Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Flood Stories from Around the World

Appreciated - but not required: that aspect of the question is discussed in considerable detail in vol. 1 of Westermann’s commentary on Genesis. To put it another way: that there are at least eighty-eight such stories from around the world (Westermann’s figure), has no value as an objection to a critical approach to Genesis; the critics are well aware of such stories, which is why they mention them in their commentaries (that volume, of over six hundred pages, discusses the first eleven chapters of Genesis in about 500 of them (the rest is introduction, that sort of thing).​

 

[buffalo]

Appreciated - but not required: that aspect of the question is discussed in considerable detail in vol. 1 of Westermann’s commentary on Genesis. To put it another way: that there are at least eighty-eight such stories from around the world (Westermann’s figure), has no value as an objection to a critical approach to Genesis; the critics are well aware of such stories, which is why they mention them in their commentaries (that volume, of over six hundred pages, discusses the first eleven chapters of Genesis in about 500 of them (the rest is introduction, that sort of thing).​

It is pretty amazing that there are so many flood stories. Seems to me something of importance happened. I wonder what the odds are of soo may stories being false.

 

[Mark_Renaud]

No, I am open to the possibility that they existed at the same time. When will you be submitting your finds for publication.Well, for me personally about 28 years. For other geologists, hundreds of years. So far, nothing.All sedimentary rocks having been deposited in the same depositional environment (they are not). Fossils distributed evenly throughout the geologic column (they are not). No evaporites (they exist). No carbonates (they exist).

Shall I continue?Well, this was just covered in another thread, but my guess is that Jesus knew that the story of Noah was a theological story and not a historical event. He spoke of it to His disciples in a way that they understood.

Peace

Tim,

When Jesus spoke of the “Days of Noah” he compared it to the coming day of Judgement. Do you also believe that the coming day of Judgement is just a theological story and not a future ‘historical’ event?

What is your criterion for being able to separate ‘theological stories’ and ‘historical events’? Somehow you have an ability, at least in your own mind to be able to do this. What criterion do you use? If Jesus Christ Himself refers to “…as it was in the Days of Noah…” then what criterion did you use to judge this as a ‘theological event’ and not a ‘historical event’? Was the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus a ‘theological story’ or was in a ‘historical event’?

It would greatly help me to know what objective criterion you are using to separate out ‘theological stories’ from ‘historical events’?
Just wondering?

Please forgive me if you have already been around the block on this one - I’m new to this thread.

Mark Renaud

 

[ROBIN97]

Do the Indian tales refer to the earth as ***they ***knew it, or as we know it ? An American Indian tale, even if it preserves memories of what is now Siberia, is unlikely to include the Faroe Islands or the Falklands, or Scotland, or New Zealand, in what its authors know of the world. If it does, then it is too recent to be of any value as evidence of an ancient & truly world-wide flood. What Genesis refers to, was probably no more than the sort of inundation that causes misery for Bangladesh every few years; Israel’s world was not very large, even as late as the first century BC. For Ezekiel, the Caucasus - the abode of “Gog” and “Magog” - is the back of beyond; so there is no likelihood that his ancestors centuries earlier had any better idea of the true extent of the earth.​

There was no cataclysm - though funnily enough, kataklusmos is the word the Septuagint uses in its translation of Genesis to render Hebrew mabbul, “flood” ​

There was no cataclysm in the post’s sense - Genesis says nothing of one, so to posit one, is to read into the text what is not there. Which is unsound as a method. If we do that, then we can read anything else into it that we think we need to, or that we care to; but that leads to not reading the text at all, but only our own fancies - & that is something Fundamentalism does all the time, which is one of the reasons it is (to put it mildly) an unsatisfactory guide to understanding what the Bible means.

Fundamentalism doesn’t interpret the text - it makes connections between the text OTOH, &, OTO, ways of avoiding any appearance of error in the text - not between text & meaning, as it should. (The Bible has a sacramental aspect as well, but that is of no help as a means of interpretation: & this thread is about interpreting part of the Bible.) This is “intertextuality” with a vengeance. Fundamentalism displays a callous disregard for the text as such: without knowing what that text is we cannot know what that part of the book - or of any book, Biblical or not - is saying. If Fundamentalism got to grips with the text, it would not be Fundamentalist; it would be listening to what the texts have to say, as the critics do. The Bible is too valuable to be abandoned to the excruciating tortures the Fundamentalists make it suffer; it needs to be rescued from the numberless torments they inflict upon it.

BTW - an arc is a line in mathematics (IIRC ) ; the boaty thing people have in mind is an ark. And while “Magnum” was a highly watchable TV series, Cro-Magnon man is unlikely to have watched it (or even to have drunken a magnum of wine)

• arc = a curve
• Noah’s ar**k **= tebah in Hebrew
• The ark of the covenant = aron
• the “boat” of the infant Moses = tebah
  Hope that helps

Thank you for the spelling lesson. How did I miss those? I know - I was careless and let Spell Check (SP?) do all the work for me. I’ll try not to make that mistake again.

I wonder why you would discount such a thing as Cataclysmic happens in earth geology just because it is “Outside the Bible” Anyway that is the gist of your statement I think. Correctly if I’m wrong. I too believe that the Great Flood was a localized event but I cannot preclude the possibility of a pre-modern man event happening that wiped out 85% of life on earth and the story has been carried forward maybe 1000 even millions of years by - if I may use the term “oral tradition”. Of course, fundamentalists will reject the same possibility for perhaps other reasons as yours.
I think there is evidence for such Cataclysms and I think you could ask any geologist of repute and he could point you to such evidence. Of course evidence of such is not the same as fact.

I think they could point to not only gradual changes in the earth - but Cataclysmic changes as well . Most of the people here I am sure are familiar with the “ring of fire” that cuts through the crust of the earth beneath the oceans and belts the earth itself. I am not a geologist, but where did it come from. Why is it there? What does it portend? When I was young, I grew up on a farm in Western Kansas. Just a few yards below our feet lay a bedrock of yellow rock, hundreds of feet in thickness made up of ancient see sediment of tiny sea shell and fish of gargantuan proportions fossilized in the rocks - many of which hang in famous museums around the world today. That ancient sea covered all of the high plains from the Missouri river to the rocky mountains. What happened to that sea? Look at the mountains thrust up. Some whose sides reveal formations of solid rock bent like a pretzel.

Just as Adam and Eve may have actually lived 100 thousands years ago instead of 6000 years ago does not discount their existence. Noah may have existed almost as far back. And instead of 40 days and 40 nights and a year from leaving the"Ark" it could have been a bit different event. The complete story lost in the mist of time perhaps. Catholics do not have to take a literalist view of Genesis. Only a literal one (what did the author mean. We do not really believe “Cats and Dogs rain from the heavens”. We’ll maybe frogs…

Robin

 

[severntofall]

Good. The point was that the Bible is more valid of a source that the sources for Plato.

Well, that I would disagree with. FYI, there is also more evidence of Zoroaster, Zeus and Santa Claus than there is of Plato. Proves nothing.

 

[severntofall]

It is pretty amazing that there are so many flood stories. Seems to me something of importance happened. I wonder what the odds are of soo may stories being false.

FYI, the tale of Noah is not the oldest of these tales. If anything, the Tale of Noah is derivative of other tales. What the tales indicate is that every region of the world has been hit by massive flood and to a culture with no perspective beyond what it can see and hear, a large flood would seem like a global catastrophe.

 

[buffalo]

FYI, the tale of Noah is not the oldest of these tales. If anything, the Tale of Noah is derivative of other tales. What the tales indicate is that every region of the world has been hit by massive flood and to a culture with no perspective beyond what it can see and hear, a large flood would seem like a global catastrophe.

How bout this one:

Ancient Chinese Characters

 

[Orogeny]

When Jesus spoke of the “Days of Noah” he compared it to the coming day of Judgement. Do you also believe that the coming day of Judgement is just a theological story and not a future ‘historical’ event?

Setting aside that future events are not historical events, yes of course I believe that a day of judgement is coming.

What is your criterion for being able to separate ‘theological stories’ and ‘historical events’? Somehow you have an ability, at least in your own mind to be able to do this. What criterion do you use? If Jesus Christ Himself refers to “…as it was in the Days of Noah…” then what criterion did you use to judge this as a ‘theological event’ and not a ‘historical event’? Was the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus a ‘theological story’ or was in a ‘historical event’?

So, you are a bible literalist. Everything in the bible must be interpreted as written. We are not allowed to see anything as “theological”, just “historical”.

Tell me, why did God create a flood that covered the entire world that also left ZERO evidence that it happened? Why?

Who did Cain marry? Now, before you answer, remember you are a bible literallist and re-read Genesis 4. Only 3 people were on the earth at that time, according to the literal reading of Genesis 4 - Adam, Eve and Cain. Cain did not marry Eve. So, who did he marry?

You see, a literal reading doesn’t allow any answers to either of those questions. Perhaps the questions should never be asked?

It would greatly help me to know what objective criterion you are using to separate out ‘theological stories’ from ‘historical events’?

Either we have evidence indicating that the story wasn’t a historical event (creation story) or we have no evidence that a story was a historical event when there should be lots of evidence (the flood). If there is no reason to read the story as anything other than as historical, I read it as historical.

Peace

Tim

 

[Mark_Renaud]

Setting aside that future events are not historical events, yes of course I believe that a day of judgement is coming. What is your evidence that it simply is not just a ‘theological story’?
So, you are a bible literalist. Everything in the bible must be interpreted as written.

(Tim, its interesting that you label me as a ‘literalist’ without answering my question?) What is your definition of a Bible Literalist anyway? - Sounds like you might have labeled me because you couldn’t answer the question about what criterion you are using to distinquish between your ‘theological stories’ and actual ‘historical events’.

Tell me, why did God create a flood that covered the entire world that also left ZERO evidence that it happened? Why?
(Tim, how do you know that God left Zero evidence of a world wide flood? Is it possible that the evidence that you are demanding to see exists in places that you haven’t investigated?Does Jesus Christs comments on the flood add any credence to the book of Genesis Account of Gods Flood at the time of Noah? What ever happened to Jesus’s words, 'Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe?'
Who did Cain marry? Now, before you answer, remember you are a bible literallist and re-read Genesis 4. Only 3 people were on the earth at that time, according to the literal reading of Genesis 4 - Adam, Eve and Cain. Cain did not marry Eve. So, who did he marry? (My guess is simply that God provided for him a wife - Do I really have to know her name in order to take God at his word, concerning a world wide flood?)
(Tim, you’re getting off of the point. Remember my question?
Sounds like you might have labeled me because you couldn’t answer the question about what criterion you are using to distinquish between your ‘theological stories’ and actual ‘historical events’. What is your criterion to make your distinction? This is my question and I am still waiting for your answer.)
You see, a literal reading doesn’t allow any answers to either of those questions.
B]*HUH? you’re kidding right:blush: *

Perhaps the questions should never be asked?Either we have evidence indicating that the story wasn’t a historical event (creation story) or we have no evidence that a story was a historical event when there should be lots of evidence (the flood).

(Tim, What evidence do you have that the story is simply a ‘theological story’ and not historical fact? Remember I am looking for your criterion. Also,what evidence do you have for the miracles of Jesus? Do you consider these miracles simply ‘theological stories’ or ‘historical events’? What is your criterion?)
If there is no reason to read the story as anything other than as historical, I read it as historical.
*(Tim, what kind of reasons are you talking about? What are your reasons to view Gods Flood at the time of Noah as a 'theological story? What other scriptures do you view as ‘stories’? Your perspective is new to me. When I read the words of Jesus, “Thy Word is Truth”, I take them as they come - the plain meaning is that Jesus views the Word of God as truth - what about you?)

(What evidence do we have for other things in Scripture - other than simply that is the way that we read the text? For instance, what evidence is there that clearly shows the communion wafer becomes the actual flesh of Jesus and the wine becomes his blood? What is your evidence for your answer? Is Communion simply a ‘theological story’ or is it an ‘historical event’ that actually happens?, Also what evidence do you have for knowing that the man with the withered hand was actually healed - maybe it was just a theological story, Where do you draw the line and what is your criterion for your line?)*

Just wondering, Mark Renaud

 

[severntofall]

How bout this one:

Ancient Chinese Characters

I have no doubt that Judaism is derivative of other older religions. Honestly no doubt. This power point demo, while very interesting proves at best that Judaism is tied to other religions. I see no evidence that indicates a possible divine origin. It just provides evidence of a common human link that most people already acknowledge as possible. Furthermore, the timeline presented by this presentation contracdicts the biblical timelines that I have seen. If the bible is accurate, the great flood happened around 2400BC; if this Chinese thing is accurate then that date is way off, which it cannot be if you take the bible litterally. Again, I did find it very interesting and will probaly keep the link to it for future reference

 

[Orogeny]

First off, you really need to learn how to quote people. This is a difficult post to read. To quote something, begin the quoted text with {quote} and end it with {/quote}, except replace the { } with ].

(Tim, its interesting that you label me as a ‘literalist’ without answering my question?) What is your definition of a Bible Literalist anyway? - Sounds like you might have labeled me because you couldn’t answer the question about what criterion you are using to distinquish between your ‘theological stories’ and actual ‘historical events’.

Of course that is why I did it Mark. You are just too smart for me.

You are a literalist because you insist on a literal reading of scripture.

(Tim, how do you know that God left Zero evidence of a world wide flood? Is it possible that the evidence that you are demanding to see exists in places that you haven’t investigated?Does Jesus Christs comments on the flood add any credence to the book of Genesis Account of Gods Flood at the time of Noah? What ever happened to Jesus’s words, 'Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe?'

The flood would have been recent (geologically speaking) and the evidence would be impossible to miss. You really don’t understand how devastating an event like that would be if you think that the evidence is hidden.

(My guess is simply that God provided for him a wife - Do I really have to know her name in order to take God at his word, concerning a world wide flood?)

So you can just make stuff up? When did you get the power to add to scripture?

(Tim, you’re getting off of the point. Remember my question?
Sounds like you might have labeled me because you couldn’t answer the question about what criterion you are using to distinquish between your ‘theological stories’ and actual ‘historical events’. What is your criterion to make your distinction? This is my question and I am still waiting for your answer.)

I answered your question. In fact, it is part of your reply. Did you just start replying to my post without reading it first?

B]*HUH? you’re kidding right:blush: *

No, I’m not.

*(Tim, what kind of reasons are you talking about? What are your reasons to view Gods Flood at the time of Noah as a 'theological story? *

Zero geologic evidence and zero biological evidence.

What other scriptures do you view as ‘stories’? Your perspective is new to me. When I read the words of Jesus, “Thy Word is Truth”, I take them as they come - the plain meaning is that Jesus views the Word of God as truth - what about you?)

Much of the old testiment is figurative.

(What evidence do we have for other things in Scripture - other than simply that is the way that we read the text? For instance, what evidence is there that clearly shows the communion wafer becomes the actual flesh of Jesus and the wine becomes his blood? What is your evidence for your answer? Is Communion simply a ‘theological story’ or is it an ‘historical event’ that actually happens?, Also what evidence do you have for knowing that the man with the withered hand was actually healed - maybe it was just a theological story, Where do you draw the line and what is your criterion for your line?)

You really didn’t read my post. Too bad.

Try to read this one before you reply.

There is no evidence that one would expect to find for or against the existence of the man with a withered hand. Therefore, I believe it to be true.

There is no evidence that supports a historic flood as described in Genesis. Evidence that would be impossible to miss. Therefore, I don’t believe this story to be a historic event.

There is massive evidence that the earth wasn’t created in 6 days 6,000-10,000 years ago. Therefore, I don’t believe the stories in Genesis 1 and 2 to be historically true.

In other words, if there is no reason to question the literal/historical accuracy of the story, I accept it that way. If, however, there is evidence indicating the story isn’t literal/historical, I accept it to be figurative but still true.

Peace

Tim

 

[HankZ]

Setting aside that future events are not historical events, yes of course I believe that a day of judgement is coming.So, you are a bible literalist. Everything in the bible must be interpreted as written. We are not allowed to see anything as “theological”, just “historical”.

Tell me, why did God create a flood that covered the entire world that also left ZERO evidence that it happened? Why?

Who did Cain marry? Now, before you answer, remember you are a bible literallist and re-read Genesis 4. Only 3 people were on the earth at that time, according to the literal reading of Genesis 4 - Adam, Eve and Cain. Cain did not marry Eve. So, who did he marry?

You see, a literal reading doesn’t allow any answers to either of those questions. Perhaps the questions should never be asked?Either we have evidence indicating that the story wasn’t a historical event (creation story) or we have no evidence that a story was a historical event when there should be lots of evidence (the flood). If there is no reason to read the story as anything other than as historical, I read it as historical.

Peace

Tim

The evidence is there and in great abundance. You cannot see it because you don’t want to. You would do well to study God’s word as it is written, without yours or someone elses false interpitation of it. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth.

I told you days ago where Cain’s wife came from. It was his sister or niece, Adam had other sons and daughters according to the bible and one of these married Cain.

 

[Orogeny]

The evidence is there and in great abundance. You cannot see it because you don’t want to.

Show it to me.

I told you days ago where Cain’s wife came from. It was his sister or niece, Adam had other sons and daughters according to the bible and one of these married Cain.

Not scriptural. You or someone else made that up. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve had no children until after Cain was exiled.

Or can we take that part of the scriptures as figurative?

Peace

Tim

 

[HankZ]

Thank you for the spelling lesson. How did I miss those? I know - I was careless and let Spell Check (SP?) do all the work for me. I’ll try not to make that mistake again.

I wonder why you would discount such a thing as Cataclysmic happens in earth geology just because it is “Outside the Bible” Anyway that is the gist of your statement I think. Correctly if I’m wrong. I too believe that the Great Flood was a localized event but I cannot preclude the possibility of a pre-modern man event happening that wiped out 85% of life on earth and the story has been carried forward maybe 1000 even millions of years by - if I may use the term “oral tradition”. Of course, fundamentalists will reject the same possibility for perhaps other reasons as yours.
I think there is evidence for such Cataclysms and I think you could ask any geologist of repute and he could point you to such evidence. Of course evidence of such is not the same as fact.

I think they could point to not only gradual changes in the earth - but Cataclysmic changes as well . Most of the people here I am sure are familiar with the “ring of fire” that cuts through the crust of the earth beneath the oceans and belts the earth itself. I am not a geologist, but where did it come from. Why is it there? What does it portend? When I was young, I grew up on a farm in Western Kansas. Just a few yards below our feet lay a bedrock of yellow rock, hundreds of feet in thickness made up of ancient see sediment of tiny sea shell and fish of gargantuan proportions fossilized in the rocks - many of which hang in famous museums around the world today. That ancient sea covered all of the high plains from the Missouri river to the rocky mountains. What happened to that sea? Look at the mountains thrust up. Some whose sides reveal formations of solid rock bent like a pretzel.

Just as Adam and Eve may have actually lived 100 thousands years ago instead of 6000 years ago does not discount their existence. Noah may have existed almost as far back. And instead of 40 days and 40 nights and a year from leaving the"Ark" it could have been a bit different event. The complete story lost in the mist of time perhaps. Catholics do not have to take a literalist view of Genesis. Only a literal one (what did the author mean. We do not really believe “Cats and Dogs rain from the heavens”. We’ll maybe frogs…

Robin

This has to be one of the most thought out explinations I’ve ever heard. I totally disagree with you, but it is obvious that you have taken time to sort through the information and came to a conclusion.

I disagree on at least 2 items.

1. Death is not a good thing, right? So if there was a history of things dying, then God made Adam and Eve, and put them in the garden of Eden, wouldn’t it make God a liar if He called it good?
2. how can water being 40 feet over the highest Mountain, be a local flood? To believe that it was local when God’s word is clear that this was a judgement on the whole world, rejects God as being truthful. He cannot say that which is untrue.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is pretty amazing that there are so many flood stories. Seems to me something of importance happened. I wonder what the odds are of soo may stories being false.

Point taken - but: the sheer number of them is meangless if their content does not in some way point to what believers in a world-wide flood believe. A thousand stories from around the world about floods causing some damage but not drowning the entire inhabited earth as we know it, would not be much good as evidence of a W-WF; unless there were good grounds for believing those floods were all part of one single one recognisable as that in Genesis: but that, is the point at issue : are they ? If a story from Mexico speaks of a W-WF, does is mean to say that China, Iceland, Canada were flooded ? Or are Venezuelans as foreign to its world as beings from the Pole Star would be to us ?​

The Sumerian Flood story, the Atrahasis poem, & tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh epic, give us three flood stories. But: they all come from Ancient Mesopotamia;: & the first is the “grandfather” of the third. That several stories are told, is not* in itself* strong evidence of a single Flood. The details have to be closely examined. Some cultures may have no such story. If so - why ? All possible explanations for a story, & everything about it - content, purpose, origin, audience, themes, connections with similar tales, all sorts of details - have to be considered. A story known only from a religious text originating in ancient Anatolia may not be telling of the same events as a story recorded by a 19th-century missionary in Oceania. The Anatolian story may be pseudo-historical, & not historical at all. It may be a liturgical text based on a local legend. The example is hypothetical, but it illustrates the difficulties that arise when one gets down to the details of such stories.

Unbelief & so on is far from being the only possible reason for rejecting belief in a W-WF - a lot of people know too much for the arguments made in its favour to be convincing if those making them don’t know why those they seek to persuade don’t believe that a W-WF happened.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thank you for the spelling lesson. How did I miss those? I know - I was careless and let Spell Check (SP?) do all the work for me. I’ll try not to make that mistake again.

Glad to be of help - if that was help ​

I wonder why you would discount such a thing as Cataclysmic happens in earth geology just because it is “Outside the Bible” Anyway that is the gist of your statement I think. Correctly if I’m wrong.

It’s OTB in the sense that, while it provides an explanation which may be solidly factual, that is not what the text says. We can’t interpret a text by introducing into it what it doesn’t say. The explanatory power of the cataclysm as a possible cause of an event of some kind, doesn’t make it - however real the event may have been - an element in the narrative in Genesis. Is that clearer ?​

The Battle of Kadesh in 1275 may - for all we know - have had effects within Egypt that helped some kind of event to occur, that is known as the Exodus; but the Biblical text does not refer to the Battle of Kadesh, so, important as it may have been, & important as it is to be aware of it as an historical item, the reality of it does not make it part of any of the Biblical texts: so it can’t be used to explain what they say. The realities of history are not the same sort of thing as the realities of a piece of literature - to draw upon the former when interpreting the latter, is to confuse two different types of reality. A piece of literature is a different world from that of an event in history.

I too believe that the Great Flood was a localized event but I cannot preclude the possibility of a pre-modern man event happening that wiped out 85% of life on earth and the story has been carried forward maybe 1000 even millions of years by - if I may use the term “oral tradition”. Of course, fundamentalists will reject the same possibility for perhaps other reasons as yours.
I think there is evidence for such Cataclysms and I think you could ask any geologist of repute and he could point you to such evidence. Of course evidence of such is not the same as fact.

Genesis speaks of one flood - not several; so to have several cataclysms from different eras would not be evidence of it. There may well have been several (I’m ignorant of these things ) - but that need not be relevant to what Genesis speaks of. ​

I think they could point to not only gradual changes in the earth - but Cataclysmic changes as well . Most of the people here I am sure are familiar with the “ring of fire” that cuts through the crust of the earth beneath the oceans and belts the earth itself. I am not a geologist, but where did it come from. Why is it there? What does it portend? When I was young, I grew up on a farm in Western Kansas. Just a few yards below our feet lay a bedrock of yellow rock, hundreds of feet in thickness made up of ancient see sediment of tiny sea shell and fish of gargantuan proportions fossilized in the rocks - many of which hang in famous museums around the world today. That ancient sea covered all of the high plains from the Missouri river to the rocky mountains. What happened to that sea? Look at the mountains thrust up. Some whose sides reveal formations of solid rock bent like a pretzel.

Just as Adam and Eve may have actually lived 100 thousands years ago instead of 6000 years ago does not discount their existence. Noah may have existed almost as far back.

Not if the text is to be followed - I’ve read “The Genesis Flood”, & a handful of other books of the same sort: & most of them fill out Genesis 5 with generations of which no Bible text says one word. I doubt very much we would hear of such suggestions, if some readers were not trying to harmonise​

• belief in the historicity of a world-wide flood
• acceptance of geological, other scientific, & chronological facts
• belief in the total inerrancy of the whole Bible
• the contents & words of the text of the early chapters of Genesis
  more…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…more, & end.

It may be that Genesis 5 & other genealogical passages in Gen. 1-11 differ from the Mesopotamian texts they resemble in order to undermine what those texts say: the patriarchs before the Flood in the Bible live spans of great length impossible to men of any known culture - & so do most of the kings in the Sumerian King List: those before the flood live for tens of thousands of years. The Biblical & Sumerian lifespans belong to the same sort of intellectual outlook - the world of legend & mythology; the Biblical ones are much less long, but they are not alien in kind to those we found in the part of the SKL that lists the “kings before the Flood”.

And instead of 40 days and 40 nights and a year from leaving the"Ark" it could have been a bit different event.

But that is to desert the text - we can’t leave out, or put in, what we like. To interpret Genesis (or any book, for that matter) we have to respect what the author or authors saw fit to say. To interpret a text by leaving bits out, is not to interpret it at all; it is to mutilate it. When a book of the Bible’s importance is subjected to such an operation, all sorts of references and allusions to books by other books or their parts are lost. If something is in the Bible, there will be a reason for it: that we don’t know what the reason is, does not mean the original author did not have a reason to write as he did. If we have problems, that is our problem, & not the ancient author’s. That a text may be morally unacceptable or even anti-Christian or contrary to our dearest convictions, is no reason to leave it out.​

OTOH, that there are different stories, from which that in Genesis is woven, would be compatible with leaving bits out, if we were looking at these different stories as an exercise in the separation of the sources of the text, or interpreting the text in a form abbreviated for liturgical use (as often happens to the Biblical texts prepared for reading in Church). But that’s not legitimate if we want to what the text as a complete narrative says.

The complete story lost in the mist of time perhaps. Catholics do not have to take a literalist view of Genesis. Only a literal one (what did the author mean. We do not really believe “Cats and Dogs rain from the heavens”. We’ll maybe frogs…

AFAICS, there are nine things here, not two :

• literalism OTOH
  and OTO:
• the written signs which are the letters of the text
• their combination into words…
• …in a specific language
• the literal sense of the words as lexical units
• the sense they have as used in the social group from which the text comes
• expressions such as the one you refer to
• the literary genre of the text
• the meaning conveyed by the literal sense
  Maybe that’s slightly over-analysed

Robin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How bout this one:

Ancient Chinese Characters

Unconvincing ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The evidence is there and in great abundance. You cannot see it because you don’t want to. You would do well to study God’s word as it is written, without yours or someone elses false interpitation of it. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth.

I told you days ago where Cain’s wife came from. It was his sister or niece, Adam had other sons and daughters according to the bible and one of these married Cain.

We are given these events:​

• Date unknown - birth of Cain
• Date unknown - birth of Abel
• Cain does Abel in
• after Adam’s 130th birthday - birth of Seth
• Later, before Adam dies aged 930 - Adam begets sons and daughters
• Adam dies aged 930
  There is no evidence in the text that Cain had any sisters, or any other female relatives (apart from Eve) before some time after Seth was born. Unless there was a woman of child-bearing age for him to marry, he could not be the father of Enoch father of Irad. Enoch son of Cain (not to be confused with the prophet quoted by Jude: that Enoch was the father of Methuselah, descended from Seth) might be born without a father - but not without a mother: not even if the first patriarchs were outstandingly brilliant practitioners of sex-change surgery. Short of lying with his own mother, he would not have anything resembling a wife. If incest was tolerated then, why not include incest between parent & child ? Such bigamy would explain the bigamy of Lamech the descendant of Cain (not to be confused with the pious father of Noah, obviously) - it would be a precedent.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I’ve seen the following issue come up a few times in this thread, so I thought I should offer my thoughts on it to help clarify the position of those who take the early chapters of Genesis as conveying historical information. Firstly, those who understand the Bible to be giving a historical account to us in these first chapters of Genesis do not believe that the Bible is giving us a comprehensive historical account.

The narrative after the fall focuses on the relationship between Cain and Abel, what happens to Cain after he kills his brother, and Seth being given to Eve after the death of Abel.

Did Adam and Eve know each other in the garden before the fall? We don’t know.

Is Cain their firstborn son? We don’t know. Remember, the historical purpose – which, all agree, is not an end in itself – of Genesis 4 is not to give us a comprehensive list of Adam and Eve’s marital relations and resulting children. We are given enough detail to set the stage for the murder of Abel and what surrounds this.

We know that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters (Gen 5). It stands to reason that they had a number of these sons and daughters after Abel’s birth and before his death. Was Eve barren for a decade or for 50 years? Remember, if history is being conveyed here, it is not comprehensive. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. How old was Cain at this point? 20? 100? We don’t know, but both are possibilities. How old was Cain when he killed Abel? 15? 70? How old was Abel? 14? 69? We don’t know.

Did Cain take a wife before killing Abel? Maybe. Did he have children before he killed Abel and was driven away? Maybe. Did he have grand children and even great, great grand children by this time? Also possibilities. I would say that we also do not know when Cain went away from the presence of the LORD in relationship to the birth of Seth. The amount of time that lapses between Gen 3:8 and 3:9 is not identified. We know that Abel is killed in verse 8. But by the time we get to verse 9, Cain is evidently not in the presence of Abel’s body. And so a certain length of time has passed. It could actually be years that have passed… perhaps decades before Cain was seized with terror over what he had done. This is an ancient narrative. We are only getting the historical details that served the purpose of the author. It could be the case that the narrative of the birth of Seth describes something that takes place between Genesis 3:8 and 3:9. We’re not told when he was born in relationship to Cain’s departure. We only know that he was born after Abel’s death. Compare this approach with the understanding that the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 does not follow chronologically after the day of rest described at the beginning of that chapter. This pattern of narration is common. If we follow the flow of the text on the page, we would be led to think that Adam and Eve did not give birth to Seth until after the births of Cain’s great, great, great, great grandchildren! But this does not seem to be the way the ancient Israelites wrote their history.

We have a loose chronology in Genesis 4. We know that Cain was born before Abel. And we know that Abel was killed before Seth was born. We don’t know when other children were born to Adam and Eve.

We come to Genesis 5. What is the purpose of the genealogy? It is to give us the ancestry from Adam to Noah, even from God to Noah. The purpose of the genealogy is not to give us the names of firstborn sons. It is not picking up where the chronology ended in chapter 4, but is starting over from the beginning. It is not giving a chronology of birth order so that the repeated statement, “had other sons and daughters,” implies that all of these sons and daughters came after the name of the son just identified. What it means is that, yes, there were other children; but the only child that matters for the purpose of the genealogy is the ancestor of Noah each time. So the other sons and daughters gain a mention, but the fact that their mention is read after the son who is explicitly identified is not meant to imply that they were born after that son. The order on the page does not imply order of birth, but rather order of purpose. Chronology of birth order is not in view in Ch 5. The names of Noah’s ancestors are in view. That’s my take.

Hopefully I didn’t miss anything. I don’t want to enter into the debate. I don’t have all the answers. I just wanted to clarify these points for people on both sides of the issue.

May the LORD be with you all!