Reading 2 - Genesis 6-11:9

[Bio-logical]

I feel it is appropriate to post the next reading assignment. Remember that the discussion on the previous one may continue but our goal is to read the bible so I am going to keep moving. I have started a new thread for organizational purposes and will continue to do so for the remainder of the study barring any suggestions.

The reading is Genesis 6- 11:9

Flood
The Daughters of Men: Gen 6:1-8
Building the Ark: Gen 6:9-8:22
Noah Commences the Human race again: Gen 9:1-28
The progeny of Noah: Gen 10:1-32
Babel/Nations
Mans pride forms separatism and the nations while loosing a unifying language: Gen 11:1-9

One addition I would like to make is that I found this site that has several questions about each chapter you may want to keep in mind while reading.

[myth-one.com]

I should have brought this up under the first reading Of chapters 1-5, but it is a general comment which applies to this section also.

Sin is the transgression of God's laws, or commandments:

For sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4)

The one law Adam and Eve had was not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. They were commanded not to do so. They could commit only one sin as that was the one commandment they had been given.

Question: At this point in our study of the Bible (Chapters 1-11) is murder a sin? Is incest a sin at this time? Is polygamy a sin? Has any other commandment been given except do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge?

Cain knew murder was wrong because he understood good from evil, but was he commanded not to murder? God gave the Children of Israel the law years after the happenings in Genesis. Could incest and polygamy be required and thus not sinful at this time?
________________
Christian Filicide?: All The Dead Innocent Children
Short Article: The Blame Game
Short Article: America's Heroes

[Heterodoxus]

[center]Observations on
Genesis 6-11:9[/center]
Edited for typos.

6:3 -- Man's life was to be one hundred and twenty years (cf. Psalm 90:10)

6:5-7 -- the supreme Deity within Judaism (hereinafter "the LORD/God" (cf. Gen. 1:1) is capricious (impulsive, whimsical) because:

• > the likes and dislikes of the LORD/God are changeable, and
  
  > because what was created by and pleasing to the LORD/God (cf. Gen. 1:31) was later not pleasing to the Lord/God, so the LORD/God opted to destroy all human and non-human creatures in a global flood of water because of Man's alleged "wickedness" (objectionable, disgusting behavior in the eyes of the LORD/God, and in the minds of those people who fawn before the LORD/God and kowtow to that God's dictates; cf. Exo. 33:1-17; 1 Sam. 2:27-30; 2 Kings 20:1-5; Jonah 3:6-10)

8:21 -- the LORD/God again shows his capriciousness (see Gen. 6:5-7, above) by vowing to "not again curse":

• > the ground,
  
  > humans, or
  
  > non-human animals

8:22 -- agricultrual activities are to be performed all year, and the seasons and times of day will continue in perpetuity

9:2 -- every non-human animal is to fear man

9:3 -- humans are allowed to eat every kind of animal

9:5-6 -- murderers (shedders of blood) must die (contradicts Gen. 4:15)

9:25 -- Noah was judgmental, unkind, and endorsed slavery

11:5 -- confirms that the LORD/God is neither omnipresent nor omniscient (cf. Gen. 3:8; 18:20-21)

[Bio-logical]

Genesis 6

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

These verses to me indicate that they tell the stories of angels impregnating women. Different translations refer to them as nephilim, a term which I have heard before. It would certainly be a good reason for them to be mighty and renown men having angelic blood in them. It also seems a very good justification for god to destroy the world - he was afraid that the nephilim would rule the world, so he wiped them out.

It is weird how strange of things you stumble across when you actually read the bible.

[Heterodoxus]

"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." (Gen. 6:2)

These verses to me indicate that they tell the stories of angels impregnating women. Different translations refer to them as nephilim, a term which I have heard before.

I've often heard or read this opinion too, but I don't see "angel" in the definition or usages of בְנֵי־הָֽ�ֱלֹהִי�֙ ("the sons of God"). I see rebel, robber, servant, soldier, steward, even daughter, but not angel. And nephilim (bully, tyrant) refers to the "giants" mentioned in 6:4, which makes more sense to me, in a carnal knowledge kind of way, than claiming that angels or giants were taking the daughters of men as wives.

It is weird how strange of things you stumble across when you actually read the bible.

Fascinating, yes; "weird," not so much for me.

[Goat]

Genesis 6

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

These verses to me indicate that they tell the stories of angels impregnating women. Different translations refer to them as nephilim, a term which I have heard before. It would certainly be a good reason for them to be mighty and renown men having angelic blood in them. It also seems a very good justification for god to destroy the world - he was afraid that the nephilim would rule the world, so he wiped them out.

It is weird how strange of things you stumble across when you actually read the bible.

One of the translations that is used for the 'sons of God' is 'nobles' (see the Judicai press translation). Rashi (12 century ) had this a commentary


the sons of the nobles: Heb. בָּנֵי הָ�ֱלֹהִי�, the sons of the princes (Targumim) and the judges (Gen. Rabbah 26:5). Another explanation: בָּנֵי הָ�ֱלֹהִי� are the princes who go as messengers of the Omnipresent. They too mingled with them (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 22). Every �ֱלֹהִי� in Scripture is an expression of authority, and the following proves it (Exod. 4:16):“And you shall be to him as a lord (לֵ�לֹהִי�)� ; (ibid. 7:1):“See, I have made you a lord (�ֶלֹהִי�).�


Some say they where angels, and some say they were just princes. As always, you can find people who hold various opinions in Jewish commentary.

[Heterodoxus]

nobles ... princes ... judges ... angels

I thought I was seeing a major pattern developing here until "angels" got thrown into the mix. So, since Angelology is apparently not (TBOMK) an original element within either Judaism or Judaism-influenced Chridstianity, let's focus for a moment on the minor pattern indicated by the first 3 types of people mentioned by Goat.

Each of those 3 appellations appear to be persons high up in a man-made pecking order. They're certainly not what I'd call "the common man" of GEN 6.

So, what about less prominent people like Gideon, a nomadic goat herder, or Phinehas, a lowly dirt farmer? Weren't they permitted to take a wife from the fair daughters of men? Or were they compelled to settle for a less "fair" wife?

As always, you can find people who hold various opinions in Jewish commentary.

So, too, within the Christian Church.

[Goat]

nobles ... princes ... judges ... angels

I thought I was seeing a major pattern developing here until "angels" got thrown into the mix. So, since Angelology is apparently not (TBOMK) an original element within either Judaism or Judaism-influenced Chridstianity, let's focus for a moment on the minor pattern indicated by the first 3 types of people mentioned by Goat.

Each of those 3 appellations appear to be persons high up in a man-made pecking order. They're certainly not what I'd call "the common man" of GEN 6.

Well, let's look at the concept you brought up as 'pecking order'. Further commentary was


when they were beautifying themselves: Heb., טֹבֹת. Said Rabbi Judan: It is written טבת [i.e., instead of טובות. Thus it can be טָבַת, meaning to beautify.] When they would beautify her, adorned to enter the nuptial canopy, a noble would enter and have relations with her first (Gen. Rabbah 26:5).


and further


from whomever they chose: Even a married woman, even males and animals (Gen. Rabbah ad loc.).


It seems that the 'nobles' went and did what they pleased with the common folk.

[Heterodoxus]

a noble would enter and have relations with her first
.....
It seems that the 'nobles' went and did what they pleased with the common folk.

Interesting, and reminiscent of the scene from Braveheart where the the Scottish hero marries the heroine but, before they can consummate the marriage, the English Lord takes her away for his "first rights" pleasure.

[center][/center]

[Bio-logical]

nobles ... princes ... judges ... angels

I thought I was seeing a major pattern developing here until "angels" got thrown into the mix. So, since Angelology is apparently not (TBOMK) an original element within either Judaism or Judaism-influenced Chridstianity, let's focus for a moment on the minor pattern indicated by the first 3 types of people mentioned by Goat.

Each of those 3 appellations appear to be persons high up in a man-made pecking order. They're certainly not what I'd call "the common man" of GEN 6.

So, what about less prominent people like Gideon, a nomadic goat herder, or Phinehas, a lowly dirt farmer? Weren't they permitted to take a wife from the fair daughters of men? Or were they compelled to settle for a less "fair" wife?

As always, you can find people who hold various opinions in Jewish commentary.

So, too, within the Christian Church.

If these verses referred to humans, why are they necessary. Of course nobles, princes and judges had sex and produced offspring... Why would his upset God? Or was it perhaps that God reserved the fairest for himself? It makes far more sense in a narrative pretext that this refers to some sort of supernatural being. This would explain why there is a special name for them, why it upsets God, why they became the heroes and mighty men of renown, gives a good reason to start a clean slate and destroy the Earth. It also seems to be rather conveniently inserted as a way to account for the heroes of other mythology... "oh yeah, they just got the story wrong! Heracles was the son of an angel, not Zeus(or other mythical heroes if those time frames don't match up).