Buster Dobb's Ark Theory
Joseph Crea Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 07:47:02 +0000 (00918308822, 19990206074702.INVT26415@LOCALNAME)
Hello, Bones!
At 08:13 PM 2/5/99 -0600, eric/cindy bach wrote:
>Hi Joe.
>>snip previous
>
>>CREA wrote
>> The Egyptians are supposedly the descendents of Noah's son Ham (per Gen.
>>9:6). The entirety of the ninth chapter of Genesis is devoted to an
>>exposition explicitly linking the various "peoples"/nations/"races" to the
>>offspring (near or far) of Noah's progeny.
>
>BACH
>I think you meant to type Genesis 10:6 here, perhaps, Joe....and the tenth
>chapter of Genesis, instead of the ninth, yes?
>Genesis 10:6 says that Ham had a son called "Egypt". Is it all that simple?
CREA
Mea culpa. Mea culpa maxima! Yes, it should be the tenth chapter of
Genesis, not the ninth. I occasionally get lazy and just look at the chapter
reference at the top corner of the page rather than running back up the
text. Needless to say, when the page commences in the middle of one chapter
and then goes on to the next chapter, there is ample opportunity for error.
So, at least as far as this individual's infallibility is concerned, I'm
definitely in the errantist camp.
>CREA
>As for HOW the populations managed to reach the levels necessary for
>architectural achievements which
>>still survive (not to mention all the stuff which didn't), the
>explanation is obvious -- it was a miracle! Hope that this helps.
>
>BACH
>Yes, indeed, my friend. I couldn't see the forest for the trees, I guess.
>A miracle, why of course, that's the ticket. Yeah. How did I miss an
>explanation that was so obvious? :)
>
>I found something else that seems strange, btw, in the course of looking up
>all this other stuff:
>
>Genesis 6:4, talking about before the flood, says "The Nephilim were on the
>earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to
>the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the
>mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." [RSV] (I asked about them
>once before, now that I think about it.)
>
>Genesis 10:6 says, now talking about after the flood, that Ham also had a
>son called Cush. Genesis 10:7 names 5 sons of Cush. Genesis 10:8, however,
>says "Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the FIRST on earth to be a
>mighty man."
>
>Nimrod is not named in Genesis 10:7 as one of Cush's 5 sons, but I'm not
>sure if this is important. What does seem important to me is how Nimrod
>could be the FIRST on earth to be a mighty man if there had already been
>mighty men, i.e. the Nephilim referred to in Genesis 6:4, on earth before
>the flood? Noah and his 3 sons were not Nephilim, were they? So I don't
>get it. What is supposed to have been going on here...another miracle,
>perhaps???
CREA
Don't know, possibly -- the magic 8ball says "answer uncertain, try
again later" . However, when I checked the respective Hebrew texts, the
term for "mighty men" and "mighty man" differ solely by being the plural and
singular forms of the same word. Looks like you found a "biblical
discrepancy". If you're really lucky, maybe it will end up being named
after you! '-)
With Mettaa,
Joseph Crea
<Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net>