Genesis 11:9 - The Tower of Babel - Young Earth Interpretation Supports an Old Earth (Conclusion)
I will now bring together the first three installments of this series, to make the point that when you study the Tower of Babel of from a Young Earth perspective, you should in fact conclude that an Old Earth perspective is worth consideration.
By Studying the Hebrew
In Genesis 11:9 - The Tower of Babel - Young Earth Interpretation Supports an Old Earth (Part 1), we discussed the use of eretz in Genesis 11. It would seem that the first use of eretz in Genesis 11:9 refers to the people of Shinar, and is geographically limited in scope. Even a Young Earther believes this particular usage of eretz is geographically limited to Shinar, if only because he believes that the people of Shinar were the only people in the world at the time. Given that, it should not be surprising that the word eretz, as limited by saphar in verse 1, refers specifically to the geographic population at large, bound by whatever common language that they speak. In other words, saphar limits us to Shinar; this is consistent with a Young Earth perspective, which limits us to Shinar already.
A Young Earther might see this congruence as confirmation for their view. Unfortunately, it is not. While one could reasonably argue the usage of saphar and eretz were chosen to reflect that Shinar had the only population in the world, the words themselves carry no such meaning. Even if other populations existed in the world, if they were geographically isolated from Shinar, then the Hebrew in Genesis 11 does not refer to them. But even within Shinar, should it turn out that there was a single language tying all of Shinar together, yet other language pockets existed there, then the Hebrew in Genesis 11  does not encompass them.
We are therefore left knowing for sure that Genesis 11:1-9 is referring to Shinar and not the rest of the world; it is referring to the one language that tied Shinar together, and not others. But is Shinar the only population, or one of many? Is the language they all spoke the only one, or one of many? Genesis 11:1-9 is silent on the matter.
By Studying the HistoryÂ
In Genesis 11:9 - The Tower of Babel - Young Earth Interpretation Supports an Old Earth (Part 2), we discussed the historical setting of the Tower of Babel from a Young Earth perspective. We looked at a historical analysis by Young Earther Larry Pierce, who took a reasonable approach toward history, and concluded the Tower of Babel is reflected by historical events. Broadly speaking, this Old Earther would agree.
Unfortunately, there were several misconceptions on Pierce’s part, and so he incorrectly associated the Tower with the wrong era. He got a few overarching facts and principles correct, but placed the Tower about 300 years more recent than it was. By doing so, he missed some historical facts that poke a potential hole in a Young Earther’s view of what happened back then. For example, he missed that the single language spoken of in Genesis 11:1 was Sumerian, and that Sumerian was not a Semitic language.
Given that Noah’s clans were already speaking a Semitic language when Sumerian was the language of the land, it tells us that Sumerian was dominant for the region, but not exclusive. He also missed the Sumerian tale of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which mirrors the flood and predates Pierce’s dating by 200 to 400 years. He also missed the ancient myth Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta that mirrors the Tower of Babel, and pre-dates Pierce’s dating by a similar duration.
Had pierce taken these pre-biblical myths into account, he would have come to one of three conclusions:
- The Biblical accounts were mere myths, influenced by the myths of the region of ShinarÂ
- The myths of Shinar were recording the same events as the Bible, but the Flood and the Tower were earlier than Pierce thinks.
- The myths of Shinar were recording the same events as the Bible, but the myths were recorded later than scientists think.
#1 would mean he lost his faith.
#2 would require faith in scientific dating, which he has implicitly disavowed.
#3 would require discarding radio-carbon dating, even within the 5,000 year time span when young earther’s believe it is accurate.
My own choice in my walk was eventually #2.
By Studying the ScienceÂ
In Genesis 11:9 - The Tower of Babel - Young Earth Interpretation Supports an Old Earth (Part 3), we discussed the scientific clocks that Young Earther Randy S. Berg believes point to young earth. Two in particular have the potential to correspond with history. The first was the oldest living tree, which Berg dates back to 2757BC, which he believes to be after the flood. Boy was he close on that one, off by 50 years… not bad! Of course, he’s 300 years off from Pierce’s dating, and our discussion above covers the ramifications for Pierce to agree with Berg’s timeline. It makes me wonder what Pierce would think of Berg’s oldest tree! And who would these Young Earther’s reconcile their conflicting views? Would they arrive at an Old Earth perspective, as I did?
It is interesting that Berg chose this as proof of a young earth. It is not. He uses it as proof for a worldwide catastrophe, and he is somewhat correct. I believe a meteor hit the Indian Ocean May 2, 2807 BC. However, it didn’t wipe out everything, just a great deal of it. My proof for Berg? Well, his tree is not actually the oldest tree. There are several other surviving trees that are yet older than it. This tells me that the entire world was not completely enveloped in the water, but that much was effected… exactly what the meteor theory predicts.
Berg’s other clock that I pulled out was the idea short-period comets. Because we have not witnessed any new ones, and the ones we have are no older than 10,000 years, it suggests that God created them in place when He created the universe less than 10,000 years ago. However, once again, Berg’s clock is evidence for the meteor theory of the Flood, the date of which his “tree” clock somewhat accurately predicts!
Conclusions
Without tying oneself to the church’s historical attempts at dating, which occurred before modern archaeology and other sciences took hold, the most honest tools of the Young Earth Creationist point to a time when the Flood and Tower happened. This is would be about 2750 BC, which is surprisingly close to a date that secular science can predict. When you take the Bible’s Hebrew, history, and science together, one concludes that Shinar had a localized population about 300 years after the flood, which corresponds to when secular science finds Shinar speaking Sumerian, and Noah’s clans speaking a Semitic language that eventually led to Hebrew.
The astute Young Earther, studying history, will see that the tales of floods and languages were spread to the outer regions of the Middle East, in much the same order that Pierce observed the official creation of these same nations… and it was for similar reasons (the spreading out of Shinar into the surrounding nations because God scattered them) but several hundred years earlier than Pierce thinks.
Should a Young Earther take this all into account, he would be faced with a dilemma. The recording of tales requires writing. Writing requires language. The ability to name verifiable kings in the tales (Gilgamesh and his pre-cursor for example) requires additional history to have occurred even before that. The thing is, the artifacts for all of these things exist… but with a 100 year break in their dating! And that 100 years appears to end at precisely when the flood occurred. Is that a coincidence, or is that trying to tell us something? I believe it is trying to tell us that the flood happened almost precisely when Berg thinks, but the entire world was not wiped out. However, much of what people owned and used was… about 100 years worth of stuff that hadn’t been buried by natural erosion and overbuilding was destroyed.
It tells us that Pierce’s observation of a wave of emigration leading from Shinar to Egypt, Greece, and elsewhere was real, but that it was not the original establishment of new populations, but the influence of Shinar on pre-existing populations. It explains why their myths can be dated to within acceptable time frames from a Young Earth’s perspective, and why the myths are so similar yet so different from what Moses recorded… these surviving populations were impacted, and were writing from their own perspective.
However, to accept all of this, one needs to also accept that there was pre-development leading up to this, and that the historical artifacts that we have found and dated to times 100 years and more before the flood are real. And, if they are real, then it would seem that mankind had spread out to the world some time before Noah’s clans ever arrived in Shinar. It would seem that Adam was not the only man during his lifetime, and that the earth was subdued after man was created, but before Adam was placed in the garden… but then, that’s exactly what the Bible says.
On day 6, God created man and woman, and told them to subdue the earth, and they did. Then, God created Adam and put him in the garden. If we cannot see this sequence in our scripture, then it is not because the Bible is stopping us; we are stopping ourselves. It was in part my consideration of a reasonable approach to Creationism and science that caused me to look beyond what I was being taught, to look further into these interesting congruencies between Young Earthism and secular science, and to realize the common story that neither group (the Young Earthers nor the Scientists) will tell, but has been there to find all along.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:50 am
Please see http://www.geocreationism.com/blog/2012/01/03/update-noahs-flood-started-on-april-20-2807-bc/ for a correction my flood date above.