Multi-disciplinary evidence suggests that Basal-Hebrew was humanity\u2019s first spoken and \u00a0written language.[i]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The topic of the original language is controversial with conflicting theories and an absence of tangible evidence to support definitively any perspective.\u00a0 Based on existing evidence, however, we may infer the most plausible original human language.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 Then I will synthesize this evidence and conclude that Basal-Hebrew most plausibly is the first human language.<\/p>\n 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]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Microevolution, by contrast, and by legitimate scientific observation, refers to small genetic changes within a group, such as among birds.\u00a0 Reasons for rejecting macroevolution on scientific grounds are numerous, so I will limit the list to a mere seven:<\/p>\n A macroevolutionary view of the emergence of humanity typically classifies humans as apes.\u00a0 Within this mindset, the ape that exhibits clear and certain human characteristics is Homo Erectus (HE)\u2014a man or woman who could talk (based on cranial base analysis), and was an architect, farmer, artist, sailor, and much more.\u00a0 HE was a human being who therefore stood perfectly upright, as the ordinary and dominant mode of locomotion\u2014sometimes over six feet tall\u2014and whose brain size fell with the range of normal human beings. \u00a0The ape closest to Homo Erectus in development, according to most macro-evolutionists, is Homo Habilis, sometimes reclassified apart from Homo, <\/em>rather as part of the genus of bipedal apes, Australopithecus. \u00a0However, Homo Habilis (HH) is different substantially from Homo<\/em>: HH was much shorter\u2014a little over four feet (on average a little shorter than an orangutan)\u2014was 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.\u00a0 HH was not the first man, nor was a man at all.[iv]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Homo Erectus is man, however, and could not have evolved from Homo Habilis because he lived during the same time\u2014supposedly, according to the macroevolutionary timetable\u2014overlapping several hundreds of thousands of years, rendering impossible the supposed necessary time for macroevolution to occur.<\/p>\n Relevant to this discussion are the recent discoveries of Homo Naledi (HN) at Rising Star cave.\u00a0 \u00a0In 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 \u201chominids\u201d named Homo Naledi. \u00a0Based on the team\u2019s 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]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Contrarily, many experts are skeptical or unconvinced.\u00a0 For example, the supposed burials could have been simple HN funerary caches\u2014a natural response because of the emotional-social bonds that terminated\u2014or the HN may have been buried or placed there later by humans.\u00a0 Regardless, over time, the HN could easily have been covered by a layer of sediment. \u00a0Certain animals are known to store, cover, or bury their dead, including ants, elephants, and chimpanzees.[vi]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Tending to the dead ritually, including through burial, with afterlife overtones, is different\u2014is human.\u00a0 We do not see evidence of this with the HN. \u00a0Concerning the cave \u201cart\u201d and evidence of fire\u2014humans 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. \u00a0Furthermore, the cave\u2019s structure may have been different and more accessible at the time of HN\u2019s entry, thousands of years ago.<\/p>\n HN averaged perhaps 4 ft 9 in, 88 lb.\u00a0 Though his hands and feet were similar to others categorized in the genus homo<\/em>, his elevated shoulder and clavicle bones, legs, and brain size more resemble Australopithecines.\u00a0 Nevertheless, HN\u2019s brain shape may be more similar to modern humans, though his brain size is one-third to one-half the size of modern man. \u00a0HN also features ape-arboreal capacity missing in HE and Neanderthal.<\/p>\n HN could not have evolved into HE because, according to macroevolutionary dating, HN lived about 335,00 \u2013 235,000 years ago, over a million years after HE emerged.\u00a0 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. \u00a0So, was HN essentially a smaller, ethnic version of early man, similar to HE?\u00a0 Probably not because of significant anatomical differences and lack of established evidence of human traits.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 More research is required in this inquiry.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 The chromosome appears to some that two ancient ape chromosomes were stitched together.\u00a0 This macroevolutionary position posits that the common ancestor between these apes and \u201chuman\u201d 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]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Supposedly, this event naturally created the first \u201chuman,\u201d or \u201chuman-ape.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2014and into successive generations\u2014the alleged fusion point of Chromosome 2 is an active gene, rendering a fusion naturally impossible, according to the most recent genetic analysis.\u00a0 Moreover, the length of Chromosome 2 is about 10% shorter than the combined length of the hypothetical two pre-fused neighboring ape chromosomes.[viii]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0In addition, the expected telomeres at the alleged fusion site are missing, as is the expected defunct centromere on the chromosome.\u00a0 These reasons preclude the hypothetical fusion as a macroevolutionary possibility.[ix]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 However, could a supernatural event\u2014an information-adding-transformation \u201coutside of the system,\u201d i.e., from God\u2014miraculously have produced this truncated and altered chromosomal change-up, producing a radically different creature? \u00a0An event of this magnitude is quite other than an immediate transition from four ancient ape parents\u2014mom and dad apes for the first human male, and the same for the first human female.\u00a0 Rather, this would be a special divine creation, an altered ancient ape blueprint\u2014a human blueprint, including supernatural infusion of the soul\u2014the design for the first man and woman.<\/p>\n There is no evidence, then, that man evolved from ancient ape, or that humans are just an evolutionary form of ape. \u00a0So, then, was HE the first man, and if so, did he speak?<\/p>\n Paleontological evidence strongly suggests that Homo Erectus also lived alongside Homo Sapiens Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.[x]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 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!\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Therefore, no reliable evidence has demonstrated HE\u2019s predating other early humans.\u00a0 HE seems to be a specific ethnic early human.\u00a0 Further, all early humans apparently had the ability to speak, including HE and Homo Sapiens Neanderthals.[xi]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 This is not to say contemporary fossil dating methods cannot be useful; rather, scientists\u2014at least as some do\u2014should acknowledge dating assumptions and limitations. \u00a0Scientific 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]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 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]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In trying to ascertain the first known use of language, we must seek results that are evidence-based.\u00a0 The thesis of this paper, though proposing a most plausible assertion, still must be built upon tangible evidence\u2014must be evidence-based\u2014to be logically coherent.\u00a0 Where does the evidence lead us?\u00a0 Once we find this destination, we may infer one or more of the most logically likely scenarios.\u00a0 In this field of study, certain recent linguistic-archaeological discoveries are advancing our knowledge about the development and dating of early Semitic languages.\u00a0 First, Proto-Canaanite (Proto-Sinaitic\/Sinaitic) may not predate Proto-Hebrew, or, if it does predate, does so earlier than previously thought.\u00a0 Recently, two striking archaeological discoveries reveal more about the ancient history and origin of Proto-Hebrew.<\/p>\n 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: \u201cCursed, cursed, you will surely die; cursed, cursed, you will surely die; Governor of the City, you will surely die;<\/em> cursed, you will surely die;<\/em> cursed, you will surely die;<\/em> cursed, you will surely die.\u201d<\/em>[xiv]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0<\/em>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.\u00a0 The inscription probably just predates Israel\u2019s occupation of Jerusalem following the Exodus from Egypt and entrance into Canaan, the Promised Land.<\/p>\n The second discovery\u2014made by the Associates for Biblical Research in March, 2022\u2014a Proto-Hebraic inscription found on Mt. Ebal, is dated very likely to the Late Bronze Age, 13-14th<\/sup> Century B.C.[xv]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n This piece also urges reform for certain contemporary Biblical scholarship.\u00a0 This scholarship erroneously dates the Exodus to the 13th<\/sup> century BC\u2014though many scholars also erroneously deny the Exodus ever happened, contrary to evidence.\u00a0 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 15th <\/sup>\u00a0century and early 14th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 Moreover, the proposed discovery beckons these same scholars to acknowledge, objectively, that Hebraic writing and the biblical text occurred much earlier than previously thought. \u00a0<\/em>Notwithstanding the concrete evidence of this analysis, scholars\u2014among other critics logically and justifiably dismissed\u2014have contended correctly that the ABR discussed their findings at a press release, but did not initially present their peer-review publication.\u00a0 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]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Fortunately, this year (2023) the ABR presented the evidence, marking a dramatically important development in the dating and use of Proto-Hebrew.[xvii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n From available evidence, Egyptian hieroglyphics\u2014sacred sign scripts\u2014predate Proto-Hebrew and Proto-Canaanite\/Sinaitic.\u00a0 The origin of Egyptian hieroglyphics is not well understood.\u00a0 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]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0\u00a0Later, Egyptians developed and wrote in hieratic\/cursive script c. 2925-200 BC, generally written with a reed ink pen on papyrus.\u00a0 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]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Prior to this, Abrahamic Hebrews spoke Hebrew and would have communicated in pictograph or cuneiform no longer extant.\u00a0 Currently, we have no evidence that Hebrews wrote in cuneiform. Nevertheless, Genesis\u2019s colophonic historical narrative presupposes a tradition of written communication, paralleling and dependent upon a foundational Hebraic spoken language, that suggests developed, comprehensible pictograph, or\u2014more likely\u2014early cuneiform.[xx]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Still, Hebraic pre-Egyptian and proto-Sumerian pictography\u2014apart from cuneiform\u2014not only is a theoretical mode of written communication, but seems likely since Edward Crawford\u2019s 1983 discovery of the Ahora Covenant Inscription.[xxi]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 Sumerian proto-cuneiformic pictographs predate Egyptian hieroglyphics, and (contrary to previous assessments) the Sumerians wrote and spoke a Semitic language, specifically Hamito-Semitic.\u00a0 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]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0In addition, ancestral genetic evidence suggests semitic genetic identity of Sumerians.[xxiii]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0The 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]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n 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]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 This also suggests that the Hebraic source, in addition to its oral component, may have been written in early cuneiform. \u00a0Proto-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]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 From within ancient Rabbinic tradition up to the present with contemporary thinkers, such as Mike Gascoigne, the Hebrew of Genesis is linguistically irreducible.\u00a0 That is, from the position of faith, it must be the original language of God\u2019s revelation, beginning with creation, and from the position of history of literature, the Genesis Hebrew cannot be predated and translated from another language.\u00a0 Examples of this irreducibility abound, so I will mention only four.<\/p>\n First, names for God in Biblical Hebrew have no equivalency.\u00a0 I will discuss merely two. The generic Hebraic, Biblical name for God is Elohim (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd), a plural name for the One God, implying personal, relational distinction within, i.e., Trinitarian Personhood.\u00a0 At times, God refers to Himself in first person plural, e.g., Genesis 1:26, 3:22.\u00a0 The nuance of \u201cElohim\u201d renders it imperfectly translatable.<\/p>\n The sacred, personal, covenant name for God is YHWH (\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4).\u00a0 An exact equivalency name for this in a different language does not exist.\u00a0 YHWH is based on the Hebrew verb \u201cto be\u201d (\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4). \u00a0\u00a0An approximate English translation might be \u201cHe is\u201d or \u201cHe Who is.\u201d\u00a0 God revealed His personal name to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3)\u2014\u201cI Am Who Am\u201d (\u05d0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u00a0\u00a0\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u00a0\u05d0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4).\u00a0 The two personal, divine names are grammatically and personally intricately related.\u00a0 Eve calls God \u201cYHWH\u201d in Genesis 4:1. \u00a0Use of this word is original, hardly a translation from Sumerian or any other language.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n The names for Adam and Eve also reflect Hebraic originality: Adam (\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd) and Eve (\u05d7\u05d5\u05d4) in Hebrew, respectively, mean earth\/dirt\/son of the red earth, and living\/mother of the living. \u00a0Translations lose this meaning, a meaning that contributes substantially to the narrative.\u00a0 Similarly, God\u2019s creation of Eve from Adam\u2019s rib loses meaning in translation.\u00a0 In the Genesis narrative 2:20-25: not only do \u201cman\u201d (ish \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9) and \u201cwoman\u201d (isha \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 ) phonetically sound like a pair, but \u201cisha\u201d also means \u201cher man\u201d in Hebrew\u2014\u201c\u2026because out of \u201cher man\u201d this one was taken (Genesis 2:23).\u00a0\u00a0 The Hebrew is significant and original.<\/p>\n Therefore, Hebraic Genesis would be necessary as the intelligible and most coherently developed source for Sumerian Biblical\/Genesis referencing.\u00a0 It also is plausible that Proto-Hebrew\/Sinaitic is closely related to Sumerian, and vice-versa.<\/p>\n The inferred foundational language upon which this relationship is based, thus predating Sumerian\u2014the oldest known language, by inference\u2014is what I call Basal-Hebrew, or the base of the earliest Hebrew-Semitic languages.\u00a0 This is humanity\u2019s earliest known and very likely original language using evidenced\/logically-based reasoning. \u00a0In 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.\u00a0 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]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Moreover, regarding Genesis content, apart from linguistic meaning and coherence, Sumerian likely follows Basal-Hebrew, not the converse.\u00a0 The Sumerian application of Genesis content is mythological, whereas Genesis is genealogical historical narrative.\u00a0 Genesis\u2019s colophonic structure\u2014significant for its early dating and historical, grammatical meaning\u2014and other corroborating sources that impart remarkably similar content, such Tablet XI of the Epic of Gilgamesh\u2014testify to its intent to impart history, not just a story.\u00a0 Myth follows actual history.\u00a0 In addition, literarily, regarding actual history vs. myth, mythological simplicity emerges from the vastly more complex, detailed actual history.\u00a0 This is true, for example, of Sumerian stories of creation of humanity\u2014including the first woman created from the first man, paradise and the first sin, and the Flood and its surrounding context.[xxviii]<\/sup><\/a> Therefore, logically, Basal-Hebrew predates Sumerian, and perhaps significantly because of the extensive maturation time of cultivated Sumerian mythology.<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0In a current mainstream secular view, this Ubaidian time period is c. 6500\u20133800 BC.\u00a0 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. \u00a0The 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.\u00a0 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]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n 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 \u00c7atalh\u00f6y\u00fck and G\u00f6beklitepe, all of whom are within ancient business traveling distance from Sumer.[xxx]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 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. \u00a0Since Sumerian pictographic and cuneiform written documents are the oldest on record\u2014with the possible thesis- affirming exception of the proto-Sumerian\/plausibly Hebraic Ahora Covenant Inscription\u2014their speech and literacy, from available evidence, must have developed in some way from their immediate predecessors.\u00a0 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\u2019s first spoken and written language.<\/p>\n [i]<\/sup><\/a>The word \u201cBasal-Hebrew\u201d is my own.\u00a0 It means the foundational or \u201cbase\u201d grammatical structure upon which Sumerian, Sinaitic, Proto-Hebrew, and other of the earliest Hebraic\/Semitic languages developed.\u00a0 Substantially, more explicitly Hebraic languages would follow closely Basal-Hebrew grammatical construction and vocabulary. \u00a0\u00a0Because, 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.<\/p>\n [ii]<\/sup><\/a>The list of scientists who have done so is significantly voluminous and includes people of both genders, various ethnicities and religious or secular beliefs.\u00a0 An example is former atheist (now Catholic) German paleontologist Gunter Bechly.<\/p>\n [iii]<\/sup><\/a>The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation presents on the scientific problems and incoherency of macroevolutionary belief concerning this list and much more\u2014please see their website articles, videos, and resources.\u00a0 Another source (among others) to which I refer are Professor Gunter Bechly\u2019s YouTube presentation and interviews, especially concerning points 1-6.\u00a0 I do not ascribe to all of Bechly\u2019s 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\u2019s creation of the natural order.<\/p>\n [iv]<\/sup><\/a>\u201cA Comparative Analysis: Homo Habilis Vs. Homo Erectus,\u201d BiologyWise<\/em>, 2022. Web. \u00a0Ewen Callaway, \u201cHomo erectus<\/em> made the world\u2019s oldest doodle 500,00 years ago,\u201d Nature<\/em>, 3 December 2014. Web.\u00a0 Daniel Everett, \u201cDid Homo erectus speak?\u201d, Aeon<\/em>, 28 February 2018. Web.<\/p>\n [v]<\/sup><\/a> Robin McKie, \u201cWere small-brained early humans intelligent?\u00a0 Row erupts over scientists\u2019 claim,\u201d The Guardian: The Observer-Paleontology, 22 July 2023. Web. Stephen Luntz, \u201cHomo Naledi documentary adds fuel to already heated scientific debate,\u201d IFLScience<\/em>, 24 July 2023. Web.<\/p>\n [vi]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cAnimals that bury their dead just like humans,\u201d Naturenex<\/em>, 24 June 2021. Web.\u00a0 Laura Moss, \u201cAnimals watch over their dead, but is it really mourning?,\u201d Tree Huggers<\/em>.\u00a0 \u00a0Updated 15 August 2018.<\/p>\n [vii]<\/sup><\/a> Some modern apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes.\u00a0 At this time in genetic technology, the number of pairs of chromosomes of ancient apes are speculation.<\/p>\n [viii]<\/sup><\/a> Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D., \u201cHuman Chromosome 2 Never Happened,\u201d in Genesis<\/em>, 21 March 2022. Web.<\/p>\n [ix]<\/sup><\/a>\u201cChromosome Fusion? It\u2019s Getting Harder and Harder to Believe,\u201d Proslogion: Evolution, Modern Science<\/em>, 9 December 2013. Web.\u00a0 J. Tomkins, Ph.D., \u201cAlleged Human Chromosome 2 \u2018Fusion Site\u2019 Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene\u2014Negating Fusion,\u201d Semantic Scholar: Biology<\/em>, 2013. Web.\u00a0 See Tomkins, \u201cHuman Chromosome 2 Never Happened,\u201d and Avery Foley, \u201cUnraveling the Chromosome 2 Connection,\u201d Answers in Genesis<\/em>, 21 March 2022. Web.<\/p>\n [x]<\/sup><\/a>\u201cHomo erectus lived alongside modern humans,\u201d Unexplained-Mysteries.com: Paleotology<\/em>, 26 December 2019. Paul Rincon, Science Editor, \u201cHomo erectus: Ancient humans survived longer than we thought,\u201d BBC News<\/em>, 18 December 2019.\u00a0 Web. Adam Clark Estes, \u201cIt wasn\u2019t Just Neanderthals: Ancient Humans Had Sex with Other Hominids,\u201d The Atlantic<\/em>, 7 September 2011.\u00a0 Web.<\/p>\n [xi]<\/sup><\/a>Melissa Hogenboom, Science Reporter, \u201cNeanderthals could speak like modern humans, study suggests,\u201d BBC News: Science<\/em>, 20 December 2013.\u00a0 Web. \u00a0Ruth Schuster, \u201cNeanderthals Could Speak, New Study Claims to Prove,\u201d Haaretz: Archaeology<\/em>, 2 March 2021.\u00a0 Web.\u00a0 Josh Gabbatiss: Science Correspondent, \u201cHomo erectus: Early humans were able to speak and crossed sea on boats, expert claims,\u201d Independent<\/em>, 20 February 2018.\u00a0 Web.\u00a0 \u201cThe Anatomy of Speech,\u201d Fossil Hunters<\/em>, 7 January 2022.\u00a0 Web.<\/p>\n [xii]<\/sup><\/a>\u201cIs Radiometric Dating Accurate?,\u201d Earth Age<\/em>, 2010, Web.\u00a0 David Plaisted, \u201cMore bad news for radiometric dating,\u201d University of North Carolina<\/em>, March 2006.\u00a0 Web.\u00a0 Don Mac, \u201cWhy is it difficult to date sedimentary rocks using radiometric dating techniques?\u201d, Earth Science, 2016. Web. \u00a0Gemma Tarlach, \u201cEverything Worth Knowing About\u2026Scientific Dating Methods,\u201d Discover<\/em>, May 31, 2016. Web.\u00a0 G. Brent Dalrymple, \u201cRadiometric dating does work!\u201d, National Center for Science Education<\/em>, May-June 2000.\u00a0 Web. \u00a0John Black, \u201cDating methods in Archaeology.\u00a0 Are they accurate?\u201d Ancient Origins: Reconstructing the story of humanity\u2019s past<\/em>, March 2013, Web. Colm Gorey, \u201cCarbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery,\u201d Silicon Republic<\/em>, 6 June 2018. Web.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 This is because of environmental factors changing over time.\u00a0 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<\/em>, pp. 32-34, 15 January 2014. Web.<\/p>\n [xiii]<\/sup><\/a>\u201cW. Bruce Masse's research while affiliated with Los Alamos National Laboratory and other places,\u201d Research Gate, 2014.\u00a0 Web. \u00a0Scott Carney, \u201cDid a Comet Cause the Great Flood?,\u201d Discover<\/em>, 15 November 2007.\u00a0 Dallas Helen Abbott, Bruce W. Masse, et. al., \u201cBurckle abyssal impact crater: \u201cDid this impact produce a global deluge?\u201d, Columbia: Academic Commons, 2005.\u00a0 Web.<\/p>\n [xiv]<\/sup><\/a>Ruth Schuster, \u201cArchaeologists Reveal Oldest Inscription in Jerusalem: A Canaanite \u00a0Curse,\u201d Haaretz<\/em>, 10 July 2022.\u00a0 Web.\u00a0 WND News Services, \u201cCurses: Archaeologists reveal oldest inscription in Jerusalem,\u201d Daily Angle<\/em>, 10 July 2022.\u00a0 Web.<\/p>\n [xv]<\/sup><\/a>Ruth Schuster, \u201cEarly Israelite Curse Inscription Found on Mt. Ebal,\u201d Haaretz<\/em>, 22 March 2022.\u00a0 Web.\u00a0 Nathan Steinmeyer, \u201cAn Early Israelite Curse Inscription from Mt. Ebal?,\u201d Biblical Archaeology Society<\/em>, 25 April 2022.\u00a0 Web. \u00a0Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz, \u201c\u2019Curse\u2019 text on ancient amulet could change way scholars read Bible,\u201d The Jerusalem Post<\/em>, 25 March 2022.\u00a0 Web.<\/p>\n [xvi]<\/sup><\/a>Christopher Eames, \u201cMt. Ebal Inscription: The Backlash Begins,\u201d Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology<\/em>, 14 May 2022. \u00a0Web.<\/p>\n [xvii]<\/sup><\/a>Scott Stripling, Gershon Galil, Ivana Kumpova, Jaroslav Valach, Pieter Gert van der Veen, and Daniel Vavrik, \u201cYou are Cursed by the God YHW:\u201d an early Hebrew inscription from Mt. Ebal, Heritage Science<\/em>, (2023) 11:105.\u00a0 Web.\u00a0 I express my gratitude to Mike Gladieux, author of The Genesis Documents: Undergirding the Truth of Genesis and the Ancient Faith of the Church<\/em>, Second Edition, Amazon, 2017, for alerting me to the very recent publication and presentation of evidence concerning the Mt. Ebal Inscription.<\/p>\n [xviii]<\/sup><\/a>Priscila Scolville, \u201cEgyptian Hieroglyphics,\u201d World History Encyclopedia<\/em>, 2 July 2015.\u00a0 Web.<\/p>\n [xix]<\/sup><\/a>\u201cDid they find the first alphabetic script; Proto-Sinaitic?,\u201d Patterns of Evidence<\/em>, 2022. Web. \u00a0\u201cDr. Petrovich discovers Hebrew alphabet derived from Egyptian Hieroglyphics,\u201d Israeli News Live<\/em>, 2017. Web.\u00a0 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<\/em>.<\/p>\n [xx]<\/sup><\/a> Concerning the written genre and historical tradition in Genesis, see, for example, Mark Koehne, Ph.D., \u201cThe Meaning of Yom in Genesis 1 in the Light of Contemporary Scholarship,\u201d Web, originally published as Chapter Eight of \u201cI Have Spoken to You from Heaven\u201d: A Catholic Defense of Creation in Six Days<\/em>, Kolbe Center, 2015.<\/p>\n [xxi]<\/sup><\/a> Edward E. Crawford, \u201cProto-Sumerian Inscriptions in the Ahora Gorge B\u00fcy\u00fck Agri (Greater Mt Ararat), Turkey,\u201d National Geographic: Research & Exploration<\/em>: A Scholarly Publication of the National Geographic Society, Vol. 10, Autumn 1994, p. 484, referenced and discussed in Mike Gladieux, The Genesis Documents<\/em>, 178-179 and 560.<\/p>\n [xxii]<\/sup><\/a>El Rabih Makki, \u201cThe Unity of Hamito-Semitic and Sumerian Language Families: A Comparative Study of Their Sound, Lexical, and Grammatical Systems,\u201d LINCOM GmbH<\/em>, 2017.\u00a0 Web.<\/p>\n [xxiii]<\/sup><\/a>Nadia Al-Zahery et al., \u201cIn Search of the genetic footprints of Sumerians: a survey of Y-chromosome and mtDNA variation in the Marsh Arabs of Iraq,\u201d BMC Ecology and Evolution<\/em>, 4 October 2011. Web.\u00a0 \u201cWho were the ancient Sumerians, and which are their ancestors today?,\u201d \u00a0Rhesusnegative<\/em>, 20 April 2017. Web.\u00a0 Razib Khan, \u201cAncient DNA and Sumerians,\u201d Discover<\/em>, 8 October 2012. Web.\u00a0 Though \u201csemitic\u201d specifically refers to language, I am using here in its looser, genetic\/ancestral sense.<\/p>\n [xxiv]<\/sup><\/a>Douglas Petrovich, PhD., \u201cThe Tower of Babel and Pre-Abrahamic Biblical Archaeology,\u201d The Byzantine Scotist<\/em>. 2023. Web.\u00a0 Douglas Petrovich, PhD., \u201cIdentifying the Post-Babel Dispersion,\u201d Conference Lecture, Is Genesis History?<\/em>, 2018. Web. \u00a0Thomas Purifoy Jr., \u201cWhat is the Evidence for the Tower of Babel,\u201d Is Genesis History?<\/em>\u00a0 Web.<\/p>\n [xxv]<\/sup><\/a>See Makki, \u201cThe Unity of Hamito-Semitic and Sumerian Language Families: A Comparative Study of Their Sound, Lexical, and Grammatical Systems,\u201d 240-241.\u00a0 For internal textual and archaeological\/historical reasons demonstrating that Genesis authorship predates authorship of Near Eastern mythologies, see the following: Mark Koehne, PhD., \u201cThe Meaning of Yom in Genesis 1 in the Light of Modern Biblical Scholarship,\u201d The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation<\/em>, 2016. Web.<\/p>\n [xxvi]<\/sup><\/a> The Masoretic chronological timeline of Genesis, from creation until Jacob\u2019s 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. \u00a0Second, since Trent, certain notable theological commentators, applying the spiritual sense of Scripture, favor the Masoretic dating.<\/p>\n [xxvii]<\/sup><\/a>This assertion assumes the effects of a global flood on historic and radiometric dating of the emergence of humanity.<\/p>\n [xxviii]<\/sup><\/a>Makki, 239-241.<\/p>\nPaleontological evidence of first-language capacity<\/h3>\n
\n
Geographical, social, and genetic evidence of the first known use of language<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n
Endnotes<\/h3>\n