The first 11 chapters of the Bible are real history. This includes
creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the mixing of languages. Read here
purpose of this text is to examine the early history of
mankind in light of the Bible. Many things are said about
the Creation, the special station of man, the Fall, the
Flood and the
confusing of languages,
which are all crucial events in the early development of
mankind. There is information about early mankind in other
For many people the previous events are problematic. They
think that they cannot be true, and that is why they reject
any talk about spiritual matters and God. They do not accept
these events because they believe in
Darwin’s theory of
evolution that relies on our development over millions of
We are going to examine this area next. We can state now
that many pieces of evidence fit better into the Bible’s
description of creation than people commonly believe. That
is why it is extremely reasonable to trust the announcement
of the Bible also in these matters. There is enough evidence
to draw the right conclusions about the beginning of the
world and mankind.
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,
- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth.
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,
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
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
When we start from Genesis, we can see that God created
everything: the heavens and earth and animals and plants. We
and the visible universe did not self-develop but were
created by the hand of God. Otherwise, these would not
exist, according to the Bible.
What kind of evidence can we find supporting Creation? What
is it like and how convincing is it, or is Creation just
another theory? This is what we are going to examine next.
Firstly, the fact that something exists points to Creation.
If we do not believe in the Creation described in Genesis,
then nothing should exist: no world, no life. There should
not be stars, moon, sun, mountains, seas, water, humans,
lions, giraffes, elephants, mosquitoes, birds, butterflies,
worms, fishes, trees, flowers, carrots, apples,
strawberries, oranges, or anything else. Nothing could exist
if Creation never happened.
Yet, something does exist. All those things do exist. It
is such an incredible truth, but we do not pay attention to
it. These kinds of simple facts before us should get us to
wake up from our sleep. These should not be considered
first point which each of us comprehends before he even
starts to think is that something exists. In other words,
all outlooks on life assume that something exists instead of
that nothing exists. This presumption is in its
primitiveness so elementary that many of us are not even
conscious of it. We regard it as too self-evident even to be
mentioned. Of course something exists! Indeed, so it does.
And that is just the point! If we do not realize this, we
will not get anywhere. However, this point may be extremely
significant, just as many simple "facts " that are directly
under 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; 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
someone wants to conclude from the existence of the cosmos
that it must have some principle, his reasoning is not in
any way in conflict with our scientific information. No
scientist has any kind of evidence by which such a
conclusion could be resisted. This is true also because the
principle would have to be searched for from outside of our
three-dimensional world." (Werner Heisenburg, the pioneer of
quantum mechanics and the Nobel Prize winner in physics,
is, of course, true that several scientists do not believe
that the universe, the Earth and life upon the Earth got
their beginning during the Creation as described in Genesis.
They indeed admit without exception that the universe and
life had a beginning, but they think that it arose from
itself without external influence from God. They credit
natural causes and chance for the existence of our universe
and life. In this materialistic approach, there is no place
But what conclusion can we draw from facts? If being born
out of one’s own elements is so simple, where is the
evidence for spontaneous birth? Isn’t it a fact that each
scientist who is familiar with the subject knows that the
problem of the birth of life has not been solved at all.
People have tried to examine the matter in laboratories but
have completely failed. There remains a deep division
between living and lifeless material, and there has not been
any progress in the studies in the last century.
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 birth by itself
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 the
Creation cannot be proven either, because conditions in the
past cannot be recreated. At least it is more sensible to
believe in Creation because it is the only possible
alternative to spontaneous generation. There is no evidence
for spontaneous generation.
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.
Andy Knoll, a professor at the
Harvard: “As we
try to compile a summary of what we know about the deep
history of life on Earth, the origin of life and phases of
its forming which led to the biology that can be seen around
us now, we have to admit that it is in the dark. We do not
know how life began on this planet. We do not know exactly
when it began and under what conditions.” (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
Another point to which attention should be paid in Genesis
is that God made different animals and plants according to
their kinds. In other words, if God made these plants and
animals, the evolution theory made known by
Darwin cannot be true. One
or the other of these alternatives is wrong.
So what about the evidence? Does it refer to the theory of
Darwin, according to which
life began from a simple cell and evolved towards more and
more complex forms, or does it point to the existence of
basic kinds already in the very beginning?
The answer is that evidence on behalf of
Darwin’s theory is as
difficult to find as evidence on behalf of spontaneous birth
of life. 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.
One should note that Darwin himself did not point out any
example of the birth of new species in his thesis, “The
Origin of Species,” even though the publication is known by
that name. He was not able to do that but he showed good
examples of ordinary changes in
birds, ordinary in the same
differences in the size and
form of the human skull.
Examples of so-called evolution are always restricted to
this area. Encyclopaedia Britannica says about the issue:
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 more passages which suggest that there
is a reason to believe that species appeared in their own
form, immediately, from the very beginning, just as
described in Genesis. Since intermediate forms cannot be
found from fossil material or in the current animal world,
and examination of mutations in bacteria and banana flies
over the past century have not produced any results, there
is no other alternative than the one the Bible indicates.
The basic groups have been ready from the very beginning.
This is inconceivably difficult for evolutionists to admit
but if evidence proves otherwise, it should be shown in some
concrete form such as a photo, for example, so that everyone
can see it (intermediate forms and/or evidence of the birth
of life). It is that simple.
The conclusion is that it is very justified to believe that
different species have existed, in their unique form, from
the very beginning as described in Genesis. Plants and
animals were made as their own kinds, and did not evolve
gradually, as presented in the theory of
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 bacteriologyof 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 gradually 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) Abrupt appearance. The species do not
originate gradually by means of continuous changes in
forefathers on each geographical area. They appear abruptly
and “completely formed''. (6)
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
(...) 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 been almost unchangeable. (...) This
special permanence looked to a palaeontologist who searched
for developmental change like any evolution had not taken
place. 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)
special STATUS of man.
Thirdly, attention can be paid to the special status of man
among the rest of creation. Man is not at the same level
with animals, and he has not descended from some other
animal such as the ape as has been proposed by
Darwin. Such mention of
the origin of man probably does not appear in old
cuneiforms, other texts, or the traditional knowledge of
people. Instead, these sources repeatedly mention the
creation of man, the Fall, the Flood, even the
confusion of languages
as described in Genesis, so these stories are closer to the
writings of the Bible, even though there are some
differences in them.
So, how can we see that humans are in a special position and
that humans are different from other parts of creation? This
can be seen in the following ways, for example:
Firstly, we should mention that God created us in His image.
We are somehow like God in that we:
- are unique because God is unique
- have the ability to see things from perspectives other
than our own
- are conscious of ourselves and we have superior
intelligence when compared to animals
- are creative, i.e. able to plan and do complex things
- are moral, i.e. we can differentiate between what is right
and what is wrong
image of God can still clearly be seen in people today, even
though our morals were distorted by 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
Still, the difference nowadays can be seen in that man
builds, travels by airplane and rockets, writes, practises
agriculture, speaks and uses technology. If the origin of
man does not deviate from other animals or if we got our
beginning from an initial cell or even from
an atom the size of a pinhead
in the Big Bang, these abilities 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 status is also suggested in Genesis by his
naming of other animals, an activity still occurring. Thus,
animals and man were present together at the beginning of
Creation (Mark 10:6: But
from the beginning of the creation God made them male
and female.) and man then named all the animals.
This is the right order of historical events and illustrates
how man differs from other creations and animals. It is a
difference, which existed in the beginning, since the
(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
When reading further in Genesis, we see that the third
chapter mentions the Fall, which many rationalists want to
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
such a paradise that many hope but it is very imperfect.
It is as imperfect and wrong as Genesis indicates. Man lived
originally in miraculous harmony together with animals, but
the situation changed after the Fall. Then, the sense of man
darkened, his will bent towards bad and he lost his peace of
conscience. The image of God in man was also spoiled, and
sin and death came into the world, as is described in the
Letter of Paul to the Romans. 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
is noteworthy that many nations have similar accounts of an
idyllic past gone wrong. The description of paradise is not
only characteristic of Christianity and Judaism, but also
appears in other religions and cultures. It is common
knowledge because it appears in different parts of the
Traditional stories told by the Karens who live in
describe the Fall.
Their description of the Fall is very similar to the account
in the Bible.
In one of their songs they tell that in the beginning Y'wa,
the true God, created the world, that there was "the test
fruit" and that “Mu-kaw-lee betrayed two persons.” As a
result of his betrayal people started to become ill and grow
old and death came into the world. The
Karen description does not differ much from the account in
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)
Thus, the Fall really happened. It can be seen as the time
when evil, suffering, selfishness and death were introduced.
Furthermore, the Fall can be seen as the reason that
societies need police and armies. They are needed because
people do not trust in the kindness of man. The question is
not only one of education and natural conditions, but of the
original sin, which lives in us. This is what the Bible
teaches in many places. The practical evidence of the Fall
is too significant to deny:
- “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 in human nature there is no fault that
higher civilization, better possibilities and better
environment could not improve.
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 Saviour to God, who sent Him to
reconcile the sins of the people. Joad experienced an
intellectual conversion to Christianity, and he became a
member of the Anglican Church. "Higher civilization, better
possibilities and better environment,” he finally said,
“have not even nowadays brought about a better society, as
the growing crime statistics of the welfare countries
5. THE FLOOD.
One major event described in Genesis is the Flood. It is a
question of its being a historical event and not just a mere
story, as many rationalists think. We should also note that
Jesus spoke about the Flood and about the days of Noah. He
considered self-evident that the events in question were
true and historical. Had they not been, He would have made a
mistake in his speeches:
(Matt 24:37-39) But as the
days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man
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
What about the evidence? Has there been a global Flood and
any proof it really happened or is it merely a story?
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 nature. Consider the
have been found in about 500
places in the world,
which suggests the historical nature of the Flood and number
of societies that knew about it.
Many of these stories have, naturally, changed over time,
but they all have in common the fact that water was the
cause of the devastation.
of these stories also mention an earlier good time, the fall
of man and the confusion of the language,
so there is a reason to believe that these are historical
events and represent part of the early history of mankind:
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. The Europeans in
North America found a native American
tribe that regards the wild dove as a holy bird and does not
kill it. When they were asked the reason for this, they
explained that this bird brought to their forefathers in a
large ship a leaf of a willow tree. The leaf of a willow
tree is similar to the leaf of an olive tree as comes to the
shape, size, and color. Does this not clearly prove the
ancient story of Noah and his sons?
Marine creatures and parts of them are found on dry land
– often thousands of kilometres from the sea, showing that
water once covered these areas. They can be found on all six
continents and on all high mountains (the
Rocky Mountains, Ural, Altai…),
and so they are a clear indication of the Flood. The
following descriptions found in books written by geologists
are an indication of the matter. Many other examples appear
in similar types of books but the researchers have not been
able to, or have not wanted to, connect them to the Flood
because of their outlook on life (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, what is?):
Harutaka Sakai from the
Kyushu has for many years researched
these marine fossils in the
HimalayanMountains. He and
his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic
period. Tender sea lilies, relatives to the current sea
urchins and starfishes, were found on cliffs over three
kilometers above the sea level. Ammonites, belemnites,
corals, and plankton fossils are found in the rocks of the
At an altitude of two kilometers above the sea level, the
geologists found markings the sea had made. There was a
wavelike rock surface, similar to that which is formed by
waves on sand in low water. Yellow stripes of limestone have
been found even on the
formed from innumerable remains of marine creatures under
(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. If we
were to scale the steep slopes of some mountain or peak – if
we had the energy to climb up there – we would find
fossilized remains of marine creatures. 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 are spiral twisted ammonites and many bivalves.
(…) 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 faculty of
confusiON of the languages
distinction between man and animals is man’s ability to
communicate using language and speech. Animals do not have
the faculties of speech and language but humans do. As a
matter of fact, as tribes of the world have been examined,
has been noted that every tribe has thousands of words and a
complicated system in the use of words, i.e., grammar. There
is no known exception to this rule.
The languages of even all primitive nations
have been shown to be highly developed, at a higher level
than the modern languages of "civilized” people.
Thus, there is a reason to believe that language and the
faculty of speech have existed since the birth of man; they
are not a product of evolution, as suggested by Darwin’s
theory.This matches the description in the Bible
stating that humans have had these characteristics from the
very beginning. Things like construction of buildings or
cities, use of metals, making of ceramics and development of
agriculture came into being at the same time. They did not
happen millions or hundreds of thousands of years ago but
fairly “recently”, only a couple of millennia ago.
Some evolution researchers have arrived at the same
conclusion – that man’s faculty of speech has existed from
the very beginning. They base this opinion on Skull 1470.
Inside this skull lies evidence of Broca’s Area, the part of
the brain that is associated with man’s ability to speak.
The skull is supposed to have belonged to one of the early
forefathers of man:
Two leading experts of evolution of human brain in the
United States – Dean Falk (State University of New York,
Albany) and Ralph Holloway (Columbia University) – are
generally of different opinion about issues but even they
are of the same opinion that the Area of Broca can be seen
in the skull found from East Turkana, which is known by the
number 1470. Philip Tobias (...) a well-known South African
expert of the brain, is of the same opinion. So, if the
brain required by speech is an essential matter, so
obviously man has had it from the very beginning. (11)
The confusION of the languagesand
(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
We learn in the
eleventh chapter of Genesis about man’s faculty of speech,
and about the confusion of
man’s single language,
and about the
scientists consider these events to be fictional but
actually there is a good reason to believe in their
One good reason is that there are innumerable languages in
the world, as one would expect to see based on the Genesis
account. There is not only one language or a few, but
thousands. This agrees with the Biblical account. It is
possible, of course that all modern languages did not spring
from the confusion of one language. Some languages could
have a common ancestry. When people pulled away from one
another their languages could have become so different that
nowadays they are considered different languages. There are
such languages that are “relative” to each other. This does
not, however, change the fact that many languages are very
different from each other; there is hardly anything they
have in common.
Also Paul described the existence of several languages when
speaking about charisma almost 2,000 years ago.
,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.
interesting analogy to the confusion of language can be
found in the events on Pentecost. People spoke in many
languages because they were given the gift of languages.
Those present understood what was being said, in their own
(Acts 2:1-13) And when the day of
Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a
rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they
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
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
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in
Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of
Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and
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.
Mentions of the mixing of languages and the tower of Babel
are found in many sources. Here are some examples:
In the history of
(Mexican antiquity, 9. Part, p. 321), a story has been
preserved 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
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 more reference to the confusion of the languages is a
story found from
Babel about the
destruction of the tower and confusion of the languages in
the same way as the Bible describes. The only major
difference is that the story is told polytheistically.
What is interesting both in this and the preceding story
(which appears also in the Bible) is the dispersion of
people to different parts of the globe because they no
longer understood each other. It should be noted that the
same settlement and increase of population has continued up
to these days, so that areas like North and
South America and
become mainly populated during the last 200 to 300 years.
Before that, they were rather sparsely populated. This is an
indication that man has not been on the Earth for a very
long time. If man had already been on the Earth hundreds of
thousands or millions of years ago, the globe would have
already become populated a long time ago, which is not the
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 progress of work.
The Sumerians have been regarded as the earliest civilized
nation in the
Middle East. They also told stories
about mankind’s development. One of their poems is included
below; it is connected to the early history of mankind. It
describes the time before the confusion of the language when
all people praised one supreme god Enlil in one language.
This, too, matches the biblical explanation that in the
beginning “the whole earth was
of one language, and of one speech.”(Gen
Once upon a time there were no snakes,
no hyenas, no lions,
no fear, no fright,
the man did not have any competition.
There was a time when the countries of Subur and Hamaz
Sumer, the great
land of princely divine laws,
Uri that had everything that is imaginable,
rested in security,
The whole world, all people together
praised supreme Enlil in one language. (14)
One special reference to the ancient
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 famous Nebuchadnezzar. In his statement about the
Babel and about
building it, he says:
At that time Marduk
commanded me to build the
Babel, which had
been destroyed in the old days, to lay down a firm
foundation when the top of the tower reached heaven.
son Nebuchadnezzar continued the same topic and spoke about
the tower competing with heaven:
still built the tower for Etemenank so that it competed with
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 &
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.)