Table of Nations & Egypt

  • Thread starter Thread starter YinYangMom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YinYangMom

Guest
Listening to Jeff Cavin’s Great Adventure bible series on Relevant Radio these days…

and we get to Genesis 10 - Table of Nations, where we see the repopulation of the earth after the Great Flood.

Noah’s son’s Japheth, Shem and Ham…

Napheth goes north and repopulates the European area.
Ham goes south to repopulate Africa.
And Seth remains to repopulate the Middle East.

That’s the way Jeff condenses it.

But then we get to Chapter 12 when Abram and Sarai go to Egypt and the Pharoah takes a liking to Sarai.

I look down on the bottom of the Bible Timeline Chart to the section of Secular History to see that the Great pyramids were built around the time right before the people were scattered from Babel (2685 BC), and Stonehenge begun (2000 BC) around the time of Abram & Sarai going to Egypt…

And I’m thinking:

If all the world was repopulated by Japheth, Shem, Ham and Noah, where did this Pharoah come from? (Japheth? Shem? Ham?)

and why does it appear Egypt has always been a World Power operating alongside the Creation Story, being well established by the time Abram enters the scene?
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
If all the world was repopulated by Japheth, Shem, Ham and Noah, where did this Pharoah come from? (Japheth? Shem? Ham?)
In the notes in my 1971 edition of the New American Bible it indicates that the people of Egypt are descendants of Mizraim, son of Ham (Genesis 10:6)
 
Todd Easton:
In the notes in my 1971 edition of the New American Bible it indicates that the people of Egypt are descendants of Mizraim, son of Ham (Genesis 10:6)
Cool. 👍 Thanks.

Well he was a busy dude, wasn’t he?
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
If all the world was repopulated by Japheth, Shem, Ham and Noah, where did this Pharoah come from? (Japheth? Shem? Ham?)

and why does it appear Egypt has always been a World Power operating alongside the Creation Story, being well established by the time Abram enters the scene?
And how is it that the Native Americans had already been in the Americas for somewhere between 20 000 and 50 000 years?

We tend to assume, from a modern European linguistic perspective, that narratives ought to be literal, chronological and completely comprehensive. A quick comparison of the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke with the events and times in the OT suggests that the authors and compilers of the Bible did not share our prejudice.
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
And how is it that the Native Americans had already been in the Americas for somewhere between 20 000 and 50 000 years?

We tend to assume, from a modern European linguistic perspective, that narratives ought to be literal, chronological and completely comprehensive. A quick comparison of the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke with the events and times in the OT suggests that the authors and compilers of the Bible did not share our prejudice.
I don’t really have a problem with specifying ‘dates’ to the events.

For me, I do believe there was a major flood which wiped out man and beast from the face of the earth at one time (when, doesn’t really matter to me, just that it did occur)…

and that as a result we all trace back to the family of Noah…the how of repopulation was a question I had and was answered…the precise timing of it isn’t as important to me as we really don’t have a definitive way of knowing. Even with carbon dating and other methods archaeologists use, those are man-developed formulas/tests which may or may not be accurate. If a carbon-dated item says it’s 25,000,000 years old - are we talking years of 365 days? We still don’t know how many days were in a year of Noah’s time so what we claim as 2,000 + years, could still be the equivalent of a carbon-dated 25,000 years – who really knows, and does it really matter for Christians who rely on faith anyway?

It matters to athiests and scientists, but not us. Being of native american descent myself, I care more that I’m a descendant of Noah than of the Yacqui tribe. So long as I can find how the Yacqui’s came from Noah, I’d be satisfied…when it all came about is not as significant to me.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
…the how of repopulation was a question I had and was answered…the precise timing of it isn’t as important to me as we really don’t have a definitive way of knowing.
Do we not? How can we know until we try? Personally, I would suggest that God had a reason for endowing us with the capacities for curiosity and for analysis, in much the same way as God had a reason for endowing us with arms and legs: so that we could use them.
Even with carbon dating and other methods archaeologists use, those are man-developed formulas/tests which may or may not be accurate. If a carbon-dated item says it’s 25,000,000 years old - are we talking years of 365 days? We still don’t know how many days were in a year of Noah’s time so what we claim as 2,000 + years, could still be the equivalent of a carbon-dated 25,000 years
There is a certain physical necessity in the length of the year. If the earth travelled more quickly, it would move farther from the sun, and we would all freeze to death. If it travelled more slowly, it would move closer to the sun, and we would all fry. We are rather miraculously in just the right place, at just the right speed, here.
– who really knows, and does it really matter for Christians who rely on faith anyway? It matters to athiests and scientists, but not us
The first question would have to be why it should ever be necessary to separate “Christians” from scientists, especially considering the enormous contributions made to the development of science by Christians such as Robert Boyle (1627-1691); George Washington Carver (1864-1943) (chemist and botanist); Michael Faraday (1791-1867); James Clerk Maxwell (mathematician and physicist); Samuel Morse (1791-1872); Isaac Newton (1642-1727); Louis Pasteur (1822-1895); Hugh Ross (physicist); Carol Swain (political scientist).

It might also be worthwhile considering the response of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”

(Emphasis added)
Being of native american descent myself, I care more that I’m a descendant of Noah than of the Yacqui tribe. So long as I can find how the Yacqui’s came from Noah, I’d be satisfied…when it all came about is not as significant to me.
In your situation, the question that I would be asking is whether the Yacqui came from Noah, i.e., whether the text was really expecting to be taken literally, but that is just me.
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
Do we not? How can we know until we try? Personally, I would suggest that God had a reason for endowing us with the capacities for curiosity and for analysis, in much the same way as God had a reason for endowing us with arms and legs: so that we could use them.
I figure we’re still trying, that’s why nothing is definitive as of yet. Of course it’s great that people try, that’s why God gave them the mind and curiousity He did. In the end I believe whatever they come up with definitively will coincide with what God has already revealed.
There is a certain physical necessity in the length of the year. If the earth travelled more quickly, it would move farther from the sun, and we would all freeze to death. If it travelled more slowly, it would move closer to the sun, and we would all fry. We are rather miraculously in just the right place, at just the right speed, here.
Yes, but no one know what all those variables were set at in the beginning, which is why we can never truly go back. You raised a lot of important ‘ifs’ there. Of course the earth traveled at a certain rate, at a certain distance, in a certain path, but we can’t go back in time to determine just what those were. Now the really fascinating stuff is the discovery of galaxies and comprehending the light years it takes just to get an image of it here in our time…that by the time we can see it, ages have passed. Talk about a time capsule!
The first question would have to be why it should ever be necessary to separate “Christians” from scientists, especially considering the enormous contributions made to the development of science by Christians such as Robert Boyle (1627-1691); George Washington Carver (1864-1943) (chemist and botanist); Michael Faraday (1791-1867); James Clerk Maxwell (mathematician and physicist); Samuel Morse (1791-1872); Isaac Newton (1642-1727); Louis Pasteur (1822-1895); Hugh Ross (physicist); Carol Swain (political scientist).
No need to separate them at all. Again, I believe when it’s all said and done, particularly for scientists of faith, their answers will end up coinciding with, not contradicting that of God’s revelation to man.
It might also be worthwhile considering the response of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”
286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”
(Emphasis added)
Right, science confirms our faith…that all things come from God. That’s how I see it.
In your situation, the question that I would be asking is whether the Yacqui came from Noah, i.e., whether the text was really expecting to be taken literally, but that is just me.
I did wonder that at one stage of my life, but in the end, I saw no reason to toss out the revelations of Moses. Heck, God appeared to him as a burning bush, He gave Him the 10 commandments, and those commandments really do lead to a good life, so why question whether or not Noah and his sons actually repopulated the entire planet. If He says so, then it is so. He should know. Besides, say I did ask that question, how would one possible be able to answer it? The Yacquis were gatherers and wanderers, they weren’t the scholarly type so there’s no written evidence of their beginnings. I can trust that somehow they are connected to Noah in the grand scheme of things.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
I saw no reason to toss out the revelations of Moses. Heck, God appeared to him as a burning bush, He gave Him the 10 commandments, and those commandments really do lead to a good life, so why question whether or not Noah and his sons actually repopulated the entire planet. If He says so, then it is so. He should know.
The question that we need to ask, then, is whether he does say so. Apart from the long-running debate about the author (or authors) of Genesis, there is the question of whether or not it was ever intended to be taken literally, which, I would suggest, the differences between Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 argue against.
Besides, say I did ask that question, how would one possible be able to answer it? The Yacquis were gatherers and wanderers, they weren’t the scholarly type so there’s no written evidence of their beginnings. I can trust that somehow they are connected to Noah in the grand scheme of things.
Archaeology is a wonderful, wonderful thing - as long as you are patient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top