The text of Genesis says that when they were expelled from Eden a guardian was placed "at the east" which indicates that they were driven eastward. When Cain was driven from the presence of the LORD and his family he went further east to the "land of Nod".
So all of the directional motion given in the text is east-west motion. The one possible exception: The text also says that the waters returned to where they came from. In the case of a Mesopotamian flood the waters would drain south. An ark landing at the mountains of Ararat, but on the Mesopotamian side, on the extreme north end of that region doesn't make sense. You can't get there using east-west, and possible south motion from a starting point of an Eden in the Persian Gulf.
However there is one thing that might save the hypothesis of a southern location for Eden: A mistaken location for "the mountains of Ararat". The word used for Ararat is not Hebrew. It is a loan word from another language, likely Assyrian and used by them to identify the land of Uratu. It is difficult to know what it means but I've heard one linguist suggest that it means "the highest lands" or country. The region around our present day Mount Ararat is the highest land relative to the people of Assyria, but what if Noah was in another region, with another "highest land" when the account was compiled?
There was another ancient kingdom with a similar-sounding name, Aratta, probably located somewhere on the other side of Elam. What if the original account said that the ark landed on "the highest lands" which happened to be near a land later named "Aratta" and the name Uratu just happened to mean "highest land" in a local language? Over time it would be easy to see how Noah's "highest lands" got confused for the highest lands of the surrounding area.
Since I have a two-population model for early Genesis the descendants of Adam don't have to be the whole human race. The Reasons to Believe position is that the whole human population lived in the region of Mesopotamia at the time of the flood. I don't think the evidence supports that this was ever true, nor does it need to in my view since the target of the flood was the descendants of Adam, not the rest of the race Adam (humanity). The clan of Adam could have just lived in the large basin in the Kerman and Baluchestan provinces of what is now Iran. Under this scenario that basin was flooded, wiping them out, and the ark of Noah would have landed in the high ground on its western edge. From there, they journeyed east and attained a plain in the land of Shinar. That part would be a good fit with the text of Genesis chapter ten where it describes cities that were in southern and central Mesopotamia as being the start of the kingdom of Nimrod, with the clan of Asshur striking out from there under Nimrod's flag to build more northerly cities.
Again, I still support a northerly Eden based on all the evidence available at this time, but I can see that there are circumstances where a southern location makes sense.
Please "like" and "share".This is a conversation that the church needs to have!
I too have entertained a two-population paradigm. The only sticking point I have is evolutionary biologists pointing two a mitochondrial Adam and Eve. I realize they aren’t saying they together or even at the same time but doesn’t this point to a 1 people population?
ReplyDeleteIt does not because it is not saying that those were the only two alive of their kind, but rather those are the only two who successfully passed down direct male and female descendants. They could have been a part of a population of 1,000. That's 500 couples. Over time most of the lines from those couples may die out. Others may have a generation where they produce no daughters who have offspring, only sons. So their line is out of the running for mitochondrial Eve. Another family may have a generation where they have all daughters but no sons who have children. They are out of the running for "Adam" even though their genes are still in the population- just not their mitochondrial DNA. So over time it may appear they were the only couple according to Y or mito DNA, but the truth was that many families contributed to their genome.
ReplyDeleteSo the "mitochondrial Eve" is more a hypothetical construct. It doesn't necessarily mean she was the only one alive in her day. I think most scientists assume that she wasn't the only one alive. Just the earliest one who had a successful line of daughters to the present day. Same with Adam on the Y-DNA side.
I will also say that if God created an initial population with a little genetic diversity then it could create the impression that they had a natural ancestor that they never had. If he created five men with Y-Chromo "A", and another three with Y-Chromo "B" and one with "C" then the dating methods of science would assume they had a common ancestor further back in time that never existed. They would assume that all three had a common ancestor and try to measure how far back in time this ancestor was by trying to calculate how fast the "A" mutates into a "B" and "C". But that assumes they were not formed from scratch with a certain amount of diversity. It assumes evolution. And I think that happened in later cases but I am not at all sure the first generation of what we would call humans were of the same Y-chromo or mito DNA type.
I think this graphic will help you see what I mean... https://i2.wp.com/peacefulscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/GenealogicalAdam.png?w=1440
ReplyDelete