Correct way to Read Genesis Creation

[PeterK]

Please lets stick to scripture and not slide into the evolution debate.It’s soooo boring when that happens and there has been like a million threads on evolution.

I so totally agree!!!

Peterk

 

[juliamajor]

FRom Communion and Stewardship

1. Science and the stewardship of knowledge
2. The endeavor to understand the universe has marked human culture in every period and in nearly every society. In the perspective of the Christian faith, this endeavor is precisely an instance of the stewardship which human beings exercise in accordance with God’s plan. Without embracing a discredited concordism, Christians have the responsibility to locate the modern scientific understanding of the universe within the context of the theology of creation. The place of human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune God with creaturely persons.
3. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

 

[juliamajor]

1. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.
2. We have seen human persons are created in the image of God in order to become partakers of the divine nature (cf. 2 Pet 1:3-4) and thus to share in the communion of trinitarian life and in the divine dominion over visible creation. At the heart of the divine act of creation is the divine desire to make room for created persons in the communion of the uncreated Persons of the Blessed Trinity through adoptive participation in Christ. What is more, the common ancestry and natural unity of the human race are the basis for a unity in grace of redeemed human persons under the headship of the New Adam in the ecclesial communion of human persons united with one another and with the uncreated Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The gift of natural life is the basis for the gift of the life of grace. It follows that, where the central truth concerns a person acting freely, it is impossible to speak of a necessity or an imperative to create, and it is, in the end, inappropriate to speak of the Creator as a force, or energy, or ground. Creation ex nihilo is the action of a transcendent personal agent, acting freely and intentionally, with a view toward the all-encompassing purposes of personal engagement. In Catholic tradition, the doctrine of the origin of human beings articulates the revealed truth of this fundamentally relational or personalist understanding of God and of human nature. The exclusion of pantheism and emanationism in the doctrine of creation can be interpreted at root as a way of protecting this revealed truth. The doctrine of the immediate or special creation of each human soul not only addresses the ontological discontinuity between matter and spirit, but also establishes the basis for a divine intimacy which embraces every single human person from the first moment of his or her existence.
3. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is thus a singular affirmation of the truly personal character of creation and its order toward a personal creature who is fashioned as the imago Dei and who responds not to a ground, force or energy, but to a personal creator. The doctrines of the imago Dei and the creatio ex nihilo teach us that the existing universe is the setting for a radically personal drama, in which the triune Creator calls out of nothingness those to whom He then calls out in love. Here lies the profound meaning of the words of Gaudium et Spes: “Man is the only creature on earth that God willed for his own sake” (24). Created in God’s image, human beings assume a place of responsible stewardship in the physical universe. Under the guidance of divine providence and acknowledging the sacred character of visible creation, the human race reshapes the natural order, and becomes an agent in the evolution of the universe itself. In exercising their stewardship of knowledge, theologians have the responsibility to locate modern scientific understandings within a Christian vision of the created universe.

 

[juliamajor]

1. With respect to the creatio ex nihilo, theologians can note that the Big Bang theory does not contradict this doctrine insofar as it can be said that the supposition of an absolute beginning is not scientifically inadmissible. Since the Big Bang theory does not in fact exclude the possibility of an antecedent stage of matter, it can be noted that the theory appears to provide merely indirect support for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo which as such can only be known by faith.
2. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.
3. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
4. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. The appeal to divine causality to account for genuinely causal as distinct from merely explanatory gaps does not insert divine agency to fill in the “gaps” in human scientific understanding (thus giving rise to the so-called "God of the gaps”). The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.

 

[MindOverMatter]

FRom Communion and Stewardship

1. Science and the stewardship of knowledge
2. The endeavor to understand the universe has marked human culture in every period and in nearly every society. In the perspective of the Christian faith, this endeavor is precisely an instance of the stewardship which human beings exercise in accordance with God’s plan. Without embracing a discredited concordism, Christians have the responsibility to locate the modern scientific understanding of the universe within the context of the theology of creation. The place of human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune God with creaturely persons…

So believing in evolution is not contradictory to faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

So believing in evolution is not contradictory to faith.

Yes. Clearly and obviously.

 

[GeorgeSword]

Who removed God from His throne and replaced Him with Science? It matters a great deal that two individuals sinned and that Christ was born, lived, died and rose again in payment of our debt.

What would you say to someone who asked you - Why did Jesus have to die? What would be your answer?

Peace,
Ed

You clearly don’t understand the type of evolution we believe in. It is not atheistic. It is not a Darwinian survival of the fittest. It is only the idea that, under God’s guidance, mankind did evolve more or less as science shows. I believe in original sin. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, the first beings to have souls, and the first to fall from grace. I simply don’t see it as a literal account, but as a symbolic way of explaining how we came to be that made sense to a society without the science we now have. I do not mean that we should disgard it now, but rather, altar out understanding of it.

 

[edwest2]

Yes. Clearly and obviously.

May I point out that it is neither clear nor obvious. If a process like evolution occurred, Catholics are required to believe that God was a direct, causal agent, and that evolution could not occur without God. In other words, textbook biology excludes this vital information and is incomplete.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You clearly don’t understand the type of evolution we believe in. It is not atheistic. It is not a Darwinian survival of the fittest. It is only the idea that, under God’s guidance, mankind did evolve more or less as science shows. I believe in original sin. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, the first beings to have souls, and the first to fall from grace. I simply don’t see it as a literal account, but as a symbolic way of explaining how we came to be that made sense to a society without the science we now have. I do not mean that we should disgard it now, but rather, altar out understanding of it.

You didn’t answer my question about Jesus

“the first beings to have souls”? So, do you believe that pre-human hominids existed?

If I was raised in a replica of an ancient Egyptian city, was taught to read and helped build a pyramid replica, that would make me stupid compared to “modern” people? I think you’ve fallen for the Christopher Hitchens line: “If we knew then what we now know, would we ever have become religious?”

Alter our understanding of what? The Bible tells us, not symbolically, that through one man sin entered the world.

The biology textbook is even more explicit. The evolution engine is self-starting, undirected, non-goal oriented, and just spits out life forms that may, or may not get selected depending on where they are and what the environment’s like. It clearly operates “naturally,” that is, without any supernatural influence whatsoever.

So there is no need to alter what the Church teaches about Genesis at all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[juliamajor]

You didn’t answer my question about Jesus

“the first beings to have souls”? So, do you believe that pre-human hominids existed?

If I was raised in a replica of an ancient Egyptian city, was taught to read and helped build a pyramid replica, that would make me stupid compared to “modern” people? I think you’ve fallen for the Christopher Hitchens line: “If we knew then what we now know, would we ever have become religious?”

Alter our understanding of what? The Bible tells us, not symbolically, that through one man sin entered the world.

The biology textbook is even more explicit. The evolution engine is self-starting, undirected, non-goal oriented, and just spits out life forms that may, or may not get selected depending on where they are and what the environment’s like. It clearly operates “naturally,” that is, without any supernatural influence whatsoever.

So there is no need to alter what the Church teaches about Genesis at all.

Peace,
Ed

Stop playing Grand Inquisitor-Mr. Sword doesn’t have to conform to your theories of genesis but the churches.What you think is the truth and what it reality is-are two different things.You touted Communion and Stewardship as the groundwork of your position.But it does not read that way.What you see in the document and what I and others see are different-whose view is right?

 

[edwest2]

Why did Jesus have to die? Through one man sin entered the world.

Peace,
Ed

 

[diggerdomer]

May I point out that it is neither clear nor obvious.

Sorry if I presumed incorrectly. For anyone reading through this thread I thought it was quite clear and obvious that believing in evolution is not contradictory to the Catholic faith.

I mean, people have provided so many citations of authoritative references showing how the Church does not rule out or teach against evolution, simply, that I began to feel as though we were beating a dead horse.

 

[PeterK]

Well there goes the thread.
Oh well…

Diggerdomer,
‘Believing in evolution’ maybe isn’t a good or clear phrase. However, holding that God employed evolutionary processes in the act of creation is not contrary to the faith. But one must carefully define ‘evolution’. Certainly, materialistic evolution - which does not allow for anything ‘supernatural’ - is off limits. The idea of evolution remains very broad and loose, it is still a work in progress. This condition makes it ‘hazardous’ to claim the RCC says evolution is OK. What notion of evolution are you referring to? a godless one? Because the idea of evolution is a concept in formation and not set - like the idea of the earth orbiting the sun - one has to be careful about blanket endorsements.

Evolution in general is unacceptable to Biblical literalists. So one has to take into account who they are talking to.

And I have no idea how to segway that topic back into the OP concerning two creation accounts.

PeterK

 

[edwest2]

Just look at a Biologt textbook. It is very clear that evolution starts on its own, runs on its own and it’s not goal oriented.

The correct way to read Genesis is to read the encyclical Humani Generis (1950). Catholics are not free to believe that Adam and Eve came from other pre-humans/hominids.

But what is being pushed here is because “science” says so, we need to regard Genesis as symbolic because 2,000 years ago, people were just too stupid to understand 20th Century science, which is false as far as that goes. Those promoting science are ruling out, like the Biology textbook, God’s involvement.

Peace,
Ed

 

[GeorgeSword]

The answer to why Jesus had to die is answered in the Catechism. My understanding of evolution is not atheistic, but rather theistic, and is by no means random. I do however, conform to the overall theory which can be considered ‘hard’ science. The rest is purely philisophical, and can be made to fit any philosophy.
I’m not saying people in the past were stupid. It makes me rather sick when people say this, being someone who quite admires the ancients, though my interests are more helenistic than Egyptian. All that I mean to say is that they had a lesser understanding of science, not because of any personal lacking, but because of scientific lacking, since science took time to develop.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I haven’t read all the posts, so if this is redundant, please forgive me. I also confess that I’m not a biblical scholar.

I read long ago that the Bible was, for a very long time, not a written,but an oral thing. For a very long time, it was recited by memory by the campfires or wherever those who knew it were asked to repeat it by those who didn’t.

So, I decided to experience it as an oral thing, not as a written thing. We have expectations of books; that they are somehow something to take apart and analyze.

When you read the first Genesis account out loud, and particularly if you memorize more and more of it, it has a coherence all its own, and a dynamic peculiar to oral expression. As one recites it out loud, one’s voice tends to rise at certain parts and fall at others, but always the speed gets faster and the crescendo is right before the creation of man. God’s delight increases and the “and God saw that it was good” parts tend to escalate. If you do that, you really can’t help yourself from reciting the “creation of man part” more slowly and almost tenderly, and you gain in understanding why God created man at all.

I realize this doesn’t really help the analysis as an analysis, but I really do recommend to people that they recite it orally if they really want to “get it” as people originally received it.

 

[edwest2]

The answer to why Jesus had to die is answered in the Catechism. My understanding of evolution is not atheistic, but rather theistic, and is by no means random. I do however, conform to the overall theory which can be considered ‘hard’ science. The rest is purely philisophical, and can be made to fit any philosophy.
I’m not saying people in the past were stupid. It makes me rather sick when people say this, being someone who quite admires the ancients, though my interests are more helenistic than Egyptian. All that I mean to say is that they had a lesser understanding of science, not because of any personal lacking, but because of scientific lacking, since science took time to develop.

Hard science? “The Church cannot wholeheartedly affirm evolution because evolution as a science itself isn’t wholly firm.” Benjamin Wiker writing in Our Sunday Visitor, April 19, 2009.

“Any view of evolution that assumes on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws must be in error.” Ibid

“… when all the evidence is finally in, science will not contradict the fact that human beings have a single set of parents.” Ibid

From The Genius of China:

Circulation of the blood - 6th Century BC
Circadian rythms in the human body – 2nd Century BC
The science of endocrinology – 2nd Century BC
Deep drilling for natural gas – 2nd Century BC
Recognition of sunspots as solar phenomena – 4th Century BC

Peace,
Ed

 

[catholicsuffer]

Just look at a Biologt textbook. It is very clear that evolution starts on its own, runs on its own and it’s not goal oriented.

The correct way to read Genesis is to read the encyclical Humani Generis (1950). Catholics are not free to believe that Adam and Eve came from other pre-humans/hominids.

But what is being pushed here is because “science” says so, we need to regard Genesis as symbolic because 2,000 years ago, people were just too stupid to understand 20th Century science, which is false as far as that goes. Those promoting science are ruling out, like the Biology textbook, God’s involvement

Peace,
Ed

www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm

 

[GeorgeSword]

Hard science? “The Church cannot wholeheartedly affirm evolution because evolution as a science itself isn’t wholly firm.” Benjamin Wiker writing in Our Sunday Visitor, April 19, 2009.

“Any view of evolution that assumes on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws must be in error.” Ibid

“… when all the evidence is finally in, science will not contradict the fact that human beings have a single set of parents.” Ibid

From The Genius of China:

Circulation of the blood - 6th Century BC
Circadian rythms in the human body – 2nd Century BC
The science of endocrinology – 2nd Century BC
Deep drilling for natural gas – 2nd Century BC
Recognition of sunspots as solar phenomena – 4th Century BC

Peace,
Ed

By hard science I do not mean proven fact, but rather, that which is science and not philosophy called science.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There is one account, and it begins at GEN 1:1.

Six days later, God created man, the original [seed] of God. GEN 1:27, at this point Adam is the patriarch.

Adam and Eve at some point had Cain and Abel.
Abel was to be the patriarch.
Cain Killed Abel.

When Adam and Eve were 130 years old, they had Seth. at this point Seth becomes the patriarch to replace the murdered Abel. The [seed] continues…

From this point Genesis carefully traces the patriarchs in the bible, continuing the [seed]. Then describes the rise of man, the evil of man, the fall of man, the Grace of God in the redemption of man through Noah!

Noah is the patriarch, before the flood Noah begot Shem. Shem is the patriarch, the birthright, the line of Christ.

The earth at this point was a single continent!

Noah and his three sons and their wives enter the ark 40 day and 40 nights. The Ark rests and the eight people who were spared among the whole entire dead world leave the ark to shepherd to the world and create.

Shem begot Arphaxad when he was 502 years old. Arphaxad is the patriarch… The [seed] continues…

Peleg later becomes the patriarch, during his reign, man was at his height in knowledge and arrogance and spoke a single language **Gen 11:1 **“Now the whole earth had one language and one speech”;and was capable of anything of doing anything…

**Gen 11:4 **And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”
**Gen 11:5 **But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
**Gen 11:6 **And the LORD said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they purpose to do will be withheld from them.
**Gen 11:7 **“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
**Gen 11:8 **So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
**Gen 11:9 **Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

God confused the languages, all the people gathered to their groups of like languages and scattered abroad. God separated the earth and created continents.

All of this happens before the birth of Peleg’s son, Reu, who was born 239 years later and became the patriarch. The line continues, while the earth has been scattered.

Abram is born, and becomes the Patriarch, when Abram is 99 years old, the LORD appears to Abram and makes His covenant, changing Abram’s name to Abraham.

Then Isaac,

Then Jacob, who becomes Israel,

Israel beget Joseph, Levi and 10 other sons to became the 12 tribes of Israel,
Levi is the patriarch, his line connects to Christ.

The second youngest with the multicolored coat, Joseph, was sold into slavery by his 10 older brothers, and they told Jacob that Joseph was mauled and killed by a beast by presenting the multicolored coat full of gore.

Jacob learns of his son still being alive many years later and takes his family and moves to Egypt, where Pharaoh welcomes him and sets him up to live his life in peace and luxury.

Joseph dies at 110, Levi dies at 114; Levi’s children connect to Moses.

That is the single account of Genesis. It is Literal, it is earthly, but there is also a spiritual meaning. That is what a parable is, an earthly story with a spiritual meaning. The word is Christ, and Christ spoke in parables. Christ is God, God speaks through prophets, Moses was a prophet, Moses wrote the book of Genesis as spoken by God. God is the word, the word is Christ, Christ spoke in parables, everything, including the account of Genesis, is a parable. A parable is a earthly story with a spiritual meaning. The account of Genesis is the earthly true literal story. However that would be the milk of the word, what we can understand and infer just by reading, and believing the infallible word of God, there is no question about that.

Just believe the account or don’t. If you don’t believe the account then your knowledge of God is still not as developed as you might like it to be. Because to question something as basic as the account of creation would mean your rationalizing God and making Him with your own characteristics and abilities as you understand them. But God is incomprehensible. That is faith, to just believe. For we were not there to witness it, however we can witness it through His word and the Holy Spirit. If you don’t believe that is an indication of a tare. A tare has no spiritual ears and cannot get passed the milk of the word to the meat of the word. The spiritual part of the account of Genesis is deep and many meanings. too much for this paragraph. But in this sense if you want to say there are two accounts, You would be accurate.

Joseph dies, Pharaoh dies, Then the new Pharaoh, who does not know of Joseph sees a new threat; the Jews, that is the line of Israel, begin to populate exceedingly and Pharaoh has a new fear of the Jews revolting against him and his people. Pharaoh enslaves them, they begin to build pyramids and would sojourn as slaves for 430 years, until Aaron and Moses lead the Exodus.

Genesis gives all the information a true believer would need. All the accounts written are amazingly pieced together and tell this incredible detailed story that connects in every conceivable way. Genesis is not a scientific book that gives the names of elements or the physics of light or the nature of spirit. This information is not necessary for salvation. We can know this because it is not recorded in the bible. It is interesting and leads to amazing hypotheses. But you must always test your hypothesis against the bible. not the other way around. you make your ideas fit into Gods plan, not makes Gods plan fit your ideas.

When did this process begin, and was it unbroken ? One asks because it is difficult to fit a date of 2348 BC for the Flood into the history of the Ancient Near East. And if it is being suggested that Adam & Eve chatted in Hebrew in the year 4004 BC, and really had Hebrew names - that is ***really ***stretching it.​

What is your source for Levi’s age ? Genesis does not say.