It's that time of the year...

It's final papers and coming-up-on-exams time over here. As you might guess, this will make my update schedule rather wonky. The posts will come...when they come. Hope to see you all on the other side!

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 10

Genesis 10:1-32

Summary

WARNING: Genealogical Content Ahead!

Commentary

Yes, folks, it's another genealogy. The last verse of the chapter states:

"These are the families of Noah’s sons, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood." (Gen 10:32)

And it's exactly what it says on the tin.

Essentially, in brief, Japheth's sons are many, and their sons are many, and "from [them] the coastland peoples spread" (Gen 10:5). According to wikipedia, the term "Japhetic" was used as an early reference to Caucasian people, and in the field of linguistics it was used to refer to what has come to be known as the Indo-European language group. Japheth is traditionally believed to have fathered the people in those areas.

Ham's descendants were even more in numbers. Again according to wikipedia, Ham's children were understood in ancient days to be the forerunners of East Africa. Interestingly, and somewhat terribly, it has been been suggested that the labelling of the Tutsi tribe of Rwanda as "Hamite", while the Hutu tribe was not, created the belief that the Tutsi tribe was inherently superior, and may have in part led to the genocide.

Of all Ham's descendants mentioned in this chapter, not a one is as awesome as Nimrod. Yes, that's his name, laugh it up. Nimrod is in fact cited as a great warrior, more specifically the first great warrior. He was also such a great hunter that his skills were used in comparison to other awesome things. The authors of the bible are a little sketchy on the details, but,

"[Nimrod] was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord,’ [so is whatever other awesome thing you want to compare to Nimrod's mad hunting skills]." (Gen 10:9 — Sort of.)

Nimrod is also responsible for founding Babel and Ninevah (among other cities I've never heard of). So think twice before you call someone a "nimrod". They might just thank you.

Shem's descendants are believed to have been the forerunners of the Semites. There's a bunch of names here, in the paragraph about Shem, but there's also a fascinating story contained within what appeared at first glance to be a throwaway sentence.

"To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided" (Gen 10:25).

One last time according to wikipedia (at least I'm consistent), the meaning of the phrase "in his days the earth divided" is not really certain. The article states that traditionally it has meant that his life was around the time that the whole Babel experiment failed and the languages of all people were made different and we scurried off to have crumpets or whatever it is the species does when there's a catastrophe of this nature. Also suggested is the patriachal division of the world between the descendants of Noah's sons, but I kind of prefer the first interpretation.

So. "These are the families of Noah’s sons [in brief], according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood." (Gen 10:32 — Sort of.)

Now you know!

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 9

Genesis 9:1-28

Summary

God blesses Noah and his sons, ends vegetarianism, and declares that never again will a flood destroy all life, making a covenant with Noah, and his descendants, and the birds, and the domesticated animals, and the and every animal in the ark (now every animal on the earth) to refrain from doing so. He also created a bow in the clouds to remind himself of this deal, and thus created gay pride. Or something.

Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Noah plants a vineyard, makes some wine, gets drunk, and passes out, naked. Ham sees him naked, tells his brothers, the brothers cover him with their eyes closed so as not to see the nudity. Ham, having seen the nudity, has his son cursed by Noah to be the slave of the other two brothers. Clearly Noah is a stand-up guy.

Commentary

God kicks off this chapter with a large blessing: Six-and-a-half verses long, in fact. First, Noah and his sons are told to "be fruitful, and multiply to fill the earth" (Gen 9:1). I've heard this used to defend large families here in the west, but I'd like to point out that if you're taking a literal read of the bible, things are different now. These were instructions given to four men and presumably their wives, not given to a world with over six billion inhabitants.

The next bit of the blessing is fascinating and I'm going to replicate it exactly here:

"The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered." (Gen 9:2)

This is a very strongly worded passage that suggests the dominance of humanity. What's fascinating to me is that while God condones this, and later condones a meat-eating lifestyle, that life-style is never phrased as a command. Here, we're essentially told that creatures will fear us, and we'll be able to catch them. I know there are creatures out there that don't fear humans, though, at least not yet. They're probably fish, because we don't encounter them too often.

In the next passage, we are given the flesh of everything to eat, the only exception being flesh that still has its blood (ie, uncooked). This is the first of what will be a number of very practical rules put on us by God. Uncooked meat, if you don't already know, is largely dangerous to humans.

Another interesting thing here is that the requirement for all animals to be herbivores is not repealed. So all you lions out there, cut it out. Now.

What follows this is a strong argument in favour of capital punishment, at least to the literal-minded:

"For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.
Whoever sheds the blood of a human,
by a human shall that person’s blood be shed;
for in his own image
God made humankind. " (Gen 9:5-6)

Essentially, to my interpretation, this reads that animals will not kill their own kind (what about all of the animals that do?), and neither will humans. Humans have the extra bonus of being warned not to harm a human for fear of being harmed in return. You could make the case that this is an argument for capital punishment, but as I said at the beginning of the commentary, things are different now.

We're not having population problems, for instance. I do have to wonder, though, the wisdom of a society that suggests the death penalty for murder if there are issues with population. I mean, if we had a Cain and Abel situation at this point in the story, half the male population of the earth would be gone.

At least, we come to the covenant, another very well-known story in the Children's-Bible reading circles. First, God establishes the covenant:

"As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you...that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." (Gen 9:9-11)

There's more, of course, but this gives you a pretty good idea of what the covenant is about. The snarky part of my brain first notes that it's very specific. God promises Noah and his descendents that he will never again destroy all the living flesh on the earth by flood. By flood. So as a species we're safe from global warming (haha), but we're not safe from God getting bored again and flinging a massive meteor at the planet, causing a nuclear-esque winter.

By the way, God, if you're reading this: Please don't fling a massive meteor at the planet. Thanks.

God then signifies this covenant to never again do something very specific by placing his bow in the clouds—I'm assuming this means a rainbow. It's nice little touch, a good reminder for God and for us, and it explains the origins of the rainbow.

On the flip-side from the blessings and heartwarming rainbow story, the other section of this chapter involves sordid gay sex. I'm not talking about the good kind of gay sex, not that I know much about it, but I know people who've had some so I'm taking their word on it.

Noah, being the man of the soil that he was, planted a vineyard soon after leaving the ark, and has imbibed greatly of his new concoction. Being very drunk, he lies down in his tent, and happens to be nude.

Along comes Ham, his son, who "[sees] the nakedness of his father" (Gen 9:22). Terrible, isn't it? Well, maybe it doesn't sound that way to you, but first you have to learn a little about biblical euphemism. I did a little reading on the Curse of Ham (which happens after he sees the nakedness of his father), and according to Wikipedia, the phrase "exposing" or "uncovering the nakedness" refers to having sexual relations.

So a little story about a son seeing his father naked and drunk quite possibly actually means a tale of incest and rape. Lovely. This explanation, however, makes it much easier to understand why Noah's response is to curse Ham's son Canaan to be the slave of his now doubly-blessed uncle Shem.

I was wondering about why Noah cursed Canaan, rather than Ham, but Wikipedia again has some suggestions as to why this is the case. Rashi, a well-known commentator on the Torah, explains it by saying first of all that some people have suggested these sexual relations were in fact a castration, because Ham was jealous and did not want to share his inheritance with third brother (Noah's fourth son). Noah realized what happened, and cursed Ham's fourth son Canaan to be a slave.

I'm fascinated by these small, lesser-known stories, because they bring a depth to the bible for me, an underlevel of interesting stories that breathe life into the ancient text. Your thoughts?

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 8

Genesis 8:1-22

Summary

God remembers the folks in the ark, and sets about using a cosmic blow dryer to make the earth habitable again (at least for the humans, I think the fish were disappointed). Noah offers a great many burnt offerings to the Lord, the Lord is pleased and decides never to bother with this kind of thing again.

Commentary

This author, I believe, continues from the last chapter, with a great focus put on the dates involved. "In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat" (Gen 8:4), and so on.

This establishes a fascinating timeline. From the start of the rain to the first mountaintops appearing (Ararat), we have about ten months. Incidentally I did a little looking, and a goat eats anywhere between one and four pounds of grain a day. Open up my handy dandy google calculator, using an average of 2, and we have 60-64 pounds of grain a month, times 10 and we have 600-640 pounds of grain consumed over this period.

For one goat. Doubled (or possibly multiplied by thirteen, is a goat a clean animal?), and then apply similar figures to every other similarly sized animal...

I hope this further serves to underscore the unlikelihood that a single ark carried all of the species on the planet and saved them all. Any biblically-literal ark would need to have been constructed by a time-lord (Read: "Bigger on the inside").

From here, there is a nice explanation of how Noah discovers that the water has left the earth. He sends out a dove, which finds nowhere to rest and returns. So he waits seven days—common children's bible misconception: It doesn't say he sends the dove out every day for seven days—, and sends the dove out again, this time it returns with an olive branch, showing Noah that somewhere there was land which had olive trees on it.

I don't know how hardy olive trees are, so I can't suggest whether or not they'd still be around after a world-encompassing flood, but I'm guessing it's unlikely. Not to mention how much would it have sucked if the dove found a floating olive tree and brought back a branch.

Evidently it wouldn't really have mattered much, as God tells Noah when the world is dry that he should come out of the ark, bringing everybody (including the animals) with him. Then Noah builds an altar to God, and sacrifices some of all the clean animals, and God finds the scent pleasing.

Then the Lord thinks to himself, "You know what? I'm never going to bother with this whole flooding the earth bollocks ever again. 'Cause humans just turn to evil in their youth anyway."

I'm not even kidding. There's no grand covenant here. The actual passage reads:

"And when the Lord smelt the pleasing odour, the Lord said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done." (Gen 8:21, emphasis mine)

I kind of hope I'm not the only one who's disappointed by this. It's possible the grand covenant with the rainbow happens in the next chapter, but this feels like an added extra punch in the stomach. After all that overreactive flooding, God decides never to do it again because humans are all evil anyway?

The chapter ends with God saying that:

"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night,
shall not cease." (Gen 8:22)

Which is nice, really, but just a description of the natural functions of the seasons and the planet. It's reassuring to know that God won't bother to clean house in quite this same way again, though slightly unnerving that God's reaction to the attempt wasn't a little more positive.

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 7

Genesis 7:1-24

Summary

Various numbers of pairs of various creatures, clean and unclean, animal and bird, and other things of the like are invited on the ark. Noah is very old, the date on which the flood begins is very precise, and the rainstorm lasts over a month. In case you were wondering, God shuts the door.

The rain falls for a very long time, the water rose to the point of being about 7 metres (22.5ft) over the mountains. Everything except that which is in the ark dies (and I'm assuming, you know, the fish and the aquatic flora), and this flood lasts one hundred and fifty days.

Commentary

I think we have another example between this chapter and the previous one of the multiple authors of this section of the Bible. I won't go into the four authors theory, but you can read a little something about it here. I don't pretend to be an authority on the Bible*, and I don't pretend to know how much of what said at that site is accurate academic work. You have been warned.

I'm fascinated by the further information given about how many kinds of which animals get to come on the ark. Depending on your interpretation, the difference here can be interpreted as a further elucidation on the subject or a direct contradiction.

In the sixth chapter, it's stated that:

"[O]f every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female." (Gen 6:19, emphasis mine)

The question here is whether "every" means "each" or not. It's not a direct contradiction, as written, but it's still fascinating to compare this to the directions given in chapter seven:

"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth." (Gen 7:2-3)

It's true: At least two of every kind of flesh are getting on that ark. The directions here are much more specific, and much more religious in nature. I say religious because these directions draw a distinction between clean and unclean animals, which must have been understood in the society at the time of writing, because I haven't seen other references to the state of cleanliness of an animal yet.

There is also a poetic tone to the tale in this chapter, epitomized I think in this passage:

"Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah." (Gen 7:8-9, emphasis mine)

I emphasized those words in the post because the poetic structure there, that's beautiful to me. I find the way the words roll together off the tongue fantastic, which hasn't happened too much in Genesis thus far.

Seven days later, the rain began to fall. The author here records the very date—relative to Noah's live—of the flood's beginning:

"In the six-hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened." (Gen 7:11)

There's something epic about this long, formal recitation of the date. It gives this grand story a grand feeling. I have a feeling it wouldn't feel nearly so massive if the passage read, "And then lots and lots of water came up from below and fell from the sky!" It's all about style.

The rest of the chapter is a similarly epic-feeling description of the waters rising, and the extinction of everything except those poor souls on the ark, alone in the rain.


*If you are an authority on the Bible, and would like to write a guest post on the four authors theory, please let me know in a comment and I'll be happy to invite you to do so.

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 6

Genesis 6:1-22

Summary

God begins to question the wisdom of creating a bunch of people with the capacity of evil. Their corruption and violence frustrates and disappoints God, so he decides to wipe the slate clean. He does, however, find virtue in Noah and his extended family (right up to his grand kids!), and tells Noah to build an ark, taking two of each creature and all the food they would need.

Commentary

One of the first things struck me about this chapter, especially early on, was how much God seems to like to repeat things. I think this probably comes as a direct result of the author's penchant for repeating things. The corrupt state of humanity is mentioned about 6 times in a chapter of only 22 verses. The author tells us that God is going to destroy all life, and then God himself tells Noah of that fact twice. I don't think the repetition is particularly significant, but it jumped out at me.

We find at the beginning of the chapter that God has capped the human life-span at one hundred and twenty years. I'm assuming this is sort of a maximum value, because it's very rare for humans to live that long. According for wikipedia, the longest unambiguously documented lifespan was just over one hundred and twenty-two years. I can't decide if this woman should be congratulated for living so long, or denounced for disobeying God's command. (Yes, that's a joke folks)

We also have the first mention of the Nephilim. They're just mentioned by name here, so I had to do a little digging to learn about them, as I can't read this with the knowledge that someone of the day might have had.

According to wikipedia (I'm not going to do scholarly research for these posts, I'm sorry), the Hebrew word for "Nephilim" may have one of a few different meanings. Some posit that the word means "those who cause others to fall", because people's hearts would fall when they saw them. This ties into the implication that the Nephilim were warlike, given in Genesis,

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwards—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown." (Gen 6:4)

It's possible, in my opinion, that this is a nod to the heroes of Greek myth, but regardless the Nephilim are described as being warriors of renown. Another interpretation of the Hebrew word translates it as meaning "wonderous", which fits the perception of them being great heroic figures.

There's an interesting overreaction, as I see it, in God's reaction to the evilness of humans. Granted, God sees that humans at this point are naught but evil, as shown in the following passage:

"The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5)

The passage, by the way, wins the "most awkward sentence ever" award, at least thus far in the bible. The overreaction, though, comes about from God's disappointment in creating all living things, and he decides to "blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with creeping things and birds of the air, for [he] was sorry that [he had] made them." (Gen 6:7)

It strikes me as the kind of reaction a melodramatic teenager might have to creating something he didn't like. Chalk another piece of evidence up for Old Testament God as a melodramatic teen.

God's teen angst sobers, however, when he appoints Noah to not only survive this blotting out, but to save every living thing that would need it as well. Then this fascinating narrative is interrupted by a plan for an ark.

Using the Google unit converter, I will now convert the measurements given for the ark into metres (with feet in brackets for the metrically challenged), as has been done before, so we can marvel at how ridiculously unlikely this scenario is.

Length: 300 cubits, 137.16m (450 feet)
Width: 50 cubits, 22.86m (75 feet)
Height: 30 cubits, 13.72m (45 feet)

For reference, the average height of a giraffe is 16-20 feet, or 5-6m. If we equally space the three floors, the giraffes probably had to be open to the elements. Poor giraffes. Regardless, I find it unlikely that two of every creature in existence, plus all of the food they needed and the same for Noah and his family would fit within approximately 44,144 m³ (1,518,750 ft³). It would be an undeniably giant boat, though.

I mean, huge.

Edit: I'd like point out that my intent here was to make the idea of a literal flooding of the entire world and a literal ark holding every creature to survive said flood is ridiculous.

There are possible interpretations which align with a very massive flood in the Middle East at around this time, and one of my friends pointed out that the very large animals are unlikely to be in the part of the world wherein they would need saving.

Just So You Know....

According to this wikipedia entry there are 1,189 chapters in the bible.

I hope to see you all in July 2012. If I get to the final chapter of Revelation, that is, and keep a mostly-daily schedule

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 5

Genesis 5:1-32

Summary

The first sentence of this chapter is "This is a list of the descendants of Adam" (Gen 5:1), and the chapter is exactly what it says on the tin.

Commentary

I've got a feeling this is going to be a pretty short post, so if I write this up in under half an hour, I'll make up one of the days I missed with an extra chapter today.

The first few verses reiterate that humankind was made in the likeness of God, and was created to be both male and female. I personally like this, because if you read it with the right thoughts in mind, it could mean that God is both male and female. I personally tend to the interpretation that God transcends gender and sex.

The next few verses describe a few facts about Adam, notably that he became the father of Seth at youthful age of one hundred and thirty. Say what you will about my use of the word "youthful", because after this Adam lived another eight hundred years. After these nine hundred and thirty years, he died.

There's also a very interesting phrase used in reference to Adam as the father of Seth,

"When Adam had lived for one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth." (Gen 5:3)

I find this interesting because it's almost the same as a passage from the first chapter,

"So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27)

Adam's experience is referred to in the passive voice, he becomes the father of Seth, whereas God actively creates humanity. I find an interesting separation between humanity and God here, but maybe I'm reading a lot into a little passage where similar words were used merely for effect.

Regardless, the discussion of image that came about in the post on the first chapter still applies here. This passage could be a primitive attempt to explain why human children look like their parents, or a subtle discussion of the tendency of parents to imprint more than physical attributes on their children.

I have to admit this at some point, and this is a good a point as any: I am enjoying this process greatly. It's an amazing piece of writing that can make me think and write at such great length over a passage a sentence or two long. Anyway, back to Seth.

Seth became the father of Enosh at the age of a hundred and five, had other sons and daughters (none of whom were worth mentioning by name?), lived for another eight hundred and seven years, and died at the age of nine hundred and twelve.

This pattern continues a few times, almost word for word with various names and ages plugged in, until we get to Enoch, the son of Jared. This quick description of his ages at points in his life is the same, but there's also a declaration that

"Enoch walked with God for three hundred years after the birth of Methuselah" (Gen 5:22)

Not only that, but God took Enoch after three hundred years, making him "no more". The word choice here is very important, because it's different from all of the rest. With each blurb on these people, the words "and he died" come right at the end. Not so with Enoch. The final sentence about Enoch reads

"Enoch walked with God; then he was no more because God took him." (Gen 5:24)

We may have the first hint of people going to heaven right here. If there had been various euphemisms for death sprinkled throughout the chapter, I wouldn't have seized on this one here, but this is the only one that's different.

Enoch's son Methuselah had a son, and Methuselah's son's name was Lamech. Does that name sound familiar? It should. It's mentioned in chapter four, but in that chapter he's a descendant of Cain, not Seth. This marks for me an interesting difference, of competing claims to Lamech. It's possible that each family named a descendant Lamech, but I'd have to know how common a name it would have been.

As I consider it, I think I like that interpretation. Cain's Lamech was responsible for the sons Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain. On the other side, Seth's Lamech was responsible for a somewhat better-known guy named Noah, who was, according to Lamech, supposed to "bring [them] relief from [their] and from the toil of [their] hands" (Gen 5:29).

Ouch. I mean, I suppose technically drowning would release you from your work, but talk about a twisted fullfilment of prophecy. But I'm skipping ahead.

In true genealogical fashion, the chapter ends by telling us that Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 4

Genesis 4:1-26

Summary

Adam and Eve have two children, Cain and Abel. This doesn't work out very well. God doesn't like Cain's offering, Cain gets a little depressed and kills Abel to feel better. Bad idea. Cain is cursed to wander the earth and become the first emo kid. Or something like that.

Cain settled in the land of Nod, then had a kid, who had a kid, who had a kid, who had a — you get the idea. His great³ grandson Lamech appears to have also committed murder (maybe it runs in the family?) and laments that his punishment should be eleven times worse than Cain's.

Leaping back to Adam and Eve, they bore a third son (Do over!) and named him Seth. Seth also bore a son named Enosh, and then people begin to "invoke the name of the Lord".

Commentary

I'm mostly intrigued by how much gets glossed over very quickly in this chapter. Unlike some stories, it tells what happened, but it tells very little of how it came to pass. Take this for example:

"Cain said to his brother Abel, 'Let us go out into the field'. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him." (Gen 4:8)

That's it. One verse, two sentences, and in them Cain and Abel go out into the field and Abel is murdered. I find myself wondering, at this point, what this exchange would have been like. Did Cain rant and rave with anger before killing Abel? Was it cold, purposeful, quick? Did Abel beg for mercy, or try to reason his brother? Who knows. All we got was two sentences.

If we look a little earlier, I have to harp a little on God again. Abel kept sheep, and Cain tilled the ground. Each of them brings an offering to God, Abel of his first sheep, and Cain of his harvest ("The fruits of the ground" Gen 4:3). Now God must be some kind of carnivore, because the sheep are accepted as an offering, but Cain's plants are not.

This directly leads to Cain being angry (understandable, I think), and the Lord admonishes him, saying,

"Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, and you must master it." (Gen 4:6-7)

If I understand this correctly, Cain brings an offering which God does not regard, Cain is frustrated about this, and God tells him "If you had done well, I would have accepted you": All without in any way describing to Cain what he wants.

Yes, we can we assume that these explanations have been given off-screen, if you will, but that seems like academic and theological laziness to me. Admittedly, none of this excuses murder, but it maybe explains it a bit.

For the murder of Abel, Cain is cursed so that he will not be able to till the fields any longer, and must instead wander the earth. God also forbids that anyone kill Cain, imposing a seven-fold vengeance on anyone who did so. This punishment is clearly extremely effective, as Cain leaves the presence of the Lord, goes east, and settles in Nod. Wanderer indeed.

There must be a lot of birthing going on that isn't mentioned, because nobody mentions the birthing of women* and the early humans seem to be able to find wives and have more babies. Cain knew his wife (yes, in the biblical sense), and there were a number of single-child families. Didn't they know you need to have more than one child if you want to populate the earth?

*I would like to point out that Lamech's wife Zillah bore Tubal-Cain, who had a sister named Naamah. I did notice.

There are a few named people of note: Jabal, the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock; Jubal, his brother, the ancestor of those who play the lyre and pipe (who knew my guitar talents were genetic?); and Tubal-Cain, who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools (apparently he wasn't the ancestor of those who used them, though). I'm amused by the thought of everyone who lived in tents with livestock coming from the same ancestor, but this probably is referring to a specific group of people, I just don't know who.

Adam and Eve, at the end of this chapter, receive a third son, because their first murdered their second and had to leave home. They name him Seth, and the poor guy gets almost no publicity at all, apart from being the son who was born because the first two didn't work out so well. If I feel for anybody in this chapter, it's Seth.

Seth also had a son, named him Enosh, and then "people began to invoke the name of the Lord" (Gen 4:26). Those are the last words of the chapter, and there's not much there to suggest exactly what that means, except that possibly the Lord is finally getting a little press for all the creation he's been up to.

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 3

Genesis 3:1-24

Summary

In this chapter the serpent is mean, and God is arguably more so. Also, the implicit argument against the seeking of knowledge.

Commentary

I hate this chapter. It frustrates me on many levels, and I struggle to find anything I support within it.

It's the chapter in which a serpent tricks the woman into eating from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which God had forbidden. Incidentally, it's fairly easy to draw comparisons between God and a particularly frustrating and poor parent in this chapter.

The serpent is described as being "more crafty than any other wild animal". I'd say it's pretty crafty, given that it seems to be able to speak. Now, I know it's representative of the temptation to sin, but this also provides me with some frustration.

What is the sin? The seeking of knowledge that had been forbidden by God. Already we have an argument that in one stroke suggests we should blindly obey authority and that seeking knowledge is wrong and dangerous.

It gets better. When God discovers the mistake made by his two children, he throws a fit of epic proportions. The serpent is cursed to walk on its belly and eat dust. As an origin story, one out of two facts is, well, pretty poor, actually. Good effort, though. It also necessitates a deus-ex-machina enmity between serpents and humans —Oddly enough, I think this is the first time I've ever referred to God as a deus-ex-machina.

If you thought the punishment for the serpent was bad, wait until God gets to his own children. I don't know how long the pair have been around for at this point, but given the naïvete I would assume not too long, so I'm considering them to be effectively children.

For the crime of being curious, after being told not to eat something because they will die (a jedi half-truth at best), the woman is punished by pains in childbirth and desire for her husband who will rule over her. I'm going to leave the feminist arguments alone, because I know a lot of women, and I'm sure they'll be happy to cover it for me.

The man is cursed (for "listening to the voice of his wife", no less!) to toil in the earth to eat for his entire life, an earth that will bring forth thistles and thorns, and to otherwise generally be miserable for the rest of his life.

Let's draw a quick parallel here. Lets say when you were five, your parents told you that you couldn't eat those tasty cherries, because you would die. Then somebody crafty tricks you into eating the cherries and you don't die, but instead you get kicked out of the house to toil the earth for the rest of your life. It's kind of terrible, isn't it?

The rest of this chapter is a weird bit that feels almost straight out of Stargate. First God says, to an invisible audience,

"See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Gen 3:22, emphasis mine)

Wait, what? Who is the "us"? I thought God was the only one. If it had just been "man has become like us", I might have been able to attribute that to the royal we, but "one of us" can't help but imply there being more than one.

Secondly, after getting over that shock, God casts humanity out of Eden because now we know too much. We're like God, we might learn the secrets of eternal life. It's not until much later in the bible that we get offered that one.

I still have some serious issues with the litany of overreactions and terrible things God does in this chapter. It's right up there with the killing of every Egyptian firstborn, to me. Anyway, my readers and commenters, enjoy yourselves, but remember to be courteous to all posters.

Aaaand We're Back

Hi Everybody!

Sorry about the delay in posting. I got hit with a frustrating virus of some kind that blocked my signing into sites like Blogger.

I have reformatted, and we're back and ready to go. Expect Chapter 3 of Genesis sometime tomorrow.

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 2

Genesis 2:1-25

Summary

In this chapter, we have the end of the first creation story, wherein God rests on the seventh day, hallows it, and oddly enough does not seem to see that everything was good (but I'm pretty sure it was).

Then there is a second account of creation, which much more emphasis placed on the creation of man (yes, I said "man" for a reason). After creating man from the dust, God creates the multitudes of animals and birds, so that the man won't be alone, and the man names them all. Unfortunately no partner appears, so God puts the man to sleep (the first ever anaesthesia), yanks out a rib, and creates a woman, so called because she came out of the man.

Commentary/Personal Thoughts

Ask most people with a very casual relationship to the Bible (or none at all), and they'll tell you that there is precisely one creation story at the beginning of Genesis. I have a secret for you: They're wrong.

The second chapter of Genesis, oddly enough, begins with the end of the story from the first chapter. I'm not sure why this is. I don't think the early writers of scripture were particularly interested in cliff-hanger endings, but there it is. If there are any old-testament scholars in the audience who might know why this got arranged this way, please, let me know.

After the end of the first creation story, we have the second. It's different story, and you can tell because the order in which things get created gets messed with.

"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Another Account of the Creation

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up...then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:4-7)

According to this account, "man" is created before even the plants and trees, and this is all on the same day he created the earth and the heavens. Clearly a different version.

One of the most fascinating things about this whole chapter, for me, is the intentional placement of the garden in Eden — not the Garden of Eden, the chapter just says that "God planted a garden in Eden, in the east" (Gen 2:8).

The chapter situates the garden at a place where one river splits into four, or possibly, according to some scholars' translations, where four rivers meet. The four rivers are the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. If there are any Old Testament scholars in the house who have read the original Hebrew, feel free to jump in on this.

One of the issues with this placement is that the Tigris and Euphrates do not become a single river if you follow them back to the source. In fact, these two rivers join together just before flowing into the Persian Gulf. See the map I've linked to here. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

One of the other issues is that no scholars are quite certain which rivers are the Pishon or the Gihon. It should also be noted that only one other major river joins with the Tigris and Euphrates, making it difficult for the garden to be a confluence of four.

The last subject of interest in this chapter is one I'm sure we'll be touching on quite a bit: The treatment of women in the Bible. Sadly, this chapter has a sequence in which woman is created from man by God to be the helper of man. I say sadly because this amongst other scriptural references is often used to suggest the inferiority of women, which I personally find quite offensive.

There are a couple things I find interesting here. In the translation I'm using, it is the man, not God, who declares to be called "woman" because she was created from the man's rib. It's true, God doesn't correct them, but the writers do not ascribe this naming to God.

Another interesting implication is that it appears, at first glance, that God failed in his first attempt to create a partner/helper for man. God creates all the living things, all beasts of the field and birds of the air, and prefaces this by saying "I will make him a helper as his partner" (Gen 2:18), and yet no partner appears. It is only after God removes a rib from the man and uses this to create a woman that the partner is found.

Right at the end of the chapter, there's a cute little "birds and the bees" moment, when it is explained that after a man leaves his parents, he finds a woman that he loves very much, and if she loves him very much they become husband and wife and "cling" together and become "one flesh".

Just in case you were wondering about that whole sex thing. Now you know.

The Tigris and Euphrates rivers

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 1

Genesis 1:1-31

Summary

The first six days. The creation of, in order; Light, Night and Day, a Dome to separate the waters from the waters (Called "the Sky"), Dry Land¹ (Called "Earth"), Seas², Vegetation, the Sun, the Moon and Stars, Sea Creatures, Birds, Living things upon the Earth, and finally Humankind in God's image.

Humankind are given instructions to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it, to have dominion over the other creatures, eating only veggies, while animals eat only green plants, which kind of narrows it down, I guess.

Personal Thoughts/Commentary

You might noticed I put a couple reference notes in my very brief summary of all things God cooked up in the first six days. I'll get to them in a minute. First, I want to talk about the very first verse in the whole giant library that is the Bible.

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1)

I've emphasized the "the" because a theologian that I know, who also knows Hebrew, has suggested to me that a better translation might be "In a beginning," which kind of changes the whole meaning behind, well, pretty much everything from here on out.

Personally, I like the second translation. It appears to thwart some of the suggestion that humanity is the centre of the Universe, which might be reassuring to some, but I think of that vast expanse and wonder if we're any more central to the Universe than any other life that might be out there. It suggests that our beginning is not necessarily the beginning, the only beginning, but it doesn't deny that our beginning is important to us.

I drew attention the "creation" of Dry Land and Seas because of some fascinating language in the passages which suggest they were more discovered or revealed than created.

"...the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." (Gen 1:2)

This passage, reading it alone, suggests that the water was already there, albeit covered in darkness. There's another passage that backs up this assertion as well.

"And God said, 'Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so." (Gen 1:9)

This could be read in a couple of ways. It's possible that God pulled all the water into low places that didn't yet exist, and then created land in the empty spaces. It's also possible that beneath the waters beneath the sky there was already land, and the water just needed a push to rush into the low places to reveal it. It's possible, I think, that what was really being created here was gravity.

Towards the end of the chapter, there's an oft-quoted passage, usually used to suggest that humans are special.

"So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27)

It would be very special to be created in the image of God. What does that mean, though? The language throughout this chapter is quite artful. The phrase "And it was so" accompanies everything that God says, and at the end of each day God saw that what was created was good. It's very tidy and intentional, but the interpretations for some of the early bits (like I've shown), require some interpretation.

Why should this passage be any different? A very literal interpretation of the phrase "in the image of God he created them" would be that humans are made to look like God. This interpretation would challenge the all-to-common perception of God as male, if it didn't more often suggest that women are somehow inferior, because they are made in God's image but somehow got the gender wrong.

An interesting definition of "image" found using the Google definition feature provides the idea of an image as an "iconic mental representation". This is very interesting, because it suggests that if this idea of an image is used in the interpretation of scripture, it means we are created to reflect the iconic representation of God; A representation which is up for discussion and debate.

For me, however, the iconic representation of God is of the Creator. I see that reflected in people, always writing, thinking, drawing, singing; always creating.

Getting Started

A little bit of an introduction. I'm a University student, liberal Anglican (verging on heretic), working on finding my own spiritual center and understanding my faith and my beliefs.

So, you know, just the small stuff.

I've discovered over the years that I'm not a huge fan of religious extremism of any sort, to put it lightly, and the belief in purely literal interpretations of the bible tends to frustrate me as well. This has, I think, led me to shy away from scripture in general, and from using scripture to defend of my faith in particular.

I've noticed, however, that this puts me at a great disadvantage when discussing matters of faith and belief with the people who put a little more stock in the bible than I do, as they tend to know the works better.

This blog is not for everybody, I'm sure. My snarkiness and flippancy will come through, and this is a topic which is dear to many people, and I could see some being offended by my comments on various pieces of scripture. I want those people to know that I do not do this to offend them. Humour, especially dry, sarcastic humour, is a way I deal with difficult issues.

My goal is to deal with a significant portion of the Bible a day, starting from the beginning and moving through to the end (funny, that). This will usually be a chapter each day, but possibly more or less depending on the length of the chapters involved: Probably more than one a day in the psalms.

I am well aware that this is going to take years, but hey, it's the journey that matters, right?

I will be using an online version of the Annotated NRSV. I'll be providing a link to the exact page I read when I provide here my summary and thoughts on the passages.

Next Post: Genesis 1