greentwiga writes:
Remember that there is a difference between what the Bible says and some people's interpretation.
yes, this is often quite true.
Notice that there are two Adams. Gen 1 has both men and women as Adam. Gen 2 has Adam as male alone.
which is why i was specific, above, to refer to "genesis 2/3's adam". they are both using the word generically, but in slightly different senses. genesis 2/3, part of an older document (J), has "the man" as a single individual, and a metaphor for the everyman. he's a specific case that's written to be read as a generalization. genesis 1, in slight contrast, is from a newer document (P) and probably intended to entirely replace the older account. gen 1's "the man" seems to generic from the get-go, and apply to women too. it doesn't seem to be a specific individual even in the literal account, like genesis 2/3 does.
If they are separate people (and in far separate times) then everyone is descended from Adam of chap 1, but only some are descended from Adam and Eve.
well, no. the genealogy still bottlenecks through noah, who is descended from seth, who is named for the fact that he replaced cain and abel, gen 2/3's adam's (and eve's) sons.
Similarly for the flood. The whole erets was flooded. It can be translated as earth, region or country. If it was region, then everyone in the region was killed, but others lived through it.
sure, but translation should take into account how the word has been used in the rest of the source (it has always seemed to mean the entire earth before it) and the implications and intentions of text. in this case, the implication and intention seems to be that yahweh is
undoing his entire creation, by literally returning it to the primal chaos (water) that originated from. he is making the water above heaven meet the water below heaven.
now, some have understood J's yahweh to be a
local god, which would mean his creation is also local. and i don't think they're entirely wrong. i just think that this only really extends to his
people, and that the missing portion of J follows a somewhat similar outline as the version we currently have in P, because this basic outline matches canaanite, sumerian, and even egyptian cosmology. and henotheistic as J seems to be, i just can't see her actively attributing anything to any other god.
If it was region, you would expect that the Bible would mention that people discover an empty land to the east and move into it (Shinar/Sumer)
if it was the entire earth, the same would hold true.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
אָרַח