Interesting find in the bible last night
So I was reading Genesis chapter 10 and 11 to see how it explains the man who supposedly is the offspring of Noah and he and his offspring become the nation known as Egypt. In some bibles they actually call him Egypt. Well as I was reading chapter 10 I noticed something. In the chapter it's describing the break down of how each child of Noah's boys become nations or people's and each group was also known by its language or tongue . Then in chapter 11 verse 1 it says there was only one language in the world and goes on about the story of the Tower of Babel . So chapter 10 totally contradicts chapter 11.
Back to the offspring of Ham which in some bibles he is called Egypt. The crazy thing is this is the man the patriarch of the nation of Egypt yet the flood happened at about 2350 BCE . Egypt was already established before the flood, cities had been built and several of the pyramids had already been built too. Wow it's just too crazy that we took this book seriously and sad too.
It's just a story of explanation for the illiterate, it has little bearing on reality!
Mizraim, the son of Ham is usually understood to refer to Upper and lower Egypt, drawn from the Heb. and Aramaic noun Mizr.
Bible writers like all their contemporaries had no clue as to the remoteness of human history, and neither did they read transcripts of the well documented chronicles of Egypt to find out. Researched history is a relatively recent thing if you think of the Enlightenment as recent. Hence the flood myth was placed at a date plausible to the uninformed listeners of the Hebrew writings.
What fools we were to believe not only that it was true but divine in origin. We are late developers...
According to Strong's Concordance, Nimrod was not "a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah" as the Org/NWT has always asserted, rather, "he was a mighty hunter before or in front of Jehovah." https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/10/1/t_conc_10009
Yet another erroneously translated verse by the W.
Crazyguy, good find. Throughout the Bible there are many nuggets like the one you found which defy logic, reason, mathematics, physics, etc. Many people believe because they were taught to believe from birth. And many atheists report that it wasn't until they actually read the Bible, instead of being maneuvered through it by their religious leaders, that they realized much of was is written in it, is not actually true. I think it is very important to research the history of the Bible. This helped me quite a bit to realize what a sham and a fraud religion is.
It is a requirement of faith to abandon logic and reason. But wanting something to be true does not mean that it actually is.
Author: Dr. theol. Thomas Hiecke.
The first 11 chapters of Genesis are a mishmash of a bunch of separate, more or less independent oral traditions. Someone (much later than when Moses supposedly wrote them) stitched them together as best he could. It's not really surprising that there are inconsistencies and outright contradictions.
No, no, no. There's no contradiction there. Chapter 10 is just an aside telling you how the different nations came to be from Noah's offspring, but that does not mean that chapter 11 continues the story from after these nations all come into being. That is an unreasonable assumption to arrive at.
Bible books aren't written in perfect chronological order. Writers often make chronological detours to make a particular point. Genesis 10 is a detour from the regular chronology of Genesis for the purpose of explaining human lineage from Noah. The main story thread runs from Genesis 9 straight into Genesis 11. Genesis 10 is like a fork that branches out to a separate story thread that explains human lineages from Noah. The timeline of that thread goes beyond the timeline of Genesis 11. But that thread terminates at the end of chapter 10.
There are plenty real contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible but what you mention in your first paragram, ain't one of them.
sir82 is a bit mistaken here... The first 11 chapters of Genesis are not "a mishmash of a bunch of separate . . . oral traditions." The whole Pentateuch is. The modern scholarly consensus is that the Torah was not written in part or in whole by Moses or by any other single person. It is a composition of different written sources (not oral traditions) which then were based on oral traditions.
There is a hypothesis called the Documentary Hypothesis which states that the Pentateuch is composed of four separate written sources named J, E, D, and P. However, scholars today have varying views in regards to that hypothesis. Some say that there were more sources, some disagree with the dating of these sources, some say that J and E were not separate sources, and on and on it goes... Basically, scholars have different views, but everyone agrees that the whole Pentateuch is a composition of different sources.
Would be a good point to bring up during the CLAM and tell what little gems you found in your study of the bible lol.
It's an origin myth explaining how things came to be. No different from the myths of Greeks and Romans explaining how this ancestor founded and named that city or that hero was descended from which god/goddess. It's not a reflection of what actually happened. just the fertile imagination of nomads sitting around a campfire.