The creation story at the beginning of Genesis uses the same words about all created animals and humans. The only difference is that humans are made as an ‘image of God’ and seems to get special treatment in the sense that the story (or the second chapter of the story) describes how the body was formed from dust/earth/clay and God breathed life in the body. Except for the breathing of life into the lifeless body, there are no descriptions of a spirit. If the spirit came with the breath of life, then all persons living without a spirit should be lifeless.
The idea that the descendants of Adam would have a superior spirit and therefore able to spread their genes and heritable spirit to all humanity is doubtfull. I do not know how dominant reproducers the descendants of Adam should be that they would be the ancestors of all humans living today. Genetic research does not show that a single person (‘Adam’) would be the father of all humanity. If all humans are not descendants of Adam, your suggestion seems to lead to the conclusion that there are two types of people living on Earth, those with a heritable spirit and those without a spirit. What are the practical consequences of having those two types of humans living on Earth? Is there salvation for those without a spirit? Are those with the spirit somehow superior creatures compared to those without a spirit (images of God vs. not images of God)? Should we treat the two types of humans identically?
It probably wouldn’t take very much, if they were alive 50,000-120,000 years ago, given that that’s about the best estimate for the most recent common ancestor of humans.
The point in time at which everyone in Europe who has any descendants alive today is an ancestor to all living people with European ancestry is estimated at 1000 BC ± 1000 years, so it doesn’t take very long for ancestry to mix pretty thoroughly.
I think that may be the long and short of the situation. Genesis 1-11 is not meant to be a science or history book. It’s there to show Yahweh’s ownership of both His spiritual (heavenly host) and material (cosmos) creations.
I think you may very well be right about that, but why would you suppose God gave such a precise list of generations complete with ages? I go back an forth on the question, so I’d be interested to get your take.
Very good point about how Moses was set apart from all other codes. I would add that Yahweh’s laws were given for the benefit of the people whereas other codes were given from and for the king’s convenience. He simply didn’t want to have to deal with disorder.
Not sure what you meant by slavery and race. Am I wrong in saying that even an Israelite brother or sister could be a slave? But either way here’s what I see to be the genius of Israelite slavery laws; the slave was well cared for in return for contributing to the welfare of the family by working. Quite a different story today where we support way to many people who could work but don’t. I’m not even thinking of any personal affront or angst to that arrangement. Instead I’m thinking about the person who, though perfectly able, is encouraged to do nothing producible. It’s simply not good for them. I do understand that there are many circumstances beyond the control of the one receiving welfare, that they simply can’t work for one reason or another. Obviously a different case.
I think I responded to this before, but I’m revisiting it due to subsequent comments.
I learned all the J-E-D-P stuff and wasn’t terribly impressed, in part because one of my professors, Rev. Dr. Alfred von Rohr Sauer (nicknamed “von Sauerkraut”) had compiled around twenty different analyses of the Pentateuch using the JEDP concept and collated them using colors to designate which of the redactors was responsible for what bits of the text, and jokingly called the result “my rainbow Bible” because much of the text was assigned to different redactors by different scholars, in Genesis to the point that something like a third of the text was assigned to different redactors and in Genesis 1 it was more than half the text, which a substantial amount showing that they were assigned by different redactors to one of each of the four, with sometimes single words in a clause being assigned to one redactor while the main clause was assigned to another. I wish I had a copy of that because it really does turn early Genesis into a near-rainbow! We always got a kick out of the places where each of the four redactors was credited by someone with a piece of the text.
And that led to von Rohr Sauer’s point: while the evidence for redaction is substantial, trying to figure out which redactor was responsible for what tends to be a futile attempt except in very clear instances, so the real question we should all be studying was, “What was the intended meaning of the final redactor?” – with the added point that today we regard the entire text as inspired so it is the entire text that should be studied, and breaking it into source pieces isn’t helpful, that only the intent of the final redactor tells us anything except in a few instances when the additions and changes are both clearly evident plus the times that each of the redactors lived can be ascertained.
Another professor argued that Genesis 1 - 3 only show evidence of three redactors: the one who wrote down longstanding oral accounts, one who “updated” that to fit a new situation, and a final one who tweaked it a bit to conform to the accepted theology and known texts at the time (where it’s useful to remember that they didn’t have the entire Old Testament, they just had a handful of books, so that tweaking can’t be regarded as trying to make it fit the entire Old Testament – and for someone really into esoteric studies, figuring out just which books that redactor had available could fill an entire career!)
True enough! Redaction criticism may count as a science; at any rate when conservatively applied it can be useful ( von Rohr Sauer once referred to trying to categorize every single word and assign it to one redactor or another is just mental masturbation; not one else is really interested in your activity and certainly no one else is going to enjoy it).
Absolutely! In reference to the first Creation account, I consider Moses to be redactor #1, who worked not from an oral account of the Hebrews but the Egyptian version with the goal of setting things straight for the Israelites so when they remembered the Creation account they heard from their captors the lesson that “All your gods are belong to YHWH” would immediately come to mind.
I think the next redaction was done during the united monarchy (at which point the second Creation story was added) and the final was done during the exile, though I’m not going to go into details. And that raises the interesting issue of which time is referred to with “until this time…”!
Walton gets a little “out there” sometimes, failing to see some obvious things the text is aimed at because he’s so focused on his “functional” and “temple” themes. The first Creation account actually manages to be two kinds of literature at once, the “temple dedication” Walton describes well but also what I learned to call “royal chronicle” (terms have changed so I have no idea what it’s called now), which is a type of account that relates a mighty accomplishment of a great king. Both of these use poetic prose and organization devices such as divisions of time which can be taken literally for purposes of understanding the main point but not in themselves. In both forms it is also polemic, more so in the temple dedication view because it ends up showing the entire Earth as God’s temple and every single part of it as His servant, which in the royal chronicle view the temple aspect is essentially lacking.
While looking at ancient sites, there are at least two now that are considered even older than Göbekli Tepe. One is Karahan Tepe (Breakthrough Discovery: Karahan Tepe is Older Than Göbekli Tepe | Ancient Origins) and another is Boncuklu Tarla, both in Turkey – and the latter has a temple older than the one at Göbekli Tepe by half a millennium.
At the time of Moses? I can’t think of why Babylon would have been of any impact on the Hebrews yet at that point – they would have been much more concerned with Egypt.
The next generation is a different matter; moving into Palestine put them in lands that at the very least were influenced by having a power like Babylon capable of exerting force in their new home, giving a motivation to learn as much as they could.
In Numbers 21:14, there is a quote lifted from the now-lost “Book of the Lord’s Wars.” From this, we see that Bible writers were free to draw reliable historical data from nonbiblical sources. Thus it seems Moses was able to write about historical events that occurred long before his birth by drawing upon information found in preexisting sources, all while God’s Spirit inspired him in penning Genesis.
The Law of Moses didn’t copy purity laws or sacrificial laws from Hammurabi.
One thing is for sure: Hammurabi beats Ken Hammurabi any day!
A Hebrew could sell himself into slavery to pay off a debt. He was not captured and forced into slavery by other Hebrews. He was not considered property and could not be enslaved forever. So it’s more like indentured servitude. A foreign slave, on the other hand, was truly considered property, owned by his master forever unless he was sold. They were not well cared for; the law prohibits dealing harshly only with Hebrew slaves.
There is nothing genius about slave laws. In this country many Southerners believed that slavery was a condition well suited for Black people, who couldn’t govern themselves.
Thanks rrbs…This is somewhat of an “old” (no pun intended) discussion, but interesting. One could note (if one wanted) that the Genesis version is more monotheistic than some of the others. Also it might in some ways be a refutation of the other philosophies — that is, just the creation issues. That is one discussion. As for when what version was written or recorded first— well, if Sumeria predated the “calling” of Abraham, then of course that would be “first.” But if the Genesis creation was meant to refute the other versions (monotheistic, created for a purpose and not just as food or workers for the gods or etc) — then of course it came afterwards. That sort of thing is what a refutation would be. And YHWH does not “tweak” ---- not if He is the One who did it. And yes, out of the parking lot they fled!
Looking at the meta data about the Enuma Elish and Genesis, all the points they have in common, etc. gives a false picture, I think. Try reading the Enuma Elish. It sounds distinctly foreign. The writing is rough and filled with logical impossibilities (craziness), obviously a myth. Genesis 1 (not Gen 2-3) sounds serene and reasonable in comparison.
The problem with the claim i was responding to is that it completely ignores any relationship between God and man prior to Abraham. It makes an outrageous assumption that the Christian God did not exist prior to this time and that the Jews simply copied their stories from pagan cultures.
That is very problematic and here’s why…a certain High priest mentioned in the Bible ( Melchizedek) was a priest of the God in heaven and Abraham gave tithe to him in Genesis 14!
Melchizedek was not Jewish, he had nothing to do with that culture, and yet he was a follower of the God in heaven in a society that predates the Jews by hundreds of years at least. If the Jews copied their creation stories from pagan cultures, where did Melchizadek get his from…did he also copy his belief in the creator God from pagans? Given there was no internet in those days, Abram had not been in the Canaan region before, and these two cultures were not located close (Assyria is a long way from Salem), that is a stretch. What it does in fact strongly support, is the idea that the Christian God existed around the known world at the time outside of Ur of the Chaldees from where Abram originated! This supports the tower of Babel story and completely discredits any idea of Jews copying the creation account from pagan cultures.
One notable thing about Hammurabi is that his system was the first to state that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. His image and those of other famous lawgivers appear in friezes in the Supreme Court building.
Good thoughts, also Job was thought to be set as a contemporary of Abraham, and worshiped God, though the problem is that many feel that book was also not written until a much later date, which may explain some of its anachronism.
Yes…Job is a difficult character to date as from the manner in which it appears in the Bible it suggests very early on because the topic of disagreement between God and Satan forming the opening statements of this book. That has me thinking that its very relevant to the very early stages of the plan of salvation and from here the entire story begins to unfold. Having said that, scholars also make the claim he lived at the same time as Malachi.
What we do know is that he is also mentioned by name in Ezekiel 14:14
*
20then as surely as I live, declares the Lord GOD, even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, they could not deliver their own sons or daughters. Their righteousness could deliver only themselves.
The order in which the individuals are named suggests to me that Job could have been a contemporary to Ezekiel (because Noah is listed first and clearly predates Daniel by a long time)
The Maccabean period was roughly up to about 400 years prior to the time of Christ
the israelites went into Baylonian captivity roughly 600 B.C
Abraham predates the Israelite captivity by a very long period of time…we have to also account for the 400 years of Egyptian captivity which occurred soon after Josephs time…and he was the son of Isaac…so we are now looking beyond 1000 B.C to Abraham
Encyclopedia Brittanica has the following about the book of Job
> The Book of Job may be divided into two sections of prose narrative, consisting of a prologue (chapters 1–2) and an epilogue (chapter 42:7–17), and intervening poetic disputation (chapters 3–42:6). The prose narratives date to before the 6th century BCE, and the poetry has been dated between the 6th and the 4th century BCE. Chapters 28 and 32–37 were probably later additions.
Given the contrast between the time the book may have been written, the statement in Ezekiel 14, and the nature of the story theologically, its very difficult to say exactly when he lived.
Given some later verses found in the Greek Septuagint, it is claimed that Job is a grandson of Esau.
Another interesting thing about Job, he is not thought to be Jewish by some scholars and the town of Uz is likely east of the Red Sea.
I’ve thought about the Adam figure interpretation. But it begs a question? If Adam was a actually a representation of humankind, what about Seth? Going forward, we would go all the way to Jesus deciding when, if ever, the carefully recorded lineages went from a representation to an actual person, assuming we take Jesus as an actual person.
That is a good point. What is told about the first persons in the Genesis is difficult to interpret because we do not have other sources that would tell about these persons. I assume that many of the earliest persons mentioned in the Genesis were actual persons, or at least there were actual persons behind the myths - the stories of the first persons may include so much later coloring that the stories turned to myths rather than descriptions of actual persons. What I think is probable is that the list of persons (genealogies) were not complete and the first persons mentioned got a bit too much credit for their skills - earliest known persons with certain talents were described as the fathers of all that had the same skills or profession in their family.
My interpretation is based on the belief that God left us two books, the other is the biblical scriptures and the other Nature. These two should tell the same message. If not, our interpretation of either the biblical scriptures or the Nature, or both, is somehow false. The book of Nature does not tell about ‘Adam’ as a person who lived xx’xxx years ago and was the first human and the father of all humans that live now. Instead, the book of Nature tells about an old universe and that life and also our genus is very old. This should affect our interpretation of the creation story, assuming that our interpretation of the book of Nature is not totally wrong.
I also understand God having left us with 2 “books,” spoken words and nature. Romans 1 says we ought to know God through nothing but nature, apart from His written word. That would have meant much more to the Ancient Near East because of their belief in the unity of material and spiritual. In fact, they would balk at the idea that nature and spirit are somehow two separate, independent realms. Plato pretty well put the kibosh on that idea, which in my opinion, has been highly detrimental to society. Many wonder why all the mass shootings. Well, if we understand a host of evil spirits acting on nature it becomes rather clear.
I think the spoken words are always in line with nature since it was God who created nature. The word parts are mostly settled (take that with a grain of salt), but what we know about nature is quite fluid. We now know that the earth doesn’t actually rest on pillars in a sea of water. If all one had was eyes to see (no atom smashers), their model was perfectly fine, but as we learned more about nature through scientific investigations, that model has gone through changes. I wonder what scientists 6,000 years from now will think of our cosmology. Will they find our interpretation of nature as far off as we see the Ancient Near East’s interpretation? We might like to think we’ve cracked the nature code, but maybe not.
And, yes, it is sometimes difficult to square nature with Yahweh’s words, but somehow they must align. Probably have to wait to see Jesus face to face to learn exactly how the two tie together. Hopefully later today!
