Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
Many commentators note that the lineage of Cain in Genesis 4 is followed by a genealogy of Seth in Genesis 5 and compare the two lines, treating Cain’s line as godless and Seth’s line as godly. This particularly appears, for …
When you think about it the book of Genesis underpins most of the theology that we adhere to today. So this week I have…
In Genesis 4:19-22, we read a short account of some of Cain’s decendents:
Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes. Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.
It’s noticeable right away that this line is very inventive. They’re seemingly credited for:
Possibly also the line is the first to build a city (Cain v. 17) and take two wives (Lamech, v. 19).
Given that the line starts with Cain who murdered his brother and who lives under a curse, and ends in this section with Lamech who is also a murderer, what is the author’s purpose in noting the inventions that came from Cain and his decendents? Is the author trying to somehow ameliorate their reputation? Or perhaps tarnish the their inventions by linking them to their character? Simply recording the history of a few items? Or something else?
The account of the first six days of creation as found in Genesis 1 is highly stylized, though with variations. For instance, each day ends, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the (n)th day.”
One variation that jumps out pertains to the statement, “And God saw that it was good.” This phrase is present on each of the first six days, except that it is peculiarly absent on the second day. I do note that on the third day this statement appears twice, with its first appearance being after what feels like a continuation of the separation of waters begun on the second day. It’s absence is conspicuous enough, though, that it feels intentional on the part of the author. But what was the author trying to convey here? Why omit this otherwise repeated refrain?
Genesis 11:31 states: וַיִּקַּ֨ח תֶּ֜רַח אֶת־אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֗וֹ וְאֶת־ל֤וֹט בֶּן־הָרָן֙ בֶּן־בְּנ֔וֹ וְאֵת֙ שָׂרַ֣י כַּלָּת֔וֹ אֵ֖שֶׁת אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֑וֹ וַיֵּצְא֨וּ אִתָּ֜ם מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֗ים לָלֶ֙כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ עַד־חָרָ֖ן וַיֵּ֥שְׁבוּ שָֽׁם׃: “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law the wife of Abram his son; and they left together from Ur Kasdim to travel to the land of Canaan and they came until Charan and they dwelled there.”
My question is why was Terah heading towards Canaan? There had not yet been any commandment for Abram to go to Canaan and Canaan was not yet the “holy land.” Nor was Canaan their home country or a place where they had relatives.
I can think of an answer to this question based the Jewish Oral Tradition. Is there a way to explain Terach’s attempt to travel to Canaan based solely on the text?
The ESV renders Genesis 31:42 like so (emphasis mine):
If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been on my side, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God saw my affliction…
There seems to be some significance to the east in the Scriptures.
The garden is planted in the east of Eden
Cherubim are stationed on the east side of the Garden of Eden
Parts of the burnt offering are to be thrown to the …
My (literal) thoughts on Genesis 1. Genesis 1:1-2 was presented prior to the active creation of the natural world. The foundation laid in these…
Jewish Division, 1. Law (Torah) – Pentateuch, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy. http://andnowyouknowmore.blogspot.com 2. Prophets (Nebhiim), A. Former Prophets. Joshua, Judges, Samuel &…
Genesis 2:4:
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.(ESV)
(BHS) אֵ֣לֶּה תֹולְדֹ֧ות הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּיֹ֗ום עֲשֹׂ֛ות יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃
I’m wondering what “these are the generations” refers to. Is it meant as a summary of what precedes it or as an introduction to what follows it?
I’m also not sure what תֹולְדֹ֧ות (tolədôt; ESV, “generations”) refers to in this context. Other translations use “account,” which is clearer but makes me feel like I’m not quite understanding the plural sense of
אֵ֣לֶּה תֹולְדֹ֧ות (ēlleh tolədôt) nor the connection with the basic meaning which apparently has something to do with descent/ancestry.
It is sometimes depicted that the basic argument to read “the creation story” (Genesis 1) as a non literal story are modern science and the evolution theory. But I believe that the biggest problem with a literal view is in the text itself. More specific in the differences between the “creation stories” in Genesis 1 and 2.
Vegetation created:
God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds
according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it
according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation –
plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing
fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was
good. (1:11)
Human created:
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our
likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of
the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move on the earth.” (1:26)
No vegetation:
Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of
the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain
on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. (2:5)
Human created:
The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living
being. (2:7)
Vegetation created:
The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he
placed the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees
grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good
for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil were in the middle of the orchard.) (2:8-9)
All quotes are from the NET Bible.
Is there a way to make a strong argument that both those stories are to be read literally (as if it was written by a modern historian)? How could those different accounts be merged?