The First Human Language

Introduction

Multi-disciplinary evidence suggests that Basal-Hebrew was humanity’s first spoken and  written language.^[i]  The topic of the original language is controversial with conflicting theories and an absence of tangible evidence to support definitively any perspective.  Based on existing evidence, however, we may infer the most plausible original human language.

In this study, I will examine the following lines of evidence, most of which necessitate inference: paleontological evidence of first-language capacity; geographical, social, and genetic evidence of the first known use of language; and the implications of the direct historical example in Genesis.  Then I will synthesize this evidence and conclude that Basal-Hebrew most plausibly is the first human language.

Paleontological evidence of first-language capacity

Although most professional paleontologists are macro-evolutionists, a growing number of scientists are rejecting macro-evolution because scientific evidence not only fails to support this position, but conflicts with it as well.^[ii]  By macroevolution, I am referring to the belief that over a long period of time, an entire genus or genus subgroup (an entire taxonomic group of an organism) transforms into another genus or genus subgroup.  Microevolution, by contrast, and by legitimate scientific observation, refers to small genetic changes within a group, such as among birds.  Reasons for rejecting macroevolution on scientific grounds are numerous, so I will limit the list to a mere seven:

1. A random macroevolutionary process cannot produce DNA.
2. The origins of proteins are distinct among themselves and cannot be bridged by an evolutionary process.
3. There has been a demonstrated irreducibility of organisms—Darwin himself acknowledged this as a possibility.
4. Positive “information-adding” mutations are required in nature for macroevolution to function, but this has never been scientifically observed and verified.
5. There are still substantial gaps in the fossil record which should not exist if macroevolution occurred.
6. The timespan for macroevolution to occur among certain species is inadequately short, e.g., Homo Habilis evolving into Homo Erectus, since they lived at the same time, by overlap, and the time by which they lived apart temporally is by far too brief to hypothesize macroevolution.
7. Soft tissue has been discovered repeatedly on dinosaur bones, disqualifying dinosaurs from having lived millions of years ago, though “millions of years ago” is required for this in a macroevolutionary process. ^[iii]

A macroevolutionary view of the emergence of humanity typically classifies humans as apes.  Within this mindset, the ape that exhibits clear and certain human characteristics is Homo Erectus (HE)—a man or woman who could talk (based on cranial base analysis), and was an architect, farmer, artist, sailor, and much more.  HE was a human being who therefore stood perfectly upright, as the ordinary and dominant mode of locomotion—sometimes over six feet tall—and whose brain size fell with the range of normal human beings.  The ape closest to Homo Erectus in development, according to most macro-evolutionists, is Homo Habilis, sometimes reclassified apart from Homo, rather as part of the genus of bipedal apes, Australopithecus.  However, Homo Habilis (HH) is different substantially from Homo: HH was much shorter—a little over four feet (on average a little shorter than an orangutan)—was not fully bi-pedal, could not talk, had a much smaller brain and disproportionately long arms and shorter legs, and did not (unlike HE) make fire, create art, design homes, or sail on rafts.  HH was not the first man, nor was a man at all.^[iv]  Homo Erectus is man, however, and could not have evolved from Homo Habilis because he lived during the same time—supposedly, according to the macroevolutionary timetable—overlapping several hundreds of thousands of years, rendering impossible the supposed necessary time for macroevolution to occur.

Relevant to this discussion are the recent discoveries of Homo Naledi (HN) at Rising Star cave.   In a nutshell (or small cavern): in a cave in South Africa, a paleoanthropological team led by Lee Berger in 2013, with follow-up culminating in 2023, discovered fossil remains of several “hominids” named Homo Naledi.  Based on the team’s findings in the cave, HN may have deliberately buried their dead, made fire in the cave, and carved simple geometric designs on the cave walls.^[v]  Contrarily, many experts are skeptical or unconvinced.  For example, the supposed burials could have been simple HN funerary caches—a natural response because of the emotional-social bonds that terminated—or the HN may have been buried or placed there later by humans.  Regardless, over time, the HN could easily have been covered by a layer of sediment.  Certain animals are known to store, cover, or bury their dead, including ants, elephants, and chimpanzees.^[vi]  Tending to the dead ritually, including through burial, with afterlife overtones, is different—is human.  We do not see evidence of this with the HN.  Concerning the cave “art” and evidence of fire—humans could have entered the cave and done this, and the proposed evidence has not yet been dated, and has just begun the process of peer review, as of this writing.  Furthermore, the cave’s structure may have been different and more accessible at the time of HN’s entry, thousands of years ago.

HN averaged perhaps 4 ft 9 in, 88 lb.  Though his hands and feet were similar to others categorized in the genus homo, his elevated shoulder and clavicle bones, legs, and brain size more resemble Australopithecines.  Nevertheless, HN’s brain shape may be more similar to modern humans, though his brain size is one-third to one-half the size of modern man.  HN also features ape-arboreal capacity missing in HE and Neanderthal.

HN could not have evolved into HE because, according to macroevolutionary dating, HN lived about 335,00 – 235,000 years ago, over a million years after HE emerged.  HN evolving into Homo Sapiens Neanderthal also is precluded because of substantial, multiple, massive differences between the two and shortage of macroevolutionary time to evolve.  So, was HN essentially a smaller, ethnic version of early man, similar to HE?  Probably not because of significant anatomical differences and lack of established evidence of human traits.  More likely, HN is another ancient Australopithecine-type ape, and suggestions by some that they meaningfully buried their dead, created art, and made fires lack evidence, at least at this time.  More research is required in this inquiry.

In addition, a common macroevolutionary argument for the natural transition from ancient ape to man or man-ape is the fusion of human Chromosome 2.  The chromosome appears to some that two ancient ape chromosomes were stitched together.  This macroevolutionary position posits that the common ancestor between these apes and “human” apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes, and initially transmitted them to those animals that began evolving into apes and then humans. The apes kept that number of chromosomes, but after or at the time the human lineage split off from the ancient ape lineage, something happened to fuse two of the chromosomes, leading to only 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans.^[vii]  Supposedly, this event naturally created the first “human,” or “human-ape.”

However, besides the hypothetically extraordinary unlikely odds of this mutational event occurring and successfully transmitting through sexual activity with another precisely-mutated ape of the opposite sex—and into successive generations—the alleged fusion point of Chromosome 2 is an active gene, rendering a fusion naturally impossible, according to the most recent genetic analysis.  Moreover, the length of Chromosome 2 is about 10% shorter than the combined length of the hypothetical two pre-fused neighboring ape chromosomes.^[viii]  In addition, the expected telomeres at the alleged fusion site are missing, as is the expected defunct centromere on the chromosome.  These reasons preclude the hypothetical fusion as a macroevolutionary possibility.^[ix]  However, could a supernatural event—an information-adding-transformation “outside of the system,” i.e., from God—miraculously have produced this truncated and altered chromosomal change-up, producing a radically different creature?  An event of this magnitude is quite other than an immediate transition from four ancient ape parents—mom and dad apes for the first human male, and the same for the first human female.  Rather, this would be a special divine creation, an altered ancient ape blueprint—a human blueprint, including supernatural infusion of the soul—the design for the first man and woman.

There is no evidence, then, that man evolved from ancient ape, or that humans are just an evolutionary form of ape.  So, then, was HE the first man, and if so, did he speak?

Paleontological evidence strongly suggests that Homo Erectus also lived alongside Homo Sapiens Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.^[x]  The age-date range of Homo-erectus fossils, thus far, is extraordinarily varied, from as long as 1.5 million to 6,000 years old!  It seems that accurately dating the emergence and demise of HE is quite problematic, and we know HE lived among and with Homo Sapiens Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  Therefore, no reliable evidence has demonstrated HE’s predating other early humans.  HE seems to be a specific ethnic early human.  Further, all early humans apparently had the ability to speak, including HE and Homo Sapiens Neanderthals.^[xi]

An aside: standard contemporary fossil dating does not factor in the scientific evidence and dating implications of a global flood, nor assumptions in dating method that repeatedly disclose dating error.  This is not to say contemporary fossil dating methods cannot be useful; rather, scientists—at least as some do—should acknowledge dating assumptions and limitations.  Scientific research and findings are replete with references to these limitations, as well as increasing reason to suggest the likelihood of a global flood and its implications on fossil dating and methodology.^[xii]  Just one example are the results of the work of Dr. William Bruce Masse and his team of environmental archaeologists, demonstrating the likelihood of a global flood caused by a comet slamming the Indian Ocean floor of Madagascar probably less than 6,000 years ago, and possibly in the early 3rd millennium B.C.^[xiii]

Geographical, social, and genetic evidence of the first known use of language

In trying to ascertain the first known use of language, we must seek results that are evidence-based.  The thesis of this paper, though proposing a most plausible assertion, still must be built upon tangible evidence—must be evidence-based—to be logically coherent.  Where does the evidence lead us?  Once we find this destination, we may infer one or more of the most logically likely scenarios.  In this field of study, certain recent linguistic-archaeological discoveries are advancing our knowledge about the development and dating of early Semitic languages.  First, Proto-Canaanite (Proto-Sinaitic/Sinaitic) may not predate Proto-Hebrew, or, if it does predate, does so earlier than previously thought.  Recently, two striking archaeological discoveries reveal more about the ancient history and origin of Proto-Hebrew.

The first is a limestone slab, dated about 1300 B.C., upon which is inscribed a curse in Proto-Canaanite script against the governor of Jerusalem: “Cursed, cursed, you will surely die; cursed, cursed, you will surely die; Governor of the City, you will surely die; cursed, you will surely die; cursed, you will surely die; cursed, you will surely die.”^[xiv]  This Proto-Canaanite inscription now is the earliest we have on record; Eli Shukron discovered it in 2010 and Prof. Gershon Galil (Institute of Biblical Studies and Ancient History, University of Haifa) deciphered and interpreted it in 2022.  The inscription probably just predates Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem following the Exodus from Egypt and entrance into Canaan, the Promised Land.

The second discovery—made by the Associates for Biblical Research in March, 2022—a Proto-Hebraic inscription found on Mt. Ebal, is dated very likely to the Late Bronze Age, 13-14^th Century B.C.^[xv]  The ancient lead foil proto-alphabetic Hebraic inscription consists of 40 letters, deciphered by tomographic scans, and is centuries older than any known Hebrew inscription from ancient Israel.  This find is stunning, and certainly seems to validate Biblical history, chronologically corresponding to Deuteronomy 11:29 and the potential curses Moses called out on Mount Ebal to the children of Israel when they made a covenant with God before entering the Promised Land.

This piece also urges reform for certain contemporary Biblical scholarship.  This scholarship erroneously dates the Exodus to the 13^th century BC—though many scholars also erroneously deny the Exodus ever happened, contrary to evidence.  The likely discovery of the Proto-Hebraic inscription found on Mt. Ebal, then, redirects these scholars to correct and readjust the Exodus and conquest dating to the Biblical timeline of the 15^th  century and early 14^th century.  Moreover, the proposed discovery beckons these same scholars to acknowledge, objectively, that Hebraic writing and the biblical text occurred much earlier than previously thought.  Notwithstanding the concrete evidence of this analysis, scholars—among other critics logically and justifiably dismissed—have contended correctly that the ABR discussed their findings at a press release, but did not initially present their peer-review publication.  The reason for positioning the press release first? According to the ABR, e.g., referencing Peter van der Veen, a threat of theft and false publication loomed among professional colleagues, so the ABR first presented the press release.^[xvi]  Fortunately, this year (2023) the ABR presented the evidence, marking a dramatically important development in the dating and use of Proto-Hebrew.^[xvii]

From available evidence, Egyptian hieroglyphics—sacred sign scripts—predate Proto-Hebrew and Proto-Canaanite/Sinaitic.  The origin of Egyptian hieroglyphics is not well understood.  Based on available, well-established evidence, as early as c. 3,200-3,000 BC, in the Naqada III/Dynasty 0 Period, these hieroglyphics are found on vessels buried in tombs.^[xviii]   Later, Egyptians developed and wrote in hieratic/cursive script c. 2925-200 BC, generally written with a reed ink pen on papyrus.  Recent research and scholarship strongly suggest that the first written alphabet was the earliest Biblical Hebrew, carefully appropriated and constructed from Egyptian hieroglyphics during the Abrahamic Hebrew/Israelite centuries-long sojourn in Egypt.^[xix]  Prior to this, Abrahamic Hebrews spoke Hebrew and would have communicated in pictograph or cuneiform no longer extant.  Currently, we have no evidence that Hebrews wrote in cuneiform. Nevertheless, Genesis’s colophonic historical narrative presupposes a tradition of written communication, paralleling and dependent upon a foundational Hebraic spoken language, that suggests developed, comprehensible pictograph, or—more likely—early cuneiform.^[xx]  Still, Hebraic pre-Egyptian and proto-Sumerian pictography—apart from cuneiform—not only is a theoretical mode of written communication, but seems likely since Edward Crawford’s 1983 discovery of the Ahora Covenant Inscription.^[xxi]

Prior to and possibly related to Egyptian hieratic script development, the ancient Sumerians developed cuneiform, a wedge-shaped character, logo-syllabic writing system, created c. 3,500 BC.  Sumerian proto-cuneiformic pictographs predate Egyptian hieroglyphics, and (contrary to previous assessments) the Sumerians wrote and spoke a Semitic language, specifically Hamito-Semitic.  Sumerian, understood as early Semitic, is explained and demonstrated particularly well in the recent and by far most comprehensive, thorough analysis of structural complexities and dynamics of Sumerian.^[xxii]   In addition, ancestral genetic evidence suggests semitic genetic identity of Sumerians.^[xxiii]  The cultural, linguistic dispersal of various early ethnicities from Uruk and its immediate surroundings within the Near East, parallel in time and place to the Biblical description of the dispersal of people from Babel, may explain the significantly varied, and yet similar, dynamic and development of languages, including those that appeared superficially as language isolates, such as Sumerian.^[xxiv]

Sumerian authors were familiar with the Hebraic Biblical genealogical historical narrative of Genesis, and were dependent on it in documenting certain Sumerian mythologies, implying an affinity between the basis of Hebrew and Sumerian.^[xxv]  This also suggests that the Hebraic source, in addition to its oral component, may have been written in early cuneiform.  Proto-cuneiform or pictograph still could convey concepts, but not as effectively as cuneiform; the proposed approximate 3,500 BC emergence of cuneiform, in conjunction with the Septuagintal timeline, or perhaps with the more constricted Masoretic timeline, suggests a likely Hebraic early cuneiform influence in a tightly imbedded cultural matrix.^[xxvi]

Genesis is grammatically intelligible only in Hebrew, the language in which it first was written, or in a translation of it, such as Hebrew translated into the Greek Septuagint or Aramaic Peshitta.  From within ancient Rabbinic tradition up to the present with contemporary thinkers, such as Mike Gascoigne, the Hebrew of Genesis is linguistically irreducible.  That is, from the position of faith, it must be the original language of God’s revelation, beginning with creation, and from the position of history of literature, the Genesis Hebrew cannot be predated and translated from another language.  Examples of this irreducibility abound, so I will mention only four.

First, names for God in Biblical Hebrew have no equivalency.  I will discuss merely two. The generic Hebraic, Biblical name for God is Elohim (אלהים), a plural name for the One God, implying personal, relational distinction within, i.e., Trinitarian Personhood.  At times, God refers to Himself in first person plural, e.g., Genesis 1:26, 3:22.  The nuance of “Elohim” renders it imperfectly translatable.

The sacred, personal, covenant name for God is YHWH (יהוה).  An exact equivalency name for this in a different language does not exist.  YHWH is based on the Hebrew verb “to be” (הוה).   An approximate English translation might be “He is” or “He Who is.”  God revealed His personal name to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3)—“I Am Who Am” (אהיה   אשר  אהיה).  The two personal, divine names are grammatically and personally intricately related.  Eve calls God “YHWH” in Genesis 4:1.  Use of this word is original, hardly a translation from Sumerian or any other language.  These are some of the Hebraic names of God revealed by God Himself to humanity, underscoring the use of Hebrew as a divinely-willed first language of humanity that retains a sacred priority throughout time.

The names for Adam and Eve also reflect Hebraic originality: Adam (אדם) and Eve (חוה) in Hebrew, respectively, mean earth/dirt/son of the red earth, and living/mother of the living.  Translations lose this meaning, a meaning that contributes substantially to the narrative.  Similarly, God’s creation of Eve from Adam’s rib loses meaning in translation.  In the Genesis narrative 2:20-25: not only do “man” (ish איש) and “woman” (isha אשה ) phonetically sound like a pair, but “isha” also means “her man” in Hebrew—“…because out of “her man” this one was taken (Genesis 2:23).   The Hebrew is significant and original.

Therefore, Hebraic Genesis would be necessary as the intelligible and most coherently developed source for Sumerian Biblical/Genesis referencing.  It also is plausible that Proto-Hebrew/Sinaitic is closely related to Sumerian, and vice-versa.

The inferred foundational language upon which this relationship is based, thus predating Sumerian—the oldest known language, by inference—is what I call Basal-Hebrew, or the base of the earliest Hebrew-Semitic languages.  This is humanity’s earliest known and very likely original language using evidenced/logically-based reasoning.  In other words, logically there must be a Hebraic-related Semitic base to Sumerian, and there is no evidence of any other language that predates this.  Also, no scientific or historical evidence supports existence of earlier humans and human culture predating the matrix of peoples and their recent ancestors from which the Sumerians emerged.^[xxvii]

Moreover, regarding Genesis content, apart from linguistic meaning and coherence, Sumerian likely follows Basal-Hebrew, not the converse.  The Sumerian application of Genesis content is mythological, whereas Genesis is genealogical historical narrative.  Genesis’s colophonic structure—significant for its early dating and historical, grammatical meaning—and other corroborating sources that impart remarkably similar content, such Tablet XI of the Epic of Gilgamesh—testify to its intent to impart history, not just a story.  Myth follows actual history.  In addition, literarily, regarding actual history vs. myth, mythological simplicity emerges from the vastly more complex, detailed actual history.  This is true, for example, of Sumerian stories of creation of humanity—including the first woman created from the first man, paradise and the first sin, and the Flood and its surrounding context.^[xxviii] Therefore, logically, Basal-Hebrew predates Sumerian, and perhaps significantly because of the extensive maturation time of cultivated Sumerian mythology.

Basal Hebrew may well have been the language of the Ubaidians, a Mesopotamian people and culture, originating perhaps from the middle of present-day Iraq, that predated and likely developed into the Sumerians, as well as perhaps other unknown populations.  In a current mainstream secular view, this Ubaidian time period is c. 6500–3800 BC.  I have explained above the problematic nature of distant-dating precision; regardless, the Ubaidians seem to have originated prior to the Sumerian culture as we know it.  The proposed location of Ubaidian origin corresponds very well with a commonly proposed Near Eastern location of the Garden of Eden depicted in Genesis, although the global Flood likely erased evidence upon which we can depend for a precise location.  The early Genesis Septuagintal or Masoretic chronology, as previously discussed, very nicely accommodates postdiluvian archaeological finds on development of pottery, architecture, and dispersal of culture (and therefore language) from a specific centralized Near Eastern location, Uruk, mentioned above, that matches the Biblical geography and timeline of dispersion of language from Babel.^[xxix]

Other contenders of peoples as early as or even earlier than the Ubaidians, who may have spoken and pictographically written Basal-Hebrew, thereby influencing Sumerian, were the Indus Valley people, via the Sumer Meluhha trade route, and people of southcentral and southeastern Turkey, living in or near Çatalhöyük and Göbeklitepe, all of whom are within ancient business traveling distance from Sumer.^[xxx]

Conclusion

The Ubaidians, probably of the central Near East and proximate to the Sumerians, or the peoples of the Indus Valley, or southcentral or southeastern Turkey, are the earliest known civilizations or near-civilizations.  As such, one or more of these proximate populations to the Sumerians logically would have been the root source of the early Basal-Hebrew Semitic language applied by the Sumerians.  Since Sumerian pictographic and cuneiform written documents are the oldest on record—with the possible thesis- affirming exception of the proto-Sumerian/plausibly Hebraic Ahora Covenant Inscription—their speech and literacy, from available evidence, must have developed in some way from their immediate predecessors.  Thus, given the scientific and historical data at hand, literary examination, and logical treatment of this topic, our available multifarious evidence suggests that Basal-Hebrew was humanity’s first spoken and written language.

Endnotes

^[i]The word “Basal-Hebrew” is my own.  It means the foundational or “base” grammatical structure upon which Sumerian, Sinaitic, Proto-Hebrew, and other of the earliest Hebraic/Semitic languages developed.  Substantially, more explicitly Hebraic languages would follow closely Basal-Hebrew grammatical construction and vocabulary.   Because, as I will explain, Sumerian is loosely Semitic and seems to depend in some of its most important literature on the ancient Hebrew of Genesis, I think associating the earliest known Semitic language to ancient Basal-Hebrew is necessary.

^[ii]The list of scientists who have done so is significantly voluminous and includes people of both genders, various ethnicities and religious or secular beliefs.  An example is former atheist (now Catholic) German paleontologist Gunter Bechly.

^[iii]The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation presents on the scientific problems and incoherency of macroevolutionary belief concerning this list and much more—please see their website articles, videos, and resources.  Another source (among others) to which I refer are Professor Gunter Bechly’s YouTube presentation and interviews, especially concerning points 1-6.  I do not ascribe to all of Bechly’s scientific, philosophical, and theological views, but his advocacy for intelligent design and his incisive dismantling of macroevolutionary principles is significant as we continue to learn about God’s creation of the natural order.

^[iv]“A Comparative Analysis: Homo Habilis Vs. Homo Erectus,” BiologyWise, 2022. Web.  Ewen Callaway, “Homo erectus made the world’s oldest doodle 500,00 years ago,” Nature, 3 December 2014. Web.  Daniel Everett, “Did Homo erectus speak?”, Aeon, 28 February 2018. Web.

^[v] Robin McKie, “Were small-brained early humans intelligent?  Row erupts over scientists’ claim,” The Guardian: The Observer-Paleontology, 22 July 2023. Web. Stephen Luntz, “Homo Naledi documentary adds fuel to already heated scientific debate,” IFLScience, 24 July 2023. Web.

^[vi] “Animals that bury their dead just like humans,” Naturenex, 24 June 2021. Web.  Laura Moss, “Animals watch over their dead, but is it really mourning?,” Tree Huggers.   Updated 15 August 2018.

^[vii] Some modern apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes.  At this time in genetic technology, the number of pairs of chromosomes of ancient apes are speculation.

^[viii] Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D., “Human Chromosome 2 Never Happened,” in Genesis, 21 March 2022. Web.

^[ix]“Chromosome Fusion? It’s Getting Harder and Harder to Believe,” Proslogion: Evolution, Modern Science, 9 December 2013. Web.  J. Tomkins, Ph.D., “Alleged Human Chromosome 2 ‘Fusion Site’ Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion,” Semantic Scholar: Biology, 2013. Web.  See Tomkins, “Human Chromosome 2 Never Happened,” and Avery Foley, “Unraveling the Chromosome 2 Connection,” Answers in Genesis, 21 March 2022. Web.

^[x]“Homo erectus lived alongside modern humans,” Unexplained-Mysteries.com: Paleotology, 26 December 2019. Paul Rincon, Science Editor, “Homo erectus: Ancient humans survived longer than we thought,” BBC News, 18 December 2019.  Web. Adam Clark Estes, “It wasn’t Just Neanderthals: Ancient Humans Had Sex with Other Hominids,” The Atlantic, 7 September 2011.  Web.

^[xi]Melissa Hogenboom, Science Reporter, “Neanderthals could speak like modern humans, study suggests,” BBC News: Science, 20 December 2013.  Web.  Ruth Schuster, “Neanderthals Could Speak, New Study Claims to Prove,” Haaretz: Archaeology, 2 March 2021.  Web.  Josh Gabbatiss: Science Correspondent, “Homo erectus: Early humans were able to speak and crossed sea on boats, expert claims,” Independent, 20 February 2018.  Web.  “The Anatomy of Speech,” Fossil Hunters, 7 January 2022.  Web.

^[xii]“Is Radiometric Dating Accurate?,” Earth Age, 2010, Web.  David Plaisted, “More bad news for radiometric dating,” University of North Carolina, March 2006.  Web.  Don Mac, “Why is it difficult to date sedimentary rocks using radiometric dating techniques?”, Earth Science, 2016. Web.  Gemma Tarlach, “Everything Worth Knowing About…Scientific Dating Methods,” Discover, May 31, 2016. Web.  G. Brent Dalrymple, “Radiometric dating does work!”, National Center for Science Education, May-June 2000.  Web.  John Black, “Dating methods in Archaeology.  Are they accurate?” Ancient Origins: Reconstructing the story of humanity’s past, March 2013, Web. Colm Gorey, “Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery,” Silicon Republic, 6 June 2018. Web.  Numerous peer-reviewed research results regarding C-14 dating from coal, fossil fuels, and dinosaur bones provide concrete examples of C-14 dating yielding increasingly higher ages as applied to more ancient objects.  This is because of environmental factors changing over time.  For an excellent treatment of this topic, see Hugh Owen, "If You Believed Moses, You Would Believe Me," Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, pp. 32-34, 15 January 2014. Web.

^[xiii]“W. Bruce Masse's research while affiliated with Los Alamos National Laboratory and other places,” Research Gate, 2014.  Web.  Scott Carney, “Did a Comet Cause the Great Flood?,” Discover, 15 November 2007.  Dallas Helen Abbott, Bruce W. Masse, et. al., “Burckle abyssal impact crater: “Did this impact produce a global deluge?”, Columbia: Academic Commons, 2005.  Web.

^[xiv]Ruth Schuster, “Archaeologists Reveal Oldest Inscription in Jerusalem: A Canaanite  Curse,” Haaretz, 10 July 2022.  Web.  WND News Services, “Curses: Archaeologists reveal oldest inscription in Jerusalem,” Daily Angle, 10 July 2022.  Web.

^[xv]Ruth Schuster, “Early Israelite Curse Inscription Found on Mt. Ebal,” Haaretz, 22 March 2022.  Web.  Nathan Steinmeyer, “An Early Israelite Curse Inscription from Mt. Ebal?,” Biblical Archaeology Society, 25 April 2022.  Web.  Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz, “’Curse’ text on ancient amulet could change way scholars read Bible,” The Jerusalem Post, 25 March 2022.  Web.

^[xvi]Christopher Eames, “Mt. Ebal Inscription: The Backlash Begins,” Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology, 14 May 2022.  Web.

^[xvii]Scott Stripling, Gershon Galil, Ivana Kumpova, Jaroslav Valach, Pieter Gert van der Veen, and Daniel Vavrik, “You are Cursed by the God YHW:” an early Hebrew inscription from Mt. Ebal, Heritage Science, (2023) 11:105.  Web.  I express my gratitude to Mike Gladieux, author of The Genesis Documents: Undergirding the Truth of Genesis and the Ancient Faith of the Church, Second Edition, Amazon, 2017, for alerting me to the very recent publication and presentation of evidence concerning the Mt. Ebal Inscription.

^[xviii]Priscila Scolville, “Egyptian Hieroglyphics,” World History Encyclopedia, 2 July 2015.  Web.

^[xix]“Did they find the first alphabetic script; Proto-Sinaitic?,” Patterns of Evidence, 2022. Web.  “Dr. Petrovich discovers Hebrew alphabet derived from Egyptian Hieroglyphics,” Israeli News Live, 2017. Web.  Another very good reference for this and related topics is Mike Gladieux, The Genesis Documents: Undergirding the Truth of Genesis and the Ancient Faith of the Church.

^[xx] Concerning the written genre and historical tradition in Genesis, see, for example, Mark Koehne, Ph.D., “The Meaning of Yom in Genesis 1 in the Light of Contemporary Scholarship,” Web, originally published as Chapter Eight of “I Have Spoken to You from Heaven”: A Catholic Defense of Creation in Six Days, Kolbe Center, 2015.

^[xxi] Edward E. Crawford, “Proto-Sumerian Inscriptions in the Ahora Gorge Büyük Agri (Greater Mt Ararat), Turkey,” National Geographic: Research & Exploration: A Scholarly Publication of the National Geographic Society, Vol. 10, Autumn 1994, p. 484, referenced and discussed in Mike Gladieux, The Genesis Documents, 178-179 and 560.

^[xxii]El Rabih Makki, “The Unity of Hamito-Semitic and Sumerian Language Families: A Comparative Study of Their Sound, Lexical, and Grammatical Systems,” LINCOM GmbH, 2017.  Web.

^[xxiii]Nadia Al-Zahery et al., “In Search of the genetic footprints of Sumerians: a survey of Y-chromosome and mtDNA variation in the Marsh Arabs of Iraq,” BMC Ecology and Evolution, 4 October 2011. Web.  “Who were the ancient Sumerians, and which are their ancestors today?,”  Rhesusnegative, 20 April 2017. Web.  Razib Khan, “Ancient DNA and Sumerians,” Discover, 8 October 2012. Web.  Though “semitic” specifically refers to language, I am using here in its looser, genetic/ancestral sense.

^[xxiv]Douglas Petrovich, PhD., “The Tower of Babel and Pre-Abrahamic Biblical Archaeology,” The Byzantine Scotist. 2023. Web.  Douglas Petrovich, PhD., “Identifying the Post-Babel Dispersion,” Conference Lecture, Is Genesis History?, 2018. Web.  Thomas Purifoy Jr., “What is the Evidence for the Tower of Babel,” Is Genesis History?  Web.

^[xxv]See Makki, “The Unity of Hamito-Semitic and Sumerian Language Families: A Comparative Study of Their Sound, Lexical, and Grammatical Systems,” 240-241.  For internal textual and archaeological/historical reasons demonstrating that Genesis authorship predates authorship of Near Eastern mythologies, see the following: Mark Koehne, PhD., “The Meaning of Yom in Genesis 1 in the Light of Modern Biblical Scholarship,” The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, 2016. Web.

^[xxvi] The Masoretic chronological timeline of Genesis, from creation until Jacob’s birth, may be plausible for the following reasons: First, archaeological radiometric dating, and other dating techniques, relative to Biblical historical events recorded in Genesis still are loose approximations, to which the Masoretic may correspond, especially concerning the postdiluvian effects on dating approximations.  Second, since Trent, certain notable theological commentators, applying the spiritual sense of Scripture, favor the Masoretic dating.

^[xxvii]This assertion assumes the effects of a global flood on historic and radiometric dating of the emergence of humanity.

^[xxviii]Makki, 239-241.

^[xxix]Henry B. Smith, Jr., “The Case for the Septuagint’s Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11,” Associates for Biblical Research, 2018. Web.  Douglas Petrovich, PhD., “The Tower of Babel and Pre-Abrahamic Biblical Archaeology,” The Byzantine Scotist.  Douglas Petrovich, PhD., “Identifying the Post-Babel Dispersion,” Conference Lecture, Is Genesis History?  Thomas Purifoy Jr., “What is the Evidence for the Tower of Babel,” Is Genesis History?

^[xxx]This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of possibilities.