The Languages of the Bible

I found this article posted on Dictionary.com. It talks about the languages the Bible has been translated into as well as the original languages it was written in. It offers great information about the meaning of some of the language and hints at how meaning can get convoluted and distorted over time. Definitely worth remembering as I continue to read…

Enjoy

Another Perspective

Awhile back I offered up a quote from Ayn Rand that described an alternate perspective on Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden. I realized I promised to add more “outside” ideas as they came up and I’m actually going to follow through! This time I thought it would be beneficial and fair to give a quote from the other side of my pre-disposition towards religion and the Bible. The quote comes from a book by John Irving called A Prayer for Owen Meany. The character Owen Meany, who this quote comes from, is a religious kid who is considerably smarter than his peers and continually offers unique perspectives on religion and his place in the world.

“Just because a bunch of atheists are better writers than the guys who wrote the Bible doesn’t necessarily make them right!”

Owen’s statement resonates in several areas. It helps keep cynical people humble at times as well as remind us that modern writers have significantly more resources at their disposal. I have also noticed after reflecting on this quote that the text of the Bible does not have a persuasive tone to it. Many authors that I have read who are against religion in some form or another often take a persuasive stance and attempt to convince the audience of his or her point of view. Ironically, I don’t feel like I’m being converted when I read the Bible, but I do when I read anti-religious sentiments.

Then again, I’ve got a lot more book to cover.

Round Two

Let’s hope I pick up the pace with updates. If I continue at this rate I won’t even finish Genesis.

God was putting the final touches on his covenant with Noah…

“’I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.’” (Gen.9.13)

I had no idea what God was talking about until I read the footnotes for this passage. Apparently the “bow” God talks of is actually a rainbow. Oxford goes one step further to explain that God didn’t just have the bow for show, but used it to shoot lightning bolts (I can only guess where he got that idea from). The rainbow, however, is old news. One of the first things God did was create light and now we’re supposed be amazed at his ability to refract it? I’m more surprised he decided to paint his bow it like it came from My Little Pony. Regardless of the reasoning I can now take comfort after every rain storm: “That sure was a lot of rain, but at least it’s not a giant flood.”

Finally we can say goodbye to God for a little bit while Noah moves on to raise his family. But, if saving the human race wasn’t enough for Noah, he sets out to top himself.

“Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent.” (Gen.9.20-21)

I’m glad Noah got his priorities straight. The first notable thing he does upon leaving the ark is to invent alcohol. Not only does he invent alcohol but he gets drunk off of it and invents streaking as well. Needless to say, Noah becomes the original bro. Granted, if I were Noah I’d probably be bummed at knowing I’d never do anything as epic as the ark again which might lead me to the drink. More likely though, Noah just kept rambling on at parties about how everyone should thank him and he can do anything he wants considering. I imagine he won all the can-you-top-this contests: “You raised some cattle? I built the ark.”

What does bug me about the excerpt above is the statement that Noah is the first tiller of the soil. Apparently the narrative has already forgotten about Cain. Remember:

“Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground.” (Gen.4.2)

I knew he was cursed but I didn’t think we would deny Cain’s existence completely. In all fairness, Noah is a tiller of soil while Cain a tiller of ground. Whereas I may consider them the same, it could be like the Eskimos and their snow; they have one hundred names for it because it’s different to them.

Now, it is important to note that before Noah started drinking he had some kids. Most notable of them were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Whether or not the kids sparked the drinking, we may never know. We do know, however, that Ham was the first to stumble upon Noah naked in his tent.

“And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.” (Gen.9.22)

Upon hearing the news of their drunk, naked father, Shem and Japheth take a blanket and cover Noah up. When Noah finally comes to, he curses Ham’s son Canaan and praises Shem and Japheth for their actions.

First off, Noah was probably still a little buzzed and didn’t really mean to condemn Canaan to be a “slave of slaves”. Secondly, none of the sons bothered to put their dad in the recovery position which means they’re all at fault. And finally Ham’s only crime was being concerned for his father. To further insult him, Shem and Japheth get praised for covering up their father despite the fact Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden for covering themselves up. Even though Noah is doling out the judgment and not God, one would expect the same disposition towards nakedness as in the past.

So, with a new world to populate, Noah’s sons go about procreating in a way that would have made their pre-flood ancestors proud. The Bible captures a lot of names in the next few paragraphs so I have taken it upon myself to utilize my engineering studies to make an indented bill of materials to sort out the family confusion.

It is worth mentioning that Canaan’s legacy is collectively called the Canaanites. Also, the Bible informs us where the majority of these sons settle. For example, Japheth’s sons become the “coastland peoples” and Joktan’s territory “extend[s] from Mesha in the direction of Sephar to the hill country in the east.” (Gen.10.30)

Finally the Earth is repopulated and at this point God can sit back and effectively declare round two.

After the Flood

Where were we? That’s right. Noah had just gotten off the boat.

“’The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea;’” (Gen.9.2)

This is God’s long winded way of saying, “Everything will run away from you.” I find it interesting that this aspect of animal behavior made it into the Bible. Obviously people needed an explanation as to why all the creatures of Earth were afraid of them, and here is an answer. From a story telling perspective, it makes sense. If I were an animal on the ark that had just been saved by Noah, I probably wouldn’t be afraid of him when we all got off the ark. In fact, I’d probably want to hang out with Noah in case something else went down. Alas, since animals are afraid of humans, this excerpt needs to be in. It’s nice to see a fact of life represented in the Bible too.

Oxford informs me that after everyone gets off the boat God outlines a deal or “covenant” with Noah and, subsequently, mankind. God first outlines the things He is going to give humans:

“’Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.’” (Gen.9.3) No take-backs!

Alright, so God’s statement in the beginning of this chapter makes a little more sense now. Apparently He’s just giving all the animals a head start seeing as how we’re going to start eating them pretty soon. I’m not really sure how this is a “gift” or good deal for humans though. It’s as if God says, “Happy de-arking! Now here’s a job you have to do to stay alive.” Now, I don’t want to sound selfish, because he did get to keep his life and all, but Noah did build an ark, round up a bunch of animals and live on the ocean for a few months securing the continued existence of life on Earth. I think he deserves a better parting gift than a lifetime of chasing critters through the forest. But that’s just my opinion.

After settling Noah’s end of the deal, God asks (He pretty much tells) for what He wants in return:

“’For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man.’” (Gen.9.5)

I’ve heard it said that the “debt that all men pay is death”, but I never thought it would come from a source like the Bible. If I am to interpret this excerpt correctly, then it seems God requests that all life on Earth be attributed to Him upon death. I can also see this excerpt as the beginnings of the idea that people go to heaven when they die. If, upon death, the “lifeblood” of everything on Earth goes to God, then I don’t think it is a stretch to say that people go to heaven. This assumes that God is in heaven and not sipping mimosas on the beach in Malibu. Although the latter wouldn’t be bad either. Whether or not everyone gets to go to heaven is still up for debate.

I also wonder why God chooses the word “require”. By saying He requires the life of man, it sounds like God needs the lifeblood of man. If God is the supreme power He has always been made out to be, I don’t understand why He would need anything, let alone something from mankind. Maybe He’s just lonely.

Not to beat a dead horse (whose lifeblood would surely go to God), the above quote reminds me of a time when I was a kid. Growing up in a Christian household we would say a prayer before we ate. Although the food had been long since dead, we still made a point to “give thanks” to God. Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself, but it makes sense at this point in the Bible to think pre-food prayers are a demonstration of giving this “reckoning” to God. It seems other religions follow a similar rationale. In several faiths, animals to be eaten are raised and slaughtered in a specific manner per the tenets of the religion. Although I cannot yet speak to why kosher and halal foods are the way they are, I wouldn’t be surprised if it stems from an analogous source as this part in the Bible.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” (Gen.9.6)

God ends his covenant with Noah with this passage, a foreboding passage. With this final deal God makes with Noah and mankind, ethics and morals are being solidified. I feel like this excerpt clearly states that whoever kills a man should reciprocally be killed by man. However, God adds a layer of complexity by giving the reasoning “for God made man in his own image.” I see this rationale as having two possible meanings. First, it could be a simple reiteration of the covenant as if to say, “God would kill a man who was a murderer.” Or, the reasoning could be that God does not want men to kill because killing a man is like killing God. Both interpretations are vastly different and produce noticeable different portrayals of God. Depending on your interpretation God can seem like a hard-core vigilante or a disappointed parent. Regardless of how I interpret it, I can only imagine the verdicts and justifications for murder that have been delivered over time based on this short moment in the Bible.

While at first I agreed with this moral stance presented by God, now I begin to question it. I agree that there is a certain amount of retribution necessary for heinous acts; however, I can see how violence could be perpetuated by this thought process especially when it is difficult to see who cast the first, proverbial stone. Being a relatively grown person I have already determined many of my own ethics and morals. When the Bible challenges my developed beliefs, as it has done here, I am presented with an opportunity to change my opinion. I guess this is a reflection of the reality I was faced with from the beginning: my perspective and opinion about religion and the Bible may change during this journey. It’s still an unsettling thought, but it looks like I will encounter it in the text sooner rather than later.

I know my morals will continue to be questioned and sometimes affirmed by the text. This is a reality I know is not mine alone. If unsettling questions about one’s morals arise in the text, then how does one ultimately choose to believe in the Bible? Perhaps having a dilemma over the text is reason enough to consider another book to follow. However, there’s a lot more Bible to get through, and I can only hope the answers are in there somewhere.

I’m still wondering where all the water went…

Christian Supply

As part of a near weekly ritual, my girlfriend and I went to the movies one late afternoon. I can’t remember what it was we went to see but we had some time to kill before the movie started. As we perused the shops we happened upon one that I could not pass up: “Christian Supply”

Unbeknownst to me at the time, there are apparently supplies one should have in order to be a Christian. I thought you just got the name when you went to church and believed in the word of the Bible. From a distance I guess the store could have been an outfitter for people named Christian, but the life-size painting of Jesus holding a weak, western looking, young adult male cleared up that misconception in a hurry. Naturally, I had to go in.

If you couldn’t read, this place would feel like your average gift shop, but I soon found the subtleties that tipped the balance towards Godliness. If someone lead you blindly into this store you would feel the same as when you stumble on the Christian channel on the radio; you enjoy it until you realize what you are listening to. Unfortunately for me I couldn’t pretend that we stumbled in off the street, much to the associates’ chagrin I can imagine. I was there on purpose and I wasn’t going to leave without the full experience. I needed a souvenir.

Christian Supply had taken everything typical in a household and put a Christian twist on it, very appropriately enough; door mats with verses on them, mirrors and coat hangers with crosses engraved on or around them.  I’ll admit there were some cool paintings and clever sayings, and if I were a devout believer I probably would have enjoyed them more. The whole store was split in two halves: one for decorations and the other for literature and entertainment. I picked myself up a little magnet for my bare and lonely refrigerator.

The magnet is an old fashioned, wooden, square rigged ship and I am not quite sure why it was in the Christian Supply. There is no verse or discernable cross anywhere on the ship and it looks way too small to house every species of animal. I can only guess that a ship of this type will appear at some point in the Bible or that there will be an important allusion to a ship later on (no spoilers please). Perhaps the owner of the store really likes old ships.

As we moved from the home décor area of the store into the books, movies and kids toys section I couldn’t help but imagine this place looked a lot different in the late 12^th Century. The armor and swords are still there, but they’re made of plastic now. I guess as the times change so do the needs of a religion, but I digress.

In the “fun” section of the store we found books that had Christian themes and documentaries about the Bible. I found one kids’ movie whose main protagonist was “Bibleman”. This superhero wore bright colors and had a cross on both his gauntlets. Just looking at the hero’s name I would guess creativity hasn’t blossomed much since the days of the Bible’s inception.

Titles like “Bibleman” were an exception amongst the movies and books. For the most part, all of the books and films shared a similar theme of being timid and simple. Even if I weren’t Christian but wanted a selection of reading that didn’t involve sex or violence or drug use I could find those books in the Christian Supply shop. That being said, there were still plenty of bestsellers and recognizable titles in the store as well as less common authors.

Overall, my trip to the Christian Supply felt like going to any other gift shop. Naturally, if I were a Christian I probably would have enjoyed the store more. If anything I could find comfort in knowing there was a store that catered so closely to my beliefs. When I think about other stores I can’t think of any that have carved out a place in the market like the Christian Supply. There are men’s stores and women’s stores and sporting goods stores and electronic stores, but rarely if ever, do you see a Yarmulke hut or an Allah’s Treasures. Perhaps this is why the Christian Supply is still operating while other stores go in and out of business around it. The owners have found a need in the community and are supporting that need. While the needs of Christians are not yet my own I am kind of envious they have a store all to themselves.

Even though I don’t need a giant painting of Jesus.

Noah. He’s on a Boat.

It’s been a while since I’ve done any reading in the Bible, but I thought with the holidays approaching what better time to discuss religion than now.

If the story of Adam and Eve is the most familiar story from the Bible, then the story of Noah and the great flood is a close second. Most everyone religious and non-religious knows some part of Noah’s tale. After God tells Noah of the coming flood, He has him build a Halo to ensure humankind’s continuance on Earth…or something like that.

A couple chapters before Noah’s story we learn of the family that Noah comes from: a long line of people hundreds of years after Adam and Eve are banished from the Garden of Eden. Now that Earth is populated with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people, God realizes the majority of them are taking His landscape for granted. And if that wasn’t bad enough, the aforementioned people don’t give thanks and praise to the guy who created it in the first place.

“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” (Gen 6:5-6)

And when God is as bummed as He is here, there is only one thing He can do.

“’I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.’” (Gen 6:7)

I am continually impressed at how alike God is to man. Growing up, God was always portrayed to me as this big, potentially scary dude who always has the right answer. Not only does the above passage insinuate that God has made a mistake, but He also feels “sorry”. The regret of creation that seeps into God’s “heart” is an extremely humanistic trait. God made mankind in His image, but I feel people forget to see the other side of that statement; in creating man in His image, man is a reflection of God.  It seems very egotistical but in this sense it is easier to see how God would feel sadness, regret, and make mistakes like humans do. However, the tender image of an almost betrayed God does not persist throughout the chapter. Soon after God voices His initial disappointment with the world, he rephrases his plans a little more harshly:

“’I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth.’” (Gen 6:13)

Another irony point to goes to God here. I’m sure He could drum up a dozen ways to “blot out/destroy” the creatures of Earth, but He chooses to do it with the Earth itself. Classy. Alas, there is one man on the planet that God likes enough to keep around. Noah.

Noah is from a small branch off the family tree that goes all the way back to Adam and Eve. It turns out Noah is actually an alright guy, a “righteous” guy. God lets Noah in on His plans and guides him towards a means to survive the coming judgment.

“Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.’” (Gen 6:14-15)

God almost sounds like he knows what He’s talking about. I guess carpentry just comes naturally. Oxford informs me that the dimensions of said ark in modern measurements would be about 450 x 75 x 45 feet, in case any of you are looking into making one… In great anticipation God finally reveals his plans:

“For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven…” (Gen 6:17)

or

“For behold! I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven…”

What a difference a little punctuation makes; one exclamation point and the vengeful God turns into a villain and/or magician. In all honesty, God is abusing His “behold” privileges. In less than a page He’s used it twice, leading me to believe He is a little too proud of Himself.

After giving Noah some more pointers on the ark, God tells Noah that his family will escape the destructive flood by living aboard the boat. Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives along with at least two of every animal on Earth (male and female) will pack into the ark when the time comes. I say “at least” two of every animal because God requests Noah pack in seven pairs of what He calls the “clean” animals and only one pair of the “not clean” animals (Gen 7:2). If God doesn’t like some of the animals then why bother bringing them along in the first place? That’s like keeping an ugly friend around just so you look better. Along with the animals and Noah’s family, God request that “every sort of food that is eaten” (Gen 6:21) also be brought along. Oh yeah, and He wants it done in seven days.

What I don’t understand is if God wants to “destroy all flesh” on Earth, why is He having Noah go through all this trouble to gather up, and effectively save, all the creatures of Earth including humans? If anything, it should just be the creatures on the boat because humans are the ones that disappointed God to the extent that He planned this whole thing up in the first place. On top of all that, what about all the sea creatures? A giant flood is just like a giant party for everyone in the ocean. Something tells me God didn’t think this plan through all the way…

At the end of the week God promises Noah that He will make it rain for the fabled “forty days and forty nights” (Gen 7:4). Sure enough, after seven days it starts to rain and Noah and all the animals climb aboard the ark. And while that’s happening I am berated with repeated descriptions of what exactly is in the ark:

“And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you;” (Gen 6:19)

“Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean…to keep their kind alive upon the face of the earth. “(Gen7:2-4)

“Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean…two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah…” (Gen 7:8-9)

“They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.” (Gen 7:15)

This is uncalled for. I’ve mentioned my displeasure at the repetitions at the beginning of chapters, but I cut the text some slack. The information that is presented here, across a page in the Bible, could easily be condensed into a single, solid paragraph. Yes, gathering up at least two of every animal in the known world is impressive and could even warrant a rewording of God’s request as clarification of the vast task before Noah. But to continually repeat the word of God over and over throughout the story is absurdly distracting, frustrating, and kind of insulting. I hope I’m not crazy for thinking this.

Pardon me for simply summarizing the remainder of this story, but if the recent revelation is any indication, there is little information currently presented in the text that is worth quoting. The rains fall for forty days and forty nights as God foretold. People back in the day believed, so says Oxford, that the Earth was covered with a “firmament”, or dome, which kept waters above the Earth at bay. When God sends the rains upon the Earth in Noah’s time, the “windows of the heavens were opened” (Gen7:11) causing the massive flood and inspiring the first incarnation of Chicken Little.  I’d also like to point out that the great flood happened over forty days and forty nights, but Noah and the ark remained afloat for at least 150 days. When I heard this story as a kid I just thought the whole ordeal took place over 40 days. In all honesty that’s probably just because that’s as far into the future I could fathom at the time. How long everyone was on the boat I can’t exactly determine (the Bible is clever in its vagueness). Regardless, the waters begin to recede after about 150 days.

While we wait for the water to subside, I’ve been thinking about how the Earth is formed. In the geological knowledge I’ve obtained from the Discovery Channel I know that it is a well accepted idea that canyons, valleys, lakes etc. were formed from giant, prehistoric bodies of water in the form of glaciers, rivers and even floods. Perhaps the current landscape and its features can be explained by a Noah-esque flood. Modern science has always seemed like it is at odds with religion so I want to take any opportunity to find some common ground between them, even if it is in as sorry an example as this.

So God destroys all life on Earth with a giant flood. How then did people and animals come to live on what is now North America and South America? If there was an epic flood then there would be no life anywhere in the Americas when visitors first came over from Asia, Europe and Africa. Life could have made its way across the ocean if all the modern continents were in some sort of Pangea shape, but that would require the Earth to be significantly older than some exceptionally religious people are willing to believe. On the other hand, plate tectonics may have been faster than currently measured.

Finally the ark comes to rest on the mountains of “Ar’arat” and everyone and everything is offloaded. A quick Google maps search reveals that Ararat is in southern Virginia about an hour away from Sparta, and here I am thinking this was taking place in the Middle East. There is an Ar’arat in Israel that shows up as well and I’ve also heard the biblical mountains being somewhere in Turkey. I anticipate a post (or series of posts) about biblical locales in the distant future…

Wherever Noah actually landed he exits the ark and promptly builds an altar to God.

“The Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor…” (Gen 8:20-21)

Whoa. Are we talking sacrifices? It can’t just be burnt hair because that smells horrible. I guess there are plenty of pairs of clean animals to use for the “offerings” but it seems out of place in the Bible of a faith that I always thought would condemn sacrifices to God(s). It makes me wonder what place this story and others like it have in the book as a whole and how things that have since been labeled as savage have persisted in the text. In a response to a comment on a previous post I talked briefly about how some people view these stories as a sort of fable or “lessons learned” moment in the Bible. If this is the case then distinguishing between what is fairy tale and what is actual seems like it will be a continual challenge as I progress.

After the long ordeal, God leaves Noah with a parting reminder:

“I will never again curse the ground because of man…neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains…” (Gen 8:21-22)

“While the earth remains”? Why would God say that? He created the Earth so is it wrong to assume that He alone could destroy it? And seeing as how he just agreed to not be so destructive again in the future we can rest easy knowing Earth will be around forever.

Oh wait. He won’t destroy every living creature as He has done. So He’ll just find some other way to do it…

Classy.

The Family Tree

So Cain and his wife have a son named Enoch. The first and last thing to be described about Enoch is his own son. Nothing about Enoch’s childhood or teenage years; he is just born and then is suddenly a grown man having kids of his own. I guess there wasn’t much to do back in the day that was worth reporting anyway.

The Bible continues by simply listing off the lineage of Cain and his nameless wife. Enoch has a son Irad, Irad has a son Mehu’jael, Mehu’jael has a son Methu’shael, and finally Methu’shael has a son whom he calls Lamech. This was a long way of saying “Lamech is the great-great-great-great-grandson of Adam and Eve”. And if that wasn’t enough, I now learn about all of Adam and Eve’s other kids…because apparently they had more.

Chapter four closes on the birth of Seth; Adam and Eve’s next child. Not much is revealed about Seth other than the idea he is replacing Abel. We learn Seth eventually has a kid with another undisclosed woman and he calls the child Enosh. Real original Seth.

These chapters continue the trend of mysterious women. Not only does Seth hook up with an unknown woman, but the only women given the consideration of a name are involved someway with Lamech (Cain’s side). Lamech takes two wives (a fact that will definitely be addressed) whose names are Adah and Zillah. Both women give birth to children and Zillah bears the only named daughter: Na’amah. Nothing, yet, is mentioned of what happens to Na’amah.

When chapter five opens I am struck with yet another overlap of stories that borders on redundancy:

“When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God…When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” (Gen 5:1-3)

At the beginning of Genesis I ran into this problem of repetition. Although some information is new, the manner in which the established information is presented makes things sound like the reader has never heard of God and Adam before. I have hypothesized that the cause of this duality might be due to multiple authors over a span of time and the stories have been simply mashed together. This theory is sounding more and more like a possibility. Maybe our ancestors were just really thick and needed a lot of reminders as they read.

Anyway, let’s get back to what was just said. One hundred and thirty years old! Adam knocks up an equally old Eve at 130 years old! This was a good time for humans (minus the whole damnation and all). On top of this extraordinary age that Adam and Eve apparently reach, the Bible goes on to say that they had “other sons and daughters” until Adam kicked the bucket at the ripe old age of 930. Even without a tree of life Adam lives to be 930 years old. If immortality were given to me I’d probably die of boredom after 930 years, so I guess it doesn’t really matter that Adam and Eve never got a crack at the tree of life. Assuming Eve lived as long as her husband I think it is safe to say they got to see enough of life after exile.

Adam and Eve are not the only ones to achieve impressive life-spans. All of the men in the coming paragraphs live for extraordinary lengths of time, the youngest of them dying at the age of 777. Enoch himself smashes Adam’s record by dying at 969 years old. Why or how these fellas got to be so old I have no idea. I’m guessing all that sex and no alcohol.

What follows after the death of Adam is a long list of the generations following the first man and woman. There is no prose or plot in the page and half after Adam and Eve pass, just a list of the fathers and sons over the next several hundred years. It is an abrupt switch from the story-like mode that has established the text so far and it gives a factual tone to the writing. The text sounds like a history book at this point and I might consider it as such if I wasn’t distracted by the outlandish ages of Earth’s early inhabitants. I wonder if this shift in tone is an attempt from the text to look for credibility in the eyes of the reader. Whatever the cause, it makes for a dull couple of pages. For the sake of space and time I have a flowchart of what we learn of Adam and Eve’s lineage:

Adam > Seth > Enosh > Kenan > Mahal’alel > Jared > Enoch > Methu’selah > Lamech > Noah

The above can be read as Seth is the father of Enosh, Enosh the father of Kenan and so on.

I had to be careful in writing these passages for reasons that may already be apparent. We have already been introduced to an Enoch as the son of Cain, and Enoch’s own great-great grandson was named Lamech. In seeing the lineage of Adam down Seth’s line, there is not only an Enosh, but another Enoch entirely who has a grandson named Lamech. I guess names were scarce at the beginning of mankind. In their defense the Bible does say that each of the men mentioned above had many more sons and daughters (with unique names I would hope), but each had only one son worth textual recognition.

The book goes to great lengths to mention at least one son of each male character. There is no mention of the other brothers and sisters, just one son. I would understand if the mentioned son did something cool that was then written down, but nothing is mentioned for anyone. I am probably getting ahead of myself though. I’ll admit that I know where Genesis will take us in the next few chapters, so I wonder if the only purpose of this segment of the Bible is tell the reader where the character of Noah comes from…

Nowadays, at least in the United States, the family name is passed down through the male side of a family. It has become commonplace for the wife to take the husband’s last name in marriage. Whether or not this is a correct/ethical/moral/whatever practice is reserved for a different blog entirely. What the Bible appears to be doing in the text forming the basis for this post is creating the idea that the males form the family lineage. Although the characters in the Bible do not have any last names, or any unique, filial identifiers as far as we know, by focusing solely on the men, the text creates a family history dependent on them.

In recent years I have heard a great deal of critiques and insults thrown at Islam. The rising tension, whether apparent or not, between the West and Islam is a partial reason for my desire to read holy texts and find the answers myself. One of the critiques that western, often religious, folk have berated Muslims with is Islam’s tolerance of multiple marriages. Whether this is true or not, or to what extent Muslims practice it (I’m guessing few), I feel this is a good time to point out Lamech from a little while ago. At what can still be considered the beginning of the Bible there is a character formally engaged with two women. It is great to see something applicable to the modern argument already coming out of the text.

Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with marrying multiple women…

Another Take on Adam and Eve

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I re-discovered a quote that pertains to the whole Adam and Eve business. It may come as a surprise, but the Bible isn’t the only thing I read or have read.

Whenever I read something I find interesting for some reason or another I write it down in what has become a book of quotes. What is surprising is that I found the following quote interesting before I even contemplated this Bible reading adventure. The quote below is from Ayn Rand’s epic Atlas Shrugged:

“What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they considered perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge – he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil – he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor – he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire – he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness and joy – all of the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but his essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was – that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love – he was not man.”

Rand focuses on the way religious circles describe the story of Adam and Eve as a detrimental fall of mankind. She has an ability far superior to my own, and her insight is a welcome change of tone from my own prose. I don’t want to spoil her intriguing analysis with lesser discussion on my part, so I want to just leave this quote for your own reflection.

I know there are many authors with opinions about religion and the Bible, so I’ll keep an eye out and add their ideas when they come up.

Who knew?

Banished from the eternal play-place that is the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve did the only conceivable thing two humans in their predicament would do to entertain themselves: sex. Wow, the first thing to result from the fall of mankind is recreational copulation. I hear being the last man on Earth doesn’t guarantee any purchase in your sex life, but apparently being the first man has its perks. To be honest, I can’t say Adam and Eve just hooked up out of boredom, but it makes more sense considering the last thing I’d want after being banished to a foreign land is a kid or two. Unfortunately, the Bible isn’t even as descriptive as I am in telling of the carnal escapades of Adam and Eve.

“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain,” (Gen 4:1)

This is a potent time in the history of mankind. Apparently just knowing someone can get you pregnant. Fortunately that’s not the case now. I’ve known a lot of women in my life but I guess I never really knew them…

Adam and Eve learn a little bit about each other and the result is two sons: Cain and Abel. Cain, the oldest, is a farmer while Abel raises sheep.

“In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock…” (Gen 4:3-4)

Several aspects of this passage drew my attention. The relationship between Cain, Abel and God seems very primitive. Offerings to a god or gods have always been portrayed by history and the media as the acts of a savage culture. Although I have never heard such a portrayal from a religious representative, I feel their sentiments would be similar in regards to offerings to deities. Also, no special mention is given to the fact that the sons of Adam and Eve are giving offerings to the God that banished their parents. If, back in the time of Genesis, kids were brought up in any way like they are now, then Cain and Abel would have heard plenty of rants and raves about God over the dinner table. Eve would try to explain for the “like millionth” time how a snake talked her into things, then Adam would start mumbling his regret at having listened to mom in the first place. Eventually, dad would go on about how they apologized and God just totally over reacted…or something like that. Regardless, coming out of their parent’s house, Cain and Abel probably wouldn’t have the highest esteem for God. Why then do they feel compelled to give God an offering? I surmise, as does Oxford, albeit subtly, that the brothers do it to gain their own acceptance from God. A logical idea if God didn’t take out his anger for Adam and Eve on their kids.

“And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry,” (Gen 4:4-5)

No kidding! Of course Cain was very angry. The guy just toiled for a season to give God this offering and He doesn’t even say two words to Cain about it. Oxford pointedly remarks, “[n]o reason is given for the acceptance of Abel’s offering”. I’m glad I’m not the only one to read this passage this way. God gives no reason for his acceptance of Abel’s offering, but it also means there is no reason why God does not accept Cain’s offering. Adding insult to injury, God goes and plays dumb:

“the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted?’” (Gen 4:6)

I’ll tell you why his countenance has fallen. You cut him real deep God.

After pretending like He did nothing wrong, God either plays with Cain’s mind or reveals an element of his powerlessness. If we assume God to be the ultimate judgment in the universe then He would be the one to accept or not accept offerings. So by phrasing this fact as a question to Cain, God confuses the poor guy and subtly states Cain didn’t “do well”. Either that or God doesn’t have the power to determine if Cain has done “well”. Whoever does have that power, the Bible gives me no hints.

Jealous and frustrated, Cain lures his brother out into a field where he kills him. When God comes calling after his favorite grandson, Cain doles out an awesome retort:

“’Where is Abel your brother?’ He said, ‘I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?’” (Gen 4:9)

I would phrase Cain’s comment as the snide, “It wasn’t my turn to look after him” remark of today’s cynical youth. My mom would call this “giving lip” or “back talking” and who knew it’s practice goes all the way back to the beginning of mankind? Now I haven’t known Cain very long, but I consider him a reasonable man despite being prone to over-reacting from time to time. Cain asks God a question they both know the answer to, just like God did to Cain earlier. The spiteful remark towards God leads me to believe Cain knows He was giving him a load of crock earlier about doing “well”.

As a punishment for Cain’s actions, God puts a curse on Cain and his ability to harvest from the Earth. Cain decides he can’t live a farm-less life and chooses exile in hopes that someone someday will end his torture via death. But God doesn’t want Cain to have the easy escape from his punishment should someone kill him, so He puts a mark on Cain to remind everyone of Cain’s actions. Should anyone kill Cain heedless of the mark, then the punishment on the killer would be “sevenfold” (Gen 4:15).  Seven? Really? Okay, seems like a random number, but I’ll go with it.

“Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden.” (Gen 4:16)

I didn’t mention the following in the previous posts about the creation of man and Adam and Eve, because I didn’t find it that interesting at the time. The Bible says there are four rivers that flow out of Eden, the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris and the Euprhates. The latter two rivers should sound familiar as the two waterways surrounding the prehistoric Mesopotamia, a land archeologically revered for its abundant natural resources. The ancient area of Mesopotamia has since been replaced by many cities, most recognizable of which is Baghdad, Iraq. Although I don’t know anything about the Gihon and Pishon rivers mentioned in the Bible, I can’t imagine a better place to have the fabled Garden of Eden than Mesopotamia. The water that must have been far more abundant in ancient times would have made the Iraq area a haven in the middle of the desert. If Eden did exist somewhere around Iraq, then I can guess Cain settled near what is today Iran. As an aside, I wonder how deeply Catholic people feel about the potential of Eden being in the Middle East…

“Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch;” (Gen 4:17)

Woah. Where did this chick come from? If this is the Bible’s way of being nonchalant, then I am not impressed. I was under the impression Adam, Eve, Cain and the late Abel were the only people on Earth. There has been no mention of extra people having been made and placed on Earth by God unless it has been done in a supremely subtle fashion uncharacteristic of anything I’ve read so far. I think it is only reasonable to expect in the beginning of mankind that the narrative would account for everyone and everything. The very literal appearance of Cain’s wife doesn’t serve to increase my faith in the text. With the woman’s arrival, a pattern begins to emerge in the book; a pattern of shoddy writing that will only lead to more unsupported and unreasonable events down the road. I don’t expect the Bible to iron out every little aspect, but when it comes to the origins of the human race, I expect the argument (if not considered outright “fact”) to be a little more foolproof.

After all, this fool can get through it.

Adam and Eve. You and Me.

Be you religious or not, odds are you have heard the story of Adam and Eve in some form or another. I know I had heard it many times before reading it for myself. There’s a tree with some fruit that you’re not supposed to eat, Adam and Eve eat said fruit, God gets pissed, Adam and Eve are banished, the end. That is the story I was familiar with and I’m sure many of my peers are familiar with still to this moment. I was delighted to find out that the story in itself has a few more nuances to keep me engaged…if only to question it…

So Man was left alone hanging out with all the creatures on an unpopulated Earth. Since none of the creatures were a good enough fit for man, God decided to create him a “helper”.

“but for the man there was not a helper fit for him…and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman.”(Gen 2:20-22)

I’m sorry ladies but I feel this is the first in a long line of events that are about to unfold where you get the short end of the stick. From the get-go woman was only a helper to man. Some radicals might go as far as to say slave, but fortunately this Bible doesn’t go that far. The most I can gather about this excerpt is, at the moment of female conception, God, and subsequently man, did not consider woman his or His equal. Instead, woman is just a “helper” to man; lower, but still better than the creatures and creeping things.

Soon after the creation of woman we are introduce to the fabled serpent. As far as I can tell from my text, the serpent is never labeled as Satan or a satanic figure. The only information I am given to separate the serpent from the other creatures is that it is “more subtle than any other creature.” (Gen 3:1) The story of Adam and Eve I was always told painted the snake as a definitive embodiment of the devil. I can see how the metaphorical jump can be easily made, but I find it interesting that the devilishness is not explicitly mentioned in the holy text itself.

No special mention is given to the fact the serpent intelligently communicates with the woman. Even taking into account the evolution of cultures over the millennia I feel ancient peoples would still consider talking creatures strange. Nonetheless, the serpent convinces the woman to eat the fruit from the tree of wisdom/good and evil. When she does, she shares with her husband and they get caught by God. What follows is a tri-fecta of curses:

“cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go…all the days of your life.” (Gen 3:14)

I interpret this passage to say the snake becomes the least considered creature of them all. I think it’s interesting God condemns the snake to travel on its stomach as if before the snake did not slither in the way we are most familiar with. I like to think it was a dragon or Trogdor-like creature before its transformation.

“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing, in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire will be for you husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

As suggested in a previous post, Genesis most likely serves to explain why many things in the world are the way they are. God’s curse on the woman explains why childbirth is so painful to women. God seems to suggest that childbirth was no big deal before this fruit conundrum. Now, I have never given birth and I don’t want to challenge God’s judgment, but I can’t imagine a world where passing a cantaloupe wouldn’t be painful.

“And to Adam he said;” (Gen 3:17)

Before I go on to describe the final punishment for mankind, I want to point out that this is the first time a name has been given to the male character. Until this point our characters have just been referred to as the man and the woman, like a deleted scene from “The Road”. Anyway:

“cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life:” (Gen 3:17)

Here the text provides yet another explanation for the reasons behind why things are the way they are. Apparently mankind cannot partake in foliage as a source of food per the damnation that God has put on men and women. I find this punishment clever on behalf of God; you eat His plant and He’ll make it so you can’t eat plants anymore.

The most startling piece of information comes at the conclusion of Adam and Eve’s story when God says:

“Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Gen 3:22)

Not only does God again mention the mysterious “us”, but He recognizes man as similar to Himself. God shows a concern that man will also eat from a “tree of life” to become immortal and therefore godly. It was always my impression there was only one tree in the fall of mankind. The word “also” tips me off to the fact there are two trees in this story: one tree of knowledge between good and evil and another tree of life. It seems all people have to do is eat the fruit of said trees to become like God. I can see now why God wouldn’t want people eating his trees. He doesn’t like to share. I can’t help wondering: if God is so awesomely powerful then why did he put the trees in the Garden of Eden in the first place? It couldn’t be to tempt Adam and Eve, because I was under the impression temptation was Satan’s job. Perhaps God is compelled to put the trees there by an even higher power, dare I say. The presence of these questions leads me to wonder if good and evil, morality, and immortality exist outside of God.

Having a tree that bestows the knowledge of good and evil suggests there is a definitive line between the two. If physics has taught me anything it’s that there are few things that can be considered absolute. The story of the fall of man seems to insinuate good and evil are two of those absolutes. Banished from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve are forced to make their way in the world outside passing their ill-gotten knowledge on to their descendants. At this time I cannot say that humans still possess this knowledge over good and evil. If humans supposedly had this knowledge, why are there so many debates over ethics and morals today? At the expense of sounding cheesy and emotionally optimistic I will say humans have the knowledge of good and evil if only we can find it in ourselves (what a cuddly thought).

Although Genesis explains why things are the way they are I am upset that humanity has to endure the consequences of Adam and Eve’s actions a long time ago. Since when has the actions of one’s ancestors been reason to punish a new generation? So Adam and Eve screwed up. Punish them. If you asked me not to eat your fruit I wouldn’t eat your fruit, even if a snake started talking me into it. Especially if a snake started talking me into it. Perhaps it is my bestowed knowledge between good and evil and right and wrong that allows me to decide not to eat the fruit. Either way I would have appreciated some say in this decision.

At the end of the day, towards Adam and Eve, I am indifferent. Thanks for the knowledge. No thanks for the damnation.