A BOOK THAT ENCOURAGES THE READER TO ASK QUESTIONS

Wisdom requires a questioning mind. Genesis is a book of wisdom because it encourages readers to ask important questions whose answers lead to new questions, and this dynamic leads to the discovery of its secrets and those enable us to get a better understanding of reality. Those who do not have a questioning mind often misinterpret that book because on several occasions it seems to say one thing when in reality it says something quite different. 

A good example is that second dietary law that I referred to in my previous article. People assume it says that God allowed Noah to eat other creatures, but readers with a questioning mind find it says that God no longer considered Noah and his family as human beings, but as animals, and that He allowed them to eat other creatures – “everything that lives and moves” - to recover their human soul.

Most people do not discover what Genesis really tells us, because when they read that second dietary law, and realize it refers to the first dietary law, they do not check what God exactly said on that occasion. This means that they do not process information right. They do not disover what Genesis really says because they often read what they want it to say or what they think it should say. Most people who read the Bible are omnivores. They are so pleased that God allowed Noah to eat other creatures, that they do not ask why He first prescribed a vegetarian diet and later changed His mind.

The fact that they ignore these questions, says a lot about these people. It tells us that they don’t have a questioning mind. People who accept that God can change His rules for no apparent reason understand very little of the main protagonist of the Bible. Their idea of God is still very much the idea that their pagan ancestors had of God. Pagan gods were often capricious – like whatever worldly ruler or like a father – and demanded to be obeyed without questioning.

A good example of a story that invites us to ask questions and reflect upon certain issues is that of God warning Adam and Eve that when they eat the forbidden fruit they will die, and later they eat but they do not die. This story is even more intriguing because the snake convinces Eve to eat the forbidden fruit – Eve later convinces Adam to do so as well – by claiming that she will not die, but that her eyes will be opened and she will be like God, knowing good and evil. Later, we learn that Adam and Eve’s eyes were indeed opened – they suddenly realized that they were naked – and that Adam only died when he was 930 years old. So what is Genesis trying to tell us by contradicting itself?

For me it is clear that Genesis encourages us to think of a way that Adam and Eve may indeed have died after eating the forbidden fruit, even though they did not die physically. After a lot of research – Albert Einstein said, “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” – and taking into consideration a lot of different ideas, I have come to the conclusion that the author suggests that before eating the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve were aware of their reincarnations. That would somehow have made them inmortal. If eating the forbidden fruit – a change in their diet – made that they were no longer aware of their past lives, they could no longer be sure of what would happen after their present life. Therefore, after eating the forbidden fruit, they must have begun to fear death and we can consider that they became mortal.

Reincarnation and karma are ideas that are closely related. The principle of karma is that whatever harm we cause to others, will be caused to us in our next lives. Reincarnation, karma and vegetarianism, are not ideas that we tend to associate with the three monoteist religions that are based on Genesis, but instead with Hinduism and Buddhism. People have ignored that several stories make sense when we consider ideas from other religions, because they do not question ideas from their own religion, but do question or even ridicule ideas from other religions.

It is not because the Bible recognizes the principles of reincarnation and karma that people indeed reincarnate. The Bible is just another book and what it says does not have to be true. But people who have a questioning mind will find that the more they reflect upon these principles, the more sense they make. Hillel, a famous Jewish religious leader of the first century BC, said that the Bible teaches us not do to others what is hateful to us. This should not surprise us. By suggesting that our ancestors lived in harmony, the Bible encourages us to restore harmony, and that really means not to do to others what is hateful to us.

The basic idea of the Ten Commandments is ‘Do not to others what is hateful to us’. It is not because God forbids to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to give false testimony against a neighbor or to long for things that belong to a neighbor, that we should not do so, but because we hate it when others do that to us.

The ‘eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth’ law has often been misinterpreted. If the Bible encourages us to restore harmony, it makes no sense to assume that it demands us to seek revenge. Violence then creates a vicious circle. The ‘eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth’ law refers to how our karma works – is it significant that the first mention of this law is in reference to a pregnant woman – and tells us that whatever harm we do to others will be done to us in our next lives. This should not be seen as a punishment, but as the opportunity to learn something from an experience by seeing it from the position of the people that we have caused harm.

Karma does not care about what is legally forbidden – there is a lot of legal theft and a lot of legal killing – but about the bad vibrations that people feel when someone harms them. Those who think that they can get away with bad behavior will learn from ‘suffering’ the consequences. People who realize that the ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ law refers to how our karma works no longer look for revenge, because they know what happen afterwards.

Religious authorities often claim that the ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ law was a big improvement of the sevenfold vengeance. God indeed said, “Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeange.” But these ‘authorities’ completely overlook that although Cain killed Abel, God did not kill Cain. He only cursed him by banning him from the ground that had received his brother’s blood. The sevenfold vengeange thus clearly refers to something different.

When we search in Genesis for references to the number seven, we find that there were seven couples of pure animals to repopulate the earth. When in our previous article we reflected  upon how these seven couples repopulated the earth, we came to the conclusion that 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.

Now that we have associated the Bible with the principles of reincarnation and karma, we can wonder whether each time when a particular male lineage crosses itself with a particular female lineage it attracts the same spirit. The fact that there are seven generations between Adam – the son of God (of that generation that still lived in harmony and therefore identified itself with God) – and Enoch makes that God and Enoch have something in common and may explain why Genesis says, "Enoch walked with God, and disappeared because God took him."

The story of Judah and Tamar tells us that Er, Judah’s firstborn, married Tamar. When Er died, Judah asked Onaan, his next son, to marry Tamar, and do his duty as her brother-in-law, to maintain his brother’s lineage. Cain was the firstborn of Adam. After killing his brother Abel, Cain asked God, “Am I perhaps my brother’s keeper?” These two stories suggest that Cain had to restore his brother’s lineage.

How did Cain killing his brother Abel alter the original plan of those male and female lineages crossing each other? Now that Abel’s male lineage no longer existed, what would happen to the seven female lineages that it was supposed to cross? Is that perhaps what that sevenfold vengeance refers to?

Let us go back to the story about Adam and Eve who lived on after eating the forbidden fruit. Not only is is it surprising that they did not die, but also that Adam lived 930 years. In the story about the sons of God who had children with the daughters of men, God indeed said, “My spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal, his days will be a hundred and twenty years.” Not only Adam, but all the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham die when they are older than 120 years. It is only during the life of Abraham, who receives a covenant from God, that something happens that puts an end to these old ages. We can clearly notice this when we put those ages in a spreadsheet and make a graph.

Whereas in the previous article I encouraged people to try to discover what is so special about the ages of the first 20 Patriarchs – the paragraphs above hold several clues –, now I invite people to reflect upon reincarnation. Instead of simply consulting what certain religions say about this subject, I encourage readers to ask all the questions we should ask when we consider this principle. Let me help you a bit. People who believe in reincarnation often assume that when someone dies his soul can freely choose what body it will reincarnate in. But what happens if a soul follows a certain pattern to make it from one incarnation to the following? Is it possible that Genesis recognizes this pattern and therefore gives so much importance to the genealogies?

WHAT KIND OF READER ARE YOU?

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?"