The first chapters of the Bible

Grab to eternal life!

Jesus is the way,
the truth, and the life

THE FIRST CHAPTERS of the bible

The 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 sources, also.

   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 years.

   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.

   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

   7. Appendix: What about the evidence of evolution?

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, 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.

Something exists. 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:

The 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 to Creation:

"If 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, 1901–1976) (2)

It 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 for God.

   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:

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, a professor at the University of 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)

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.

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 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. 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 way as 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:

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 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. 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 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 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)

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 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)

3. The 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.

   How did the special status of man come to be, and how do we differ from other creations? First, we were created in the image of God. We are somehow similar to God. We are persons because God is a person. We have the ability to place ourselves outside of ourselves and self-consciousness; our intelligence is higher than animal intelligence; we have an ability to understand right from wrong, and we are creative – all features that we gained during the Creation. The image of God can still clearly be seen in humans, though it – from the point of view of morals – has been distorted in the Fall:

- (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.

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. No other creature functions at the same level, and could not do so, even if it were given millions of years to develop as is required in the evolution theory. This would certainly not happen. These observations prove the Bible’s message that man has a special status before God and is different 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 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.

4. THE FALL

When reading further in Genesis, we see that the 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 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

It 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 world.

   Traditional stories told by the Karens, who live in Burma, also describe the Fall. Their description of the Fall is very similar to the account in the Bible. In one of their songs, it is told that in the beginning Y'wa, the true God, created the world, and indicated "the test fruit," and mentions, that “Mu-kaw-lee betrayed two persons.” This is how people started to become ill and grow old, and how death came into the world. The description does not differ much from the account in 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)

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,” 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.

   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 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 indicate.” (9)

5. THE FLOOD

One noticeable event, about which Genesis tells, 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 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 the Flood and do any points prove it, or is it a mere 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. The following points can be pointed out:

Flood stories have been found in at least 140 to 150 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. Many 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:

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. 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? (10)

Marine creatures and parts of them found on dry land – often thousands of kilometres from the sea – are an indication that water has covered these areas. They can be found on all six continents and on all high mountains (the Himalayas, Andies, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Ural, Altai…), and so they are a clear indication of the Flood. The following descriptions from books written by geologists are an indication of the matter. Many similar examples appear in similar type 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 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. 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 mountains. (…)

   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 peak of Mount Everest, formed from innumerable remains of marine creatures under water. (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 speech, confusing of the languages and the tower of Babel

One distinction between man and animals is language and speech. Animals do not have the faculty of speech and language but humans do. As a matter of fact, as tribes of the world have been examined, it 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. Even the languages of all primitive nations have been found to be highly developed, even at a higher level than languages of modern "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.

   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, which 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)

As to man’s speech and language, they also have existed since the very beginning, just as described in the first chapters of the first book in the Bible. This complies with historical research, according to which simultaneously became apparent in the world such occurrences as construction of buildings and cities, use of metals, ceramics, farming and, of course, the ability to write. These things did not occur millions of years ago but instead are quite recent developments, only a couple of thousands of years old.

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.

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 tower of Babel. Many scientists consider these events to be fictional but actually there is a good reason to believe in their historic accuracy.

   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, which 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, which 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.

- (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.

Next we will examine historical references to the confusion of languages and the tower of Babel. They are mentioned in the following sources, among others:

- In the history of Mexico (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 also 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 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 the people to the 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 Australia have 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 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 progress of work. (13)

- The Sumerians have been regarded as the earliest civilized nation in the Middle East. They have also preserved information about the early stages of mankind. One of them is their poem below, which 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, fits the Biblical version, that in the beginning “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.” (Gen 11:1):

Once upon a time there were no snakes,

no scorpions,

no hyenas, no lions,

no fear, no fright,

the man did not have any competition.

Once upon a time there was a time when the countries of Subur and Hamaz

(later) multilingual Sumer, the great land of princely divine laws,

Uri that had everything that is imaginable,

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 famous Nebuchadnezzar. In his statement about the tower of Babel and about building it, he says:

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 continued the same topic and spoke about the tower competing with heaven:

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

7. AN Appendix: What about the evidence of evolution?

Previously, we examined information that in some way supports the factual nature of Genesis stories. There are many facts that prove Genesis stories can be trusted, they are factual, and they reflect an accurate history of the birth of mankind.

   As it comes to the thought that God has created all, it is good to understand that it is based on belief, in which the origin of life and all is God. It is based on that God is believed to have created the universe, the globe and life in a short period of time and that it is not a question of any coincidence, but all has originally been created by Him. At least in Hebrews this teaching appears well when Paul direct admits the impact of faith in understanding issues. He says that only by faith can we understand how everything was created out of nothing:

- (Hebr 11:3) “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

But it is good to note that evolutionism and creationism are similarly based on belief. Many evolutionists do not want to admit it, but this is the case. Their belief system leads them to make certain assumptions and to believe in a coincidence, and to believe that everything can be explained without God. People believe in it in the same way as others believe in the Creation, even though it cannot be proven. Evolution is not science; it is a religion:

I answered him, “The reason why the scientific theories change is that we do not know everything, is it not so? We have no evidence.”

   “Yes, just right,” he said.

   I answered, “But we will never know everything”

   “This is true,” he answered.

   I said then, “We also find new evidence all the time.”

   “Quite right,” he said.

   I answered, “This means that we cannot be sure of anything.”

   “Just right,” he said.

   “This means that we cannot be sure of evolution either.”

   “No! Evolution is a fact,” he put in.

   His logics crumbled and he only showed how his own viewpoints arose from his biases.

   The scientific models of both creationists and evolutionists can change. However, the beliefs based on which these models have been built will not change. The problem is that most scientists do not understand how the evolution belief (or religion) is the basis of scientific models (interpretation ways or stories) – models by which people try to explain the present time. The evolutionists are not ready to change their proper belief, according to which all life can be explained by a natural series of events without God’s share (or necessity). Evolution is a religion to which they have engaged. The Christians must understand this. Evolution is a religion; it is not science! (15)

One reason why the evolution theory and Creation cannot be proven is that the past conditions cannot be recreated and we cannot visit the past. We have in use only the present time and the evidence in it, such as the fossils, animals and plants. But knowing the events of the past perfectly is impossible because nobody has been there to see the supposed Genesis and evolution of life. The methods of science concerning the past are so limited that the former conditions and events cannot be repeated. The evidence, which is in the present, is and remains the same, and finally it is only a question of belief and a belief system (we believe either in a supernatural God or in haphazard birth and evolution), not of science because these issues cannot be proven scientifically in a laboratory. It is impossible.

The assumed evidence of the evolution. Since there are good reasons to trust that the descriptions of Genesis are facts and reflect the history of mankind, what kind of evidence is there on behalf of evolution? Is there any, and how convincing is it? Is there a reason to believe in it?

   Next, we are going to examine few of the most important fundamental assumptions of evolutionism, and already beforehand it can be stated that there are large gaps and deficiencies in them. The facts and evidence comply clearly better with the model which Genesis tells about the origin of everything.

Big Bang. Everything began with a big bang. This is what is supposed by the most common theory about the beginning of the universe. It is supposed that from a particle the size of a pinhead (the thought of a pinhead is often expressed in the writings of firm believers in this theory) the current universe and life were born.

   But what does common sense say? If we assumed that from the size of chip of a stone a new similar universe were to come into being now, how many would believe it? How many ordinary men would regard it as possible?

   So, when you ask an ordinary person how possible he considers that a new universe like the present one with dozens of billions galaxies, hundreds of billions stars, a sun like the present one, planets, sea and water, the rocks, man, the birds, elephants, mosquitoes and so on could be born from, for example, an ordinary chip of a stone (in the big bang theory it is supposed that everything came into being from a pin-sized space), what would he say? How reasonable would he deem the whole issue when holding a chip of stone in his hand? Is it not likely that his answer would be something like: “Don’t be crazy, that’s just an impossible idea! Such things cannot be born from a small stone. How could anyone believe in such foolishness?”

   So, when we think about it logically, we can see that it is an impossibility and one of the greatest follies in the history of science. It is impossible and logically foolish to think that the whole universe and variety of life has been born by itself from a little particle. It is miraculous that such a thought is believed. The following words of Paul, in which it is stated the wisdom of this world as foolishness, fit it well:

- (1 Cor 1:19,20) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

- (1 Cor 3:18-20) Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seems to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise.

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He takes the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise that they are vain.

The galaxies and stars. Since people do not want to believe in God’s work of creation, they must find an explanation for how everything – also galaxies and stars – have been born.

   The birth of the galaxies is a total mystery. The following comment describes the difficulties in the area. Their birth by themselves is a mystery and there is no good evidence for it:

I do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The First Three Minutes, p. 88)

So what about the birth of the stars? If it is so simple, where is the evidence? Since it has been estimated that there are a hundred billion galaxies in the sky, and a hundred billion stars in each, and if we divide this by 10 billion (the estimated age of the universe is 10–15 billion years), it would mean that 10 new galaxies and 1,000 billions new stars would have to be born every year! This huge amount of new stars and galaxies should be detectable somehow but why can we not detect it?

Detection should not even be difficult because scientists believe that they can only see the past of the outer space. Thus, we would only need do look at different distances between one light-year and 10- to 15 billion light years – there would be many alternatives – and we would surely see orbs forming. Why can we not detect this?

The birth of the solar system and the Earth is a problem. Especially the different compositions of the Sun, planets and moons are a mystery. The following two quotes indicate how problematic the matter is:

Even nowadays when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)

All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6^th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)

The spontaneous birth of life is an issue that has never been proven. Attempts to generate it in a laboratory have been made but with no success whatsoever. No scientist has been able to get even near to solving the origin of life, i.e., people believe in it even though practical observations do not support it. The belief in the matter is only inside people.

Andy Knoll, a professor of Harvard University: “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.” (16)

The intermediate forms. If evolution and Darwin’s theory are true, it should be easy to prove by means of fossils that are the only and best pieces of evidence of possible evolution because they are the only history of life at our disposal. If we reject them, we will not have any other material to consider.

   But how is it? Over a hundred million fossils have been dug from the ground and there are also millions of fossils in museums. But no developing forms of different animals, such as half-developed wings, hands, feet, senses, or other intermediate forms, have been found, even though Darwin’s theory requires this. Such fossils and intermediate forms are missing, as it is indicated in the following quote. It is also a clear and indisputable proof that Darwin’s theory is not true but the animals have been separate since the beginning (= the Creation). It is very difficult for some researchers to admit this.

The deceased Dr Colin Patterson was the older palaeontologist of the British Museum (natural history) – a supporter of the evolution and a fossil expert. He wrote a significant book on evolution – but when someone asked him why there was no picture of the intermediate forms (organisms which are in the transitional stage) in his book, he wrote the following answer:

"I agree completely with your opinion concerning the lack of illustrations in my book about organisms which are evolutionarily in the transitional stage. If I were conscious of any such, of a fossil or of living, I would have willingly included them in my book. You propose that I should use an artist to illustrate such intermediate forms but from where would he get information for his drawings? Honestly saying, I could not offer him this information, and if I should leave the matter for an artist, would it not lead the reader astray?

   I wrote the text of my book four years ago [in the book he tells that he believes in some intermediate forms]. If I were to write it now, I think that the book would be rather different. Gradualism (changing gradually) is a concept in which I do believe. Not just because of the prestige of Darwin but because my comprehension of the genetics seems to require it. However, it is difficult to claim against [famous fossil expert Stephen J.] Gould and other people of the American museum when they say that there are no intermediate forms. As a palaeontologist, I work much with philosophical problems when recognizing ancient forms of organisms from the fossil material. You say that I should also at least 'present a photo of a fossil, from which the certain organism group evolved.' I speak directly – there is no fossil that would be a watertight piece of evidence." (17)

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.)

15. Ken Ham: Valhe: Evoluutio (The Lie: Evolution), p. 39

16. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. toukokuuta 2004, cit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist

17. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 15,16

                      Jari Iivanainen