Possible hidden message in Genesis 5?

(Connor Mooneyhan) #1

Hey guys. I was browsing YouTube yesterday for interesting opinions on the Bible, and I found one short video particularly interesting: https://youtu.be/iU5KxXTxOws

This is a very intriguing possible interpretation of the genealogy in Genesis 5, and I think there is definitely something to be said for it, but I am skeptical. I checked the meanings of the Hebrew words used for these names, and the meanings he gives in the video certainly seem to be accurate. So for you people who have lived longer than me and are wiser than me (which is quite possibly all of you), what do you think about this? Is it right for us to draw this prophetic understanding (it seems to be an eisegetical interpretation) out of Genesis? Even further, would the Jews that Moses was writing to have understood it this way?
Blessings to you all!

(Jim Lock) #2


Generally I’ve learned to very carefully approach any video that ends with ‘SHOCKING,’ ‘AMAZED,’ ‘REVEALED,’ etc. I can’t speak with much authority about this particular topic and perhaps this is a cool little thing that God hid in the text. However, I doubt it.

a) Jesus is never recorded as having pointed to this passage. As He is establishing his kingdom and getting everything in order, this would be a pretty easy prophecy to point out. But he doesn’t, which begs the question what was its purpose then? Okay, so perhaps there were other passages that Jesus didn’t point to which perhaps obviously do point to Him, which brings me to my 2nd point.

b) Translation is REALLY tricky. I randomly picked Methuselah and you can also translate that name as “Man with a Javelin.” Of course, this doesn’t fit very neatly with the preacher’s message.

c) Finally, and I’ve referenced this elsewhere so I apologize for the repetition, but is ‘bringing comfort’ the point of Jesus life and death? At the moment I’d say that I wasn’t so sure. Once again, see N.T. Wright.

In short, it looks cool but worth the same skepticism you would bring to a person predicting the end times based on a similar approach to scripture.


(Mazrocon) #3

Hey Connor.

I’ve watched this same video several months ago and was blown away. However, I’ve recently become skeptical of it. Michael Heiser gave the following point: "There is no New Testament passage, anywhere, that would used this Genesis 5 interpretation as giving a prophecy for the Messiah. While Chuck Missler, most certainly wouldn’t claim that he’s inspired by God, the logical conclusion would be that he is… Because Paul and Jesus make no mention of this phenomenal “prophecy hidden in the genealogy”.

I believe Carol Hill from ASA (american Scientific Affiliation) wrote a great article about interpreting the Bible, which she calls “The Worldview Approach”. She reads the early chapters of Genesis as actual history, but filtered through the lens of the Ancient Hebrews who are writing it. Like one might suggest that the people in Genesis 5 were real flesh-n-blood people, but that their ages were exaggerated (possibly following a tradition of their neighbors that make their ancestors have really long lifespans). Perhaps it’s also true that their are generation skips between the patriarchs (as can be clearly seen in Matthew’s Genealogy). Perhaps the flood miraculously took place, but it didn’t incase the whole planet.

Maybe Adam and Eve are true people, but there were other people living at the time too (for instance, Leviticus condemns incest as wicked, but if Adam and Eve are the sole original pair that means God brought about humanity through incest… Which has an inkling of inconsistent morals).

The problem with over-allegorizing people in Genesis 1-11 is that one has now real basis for when the mythological people end and the historical people begin (the book of Chronicles and Luke’s genealogy makes no such distinction).

The advantage of Worldview approach is that sees the Bible as being Truth, while also taking into account we are dealing with very ancient documents: what’s contradictory or false in how we write things is not the same sorta of contradiction as would be perceived by Ancient Hebrews.

I view Genesis 1 as poetry that describes history. All of it literally happened. But the chronological order, and timeframe were not the sole focus. In the same sense that the poem In Flanders Field describes events about World War I, we read like it is… A poem. But we DON’T discount the historical events it’s discussing. Much like Exodus 14 describes the historical event of the Exodus through the Red Sea, Exodus 15 immediately follows a song/poem describing that same event. But using language like “God’s right hand” and “the blowing of his nostrils”… It does not mean we disregard the Exodus as myth.

It is in this I believe people make too big of a distinction between history and poetry. As if one describes objective fact and the other describes “abstracts not rooted in reality”.

Your friend,

(Henry Stoddard) #4

I do like your statement above. I believe Genesis 1-11 are literal. This does not mean that God has revealed to us the whole book of life there, however. The ages do not disturb me, and I feel they are true as well. Perhaps there weren’t all the sicknesses then that later generations experienced. I still say that the Deluge of Noah was a local flood in Mesopotamia. If it were not, where did Noah’s descendants find their mates. We would have the Cain problem again if there were only eight people in the world. I saw an old book put out by Christian theologians by Reader’s Digest when I was an undergraduate at Old Dominion in the 1970’s. It stated that they believed the flood was in Mesopotamia and showed the layers of flood strata there. Perhaps God destroyed one civilization on earth due to evil much as he did in Sodom. It is not impossible scientifically or theologically. God bless.

(Barry D Shaffer) #5

If it were only a localized flood, how does one explain the fossilized shells and other sea creatures on the highest mountains?

(Christy Hemphill) #6

Tectonic plate theory. :slight_smile:

(Barry D Shaffer) #7

BThanks for your response, Christy. I would agree that the tectonic plate theory is the reason, however, likely disagree about what caused said plate movement. When one considers that theory, there are many questions which are not answered when a slow, gradual movement is assumed. However, when one considers the possibility of a worldwide flood which would have caused catastrophic, accelerated movement in the plates, those questions are more adequately answered. I have attached a link to an article that explains it better than I can. Thanks and have a great day! Here is the article link referenced above. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/can-catastrophic-plate-tectonics-explain-flood-geology/

(Christy Hemphill) #8

Honestly, I don’t trust anything Answers in Genesis publishes. They have a long history of misrepresenting science. if you find it satisfactory, more power to you.

(Victor) #9

There is a much simpler biblical answer than plate tectonics. The Bible repeatedly states that the Earth (and the plural heavens) spread out in unbroken continuity. We confirm that galaxies spread out from tiny, naked globs in visible cosmic history (at many ranges). Also, the continents fit together on a minuscule planet.

  1. On the second day, God continues to command a spreading atmosphere (raqiya shamayim) to continue to spread out between the waters above the spreading atmosphere and the waters below the spreading atmosphere. Day two uses the noun of the verb to spread out (the thing that spreads out) five times. Proverbs 8:28 explains that the water above was a solid cloud like structure. It also tells us how it got there: when the geysers of the deep were powerful. Day two is the only day that God did not say what happened that day was good. When the ice came down, it was not a good day.

  2. On day three, the surface of the ground appeared for the first time. Notice that the word seas is plural yet they are all gathered into one place. The only way you can do that is for the water to seep underground (one place). The Hebrew for land is singular, a single continent. Indeed the continents fit together on a minuscule planet without any of the modern surface oceans which continue to spread out along a global, active, volcanic expansion seam.

  3. Genesis 2 plainly tells why why there were no dessert plants in the garden era. Water came up out of the ground to water the entire face of the Earth. Indeed, we find thick layers of chalk, limestone made of marine fossils only on the continents. During the global cataclysm, the sub crustal seas broke up causing the waters to rise for 150 days after the rain stopped. Where did the water go that covered the highest hills by 15 cubits? Wide valleys opened up to accept the water as the mountain concurrently arose (see Psalm 104). Indeed, two different geologies exist. The dense volcanic modern seas are entirely unlike the continents that are covered with billions of tons of marine fossils.

The oceans continue to spread out between the rooted continents as the Earth continues to grow. What causes this? The Biblical God claims to continue in unbroken continuity to lay the foundation of the Earth (Zech 12:1). The last continents to separate were North and South America from Europe and Africa. This did not happen until the days of Peleg, one of Noah’s great, great grandsons.

Ancient people lived for vast geological ages. Job 14 lists the geological changes that corresponded to a human lifetime during the dinosaur era. The mountains wore down. The Mediterranean dried (Hebrew word for West). Water wore down stones and washed away the dust of the Earth were Job’s markers for a lifetime. Drill cores from the Nile show that it wore down a channel into granite 1.5 miles deep as it rushed down to the dried Mediterranean. Drill cores from the Med show that it did indeed dry. We find thick layers of plankton sandwiched between layers of salt and gypsum. the Nile since filled up with silt and formed a great delta, exactly as Job describes. Job ended his poem on the brevity of life by claiming their faces intensely changed in unbroken continuity before they died. If we lived to watch the ocean dry, we would grow thick Neanderthal brows from vast age. Neanderthal children had skulls like modern children, yet with striations and wear on primary teeth as though they were old in few days.

How could that be? Everything is changing as we observe in the visible history of the universe. Ancient people understood change, since it was the heart of their worldview. Science was founded on the medieval, scholastic notion that matter is not changing as it ages. Change and science are opposite worldviews. The foundational assumption upon which Western science was founded is visibly false.


(James McKay) #10

Ah, good old catastrophic plate tectonics. One of the more esoteric proposals by our young-earth friends.

The problem with catastrophic plate tectonics is that it would generate massive amounts of heat – certainly enough to boil the flood waters into oblivion. Even if it didn’t, it would generate some pretty extreme weather conditions – hypercanes, tornadoes, massive waves – easily enough to batter the Ark to pieces.

It’s also contradicted by radiometric evidence. For example, the ages of the Hawaiian islands increase linearly with distance at the same rate as is measured by GPS satellites. To account for this, you’d have to propose that nuclear decay rates and continental drift were both accelerated by exactly the same amount in perfect sync with each other at all times. Even if accelerated nuclear decay were plausible (it isn’t), you’re still looking at extremely convoluted and contrived processes that serve no purpose other than to make the earth look older than it really is – the old omphalos hypothesis again.