Published 09/30/2026 | by Dr. Daniel T. Lewis
Rationale: Discerning humanity’s true sense of purpose and the optimal path to human flourishing requires a basic understanding of the early history of humanity, and this article fills some important gaps in knowledge about early human history.
Contribution: The article contributes to the general understanding of what the Bible says about the early history of humanity..
The biblical history of humanity begins with God’s creation of Adam and Eve in His image: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27, KJV). Figure 1: Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam (1508-1512) depicts the creation of Adam. Genesis describes God creating all things in six days and subsequently declaring His creation “very good” (Gen. 1:31; Exod. 20:11). Young-earth creationists interpret these days as six ordinary days and understand Adam and Eve as the historical ancestors of humanity.
Figure 1: Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam
Genesis 3 describes humanity’s rebellion against God and the entrance of sin and death into human experience. Paul similarly states, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12, KJV), and later explains that “the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23, KJV). The progression of humanity pursuing knowledge of good and evil without the help of God resulted in sin entering the world, and death occurring as a consequence of sin forms a foundational aspect of the Christian doctrine of salvation.
Modern evolutionary biology reconstructs human origins differently, placing humans within a much longer history of biological evolution involving mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, common ancestry, speciation, extinction, and death extending far before the appearance of modern humans. Young-earth creationists therefore identify a significant theological and chronological difference between these models: within their interpretation of Genesis, human sin precedes death in God’s originally “very good” creation, whereas conventional evolutionary history places biological death hundreds of millions of years before humanity (Morris & Parker, 1987).
Within the biblical account, the Flood and subsequent post-Flood dispersion also play important roles in human history. Genesis describes Noah’s descendants multiplying after the Flood, forming families and nations, and eventually dispersing geographically and linguistically (Gen. 9:18–19; 10:1–32; 11:1–9).
The Genesis Flood
Flood narratives occur among geographically and culturally diverse peoples. Traditions involving catastrophic flooding have been documented among peoples of North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Pacific (Frazer, 1918; Dundes, 1988). These traditions differ substantially in detail and cannot, by themselves, establish a common historical event, but their widespread distribution shows the prominence of catastrophic flooding in human cultural memory. Figure 2: Grand Canyon exhibits an extensive, but incomplete geological record that suggests rocks formed under catastrophic conditions.
Figure 2: Grand Canyon
Geology likewise recognizes that catastrophic processes have played important roles in Earth’s history. Large floods, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, and impacts can produce rapid and extensive geological change. Recognition of such processes, however, does not by itself establish the occurrence of the global Genesis Flood; the scale, chronology, and causes of particular geological features must be evaluated independently.
Genesis attributes the Flood to divine judgment upon increasing human wickedness:
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth. (Gen. 6:5–7, KJV)
Global Extent of the Flood
Genesis 6–9 describes the Flood as judgment upon a world corrupted by human wickedness and violence. The text states that “all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered” (Gen. 7:19, KJV) and describes the destruction of terrestrial life outside the Ark (Gen. 7:21–23). Noah, his wife, his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives survived aboard the Ark. Following the Flood, God commanded Noah’s family to “be fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein” (Gen. 9:7, KJV).
The New Testament repeatedly refers to Noah and the Flood. Luke includes Noah and Shem within the genealogy of Jesus extending to Adam (Luke 3:36–38). Jesus referred to “the days of Noe” and the coming of the Flood when describing the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27). Hebrews likewise describes Noah as “warned of God of things not seen as yet” and preparing an Ark “to the saving of his house” (Heb. 11:7, KJV). Conservative interpreters commonly understand these passages as treating Adam, Noah, and the Flood as components of biblical history. The Bible connects the judgement of the Flood with future judgement.
A global-Flood interpretation consequently generates geological expectations that can be compared with the rock record (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961; Austin et al., 1994). Flood geologists have appealed to widespread marine sedimentary rocks, extensive unconformities, large fossil assemblages, and evidence of continental inundation as potentially consistent with large-scale catastrophic deposition. Sloss (1963), for example, identified six major unconformity-bounded sequences within the North American craton: the Sauk, Tippecanoe, Kaskaskia, Absaroka, Zuni, and Tejas. Flood geologists subsequently incorporated these sequences into models of progressive Flood inundation and recession (Clarey, 2017).
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up (2 Peter 3:1-10).
Peter warns that scoffers will come in the last days and say that things are continuing as they always have. This aligns with the widely accepted principles of uniformitarianism. The reference to “earth standing out of the water and in the water” relates to God’s separation of dry land from the sea (Genesis 1:9-10). The phrase, “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” references a denial of the Genesis Flood (Genesis 6-9). Then Peter connected the denial of God’s creation and past judgment with a denial of future judgment. The point of the denial is to remove accountability to God. In conclusion, Peter describes God’s longsuffering and His desire to see people repent. One conservative interpretation of the biblical text suggests that Noah preached righteousness and repentance for 120 years before the Flood (Genesis 6:3, 2 Peter 2:5, 1 Peter 3:20).
Scientists who believe the geological record preserved evidence of the Genesis Flood look at the same evidence as scientists who reject the idea of a global Flood. The interpretive distinction is important. Conventional geology explains these strata through numerous depositional, erosional, tectonic, biological, and catastrophic events occurring over deep time, whereas Flood geology attempts to incorporate much of the same physical evidence into a compressed biblical chronology. The principal disagreement therefore concerns the chronology, scale, and causal interpretation of the geological record rather than the existence of sedimentation, tectonism, erosion, marine inundation, or catastrophic events themselves.
The Geological Record
Understanding historical geological events requires reconstructing processes from evidence preserved in rocks, fossils, structures, and landforms. Explanations of that record have changed substantially throughout intellectual history.
Ancient thinkers offered differing explanations for fossils and geological change. Xenophanes inferred from marine fossils that areas of land had once been submerged, whereas Aristotle interpreted fossils through processes operating within the earth rather than consistently recognizing them as remains of formerly living organisms (Aristotle, 1952; Hippolytus, ca. third century/1886). Aristotle and Xenophanes lived in different eras of ancient Greek history, separated by more than a century, yet their writings allow for a comparison of what they thought about the geological record. Figure 3: Xenophanes and Aristotle depicts a hypothetical debate between two ancient Greek thinkers.
Figure 3: Xenophanes and Aristotle
Within later Jewish and Christian thought, Noah’s Flood became an important framework for interpreting Earth history, although scholars differed considerably regarding its physical mechanisms and geological effects (Cohn, 1996). During the Renaissance and early modern periods, natural philosophers increasingly attempted to relate biblical history to observations of fossils, strata, mountains, and other geological phenomena. These investigations contributed to the intellectual development from which modern geology eventually emerged (Dean, 1985; Rudwick, 2014).
Early Explanations
Seventeenth-century natural philosophers increasingly sought physical explanations for Earth history. Thomas Burnet attempted to explain how processes associated with Noah’s Flood could have produced mountains, oceans, and irregular terrain, while William Whiston proposed a cometary mechanism for the Flood (Burnet, 1965; Whiston, 1696). Nicolaus Steno (1669) established foundational principles of stratigraphy that provided a systematic basis for reconstructing sequences of geological events. John Woodward likewise attempted to explain fossils and strata through Noah’s Flood, illustrating the continuing interaction between biblical interpretation and emerging geological investigation.
During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, increasingly naturalistic explanations competed with Flood-based models. Abraham Gottlob Werner proposed that much of Earth’s crust precipitated sequentially from a primeval ocean, whereas James Hutton argued that processes observable in the present could explain geological features when operating over immense periods (Hutton, 1788/2007; Jameson, 1808/1976). Georges Cuvier established extinction through comparative anatomy and interpreted abrupt changes in fossil assemblages as evidence of past catastrophes (Cuvier, 1813). William Buckland (1823, see Figure 4: William Buckland) initially attempted to connect geological evidence with a recent catastrophic flood.
Figure 4: William Buckland
Uniformitarianism and Deep Time
Charles Lyell (1830–1833) strongly advanced the principle that past geological changes should be explained primarily through natural processes comparable to those observable in the present. Combined with developing methods of fossil succession and stratigraphic correlation, this approach helped establish deep geological time and gradually displaced Noah’s Flood as the principal explanatory framework in mainstream geology (Cuvier & Brongniart, 1811; Smith, 1817; Prothero & Schwab, 2004).
Modern geology should not, however, be characterized simply as denying geological catastrophes. Contemporary geology incorporates both gradual and catastrophic processes while interpreting them within a deep-time chronological framework. The principal difference between conventional geology and modern Flood geology therefore concerns chronology and the proposed scale and integration of catastrophic events rather than whether catastrophic processes occur. Figure 5: Mt St. Helens Eruption depicts the catastrophic eruption of Mt. St. Helens on May 18, 1980.
Figure 5: Mt St. Helens Eruption
Plate Tectonics
Twentieth-century developments transformed understanding of large-scale geological change. Alfred Wegener (1915, 1929) proposed continental drift, arguing that the continents had once formed a larger landmass before separating. Arthur Holmes (1931, 1944) proposed mantle convection as a possible mechanism for continental movement. Harry Hess (1962) subsequently developed the concept of seafloor spreading, while J. Tuzo Wilson (1965, 1966) contributed to the emerging understanding of moving lithospheric plates and the repeated opening and closing of ocean basins.
Evidence from ocean-floor geology, paleomagnetism, seismicity, displaced terranes, and mantle dynamics helped make plate tectonics the principal framework for understanding large-scale geological change in the 1960s (Kious & Tilling, 1996). Plate tectonics describes how moving tectonic plates build continents and change the Earth’s crust. Plate tectonics transformed interpretations of Earth history but remained embedded within a deep-time framework rather than reviving a global-Flood interpretation.
Early Twentieth-Century Flood Models
While plate tectonics developed within conventional geology, twentieth-century creationists developed alternative reconstructions of geological history. George McCready Price (1923) attributed much of the fossil-bearing geological record to Noah’s Flood and challenged the conventional chronological interpretation of fossil succession. Byron Nelson (1931) similarly defended catastrophic Flood interpretations. The Deluge Society, founded in 1939, attempted to develop these ideas but dissolved in 1945 amid internal disagreements (Bergman, 1993).
Harold W. Clark (1946) accepted the observable succession of fossils and strata but interpreted much of that pattern through ecological zonation and successive inundation during the Flood. Henry Morris continued developing young-earth arguments during the mid-twentieth century, and Whitcomb and Morris (1961) produced the most influential modern synthesis of young-earth Flood geology. Their model attributed much of the fossil-bearing sedimentary record to rapid deposition during a global Flood but relied primarily on large-scale vertical crustal movements rather than the horizontal plate motions incorporated into later models.
Creationist Interpretations of the Geological Record
Young-earth researchers have continued to disagree over how the conventional geological column should be interpreted within a Flood chronology. Price questioned whether it represented a consistent global temporal sequence, whereas Clark accepted broad fossil succession but explained much of it through ecological zonation. Morris supplemented ecological zonation with mechanisms such as hydrodynamic sorting and differential mobility (Price, 1923; Clark, 1946; Morris, 1974). Oard (2010) has similarly argued that the geological column preserves a general sequence without necessarily representing an exact globally synchronous chronology.
Some mechanisms invoked in these models have analogs in conventional sedimentology. Walther’s Law, for example, explains how laterally adjacent depositional environments can become vertically superposed as environments migrate through time (Middleton, 1973). The existence of such vertical environmental transitions is therefore not disputed; the principal disagreement concerns their chronology, geographic correlation, and relationship to the broader history represented by the stratigraphic record.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
As evidence for plate tectonics accumulated, some creationist researchers incorporated plate movement into Flood models. This development culminated in catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT), presented by Austin et al. (1994) and Baumgardner (1994). Rather than rejecting plate tectonics, CPT accepts many of its large-scale structures and processes while radically compressing their proposed chronology.
CPT proposes runaway subduction and extremely rapid plate movement during the Genesis Flood as mechanisms for continental displacement, ocean-basin restructuring, tectonism, volcanism, and large-scale sedimentation. It therefore represents an important departure from earlier Flood models emphasizing predominantly vertical crustal movements. Figure 6: Runaway Subduction summarizes key concepts of the theory of runaway subduction and its development.
Figure 6: Runaway Subduction
Subsequent observations, including direct geodetic measurements of present plate motion and seismic-tomographic imaging of subducted lithosphere, have strengthened the empirical basis of plate tectonics itself (Hager et al., 1985; Romanowicz, 2003; Segall & Davis, 1997; Zhao, 2001). CPT accepts many of these observations but interprets the rates, chronology, and historical significance of plate movement differently from conventional plate tectonics.
Flood Boundaries in the Geological Record
Incorporating plate tectonics into Flood geology did not resolve how much of the conventional geological column should be assigned to the Flood. Creationist researchers continue to debate both the pre-Flood/Flood and Flood/post-Flood boundaries (Whitmore & Garner, 2008; Oard, 2007). Figure 7: The Geological Record contrasts the ideal geological record on the left with the geological record found in Grand Canyon on the right. While Grand Canyon exposes one of the most extensive geological records on earth, it only preserves about 40% of the Earth’s geological history.
Figure 7: The Geological Record
Published proposals vary substantially. Some models place the Flood/post-Flood transition near the Paleozoic, others near the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) boundary, and still others within the late Cenozoic. Holt (1996), for example, argued for a very late Cenozoic boundary, most likely within the Pleistocene, whereas Clarey and Werner (2019) proposed a boundary near the top of the Neogene. Other creationist models have favored the K–Pg boundary. These differences demonstrate that CPT provides a proposed physical mechanism for Flood tectonism but does not independently determine the stratigraphic beginning or end of Flood deposition.
The boundary question is particularly important when evaluating proposed locations for the Ark’s resting place. A viable location within a Flood-geology model must contain emergent terrain capable of receiving the Ark during Flood recession, and its subsequent geological history must be compatible with the particular Flood/post-Flood chronology being proposed.
The Resting Place of the Ark
Genesis states, “And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat” (Gen. 8:4, KJV). The text identifies a mountainous region rather than the individual volcanic peak now called Mount Ararat. Biblical scholars commonly associate “Ararat” with ancient Urartu, a kingdom centered in the Armenian and eastern Anatolian highlands around Lake Van and extending at various times into portions of modern Armenia and northwestern Iran (Speiser, 1964; Wenham, 1987; Zimansky, 1998).
Urartu’s southeastern territories approached areas adjoining the northern Zagros, although most of the Zagros lay south and southeast of the Urartian heartland (Kleiss, 2008; Zimansky, 1998). Ancient Ark traditions were also geographically diverse. Josephus, drawing upon earlier traditions including Berossus, associated surviving remains of the vessel with Armenia and also referred to the mountains of the Cordyaeans. Later Jewish and Syriac traditions associated the landing with Qardū or Gordyene near modern Cizre (Josephus, ca. 93–94/1930; Marciak, 2012, 2014).
The identification of the biblical location with the specific peak now called Mount Ararat became increasingly established during the medieval period. William of Rubruck, for example, reported the tradition associating the mountain with the Ark’s resting place (William of Rubruck, 1255/1990). Nevertheless, the broader identification of biblical Ararat with the geographical region associated with Urartu remains important when evaluating proposed Ark locations.
Mount Ararat
Modern creationist writers have frequently associated Noah’s Ark with Greater Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey. John D. Morris conducted numerous expeditions to the mountain and investigated reports that Ark remains might survive there (LaHaye & Morris, 1976; Morris, 1990). Figure 8: Mt. Ararat and The Ararat Anomely (Top) depicts the Lesseer and Greater Ararat stratovolcanoes. The red circle (Bottom) shows the location of the Ararat Anomely.
Figure 8: Mt. Ararat and The Ararat Anomely
One proposed site is the so-called Ararat Anomaly, an elongated feature visible in aerial and satellite imagery on the mountain’s Western Plateau. A Defense Intelligence Agency analysis of 1949 imagery interpreted the feature as associated with glacial ice, snow, and avalanche debris rather than identifying an artificial structure . Other researchers, including creationist investigators, have acknowledged the possibility that the anomaly represents a natural rock formation partly exposed through snow and ice (Hodge, 2014). Because researchers have not conclusively examined the feature in the field, its precise composition remains uncertain, and available evidence has not established that it is artificial.
Morris also investigated the Ahora Gorge, partly because historical eyewitness traditions suggested that Ark remains might have survived there. Geological research instead identifies the gorge as part of the natural Ararat volcanic complex, extensively modified by volcanism, glaciation, erosion, landslides, and debris flows. The 1840 earthquake and associated mass movement substantially altered the gorge, and subsequent glacial processes continued to reshape it (Azzoni et al., 2019). No geological investigation has confirmed an artificial wooden structure within the gorge.
Greater and Lesser Ararat form part of a Quaternary volcanic complex in eastern Anatolia. Regional geological research identifies Ararat as one of several major Quaternary volcanic centers of the Turkish-Iranian plateau (Yılmaz et al., 1998). This creates an important chronological consideration for Flood models. If the Flood/post-Flood boundary is placed substantially earlier than the Quaternary, much of the modern volcanic edifice would necessarily be post-Flood; a later boundary could incorporate more of its development into the Flood itself. Consequently, identifying modern Mount Ararat as the Ark’s resting place depends partly upon the geological chronology adopted.
The Durupınar Formation
Another proposed Ark location is the boat-shaped Durupınar formation approximately 50 km southwest of Mount Ararat. Turkish Army Captain İlhan Durupınar drew attention to the formation in 1959 after examining aerial photographs of eastern Turkey. Shea (1976, 1981) recommended investigation because of its location, morphology, and approximate dimensional correspondence with the biblical Ark, though he cautioned that the feature might indicate a landing site rather than the remains of the vessel itself. Figure 9: The Durupınar Formation depicts the boat-shaped feature sometimes considered as the resting site of Noah’s Ark.
Figure 9: The Durupınar Formation
Ron Wyatt later became a prominent advocate of identifying Durupınar as the Ark, appealing to its dimensions, subsurface features, chemical composition, and alleged structural materials (Wyatt, 1989). Subsequent geological investigations, however, identified natural geological processes capable of producing the site’s morphology.
Collins and Fasold (1996) related the boat-like form to steeply inclined sedimentary strata associated with a doubly plunging syncline and interpreted supposed metallic structural components as naturally occurring mineral concentrations. Avcı (2007) proposed that the feature represents a displaced block of Miocene limestone that moved downslope over weaker clay-rich strata and was subsequently modified by earthflow activity, erosion, and dissolution. Morris (1990), despite his creationist perspective and participation in investigation of the site, likewise concluded that Durupınar had a natural geological origin.
Taken together, published geological investigations provide natural mechanisms that can explain the site’s boat-like morphology and have not established physical evidence of a constructed vessel. Durupınar therefore provides an important example of why proposed Ark sites should be evaluated independently of their superficial resemblance to a ship.
The site’s chronological implications nevertheless depend partly upon the Flood/post-Flood model adopted. A model placing the boundary near the K–Pg or Neogene–Quaternary boundary would assign much or all of the formation’s conventionally interpreted Quaternary modification to the post-Flood period. A model extending Flood activity into portions of the Pleistocene could interpret some of those processes differently. Because the precise development of the recognizable landform remains difficult to date independently, its geological age does not by itself establish or exclude a relationship to a proposed Flood chronology.
Alternative Ark Locations
The broader geographical meaning of the biblical “mountains of Ararat” permits consideration of regions beyond modern Mount Ararat (Speiser, 1964; Wenham, 1987). Ancient traditions sometimes placed the landing farther south. Josephus, drawing upon Berossus, referred to Ark remains in Armenia and to the mountains of the Cordyaeans, while later traditions associated the landing with Qardū or Gordyene near modern Cizre (Josephus, ca. 93–94/1930; Marciak, 2012, 2014). Although Gordyene lies considerably south of the Urartian heartland, these traditions demonstrate that ancient Ark traditions were not restricted to the modern volcanic peak.
A potentially relevant geographical parallel occurs in Tablet XI of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which places Uta-napishti’s vessel on Mount Nimuš, traditionally read as Mount Niṣir (George, 2003). The annals of Ashurnasirpal II also mention Mount Nimuš during his campaign through the Zagros region. Speiser (1928) reconstructed the Assyrian campaign route and identified Nimuš with Pir Omar Gudrun, commonly associated with modern Pira Magrun, an identification subsequently discussed in Assyriological and archaeological literature (George, 2003; Radner et al., 2012). Figure 10: Pira Magrun depicts Pira Magrun, elevation 2,588 m (8490 ft.), located near the city Sulaymaniyah in Iraqi Kurdistan. If this identification is correct, the Mesopotamian flood tradition places its landing mountain within the western Zagros. This does not identify the biblical Ark’s resting place, but it offers an ancient geographical parallel worth considering.
Figure 10: Pira Magrun
The Zagros’s geological development also bears on this possibility. Sedimentary rocks composing the range substantially predate its present topography, while convergence between the Arabian and Eurasian plates subsequently produced crustal shortening, folding, faulting, and uplift. Conventional geological reconstructions place major phases of Zagros deformation and uplift within the Cenozoic, particularly the Miocene and Pliocene (Mouthereau, 2011; Mouthereau et al., 2012).
The implications again depend upon the Flood/post-Flood boundary adopted. An early boundary would assign much of the principal Zagros uplift to post-Flood processes, whereas a late Cenozoic boundary could incorporate substantial Zagros mountain building into later stages of the Flood. Within the latter model, Flood-related tectonism could have produced emergent mountainous terrain before the Ark’s landing, followed by additional uplift, erosion, faulting, and mass wasting that substantially modified the original landscape.
Genesis 11:2 provides an additional but inconclusive geographical consideration. The KJV states that the population settling Shinar journeyed “from the east,” which can be read as compatible with movement from highlands east of Mesopotamia, including the Zagros. The Hebrew miqqedem, however, can also be rendered “eastward” or “in the east.” The passage is therefore geographically compatible with a Zagros point of departure but cannot establish one. Figure 11: Babel Migration depicts a possible migration route from the Zagros to Shinar, a distance of about 380 km (about 236 mi). Depending on the pace, the distance would take about one to two weeks to casually hike. The map features a possible reconstruction of Early Pliocene (early post-Flood) regional geography instead of the modern geography of the region.
Figure 11: Babel Migration
Biblical Chronology
Parts of biblical chronology can be correlated with independently dated events in ancient Near Eastern history. Thiele (1951/1983), for example, correlated the regnal chronology of Israel and Judah with Assyrian chronology, including the Assyrian chronological framework anchored by the Bur-Sagale eclipse of 763 BC. This reconstruction places the Battle of Qarqar, at which Shalmaneser III names Ahab among a coalition opposing Assyria, in 853 BC and Jehu’s tribute to Shalmaneser III in 841 BC. Such synchronisms provide important external anchors for the chronology of the divided monarchy, although details remain subject to scholarly refinement.
An early-Exodus chronology places Solomon’s fourth regnal year and the beginning of Temple construction at approximately 966 BC. If the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 represent a continuous chronological interval, the Exodus would consequently fall around 1446 BC. Extending this chronology farther backward requires additional interpretive assumptions, particularly treating the chronological notices and Masoretic genealogies of Genesis as continuous.
Under those assumptions, Noah’s lifetime can be calculated at approximately 3119–2169 BC, with the Flood beginning when Noah was 600 years old at approximately 2519 BC and ending about a year later, around 2518 BC (Gen. 5:28–32; 7:6, 11; 8:13–14; 9:28–29; Thomas, 2017). The same reconstruction places Peleg at approximately 2418–2179 BC (Gen. 11:16–19). Because Genesis 10:25 states that in Peleg’s days “was the earth divided” (KJV), interpreters who associate this statement with the Babel dispersion may place Babel somewhere within this interval (2418–2179 BC). The same chronological assumptions place Abraham approximately within the late third to early second millennium BC.
These dates should be treated as calculated dates within a particular chronological reconstruction rather than independently established absolute dates. The distinction is important because each earlier date depends upon additional assumptions regarding the Exodus chronology, biblical genealogies, textual traditions, and the relationship between Genesis 10 and 11.
Reconciling Older Conventional Dates
A Flood around 2519–2518 BC followed by a Babel dispersion during Peleg’s lifetime 2418–2179 BC creates an obvious chronological tension with conventional archaeology, which places established civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia before these dates (Wilkinson, 1999; Van De Mieroop, 2016). Conventional chronologies integrate stratigraphy, material culture, radiocarbon measurements, astronomical evidence, king lists, inscriptions, and other historical records, and construction of these conventional chronologies requires its own set of assumptions. Consequently, reconciling a mid-third-millennium BC Flood with conventional Egyptian and Mesopotamian chronology requires substantial revision of accepted archaeological dates.
Researchers working within compressed biblical chronologies have attempted to address this problem by distinguishing the relative sequence of archaeological remains from the absolute dates assigned to them and, particularly in Egyptian chronology, by proposing overlap or compression among dynasties (Griffith & White, 2022a, 2022b; McClellan, 2011). Such reconstructions remain disputed, including among researchers committed to young-earth chronology, and therefore should be understood as proposed models rather than established chronological solutions.
The relationship between Babel and early post-Flood population movement also requires qualification. Genesis 10 describes Noah’s descendants according to their “lands,” “tongues,” “families,” and “nations” (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31–32), whereas Genesis 11:1–9 begins with humanity sharing one language and concludes with God scattering the population “upon the face of all the earth.” Many conservative interpreters therefore understand Genesis 10 as describing the resulting geographical and linguistic distribution and Genesis 11:1–9 as a chronological recapitulation explaining how that distribution occurred (Hamilton, 1990; Mathews, 1996; Wenham, 1987).
This literary relationship allows some geographical movement before Babel while treating Babel as the decisive linguistic and demographic dispersion. Archaeological evidence for populations outside Mesopotamia would therefore not necessarily have to postdate Babel under every conservative reconstruction. Correlating a compressed biblical chronology with archaeological evidence nevertheless requires both substantial chronological revision and a carefully defined model of early post-Flood migration.
This overview described the creation of humanity in the image of God, the fall of humanity into sin, the possibility of a global Flood, as described in Genesis. These topics reval the urgency of accountability to God for our actions. Psalm 1 states:
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish (Pslam 1:1-6, KJV)
The word translated blessed in this passage is the Hebrew אַשְׁרֵי (ešer), which means happiness and blessedness, and it describes one of the important Hebrew concepts related to human flourishing. The Hebrew term אַשְׁרֵי (ešer) closely aligns with the Greek tterm μακάριος (makarios), the term used by Jesus in the Beatitudes. Pslam 1 provides the contrast of what happens when humanity follows God’s instruction and what happens when humanity choses their own path. The biblical accounts of the creation, fall, Flood, and Tower of Bable illustrate that same point.
Against this background, the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 provides the biblical framework for examining how the descendants of Noah were understood to have formed families, nations, linguistic groups, and geographical populations following the Flood and the dispersion associated with Babel (Gen. 10:1–32; 11:1–9; Hamilton, 1990; Mathews, 1996; Wenham, 1987). A more comprehensive analysis of the events related to the Tower of Babel and subsequent dispersal requires a discussion beyond the scope of this article.
References
Aristotle. (1952). Meteorology (E. W. Webster, Trans.). In R. M. Hutchins (Ed.), Great books of the Western world (Vol. 8, pp. 445–555). Encyclopaedia Britannica. (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.)
Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J. R., Humphreys, D. R., Snelling, A. A., Vardiman, L., & Wise, K. P. (1994). Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global Flood model of Earth history. In R. E. Walsh (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (pp. 609–622). Creation Science Fellowship.
Avcı, M. (2007). “Noah’s Ark”: Its relationship to the Telçeker earthflow, Mount Ararat, Eastern Turkey. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 66, 377–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-007-0084-3
Azzoni, R. S., Fugazza, D., Garzonio, C. A., Nicoll, K., Diolaiuti, G. A., Pelfini, M., & Zerboni, A. (2019). Geomorphological effects of the 1840 Ahora Gorge catastrophe on Mount Ararat (Eastern Turkey). Geomorphology, 332, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.02.001
Baumgardner, J. R. (1994). Computer modeling of the large-scale tectonics associated with the Genesis Flood. In R. E. Walsh (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (pp. 49–62). Creation Science Fellowship.
Bergman, J. (1993). A brief history of the modern American creation movement. American Scientific Affiliation. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/CMBergman.html
Buckland, W. (1823). Reliquiae diluvianae; or, Observations on the organic remains contained in caves, fissures, and diluvial gravel, and on other geological phenomena, attesting the action of an universal deluge. John Murray.
Burnet, T. (1965). The sacred theory of the Earth. Centaur Press. (Original work published 1684–1690)
Clarey, T. L. (2017). Local catastrophes or receding Floodwater? Global geologic data that refute a K-Pg (K-T) Flood/post-Flood boundary. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 54(2), 100–120.
Clarey, T. L., & Werner, D. J. (2019). Compelling evidence for an upper Cenozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary: Paleogene and Neogene marine strata that completely surround Turkey. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 56(2), 68–75.
Clark, H. W. (1946). The new diluvialism. Science Publications.
Cohn, N. (1996). Noah’s flood: The Genesis story in Western thought. Yale University Press.
Collins, L. G., & Fasold, D. F. (1996). Bogus “Noah’s Ark” from Turkey exposed as a common geologic structure. Journal of Geoscience Education, 44(4), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-44.4.439
Coney, P. J., Jones, D. L., & Monger, J. W. H. (1980). Cordilleran suspect terranes. Nature, 288, 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1038/288329a0
Cuvier, G. (1813). Essay on the theory of the Earth (R. Kerr, Trans.). William Blackwood.
Dean, D. R. (1985). The age of the Earth controversy: Beginnings to Hutton. Kendall/Hunt.
Defense Intelligence Agency. (1995). Ararat anomaly [Report]. U.S. Department of Defense.
Dundes, A. (Ed.). (1988). The flood myth. University of California Press.
Frazer, J. G. (1918). Folk-lore in the Old Testament: Studies in comparative religion, legend and law (Vol. 1). Macmillan.
George, A. R. (2003). The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic: Introduction, critical edition and cuneiform texts (Vols. 1–2). Oxford University Press.
Grayson, A. K. (1991). Assyrian rulers of the early first millennium BC I (1114–859 BC). University of Toronto Press.
Griffith, K. C., & White, D. K. (2022a). Chronological framework of ancient history. 1: Problem, data, and methodology. Answers Research Journal, 15, 377–390. https://answersresearchjournal.org/ancient-egypt/chronological-framework-ancient-history-1/
Griffith, K. C., & White, D. K. (2022b). Chronological framework of ancient history—Part II: Founding of the nations. Answers Research Journal, 15, 405–426. https://answersresearchjournal.org/tower-of-babel/chronological-framework-ancient-history-2/
Hager, B. H., Clayton, R. W., Richards, M. A., Comer, R. P., & Dziewonski, A. M. (1985). Lower mantle heterogeneity, dynamic topography and the geoid. Nature, 313, 541–545. https://doi.org/10.1038/313541a0
Hamilton, V. P. (1990). The book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. William B. Eerdmans.
Hess, H. H. (1962). History of ocean basins. In A. E. J. Engel, H. L. James, & B. F. Leonard (Eds.), Petrologic studies: A volume to honor A. F. Buddington (pp. 599–620). Geological Society of America.
Hippolytus. (1886). The refutation of all heresies (J. H. MacMahon, Trans.). In A. Roberts & J. Donaldson (Eds.), Ante-Nicene fathers (Vol. 5). Christian Literature Publishing. (Original work written ca. third century)
Hodge, B. (2014, December 10). Has the Ark been found? Site four: Ararat Anomaly. Ark Encounter. https://arkencounter.com/blog/2014/12/10/has-the-ark-been-found-site-four-ararat-anomaly
Holmes, A. (1931). Radioactivity and Earth movements. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow, 18, 559–606.
Holmes, A. (1944). Principles of physical geology. Thomas Nelson and Sons.
Holt, R. D. (1996). Evidence for a late Cainozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary. Journal of Creation, 10(1), 128–167.
Hutton, J. (2007). Theory of the Earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution, and restoration of land upon the globe. In G. Y. Craig (Ed.), James Hutton: Present and future worlds. Geological Society of London. (Original work published 1788)
Josephus, F. (1930). Jewish antiquities (H. St. J. Thackeray, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published ca. 93–94 C.E.)
Kious, W. J., & Tilling, R. I. (1996). This dynamic Earth: The story of plate tectonics. U.S. Geological Survey.
Kleiss, W. (2008). Urartu in Iran. In Encyclopaedia Iranica. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/urartu-in-iran
Lyell, C. (1830–1833). Principles of geology: Being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation (Vols. 1–3). John Murray.
Marciak, M. (2014). The historical geography of Gordyene. Part II: Oriental sources. Anabasis: Studia Classica et Orientalia, 4, 149–159.
Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1–11:26. Broadman & Holman.
McClellan, M. (2011). Ancient Egyptian chronology and the book of Genesis. Answers Research Journal, 4, 127–159.
Middleton, G. V. (1973). Johannes Walther’s law of the correlation of facies. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 84(3), 979–988. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1973)84%3C979:JWLOTC%3E2.0.CO;2
Morris, H. M. (1974). Scientific creationism. Creation-Life Publishers.
Morris, H. M., & Parker, G. E. (1987). What is creation science? Master Books.
Morris, J. D. (1990). The young Earth. Master Books.
Mouthereau, F. (2011). Timing of uplift in the Zagros belt/Iranian plateau and accommodation of late Cenozoic Arabia–Eurasia convergence. Geological Magazine, 148(5–6), 726–738. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756811000306
Mouthereau, F., Lacombe, O., & Vergés, J. (2012). Building the Zagros collisional orogen: Timing, strain distribution and the dynamics of Arabia/Eurasia plate convergence. Tectonophysics, 532–535, 27–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.01.022
Nelson, B. C. (1931). The deluge story in stone: A history of the flood theory of geology. Augsburg Publishing House.
Oard, M. J. (2010). The geological column is a general Flood order with many exceptions. Journal of Creation, 24(2), 78–82.
Price, G. M. (1923). The new geology: A textbook for colleges, normal schools, and training schools; and for the general reader. Pacific Press Publishing Association.
Prothero, D. R., & Dott, R. H., Jr. (2010). Evolution of the Earth (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Prothero, D. R., & Schwab, F. (2004). Sedimentary geology: An introduction to sedimentary rocks and stratigraphy (2nd ed.). W. H. Freeman.
Romanowicz, B. (2003). Global mantle tomography: Progress status in the past 10 years. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 31, 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.31.091602.113555
Segall, P., & Davis, J. L. (1997). GPS applications for geodynamics and earthquake studies. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 25, 301–336. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.25.1.301
Shea, W. H. (1976). Noah’s Ark. Bible and Spade, 5(1), 1–11.
Shea, W. H. (1981). Ark-shaped formation in the Tendürek Mountains of eastern Turkey. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 18(3), 173–181.
Sloss, L. L. (1963). Sequences in the cratonic interior of North America. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 74(2), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1963)74%5B93:SITCIO%5D2.0.CO;2
Speiser, E. A. (1964). Genesis: Introduction, translation, and notes. Doubleday.
Thomas, B. (2017). Two date range options for Noah’s Flood. Journal of Creation, 31(1), 120–127. https://www.icr.org/content/two-date-range-options-noahs-flood
Wegener, A. (1929). Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane (4th ed.). Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn.
Wenham, G. J. (1987). Genesis 1–15. Word Books.
Whiston, W. (1696). A new theory of the Earth, from its original, to the consummation of all things. Benjamin Tooke.
Whitcomb, J. C., Jr., & Morris, H. M. (1961). The Genesis flood: The biblical record and its scientific implications. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
Whitmore, J. H., & Garner, P. A. (2008). Using suites of criteria to recognize pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood strata in the rock record with application to Wyoming (USA). In A. A. Snelling (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (pp. 425–448). Creation Science Fellowship & Institute for Creation Research.
William of Rubruck. (1990). The mission of Friar William of Rubruck: His journey to the court of the Great Khan Möngke, 1253–1255 (P. Jackson, Trans.; D. Morgan, Ed.). Hakluyt Society. (Original work written 1255)
Wilson, J. T. (1965). A new class of faults and their bearing on continental drift. Nature, 207, 343–347. https://doi.org/10.1038/207343a0
Wilson, J. T. (1966). Did the Atlantic close and then re-open? Nature, 211, 676–681. https://doi.org/10.1038/211676a0
Wyatt, R. E. (1989). Discovered—Noah’s Ark. World Bible Society.
Yılmaz, Y., Güner, Y., & Şaroğlu, F. (1998). Geology of the Quaternary volcanic centres of the East Anatolia. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 85(1–4), 173–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0273(98)00055-9
Zhao, D. (2001). Seismic structure and origin of hotspots and mantle plumes. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 192(3), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(01)00465-4
Zimansky, P. E. (1998). Ancient Ararat: A handbook of Urartian studies. Caravan Books.
AI Disclosure: The creator of this website used generative AI as a research and writing aid in developing its articles.