The Fall, mixing of tongues, tower of babel, creation

The early stages of mankind

The first 11 chapters of the Bible are real history. This includes creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the confusion of languages. Read here

This article discusses the early history of mankind in the light of the Bible. It talks about e.g. about creation, the special position of man, the fall into sin, the flood and the confusing of languages, which are essential parts of the early stages of humanity. They are a part of the early history of mankind, and there is information about them in other sources as well.

For many, just the previous things are problematic. They think they can't be true. That is why they reject all kinds of talk about spiritual things and God. They don't accept them because they believe in Darwin's theory and millions of years.

Next, we will explore this area. It can already be stated in advance that many evidences fit better with the picture that the Bible presents than with what is commonly believed. It is very reasonable to trust the teaching of the Bible in these matters as well. There is enough evidence to draw the right conclusions about the beginning of the world and mankind.

1. Creation

2. According to their kind

3. The special status of man

4. The Fall

5. The Flood

6. The faculty of speech, confusion of language, the tower of Babel

1. CREATION

- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- (Rom 1:19-22) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

- (Acts 17:22-27) Then Paul stood in the middle of Mars’ hill, and said, You men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore you ignorantly worship, him declare I to you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

When we start from Genesis, it assumes that God created everything: the heavens and the earth and the animals and plants in them. First people and the visible universe were not born by themselves but from the hand of God. Otherwise these things would not exist according to the Bible.

What kind of evidence can we find for creation? What are they like and how convincing are they, or is it just a theoretical option? This is what we are going to examine next.

Something exists. Firstly, the fact that something exists points to creation. If we nullify the Creation mentioned in Genesis, then nothing should exist; neither the inanimate nor the living world. There should be no stars, moon, sun that warms, mountains, seas, water, humans, lions, giraffes, elephants, mosquitoes, birds, butterflies, worms, fish, trees, flowers, carrots, apples, strawberries, oranges and nothing else. Nothing could exist if Creation never happened.

However, the problem is that something exists and the previous things also exist. It's so big, but also an everyday thing, that we often don't even think about it. Such simple facts before us should wake us up from our slumber. They should not be taken for granted:

The first thing that each of us realizes before we even begin to think is that something exists. In other words, all worldviews assume that something exists instead of that nothing exists. This assumption is so basic in its rudimentary nature that many of us are not even aware of it. We consider it too self-evident to even mention it. Of course there is something! Indeed it is. And that's it! If we don't realize this, we won't get anywhere. However, this fact may be extremely significant, like many simple "facts" that are right in front of our noses. (1)

Nothing can be born by itself. When something exists, it is good to note next that the current universe and life must have had a beginning. They cannot have given birth to themselves. There must have been a moment when the Sun started to shine on Earth and life started because they have not always existed. Otherwise, for example, the Sun’s energy store would have been depleted a long time ago; and the Earth’s temperature would be minus-273 degrees Celsius, which is impossible for life. The only possibility is that the Sun, life and the universe had their initial moment somewhere in the past – this clearly points to Creation:

"If someone wants to conclude from the existence of the cosmos that it must have some initial cause, his reasoning is not in any way inconsistent with our scientific knowledge. No scientist has at his disposal a single piece of evidence or fact of any kind to counter such a conclusion. This is true even in the case that the root cause would have to be sought outside of our three-dimensional world." (Quantum mechanics pioneer and physics Nobel laureate Werner Heisenburg, 1901-1976) (2)

It is, of course, true that many scientists do not believe in the creation of the universe, the earth, and life on it, as described in Genesis. They do, without exception, admit that the universe and life have a beginning, but they think that everything came into being without God's involvement in the matter. They have explained how only natural causes and chance have created the current universe and life. There is no place for God in this materialistic worldview.

But what do the facts point to? If it is so simple for everything to born by itself, then where is the evidence for the spontaneous birth of life? Isn’t it a fact, as every knowledgeable scientist knows, that the problem of the origin of life has not been solved? People have tried to clarify the matter in laboratories, but they have failed completely. There is still a deep gap between living and non-living matter and no progress has been made in the last hundred years.

The conclusion is that it is extremely reasonable to believe in the Creation as described in the beginning of the Bible. It is much more sensible to believe in it than believing that everything was born by itself, because it is more logical that everything has its maker. Or if self-birth is scientific, supporting evidence should be brought out. Otherwise everything is just talk and empty words. It is not a question of science but of blind belief in a matter that cannot be properly proven. It is of course true that creation cannot be proven either, because past conditions cannot be restored, but at least it is more reasonable to believe in it. It makes more sense, because it is the only possible alternative alongside spontaneous self-birth, and evidence for the latter has not yet been brought forward.

Paul Davies: When I began to write this book, I was convinced that science had almost solved the mystery of the birth of life. (…) I have spent one or two years studying this area and now I think that there is an enormous gap in our knowledge. We have, of course, a good idea of the time and place of the birth of life but there is still a long way to go to understanding the series of events. This gap in our understanding is not mere ignorance about some technical details but it is a notable conceptual defect. (…) Many researchers are careful to say publicly that the birth of life is a mystery, although behind closed doors they openly admit to being confused.

… (3)

Andy Knoll, professor of biology at Harvard University: In trying to bring together what we know about the deep history of life on planet Earth, the origins of life, and the stages of its formation that led to the biology that appears around us, we have to admit that it is shrouded in obscurity. We do not know how life began on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, and we don't know under what circumstances. (4)

2. ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND

- (Gen 1:25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps on the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Another thing that can be noticed in Genesis is that God made different animals and plants according to their kind. In other words, if God made these plants and animals, then the theory of evolution made famous by Darwin cannot be true. One or the other of these alternatives is wrong.

So what about the evidence? Do they refer to Darwin's theory that life began with a simple cell and then evolved into increasingly complex forms, or do they suggest that the basic species were ready from the beginning?

The answer is that evidence in favor of Darwin's theory is as difficult to find as evidence of the emergence of life by itself. All the examples used to support the evolution of species -- the finches of Darwin, peppered moths, resistant bacteria – show variation only within their species. It is not a question of the birth of a completely new species. Such minor discernible variation cannot be used as a justification for macroevolution or the changing of species into other species. There is still no evidence backing this theory up even though there are researchers who are unwilling to accept this fact.

It is good to note that even Darwin did not bring up any examples of the birth of a new species in his book "On the Origin of Species", even though the book is known by that name. He was not able to do that, but showed good examples of ordinary variation, e.g. in birds, just as in humans, there can be enormous differences in appearance, size, and skull shape. Examples of the so-called in evolution are always limited to this area. Encyclopedia Britannica states:

It must be emphasized that Darwin never claimed to have been able to prove evolution or the origin of species. He claimed that if evolution has taken place, many inexplicable facts can be explained. The evidence supporting evolution is thus indirect.

Let’s look at a few quotes that clearly show how it is reasonable to believe that the basic types were ready right from the beginning as the book of Genesis shows. Because intermediate forms are not found in the fossil record or in the current fauna, and hundred years of mutation experiments with bacteria and banana flies have not yielded any results, then there is no other alternative than the one shown in the Bible. The basic groups have been ready from the beginning. This is incredibly difficult for many evolutionists to admit, but if the evidence points otherwise, it should be brought out for all to see (intermediate forms and, of course, evidence for the origin of life by itself). It's that simple.

The conclusion is that it is very reasonable to believe that the different basic species were separate from the beginning as the book of Genesis shows. Plants and animals were made as their own kinds, and they did not evolve gradually, as presented in the theory of Darwin:

British bacteriologist Alan Linton: Science makers reject theories, which have been proven to be untrue. Based on this, Elredge claims that science has not been able to cancel the evolution theory in 150 years and that is why the evolution theory has won. In other words, the evolution theory is based on the idea that science has not proven the theory false. He believes that the evolution theory can be scientifically tested.

But where is the experimental evidence? In scientific literature, there is no evidence that one species would have evolved from another species. The bacteria are the simplest examples of independent life and they fit ideally well to this kind of study. The age of one generation is 20–30 minutes. A population can be achieved in 18 hours. However, the history of bacteriology of 150 years does not offer any evidence that one bacteria species would have changed into another in spite of the population having been exposed to powerful chemical and physical mutative genes and that only the bacteria have outside DNA molecules of the chromosomes (plasmids) which can move from a bacterium family to another. Because there is no evidence of species changes in the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence of evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, not to mention species changes between higher multicellular organisms. (5)

Palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould: The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...)

(...) The history of most fossil species includes two features, which are incompatible with the gradual evolution view: (1) Permanence. Most species do not have any change in any particular direction in their lifetime on earth. They appear in fossil material looking like they do when disappearing from there. The morphological changes are generally restricted and without a certain direction. (2) Sudden appearance. In each geographical area, the species do not originate gradually as a result of constant changes in its ancestors. They appear suddenly and 'fully formed''. (6)

Niles Eldredge: We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not.

(...) It looks like each new generation produces a few young palaeontologists that are enthusiastic in documenting examples of evolutionary changes in fossils. They have, naturally, always searched for changes, which are by nature gradual and developing. Usually, their efforts have been to no avail – their fossils have not revealed the expected model but they have remained almost unchanged. (...) This peculiar constancy appeared to the paleontologist looking for evolutionary change as if no evolution had occurred. Thus, examinations, which document conservative permanence instead of gradual evolutional change were regarded unsuccessful and were usually not even published. Most palaeontologists were conscious of the permanence and the lack of change, which we call stasis. (7)

3. The special STATUS of man. Thirdly, attention can be drawn to the special status of man among the rest of creation. Man is not on the same level as animals, and he is not descended from some monkey-like creatures as has been taught in evolutionary theory. Such mentions of the origin of man do not appear in old arrowhead inscriptions, other texts and human traditions. Instead, they mention several times the creation of man, the Fall, the Flood, even the confusion of languages that the book of Genesis tells us about. These stories are closer to the scriptures of the Bible, although there are some differences.

How, then, does man's special status manifest itself and how does he differ from the rest of creation? It manifests itself in the following ways, among others:

The first thing to mention is that we were created in the image of God. We are in some way like God so that we

• we are personal because God is a person.

• we have the ability to position ourselves outside of ourselves

• we have a self-consciousness and intellect that is above animals

• we have creativity, that is, the ability to plan and do complex things

• we have morality, that is, the ability to understand right and wrong. Thus, the image of God is clearly still visible in man, even if it is distorted from a moral point of view in the Fall. We inherited this likeness of God when we were created:

- (Gen 5:1,2) This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

In modern times, the difference between man and animals is manifested in the fact that man builds, flies airplanes and rockets, writes, practices agriculture, speaks and uses several technical solutions. If the origin of man did not differ from other animals or if we got our beginning from some primordial cell or even from a space the size of a pinhead in the Big Bang, the above-mentioned things would certainly not be possible. It would be difficult to explain them by coincidence alone. What is more likely is – as taught by the Bible – that people have a special status in the eyes of God, separate from animals.

Man's special position in Genesis is also evident in the fact that he gave names to other animals, which also happens today. Animals and man were already involved in the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.) and man named all the animals. This is the correct historical order of events and is an indication of man's difference from the rest of creation and animals. It is a question of a difference that existed from the beginning, from creation:

- (Gen 2:19) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatever Adam called every living creature that was the name thereof.

- (James 3:7,8) For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and has been tamed of mankind:

8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

4. THE FALL. Genesis, its third chapter, mentions the Fall, which many rationalists want to deny.

It is worth noting, however, that in the world there are illnesses, suffering, death and evil, which are consequences of this event. The world is not the kind of paradise that many hope for, but it is a very imperfect and wrong world as Genesis shows. For when man originally lived in wonderful harmony together with animals, the situation changed when the Fall took place. Man's reason darkened, his will bent to evil, and he lost the peace of his conscience. God's image in man was also corrupted, and sin and death entered the world. It is difficult to deny that the world is in the condition described in the Bible:

- (Rom 5:12) Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned

It is noteworthy that many peoples have similar accounts of the past golden age, when everything went well. It shows that the story of paradise is not characteristic only of Christianity and Judaism, but also manifests itself in other religions and cultures. It is a question of the common stories of mankind, because they are found in different parts of the world.

The tradition of the Karen people living in Burma also tells about the fall into sin. It is very similar to the Bible account. One of their songs mentions how Y'wa, or the true God, first created the world (creation), then showed the "test fruit", but Mu-kaw-lee deceived two people. This made people vulnerable to disease, aging and death. The description does not differ much from the story in the Book of Genesis:

In the beginning Y'wa gave form to the world. He indicated food and drink. He indicated "the test fruit". He gave accurate commands. Mu-kaw-lee betrayed two persons. He got them to eat the test fruit. They disobeyed; did not believe Y'wa... When they ate the test fruit, they faced illnesses, ageing, and death. (8)

The Fall is therefore a reality in the world. It manifests itself in evil, suffering, selfishness and death, which are its consequences. Likewise, the need for police and armed forces in society proves the Fall to be true. They are needed because human goodness is not trusted. It's not just about upbringing and circumstances, but about original sin that lives in us. The practical evidence is too great to deny the Fall:

- “Professor Joad was an intelligent and quick-witted opponent of the gospel,” the pastor interrupted him. “I remember, as I was in England, how a vicar preached about the subject, ‘God, the devil and Professor C.E.M. Joad’.”

Everyone burst into laughter.

Michael continued his speech:

- Professor Joad was of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with human nature that would not be cured by a higher civilization, better opportunities and a better environment.

Then came war. When Joad contemplated misery of the pain and destruction, he came to the conclusion that the events of that moment and also of history are a long account of man’s inhumanity towards other people. He came to notice that theologians had one common viewpoint, which the philosophers did not emphasize, namely that in human nature there is some fault, and that fault could be called original sin. From these starting points, Joad progressed from sin to the need for salvation and from the Savior to God, who sent Him to atone for the sins of men. Joad experienced an intellectual conversion to Christianity and became a member of the Anglican Church. "A higher level of education, better opportunities and a better living environment," he finally said, "have not yet brought about a better society, as evidenced by the growing crime statistics of welfare countries." (9)

5. THE FLOOD. One notable event recorded in Genesis is the flood. It requires that it is a historical event, not just a mere story as many rationalists think. In addition, Jesus spoke about the flood and the days of Noah. He took it for granted that they were true and historical events. If they had not been, He must have been mistaken in His words:

- (Matt 24:37-39) But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

What about the evidence? Has there been a global Flood and are there any evidence in favour of it, or is it just a narrative?

The answer is that there are thousands of pieces of evidence if we only want to search for them. They appear both in the traditional knowledge of people and in nature. Among them, the following points can be raised:

About 500 Flood accounts have been found around the world, which points to its historicity and how peoples have had information about it. Many of these stories have of course been changed over time, but they all have in common the fact that water was the cause of the devastation. There are no known similar stories about the Ice Age, for example. In addition, the same folktales tell about the creation of man, the Fall, and the confusion of the language, so there is reason to believe that they are historical events and part of the early history of mankind:

If the world-wide Flood was not real, some nations would have explained that frightening volcanic eruptions, large snow storms, droughts (...) have destroyed their evil ancestors. The universality of the story of the Flood is therefore one of the best pieces of evidence of its truthfulness. We could dismiss any of these individual legends and think it was only imagination, but together, from a global perspective, they are almost indisputable. (A book called The Earth)

Almost all nations have a consistent story about the Flood. In this respect it is very miraculous how nations in opposite parts of the world are able to tell so precisely of a large flood that covered all mountains, a large ship that saved eight or four persons, and even be consistent in many details. So the Europeans met a Native American tribe in North America that considers the wild pigeon a sacred bird and does not kill it; and when they were asked the reason for this, they explained that this bird brought to their father a willow tree leaf to a large ship. The shape, size and color of a willow tree leaf looks very much like an olive tree leaf. Doesn't this clearly prove the same ancient story of Noah and his sons? (10)

Marine remains in now dry areas – often thousands of kilometers from the sea – are evidence that water covered these areas. They are found on all six continents and in all high mountain ranges (Himalayas, Andes, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Ural, Altai…), so it is a clear indication of the Flood. The following couple of descriptions from secular geologists' books are proof of this. There are many similar examples in scientists' books, but they have not been able or wanted to connect them to the Flood because of their worldview (such a person should ask himself what is sufficient evidence that would make him change his view about the issue. If the remains of the sea on all high mountains is not it, then what is?):

Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Fragile sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…)

At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips of limestone are found, which arose under water from the remains of countless marine animals. (Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta, p. 55)

There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain - if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They are often badly damaged but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237, Pentti Eskola, Muuttuva maa)

6. THE ABILITY OF MAN TO SPEAK, THE confusiON OF THE LANGUAGES AND THE TOWER OF BABEL. One distinguishing factor between humans and animals is language and speech. When animals do not have the ability to speak and the related language, it occurs in humans. When the tribes of the world have been studied, it has been observed that there is not a single tribe that does not have thousands of words in its vocabulary and its own complex system for using words, i.e. grammar. Not a single exception is known. Even the language use of all "primitive" peoples is of a very high level, often even higher than that of many present-day "civilized peoples". Therefore, there is reason to believe that language and the ability to speak were originally ready in man and are not the result of evolution as required in Darwin's theory of development. It fits with the description in the Bible, which mentions that man had these qualities from the beginning. At the same time, such things as construction of buildings and cities, the use of metals, ceramics and agriculture also appeared in the world. They are not millions or hundreds of thousands of years old, but are relatively "recent" things, only a few millennia away.

Some evolutionary researchers have come to the same conclusion - that the human ability to speak has been ready from the beginning - based on skull 1470. That's because it contains evidence of Broca's area, the part of the brain associated with human speech. The skull has been assumed to belong to one of the early human ancestors:

Two of the foremost experts on the evolution of the human brain in the United States — Dean Falk (New York State University, Albany) and Ralph Holloway (Columbia University) — generally disagree on issues, but even they agree that the Broca region is noticeable in the skull from East Turkana, known as the number 1470. Philip Tobias... A well-known South African brain expert, agrees. In other words, if the brain required for the ability to speak is essential, then apparently a person has had it from the beginning. (11)

The confusion of the languages and the tower of Babel

- (Gen 11:1,4, 6-9) And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach to heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad on the face of the whole earth.

6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language that they may not understand one another’s speech.

8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from there on the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from there did the LORD scatter them abroad on the face of all the earth.

When Genesis brings up the human ability to speak, it also mentions the confusion of languages and the Tower of Babel in its 11th chapter. Many scientists consider these things to be just stories, but in fact there are good reasons to believe in their historicity.

One reason is, of course, that there are countless languages in the world, as can be assumed based on the book of Genesis. There is not just one language or a few, but even thousands that match the description in the Bible. It is of course possible that not all current languages are a direct result of the confusion of languages. Some of the languages may have been one and the same language, but when people have dispersed from each other, they may have become so different that today they are considered different languages. There are many such related languages. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that many languages are very different from each other and have almost nothing in common.

The diversity of languages was also referred to by Paul when he spoke about gifts of grace almost 2,000 years ago:

- (1 Cor 14:10,11) There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaks a barbarian, and he that speaks shall be a barbarian to me.

An interesting analogy to the confusion of language can be found in the events on Pentecost. People spoke in many languages because they received the gift of speaking in tongues. Those present understood, what was being said in their own language.

- (Acts 2:1-13) And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared to them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat on each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What means this?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

The confusion of languages and the Tower of Babel are mentioned in many sources. Here are some examples:

• There is a preserved account of the history of Mexico (Mexican antiquity, volume 9, p. 321), in which we can find many similarities to the texts of the Bible. It describes the Flood, the increase of the people after it, the building of the tower and the confusion of languages. One significant similarity is that the mountains were under water to the depth of 15 cubits, as is mentioned in Genesis (Gen 7:20):

Frightening rains and lightning from the sky destroyed the people and also the whole country without exception, and also the highest mountains were covered by water, to the depth of fifteen cubits. After the Flood, the people multiplied on earth and built a very high zacual (tower) for protection, in case the other world would be destroyed. Shortly after this, their language was confused, and when they could not understand each other, they scattered around the earth. (12)

• One reference to the confusion of languages is the account found in Babel, which talks about the destruction of the tower and the confusion of languages in a way reminiscent of the Bible. The only major difference is that the story is told polytheistically.

What is interesting in both this and the previous story (which also appears in the Bible) is the scattering of people to different parts of the globe, because they no longer understood each other. The same movement of settlement and the increase of people has continued until these days, so that areas such as North and South America and Australia have become mainly inhabited only in the last 200-300 years. Before that, they were quite sparsely populated. It shows that man has not been on earth very long. If man had been on earth hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago, the earth would have become densely populated long ago, but that is by no means the case.

Building this temple insulted the Gods. One night they threw to the ground what had been built. They scattered people to different countries and made their speech strange. They prevented any advances in work. (13)

• While the Sumerians have been considered the first known historical people in the Middle East, they have also preserved information about the beginnings of mankind. Among them is one of their poems, which is related to the early history of mankind. It speaks of a time before the confusion of languages, when all people praised the supreme god Enlil in one language. That also fits with the description in the Bible that in the beginning “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.” (Gen 11:1):

Once upon a time there was a time when there was no snake, no scorpion, no hyena, no lion, no fear, no terror, no rival for man. Once upon a time there was a time when the lands of Suburi and Hamazi (since then) the multilingual Sumer, the great land of the divine laws of princehood, Uri, which had all that is relevant, the land of Martu, which rested in security. The whole world, all people together praised supreme Enlil in one language. (14)

- One special reference to the ancient tower of Babel can be found in the writings of Nabopolassar, who was the founder of the New-Babylonian kingdom (626–605 B.C.) and the father of the famous Nebuchadnezzar. His statement talks about the Tower of Babel and its construction:

At that time Marduk commanded me to build the tower of Babel, which had been destroyed in the old days, to lay down a firm foundation when the top of the tower reached heaven.

His son Nebuchadnezzar wrote about his effort to build a tower that competed with heaven:

I still built the tower for Etemenank so that it competed with heaven.

REFERENCES:

1. James W. Sire: Missä maailmassa? (The Universe Next Door. A Basic World View Catalog), p. 14

2. Cit. in: Hans Kung: Does God exist.

3. Paul Davies: Viides ihme, 1999, p. 14,15

4. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. may 2004, cit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne

5. Alan Linton: ”Scant Search for the Maker”, Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001

6. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

7. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” in book Godrey (edit.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution

8. Don Richardson: Iankaikkisuus heidän sydämissään (Eternity in their Hearts), p. 96.

9. J. Edwin Orr: 100 kysymystä Jumalasta (100 Questions about God), p. 59 - 60

10. Fr. Bettex: Raamatun ensimmäinen lehti, p. 5

11. ”AnthroQuest”, The Leakey Foundation News number 43 (spring) 1991): 13

12. Cit. from: "Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen?", Toivo Seljavaara, p. 6,7.

13. Joseph P. Free: Archaeology and Bible history, 12. p. 1973 – Cit. from: "Voiko Raamattuun luottaa", Uuras Saarnivaara, p. 187.

14. Armas Salonen: Sumeri ja sen henkinen perintö (Keuruu 1962), p. 138,139.)