TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible

[ttf_drizabone]

Adam and Eve had kids: Cain and Abel
Abel was a shepherd and Cain grew crops
They both brought offerings to the Lord
Cain brought fruit he had grown, but nothing special
Abel brought from his flock, but the best meat from the best animals
Cain's offering was rejected and he got angry. God told him to get his act together.

But Cain didn't like that so he killed Abel.
God cursed Cain to be a fugitive and a wanderer but spared his life

Cain and his descendants flourished.
Lamech his descendant boasted of killing a man.

Adam and Eve had Seth, who they thought would replace Abel

People began to call on the name of the Lord.



My comments and questions:
- We're only given minor details of what happened.
- Abel's sacrifice seems to have been accepted because he chose the first born and the best meat to offer.  But there are more elaborate interpretations too.
- the good guys don't win in this book
- God's discussion with Cain in v 6,7 is a bit cryptic.  But at least he is told to overcome sin.
- compare "desire is for you" here and in Eve's punnishment in ch3
- who was Cain afraid of?
- Tubal-cain invented trombones.
- there would have been more people around than just these.  Why were only these mentioned?
- Cains line had some moral evil in it (Lamech), but also good.
- Eve thought that Gods promise of a seed to defeat Satan was going to be fulfilled though Seth.
- I think the last verse is meant to compare Cains line ending in Lamech's maral evilness with Abels line ending with people calling on the Lord.
= I made up the bit about the trombones.

[ttf_timothy42b]

http://www.sdjewishworld.com/2012/11/08/shepherds-vs-farmers-a-queston-of-biblical-philosophy/

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Hebrew-Scripture-Yoram-Hazony/dp/0521176670

I have not read it, interlibrary loan couldn't find it last time I tried.  But I'm intrigued by what I've heard. 

[ttf_drizabone]

you're retired Tim and have got lots of spare time, can you buy the book and read it for us and post a 1 page summary?  TIA. 

Its a shame the article didn't say why he thought it was the type of sacrifice bought that was important, rather than its quality?  I know that blood sacrifice is an important meme for sin sacrifices, but its not necessary for fellowship sacrifices.  So that may have been the issue, especially seeing God's rebuke of Cain was about sin.  But sacrificing the best is also an important factor in all sacrifices.  So I'm trying to find out what is important here.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 31, 2015, 02:21PMyou're retired Tim and have got lots of spare time, can you buy the book and read it for us and post a 1 page summary?  TIA. 




Martin,
There are two Tims here.  The other one is retired but I'm not.  I have huge college loans to pay off before I can even think about it.  I am old enough though! 

[ttf_drizabone]

oops.

I've got to marry off three daughters before I'm allowed to retire.

I'll see if I can sneak in paying of my home and buying a shires in there too.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Aug 27, 2015, 08:39PMBrief notes on Genesis 3: 1-24
As you note at the bottom of your post - "brief"! Good indeed to have someone paying attention to this stuff who is au fait with all the various connotations.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Aug 27, 2015, 08:39PM1.   The serpent shows up suddenly and without explanation—the definite article—the Serpent is used, showing that this isn’t just an ordinary serpent, but a distinct one.  Since other than Balaam’s talking donkey, animals don’t speak with humans in the biblical text, this gives us hints that some sort of evil power is using the serpent as a mouthpiece.

3.   The serpent disappears after the contradicting the divine statement and the only other mention of the serpent is in the curses on him.  The serpents lack of use of the divine name and only the generic word for deity in a chapter that clearly uses the divine name (Yahweh, usually translated as LORD) elsewhere may be significant, but we can’t be certain.
I am intrigued to read this passage anew, seeing that there is no explicit statement that something god-scale is using the serpent in this way. As you say, one can detect possible hints, but equally, one can read the passage in a straightforward manner - the serpent was a "crafty" beast (from other versions: subtle, clever, shrewd, cunning, wily), which deceived the woman for his (it has male gender in the passage - is this from the original Hebrew?) own reasons, which are not stated. There's no need to impute a higher motive for the serpent character for the passage to be read successfully as it stands. With my non-religious hat on, it seems plausible that a nomadic people sharing a region with deadly species of snake could have worked an implied strong warning against them into their shared wisdom.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Aug 27, 2015, 08:39PM12.   The woman is promised pain in childbearing and a change in her relationship with her husband.
It seems to me that this passage and those around it have some connection with a lot of latter-day misogyny in the West - easy justification for those that wish to put women down / believe that men are in some way inherently morally superior - "rule over you", etc. It is a problem for our current society to reconcile - while we have piece by piece made the formal decision as a group that what chromosomes you happen to be born with shouldn't dictate what life choices you may make, it is an awkward juxtaposition when there are still people around who wish to read this passage in this way.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Aug 27, 2015, 08:39PM14.   The woman is given a name and God makes them suitable clothing so that the apparent shame that they felt over their nakedness would be mitigated.
There's no use of the word shame in this passage, though I have often heard it used when describing it. Clothing is an obviously pragmatic way of protecting oneself against the vicissitudes of one's environment, so becoming aware of one's lack of protection would seem quite a sensible practical step in becoming ready for a career outside of the Garden. I now start to suspect that this describes an unemotional reaction rather than an emotional one. Reading it as one strikes me as likely to be projection from our later societal attitudes. What do you think?

Quote from: John the Theologian on Aug 27, 2015, 08:39PMAdditional comments
1.    This is the passage that is traditionally called the Fall and the origins of human evil in the world.  Whether it refers to other forms of evil entering the world is a debated points among traditional Christians.
I suppose the question of whether the serpent is just a snake bears directly on this.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Aug 27, 2015, 08:39PM2.   No time markers are hinted at all in the text as how long the couple would have lived in Edenic bliss and any suggestions are pure speculation unhinged from the text.
Are there any other traditions out there that deal with this question?

Quote from: John the Theologian on Aug 27, 2015, 08:39PMI realize that this post is probably much longer than many of you are ready for and I have left many questions unanswered.  I have specifically not addressed the question of is this historical, allegorical, historical with poetic language, etc. because so much of the discussion is so presupposition loaded.  This text is also referenced further on the Bible, especially by Paul in Romans 5 as well as the book of Revelation.  As interesting as it would be to pursue that, I have refrained.
Let us return to it when we get there...

I had a couple of questions on Genesis 1 which Martin deferred until we'd dealt with the fall. Here they are:

Quote from: MoominDave on Aug 24, 2015, 11:21AM4) Had the fall never occurred, how far do "work" and "keep" extend? Presumably the increasing population over generations would have necessitated an increase in food production in time. In what ways would this have been permissible?
5) The penalty for eating from the Tree of Knowledge is (slow) death. Were Adam and Eve immortal prior to eating from it? If so, would their children also have been? If so, how do we reconcile this intent with the knowledge that this implies an ever-increasing population? God must have known that this would become a problem in time with the initial conditions as set up. So did God know/intend from the start that the Tree of Knowledge would be eaten from? And hence did he set them up for a fall (pun fully intended)?

[ttf_MoominDave]

Re Martin's work on Genesis 4:

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 31, 2015, 03:08AMMy comments and questions:
- We're only given minor details of what happened.
- Abel's sacrifice seems to have been accepted because he chose the first born and the best meat to offer.  But there are more elaborate interpretations too.
- the good guys don't win in this book
They really don't, do they? Cain commits murder, is banished but protected from revenge. Poor Abel is just left dead. Manifestly unfair outcome, given the sanction of officialdom by God. It rather suggests that there's a lot of important backstory to it that we aren't privy to. But also the interaction between Cain and God is interesting - in this narrative God is a very human overseer, one who neither prevents Cain from committing murder, nor effectively administers justice upon him. And his apparent favouritism towards Abel in the first place seems tactically naive, unless he intended to foster division between the brothers.

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 31, 2015, 03:08AM- who was Cain afraid of?
- there would have been more people around than just these.  Why were only these mentioned?

So I am intrigued. If one holds to the biblical view of creation as accurate (I don't know if you do or not to this extent?), then in fact there wouldn't have been more people around - A&E were the first, and their children complete the set at that time. However, this seems obviously untenable - even if we accept that A&E were the first, and therefore humanly alone in the world before they produced children, there is no woman mentioned except for Eve herself. But then Cain moves away and finds a wife (or does she move with him?). To get slightly ahead of ourselves, Genesis 5:4 tells us that Adam had other, unspecified, sons and daughters. Cain's wife could have been his sister under this scheme - as would have had to be the case for Seth and other first generation children.

Alternatively, we could imagine that A&E were created on an Earth that already elsewhere contained other humans, just not divinely sanctioned ones. This would make for less incest - but then incest was not such a taboo in that time and place, was it? Is there any theological support out there for this idea?

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 31, 2015, 03:08AM- I think the last verse is meant to compare Cains line ending in Lamech's maral evilness with Abels line ending with people calling on the Lord.
I don't see any info about Abel having a line at all.

Incidentally, the killer Lamech's quoted ranting reminds me eerily of the kinds of self-regarding nonsense spouted by latter-day killers, such as the recent notorious case in Virginia. It seems highly grandiose; it's tempting to ponder whether something like this might be in play with him - or indeed with Cain, given his violently inappropriate over-reaction to being rejected. It's not at all uncommon to damaged people to pass on their damage to their children via defective or even abusive parenting, so the writer's obvious intent to link the misdeed of Cain with the misdeed of Lamech rings true - although the passage of 4 generations between them does make it highly tentative on their part.

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 31, 2015, 03:08AM= I made up the bit about the trombones.

It was probably played with a mouthpiece of Satan anyhow.

The final verse ("At this time people began to call on the name of the Lord") I find mystifying. What does it mean? What action is it describing?

I find interesting the fact that the Egyptian god Set, also called Seth, killed his brother Horus. Not quite the same story, but then there are also more Egyptian parallels with the biblical narrative than this.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 31, 2015, 03:08AMMy comments and questions:
- We're only given minor details of what happened.
- Abel's sacrifice seems to have been accepted because he chose the first born and the best meat to offer.  But there are more elaborate interpretations too.
Like it's a fantastic allegory for how pastoralism replaced hunting and gathering--documenting our pre-history days for posterity.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Ready to post on Genesis 5 when discussion of 3 and 4 has run its course a bit more.

We're still looking for an eager volunteer for Genesis 6. The field is open for anyone, regardless of religious affiliation or qualification level.

[ttf_drizabone]

Your non-religious take on this passage is interesting.
Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 01, 2015, 09:35AMThere's no use of the word shame in this passage, though I have often heard it used when describing it. Clothing is an obviously pragmatic way of protecting oneself against the vicissitudes of one's environment, so becoming aware of one's lack of protection would seem quite a sensible practical step in becoming ready for a career outside of the Garden. I now start to suspect that this describes an unemotional reaction rather than an emotional one. Reading it as one strikes me as likely to be projection from our later societal attitudes. What do you think?
I don't think that your argument fits the passage.  Adam and Eve didn't expect to have a career outside the garden, so that wouldn't have been a reason for clothing themselves.  The text says that immediately after they ate "their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked".  And this knowledge was the reason they covered themselves and the knowledge was brought by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  So I think it was a moral decision of some sort.

And there seems to me to be a little story around clothing.  Adam and Eve clothed themselves with leaves, and later God clothed them with animal skins.  I think that this is all about dealing with sin.  Adam and Eve tried to cover it up with leaves - not going to do a good job for long.  But God covered them with animal skins - ISTM requiring a blood sacrifice - to cover their sins.  I think that this could be a picture of God forgiving their sin - which is why they didn't die that day.  I think in the Hebrew that the word for covering is the same as the word for atonement, is that right John?

But this is not a standard understanding of this passage by the way.

Then in chapter 4 we get Cain with his offering of fruit and Abel with his meat continuing the theme of vege's versus animal sacrifice.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: drizabone on Sep 01, 2015, 03:19PMYour non-religious take on this passage is interesting.I don't think that your argument fits the passage.  Adam and Eve didn't expect to have a career outside the garden, so that wouldn't have been a reason for clothing themselves.  The text says that immediately after they ate "their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked".  And this knowledge was the reason they covered themselves and the knowledge was brought by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  So I think it was a moral decision of some sort.

And there seems to me to be a little story around clothing.  Adam and Eve clothed themselves with leaves, and later God clothed them with animal skins.  I think that this is all about dealing with sin.  Adam and Eve tried to cover it up with leaves - not going to do a good job for long.  But God covered them with animal skins - ISTM requiring a blood sacrifice - to cover their sins.  I think that this could be a picture of God forgiving their sin - which is why they didn't die that day.  I think in the Hebrew that the word for covering is the same as the word for atonement, is that right John?

But this is not a standard understanding of this passage by the way.

Then in chapter 4 we get Cain with his offering of fruit and Abel with his meat continuing the theme of vege's versus animal sacrifice.



Yes, Martin, the Heb words for covering and atonement are related.  I'm not home for a few days-- won't get home until later on Friday-- and I don't have access to Hebrew text and other helps.

Dave, I think Martin responded well on the issue of covering.  I don't know of any commentators from any tradition that take the line that you've argued, although it's possible that I've missed it. 

As far as arguing that this is primarily a tale that developed from a fear of a snake(s) of some sort, I'm convinced that text points to an evil force behind the serpent for the reasons listed in my post above.  I didn't include in my text the fact that the  text really isn't focusing so much on a change of locomotion as judgement upon the serpent, but rather the phrases about eating dust and crawling on the belly refers to being under the judgement and authority of another-- it's a Hebrew idiom.  In connection with the deadly struggle between the offspring of the woman and the offspring of the serpent, this has all the ring of much beyond a simply fear of snakes.

Perhaps I can add more later in the week, if others don't mind still adding about Genesis 3 later in the week.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 01, 2015, 10:58AMI don't see any info about Abel having a line at all.

I meant Seth's line.

I'm going to have to think more about explaining early population and how that fits in with the text.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 01, 2015, 10:58AMRe Martin's work on Genesis 4:

They really don't, do they? Cain commits murder, is banished but protected from revenge. Poor Abel is just left dead. Manifestly unfair outcome, given the sanction of officialdom by God. It rather suggests that there's a lot of important backstory to it that we aren't privy to. But also the interaction between Cain and God is interesting - in this narrative God is a very human overseer, one who neither prevents Cain from committing murder, nor effectively administers justice upon him. And his apparent favouritism towards Abel in the first place seems tactically naive, unless he intended to foster division between the brothers.

The reasoning is explained later.  Sort of like a serial tv show that wants you to watch next weeks episode. 

I think that assuming an afterlife its better to take a hit now if it results in a better life forever.  There's no indication that this is in view yet, but we start to get hints eg in a chapter 5 with Enoch and its fully covered in the New Testament.  Its a huge theme in Christianity that suffering is good for you in the long term. Unfortunately. God should have gone with the prosperity gospel if he wanted to maximise the number of believers. IMHO  Its much more popular.

And there is a lot of division and antagonism between God's favored and those not favored throughout the bible.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Sep 01, 2015, 03:43PMQuote from: drizabone on Sep 01, 2015, 03:19PMI don't think that your argument fits the passage.  Adam and Eve didn't expect to have a career outside the garden, so that wouldn't have been a reason for clothing themselves.  The text says that immediately after they ate "their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked".  And this knowledge was the reason they covered themselves and the knowledge was brought by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  So I think it was a moral decision of some sort.

And there seems to me to be a little story around clothing.  Adam and Eve clothed themselves with leaves, and later God clothed them with animal skins.  I think that this is all about dealing with sin.  Adam and Eve tried to cover it up with leaves - not going to do a good job for long.  But God covered them with animal skins - ISTM requiring a blood sacrifice - to cover their sins.  I think that this could be a picture of God forgiving their sin - which is why they didn't die that day.  I think in the Hebrew that the word for covering is the same as the word for atonement, is that right John?

But this is not a standard understanding of this passage by the way.Yes, Martin, the Heb words for covering and atonement are related.  I'm not home for a few days-- won't get home until later on Friday-- and I don't have access to Hebrew text and other helps.

Dave, I think Martin responded well on the issue of covering.  I don't know of any commentators from any tradition that take the line that you've argued, although it's possible that I've missed it.
So there is a connotation here in Hebrew that I wasn't aware of. But then linguistic shades are very difficult to distinguish at such a remove - are we quite certain that the 'shame' part of the meaning didn't arise later? Perhaps even in response to a later interpretation of this passage?

It seems a pity to me that this idea that nakedness is something to be ashamed of arises so bluntly so early on in the narrative. It's an idea that is highly pervasive in our culture (and others - but not all by any means), but one that we can happily dispense with once we see through it; cf. naturism. So many people get so hung up about it.

Quote from: drizabone on Sep 01, 2015, 03:19PMThen in chapter 4 we get Cain with his offering of fruit and Abel with his meat continuing the theme of vege's versus animal sacrifice.
There's an interesting sideline here that could be spun off, asking how compatible Abrahamic notions of animal treatment are with modern animal welfare laws. Denmark famously banned animal slaughter practices that do not use stunning last year, but it is not the only country that has done so.

It also points to the central Judaeo-Christian idea that guilt can be rolled up into an easily digested piece and, if necessary, pinned onto another entity that can then be made to pay for it. Scapegoating, etc. - and of course the main event of it all - the sacrifice of Jesus as atonement for everyone.

I wonder how far back this idea goes? It wasn't only this group of people that liked it; groups as diverse as Stone Age Europeans and Americans put each other to death for ritualistic reasons. Possibly a very very long way indeed - certainly so far back into the mists of prehistory that it becomes impossible to divine reliable facts about its origins.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Sep 01, 2015, 03:43PMAs far as arguing that this is primarily a tale that developed from a fear of a snake(s) of some sort, I'm convinced that text points to an evil force behind the serpent for the reasons listed in my post above.  I didn't include in my text the fact that the  text really isn't focusing so much on a change of locomotion as judgement upon the serpent, but rather the phrases about eating dust and crawling on the belly refers to being under the judgement and authority of another-- it's a Hebrew idiom.  In connection with the deadly struggle between the offspring of the woman and the offspring of the serpent, this has all the ring of much beyond a simply fear of snakes.
I'm not entirely convinced. It would only take a few fatal bites on the heel from snakes hidden in the sand for a small community to get really intense about snakes and the need to watch out for them.

Hard to tell at this time distance.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Sep 01, 2015, 03:43PMPerhaps I can add more later in the week, if others don't mind still adding about Genesis 3 later in the week.

Please do! I think one of the first lessons we've learnt as we start to get to grips with this project is that there is no tidy succession of small discussions as one moves from one chapter to the next. I'll post the next one shortly, but please don't curtail anything for it.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Genesis 5 text

Highlights

 - A bunch of people were born, descending from Seth. They all lived a very long time.
 - That's it. Just a lot of begetting in this one.

Summary

Family tree, with years from Adam's creation (apologies for any wrong adding-up):
Adam (1-930) [age 930]
Seth (130-1042) [age 912]
Enosh (235-1140) [age 905]
Kenan (325-1235) [age 910]
Mahalalel (395-1290) [age 895]
Jared (460-1422) [age 962]
Enoch (602-967*) [age 365]
Methuselah (667-1636) [age 969]
Lamech (854-1631) [age 777]
Noah (1036-1986) [age 950 - death date taken from Genesis 9:28]
Shem, Ham, Japheth - all born after 1536

Comments and questions

1) Were all Adam's children with Eve? She is not mentioned, and childbearing was a hazardous occupation in those times.
2) The repetitive layout of this chapter, as with Genesis 1, is strongly reminiscent of an orally transmitted history later written down.
3) With these long lives, there would have been substantial overlap between generations. Noah (10th generation) was the first listed name not to have apparently been alive at the same time as Adam. At the time of 7th-generation Enoch's disappearance, all names on the list apart from Adam were still alive. The only other end of earthly life out of sequence is that of Lamech, who predeceased his father Methuselah, who intriguingly died in the year listed in the next chapter as that of the flood - coincidence or not?
4) The patriarchal nature of the society is evident - women are of no interest to this genealogy, just a simple route of connection from one male point to another.
5) The lengths of lives are obviously much greater than we currently see. Why? There is evidently not a consistent mapping from reasonable to unreasonable life lengths, as the descendants of Noah listed in Genesis 11 gradually wind down from these huge lengths to lengths closer to the usual. An exaggeration of life lengths for early rulers is also seen in the Sumerian King list, and in a completely different cultural context, ancient Korea; so it seems very plausible to treat these numbers as simple exaggeration rather than having a factual basis. How do theologians work with this?
6) Enoch is listed as "was not, for God took him". What does the original Hebrew mean here? The footnote to the text says the Septuagint has "was not found", which has a rather different meaning and suggests to the secular mind that the poor chap had a misadventure on his own somewhere, with his disappearance being attributed to divine ends.
7) Lamech is the son of Methuselah here. In Genesis 4, the murderer Lamech was the son of Methushael, which is certainly linguistically suggestive. Further, the whole line of Cain as listed in Genesis 4 is made up of names that seem to match others in this list:
Enoch = Enoch - or Enosh?
Irad  = Jared
Mehujael = Mahalalel
Methushael = Methuselah
Lamech = Lamech - note also that this Lamech lived 777 years, while the Genesis 4 Lamech was revenged "77-fold" - rather a numerical coincidence...
To me this is suggestive of another duplication of the narrative - two different versions of parts of the same story written down side by side by an author that was uncertain which was to be believed. Does anyone have enough knowledge of the original Hebrew to comment on how likely it could be that these names could be corruptions of each other?

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 02, 2015, 07:42AM3) With these long lives, there would have been substantial overlap between generations. Noah (10th generation) was the first listed name not to have apparently been alive at the same time as Adam. At the time of 7th-generation Enoch's disappearance, all names on the list apart from Adam were still alive. The only other end of earthly life out of sequence is that of Lamech, who predeceased his father Methuselah, who intriguingly died in the year listed in the next chapter as that of the flood - coincidence or not?


5) The lengths of lives are obviously much greater than we currently see. Why? There is evidently not a consistent mapping from reasonable to unreasonable life lengths, as the descendants of Noah listed in Genesis 11 gradually wind down from these huge lengths to lengths closer to the usual. An exaggeration of life lengths for early rulers is also seen in the Sumerian King list, and in a completely different cultural context, ancient Korea; so it seems very plausible to treat these numbers as simple exaggeration rather than having a factual basis. How do theologians work with this?


There is another theory with respect to these long ages.  You may have run across this, but I haven't seen it discussed.

Rather than exaggeration, it is the result of mistranslation.

It goes like this.  There were two numbering systems in use, one for continuous amounts such as volumes of grain, and the other for discrete numbers like the number of animals, people, etc.  The one for volumes had marks for hundreds and tens, that corresponded to the discrete marks for tens and ones.  Scribes in the Old Babylonian period mistranslated into Sumerian proto-hexagesimal resulting in multiplying the ages by almost a factor of ten.

So Noah really only lived to 83 and Methuselah to 85, which would have been impressive in a time when the average lifespan was 35 to 40 years. 

I have no idea whether there is anything to it or it's another wacko theory, but it kind of makes sense. 

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 02, 2015, 07:42AMComments and questions

1) Were all Adam's children with Eve? She is not mentioned, and childbearing was a hazardous occupation in those times.
2) The repetitive layout of this chapter, as with Genesis 1, is strongly reminiscent of an orally transmitted history later written down.
3) With these long lives, there would have been substantial overlap between generations. Noah (10th generation) was the first listed name not to have apparently been alive at the same time as Adam. At the time of 7th-generation Enoch's disappearance, all names on the list apart from Adam were still alive. The only other end of earthly life out of sequence is that of Lamech, who predeceased his father Methuselah, who intriguingly died in the year listed in the next chapter as that of the flood - coincidence or not?
4) The patriarchal nature of the society is evident - women are of no interest to this genealogy, just a simple route of connection from one male point to another.
5) The lengths of lives are obviously much greater than we currently see. Why? There is evidently not a consistent mapping from reasonable to unreasonable life lengths, as the descendants of Noah listed in Genesis 11 gradually wind down from these huge lengths to lengths closer to the usual. An exaggeration of life lengths for early rulers is also seen in the Sumerian King list, and in a completely different cultural context, ancient Korea; so it seems very plausible to treat these numbers as simple exaggeration rather than having a factual basis. How do theologians work with this?
6) Enoch is listed as "was not, for God took him". What does the original Hebrew mean here? The footnote to the text says the Septuagint has "was not found", which has a rather different meaning and suggests to the secular mind that the poor chap had a misadventure on his own somewhere, with his disappearance being attributed to divine ends.
7) Lamech is the son of Methuselah here. In Genesis 4, the murderer Lamech was the son of Methushael, which is certainly linguistically suggestive. Further, the whole line of Cain as listed in Genesis is made up of names that seem to match others in this list:
Enoch = Enoch - or Enosh?
Irad  = Jared
Mehujael = Mahalalel
Methushael = Methuselah
Lamech = Lamech - note also that this Lamech lived 777 years, while the Genesis 4 Lamech was revenged "77-fold" - rather a numerical coincidence...
To me this is suggestive of another duplication of the narrative - two different versions of parts of the same story written down side by side by an author that was uncertain which was to be believed. Does anyone have enough knowledge of the original Hebrew to comment on how likely it could be that these names could be corruptions of each other?

I'd agree with the comments and questions down to 4 and don't have anything definite to say on them.

Re 5 : I've thought the ages were interesting too.  I've assumed that long life was enabled because Adam and Eve were created physically perfect so would have lived longer than us.  Maybe they just had stonger DNA.  But don't really know.  The idea that years were shorter or the numbers were increased by a factor doesn't really work consistently because it would make for some very young Dad's.  I don't know of any theological significance of the long lives, so haven't really worried about it.

Re 6 : Maybe he got lost, but chistian opinion is that God took him straight to heaven without having to die because he was good.  Once again, I don't know of any theological significance for this.

Re 7 : I don't see any problem with families having similar or the same names.  They probably didn't have that many to chose from in those days.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Other suggestions for the pre-flood long lives are that what the text means is family or dominant dynasties rather than individuals. This appeals to me, but I don't know if it can be proved or disproved.  One common explanation that is popular in some conservative, especially fundamentalist circles is that the flood radically changed the effect of ultraviolet rays because the protective canopy was removed, but this seems like just speculation to me.

I've never heard of Tim's explanation so I can't comment on it.

[ttf_Piano man]

How do the years (especially the later ones) line up with B.C. years on our current calendar?

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: timothy42b on Sep 02, 2015, 10:22AMThere is another theory with respect to these long ages.  You may have run across this, but I haven't seen it discussed.

Rather than exaggeration, it is the result of mistranslation.

It goes like this.  There were two numbering systems in use, one for continuous amounts such as volumes of grain, and the other for discrete numbers like the number of animals, people, etc.  The one for volumes had marks for hundreds and tens, that corresponded to the discrete marks for tens and ones.  Scribes in the Old Babylonian period mistranslated into Sumerian proto-hexagesimal resulting in multiplying the ages by almost a factor of ten.

So Noah really only lived to 83 and Methuselah to 85, which would have been impressive in a time when the average lifespan was 35 to 40 years. 

I have no idea whether there is anything to it or it's another wacko theory, but it kind of makes sense. 

Sounds appealing on the face of it, but there are going to be two problems with any consistent mapping from one set of numbers to another:
 - The descendants of Noah have ages listed in Genesis 11 that wind down from there:
     Shem 600
     Arpachshad 438
     Shelah 433
     Eber 464
     Peleg 239
     Reu 239
     Serug 230
     Nahor 148
   One could maybe think in terms of there being several different types of numerical error applied to succeeding parts of the sequence. But at that point we are starting to get rather extravagant in supposition, and also creating an unappealing complexity on little basis.
 - The ages at which the listed sons were born would (as Martin points out) become impossibly young. For example, Methuselah lived to 969 in the text, but 85 in your reworking. He procreated at 187 in the text, which for a constant scaling factor would equate to 16 - certainly not impossible in those times. However, Methuselah was the latest father in this list - the earliest were Mahalalel and Enoch, at 65 - which would equate to under 6 years old.

I strongly suspect that there's no rhyme nor reason to these numbers as they currently are listed. Somewhere along the line they've got garbled, quite possibly deliberately, and to my eyes they defy normalisation as a set of numbers. The fact that several times numbers pop up that are round 100s or multiples thereof also suggests strongly that these numbers were simply pulled out of the air at some point.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Sep 02, 2015, 03:38PMOther suggestions for the pre-flood long lives are that what the text means is family or dominant dynasties rather than individuals. This appeals to me, but I don't know if it can be proved or disproved.
Yes, I see an intuitive appeal in this too. I suppose one could interpret the birth of each name on the list as the birth of the next 'well-remembered king', with others being omitted. But then, what does it mean to say that the previous dynasty continued for many years in parallel with others? A scheme of overlapping tribes that all neighboured each other? A king for each valley? One could imagine Seth being the first to settle land away from Adam's people, then Enosh being the first to settle land away from both Adam's and Seth's people, etc. Then the death dates matching the abandonment of settlement in each location. Would be a layout that ties in quite nicely with Byron's note about the Cain vs Abel thing being an excellent metaphor for the victory of farming over hunter-gathering - a people making the transition from hunter-gathering to agricultural lifestyles.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Sep 02, 2015, 03:38PMOne common explanation that is popular in some conservative, especially fundamentalist circles is that the flood radically changed the effect of ultraviolet rays because the protective canopy was removed, but this seems like just speculation to me.
Glad to hear you say that. It sounds neither scientifically nor medically literate to me.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: Piano man on Sep 02, 2015, 07:33PMHow do the years (especially the later ones) line up with B.C. years on our current calendar?

There are various chronologies out there, of varying antiquities and coming to varying conclusions as to when the biblical moment of creation might have happened. Perhaps the most famous chronology is that of James Ussher, who declared on the basis of the available Judaeo-Christian evidence that the moment of creation occurred on the morning of Sunday 23rd October 4004 BC. A colleague of his went further, and declared it to have occurred at 9 AM on that day.

But for simplicity's sake, it seems better to simply work from the well-documented Hebrew calendar, the calibration of which was the work of Mediaeval rabanim. In this scheme, the biblical creation marked the start of AM 1 ("Anno Mundi"), on 6th October 3761 BC.

Taking this and the long lifespans without prejudice, we then have:

Adam (3760 BC - 2830 BC) [I don't know why not given as 3761?]
Seth (3630 BC - 2718 BC)
Enosh (3525 BC - 2620 BC)
Kenan (3435 BC - 2525 BC)
Mahalalel (3365 BC - 2470 BC)
Jared (3300 BC - 2338 BC)
Enoch (3138 BC - 2773 BC)
Methuselah (3073 BC - 2104 BC)
Lamech (2886 BC - 2109 BC)
Noah (2704 BC - 1754 BC)

Flood 2104 BC
Note that there seems to be no geological evidence for a large flood in this area at this time. The idea that a breaching of the Bosphorus from the Mediterranean Sea direction circa 5600 BC could be the event whose folk-memory eventually reached paper in Genesis is a moderately appealing one. Maybe we should come back to that when we reach the flood in Genesis 6, 7, and 8.

Shem (2202 BC - 1602 BC)
Arpachshad (2102 BC - 1664 BC)
Shelah (2067 BC - 1634 BC)
Eber (2037 BC - 1573 BC)
Peleg (2003 BC - 1764 BC)
Reu (1973 BC - 1734 BC)
Serug (1941 BC - 1711 BC)
Nahor (1911 BC - 1763 BC)
Terah (1882 BC - 1677 BC)
Abra(ha)m (1812 BC - 1637 BC) = Sarai/h (1822 BC - 1695 BC)

Isaac (1732 BC - 1552 BC) = Rebekah
Jacob/Israel (1674 BC - 1526 BC [see below]) = Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, Bilhah

At this point, the trail of explicit ages to match up with dates runs a bit dry. Various cross-calibrations exist, but agreement is not easy to find.

Also, it's interesting to note the effect of the decreasing ages with generations. The born-pre-flood Shem outlived 8 of the next 9 generations listed (including his far descendant Abraham), and was still around when Jacob lived.

Judah
Perez
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Some young earth creationists try to stick pretty close to Ussher's chronology, but not even all of them.  One famous article from the late 19th century (1890) Princeton Seminary Old Testament scholar has argued for gaps in the chronologies which radically changes the way the same dates have been used.  Green's article has been fairly influential in some circles.  Here's a link to a modern reprinting of the article.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/are-there-gaps-in-the-biblical-genealogies

Personally, I'm somewhat agnostic on this issue.  I've put it on the back burner because no particular explanation has made complete sense to me.  Even if I took a highly critical approach to Genesis, I would still find it puzzling because the long lives taken anything close to literal are clearly odd and the proposed explanations all seem like guess work, especially since after the flood the lives suddenly closely resemble normal life spans, albeit with a few notable examples of patriarchs who live a rather long, but still "normal" lifespan.

[ttf_MoominDave]

It seems very plausible that there are many omitted names to me, and the article seems commendably thorough.

I think we can pretty safely conclude that trying to connect biblical creation to the present through these biblical genealogies is an endeavour doomed to failure from all the various problems and inconsistencies we've already noted - and I'm sure more besides that we haven't yet. Fair enough?

A further question for the Hebrew scholars in the room occurs to me - some of the names seem chosen to fit events (e.g. Peleg, which means "division", and in whose time "the earth was divided"). It would also seem plausible to me that various of the names are simply labels attached to widely spaced historical figures, labels that describe what is memorable about them. Is there any reasonableness in such a view?

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 03, 2015, 04:34AM
Flood 2104 BC
Note that there seems to be no geological evidence for a large flood in this area at this time. The idea that a breaching of the Bosphorus from the Mediterranean Sea direction circa 5600 BC could be the event whose folk-memory eventually reached paper in Genesis is a moderately appealing one. Maybe we should come back to that when we reach the flood in Genesis 6, 7, and 8.

I haven't seen a flood date that late before.  Most creationist sites date the flood at 2335 BC or thereabouts.

That's an obvious problem because the Egyptian pyramid construction period is considered to be roughly 2500 to 2100 BC. 

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Sep 03, 2015, 06:37AMSome young earth creationists try to stick pretty close to Ussher's chronology, but not even all of them.  One famous article from the late 19th century (1890) Princeton Seminary Old Testament scholar has argued for gaps in the chronologies which radically changes the way the same dates have been used.  Green's article has been fairly influential in some circles. 
I can see why that might be so.  He writes persuasively, given the premise.

I see this approach as impossible and unnecessary.  Basically it depends on the idea that the OT can be taken as a science text, that it is literal historical and inerrant, but there's a bunch of stuff left out so apparent conflicts with other evidence can be ignored. 

When my kids were very small they asked me very seriously, what about the dinosaurs, millions of years, and the Bible?  I told them I thought the Bible was probably about the last 6,000 years of Jewish history and since the dinosaurs were before that they wouldn't be in there.  That satisfied them for the time being at least. 

[ttf_ddickerson]

Can you imagine the incredulous task of creating a list of generations?

Just for me, I can only go back at the most 3 generations before I become not sure anymore, and that is with today's and yesterday's technology.

1 gen back - my mother and father
2 gen back - both sets of grandparents
3 gen back - not sure of for both sets of grandparents who their parents are
4 gen back - I don't know 

Another note about how the population spread with just Cain and Abel and who their descendants are, remember, after the flood, all life spread from just Noah's family. So, it started all over again from after the flood.

Note for Tim:
as per using these accounts to say that the OT is not without error is not a valid argument, because what we have are very limited bits of information without a lot of detail to fill in the blanks. That doesn't make it proof of its inerrancy.

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: ddickerson on Sep 03, 2015, 08:11AMCan you imagine the incredulous task of creating a list of generations?
It's refreshing to see you being so reasonable about the unreasonable expectation of accuracy in the Bible.

[ttf_Piano man]

In a nearly biblical turn, John Tyler, our tenth president, still has living grandsons.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Right, who fancies Genesis 6? Good dramatic stuff for somebody, and it doesn't have to take longer than about 15 minutes to work up something we can work from... I probably shouldn't do it as I did the last chapter, but I've put my name down for the one after.

[ttf_drizabone]

I'll do it if no one else wants it, just have to find out where they put the kangaroos

[ttf_drizabone]

- As man’s population grows, the ‘sons of God’ marry the ‘daugthers of men’ .
- The Lord declares a limit of 120 years for mans life span.
- Nephilim (heroes of old, men of renown) were on the earth at this time.
- The Lord saw the great wickedness in man’s heart and grieved that he had made man.
- He decides to wipe everything off the earth, except for Noah who found favor in His eyes.
- Noah was a righteous man with three sons: Shem, Ham and Japeth.
- God tells Noah that He is going to destroy everything on the earth.
- He tells Noah to build an ark of cypress/gopher wood.
- The ark should have three stories/levels with rooms and be coated in pitch inside and out.
- Dimensional size should be 140m long x 45m wide x 14 m high (or 450 feet long x 75 feet wide x 45 feet high in old English measurments)
- It needed to have a door a roof and some windows no more than 18 inches below the roof.
- God explains that He is going to flood the earth and that everything outside the ark will perish.
- Covenant!
- God tells Noah to gather his wife, his sons, and their wives into the ark, along with two of every kind of animal and bird and food for all of them.
- Noah did exactly what he was told.

Some Questions for this and following chapters
1 who were the "sons of God", the "daughters of men" and the Nephilim?
2 how many of each animal was there?
3 did God regret creating man?
4 why is this story included?

[ttf_timothy42b]

The word used here for "sons of God" is only used to refer to angels, elswhere.  Angels had sex with human women, but only with those they found "comely." You wouldn't think that particular mating would produce progeny,would you?

As far as number of animals on the ark, one source says 270.  He's relying on some rather precise interpretation of the wording of clean and unclean animals, and I have a problem with trusting the text and translation that much, but he has a point. It's an anachronism though, clean and unclean weren't defined until long after the flood.

Two pairs or seven pairs?  Ah, now we come to it.  Once again there are two separate flood stories mingled in the text, very much like the two creation stories we ran into in Gen 1 and 2. 

[ttf_drizabone]

I agree that son's of God are angels, although Kings eg David are called son's of God too.

Even though clean and unclean were specified after the exodus it doesn't mean that the distinction between animals as clean and unclean hadn't already been made.  That's how I think of it anyway.

Two pairs and seven pairs.  But where are the koala's?

And it does seem like Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) liked telling his stories in 2 halves.  Is there a reason in the JEPD scheme why the redactor would have done this?  I'll have to see if there is a significance or reason proposed by conservatives.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Several suggestions have been made for the Sons of God besides angels:

1. Fallen angels

2. Tyrannical human judges or kings

3. Followers of God among the male descendants of Seth

Although none of these ideas have universal support and each has its strengths and weaknesses, nearly all scholars agree that some sort of sexual perversion is in view and rebellion against God is in view.  Only Noah seems to stand out against that backdrop.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Genesis 6:10 ESV


19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.

Why did God have to remind Noah, or tell Noah to bring male and female? He specifically instructed Noah to bring only male and female of every sort. 

[ttf_Lawrie]

Quote from: ddickerson on Sep 07, 2015, 09:25PMWhy did God have to remind Noah, or tell Noah to bring male and female? He specifically instructed Noah to bring only male and female of every sort. 
Have you never given instruction to a subordinate and chosen to repeat an important point?  I know I have.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Sep 06, 2015, 09:53PMSome Questions for this and following chapters
1 who were the "sons of God", the "daughters of men" and the Nephilim?
This has struck me as a strange passage whenever my eyes have run across it. My straight interpretation runs along the lines of Tim's - sounds like angels and humans interbreeding.
In fact, it doesn't feel 'of a piece' with the ongoing narrative at all - as if this paragraph was cut-and-pasted from a different narrative. Certainly the paragraph that follows it doesn't seem to follow logically: God's superhuman creatures seduce human women; thus all of humanity must be erased as a dreadful mistake. Doesn't seem like a coherent reaction. It feels like there should be a good bit of explicit expounding of human moral disaster to precede that second paragraph, rather than something rather incomprehensible and ambiguous.

It is interesting that 120 years is fixed on as the limit of human lifespan. One person in modern medical history is definitively known to have exceeded that age, but despite vast medical progress in recent decades it still stands as a surprisingly good marker of the outer limits of the possible in human longevity.

Quote from: drizabone on Sep 06, 2015, 09:53PM2 how many of each animal was there?
Indeed a puzzle on the face of it. Genesis 6:19 says "bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.", but (looking ahead), Genesis 7:2 gives us "Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate". I tentatively conclude that whoever put the text into one piece had two different versions and included them both, not knowing which was authentic. As with humans, the dangers of inbreeding are well known - 14 would be a much better stock than 2 to repopulate any species from.

Regarding Dusty's point, Genesis 6 says "male and female", but Genesis 7 simply says "the male and his mate" regarding non-birds.

Quote from: drizabone on Sep 06, 2015, 09:53PM3 did God regret creating man?
Genesis 6:6 seems pretty clear: "And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth". Is there any reason to question that in the context of the narrative?

Quote from: drizabone on Sep 06, 2015, 09:53PM4 why is this story included?

Do you mean the first portion of the chapter (angels having naughty sexy times), or the second (flood preparation)? If the first, I share your puzzlement.

[ttf_anonymous]

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 08, 2015, 10:22AMIt is interesting that 120 years is fixed on as the limit of human lifespan. One person in modern medical history is definitively known to have exceeded that age, but despite vast medical progress in recent decades it still stands as a surprisingly good marker of the outer limits of the possible in human longevity.

Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
- Genesis 6:3

I believe that this passage is stating that the wicked people that existed DURING THAT TIME will be limited to 120 years. Basically, saying they will die in the flood in 120 years. Those after Noah still lived longer than 120 years. This passage is NOT implying that humans can never live past 120 years, it is saying that THOSE humans will not live beyond 120 years because that's when the flood will come.

Also, if you read Genesis 7:11 and 5:25-29 there is something quite interesting...

When Methuselah was 187, he fathered Lamech. When Lamech was 182, he fathered Noah. Hence, Methuselah was 369 years older than Noah. The flood come when Noah was 600, hence, Methuselah was 969. Methuselah died when he was 969, and in Hebrew his name means "We he is dead, it shall be sent". I believe the "it" was the flood and that Methuselah died right before the flood (and not in the flood).

ADDITIONAL ONLINE SOURCES:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Methuselah.html#.Ve8hHNiFNnw
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3595/significance-of-methuselahs-death-year

[ttf_MoominDave]

Genesis 7 text

Highlights

 - The Flood
 - Noah and those with him in his ark alone survive

Summary

 - Following the preparation of Genesis 6, a week in advance of the flood God tells Noah to go into his ark, which he does, taking his wife, his sons (Shem, Ham, Japheth), their wives, and a complete inventory of animal pairs with him.
 - The date of the inundation is precisely specified, in the 17th day of the 2nd month of the 600th year of Noah's life.
 - The duration of the flood is unclearly specified. We have 7:12 "rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights", 7:17 "The flood continued forty days on the earth", and 7:24 "And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days".
 - The flood seems to be described as worldwide, and to cover "all the high mountains under the whole heaven" to a depth of "fifteen cubits", i.e. ~7 metres.
 - All perish except for the inhabitants of the ark.

Comments and questions

1) I am still intrigued by the apparent numerical coincidence that Noah's grandfather Methuselah died in the same year as the great flood. Whether this was supposed to represent a single human being, or John's idea that those long lifespans corresponded to tribes might be correct, it's certainly suggestive.
2) As noted above, the instruction to take 7 pairs of each animal conflicts with the Genesis 6 instruction to take a single pair.
3) That "600" is one of those numerical coincidences that makes massaging of the numbers look likely to the eye.
4) "All the fountains of the great deep burst forth" is an intriguing phrase. It makes it sound like the event was not a simple rainstorm. This would maybe mesh with the idea that this event is a folk-memory of the great flood that occurred when the Mediterranean overflowed into the Black Sea some 3,000 years before the dates that the Bible gives.
5) So the flood was a punishment for a naughty humanity. Seems most unfair that it also killed all the animals but those specifically preserved with Noah.
6) Not every animal reproduces in male/female pairs. It isn't common, but it does happen. What did Noah do about these animals?
7) There are (it seems almost superfluous to point out) gigantic logistic problems with the whole enterprise. The number of animals specified would not have fitted in the ark dimensions listed. A week is not anywhere near long enough to collect them from their habitats, even throwing out the point of the whole narrative and assuming that only local animals were meant. The amount of dung they would have produced would have had Noah swimming in poo onboard very quickly. What did the animals eat? The massive amount of vegetation needed to feed the herbivores would have taken up all of the available space. The carnivores must have been eating other animals on board - were these spares, taken as food (in apparent creative interpretation of God's instruction), or did they eat fellow travellers, depriving them of the ability to continue their species post-flood? What was the cutoff in small size for Noah to stop searching for animals? Did he take worms? Insects? Bacteria?
8) The unclear flood duration also suggests two or more narratives blended together.
9) A worldwide flood? The geological record does not support such a notion, and the amount of water required to cover Mt Everest is simply gargantuan (bigger than that - gargantuan to the power of enormous; bigger than that even). The effects of adding this much water to the world (warning - link treats this in pretty scornful and inflammatory language) would be huge and dramatic - the extra water would be 3 times as much as currently is found on Earth, and its arrival would cause amongst other effects a worldwide temperature rise of 1800 degrees C due to the energy imparted by the mass of falling water (a density of falling water, by the way, that would certainly have sunk any boat). It seems outstandingly clear that if this story relates to any real event at all, the numbers have become exaggerated by so many orders of magnitude over the years that we can deduce little meaningful from the passage.

[ttf_alownx]

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 08, 2015, 10:22AMIndeed a puzzle on the face of it. Genesis 6:19 says "bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.", but (looking ahead), Genesis 7:2 gives us "Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate". I tentatively conclude that whoever put the text into one piece had two different versions and included them both, not knowing which was authentic. As with humans, the dangers of inbreeding are well known - 14 would be a much better stock than 2 to repopulate any species from.

Regarding Dusty's point, Genesis 6 says "male and female", but Genesis 7 simply says "the male and his mate" regarding non-birds.

I believe they brought 7 pairs of clean animals because they needed animals for sacrifice. Otherwise, they would have brought a single pair like all the other animals.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

While I have not completely settled at all in my opinions on issues related to the flood-- many are similar issues to those related to the genealogies and the long lives-- orthodox Christians have often emphasized what is known as "flood geology" which sees the flood as a miraculous and major turning point in these areas or opted for some version of a local large flood  While I respect the efforts some of its advocates, I have too many questions to be convinced at present.

Another option is to see this as a local flood-- there are a few other options as well.  This isn't the most natural reading of 7:23, but given the elasticity of the Hebrew words for land and earth that I mentioned in my comments on earlier chapters, it may have some serious plausibility and mesh well with other historical accounts of Ancient Near Eastern big floods.  BTW, the story of a big boat rescuing humanity is not unique to the Bible-- it's found in other ANE documents such as the Enuma Elish.  The destruction of humanity mentioned in the biblical text would thus be restricted as well, but the ANE is the biblical writers focus, regardless.

Again, I'm not committed to any particular view right now, but there are options-- none without questions, but all giving explanations that could make sense of the text in some fashion.

Here's a link to one serious orthodox Christian geologist whose father was a minister and highly regarded seminary Old Testament professor in my denomination.  He gives a very interesting history of the debate and ultimately opts for a local flood option.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p82.htm

[ttf_drizabone]

I thought it would be a good idea to be able to talk about the flood story as a unit, so here is the rest of the story.

Genesis 8

The Flood Subsides

God remembers Noah and the animals in the ark and causes a wind and the flood subsided
Noah sends out a raven and then a dove to see when the water had gone.
When the flood subsided God told Noah to leave the ark
Noah built an alter and sacrificed some of the clean animals
God says that he will never curse the land again because of man, because man is evil.

Genesis 9

God blessed Noah and his sons and told them to multiply and that they will rule the plants and animals. But don't eat flesh or murder.
God established a covenant with Noah and all living things saying that he will not destry all life again by water.  And he makes the rainbow a sign of this covenant.

Later, Noah gets drunk and Ham sees him naked.  Shem and Japheth cover Noah without looking at him.
Noah curses Ham's descendants, and blesses Shem and Japheth.

Interesting stuff:
- what's the point of the story(s)
- why flood the place
- how many stories
- how many animals
- what did the flood cover
- chronology?
- what was going on with Shem, Ham and Japheth?

[ttf_drizabone]

I thought that this topic would generate some discussion as there's lots of interesting conclusions that we can easily jump too.

To get a handle on the whole story I summarised it all:

- Humans were bad so God decided to destroy them,
  - pedigree corrupt
  - evil intentions, violence and wickedness
- But Noah was good so God decided to save him
  - blameless in his generation
  - walked with God
- God told Noah what to do
  - build an ark and bring two of every animal on board, and food to eat
  - board and take your family and
    - 7 pairs of all clean animal
    - 1 pair of all unclean animal
    - 7 pairs of birds
- The flood - unwinding creation
- Noah checks for dry land: raven and dove
 - there is a fair bit of text here so it seems as though it would be important, but I can't think why
- God tells Noah to get off
- Noah settles and starts a little vinyard
- Noah gets drunk, gets "seen" by Ham, curses Ham's son and all his descendants! blesses Shem and Japheth

I can tell that the author/s obviously had different interests than I do because he detailed stuff I didn't think was important and left out all the stuff I want to know. 

I've been reading around some of the interesting issues and come up with a few things, but nothing conclusive.

How many stories or authors?

Some think there are multiple stories or themes in this package.  (whats a chunk of text called?)

Here's a article from a rabbi that sees 2 different themes intertwined and shows how it makes sense of a lot of the passage and seems to fit with why the author had the focus he did. http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5757/br/dt.58.1.02b.html  A theory with good explanatory power sounds good to me.

And here's an article showing how it compares with other Ancient Near East treatments of the Creation/Flood story http://www.grisda.org/origins/11009.htm.  He shows the simlarities between the stories and makes the point that no one treats these other similar stories as made up by multiple late authors.

So maybe one early author wrote the passage and wove the two themes together.

Animals
- I don't have any problem understanding that the initial "take two of every kind" was a general statement; and the 7,2,7 instruction in the next chapter was more specific.
- I reckon if it was a problem the author/s would have realised and fixed it.
- I don't have any problem with them talking about clean/unclean animals when that was only supposed to have been defined in the Law, centuries later in Exodus.  I've read contract's.  They define lots of terms that have been in common usage for years.  I don't see what the problem here is.

Shem, Ham and Japheth!
- The only thing I'm sure I know is that I'm not sure what its about.
- This obviously introduces the conflict between Israel (descendants of Shem) and the Canaanites (descendants of Canaan)
- There are lots of theories attempting to explain what happened and why it Canaan was cursed.  Which one is right?  I dunno.

[ttf_drizabone]

Next!

[ttf_ddickerson]

I'm surprised that no one wants to talk about the curse on Ham's descendants, and the transgression of Ham.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Some of my thoughts on the rest of the flood narrative...

 - "The mountains of Ararat" seems a clearly specified location. Wikipedia tells us that this in fact refers to the region of Urartu. This area contains the modern Mount Ararat, but there seems no sense in assuming that this refers to that mountain. Rather it seems to more easily specify the high ground of a whole country.
 - Poor male dove! His consort disappears off somewhere. I hope he found her... This bothered me as a child!
 - The promise of God not to repeat the exercise is interesting. So often we are painted a picture of God as having the full knowledge of all that unfolds. But here he is clearly rethinking a rash impulse based on a faulty chain of reasoning that led him to lose his temper. This Genesis God is a very different creature to the New Testament and later God - a human-like interloper who interacts with humanity both as one of them and not as one of them.
 - The new rules of the game are interesting:
    - 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
         I don't quite understand this. Is it saying not to eat from an animal before it has died? Is it outlawing black pudding?
    - 9:6 sanctifies 'An eye for an eye'. This is not what Jesus wanted later on.
 - 9:13 - is this describing a rainbow? Is it saying that the first rainbow occurred after the flood? In which case, there were presumably no rainbows prior to the flood... Which strikes me as physically not likely - you can't change the refractive properties of light without some seriously weird stuff going on.
 - The whole cursing episode is a ridiculously childish basis for later war. Noah got drunk, and lay around without his clothes on carelessly. More fool Noah. Ham looked and thought it was funny. He probably wasn't wrong, but it would have been tactless. Then Noah sows the seeds of division for it. Further fool Noah. What do the theologically minded amongst us make of this story? Is it simply a later justification for the mistreatment of the Canaanites?

Quote from: drizabone on Sep 10, 2015, 08:34PMAnd here's an article showing how it compares with other Ancient Near East treatments of the Creation/Flood story http://www.grisda.org/origins/11009.htm.  He shows the simlarities between the stories and makes the point that no one treats these other similar stories as made up by multiple late authors.

So maybe one early author wrote the passage and wove the two themes together.
Thanks for that link. There's nothing here that doesn't plausibly tie in with the idea that the flood story found its origin in a much more ancient event, as talked about further upthread. The narrative being widespread over a number of neighbouring civilisations ties in. Intriguing to speculate about it, anyhow.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Genesis 10 text

Highlights

 - More begetting. I've pulled another genealogical chapter in the rota, apologies for that.

Summary

 - Listed are descendants of Noah's sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
 - The point is made that the whole world descends from these.

Comments and questions

1) The names of these descendants often seem to match later country names, e.g. Canaan. A cursory reading makes me wonder if one plots these names on a map, if one can see patterns of settlement. I'll come back to that when I'm not heading out.

[ttf_MoominDave]

By the way, I'm beginning to wonder if we should abandon the idea of a rota (mistyped that as 'tora'...). Maybe people will feel more inclined to post summaries if they can just dive in and post as the thread presents itself. And if there's any duplication of effort, that can just be posted as a reply to the first summariser to get there.

What do we think?

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Sep 11, 2015, 10:16AMBy the way, I'm beginning to wonder if we should abandon the idea of a rota (mistyped that as 'tora'...). Maybe people will feel more inclined to post summaries if they can just dive in and post as the thread presents itself. And if there's any duplication of effort, that can just be posted as a reply to the first summariser to get there.

What do we think?

I'm happy to try that