Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Genesis 5 - Family Lineage?

I had a difficult time reading Genesis 5. To start with, I decided to read the King James Version of the bible. I've been reading from the New International Version, but for some reason, the KJV seems more... bible-ish. I guess.

Genesis 5 is basically a family lineage, from the creation of Adam to the birth of Noah's sons. There's very few mentions about family other than the men listed in this lineage. While I read this chapter, I tried to do the math in my head for every single person mentioned. I even wrote it down, and I still got it wrong. So I refer to the chart to the right. This chart contains past Noah a few generations, as Shem was one of Noah's three sons.

According to this chapter, these people lived for centuries. By today's standards, they all had children at extreme ages. Noah was 500 years old when he had his kids! 500! Unbelievable!

Anyway, here's my critical thinking questions for this chapter:

How could these people have lived for centuries? Were they actually human or gods? How the heck could anyone have had children at such ages? We know people have never lived that long, we know that people have never had children at those ages, so how can we believe this book is divinely inspired when we know it's wrong here?

Where did these ages come from? What calendar did the writers use? Can someone point to other documented sources of calendars in use at those times?

Why was it important to write out a lineage instead of a family tree? Why would some children be pointed out while others aren't pointed out?

What would be the dynamic between father, child, grandfather, great grandfather, etc.? Did they live separately, or together? Did they help raise each others children?

Anyone is welcome to answer or ridicule my questions. Everyone is welcome, Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Shaman, whatever; please have at it!

1 comment:

Unknown said...

I'd say it reflects some sort of lineage for the people that wrote it.
They tend to occasionally mention other people, but infrequently. Also, I don't think, from reading it, that they intended to have people believe those were all individual people. It read, especially considering historical context, as if it were groups of people, which actually makes a lot more sense. The language slowly shifts through forms. Name, then later the -ite suffix, and later "the" e.g. Canaan, Canaanite, The Canaanites. I'm no theologian, but there were several things that indicated intentions other that the standard interpretation to me.