Is the Old Testament......"mean?"

[minion]

So I’m finally getting around to reading the Old Testament more thoroughly, since I only really read the New Testament growing up. From the topic title, you may guess why…

I feel like I’m reading the OT wrong, but a bunch of questions popped up (some of them very kindergarten-ish), but if some could enlighten me on these questions, and how I should just approach reading the Bible in general, that’d be very helpful.

So for starters, from Genesis. I’m not sure how literally I should be taking this story, so I’m just going to go for the hyper-literal approach so it can be corrected

1. Why did God bother making the Tree of Good and Evil if would just make tempt people to sin?
2. Why should the human race have to suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve? It’s not my fault they ate the apple.
3. Why did God even let the serpent talk to Eve?
4. Why didn’t God accept Cain’s sacrifice? If God accepted Cain’s sacrifice, he wouldn’t have gotten jealous and killed Abel.
5. Did other people exist alongside Adam and Eve? Or was it incest? Were they really making children for 900+ years?
6. If Adam and Eve knew their children would be suffering from their curse of original sin, why did they bother having children in the first place?
7. Is Eden a literal place?
8. Is Noah’s Ark a literal story? Did Noah really build a boat big enough to store every land animal and bug on the planet? Can trees really survive being submerged in a 40 day flood?
9. Did Noah really curse Chanaan to servitude, just because he caught Noah drunk and naked?
10. Isn’t drowning every single person on the planet beside Noah a bit extreme? It seems like the 900 years of baby-making between Adam and Eve went to waste.
11. Is the Tower of Babel a literal event? Wouldn’t universal peace be easier to achieve if everyone spoke the same language?
12. In Genesis 12, why should the Pharoah be afflicted when it was Abram that lied about Sarai just being his sister? Shouldn’t Abram have been punished instead?

And outside of Genesis…

1. In Daniel 6:24, concerning the men that accused Daniel were cast into the lion’s den - why on earth would their wives and children be tossed in too? Isn’t that messed up?

I think I’ll stop there for now, but I have a feeling the OT isn’t just going to bug me even more (I remember particularly hating Deuteronomy). If anyone has the patience to answer these questions, thanks for your help!

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The Old Testament is “mean” only if your an alcoholic and you think that you father pouring all your liquor down the drain is “mean”.

The God of the OT is extremely kind, loving, and PATIENT. Unbelievably patient.

 

[minion]

The Old Testament is “mean” only if your an alcoholic and you think that you father pouring all your liquor down the drain is “mean”.

The God of the OT is extremely kind, loving, and PATIENT. Unbelievably patient.

Hey, I want to believe it. But so much death goes on, I have a hard time seeing it. The whole OT seems to be a history of conquering and bloodshed.

 

[Trishie]

;

The Old Testament is “mean” only if your an alcoholic and you think that you father pouring all your liquor down the drain is “mean”.

The God of the OT is extremely kind, loving, and PATIENT. Unbelievably patient.

True, but sometimes the people weren’t!

 

[Trishie]

minion,
perhaps you will find a beginning to understanding scripture with this page of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

These sources may also provide a beginning for your understanding of scriptural interpretation:
**
“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”
Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993**

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm

Catholic Church Documents related to Biblical Studies

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/index.html

ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm

God bless and guide you on your faith journey.

Warm regards, Trishie

 

[Carolus_Martell]

The bible is real life, sin and all, that’s why it’s still relevant to us.

Some on-line bible sites will offer an explanation or lesson to be learned chapter and verse. Like Shepard’s Chapel for example. Now the folks that can answer each of your questions usually know the entire bible thoroughly, things connect, …and there’s a good reason for everything.

Stay connected to the Church as you read through the bible because you can miss or misinterpret the lesson.

 

[a_Anita]

I feel like I’m reading the OT wrong, but a bunch of questions popped up (…) how I should just approach reading the Bible in general, that’d be very helpful.

Just my thoughts:

1)Why did God bother making the Tree of Good and Evil if would just make tempt people to sin?

Like the angels we are created with a free will to chose if we want to belong to our Creator or not. By living the way God has told us is his will, we give our Yes to God. By choosing otherwise we give our No. If God only gave us one alternative, we would not have a free will. We would have been puppets on strings. Of course God could have asked everyone personally; YES or NO. If we had not known «the other side of the coin», there would be nothing to choose from. God never tempts people. We are free to choose. He allows us to be tempted, but never beyond our limits.

*2) Why should the human race have to suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve? It’s not my fault they ate the apple.
*

We always have to cope with our heritage. If a person is the daughter or son of a drug addict who full of alcohol happens to kill a person when drunk, all the family members suffer. They cannot free themselves from the family relationship by saying: «I wasn’t the one who killed, I don’t want to have all these bad feelings because of what my father did». We will always have bad feelings when somebody related to us, does something that harms the whole family.

So it is with us as heirs of Adam and Eve too. We cannot run away from our heritage of our first parents sins. sins always had consequences.

3) Why did God even let the serpent talk to Eve?

He was free to test them. Remember that to have a free will one has a choice. It was possible for them to say yes, but they chose to say NO by their action.

4) Why didn’t God accept Cain’s sacrifice? If God accepted Cain’s sacrifice, he wouldn’t have gotten jealous and killed Abel.

God showed both Cain and Abel that it was an animal offer he wanted. Cain had a free will to clap his hand in thanksgiving to God for showing them what sort of sacrifice He wanted. Cain’s work was with the vegetables was important in itself as food for humans. Both the brothers were important in God’s Salvation plan; Cain as growing food for Gods people, Able as tending animals for offering. There was no need for Cain to be jealous! He was already valuable to God with the work he did. Cain was free to join Abel for the sacrifice of a lamb together for the next offering. Instead he let uncontrolled rage grow inside of him until it ended in murder.

God doesn’t make anyone jealous. It was Cain who chose to let the jealousy grow in himself. He could have asked God for help to calm it down. He didn’t.

5) Did other people exist alongside Adam and Eve? Or was it incest? Were they really making children for 900+ years?

According to the catholic faith, the way I know it, they were the first people. I don’t think that God would have called it incest by the brothers and sisters at that time (the children of Adam and Eve). Adam and Eve were blessed and told to multiply in Genesis chapter 1. (The Bible doesn’t have to talk about all the children of Adam and Eve. For us it’s only necessary to know the story about Cain and Abel (to know how evil jealousy is) + that God chose the son Set to be the forefather that led to the son of Noah). I have never speculated about for how long they were able to procreate. If it were for 900 years, the population must have grown very quickly.

6) If Adam and Eve knew their children would be suffering from their curse of original sin, why did they bother having children in the first place?

Probably because they liked the sexual act!

7) Is Eden a literal place?

Theologians differ in meaning about that.
*
8) Is Noah’s Ark a literal story? Did Noah really build a boat big enough to store every land animal and bug on the planet? Can trees really survive being submerged in a 40 day flood?*

The most important is that there was a flood. It is documented that there have been floods almost over the whole earth. Theologians differ in their explanation about if they were local and*separate floods or if it was one big flood. The most important for us, however, is that there was a man who tried to escape the flood by building a big boat for himself and his family, plus animals and seed (for trees among others).

It doesn’t interest me if it was a local flood or not. In catholic teaching water has a special meaning. Water can kill (chaos) or make «things» cleansed (peace). The spiritual meaning of the flood is to point to baptism where the old us is cleansed from the sin of Adam and baptized into a new life in Christ.​

You had so many questions that I think I will stop there. OT is about our Salvation history and how God had to train our forefathers and -mothers to be obedient to his will. While the NT is the fulfillment of the many promises in OT.

I would have searched the Internet for a catholic book about Salvation history or bought a catholic study bible if I were you. To try to interpret the OT alone is very difficult and it is also almost like acting as a protestant.

Here are link to two blogposts dedicated to doubters …

bechatholic.blogspot.no/2012/09/13-is-it-because-others-have-pointed.html

bechatholic.blogspot.no/2012/09/14-is-it-because-others-have-pointed.html
*
I hope you will find it more and more easy to understand OT from a** catholic **perspective the more you read it inside a catholic frame. Nobody can push their understanding on you, but you will probably benefit from learning how to think catholic about the Bible.

Best wishes and God bless!

 

[Sebrina]

Hello

My questions are quite in line with yours concerning Genesis. Sometimes I think about them quite a bit and realize how old the Old Testament is and usually things fall into the correct context. But questions number 4 I have a theory on, anyone can correct me if I’m misinterpreting it:

1. Why didn’t God accept Cain’s sacrifice? If God accepted Cain’s sacrifice, he wouldn’t have gotten jealous and killed Abel

My opinion is that Cain was not sacrificing the best of the best of his crop for God. Abel was. Abel was shown as taking the fattest and healthiest of his herd and sacrificing. It doesn’t go into detail about Cain’s choices, but God did favor Abel over Cain and I think Cain was being cheap and it showed.

 

[Gorgias]

So I’m finally getting around to reading the Old Testament more thoroughly, since I only really read the New Testament growing up. From the topic title, you may guess why…

I feel like I’m reading the OT wrong, but a bunch of questions popped up (some of them very kindergarten-ish), but if some could enlighten me on these questions, and how I should just approach reading the Bible in general, that’d be very helpful.

Looks like it’s time for someone to find a good Bible study, eh?

I’m partial to Jeff Cavins’ “Bible Timeline” series (I’ve both attended it and led it at various parishes). Scott Hahn also has a great one that you can look up at his site www.salvationhistory.com – he has both on-line programs and programs that can be presented at a parish. I would recommend that you start looking for Catholic Bible study programs starting up in your area. (I can’t stress strongly enough that it’s Catholic Bible study that you’re looking for!)

Oh, one other thing! Some non-Catholic Christians will say, “the Bible interprets itself”, or “I don’t need a Church – I have my Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide me!” If you should ever be told this by someone, remember this moment and this post you wrote here, and the onslaught of questions you’re (reasonably!) asking, ok? ‘Cause without the guidance of someone who has proper authority to interpret God’s Word (i.e., the Church, who was given this authority through the apostles by Jesus himself!), all you have is a person with their own (or others’!) personal opinions…

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Hey, I want to believe it. But so much death goes on, I have a hard time seeing it. The whole OT seems to be a history of conquering and bloodshed.

The OT is the history of Israel, God’s chosen people. Have you gotten to Exodus yet? The people were stubborn, doubted God even though he’d sent them signs and they had Moses to guide them. Every time God turned around, they were back to worshiping idols or violating his commandments in some other egregious way. God gave them so many chances! I think God was very merciful and loving. A lot of their struggles came from their “stiff necks,” and to me, this was reflected in their rejection of the Messiah that God sent them, whom they STILL reject to this day.

 

[Gorgias]

1)Why did God bother making the Tree of Good and Evil if would just make tempt people to sin?

God never tempts people. We are free to choose. He allows us to be tempted, but never beyond our limits.

Notice, too, that Adam and Eve weren’t tempted by the tree, but by the voice of a third-party (the serpent).

*2) Why should the human race have to suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve? It’s not my fault they ate the apple.
*

We always have to cope with our heritage.

Great example, Anita! When I taught CCD to junior high-schoolers, I talked to them about wearing their school’s colors, or hanging with a particular group of friends. When one person wearing those colors (or one person from a clique) does something bad, everyone associated with them, unfortunately, are associated with that bad act and may be blamed for it, even if they had nothing to do with it.

4) Why didn’t God accept Cain’s sacrifice? If God accepted Cain’s sacrifice, he wouldn’t have gotten jealous and killed Abel.

God showed both Cain and Abel that it was an animal offer he wanted.

I’m not certain that this is the best answer. Some Scripture scholars will suggest that this text originated with herders rather than with farmers, and therefore, they were showing that what they did had more esteem in God’s eyes than what farmers did. That doesn’t seem right.

I took another look at the Greek (see newadvent.org/bible/gen004.htm), and I noticed something that I don’t recall having recognized before. In English, we see “the Lord had respect to Abel, and to his offerings. But to Cain and his offerings he had no respect” (Gen 4:4-5). In the Greek, though, the first word is δῶρον but the second is θυσία. They both can mean “offerings”, so the translation is good. But δῶρον (doron) can take on the primary meaning of “gift” (that is, something given freely), whereas θυσία (thusia) can take on the primary meaning of “sacrifice” (that is, something prescribed by God). I’m just thinking out loud here, but what if the intent of the writer was that Abel gave a gift to God freely, but Cain gave because he was required to? In other words, the difference between the two isn’t in the value of the gift, but in the spirit in which it was offered?

6) If Adam and Eve knew their children would be suffering from their curse of original sin, why did they bother having children in the first place?

Probably because they liked the sexual act!

sigh

Or maybe it was because God had explicitly commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28)? Maybe because man and women are designed to be “one flesh” (Gen 2:24)? Maybe because God predicted to Eve that “your desire shall be for your husband” even though “in pain you shall bring forth children” (Gen 3:16)?

 

[PennyinCanada]

The Old Testament is “mean” only if your an alcoholic and you think that you father pouring all your liquor down the drain is “mean”.

The God of the OT is extremely kind, loving, and PATIENT. Unbelievably patient.

Good example! I’ll be using that.

You might want to look into the OT using the series Our Father’s Plan with Jeff Cavins & Scott Hahn. I really got a lot of out it…

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-306548622

 

[a_Anita]

Looks like it’s time for someone to find a good Bible study, eh?

(…) Scott Hahn also has a great one that you can look up at his site www.salvationhistory.com

(…)

Oh, one other thing! Some non-Catholic Christians will say, “the Bible interprets itself”, or “I don’t need a Church – I have my Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide me!” (…) ‘Cause without the guidance of someone who has proper authority to interpret God’s Word (i.e., the Church, who was given this authority through the apostles by Jesus himself!), all you have is a person with their own (or others’!) personal opinions…

Yes it’s important that one interprets the Bible inside the frame of the Church, because if not, one will end up with very private interpretations that has nothing in common with the catholic faith that can trace its roots back to Jesus himself who said to the apostles (the eleven after He had risen).** “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature”** (Mk 16:15).

I am very fond of the catholic Bible-study were Hahn et all give catholic explanations and at the same time give references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, included trying to make us reflect upon how we can practice the teachings of the Bible in our own lives:

«Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Book of Genesis» by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch and the «Exodus: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible» by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch

These parts of the OT can be bought bout as books and for kindle.

I read a good book once where the catholic author wanted to give his readers an opportunity to read the Bible from the view of the first Christians. It’s a long time since I’ve read it, and the title had fallen out of my head. Since I wanted to recommenced it to Minion I made a search with the following words at Amazon: “how to read the bible”. Suddenly many books with different aims pupped up. It reminded me about how important it is to always tell new catholics (and sometimes older too ) that it really is important that one doesn’t buy protestant interpretations of the Bible. They say Scripture alone, while we say: Scripture and Holy Tradition.

After the “shock” about meeting all these different understandings of the (protestant)Bible, I fond the book I thought of in my book shelf. I highly recommend:** “Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did” ** by Mark P. Shea. ( mark-shea.com/about.html )

While I was “on the search”, however, I also found a book that seems to be very interesting. I have to buy it some day: “Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers” by Dave Armstrong.

To Minon: Please remember that now that you have got some tips about what to read to help you, it might be wise to check it out in a book-store, real or online, (so that you can see what they are about, and pick what seem to be the best choice for you).

 

[TheWhoFreak]

*So I’m finally getting around to reading the Old Testament more thoroughly, since I only really read the New Testament growing up. From the topic title, you may guess why…

I feel like I’m reading the OT wrong, but a bunch of questions popped up (some of them very kindergarten-ish), but if some could enlighten me on these questions, and how I should just approach reading the Bible in general, that’d be very helpful.

So for starters, from Genesis. I’m not sure how literally I should be taking this story, so I’m just going to go for the hyper-literal approach so it can be corrected *

It’s great that you’re reading the OT! But as for reading Genesis, the Church has not authoritatively made any statement confirming the literal-ness or figurativeness of Genesis 1-11. While Catholics are permitted to read it either way, when approaching Scripture, it is proper to give precedent to the literal meaning first, before moving on to look at the text from other angles. Read more about this here: archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405bt.asp

1) Why did God bother making the Tree of Good and Evil if would just make tempt people to sin?

Let’s be clear here, the Tree didn’t tempt Adam and Eve, the Serpent did. As for why God created the Tree, we don’t really know why other than to show forth His Goodness (as was His reason for creating everything else). So as for why God specifically created the Tree, we don’t know. Also, keep in mind that God wants us to love Him by our own free choice, not by compulsion. Even though Adam and Eve were created without sin, and without a fallen nature, they could still be tempted to sin, because God gave them the gift of free will. So perhaps, if the Tree had not existed, Adam and Eve’s choice to love God would not have been totally free. But that’s just speculation on my part, if you agree that’s fine, just don’t assume it has any authority.

2) Why should the human race have to suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve? It’s not my fault they ate the apple.

When Adam and Eve sinned against God, a number of things happened to them. First, they lost all of the supernatural gifts that God had given them. This includes control of the passions, supernatural use of reason, sanctifying grace, and a sinless nature. By eating the apple and rejecting God, they lost all of those gifts, and since they were supernatural gifts, they could not earn them back. See, the choice that Adam and Eve made was not some insignificant venial sin. No, in eating the apple they rejected the clear command of God, and thus God punished them, as He said He would. However, God also had mercy on them, so they didn’t die immediately, but instead entered into this fallen state which all mankind lives in today. This fallen state was passed on as they reproduced, because something fallen cannot create something good in and of itself, i.e. without supernatural aid. Think of this fallen nature like a hereditary disease. It gets passed on from generation to generation, regardless of who they are or what they do.

3) Why did God even let the serpent talk to Eve?

Because, like I said above, God wants us to love Him by our own free choice. This means that he sends us tests (i.e. he allows us to be tempted, He never actively tempts us), so that we can pass them and love Him more deeply. Adam and Eve were tested, and they failed.

4) Why didn’t God accept Cain’s sacrifice? If God accepted Cain’s sacrifice, he wouldn’t have gotten jealous and killed Abel.

God didn’t accept Cain’s sacrifice because Cain did not offer up the best of his harvest to God. God wants us to give our best to Him, and at that time, that meant offering up the best portion of the harvest, the choice lamb, etc. to be sacrificed to God. Cain did not do this, which is shown by God telling him, “do what is right and you will be accepted” (Genesis 4:7). Cain didn’t do what was right (offer up the best of his harvest), and thus his “sacrifice” offended God.

5) Did other people exist alongside Adam and Eve? Or was it incest? Were they really making children for 900+ years?

This is one of those issues where popular opinion is pretty split. Personally, I’m of the belief that there were no other people with Adam and Eve, but the resulting increase of population cannot be called “incest” as we define it today, primarily because there was simply no other option. As for the 900 years, it was common in ancient Near Eastern literature for ages to be exaggerated, and this is probably just an example of that.

6) If Adam and Eve knew their children would be suffering from their curse of original sin, why did they bother having children in the first place?

Because God promised them redemption in Genesis 3:15, and so they knew that there was hope for them. Also, God commanded them in Genesis 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply.

7) Is Eden a literal place?

If by Eden you mean the place where mankind first existed, then yes, it would be a literal place. However, I doubt we’ll ever find where it is/was, because, no matter if you believe that the Flood was local or global, it would have totally changed the landscape of the place. If you’re talking about the Garden of Eden, again, this is one of those things that’s up for discussion. Regardless of whether there was an Garden, like I said above, we’ll probably never know where it was, because of the Flood.

 

[TheWhoFreak]

8) Is Noah’s Ark a literal story? Did Noah really build a boat big enough to store every land animal and bug on the planet? Can trees really survive being submerged in a 40 day flood?

It really depends on if you believe the flood was regional or global. We know that a flood happened, and that Noah built a boat to contain the known species of animals and plants.

9) Did Noah really curse Chanaan to servitude, just because he caught Noah drunk and naked?

It’s not that Canaan saw his father drunk and naked, but that he dishonored his father by making fun of him to his brothers (heck, even telling someone about it would’ve been dishonorable in and of itself).

10) Isn’t drowning every single person on the planet beside Noah a bit extreme? It seems like the 900 years of baby-making between Adam and Eve went to waste.

Again, something to keep in mind when the Old Testament speaks in broad terms is that it really only applies to the known world at the time the event took place (so, the Near East and surrounding area pretty much). And the point of the story is that everyone is a sinner, and deserving of death, but God chose Noah and his family/descendants to be the inheritors of His promise made back in Genesis 3:15. So it’s not really that extreme when you consider that all people have greatly offended God by their sins.

11) Is the Tower of Babel a literal event? Wouldn’t universal peace be easier to achieve if everyone spoke the same language?

Again, you can believe either way about it. Personally, I think that the Tower of Babel is most likely a mixture of a factual event (the creation of a tower) with a mythical purpose (to illustrate why there are so many languages in the world/show mankind’s pride and inferiority to God).

 

[a_Anita]

Notice, too, that Adam and Eve weren’t tempted by the tree, but by the voice of a third-party (the serpent).

Yes, that’s important! He (the devil pictured as a snake) was thrown out of heaven with no possibility to be welcomed back. His way of tempting was to sow doubt about what God had said. This is the way he is still working: “Are you sure that the Catholic Church teaches so and so” (related to dogmas)? "Are you sure about this and that. Did Jesus really institute the Church?, etc, etc … The devil’s aim is always to make people say NO to God as he himself did.

(…) I’m just thinking out loud here, but what if the intent of the writer was that Abel gave a gift to God freely, but Cain gave because he was required to? In other words, the difference between the two isn’t in the value of the gift, but in the spirit in which it was offered?

May be, may be. My suggestion about “right sacrifice” was built upon the idea that animal sacrifices was a common topic in the OT until we in NT got a sacrifice once and for all by Jesus on the cross (witch is recreated by Our Savior through every Mass).

Or maybe it was because God had explicitly commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28)? Maybe because man and women are designed to be “one flesh” (Gen 2:24)? Maybe because God predicted to Eve that “your desire shall be for your husband” even though “in pain you shall bring forth children” (Gen 3:16)?

I don’t think we will ever get an exact answer to that. May be they remembered about “the one flesh” after they were thrown out of the Garden, or may be they only clung to each other because now they were lonely and lived a totally different life (toil) then when they lived in the Garden. The catholic understanding of “the one flesh” is that it is a covenant between man + woman + God, so may be that your suggestion is the best. Even if God had thrown them out of the Garden, He did not break the marriage covenant.

 

[a_Anita]

Hello

1. Why didn’t God accept Cain’s sacrifice? If God accepted Cain’s sacrifice, he wouldn’t have gotten jealous and killed Abel

My opinion is that Cain was not sacrificing the best of the best of his crop for God. Abel was. Abel was shown as taking the fattest and healthiest of his herd and sacrificing. It doesn’t go into detail about Cain’s choices, but God did favor Abel over Cain and I think Cain was being cheap and it showed.

I think you are right. This mean that Gorgias had a good point too. Abel offered from his firstlings while God in the form of a question told Cain, that if he did well, he would be accepted (Gen 4:7). Scot Hahn and his partner in the Study Bible (Genesis) is suggesting that Abel is offering “those that are suitable as divine offerings” while they refer to (Ex 13:2) and they continue to tell that there is “no indication” that Cain gave his sacrifice from his “firstfruits”. All in all they suggest that it shouldn’t surprise us, that God who knew the givers “interior disposition” preferred Abel’s offering.

To be practical: This should teach us that we are to give our best (of what we have) to God, at least try. :bowdown:

 

[a_Anita]

9) Did Noah really curse Chanaan to servitude, just because he caught Noah drunk and naked?

It’s not that Canaan saw his father drunk and naked, but that he dishonored his father by making fun of him to his brothers (heck, even telling someone about it would’ve been dishonorable in and of itself).

There was a bit more to it: “Nakedness” in the Bible refers to intercourse. Since Ham, not Canaan, saw “his fathers nakedness” it may point to that Ham either saw his mother in her nakedness, that is that he had intercourse with his mother, i.e incest. Or it might be that Ham raped his father (homosexual incest). There are even more sexual explanations to this event.

Hahn and his partner, in the explanation to the Study-bible, seem to see this event as incest with the mother. Canaan was then the fruit of a an unholy union between a son and a mother. He was of course quite innocent in being so, but it’s important to remember were we are in the Salvation history. As we saw in the example with Cain and Able, it is the very best we are supposed to give to God. Since Canaan was a result of an unholy union, he could not be the forefather of the branch that one day should bring Jesus into this world. That gift was given to Canaan’s uncle Shem. From Shem comes the Semitic tribes from witch Jesus were to be born (from one of them). The other uncle of Canaan, Japheth, was blessed (“be enlarged”) as a sign of friendship between Shem’s people and Japheth’s. The Canaanites, however, became strangers and enemies for the Semites. They were the people who worshiped strange gods (baals). It was the people that God warned the Semites about if they wanted to be holy.

The way I see this, is that this is a demonstration about that good and evil is opposed. For us who live such a long time afterward, there is a lesson to learn: Doing evil will not bear good fruits.

As already mentioned, we must see the curse of Canaan as a part of what happened on the road in the Salvation narrative. In our days a child born of an nonlegal act, will not be cursed. We are on the other side of the Salvation history. Jesus has come and everybody is free to chose His company and worship him. Nobody who wants to be with God will be sent away.

 

[Gorgias]

There was a bit more to it: “Nakedness” in the Bible refers to intercourse.

Actually, I believe that the phrase is “to uncover (someone’s) nakedness” and in Leviticus, it’s used as a euphemism to describe immoral/illegal sexual intercourse.

 

[Richca]

I feel like I’m reading the OT wrong, but a bunch of questions popped up (some of them very kindergarten-ish), but if some could enlighten me on these questions, and how I should just approach reading the Bible in general, that’d be very helpful.

So for starters, from Genesis. I’m not sure how literally I should be taking this story, so I’m just going to go for the hyper-literal approach so it can be corrected

1. Why did God bother making the Tree of Good and Evil if would just make tempt people to sin? God made human beings free and he told Adam and Eve that they could eat from all the trees of the garden of Eden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God gave Adam and Eve this command because though he made Adam and Eve free, they are subject to their creator God.2)
   Why should the human race have to suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve? It’s not my fault they ate the apple.
2. Why did God even let the serpent talk to Eve?
3. Why didn’t God accept Cain’s sacrifice? If God accepted Cain’s sacrifice, he wouldn’t have gotten jealous and killed Abel. Cain offered sacrifice to God with a bad heart. Abel offered sacrifice to God with a good heart.5)
   Did other people exist alongside Adam and Eve? Or was it incest? Were they really making children for 900+ years?
4. If Adam and Eve knew their children would be suffering from their curse of original sin, why did they bother having children in the first place? "God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:28).7)
   Is Eden a literal place?
5. Is Noah’s Ark a literal story? Did Noah really build a boat big enough to store every land animal and bug on the planet? Can trees really survive being submerged in a 40 day flood? Scripture can have a number of different senses. The story of Noah’s ark definitely has an allegorical meaning as St Peter says it signified christian baptism. Noah’s ark also symbolizes the church.9)
   Did Noah really curse Chanaan to servitude, just because he caught Noah drunk and naked? In Leviticus 20:17-21 to “uncover the nakedness” means to have sexual relations. So some commentators think that Ham may have had sexual relations with his father or mother. Other commentators say that Ham’s act and the telling of it imply contempt for one’s father, a serious offense. Obviously, there was more to Ham’s act then what the scripture at face value is telling us.10)
   Isn’t drowning every single person on the planet beside Noah a bit extreme? It seems like the 900 years of baby-making between Adam and Eve went to waste. Not if those people are useless. It’s God’s world, he created it. God created man and placed him on the earth so he could live a life of virtue, a life of love for his creator, not a life of debauchery. 11)
   Is the Tower of Babel a literal event? Wouldn’t universal peace be easier to achieve if everyone spoke the same language? The tower of Babel is a direct reference to the chief ziggurat of Babylon, the E-sag-lla, signifying “the house that raises high its head” (footnote in the New American Bible). This was a sin of pride, indeed man is prone to pride from his birth.12)
   In Genesis 12, why should the Pharoah be afflicted when it was Abram that lied about Sarai just being his sister? Shouldn’t Abram have been punished instead? As the scripture says, the Egyptians or possibly the Pharoah himself would have killed Abraham if he had told them Sarai was his wife. Murder is against God’s law. Abraham was a just man in the sight of God. We can reasonably presume the Pharoah was a depraved human being especially since they thought they were divine.