Glenn Morton: Is the Garden of Eden real?

Thanks for your courteous and detailed reply, Glenn.

No, I don’t think that rivers flow literally in a circle, and I don’t think John Harshman does, either. I was merely trying to figure out how a river could both flow out of Eden and also flow into it. On a very local level, it’s of course understandable – a river might meander along a national border, now moving slightly inside the country, now outside. But if one said that Eden was somewhere near, say, Ur, and also in the middle of the East Mediterranean, Eden would have to be a pretty darned big place. That’s why I was trying to verify your proposed location, but you have now clarified that.

I think it is fair to say that the intended first human readers of the Hebrew text of Genesis should have been able to tell what was meant. If the intended first readers lived in, say, Palestine in 1200 BC, then they should have been able to discern the actual geographical relationships intended by the author. They did not have access to aerial photography to discern ancient river beds and they knew nothing of the geological history of the Mediterranean Sea. The Bible was written for people with a phenomenological understanding of the world, not for modern scientists who try to get behind the phenomena to long-lost ancient events. So when it says that Eden is “in the east”, it seems reasonable to assume that the author wanted the Biblical readers to understand “east” as they used the term, not as the term might have been used five million years earlier by people (of at least a different species if not also a different genus) living much further west. In all probability, the Palestinian readers of 1200 BC wouldn’t have had the slightest inkling of the existence of such ancient ancestors, let alone how they used words for directions. They would have said, “East, oh, yeah, towards Ur and Babylon; Eden and the Garden were somewhere in that general area.”

No, I don’t agree with that. Let me be clear that I’m not defending YEC or literalism. I’m merely pleading for a narrative that makes literary sense. It makes no sense for a writer to use a very basic word like “east” when he knows that his readership will almost certainly misconstrue it.

And finally, if the Bible were totally false, I wouldn’t be an atheist. I’d be a Hindu of the Advaita Vedanta school, or a Neo-Platonist. The reality of what Lewis called “The Tao” in The Abolition of Man would still be there. :smile:

Hi Eddie, Should have and did are two different things. God gave info to Daniel but didn’t explain it. It is clear that Abraham didn’t fully understand God’s plan for an heir or he wouldn’t have had Ishmael. Moses knew from a young man that he was to deliver the Hebrews but when he was 40 and killed the Egyptian, he clearly didn’t understand how God wanted him to do it–like Abe, he did something he shouldn’t have. Don’t we all? Thus, I find this argument that the writer had to understand what he wrote contrary to the facts of the Bible. Not everyone understood what they were promised or what they wrote.

I always ask people how they know that the Bible was not written for modern scientists? Did God tell you this in a dream? Is there bible verse that says this is not for scientists? God has never stopped by to tell me what his intention was, and I am trying to find out who it was that God said this to. Do you know who God said this to? No one in 20 years of asking has ever given the source of this knowledge that the Bible is only written for them and not for us.

If the Bible is only written for them, then, well, it becomes irrelevant for us. It isn’t for us but is for early bronze age folk.

I actually am definding concordism, in the form of historicity. I believe that if there is not a historical basis for these stories, we might as well say that our God is clueless about how creation happened. Alternatively one could say he knows but spun a fantastically ridiculous yarn about the early days. Neither option works for me.

I was never looking for a religion, I was trying to discern what is true. If there is no God that is a big deal.

Glenn has the river flowing out of Eden only, not in. He does this by redefining the river wherever convenient. If you look at his map, what we call the Nile flows from Africa into the Mediterranean basin, at some point in that basin, a river coming out of Eden meets that river and joins it in flowing to its endpoint, further into the basin. He calls both rivers, and their confluence, the Nile. Thus the Nile both starts in Eden (under one definition) and flows from Cush (under another definition). I have pointed out that this is like saying that the Ohio River drains the entire Louisiana Purchase through the Missouri, by calling both of them the Mississippi at different times. No response.

1 Like

Adam’s curse is a bigger head extracted from here

Genesis 3:19 says: By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food.

It is fascinating that Adam is cursed with sweat. A Neolithic Johnny come lately Adam couldn’t be cursed with sweat because he already had the human sweating mechanism. Adam would say, “Big Deal, Big Guy! Have you seen what all humans have to do to earn a living here in the hot Neolithic summers?”

The rest of this section is from an old web page of mine on sweat. It is no longer up:

Dean Falk, one of the world’s leading authorities on hominid brains, advanced a theory in which the hominid brain could not grow any bigger than the cooling system attached to it. The theory originated from a comment by her mechanic. She writes:

" It was an ‘aha’ experience, if ever I’ve had one, and the weirdest combination of events led to it. First, the engine in my 1970 Mercedes needed major surgery. I took it to Walter Anwander (a whiz) in Lafayette, Indiana, who completely rebuilt the engine. One day, while enumerating the wonders beneath the hood (about which I definitely needed schooling), Walter pointed to the radiator and told me ‘the engine can only be as big as that can cool.’ I didn’t think much about it at the time. " (1)

The brain, like that engine, can only be as big as the cooling system it has. If the brain overheats, the brain is ruined just like overheating a car engine will ruin it. In the brain the blood acts as the coolant. The brain has several emissary veins which go from the interior of the skull to the skin of the face. These veins are part of the “radiator” system. When a person is cold, blood flows from the cranium outward in these veins. But when a person exercises and becomes overheated, the blood flow reverses and blood flows into the cranium. The reason for this reversal is that the skin of the face (the brow included) acts as a radiator, cooling the blood which then enters the brain to cool that organ. Some of the veins are preserved in the skulls of extinct hominids (and man) in the form of emissary foramina (a foramina is a hole in the skull (2). Thus a record of the size and number of emissary foramina are preserved in ancient skulls for anthropologists to examine. Falk notes:

" It was beautiful. For the past two million years, the increase in frequencies of emissary foramina kept exact pace with the sharp increase in brain size in Homo. Clearly, the brain and the veins had evolved rapidly and together. I saw that Cabanac’s letter was right and that I had unwittingly charted the evolution of a radiator for the brain in my earlier work on emissary foramina. As Anwander had said about my car, the engine can only be as big as the radiator can cool. Apparently, the same is true for heat-sensitive brains. "(3)

But emissary veins are only part of the cooling mechanism in mankind. Sweat is the reason that the facial skin cools and the cooling of the skin cools the blood destined for the brain. What do we know about sweat?

The human sweating system is unique among mammals. Bernard Campbell describes the function of sweat glands:

" The sweat glands fall into two groups: the apocrine and eccrine glands. The apocrine glands secrete the odorous component of sweat and are primarily scent glands that respond to stress or sexual stimulation. Before the development of artificial scents and deodorants, they no doubt played an important role in human society. In modern man these glands occur only in certain areas of the body, in particular in the armpits, the navel, the anal and genital areas, the nipples, and the ears. Surprisingly enough, glands in the armpits of man are more numerous per unit area than in any other animal. There is no doubt that the function of scent in sexual encounter is of the greatest importance even in the higher primates and man. "The eccrine glands, which are the source of sweat itself, have two functions in primates. Their original function was probably to moisten friction surfaces, such as the volar pads of hand and foot to improve the grip, prevent flaking of the horny layer of the skin, and assist tactile sensitivity. Glands serving that function are also found on the hairless surface of the prehensile tail of New World monkeys and on the knuckles of gorilla and chimpanzee hands, which they use in quadrupedal walking. Glands in these positions are under the control of the brain and adrenal bodies, and in modern man an experience of stress may produce sweaty palms.

"The second and more recently evolved function of the eccrine glands is the lowering of body temperature through the evaporation of sweat on the surface of the body. The hairy skin of monkeys and apes carries eccrine glands, but they are neither so active nor so numerous as in man. Modern man is equipped with between two and five million active sweat glands, and they play a vital part in cooling the body. The heat loss that results from the evaporation of water from a surface is enormously greater than that which could be expected to occur as a result of simple radiation. The fact that sweat contains salt necessitates a constant supply of the mineral if man is to survive in a tropical climate.

"It has been observed that like almost all mammals, primates sweat very little. Even hunting carnivores, such as dogs, lose heat by other means, such as panting. Sweating has evolved as a most important means of heat loss in man, a fact that is surely correlated with the loss of his body hair. The apparent importance in human evolution of achieving an effective means of heat loss indicates without doubt that early man was subject to intense muscular activity, with the production of much metabolic heat; he could not afford even the smallest variation in body temperature. With such a highly evolved brain, the maintenance of a really constant internal environment was a need of prime importance in human evolution. "(4)

With this need to dissipate heat in order to maintain a constant brain temperature, hair becomes a problem. Hair traps the sweat and hinders evaporation. Zihlman and Cohn relate:

" How might early hominids have dissipated the heat load generated internally, as well as externally from the sun? One way is through the skin. The skin of modern humans contrasts with that of other, nonhuman primates in four features: 1) humans have a great density (over two million) of functioning eccrine sweat glands over the entire body surface; 2) loss of the apocrine sweat glands has been associated with hair loss, and has occurred except in the ano-genital and axillary regions; 3) hair follicles are diffuse and hair shafts are noticeably reduced in size; 4) skin pigment ranges from dark to light.
"How might these features be interpreted in a functional and evolutionary way? There is the remarkable thermo-regulatory function of eccrine sweat glands. Sweating can deliver two litres of water to the skin surface in two hours and carry off almost 600 calories of heat. Hair tends to trap moisture, so that sweat evaporation is more effective with reduced hair. Interestingly, the number of hair follicles in humans is similar to that in chimpanzees and gorillas, but the much reduced size of hair shafts in humans gives a hairless appearance.
"(5)

Why do we have hair on our head? Zihlman and Cohninform us:

" Hair retention on the head is probably important in protecting the scalp from the sun’s ultraviolet rays and may assist in stabilizing the temperature of the brain. Human populations are variable in the amount of body hair present, but in all of them the skin surface is hairless enough to permit efficient heat loss from sweating. "(6)

Radiatively, hair on the top of the head absorbs the solar heat and re-radiates most of it. An absorbing layer can reduce by half the amount of energy reaching the top of the skull.

When is it likely that mankind needed this cooling mechanism for heat removal? Probably fairly early. For modern men even moderate exertion on the savanna increases the heat production by 100% over the resting levels. Since Homo erectus was as large as we are(7), similar exertions on the plains would yield similar heating. Even the smallest Homo erectus has a brain which is over twice as large as that of the chimpanzee which can get by without sweating. Homo erectus would need to sweat. Since he needed to sweat, then he needed to be relatively hairless as we are.

If he were relatively hairless, then the Homo erectus who lived in Georgia (former USSR)(8) would have been ill-equipped to handle the winter temperatures below zero Fahrenheit which occur from time to time in that area. He would have needed clothing. Because of these considerations, Anthropologists like Brian Fagan were forced to conclude,

" For Homo erectus to be able to adapt to the more temperate climate of Europe and Asia, it was necessary not only to tame fire but to have both effective shelter and clothing to protect against heat loss. Homo erectus probably survived the winters by maintaining permanent fires, and by storing dried meat and other foods for use in the lean months. "(9)

This is a very human set of behaviors and Homo erectus was found in European Georgia 1.6 million years ago.

Johnny-come-lately Adam and Eve too late for Clothing

Because of the big brains, H. erectus, Neanderthals and H. Sapiens living in colder climates had to have clothing millions of years prior to Neolithic Adam and Eve. They were as hairless as we are, and they had bigger brains than we have. The Biblical account indicates that Adam and Eve didn’t know they were naked. Anyone in Neolithic times would have known they were naked. Late Adam and Eve just ignore everything said in the Scripture.

Neanderthals had to have clothing to live in glacial age Europe:

" The life of a Neanderthal band in the intensely cold environments of the Europe of 75,000 years ago can never have been easy. The means to survival were fire, some form of skin clothing and adequate winter shelter, and an ability to store food. It is probably no coincidence that some of the densest Neanderthal populations lay in the sheltered river valleys of the Perigord region in southwest France ."(10)

Further, there is good evidence that they sewed close-fitting clothing.

" In the Mousterian horizon of Combe Grenal, Professor Francois Bordes has recovered bone needles, indicating beyond doubt that classic Neanderthal men made tailored fur clothing. The severity of the periglacial climate would not have permitted men to survive unless they were capable of making sophisticated clothing. "(11)

Not only that archaeologists have found what certainly appears to be the remains of a Shaman’s cape,

" But the Neandertals’ true humanity revealed itself in the actions of their souls. At the 50,000-year-old site of Hortus in southern France, two French archaeologists in 1972 reported the discovery of the articulated bones of the left paw and tail of a leopard. Their arrangement suggested that the fragments were once the remnants of a complete leopard hide worn as a costume. "(12)

A lot of people don’t know the potential evidence that H. erectus was spread far afield from Africa by 1.8-1.4 million years ago. Tattersall reports the following controversial sites for Acheulean tools, which if they are correct, H. erectus was spreading abroad. Tattersall names the following places:(13)

'Ubeidiya has yielded Acheulean tools dated to 1.4 Myr.

Longupo found stone tools dated at 1.9 Myr

Riwat Pakistan stone tools 1.6 Myr

Dmanisi mandible 1.8 myr

Since they have found several H. erectus skulls at Dmanisi since Tattersall wrote that, I would argue that the Dmanisi hominids also had to have clothing of some sort. We know that they too were hairless. The January average temperature of that area dips down to about 5 C below 0. A hairless man, like erectus or us, would freeze to death in such temperatures without clothing. Thus, we can say that some form of clothing has existed for 1.6 million years, at least.

Johnny-come-lately views of Adam and Eve simply ignore Genesis 3.

Moral choices, rationality, religion and Johnny-come-lately Adam

Genesis 2:16-17 You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

This simple statement says many things about man. It says that he knew enough to make moral choices. It also says he had to have an understanding of logic and consequences–that is, rationality. If Adam is a Neolithic farmer he is too late for the start of that as well. And that means religion. Logic and rationality are required for the production of a stone tool.

" The removal of an individual flake is a simple action requiring only minimal organisational ability. In order to manufacture all but the most rudimentary stone tools, however, flake removals must be related to one another in a fashion yielding the appropriate configuration or pattern. If a stone artefact presents a pattern of flake removals that could only have been organised by means of reversibility and/or conservation, then it must be concluded that the maker possessed operational intelligence. I will show that the later Acheulean artefacts from the Isimila Prehistoric Site present such patterns. "(14)

It took a lot of foresight, logic and rational thought, not to mention an aesthetic sense, to create the West Tofts hand-axe, the tool of H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens for about a million years or more. See picture.

Even the Lower Palaeolithic hand-axe makers showed interest in fossils. A hand-axe discovered at West Tofts, Norfolk, England has a mollusc shell prominently displayed in the middle of one of its sides. Obviously the maker of this tool had seen the fossil shell that lay embedded in the flint, but, more significantly, he must have worked around the shell in order that, when he had finished flaking the tool, the fossil would be in the centre. This is not the only hand-axe to have such a natural form of in-built decoration. Another, found at Swanscombe, Kent, England, has the fossil of a sea-urchin visible on its surface, and again all the indications are that this was both recognised and valued by the tool-maker. “(15)

Logic and rationality certainly preceded Johnny-come-lately Adam.

Conclusion

The late placement of Adam in history, the view preferred by many modern commentators makes an utter mockery of everything said in Genesis 2-3. Nothing said or proclaimed there is true. This should not be the view of people who think that the Scripture contains the way of Salvation. How can such a false book (in their view) really be trusted to tell us the metaphysical truths that we are unable to verify. If so much stuff that we can verify is false, what guarantee do we have that the theology and metaphysics of Scripture is real? This is why a historical reading of Genesis is necessary–it is necessary for the trustworthiness of scripture.

It is also intriguing to me that the ancient Hebrew writer would choose as a curse for man and woman, two different maledictions which can be caused by a single phenomenon–an increase in brain size. This single cause also would require the loss of hair and the subsequent need for clothing. There is no way that the Hebrew writer could have had the knowledge to purposefully construct this tale. Is this a fortuitous conjunction of statements or is it divine inspiration? I firmly believe God inspired the writer and while he didn’t understand it, we can today.

References

  1. Dean Falk, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.) p. 156

2.Dean Falk, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.) p. 153

  1. Dean Falk, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.) p. 159

  2. Bernard Campbell, 1974. Human Evolution, (Chicago: Aldine Publishing). p 280-282

  3. Adrienne L. Zihlman, and B. A. Cohn, 1986, “Responses of Hominid Skin to the Savanna,” South African Journal of Science, 82:2, p. 307-308.

6.Adrienne L Zihlman,. and B. A. Cohn, 1988, “The Adaptive Response of Human Skin to the Savanna” Human Evolution, 3:5(1988):397-409. p404.

7.Ruff, Christopher B., 1993, “Climatic Adaptation and Hominid Evolution: The Thermoregulatory Imperative,” Evolutionary Anthropology, 2:2, p. 53-60, p 56

  1. Larick, Roy and Russell L. Ciochon, 1996, "The African Emergence and Early Asian Dispersals of the Genus Homo."American Scientists, 84(Nov/Dec, 1996).p 548-550

  2. Brian M. Fagan, 1990. The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson) p.76

10.Brian M. Fagan, The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1990), p.83

11.J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution, (St. Louis: Rand McNally, 1972), p. 283

12.James R. Shreeve, The Neandertal Enigma, (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1995), p. 52

13.Ian Tattersall, “Out of Africa Again…and Again?” Scientific American April, 1997, p. 60-67

14.Thomas Wynn, “The Intelligence of Later Acheulean Hominids,” Man, 14:371-391, p. 375

15.Richard Rudgley, Secrets of the Stone Age, (London: Century, 2000), p.

I certainly would view that I am in agreement with the translators.

KJV And a river went out of Eden

ASV And a river went out of Eden

NIV And a river went out of Eden

NASB Now a river flowed out of Eden

Holman CSV " A river went out from Eden

Darby And a river went out of Eden

RSV 10 A river flowed out of Eden

I honestly can’t believe this is in issue. I can’t find a single translator who has the river flowing INTO Eden. If I am wrong cite your source. Since the word ‘flowed out’ or ‘went out’ it doesn’t mean ‘into’ which John seems to wish into the language and into the translations. Here is what the Theological Wordbook of the OT says:

"yāṣāʾ appears over a thousand times in Qal and Hiphil, but only five times in the Hophal. The Hiphil has the usual causative meaning “cause to go out, bring out, lead out.” ASV and RSV similar. The basic notion of yāṣaʾ is “to go out.” It is used literally of going out from a particular locality or from the presence of a person. It is used of nature, i.e. water out of a rock, sun rising out of the east, etc. "Gilchrist, P. R. (1999). 893 יָצָא. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 393). Chicago: Moody Press.

And I will use a Wittgensteinian approach. If I say the Arkansas river flows out of the Rockies to water the plain, I don’t mean that the Arkansas River flows westward! Sheesh, I will stand on what I say until someone shows me a translation what says a river flowed into Eden. I got nothing more to say on this issue, because all the data supports my position.

It isn’t. Glenn, you are consistently misreading what people write. Nobody is claiming that a river flowed into Eden or that Genesis says it did. @Eddie thought you might have claimed that, and I was explaining that you didn’t. You have not addressed any of my actual objections to your scenario. And what flowed east or west is another question entirely.

Hi, Glenn.

This response confuses “Biblical characters” with “Biblical writers.” I grant entirely that Biblical characters don’t always know the whole picture, and sometimes make mistakes. But Biblical writers? Do they make mistakes? Moses the man doubtless did many things that were wrong; but Moses insofar as he was the divinely inspired writer of Genesis would not have written anything that was wrong; God would not have let him do so. A traditional Jewish rabbi is free to discuss the sins of Moses, but I don’t think a traditional Jewish rabbi is free to say that in writing the Torah, Moses said some things that were wrong.

Again, I am not making on judgment on the historical truth or falseness of your novel Flood proposal. I’m just saying that if you are right about the Flood, Eden being in the Mediterranean basin, etc., then the Biblical writer(s) wrote in a manner that would cause their first readers – and in fact, all their readers prior to the rise of modern geology, archaeology and so on, to get the history and geography of what really happened wrong. So we in the past century would be unbelievably lucky, the only generation that, through sheer accident of time of birth into a scientific era, are privileged to read Genesis and actually get the correct meaning. I find this giving of special advantage to one era troubling.

I don’t say that the Bible was written to exclude modern scientists. But it certainly was not meant to exclude non-scientific Israelites, either.

It certainly doesn’t make it irrelevant to us that it was understandable by Bronze Age folk. We can read literature from the Bronze Age, or at least, in the case of Homer, that is about the Bronze Age, and still find it very relevant today. Plato and a modern Cambridge scholar can both appreciate Homer.

Yes, I think so. It seems that you are trying to vindicate the truth of the text by harmonizing it with modern science, modern notions of ancient history, etc. And I’m not saying that Genesis necessarily clashes with either modern science or what we know of ancient history. I just don’t think its primary value for us lies in how accurate it is regarding those things. This is why I never could be a very good conservative Protestant evangelical.

I agree. But I don’t see how failure to line up the Bible with particular claims of science, archaeology, etc., proves there is no God.

Eddie

That is fine. my view is not for you. My view is for anyone like two geologists I ran into on another list who read the scripture like I do–that it is hard to take the rest of the Bible seriously if Genesis if false. Indeed, I am fond of quoting H. G. Wells who follows the logic:

“If all the animals and man have been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there would have been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no Fall, the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which current teaching bases Christian emotion and morality, collapses like a house of cards.” H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1961), p. 776-777

I agree with this atheist. I think his logic is correct. If you don’t, my theory isn’t for you. And that is fine. REject my different ideas and move on.

Maybe I am mis reading, but you wrote in 44 "The flow is in the opposite direction in Genesis and in your scenario. " Since my scenario is water flows out of eden, and you say it is opposite, well, I don’t know what else to think.

You say this: " Nobody is claiming that a river flowed into Eden or that Genesis says it did. "

REally? But earlier in 46 you said this:

That sure sounds like you want me to reverse my flow–because you claim I do this by redefining everything.

Im done on this issue. when a thread devolves into what someone said it is at an end. You can have the last word on the direction of flow.

Everyone can beleive what they want about the flow. I don’t care, this is a red-herring anyway. I won’t discuss it with you or with Eddie. If someone doesn’t like my assumptions. too friggin bad, just reject my theory and move on.

That’s because you consistently misinterpret everything I say. The question isn’t whether rivers flow into or out of Eden. It’s what rivers flow out of Eden. The bible says the four rivers, which we may all interpret as the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, and a fourth of unknown correspondence, flow out of Eden. You say that those rivers flow out of separate places and at some point join with four rivers flowing out of Eden. You say that’s the same as having the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, and the fourth flowing out of Eden. I say that’s an equivocation that the text and universal practice do not support.

I do not appreciate your misreading and your unwarranted hostility.

1 Like

Does it say that and is that what we really all interpret it as? I’m not sure.

I seem to recall some some Biblical scholars saying this too…

I have missed that reference. What was it again?

Well, yes, but it all depends on what one means by “false.” Is Genesis false if Eve didn’t actually talk to a snake – if the dialogue between Eve and the snake is a picturesque way of talking about her own internal deliberation whether or not to obey God’s command? Wouldn’t there still be a decision, and therefore a Fall, even if the animal-human conversation had never taken place?

In any case, I’m not saying that the account of the rivers in Eden, as given in Genesis, is false even from a straight historical-geographical point of view. If Jon Garvey’s reconstruction is right, then Eden and the garden would both be in the east – exactly as the Bible says. There are problems with it, to be sure – the reference to Cush. But there are problems with any historical-geographical construction of the rivers. Is belief in the truth of the Bible to be suspended until geology, archaeology, etc. can come up with an account that harmonizes everything without contradiction? In that case, all believers before the age of modern science should have suspended their belief in the truth of Genesis. But they didn’t.

The problem with any form of concordism, as I see it, is not the claim that this or that passage of the Bible can be made to harmonize with this or that bit of scientific knowledge. Often enough, the harmonization is plausible. The problem is that concordism inevitably reads the Bible through post-Enlightenment eyes. The modern agony over possible errors in the Bible and the modern search for harmonizations of science and the Bible that preserve the literal truth of Biblical statements, is an agony that pre-Enlightenment people for the most part avoided.

That said, I have nothing against concordist thought-experiments. The suggestion that the Flood story preserves a memory of the violent re-watering of the Mediterranean is an interesting one. It might even be right. But if it is right, the author(s) of Genesis muddled the geographical description. And that’s not a problem for me, if the Bible has some muddled geographical descriptions. If I want accurate ancient physical geography, I consult an atlas, or a work of historical geology, not the Bible.

What I’m saying, I guess, is this: if you should ever decide that your harmonization no longer works – that certain details of the Biblical narrative can’t be squared with certain facts of learned from geology, anthropology, etc. – there is no need for you to give up your faith. You don’t have to live in fear that your harmonization may not hold up. Take a look at the Apostles’ Creed some time. Count up all the direct references or even just allusions to the specific events of Genesis 1-11 that are in there. How many do you find?

If you understand what I’m saying, then you will understand that my motive here is not to challenge your particular hypothesis. Any objections I’ve raised about rivers and directions etc. are trivial; conceivably I could be talked into abandoning those objections. I’m much more concerned that you (and you are far from the only one) have too much invested, from a religious point of view, in such hypotheses. My motive is to free up your faith from dependence on such hypotheses. I’d hate to see you abandon faith because you couldn’t harmonize some detail of the Genesis stories with modern science.

I said I would show some of the animals that lived in that deep basin.

I do this so that people won’t think that there is no way anything could have lived there. These are reconstructions from fossils, so exact coloration is not to be obtained but that doesn’t mean the animals were here. All of these were found in Messinian sediments. Some of those sediments have been uplifted above sealevel bringing their fossils with them so they could be found. There are some uplifted sediments in Cypus but most of the uplifted sediments are found in Sicily, and Italy.

First at the bottom of the food chain are ostracods, fish and mice. This is a chart of the fish that lived in the basin

Myotragus–a goat. The only way this goat could have made it to this island was to have walked across the dry basin and then by luck, was above sea level when the flood came. Now, they could have retreated up the mountain as the waters rose, numerical modeling says the waters rose in the basin around 7 m per day. This is a model and different assumptions would change that number, but it gives an idea of how herds could retreat up-slope day after day while the basin filled with water. While they only survived on Mallorca they would likely have been widespread during the Messinian Salinity Crisis–I will discuss him later.

Early elephant called Gomphotherium

A hyaena type of animal lived on that basin floor

A big cat called Machairodus and below is size compared to man

Hippos and elephants walked to many of the mountain tops during the dry messinian times in the Mediterranean. Both hippos and elephants became dwarf hippos and dwarf elephants over time. While some say the elephants swam to the islands, this is doubtful to me because the hippos had to walk to the islands. They can’t swim at all. Hippos bounce off the bottom of the rivers and if the water is too deep, they will drown if they can’t get to shallow water.

" And apparently, hippopotami made their way from the Nile to Cyprus. The migratory traffic might have been more frequent if the wanderers had not had to travel across a desert 2,000 to 3,000 meters below sea level. " ~ Kenneth J. Hsu, The Mediterranean was a Desert, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 177.

" For all intents and purposes the hippo does not swim," said Douglas McCauley, an assistant professor in the department of ecology, evolution, and marine biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "It almost always maintains some contact with the bottom and walks or bounces off the bottom using these bottom contact points as a source of propulsion. " Adrienne LaFrance, “Hippos Can’t Swim–So How Do they Move Through Water?” The Atlantic, April 26, 2017, Hippos Can’t Swim—So How Do They Move Through Water?

Wiki says:

"The Cretan dwarf hippopotamus (Hippopotamus creutzburgi) is an extinct species of hippopotamus from the island of Crete. Hippopopotamus colonized Crete probably 800,000 years ago and lived there during the Middle Pleistocene.[3] Bones of H. creutzburgi were found by Dorothea Bate on the Katharo plateau, in eastern Crete, in the 1900s.[4] A similar species, the Cyprus dwarf hippopotamus (Phanourios minor) lived on the island of Cyprus until the Holocene. It was at least 20% smaller than either subspecies of Cretan hippo. Hippopotamus creutzburgi - Wikipedia

Cyprus dwarf hippopotamus
Maltese dwarf hippopotamus
Sicilian dwarf hippopotamus
Hippopotamus creutzburgi - Wikipedia

Wiki is wrong about when they colonized the island because 800,000 years ago, the Mediterranean was a deep sea and hippos couldn’t swim. The only time they could have colonized these islands was when the Med was dry and they walked to these mountain tops and escaped drowning by the Zanclean flood. Dwarf hippo, dwarfed by island endemism, compared to the normal size hippo.

Below is the same for the dwarf elephants.

A strange deer with fangs called Micromeryx lived in that basin.

Pikas lived down there in that deep basin.

Believe it or not, this is a bovid.

Animals found in the Messinian basinal sedimens which I couldn’t find a picture for are large and small giraffids. There were Mustelidae, which are related to weasels and otters

There were civet or gennet like animals:

They pointed out strong affinities between the Baccinello V3 fossil, Viverra n. sp. “A” from Sahabi, Libya (Howell, 1987) and Viverrinae sp. indet from Lothagam, Kenya (Werdelin, 2003), thus erecting the species Viverra howelli. This species is characterized by a relatively small size and a lower carnassial with a short talonid. ” Raffaele SARDELLA,“Remarks on the Messinian carnivores (Mammalia) of Italy ” Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana, 47 (2), 2008, 195-202. Modena, 11 luglio 2008, p. 196 http://paleoitalia.org/media/u/archives/195_Sardella.pdf

There were more hyanids than the one I showed:

The following hyaenid taxa have been collected from Italian Messinian localities: Plioviverrops faventinus Torre, 1989 (Brisighella; Fig. 2), Plioviverrops orbignyi (=Ictitherium orbignyi) (Gaudry & Lartet, 1856) (Gravitelli), Hyaenictitherium hyaenoides (Zdansky, 1924) (=Ictitherium hipparionum) (Gravitelli), Hyaenictitherium sp. (Verduno), Lycyaena chaeretis (Gaudry, 1861) (=Thalassyctis (Lycyaena) ex gr. chaeretis-macrostoma) (Brisighella), Hyaenidae indet. (coprolites) from Baccinello V3 .” Raffaele SARDELLA,“Remarks on the Messinian carnivores (Mammalia) of Italy” Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana, 47 (2), 2008, 195-202. Modena, 11 luglio 2008, p. 197

That basin was full of life with ostracods in the waters, fish, etc. One drawing of it shows a great grassland. It would have to be like that in order for hippos to survive, because they eat grass.

The place I put Eden would have been a lush steppe/desert. One derivation of the word Eden means steppe or desert.

" The name Eden comes from either an Akkadian word meaning ‘steppe’ or ‘desert,’ edinu, or a West Semitic word that describes ‘luxury,’-‘delight,’ and abundance, adan. " Mangum, D., Custis, M., & Widder, W. (2012). Genesis 1:11 (Ge 2:4:25). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

But it was full of wildlife.

I get into this conversation all the time about the snake. Which is harder for God to do, raise a rotten stinking body, whose cells have begun to fall apart or make a snake talk? It seems so odd to me that people will balk at the snake but not balk at the resurrection.

Is our God capable of miracles or have all christians become materialists, believing that there is little ability for God to do anything in this universe?

Why should I believe a book of false things. Scientifically I don’t beleive in geological land bridges (an old view prior to continental drift). I don’t believe in phlogiston for chemistry. I don’t believe in the Ptolemaic system even though until quite late it was a better calculator of positions than the Copernican theory. Should I believe in the luminiferous ether? No. All those things are false–factually and now observationally false.

Why is it that christians want me to believe a book of what appears to be history if it is nothing more than falsehoods? I don’t believe in the Greco-Roman or Norse Gods. Why? Because I believe those stories are false.I don’t believe the Hindu stories about vimana, cars that can take humans to other planets because I beleive those stories to be false.

Why is it that so many Christians want me to say that the Bible is factually false but philosophically true and worthy to be believed as a source for salvation? I will be all in or all out. But, I don’t think I have very long left here, and I doubt that the geologists upon whose work I depend for the location of the rivers, will suddenly say they were totally wrong and everything they did was false. It is unlikely that the Zanclean flood will be said to be a big ‘nevermind’. Thus I doubt that I will reject my view in the next few months.

If all we want is a book of philosophical truths about how to live our lives, then the Dhammapada is a good source. It doesn’t even have much metaphysical stuff in it. But if we believe that God is theistic, and involved himself in the resurrection, what is the big problem with him involving Himself elsewhere? Was it not an angel at God’s command that stayed Abraham’s hand? Why is it ok to believe this, but not a talking snake, or an actual Fall? Did God part the sea or is that a totally naturalistic thing? Could God have made the stones cry out on Palm Sunday if the followers had been quiet, or was that mere puffery-fluffery on Jesus’ part? No one ever answers these questions, they just skip on to other stuff.

If we believe in a God who is powerful enough to bodily raise men from the dead, then I see little problem believing He is powerful enough to make an ax head float or a donkey talk, or part the sea or resurrect me at the end of the age. And if God is powerful enough to raise a man from the dead, he is powerful enough to have worked with humanity no matter how long humanity has been on earth.

I would say that is because they knew nothing about science and believed that what the Scripture said was true. They didn’t have access to contradictory observational data. Thus, this is not much of a point in my view.

1 Like

Let’s get into brain size–I have presented arguments that the curses were curses given in anticipation of a larger brain. Here and here

Does a Small Brain make you dumb part 1 extracted from here
Glenn R. Morton still here on 5/23/2020

The obvious objection to moving Adam back that far is that as one goes back in time, brain size generally gets smaller. I think this is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the acceptance of my views. The picture below shows the range of brain sizes (cranial capacity) of various groups of fossil men. The data is taken from a variety of sources and the numbers vary from place to place about the range, and about the volume of individual specimens. That is to be expected from different methods of measuring these volumes and from different cut off values for what is normal.

So, as we look ahead we need to frame this issue correctly. Does brain size impact whether or not a being has the image of God? Where is the Bible verse that backs up this idea, I can’t think of one? This is a deep and dangerous question. Why? because if we tie brain size to the image of God, we would be making the same mistakes that the Spanish made when they came to the New World. They justified their treatment of Natives by saying that they could not be descendants of Adam–meaning, they didn’t have the image of God. If you don’t know who Bartolome Las Casas is go look him up on Wiki. He fought for Native American rights against overwhelming odds, and lost. But the important thing for this discussion is that the early Spanish held the view that Native Americans were not human.

" Las Casas had a good deal of influence on the powers back home, as did another cleric, the Dominican Bernardino de Minaya. Minaya deserted Pizarro in disgust and went to Rome to persuade Pope Paul III to issue a papal bull in 1537 that rejected the idea of Indians as mere brutes and declared them capable and desirous of embracing the Catholic faith. Not only that, the bull proclaimed, even those Native Americans who chose not to follow Christ were not to be enslaved or have their property taken. This was too much. Bristling with secular outrage, Emperor Charles ordered all copies of the bull confiscated and prevailed on the pope to rescind the bull altogether. For his efforts Minaya was thrown into jail by the head of his order." 7

So, as we go through the data below, we want to be sure that we are not saying that those with smaller brains but normal intelligence are not capable of carrying the image of God. Why? Because if we view them that way, for the purpose of maintaining that early hominids couldn’t have carried the image of God, then it affects how we treat them. If small brained early hominids can’t carry the image of God because they have small brains, then can small brained H. sapiens carry the image? Such a view would be appalling. All modern humans can carry the image of God regardless of their brain size, and if we accept that as a given, then upon what basis do we reject the earlier hominids with the same brain sizes? I will discuss the issue of their technology vs ours below, but technology and invention are not the mark of a carrier of the image of God. How many patent applications does the average person submit?

The other thing we need to think about as we learn about the brains below is the issue of what is consciousness/soul, and does it arise from the material object of the brain. If we were to remove half the heart from someone, they would die. If you remove half the liver, they won’t die because filtering the blood is simple compared to what the brain would have to do to create consciousness. So why when some brains are severely damaged does the consciousness seem whole? If consciousness/soul were a product of our entire brain then removing half of it should remove half the functionality of consciousness, yet as you will see, it doesn’t. The way I interpret this data, along with information from quantum mechanics, is that soul/consciousness is not material.

Dumb and Dumber

Over and over I have been told that hominids with small brains are incapable of carrying the image of God, because they have small brains. Well, some modern humans have small brains as well. But I want to preface what comes next. Yes, if you have a small brain today, as a modern H. sapiens, you are increasingly likely to be less and less intelligent the smaller your brain gets, BUT, there are small brained H. sapiens today who have normal intelligence, which says, it isn’t the size that matters but the connectivity or some other factor. One further BUT, the small brained hominids in the record were never designed to have big brains like ours and they had to be pretty smart to avoid being eaten by lions, tigers, and bears. The average human with a hominid size brain today couldn’t make stone tools, indeed, most big brained people can’t make stone tools, not even the simplest Oldowan tools. But these small brained people were making stone tools with ease. Small brained humans are defective, but small brained hominids of the past were NOT defective, meaning, the comparison is one of apples to oranges and is invalid. With that lets play the limbo game: How low can you go?

Daniel Lyons

Years ago, I bought a copy of Guinness Book of World Records to obtain one fact, what was the smallest normal brain? It said that Daniel Lyons brain was the smallest one on record. Since I have been researching this topic again, I decided to further chase down information on Mr. Lyon. I found Newspaper articles on him from early 1908, but a scientific article wasn’t published until 1910, after further lab work. This second article on Mr. Lyons tells about his life,

" According to Dr. Larkin’s records Daniel Lyon died on the tenth of October, 1907, from asphyxia due to edema of the glottis. He was Irish, 46 years old, five and one-half feet high, and weighed 145 pounds. No relatives have been discovered and it is not known that any survive. At the time of his death he lived at 409 E 17th St., New York City, and was a watchman for the New York Contracting Company at the Pennsylvania Terminal, 34th St. The legal representative of that company says that ‘from all reports there was nothing defective or peculiar about him, either mentally or physically.’ No photography or hat measurement has been obtained. No information has been gained by inquiries addressed to his alleged fellow-workmen or former places of residence, but Dr. Larkin was informed that he could read and write; that we was regarded as competent and in full possession of his faculties; and that as a laborer he had worked in one position for twenty years. There seems to be no reason why he should not be regarded as of ordinary intelligence; "8

His death at age 46 meant he barely passed the life expectancy for a manual laborer of that time, which was 45.6 years for the average male.9 Everything about this man says average, yet his brain was half the size of the normal human brain!

" Shortly after death the brain was removed in the presence of Dr. Larkin and the coroner’s physician, Dr. Philip O’Hanlon. No head-measurements were made, but it did not appear to be unusual in either size or shape. the brain filled the cranium; there was no excess liquid, and no evidence of compression. Upon accurate scales the brain was found to weigh exactly 24 ounces, or 680 grams, about one-half the average for male Caucasians. It was placed immediately in ten per cent. formalin, and there remained until sent to me more than two years later." 10

It isn’t like these two doctors were country bumpkins in Yahoosville. This was New York City and they had to autopsy people who died without a medical person in attendance. According to the Newspapers,(this account probably came from the NY City papers and was reprinted in Colorado) O’Hanlon had performed thousands of autopies,

" It is one of the most remarkable brains I have ever seen , said Dr , O’Hanlon , who has made thousands of autopsies , and it shows that the size of the brain does not necessarily : measure the intellect of man ." 11

Wilder concludes his 1910 article with this,

" This brain is not ape-like. Even were it still smaller it is distinctly human…

"Upon the present occasion attention is particularly directed to this exemplification of the possibility that ordinary human intelligence may apparently coexist with a brain of only one-half the ordinary size, exceeding that of certain apes by only 180 grams (about six ounces), and not quite double the size of the brain of a congenital idiot ."12

Using a brain density of 1.045 g/cc we find that the volume of his brain is 650 cc. So, let’s see where Mr. Lyons lies on the chart of brain size.

Mr. Lyon’s brain is at the lower range of Homo habilis!!! Surely we can’t deny that Mr. Lyon’s carried the image of God in 1907 just because he had a small brain, but normal intelligence, could read and write, and hold down a job for 20 years. This shows very clearly that intelligent consciousness is not tied to brain size. It is tied to the connections it makes, or it is something above and apart from the material world.

My brother died a horrible death by brain cancer. The cancer ate one hemisphere of his brain–it had been turned to liquid. Yet, he was lucid until a few days before his death–with half a brain. Intelligence, the image of God are not related to size, at least not straightforwardly, and indeed as we will point out below, maybe not tied to the material world.

At this point I am going to ask a question, in light of Mr. Lyon’s brain, should we extend the range of normal brain size down, like in the chart below, making Mr. Lyons at the bottom end of human normal brain? After doing this, empirically, looking at this human range brains of normal intelligence we see that it covers the entire span of our evolutionary fore-fathers, with the exception of the Australipithecines.


But we are not through,

Microcephaly with normal intelligence

John Travis wrote:

In microcephaly, the cerebral cortex grows unusually slowly and reaches a size no bigger than that of early hominids.” 13

Microcephaly is a very sad disease in which the brain of the human ceases growth, either in utero or shortly after birth.

ScienceDaily says this:

" *The microcephaly genes have been hot candidates for a role in the evolutionary expansion of the human brain because mutations in these genes can reduce brain size by about two-thirds, to a size roughly comparable to our early hominid ancestors" "14

According to Rushton, the average human brain is about 1265 cc.15 Two thirds of that is 421 cc. So, one must wonder when one reads the medical literature (yes, my quest for information has even gone there), and one sees these papers saying microcephalic patients can have normal intelligence:

" We describe nine patients with an apparently new genetic disorder characterized by: 1 (microcephaly with normal intelligence; 2) “bird”‐like facial appearance; 3( cellular and humoral immune defects; and 4) increased risk for lymphoreticular malignancies…" 16

" The authors describe a family with two children with microcephaly and normal intelligence, in which acute lymphoblastic leukemia developed in one of the siblings …"17

They performed intelligence tests on these children and concluded:

" In the two siblings in the family reported, average or low average intelligence was confirmed on performance testing, and they therefore fit the description of familial microcephaly with normal intelligence "18

Ok, so maybe they won’t be physicists or surgeons, but there are plenty of big-brained people who perform average or low average too. Are we to deny these normally intelligent people the image of God merely because their brains are small and abnormal?

" We report on 3 sibs (2 boys and a girl) with a previously apparently unrecognized combination of anonychia congenita and microcephaly with normal intelligence." 19

Yes, I had to look up anonychia congenita, it means no finger nails. But to the point, all these people have small brains, but normal intelligence. But we are not through. So now, our table is filling up with small brained humans of normal intelligence. Our picture now looks like:


Hemispheridectomy Patients

Some people as children have epilepsy so badly that the only solution is to remove one hemisphere of the brain. Isn’t life just a bowl of cherries when parents have to face that decision; remove half your child’s brain or watch him die as the epilepsy kills off the other half of his brain. These patients, unlike Mr. Lyons, have an abnormal brain after the surgery. Daniel Lyons had a small but normally configured brain. Can non-normal configuration carry normal intelligence, normal consciousness/soul? The answer is surprisingly yes. These patients are located on the chart above in the area of Mr. Lyon’s brain but the structure is quite different. I wrote in Adam, Apes and Anthropology, Dallas: DMD Publishing, 1997, p. 159-160 (reference numbers changed to match this paper’s references:

" Other people with other types of brain damage also can have normal intelligence. The two halves of the brain are called hemispheres. These hemispheres are connected by a cable of neurons called the corpus callosum. Occasionally people will develop severe epilepsy in which the epilepsy starts in one brain hemisphere and spreads to the other hemisphere. The resulting electrical storm can threaten to destroy the healthy hemisphere. In severe cases, the only solution is to remove the diseased half of the brain. This procedure is done only as a last resort to save the life of the individual. It is called a hemispherectomy.

" Effectively this procedure results in a human being with a brain size of around 600-650 cubic centimeters. This is smaller than the brain size of a gorilla, and is within the range of the australopithecines. Yet the effect of this drastic reduction in brain size does not result in a corresponding decline in intelligence. Most patients with hemispherectomy end up with IQs averaging one standard deviation below normal.20 It is not what we would consider an advantage, but it is certainly great enough to be human.

" Another type of procedure, called a hemidecortication severs the frontal cortex from the rest of the brain. Even this procedure when performed early in life does not totally destroy intelligence. Patients with this procedure have post-operative IQs averaging 70.21 However, one of these patients has been reported to have an IQ of 103.

"Smith performed a long-term study of infants who had hemispherectomies. He wrote:

" At a 25-year follow-up; each had obtained a college degree and had enjoyed a successful career as an executive, following a right hemispherectomy in one case and a left hemispherectomy in the other. Thus, as Smith noted, the findings demonstrate that at birth each of the two cerebral hemispheres contains the neuroanatomical and substrate necessary for the development of normal or even superior adult language and verbal and nonverbal cognitive functions. "22

Cutting out half the cortex doesn’t stop someone from functioning. These brains are damaged brains, but the brains of habilis and erectus are not damaged, but normal evolved organs that give their owner enough intelligence to survive in a tough setting. It gives them enough intelligence to make stone tools, control fire, make clothing, and shelter etc. I think that is the mistake everyone makes, comparing damaged people with low intelligence and thinking somehow, that applies to fossil man.

Consider this, even speech can be recovered even if the speech center is removed. A question I will discuss below is, “Is it that the brain has spare capacity or is it that the soul/consciousness doesn’t arise from the material brain?”

" Instances of extensive recovery from brain damage suggest that the brain has spare capacity. In a follow-up of 50 infantile hemiplegics who sustained surgical removal of all neocortex of one hemisphere for intractable seizures or other injuries, Wilson (1970) reported that all but one developed normal speech or recovered it completely irrespective of which hemisphere had been removed (Wilson, 1970, p. 166). Smith and Sugar (1975) carried out a comprehensive neuropsychological follow-up on a patient at ages 21 and 26 who had had left hemispherectomy for seizures as a 5 1/2-year-old boy. He demonstrated superior language and intellect, including WAIS verbal IQ of 126 and performance IQ of 102, had graduated from a university, and was working as a traffic controller. Normal psychological function also was observed in 279 cases of hydrocephalus with onset before the end of the first year of life (Berker et al., 1983). Most remarkable is one young man in whom a CAT scan shows ventricular dilatation occupying over 95% of the intracranial space. When tested on the Michigan Neuropsychological Battery at age 25, he had graduated from Sheffield University with honors in mathematics, had a verbal IQ of 140 and performance IQ of 130, and had been successfully employed for several years .23

References found here

Glenn, you misunderstand my view. I am not denying that God has the power to make a snake talk. I am not denying the hands-on activity of God in the world.

I’m not actually contending here that the snake didn’t talk, but merely asking you why the doctrine of the Fall would not remain in place even if the snake is intended only as a figure of Eve’s “bad angel” trying to persuade her to do the wrong thing. Eve still makes a decision to disobey, and the decision has consequences. Isn’t that all that is required for a historical Fall?

I sympathize with your criticism of near-materialist forms of Christianity. Modern TE/EC provides lots of examples of that, which is why I don’t endorse TE/EC in its usual form. (Though the original theistic evolution, of Asa Gray and others, was orthodox.)

I still remain puzzled by your scenario. I don’t outright reject the idea that the Flood story might recall a hazy ancestral memory of a geological disaster that happened 5 or 6 million years earlier. I suppose such an event might well have been sung about to the younger generations around the cave fires and campfires, and transmitted in that way. The problem I have is figuring out how the memory of it could have been accurately preserved for millions of years and ended up accurately in the Biblical account.

Clearly there was no writing by the primitive hominids of 5 million BC, so nobody could have written up the Flood account then. So if your account is the right one, it needs 5 million plus years of oral transmission to keep the memory of the event alive, and that means that the narrator of Genesis, if he relied solely on ancestral memory, would have only the most attenuated version of the events. Now, if you were to say, Genesis doesn’t get things quite right, geographically, because much was lost in oral transmission over millions of years, your hypothesis would make sense to me. But you seem to be arguing that Genesis does get it right – that the Genesis account is without flaw or error. But from what I see, the Genesis account can’t be 100% reconciled with your hypothesis; to make it fit, one has to allow unusual renderings of Hebrew, blur together rivers with their tributaries, ignore obvious directional indications, etc.

You know, it is quite possible, in Biblical Hebrew, to say something like: “In those days, the sea did not extend unto the coast of the Philistines, and the land extended even unto Tarshish.” If it was the case that the Mediterranean had been dry, would God have not known that, and would he not have told Moses that, so that Moses could give a more coherent geography when he wrote Genesis?

I honestly can’t tell what your Biblical hermeneutic is here. Are you saying that God knew all about the drying up of the Mediterranean and Eden, but didn’t explain it to Moses, and left Moses to make errors in recording the geography? Or that Moses knew, but withheld the information from the readers of Genesis? Or that it’s all perfectly plain in Genesis, on a straightforward Hebrew reading, and there’s no interpretive problem at all?

We don’t know each other, Glenn, so you may wonder where I’m coming from. I’m a scholar by profession, trained in Hebrew. I debate on these websites against atheists and TE/EC folks who in my view either unfairly attack the Bible and Christianity or who adopt a compromised, watered-down, heavily secularized form of Christian faith. Thus, the problems I’ve outlined with your account are coming from someone sympathetic with your overall position. Our difference appears to be over methodology in Biblical interpretation. I think we both respect the Biblical text and want to make sense of it.

Anyhow, if you are tired of discussing this subject, I won’t press it.

I am even less convinced than you that any memory could conceivably have survived for millions of years. But I don’t think Glenn is claiming that at all. I think the story, to Glenn, comes direct from God to (one supposes) Moses, with no need to be transmitted by human memory.

I will take this part first.

No, I don’t depend on oral tradition at all. In post 9, I wrote: "I know of no other flooding event in geologic history that can satisfy the above check list. I also know of no other apologetical view that accounts for so many of the interlocking pieces of Genesis and gives us a way to view this as real, divinely inspired history. The story of Noah could not have been handed down via oral tradition. Nor could the rivers of Eden have been handed down that way. It was due to Divine inspiration. "

Here is the deal. I am delighted that you are the first person of a more liberal perspective who actually said that God could make a snake talk if he wanted to.
Consider this. To me I think this is the first evidence I have found of knowledge in the Bible that no Neolitic writer could have known. Shoot, no one until this decade could have known. If God could convey to Abram and Sarah that they were going to have an heir at a very old age, Why is God unable to tell the writers the details of the flood? Why is it we always limit what God can do?
Similarly, God was somehow able to convey to Simeon that he would see the Messiah. How many years did that man sit at the temple gate?

Geologically, until the 1970s no one could even have known that the Med had been dry at one time. And until the last decade, no one had a map of the Messinian sediments which greatly support that Gen 2:8-14 describes a real location. Regardless of whether or not one thinks my view is total cow patties, one thing that can’t be the same after the discovery of those Messinian rivers; it is that Gen 2:8-14 can be viewed as a description of a real place at a real time.

Connected to this is the fact that that long ago all hominids had smaller brains than we have. No writer, even up until this century had connected the physiological issues of pain and childbirth with sweat of the brow being due to one underlying issue–a brain that gets bigger! Again, this has to be divine inspiration. It can’t be oral tradition because no one saw the curses that way until now when I advocate it.

No doubt in our materialistic age where we cage God so he has to behave in ways we approve of, (few miracles, doing nothing embarrassing, etc), such a view of divine inspiration will not be welcomed warmly, at least it hasn’t been so far. You, however are different. I literally haven’t had anyone who whacked me about the snake, go on to say God COULD have made the snake talk. Most people deny it, keeping their God safely away from embarrassing them over a talking snake or donkey. Such views are not discussed today in polite company!

I am delighted to hear that. You are right, we don’t know each other, but already from years of talking to TE’s about miracles, I had almost given up on finding one who actually believes God can perform one.

This thread I will save my energy for. I can hardly walk across the house now whereas 2 months ago I could do most anything I wanted to. They say it is the cancer, but it landed me in the covid ward for a night. lol

What I don’t want to think I can do is convince anyone and everyone of my views. I don’t have time left on this world to try to convince people who don’t have any real interest (like atheists). I was told in January I had 6 months left. I will go out glorifying God for what he has shown me about my views in the last 2 months, but I don’t have much time or energy to waste. Already my time out of bed is getting shorter and shorter.

So my apologies for being a bit brusk. But to your valid question about oral tradition? I don’t believe this info came from oral tradition. IT could only be due to divine revelation.

Edited to Add. Does anyone really think that oral tradition can work for 10,000 generations, which is what would be required to go back to a 200,000 year old Adam and Eve. I think that is at least questionable. Shoot, the first Morton to come to the New World was a quacker. but in 1824 one Morton was kicked in the head by a horse and died. His postumous son may have shared some family history his his son, William, but William and his wife divorced when my great grandfather was 4 and thus, nothing of that quaker ancestry made it to me, a distance of 200 years, about 7 generations

Does a small brain make you dumb part 2 extracted from here

The Hobbit
Finally, we come to the most enigmatic fossils anthropology has found, Homo floresiensis, the ‘Hobbit’. This population will challenge everyone’s view of who has the image of God. This being is believed to be the descendant of H. erectus , or H habilis who had undergone severe island dwarfism. Often on isolated islands, evolution shrinks the size of large animals so that they match the available calories on the island. Karen Baab says:

" Two main evolutionary scenarios have been proposed to explain the presence of the small bodied and small-brained Homo floresiensis species on the remote Indonesian island of Flores in the Late Pleistocene. According to these two scenarios, H. floresiensis was a dwarfed descendent of H. erectus or a late-surviving remnant of a older lineage, perhaps descended from H. habilis. Each scenario has interesting and important implications for hominin biogeography, body size evolution, brain evolution and morphological convergences. Careful evaluation reveals that only a small number of characters support each of these scenarios uniquely. H. floresiensis exhibits a cranial shape and many cranial characters that appear to be shared derived traits with H. erectus, but postcranial traits are more primitive and resemble those of early Homo or even australopiths. " 24

One of the interesting things about this creature, with his small brain, he was still able to manufacture stone tools with the same methodology as used by H. erectus 700,000 years earlier. Brumm states:

" In the Soa Basin of central Flores, eastern Indonesia, stratified archaeological sites, including Mata Menge, Boa Lesa and Kobatuwa (Fig. 1), contain stone artefacts associated with the fossilized remains of Stegodon florensis, Komodo dragon, rat and various other taxa.These sites have been dated to 840–700kyrBP (thousand years before present). The authenticity of the Soa Basin artefacts and their provenance have been demonstrated by previous work, but to quell lingering doubts, here we describe the context, attributes and production modes of 507 artefacts excavated at Mata Menge. We also note specific similarities, and apparent technological continuity, between the Mata Menge stone artefacts and those excavated from Late Pleistocene levels at Liang Bua cave, 50 km to the west. The latter artefacts, dated to between 95–74 and 12kyr ago, are associated with the remains of a dwarfed descendent of S. florensis, Komodo dragon, rat and a small-bodied hominin species, Homo floresiensis, which had a brain size of about 400 cubic centimetres " 25

In the article they note:

" Despite being separated by 50 km and at least 700,000 yr, there are remarkable similarities between the stone artefact assemblage from Mata Menge and that found with H. floresiensis at Liang Bua "26

While this is still a very controversial hominid, one thing does seem certain. this small brained being was able to not only make stone tools but pass that information on to its offspring. H. floresiensis has the smallest of the small brains among the hominids. He is not a human ancestor, but with this tiny brain, he was able to manufacture stone tools. This should put to rest the concept that Adam couldn’t have a small brain. No I don’t think Adam had a brain as small as the floresiensis , but however much bigger his was, it could have carried a fairly intelligent soul.

I want to show the tools that H. Floresiensis made. These tools are smaller versions of the tools made by H. erectus on the island 800,000 years earlier. The consensus is that H. floresiensis descended from erectus but was subject to island dwarfism, a well known phenomenon in biology. Anyway, here are the tools.

One of the most interesting aspects of hominids found on Flores is that it is on the Wallacea side of Wallace’s line. This line is one of the most hard and fast biological barriers known.

" Only two terrestrial mammal groups are known to have crossed Wallacea (the area between the two lines) to migrate into Australasia: rodents and anatomically modern humans. The discovery of Homo floresiensis (‘Hobbits’) on Flores in 2003 indicates a separate dispersal across Wallace’s Line, whereas a ~67,000 year old foot bone from Callao in the Philippines represents a small-bodied hominin of unknown taxonomic affiliation. These taxa remain enigmatic, but suggest that other hominin species had the capacity to cross the powerful marine current that forms and maintains Wallace’s Line even during times of lowered sea levels. " A. Cooper and C. B. Stringer, "Did the Denisovans Cross Wallace’s Line? Science Oct 18, 2003, p. 321

This is because the currents in the straits which must be crossed to get to Flores takes any drifting object out to sea in the Indian Ocean. To cross this strait, one must have steerable boats, not rafts. And this raises the possiblity that H. erectus had that level of technology 800,000 years ago.

We have shown here that brain size should not be barrier to believing that Adam was way back in time. My view is that Adam was likely an H. erectus, but he could have been habilis. I know some will note that fossilized H. erectus isn’t found before 2 million years ago. That is true, but do you really think that the first fossil erectus was the very first erectus on earth? Fossilization is a statistical thing. Species get fossilized AFTER they are numerous and widespread, so that there is plenty of chance for a rare fossilization event to take place and preserve them. When a species is few, and limited to a small locale, it is unlikely that a fossilization event would happen. That will be discussed when we talk about the fossil record. For now, just know, that brain size is not the obstacle for an ancient Adam that everyone thinks it is–it is just a new concept, not an impossibility.

I will discuss the fossil record and its nature and show how habillis or erectus or even an unknown hominid could have lived long ago without leaving a trace of itself.

References

24 . Karen L. Baab, " The place of Homo floresiensis in human evolution," Journal of Anthropological Sciences Vol. 94 (2016), pp. 5-18, p 5. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/60f1/38afdace8300979a7615984d7e03064c458e.pdf
25 .Adam Brumm, Early stone technology on Flores and its implications for Homo floresiensisNature, |Vol 441|1 June 2006 p 624
26 ,Adam Brumm, Early stone technology on Flores and its implications for Homo floresiensis Nature, |Vol 441|1 June 2006p 627