When I read a book, I don’t want
to know what is going to happen or how I am supposed to interpret it. What
interests me is first what I understand of it and only later what other people claim
it says. Reading a book following guidelines is like filling in crosswords and
immediately looking up the answers. You still get a better vocabulary by
memorizing those words (learning different descriptions for words), but you are
not thinking for yourself; you are not processing the information yourself.
When I read the Bible, I did not
follow any guidelines (I only consulted how certain passages are interpreted
after I read the book) and I ignored the typical prejudices of the believer (it
is a sacred book; it is the word of God; everything it says is the truth) and
of the cynics or skeptics (it is just another book; it is the work of
mysoginists, it helps the rich to oppress the poor; it keeps people stupid).
I should perhaps say that I ‘tried’
to read the Bible that way, because from an early age we become familiar with a
particular interpretation for certain stories and that makes it later almost
impossible to consider other interpretations. One example is the assumption
that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth; another is the assumption
that the forbidden fruit refers to an apple. Where do you find in Genesis that
Adam and Eve had no father and mother or that the forbidden fruit refers to an
apple? Then why are those
interpretations generally accepted? Do you have any idea how much they affect
our understanding, not only of Genesis, but of the whole Bible?
Religious authorities used to
claim – some still do so – that only they could interpret these books
correctly. They were right in pointing out that it is easy to misinterpret certain
stories, but the two examples I mention above demonstrate that they have done
so as well. Religious authorities also ignore that it is because of their
misinterpretations that cynics (skeptics) ridicule the Bible. Cynics claim that
science has demonstrated that the Bible makes no sense. They do not realize
that science may only have demonstrated that certain interpretations of this
book make no sense.
What we are made to believe
certain Bible stories say is often not what they really say. This is not only
because the religious authorities have misinterpreted these stories, but also
because often we need a critical mind to understand them. Without that critical
mind we can easily ignore certain information and then we cannot fully
understand those stories.
Does it make sense to stress the
fact that God expelled Adam and Eve from paradise for eating a forbidden fruit,
but ignore that in the days of paradise Adam and Eve were vegetarians? If Bible
believers long for a society of people that live in harmony – paradise / heaven
– they should recognize the fact that this book associates such a society with
vegetarianism and with staying away from a certain type of food.
I propose a complete new study of
the Bible; a new reading of that book. When we ‘reread’ that book we must set
aside prejudices such as, for instance, that what this book says is true. It is
not because the Bible says that what it says is true that we must believe this.
When I see a sign that says ‘Crazy is he who reads this’ I see no reason for
thinking that I am crazy. I question all authority. It is not because religious
authorities claim that what the Bible says is the truth – and that it is the
word of God (What is God?) – that I believe this.
However, whenever I read or hear
something, I wonder whether it might be true. Let me explain myself because you
make still be thinking of the ‘Crazy is he who reads this’ sign. When I read in
Genesis that mankind once lived in harmony I do not assume this is true – historians
claim it is not –, but I will keep that possibility in mind, because history teaches
us that historians make mistakes.
Cynics – skeptics – consider that
the Bible is just another book. I agree, but its authors then have the same
literary freedom as all other authors. It is inconsistent to claim, like cynics
do, that it is just another book, but then treat it with contempt because its
stories are not true. Stories do not have to be realistic, but can still hold
important messages. Fairy tales are a good example. It is not because animals
don’t speak (they do not communicate the way we do) that stories about animals
that do so cannot teach us important values. Stories that are not based on
reality may still help us understand reality better by encouraging us to
reflect upon certain matters or helping us to question certain ideas.
When we read in Genesis that the
Patriarchs reached old ages, I see no reason for assuming that our ancestors
once lived so long. But whereas cynics react to these old ages by exclaiming,
“What this book says is ridiculous because people seldom reach a hundred years”,
I react to them by asking, “What is the author trying to tell me with these old
ages? What does this information apport to the story? What am I ignoring about these
old ages?”
When we put the
ages of the Patriarchs on a spreadsheet or draw a graph, we see that a lot of
generations coincided in time. Noah, for instance, may have known the 18
generations between Enosh and Abraham. This is relevant for those stories
because, for instance, we can now wonder whether perhaps the three people that
visited Abraham, after God confirmed his Covenant, were the three sons of Noah.
We can now also wonder whether Noah told Abraham about the Great Flood and
about the days of paradise. We now see that Noah may have learned about
paradise by talking to Enosh, Adam’s grandson.
When people have questions
regarding biblical stories, they often immediately turn to certain ‘authorities’
for advice, but often these stories themselves answer their questions. A good
example is God asking Noah to take some of the animals with him on the Ark so that they as well
will survive the flood. A lot of Christians know so little about Genesis that
they think that of each species Noah took one couple with him. They are
mistaken. God made a difference between pure and impure animals. Noah took
seven couples of each species of pure animals and one couple of each species of
impure animals with him on the ark. Therefore, the question is what pure and
what impure animals are?
According to the religious
authorities pure animals are those that Jews are allowed to eat and impure
animals those that they are forbidden to eat. Christians eat impure animals,
but they also eat their blood, which God forbade when He allowed Noah to eat
animals. One can of course ignore in the Bible – and in life in general – whatever
one wants to ignore.
Both believers and cynics accept
this explanation regarding pure and impure, but the information regarding the
animals that Jews can or cannot eat does not come from the book Genesis – the
dietary law given to Noah actually says, “Everything that moves and lives will
be food for you. Just as I gave you the
green herbs, I now give you everything.” – but from the book Leviticus and
refers to the days of Moses. Whereas the former comes from God, the latter
comes from Moses.
The second part of that dietary
law given to Noah actually refers to the dietary law given earlier on to Adam
and Eve which says, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the
whole earth, and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. And to all the
beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that
move on the ground I give all the green
herbs.” Therefore, when God gave Noah and his family permission to eat other
creatures, He no longer recognized them as humans, made in His image, but as
beasts: the green herbs were not given to man, but to the animals. God allowed
Noah and his family to eat other creatures in order to claim back their human
soul. We can assume that when people recovered their human soul, they would
question eating other creatures.
So what is pure and impure
according to the story itself? In case one couple of impure animals was enough
to repopulate the Earth, impure clearly refers to incest and endogamy. Having
earlier on discovered that God regarded Noah and his family as beasts, we can
now look up whether He considered them pure or impure animals. There were four
couples on the ark – Noah, his wife, and his three sons with their spouses.
Four is right in the middle of one and seven and therefore of pure and impure.
These incestuous relations among Noah and his
family will of course not surprise those who assume that Adam and Eve were the
first couple on earth, but do have their importance to those who realize that
Genesis suggests there were people before Adam and Eve: God created man in his
own image, in his own likeness, male and female (and it makes sense to assume
that God was pure); the daughters of man had children with the sons of God; after
having killed his brother Abel, Cain was afraid that whoever encountered him
would kill him.
Now we must still reflect upon how
pure animals repopulated the world. Since there were seven couples of them, the
most practical way to avoid inbreeding or incest would have been for each of
the seven male lineages (or female) to 'cross' in each new
generation with each of the seven female (or male) lineages. This would mean
that seven generations later each male (or female) lineage crosses again with
the same female (or male) lineage.
Since God created (begat) Adam in
His likeness, he and Enoch (there are 8 generations from God to Enoch: God,
Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch) had something in common.
That would explain why Enoch is special. Not only did he die at the age of 365
years, the number of days in a year, but Genesis also says of him: "Enoch
walked with God, and disappeared because God took him."
Not only Genesis, the first book
of the OT, but also Matthew, the first book of the NT, gives a lot of
importance to the genealogies. The latter says there are 14 generations from
Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the deportation to Babylon, and 14 generations from the deportation to Babylon to Jesus. Matthew
suggests that every 14 generations this special male lineage leads to a special
person: also Josías, who marks the deportation to Babylon was special. Therefore, we should
find out who is separated from Abraham 14 generations going back in time. This
is Enoch and we have just seen that he as well is special.
Now that we have discovered the
importance of certain numbers in Genesis and in Matthew, we can reflect again
upon those old ages of the Patriarchs. When we read that passage carefully we
get the impression that the author did not choose those figures randomly, but may
apport something to the story.
Genesis offers for the first 10
Patriarchs of this particular lineage – from Adam to Noah (the Great Flood) –
the age they had when they begot their son, the years they lived afterwards,
and the total amount of years they had when they died. For the next 10
Patriarchs – from Shem to Abraham Genesis still offers the age they had when
they died and when they begot their son, but no longer the years they lived
afterwards. There is one exception. In regards to Shem, Genesis says, “Two
years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he begot Arpachshad. After
the birth of Arpachshad, Shem lived five hundred years.”
That exception and the fact that
offering the years that the first 10 Patriarchs lived after they had their son is
abundant (we can figure that out for ourselves) refer to an enigma. If Noah was
500 years when he had Shem, and 600 years when the flood started, when Shem had
Arpachshad he was 102 years and not 100 years in case that happened two years
after the flood.
Although I have given this enigma
a lot of thought I have not yet found the solution. If you know of someone who
has a good explanation for this enigma, please let me know. Something that I
did discover is that the figures for the ages of the first 20 Patriarchs have
not been chosen randomly. I am not
immediately going to tell you what it is, because I want to encourage you to do
your own research and do your own maths. You only have to do make a list with
those ages and read the first 10 chapters of Genesis to discover what is
special about those ages. However, I must tell you that I did a lot of
research. Albert Einstein said, "If we knew what it was we are doing, it would not be called research, would it?"