Dreams in Genesis

Dreams and their Theological Meaning in Genesis

by Simon Lien-yueh Wei

I. Introduction

Dream narratives in the Bible (the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament) abound in the Book of Genesis, which contains nearly one third of biblical dream narratives. Like other narratives, dream narratives are used by the biblical writer to convey theological messages or affirm theological beliefs.[1] Although dreams and their literal meanings in Genesis primarily serve the biblical stories, many profound theological meanings about dreams themselves can also be discovered from the dream narratives.

This paper is motivated by the fact that many biblical readers are fascinated by dream narratives of Genesis, but they neglect the theological meanings of dreams that those narratives may present. This paper attempts to manifest that the theological meanings of dreams revealed by those narratives include: 1) the dream world as a sacred space, 2) dreams as a divine language, 3) dreams as a mode of divine revelation, 4) dreams as a divine initiative intervening in human affairs for God's people, and 5) dreams as a divine-human encounter.

II. Dreams and their Theological Meanings in Genesis

1. The Dream World as a Sacred Space

The first theological meaning of dreams which can be revealed by dream narratives in Genesis is that the dream world is a sacred place. According to Mircea Eliade, space is not homogeneous; some parts of space are qualitatively different from others. When theophany takes place in some space, that space becomes sacred. The sacred space emphasizes not on the physical or geographical dimension, but on the religious and mysterious ones. The nostalgia of the religious is to inhibit the sacred space. They desire to situate themselves in that space and to open themselves to the divine.[2]

In all sacred space, the world of dreams may be the most private, exceptional, and mysterious one. When God comes to a dream, that dream becomes the sacred space. The dream narratives in the Hebrew Bible present this aspect clearly. As Robert Gnuse asserts, "Like their contemporaries in the ancient Near East, Israelites used the dream report in stereotypical fashion to respectfully describe a divine theophany."[3]

The view of dreams as the sacred space in which the theophany occurs can also be found in many dream narratives in Genesis. For instance, Gen 20:3 writes, "God came to Abimelech in a dream by night (NRSV)." Gen 31:24 tells us, "God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream by night."

This view is most explicitly shown in Jacob's dream at Bethel. The biblical text describes, "And he [Jacob] dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And the Lord stood beside him" (Gen 28:12-13). Jacob awakened and concludes that the Lord actually appears at the site where the dream occurred. He then named the place Bethel (house of God). However, it may be wrong if we think that the place Bethel is more sacred than the space of the dream. This is because the divine appeared not at Bethel, but in Jacob's dream at Bethel. Therefore, if it is the dream that should be seen as the locus of divine self-manifestation, then the dream's space should be the sacred place.

Moreover, from the practical dimension, if dreams are the space theophany takes place, then the narrative in Ex 3:1-5 (God asked Moses to remove his sandals in order to stand on the sacred place where theophany occurred) seems to remind Christians that before sleep they should lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles them in order to prepare themselves to meet their God in dreams. If they encounter the divine in dreams, they may think of Jacob's dream at Bethel. Then, they should regard those dreams as the house of God and the gate of heaven, or as the holy place.

In this sense, the dreams of Genesis in which the divine appears could be understood as "a break (an opening by which passage from heaven to earth is made possible), the axis mundi (the place connects the earthly world and the divine world),"[4] or the sanctuary. From the Christian theological perspective, we may say that if a church is the collective sacred space for the community of faith, then a dream world is the private sacred space for an individual believer. Since both spaces are sacred, the attitude of Christians toward them should be equal.

Indeed, our attitude towards dreams should be religious and sacred, rather than profane. If we desire to see God while we are still living in this world, then every day we may expect and prepare ourselves to meet God in dreams, the sacred space. At the same time, God may be expecting us to slumber so that God can come to our dreams and to meet us.


2. Dreams as a Divine Language Transmitting on Divine Messages

The second theological meaning of dreams in Genesis is that dreams can be regarded as a divine language transmitting on divine messages. In Genesis, the main purpose of the divine coming to human dreams is to deliver the message. Dreams are essentially used by the divine as a language to carry messages. The divine messages in dreams are significant not only for dreamers themselves but sometimes also for a tribe or a nation.

Many dream narratives in Genesis describe that God uses dreams as a language to transmit divine messages, such as God's commands, promises, encouragements, and directions for people.[5] For example, from the divine message in his dream, Abimelech not only learned the truth about the hidden relationship between Abraham and Sarah from God, but also received God's command to return Abraham's wife (Gen 20:3-7).

Through a dream, Jacob first received the divine covenant and promises directly from God about him and his offspring (Gen 28:13-15). In addition, when Jacob was frustrated with Laban's attitude toward him which was not what it had been, God instructed Jacob in a dream how to procure better yields from his flocks and commanded him to go back to his birth land (Gen 31:10-13). It was also through a dream that God sent a message to Laban and Pharaoh (Gen 31:24, 41:25-31).

In fact, every dream in Genesis can be seen as a divine language to communicate the divine message. The dreams in Genesis may be classified typologically as auditory message dreams (e.g. Gen 20:3, 28:12-15, 31:10-13, 24), in which the divine delivers auditory messages in plain language, and symbolic dreams (e.g. Gen 37:5-10, 40:5 ff, 41: 1 ff), in which the dreamers witness enigmatic visual images that, for most cases (except Joseph's dream), require an interpreter with the aid of god to decipher the hidden messages in the dreams. The auditory dreams may be more likely as a mode, rather than a language, for God to communicate with humanity. However, they are essentially a divine language, especially from the perspective of dreamers, because it is through dreams that dreamers heard or received divine messages (just like it is through our spoken language that we received auditory messages from other people in our daily lives). In this sense, dreams, like other vehicles which carry divine message (such as visions), should be viewed as a language of God.

Likewise, the symbolic dreams may not be a divine language seemingly because the dreamers themselves even did not know the divine messages or their meanings in the symbolic dreams at all. However, because the symbolic dreams still carry divine messages (which were eventually known by dreamers through an interpreter in the biblical story), only by a different way, they should be viewed as a language of God. In short, dreams in Genesis, whether they are formulated in comprehensible messages or in enigmatic symbols, can all be regarded as a divine language which transmits divine message.[6]

3. Dreams as a Way of Divine Revelation

The third theological meaning of dreams in Genesis is that dreams is a mode of divine revelation. The mode of revelation in the Hebrew Bible varies from external phenomena (e.g. voices and forces of nature) to internal phenomena (e.g. visions and dreams). In Genesis, dreams are one of the legitimate and common channels by which God reveals God's will and foreshadows future events.

For instance, God reveals God's will to Abimelech, Jacob, and Laban through dreams (Gen 20:3-7, 28:12-15, 31:11-16, 31:24). Gen 41:25b writes, "God had revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do." The biblical narrative describes Pharaoh's dream as a foreshadowing from God which shows the coming of great abundance and famine in Egypt (Gen 41:15-32). Therefore, Jean-Michel de Tarragon claims that ordinary prophecy could always benefit from revelation by dreams, such as the dream of Jacob at Bethel and the dreams that Joseph interpreted for his companions in captivity and for Pharaoh.[7]

Moreover, scholars have been able to deduce some theological agenda of the biblical writers concerning revelation from dream narratives in Genesis. For instance, Hermann Gunkel argues, "[E] prefers dreams and the call of the angel from heaven--the most invisible means of revelation.¨[8] A. Oppenheim and Robert Gnuse also observe that many narratives in Genesis as well as in the Hebrew Bible appear in the materials attributed to the Elohist. For Gnuse, the Elohist sees God as distant from creation while demanding fear and obedience as human responses. This aura of transcendence requires the Elohist to use more indirect forms of revelation than the anthropomorphic theophanies of the Yahwist.[9]

Gnuse also commends, "Israelites believed that reality encountered them in their dreams, whether it was from God or from somewhere else, the experience was to be respected. Thus, God might choose the dream as a mode of revelation."[10] Hence, dreams eventually became one of the best modes of revelation, either for God, for the Elohist, or for Israelites. In short, dreams in Genesis can be understood as a mode for God to reveal the divine will and to foreshadow future events.


4. Dreams as a Divine Initiative Intervening in Human Affairs for God's People

The fourth theological meaning of dreams in Genesis is that dreams is a divine initiative intervening in human affairs for God's people. In Genesis, people cannot force God into giving dreams for divine direction or revelation through the ancient practice of incubation (sleeping in a temple and praying for a dream from the divine).[11]

Although some scholars have claimed that Jacob's dream at Bethel results from the practice of incubation, Diana Lipton's argument may successfully invalidate this kind of idea. She argues that the text (Gen 28:10-22) never mentions about the practice of incubation or any action Jacob did concerning it at all. In addition, it is generally acknowledged prerequisite of dream incubation that the dreamer should be aware of the holiness of the place before falling asleep. Therefore, Jacob's failure to recognize holiness of the place proves that he was not involved in the practice.[12]

A. Oppenheim also points out that even if Jacob's dream at Bethel was involved in the practice of incubation, "this might be called a case of unintentional incubation."[13] Robert Gnuse even asserts that the Israelites disdained the practice of incubation.[14] Thus it is impossible to view Jacob's dream as a result of incubation. We may now conclude that all dreamers in Genesis received dreams passively and unexpectedly.[15] Every dream originates from God or serves for God's will concerning God's people.

The dream of Abimelech and Laban (Gen 20:3-7, 31:22-29) clearly show God's proactive action and protection through dreams for God's people. The divine action through dreams happened even when God's people did not know that they were in danger (Gen 31:29). For this reason, Scott Noegel proclaims that the dream of Abimelech illustrates "how Yahweh assumes an active role in saving the founding father of the Israelite religion."[16] Jacob's dream in Gen 31:10-13 also reveals that God has a proactive hand in the successes of God's people. Pharaoh's dream discloses God's intervention in the affair of Egypt not merely for Joseph but for the Israelites (Gen 41:25-41, 45:4-9).

Indeed, the dream narratives in Genesis present the close relationship between God and God's people. The divine action and voices surrounds them. The dreams witness the divine intention of intervening in human affairs in order to manifest the almighty God who guides God's people and directs the flow of history for them.[17]

God acts for God's people on God's own initiative without anyone else ordering, suggesting, or helping. It is only God who "speaks through dreams, either to make known His will or to announce future events."[18] In short, dreams in Genesis demonstrate the transcendence and initiative of God, who dominates and directs all things for God's people.


5. Dreams as a Divine-Human Encounter

The fifth theological meaning of dreams in Genesis is that dreams as a human-divine encounter. From Genesis we may find that it is difficult for humans to see God directly. People cannot meet God in the same way they meet others. Dreams, like visions, thus become an alternative way for the divine-human encounter. Moreover, the experience of encountering the divine in dreams is able to change people's attitudes toward God or their acts toward God's people.

The divine-human encounter is depicted in many dream narratives in Genesis (e.g. Gen 20:3-7, 28:10-15, 31:24). For instance, Gen 28:10-15 portrays that Jacob dreams a ladder which connects between the earth and heaven; then the divine appears to Jacob, and Jacob encounters with the divine. According to Frances Flannery-Daily, the ladder in this dream could be seen as "a symbol that bridges earth and heaven, signifying that the divine realm is accessible from earth" through dreams.[19] In this sense, this dream can be regarded as a kind of ladder which is able to make divinity and humanity connected. 

Moreover, in Genesis, after people wake from the dreams in which they encounter the divine, their attitudes toward God or their acts towards God's people are altered. Supporting by Niditch's argument, Flannery-Daily states that biblical dreams "speak directly to the idea that contact with the divine has a profound effect on the dreamer."[20] Lipton also asserts that each dream in Genesis is received during a period of anxiety or danger, either for the dreamer or the person for whom the dream is actually intended; but each dream signals a change in status for the dreamer or the person, or for both.[21]

This is evident in the reactions of Abimelech, Jacob, and Laban to their dreams (Gen 20:3-18, 28:10-22, 31:10-21, 24-29). After waking from their dreams, Abimelech returned Abraham's wife, and Laban bewared of attempting anything with Jacob, good or bad. Jacob¡¦s dream at Bethel also leads to the change of his attitude toward God. The first time that Jacob spoke of God is in Gen 27:20. At that time, he called the Lord not as his God, but as Isaac's God. But when he encountered the Lord in the dream at Bethel, not only did he practice (this is the first time he practiced) some religious rites for God (e.g. set the stone up as a pillar and poured oil on the top of it; name that site as Bethel, house of God) but also he made a vow that he will regard the Lord as his God and set aside a tithe for God if he sees further evidences. In addition, after encountering with the Lord in another dream, Jacob followed God's direction: left the land of Laban and returned to his birth land, the land of Canaan (Gen 31:10-21).

All these examples demonstrate the fact that many dreams in Genesis are the events of divine-human encounter. Those dreams force people to make critical decisions or take significant actions as reactions to their dreams. Their encounters with the divine in dreams require their active and immediate responses to God or God's people in waking lives.

III. Conclusion

One third of biblical dream narratives are presented in Genesis. For many readers, dream narratives are one of the most fascinating narratives in the entire Bible. Dreams in Genesis may primarily serve the biblical stories. But dreams themselves can also reveal many significant theological meanings, which have been neglected by many biblical readers.

After deeply exploring the dream narratives in Genesis, we may discover that the theological meanings of dreams include: the dream world as a sacred space, dreams as a divine language transmitting divine messages, dreams as a common mode of divine revelation, dreams as a divine initiative intervening in human affairs for God's people, and dreams as a divine-human encounter, which is able to change the dreamer's attitude toward God or God's people.

Bibliography


Blau, Ludwig. "Dreams." in Isidore Singer, ed. The Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. IV. NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901.

Eliade, Mircea, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Trans. by Willard R. Trask. FL: Harcourt, 1959.

Flannery-Dailey, Frances. Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras. Boston: Brill, 2004.

Gnuse, Robert Karl, Dreams and Dreams Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis. NY: E. J. Brill, 1996.

"Dreams and their Theological Significance in the Biblical Tradition." in the Journal Currents in Theology and Mission. 8 Jan, 1981. ATLA Religion Database.

Husser, Jean-Marie, Dreams and Dream Narratives in the Biblical World. UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Lipton, Diana. Revisions of Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis. UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Mendelsohn, I. "Dreams." in George A. Buttrick, ed. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. I. TN: Abingdon, 1962.

Noegel, Scott. "Dreams and Dream Interpretations in Mesopotamia and in the Hebrew Bible." in Bulkeley, Kelly. ed. Dreams: A Reader on Religious, Cultural, and Psychological Dimensions of Dreaming. NY: Palgrave, 2001.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. The Interpretation of Dreams in the Near Ancient East. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956.

de Tarragon, Jean-Michel , "Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Canaan and Ancient Israel." in Jack. M. Sasson, ed. Civilization of the Near East. Vol. III. NY: Charles Scribner's Son, 1995.

Jesuit Astronomer on Science and Religion

Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, a researcher and spokesman at the Vatican Observatory, recently shared his thoughts on science and religion on The Washington Post’s blog.

With news about the Higgs boson particle, the so-called “God Particle,” that’s helping scientists understand how the universe was built, Br. Consolmagno says he’s explained multiple times that “No, the God Particle has nothing to do with God…”

Although not a particle physicist, Br. Consolmagno is often interviewed because of his role as a Vatican astronomer. He says some are surprised to hear that the Vatican supports an astronomical observatory, but that science and religion complement each other:

But the real reason we do science is in fact related to the reason why so many people ask us about things like the God Particle. The disciplines of science and religion complement each other in practical ways. For example, both are involved in describing things that are beyond human language and so must speak in metaphors. Not only is the ‘God Particle’ not a piece of God, it is also not really a ‘particle’ in the sense that a speck of dust is a particle. In both cases we use familiar images to try to illustrate an entity of great importance but whose reality is beyond our power to describe literally.

Read more of Br. Consolmagno’s commentary on the Higgs boson discovery on Catholic News Service and Catholic News Agency.


Related reading: Higgs Boson Expected End in Particle Physics; The 'God Particle': Six big consequences

St. Basil Engages the Pagans

"Do not then imagine, O man! that the visible world is without a beginning; and because the celestial bodies move in a circular course, and it is difficult for our senses to define the point where the circle begins, do not believe that bodies impelled by a circular movement are, from their nature, without a beginning. Without doubt the circle (I mean the plane figure described by a single line) is beyond our perception, and it is impossible for us to find out where it begins or where it ends; but we ought not on this account to believe it to be without a beginning. Although we are not sensible of it, it really begins at some point where the draughtsman has begun to draw it at a certain radius from the centre. Thus seeing that figures which move in a circle always return upon themselves, without for a single instant interrupting the regularity of their course, do not vainly imagine to yourselves that the world has neither beginning nor end. "For the fashion of this world passeth away" and "Heaven and earth shall pass away." The dogmas of the end, and of the renewing of the world, are announced beforehand in these short words put at the head of the inspired history." --Excerpt from Homily I of St. Basil the Great's Hexaemeron

Read St. Basil's first sermon of his Hexaemeron here and then listen to Fr. David Smith discuss it on Harmony of Thunder.


St. Basil and his wife, St. Macrina, suffered under the persecution of Maximinus Galerius (305-314). They fled to the mountains where they suffered many privations, thereby St. Macrina is regarded as a "Confessor of the Faith". Their son, St. Basil the Elder, married St. Emmelia, the daughter of a martyr, and among their ten children were St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Peter of Sebastea, St. Macrina the Younger, and the man who wrote the homilies that you have been reading. St. Basil the Great wrote nine homilies on the six days of creation, known as "The Hexaemeron."

St. Basil the Great was born around A.D. 329, and died on January 1, 379. He studied in Caesarea, Constantinople, and later in Athens, where he became friends with St. Gregory of Nazianzus. They joined their efforts in confronting heresies, especially Arianism. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Basil the Great, and Basil's brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa, became known as "The Three Cappadocians." St. Basil became Bishop of Caesarea in 370, and greatly influenced theology in both the East and West.

St. Basil's insights into the first chapters of Genesis are remarkable for their clear apologetic of the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo by the Creator of the Universe.


Related reading:  Answers to Questions About God; Answers to Questions About the Creation of the Earth

Archaic Humans Used Plants Medicinally

ScienceDaily (July 17, 2012) — An international team of researchers, led by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and the University of York, has provided the first molecular evidence that Neanderthals not only ate a range of cooked plant foods, but also understood its nutritional and medicinal qualities.

Until recently Neanderthals, who disappeared between 30,000 and 24,000 years ago, were thought to be predominantly meat-eaters. However, evidence of dietary breadth is growing as more sophisticated analyses are undertaken.

Researchers from Spain, the UK and Australia combined pyrolysis gas-chromatography-mass spectrometry with morphological analysis of plant microfossils to identify material trapped in dental calculus (calcified dental plaque) from five Neanderthals from the north Spanish site of El Sidrón.

Read it all here.

Related reading:  Medical Care in Ancient Egypt; Nubians Used Antibiotics; Neolithic Medical Care

 

The Beginnings of Spoken Language

Priscilla Long has written, Linguist Noam Chomsky argues that grammar is not learned, that it somehow comes with our DNA. People in any language recognize grammatical structures, apart from the sounds or meanings of words. Grammar is innate, whereas diction and meanings are cultural and, over the slow centuries, in flux. Others argue that what is inherited isn’t grammar, it’s a propensity to search for patterns in speech. We move from “Mama!” to “Mama get ball!” to “I think Johnny went to the store to get milk, at least that’s what he said he was going to do before he found out he won the lottery”—a construction that will forever elude the most brilliant chimps taught to “speak.”

Did language evolve out of primate vocalizations? Or did it evolve out of an entirely different part of the brain, the part that can practice throwing to improve one’s aim, the part that can plan to marry off one’s unborn daughter to the as-yet unconceived son of the future king.

Our first mother had no words to speak. Our earliest Homo sapiens ancestors were anatomically identical to ourselves, but had no cognition. They had no symbols. They had our vocal chords, but no language. They were osteologically modern but neurologically archaic. They had our bones, but not our wits. About 50,000 years ago something changed. After that, there were bone flutes and symbolic marks and cave paintings. The Homo sapiens who painted on cave walls with charcoal and red ochre had metaphor, symbol, language. The change had to do with the brain growing, not larger, but more complex. (From here.)

Priscilla Long is a writer, not a scientist. In this award-winning essay she does not attempt to explain the beginnings of spoken language, but she raises many interesting questions. She points to 50,000 years ago as a turning point in human development, but anthropologists and linguists assume that humans were exercising spoken communication at least as early as 100,000 BC. This is when humans lived in communities in Africa and were able to articulate the sounds that characterize the the "Proto" languages from which modern languages have developed. Anthropologists speculate that oral communication developed earlier, but there is no consensus about this. The disciplines of Comparative Linguistics and Molecular Genetics provide additional information about the dawn of spoken communication.

In the following article, Glenn R. Morton from Scotland reviews a discussion about the Khoisan languages as possibly representative of the beginnings of oral communication. The "Click" or Khoisan language family is very old. Genetic data show that the Sandawe and southern African click speakers share rare mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups. The common ancestry of the 2 populations dates back 35,000 years. The DNA studies also indicate common ancestry of the Hadza and Sandawe populations dating back to15,000 years. These findings suggest that at the time of the spread of agriculture and pastoralism, the Click-speaking populations were already isolated from one another which explains linguistic divergence among the respective Click languages.


Language at the Dawn of Humanity

Glenn R. Morton
Member American Scientific Affiliation


A paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in San Diego, California, in October 2001 suggests that language was in existence when Homo sapiens first appeared on earth 120200,000 years ago. An abstract of the paper by Knight, Underhill, Mortensen, Lin, Louis, Ruhlen, and Mountain is on the web.

This team studied the genetics of African groups who speak in click languages, formally known as members of the Khoisan language family. (Click languages incorporate up to forty-eight click sounds and other unique vocal sounds not found in most of the world's other languages.) They then compared the genetics of the Khoisan with the linguistic separation of the languages. Reasoning that, in general, genetics and language follow each other quite closely, they expected to find that people with similar genetics would speak languages that have descended from each other, because we learn our language from our parents, who share 50% of our genes with us.[2]

Despite the fact that both the Hadza and !Kung use unusual consonants and clicks, many linguists believe that the languages are totally unrelated. One linguist was cited:

"Linguistically, we don't think they are one group, and we don't believe they have a common ancestor," says linguist Bonny Sands of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff.[3]

And Merritt Ruhlen notes:

Two isolated languages found in East Africa not far from Lake Victoria— Sandawe and Hadza—use clicks like those in the other Khoisan languages, and have been linked by Greenberg to the rest of the Khoisan family, though they are clearly the most divergent (that is, most distinctive) members of the family. Surprisingly, since they are located quite close to each other, they show little similarity to one another.[4]

(Read it all here.)


Morton's article raises an interesting question: What was the earliest verbal communication? Did it involve clicking sounds or was it more like the early languages of the Proto-Saharan and Nilotic river peoples? The Khoisan language family is very old, but it may not represent the earliest verbal communication. It is possible that the Proto-Semitic and Khoisan coincided among distinct archaic populations. The biradical character of the Proto-Semitic as reflected in Ancient Egyptian, Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Ge’ez, Sabaean, Mandaic, Ugaritic, and Syriac may represent early spoken languages. Examples of ancient biconsonantal or biradical nouns are dm/blood and human; yd/hand; ym/sea and day; gr/sell, trade or collect; and ls/tongue.

If the oldest human fossils are at least 3 million years and humans were created fully human from the beginning, language has been around for a very long time. Given the changing nature of language, it is not likely that we will know what form oral communication took among our earlier ancestors.

There is also the problem of determining whether the oldest known languages represent an original homeland, or migrations, or language shift. It is likely that such determination is not possible given the great antiquity of human speech. Language groups can be identified as likely descendants of the earliest spoken languages, but language grouping is complex. Roger Blench writes that "the only convincing evidence for a genetic grouping is a cluster of features. This may seem to be a reversion to "mass-comparison" -however, the significant difference is that for a proposed innovation to define a subgrouping, it should not occur outside that subgrouping." (From here.)

Contact between peoples also complicates the picture and words are often borrowed. Blench suggests that this took place between Bantu and Chadic speaking peoples. He writes, "there may have been an early interface between Chadic languages and Bantoid... This would explain a number of apparent coincidences between Bantua and Chadic roots, e.g. the word for 'ten' and 'wild pig' (Hausa gaduu /PB *gudu)."

My guess, given the evidence for the Volta-Niger linkage and the relationship of the Gur-Adamawe languages, is that the Gur languages deserve closer examination as candidates for descendance from the earliest spoken communication.

Etymology of the Word "Horite"

Alice C. Linsley

Horites or Horim (חרי) were a caste of metal working traders who ranged from the Nile to ancient Babylon. They were rulers who controlled the major water systems which they used for commerce. They were a sufficiently important people to attract the attention of Chedorlaomer, King of Elam who attacked the Horites of Mount Seir (Gen. 14).

It is generally maintained that the Horites were later conquered by the Edomites. However, analysis of Genesis 36 indicates that there was a close kinship between theses peoples. The Horites and Edomites intermarried, as is evidenced by this diagram which shows two named Esau. Esau the Younger was Jacob's brother. Possibly they were half-brothers.

These are all Horite clans. Job of Uz was a Horite.

In the region of Edom in modern Jordan and in Dedan they lived in caves as is mentioned in the Genesis 14:6, 36:20 and Deuteronomy 2:12. Their descendants built Petra in Edom (modern Jordan).

In the Qur'an the word Horite appears as Houris and refers to deified ancestors. Some Jews and some Arabs share this common ancestry.

The Horites have been identified with references to Khar, a unit of measurement used in trade in the Egyptian inscriptions (See James Orr, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 1421.) The word khar is related to gur. In Akkadian gurguri means metalworkers or copper smiths. In Oromo gurguru means to sell (gurgurtaa = sale, gurguraa = seller). In Somali gur- means to collect something and gurgure means one who Collects and Keeps Collecting. The Gurgure clan of the Dir refers to traders who collect wares and resale them. Among the Dir guri means stick, rod or firearm.

The Persian and Urdu word Saudagar means trader. This contains the gr root in connection with Arabia. Horite traders dispersed across the ancient world. The association of the roots gr (traders) and hr (Horites) is evident in India in place names such as Gurgaon Haryana.

A linguistic connection to the Horites is retained in the name Horowitz (also spelled Hurwitz or Gurvich), a surname found among Jews of Sephardic ancestry.

The Gir-gam tells the story of Abraham's Proto-Saharan ancestors Cain, Seth and Noah. All were trader-rulers who controlled the water ways of West Central Africa.

Likely gr is also the root of the Japanese (Ainu) word guruma, meaning wheel. The Ainu originated in the Nile.

The word Horite takes many forms besides Khar and Gur. These include Hur, Horonaim, Horoni and Hori. Hori was the son of Lotan son of Seir whose pre-Edomite descendants were the "lords of the Horites in the land of Seir" (Gen. 36:20-29 and 1 Chronicles 1:38-42). Lot, Lotan, and Nim-Lot are Egyptian titles. Nimlot C was the High Priest of Amun at Thebes during the latter part of the reign of his father Osorkon II. Nim refers to waters.

The Jews call their ancestors Horim because many are direct descendants of the Biblical Horites. "Horite" does not refer to the ethnicity of the people, but to their caste. The ancient world had a caste structure. This explains why Horites are found among many peoples across the Afro-Asiatic Dominion.



Related reading:  The Horite Ancestry of Jesus Christ; The Relationship of Somali Kushitic Languages and Somali Oromo; Petra Reflects Horite Beliefs; Nimrod and the Baptism of Jesus; Edom and the Horites; Horite Expectation and the Star of Bethlehem; "The Horites" by The Rev. John Campbell, M. A.

Psalm 104:8 and Flood Geology

William Henry Green

⁶Thou didst cover [the earth] with the deep as with a garment;

The waters were standing above the mountains.

⁷At Thy rebuke they fled;

At the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away.

⁸The mountains rose; the valleys sank down

To the place which Thou didst establish for them.

⁹Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over;

That they may not return to cover the earth.

            Psalm 104:6-9 NASB¹

Evangelicals owe young earth creationists a debt of gratitude for their principled stand on the authority and primacy of Scripture. In that spirit, this paper is intended as a constructively critical exploration of the biblical foundations for a central concept in modern creationist theory.




Psalm 104: A Creationist Proof Text

Ever since the publication in 1961 of The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, Psalm 104:8 has been an important creationist proof text. The Psalm in which the passage occurs was traditionally regarded as a creation hymn, with vv. 6-9 understood as a poetic retelling of day three of the Genesis creation week, but this reading is contested by creationists who view it as an important text relating to Noah’s flood. This interpretation reflects the fact that creationists are forced to confront a pair of difficult questions: since there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover “all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens” (Genesis 7:19) where did it come from and, more importantly, where did it go after the flood ended?[2] Whitcomb and Morris noticed half a century ago that Psalm 104 seems to provide at least a partial answer:

Very likely, in order to accommodate the great mass of waters and permit the land to appear again, great tectonic movements and isostatic adjustments would have to take place, forming the deep ocean basins and troughs and elevating the continents. This seems to be specifically implied in the poetic reflection of the Deluge in Psalm 104:5-9.[3]

Whitcomb and Morris theorized that the pre-flood earth was relatively flat (thus requiring less water to cover the whole planet), and that the waters were pushed off the continents when the mountains and other land masses were thrust up to their present heights at the end of the flood. Their exegesis of Psalm 104, the only passage in the Bible that seems to reflect these events, met an obvious need in creationist apologetics, and as a consequence similar arguments have been made repeatedly across the last 50 years.[4] The importance for modern creationism of this tectonic or geophysics-centered model of earth history cannot be over stressed.


Creationist Approaches to Psalm 104

Creationist interactions with Psalm 104 tend to fall into two broad categories. In the first place, critics often point out that since Psalm 104 refers in a remarkably untroubled way to animal death (v. 29) and predation (v. 21), then however distasteful such things may be they are not evil and may have existed before the sin of Adam.[5] Creationists respond by saying that Psalm 104 is not a creation account per se, but an inspired reflection on the created world as it existed in the psalmist’s own day, long after the Fall. After all, the passage also talks about ships (v. 26) and sinners (v. 35), and neither of these things existed at the time of creation.[6]

Secondly, creationists argue that a significant portion of Psalm 104 (verses 6-9) does not refer to creation at all, but to Noah’s flood. The clincher, in their minds, is the statement in v. 9 that “Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over, that they may not return to cover the earth.”

Contrary to what many old-earth proponents believe, Psalm 104:6-9 clearly refer to Noah’s Flood, not to the third day of Creation Week. This is seen in the allusion in v. 9 to the rainbow promise in Genesis 9:11….God made no such promise at the end of Day 3 of Creation Week. If he had made such a promise in Genesis 1, the global Flood of Noah’s day would have been a breaking of His promise.[7]

Read it all here.

Keeping an Open Mind About the Origins of the Universe

Sheila Liaugminas

Can science prove or disprove the existence of God? Has the origin of creation without a creator come to be settled by science? Are these questions knowable, even by the brightest minds in the world? Yes, sort of, is the basic answer…

Except for the question of ‘settled science’, because it’s not settled and if anything, keeps advancing toward an undeniable conclusion that a creator was behind creation.

So says, more or less, Fr. Robert Spitzer, Jesuit philosopher, educator, author and executive producer of Cosmic Origins, a fascinating new film that explores modern scientific theories about how the universe came to be. Spitzer was my guest on radio Friday for a compelling hour.

He said the eight scientists featured in the film based their dialogue around the fundamental question ‘What is the evidence for God from physics?’ The answer is plenty, so much in fact, that “today there’s more evidence than you can possible imagine,” he stated. Then he added “Stephen Hawking kind of left them all out.”

He said scientific atheism is not scientific at all. And agnosticism can come from honest naturalism, and kind of stay there. “They won’t move to a supernatural explanation unless they’ve exhaused every other natural explanation,” he explained, and of course they’ll never be able to do that.

But a most interesting thing happened at Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday party last January as assembled guests celebrated and conversed. Spitzer pointed to Lisa Grossman’s article in New Scientist to elaborate, but you need a subscription for more than the preview. Here's more:

You could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At themeeting of minds convened last week to honour Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday- loftily titled “State of the Universe” – two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.

One shows that a problematic object called a naked singularity is a lot more likely to exist than previously assumed (see "Naked black-hole hearts live in the fifth dimension"). The other suggests thatthe universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without thehand of a supernatural creator.

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists,including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,” Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as aneternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well asthe future. Perhaps surprisingly, these were also both compatible with the big bang, the idea that theuniverse most likely burst forth from an extremely dense, hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.

However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.

A call came in from a listener in the Batavia, Illinois community near Fermilab, who asked for good resources so he could better understand the topic and engage the debate with local scientists hard-set in their elimination of God from the creation and evolution equation.

Grossman’s article was the first resource Spitzer pointed to. I’m happy to direct folks to his book as well, New Proofs for the Existence of God, in which he presents peer-review physics studies, “string theory, quantum cosmology, mathematical thoughts on infinity” and more, in an easily digestible collection of evidence. Spitzer, founder and president of the Magis Institute, also highly recommends Stephen Barr’s Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, reviewed here in First Things.

Barr begins his book by pointing out that the methods and discoveries of modern physics can and must be separated from the philosophical doctrine of materialism, which so often serves as a dogmatic and, as Barr goes on to show with great power and effectiveness, unsubstantiated faith among physicists.

Seems to me that’s a very important note, “unsubstantiated faith among physicists” who willfully hold to their beliefs in spite of growing evidence that counters or at least questions them.

According to Barr, it was never obvious that physics implied or presupposed a materialistic view of the universe, but the existence of such a connection has been rendered downright implausible by a series of developments in twentieth-century physics. In a series of lucid chapters, Barr addresses the question of whether the universe had a beginning, looks at the issue of whether the universe exhibits any evidence of design or purpose, and examines what contemporary physics (and mathematics) has to say about the nature of human beings—specifically on the question of whether our behavior is determined by physical laws and whether we have an immaterial nature. At each point, Barr shows that “recent discoveries have begun to confound the materialist’s expectations and confirm those of the believer in God.”

Alas, it will continue. But with a fascinating compilation of new data all the time adding to the pool of scientific evidence. Last week the headlines touted the discovery of the ‘God particle,’ which Spitzer explained has nothing to do with God but everything to do with marketing. The New York Times explains more here.

Cool stuff, but the coolest of all is the fullest possible exploration of available evidence in the world at the moment. When you’re open to that, you’re open toeverything, God and all.

From here.

Related reading:  Overview of Theories of Creation; Biblical Anthropologists Discuss Darwin; Is Genesis Really About Origins?; Invalid Science Against Religion Argument; Atheist Students Think Science is on Their Side

Higgs Boson Expected End in Particle Physics

Mark Wyman

The Fourth of July announcement that the long-sought Higgs Boson had been found has led physicists – professional and armchair -- around the world to celebrate. The Higgs, often (bizarrely and unhelpfully) referred to as the ‘God particle’, was the last missing particle in the ‘standard model’ of particle physics, and its discovery at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is in a way the last great triumph of 20th century science.

Despite the celebrations, the question that haunts the physics community is whether the LHC will now begin to start finding new things, opening the door to another century of discovery, or if the Higgs finding will represent the final chapter of discovery in particle physics.

The Higgs itself is a strange beast. Every other particle we know exists falls into two categories: fermionic ‘matter’ fields, like electrons and quarks, that largely make up the stuff of the Earth, and bosonic ‘force carriers’, like photons, that are the delivery agents of the fundamental forces. The Higgs is different: it mediates no force itself, but instead is the means by which the ‘matter’ fields gets their masses.

To understand how this happens, we must begin by remembering that all ‘particles’ are associated with ‘fields’ that fill all space. The electron and, say, quark fields thus actually have a lot more in common with the ‘Force’ of Star Wars imagination than they do with the billiards balls we often picture.

The eccentric (and brilliant) physicist John Ellis proposed an elegant analogy for how the Higgs field works (see video here). Imagine the Higgs field as freshly fallen snow. Other particles have to travel across this field to get where they’re going. Some particles – the ‘heavy’ ones, like the exotic top quark or tau lepton – sink heavily into the snow with each step, proceeding slowly. Others, like the very light electron proceed more easily, as if wearing skis. And still others – like the photon, the particle name for light itself – are like Legolas, the elf in The Lord of the Rings, and proceed as if there is no snow there at all.

For theoretical particle physicists, the important thing about having a Higgs to give particles their mass is that it allows the fundamental laws of physics to have no masses whatsoever. The fact that the mathematics that describe these laws imply that there are no fundamental masses is what spurred Peter Higgs and others to propose the ‘Higgs mechanism’ in the first place in the early 1960s.

What does this all mean for physics? In the short term, nothing changes: the Higgs was predicted nearly 50 years ago, and its existence has been assumed, if not proven, for years. That some physicists – most famously Stephen Hawking – had hoped (and even made bets) that the Higgs wasn’t there was, in my view, more likely a hopeful wish that the Universe had more surprises for us than a considered calculation that the predictions had been wrong.

That the predictions were (largely) correct is good news in the sense that we can be confident that we know how to do calculations, but it may be bad news for everyone seduced by the adventure of discovery. This is because, after the Higgs, there are no more particles that are definitively predicted by already-existing data (hints of a Higgs-like particle have been seen in other physics experiments for more than a decade).

Physicists have many arguments that the Higgs can’t be the end of the line, though. At a minimum, we are sure that the dark matter that comprises most of the matter in the Universe is not part of the ‘standard model’. What we don’t know is if Earth-based particle detectors will ever be able to find the other new particles we suspect might be there.

On the other hand, there are already clues that the Higgs we have found isn’t a boring one: there are subtle mismatches between the data we have so far about the Higgs that was seen by the LHC and the Higgs that was hinted at by previous experiments. Whether that’s due to mistakes or peculiarities of small calculational details or is the first thread in the unraveling of the standard model is something that we all hope the LHC will be able to tell us.

I previously called the Higgs the final great discovery of 20th Century science quite deliberately. The scientists who predicted its existence are now old men, and it’s the fondest hope of those of us who are still young in the field that there are still unexplored veins of accessible physics for us to discover.

Finally, we can ask what this milestone means for the wider world. Without any doubt, it is an important step forward in human knowledge. There are few things more fundamental to know about our Universe than its most basic building blocks, and the Higgs –whether the standard model is replaced by new theories or not – is one of those building blocks.

People sometimes mutter about the high cost of modern science budgets (the LHC has cost around US$10 billion so far) and ask if it’s worth it for society to spend so much money on something with no practical benefits (the Higgs is unlikely to help in the quest to cure cancer or to make your computer run faster).

I like to remind them that in North America alone about $10 billion is spent per year on movie tickets, which are also not notable for their contribution to cancer research or any other practical ends. The quest to understand the basic facts of the Universe is one of the highest pursuits of the human mind, and the need to know is an irreducible aspiration of the human spirit. The privilege of pursuing science as a vocation is one that only is available to lucky individuals in wealthy societies, but I believe that we all know that the construction and testing of scientific theories is akin to the building of great cathedrals or the effusion of Catherine wheels and Roman candles on the Fourth of July: the purpose and culmination of civilization and the height of earthly human ambition.

Mark Wyman is a Research Associate in the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago.


Related reading:  Jesuit Astronomer on the Higgs Boson; Biblical Anthropology is Science; Biblical Anthropology and Antecedents; Hawking and the Beginning; The 'God Particle': Six Big Consequences

Message from The Flying Rodent

The Flying Rodent wrote here:

Ms. Linsley: Congratulations--you have just destroyed the Gospel. At the core of the Gospel lies the biblical teaching that Adam is the fount of (a) the entire human race, and (b) human sin. Before being saved by Christ, sinners are "in Adam"--i.e., descended from him and under the cloud of original sin. Conversely, "in Christ" we are redeemed and restored to our Creator. Take away a literal Adam who is literally our forebear and one of the original two sinners--and you nullify the Gospel that is built on that foundation.

You want to put yourself in a position of "defending" the Bible's authenticity, and while that's a laudable desire, you have simply failed to fulfill that goal. You have read ideas into the Genesis text that simply aren't there, and have put yourself in opposition to Biblical teaching as a whole.

Dear Flying Rodent,

You give me too much credit.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is indestructible.

Related reading: Original Sin or Inheritance of Death?; Adam and Eve as Archetypal First Parents; Are Adam and Eve Real?; Answers to Students' Questions About Adam and Eve; Dating Adam: Paul H. Sheely Proposes a Solution

False Assumption #5 of Young-Earth Creationists

Alice C. Linsley

Assumption 5: Diversity of languages and skin color is the result of God’s judgment at the Tower of Babel.
This concludes the series of False Assumptions of Young-Earth Creationists.

Assumption 1: Genesis is history and should be read as a chronological account. (Response is here.)

Assumption 2: The Genesis “begats” list the first people living on earth. (Response is here.)

Assumption 3: Bishop Ussher's timeline is reliable and can be used to calculate the age of the earth. (Response is here.)

Assumption 4: All the peoples today came from Noah’s three sons whose descendants repopulated the earth after a worldwide flood. (Response is here.)

Tera means priest. Abraham's father was Terah. Terah (Tera) is a title, not a name. Usually, the names of great rulers, scribes and priests were not revealed in antiquity. Tera is a title associated with the Ainu. The Nilotic Ainu had a reddish-brown skin tone and their elders wore beards and moustaches, as do the Ainu elders of Japan and Eastern Canada. The Ainu spread from the Nile to Japan and to Northeastern Canada via Finland many centuries before the construction of the ziggurats (stepped pyramids) of Babylon.

The Ainu brought their system of writing to Japan. It is perhaps the most lasting heritage of the Ainu of whom only about 300 pure-blooded remain. This explains why the Hebrew and Japanese alphabets are so similar.

Young-Earth Creationists Ignore Facts

At the back of Young Earth Creationist books such as Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth by Terry Mortenson, a former Campus Crusade missionary, one finds the 12 Affirmations and Denials. Affirmation XII claims that the diversity of languages and skin color came about as a result of divine judgment at the Tower of Babel.

XII. We affirm that all people living and dead are descended from Adam and Eve...and that the various people groups (with their various languages, cultures, and distinctive physical characteristics, including skin color) arose as a result of God's supernatural judgment at the Tower of Babel..."

This is the easiest of the Young Earth Creationist claims to refute since the evidence of many languages and skin colors before the time of the Tower of Babel is overwhelming and cannot be denied by reasonable persons.The spread of the Ainu is but one example. Other examples involve the dispersion of the Proto-Saharans and the Kushites. These peoples represent a range of skin color and languages before the construction of the ziggurats.


Migrations Out of Africa

The negrito Andaman and Nicobar Islanders migrated between 70,000 and 50,000 years ago from Africa and Arabia along the coastlines, and eventually crossing the seas. They moved eastwards to India, Japan and Australia.

The 20,000 year old human skeletons found at Lake Mungo in New South Wales are likely descendants of early peoples who migrated from Africa, if we follow the red ochre trail. The Lake Mungo population buried its rulers in red ochre, derived from hematite (Fe2O3). This appears to have been a common practices among ancient peoples who dispersed out of Africa. The earliest known use of red ochre powder (300,000 years) is at the site GnJh-03 in the Kapthurin Formation of East Africa, and at Twin Rivers in Zambia.

The Onges and Jarawas of Andaman and Nicobar belong to Haplotype D, a subtype of Haplogroup C, which is also common in Tibet and Japan. The Ainu aboriginal people of Japan are in haplotype D (Y-chromosome) and haplogroup X (mitochondrial chromosome). The Ainu have a red-brown skin tone similar to the Horite or Edomite people. Edom means red.


The Proto-Saharans (ca. 10,000-3000 BC)

Between 10,000-3000 years ago the Sahara was much wetter. Seasonal rainfall turned the Sahara into a fertile savannah with sedentary populations. The oldest known cemetery in the Sahara (ca. 7500 B.C.) reveals "The burial density, tool kit, ceramics, and midden fauna suggest a largely sedentary population with a subsistence economy based on fishing and on hunting of a range of savanna vertebrates." The discovery was made by National Geographic photographer Mike Hettwer in 2000.

Proto-Saharan peoples fished and hunted. Ancient Sudan rock paintings show fishing nets. The much older Khormusan sites of ancient Nubia (65,000 and 55,000 years) also reveal evidence of fishing and hunting.

The Proto-Saharans navigated the interconnected rivers which were their highways and trade routes. Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, and Niger had rivers and lakes that connected to major water systems that are identifiable today, such as the Niger, the Benue, Lake Chad and the Nile. The 8000 year old Dufuna boat, a fishing dugout, was found buried in the Sahara.

The cave paintings at Gilf Kebir in the Sahara date to about 6000 BC. At that time a sizeable community lived on this vast sandstone plateau near the Egyptian-Libyan border, about 400 miles from the Nile.

The Proto-Saharans raised cattle in the Lake Chad region which was a much larger lake. They venerated cattle and left behind engravings of bulls and cows with solar disc between their horns. This image was associated with Hathor, the Virgin Queen whose son was Horus. They built the oldest known fortress city dedicated to Horus and Hathor at Nekhen (4000 BC). At archaeologists have discovered a temple, elaborate burial sites, and evidence of animal sacrifice. The rulers of Nekhen had access to sub-Saharan mineral resources of the eastern desert. The high quality of the gold work at Nekhen is evidenced by the discovery of this gold plumed falcon representing Horus.


Proto-Saharan peoples moved into the Nile Valley as the Sahara began to dry. Some would later be called "Kushites." Some crossed the Indian Ocean from East Africa and settled in southern India. These are the Dravidians. There is a close linguistic and religious connection between the Kushites and the Dravidians. The Africanist Geoffrey Parrinder has noted that at least twenty-five tribes in East Africa worship Murungu as the Supreme God, and like the Dravidian god Murugan, the African Murungu lives on sacred mountains.


The Kushite Expansion (ca. 3500-1500 BC)

Abraham's ancestors came out of the Nile and are referred to as Kushites in Genesis 10:6-12. Kush is a Biblical term that refers to the descendants of Noah by his grandson Kush. It is a general term that includes many people of different skin tones and languages before the establishment of the ziggaruts on the plain of Shinar. The Kushites included red and black Nubians, red and white Ainu, red, white and black Canaanites, red, black and yellow Nilotes, red-brown, light brown, black and yellow Egyptians, red-brown and black Sudra, and red, white and brown Mesopotamians. The variety of skin tones is evident on ancient monument paintings in Egypt and Sudan.

Red and black Nubian captives
(Detail from Ippolito Rosellini's drawing from the 1828 Franco-Tuscan expedition to Egypt)

Genesis 10 speaks of the migration of the Kushites into Mesopotamia. The Kushite migration has been confirmed by DNA studies. The Kushites were great pyramid builders and the ziggurats were a type of stepped pyramid similar to that of Djoser at Saqqara constructed between 2667–2648 BC. No pyramids had yet been built in Sumer/Kish. The ziggurats date to the Akkadian period, about 2334–2218 BC. The earliest monarch of Sumer whose historical existence has been independently attested through archaeological inscription ruled Kish about 2700–2600 BC.

Amenhotep III ruled between about 1382 and 1350 B.C. His name means "peace of Amen" and indicates a date when Amen, a name for God was favored over the name Set, which was favored in the Delta. It was during the 18th dynasty that the title 'King's Son of Kush' was first used. The earlier known Kushite ruler was called Kashta which means "The Throne of Kush." This is about 1000 years after the construction of ziggurats, so the Kushite expansion out of Africa is one of the most recent movements out of Africa.

The Kushite expansion out of the Nile Valley is one of the later migrations out of Africa, between about 3500 and 1500 B.C. The Kushites represent a highly organized people, consisting of numerous clans and castes. Their rulers controlled the major water systems and founded early mining industries along the Nile and in southern Israel. Nimrod was a Kushite kingdom builder. He and his brother Ramah were the sons of Kush (Gen. 10:6-12).

The Biblical term "Kushite" refers to many peoples and castes: Nilotes, Egyptians, Sudra, Canaanites, Ainu, Nubians, Horites, Hapiru, Southern Arabians and the rulers of ancient Mesopotamia. Among these peoples there was a wide range of skin color and a great diversity of languages. To this day, the greatest linguistic and genetic diversity exists in Africa, from which the ancestors of these peoples spread along the coastlines and by sea around 70,000 years ago.



Linguistic Diversity

There are seventeen language families in the world. Each breaks down into hundreds of languages, dialects and sub-dialects. The most diverse of all the language groups is also the oldest group, the Afro-Asiatic languages: Chadic, Kushitic, Ugaritic, Elamite, Semitic, Hausa, Amharic, Ethiopic, Magyar, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Babylonian, etc. There is also a clear linguistic connection to Dravidian and Yoruba. These languages, or their earlier forms such as Dedanite and Thamudic, were spoken before the construction of the Babylonian ziggaruts.

All the peoples and rulers mentioned in Genesis 10 can be placed linguistically within this language family. The Bible is their story. It tells how God fulfilled the promise of the Son that was made to their ancestors in Eden (Gen. 3:15). These peoples exhibited a range of skin color so it is ignorant to say that skin color is the result of God's judgment.

I agree with Dr. Joshua Zorn, a former young-earth creationist, who has said: "The worst aspect of YECS teaching is that it creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church."

Related reading: The Tower of Babel; The Red-City of Petra Reflects Horite Beliefs; The Nile and Tigris Linguistically Connected; The Afro-Asiatic Dominion; The Nile-Japan Ainu Connection; A Kindling of Ancient Memory; Moses' Horite Family; False Correlations; Nilotic Cattle Herders; The Etymology of the Word Horite

Dating Adam: Paul H. Sheely Proposes a Solution

Paul H. Sheely is a member of the American Scientific Affiliation and lives in Portland, Oregon.  I agree with him on many points, especially his perceptive and sound arguments against Young-Earth Creationism.  He has written, "the way creation science squares the biblical account with the historical/scientific facts is by rejecting the overwhelming consensus of the best-trained scientists in the relevant sciences and substituting in its place private interpretations of the scientific data. In addition it finds evidence in Scripture for items which Old Testament scholars do not find there, like multiple volcanoes exploding at the time of the flood." (From here.)

Adam and Anthropology: A Proposed Solution

PAUL H. SEELY

From: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 22 (September 1970): 88-90

The perspectives of 20th century anthropology are incompatible with the acceptance of the literal historicity of Genesis 2 and 3. Anthropology's first man must be dated before Neolithic times; the literal man of Genesis 2 and 3 must be dated in Neolithic times. The legitimate use of anthropology resolves the conflict by leading to the recognition that Adam is a figurative person, who harmonizes with both anthropology and biblical theology.

Introduction

The Bible says (Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12,14'; I Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 57) that Adam was the first man. Literally interpreted, his culture was Neolithic: he lived no earlier than 10,000 B.C. Anthropology says the first man's culture was Paleolithic: he lived far earlier than 10,000 B.C.¹

The Christian anthropologist, James 0. Buswell III, writes:

Few authors of conservative evangelical stripe even so much as acknowledge the problem. One either has a recent Adam contemporary with the Neolithic-type culture found in Genesis 4, or else one is labeled as sliding toward liheralism.²

We propose a solution to the problem that is not liberal: Adam is not every mats; Genesis 3 is not a myth. We propose a solution that does not muzzle or frown on anthropology. We propose a solution that arises naturally when we relate anthropology to the Bible via the principles of standard hermeneutics. But first let us look more closely at the problem.

A Literal Adam Must Be Neolithic

The technique of dating Adam by dating the facets of culture that the Bible associates with him is basic in standard dating procedure. Ezra and Nehemiah are dated in the middle of the fifth century B.C. because the Bible associates them with the aehaemeoids, which archaeologists date in the middle of the fifth century B.C. Rehohuam is dated e. 925 B.C. because the Bible associates him with Sheshooq I, whom archaeologists date c. 925 B.C. The patriarchs are dated in the second millenium B.C. because the Bible associates them with a culture that archaeologists date in the second millenium B.C. Consistency demands that Adam also he dated by the culture that the Bible associates with him.

The Bible, literally interpreted, associates Adam with a Neolithic culture. So, one who wishes to use standard dating procedure is hound to date Adam in Neolithic times.

In attempting to avoid this Neolithic dating, T. C. Mitchell argued that the culture of Genesis 4 could have been Paleolithic rather than Neolithic. But finally he was forced to admit,

While must of the features might belong to a period from Upper Paleolithic to the Iron Age, two features, agriculture and animal husbandry, would seem to point to a period after the Neolithic Revolution" in Western Asia.³

Mitchell finally suggested that we wait in hope that a Neolithic-type culture might turn up in Paleolithic times. We agree with James Buswell's assessment of this possibility:

Of course archaeological discoveries have surprised us before, but from the present outlook it seems very unlikely that the Neolithic culture pattern will turn up on any horizon whose antiquity is radically different.⁴

Buswell's suggested solution is that Cain and Abel might only appear to be domesticators of plants and animals. But Moses could write of hunting (Genesis 25:27; 27:3, 30) and gathering (Exodus 16:16, 17, 21; Numbers 15:32). Couldn't he have described the hunting and gathering economy of Paleolithic times? If Genesis 2-4 is literal history, why should Moses make a Paleolithic culture look so very Neolithic?

---

Christian anthropologists are in agreement that men, who were truly human, existed in Paleolithic times before a Neolithic Adam.

---

Of course Cain and Abel only date Adam as Neolithic if Genesis 4 is immediately historically continuous with Genesis 2 and 3. We will show, however, that Genesis 4 is not immediately historically continuous. Nevertheless, if Genesis 2 and 3 are taken literally (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15, 19, 20; 3:2, 23) Adam is still a domesticatur of plants and animals: he still must he dated in Neolithic times.

True Men Existed Before Neolithic Times Christian anthropologists are in agreement that men, who were truly human, existed in Paleolithic times before a Neolithic Adam.5  It is quite difficult to refer to a ceature as just an animal when he buries his dead on laboriously collected mounds of flowers.⁶ In addition to the existence of fully human men in Upper Paleolithic times, there are true men in today's world who descended from Paleolithic ancestors. Their physical and cultural descent has not been interrupted. There is no place in their historical descent to insert a Neolithic Adam as their Father.

Men were in America, for example, 10,000 years before the times of a Neolithic Adam. There is no marked hiatus or discontinuity in racial type or cultural sequences in the Americas such as would exist if the Americas had been repopulated between 20,000 B.C. and the present.

Similarly, there is in the Shanidar Valley "an almost continuous sequence of human history dating from the times of the Neanderthals."⁷ Thus, Buswell writes:

I believe that Adam has to antedate the Neander thals. This seems warranted by the continuity at Shanidar as well as she American entrance date.⁸

Jan Lever adds that the Australian natives go hack to Neanderthal or even Pithecanthropus in features, and tribes like the African Bushmen and the Eskimos have probably lived very much longer in their present isolated biotype than 10,000 years.⁹


All over the world anthropologists find living men who have descended directly from Paleolithic ancestors, not from a Neolithic Adam. These men are true men. They have a culture; they have a language; they can be won to Christ. And when we look at their Paleolithic ancestors via fossils and associated artifacts, we find reason to believe that they were true men also.¹⁰ So, uninterrupted descent of various lines of true men from Paleolithic times to the present prevents us from saying that all true men descended from a Neolithic Adam.¹¹

The Solution

We propose that this Adam-anthropology dilemma may be resolved if we recognize that:

1) Genesis 2 and 3 are not literal history; the Neolithic culture there is figurative and cannot date Adam.
2) Genesis 4 is not historically immediately continuous after Genesis 3; its Neolithic culture is irrelevant for dating Adam.
3) Adam is a symbol for the actual first man.

We see Genesis 2 and 3 as purely symbolic and figurative. In the words of Albertus Pieters,

The purely symbolical view ... looks upon the story as a whole, and accepts she underlying teaching as historical, but does not accept the form of portrayal as setting forth precisely what occurred. Most of the details are then considered to be pictorial and imaginary. It is then believed that there were, in all probabilty, no actual serpent, aprons, fruit, conversation, etc. as here recorded, but that something supremely important did really happen, which is here set forth in symbolical form.¹²

We see Genesis 2 and 3 as figurative because standard hermeneutics interprets any passage as figurative that (1) is not a literal account of a miracle, but (2) is contrary to scientific evidence. (Cf. Jeremiah 48:11, 12; Ezekial 1:4-14; Daniel 7:7, 8; Zechanab 6:1; et al.) That is, a passage must he taken

---

Proposed resolution of the Adam-anthropology dilemma: 

(1) Genesis 2 and 3 not literal history, (2) Genesis 4 not historically immediately continuous after Genesis 3, (3) Adam a symbol for the actual first man.
figuratively if there is no legitimate way to take it literally.

---

First, Genesis 2 and 3 are not a literal account of a miracle. At the points where supernaturalism enters the narrative (2:7, 5, 15, 19, 21, 22; 3:8, 21, 24), the language is anthropomorphic. Literal interpretation would reduce the Creator to a creature with hands, lungs, and legs. As for the talking serpent, there is no more reason to accept this literally than to accept the talking fish and animals of Revelation 5:13 literally.

Second, if Genesis 2 and 3 are taken literally, the first man must have lived in Neolithic times. This is contrary to the scientific evidence of anthropology. We must conclude that since there is no legitimate way to take Genesis 2 and 3 literally; it must be interpreted figuratively.¹³ We also see Genesis 2 and 3 as figurative because other passages that look at first like literal history are found to he figurative upon further investigation. The prima facie impression of literal history is given up when investigation shows that the true genre of the passage is figurative. (Cf. Genesis 1; Ezekial 4; Zechanab 2:1-5; Matthew 4:8; Luke 16:19-31; Revelation 21:10-27)

Investigation shows that the true genre of Genesis 2 and 3 is figurative. Its beautiful garden, magical trees, and river are found again in the figurative account of Revelation 22:1-3. Its creation of man from a clay figure and of woman from a rib cry out for figurative interpretation. Its name for the first man, "Mr. Man", also suggests a figurative account. Its cherubim, lion-eagle-man creatures, must be taken figuratively. 14 As for its literally historical rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, they' no more prove that Genesis 2 and 3 are literal history than the literally historical Arahab and Dead Sea of Ezekial 47:8 prove that the narrative in Ezekial 47 should be interpreted literally.

Standard hermeneutics forces us to give up the naive literal interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3. Genesis 2 and 3 are purely symbolic. The underlying history really happened; but the form in which that history is portrayed is purely imaginary. Genesis 2 and 3 tell us that God made the first man and this man sinned.15 The Adam of these chapters (and 5:2) is symbolic for the first man whoever, whenever, and wherever he was. The Bible gives us theological revelation. It is up to anthropology to supply the literal historical details.¹⁶

The Relation of Genesis 4 to Genesis 2 and 3

The "parabolic" or purely symbolic genre of Genesis 2 and 3 is in contrast to the rather straight-forward historical genre of Genesis 4. This contrast gives us reason to separate the narrative in Genesis 2 and 3 from Genesis 4. But the narrative in Genesis 4 seems immediately to follow the Adam and Eve of Genesis 2 and 3. 

If Genesis 4 is Neolithic, isn't the Adam of Genesis 3 Neolithic?

---

The interpretation of Genesis 2-4 as consecutive literal history is a prejudice of our times.

Isn't the Adam of Genesis 3 found in Genesis 4 as the father of the Neolithic Cain, Abel, and Seth? Our proposed solution gives a "yes and no" answer to this question. We propose that the "Adam" of Genesis 4 and 5:3 is the Adam of Genesis 3 and 5:2 in name only. The Adam of Genesis 3 and 5:2 is the forefather of the Neolithic "Adam" who actually fathered Cain, Abel, and Seth. The Neolithic "Adam" of Genesis 4 and 5:3 is so unimportant in comparison to his forefather, the first man, that he is called by the name of his illustrious forefather.

This sort of slighting of the actual father is not unusual in Hebrew historiography. "Sons of Asaph" live about 500 years after the death of the famous Asaph (Ezra 3:10). Shem is "the father of all the children of Eber" (Genesis 10:21). Moab is "the father of the Moahites unto this day" (Genesis 19:7), Josiah (c. 600 B.C.) walked in all the ways of David his father (c. 1000 B.C.) (II Kings 22:2). Illustrious forefathers are often credited with the paternity of lesser descendants who are the actual fathers.

There is of course some difference between the cases just cited and the parts of Genesis 4 which speak of Adam knowing his wife and Eve naming her son Seth. But such language is only consistent; it is just the giving of a few details. Even this detailed historiography is not unique in the Bible. In Exodus 6:20 (Cf. Numbers 26:59) where "Amram took Jochebed his father's sister to wife and she bare him Aaron and Moses", there is good reason to believe that Amram and Jochebed are really Moses' distant ancestors. 17 This is a very close historiographical parallel to the knowing and naming of Genesis 4.¹⁸

Judging by Hebrew historiography Genesis 4 can be separated in time from Genesis 3. The difference in genre between the two chapters suggests that they should be separated. And, there is another reason to separate them: Genesis 4:14, 15, and 25 indicate that a number of people lived outside of Cain and Abel's immediate family. It seems very natural to take these people as descendants of a Paleolithic Adam, but not of the Neolithic "Adam". From these people (to answer an old question) Cain got his wife. (Genesis 4:17)

Finally, it is not impossible for a symbolic account (Genesis 3) to blend into a more literal, historical account (Genesis 4). At the end of the Bible, where John is shown "the things which must shortly come to pass" (literal history), the things shown are symbolic (Revelation 1:1; 4: 1ff). Biblical history both begins and ends with a symbolic garden (Genesis 2:8-17; Revelation 22:1-5).

Conclusion

It seems that the interpretation of Genesis 2-4 as consecutive literal history is a prejudice of our times,
a reading of our ideal historiography into the Hebraic historiography of the Bible. We have to give up our prejudice and accept the Bible as it is. We cannot insist that revelation from the true God would surely use the historiography of our times and culture! As for Adam, the first man, let us accept the narrative for what it is: a purely symbolic history bearing theological truth. In this way we appropriate the message of Genesis 2 and 3 without negating the truth found in anthropology.

REFERENCES

¹See "The Age of Man", Journal ASA, March, 1966; and the letter of Dr. Custanee, Journal ASA, September, 1968.
²James 0. Buswell III, "Adam and Neolithic Mao", Eternity, February, 1967, p.29
³T. C. Mitchell, "Archaeology and Genesis I-XI", Faith and Thought, Summer, 1959, p. 42
⁴Buswell, op. cit., p. 48
⁵James Murk, "Evidence for a Late Pleistocene Creation of Mao", Journal ASA, June, 1965; Smalley and Fetzer, "A Christian View of Anthropology", Modern Science and Christian Faith, rev, ad., 1950
⁶"Neandcrthal Burial", Collier's Year Book, 1969, p.'08
⁷Ralph S. Solecki, "Prehistory in Shanidar Valley, Northern Iraq", Science, January 18, 1963, p. 179
⁸Buswell, op. cit., p.50
⁹Jan Lever, Creation and Evolution (Amsterdam: Free University), p.171
¹⁰Murk, op. cit.; Smalley and Fetzer, op. cit.
¹¹Both our problem and solution are dependent upon the essential correctness of modern anthropology-which some would write off in order to protect a theological tradition. But, anthropology, like any other science, has a Biblical basis. It is commissioned by God (Genesis 1:28). It is undertaken in a world of essential uniformity (Genesis 1:14,28). It is not a delusion of sinful minds, but a product of men in God's image functioning by common grace (Genesis 9:6; Matthew 16:3). There is no reason to write off modern anthropology in order to protect orthodoxy: the loss of a traditionally literal Adam and Eve is theologically of no importance whatsoever, so long as the fall of man is retained.
¹²Albertus Pieters, Notes on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), p.95
¹³1t once was traditional to interpret the parts of the Bible literally that said the earth did not move, but the sun did. The trained scientist, however, said the earth moved around a stationary sun. The theologian looked and looked but could not see the earth move; he could see the sun move. So, he clung for awhile to traditional interpretation. When the scientific facts became widely known, the theologian took those same parts of the Bible figuratively. Today it is traditional in Evangelical circles to take Genesis 2 and 3 literally. But the trained anthropologist says a Neolithic first man is impossible. The theologian looks and looks, but all he sees in anthropology is a "box of bones". When the scientific facts of anthropology become common knowledge, however, Evangelicals will, no doubt, take Genesis 2 and 3 figuratively.
¹⁴c. f. Bernard Ramm, "Science vs Theology-the Battle Isn't Over Yet", Eternity, October, 1965; Pieters, op cit.
¹⁵Fnr a fuller discussion of the theological content of Genesis 2 and 3 see Helmut Thielieke, How the World Began (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961)
¹⁶Exeept for the fact that Adam was the first sinner, the New Testament writers never depend upon the literal historicity of Genesis 2 and 3. As with Jesus' parables, the moral points made are valid regardless of the literal historicity of the story.
¹⁷Keil and Delitzseh, Biblical Commentary an the Old Testa ment, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), p.420
¹⁸Similarly in Genesis 46:18 we see that the great grandsons of Zilpab are included among "these she bare unto Jacob." Also in Isaiah 51:2 we read that Israel should look back over 1200 years to "Abraham your father and to Sarah who bare you."

Related reading:  Answers to Students' Questions About Adam and Eve; Are Adam and Eve Real or Meta-Historical?; Rolland D. McCune's Reaction and Rebuttal of Sheely; Someone Explain What Paul Sheely is Talking About