Incidentally…
The “Sons of God” are supposively the Grigori, angels sent from God to watch over mankind. Eventually, they grew inflamed with lust (or love if you’re a romantic) for the “Daughters of Man” and had children by them who were the Nephilim. According to the Book of Enoch, this was the main reason for the Flood - to wipe the Earth clean of the these half-breeds.
“I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
By the way, I just thought I’d step back i and mention that while the book of Enoch isn’t in the Bible, it has been found with other ancient copies of Hebrew texts and is alluded to in parts of the Bible which hints strongly that it was read as some form of scripture. Whether or not you want to consider it valid testimony of the Sons of God is up to you, but it does have some historical backing, at least in the eyes of Jewish religious papers.
“I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
Someday, I’ll retire and be able to study the non-canonical texts that Jophiel refers to. Meanwhile, I’m content with noting that there were obviously oral traditions that have been lost (or assigned to the trash-heap of history) that tagged along with the Biblical text.
In repsonse to Markxxx, I guess I have two comments.
People who believe the Bible to be poetry and an expression of great moral truths do not have a problem with two different creation accounts that differ in detail. This is poetry, not science and not history. It’s only the literalists, the folks who believe every word in the Bible is absolute truth, who have a problem with these two stories, and they usually say that the second creation story is expressed from the point of view of the human beings, who see the world around them as created for them.
[zen] There is truth and there is virtue, and the two are not necessarily always in sync. The first creation account represents truth, the second represents virtue. Besides, there is not necessarily only one “truth” – we have multiple interpretations of history, even of modern history, so why is it surprising that there were multiple interpretations of creation? [/zen]
Be that as it may, the world is created anew each day, so may you all have a healthy new year, full of contentment.
The traditional (Orthodox) Jewish answer to the questions:
CKDextHavn:
Slight inaccuracy there. The next woman to be mentioned by name is Naamah, sister of Tuval-Cain (who tradition identifies as Noah’s wife, although I’ll admit it’s never said so explicitly) and after that it mentions Tuval-Cain’s wives, Adah and Zilah. After them, Sarah is the first woman named.
Not that this disputes your general point (the paucity of women named in the Bible), but here at the SMDB, we strive for 100% accuracy. 
Future people who hear about his deed.
Well, that’s exactly what we Orthodox Jews think the Talmud and Midrashim are.
egkelly:
You’re correct about that: It was supposed to take them only a few days. G-d punished them for their lack of faith by making them stay 40 years until the sinners died out. And those who attempted to get in early were killed by the Canaanites. It’s in the book of Numbers, Chapter 15 or thereabouts.
spoke-
The light that preceded the creation of the sun and moon was a different kind than the energy we experience. G-d delineated periods of display for it. Only later did he decide to filter the light through the mechanism of energy release as expressed by (among other things) the celestial bodies.
RobRoy:
Because Lot was pretty screwed up.
Chaim Mattis Keller
cmkeller@compuserve.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
<< Why did Lot offer his daughters to the men of Sodom? >>
CMKeller: << Because Lot was pretty screwed up. >>
That’s pretty much it. Some might phrase it differently: that Lot --and presumably the Biblical author(s) – thought that crime of mistreating strangers (being inhospitable) was worse than the sin of premarital intercourse.
… and thanks for the correction on Naamah, that’s what I get for writing at work from memory.
Of course, Lot was also judged (by God’s angels) as the one righteous man worthy of surviving the destruction to come. And later on the holy Lot became so drunk that he could be seduced by and impregnate gis daughters.
What a lovely moral fable.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Spiritus Mundi:
Lot was judged worthy of being saved only as a favor to Abraham (in other words, if Lot had been a worse guy, even Abraham couldn’t have saved him; as he is, he was pretty bad and wouldn’t have been saved without the Abraham connection).
He was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a morally upright individual. He was a man with a few redeeming qualities (e.g., his hospitality) living in a city full of folks with no redeeming qualities.
Chaim Mattis Keller
And speaking of accuracy, let me correct a misstatement of mine above:
Actually, Adah and Zilah are mentioned first, they’re the wives of Lemekh, father of Tuval-Cain. Zilah was Tuval-Cain’s and Naamah’s (who’s mentioned after Adah and Zilah) mother. Then, no women named until Sarah (as Sarai).
Chaim Mattis Keller
Spiritus Mundi, keep in mind also that the Bible does not present stories of human individuals for us to emulate. No bones are made about the fact that Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. had their failings. They were human, and subject to sin. Even David, named by Scripture as a man after God’s own heart, sinned egregiously and paid a hefty price.
The point of all this is not so that we can point to Lot or Moses and say, “This is how we should live.” Or even say, “Why was God so good to an incestuous man or a murderer?” The point Scripture is making is that, no matter how “good” a person is, their righteousness still falls far short of God’s standards, and as sinful people, we need His guidance, forgiveness and sanctification.
I don’t want to turn this into a Great Debates thread, but this misinterpretation of Biblical characters misses the whole point.
The Dave-Guy
“since my daughter’s only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?” J.H. Marx
An important point to remember in any interpretation of the Bible…the time that is placed on events…one day to us is not the same measure as one day to God…and while creation took seven days and nights…what is the measure of a day and night? What is the measure of time between when Cain killed Abel and the time he was exiled? Never argue politics or religion…you won’t win either one.
Said hospitality being expessed through the offering of his virgin daughters for gang-rape. How very redeeming.
Really? Then why did the other folk of Sodom and Gamorrah not receive similar guidance and forgiveness. I would have no problem with the Biblial Jehovah showing mercy on a gang-rapist or a murderer if that mercy was consistently applied. The fact is, again and again the Old Testament shows us horrible acts being sanctioned and rewarded by God if performed by his chosen people and punished by God if performed by anyone else.
The Jehovah of the OT is a parocial, cruel and capricious deity unworthy of worship by a moral individual.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Hmmm, that came out more harshly than necessary. I think our recent company has frayed my patience.
Let me rephrase.
You tell me that focusing upon the moral character of those upon whom Jehovah bestowed his favor is a misinterpretation of scripture.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Can I reiterate the point that the text is VERY sparse? … we are not given anywhere near enough information to judge God based on the text.
In the Sodom and Gomorrah text, may I remind you, God tells Abraham he is about to destroy the city. Abraham pleads that God should NOT destroy the city if there are a few righteous people there – the righteous should not be punished with the wicked. Abraham bargains with God, down to the point that God will spare the city if there are ten decent people there.
The three angels/strangers are sent to Sodom. They are threatened with gang rape. Lot takes them in and protects them, and offers his daughters in place of the strangers. This is fairly harsh by our standards, but there is a subtext of self-sacrifice.
Lot’s family is allowed to escape the destruction. The presumption is that only the wicked were destroyed; the few people who were reasonably decent (Lot and his family) are spared.
The Bible text actually is fairly naive in that sense – if you want to be critical of it, criticize the aspect that good is rewarded and evil is punished, every time, and take into account that the real world doesn’t work that way. That’s a more pointed critique then trying to pretend the God depicted in the Bible is unjust.
Actually, Adam wasn’t the first man.
From Genesis 1:
<ol start=“24”>
[li]And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.[/li][li]And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.[/li][li]And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.[/li][li]So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.[/li][li]And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.[/li][li]And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.[/li][li]And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.[/li][li]And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.[/list=1][/li]
So, God created man on the sixth day. But in Genesis Ch. 2:
Genesis 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 2:2
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Genesis 2:3
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Genesis 2:4
These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Genesis 2:6
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Genesis 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 2:2
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Genesis 2:3
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Genesis 2:4
These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Genesis 2:6
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
So, God created Adam on the 8th day. But there were other people around too.
Okay, first off, Dex, while the Oddyssey doesn’t NAME the song the sirens sing, it gives a good description of it. They sing of times gone by, wars fought, and memories of the past. Quote upon request.
Second, if the Bible says that man is made in the image of God, then why, on South Park last week, was God shown to be a short, hairy creature with poor dental hygiene?
–Tim
We are the children of the Eighties. We are not the first “lost generation” nor today’s lost generation; in fact, we think we know just where we stand - or are discovering it as we speak.
Spiritus, you seem to be assuming that there is some sort of quid pro quo when it comes to God bestowing mercy on anyone (If we behave, then God has a duty to bless us). This is not consistent with what the Bible teaches about God’s nature or human behavior. Read Jonah some time. God doesn’t owe us anything.
Besides which, you seem to be making the assumption that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were taken unaware by the wrath of God. Again, let me refer to Jonah. The whole reason Jonah was upset with God was because God actually did forgive Ninevah when they were truly repentant, and Jonah didn’t like the idea of non-Jews receiving mercy from Israel’s God. I guess the Big Guy is damned if he do and damned if he don’t.
The Dave-Guy
“since my daughter’s only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?” J.H. Marx
I believe this is the separation of the two creation stories, identified by scholars as the “P” document and the “J” document. The “P” document uses a phrase usually translated in English as simply “God”, whereas the “J” document (second creation tale) uses a different phrase usually translated as “Lord God”. The God of the “P” document is more of a celestial omnipotent being who goes around saying things like “Let there be light” [and there was light], whereas the Lord God of the “J” document is more of an artisan who can create man by molding a form out of mud and clay and breathing life into it, a pretty cool trick but definitely different from “Let there be…”.
Some folks, I think, believe the two tales to have originated with separate peoples (tribes? families?) rather than being two parallel tales that existed in the same culture at the same time all along.
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post
Sorry, that wasn’t very clear. I meant to say that the separation between the two creation stories is right smack dab in the middle of what is currently known as Genesis 2:4, in mid-sentence even –
P document ends: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created”
J document begins: “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…”
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post
It may be of interest to some that the “Joseph Smith Translation” of the Bible differs a LOT (pun intended) from the KJV on the story of Lot. Here are the verses about Lot and his visitors in the JST, with additions bolded:
Genesis 19:13-14
13 And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;
So according to Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS (Mormon) religion, Lot never offered his daughters to the town for sex, but instead asked that they not be raped. Quite a different story.
Note to those who would argue that I’m breaking my promise not to talk about Mormonism for a while: Pbbbbbt! (j/k)
I doubt many people will read this, since it’s so far down the thread, but here goes…
Living in our technological age, with every event of importance saved on videotape or microfiche, it is difficult to imagine the mindset of those who grew up with only an oral history.
It is not natural for humans to value that which is not attainable. When history is passed down by word of mouth, details are bound to be lost, so what was important was not names, dates, etc. Truth was measured by the lessons learned from a story, not by how well the details matched actual events.
Example:
We’ve all heard stories about people who smoked 3 packs and drank a pint of liquor a day and lived to be 100. In the tradition of the crafters of the Old Testament, this story denies the truth that these things can kill you. The truth of the dangers of these substances would outweigh the truth that this one guy did OK anyway.
Therefore, this story wouldn’t get told, since it offered no lessons for living, and an ommission would occur.
Is this dishonest? Changing the story to fit your agenda? No. They couldn’t possibly pass down EVERY story orally, so those that teach nothing would end up being forgotten. We still do this today. When we tell our kids stories from our youth, we remember those that taught us something.
As was said earlier, the Bible is not a biology, cosmology, or physics text, it is a lesson on living, and the important thing is to understand the lessons therein, and not fret about the details.