Genesis, Start To Finish

[Odë:hgöd]

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

Righteousness varies; for example there's the righteous of God (Rom 3:23) which
of course Noah couldn't possibly match because the bar is set just too high.

Then there's a righteousness that comes from following instructions to the letter;
for example Luke 1:6 & Phil 3:6.

And there's a righteousness relative to one's fellow men (Ezek 14:12-20)

And imputed righteousness (Gen 15:6)

And innate righteousness (1John 3:9)

Noah preached on righteousness (2Pet 2:5) so I think we may safely assume that
he practiced what he preached in order to receive such a high mark from God.

NOTE: 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 antediluvian folks 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 available 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 suitable for ceremonies and/or for human consumption, because up
ahead Noah will be given the green light to begin eating meat.

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 were
destroyed by 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)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

Noah's age is expressed in what's known as prophetic years; which consist of
twelve equal months of thirty days each; adding up to 360 days; which is roughly
4.25 days short of a normal year. So 600 for Noah was roughly 593 today.

Noah died at 950. According to the US Department of Health, the average USA life
expectancy is currently around 79. Using that as a point of reference: one year of
America's average age is around 11.88 years of Noah's age. So in comparison;
Noah would have been equivalent to 50 when the Flood began.

● 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 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.

Here again it's mentioned that the animals came to Noah rather than he and his
sons going on safari to round them up.

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)

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

Thus far Genesis has defined days on Earth as periods of time when the Sun is up
rather than down, so we may safely assume the rain began in daylight rather than
when it was dark outside.

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 around town heralding 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, rather, it is what it is, i.e. it is the future.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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 . . the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up,
and the windows of heaven were opened.

The Hebrew word translated "deep" is basically means an abyss (as a surging mass
of water) especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water-supply).

The difference between the deep of Gen 1:1-2 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 whereas
the Earth's indigenous sources are limited. The precise location of the great deep is
currently unknown.

The "windows" of heaven are translated from a Hebrew word that basically means a
sluice; viz: a trough and/or a channel for moving water from one place to another;
in this case for transferring water from the great deep to the Earth.

Seeing as how Gen 7:11 speaks of heaven and sluices, then I think it's safe to
assume that the water used to flood the Earth came from somewhere out in the
cosmos; which is actually a reasonable assumption.

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 a 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.

This is 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.

● 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 ark.

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, his crew, and his passengers were trapped inside the ark by a
door that could be opened only from the outside.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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.

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

REPLY: Well; the problem with that theory is: the waters breached 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 before they ever got up to that 22½ feet of extra elevation.

But the water would start spilling past Noah's area long before it breached the tops
of the highest mountains surrounding him because mountain ranges aren't shaped
smooth, level, and planed 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 (not taking into
consideration that the diameter of the water's surface would increase as the water
got deeper)

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 days, and Denver in less than thirty-seven.

* It's sometimes objected that there is no geological evidence to support the
Flood. Well it only lasted a year so what do the skeptics expect? And besides, it was
essentially standing water rather than flowing water so it would've produced
relatively little erosion, if any. It's likely effects would've been sedimentary.

And the water was removed all at the same time from all over the globe rather than
drained off from a single location, viz: God didn't pull the plug, so to speak. And
then we should also take into consideration that though the Flood's arrival was swift
and violent, it's removal was relatively gradual and gentle.

● 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've failed to control the Flood.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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 and thrown alive, wild eyed, bellowing like wounded dogs
and screaming like little children, into the impoundment of brimstone depicted at
Rev 20:11-15. 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 Hebrew word translated "receded" is somewhat ambiguous. It can mean draw
back, return to the beginning, or simply diminish. The very same word is used in
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; the word 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 dried 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 dried off by the process
of evaporation like the way women use blow dryers to remove dampness from their
hair after washing. But there's just no possible way that much water got absorbed
by the earth's atmosphere or it would still be here. No, I'm convinced the wind was
more like a vacuum cleaner than a hair dryer.

● 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 in the Bible always refers to a political area-- the country of Armenia
--never a specific geological feature by the same name.

The Hebrew word for "mountains" doesn't always indicate a prominent land mass
like Kilimanjaro; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range of hills or
highlands; for example:

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 ranch land
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 peaks like Viejas, Lyon's, or
Cuyamaca.

It makes better sense to beach the ark on the soil of one of Armenia's elevated
plains rather than up on one of Turkey's ancient volcanoes seeing as how Noah took
up agriculture after the Flood. Plus, had he been forced to abandoned the ark atop
a mountain, Noah would've lost ready access to an abundant supply of hewn wood
that he could appropriate for other purposes. Noah's sons reproduced so we can be
fairly certain that Noah's posterity-- which eventually numbered quite a few people
--would want lumber from the ark for useful purposes too.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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 Center 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. (Clean vs Unclean isn't absolute, viz: what's unclean for Jews, isn't
necessarily unclean for Christians. Compare Acts 10:9-15 & Rom 14:1-23)

Ravens are intelligent, sociable, and highly adaptable. Although they don't usually
trust Man, they have been known to associate with him in remarkable ways.

● 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?

● 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" basically means recently torn off; viz: fresh, i.e,. 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?

Old-world olives prefer a Mediterranean climate, which is pretty good empirical
evidence that the ark did not come to rest on the top of Turkey's Mt. Ararat; a
snow-capped dormant volcano consisting of two peaks: Lesser Ararat @ 12,782
feet, and Greater Ararat @ 16,854 feet.

Tall 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. So it's a pretty safe bet that the olive tree, from which
the dove plucked a leaf, wasn't growing up on Mt. Ararat prior to the Flood. It
would've preferred neither the elevation nor the climate.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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 of 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
design of the ark's top is itself a bit of a mystery. Apparently the position of the
window was such that structural portions of the top obscured Noah' view.

● 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 passengers and crew 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.

FAQ: Whence came the so-called prophetic year?

REPLY: 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 if we don't count the day that
the ark ran aground. 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 standard 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; for example the one below:

"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 fifteen 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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 8:15-19 . . 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.

. . . 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.

The Hebrew word translated "families" basically speaks of taxonomy; viz:
classifications.

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 gestation 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; 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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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 Jehovah
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 8:20b . . 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 God'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 idiom that means just
the opposite of something that's objectionable; for example: "I hate that woman's
opinions about men. They stink." (cf. Ex 5:21)

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

True, God 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;

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.

● 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. (2Pet 3:10-12)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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)

● 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 translated "fill" as it's 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 the 9th chapter, "fill" is indicative of a pioneering family that would
populate the world 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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 9:2 . .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;

From the start, the animal kingdom lived with Man in peaceful co-existence-- the
birds, beasts, fish, and even the tiniest of creatures; the microbes, as they would
be included in the statement "everything with which the earth is astir". That
situation ended with the Flood.

It was God's wish that the critters, great and small, would be subordinate to Man's
sovereignty (Gen 1:26-28). 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 have stopped accepting Man as their superior; no, they view Man as
both predator and prey. Quite a few species use Man-- dead and/or alive --for food.

I think we can safely assume that it was right about here in human history when
diseases became the norm as microbes, which at one time were harmless, became
pathogens.

Also about this time, it became necessary for Man to tame animals before they
would do his bidding. In the beginning, they were willing, but now they're wary,
wild, hostile, stubborn, and rebellious.

● 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 creature 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 its 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) 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.

FYI: 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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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-- 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 No.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, E.coli 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.

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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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!

This law is universal regardless of one's age, race, gender and/or religious
preference. It applies to every family of Man and Beast that descends from the ark;
no exceptions: and we can't lay this responsibility off on God because He requires it
to be enforced by Man rather than Himself.

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: it
is mistaken for someone to think they're in step with God while actively opposing
the death penalty.

FAQ: 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?

REPLY: 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.

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.

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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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 waterfalls, 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 risk contracting E.coli 0157:H7 and/or E.coli 0157:H4 by eating a
fast food hamburger made with chicken-droppings-fed, over-crowded, antibiotic
treated, up-to-their-knees in manure, industrially produced beef; or risk contracting
salmonella by eating 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 our 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. (Humor)

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

Stay tuned for more about Mr. Canaan.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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. So the universal brotherhood of Man has some truth to it.

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 undamaged.

● 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; same as onions, radishes, beets, turnips,
and peanuts.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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 because according to Matt 24:38, people were imbibing prior to the
Flood.

● 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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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 Noah 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."
(Prov 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?

● 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 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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 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:

"Jehovah, Jehovah: 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; Moses' 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.

● 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 Moses' people to drive
them out, to exterminate them, to reject their religions, and to avoid assimilation.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

Jehovah 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 "Jehovah,
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)

NOTE: The expression "Lord of hosts" runs throughout the Old Testament. It's
apparent meaning is that Jehovah is commander in chief of all military forces; both
natural and supernatural-- friends and foes alike. The expression isn't poetic. God is
able to manipulate the outcome of any conflict in which He's involved. Plenty of
stories in the Old Testament bear that out.

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.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

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

The tenth chapter 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.

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.

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; a nephiyl
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 former 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 (and certain women) is their strong
desire not just to govern, but to quite dominate. 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 the first statesmen to successfully unite the world; and it was
such a solid unity that only divine intervention could bring it down.
_