This Way To Genesis

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 6:21-22


● Gen 6:21-22 . . For your part, take of everything that is eaten and
store it away, to serve as food for you and for them. Noah did so;
just as God commanded him, so he did.

Noah was every supervisor's dream. He did just what he was told and all
with nary an argument; nor a single protest.

God didn't specify precisely how much food to load aboard. He only
instructed him to store things that are edible; but not their quantity. Nobody
can be sure whether or not Noah knew just how long the Flood was going to
last. If he didn't, then of course he would have no idea how much food he
needed to bring along.

It began to rain on the 17th day of the second month of the 600th year of
Noah's life. The Earth was dry on the 27th day of the second month of his
601st year. So, reckoning time according to prophetic months of 30 days
each, and not counting the final day, Noah's crew and passengers were
aboard the ark for a total of 370 days; which is roughly 5 days over a solar
year, and 10 days over a prophetic year.

So what about the carnivorous animals that came aboard with Noah-- the
lions and tigers and hawks and eagles and meerkats and alligators and
crocodiles? Carnivores can be domesticated when the situation calls for it.
Take for example Daniel in the den of lions. None tried to eat him. And
according to Isa 11:6-9 and Isa 65:25, there's a day coming when the
nature of carnivores will be changed to that of herbivores.

Some have proposed that the animals hibernated so they wouldn't have to
be fed very often nor require much room for exercise nor would they
generate much manure to clean up. That's actually a very plausible
explanation. For example: arctic ground squirrels can lower their body
temperature below freezing and avoid serious head injuries while hibernating
for as long seven months. Why the little guys don't freeze to death is a
mystery.

Others have proposed that Noah didn't actually load an entire year's supply
of food aboard the ark. Just a minimum amount that God then miraculously
sustained. That too is a very plausible explanation.

For example: there are incidents in the Bible where small amounts of food
stuffs were miraculously extended. One example is 1Kgs 17:8-16 where a
tiny bit of flour and oil nourished Elijah and a widow woman, and her son,
for a good many days during a time of prolonged drought.

Another incident is at 2Kgs 4:1-7 where a certain widow's husband died and
left her deeply in debt. God extended her last pot of oil sufficiently to sell off
enough to retire her debts, thereby saving her two sons from slavery.

At 1Kgs 19:5-9, when Elijah was running away from that horrible Jezebel, he
was fatigued and napping under a bush when a messenger of God woke him
up to eat a single biscuit and drink some water. Elijah survived on the
nourishment of that measly little snack for the next forty days.

I'm not insisting that God sustained everyone aboard the ark via hibernation
and/or like He did Elijah and the widows. But in the light of nature's
examples, and the Bible's examples, it isn't unreasonable to believe that's
exactly what happened. Many details remain a mystery and apparently God
didn't feel it was important for everybody to know how He and Noah did it.
Well; that's His decision and I respect it; but I still wish Genesis told us
more.

Another logistics problem was feeding everybody when the Flood was over.
What would they eat then? Well, that was no problem. The olive leaf that a
dove had in her beak at Gen 8:10-11 indicates that earth's flora was spared
mass extinction by the Flood. The Hebrew word for "plucked-off" is from
taraph (taw-rawf') which means: recently torn off; in other words: the dove
didn't pick up an old dead leaf lying around on the ground; no, it was fresh
cut and green right off the tree.

NOTE: The prairie grasses that once flourished in America's corn belt was
some amazing stuff. Prior to the White Man, prairie grass roots grew as deep
four feet, and sometimes eleven, so that no matter how much or how often
the grass was burned off, it bounced right back.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 7:1-9


● Gen 7:1 . .Yhvh then said to Noah: Go into the ark, you and your
whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

Noah is sometimes criticized for not utilizing more of the ark's cargo space to
take human life aboard instead of animals. But it wasn't for Noah to say.
Passage aboard the ark was by invitation only; and to qualify for an
invitation, the passengers had to be righteous. Well; only Noah was
righteous, so he alone was invited to go aboard with his family.

The antediluvians weren't left on their own to figure out what's righteous
and what's not righteous. According to 2Pet 2:5, Noah was a preacher; and
he wasn't the only one at it. Prior to him, Enoch pounded a pulpit. (Jude 1:1)

So then, the people who died in the Flood had no one to blame for missing
the boat but themselves. Had they listened to the preaching and changed
their ways; the Flood wouldn't have been necessary to begin with.

● Gen 7:2-3 . . Of every clean animal you shall take seven pairs,
males and their mates, and of every animal that is not clean, two, a
male and its mate; of the birds of the sky also, seven pairs, male and
female, to keep seed alive upon all the earth.

Official specifications for identifying clean, and unclean animals, are located
at Lev 11:1-46, and Deut 14:3-20. Those specs were written many, many
centuries after Noah; so precisely which animals he regarded as clean in his
day, and which not clean is impossible to tell. But I think we can safely
assume that "clean" animals were those designated for ceremonial purposes
rather than for diet since God had not yet given man the green light to eat
meat.

In some cases a creature's intrinsic nature seems a factor. For example
vultures and bats are obvious choices for the unclean category. But how is a
cow any more sanitary than a bunny? Or a locust any more sanitary than a
swan?

The specific species that Noah took aboard were limited to the ones that God
said in 6:20 "shall come to you". Any, and all, species that failed to come to
Noah, went extinct in the Flood. He didn't go out and hunt them down, nor
take them by force against their will. No; they had to show up on their own,
or be left behind; and I have a sneaking suspicion that many were.

● Gen 7:4 . . For in seven days' time I will make it rain upon the
earth, forty days and forty nights, and I will blot out from the earth
all existence that I created.

The expression "all existence" is from yequwm (yek-oom') which means:
standing (extant) i.e. a living thing. Yequwm appears in only three verses of
the entire Old Testament. Two of them are here in chapter 7, and the other
one is in Deut 11:6.

God's prediction didn't include vegetation; because when the Flood ended, at
least one olive tree was still standing. So "all existence" only meant
creatures; in particular those that live on land and need air to survive; like
birds, bugs, and beasts; whether subterranean or on the surface. (Gen 7:21
23)

The seven-day deadline hung over the world's head like a sword of
Damocles; and the Flood was now imminent. But a final warning was issued
probably just in case somebody might change their mind about going along
with Noah. Compare this moment of silence to the one at Rev 8:1 just prior
to sounding the seven trumpets.

● Gen 7:5 . . And Noah did just as the Lord commanded him.

Not many people can say, with all honesty and a good conscience, that they
do "just as" the Lord commands. It is a very unusual person who is careful
to comply with God's will to the letter. (cf. John 8:29)

● Gen 7:6a . . Noah was six hundred years old

Years of life in Noah's day were expressed in what's known as prophetic
years; which consist of twelve equal months of thirty days each. So in
astronomical time; Noah was but 591.8 years old.

Noah died at 950. So the Flood came at roughly 63% of the way through his
life. According to the US Department of Health, an average American born in
2013 can expect to live to about age 78. Using that as a point of reference,
Noah would have been roughly the equivalent of 49 years old when the
Flood started.

● Gen 7:6b . . when the Flood came, waters upon the earth.

The word for Flood is from mabbuwl (mab-bool') which means: a deluge.
There's another word for "flood" in the Old Testament, but the Hebrew is
different. Mabbuwl appears twelve times in Genesis regarding Noah's
worldwide cataclysm. The only other place in the entire Old Testament
where that word is shows up again is Ps 29:10; and even there it relates to
Noah.

● Gen 7:7-9 . . Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives,
went into the ark because of the waters of the Flood. Of the clean
animals, of the animals that are not clean, of the birds, and of
everything that creeps on the ground, two of each, male and female,
came to Noah into the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

Again it's mentioned that the animals came to Noah rather than he and his
sons going on safari to get them.

It was right about there that I would have become very nervous had I lived
next door to the Noahs. Up till then, he probably seemed like an ordinary
crack pot-- a nice enough guy, but kind of kooky. I mean: who builds a
great big barge on dry land? But when all those birds and animals showed
up out at his place, and started boarding Noah's Folly all by themselves, in
neither chaos nor confusion, and without Noah and his boys having to herd
them in-- that was definitely cause for alarm.

It's true that wildlife at that time was not yet afraid of humans; and it was
probably a very common sight to see them mingling with people all over the
place-- maybe even assisting Noah to construct the ark --but not on such a
scale as this. People had to wonder why all those bugs, and beasties, and
birdies were migrating out there to Noah's spread. What's that all about? Did
they maybe think to themselves that old fool might know something after
all?

Well; maybe they did; but according to Jesus they didn't really take Noah
seriously but went about the business of their daily lives as usual. (Matt
24:38-39)

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 7:10-16a


● Gen 7:10 . . And on the seventh day the waters of the Flood came
upon the earth.

Back in verse 4, God gave Noah seven days to get moved into the ark. The
water came right on time, just exactly when God said it would. God's word
carries different force in different circumstances. Sometimes He makes
predictions, sometimes He makes promises, and sometimes He even makes
threats.

Threats are often negotiable; sort of like an "or else". Like when Jonah went
to Ninevah and walked around town heralding in the streets that within forty
days they would be overthrown. When the people changed their ways, God
backed off.

But a prediction isn't negotiable; nor is it open to discussion. When God
makes a prediction, you can make bank on it because He's seen the future.
The Flood was predicted. He said it was coming in seven days; and sure
enough it showed up.

NOTE: The apostle John saw the great white throne event depicted at Rev
20:10-15. That event is now inevitable because John's vision is a revelation;
viz: a glimpse into not just one possible future; but the future.

● Gen 7:11a . . In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second
month, on the seventeenth day of the month,

The Flood isn't dated according to a calendar; but rather, relative to Noah's
life. In other words: let's say that Noah was born in the month of July. Had
that been the case; then the second month of his life would have been
August. More about this later.

● Gen 7:11b . . on this day, all the springs of the great deep were
split, and the windows of the heavens opened up.

The word for "deep" is from tehowm (teh-home') which indicates an abyss
(as a surging mass of water) especially the deep (the main sea or the
subterranean water-supply). Tehowm occurred very early on in the Bible's
texts at Gen 1:1-2.

The difference is that this deep is the great deep. The word for "great" is
from rab (rab) which means abundant (in quantity, size, age, number, rank,
quality), so that this particular deep could be thought of as bottomless; viz:
an abysmal source of water beyond human imagination.

The atmosphere alone holds about 2,900 cubic miles of water at any given
time; with the balance of Earth's 340 million cubic miles of water stored in
oceans, rivers, lakes, ice caps, glaciers, permafrost, and the ground.
Relatively little ground water is stored in subterranean voids. Most of it is
soaked in tiny pores and cracks in soil and rocks. Almost all ground water
resides within five to ten miles of the surface. Water below that depth is
chemically bound in the rocks and minerals and not readily accessible; but
can be released as a result of geologic processes such as volcanism. But for
the Flood, water above and beyond the earth's indigenous sources was
necessary.

There's an abundance of water out in the cosmos. In an article I found on
the internet dated July 22, 2011; astronomers have discovered the largest
and oldest mass of water ever detected in the universe-- a gigantic cloud
harboring 140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans combined.
Well; I'm pretty sure that's a sufficient quantity of water to inundate the
earth to the depth required by the Flood.

● Gen 7:12 . . (The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.)

● Gen 7:13-16a . .That same day Noah and Noah's sons, Shem, Ham,
and Japheth, went into the ark, with Noah's wife and the three wives
of his sons-- they and all beasts of every kind, all cattle of every
kind, all creatures of every kind that creep on the earth, and all birds
of every kind, every bird, every winged thing.

. . .They came to Noah into the ark, two each of all flesh in which
there was breath of life. Thus they that entered comprised male and
female of all flesh, as God had commanded him.

Again it's reiterated that the critters "came" to Noah; he didn't have to go on
safari to round them up; and then they entered the ark on their own without
Noah and his boys having to herd them in. That is really remarkable. It's like
those critters somehow knew that there was something terrible brewing and
Noah's ark was the only safe haven.

That's another example where a "day" can be longer than twenty-four
hours; in fact, the day here in Gen 7:13-16 is a whole week plus forty more
days and nights. Thus from the time of God's invitation to come into the ark,
and up until it stopped raining, was a day period consisting of 47 calendar
days.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 7:16b-24


● Gen 7:16b . . And the Lord shut him in.

The Lord not only shut him in, but sealed him in too. The hatch to hull
mating surfaces had to be waterproofed with bitumen the same as all the
rest of the hull.

The Hebrew word for "shut" actually means to shut up; like as when a corral
gate is closed to pen livestock and/or the door of a jail cell is locked to
confine a convict. In other words, Noah was locked inside the ark by a door
that could be opened only from the outside. That's interesting. It means that
once the ark's door was sealed, Noah became a prisoner; and were he, or
anybody else inside, to change their mind about going, it was too late.

From that point on, Noah had no more control over his safety. From thence,
it was up to the ark, and up to God, to protect him from the Flood.

● Gen 7:17-18 . .The Flood continued forty days on the earth, and the
waters increased and lifted the ark so that it rose above the earth.
The waters swelled and increased greatly upon the earth, and the
ark drifted upon the waters.

That was no week-end sailing trip. The ark drifted; viz: it was completely at
the mercy and the whims of the elements. It had no means for steering, no
navigational equipment, and no means of propulsion; it floated about like
flotsam.

● Gen 7:19-20 . .When the waters had swelled much more upon the
earth, all the highest mountains everywhere under the sky were
covered. Fifteen cubits higher did the waters swell, as the mountains
were covered.

Q: Is it possible that the Flood was local rather than global?

A: Well; the problem with that theory is: the waters breeched the highest
mountains by fifteen cubits (22½ feet). So then, if perchance Noah lived in a
geographic basin, the waters would have overflowed the mountains
surrounding him and kept on going.

But the water would start spilling past Noah's area long before it breeched
the tops of the highest mountains surrounding him because mountain ranges
aren't shaped smooth, level, and even like the rim of a domestic bath tub.
No; they're very irregular and consist of high points and low points; viz:
peaks, valleys, canyons, saddles, and passes.

Thus mountain ranges make poor bath tubs because you would lose water
through the low points before it even had a chance to fill to the peaks. In
point of fact, were the sides of your bathtub shaped like a mountain range;
you could never fill it. And in trying to; just end up with water all over the
floor.

22½ feet may not seem like a lot of water but when you consider the
diameter of the Earth, that is an enormous amount when it's above the
highest mountains. How high were the highest mountains in Noah's day?
Nobody really knows. But just supposing the tallest at that time was about
equal to California's Mount Laguna east of San Diego; viz: 5,738 feet above
sea level-- about 1.1 miles. Adding 22½ feet to that comes out to
approximately 5,761 feet.

The amount of rain it would take to accumulate that much water in only
forty days would be something like six global feet of depth per hour.

To put that in perspective: the lobby of the Empire State Building in New
York city is approximately 47 feet above sea level. At 6 feet per hour, the
lobby would be under water in less than eight hours. The whole building,
lightening rod and all; would be under water in just a little over ten days.
The new One World Trade Center would be gone in about thirteen.

● Gen 7:21-23a . . And all flesh that stirred on earth perished-- birds,
cattle, beasts, and all the things that swarmed upon the earth, and
all mankind. All in whose nostrils was the merest breath of life, all
that was on dry land, died.

. . . All existence on earth was blotted out-- man, cattle, creeping
things, and birds of the sky; they were blotted out from the earth.
Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

All "existence on earth" was limited to fauna life on land. Apparently flora life
and aqua life were spared.

● Gen 7:24 . . And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred
and fifty days.

One of Webster's definitions of "prevail" is: to triumph. In other words; the
Flood won and humanity lost. Man can dam rivers; he can divert streams, he
can build sea walls, dikes, and channels, he can drain swamps and wetlands;
but every one of those kinds of hydraulic engineering feats would have failed
to control the Flood.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 8:1-4


● Gen 8:1a . . God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the
cattle that were with him in the ark,

Does that mean God forgot all about the ark's passengers until He realized
why there was a string tied around His finger? (chuckle) No; it reaffirms that
they were always on God's mind. He isn't forgetful. God doesn't need
reminding.

But what about Noah's sisters and brothers, and/or his aunts and uncles?
Did God think of them too? No. Noah's kin, except those aboard the ark;
were all wiped out in the Flood. He and Mrs. Noah may have had other
children too; and grand children. If so, then those also perished: and their
family pets too right along with them.

Out ahead, at the final judgment, many of us are going to have to watch as
our own kin are condemned to eternal suffering; and thrown alive, wild
eyed, shrieking, yelping, bellowing, and bawling like little children into the
impoundment of flaming sulfur depicted at Rev 20:11-15 and Rev 21:8. We
might even be called up as witnesses to testify in the prosecution's case
against them. That will be an awful ordeal.

● Gen 8:1b-3a . . and God caused a wind to blow across the earth,
and the waters subsided. The fountains of the deep and the
floodgates of the sky were stopped up, and the rain from the sky
was held back; the waters then receded steadily from the earth.

The Old Testament Hebrew word that the editors of the NIV translated
"receded" is shuwb (shoob) an ambiguous word that can mean draw back,
return to the beginning, or simply diminish. The very same word is used in
the NIV's translation of Gen 3:19 thusly:

"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the
ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will
return."

In that example; shuwb indicates that Adam went right back where he came
from; viz: the dust.

According to Gen 7:11 the waters of the Flood came from the springs of the
great deep and from heaven. So then, I take shuwb to mean that the waters
went right back to heaven and the great deep as the Flood dried up so that
the waters didn't drain off, they were pulled off; which is a good thing
because had the waters drained off, they would have caused quite a bit of
erosion; but actually, there was nowhere for them to drain; they had to be
removed.

Gen 8:1-3 strongly suggests that the Flood's waters were removed by the
process of evaporation. But there's just no way that much water got
absorbed by the earth's atmosphere or it would still be here. No, I'm
convinced those waters were pulled back out into space from whence they
came in the first place. How were they pulled back out in space? Well; if I
could explain how God got the Flood's waters off the planet with wind
power; then I would be able to explain how Jesus levitated off the ground in
Acts 1:9. People think walking on water is amazing? Try walking on air.

● Gen 8:3b-4 . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters
diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of
the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'Ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears
three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38,
and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat is always the country of Armenia: never a
specific mountain by the same name.

The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is haareey which is the plural
of har (har). It doesn't always mean a prominent land mass like Everest or
McKinley; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range of hills or
highlands; like the region of Israel where Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.

"At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of
Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke
1:39-40)

In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San
Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There
were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was
very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and
cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and
calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top
of one of its mountains like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.

The ark contained the only surviving souls of man and animal on the entire
planet. Does it really make good sense to strand them up on a mountain
peak where they might risk death and injury descending it?

When my wife and I visited the San Diego zoo together back in the early
1980's, we noticed that the Giraffes' area had no fence around it. The tour
guide told us the Giraffes' enclosure doesn't need a fence because their area
is up on a plateau 3 feet high. The Giraffes don't try to escape because
they're afraid of heights. There's just no way Giraffes could've climbed down
off of Turkey's Mount Ararat. It's way too steep and rugged. Those poor
timid creatures would've been stranded up there and died; and so would
hippos, elephants, and flightless birds like penguins.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 8:5-9


● Gen 8:5 . .The waters went on diminishing until the tenth month; in
the tenth month, on the first of the month, the tops of the mountains
became visible.

Gravity assists rain to fall. But to get the Flood's waters off the planet
required overcoming gravity enough to get it up off the planet. The
mechanical nature of that wind would be an interesting study. Was it a
global hurricane, or was it more like a global tornado, or a combination of
both: one for evaporation, and one for sucking it all out into the void? Well,
whatever; it must have howled and roared like the sound of a thousand
World Trade Centers collapsing at once.

● Gen 8:6-7a . . At the end of forty days, Noah opened the window of
the ark that he had made and sent out the raven;

Although the Raven is listed in Israel's covenanted law as an unclean bird,
sometimes it's an excellent choice for assisting in a divine task; for example
1Kgs 17:1-6.

The word for "Raven" is 'oreb (o-rabe') which is not a specific species of bird,
but a whole family of birds now classified as Corvids; which includes Crows,
Jackdaws, Jays, Magpies, Nutcrackers, and Rooks.

Ravens are classified in ornithology as song birds; although Crows don't
seem to carry much of a tune. They're intelligent, sociable, and highly
adaptable. Although they don't usually trust Man, they have been known to
associate with him in remarkable ways.

One morning I was out in front weeding the yard when some crows down
the street were raising a serious ruckus and dive-bombing back and forth
across the street. One of them flew to where I was weeding and landed on a
streetlight above me and cawed its fool head off; the meanwhile fluttering
its wings and leaning forward and rocking as it cawed. Then it flew back and
rejoined the others. Then another one, a really big barrel-chested crow,
came and landed on our roof. It too cawed like mad (only louder).

Then it occurred to me they might be trying to get my attention. So I walked
down to where the others were, and there in a driveway was a fledgling
Crow who couldn't fly well enough to get back up in the trees from whence it
fell; and a big cat was harassing it. So I brought the young Crow home and
put it up on a limb in our backyard and pretty soon the others heard its cries
and came to take care of it. We had to assist the fledgling back up to his
limb a few more times after it soared down to the food and water we put out
for its friends; but eventually its wings became strong enough to do it alone.

BTW: That event took place quite a few years ago and as time went by,
young crows began little by little making our backyard their playground and
today, it isn't unusual to see twenty or so of all ages walking around out
there like chickens in a barnyard helping themselves to the peanuts we put
out for squirrels, and pecking cracked corn and sunflower chips out of the
bird feeders.

● Gen 8:7b . . it went to and fro until the waters had dried up from
the earth.

Ravens will eat just about anything, including carrion; and there was
probably plenty of that floating around out there. With all the dead stuff to
feast on, the raven could spend the whole day out on its own. However, no
tree tops were above the water yet and crows need to get off the ground at
night so it probably returned to the ark in the evening to roost. The very fact
of its return was evidence to Noah that the waters were still pretty deep out
there.

● Gen 8:8-9 . .Then he sent out the dove to see whether the waters
had decreased from the surface of the ground. But the dove could
not find a resting place for its foot, and returned to him to the ark,
for there was water over all the earth. So putting out his hand, he
took it into the ark with him.

The word for "Dove" is from yownah (yo-naw') which is a general term for
either a Dove or a Pigeon. Pigeons are well known for their homing instincts.
So why didn't the Pigeon roost up on the roof of the ark instead of letting
Noah take it inside? Well . . a Pigeon's nature is different than a Raven's.
The big guys are somewhat independent, but Pigeons readily take to human
care. That's probably why they are so much more common in cities than
Crows; where people can feed them popcorn and bread crumbs.

Pigeons and Doves don't eat carrion; but prefer to forage on the ground for
seeds. But bare ground was inaccessible at this point in time. The yownah
no doubt became very hungry; and certainly knew Mr. Noah had plenty of
grain on board with him back at the ark. Pigeons also prefer a roof over their
heads; like docks and wharfs, and bridges and roadway overpasses. It
almost seems they were actually made to live in coops; and what better
coop than the ark?

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 8:10-12


● Gen 8:10-11 . . He waited another seven days, and again sent out
the dove from the ark. The dove came back to him toward evening,
and there in its bill was a plucked-off olive leaf! Then Noah knew
that the waters had decreased on the earth.

The word for "plucked-off" is from taraph (taw-rawf') which means: recently
torn off; viz: fresh. A taraph leaf is alive; which of course the skeptics are
only too happy to point out is impossible seeing as how olive trees cannot
survive under water very long before they die. But wasn't the Flood itself
impossible? (sigh) Some people are just naturally miracle-challenged; what
can I say?

It is just unbelievable that any trees survived. Even ordinary flooding is very
destructive.

Just southeast of Mount Ste. Helens is an area called the Lahar. It was a
totally denuded region caused, not by the volcano's blast, but by water that
poured down from the mountain's side when glacier and snow pack melted
during the eruption in 1980. In the water's path, whole pine trees were
uprooted and swept away, like hot-waxing a woman's legs; leaving nothing
but bare skin.

However, the Flood wasn't a rush of water, but rather a pounding of water.
But even so the pounding would have been relatively brief, at least in the
low lands. As the water began to rise, its increasing depth would cushion the
impact of the rest that fell.

Old-world olives prefer a Mediterranean climate, which is probably why
olives do so well in southern California. Anyway, that olive leaf is pretty good
empirical evidence that the ark did not come to rest on Turkey's Mt. Ararat.
It's seriously doubtful any kind of trees have ever grown up on that
mountain; which is a snow-capped dormant volcano consisting of two peaks:
Lesser Ararat @ 12,782 feet, and Greater Ararat @ 16,854 feet.

High mountains like Ararat have what's called a timberline; which is an
elevation beyond which no trees grow. The elevation of Mt. Hood's
timberline here in Oregon is right around 6,000 feet.

● Gen 8:12 . . He waited still another seven days and sent the dove
forth; and it did not return to him any more.

Apparently the dove finally found some dry, bare ground to forage for seeds,
and minute gravel for its craw.

Why didn't Noah just look out the window and see for himself? Well; the
structural location of the ark's window is a bit a mystery. For one thing, it
wasn't cut into the sides like the windows in an airplane, rather, it was
located up on top.

The horizontal dimension of the window is unknown, but its vertical
dimension is known to be only a cubit; theoretically 18 inches.

Imagine a structure on top of the ark similar to the windowed portion of the
cab of a large pick-up truck; for example a Ford 350. If a structure like that
were situated in the middle of the top of the ark, whose top deck dimensions
were 450 feet by 75 feet, the angle of Noah's view would be pretty much
limited to the portion of sky that he could see above the horizon.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 8:13-14


● Gen 8:13-14 . . In the six hundred and first year, in the first month,
on the first of the month, the waters began to dry from the earth;
and when Noah removed the covering of the ark, he saw that the
surface of the ground was drying. And in the second month, on the
twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.

Calculating the duration of the Flood is not only an interesting exercise but
also an opportunity to get the hang of prophetic time keeping.

It began to rain on the 17th day of the second month of the 600th year of
Noah's life. The Earth was dry on the 27th day of the second month of his
601st year. So, reckoning time according to prophetic months of 30 days
each, and not counting the final day, Noah's crew was aboard the ark for a
total of 370 days; which is roughly 5 days over a solar year, and 10 days
over a prophetic year.

Q: Where I you get a prophetic month?

A: The Flood began on the seventeenth day of the second month of Noah's
life, and it rained for forty days. Then the rain stopped so the water could
begin draining off and leave the ark aground. A period of exactly five months
went by. Those five months are recorded as exactly 150 days. If we were to
try and use the months of the Jewish calendar, the number of days would
not add up to 150. Here's why.

The months of the Jewish calendar supposedly equivalent to the months of
the Flood are:

lyar . . . . . . . . 29 days
Sivan . . . . . . . 30 days
Tammuz . . . . 29 days
Av . . . . . . . . . 30 days
Elul . . . . . . . . 29 days
Tishri . . . . . . . 30 days

Using the Jewish calendar, it would begin raining on the 17th of lyar, thus
flooding a total of 13 days during that month. Following would be 30 in
Sivan, 29 in Tammuz, 30 in Av, 29 in Elul, and lastly 16 in Tishri. We can't
count the 17th of Tishri because the ark would have gone aground on that
day. The total number of days from the beginning of the Flood until the day
the ark went aground, would have been, according to the Jewish calendar,
147; which is three days short of 150.

However, we can safely ignore the Jewish calendar, and just reckon the
elapsed time relative to Noah's birthday. The 150 days then average out to
five months of 30 days apiece. That doesn't really cause any problems
because a dating method of that nature is not intended to mark off the
actual passage of astronomical time in a calendar year; only the days of
time elapsed during an important event such as the Flood.

So; here in Genesis, very early in the Bible, a precedent is set for specifying
the length of a special kind of year: the prophetic year. Since the months in
a year of this type are of thirty days apiece, then twelve such months add up
to 360 days; which is 5¼ days less than a calendar year.

The prophetic year is sort of like a baker's dozen. Though a baker's dozen is
not a dozen of twelve; it is nonetheless a dozen in its own right. As long as
students of the Bible are aware of the existence of such a thing as a
prophetic year, they won't be tripped up when they run across it in
prophecy, such as Daniel's prediction regarding the time of Messiah's official
arrival on the world scene (a.k.a. Palm Sunday). Here's another, yet future.

"And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared
of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and
threescore days." (Rev 12:6)

"And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly
into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and
times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." (Rev 12:14)

Those two passages speak of a 3½ year period of exactly 1,260 days. Well,
3½ solar years is 1,274+ days; which is almost 15 days too many. But if we
reckon those 3½ years as prophetic years of 360 days each, then it comes
out perfectly to 1,260 days.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 8:15-19


● Gen 8:15-17 . . God spoke to Noah, saying: Come out of the ark,
together with your wife, your sons, and your sons' wives. Bring out
with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds,
animals, and everything that creeps on earth; and let them swarm
on the earth and be fertile and increase on earth.

● Gen 8:18-19 . . So Noah came out, together with his sons, his wife,
and his sons' wives. Every animal, every creeping thing, and every
bird, everything that stirs on earth came out of the ark by families.

Verse 19 strongly suggests that already in Noah's day living things were
ranked by type because they came out of the ark according to their species.
How they were ranked is uncertain. It may have been according to
intelligence, and then again, maybe by usefulness to Man. Some might put
the primates first because they are so smart; but I would put a higher value
on beasts of burden, and any other creature that best serves Man's domestic
needs; I mean, chimps are cute but what were they really good for in Noah's
day?

It must have been a stirring sight. Everyone soaking up the sun, stretching
their legs, and feeling brisk and cheerful. Like astronauts back from a long,
tedious space mission; they were all so happy to be home at last.

No doubt the rats and mice probably were content to remain in the ark
where it was nice and cozy, and I bet they eventually moved in with the
Noahs after their new home was built.

Many of the smaller creatures, like non winged insects and moles and
centipedes, can't really travel very fast so it must have taken them a pretty
long time to multiply and spread out; unless they found a way to hitch a ride
aboard the larger animals.

The big guys would take a considerable amount of time to get back up to
numbers. The gestation period of a meadow mouse is about 21 days and
they can have anywhere from four to six babies at a time. At the extreme
are the African elephants. Their gestation is about 660 days. So they don't
multiply very fast. White rhinoceros take 480 days, cows 284, giraffes 457,
zebras 365, moose 240, hippos 238, gorillas 258, and camels 406. Most of
the domestic birds-- turkeys, pigeons, geese, ducks, and chickens --all
incubate within a month or less.

Critters with the longest gestations usually have the fewest number of
babies in a litter-- typically only one; and two at the most. Since many of
the clean type animals are of the larger species, and therefore would take
longer to multiply, it was wise to take along seven pairs of those.

So; how did all the various species end up in their respective environs-- e.g.
arctic, rain forests, deserts, and tropical islands? Nobody really knows, but
we can take an educated guess.

According to an article in the October 2011 issue of National Geographic,
around 56 million years ago, the Atlantic Ocean had not fully opened up and
it was possible for animals to migrate from Asia through Europe and across
Greenland to North America. They wouldn't have encountered a speck of ice
because the earth was quite a bit warmer than today.

We suggested previously that with the knowledge we have today of the
science of plate tectonics, it isn't unreasonable to assume that God simply
crunched all the dry land together in order to facilitate migrations to the ark,
and left the land that way until the Flood was over and it was time for the
animals to go back where they came from.

Sometimes when I contemplate the earth's crust consisting of solid stone
like granite, schist, and gneiss; its seems impossible to me that any force
could crunch it; but in the hands of the earth's creator, what's solid to me is
little more than modeling clay to its maker.

As the planet's topography underwent continual alteration by enormous
geological forces, resulting in a variety of global climatic conditions, many
species became isolated and underwent some interesting adaptations and
mutations in order to become the highly specialized creatures that we find
living around the world today.

Classical evolution per se, is, I believe, a spurious fantasy because it
discounts intelligent design and an outside source of all life. But Bible
students have to allow for a least a degree of genetic and somatic
adaptations and mutations or Genesis won't make any sense at all. It is just
too unreasonable to assume that the incredible variety of life existing in our
world today all existed during Noah's too.

After all, every known variety of Man existing today came from just eight
people. If those eight are responsible for producing all the different kinds of
human beings in our world today, then why couldn't the creatures aboard
the ark have been the foundation for all the varieties of non human life?

So; what happened to the ark? Well; according to the dimensions given at
Gen 6:15, the ark was shaped like what the beautiful minds call a right
rectangular prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common
shoe box. So most of the lumber and logs used in its construction would've
been nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together houses, fences,
barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.

I think it's safe to assume that Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the
ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires.
Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using
refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody
needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs.

There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of
that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's
lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape
and should have been preserved for many years to come.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 8:20-21c


● Gen 8:20a . .Then Noah built an altar to the Lord

This is the very first mention of an altar in the Bible. I don't really know if
anyone else constructed one before this. Abel and some of the others may
have, but it's very difficult to be certain. At any rate, Noah's altar was
dedicated to Yhvh rather than to one of the heathen deities people
worshipped prior to the Flood-- and according to Rom 1:22-23 there were
many.

● Gen 8:20 . . and, taking of every clean animal and of every clean
bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar.

This is the very first mention of the burnt offering. The Hebrew word is 'olah
(o-law') which means: a step (or collectively, stairs, as ascending); or a
holocaust (as going up in smoke).

The burnt offering was the very first sacrifice of any kind involving worship
in the new world; and it set the tone for Yhvh's future association with
mankind in the years to come. How Noah knew about the 'olah can only be
attributed to revelation. But what's odd about the 'olah is that the word itself
doesn't show up in Scripture again until the Akedah scene in the 22nd
chapter. (the Akedah is the traditional title of Abraham's offering of his son
Isaac)

Although 'olah can indicate a step (or collectively, stairs, as ascending); it's
improper to construct an altar with stairs (Ex 20:24-26) so that the
ziggurats that man eventually constructed were of course offensive to God
not just because ritual murders were conducted on them but also because
they were essentially stairways to heaven.

Killing and burning on such a scale as Noah's can be taken as a ritual
intended to dedicate the post Flood world to God; sort of like the quantity of
Solomon's sacrifices that he offered to dedicate the new Temple. (1Kgs
8:62-64)

● Gen 8:21a . .The Lord smelled a pleasant odor,

Anyone who has ever been in the kitchen when something is burning on the
stove knows that overcooked meat does not give off a pleasant odor. A
scented candle smells a whole lot better. But the chemical odor of the burnt
offering really has little to do with it. The expression "a pleasant odor" is a
biblical colloquialism that means just the opposite of something that's
objectionable; for example: "I hate that woman's opinions about men. They
stink."

● Gen 8:21b . .Then the Lord said in His heart: I will never again
curse the ground for man's sake,

True, Yhvh never again cursed the ground; but neither did He lift the original
curse that was pronounced in the third chapter. The first curse remains, but
at least God hasn't put additional burdens on the soil. According to Rev
22:3, the first curse is slated to be removed once and for all.

● Gen 8:21c . . although the imagination of man's heart is evil from
his youth;

Albert Einstein once remarked: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results."

Had God encumbered the ground with additional curses He would have been
entirely justified in doing so because the Flood did nothing to rectify the
intrinsically evil condition of the post-Eden human heart. However, God is a
sensible person not easily given to futility.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 8:21d-22


● Gen 8:21d . . nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I
have done.

All the living things in this case refers to that which survives by means of the
breath of life. (Gen 6:17, Gen 7:22)

The promise is qualified by the phrase "as I have done"

So Gen 8:21 doesn't mean God will never again destroy all the living, nor
that He will never again destroy the Earth-- only that He won't repeat the
method He employed the first time. (Gen 9:11)

In point of fact, next time, it's by fire rather than water.

"The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the
heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned
up.

. . . Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of
persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness; looking for
and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being
on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?"
(2Pet 3:10-12)

NOTE: The blackball temperature produced by a thermo-nuclear device is
something like 180,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Just imagine if God were to
turn the atomic structure of the entire universe into one great big self
destructing thermo-nuclear device. The noise, and the heat, generated by
such a detonation would be beyond one's comprehension.

● Gen 8:22 . . So long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease.

The promise of Gen 8:22 was prefaced by "so long as the earth endures."
Well; the Earth is definitely not permanent. It is in fact running out of time.
But until the Day Of The Lord, everything will proceed as normal; which can
be dangerous because people are easily lulled by the routine of status quo
and fail to look far enough ahead and get ready for the future. (cf. Luke
21:33-36)

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 9:1-3


● Gen 9:1 . . God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: Be
fertile and increase, and fill the earth.

Divine blessings should never be construed as laws, rules and/or commands.
They're typically expressions of good will and/or empowerment. God
included Noah in the blessing so that he and his wife could have more
children if they wanted; but there's no record of any additional progeny.

The blessing God bestowed upon Noah's family is the very same blessing
bestowed upon the Adams in the very beginning. Here in chapter nine is the
beginning of a new generation. This new generation-- springing from Shem,
Ham, and Japheth --has continued for a good many years and won't end
until everything Christ predicted in Matt 24:1-44 comes to pass.

The word for "fill" is from male' (maw-lay') and as-used in Gen 1:22, Gen
1:26-28, and Gen 6:11-13 doesn't strictly mean refill or replenish. It just
means to fill or to be full of; and can apply to a bucket that's never been
used as well as to a bucket that's just been emptied; or to a bucket that's
half empty (or half full, depending upon one's outlook).

Here in chapter nine, male' is indicative of a pioneering family that would
start afresh under different circumstances than those of the antediluvian
world. The Noahs were essentially a transition team, bringing human life
from the old world to the current one. The new conditions effecting Shem,
Ham, and Japheth's generation include a change in Man's diet, his alienation
from the animal world, and the introduction of criminal justice.

● Gen 9:2a . .The fear and the dread of you shall be upon all the
beasts of the earth and upon all the birds of the sky-- everything
with which the earth is astir --and upon all the fish of the sea;

In the beginning, the animal world was willingly subordinate to Man's
sovereignty. But no longer. I don't know how He did it, but God instigated
anarchy in the animal world so that now all is in chaos; and most, if not all,
species do not respect Man as their ruler; no, they view Man as a predatory
beast whose existence is a threat to their own,

But the animal world isn't so mistrusting of Man that it cannot overcome its
fears enough to co-exist with him; even to the point of utilizing humans for
nourishment; as Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend Amie Huguenard
discovered firsthand in 2003 when they were devoured by a Grizzly bear.

● Gen 9:2b . . they are given into your hand.

On the surface, this doesn't appear to be a new turn of events since Man
was put fully in charge of the animal kingdom right from the gun (Gen 1:26
28). However; I believe the phrase "given into your hand" indicates that
nature would no longer be passive and submissive; but that Man would have
to conquer nature if he wished it to bring it under his control.

● Gen 9:3 . . Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with
the green grasses, I give you all these.

Man doesn't have to eat every living thing if he doesn't want to-- it's
optional; since Gen 9:1-3 is clearly a blessing rather than a commandment.

Apparently the inclusion of meat in Man's diet after the Flood was intended
primarily as a source of natural supplements to make up for the human
body's gradually lessening ability to manufacture all it's own essential
vitamins; much the same reason that modern vegans resort to synthetic
supplements in order to avoid contracting deficiency diseases.

According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York
Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture
all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to
manufacture all but K and D.

That seems plausible to me seeing as how Noah lived to be 950 years old,
but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased
considerably to 175; which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7
8). Well, Noah at 175 was about equivalent to Abraham at 32; so the human
body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it was in
Abraham's.

Incidentally, the Hebrew words for "green grasses" includes tender young
shoots rather than only the adult plants. An excellent example of a shoot is
asparagus. We typically only harvest the spears because the adult plant is
not only a hideous bush, but it's not even tasty.

NOTE: Bible students are often curious about the disparity between what
was right and wrong for Noah and what was right and wrong for Moses since
the laws of God are supposedly absolutes in any era. But God-given diets
are what's known as "dispensational" which means they're in effect for only
a specific era, and oftentimes only for a specific people. For example: it's
wrong for Moses' people to eat vultures, pigs, and/or lobsters, octopus, and
clams; while for Christ's people, it makes no difference.

Dispensations are an important aspect of Man's association with God; and
failure to discern them can sometimes lead to unnecessary confusion in
peoples' minds.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 9:4


● Gen 9:4 . .You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it.

That restriction is against life-blood; so then blood that cannot support life--
i.e. dead blood --is exempt.

Life-blood, is actually blood that's alive; blood that hasn't begun to spoil;
viz: it's still fresh enough for a transfusion and contains enough active
ingredients to carry oxygen and heal wounds.

Ancient Jews understood that verse to mean it is unlawful to eat meat that
isn't dead; viz: it isn't merely uncooked; it's still viable-- fresh enough for a
successful graft.

T. But flesh which is torn of the living beast, what time the life is in it, or
that torn from a slaughtered animal before all the breath has gone forth, you
shall not eat. (Targum Jonathan)

The way I see it: Man isn't forbidden to dine upon raw meat; only that it
absolutely has to be dead with no chance of recovery. Same with blood. This
law is the very first law God laid down in the new world after the Flood. It
has never been repealed, and remains among the list of primary laws
imposed upon Christians.

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything
beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed
to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual
immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Fare well." (Acts 15:28
29)

A strangled animal still has all of its blood in it. The animal might be brain
dead, and its heart may have stopped beating, but its flesh will remain alive
for some time by reason of the viable blood still in its veins. Recent changes
to CPR procedures include no longer giving victims mouth-to-mouth
respiration for the first few minutes because the blood in a victim's system
still contains useful oxygen that can save their life merely by pumping the
chest as before.

Noah's Law #1 forbids Man to eat living flesh and living blood; and
Christians are no exception. Because of the danger of pathogens, it was
quite possibly necessary to add this limitation to the grant of liberty to eat
meat, lest, instead of nourishing his body by it, Man should inadvertently
destroy himself; and in this day and age of E.coli 0157:H7, 0104:H4, and
salmonella; adequately cooking meat can be considered a form of self
defense.

The prohibition against eating living flesh and blood is neither Jewish, nor is
it Christian. It's universal; because God enacted that law long before there
were any Jews or Christians. All human beings are under its jurisdiction. Man
can eat all the raw meat he wants; and he can eat blood too; but he has
absolutely no permission to eat either blood or meat that's still alive.

The animal world isn't so fussy. They routinely devour their prey alive all the
time. Hopefully no one reading this will ever stoop that low. The very best
way to assure that meat and its blood are dead is to cook it-- thoroughly;
and double check it with a meat thermometer.

At issue with the prohibition against eating blood are the feelings of some
that modern slaughter houses don't always kill animals properly. Many use a
device called a captured-bolt to stun the animals and then workers slit the
animals' throats while they're unconscious. Sometimes the bolt kills an
animal instead of knocking it out and then all that the slaughter house has
to work with is gravity because the animal's heart isn't pumping to assist. So
there are those who feel no one should eat common meat because you can't
guarantee the animal's blood was properly drained.

Exactly what the definition of "properly drained" is I don't know because it's
impossible to drain every last drop of blood out of meat no matter how you
might go about it; so the prohibition against eating blood has got to be
interpreted from a practical perspective rather than from a purist's
perspective.

There are cultures that poke holes in cows' necks in order to drink blood
straight out of the animal utilizing its own blood pressure like a tap to fill
their cups. Other cultures cut open the thorax of animals freshly taken in
hunting in order to take blood-soaked bites of the animal's heart. Those
examples are probably about as close to vampirism as one can get without
actually joining Edward Cullen's family and undergoing the conversion
process.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 9:5-6


● Gen 9:5 . . But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I
will require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning
for human life, of every man for that of his fellow man!

Noah's Law #2 mandates capital punishment; viz: eye-for-an-eye retribution
for the unjustified killing of a human being. This law is also a universal law
and applies to every family of Man and Beast that descends from the ark; no
exceptions.

God requires an investigation into the death of a human being whenever it is
caused by another human being or by a member of the animal kingdom. If
the killing cannot be justified, the perpetrator has to be executed at the
hands of human beings: no exceptions.

● Gen 9:6a . .Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his
blood be shed;

The death penalty here in Gen 9:6 is mandatory only for murder; which
Webster's defines as: the crime of unlawfully killing a person; especially with
malice aforethought. The key word in that definition is "unlawfully"

Capital punishment for murder isn't optional. The word "shall" indicates an
edict: and anybody who thinks they're in step with God while actively
opposing the death penalty has another think coming.

Q: Don't you think it's better to lock all murderers away for life rather than
risk taking the lives of those who are innocent?

A: It is never better to disobey God. The first couple did, and you see what
that got them.

Disobedience is on a scale with dark arts and the worship of Shiva and
Vishnu.

"Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying
the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed
than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and
insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. (1Sam 15:22-23)

In war, commanders expect a percentage of casualties by human error
and/or friendly fire; and those kinds of casualties are usually factored in as
acceptable losses. But it isn't wise to turn off a war off just because
somebody might get hurt by friendly fire. Accidents happen; even under
ideal conditions.

It's the same with the war on crime. Just because a percentage of innocent
people get executed for something they didn't do, is no excuse to get in bed
with the Devil and oppose God's edicts as per Gen 9:5-6.

America's justice system, although far from perfect, has a pretty good
batting average. The overwhelming majority of people dead from executions
fully deserved what they got. Only a tiny percentage are victims of error;
and those percentages should always be considered acceptable losses in any
legitimate endeavor to protect domestic tranquility.

● Gen 9:6b . . For in His image did God make man.

Interesting. So then; indiscriminate killing wasn't banned because it's
immoral, but rather, because it demeans the honor and dignity of God.
Apparently, were humanity lacking His image, people could go on safari and
stalk each other like game animals and mount human heads as trophies of
the hunt.

"People can tame all kinds of animals and birds and reptiles and fish, but no
one can tame the tongue. It is an uncontrollable evil, full of deadly poison.
Sometimes it praises our Lord and Father, and sometimes it breaks out into
curses against those who have been made in the image of God." (Jas 3:7-9)

James criticized the cursing of humans not because it's immoral, but
because it demeans the honor and dignity of God.

The image of God lends humanity a measure of divinity that it wouldn't have
otherwise.

"You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory
and honor and put everything under his feet." (Heb 2:7-8)

Without that measure of divinity, humanity would just be another among
many air-breathing species.

Refusal to pursue the death penalty for murder denigrates the sanctity of
Almighty God. So don't ever let anyone tell you capital punishment for
murder is wrong. No; capital punishment for murder isn't wrong; au
contraire, capital punishment for murder is divine.

NOTE: Some time ago I noticed that the law Yhvh's people agreed upon
with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contains no
stipulations for plea bargaining, imprisonment, or appeals-- justice is swift
and some of its punishments are what we today in our sophisticated society
would call cruel and unusual; plus capital punishment is ordered for quite a
variety of violations. There is no such thing as a life sentence in that law.
Those that would otherwise deserve it, are simply put to death.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 9:7-19


● Gen 9:7 . . Be fertile, then, and increase; abound on the earth and
increase on it.

The idea conveyed here is that Man was not supposed to unite and stay in
one place, but to scatter, diversify, and establish communities all over the
globe.

● Gen 9:8-10 . . And God said to Noah and to his sons with him: I
now establish My covenant with you and your offspring to come, and
with every living thing that is with you-- birds, cattle, and every wild
beast as well --all that have come out of the ark, every living thing
on earth.

Noah's covenant is an especially interesting covenant because it was made
with both Man and Beast: all living things wherein is the breath of life.

Are people today Noah's offspring that were to come? Yes they are. So we
should pay attention to what God told Noah and his sons. "My covenant"
applies to everyone; and all the critters too. In fact, all living beings in the
post-Flood world are under the jurisdiction of the covenant God made with
Noah and his family.

● Gen 9:11 . . I will maintain My covenant with you: never again shall
all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall
there be a flood to destroy the earth.

Noah needed to hear that so he wouldn't get jumpy the next time it started
to rain really hard in his neighborhood. There is still flooding going on in the
world, but certainly not on the same scale as the Flood.

● Gen 9:12-17 . . God further said: This is the sign that I set for the
covenant between Me and you, and every living creature with you,
for all ages to come. I have set My bow in the clouds, and it shall
serve as a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.

. . .When I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow appears in the
clouds, I will remember My covenant between Me and you and every
living creature among all flesh, so that the waters shall never again
become a flood to destroy all flesh.

. . .When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the
everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures, all flesh
that is on earth. That, God said to Noah, shall be the sign of the
covenant that I have established between Me and all flesh that is on
earth.

Some people say Noah had never seen a rainbow before because they don't
believe it ever rained in the antediluvian world. But even if it didn't rain,
rainbows aren't restricted to rainy weather. They can be seen in water falls,
fog, and even in icy air. Since the antediluvian world got some of its
irrigation from mists, there's a pretty good chance Noah had seen at least
one rainbow by the time he was six hundred years old.

Noah's covenant is still in force; as evidenced by the significant presence of
rainbows in prophetic visions. (e.g. Ezek 1:27-28, Rev 10:1-4)

Next time you see a rainbow, think of ol' grandpa Noah and think of God's
promise-- to Noah, to his progeny, to all peoples on this side of the Flood,
and to every creature --that the Earth will never again be destroyed by
water. And remember capital punishment for murder, and remember that
the animal world is accountable for taking human life.

And when you jeopardize your innocent children's future by risking their
exposure to E.coli 0157:H7 and/or 0157:H4 by feeding them a fast food
hamburger made with chicken-droppings-fed, over-crowded, antibiotic
treated, up-to-their-knees in manure, industrially produced beef; or by
risking their exposure to salmonella by feeding them a tasty dish of under
cooked, Teriyaki chicken made from mass-produced, genetically altered,
antibiotic-fed, overcrowded, factory-farmed broilers; remember it was God's
blessing that gave your world the green light to eat flesh so that beginning
in the last half of the 20th century, everyone from thenceforth could dine on
tainted meat.

● Gen 9:18 . .The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem,
Ham, and Japheth-- Ham being the father of Canaan.

Whoever wrote this section of Genesis, wrote it long after the Flood because
the Canaanites didn't exist in Noah's day; nor would they exist at all until
many, many years later.

● Gen 9:19 . .These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the
whole world branched out.

It's remarkable that every ethnic, every tribe, every color, and every
language, is rooted in just those three men. Every existing human being is
alive today from the gene pool of Noah's boys and their wives-- Caucasian,
Negro, Mongol, Asian, Semite, Aleut, Indians of the Americas, Pacific
Islander; and even the Pigmies. Everybody is related to one of those three
boys, and also related to each other in Noah.

Whenever there is war, it is truly brother against brother. The phrase "fellow
man" is not just a feel-good, slap on the back acceptance of someone you
might normally feel superior to or despise beyond reason; no, it's an
expression that identifies human beings you are verily-- though possibly
quite distantly --related to.

All the physical characteristics of the different nations and various tribes,
must, therefore, have been present in the genetic constitutions of just those
three men and three women. Somehow, by the regular mechanisms of
genetics-- variation, adaptation, mutation, and recombination --all the
various groups of nations and tribes developed from that meager post-Flood
human beginning.

But what about Mr. and Mrs. Noah? Didn't they have any more children?
After all, Noah still had about three hundred years left to go in his life. Well .
. if the Noah's did have any more children, they must have been all girls
because the writer said the world was populated by only those three
brothers.

So if indeed there were Noah girls, they had to find husbands from among
their cousins. Those early post-Flood conditions fostered very close
intermarriages; but it was harmless in those days because the human
genome was still yet relatively young, strong, and uncontaminated.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 9:20-22a


● Gen 9:20a . . Noah, a tiller of the soil,

There was a time when a large percentage of Americans grew their own
food, but it's come to the point when some kids don't even know that where
their food comes from.

For example; as a young graduate student, Steven L. Hopp, co-author of
Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, lived in an urban neighborhood where his little
backyard vegetable garden was a howling curiosity to the boys who ran wild
in the alley. One day, as Steven pulled a nice long fresh carrot out of the
ground, one of the boys asked him how it got in there.

So after explaining some fundamentals of farming, Steven asked the boy if
he could think of another vegetable that grows in the ground. After
consulting with his posse, the boy responded: spaghetti?

Later in life, Steven's wife used to take her children's friends out back to the
family garden to warm them up to the idea of eating vegetables; but the
strategy sometimes backfired. They'd back away slowly saying: Oh
maaaaan! those things touched dirt! Ewwww!

Accustomed to shopping with their moms in a well-lit, shiny supermarket
stocked with pre-washed, pre-sorted, neatly piled vegetables, the kids were
brought up to believe that all dirt is 100% unsanitary; and really, how could
you blame them when every advertisement they see on television for
sanitizers, cleansers, and detergents always portray dirt as bad?

It's not just kids who are uninformed about agriculture. When author
Barbara Kingsolver once submitted some material to an editor, the editor
nixed the part in the story about pineapples growing out of the ground. The
editor insisted they grew on trees.

In another incident, one of Barbara's friends expressed amazement when
told that peas, potatoes, and spinach were "up" in Barbara's garden. The
friend wanted to know how potatoes could be "up" since to their knowledge
potatoes grew down in the ground rather on the surface. The friend was
seriously taken aback to discover that potato plants have stems and leaves.

● Gen 9:20b . . was the first to plant a vineyard.

Was Noah the first ever to plant a vineyard? I strongly suspect verse 20
means that he was just the first one to raise grapes in the new world; not
the first ever in all of human history.

● Gen 9:21a . . He drank of the wine and became drunk,

How often did Noah drink and pass out? I ask because the wrath of God isn't
upon drinkers per se; but upon heavy drinkers.

"Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who
stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have harps and
lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine, but they have no
regard for Yhvh's deeds, no respect for the work of His hands." (Isa 5:11
12)

I'm unaware of any woe to those who've had too much to drink. No; it's the
people who subsist on alcohol that get the bad marks; for example:

"It happened, as she continued praying before Yhvh, that Eli watched her
mouth. Now Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice
was not heard. Therefore Eli thought she was drunk. So Eli said to her; How
long will you be drunk? Put your wine away from you!" (1Sam 1:12-14)

Eli suspected that Hannah was a wino; which is very different than just
getting hammered now and then. In other words: I seriously doubt that
Noah was a candidate for AA. He was just a guy who let his wine sneak up
on him.

I once knew a girl in high school with such a low tolerance for alcohol that
just one can of ordinary beer made her start acting silly. She was by
nobody's definition either a wino or an alcoholic; just a regular girl who liked
to have fun on Friday night with the other kids.

"Joseph took servings to them from before him, but Benjamin's serving was
five times as much as any of theirs. So they drank and were merry with
him." (Gen 43:34)

The Hebrew word for "merry" in that verse is from shakar (shaw-kar') which
means to become tipsy; viz: to satiate with a stimulating drink. It might
surprise some people that God gave Man grapes for that very purpose.

"You make the grass grow for the cattle, and herbage for man's labor that
he may get food out of the earth-- wine that cheers the hearts of men" (Ps
104:14-15)

Some folk object that the Bible doesn't say Joseph and his brothers drank
wine at that meal. Well; if those with that objection can come up with
another beverage in the book of Genesis besides wine that had enough
wallop to make Joseph and his brothers tipsy; I might be persuaded.

NOTE: Noah's episode with the wine didn't disqualify him from becoming one
of three most righteous men in the Old Testament. God still placed him right
up there alongside Job and Daniel at Ezek 14:12-20.

So apparently some people's idea of a righteous man is not same as God's
idea of a righteous man. The focus in this incident isn't upon Noah's conduct
anyway; it's upon his son Ham's.

● Gen 9:21b . . and he uncovered himself within his tent.

Noah wasn't a flasher. And he was indoors; passed out in the privacy of his
own home. Plus the Bible only says he was uncovered; it doesn't say
whether it was his front side or his backside that Ham is about to gaze upon.

Noah's home at this point in time was a tent; which isn't the typical domicile
of a man who farms. Nomads live in tents, farmers live in houses. Vineyards
take time to grow to maturity and a nomad isn't likely to wait around long
enough for that. So why was he living in a portable shelter instead of a
permanent building?

At this particular time, Noah's home was probably under construction. No
doubt he put a higher priority on his livelihood than on his quality of life. A
nice home is a senseless luxury when there's no food on the table.

"Finish your outdoor work and get your fields ready; after that, build your
house." (Pro 24:27)

● Gen 9:22a . . Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's
nakedness

What if Ham had barged in on his mother like that? Didn't anybody ever
teach that man to knock or call out before entering someone's bedroom?
What was he doing sneaking around in there anyway?

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 9:22b-25a


● Gen 9:22b . . and told his two brothers outside.

Ham wasn't just a little kid who stumbled into his parents' bedroom. He was
a grown man, married, and quite possibly by this time his son Canaan was
already born. Catching his dad naked was probably an innocent enough
accident; but Ham couldn't let it go. No, he just had to broadcast it and
make sport of his dad. Good grief, you'd think he would at least pull the
covers so no one else would see his dad in that condition.

Ham didn't seem to respect his dad very much. It's a very black-hearted
demon's seed who takes pleasure in opportunities to mock their parents. I
wonder if that's what Ham felt as he gazed down at his dad. Did it actually
make him feel good to see the old gentleman wallowing in disgrace?

So although the Flood wiped out sinful people, it didn't wipe out sin did it?
No, sin survived, and stowed away aboard the ark within the very family of
Noah; the most righteous man on Earth; before the Flood and after the
Flood. (cf. Ezk 14:13-20)

● Gen 9:23 . . But Shem and Japheth took a cloth, placed it against
both their backs and, walking backward, they covered their father's
nakedness; their faces were turned the other way, so that they did
not see their father's nakedness.

Good lads! Those two men respected their dad and did the right thing by
him. It's only too clear that Ham despised his father. You know, when you
love people, you won't demean them, nor ridicule them, nor wish them
disgrace, nor do anything at all that might tarnish their reputation. Love
reveals itself by always looking out for the best interests of others.

Ham's act is seen even more reprehensible when juxtaposed with the Flood.
Noah's ark saved Ham's bacon, and this is how his son repaid the favor?
When Noah got off the ark, he reciprocated God's kindness with gratitude
and burnt offerings. Ham reciprocated his father's kindness with mockery
and public disgrace. There are those among the Serpent's seed, as were
Cain and Ham, who hate good simply for the very good's sake; viz: good
disgusts them.

● Gen 9:24-25a . .When Noah woke up from his wine and learned
what his youngest son had done to him, he said: Cursed be Canaan;

I'd imagine that Canaan objected very strongly upon hearing a curse
pronounced upon himself when it was not him but his dad who embarrassed
grandpa. What did Canaan do to deserve a curse? Not a thing. Then why did
Noah curse Ham's son instead of cursing Ham? The answer to that is located
in the passage below:

"Yhvh, Yhvh: a God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding
in kindness and faithfulness; extending kindness to the thousandth
generation— forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; yet He does not remit
all punishment; but visits the iniquity of parents upon children and children's
children unto the third and fourth generation." (Ex 34:6-7)

Parents' progeny aren't imputed guilt for their parents' conduct, but they do
sometimes become collateral damage when God goes after the parents. For
example the Flood. No doubt quite a few innocent children drowned in that
event due to their parents' wickedness. The same happened to the children
in Sodom and Gomorrah. And during Moses' face-off with Pharaoh, God
moved against everything that pertained to the man; including, but not
limited to, his economy, his land, his livestock, his citizens, his citizens'
children, and his own children. It's a very disturbing biblical fact of life that
sometimes God gets back at the parents by going after things that pertain to
them.

For example; God took the life of David's innocent little baby boy to get back
at his father for committing the capital crimes of premeditated murder and
adultery.

Another example is located in the 16th chapter of Numbers where not just
the rebels were punished; but their entire families and all their belongings
were swallowed by a fissure that God opened in the ground beneath their
feet.

A close call is recorded in the book of Jonah. Had not the adults in Ninevah
changed their ways, something like 120,000 little children would have
perished; not to mention all the cattle. According to Jonah 4:11, taking out
children and dumb animals is not something that God enjoys. But there is a
mysterious element to absolute justice that apparently compels Him to do it.

The antediluvian's case, Ham's case, Sodom and Gomorrah's case, David's
case, Pharaoh's case, Korah's case, and Ninevah's case lead me to suspect
that God's chosen people caught up in the Holocaust weren't caught up as
retribution for their own sins; but rather; as retribution for the sins of past
generations; which also tells me that the status of God's chosen people isn't
something to be proud of; but rather; something to be afraid of because
moths that fly too close to the flame risk getting their wings burned seeing
as how the covenant's God doesn't practice favoritism.

"You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth; therefore, I will
punish you for all your iniquities." (Amos 3:2)

In other words: among the various human communities on earth; Yhvh's
people have the least excuse for their impieties due to their privileged
association with God and their ready access to the knowledge of His will.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 9:25b-29


● Gen 9:25b . . the lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.

That's a very derogatory remark, and more likely a colloquialism or a
metaphor rather than a literal prediction; sort of like the one God made
regarding the Serpent; that it would crawl on its belly and eat dirt; viz:
henceforth be regarded the lowest sort of filth imaginable. Well, that was
Noah's prediction regarding Canaan; and it came true. The people of the
land of Canaan became so abhorrent that God, in Deut 7:1-5 and Deut 18:9
14, commanded Yhvh's people to drive them out, to exterminate them, to
reject their religions, and to avoid assimilation.


● Gen 9:26a . . And he said: Blessed be Yhvh, the god of Shem;

Yhvh (The Lord) is said to be Shem's god. But Yhvh is not said to be the god
of either Ham or Japheth. Shem is the only one of the three brothers of
whom it is said "Yhvh, the god of" perhaps implying that the Bible's God
didn't become Shem's god just because the family he was born into
worshipped that particular god, rather because Shem personally chose the
Bible's God to be his god. A lot of adults are in a religion simply because
that's the one they grew up with.

● Gen 9:26b . . let Canaan be a slave to them.

The pronoun "them" would refer to the peoples that would descend from
Shem.

● Gen 9:27a . . May God enlarge Japheth,

That seems more a prayer than a prediction. Japheth is generally regarded
as the father of several Gentile nations, most particularly the Romans and
the Greeks, who became mighty world powers. Japheth seemed like an okay
kind of guy who at least had a sense of propriety. People like him; even
though maybe not particularly God-fearing, will listen to reason, and can
often be persuaded to do the right thing. He proved at least that much when
he assisted brother Shem to cover their dad's exposure in a discreet way. It
is so cool to see someone wishing good for non-Jews so early in human
history.

● Gen 9:27b . . and let him dwell in the tents of Shem;

That doesn't necessarily mean Shem's people and Japheth's people would
mingle and assimilate. The expression "dwell in the tents of" is a
colloquialism sometimes used to denote compliance or conformity. Here's an
example of just the opposite of what we might call dwelling in the tents of
Shem.

"Better one day in Your courts than a thousand [anywhere else]; I would
rather stand at the threshold of God's house than dwell in the tents of the
wicked." (Ps 84:11)

The "tents of the wicked" regards a life style that has no place in it for the
Bible's God and doesn't allow His spirit an influence in one's personal life.
The remainder of that Psalm is dedicated to the kind of people of whom we
could say: dwell in the tents of Shem.

"For The Lord God is sun and shield; The Lord bestows grace and glory; He
does not withhold His bounty from those who live without blame. O Lord of
hosts, happy is the man who trusts in You." (Ps 84:12-13)

People who live in the tents of the wicked, and walk where the wicked walk;
sure don't walk where Shem walks. Not all of Japheth's people would dwell
in the tents of Shem of course. But the idea is that Japheth's people weren't
totally a bad apple like Canaan's. Many of them would become God-fearing,
moral, scrupulous, and upright-- though not all of course; but at least
Japheth's progeny wouldn't prove 100% incorrigible.

● Gen 9:27c . . and let Canaan be a slave to them.

Not all of Ham's descendants would become subservient to the people of
Shem and Japheth. Only those in Canaan's line.

● Gen 9:28-29 . . Noah lived after the Flood 350 years. And all the
days of Noah came to 950 years; then he died.

Another righteous man bites the dust. Noah lived twenty more years than
Adam, but nineteen less than Methuselah-- no doubt a great role model and
a tremendous influence upon the minds of all his grandchildren. He surely
must have had a huge brood of them in the new world by the time his 350
post-Flood years ended.

Guys like Noah prove a point. Just because someone is righteous is no
reason to think that they shouldn't have to die. The human body has its
limits. No matter how righteous somebody is, their body will eventually give
out.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 10:1-32


● Gen 10:1 . .These are the lines of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the
sons of Noah: sons were born to them after the Flood.

Chapter ten is a tiresome list of genealogies that some have found
interesting enough to devote entire books; generating a catalogue of nations
connecting Noah's descendants to the ancient civilizations and even today's.
But I'm going to comment upon only a few salient features.

● Gen 10:5 . .These are the descendants of Japheth by their lands--
each with its language-- their clans and their nations.

Diverse languages didn't appear right away. First came the tower of Babel. It
was after that when people's languages became what we might call
"foreign".

● Gen 10:8-9 . . Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a
mighty warrior on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before The
Lord; that is why it is said: Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before The
Lord. The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad
and Calneh, in Shinar.

At first, mankind was scattered out in individual clans, and leadership was
pretty much restricted to local patriarchal Dons and Sheiks.

But Nimrod wasn't content with local rule. He was resolved not only to be
head and shoulders above his neighbors-- not only to be eminent among
them but to lord it over them.

The same spirit that actuated the mighty men and the men of renown prior
to the Flood, (by reason of whom the Flood came) now revived in Nimrod.
There are some in whom ambition, achievement, and affectation of dominion
seem to be bred in the bone. Nothing short of hell itself will humble and
break the proud, domineering spirits of men such as those.

Nimrod is interesting. He's a Nephilistic personage with humble beginnings:
first as a professional hunter; probably supplying meat to frontier towns and
selling pelts at trading posts. That was likely Nimrod's career path up until
his exploits became famous and he began to realize it was far more
profitable to go into politics.

Lots of great men, some good and some bad, had humble beginnings--
Abraham Lincoln, King David, and even Hitler. Timely circumstances, and
fortuitous events, catapulted those blokes up to very high levels of control
over their fellow men.

A contemporary case in point is US President Barak Hussein Obama: a man
who had little to no chance of winning a US Senate seat had it not been for
his shoo-in opponent's carnal indiscretions.

From thence, the voting public's disgust with the Republican party, coupled
with their infatuation with the color of Mr. Obama's skin (he's not really
Black, he's mulatto), practically assured his election to America's highest
federal office. He was but a junior senator with like zero executive
experience; yet there he was flying around the world in Air Force One.

To this very day Nimrod is still known as the outdoorsman who would be
king. He was such a famous icon of that day that his example became
descriptive of others who worked their way to the top like he did-- men of
vision, daring, energy, strong personal ambition, and dogged perseverance.

The common personality trait, among such men, is their strong desire not
just to govern, but to quite dominate people. There are those for whom it
isn't enough to win; no, it isn't enough for people like that to win: everyone
else has to lose. They don't want 50% market share, nor even 90% no,
they're content with nothing less than 100%

Actually, Nimrod was one of the great men of history, though so little is
written about him. He was one of the first statesmen to successfully create a
sort of European Union; and it was such a solid alliance that only divine
intervention could bring it down.

● Gen 10:21a . . Sons were also born to Shem, ancestor of all the
descendants of Eber

Descendants of Eber (most notably Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) became
known as Eberites: a.k.a. Hebrews.

● Gen 10:32 . .These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their
generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided
in the earth after the Flood

What I find very interesting about the nations divided in the earth is their
diversity of progress. When Europeans came to the continental US, they
found indigenous peoples who were, from all appearances, perpetual cave
men. They never had an iron age. Heck, no metal age at all; except maybe
copper here and there.

Long, long after the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons evolved into
Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Spaniards, and Portuguese; the American
Indian was still using stone tools, living in rudimentary shelters, and walking
everywhere he went. His greatest obstacle to travel was distance because
they had no horses. It was like they were a people whom time forgot.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 11:1-5


● Gen 11:1 . . Everyone on earth had the same language and the
same words.

The Hebrew word for "language" is from saphah (saw-faw') which means:
the lip. The one for "words" is from dabar (daw-baw') which means: a word
(as spoken or written)

Spoken languages are a combination of words and lips; viz: vocabulary and
pronunciation, i.e. accent and inflection. It's one thing to know the words of
a language, but it is quite another to speak them with the correct
pronunciation. In that day, everyone used the same words and spoke them
alike.

● Gen 11:2 . . And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a
valley in the land of Shinar and settled there.

The name "Shinar" was of course given later because these early migrations
were to lands heretofore uninhabited. According to Gen 10:10, Shinar
became Nimrod's turf.

The amount of time elapsed between Noah's bender and this migration isn't
stated in the Bible-- plus; there's really no way to tell which part of the
world was "the east" in the author's day.

Here in the USA, the Great Continental Divide is an east/west determinant.
Funny thing is, if you're located in Phoenix Arizona, then Billings Montana is
to your continental east even though geographically, it's almost directly
north; so when you see directions like "east" and/or "west" in the Bible, it's
probably best to NOT think cardinal points on a compass.

For example in the case of the Magi of Matt 2:1. As best as we can tell, their
city was somewhere east of the meridian that runs north/south through the
Jordan River Valley but that kind of an east is continental rather than
geographical so there's really no telling where they came from.

This particular migration was "from" the east; which means pioneers from
among Noah's progeny, whose numbers at this point are totally unknown,
went out west looking for greener pastures. Although the region of Shinar
has not yet been precisely pinpointed, we can take a relatively educated
guess at it.

"In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, King
Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and laid siege to it. The Lord
delivered King Jehoiakim of Judah into his power, together with some of the
vessels of the House of God, and he brought them to the land of Shinar to
the house of his god; he deposited the vessels in the treasury of his god."
(Dan 1:1-2)

The "Shinar" of Daniel's day is apparently the region where ancient Babylon
was located. Babylon's location today is marked by a broad area of ruins just
east of the Euphrates River, approximately 90 km (56 mi) south of Baghdad,
Iraq. It's part of an area commonly known as the Fertile Crescent; a very
large region arching across the northern part of the Syrian Desert and
extending from the Nile Valley to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. In the
early post-Flood years, this region was very lush. But today much of it is arid
wasteland.

● Gen 11:3a . .They said to one another: Come, let us make bricks
and burn them hard. (Brick served them as stone).

Brick are blocks of clay or other ceramic used for construction and
decorative facing. Bricks may be dried in the sun but are more usually baked
in a kiln. They cost relatively little, resist dampness and heat, and can
actually last longer than some kinds of stone.

Brick was the chief building material of ancient Mesopotamia and Palestine.
The inhabitants of Jericho in Palestine were building with brick about 9,000
years ago (7,000 bc). That's about 5,000 years before Abraham's day.

Sumerian and Babylonian builders constructed ziggurats, palaces, and city
walls of sun-dried brick and covered them with more durable kiln-baked,
often brilliantly glazed brick, arranged in decorative pictorial friezes. Later
the Persians and the Chinese built in brick, for example, the Great Wall of
China. The Romans built large structures such as baths, amphitheaters, and
aqueducts in brick, which they often covered with marble facing.

● Gen 11:3b . . and bitumen served them as mortar.

According to Webster's, bitumen is any of various mixtures of hydrocarbons
(as tar) often together with their nonmetallic derivatives that occur naturally
or are obtained as residues after heat-refining natural substances (e.g.
petroleum).

The stuff can be deadly if one isn't careful because once your feet become
stuck, they are very difficult to extract; as the museum at the La Brea tar
pits in Los Angeles attests. But it's a handy building material too. Noah
sealed the ark with a bituminous material, and Moses owed his life to it. (Ex
2:1-10)

● Gen 11:4 . . And they said: Come, let us build us a city, and a tower
with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall
be scattered all over the world.

Magnificent cities have a way of attracting tourism, commerce, and industry.
People want to come and visit, and to live there. Politically, their scheme
made good sense. More people equals more prosperity; resulting in more
power and control over the region-- and of course the larger their tax base
the more city services they could provide citizens; including an effective civil
defense program.

There's nothing really intrinsically wrong in building a large beautiful city.
But in their case, it wasn't the right time for it. God wanted the post
Flooders to move out and populate the entire globe, rather than accumulate
in one local region.

Towers served a variety of purposes in the ancient world. Some were used
as look-outs, others were used as tombs, and yet others were used as
bloody altars for human sacrifices.

The purpose intended for the tower of Gen 11:4 isn't stated but guessing
from the wording, I'd say it was intended to be a grand monument; sort of
like the 630 foot stainless steel Gateway Arch in Ste. Louis Missouri, or a
magnificent minaret like the 239-foot Qutab Minar in Delhi India. Something
like that would certainly go a long ways towards getting the Shinarians the
renown they sought.

But their wish that the tower's top be in the sky suggests their primary
motive was to use its facade to display a variety of gods popular in that day.
There's towers like that right now that in the city of Madurai in the South
Indian state of Tamil Nadu, located on the banks of River Vaigai.

The towers are literally festooned with hundreds of gods. So if your favorite
god is up there somewhere, there's no need for you to leave town and go
on a pilgrimage elsewhere to worship. People love their religion. So if you
give them the liberty and the means to practice it; they'll love you forever.
Tolerance is good politics. If only Islamic fundamentalists understood this.

● Gen 11:5 . .Yhvh came down to look at the city and tower that man
had built,

That verse presents an interesting theological problem. Wouldn't it make
better sense by saying Yhvh looked down, instead of saying the Yhvh "came"
down? Why bother to come down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know
all? Isn't God omniscient? Can't He see everything from right where He is?

Yes, the Bible's God can do that alright; but a certain celestial being in the
Old Testament scriptures-- often labeled Yhvh --is never God in person. It's
a divine agent who goes by the name of God, stands in for God, speaks for
God, speaks as God, reports to God, and takes care of God's business in this
world of ours; for example:

"I am sending an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you
to the place that I have made ready. Pay heed to him and obey him. Do not
defy him, for he will not pardon your offenses, since My Name is in him; but
if you obey him and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies
and a foe to your foes." (Ex 23:20-22)

The name of that angel is his master's name, and actually, the words Moses
heard spoken at Ex 23:20-22 were spoken by that heaven-sent messenger
on behalf of his master. That mysterious being is not only an enigma; but
also quite frightful as anyone who's studied its activities in the books of
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy can attest. In other words:
wherever the name Yhvh appears in the texts of those books; it's that
mysterious angel.

"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel: and they saw the God of Israel: and there was under His
feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of
heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid
not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink." (Ex 24:9-11)

Did they really see the actual God? No.

"He said: thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see Me, and
live." (Ex 33:20)

"You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form." (John
5:37)

What Moses and his entourage saw was the mysterious celestial messenger
whose name is his master's.

/