Wednesday: Sign of the Rainbow
“And God said, ‘This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth” (Gen: 9:12-13, RSV).
Image © Bible Adventure Collection at Goodsalt.com
Few natural phenomena are more beautiful than the rainbow. Who does not remember as a child one’s first fascination and wonder as those amazing bars of light bent across the sky like some sort of beckoning, mystical portal into the heavens (or maybe merely a clown’s belt)? Even as adults, our breath can be taken away by the sight of those outrageous colors in the clouds. No wonder that even today the rainbow is used as a symbol for so many things: from political organizations to cults to rock bands to travel agencies (look up the word “rainbow” on the Web and see). Obviously, those beautiful bands of color still touch chords in our hearts and minds.
Of course, that was God’s whole point.
Why did the Lord say the rainbow would symbolize? Gen: 9:12-17.
The Lord said He would use the rainbow as a sign of “my covenant” (Gen: 9:15). How interesting that He would use the word covenant here, for, in this case, the covenant differs from how it is used elsewhere. In contrast to the covenant with Abraham or the Sinai covenant, there is no specific obligation expressed on the part of those who would benefit from the covenant (even Noah). God’s words here are to all people, to “every living creature of all flesh” (Gen: 9:15, RSV) for “all future generations” (Gen: 9:12, RSV). God’s words are universal, all-encompassing, regardless of whether anyone chooses to obey the Lord or not. In this sense the concept of covenant is not used as it is elsewhere in the Bible when talking about the relationship between God and humans.
In what sense does this covenant also reveal God’s grace? Who initiated this covenant? Who is the ultimate benefactor?
| Though the covenant, as expressed here, does not come with specific obligations on our part (God’s part, of course, is never to destroy the world with a flood), how could our knowledge of what the rainbow symbolizes influence us to live in obedience to the Lord? In short, are there some implied obligations on our part when we look up into the sky and see the rainbow? Think of the whole context in which the rainbow came and the lessons we can learn from that account. |
(25)
I am probably jumping the gun with my observation this morning - I have not had time to read ahead in the lessons this quarter. It is however pertinent to this discussion to note that in spite of God's covenants, man's response has often been one of distrust. It did not take too long after the flood and God's promise with the sign of the rainbow, for man to distrust God and start to build a tower (ziggurat) so that they would be above the next flood. Excavations of ziggurats in modern times indicate that the maximum height of the edifices was a mere 30 metres. Man no longer trusted God and resorted to his puny efforts to save himself.
It was the same with Abraham. God promised an inheritance like the sands of the sea, but he resorted to a bit of trickery with a slave girl to help God along a bit. The result of that effort has left us with a legacy of conflict that we still have to contend with today.
In the time of Moses, God spoke to the people from Sinai giving them the oracle of the ten commandments. The Hebrews all vowed to follow God. A few weeks later in the absence of Moses, they made a golden calf and resorted to "bull worship" like the other Mediterranean nations around them.
Our history with God's covenants is discouragingly consistent. In spite of even the most overt evidence, we have continued to rely on our own efforts.
Do we learn from history or are we just as bad as our predecessors?
I looked up the conversion & that would be about 98 feet. The typical height of a story on a building is 14', so this tower would have been the equivalent of a 7 story building. Somehow I had always imagined something much more impressive as I have been led to believe that the antediluvians were quite advanced in their abilities.
Just a slight correction, Leilani. Antediluvian means before the flood. The Tower of Babel was built after the flood so its builders are referred to as Postdiluvians.
It's the same as: a.m. and p.m. stand for the Latin ante meridiem and post meridiem, meaning before and after midday.
Lesson within a lesson...Maurice, the consumate teacher.
Much appreciated.
Leilani,
Maybe the LORD had something to do with it, after all he stopped them building the tower of Babel?
For us, 98 feet doesn't sound like much. But for them, one story was much shorter. They didn't have electrical work and such in the ceiling like we do. I have not researched this but I would guess one story in their time would be closer to half of ours. Also, they didn't have the aid of modern machinery to lift the heavy stone blocks. Considering these factors, it becomes more impressive.
Ziggurats v Pyramids
Some info sourced from the internet, comparing ziggurats to pyramids both built without modern tools.
The ziggurats from the Mesopotamian area and the Great Pyramids of Giza could not be more similar and completely different from each other. They are both gigantic man-made structures of their eras and are highly respected structures. Looking at each structure, both the pyramids and ziggurats share a striking similarity in form; both share the quality of a pyramidal shape. The ziggurats of the ancient near east is a stepped pyramid structure; compared to the Great Pyramids of Giza which has a four sided base with each side coming to a point at the top, giving the pyramid four triangular sides that were smooth at one time.
Both these magnificent structures were built to honor someone of significance from that era. The ziggurats were built to honor the gods and goddesses of the religious beliefs of the Mesopotamian people. Compared to the Egyptians who built the pyramids to honor their pharaohs and their most important possessions.
The pyramid’s main design purpose was to preserve the dead. They serve as huge tombs for the pharaohs and their possessions. The pyramids had chambers inside them to hold various items as well as the dead body of the pharaoh and his queen. Usually, the chambers of the pharaoh and queen were located high within the pyramid’s structure.
The ziggurats, on the other hand, were built to honor a specific god or goddess. Many archeologists believe there was a temple, or shrine, at the top of the ziggurat, where offerings and praise where offered to the god. Textual evidence also suggests that this was a link between heaven and earth. The temple, or shrine, was a meeting place of the gods and humans.
The ziggurats were built by the Sumerians, Babylonians, Elamites, Akkadians, and Assyrians, all from the Mesopotamian area. These massive structures were built from sun baked bricks for the core of the structure; as for the outside, they used fired bricks which often were glazed with different colors. Many ziggurats contained multiple colored tiers. Ziggurats contained between two and seven tiers. On the colored tiers you might have found writings of either the current King’s name that had the ziggurat built; also you could have found the name of the god or goddess that the ziggurat was built for. Within the Ziggurat walls, you had many other buildings that served other purposes; such as a courtyard, storage rooms, living quarters, and bathrooms. Just on the outside of the ziggurat was the city; usually the city walls butted up against the walls of the ziggurat as if to protect it from outsiders.
The ziggurats did not measure up in size to the pyramids. The ziggurats measured only to be approximately 150 feet in height on average compared to the great pyramids that at one time believe to be approximately 450 feet tall. The pyramids were the largest man made structure of its time and for approximately 1,300 years after. These massive structures were built by the pharaoh’s slaves, which moved large limestone blocks into place.
The outer layer of the pyramids consisted of a casing stone that had a smooth outer surface. This casing stone was a white limestone that was highly polished for a smooth surface. Both layers of limestone used for the core structural core and outer layer, was carved at a local quarry near the pyramids, and then brought to the site. Inside, the pyramid contained three chambers. A lower chamber, which was located beneath the bedrock, held some of the possessions belonging to the pharaoh. The king and queen chambers where located higher within the pyramid structure. These chambers were lined with a more valuable and richer looking stone which was transported from a location approximately 500 miles north of the pyramids.
As you can see, both the ziggurat and the Great Pyramids were built with a purpose to respect and honor a significant individual; whether that was a god or a king. They both had a pyramidal structure but beyond that they start to be very different. The ziggurats were intended to pay respect and give offerings to the gods compared to the Great Pyramids that were built as a tomb and final resting spot for the pharaoh, his queen, and most prized possessions.
https://sommerville88.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/the-ziggurats-of-the-mesopotamian-era-compared-to-the-great-pyramids-of-giza/
what we know from Scripture is that the communications between humans was uninhibited by the barrier of language, which until only recently with the invention and development of microprocessors, has always been the significant barrier to the advancement of civilization. the people of the time before the tower of babel were unified in speech and language which is why they were able to believe they could be self-sufficient with no need for God. who really knows the size of the structure, but the historical evidence, especially of the pyramids, which were built hundreds and thousands of years after the tower of babel, would indicate that it was a magnificent structure since all the people were unified in language and purpose, which meant that they could have had a very advanced civilization.....as can be testified by the development of the United States which is a country that was founded as a unified country of states with a common language, which is one of the primary reasons for the advancements that USA has made in developing our civilization....the point being that the LORD intervened to confuse the language of the peoples which prevented them from completing their "tower" which represented their "idol" to self-sufficiency.
Leilani, I was wondering where you got the 98 feet for the Tower of Babel, then I see that Maurice posted that modern ziggurats had a maximum height of 98 feet. That still doesn't tell us much about the height of the Tower of Babel. (For instance, I just found this:
So the estimated height of that particular ziggurat is over 160 feet.)
We can only guess at the height of that famous tower. A larger base would have allowed for a larger height. But considering that more modern ziggurats are all temples, what was probably more significant is that those ancient people built a huge temple to a god other than the Creator God.
i think that is the point of this week's lesson. We learn that it is nothing that humans do or say which provides salvation from sin, but it's ONLY by the Love,Grace and Mercy of THE LORD that humans have ANY hope.
And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Gen 7:1
'Though the covenant, as expressed here, does not come with specific obligations on our part (God’s part, of course, is never to destroy the world with a flood)'.
I do believe the covenant was specific to Noah and family but have long term consequences to us humans today. If Noah did not believed in the Lord, then he probably would not have built a boat or even preached. The rainbow is not the covenant but a symbol of the covenant, a symbol of obedience on Noah part. Because of Noah obedience, a symbol of those living who will be saved, the Lord sent the rainbow to remind all future generations about his plans not to destroy the world by a flood again but he will destroy the world by fire. It took faith for Noah to believe about the flood, it will take faith for us to believe about the destruction by fire.
The LORD declared the Rainbow to be a sign between Him and all future generations.
It is fascinating to do a word search on "sign/s" and see how often it is used in the Old Testament and so little in the New Testament, I wonder why?
Exo 31:12-13 ISV The LORD told Moses, (13) "You are to speak to the Israelis: 'You are to surely observe my Sabbaths because it's a sign between me and you from generation to generation, so you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
Maybe this is the reason:
Mat 24:24 ISV because false messiahs and false prophets will appear and display great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
Joh 4:48 ISV Jesus told him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will never believe."
I was reading up on the rainbow in both Gen 9:12-13 and Rev 4:3. The two spoke about a rainbow. Looking at the rainbow in the bible, is it a sign or a symbol, or is it both. The English spelling for the rainbow has 7 letters and there are 7 colors of the rainbow. Are these things coincident?
In the KJV it said the rainbow is a TOKEN of a covenant and not a SIGN of a covenant. There is a difference between the words 'token' and 'sign'. In Rev 4:3 John saw the rainbow encircling the throng of God. Why a rainbow encircling the throng?
Oh the bible has deep meaning for those who wants to study the word of Jesus.
The rainbow spanning the heavens with its arch of light is a token of “the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature.” Genesis 9:16. And the rainbow encircling the throne on high is also a token to God’s children of His covenant of peace. {Ed 115.1}
As the bow in the cloud results from the union of sunshine and shower, so the bow above God’s throne represents the union of His mercy and His justice. To the sinful but repentant soul God says, Live thou; “I have found a ransom.” Job 33:24. {Ed 115.2}
“As I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.” Isaiah 54:9, 10. {Ed 115.3}
I am beginning to see something underlying the Covenants God makes with man which I did not notice before. Reading Gen.9:17KJV - ”And God said unto Noah, this is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth”, I notice Him referring to all flesh. Gen.9:13 ”I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth”; here He addresses the whole earth.
The Creator gave the EARTH His promise not to destroy it again with water, and as long as His children inhabit His earth He will keep this promise. Once the time has come to close this age for humanity, when His children are removed from the earth, then the earth will be made new.
As I read this, I think that our Creator sees the whole earth as a living unit, benefitting man which He created in His Image to mulitply and fill the earth; all of earth's creation is made to benefit mankind.
Could it be that we have deceived ourselves, elevating ourselves to a height of self-importance and with this separated ourselves, forgetting that we are part of all which God created? Yes, the rainbow is the Creator God's promise to set righ all that which has gone wrong in and with the earth.
All of God’s creation benefits from the care it receives. The fauna and flora, the beasts in the fields and all flying things, the crawling creatures and all life in the waters covering this beautiful sphere benefit from the Love the Creator has for his creation. Only man is aware of this, though; made to recognize the loving relationship the Father has for his creation enabling him to love Him in response.
As I see it, the Creator will be the ultimate benefactor of His efforts as He corrects that which is, but is not according to His Will. His Fatherly Love for all things created by Him is His motivation, though His condemnation of willful sin remains unmovable and unchangeable.
Rebellion in 'high places' against the Creator’s Will has caused His earth to become beset with evil and iniquity. The powerful Angel of Light, the one in charge to help direct man's world as a peaceful and harmonious community for all living things, by his rebellion caused it to fail. Man, placed on earth to live in his beautiful home, to care for it and multiply to fill the earth, was unable to do so; instead, he became its own worst enemy, destroying himself and the world he lives in.
Referring to the Savior of all that is, Col.1:15-23KJV – (v.15,16) “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.
Humanity has received its Creator’s promise to remain forever part of all which He created. I believe that all who have been redeemed praise and thank our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus who decided to protect us and keep us among the living.
Thanks to all comments. I was very clear to me.
I have been following closely how you people comment and it's really blessing...Happy Sabbath y'all
Interesting that a study of God's covenant to save sinners would turn to a conversation about man's unbelief and resulting effort to save himself from a capricious god, though I get the relevance to the topic, and how this does illustrate how quickly faith became unbelief in the descendants of Noah, who walked with God.
Just wondering how many people ignore a rainbow when they see one? Perhaps that depends on what one believes and how many rainbows they have seen? When living in southern California where rain is not so common, a rainbow is even less common, and everyone grabs the camera. Amazing that a rainbow even happens, and always under the same conditions. Such a wonder and few know of it's divine appointment, blessed assurance, or that God's throne is encircled with such a rainbow(Rev 4:3).
Now living where rain is much more plentiful and regular, and a rainbow will still have me getting out the camera(phone)! It also reminds me I don't need to build a boat.
The idea that it had never rained on the earth before the Flood, or that rainbows had never existed before the Noah’s Flood, are absurd and unnecessary claims. Christians should avoid making such claims, which are not supported by either careful exegesis of the text, by historical and archaeological records, or by common sense.
“No rain before the Flood…"
The claim that there was "no rain on the earth” is wrongly referred to in the SS lesson as a historical claim, and has no basis.
The text of Genesis refers to the time and location of the creation of Adam (Gen 2:6-7), not the time of Noah.
The reason for “no rain” in there garden is because there was sufficient water from the streams to irrigate the land.
The phrase also refers to the "dry season," as opposed to times of rain, as can be seen by its use in other biblical texts.
“No rainbows before the Flood”
This is another claim that has no basis in any sensible interpretation of Genesis.
In the story of Elijah, fire appears and devours the altar. Does that mean there was no fire before Elijah’s time?
In the Genesis story, a rainbow appears as a response to Noah’s sacrifice. No claim is being made about all rainbows in all places.
We have documented archaeological findings showing rainbows, dating back in Sumerian and Egyptian texts, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, dated 3,000 BC, long before any purported date for Noah’;s Flood.
Im sure that simple understanding of natural law, and how ancient cultures thought about such things, provides a better explanation.
In my view, we create unnecessary stumblingblocks for the public by printing such ideas. We need to make it easy for people to believe in Christ, without baggage from the past, and keep such peripheral ideas out of sight.
Dear Jordan,
It's good to see you posting again. 🙂
You sound so sure of your facts that it really sounds like you must have been there!
Actually, the interpretation that there was no rain on the earth before the world-wide flood is quite reasonable, based on Gen. 2:6. It seems that the whole hydrological cycle changed with the Flood, and we really have little idea of what the world was like and how the hydrological cycle functioned before the Flood. (One theory suggests that there was an envelope of water vapor surrounding the earth that kept the climate mild and uniform and that this envelope released its moisture on the earth as part of the source of the waters of the flood, along with the subterranean sources.)
The Bible specifically says that God put the rainbow in the sky as a token of His promise that there would never again be a world-wide flood. That does not sit well with your suggestion that both rain and rainbows were likely as common before the flood as they are now. The rainbow could not have the significance the Bible ascribes to it if it were not new to the people who saw it.
And may I suggest that Sumeria and Egypt were civilizations that existed *after* the world-wide flood, no matter what dates archeologists assign to them. (The whole dating system is based on circular reasoning, but this is not a good time or place to get into it.)
May I also suggest that there's little reason "to believe in Christ" if we do away with "the baggage from the past" which demonstrates just Who He is - the Creator who spoke this world into existence and personally and intimately breathed the breath of life into the first human.
It makes for an uneasy marriage to try to wed naturalistic secular science with biblical Christianity. The current scientific paradigm has *no* place for God - least of all a personal Creator God. We have to choose where to put our faith - in the Creator God and His Word or in naturalistic science that has no room for Him at all. They are opposing world views based on opposing philosophies.
Real science is never in conflict with the witness of the Bible. But what may be called "historical science" is in direct conflict with the Bible because it postulates that life and all things arose by capricious chance. I can't begin to come up with enough faith to believe that, considering that in my over 75 years of life, all the concrete evidence I have seen in the natural world demonstrates that all natural processes eventually lead to an increase in entropy. Much of the time it holds true even when humans are involved, as demonstrated by the space over which my teenage boys had responsibility. 🙂 Naturalistic science, by contrast, would have me believe that complex systems, as found in living things, originated in unorganized matter which organized itself into greater complexity. Now that takes a bit of faith to believe! (It takes far more faith to believe in that than to believe a Ferrari created itself from parts in a junkyard, considering that life is exponentially more complex than an inanimate Ferrari.)
Inge, Christians should avoid making unsubstantiable claims about matters which can be easily refuted.
The claim of Gen 2:6 there that there was "no rain" is simply a description of the pre-condition of the dry ground before the hands of Yahweh scooped the earth and moulded the human form. There is no need to imagine that this condition was global or that it continued for thousands of years down to the time of Noah's Flood.
In addition, there is abundant evidence that rain fell long before the purported time of Noah's Flood. Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian tablets and pictographs from prior ancient times all refer to rainbows, clouds, floods and rain. The Nile has been flooding from rain and snow melt in Nubia and Ethiopia for way longer than the time of Noah. This is attested by earth drills in the Nile Delta which show seasonal patterns of flooding going back many, thousands of years--without interruption.
Let's not major points out of minor details in the narrative--inventing second or third creations--and trying to read into the text something way beyond reason and evidence.
Jordan, it looks to me that you are mainly re-stating your original comment without any significant difference.
Do I need to re-post my reply for you to consider it, or can you just re-read my original reply and respond to the points I made?
You may have noticed that I addressed the underlying assumptions of your comment - namely
1) that the conditions in the natural world before the world-wide flood were just as they are now.
2) that the chronology of Egypt is reliable and that modern scientific dating methods are also reliable
I suggested that the acceptance of various accounts of pre-historic events is affected by what our faith priority is. Is our primary faith placed in naturalistic science, or is our primary faith placed in God and His Word? The answer to that question will determine what we deem to be true.
I suspect you greatly underestimate the changes in the earth's crust caused by the world-wide Flood - first by the earthquakes attending releasing the waters under the surface, then the huge waves (much larger than any known tidal waves) which moved masses of what used to be land and then the drying gales that were likely of hurricane force. Evidence of all these are found by scientists who believe the biblical account. Naturalistic scientists simply hang the same evidence on an evolutionary framework and speculate that the changes in the earth's crust took millions or billions of years, rather than hundreds.
Your speculation that there were rainbows before the world-wide flood diminish the subject of this lesson, which is taken directly from Scripture - namely that the rainbow was and is a sign of God's covenant promise to His creation that there would never again be a world-wide flood.
God's covenant promises are not peripheral to the subject of faith in Christ. In fact, they are central to the gospel which depends on the character of the God who promised to save us. Christ is the fulfillment of the eternal covenant, which was repeated to many generations.
Two comments:
1. Maybe your faith precedes the evidence.
Mine doesn't. It follows the evidence wherever it leads.
2. I continue to be disappointed by the opposition between faith and science that you propound. Apparently you believe almost nothing that modern geology, biology, astronomy or archaeology can teach us. This is exactly what Ellen White and the best of Adventist thinkers have tried to resist.
We should seek to harmonize the two, not create a chasm too difficult for reason or faith to cross. The anti-science attitude of conservative churches has now become the #2 reason that Millennials are dropping out of those churches as they become better educated. To hear non-scientists, especially religious leaders of the older generation, pontificate in ways that attempt to discredit the findings of science is a major turn-off.
Jordan, you suggest, "1. Maybe your faith precedes the evidence."
My reply: My faith is built on the evidence God has provided over time - both in my life and in the world in which we live. But for the latter, evidence is subject to interpretation which depends on one's world view which is also based on faith. If you prioritize naturalistic science over the Word of God, then you will interpret the evidence differently than I do.
No, I do not propound an opposition of faith and science. I mentioned earlier that all true science harmonizes with the Word of God. In fact, God is the Source of all true knowledge aka "science." There is, however, a fundamental conflict between faith and naturalistic science, which, by definition, excludes any and all acts of God.
As for modern science, I appreciate geology, biology, astronomy and archaeology and what they can teach us about God's creation and the history of this planet. I may only have a minor in biology, but I have kept up a keen interest in not just the evidence of divine creation in biology but also in geology and other sciences. I trust *hard* science, which is the science that is based on reproducible experiments. Philosophical science is another matter. It is based on faith plus varying amounts of evidence. If you believe in creation by divine fiat, you will interpret the evidence one way. If you believe in deep time/a long chronology of billions of years (as Mr. Guy does), you will interpret the same evidence differently. I tend to trust the scientists who view science from the paradigm of God as Creator of all that is
Everyone works with the same evidence. The difference is in the interpretation. The origin of life by chance nearly 4 billion years ago takes more faith, in my view, than believing that God spoke life into existence on this planet some thousands of years ago - taking into account my personal experience with a personal God.
As an aside: Adventists do not generally believe that Genesis 1 is an account of the creation of the universe. Rather, it is the account of God creating life on this planet. Genesis leaves room for the belief that the matter of this planet existed before the ordering of life on it - with God having created this spinning globe some time earlier. Neither do we believe in several creations, as you referenced in one of your comments.
If you are truly interested in the intersection of faith and science and by chance, you live the in the Loma Linda area, you may want to check out if Paul Giem is still hosting the Second Look Sabbath Seminars /Science Sabbath School class. You can find some of the classes archived online at http://sls.sabbathschooltv.com/
You might also want to check out a site by LLU graduate Sean D. Pitman, The Emperor Has No Clothes – Naturalism and The Theory of Evolution. You can even leave comments on his WordPress blog and thus interact with him.
We actually have a section on our site dedicated to science that helps us understand the origins of this planet. I invite you to investigate. Unfortunately, some links may be out of date. If you see a problem, please let us know. See https://ssnet.org/links/creation-and-science/
Btw, I most certainly agree with you that "We should not invent interpretations that fly in the face of known historical or scientific facts. These bring disrepute to our faith and turn thinking people away from the central truths of Christ." The question is what we judge to be "known historical or scientific facts."
Mr River, notice that Egyptians do not speak the same language as many other nations, which means they cannot predate the tower at Babel(Gen 11) where scripture places the creation of languages by God, since before that time there was only one language(Gen 11:1). This story comes many generations after the flood, and there is no mention of either rain or rainbows prior to the flood account in scripture, so to say they did exist prior to the flood must be a supposition only.
Perhaps the belief you do not find perfect agreement with would be better stated as: "there is no evidence in scripture that rain, and thus, rainbows existed before the flood"? I would agree with that.
The term "earth" in Gen 11:1 is ha-aretz, which means land, not globe or planet. In context, the verse means that in the land under consideration by the writer there was only one language. This land was probably the area near the junction of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, close to Eden. Thus this text is not making a universal claim, and so your speculations regarding other languages such as Egyptian are unnecessary. Egyptian is attested as a language and culture for 5,000 years, Chinese has been written for 6,000 years, Tamil for 5,000 years, etc.
We should not invent interpretations that fly in the face of known historical or scientific facts. These bring disrepute to our faith and turn thinking people away from the central truths of Christ.
You provide an illustration that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." 😉
The word translated "the whole earth" in Gen 11:1 is the same one used for "earth" in Gen 1:1,2. It is also used for "earth" in Gen 1:10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22. I could go on. Suffice it to say, that the same word is used for most mentions of "earth" in the early chapters of Genesis, clearly meaning the whole earth, according to modern definitions.
Hebrew does not have a lot of words, so it is true that words accrue meaning by context. But there is no reason to believe that the meaning of "earth" in Gen 11:1 is any different than the meaning of "earth" Gen. 1, other than the reader's presuppositions.
But all that aside and turning back to the subject of our lesson - your interpretation destroys the meaning of God's promise to humanity that He would never again destroy the whole earth with a Flood, giving the sign of the rainbow as assurance, so that people would not be unnecessarily frightened by the rain that would henceforth fall on the earth.
You do not specifiy what you mean by "whole earth," but seem to imply something like globe or planet. I refer you to the book published by the distinguished Adventist professors Dr Fritz Guy and Brian Bull entitled. God, Sky & Land: Genesis 1 as the Ancient Hebrews Heard It. I quote from their briefer version:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"•’eretz: land (1543 times in KJV), earth (712 times), country (140 times), way (3 times), ground.
To follow Tyndale and translate ’eretz as “earth” is to mislead the modern-day reader into picturing “Planet Earth,” for this is what the word “earth” inevitably conjures up for us in the context of a cosmology. As before, what Tyndale could get away with (without doing injustice to the Hebrew text) is no longer possible for us. “Land”—the most frequently used English equivalent for ’eretz—is much less likely to mislead. This, however, is not merely land as in real estate, but also (and often) land as in “promised land” or “land of Israel” (’Eretz Israel is now the state of Israel).
Therefore:’eretz = land (not earth). As students of Hebrew know, the word "eretz" was incorrectly translated as "world" Modern readers make the mistake of reading their own worldview back into these kind of texts, which are usually best interpreted within the framework of their original audience." *
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It seems you are the unwitting victim of a mistranslation. Please read the full article and let's talk. Here it is . . .
* https://spectrummagazine.org/article/brian-bull/2012/11/11/genesis-account-six-hebrew-words-make-all-difference
The following words are mine, not those of Bull and Guy, although they reflect their view. I was unable to edit in time.
- - - - - - - -
"As students of Hebrew know, the word "eretz" was incorrectly translated as "world" Modern readers make the mistake of reading their own worldview back into these kind of texts, which are usually best interpreted within the framework of their original audience."
Mr River, are you overlooking the fact that everyone on the earth after the flood came from Noah's small, immediate family? There was one language prior to Babel, and the only Biblical evidence given for diverse languages on earth is the story of Gen 11. Seems sufficient to validate the use of eretz meaning all people on earth at the time when the languages were given. Egypt, like all other nations, tribes, languages, etc, come from the act of God at Babel. Therefore, Egypt comes after the flood.
Not sure why you seem to wish to invalidate that fact.
Jordan, thanks for the link to the Spectrum article, which I read. (I didn't get the book when it was published because I already knew Fritz Guy's views and knew I disagreed with them.)
Since probably neither of us are expert in biblical languages or ancient culture, we need to consider whether the authors are expert in the subject on which they write with assurance. They make confident statements on what the words in Genesis mean, and they make confident statements on what these words meant in ancient cultures. In reality, Fritz Guy has a doctorate in "Divinity" and Brian Bull is a medical doctor. Thus their assurance must come from sources other than their own expertise, but the article leaves us in the dark.
As for the condescending statement that Tyndale could get away with things that modern translators cannot, let me suggest two modern version of the Bible translated by teams of experts in appropriate subjects, including biblical languages:
The ESV (published 2001) refers to "the whole earth" having the same language in Gen. 11:1. The NLT (2007) puts the thought into modern language thus, "all the people of the world spoke the same language." Though they did not use "whole earth," the thought remains. I would respectfully suggest that these experts in biblical languages and ancient cultures may be more trustworthy than the authors you suggested.
To put it bluntly, I do not accept Mr. Guy's assertion that the word normally transliterated "'ereṣ" is mistranslated in the vast majority of bibles (including the German bibles I consulted).
I believe the Bible is quite clear on this matter of God's promise, rain and the rainbow. It would be absurd to specify the rainbow as a token of His promise if it were already a common occurrence before the world-wide flood. Rather, it seems that a mist watered the earth at night, and the mornings dawned bright and clear, with no atmospheric moisture to refract the light of the sun.
A good place to check out the original words in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures is https://www.blueletterbible.org/
Jordan – thank you for highlighting the use of caution as lesson writers prepare their bible study guides - I agree! I started noticing pictures depicting scenes which can only be supported by a child-like imagination and commented using the same premises as yours.
It is very important in our day and time not to alienate those who approach the faith-based Christian religion with intelligent, probing, critical questions.
Skill and good judgment needs to be employed by both sides when engaging in a discourse about faith-based opinions; mutual respect being at the core of any well-reasoned dialogue.
I support your desire not to make ‘major’ points out of ‘minor’ details; but defining which is which seems to have become the ‘bone’ of the contention in this conversation.
Mankind loves signs and wonders – they assume their faith is strengthened by these observable events, but dependency on them actually weakens faith.
We remember that no one outside of Noah’s family was left who might have become anxious as rain fell; after all, God made a promise, He is not arbitrary. One might also consider a rainbow appearing as sun shines through mist, showing the colors of the refracted light in the form of a rainbow.
I suggest the Creator God and Father of humanity, used the rainbow; assigning to it, or giving it His designation as the visible token of his promise.