To Babel and Beyond: A Brief Early History of Man, Biblical Version

Intro: Alternative Histories

A lot of modern Christians exist in a weird sort of parallel universe, historically speaking. We basically take for granted accounts of modern history provided by secular historians, going back until perhaps the medieval era where we find some divergence. (Were the Dark Ages really a benighted era for Europe, or a tumultuous but progressive time of rapid growth for the Church and repelling of jihad, unfairly characterized by post-enlightenment scholars trying to emphasize the achievements of earlier and/or later eras?)

Beyond that, Roman history is pretty much agreed upon, with some A.D. quibbles about whether this or that persecution was accurately described by the church. Go back as far as the Bronze Age, however, and periods of history described in Scripture, and controversies erupt. Go back still farther, and completely alternate histories emerge, until eventually you have two entirely divergent explanations for the existence of humanity and human civilization, which are both rooted in and provide a basis for a deeply divided worldview which can be seen in every level of society today. (either God made us good and we went bad, and all that that entails, or we evolved from apes and are still progressing towards something greater, and all that that entails)

In this post, I want to lay out an example of what a history of early mankind might look like from a Biblical perspective, based on the authority of scripture and linked with the discoveries of modern archeology/anthropology. (There have been a number of serious attempts to match up Biblical history and chronology with the Bronze Age history and dates determined by scholars. I'm just broadly focusing on an earlier time frame than that, mainly to show how you can start from the Biblical account and find that much of the data lines up automatically with it)

Bear in mind, "antiquity" for people like the Romans was
as far back in history as the Romans are for us.

Early History of Man: Bible Version

With the supposedly overwhelming authority of "Science" preached at us every day, we can find it hard to give the events described in the Bible the same weight as we do the pronouncements of archeology or anthropology, even when they construct entire eras of proto-civilization from surprisingly scant pieces of evidence, evidence which sometimes itself was even faked. I'm not saying there is no real science taking place, but often the real artifacts, discovered and catalogued according to (actual) science, the method, are described using almost entirely imaginary scenarios according to Science, the secular humanist belief system for which many faithful atheists profess their love and devotion. These stories can be drastically revised with the discovery of a single new piece of evidence, and frequently are (or aren't, despite the contradicting evidence) but somehow we are expected to consider them as authoritative and the Bible as a book of myths. Lacking an authoritative scriptural narrative, that might be all we could expect, but it's both amusing and frustrating that we're expected to toss out the Bible which is continually found to be more reliable, historically, and instead bow to a secular narrative which changes with the wind and trends.

Scholarship being what it is, and theologians being who they are, my dream of one day seeing a solid attempt by the Church to put forward a coherent timeline of the early history of man (in keeping with the evidence and data we see around us, just separated from their surmised alternative secular explanations) is probably inherently impossible. It would collapse in heated arguments, mostly about minor details.

But here I'd like to at least lay out what we do know, from the Genesis accounts, and then flesh in some details based on things we've discovered, to paint a brief picture of the road from Adam to Babel and beyond.

1. Earliest history

I will begin with Adam and Eve having to leave the garden. (Despite the popularity of attempting it, there's not much point in trying to guess where it was; the great flood would certainly have altered the landscape and course of rivers too much to go by what we see now) After they were forced out, their descendents formed two rival camps; the descendents of Seth, and those of Cain. That we do know from Scripture. We have no reliable knowledge of what this period of history looked like, since nothing survived the flood and if it did we'd have trouble knowing whether it was pre or post flood. We have Scripture's account, however, that it was violent, lawless, and increasingly evil.

Humans had become very numerous before the flood (based on the numbers in Genesis, there were almost certainly hundreds of millions of people and possibly many more) and that global catastrophe had not yet restarted everyone around Ararat and then the plain of Shinar in Sumeria. Since everyone apparently spoke the same language up until Babel, and had hundreds of years of life to explore the world, it's probable some of the remnants of remote and ancient cities for which modern science has little explanation were from this time. (There's evidence to suggest Phoenicians got across the Atlantic, and we still don't know how the Egyptians and Romans managed some of their construction feats, so there's no reason to assume pre-flood people were less capable, especially if they had hundreds of years to master their craft.)

An important factor to remember is that while Scripture says that all human life on earth perished in the flood, and that the "fountains of the deep" opened, clearly a destructive event and probably related to this discovery, it doesn't say that every inch of the earth's surface was thoroughly pulverized. It's possible that in some places, the water would have simply risen rapidly and covered everything, leaving behind what had originally been there. Devoid of life, almost certainly heavily damaged, but not necessarily destroyed. (if a shipwreck can survive at the bottom of the sea for centuries, and a huge tsunami ravages but doesn't "disappear" a modern city, then an ancient city of stone would not vanish after about a year underwater or suddenly be reduced to pebbles when hit by incoming water either, though it might be buried under mud or rubble, as indeed people have discovered some were. It would be interesting if advances in technology reveal more deeply sunken cities around the world)

The picture of early human history currently presented by secular anthropology doesn't really fit what we see around the world, but a pre-ancient world full of cities of people who suddenly vanish, and civilizations emerging abruptly in the Middle East and then soon elsewhere around the world, each with stories of a great flood, does fit the picture rather well.

2. Post-flood

The flood narrowed the total human gene pool down considerably, to Noah and his three sons and their wives. Currently, genetic science claims human genetic diversity reflects the mixture of three "pre-human" contributing sets of DNA; I can't help but wonder if we're actually seeing the genetic legacy of the three sons of Noah. Or their wives, if you want to get mitochondrial. Conversely, since all of current human diversity is from those three sons and their wives, 6 people out of however many were alive at the time (probably a huge population, as mentioned above), it's not surprising we occasionally find some prehistoric (in the literal sense: before recorded history) human remains that look quite different than anyone on earth does today. The "hobbit" bones found in Indonesia, and all the "primitive" skulls (some with bigger brain cases than the average modern human) found in various places, make sense if you imagine the incredible human diversity that must have existed before the flood. What are now explained as pre-human ancestors probably are remains from those other humans.

In terms of the flood event itself, from Noah on there is much evidence of man's expansion from a new beginning. Fascinatingly, despite all the attention given to Sumer, there is quite a bit of evidence that much of "modern" human civilization started right near where the ark is thought to have come to rest in Southeastern Turkey; horses were first domesticated around there, and wheat and corn strains can be traced back to their ancestral cultivars around the same area. (For example, from Wikipedia: "Genetic analysis of wild einkorn wheat suggests that it was first grown in the Karacadag Mountains in southeastern Turkey.") That only makes sense, if humans got off the ark and started rebuilding what was lost in the flood, and planting crops and vineyards. There's also an amazing, very ancient ruin, described as possibly the world's oldest temple, less than 300 miles from the Mountains of Ararat, which features massive stone slabs covered with lifelike relief carvings of animals. Scholars are confused because they date it to a time supposedly before the existence of metal tools or even pottery. (Right.. that's the description of someone clinging to a false timeline)

Later, the account of Babel suggests that humans didn't spread out after the ark, but stayed together. (it would make sense; the task of rebuilding civilization would require everyone) Since God had told them to spread out and fill the earth, however, the idea of a pan-human civilization that clustered in one place and built a tower to the heavens was not in the plans. We don't know exactly what method God used to confuse and divide the languages (as a linguist I'm quite curious). I've seen creative theories on neurolinguistic viruses, given that the world's population were all concentrated in one place. It's impossible to know of course, but fun to think about, and it will be interesting to see if advances in neuroscience and linguistics don't provide explanations for how it could have occurred. Either way, we can see the division of Babel is still there today. You can observe language fragmentation happening naturally anywhere (to an extreme degree in places like Papua/New Guinea or the Caucasus Mountains), and the trend has only recently been overcome in the developed world by national education policies (China has an uncountable number of local dialects, Mandarin is just the artificially-enforced national language), and the prevalence of TV and the internet.


Shinar, where the tower of Babel was located, is in the Fertile Crescent (sometimes referred to as the "Cradle of Civilization"). Archeologists/anthropologists describe two basic centers of culture, one around what is now Eastern Turkey, and one down in modern day Iraq, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers. The latter contains what some consider the oldest city in the world, Eridu, which is a very probable site for the Tower of Babel itself, with a very old, huge, and incomplete ziggurat. (Sumerian mythology even claims it to be one of the first 5 cities built -before- the Flood. Perhaps that simply a boast, or perhaps the name was remembered and used again)

One of the ancient mounds at Eridu

Another fascinating site, Çatalhöyük, is about 500 miles west of the "Mountains of Ararat" where the ark landed. It is one of the most ancient settlements ever discovered, has unique architectural properties, and is quite unusual in that there are no streets; houses are clustered together, honeycomb-style, and the roofs are used for travel. In the linked article, they comment that, unusually, the dozens of bodies buried under the floor of each house are unrelated to each other. Also the houses had white plaster walls, some covered in elaborate artwork. It makes you think... might those wandering out in the years after the flood have formed at least one memorial city for the countless lost lives? The corpses would not vanish into thin air, remember. If it's true that there were hundreds of millions to billions of people alive before the flood (as the Genesis numbers suggest), not to mention all the animals, you'd doubtless find corpses all around, left by the receding waters (or collected into drifts here and there, mixed with debris). The roof-walking habit might have been an adaptation to the post-flood period, to avoid the rotting vegetation and corpse-ridden ground as much as possible, or even be based on an ark-like idea of a common deck surface with hatches leading below to the various compartments, as there were only a few people alive at the beginning and Noah had spent a very long time building the ark and would have been the most experienced person around and in charge while he was alive (and sober).

See, it's easy to form plausible-sounding conjectures from the evidence available, going from what you believe the conditions of the time and context to have been. I have no idea if that's even close to the reality of that ancient city, but what I just did is no different from what secular anthropologists do, except I am basing my theory on a scriptural context. (Basically I have more reason to be confident in my hypothetical interpretation of the data than I do theirs)

But is it a coincidence that the "world's oldest temple" and "world's most ancient settlement" are located within a few hundred miles of the ark's resting place (and even closer to each other), and the "world's oldest city" is in Shinar with a huge, unfinished ziggurat nearby a natural supply of pitch? It's unreasonable to insist it must be, when it conforms so closely to the pre-existing Biblical narrative. (Unless you are like an atheist I once argued with, who said a certain thing couldn't possibly be true, because if so that means God did it.)

3. Post-Babel

With regards to the Flood and Babel, Sumerian mythology has such obvious references to these events that many scholars believe the Bible borrowed its accounts from them. (Since the content of what existed of the Old Testament was oral at that point, and there are some similarities of style between the two, it's just as reasonable to conclude that everyone knew these events had occurred in fairly recent history and had their own versions of the account. The Sumerian account is "aggrandized," however, and mixed with stories of their gods; the Biblical record reads like a very sober and straightforward account of the event by comparison. Entirely aside from faith in scripture, it very much reads like the Biblical account is the original, and the Sumerian account is the flowery, mythologized version)

The genealogies in Genesis 10 provide a tantalizing picture of humans spreading out after the Flood/Babel, though unfortunately we don't have enough information to put all the pieces together. Some people are specifically pointed out as the ancestors of certain peoples, mostly those relevant to the Hebrews, being in their vicinity. One clear example occurs for Greece, where one grandson of Noah (Javan) is used consistently in Hebrew scripture as the word for Greece. One of Javan's sons is named Tarshish, the name of a location referenced repeatedly in scripture (notably as the place to where Jonah tried to flee). It is not known for certain whether this is the city of Tarsus in modern Turkey (where the Apostle Paul was from) but it's likely, and the city is ancient enough for this to be the case. There is also a grandson named Cush, which is the ancient civilization of Ethiopia, also Ashur - Assyrians, and Aram - Arameans, whose language, Aramaic, was the common local language during Jesus' life.

Beyond the grandsons, whose nations can be identified, many further descendents can be as well.
(There is also much conjecture... for example some think the Sinites are the ancestors of China)

Based on the grandsons of Noah, one can basically populate the ancient world from SE Russia to the Arabian peninsula and Ethiopia, and from Greece and southeastern Europe to Persia, in other words the entire Near East stretched farther north and south. Every grandson corresponds to a known location. (Observe how different this is from the imaginary and mythical lands of other ancient religious accounts)

Of those groups that wandered off to further points of the globe, we don't know the account of their travels, but interestingly in the secular account of history you suddenly have the roots of the great world civilizations all popping up in different places in the same era. It works out that from Babel in the Fertile Crescent, the meeting place of Europe, Asia, and Africa, descendents spread out and traveled until they found good places to settle down and start working on a minor version of what everyone had been attempting in Sumeria, such as the Indus and Yellow River valleys. (There is a Great Flood story in ancient Hindu scriptures, and in Chinese legend as well)

Egypt, one of the oldest civilizations of all, was around basically from the beginning...

"Egypt is called Mestraim by the Hebrews; and Mestraim lived not long after the flood. For after the flood, Cham (or Ham), son of Noah, begat Aeguptos or Mestraim, who was the first to set out to establish himself in Egypt, at the time when the tribes began to disperse this way and that…" Eusebius, 4th AD historian.

(Of course Eusebius is writing many centuries after the event. As I mentioned at the beginning, antiquity has its own antiquity... the Greeks and Romans idealized the distant past as we sometimes idealize their time)

4. A word about Old Testament chronology

On the topic of Egypt, a problem arises: there is not enough time in apparent Biblical history for well-chronicled Egyptian history to have occurred. For a good treatment of that subject which basically assumes Ussher's dates (a very young earth), go here. That article acknowledges there is no way to get from Ussher's early date of the flood/creation to a reconciliation with Egyptian history, even as it holds to the very young earth theory, and suggests the minimum required missing years might be found here and there throughout the chronology.

However, the problem is resolved if we acknowledge the practice of "telescoping" in Hebrew genealogies, as described here in pretty good detail. Some have difficulty stomaching the idea that the Bible could be inerrant if the genealogies are constructed differently from their own ideas about them, but I think it's important to remember that the Bible is inerrant in the original texts, and those texts written not by modern people but by ancients who had some different literary habits than we do; being carried along by the Spirit to write inerrantly does not mean the end product would look exactly as it would look were they to be written in English today, and that is nothing that should make us nervous. Also, note that telescoping the genealogies only moves the date of creation back by a few thousand years, as compared to the trillions of years that evolution demands. It is not an attempt to accommodate secular creation theories, merely an acknowledgement of Hebrew chronological practices.

As a creationist who has studied linguistics and biblical languages, I have no problem with the idea that the Hebrew writers of the Old Testament followed their usual practice of 'arranging' genealogies, just as the gospel writers sometimes rearranged the chronology of Jesus' ministry to emphasize certain points. Putting back in the unselected generations adds in a satisfactory amount of time to allow for the development of modern civilization from antiquity -in accordance with the Biblical account, not springing from alternative, evolution-based secular theories- which means we don't have to pretend in faith not to see the pyramids, but also aren't conforming our biblical interpretation to secular chronologies, which see a 10,000 year earth as identically ridiculous to a 6,000 year earth, considering the vast depths of time needed for non-life to become life (no amount of time is enough) in their Creator-less models.

So although I am open to any valid evidence that does not go against the authority of scripture, as of right now, the creationist + expanded genealogy timeline is the opinion I hold and feel best interprets scripture in the light of what we know while holding it as inerrant. It also allows for the Great Flood being a global event, as scripture clearly attests, and not localized. If the flood was only local, then ancient civilizations like the Maya can be getting their start right alongside Hindu and Chinese civilizations, people already being over there, without needing extra time to populate Central America. If it was global, as the Bible attests, and humanity had to start over from Ararat, you need time after Babel for people to migrate all the way to the New World and build up enough population to begin thousands of years of Mayan city-building and civilization. The best dates for those civilizations in fact reflect the latter situation, with Near East civilizations being the oldest, followed by other Asian civilizations, followed by ancient New World cultures and others.

On the other hand, maybe they just sailed straight over... (Kon-Tiki)

5. In Closing

For more on the grandsons of Noah and their descendents and where they went/who they became, there are lots of different theories that can be found by googling, but not much of real value; many of the theories are pretty tenuous, based on guesses about names and place/people group names they sound like. The truth is that, beyond the grandsons in the genealogy, which can mostly be strongly identified with places within the ancient near eastern world, we can't say how the rest of the globe was peopled by their descendents. We do know that nothing took as much time as is usually demanded by secular scholars, who with long ages to fill, have people spending thousands of years without upgrading their flint points. (The Darwinian "long, slow, steady" evolution idea and its roots in gradualism, has influenced all of secular academia. A look at the real world reveals things are more like grains of sand falling on a pile, where steady change actually produces sudden avalanches and snowball effects on a regular basis.)

One good thing is that as we are increasingly able to catalog sources of ancient material and written documents (if the neo-caliphate doesn't blow them up first), and communicate those findings over the internet, we are able to uncover knowledge about the ancient world perhaps unknown since deep in antiquity. As we learn more, the Biblical account is proven more and not less reliable. It may be that in the coming days, even the mystery of people movements away from Babel and to the ends of the earth may begin to be solved.


I hope that was interesting. Feel free to leave a comment if you think I'm missing something or you know of additional info that would be helpful to throw into the mix.