? Instruments? Not hardly. What he is sharpening is the word H2794 choresh, which is a PERSON. Strong’s says ‘fabricator, mechanic or artificer” Brown-Driver-Briggs says “metal craftsman” But I am going to argue that that doesn’t fit because ONE DOESN”T SHARPEN OR FORGE PEOPLE. One sharpens or forges INSTRUMENTS.
It is interesting that the Bible doesn’t use the words for instruments which can be sharpened. These words were a chariyts (a cutting instrument) or a keliy (utensil) or magzerah (axe). If these words were used, it would unquestionably be about working metal. But here we have Tubal-cain sharpening a person. This is why the King James calls him an instructor because that is what teachers do. Like iron sharpening iron that so one man sharpens another.
So Tubal-cain is an instructor as KJV says. So what is he instructing? This word choresh is an active participle of a word that has nothing to do with metal craftsmen. Choresh h2794 comes from charahs h2790 which has the following meanings, none of which have anything to do with metal working except in the most glancing fashion:
) to cut in, plough, engrave, devise
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to cut in, engrave
1a2) to plough
1a3) to devise
1b) (Niphal) to be ploughed
1c) (Hiphil) to plot evil
2) to be silent, be dumb, be speechless, be deaf
2a) (Qal)
2a1) to be silent
2a2) to be deaf
2b) (Hiphil)
2b1) to be silent, keep quiet
2b2) to make silent
2b3) to be deaf, show deafness
2c) (Hithpael) to remain silent
Nowhere in BDBs list is metal or craftsmen allowed. I would contend that their definition was determined by what they viewed as the context of the verse. But there is a different possible context. Let’s take the 1(c) meaning—to plot evil. If we were to chose this meaning instead of the one normally chosen, we would have:
Tubalcain is the instructor of every plotter of evil. (in brass and iron).
But still there is that phrase brass and iron. What I learned this week is that ‘brass and iron’ is a euphemism for corruption. The only other place where this phrase appears is Jer 6:28 which says
“They are all grievous revolters, going about with slanders; they are brass and iron: they all of them deal corruptly.”
Note the use of brass and iron as a description of their behavior—a euphemism. So now we can translate this verse as
Tubalcain is the instructor of every plotter of evil corruption.
Several things argue that this is the real meaning of this verse. First, this is the last generation before the flood. The reason for the flood was corruption. Genesis 6:11, 12 says about why the world was about to be destroyed:
“The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.”
In this reading, Tubal-cain would be the great corruptor.
The second thing which supports this view is the irony of contrast between Tubalcain’s name and that of his sister. To use the meanings, when it says Tubalcain’s sister was Naamah, it is saying “offspring of Cain’s sister was pleasantness”. If Tubalcain was a corrupt murdering person after the path of Cain, then to have a sister named pleasantness is hugely funny.
The third thing supporting this view is the strange claim by Lamech in the verses immediately following. To refresh memories.
23And LamechH3929 saidH559 unto his wivesH802, AdahH5711 and ZillahH6741, HearH8085 my voiceH6963; ye wivesH802 of LamechH3929, hearkenH238 unto my speechH565: for I have slainH2026 a manH376 to my woundingH6482, and a youngH3206 man to my hurtH2250.
Lamech killed his own son and the translations don’t make that clear. H376 is eesh, which just means man. But the word H3206 has the meaning from Brown’s Driver Briggs of “child, son, boy, offspring, youth” The adding that he killed a son to my hurt, means that Lamech killed his son to his sorrow. That would make perfect sense if Tubalcain was the instructor of every plotter of evil corruption. Rebellious children often bring grief and cause family problems that get way out of hand.
To conclude, this verse does not require that Adam be iron age. Which means that Biblical critics who claim this verse as proof of its error, are themselves in error. But then so are the Young-earth creationists and people like Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana who believe that this verse requires A recent Adam. As shown above in the referenced links, all of the technology cited in the bible is hundreds of thousands if not millions of years old.
Secondly, to have a recent Adam and Eve receive the curses that they do is utterly silly. Pain in childbirth is demonstrably present as far back as 2.4 million years ago with Homo rudolfensis, whose infantile head size was barely small enough to go through the birth canal (see Wenda Trevathan’s book Human Birth, and then Steven M. Stanley, Children of the Ice Age, (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1998), p. 161-162)
When God said to Eve, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing” Why would that be a curse, if she already has it? That would be like telling a modern suburbanite, I will greatly increase the weeds in your lawn and you will have to spend each Saturday pulling them out of your grass”. Big deal. We already do that! A curse is not a curse if you already have the impact of that curse.
For anyone to think that the descendant of a Neolithic Adam invented music, or tents or even living off of one species as herders do, is silly.
I do want to go back to two earlier verses because I can hear the complaint.
“Now Abel kept flocks and Cain worked the soil” Gen 4:2 NIV
“And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.” KJV
These verses are interpreted equally as requiring an agricultural setting. But that might be nothing more than an agricultural society reading these verses eisegetically. As I pointed out earlier Neanderthals were living off of sheep almost exclusively more than 40,000 years ago. Were they ‘keepers’ of sheep? The Neanderthals might have thought so; the sheep probably didn’t. Even today, I would say that the sheep don’t know that they are owned.
The word translated as ‘keepers’ doesn’t necessarily imply ownership. Here are the possible choices:
1) to pasture, tend, graze, feed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to tend, pasture
1a1a) to shepherd
1a1b) of ruler, teacher (figuratively)
1a1c) of people as flock (figuratively)
1a1d) shepherd, herdsman (substantive)
1a2) to feed, graze
1a2a) of cows, sheep etc (literal)
1a2b) of idolater, Israel as flock (figuratively)
1b) (Hiphil) shepherd, shepherdess
2) to associate with, be a friend of (meaning probable)
2a) (Qal) to associate with
2b) (Hithpael) to be companions
3) (Piel) to be a special friend
Meaning 2, to associate with, would fit quite well what the Neanderthals were doing. They were clearly associating with sheep, cause they were living off of them. They were also using meaning 1a1—tending sheep. They may not have been pasturing them, in the modern sense, but they were tending to them. When one reads that article above, Ahead of the Game, one realizes that the Neanderthals had to follow the sheep from season to season, just as a shepherd does.
Secondly, we have Cain a ‘tiller’ of the ground. The word translated at tiller is abad and it merely means work. Cain worked the ground. So do modern non-farming hunter-gatherers. The women go out and work the ground and actually spread seed to ensure some plants for next year.
These people also ‘work the ground’ in the same sense that the Bible actually says.
Thus I would conclude, that if one translates the Bible carefully in a fashion consistent with modern data, one can come to a historically accurate translation which maintains historicity in the Scripture but doesn’t force the Christian into the unenviable position of denying everything we have learned about GOD’S creation through science!
Furthermore, I would conclude that nothing in Scripture prevents us from having Adam live anytime within the past 5 million years that the data would indicate.
And for those who think the small brained hominids are not smart enough to be human, do a google on Homo floresiensis. Regardless of what they are, whether they are microencephalics, descendants of H. erectus or H. habilis, or modern human pygmies, their brain sizes are those of a chimpanzee and they made stone tools and used fire showing that a small brain is not an absolute hindrance to being human. So, small brained hominids of 5 million years ago could have been Adam. This would be at a time PRIOR to when they had pain in childbirth and that would mean that the curse, was really a curse, not simply the deity glomming onto something we already had and proclaiming it a curse (you, suburbanite will have weeds in your yard!).
Tiggy has earned the honor of being the only person whom I have ever put on the ignore list. Congratulations, Tiggy. I don't see a single thing you write.
Banned forever by the Amer. Scientific Affiliation, a Christian Scientific Group, for the crime of discussing the ethics of ignoring scientific data.
Intriguing and insightful post, Glenn! I'm going to have to study the points you mention, but on first glance they certainly appear plausible.
My impression is that Noah's flood occurred not too long after Adam and Eve's creation (given that the Mediterranean was flooded 5.5 million years ago). We would need to account for how Noah could make such a large vessel. One point that has occurred to me is that a cubit is a measurement equal to the length between one's middle fingertip and one's elbow. If humans back in Noah's day were quite small, then the measurements of Noah's ark would be less than typically thought.
Last edited by grmorton : October 24th 2006 at 09:25 PM
.
Originally posted by Geoffrey
Intriguing and insightful post, Glenn! I'm going to have to study the points you mention, but on first glance they certainly appear plausible.
My impression is that Noah's flood occurred not too long after Adam and Eve's creation (given that the Mediterranean was flooded 5.5 million years ago). We would need to account for how Noah could make such a large vessel. One point that has occurred to me is that a cubit is a measurement equal to the length between one's middle fingertip and one's elbow. If humans back in Noah's day were quite small, then the measurements of Noah's ark would be less than typically thought.
The size of any ark is determined how many animals are taken. In a local flood, it can be much smaller.
I would point out that when one thinks of Homo floresiensis, regardless of what he is, whether he be microencephalic or descendant of H. erectus or H. habilis, or H. sapiens, there is good evidence for quite sophisticated behavior among people with brains smaller than a chimp. Apparently they made fire, hunted pygmy stegodons and made stone tools. This clearly says that having a small brain is not a disqualification for intelligence. BTW, the smallest-brained modern human with normal intelligence of whom I am aware was Daniel Lyons, an irish man whose brain was about 650 cc (1 lb 8 oz which using 1.045 g/cc yields the above) smaller than the smallest erectus. He was in the range of the Homo habilis who lived 2+ million years ago.
**
edited to add: I love this quotation because while the brain it talks about is abnormal, it shows that size doesn't matter:
I once calculated that he has the brain volume of a rhesus monkey. And there are lots of people who have had a hemispheridectomy meaning they have half a brain, who are entirely normal so far as intelligence is concerned. Size doesn't matter, as I said.
Tiggy has earned the honor of being the only person whom I have ever put on the ignore list. Congratulations, Tiggy. I don't see a single thing you write.
Banned forever by the Amer. Scientific Affiliation, a Christian Scientific Group, for the crime of discussing the ethics of ignoring scientific data.
Glenn, my last post might have been too vague for it to get my point across well. Your well-reasoned reading of the Hebrew of Genesis 4 opens up the possibility that the pre-Flood people were not farmers and metal-workers, but were rather hunter-gatherers with stone tools. One (seemingly anomalous) technological achievement of the pre-Flood peoples still puzzles me, though: Noah's ark.
The ark was 300 cubits long. A cubit is the length of distance between one's elbow and the tip of his middle finger (about 18 inches). That would yield an ark 450 feet long, which would clearly be an extraordinary achievement for hunter-gatherers with stone tools.
One way to lessen this difficulty is to focus on the word "cubit". The small pre-Flood peoples would have shorter arms on average than did people living in the time of Moses. When Moses talked about a cubit, he probably envisioned a unit of length around 18" long. But when Noah (who was in all probability a little chap) talked about a cubit, he probably envisioned a unit of length somewhat less than 18". I would be interested to know how long the distance is between the elbow and the tip of the middle finger of the earliest hominid fossils we have. Suppose, for example, that this distance is 14" (again, I don't know what it is, I'm just throwing this number out). That would mean that the 300 cubit-long ark would be "only" 350 feet long rather than 450 feet long. That's still a vast vessel, but it certainly helps to shave 100 feet off its length.
I'm certainly not trying to say that the pre-Flood people were too unintelligent to make a large ark. (I have no doubt that their intelligence was as great as ours.) Rather, I'm saying that it's difficult to see how they could make a huge ark considering their lack of know-how and tools.
Part of me wants to fudge it and speculate about a copyist's error making the ark too big by a factor of 10 (i. e., that the original author had written "30 cubits" rather than "300 cubits"), but without documentary evidence of that, I hesitate strongly to invoke a copyist's error.
Glenn, my last post might have been too vague for it to get my point across well. Your well-reasoned reading of the Hebrew of Genesis 4 opens up the possibility that the pre-Flood people were not farmers and metal-workers, but were rather hunter-gatherers with stone tools. One (seemingly anomalous) technological achievement of the pre-Flood peoples still puzzles me, though: Noah's ark.
The ark was 300 cubits long. A cubit is the length of distance between one's elbow and the tip of his middle finger (about 18 inches). That would yield an ark 450 feet long, which would clearly be an extraordinary achievement for hunter-gatherers with stone tools.
One way to lessen this difficulty is to focus on the word "cubit". The small pre-Flood peoples would have shorter arms on average than did people living in the time of Moses. When Moses talked about a cubit, he probably envisioned a unit of length around 18" long. But when Noah (who was in all probability a little chap) talked about a cubit, he probably envisioned a unit of length somewhat less than 18". I would be interested to know how long the distance is between the elbow and the tip of the middle finger of the earliest hominid fossils we have. Suppose, for example, that this distance is 14" (again, I don't know what it is, I'm just throwing this number out). That would mean that the 300 cubit-long ark would be "only" 350 feet long rather than 450 feet long. That's still a vast vessel, but it certainly helps to shave 100 feet off its length.
I'm certainly not trying to say that the pre-Flood people were too unintelligent to make a large ark. (I have no doubt that their intelligence was as great as ours.) Rather, I'm saying that it's difficult to see how they could make a huge ark considering their lack of know-how and tools.
Part of me wants to fudge it and speculate about a copyist's error making the ark too big by a factor of 10 (i. e., that the original author had written "30 cubits" rather than "300 cubits"), but without documentary evidence of that, I hesitate strongly to invoke a copyist's error.
There is a way to handle this. If God inspired the writer to write, 350 units, but the only units the guy knew were "shaoliang" then, that would suddenly become the size of the boat. BTW, shaoliang is a real unit of length
Tiggy has earned the honor of being the only person whom I have ever put on the ignore list. Congratulations, Tiggy. I don't see a single thing you write.
Banned forever by the Amer. Scientific Affiliation, a Christian Scientific Group, for the crime of discussing the ethics of ignoring scientific data.
Last edited by Geoffrey : October 28th 2006 at 12:25 AM
.
Glenn, I've studied your suggested translations of the verses in Genesis 4, and I don't see any problems with what you are saying. In fact, I would go further and state that your translations seem to be the best I've seen in light of the empirical facts that scientists have discovered. I greatly appreciate you sharing this research with us.
They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them hard."--Brick served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar.--And they said, "Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world."
I understand the building of the tower of Babel to be relatively soon after the Flood because before Babel all humans had the same language. It is improbable that geographically separated groups of humans would retain the same language. Look, for example, at how quickly Latin evolved into Spanish, Italian, French, and the other Romance languages. It was merely a matter of centuries.
In these two verses, four things are technologically accomplished:
1. They made bricks.
2. They harded them with heat.
3. They used bitumen as mortar.
4. They built a tower out of these bricks and mortar.
How far back in prehistory do we have empirical evidence for such activities? The fourth one does not concern me as much as the first three, since for all we know the tower was 10 feet tall.
Sorry to be slow, I am engaged in a major writing project, and I have a debate in 2 weeks with Henry Morris III at Letourneau University, so I am not paying a lot of attention here.
Originally posted by Geoffrey
Glenn, I've studied your suggested translations of the verses in Genesis 4, and I don't see any problems with what you are saying. In fact, I would go further and state that your translations seem to be the best I've seen in light of the empirical facts that scientists have discovered. I greatly appreciate you sharing this research with us.
They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them hard."--Brick served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar.--And they said, "Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world."
I understand the building of the tower of Babel to be relatively soon after the Flood because before Babel all humans had the same language. It is improbable that geographically separated groups of humans would retain the same language. Look, for example, at how quickly Latin evolved into Spanish, Italian, French, and the other Romance languages. It was merely a matter of centuries.
In these two verses, four things are technologically accomplished:
1. They made bricks.
2. They harded them with heat.
3. They used bitumen as mortar.
4. They built a tower out of these bricks and mortar.
First off, there is evidence from glottochronology (the dating of the change of languages) that humanities languages were widely separated long before the Neolithic.
How far back in prehistory do we have empirical evidence for such activities? The fourth one does not concern me as much as the first three, since for all we know the tower was 10 feet tall.[/quote]
The knowledge of how to deal with baked clay goes back at least 27,000 years to Dolni Vestonice.
Whenever humanity mastered fire it would have been noticed that the clay beneath the fire was hardened. This is what archaeologists look for as evidence of fire.
Bitumen being used to glue things together was first invented by Neanderthals, not Sumerians or Neolithic farmers.
The reality is, we modern humans constantly underestimate the intelligence of the archaic hominids. Given that we modern humans never seem to learn this lesson, one would wonder who is the smarter! :-) Neanderthals also invented anoxic chemistry as far as we know. It might have existed further back, but there is no evidence for it.
As to builing a tower, I have no evidence I can present for such a thing as far back as I believe Adam must have lived. However, there are seveal logical reasons for this lack. 1. would it be preserved? 2. the temperature and clay composition will determine exactly how preservable such 'bricks' are. The height of the tower would be determined by how strong the weakest brick is. All of this means that we don't know how high the tower is (drawings in Bibles not withstanding)
Simply everything stated in the bible except an extant clay brick exists much longer ago than your neighborhood apologist will tell you.
Tiggy has earned the honor of being the only person whom I have ever put on the ignore list. Congratulations, Tiggy. I don't see a single thing you write.
Banned forever by the Amer. Scientific Affiliation, a Christian Scientific Group, for the crime of discussing the ethics of ignoring scientific data.
TheologyWeb Campus
» Science Building
» Natural Science 301
»
Could homo sapiens be 5.5 million years old?
