Flood Speculation

 I am a 6 Day Young Earth Creationist, I tend to favor Creation dates older then Ussher's, but I still view about 7 Thousand years ago as the maximum.

Most importantly I believe everyone not just is a descendant of Adam and Eve, but every line of ancestry you have goes back to children Eve bore to Adam after the events of Genesis 3.  And by everyone I mean everyone modern science classifies as Homo-Sapien, and humans modern science doesn't want to classify as the same "species" as us like the Neanderthals and Homo Floresiensis and even Homo Erectus.

I did say fairly recently that I am more open to being convinced of a local Flood model then I am an Old Earth model.

What I have been considering is something between a traditional Global Flood model and a purely Local Flood model.  A Catastrophe that was Global in scale, but still no single moment at which the entire surface was covered in water.  Such a model could still allow the Ark to land on a completely different part of the planet then where it was first built.

And therefore allowing the possibly that there were some Flood survivors outside of Noah's family on The Ark.  But those survivors would still be descendants of Eve.  And it still definitely massively bottle necked the Earth's population.

Michael Hesiser's local Flood arguments are perhaps the most sensible, but still reflect his "Ancient Near Easter perspective" bias.  There have also been different theories about the Flood being a result of a Comet or Asteroid striking the Earth, theories which go back to Newton it seems.

This is perhaps a good time to bring up my ideas that have come from studying Y Chromosomal Haplogroups.  Here is a Tree I obtained from a completely secular source.

I think Y Chromosomal Adam is probably a Genesis 5 name more recent then Adam since this tree doesn't account for those so called Non-Human Humans I mentioned above, maybe Enos.

I think C is Japheth and DE is Ham, with E specifically being Mizraim. Because of the Mixed Multitude we should not be surprised to find people descended from Mizraim among Ashkenazim and other Jewish Populations.

F then is Shem.  My hunch is that G is Lud, H is Elam and J is Aram.  J also existed among Jewish populations which again shouldn't be surprising given the Biblical history.  And I is Ashur.

K is Arphaxad, L and T are the descendants of Joktan,  It is both R and Q I view as being definitely descendants of Jacob and perhaps even more specific then that.  The people this theory makes Paterlineal descendants of Peleg are very plausibly more then half the Earth's total population.

I've also considered models that would switch Shem and Ham, both models give Semitic descent to Ashkenazim Jews as well as Mizraimite descent, and maybe can both be made compatible with connecting Japan to the Ancient Israelites as well.

InspiringPhilosophy has argued something like this.  But I still think it happened more recently then he does.  Currently favoring a Flood date of 3337 BC thanks to my considering the Samaritan Text correct on Genesis 11.  And I don't agree with his view on where Eden was, I've considered a few models but his is the least likely to be correct.
https://youtu.be/lLSyiJ9KUCo

Violence was the Sin that caused The Flood

The Last verse of the First Chapter of Genesis.

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.

The Hebrew word for "good" there also gets translated words like bountiful, prosperity and welfare.  I've seen one scholar say that the Hebrew of this verse can be translated as saying the Earth was Good for Man to live in, that it was habitable.

In the blog post where I explained why I now support a Sethite view of Genesis 6, the last part of it is me emphasizing how Genesis 6 interprets itself and explains in verses 11 and 13 that the reason for the Flood was the Earth being filled with Violence.  Among other things I mentioned Tubal-Cain briefly which I want to elaborate on.

Genesis 4:22.

And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

The word translated "instructor" is no where else translated something implying a type of teacher, elsewhere the KJV translated the word sharp, sharpen, sharpeneth and whet in Psalm 7:12 "If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready."  In this context it would be actuate to translate it sharpener.

The word for artificer here is very similar to the Hebrew word usually translated artificer but different, it appears only in this verse.  And it has me wondering if this word doesn't refer to persons but to objects and perhaps should be "artifice".

The word for Brass is again similar to other words for Brass but distinct mainly in that it ends with a t/th.  The word Iron is the standard Hebrew word for Iron (Daniel uses the Aramaic word in chapters 2 and 7 however).  But it's notable that in a few places it's clearly used directly of some type of weapon being translated in the KJV as "ax head".

The oldest brother of Tubal-Cain was the father of those that keep Cattle.  Some Anthropological theories suggest that first warlike societies came from Pastoral societies for a number of reasons.  But that's a complicated discussion that I don't want to make this thesis dependent on.

Genesis 6 verses 11-12 use in the KJV "Corrupt" twice and "Corrupted" once, all three are the same Hebrew word.  A Hebrew word that is also translated waste/waster, spoiler, perish, spill and destroy/destroyer/destruction.   That means the text is arguably saying The Earth was already destroyed before God even sent The Flood.

Genesis 6:12 is a parallel to what's said at the end of Genesis 1.  Except now instead of being "very good" the earth is "Corrupt".  I used to read "corrupted his way upon the earth" as referring to God's way, including when I made that Sethite view post.  But I now realize it's man's way on the earth that has been spoiled or destroyed. 

Verse 13 uses "destroy" in the KJV but it's in the Hebrew the same word used for Corrupt/Corrupted in verses 11-12.  God is saying what Man has done to the Earth, He will do to Man using the Earth.

What God says to Noah is that the End of All flesh is already come, it's already inevitable, Man's Violence has rendered the Earth no longer habitable for organic life.  Mankind was already dying off.

The Flood didn't destroy The Earth, it was The Earth's Baptism, it cleansed and purified The Earth of it's corruption. Towards the end of 1st Peter 3 the Flood of Noah seems to be compared to Baptism.

Lexical vs Impressionist interpretations of The Bible.

When you say you take The Bible literally, some people (I'm addressing specifically fellow believers here) will then act like that means I'm not being logically consistent unless I think every figure of speech where God has wings means he's actually a giant bird.  No other book is treated this way, but whatever.

One Independent Baptist Pastor who's Church I attended a few times said he prefers to say he takes The Bible seriously rather then literally.  But that's being disingenuous, Allegorists believe they're taking Scripture seriously, in fact they argue we're not when we treat it like a Fantasy Novel.

And I'm not actually the most absolutely hyper literalist Christian anyway.  So I do somewhat struggle with how to define how I view Scripture.

Then Digibro who I follow for Anime reasons started a serious of videos categorizing the way different people think, both real and fictional.  The third video is the one to finally inspire me to make this post, it kind of presumes you saw the prior two longer ones but if your not interested in an hour of Digi categorizing every Anime character he cares about then you can skip them, the third one is only about 15 minutes.

How Anime Character Think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ndTCR4aKg

Updating and Explaining
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSyGye7D2ao

Lexical vs Impressionistic Thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt60-Hf1Duk

[Update: You'll now have look for those on the InternetArchive.

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Digibro%2FDigi%22

They have been reuploaded on YouTube including a channel called The Neurotypeline, who have this Playlist.  Also Digi now goes by Trixie since she came out as Trans.]

Now what I'm about to say is perhaps not where you thought I was going, but hyper Allegorical approaches to Scripture like those popularized by Origen and Augustine are in fact a highly Lexical approach.  It comes from thinking a certain word or string of words must always be saying the same thing or being said for the same reason.

Take for example when InspiringPhilosophy argues that because in many later Bible narratives someone goes to sleep before they have a dream that turns out to be a divine symbolic vision.  Then Adam going into a Deep Sleep in Genesis 2 must mean what follows is merely a symbolic vision.  When it seems to me far more obvious that God is putting Adam to sleep for the same reason any doctor puts a patient to sleep before performing an invasive surgery.

Some who you can argue are way more "Literalist" then I am are perhaps also hyper Lexical in their own way.  But once you decide a certain term must always be being used consistently, it's far easier to force an allegorical approach to an obviously literal passage then a literal approach to an obviously symbolic one.

Still the "Law of first mention" is an example of a highly lexical fallacy used by Christians of all camps.

Interpreting The Bible highly Lexically is a problem since obviously God is a more Impressionist thinker, He can communicate Lexically since the first words ever spoken were His words, and His Son is called The Word.  But He also existed before Words and I believe always wanted His message to be able to transcend the original language it was written in.

My Impressionist approach to Scripture can even allow me to view some entire books as fictional narratives that didn't necessarily actually happen, like Job and the Song of Songs.

But the general Impression of The Book Genesis is that it's telling us the actual origins of Humanity and Civilization and then more specifically The Israelite people.  That doesn't mean it's not also teaching important lessons, but they are important because they literally happened, it's documenting Humanity's first mistakes so we of later generations can try to learn from them.

The Hyper Allegorists are indeed perhaps also very Linear in thinking, you see contrary to how they often try to paint literalists, we are not denying the deeper truths that matter regardless of if it actually happened or not.  No most people labeled Literalists are the ones who understand a passage can serve different purposes at once.  Origen however was a bit more Lateral minded then his descendants.

Revelation is a book where no interpretation is free from some level of seemingly picking and choosing when to take it literally and when not to.  No one actually believes Revelation 13 is saying the world will be lead to worship Satan by a pair of Kaiiju.  But it's equally silly to then turn around and take nothing literally when the intent of The Book is still clearly that it's telling us what will happen in the future.

My Impressionist understanding of The Bible's meta-narrative is that the TNAK's prophecies of a future Temple or Tabernacle are fulfilled in The Church being The Temple of God, if that conflicts with taking certain passages literally even though they seemed literal at the time then so be it.  However I also believe we are a Temple still under-construction.

Part of why is because it is equally my Impressionist understanding of The Bible's meta-narrative that The Resurrection of The Dead is a physical bodily Resurrection, and so we are His Tabernacle already but we won't be a complete Temple until all Flesh is Resurrected.  Getting lexically lost in certain details of 1 Corinthians 15 is where the justification to Spiritualize The Resurrection comes from, but the closing verses finalize what the Impression is supposed to be.

And that leads me back to Universal Salvation and how we tend to discus it.  The clear Impression The Bible is trying to give about God's Character is that He is Love in 1 John, that His Love endures forever as the Psalms repeatedly claim.  That He is not willing that any should Perish as Matthew 18, 2 Peter 3 and 1 Timothy 2 make clear.

So who even cares if the word "Eternal" is a technically accurate translation in Matthew 25 or not.  When we remember that the Chapter Divisions weren't there originally so the start of Matthew 26 is indeed the close of that narrative, even that story in it's own Context is ending on The Impression that Jesus is about to take this Eternal Judgment upon himself.

It is the doctrines of Annihilation and Endless Torment that are dependent on the same Lexical obsessions that create allegorist heresies.  Yet we ourselves get bogged down in Lexical exercises trying to argue with them on their terms.

My own mind has too many Lexical tendencies, so on these blogs I will probably continue to employ Lexical methods in how I argue my views.   But the starting point should always understand that God is an Impressionist.  So the point of what's being said is more important then the details.

InspiringPhilosophy's videos on Genesis and the Passion Week.

I respect IP a great deal and he's done many videos I like, it is not my intention to be hostile at any point in this.

Genesis first.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUeQHe-lZZF2DTxDHA_LFxi

He is making these videos largely to oppose Young Earth Creationism, so in that way we are at odds.  But he also makes arguments on some issues I feel very inclined to agree with.

Ben S I also have in mind in this post, he and IP have different views on the Nephilim but besides that they seem to be mostly coming from the same place.  I haven't dug into the details of Peter Hiett's interpretation of Genesis yet.

I don't want to go in-depth on everything, as much of it relates to things I've talked about before. I just have a few particular comments to make.

I believe he was correct to argue that Adam was forbidden to eat the fruit only until he was ready for it.  But to me that should have gone hand in hand with arguing that the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge are actually the same tree.  The entire basis for the "doctrine" that Pre-Fall Adam needed to eat from the Tree of Life to be immortal is a comment made at the end of Genesis 3 about Adam in his post-fall state.

And as proof that I'm not some absurd Hyperliteralist, no I clearly don't think "both their eyes were opened" means they literally had their physical eyes closed.  It's a description of something metaphysical happening.

On the creation of Eve, I also agree that "rib" should be translated "side" and that the picture here is of Adam being split in half.  However he argues that this is merely a vision because God putting someone in a deep sleep always means that, and then cites Genesis 15 as if no one would disagree that God's covenant cutting ritual was a mere vision there.  But I do disagree with that, I believe God walked in a figure eight at Shechem and that is why Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal look the way they do.  Genesis 1 and 5 tell us Adam was created Male and Female, what we call the creation of Woman was really Adam being literally split in two.

On the argument about what The Serpent is I mostly agree.  But the one difference is no the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:1 and 14 does not justify saying the Serpent wasn't a "beast of the field" and a Behemah, it was.  The thing is I believe all the beasts and fowls created in Genesis 2:18-19 are angelic beings who were sapient enough to be potential mates for Adam, and only Genesis 1 records the creation of normal animals.

IP's Nephilim argument is for the royal bloodlines view.  I hold what is technically a from of the Sethite view, unfortunately IP talked about that view the least trying to write it off with two bad arguments based on a strawman understanding of it, the point is not about bloodlines but about Sons of God being Believers.  My post on the subject is partly devoted to undoing that false understanding.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-nephilim-and-sons-of-god.html

Now his argument overlaps with mine in some ways when it comes to arguing that the Sons of God can be Human beings.  But I actually disagree with conceding Sons of God ever means Angels, especially not Psalm 82 which Jesus quotes as being about the Israelites.

He criticized the Hybrid view for being so dependent on later material, yet he too depends a lot on extra-Biblical material to support Sons of God meaning Kings.  I show how my view fits the meta narrative of Genesis being about the escalation of violence.

His Meta Narrative for Genesis makes it so he thinks the main Sin in view here is Polygamy.  I have utterly destroyed the notion that The Bible is anti Polygamy in any Testament.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2019/11/saying-one-flesh-does-not-rule-out.html
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/just-accept-that-bible-doesnt-condemn.html
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2019/12/mono-mia.html

And that's as far as he is at this point.  I may do a follow up in response to future videos.

In his answering Bible Contradictions series, he on a number of occasions takes routes different then what I would and that's fine.

The problem is when it comes to ones relating to the chronology of the Passion Week.  He is acting as if the Crucifixion being Friday is the most undisputed detail of the Chronology, and those who think Jesus spent more time in the Grave then the traditional Easter week observance are moving the Resurrection to Monday or later, when I've never seen anyone argue that and I investigate these matters and study alternate views a lot, the day of Crucifixion is what's disputed, most commonly are arguments for Wednesday and Thursday.  The only people trying to move the Resurrection are those wanting to move it up to the Sabbath who I have a few posts addressing on my Prophecy blog.

As someone who has been for most of my online activity a Thursday Crucifixion proponent (but I have been more open mindedly looking into other chronologies recently), I agree that the inclusive numbering is a valid interpretation which is part of why I have generally rejected the Wednesday model.  But his desire to weasel out of three days and three nights is simply nonsense, that phraseology is clearly meant to imply something more specific then just three days.

The Resurrection is placed on the "third day" many times, but the Crucifixion is never called the "first day".  I believe the Resurrection was on the Third Day of Unleavened Bread, the 17th of Aviv.

The Crucifixion is seemingly described as the day before (or preparation day of) the Sabbath a few times.  However the Sabbath in question is the 15th of Aviv not the weekly Sabbath.  Leviticus 23 describes the 15th as a day that is like the Sabbath in that doing labor was forbidden.  Leviticus 23 doesn't use the word Sabbath for that day, but when talking about the seventh month it does do so for it's non weekly days you can't work.  When discussing the first month it avoids that only so there is no confusion that the weekly Sabbath is the one relevant for determining Fristfurits and Pentecost.  We know the Sabbath approaching when Jesus died was a Holy Day not a regular weekly Sabbath because John 19:31 explicitly calls it a High Day.

And not even every Gospel explicitly calls the day after the Crucifixion a Sabbath, Matthew never does, Matthew only calls the night before the Resurrection the Sabbath in 28:1, and calls the day of the Crucifixion the Preparation in 27:62 but never uses the word Sabbath in chapters 26 or 27.  Matthew is the most Jewish Gospel, the one some sources say was originally written in Hebrew.  So it makes sense he would use these terms more strictly and correctly to Torah terminology then other NT writers.  I believe in all four Gospels that Preparation Day means the 14th of Nisan not Friday.  Ezekiel 45:21-22 gives Biblically precedent to the 14th being a Preparation day.

Mark 16:1 is misused by Wednesday proponents to say the Women purchased the spices after the Sabbath creating apparent conflict with Luke 23:56 that they then resolve by placing a day between the two sabbaths.  But this is false, Mark 16 is only referring to them having purchased these spices previously.   In context Luke 23 is clearly making it still the same day they Buried Jesus that they prepared the Spices.

IP's second video on Passion Week chronology is about if the Last Supper was the Passover Seder.  The Last Supper being the Seder is the casual popular misconception, but every theologian who actually cares about how Jesus fulfills the meaning of Passover knows the answer to this alleged contraction needs to be that Jesus is the Lamb and so is killed when the Lamb is killed.

The idea that the Synoptics make the Last Super the Passover Seder is based on a statement recorded in Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7, and then another Quote that's only in Luke I'll get to later.

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

If these verses are translated correctly then they are a problem no matter what chronology you support because they make it sound like the Passover is killed during the days of Unleavened Bread.  The Passover is killed during the daylight hours (Between the evenings in the YLT) of the 14th.  Fact is there is no coherent chronology where eating the Seder is yet future but it's already during Unleavened Bread.

In at least Matthew the word Day isn't used in the Greek, and the word translated "first" can also mean "before".  I don't know exactly how to translate these verses, but I think they are saying that Unleavened Bread is approaching since everyone knows they come after the Passover is killed.  And the beginnings of both Matthew 26 and Mart 14 place these events 2 days before Passover and Unleavened Bread.

The Disciples make these Passover arrangements two days in advance, but then Matthew 26:20 and Mark 14:17 make the Last Supper that very evening.

The only verse that even comes close to seemingly directly describing the Last Supper as Passover is Luke 22:15-16.  And we have another translation issue, because some add the word "again" to verse 16 when that's not in the Greek, or the KJV or the YLT (it's not even in the Peshita).  In this quote Jesus says he desired to eat the Passover with His Disciples before He suffered, but he's saying that to lament the fact that He won't.

John 18:28 is using the word Passover not of a holiday but of the Lamb itself to be eaten.  Even in the looser terminology they might have been using in the first century AD that was still only ever done in reference to the Lamb killed during the daylight hours of the 14th.  And I believe 19:14 is doing the same, this is happening as they are preparing the Passover Lambs for slaughter just as Jesus is being prepared for slaughter.  John called Jesus the Lamb of God all the way back in the first chapter.  This is also why it's stressed that none of the bones were broken.

1 Corinthians 5:7 says Jesus is our Passover Sacrificed for us.

What was the Last Supper if it wasn't The Seder?

Well I feel the main Hebrew Bible precedent for it is Genesis 14 not Exodus 12, with Jesus as Melchizedek and the Disciples (us) as Abraham.  [But I also now view The Showbread as another Hebrew Bible concept connected to the Eucharist.  It however provides the justification for doing a weekly Eucharist on the weekly Sabbath rather then helping us identify the day of the original Last Supper.]

Extra Biblical ideas suggested include it being a Seudat Mitzvah of some kind like a Seudat Siyum Masechet, or a "Teaching Seder".

As I've gone over the different types of Seudat Mitzvah further, I've come to think that maybe the Last Supper is a Sedat HoDaa, a Thanksgiving Mitzvah given the emphasis on Jesus giving Thanks.  But the Pidyon HaBen is also interesting.

The "Teaching Seder" I have had trouble finding verification is a thing among Jews independent of Christians talking about this issue which is why I bring it up with reservations.  But the concept is basically like doing a rehearsal dinner for a wedding the night before the actual dinner.  And frankly that actually fits best with what actually happens at the Last Supper.  When Jesus says "do this in remembrance of me" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, He's giving them instructions for the Seder they will have the following night when He's gone.  Which is why it's still valid for Christians to read the Last Supper account when we have a Christian Passover Sedar.

So I think the earliest Christians were doing the Eucharist on Thursday night proceeding Resurrection Sunday for that reason, and in time the tradition simply got confused.

Tarshish is Tarsus of Cilicia.

It has long been popular to argue for more exotic or distant identifications for Tarshish, including by myself in the past.  But Josephus said Tarshish was Tarsus, and this modern article backs up that identification convincingly.

Tarshish (Josephus' Tarsus Reconsidered)
http://www.bibleorigins.net/tarshishtarsus.html

There is one detail in that I can't agree with, and that's arguing for a late dating of Genesis based on pre Esarhaddon Assyrian Inscriptions rendering Tarsus was Tarzi.  It could be Tarzi was a mistaken Assyrian form corrected by later Assyrians who knew more directly what they called themselves, or the Tarzi inscriptions could be scribal errors.  There is no need to question the reliability of Genesis over this.

Identifying Tarshish with Tarsus also best fits the thesis of this post of mine from last year, (though in said post I also considered a Cretan identification).
https://mithrandironchronology.blogspot.com/2018/12/what-does-greek-even-mean.html

Those are all very technical and scholarly reasons for that identification.  What I want to speculate on now is how it could theologically serve the Meta-narrative of The Bible to connect Old Testament Tarshish to New Testament Tarsus.

Like OT Tarshish it's never a location the narrative visits directly (same with Cilicia as a whole), the few times it seems like Acts is about to go there it then skips forward.

NT Tarsus is only relevant for being the hometown of Saul later known as Paul.  Before he's ever mentioned by name he's probably one of the Cilicians refereed to in Acts 6.

We know from Extra Biblical sources that Tarsus of Cilicia was a port city associated with sea trade and thus with ships, but Biblcially the New Testament never directly mentions that.  However Paul does spend a lot of time on ships, some travel by ship was a part of all four missionary journeys, most famously his ship wreck on Malta.

Tarshish was a grandson of Japheth, but the name is also duplicated as a Benjamite in 1 Chronicles 7:10.  I think it's possible the Chronicler is more using this name as a stand in for a Benjamite clan that would in the future live in Cilicia, possibly as a result of the slave trade alluded to in Joel 3.

Paul who was a Benjamite can be viewed as playing a role in how the Genesis 9 eschatological relationship between Japheth and Shem was fulfilled.

A number of Prophecies also speak of Ships of Tarshish playing a role in how exiled Israelites are brought back to the promised land.  In some views that too is arguably fulfilled partly by the work of Paul.

How was there Light before the Sun, Moon and Stars?

This is an issue that has often plagued theologians, how Genesis 1 has Light created on Day 1 but the sources of Light aren't created till Day 4.

Augustine of Hippo theorized that the Light created on Day 1 was the Angels.  I've seen both Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists suggest that Day 4 is simply when the Light of the Stars finally reached Earth.

What amuses me is the failure to consider that the answer to this mystery of the first Chapters of The Bible might be found in the last Chapters.

Revelation 21:23-24, 22:5.

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.  And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Remember that Jesus is the Light of the World in John 8:12&9:5 (and the Light was earlier discussed in chapters 1:4-9 and 3:19-21 and later again in 11:9-19 and 12:35-36 and 46) and He was called the Phosphorous(Lightbearer) in 2 Peter 1:19.  This can also contextualize Jesus saying He is The Beginning of the Creation (Revelation 3:14) and the Firstborn of Creation (Colossians 1:15).

Some might seek to use this connection to support an Arian or Semi-Arian Christology, but that's not necessary, even with a completely Nicene understanding of The Trinity it's still simple to conclude that the Word of God is the source of the Light when God Spoke Light into existence.

The Rivers of Eden

In the past I've been skeptical of thinking the description of Eden in Genesis 2 should be expected to line up to any Post-Flood geography, and I still am.  But I have become aware of the fact that there is a translation issue involved here.  A number of scholars have argued that most translations are confused by a misunderstanding of what a river's "head" means.  The text can be interpreted as describing four rivers flowing into one river, rather then one river splitting into four as the KJV translation tends to lead people to assume.

If the Euphrates here is the Euphrates we assume it is, then I don't think any of the rivers should be looked for in Arabia, or anywhere south/west of the Euphrates.  What leads people to look there is an assumption that this Havilah must be the same one that shows up in Arabia elsewhere in The Bible.  But there are two Havilahs in Genesis 10, I feel every Arabian Havilah is of Joktan while this Havilah being close to a Cush could be the Havilah of Cush.  In fact it could be in this context Havilah and Cush are different names for the same place existing between the Pison and Gihon.

I've talked before about how Cush wasn't only in Africa, I see evidence to link him to India, and I suspect some of the Indian Cushites were initially in Iran for awhile.  This Havilah is probably Hoveyleh.

I believe there is significance to the order the rivers are listed in Genesis 2, something most popular theories about them don't consider.  Particularly I think it likely they are starting in the East and going Westward.  They are listed in the order Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel and lastly the Euphrates.  So if that is the Euphrates we assume it is, and the Hiddekel is indeed the Tigres, then the Gihon would be the Karkheheh river and the Pison would be the Karun river, known in classical times as the Pasitigres.  Here is a map taken from the Wikipedia page for the Karun.

Thus making the main River of Eden the Shatt al-Arab.

I'm not the first to propose these two rivers, my exact theory was proposed by at least one prior scholar, and another makes my Pison the Gihon.  But some want to take one of these while also trying to place the Pison or Gihon in Arabia.  And one website dismissed these two rivers by saying they are too small.  But the text of Genesis 2 says nothing about their size, it's merely man's imagination that wants to assume all four rivers were as epic and history defining as the Tigris and Euphrates.

Both of these rivers start in the Zargos mountains, which is why previous arguments for one of them being the Gihon tend to be based on saying the land of Cush in this context is the homeland of the Kassites commonly speculated to come from somewhere in the Zargos mountains.  

Al-Qurnah is a place on the Shatt al-Arab that locally claims to be where the Garden of Eden was.

The Karkheh river also plays a role in arguing that the land of Aratta from the Sumerian epics about Enmerkar was in the area of Mt Alvand and ancient Ecbatana, modern Hamdan, which in turn factors into B.J. Corbin's theory about where Noah's Ark landed.  His theory also involves using information from Jubilees to suggest the area around where the Ark landed was the ancient settlement of Arphaxad, remember the Book of Judith names the king of Ecbatana as Arphaxad which has always confused scholars.

The Most Racist Christians are usually not Young Earth Creationists

It's pretty surprising to some that in-spite of how Leftist I am I still stick to Six-Day Young Earth Creationism including a truly Global Flood in the days of Noah, and also emphasize Evolution's ties to Scientific Racism.

First off, you got YouTubers like Inspiring Philosophy and R.C. Apologist and their buddy Michael Heiser who are willing to entirely accept the Theory of Evolution, but remain devout Calvinists believing in Eternal Torment and calling Homosexuality a Sin.  So the exact opposite of me in terms of where to break with traditional American Fundamentalism does exist. What is more likely to effect how you treat other people?  What you believe about things that happened thousands of years ago?  Or believing other people are Reprobates who God Hates?

And yes it's true some of the Scientific Racists of the 18th and 19th Centuries saw themselves as being totally compatible with being devout Christians.  Thing is I've visited the websites of the most openly Racist modern Christians, you'll often stumble upon them looking into Lost Tribes related theories, and they tend to believe in an Old Earth and a Local Flood.  Basically I'm talking about forms of "Christian Identity".

Whether or not they place a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, they definitely place one between Genesis 2:3 and 2:5.  They believe the Adamim created on the 6th day were the primitive races, cave men and ape men.  And then much later God created the first "Civilized" or 'White" Man and that's who was placed in The Garden of Eden.  Even the grandfather of modern White Supremacy made this distinction clear.  And later Houston Stewart Chamberlain seems to have felt the same.  Early important figures in how Polygenesist interpretations of Genesis developed in America include Daniel Parker, Charles Caldwell, Lester A Hoyle, Alexander Winchester, Charles Hamilton Smith, Samuel George Mortonn, Charles Pickering, Louis Agassiz, Josiah C. Nott, George Gliddon, Samuel Kneeland and Nathaniel Shaler (a founding member of the Immigration Restriction League).  

I'm not aware of Ripley, Madison Grant or Lothrop Stoddard saying anything about how Genesis fit into their racial theories, all three of their books are absent of Biblical references but do refer to Darwin and Evolution a lot.  Charlton S. Coon was explicitly an Evolutionist.

Yes some Monogenist Creationists have let Racism influence how they interpreted the existence of different ethnic features, both before and after Darwin.  But the rise of truly militant hateful Scientific Racism is intimately tied to the rise of Polygenism.

Fact is it was Pre-Darwin Moongenist Creationists like Samuel Stanhope Smith, Georges-Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon and Johann Blumenbach who started correctly observing how "racial" features are a product of the environment (also Martin Delany and George Washington Williams). they were wrong on the specifics of how and why, but that's how Science starts.  The bias some had in concluding Adam and Eve were White instead of looking like those indigenous to where The Bible says God created them is embarrassing however and I won't defend that.

Now I don't agree with any layer of these racist polygenesists' logic.  Meaning even if it were true some people didn't 100%  or at all descend from the same Adam it wouldn't make them inferior or any less eligible for Salvation or to become Full Citizens of God's Kingdom.  Anyone sapient enough to respond to The Gospel is who The Gospel is for.  And as a Believer in Universal Salvation, plenty of verses justify not even limiting it to Humanity, we're told Jesus will Reconcile all THINGS to God, and that every Knee shall bow, and God will be All in All.  Gregory of Nyssa was confident of even Satan's eventual Salvation.  But that's a big IF because even Atheist Scientists don't consider Polygenism credible anymore.

Paul said at Mar's Hill in Acts 17:26 that God has made of One Blood all the Nations of Men on the Face of The Earth.  Now the websites I refereed to address this verse, first choosing to favor the Alexandrian texts over the Textus Receptus/KJV for this verse even though that doesn't really help them much, it's still saying He made of one Man all Nations.  They want to use a very particular definition of "Nation" to say it means all Civilized Nations, but Paul didn't say a Greek term that would mean that, Nations here is Ethnos, from which comes our words Ethnicity and Ethnic which are sometimes used as synonyms for "race".

Many scholars see this part of the Mar's Hill Sermon as Paul refuting the common Greek view, the Greeks didn't believe in a Single Adam figure but many Autochthons, and that the truly Civilized were only those descended from Deucalion.  Which the Greeks did not think included the Jews.

Now these sites may well admit that by now everyone descends from Adam and maybe even Noah because of all the exploration and globalization.  It is now a Genetic fact even Evolutionists can't deny that all Humans have both a Mater-Lineal and Pater-Lineal common ancestor and those Ancestors were Humans not some "missing link".  And that was not what 19th Century Evolutionists predicted.

And that's why they emphasize Miscegenation so much, they claim only "pure" descendants of Jacob are truly Elect.  They view Cain and his wife as the first "interracial marriage" and then they might use a Sethite view of Genesis 6 but both have been used by Racists.  Then they'll say The Flood was only local, it only flooded the main homeland of Adam's family (which Cain was exiled from) so non Seed of Eve people did survive.

They may try to support identifying the Kenites with Cain, but since Moses married a Kenite Wife that would be a problem for them.  Mostly their Biblical Evidence of non Noahite "races" in the post Flood world are the Raphaim, Horites, Emims and Zuzims (later called Zamummim) of Genesis 14, and possibly later the Anakim who they may say descend from the Genesis 6 Nephilim.  They'll try to argue Ham's descendants were the ones particularly prone to intermarry with them, especially the Caananites who lived in the same region.  And misuse Genesis 36 to argue for the Edomites and Amalakites being tainted, and in time the Moabites and Ammonites followed suit.  Plenty of this I've already addressed in past posts on why it's only Spiritually mixed marriages God was concerned with.

Then the Anti-Semitism creeps in.  They may or may not tie in the usual Kazzar Myth, or a modern Jews being Edomites narrative.  But mostly these types seem to want to argue that the Southern Kingdom was far more susceptible to Miscegenation, and that while the North had their Spiritual problems they were the Kingdom that remained "Racially" pure.  And so they'll call Judah "the true Lost Tribe".  And then they'll argue the Northern Kingdom became Europeans even though The Bible places them in the exact opposite direction.  Problem is they forget that Joseph's wife was a Mizraimite which undermines that whole narrative.

And thus the Secular Version of this being promoted by Secular Atheist Race Realists in the Alt-Right is basically the same narrative (including the Jews being white looking genetically tainted "Race Traitors").  Darwinism and it's Cousin Eugenics just gave Non Believing Racists a way to secularize the narrative created by the most Racist interpretation of The Bible.  Not unlike how New Atheists borrow a lot of their wrong views on History from older Protestant anti-Catholic rhetoric.

So my fellow Leftists like Step Back History and Peter Coffin try to separate Biological Darwinism from Social Darwinism, saying that Creationists "Quote Mine" Darwin out of context.  But it's not a coincidence that Galton came from the same family, they are inseparable.

Now the conclusion I draw from Genesis 36 is that those Genesis 14 tribes were Caananites first and that these tribes broke off from them, not the other way around.  The Horites were named after Seir's grandson Hori, Seir was a Hivite based on how Esau's wife who descended from him is identified.  Same with the Anakim, they were I think a Royal Family of the Hittites who were also associated with Hebron.

It's Racist implications aside it might be possible to some day convince me of a Local Flood of Noah view, though currently unlikely.  It's placing Death before Genesis 3 I will never accept based on my strong uncompromising view of Romans 5 which is also central to my belief in Universal Salvation.

On the subject of Cain's Wife, first of all we're not told he met her after his exile only that that's when their son named Enoch was conceived, they could have been married already before Abel was killed.

But regardless of that, no, the existence of people already in the land of Nod isn't proof of other Adams, I feel Genesis 4 implies Seth was conceived soon after Able was killed, meaning over 100 years had passed, most of Adam and Eve's children would have left by this point following their command to fill the Earth, the first two just stayed near by because they were the heirs.

And my main response to all the people thinking these must be a different "race" or something is, why would people not related to Abel want to avenge Abel?  Elsewhere in The Torah being the avenger of Blood is the Kinsman's responsibility.

If you think the Genesis 1 and 2 Creations of Adam are different events, the problem with saying Genesis 1 is about primitives is that only Genesis 2 actually describes the matter Adam is made from, so only Genesis 1 is possibly a merely Spiritual creation.  And it was the Genesis 1 Adam given Dominion over The Earth, while you could misleadingly translate Genesis 2 as saying it's Adam was made to be a slave.

But I still lean towards Genesis 2 being more details on the Sixth-Day, Genesis backtracks on it's Chronology a lot since it was many accounts edited together by Moses.  The start of Genesis 5 makes it very difficult to separate the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Adams, since it's clearly talking about the direct father of Seth yet describes him restating Genesis 1 rather then Genesis 2.

Update August 19th: Beasts of the Field.

Since making this post I've learned there is apparently a second approach to saying Non-Whites don't descend from Adam (These kinds of Racists I've been talking about are called the Christian Identity movement on Wikipedia).  And that is to say Non-Whites are "Beasts of the Field".

Now I myself have come to consider that the "Beasts of The Field" and other creations of Genesis 2:19-20 were not the same as the normal animals created before Adam but rather more sentient beings, they are presented as potential mates after all.  But that was in the context of arguing they are what we might normally call Angelic beings, like the Cherubim/Seraphim (the Four Beasts surrounding the Throne of God in Revelation) and of course Satan who is identified by Revelation 12 with the Serpent of Genesis 3, and perhaps also the basis for the Lilith tradition.

While Wikipedia seems to list that as their main approach, the currently active websites I've looked at take the separating the Adams of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 approach.  Largely because the Beasts created in the Garden would be in the same region as Adam and so the overlapping it with a Local Flood view doesn't work as well.

Of course the Racists doing this might be talking about the Genesis 1 beasts since it's all about them saying Non-Whites are animals. But the KJV never says "of the field" in Genesis 1 and the Wikipedia page specified "of the field".  And Earth and Field are separate words in the Hebrew as well.

The main website I've looked at argues the Serpent of Genesis 3 was a non Adamite human by saying verses 1&14 distinguish the Nahash from the Beasts of the Field.  I however have it on good authority that the Hebrew does not permit that interpretation, it's purely a product of how the King James English words those verses that makes it more ambiguous.  But whatever the Nahash is, I've already refuted the false doctrine that it mated with Eve.

The crux of the "Beasts of the Field" argument is the ones in Genesis 2 must have been creatures we'd today label Homo-Sapiens if they were eligible mates for Adam.  This ignores Cattle and Fowls of the Air also being in those verses.  We know from Daniel 7 and 8 that Beasts include animals like Lions, Bears, Leopards, Deer and Goats.  Leviticus 11 also details which Beasts are Levitically clean and unclean for eating and for sacrifices, you'd think the status of the two legged ones that could talk would come up if they existed.

Genesis 2 also says Adam named every specific type of Beast of The Field, and yet the people making this non-whites are beasts of the field argument can't find a Biblical noun more specific then Beast to describe any of them.  You can find Biblical names for animals the ancient Israelites barely had experience with, yet no special name for the two legged talking ones?  One website I found arguing this lists all kinds of Torah verses about beasts they say must be about "Negroes" being kept as slaves, yet no more specific term for them.  You'd think the most useful "beasts" would be the most important to name?

I also now know that they use that Adam can also mean Red or Ruddy as evidence the descendants of Adam are those who can blush.   First of all the notion that only White People can Blush is pretty laughable to me as someone who watches Anime, clearly the concept is not alien to the Japanese.  I can also point out that Malcom X was known as Detroit Red, or that we called Native Americans the "Red Man" for some reason.  And some think red was never the color that Adam/Edom was meant to refer to but rather brown.  Regardless of all that the color the spelling A-D-M can be associated with is not the point in Genesis 2, the point is that Adam was made from Adamah which means earth, ground, clay, dust.

I'd already talked a long time ago about how what we call Ethnic or "Racial" features are a product of where various ancient nations lived.  

Incest in The Bible

This is my dissertation on Incest in The Bible, what it deems a Sin and what isn't, and it's history.

First as a Six Day Young Earth Creationist, I take note of the fact that the Incest restrictions don't come until the time of Moses. And I believe Cain and Seth married their full Sisters as did all Adam and Eve's children.

Critics of The Bible love to view this argument as absurd. But Genesis 20:12 shows us that Abraham and Sarah where brother and sister. "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.". The later incest restrictions don't just generically condemn Brother-Sister incest, they specifically single out half siblings sharing the same father. And Abraham and Sarah is one of the most approved romantic relationships in The Bible. God specifically wanted Abraham's descendents through her, not anyone else, to inherit the Covenant.

Back to Genesis 4, some take verses 16 and 17 "And Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived". As implying Cain met his wife in Nod, after traveling away to a distant land and thus proving the existence of tribes at the time independent of Adam and Eve.  It doesn't say that however, it doesn't depict how they met at all, just says that's when she conceived Cain's First-Born son. I think he was already married to this woman before he slew Able.

Either way though, I believe over a century had passed by the time Cain killed Able (about 9 months before Seth was born is my conjectured timing) Plenty of time for some of Adam and Eve's children to travel about, they were commanded to Fill and Populate the Earth from the start.

Another thing, Adam was basically married to his Clone.

The reason Genetic problems occur because of Incest is because of The Fall, Genetic mistakes always occur in the gene pool, and closer related individuals are more likely to have similar mistakes. But closer to when this deterioration started it was far less of a problem. I suspect God was preemptive and that it still wasn't until awhile after the time of Moses (Ussher dated it to 1492 B.C. I'm undecided on if I agree with Ussher's date, but Ussher's is the youngest I can accept) that noticeable problems would have been a concern.

All pagan mythologies have Brother-Sister incest (And other forms, but that's most common) among the gods. Even the mythologies of cultures that all through our recorded history of them disapproved of Brother-Sister incest, like the Greeks and Romans. I believe the reason this happens is that it's the distant memory of when Brother-Sister incest was not just allowed but nearly universal.

Now to get to the The Law.

 Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, and Deuteronomy 27 are the three passages listing Incest restrictions. Only L20 and D27 list punishments to be carried out, so only those were part of Israel's civil law code. L18 is what deals with what's immoral but not necessarily illegal. Notice there is plenty included in L18 but not the other two, while the others never condemn anything L18 doesn't. This is consistent with what I'd expect from what I argued in my Libertarianism and The Bible article.

Wikipedia, and I expect other places, accuse these passages of not condemning Father-Daughter incest. This is incorrect. L18:17 says "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness." This basically says you can't have sex with any descendant of any woman you have had sex with. Since there was no artificial insemination back then, there was no way your daughter or granddaughter didn't qualify. I've seen people argue this is refereeing only to having a threesome with a mother and daughter, I think that's silly, it doesn't specify at the same time.

Wikipedia has a chart covering the various incest restrictions of the three chapters, but that chart made some mistakes, the one I addressed above and others, so I made my correction of it, and will share it with you all here.

Boxes filled in Red are condemned in that chapter, being still white and empty means it's not.

Step Siblings are ok. I don't know if that's illegal today, but people do have a tendency to consider it gross. It doesn't address anyone related by Adoption either, unless The Law simply doesn't consider adopted children/siblings distinct.

Some relations not allowed aren't biological ones, so genetic issues weren't their only concern. Inheritance and some other things were in mind too.

No same gender examples are covered, to some this would be because homosexuality is a sin altogether, but as I argued elsewhere, it's not. Genetic issues were not the only concern, but all the concerns did come basically down to reproduction in some way. So there was no reason to be concerned with same gender examples.

You'll notice they're not entirely gender neutral. The genders are different, including in how our Genetics work (Mitochondrial DNA is passed on only by the mother being one example). The main gender difference is, no restrictions on uncles marrying nieces, while nephews marrying aunts depends. Modern conventions are inclined to be the opposite here, if the relation implies the man is older then that's far more likely to be condemned as perverted. But as long as the younger is already an adult and consents I don't care.

It also doesn't address Cousins. Cousin relationships are inherently the most common (We're all Cousins ultimately if you believe The Bible) but First or even Second Cousin relationships tend to be viewed as wrong in most parts of the western world today. But at different periods this was different. The Bible not only doesn't outlaw Cousin relations, no matter how close, but it encourages First Cousin marriages in certain circumstances.

Most notably The Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7. Inheritance in Ancient Israel was normally Pater-lineal, but Zelophehad had no sons, so God decided in such a circumstance daughters could inherit so long as they married within their tribe, preferably their nearest kinsmen. They wound up marrying their first cousins.

Reheboam had many wives, all three named were fairly close cousins, and the mother of his successor was a first cousin. From what I argued before, pre-Moses examples don't prove anything, but I still feel like noting Jacob was married to two first cousins, and Issac to his first cousin once removed.

And if you consider Deutercanoical books like Tobit canon (as Catholics do).  Well that is a book that in the form we have it in is practically making it a sin not to marry your Cousin.  It seems the Book Tobit as we know it is a product of a time when Israelites were so paranoid about mixing with foreigners, they felt you should marry your nearest relation possible that's not forbidden in Leviticus 18.  Reason why I specify "as we know it" is because I have my personal theory that in the original version Sarah wasn't Tobit's cousin, in fact I speculate her name means Princess for a reason.  But that's for another topic on another blog.  Point here remains that if you think Tobit as it appears in the Septuagint, Catholic Bibles, or the 1611 KJV is God's word (I don't) then you have a pretty firmly pro Cousin marriage text in your Canon.

Genetically, between any two people there is always at least a 2% risk of these kinds of genetic problems.  Incest only increases the risk of it. First cousin relations (if there were few or no prior examples of incest in the shared ancestry) only increases the risk to 4%. So it's really not a big deal at all.

Today, for many reasons I don't think Gentile nations on this side of the Cross should be basing their Civil Laws on Ancient Israel's.

Genetic concerns are (or should be) the only concern of our modern civil laws. Some consider relations that imply a large age-gap should also be inherently wrong, but we have Statutory Rape laws (Which I feel need improving but I don't oppose having them) to protect minors. If both are adults and consent then I don't care and don't think the state should.

As a Libertarian I think only the most direct Heterosexual examples should be illegal, Biological Brother-Sister relations, and direct ancestors or descendants. But all incest laws outlawing anything else I oppose.

But to an extent I'm beginning to think perhaps any Incest laws are bad. The reasoning is the concern of genetic issues in the offspring makes it not a victim less crime. But that's basically Eugenics logic, and allowing the State permission to forbid reproduction in the case of Incest sets a precedent that could prove very dangerous.

The Evolutionary Science of Homophobia, and how Homosexuality proves Creationism

[Update Jun 16th 2016: This post I will completely redo in the future. The Basic point I still stand by, but it remains one of my most poorly articulated arguments.  For now don't use this as a source for anything.]