some questions on the book of genesis

by evergreen 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • evergreen
    evergreen

    Decided to read the bible from start to finish as I have never done so properly.

    Some questions that I have and that some of you might be able to help me with are

    1/ In Genesis 1 it says God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. In fact in vs 31 of chapter 1- with refernece to the 6th day the bible writer even refers to the evening and the morning of that paticular day. Is this to be taken literally rather than figuratively? The reason I am asking this question, is because if God can accomplish anything, why shouldnt we take this as being literal, just as the writer was inspired to write it? Please enlighten me with your views on this.

    2/ In vs 17 of chapter 4 Cain had a son named Enoch. He then went on to build 'a city' calling the name of this city after his son. Where did all these people suddenly come from, in that he was able to build a city? surely cities referred to back in those days were really simply small towns?

  • mouthy
    mouthy

    I cant answer those questions ... I dont believe it was just 6 days as we know them.!!
    Reading the Old is very confusing IN MY OPINION. I like to read the new especially the words that Christ is supposed to have said .In my Bible they are in red....
    I

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    1. The days in Genesis 1 are clearly meant to be understood as "literal". The wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is also "literal".

    2. The basic Cain story did not originally belong with the creation story. The "city" is just one of the anachronisms resulting from this artificial setting ("the country of Nod," Cain's wife, the people that might kill Cain also pop up from nowhere).

  • XOCO
    XOCO
    1/ In Genesis 1 it says God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. In fact in vs 31 of chapter 1- with reference to the 6th day the bible writer even refers to the evening and the morning of that particular day. Is this to be taken literally rather than figuratively?

    i've studied with the dubs 4 a long, long time and 4rom my understanding is that days from gods POV is 1day=1year or even a century (it is not really clear to me nor is layed out in simple English) as in Jehovah's calender lol so it may be done in 6 years usung jah calender but keep in mind that jesus was with jah when he created the earth billions upon billions of years ago. i also think on the 7 day when jah took a break he put these ppl on the earth just 4 his own amusement

    XOCO

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Your questions have been debated for thousands of years. We are glad you finally came to
    us for the answer. If only the rest of mankind would listen to us.

    The "days" do read as if they were literal. An all-powerful God should be able to do whatever
    he set his mind to, including creating the Earth in a very short time.

    Your second question- already answered above, but if it were true, it would have to be a small
    village where all the residents were close relatives.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    1) Yes, the text has in mind days with mornings and evenings; the day-scheme is set in motion by the temporal separation of light and darkness (v. 3). So if the "days" are really epochs of thousands or millions of years, there would have been enormously long stretches of constant light and constant darkness, and that likely is not what the author had in mind. See also the observance of the sabbath on the seventh day (which in the text is not stated as a period covering human history, this is a later reinterpretation), and especially Exodus 31:15-17 which equates a literal week with the time God took to create the world. Also, interestingly, the ancient Jewish sabbatical/solar calendar also began each year on a Wednesday, the day the sun was created (the fourth day of creation), with the sabbath falling on a Saturday.

    2) The Cainite traditions originally probably were not positioned so close to the creation of man but arose in a different mytho-historical setting; they presume a world already populated, hence Cain feared being killed by others out of revenge, even so soon after his murder. The Sethite lineage in ch. 5 is also a variant of the Cainite one in v. 4. Cain, rather, was seen as the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites (cf. Numbers 24:21-22, where the Kenites are termed by their ancestor "Cain", just as the Israelites are referred to as "Jacob" in v. 19, and Seth, Eber, etc. are mentioned in v. 17, 24), who were part of Israel's population and who specialized in the life-style typified by the three great-great-great-great-great-greatchildren of Tubal-Cain, Jubal, and Jabal. The Cainite traditions, like those of the Nephilim, or even the narrative of Noah himself (whose naming in 5:29 looks forward to his role as the discoverer of wine rather than the Flood), do not presuppose an intervening Flood.

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    Hello Evergreen. It's good to do impartial investigations of things like this, instead of listening to what certain people try to spoon-feed to us.

    I hope you're open to all possibilities, including the possibility that Genesis contains mythology and assertions inconsistent with science that the Bible writers couldn't have known about.

    With that in mind, I submit the following answers for your consideration.

    1/ In Genesis 1 it says God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. In fact in vs 31 of chapter 1- with refernece to the 6th day the bible writer even refers to the evening and the morning of that paticular day. Is this to be taken literally rather than figuratively? The reason I am asking this question, is because if God can accomplish anything, why shouldnt we take this as being literal, just as the writer was inspired to write it? Please enlighten me with your views on this.

    If Genesis were literal, then the earth would only be thousands of years old. Scientists doing an impartial study went to Antarctica and did some ice core drilling. Much like rings of trees, you can read layers of ice to determine the age of an ice sheet. This one in Antarctica proved to be 1.5 million years old. So earth would have to be AT LEAST that old. Here's the link for that: http://www.pages-igbp.org/science/initiatives/ipics/data/ipics_oldaa.pdf

    2/ In vs 17 of chapter 4 Cain had a son named Enoch. He then went on to build 'a city' calling the name of this city after his son. Where did all these people suddenly come from, in that he was able to build a city? surely cities referred to back in those days were really simply small towns?

    The idea that Cain was banished to be a fugitive does not seem consistent with the idea that he would build a city, hardly a place where you would be a vagabond or fugitive (even if the city only had a couple dozen people in it). The story of Cain seems to have shared information with an ancient Egyptian story. Below is the link with the portion of a book called "101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History" by Gary Greenberg.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=gBGgyJgiPw8C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=genesis+myths+city+enoch&source=web&ots=mj_l3Yt3pW&sig=HCXDi1NocaDubv245fkhUgnJnJA#PPA71,M1

    Myth 31: Cain built a city east of Eden.

    The Myth: And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and bare Enoch; and he builded a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son Enoch. (Gen. 4: 16-18)

    The Reality: The four possible sites for the first mythological city are Heliopolis or Thebes in Egypt or Eridu or Bad-tibera in Mesopotamia.

    When God discovered that Cain murdered Abel, he declared, “When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” (Gen. 4:12) Yet, almost immediately thereafter Cain built the first city, a sign of permanence inconsistent with being a fugitive and vagabond. That contradiction underscores the confusion of the biblical editors over the identity of Cain.

    Initially, Cain stood in for Osiris (oldest son of the heavens and the earth). In Egyptian tradition, Osiris wandered far and wide to teach skills to humanity. He also built the first city at the site of the primeval hill and each Egyptian cult center claimed to be the place where Osiris built the city. In the Mesoptamian tradition, cities were built at the instigation of the gods with humans doing the dirty work. Various texts refer to the five cities built in earliest times: Eridu, Bad-tibera, Larak, Sippur and Shurrupak, all of which date to the early third millennium B.C.

    In Hebrew, the name “Cain” means “smith” or “metalworker”. Smiths were artisans and repositories of crafts knowledge. The early Egyptian myths do not talk about metalworkers, but in Mesopotamia, one of the first cities, Bad-tibera, means “fort of the metalworkers” or “wall of the metalworkers”.

    Genesis gives few clues about the identity of the city built by Cain. It lies east of Eden in a land called Nod, and Cain named the city after his son. His son’s name was Enoch, but ancient custom treated grandsons as if they were sons and the city could have been named for Irad, Cain’s grandson.

    On the one hand, given that Cain the wanderer built only one city, not five as in the Mesopotamian tradition, and that he originally represented Osiris, we should assume that he built the city in Egypt. Since his story originated with the Heliopolitan Creation myth, the most likely choice of city would be Heliopolis, “city of the sun”, east of the Nile where the son rises. Or, given that the first creation story in Genesis derives from the Theban creation account, of which the second Creation story is an offshoot, the first city might be Thebes. The biblical name for Thebes is No, a close approximation to Nod.

    On the other hand, as noted in myth #30, biblical editors displaced the story of Cain as Osiris with Sumerian stories about Dumuzi, who according to the Sumerian king list, ruled in Bad-tibera, “fort of the metalworkers”, suggesting that the biblical editors intentionally or mistakenly moved the first city from Egypt to Mesopotamia. The identification of Bad-tibera with metalworking provided a good connection to Cain, the metalworker, at least in the mind of the later biblical editors.

    Finally, we have one other city as a plausible candidate. Eridu, one of the first five cities lying southwest of Babylon, always appears first in the list of five, indicating that the Mesopotamians considered it the most prominent and the most important. As the first and most important Mesopotamian city, it makes a good choice as the place where Cain might have built his urban center. Cain’s grandson was named Irad, a close approximation to Eridu, suggesting another possible connection.

    In addition, Mesopotamians made Eridu the city of the god Enki. There could be some connection between the names Enki and Enoch, establishing a direct link to Cain’s son. Also some of the ancient literature gives Enki the additional name of Nudimmud, which seems to provide a root connection to the land of Nod, making Eridu the land of Nod.

    Any connection between Cain’s city and Mesopotamia, however, would be a late linkage. The city would originally have been located in Egypt.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    If Genesis were literal, then the earth would only be thousands of years old.

    Probably due to my limited knowledge of English, I find this use of the word "literal" quite confusing.

    One question is whether Genesis 1 is factual, or "a true story". (I think it is not.)

    An entirely different question is whether it is literal, i.e. using words like "days" in their common proper sense. (I think it is.)

    The theme of the primeval city founder(s) recurs a number of times in Genesis 1--11; cf. also 10:8-12 (Nimrod); 11:4ff (Babel), both pointing to Mesopotamia. But actually there is no hint in Genesis 4 to any real city, or to Egypt...

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Double post, sorry.

  • hillbilly
    hillbilly

    I still believe in the sacrifice of Christ for my sins...however, i think a whole lot of the old testament is written as a fable to convert ancient semites and justify the old jewish culture.

    I think I am searching for the word "allegory"

    ~hill

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit