GENESIS: Snoopy's Short & Snappy Review

[Mendalla]

They would have returned to hunting as well as raising livestock.

It is interesting that the composers of this story believed animals were not afraid of humans before the flood

A former member of this board once suggested that predation was actually a product of The Fall, that nature fell along with humanity. I don't buy it (cats started as vegetarians?? fat chance on that one) but the idea of animals once not being afraid of humans would fit with humans being vegetarian or vegan pre-Flood and not hunting or raising livestock for meat, just milk and related. That said, human hunting of meat seems like it may go back to at least homo habilis or even the australopithecines so definitely not a fit with our understanding of human evolution. We have been omnivores for a very, very long time whatever the vegan activists might think.

 

[paradox3]

Biblically we see in Genesis 1 that the people were given authority over the earth but they were meant to eat seeds and fruit. Even the animals were given every green plant for food.

By the time of Cain and Abel, Abel was tending to the flocks and offering a blood sacrifice to God. It's very hard to imagine the people not consuming meat at this point.

 

[paradox3]

It is interesting that the composers of this story believed animals were not afraid of humans before the flood

I wonder when the writers thought the animals became afraid of each other? They certainly have reason to fear their predators.

 

[unsafe]

This is an interesting part of this scripture today -----

As Noah Curses Ham's son Canaan Not Ham for his deed of looking upon his Father's nakedness ------


21 And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he was uncovered and lay naked in his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, glanced at and saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.

23 So Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon the shoulders of both, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine, and knew the thing which his youngest son had done to him,

25 He exclaimed, Cursed be Canaan! He shall be the [a]servant of servants to his brethren!

26 He also said, Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! And blessed by the Lord my God be Shem! And let Canaan be his servant.

 

[Mendalla]

As Noah Curses Ham's son Canaan Not Ham for his deed of looking upon his Father's nakedness

Yeah, that's a curious thing and I am not clear on why. I know there's lines elsewhere about the sins of the father being visited upon the sons but it still seems a bit off. It's like "WTF did I do? This is Dad's problem." isn't it?

 

[unsafe]

Yeah, that's a curious thing and I am not clear on why. I know there's lines elsewhere about the sins of the father being visited upon the sons but it still seems a bit off.

Your quote here is about the Generational Curse where the Iniquity of the Father is passed on up to the 3rd and 4th generation ------it is not the actual sin that the Father Commits that is passed on but the Characteristic of the sin that is passed on ------

Hebrew word for iniquity

Cognate: 4189 ponēría , pain, laborious trouble") – properly, pain-ridden evil, resulting in "toil , anguish, distress, suffering.

Canaan is already there so that is not the reason for him being cursed by Noah instead of his father ====

 

[paradox3]

Deuteronomy 5: 9 tells us the sins of the fathers are visited upon the third and fourth generations.

I used to work with some people who had trained in family systems work. They took this to mean intergenerational trauma

 

[paradox3]

One theory about Noah cursing Canaan instead of Ham is that God had already blessed Ham (Genesis 9: 1)

 

[Mendalla]

God had already blessed Ham

So many possible puns and jokes here...

 

[paradox3]

Why didn't Ham simply cover Noah himself? Why did he choose to tell his brothers he had found their father naked?

 

[GordW]

One theory about Noah cursing Canaan instead of Ham is that God had already blessed Ham (Genesis 9: 1)

WE also need to remember that by the time this story gets into written form a lot of water has passed under the bridge -- water that has included the promising of an already occupied land to Abraham (and his descendants) and the "conquest" of Canaan. Possibly the 'history' has been told in a way to match/promote the understanding of how things should be.

 

[unsafe]

One theory about Noah cursing Canaan instead of Ham is that God had already blessed Ham (Genesis 9: 1)

You have it right here paradox3 ----impressive ---your researching again -----

No one can Curse what God's has Blessed ------and Noah knew that so he had no choice but to Curse Canaan ====God Blessed Noah and his son's ---

 

[paradox3]

This passage has God giving Noah two important directives:

Do not eat the flesh of a living animal.
Do not murder.

And perhaps the imperative to establish courts of justice is here too:

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 9:6 - New English Translation

“Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made humankind.

www.biblegateway.com

This gives us three of the seven Noahide Laws itemized in the Talmud.

If Noah's nakedness is interpreted as a symbol of sexual impropriety, we have four of those laws right here in Genesis 9. Or at least the basis of them.

The remaining three Noahide Laws are the prohibitions against theft, worshipping idols and cursing God. The Noahide Laws are said to represent universal morality.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Yes, I often think that "seeing Noah's nakedness" is one of those euphemisms, like Naomi "lying at the feet of" Boaz.

But that implies that the specific sexual impropriety is incest.

 

[paradox3]

The specific sexual sin might not matter. The Noahide Laws tend to speak in generalities. I am speculating though. I don't know anything about the thinking that went into writing the Talmud.

 

[Mendalla]

And perhaps the imperative to establish courts of justice is here too:

Well, except it's the rather primitive "eye for an eye", or "blood for blood" in this case, school of justice. Certainly a passage that could be pretty clearly cited by the pro-capital punishment mob down South.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I thought that the part about other humans judging the human who had murdered was important. Makes them jointly responsible for the decision to take another life.

 

[paradox3]

There's so much more to think about in these primeval stories than I realized!

Tomorrow we will be back to genealogy. Snoopy might go chase some squirrels or something

 

[paradox3]

Well, except it's the rather primitive "eye for an eye", or "blood for blood" in this case, school of justice. Certainly a passage that could be pretty clearly cited by the pro-capital punishment mob down South.

True. But I think the nuance can come later. The idea that humans need to hold each other accountable is quite new here.

 

[Mendalla]

True. But I think the nuance can come later. The idea that humans need to hold each other accountable is quite new here.

I get the sense that there's still a lot of sympathy for the more direct interpretation vs. nuance. But, yes, accountability for actions is the sensible modern interpretation.