Personal Bible Reflections - Genesis

PERSONAL BIBLICAL REFLECTIONS - GENESIS
2015
Personal Biblical Reflections

- Genesis
COMPILATION OF BIBLICAL RESEARCH

JOEL JOSOL
Personal Reflections
Table of Contents
Contents
1.
GENESIS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 A LOOK AT CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1.1 "In the beginning" ................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1.2. "God created" ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.1.3. "the heavens and the earth" ................................................................................................................................ 7
1.2 A CLOSER LOOK AT THE CREATION DAYS ...................................................................................................................... 8
1.2.1 The Creation "Days" .............................................................................................................................................. 8
1.3 THE NEGATIVE VIEW OF CRITICS ON GENESIS ............................................................................................................................ 10
1.4 SOME GEMS FROM GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNT ....................................................................................................................... 12
1.4.1 Land rising from the sea ..................................................................................................................................... 12
1.4.2 Animals are souls................................................................................................................................................. 12
1.4.3 Man is a soul ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
1.5 THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS AND SUPPOSED CONTRADICTIONS IN GENESIS ..................................................... 15
1.5.1 The Documentary Hypothesis and its recent fall to disrepute ....................................................................... 15
1.5.2 Supposed contradictions between Genesis chapter 1 and 2 ................................................................................... 17
1.6 EXPLORING SOME DETAILS OF GENESIS CHAPTERS 2 AND 3........................................................................................ 18
1.6.1 The seventh day of rest ...................................................................................................................................... 18
1.6.2 The prohibition on eating two types of fruit ...................................................................................................... 19
1.6.3 The need of man for a woman ........................................................................................................................... 20
1.7 THE SERPENT AND THE DECEPTION .............................................................................................................................. 21
1.7.1 The serpent ........................................................................................................................................................... 21
1.7.2 The deception ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
1.8 MORE REFLECTIONS ON CHAPTERS 2 AND 3 ................................................................................................................ 24
1.8.1 Gods holy name Jehovah ................................................................................................................................ 24
1.8.2 Gods promise of salvation ................................................................................................................................. 26
1.8.3 Adam and Eve fictional characters? .............................................................................................................. 28
1.9 MORE REFLECTIONS ON THE SEVENTH DAY AND GODS DEALINGS WITH ADAM POST-FALL ................................................................. 31
1.9.1 Revisiting the Seventh Day from a language viewpoint .............................................................................. 31
1.9.2 Gods judgment on Adam ................................................................................................................................... 31
1.10 INSIGHTS, CAIN AND NOAH .......................................................................................................................................... 33
1.10.1 Insights on who God is from early chapters of Genesis .............................................................................. 33
1.10.2 Cain and his wife ............................................................................................................................................... 34
1.10.3 Details on Noah and the Flood .............................................................................................................................. 34
1.11 GENEALOGICAL CHARTS.............................................................................................................................................. 38
1.11.1 Observation from the Genealogical Lists (Adam-Noah) ........................................................................................ 38
1.12 MORE REFLECTIONS POST-FLOOD .......................................................................................................................................... 41
1.12.1 This is the history ................................................................................................................................................ 41
1.12.2 The Origin of Nations ............................................................................................................................................. 43
1.12.3 Nimrod ................................................................................................................................................................... 47
1.13 REFLECTIONS ON ABRAHAM ................................................................................................................................................. 49
1.13.1 ABRAHAM, UR, AND CAMELS ............................................................................................................................................ 49
1.13.2 Urs religion, Abraham, Lot, Eliezer and Patriarchal customs ............................................................................... 51
1|Page
1.13.3 Elam and Abrahams military victory .................................................................................................................... 53
1.13.4 Melchizedek ........................................................................................................................................................... 55
1.13.5 Sodom and Gomorrah ........................................................................................................................................... 56
1.13.6 Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited ............................................................................................................................ 58
1.13.7 What can I learn from Lot? .................................................................................................................................... 60
1.13.8 Homosexuality ....................................................................................................................................................... 63
1.13.9 Lots offering his daughters to the mob, the lingering of Lot in Sodom, wife of Lot, his getting drunk................. 66
1.13.10 Abrams tactic to present Sarai as his sister twice, in Egypt and in Gerar ........................................................... 68
1.13.11 Hagar ................................................................................................................................................................... 70
1.13.12 Jehovah as represented in His interactions with Abraham.................................................................................. 72
1.13.13 Jehovah as a God of prophecy ............................................................................................................................. 75
1.13.14 Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac ..................................................................................................................................... 76
1.13.15 Abimelech of Gerar .............................................................................................................................................. 78
1.13.17 The offering of Isaac ............................................................................................................................................ 80
1.13.18 The death of Sarah and the purchase of a burial place from the sons of Heth ................................................... 82
1.13.19 Looking for the future wife of Isaac ..................................................................................................................... 84
1.14 THE BIBLE IS VINDICATED WITH THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS LOSING ITS POWER TO EXPLAIN..................................................... 86
1.15 ABRAHAM, KETURAH AND THE OTHER CHILDREN ...................................................................................................................... 89
1.16 ISAAC, REBEKAH AND THE SELLING OF ESAUS BIRTHRIGHT.......................................................................................................... 90
1.16.1 Isaac and Rebekah ................................................................................................................................................. 90
1.16.2 Esau, selling his birthright ..................................................................................................................................... 90
1.16.4 Isaac and El Shaddai ............................................................................................................................................. 96
1.17 REFLECTIONS ON JACOB ...................................................................................................................................................... 99
1.17.1 Jacob, his marriages ............................................................................................................................................. 99
1.17.2 Teraphim.............................................................................................................................................................. 101
1.17.3 Jacob and Laban .................................................................................................................................................. 102
1.17.4 Jacob, his shepherding life, Laban covenant, his meeting with Esau, the wrestling with an angel ..................... 104
1.17.5 The price of peace................................................................................................................................................ 106
1.17.6 The meeting of the brothers Esau and Jacob....................................................................................................... 109
1.17.7 Simeons anger .................................................................................................................................................... 113
1.17.8 Jacob goes to Bethel ............................................................................................................................................ 114
1.17.9 The pillars erected by Jacob ................................................................................................................................. 117
1.17.10 Death in the family ............................................................................................................................................ 119
1.17.11 Do the Patriarchs Believe in Life After Death? Did Moses? ............................................................................... 122
1.17.12 Notes on Esau .................................................................................................................................................... 124
1.17.13 The Story Moves with Jacob .............................................................................................................................. 126
1.17.14 Joseph, the dreamer, and his brothers .............................................................................................................. 129
1.17.15 Judah and his transgression, and the levirate marriage.................................................................................... 132
1.17.16 Joseph Into Egypt 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 136
1.17.17 Joseph into Egypt 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 138
1.17.18 The Rise of Joseph 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 140
1.17.21 Joseph and His Brothers..................................................................................................................................... 148
1.17.22 Joseph and His Brothers..................................................................................................................................... 151
1.17.23 Jacobs Family in Egypt ...................................................................................................................................... 154
1.17.24 The Final Days of Jacob in Egypt ........................................................................................................................ 158
1.17.25 Ephraim and Manasseh ..................................................................................................................................... 161
1.17.26 The Blessings of the Sons of Jacob ..................................................................................................................... 163
2|Page
3|Page
1. Genesis
1.1 A Look At Chapter 1
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
I find this statement is simple yet profound and powerful in many layers of reflection. A modern Bible reader has
to stop here first and reflect.
1.1.1 "In the beginning"
Modern thinkers who dismiss the existence of God probably were not aware that scientists at first believed that
the universe always existed. The theory was called Steady-State Universe. One article describes this theory of
the universe this way
"In 1948, Hermann Bondi, Tommy Gold and Fred Hoyle proposed a serious alternative to the standard Big Bang
cosmology. They conceived of a universe whose large scale physical properties do not change with epoch. Such
a universe is without a beginning and without an end, in which the large-scale behaviour of matter and radiation is
always the same."[1]
Today the orthodox theory remains to be "Big Bang" theory. This theory explains that if we go far back in time, we
will get to a point when the entire universe and all the scattered galaxies started as one very dense unit, from
which point it exploded and generated all the matter there is, to every direction. And the universe has continued to
expand until this day.
Steven Weinberg wrote "And how has it supplanted other theories, like the steady-state model?
It is a tribute to the essential objectivity of modem astrophysics that this consensus has been brought about, not
by shifts in philosophical preference or by the influence of astrophysical mandarins, but by the pressure of
empirical data."[2]
His book provided the basis for the computation that the age of our universe is around, tops at 20 billion years old.
Time and space began 20 billion years ago together.
Why is this discussion important to my reflection of the very first phrase in the Bible? Scientists are also figuring
out how life even became possible out of a Big Bang. They are amazed that with so many variables that together
need to be set with the right parameters at the right time or else no life would have been possible, ALL the
variables are set correctly. A theory called 'anthropic principle' was developed to explain this outcome. The theory
makes it appear that this universe we lived in was prepared for man's habitation. It also leads to a direction that
there is a "Fine Tuner" or intelligent Mind that made this possible.
A Bible-based publications reports how just the four important forces in the universe, if slightly changed, could
impact the possibility of life
The four fundamental forces come into play both in the vastness of the cosmos and in the infinite smallness
of atomic structures. Yes, everything we see around us is involved.
Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning
of the four forces evident in the universe. We already mentioned one force, gravity. Another is the electromagnetic
force. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. Would that be
serious? some might wonder. Yes, because atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force
were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions
between atomsmeaning no life. Even from this standpoint, it is clear that our existence and life depend on the
fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force.
And consider the cosmic scale: A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and thus
alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of
4|Page
its unique properties, which are vital for life. So again, the precise tuning of the electromagnetic force determines
whether we live or not.
Equally vital is the intensity of the electromagnetic force in relation to the other three. For example, some
physicists figure this force to be 10,000,- 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1040) times that of
gravity. It might seem a small change to that number to add one more zero (1041). Yet that would mean that
gravity is proportionally weaker, and Dr. Reinhard Breuer comments on the resulting situation: With lower gravity
the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high
enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine. You can imagine what
that would mean for us!
What if gravity were stronger proportionately, so that the number had only 39 zeros (1039)? With just this tiny
adjustment, continues Breuer, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced. And other
scientists consider the fine-tuning to be even more precise.
Indeed, two remarkable qualities of our sun and other stars are long-term efficiency and stability. Consider a
simple illustration. We know that to run efficiently, an automobile engine needs a critical ratio between fuel and
air; engineers design complex mechanical and computer systems to optimize performance. If that is so with a
mere engine, what of the efficiently burning stars such as our sun? The key forces involved are precisely tuned,
optimized for life. Did that precision just happen? The ancient man Job was asked: Did you proclaim the rules
that govern the heavens, or determine the laws of nature on earth? (Job 38:33, The New English Bible) No
human did. So from where does the precision come?
The structure of the universe involves much more than fine-tuning just gravity and the electromagnetic force.
Two other physical forces also relate to our life.
These two forces operate in the nucleus of an atom, and they give ample evidence of forethought. Consider
the strong nuclear force, which glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of the atom. Because of this
bonding, various elements can formlight ones (such as helium and oxygen) and heavy ones (such as gold and
lead). It seems that if this binding force were a mere 2-percent weaker, only hydrogen would exist. Conversely, if
this force were slightly stronger, only heavier elements, but no hydrogen, could be found. Would our lives be
affected? Well, if the universe lacked hydrogen, our sun would not have the fuel it needs to radiate life-giving
energy. And, of course, we would have no water or food, since hydrogen is an essential ingredient of both.
The fourth force in this discussion, called the weak nuclear force, controls radioactive decay. It also affects
thermonuclear activity in our sun. Is this force fine-tuned? you might ask. Mathematician and physicist Freeman
Dyson explains: The weak [force] is millions of times weaker than the nuclear force. It is just weak enough so that
the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. If the weak [force] were much stronger or much weaker,
any forms of life dependent on sunlike stars would again be in difficulties. Yes, this precise rate of burning keeps
our earth warmbut not incineratedand keeps us alive.
Furthermore, scientists believe that the weak force plays a role in supernova explosions, which they give as
the mechanism for producing and distributing most elements. If those nuclear forces were in any way slightly
different from the way they actually are, the stars would be incapable of making the elements of which you and I
are composed, explains physicist John Polkinghorne.
More could be said, but you likely understand the point. There is an amazing degree of fine-tuning in these
four fundamental forces. All around us, we seem to see evidence that nature got it just right, wrote Professor
Paul Davies. Yes, the precise tuning of the fundamental forces has made possible the existence and operation of
our sun, our delightful planet with its life-sustaining water, our atmosphere so vital for life, and a vast array of
precious chemical elements on earth. But ask yourself, Why such precise tuning, and from where?[3]
What is the response of those who insists that this beginning came out of an accident? The theory of a Multiverse came about or Multiple Universes. In this theory, yet untested and untestable as a scientific requirement, by
chance, it is probable, that of the many universes that existed, some which are dud, sooner or later, our lifepermitting universe will appear.
An online article evaluated this game of chance with Multiverses and concluded
5|Page
"A hypothesis can be such that if we knew it to be true, it would make a certain event less surprising, yet the fact
that it makes this event less surprising gives us no reason to suppose that the hypothesis is true. We are now in
a position to give a deeper analysis of the way that the Multiple Universe hypothesis reduces the surprisingness
of the fine tuning data. Assuming there is just the one universe, the fact that it is life-permitting is surprising. For
this otherwise extremely improbable outcome of the big bang is more probable on the assumption that there is a
cosmic designer, who might adjust the physical parameters to allow for the evolution of life. So the fine-tuning
facts challenge us to question whether the big bang was merely an accident."[4]
The writer, Roger White, adds
"However, postulate as many other universes as you wish, they do not make it any more likely that ours should be
life-permitting or that we should be here. So our good fortune to exist in a life-permitting universe gives us no
reason to suppose that there are many universes."[5]
The big question today from scientists is what happened before t=0 (read as time equals zero)?
1.1.2. "God created"

Many Bible critics use this phrase as proof that Genesis was NOT written by Moses but others after the Jews
returned from Babylon. Why do arrogant Bible critics believe this to be true? They promoted a theory called
"Document Hypotheses" which was discarded going to the 1980's.
That theory presumed many things that were later proven wrong. One presumption was that all religions started
out as polytheistic. That is ancient peoples worship many gods. Monotheism was a later development.
Isaac Asimov on his "Asimov Guide to the Bible" covering the Old and New Testament wrote about the Hebrew
word for "God" which is "Elohim"
"The Hebrew word, translated here as God, is "Elohim" and that is a plural form which would ordinarily (if tradition
were defied) be translated "gods". It is possible that in the very earliest traditions on which the Bible is based, the
creation was indeed the work of a plurality of gods. The firmly monotheistic Biblical writers would carefully have
eliminated such polytheism, but could not perhaps do anything with the firmly ingrained term "Elohim". It was too
familiar to change."[6]
Note how Asimov puts in "possible", and then switch to "indeed". Then asserts "would carefully" and then switch
to "perhaps". But, ends this paragraph strongly with "too familiar to change". What are the facts linguistically?
One reference explains about the usage of this Hebrew word
"Elohim is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural),
and to men."[7]
On the plurality of the word, the reference explains
"At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods
were clearly not trinities.1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (goddess Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk)."[8]
but the reference also adds
"When applying to Jehovah, Elohim is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding
this, Aaron Ember wrote: That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in
. . . [Elohim] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed
with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [Elohim] must rather be explained
as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.The American Journal
of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208."[9]
6|Page
Certainly, Asimov's position is not supported by the facts of usage of the word 'Elohim' in the Bible. Issac Asimov's
reveals his basis for his explanation above
"Nevertheless, as far as we know the history of religion outside the Bible, early beliefs were always polytheistic
and monotheism was a late development in the history of ideas."[10]
But is this true? One online article cited the archaeological data to the contrary
"Aside from the Bible, the oldest relevant records come from Ebla in Syria. They reveal a clear monotheism
declaring: "Lord of heaven and earth: the earth was not, you created it, the light of day was not, you created it, the
morning light you had not [ made exist."(Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla, 259)
Primitive religions of Africa unanimously reveal an explicit monotheism. John S. Mbiti studied three hundred
traditional religions, "In all these societies, without a single exception, people have a notion of God as the
Supreme Being" (see African Religions and Philosophy) This is true of other primitive religions around the world.
Even in polytheistic societies, a high god or sky god reflects a latent monotheism."[11]
A book written by Winfried Corduan challenges this mainstream belief that religion started out as polytheistic. The
book is entitled, "In the Beginning God: A Fresh Look at the Case for Original Monotheism", published by B&H
Academic, 2013.
1.1.3. "the heavens and the earth"

What does the last part of the very first verse tells me? It tells me that before God started to prepare the earth for
life, He created the heavens first - our universe (the stars, galaxies, suns and moons, and the rest). And then the
planet Earth. This allows for billions of years to pass for the first verse to complete what God had accomplished.
Scientists claim that mathematically, the universe is about 20 billions years old and the Earth about 4.5 billions
years old. All of that could have happened and is allowed by the statement of the first verse.
The Bible does not contradict what science has discovered to be true.
In just the first verse of the Bible, I already find so much to reflect on the basic truths embedded in so simple but
profound introduction. Such is the wisdom of its author, our heavenly Father, Jehovah God.
References
[1] Narlikar, Jayant V. "Fred Hoyle's Universe", Resonance, October 2010.
[2] Weinberg, Steven. "The First Three Minutes-A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe", Fontana
Paperbacks, p. 17.
[3] Is There A Creator Who Cares About You?, Jehovahs Witnesses, 2006, p. 18.
[4] White, Roger. "Fine-tuning and Multiple Universes" Nous, Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Asimov, Isaac. "Asimov Guide to the Bible", Wings Books, 1981, p. 18.
[7] God, Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, 1988, p. 968.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Asimov, Isaac. "Asimov Guide to the Bible", Wings Books, 1981, p. 18.
[11] "Primitive Monotheism", Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999, p. 110.
7|Page
1.2 A Closer Look at the Creation Days
After verse 1 of chapter 1, the Bible narrates the six "days" of creation.
Day 1 - The appearance of Light from inside earth (from the vantage point of someone on earth)
Day 2 - The separation of the waters from the Earth, one rising into the atmosphere called Heaven
Day 3 - The appearance of dry Land, rising out of the waters and vegetation on dry land
Day 4 - The appearance of celestial bodies on the visible sky of the earth
Day 5 - The appearance of life on the seas and birds of heaven
Day 6 - The appearance of life, animals on dry land and man
Before I start reflecting on the sequence of creation, a Bible reader would notice two things that conclude each
"day"
a. God assesses what He created and deemed it passed His review
b. "And there was evening and and there was morning" concluding each day
The Bible writer was an Israelite, Moses. They reckon their day starting at sundown and ends in the next
sundown. So, evening comes first, then morning. Today, we start our day differently. We start with the morning
followed by the evening. This is an example how God who inspired the Bible allowed the writers to convey the
message in the context of their culture and personality.
The account also presents God to be one who is organized. He does not just create. He reviews what He created
based on his own high standard. He knows in his great wisdom they pass His standard.
1.2.1 The Creation "Days"
Now, what is interesting is the sequence of God's creation and the sequence of the appearance of life. They are
nearly identical to what geologists find on the layers of earth. Life started from the sea just as Genesis relates. It
progressed into dry land until the appearance of man.
The difference with today's scientists is that they believe that life came from non-living things - a chemical sea that
by chance created the first simple living cell. That simple living cell, somehow evolved and survived the harsh
conditions of the early earth, generating new body parts and wired itself with intelligence, and was able to invent
reproductive capabilities from nowhere, to progress from the sea to dry land. Another group of scientists believe
that life actually came from outer space, delivered by a meteor that reached earth.
Unfortunately, it is a fact that life cannot come from non-living things. There is no such thing as simple living cell.
All cells are complex and organized systems using an information passing mechanism built out of different
proteins.
Antony Flew, a former champion of atheism, recognized this flaw in evolutionary theory. In fact today, evolution is
divided into so many camps that they cannot figure out which way evolution really happened if it happened at all.
In chapter 7 of his book, "There Is A God", Flew posed this question
"How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and
coded chemistry? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem."[1]
He quoted another philosopher which summarized the issues this way
8|Page
"The first challenge is to produce a materialistic explanation for the very first emergence of living matter from
non-living matter. In being alive, living matter possesses a teleological organization that is wholly absent from
everything that preceded it. The second challenge is to produce an equally materialist explanation for the
emergence, from the very earliest life-forms which were incapable of reproducing themselves, of life-forms with a
capacity for reproducing themselves. Without the existence of such a capacity, it would not have been possible for
different species to emerge through random mutation and natural selection. Accordingly, such mechanism cannot
be invoked in any explanation of how life-forms with this capacity first evolved from those that lacked it.[2]
In plain language, living things are purpose-driven. How can something that is non-living acquire the capacity to
be purpose-driven? and how can they at the same time acquire or develop the capacity to reproduce? Evolution
has no answer. Science has no answer.
Flew quotes a biology professor who wrote the book "Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of
Life", in contrast to what students read in their biology textbooks
"We dont know how life started on this planet. We dont know exactly when it started, we dont know under what
circumstances."[3]
Flew cites another expert in highlighting the problem of the cell
"Life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information storing, processing and
replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information
processing machinery came to exist.[4]
One final note on my reflection. A Creation Day is not meant to be understood as 24 hours. The Genesis book
use of the word 'day' itself shows it can have many meanings. Consider some of the usage below
Gen. 1: 5 "and God called the Light Day"
Gen. 2: 4 "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah
God made earth and heaven."
Note how widely the term is used. In the first instance, 'day' is just the 12 hours of daylight. On the second
instance, it encompasses billions of years that started with chapter 1 verse 1.
The Creation account does not come in conflict with the facts of science.
References
[1] "There Is A God - How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind", Antony Flew, HarperCollins eBooks, p. 125.
[2] Ibid., p. 126.
[3] Ibid., p. 130.
[4] Ibid., p. 128.
9|Page
1.3 The Negative View of Critics on Genesis

Just reflecting on chapter 1 opens up a wealth of knowledge of its own category. What were the views on this
account?
1. Moses was rejected as the author and instead it was compiled and edited by so many others
2. Bible critics claimed Genesis could not have been written in the time period claimed because people don't know
how to write at the time
3. There is no God therefore Genesis is a myth
Where would Moses or even the so-called compilers derived the concept of the Genesis beginning of the universe
and the correct sequence of the appearance of life forms? There are many ancient creation myths.[1]
But none is as simple as the Genesis story. None comes close with the simplicity Genesis presents. Moses was
schooled by the Egyptians. The Egyptians believed that everything started from an egg from two gods! The other
neighbor, the Babylonians believed that earth and heaven were from a goddess who was killed by another god
and split in two (earth and heaven).
One study that featured an analytical comparison of the Genesis Creation story against such Ancient Near East
creation myths reinforces the uniqueness of the Bible account. Its author, Stefan Wilson, in her paper, wrote
Conversely, the writings of the Ancient Near East chronicle multiple gods who are bound by their mundane
work in the midst of chaos. While one god conquers chaos and creates mankind, another places the burden of
the gods work onto mankind. While there are seeming similarities between the biblical account and the Ancient
Near East writings, it should not be deduced that the details are so similar as to support the notion that the
biblical account was influenced by the ancient writings. Instead, as the data has shown, the creation narrative
detailed and developed through Scripture is unique and should be treated as such by all who study it.[2]
The idea that the Genesis creation story was borrowed from Babylonian legends was popularized by Delitzsch
and Smith. What is the status today of this claim?
In light of all this and more, it is impossible to accept today in a simplistic manner the claims of Smith or Delitzsch that the biblical
authors took the Babylonian Story of Creation, that is, Enma Eli, and simply applied it to YHWH, God of Israel. The specific
parallels are fewer than originally thought, and even the best ones are not entirely certain.[3]
Also, archaeology disclosed that writing was already known at the time Moses is supposed to be writing Genesis.
The document hypothesis has now been shown to be defective in its position that instead of Moses there were
other compilers who wrote the books very much later when supposedly writing has become known.
An important computer-powered textual analysis resulted in a high 82% probability that Genesis was written by
just one author rather than the multiple editors theorized by liberal bible scholars under the theory of Document
Hypothesis.[4]
The same researchers shared the findings against the Documentary Hypothesis on their book
serious doubts regarding its validity have arisen that neither can it any longer be accepted as unreservedly as it
has been hitherto.[5]
10 | P a g e
It was also claimed that Genesis is a book full of myths that were later accepted by the nation of Israel as true. A
Bible encyclopedia cited an authority on this view
In answering those who would reject many portions of Genesis as fables or folklore, Wilhelm Mller says: I do
not think that it can be made plausible, that in any race fables and myths came in the course of time more and
more to be accepted as actual facts, so that perchance we should now be willing to accept as historical truths
the stories of the Nibelungenlied or Red Riding Hood. But this, according to the critics, must have been the case
in Israel. (The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. II, p. 1209)[6]
References
[1] Creation Myths, Available: http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/creationmyths/tp/090808CreationMyths.htm
[2] Wilson, Stefan. Creation Accounts in the Bible and Ancient Near East, a paper submitted to Dr. Stephen
Hallam, Phoenix Seminary
[3] Hurowitz, Victor. The Genesis of Genesis: Is the Creation Story Babylonian?. Exploring Genesis: The Bibles
Ancient Traditions in Context. Biblical Archaeological Society, 2013, p. 16.
[4] Computer Points to Single Author for Genesis, Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/08/world/computer-points-to-single-author-for-genesis.html
[5] Radday, Y.T. and H. Shore. Genesis: An Authorship Study in Computer-Assisted Statistical Linguistics,
Biblical Institute Press, 1985, p. 241.
[6] Genesis, Book of. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 922.
11 | P a g e
1.4 Some gems from Genesis Creation account

Setting aside the issues critics thrown against the Bible, I find many gems of truth in the early chapters of
Genesis. Some of them are familiar to Bible readers, some of them may not be. I list them below for my
reflections
1. Land rising from the sea
2. Animals are souls
3. Man is a soul
1.4.1 Land rising from the sea
I can imagine the amount of energy required to make God's word come true when He said
"Let the dry land appear"
Science has a term for this development. It is called orogeny - "Orogeny refers to forces and events leading to a
large structural deformation of the Earth's lithosphere (crust and uppermost mantle) due to the engagement of
tectonic plates."[1] It adds
"During orogeny, deeply buried rocks may be pushed to the surface. Sea bottom and near shore material may
cover some or all of the orogenic area. If the orogeny is due to two continents colliding, the resulting mountains
can be very high (see Himalayas)."
This has happened on Day 3 of the Creation story. Life has not yet apeared on the oceans. It will have to wait
until Day 5. This event allows me to appreaciate at earth-level, the kind of power Jehovah God has at his disposal
through his holy spirit.
1.4.2 Animals are souls
Many Bible readers are familiar with the thought that only man has a soul. But the Bible in its original language in
Hebrew describes the creation of water and land creatures as souls. Regarding this important fact, James
Murphy, professor of Hebrew commented on the Hebrew word for soul, "nephesh"
"This noun is derived from a root signifying to breathe. Its concrete meaning is, therefore, that which breathes,
and consequently has a body, without which there can be no breathing; hence, a breathing body, and even body
that once had breath (Num. vi. 6) As breath is the accompaniment and sign of life, it comes to denote life, and
hence, a living body, an animal."[2]
Various English Bible translations however has not carried this meaning through (Genesis 1:20). Compare the
translation below
"And God went on to say: Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls" (1984 New World Translation)
"Then God said, Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures" (New American Standard Bible)
'Living souls' and 'living creatures' are both translation of the Hebrew word 'nephesh'. Nephesh when translated
literally in English is the English 'soul'. The Bible teaches that animals are 'nephesh' (English 'soul').
1.4.3 Man is a soul
Because of Genesis, it is not correct to say that man HAS a soul or nephesh. That is not the way man was
created. Note the language of how man was created in Genesis 2: 7
"and man became a living being." (New American Standard Bible)
"and the man became a living person" (New Living Translation)
12 | P a g e
"and man became a living soul" (King James Version)
The words 'living soul', 'living being' and 'living person' are all English translations of the Hebrew word 'nephesh'.
The New American Standard Bible has a footnote on the word 'living being'. Its footnote says 'Genesis 2:7 Lit.
soul'.
It is also a point of reflection that all Bible translations used the verb 'became'. This tells me that a transformation
has happened to man. As a result, man is now a soul. Not that he acquired one but man himself is a soul.
James Murphy, professor of Hebrew, comments on this verse
"The term "living soul" is also applied to the water and land animals (Gen i. 20, 21, 24)" [3]
This is not confusing since 'nephesh' basically means a breather. So a soul, from the Hebrew, used in the Bible
basically means a breather and not something mysterious or mystical. Isaac Asimov recognized this fact too in his
"Asimov's Guide to the Bible"
"Indeed, the word "soul" in Genesis 2:7 is a translation of the Hebrew nephesh, which means "breath."" [4]
Interestingly, researchers of the Old Testament have affirmed that this introduction about life for humans and
animals as soul as dependent on breathing refutes the popular teaching that the soul is inherently or intrinsically
immortal. A field of research called 'Christian mortalism' has an entry in Wikipedia [5].
The book, "Immortality or Resurrection?", authored by Samuele Bacchiocchi, assessed the state of affairs of the
research
"In modern times, classical dualism has come under attack from Biblical scholars, church historians, philosophers,
and scientists. Biblical scholars have examined the anthropological terms and texts and have concluded that the
Biblical view of human nature is not dualistic at all; it is clearly wholistic. Many voices from different directions are
affirming today that dualism is out and wholism is in."[6]
Dualism refers to the separation of body and soul. Wholism refers to the unity of body and soul as referring to the
same person.
Oscar Cullmann, in the preface of his own book "Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?", writes in
his preface the harassment he got for publishing his findings from his research
"This remarkable agreement seems to me to show how widespread is the mistake of attributing to primitive
Christianity the Greek belief in the immortality of the soul. Further, people with such different attitudes as those I
have mentioned are united in a common inability to listen with complete objectivity to what the texts teach us
about the faith and hope of primitive Christianity, without mixing their own opinions and the views that are so dear
to them with their interpretation of the texts. This inability to listen is equally surprising on the part of intelligent
people committed to the principles of sound, scientific exegesis and on the part of believers who profess to rely on
the revelation in Holy Scripture."[7]
The Bible teaches that man was 'out of dust' in verse 7. It is supported by the fact that 41 chemicals found in the
human body are found on the ground. Incidentally, there are 100 trillion cells in the body and 7 octillion atoms.
Interestingly, Jehovah's Witnesses have been preaching for the last 100 years such an understanding of man and
soul.
13 | P a g e
References
[1] Orogeny, Available: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orogeny
[2] Murphy, James G. "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Genesis with a New Translation",
Boston: Estes and Lauriat, p. 58.
[3] Ibid., page 84.
[4] Asimov, Isaac. "Asimov's Guide to the Bible", Wings Books, 1981, p. 22.
[5] Christian mortalism, Available: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism
[6] Bacchiochi, Samuele. "Immortality or Resurrection?", Biblical Perspectives, 2001, p. 31.
[7] Cullmann, Oscar. "Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?: The Witness of the New Testament",
Wipf and Stock Publishing, 2000, p. 2.
14 | P a g e
1.5 The Documentary Hypothesis and supposed contradictions in Genesis

Chapter 2 of Genesis yields many more gems that God wanted us to appreciate if we find the time to read and
reflect the messages. My reflections will focus on
1. The Documentary Hypothesis and its recent fall to disrepute
2. Supposed contradictions between Genesis chapter 1 and 2
1.5.1 The Documentary Hypothesis and its recent fall to disrepute
First, I investigated the position of liberal bible scholars that use chapter 2 as proof that there are different Bible
writers for Genesis and that it proves Moses did not write it under the theory of 'Document Hypothesis'. Julius
Wellhausen was its strongest advocate. A fuller discussion is covered on the online web site JW.org about the
issue surrounding Moses, his books and Wellhausen.[1]
The first so-called evidence cited by the theory's supporters is the use of God's name 'Jehovah' (Hebrew YHWH)
in chapter 2 versus the use of plain 'God' (Hebrew Elohim) in chapter 1.
Isaac Asimov in his book, explained that chapter 1 was written by Jewish priests because of the formality of its
structure. Hence, chapter 1 is called a P document. Chapter 2, however, started using the name 'Jehovah'.
Hence, portions of chapter 2 is called a J document. These are supposedly the source documents (P and J source
documents) that were later compiled to form the book Genesis,
"The use of the term "the Lord God" ("Yahveh Elohim") in place of God ("Elohim") is characteristic of a particular
early strand of tradition which was incorporated into the Hexateuch (note mine - 5 books of Moses and Joshua).
This strand is known as the "J document" because of its characteristic use of "Jehovah" ("Yahveh") in connection
with God.
There is another strand of early tradition which like the P document uses simply Elohim for God, and it is the "E
document". Both J and E are much more personal than P, tell stories with circumstantial detail and do not
greatly interest themselves in the more formal aspects of the matter."[2]
The Bible claims that Genesis was written around 1500 BC. The theory of DH points to post-Babylonian exile as
the completion of the book. Recent revision points to as early 900 BC. In other words, it was written long after
the time the Bible claimed it was written.
It is worth noting that this theory has already lost its power of explanation in the 1980's although there are
individuals trying to revive the theory. Rolf Rendtorff, a professor of Old Testament studies in the University of
Heidelberg, and who died last spring of 2014, summarized the state of affairs after reviewing the research in the
last 30 years
"They mention the Introduction of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn from 1783, then the books of Julius Wellhausen
from 1876/77 and 1883, and finally the beginning of the new discussion in the 1970s. Indeed, this rhythm is
interesting. But there is also a fundamental difference. The first two dates mark the establishment of a new
theory that was more or less accepted within the scholarly community for the next hundred years. The third
date marks only the end of the common acceptance of the Wellhausen theory, but not the birth of something
new. The editors do not want to call this a "crisis." According to them, it only shows that the "source model
obviously cannot always provide the most fitting interpretation of the findings in a text.""[3]
15 | P a g e
What is the state of this scholarly view today? One article written by Baden who himself wrote a book about the
subject writes
"Moreover, the shift in European scholarship away from the Documentary Hypothesis happened very quickly: one
can almost draw a line at the publication of Rendtorffs Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
in 1977, with pre-Rendtorff scholarship being largely documentary and post-Rendtorff scholarship being almost
entirely non-documentary."[4]
He further adds
"The result is that, for many, what is known is that the documentary model we learned in school has been
discarded, but we have not accepted its ostensible replacement."[5]
But, Baden is trying to revive this theory with his book. No wonder, articles have been written claiming this once
popular theory is now in crisis.
One article sums up the development this way, written by David Stern
"The mid-eighties and the early nineties witnessed a resurgence of biblical scholars challenging, revising, and
even rejecting the documentary hypothesis. First and foremost, scholars relinquished claims to a scientific
methodology. In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Jeffery Tigay insists that "The degree of subjectivity which
such hypothetical [source critical] procedures permit is notorious." In fact, Tigay characterizes these procedures
as "reading between the lines." Moreover, Edward Greenstein maintains that source critical analysis is analogous
to the blind men and the elephant: "each of five blind men approaches a different part of an elephant's anatomy.
Perceiving only part of the elephant, each man draws a different conclusion as to the identity of what he
encounters." According to the preceding remarks, not only are source critical methods subjective, they also
account for only a fraction of the total evidence. Especially when analyzing a literary corpus "as bulky and
complex as an elephant," a system which fails to consider all the evidence and wherein "scholars shape the data
into the configurations of their own imagination" hardly warrants the label scientific.
While surveying many conflicting proposals for the nature of the hypothetical sources, Gerhard Larsson gives a
more specific account of the methodological shortcomings. He says that "there is no sound objective method for
recognizing the different sources, there is also no real consensus about the character and extant of sources like J
and E, [and] no unity concerning limits between original sources and the insertions made by redactors." Rather as
Greenstein says: "each scholar defines and adapts the evidence according to his own point of view." Such an
approach not only yields results which are, as Tigay highlights, "hypothetical (witness the term 'documentary
hypothesis')," but, as David Noel Freedman declares, allows and encourages, "the pages of our literature [to be]
filled with endless arguments between scholars who simply reiterate their prejudices."
The lack of a sound and rigorous methodology leads scholars to produce varying and even contradictory theories,
which ultimately undermine the enterprise as a whole."[6]
16 | P a g e
1.5.2 Supposed contradictions between Genesis chapter 1 and 2

What, then, is the alternative explanation to the differences of Genesis chapter 1 and 2? One published reference
explains
"Additionally, the way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the
Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man
was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from
two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them.
(Genesis 1:12:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.Genesis 2:5
4:26.
The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive days. The second is written in order
of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his
family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn
that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now
mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name every wild beast of the field and every flying
creature of the heavens. Now, then, is the time to mention that Jehovah God was forming from the ground all
these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.Genesis 2:19; 1:20,
24, 26."[7]
James Murphy, a professor of Hebrew, explained how to deal with apparent contradictions in the Bible
"The appearance, however, of discrepancies or difficulties that fall short of the contradictory or impossible,
cannot be allowed to have these effects. So far from seeming strange, they are to be expected in a work more
than three thousand years old, containing a brief history of at least twenty-two centuries, and dealing, not in
abstract or general assertions, but in concrete and definite statements. They rather confirm than weaken its claim
to antiquity and genuineness, so long as they stand within the bounds of possibility. If there be any possible mode
of reconciling the seemingly incompatible statements, the contradiction is removed.[8]
References
[1] Moses Man or Myth, Awake! August 8, 2004, p. 4-9. Available (online) http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102004242?q=Wellhausen&p=par
[2] Asimov, Isaac. "Guide to the Bible", Wings Books, 1981, p. 20.
[3] Rendtorff, Rolf. "What happened to the "Yahwist"?: Reflections After Thirty Years", SBL. Available (online) http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?ArticleId=553
[4] Baden, Joel. The Re-Emergence of Source Criticism: The Neo-Documentary Hypothesis, Available (online) http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/bad368008.shtml
[5] Ibid.
[6] Stern, David. Recent Trends in Biblical Source Criticism: A Draft, Available (online) http://www.lookstein.org/articles/Biblical_Criticism.htm
[7] The Bible-Gods Word or Mans?, Jehovahs Witnesses, 2006, p. 94.

[8] Murphy, James G.A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Genesis with a Translation, Boston:
Estes and Lauriat, 1873, p. XIV.
17 | P a g e
1.6 Exploring some details of Genesis chapters 2 and 3

Moving on to more details of chapters 2 and 3, I find more reasons for reflection:
1. The seventh day of rest
2. The prohibition on eating two types of fruit
3. The need of man for a woman
1.6.1 The seventh day of rest
A Bible reader will note that each of the creation days ended with "and there was evening, and there was
morning". The seventh day did not end with this closure. James Murphy comments on this aspect
"The recital of the resting of God on this day is not closed with the usual formula," and evening was, and morning
was, day seventh." The reason of this is obvious. In the former days the occupation of the Eternal Being was
definitely concluded in the period of the one day. On the seventh day, however, the rest of the Creator was only
commenced, has thence continued to the present hour, and will not be fully completed till the human race has run
out its course."[1]
A Bible encyclopedia also noted this fact
"The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been
resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that
Gods rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day
rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in
length."[2]
A Bible reader should also take note the timing of the rest from a Hebrew language perspective. It is something
not yet completed. The Hebrew tense indicated in verse 2 shows that Jehovah God has not yet completed the
rest for the 7th day - "he began to rest." Many other English Bibles failed to capture this by using "rested" as the
translation.
An online article also clarified what the original Hebrew meant with the expression that was not part of the seventh
day
"Young-earth creationists claim day (ym) accompanied by the phrase and there was evening and there was
morning indicates the creation days were normal 24-hour days. However, there is lack of unanimity on this point.
For example, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states These are not ordinary days bounded by minutes and
hours, but days of God... The beginning of each act of creation is called morning, and the close of that specific
divine act is called evening.
In biblical Hebrew, evening (ereb) has several meanings, including sunset, night, or at the turn of evening
and conveys a sense of gradual cessation or diminishing of activity. Morning (bqer) also has several
meanings, including the point of time at which night is changing to day... the end of night, daybreak, dawn or
beginning of day and conveys a sense of a new starting of creative activity. Thus, neither term restricts the
meaning of day to a 24-hour period.
Much of the confusion comes from the King James Version, which combines evening and morning togetherAnd
the evening and the morning were the nth day. As Collins notes, Grammatically, the AV [Authorized King James
Version] compresses the two events into a sum, namely, the evening plus the morning were a day. This is
incorrect. A more accurate translation is found in the NASB and ESV: And there was evening and there was
morning, the nth day. Note the time period from evening to morning brackets only the night. As Collins states:
18 | P a g e
This means that any effort to find this as defining [24-hour] days runs counter to the authors [Moses] own
presentation.
That evening and morning can be used to represent long periods of time is evident in Psalm 90, which is
attributed to Moses, the writer of Genesis. In the Psalm, morning defines the beginning of life and evening the
end of life. Thus, morning and evening brackets the entire human lifespan. As Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer
states, Concerning the recurring [evening and morning] formula at the end of each creative day... there were
definite and distinct stages in Gods creational procedure... it serves as no real evidence for a literal twenty-fourhour day concept on the part of the biblical author.
According to Professor Nathan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, this is consistent with the way early Talmud
scholars approached Genesis 1. He states, A statement must be made at the outset about biblical chronology of
the six days of creation. Any attempt to correlate the biblical text with scientific knowledge must necessarily
understand the term day to mean a phase or a period in the development of the world, rather than a time interval
of twenty-four hours...[3]
1.6.2 The prohibition on eating two types of fruit

The prohibition is God's first exercise of his authority or sovereignty over man. This is recognized by many others
including Prof. Murphy in his commentary as stated below
"It served the purpose of calling up into view out of the depths of his nature the notion of moral obligation, with all
the kindred notions of the inherent authority of the Creator and the innate subordination of himself, the creature, of
the aboriginal right of the Creator alone in all the creatures, and the utter absence of any right in himself to any
other creature whatsoever. The command concerning this tree thus set his moral convictions agoing, and
awakened in him the new and pleasing consciousness that he was a moral being, and not a mere clod of the
valley or brute of the field."[4]
This is also echoed on the online Bible encyclopedia
"Rather, by standing for the knowledge of good and bad and by Gods pronouncement decreeing it to be out-ofbounds for the human pair, the tree became a symbol of Gods right to determine or set the standards for man as
to what is good (approved by God) and what is bad (condemned by God). It thus constituted a test of mans
respect for his Creators position and his willingness to remain within the area of freedom decreed by God, an
area that was by no means cramped and that allowed for the greatest enjoyment of human life." [5]
It also adds in another place regarding the prohibited fruit
"By taking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, Adam and Eve expressed their rebellion.
The Creator, as Universal Sovereign, was acting wholly within his right in making the law regarding the tree, for
Adam, being a created person, and not sovereign, had limitations, and he needed to acknowledge this fact. For
universal peace and harmony, it would devolve upon all reasoning creatures to acknowledge and support the
Creators sovereignty. Adam would demonstrate his recognition of this fact by refraining from eating the fruit of
that tree. As father-to-be of an earth full of people, he must prove obedient and loyal, even in the smallest
thing."[6]
How sad that the first perfect humans failed to show perfect love for their Creator after all the goodness and
kindness extended to them and allow a stranger (the serpent) to malign their benevolent Creator.
19 | P a g e
1.6.3 The need of man for a woman

Some Bible readers thought that the first sin has to do with sexual relations between the man and the woman.
But, is this correct? An online biblical magazine has this to say
"Was the forbidden fruit sexual relations, as some have held? This view finds no support in Scripture. For one
thing, when God made the prohibition, Adam was alone and evidently remained that way for a while. (Genesis
2:23) Second, God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and become many and fill the earth. (Genesis 1:28)
Certainly, he would not command them to break his law and then sentence them to death for doing so! (1 John
4:8) Third, Eve partook of the fruit before Adam and later gave some to her husband. (Genesis 3:6) Clearly, the
fruit was not sex."[7]
God long recognized the need of man for a woman in order to accomplish his purpose for mankind to fill the earth
according to God's purpose. Their common sexual need has nothing to do with the original sin.
References
[1] Murphy, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Genesis, with a New Translation.
Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1873, p. 73.
[2] "Day." Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, New York: Jehovah's Witnesses, 1988, p. 593.
[3] Greene, Jon. "The Six Days of Creation: A Closer Look at Scripture". Available (online) http://godandscience.org/youngear/six_days_of_creation.html
[4] Murphy, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Genesis, with a New Translation.
[5] "Trees." Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, New York: Jehovah's Witnesses, 1988, p. 1124.
[6] "Sovereignty." Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, New York: Jehovah's Witnesses, 1988, p. 1011.
20 | P a g e
1.7 The Serpent and the Deception
Moving on to more details of chapters 2 and 3, I find more reasons for reflection:
1. The serpent
2. The deception
1.7.1 The serpent

The Bible does not say when the incitement to rebellion came by the use of the serpent. Jewish rabbis though
have their own explanation when this could have happened as shown below by a study of one of the Jewish
publications
The Bible does not indicate how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden before they sinned and were
expelled. According to Jubilees 3:15, Adam and his wife had been in the Garden of Eden for seven years tilling
and guarding it, then At the end of seven years which he completed there, seven years exactly, in the second
month on the seventeenth day, the serpent came and drew near to the woman (Jub. 3:17). The idea that Adam
and Eve lived blissfully for seven years fits into the general view of Jubilees that history works in units of forty-nine
year jubilee periods which are subdivided into "weeks," i.e., seven- year periods.[1]
The quoted book of Jubilees was written about 200 BC by a Jew who believes in measuring time through a series
of 49-year period made up of seven-year periods. However, venturing into such material that is based on
speculation will not yield positive results. It provides supplementary information though on where some ideas
could have originated to show they are non-biblical.
One Bible-based magazine cautioned on this
A Christian who indulges in speculation from the platform or in group Bible study tends to attract undue attention
to himself. Personal theories can cause division of thought and even lead to disputes about trifles.[2]
Genesis describes the serpent this way (3:1)
Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals of the field that Jehovah God had made.
A Bible encyclopedia cited one reference about this characteristic
Such caution is referred to by an eminent British zoologist, H. W. Parker, in his book Snakes: A Natural History
(1977, p. 49): Even when the last line of defence has been reached, the counter-attack in its initial stages may be
more simulated than real; frequent lunges are made with apparent ferocity, but they fall short of the objective and
sometimes the mouth is not even opened.[3]
Regarding the way the serpent, which later Bible book identified as Satan the Devil, spoke to Eve, a commentary
on the book of Genesis writes
The wording of Satans inquiry is significant. The word indeed (verse 1) is dripping with innuendo. The effect of it
is this: Surely God could not have said this, could He? Also the word God (Has God said, (verse 1) is
interesting. Moses has been using the expression the Lord God, Yahweh Elohim:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made (Genesis 3:1). But
when Satan referred to the Lord God it was merely God. This omission is indicative of Satans rebellious attitude
toward almighty God.[4]
In addition, a Bible-based magazine adds the following observations
21 | P a g e
Satan used several subtle tactics in his conversation with Eve. (Read Genesis 3:1 5.) First, Satan did not use
Jehovahs personal name. He simply spoke of God. By contrast, the writer of Genesis used Jehovahs personal
name in the first verse of that chapter. Second, instead of speaking of Gods command, Satan merely asked
about what God had said. (Gen. 2:16) In this subtle way, Satan may have tried to minimize the importance of
that command. Third, although speaking only to Eve, he used the plural form of the pronoun you. In so doing, he
may have tried to appeal to her pride, endeavoring to make her feel importantas if she were the spokesperson
for herself and her husband.[5]
1.7.2 The deception

The magazine above described the subtle attack on Eve
Satan also distorted the facts. He implied that God was unfair in demanding that Adam and Eve must not eat
from every tree of the garden. Next, Satan got Eve to think about herself and how she could supposedly improve
her lot in life, becoming like God. Eventually, he got her to focus on the tree and its fruit rather than on her
relationship with the One who had given her everything.[6]
A commentary on Genesis also adds this
Satans initial approach is to deceive, not deny; to cause doubts, not disobedience. Satan came to Eve as an
inquirer. He deliberately distorted the command of God, but in such a way as to imply, I may be wrong here, so
correct me if I am mistaken.
Now Eve should have never begun this conversation. It was a complete overturn of Gods chain of authority. That
chain was Adam, Eve, creature. Adam and Eve were to express Gods rule over His creation (1:26). Eve would no
doubt have rebuked such a conversation if it were not for the manner in which it was initiated by Satan.
Had Satan begun to challenge the rule of God or Eves faith in Him, her choice would have been an easy one. But
Satan erroneously stated Gods command. He stated the question so as to appear that he was misinformed and
needed to be corrected. Few of us can avoid the temptation of telling another that they are wrong. And so, wonder
of wonders, Eve has begun to walk the path of disobedience while supposing that she was defending God to the
serpent.
Did you notice that Satan has not mentioned either the tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
What a subtle attack! His question brought the forbidden tree to the center of Eves thinking, but without any
mention of it.[7]
Here I appreciated what the Bible has declared about human hearts and how the Evil One exploited this
weakness as expressed in Jeremiah 17: 9
The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?
This reflection provided to me a strong reminder and warning that contrary to popular opinion to follow ones
heart, I recognized the danger in following ones self-deception rather than following Gods wisdom.
References
[1] Ron, Svi. The Book of Jubilees and the Midrash on the Early Chapters of Genesis, p. 146.
[2] Avoid Unprofitable Questions. The Watchtower, June 15, 1962, p. 382.
[3] Serpent, Snake. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 898.
[4] Deffinbaugh, Robert. Lesson 4: The Fall of Man, Commentary on Genesis, p. 2.
[5] Who is the Most Important Person in Your Life, The Watchtower, May 15, 2011, p. 16.
22 | P a g e
[6] Ibid.
[7] Deffinbaugh, Robert. Lesson 4: The Fall of Man, Commentary on Genesis, p. 2.
23 | P a g e
1.8 More Reflections on chapters 2 and 3
More key reflections in chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis
1. Gods holy name Jehovah
2. Gods promise of salvation
3. Adam and Eve mythical characters?
1.8.1 Gods holy name Jehovah

The first instance of Gods personal name Jehovah is found in chapter 2 verse 4. And from Genesis, it will be
used by Bible writers of the Hebrew Scriptures or otherwise known as Old Testament for nearly 7,000 times.
Regarding this name, known in Hebrew with the four letters YHWH, Prof. Murphy, on his commentary wrote
It is obvious from its use that it is, so to speak, the proper name of God. It never has the article. It is never
changed for construction with another noun. It is never accompanied with a suffix. It is never applied to any but
the true God.[1]
In the Hebrew language, a name carries a meaning. With respect to that meaning, Prof. Murphy writes that it
has three meanings, be in the sense of coming into existence, be in that of becoming, and be in that of merely
existing. The first of these meanings has no application to God, who had no beginning of existence. The last
applies to God, but affords no distinctive characteristic, as it belongs equally to all objects that have existence.
The second is proper to God in the sense, not of acquiring any new attribute, but of becoming active from a stale
of repose. But he becomes active to the eye of man only by causing some new effect to be, which makes its
appearance in the world of sensible things. He becomes, then, only by causing to be or to become. Hence he that
becomes, when applied to the Creator, is really he that causes to be.[2]
I find his discussion above is enlightening, especially, around the first and third meaning. The meaning is not just
saying I am, in the sense that God merely exists. Prof. Murphy emphasizes he that causes to be. A Bible
encyclopedia has this to say about the meaning of Gods name Jehovah
The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb hawah, become, and actually means He Causes to
Become. This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller
of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically
bear such a name.[3]
It is a known fact that the original pronunciation of Gods name was lost, because we only have the four letters
surviving YHWH, also known as the tetragrammaton. Some scholars believe this should be pronounced as
Yahweh. But, the English form Jehovah had been in use for the longest time. The Bible encyclopedia has this to
add on the use of the form Jehovah
The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting
this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.[4]
However, it is worth noting that God has short version of his personal name whose pronunciation is known to be
correct. This is Jah in English or Yah in Hebrew. One finds this name in the expression Hallelu-jah or Allelu-ia.
This Hebrew word is made up of two words hallelu (praise) and jah (Jehovah). Hence, In English, it is correctly
translated as Praise Jah.
Some Bible readers might insist that we pronounce Gods name in the original Hebrew language as Yahweh
rather than using the English Jehovah. It is like saying that we call the Son of God by his original Hebrew name
of Yehoshua rather than his English name Jesus. Of course, no one does that. We call the Son of God by his
English name Jesus. Why not the same with Gods name?
24 | P a g e
References
[1] Murphy, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Genesis, with a New Translation.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Jehovah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, p. 12.
[4] Ibid., p. 6.
25 | P a g e
1.8.2 Gods promise of salvation
Gods original purpose for the planet Earth and for the first perfect humans did not materialize because of the
rebellion of one of Gods angels. This angel would later turn out to be identified as Satan the Devil. But would this
make YHWH Elohim, or in English, Jehovah God, a failure? Definitely not because Jehovah God set in motion
the solution to this challenge to his sovereignty. It will also confirm the following
1)
2)
3)
4)
that evil will not last forever

that evil will be conquered by the good
that Gods holy name will be sanctified by the removal of evil
that Gods sovereignty will be vindicated by the restoration of Gods rule on earth
Some would call this solution the Edenic promise (Genesis 3:15)
And I will cause hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will
strike your head, and you will strike his heel.
Who are the personalities in this promise?
1. Satan the Devil, represented by the serpent
2. The woman was a mystery at first that will later be revealed
3. The offspring of the serpent those who by choice will ally themselves with Satans rejection of Gods
sovereignty
4. The offspring of the woman was a mystery at first that will later be revealed
The offspring of the woman turned out to be primarily our Lord Jesus Christ. But the Bible does not limit the
offspring to Jesus Christ alone but includes Christs chosen ones, who he will reward with immortal life in
heaven after their death. How do we know this for sure? The apostle Paul when writing to his fellow chosen ones
in Rome concluded the letter this way
For his part, the God who gives peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. (Romans 16:20)
Explaining the Greek word used here for crush, one Bible-based publication explains
This is more than a superficial bruising. Satan is to be crushed! Paul here used a Greek word, syntribo, that
means to bruise into a jellylike state, to trample down, to destroy utterly by crushing.[1]
Interestingly, the New International Version English Bible has a footnote for this verse in Romans, citing Genesis
3:15.
That these chosen ones are part of the offspring, the apostle Paul calls all of them brothers of Jesus Christ in
his letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 2:11)
For both the one who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all stem from one, and for this reason he
is not ashamed to call them brothers.
Since the offspring is composite, the woman, is not one literal woman. The apostle Paul in his letter to the
Galatians where he explained that Christians there, chosen ones of Christ, were sharers with the promised
offspring, identified the woman
But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (Gal. 4:26)
This reference to Jerusalem above identifies Gods invisible organization of angels as the spiritual woman from
whom the primary offspring came from the Lord Jesus Christ.
What have I learned here from this important promise Jehovah God made back in Eden?
1. God has declared that there will be an end to the rebellion and all evil eradicated
2. God has worked out how this will happen across the years as documented by the Bible itself
26 | P a g e
3. Good and Evil will not be together forever
4. Satan was an angel who chose to rebel and not a red, two-horned, long-tailed monster
5. All who defy Gods authority become part of the visible satanic offspring
This is an amazing feature of the Bible that proves it is a book from God. The Bibles plot revolved around this
promise. Every book in the Bible puts in a piece of Gods disclosure how his promise will happen. The Bible is not
just an anthology of different books written in different times by different people as a heritage.
The Bible is about Jehovah God vindicating Himself, his sovereignty or right to rule, and about the sanctification of
His holy name. The salvation of man is a by-product of that exercise. Mans salvation is not the central story but
Gods vindication is.
This fact was highlighted by a Bible encyclopedia on the subject of Sovereignty
By taking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, Adam and Eve expressed their rebellion.
The Creator, as Universal Sovereign, was acting wholly within his right in making the law regarding the tree, for
Adam, being a created person, and not sovereign, had limitations, and he needed to acknowledge this fact. For
universal peace and harmony, it would devolve upon all reasoning creatures to acknowledge and support the
Creators sovereignty. Adam would demonstrate his recognition of this fact by refraining from eating the fruit of
that tree. As father-to-be of an earth full of people, he must prove obedient and loyal, even in the smallest thing.
The principle involved was: The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person
unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. (Lu 16:10) Adam had the capability for such perfect
obedience. There was evidently nothing bad intrinsically in the fruit of the tree itself. (The thing forbidden was not
sex relations, for God had commanded the pair to fill the earth. [Ge 1:28] It was the fruit of an actual tree, as the
Bible says.) What was represented by the tree is well expressed in a footnote on Genesis 2:17, in The Jerusalem
Bible (1966):
This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on,
3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination,
for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for
himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which
man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on Gods sovereignty, a sin of
pride.[2]
References
[1] Revelation-Its Grand Climax at Hand!, Jehovahs Witnesses, 2006, p. 287.
[2] Sovereignty. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, 1988, p. 1011.
27 | P a g e
1.8.3 Adam and Eve fictional characters?
The attack by atheists on the Bible included denying the historicity of the Adam and Eve story. For some Bible
teachers, Adam and Eve were reduced to fictional characters or allegories teaching some moral lessons. But,
what does science reveal about the origin of the human race? Does all human races derive from a single pair? A
Bible-based magazine has this to say
What about the claim by some that their race has the right to feel superior to others? The idea that people can
really be divided into distinct races is questionable to begin with. An article in Newsweek reported: To scientists
who have looked into the question, race is a notoriously slippery concept that eludes any serious attempt at
definition. True, there may be observable differences in skin color, hair texture and the shape of ones eyes or
nose. However, Newsweek said that these differences are at best superficialand try as they will, scientists
have been broadly unable to come up with any significant set of differences that distinguishes one racial group
from another. . . . The bottom line, to most scientists working in these fields, is that race is a mere social
constructa [corrupt] mixture of prejudice, superstition and myth.
Even if scientific distinctions between races could be made, the idea of a pure race is fiction. The New
Encyclopdia Britannica observes: There are no pure races; all racial groups currently existing are thoroughly
mixed. Whatever the case, the Bible teaches that God made out of one man every nation of men. (Acts 17:26)
Regardless of skin color, hair texture, or facial features, there is really just one racethe human race. All humans
are related through our forefather Adam.[1]
Regarding the position of science on the origin of mankind, another Bible-based publication quotes some
reference books
Science now corroborates what most great religions have long been preaching: Human beings of all
races are . . . descended from the same first man.Heredity in Humans (Philadelphia and New York,
1972), Amram Scheinfeld, p. 238.
The Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the
same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a
common origin.The Races of Mankind (New York, 1978), Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish, p. 3.[2]
Another Bible-based magazine cited some views of authorities on this
The publication The Races of Mankind, by anthropologists R. Benedict and G. Weltfish, observes: The Bible
story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that
science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin. These
writers also point out that the intricate make-up of the human body . . . couldnt possibly have just happened to
be the same in all men if they did not have a common origin.
The pamphlet Race and Biology, by L. C. Dunn, professor of zoology at Columbia University, says: All men
clearly belong to one species, being alike in all the fundamental physical characters. Members of all groups may
intermarry and actually do. Then it goes on to explain: Yet every man is unique and differs in minor ways from
every other man. This is in part due to the different environments in which people live and in part to differences in
the genes which they have inherited.
Scientific evidence is conclusive. Biologically speaking, there is no such thing as a superior or an inferior race, a
pure or a contaminated race. Characteristics such as the color of ones skin, hair, or eyesthings that some may
consider racially importantare no indication of ones intelligence or abilities. Rather, they are the results of
genetic inheritance.[3]
However, after the initial sensational findings by anthropologists of a supposedly mitochondrial Eve[4], the
common mother of all humans, later genomic studies show that in fact there are many more mitochondrial Eve
instead of just one.[5][6]
The Economist even featured this recent findings in their article, A trickier controversy has been triggered by
findings from the genome that modern humans, in their genetic diversity, cannot be descended from a single pair
of individuals. Rather, there were at least several thousand first humans. [7]
28 | P a g e
One web site cautions readers on the calculation procedure from this finding
In the face of this challenge, it is important to recognize that population sizes generated by these methods are
merely estimates, not hard and fast values. The reason: the mathematical models are highly idealized, generating
differing estimates based on a number of factors. As a case in point consider two studies discussed in Who Was
Adam? One, reported in 2003 by a Russian and U.S. research team, examined DNA sequence elements called
short tandem repeats at 377 locations in the human genome for 1,056 individuals that represented 52 population
groups. On the basis of this analysis, they concluded that humanity originated from a single point of origin
(apparently Africa), from a small population (~2,000 or less) between 71,000 and 142,000 years ago.4 Although
this conclusion was consistent with that of an earlier study of short tandem repeats, the population size estimate
from the earlier study was around 500 individuals.5 The reason for the difference (of about 1,500) was due to a
varying sample size and number of locations in the human genome that were studied.
Did humanity originate from a single pair? Even though population estimates reveal that humanity originated from
several hundred to several thousand individuals based on mathematical models, it could well be the case that
these models overestimate the original numbers for the first humans.[8]
This article made the assumption that it is possible that this data reflects the population of mankind after the Fall
of Adam and Eve.
Other scientists in the field of genetics recognize, however, that the basis for the computations are flawed on
human origins.
In an article entitled, Reading the Entrails of Chickens: Molecular Timescales of Evolution and the Illusion of
Precision, the authors state,
Despite their allure, we must sadly conclude that all divergence estimates [used to calibrate molecular clocks]
discussed here are without merit. Our advice to the reader is: whenever you see a time estimate in the
evolutionary literature, demand uncertainty.[9]
Another paper on primates also came to this conclusion
Discordance between molecular clock and fossil-based estimates is common and problematic for establishing
precise divergence dates.[10]
A scientific paper touched on this issue and made this conclusion
That molecular clock analyses are also beset with problems is undisputed. In particular, questionable rooting and
inadequate treatment of rate variation across taxa invalidate a number of attempts to date times of origin.
Nevertheless, these problems are now widely acknowledged and are being addressed in a variety of ways.[11]
That this is widely acknowledged can be seen by just doing a Google of papers published on the issue of
molecular clocking. One paper concluded their findings this way
However, both theory and observation show that the molecular clock is much more complex than was initially
supposed. We cannot expect a universal linear relationship between distance and time because of the many
factors that can influence the rate of molecular evolution. This complexity throws up a challenge to develop new
methods to allow historical information to be extracted from molecular data, allowing for both the sloppiness of the
tick rate of the molecular clock and for the variation in molecular rate between species.[12]
Another paper echoed this conclusion
Large discrepancies have been found in dates of evolutionary events obtained using the molecular clock.
Twofold differences have been reported between the dates estimated from molecular data and those from the
fossil record; furthermore, different molecular methods can give dates that differ 20-fold. New software attempts to
incorporate appropriate allowances for this uncertainty into the calculation of the accuracy of date estimates.
Here, we propose that these innovations represent welcome progress towards obtaining reliable dates from the
molecular clock, but warn that they are currently unproven, given that the causes and pattern of the discrepancies
are the subject of ongoing research.[13]
29 | P a g e
Despite the unreliability of human efforts and knowledge, we can trust the Bible as Gods Word about what it
reveals about Adam and Eve, their fall to sin, and the story of Gods purpose to vindicate himself and redeem
mankind.
References
[1] What About Racial Pride?, Awake!, February 22, 1998, p. 27.
[2] Adam and Eve, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 2009, p. 27.
[3] When All Races Live Together in Peace, Awake! , August 22, 1993, p. 9.
[4] Is There A Creator Who Cares About You?, Jehovahs Witnesses, p. 98.
[5] More Mothers than Mitochondrial Eve- Anthropology 1.12, Available (online) http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/mitochondrial-eve/
[6] Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson, The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve, The True.Origin Archive, Available
(online) - http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp
[7] All About Adam- The furious- and political- debate about the origins of mankind, The Economist, November
23, 2013, Available (online) - http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21590475-furiousand-politicaldebateabout-origins-mankind-all-about-adam
[8] Rana, Fazale. Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve, Reasons to Believe, Available
(online) - http://www.reasons.org/articles/were-they-real-the-scientific-case-for-adam-and-eve
[9] Dan Graur and William Martin, Reading the Entrails of Chickens: Molecular Timescales of Evolution and the
Illusion of Precision, Trends in Genetics 20 (2004):8086.
[10] M.E. Steiper and N. M. Young, Timing Primate Evolution: Lessons from the Discordance Between Molecular
and Paleontological Estimates, Evolutionary Anthropology, Wiley-Liss, Inc. 2008, p. 186.
[11] Andrew Smith and Kevin Peterson, Dating the Time of Origin of Major Clades: Molecular Clocks and the
Fossil Record, Annual Reviews, Available (online) - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/files/pdf15-10280.pdf
[12] Lindell Bromham and David Penny, The Modern Molecular Clock, Nature, Vol. 4, March 2003, p. 216
[13] Mario Pulquerio and Richard Nichols, Dates from the molecular clock: how wrong can we be?, Trends in
Ecology and Evolution. Vol 22, Issue 4, April 2007, p. 180-184.
30 | P a g e
1.9 More reflections on the Seventh Day and Gods dealings with Adam post-fall
1.9.1 Revisiting the Seventh Day from a language viewpoint
My previous note on 1.6.1 clarified that the Genesis Creative Days were not literal 24-hour days. Some Bible
readers reject the explanation that the seventh day is more than 24-hours and the apostle Pauls explanation
of how long the seventh day is, by saying that the language of the Bible in Genesis 2:2 is already a completed
act. This is how the King James Version Bible renders the verse
he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
KJV says he rested. That certainly appear completed and not on-going in English. However, the Hebrew does
not reflect this viewpoint. Hence, the New World Translation in effort to reflect the sense of the Hebrew
thought rendered the verse this way
he began to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had been doing.
The NWT says he began to rest. That carried the thought that the act of resting has not yet been completed.
The NWT carried more accurately the Hebrew thought which reinforces that the seventh day has been going on
for thousands of years.
A Bible encyclopedia thus linked the apostle Pauls explanation for the seventh day
More than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or Gods rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in
progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and
urged: Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest. By the apostles time, the seventh day had been
continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended.[1]
1.9.2 Gods judgment on Adam
The scenes after the first humans disobedience, reflect many things about man and about God.
Genesis reported that for the first time, the first humans realized that they were naked. A Bible-based magazine
explained the situation this way
Think of the disastrous effects on Adam and Eve when they gave in to the Devils urgings! The immediate
consequence of their disobeying Gods law regarding the forbidden fruit was that the two of them went into
hiding from the face of Jehovah God. Why? Adam confessed: I was afraid because I was naked and so I hid
myself. (Genesis 3:8-10) Adams relationship with his heavenly Father and his view of himself had changed. He
was ashamed and no longer felt comfortable in Jehovahs presence.[2]
Regarding this shame that Adam felt, another issue of this same Bible-based magazine has this to say
When we try to hide from the face of someone, it is often due to a troubled conscience, causing fear and
shame. You know the feeling. Adam felt that way when he replied to God: Your voice I heard in the garden, but
I was afraid because I was naked and so I hid myself. Feeling afraid and wanting to hide is one thing, but feeling
repentant and seeking to restore a good relationship is quite another thing. At no time was there any indication
of the latter on the part of Adam or his wife.[3]
31 | P a g e
What about Gods take on the matter?
Did Jehovahs view of human dignity change when Adam and Eve fell from perfection? No. He showed
consideration for the shame they now felt at being naked. Lovingly, God provided long garments of skin to
replace the loin coverings of fig leaves that they had sewn together for themselves. (Genesis 3:7, 21) Rather
than leave them in their shame, God treated them with dignity.[4]
It is noteworthy that Gods judgment on Adam has never mentioned going to fiery hell. There was no such place
created by God on the Genesis account. Before the rebellion, there were no demons, no Satan to look after such
a place. Satan originally was an angel in heaven, with God. Gods judgment of Adam reflects what he was before
creation, as I expounded on my reflections on 1.4.3, Adam is a living soul made from the dust. Gods judgment
thus was
For dust you are and to dust you will return. (Genesis 3: 19)
Adam returned to non-existence. He became a dead soul. His spirit or life-force, his breath, left him, and his
body to return to the dust. Thus began mankinds journey to the curse of sin and death.
References
[1] Creation, Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, p. 545.

[2] Human Dignity-Possible for All, The Watchtower, August 1, 1986, p. 4.
[3] Seek God While He Maybe Found, The Watchtower, July 15, 1973, p. 433.
[4] Human Dignity-Possible for All, The Watchtower, August 1, 1986, p. 5.
32 | P a g e
1.10 Insights, Cain and Noah
More reflections from reading the book of Genesis
1. Insights on who God is from early chapters of Genesis
2. Cain and his wife
3. Noah and the Flood
1.10.1 Insights on who God is from early chapters of Genesis
Our heavenly Father, Jehovah God, has four cardinal qualities love, power, justice and wisdom.
As I read through Genesis 1 and picture the vastness of this universe that is supposedly 20 billion years old, and
how small our part of this universe is compared to the giant suns, large clusters of galaxies, whose light that we
see at night have travelled for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of light years, to be seen by us today, and the
vast dynamic energy to actually produce all there is from the moment the universe was born, I see the
truthfulness of the following Bible words about Gods power, love and wisdom
His power is described accurately this way
Lift up your eyes to heaven and see.
Who has created these things?
It is the One who brings out their army by number;
He calls them all by name.
Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power,
Not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:26)
His love that motivated Him to create is described this way
You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all
things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created. (Revelation 4:11)
His wisdom is described this way
How many your works are, O Jehovah!
You have made all of them in wisdom. (Psalms 104: 24)
When I read about the so-called anthropic principle that describes how the settings of the important measures of
physics that make life possible is the way they are, and that a small variation could lead to a life-less universe,
speaks of Gods wisdom.
The Bible words still ring true when one reflects on everything that God has created
For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the worlds creation onward, because they are perceived by the
things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. (Romans 1:20)
This same all-wise God, who out of love gave us life, and through his infinite power made our world exist, and
who communicated with us through His written word, is sadly ignored in todays world. He is not a factor in the
lives of many, in their choices, their life direction, and life values. The intellectuals had worked hard to bring
disrepute to the only tool He made possible for us to get to know Him better. But the Bible survived into modern
times while ideas of proud men tumble.
When I reflect Gods actions toward us humans, I see how He displayed in a balance way all his cardinal
attributes of love, power, justice and wisdom.
The act of providing a mate is a loving gesture, institutionalizing marriage, so that his divine purpose for the earth
will be accomplished. He trusted on humans capacity to freely decide to support Gods sovereignty. Even when
humans disappointed God, He continue to trust that future generations will see the rightness of Gods ways and
support His sovereignty. Hence, He provided a way out of the suffering caused by the rebellion.
33 | P a g e
Despite the catastrophic failure of mans loyalty to God, Genesis gave us a glimpse of this God of love by
maintaining the dignity of the offenders, allowing them to have children, and use humans as agents to carry out
His will.
Gods name Jehovah or in original Hebrew YHWH (Yahweh), truly lives up to its meaning he causes to
become and not just a static I am. God acts in human history to ensure his promised resolution will be realized.
No Bible reader will accuse God of inaction and apathy toward the human race. Jehovah God has been moving
since Day 1 of the rebellion to restore mankind back to where things were.
1.10.2 Cain and his wife

"Often, apparent inconsistencies can be resolved if we just look at the context. Consider, for example, the oftenraised problem about Cains wife. At Genesis 4:1, 2 we read: In time [Eve] gave birth to Cain and said: I have
produced a man with the aid of Jehovah. Later she again gave birth, to his brother Abel. As is well known, Cain
killed Abel; but after that, we read that Cain had a wife and children. (Genesis 4:17) If Adam and Eve had only two
sons, where did Cain find his wife?
The solution lies in the fact that Adam and Eve had more than two children. According to the context, they had a
large family. At Genesis 5:3 we read that Adam became father to another son named Seth and then, in the
following verse, we read: He became father to sons and daughters. (Genesis 5:4) So Cain could have married
one of his sisters or even one of his nieces. At that early stage of human history, when mankind was so close to
perfection, such a marriage evidently did not pose the risks for the children of the union that it would today."[1]
1.10.3 Details on Noah and the Flood

Reflections on some important details about Noah and the Flood story
1.10.3.1 Did Noah fill his ark with all the animals?
A Bible encyclopedia has this to say
"These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia
Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873) However,
over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles,
birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived
outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained
outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than
sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in
the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69) So, even if estimates are
based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals."[2]
Another reference estimated the floor space of the ark, at three stories, and estimated that it could hold 125,000
adult sheep. It adds quoting Dr. Henry Morse in his book The Biblical Basis for Modern Science
there are approximately 18,000 species of land animals alive today(that is birds, mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians. With a storage capacity of 1,518,750 cubic feet capable of holding approximately 125,000 sheepsized animals, it is obvious that the ark could have easily have held two of each of 18,000-plus species, or
approximately 36,000 individual animals, most of which would be considerably smaller than an adult sheep. There
are relatively few very large animal species, such as elephants, giraffes, and cattle, compared to the thousands of
very small species including rodents, reptiles and monkeys.[3]
34 | P a g e
1.10.3.2 Seven seven
I noticed something new to me at least about Genesis 7:2 and how different English Bibles translated the literal
Hebrew expression "seven seven":
"seven and seven" (American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims)
"seven pairs" (World English Bible, English Standard Version)
by sevens (2013 New World Translation)
2013 NWT offered an alternative reading in its footnote, Or possibly, seven pairs of every clean animal.
The complete verse reads

You must take with you every kind of clean animal by sevens, the male and its mate; and of every animal that is
not clean just two, the male and its mate.
The illustration above gives us an idea of how this could be interpreted.
1.10.3.3 Ratio of Noahs ark relative to modern ships

What is noteworthy about the size of Noah's ark? One reference has this to say
Naval architects have noted that at 450 feet long and 75 feet wide the length-to-width ratio of Noahs ark was six
to one. This particular length-to-width ratio would provide excellent stability for a ship in the face of the severe
weather and high waves associated with the worldwide flood. Modern shipbuilders claim that the arks dimensions
would make it almost impossible to overturn, despite massive waves and high seas. In consideration of the fact
that the ark was unpowered and intended to simply float as an ocean-going barge, its construction was perfectly
adapted to survive the severe sea conditions associated with the storms produced by a global flood.[4]
35 | P a g e
Why is this significant? There is an ancient Flood story from Babylon called the Epic of Gilgamesh that also
described the equivalent of an ark. Here is what this reference says about this Babylonian boat
The mythical Babylonian account of the arks dimension describes a ship that was built in square shape, with its
length and width being 120 cubits (180 feet by 180 feet). It is reported that the Babylonian ark was a minimum of
ninety feet in height with nine decks. Any ship builder would realize that such a construction would result in an
enormously unwieldy and top-heavy vessel that would simply spin around in response to ocean currents and wind
action. Such a mythical vessel would be entirely unseaworthy and likely to founder in violent seas.[5]
1.10.3.4 Noahs Flood Story versus the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and other legends
A Bible-based magazine observes the similarities of Flood legends such as Gilgamesh with the Bible story
The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh contains many details. According to it, Gilgamesh visited his ancestor
Utnapishtim, who had been granted eternal life after surviving the Flood. In the ensuing conversation, Utnapishtim
explained that he was told to build a ship and take cattle, wild beasts, and his family into it. He built the ship as a
huge cube 200 feet [60 m] on each side, with six floors. He tells Gilgamesh that the storm lasted six days and six
nights, and then he says: When the seventh day arrived, the hurricane, the Deluge, the shock of battle was
broken, which had smitten like an army. The sea became calm, the cyclone died away, the Deluge ceased. I
looked upon the sea and the sound of voices had ended. And all mankind had turned to clay.
After the vessel grounded on Mount Nisir, Utnapishtim released a dove that returned to the boat when it could not
find a resting-place. This was followed by a swallow that also returned. A raven was then released, and when it
did not return, he knew that the water had subsided. Utnapishtim then released the animals and offered a
sacrifice.
This very old legend is somewhat similar to the Biblical account of the Flood. However, it lacks the graphic details
and simplicity of the Bible account, and it does not give reasonable dimensions for the ark nor supply the time
period indicated in the Scriptures. For instance, the Epic of Gilgamesh said that the storm lasted six days and six
nights, whereas the Bible says that the downpour upon the earth went on for forty days and forty nightsa
continuing heavy rain that finally covered the entire globe with water.Genesis 7:12.[6]
One paper made this conclusion regarding the similarities
A popular theory, proposed by liberal "scholars," said that the Hebrews "borrowed" from the Babylonians, but no
conclusive proof has ever been offered. The differences, including religious, ethical, and sheer quantity of details,
make it unlikely that the Biblical account was dependent on any extant source from the Sumerian traditions. This
still does not stop these liberal and secular scholars from advocating such a theory. The most accepted theory
among evangelicals is that both have one common source, predating all the Sumerian forms. The divine
inspiration of the Bible would demand that the Genesis account is the correct version. Indeed the Hebrews were
known for handing down their records and tradition. The Book of Genesis is viewed for the most part as an
historical work, even by many liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological. The Onesource Theory must, therefore, lead back to the historical event of the Flood and Noah's Ark. To those who
believe in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, it should not be a surprise that God would preserve the true
account of the Flood in the traditions of His people. The Genesis account was kept pure and accurate throughout
the centuries by the providence of God until it was finally compiled, edited, and written down by Moses. The Epic
of Gilgamesh, then, contains the corrupted account as preserved and embellished by peoples who did not follow
the God of the Hebrews.[7]
Late into this century, a new theory was developed called Noahs Flood hypothesis. This is the description
provided by an online article
Two geologists at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have offered a new theory of what
happened next. William Ryan and Walter Pitman, in Noah's Flood (Simon & Schuster), postulate that as time went
on, the world warmed, the glaciers retreated and meltwater from the European glaciers began to flow north into
the North Sea, depriving the Black Sea of its main source of replenishment. The level of the Black Sea began to
drop, and most of the area around its northern boundary the area adjacent to present-day Crimea and the Sea
36 | P a g e
of Azov became dry land. At this point, the level of the Black Sea was several hundred feet below that of the
Mediterranean, and the two were separated by the barrier of the Bosporus, then dry land. This situation, with the
world ocean rising while the Black Sea was falling, could not last forever. Eventually, like a bathtub overflowing,
the Mediterranean had to pour through into the Black Sea basin.[8]
Despite the lack of scientific evidence for the Flood to satisfy geologists, a shift has reportedly happened
The tide of scientific opinion turned in Bretz's favor in 1940 at the Seattle meeting of the American Association for
the advancement of Science, and reached its peak in 1979 when, at the age of 97, Bretz received the Geological
Society of America's highest honor. "In hindsight," Montgomery writes, on that occasion, Bretz "described his work
as a struggle against the dominance of uniformitarian thinking [i.e., the idea that the earth's surface had been
shaped by the steady working of erosion and other natural processes operating over geologic time, rather than by
a single cataclysmic event in the relatively recent past] that prejudiced his colleagues against the idea of a great
flood:"[9]
References
[1] The Bible-Gods Word or Mans?, Jehovahs Witnesses, 2006, p. 90.
[2] Ark, Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 165.
[3] Jeffrey, Grant. Unveiling Mysteries of the Bible, Harmony Printing Limited, 2002, p. 44-45.
[4] Ibid., p. 43.
[5] Ibid., p. 42.
[6] The Flood in the Legends of the World, The Watchtower, January 15, 1992, p. 6.
[7] Lorey, Frank. The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh, Available (online) http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/
[8] Trefil, James. Evidence for a Flood, Smithsonian.com, Available (online) http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/?no-ist
[9] Chasan, Daniel. The Rocks Dont Lie: Debunking Noahs Flood, Crosscut.com, Available (online) http://crosscut.com/2012/08/22/environment/110108/rocks-dont-lie-david-montgomery-chasan-flood-book/
37 | P a g e
1.11 Genealogical Charts
Some important highlights in the first chapters of Genesis that is of value to us are
1.11.1 Observation from the Genealogical Lists (Adam-Noah)
When I compared this list to the post-Noah list below
38 | P a g e
I quickly made the following observations
a.
b.
c.
d.
Fathers took a long time to have children, except Enoch, in the first list, who had children from 65
Long life spans in the first list, reaching 900s
Life span dramatically fell in the second list
Fathers, on average, had children by the age of 30
The pre-Flood list (first list) have been compared to a Sumerian legend list. Regarding, Isaac Asimov in his book made
this commentary
These patriarchs cannot be associated with any historical personages and nothing is known of them beyond this bare
Biblical mention. They seem, however, to be a reflection of Sumerian legend. At least, the Sumerian had lists of nine or
ten kings who reigned before the Flood, each of them living for many thousands of years. One was listed as having
reigned nearly 65,000 years. The writer of this portion of Genesis, far from imposing on credibility by making use of
extended life spans, apparently took legendary material and did his best to cut those ages down to reasonable size.[1]
Yet, a Bible encyclopedia asserted regarding Bible genealogical lists
A careful examination of the Bible will eliminate the false idea sometimes advanced that the ancient genealogies
in Genesis, chapters 5 and 11, and in other Bible books contain imaginary, or fictitious, names to suit some
scheme of the chronicler. These chroniclers were dedicated servants of Jehovah, not nationalists; they were
concerned with Jehovahs name and dealings with his people. Furthermore, not only did other Bible writers refer
to many of these individuals as real persons but so did Jesus Christ.[2]
The Sumerian list was quoted in a Bible encyclopedia
The Bible is a historical book, preeminently so among ancient writings. The histories of the ancient Egyptians,
Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either
obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical. Thus, the ancient document known as The Sumerian King
List begins: When kingship was lowered from heaven, kingship was (first) in Eridu. (In) Eridu, A-lulim (became)
king and ruled 28,800 years. Alalgar ruled 36,000 years. Two kings (thus) ruled it for 64,800 years. . . . (In) Badtibira, En-men-lu-Anna ruled 43,200 years; En-men-gal-Anna ruled 28,800 years; the god Dumu-zi, a shepherd,
ruled 36,000 years. Three kings (thus) ruled it for 108,000 years.Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B.
Pritchard, 1974, p. 265.[3]
Interestingly, in terms of Bible manuscripts, there is a variance between the ages in the Masoretic manuscript (Hebrew
OT) versus the Septuagint (LXX, Greek OT). On this issue, the Bible encyclopedia cites an authority why the Masoretic
is the more accurate between the two
Langes Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Genesis, p. 272, ftn) says: The internal evidence is shown to be
decidedly in favor of the Hebrew from its proportional consistency. The numbers in the LXX evidently follow a plan
to which they have been conformed. This does not appear in the Hebrew, and it is greatly in favor of its being an
authentic genealogical record. . . . On physiological grounds, too, the Hebrew is to be preferred; since the length
of the life does not at all require so late a manhood as those numbers [in the Septuagint] would seem to
intimate. . . . the added 100 years, in each case, by the Septuagint, shows a design to bring them to some nearer
proportional standard, grounded on some supposed physiological notion. . . . To all this must be added the fact
that the Hebrew has the best claim to be regarded as the original text, from the well-known scrupulous, and even
superstitious, care with which it has been textually preserved.Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.[4]
Back to the accuracy of the ages, the same encyclopedia took this position
What about the accounts in the Bible? Have they proved to be trustworthy? Absolutely! Although not all details
have been confirmed by available secular sources, evidence has shown again and again that what is stated in the
Bible is reliable from historical, scientific, and chronological standpoints.[5]
How can the longevity of people in the Bible list be explained, with many reaching 900?
39 | P a g e
But how could people live for 900 years or more? The Bible tells us that God made humans to live forever and
that Adams sin brought imperfection and death to the human family. (Genesis 2:17; 3:17-19; Romans 5:12)
Those who lived before the Flood were much closer to perfection than we are today, and this was no doubt a
major factor in their longevity. Methuselah, for instance, was only seven generations removed from Adam.Luke
3:37, 38.[6]
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Asimov, Isaac. Asimovs Guide to the Bible. New York:Wings Books, 1981, p. 37.
Genealogy. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 913
Chronology. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witness, 1988, p. 448.
Ibid., p. 459.
Did People in Bible Times Really Live So Long?, The Watchtower, December 1, 2010, p. 13.
Did They Really Live That Long?, Awake!, July 7, 2007, p. 30
40 | P a g e
1.12 More reflections post-Flood

1.12.1 This is the history
The early chapters of Genesis contained the formula this is the history. We find this expression on the following
verses
2:4 this is a history of the heavens and the earth
5:1 this is the book of Adams history
6:9 this is the history of Noah
10:1 this is the history of Noahs sons
11: 10 this is the history of Shem
11:27 this is the history of Terah
In Genesis 5:1, I encounter for the first time the mention of a book. Regarding this, Hebrew professor Murphy
comments
The present superscription differs from the former one in the introduction of the word book. There is here some
ground in the text for supporting the insertion by Moses of an authentic document, handed down from the olden
time, in the great work which he was directed to compose. The chapter before us could not have been completed,
indeed, till after the birth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But if we except the last verse, there is no impossibility or
improbability in its being composed before the deluge.
The invention of writing at that early period is favored by some other circumstances connected with these records.
We cannot say that it is impossible for oral tradition to preserve the memory of minute transactions, sayings,
songs, names, and numbers of years up to a thousand, especially in a period when men's lives exceeded nine
hundred years. But we can easily see that these details could be much more easily handed down if there was any
method of notation for the help of the memory. The minute records of this kind, therefore, which we find in these
early chapters, though not very numerous, afford a certain presumption in favor of a very early knowledge of the
art of writing.[1]
One online article cited one discovery about ancient writings
In 1936, P.J. Wiseman wrote a book entitled New Discoveries About Genesis. Wiseman seems to have found
the key that unlocks the details of authorship of Genesis. His thesis is that there are several internal clues in
Genesis that reveals how it was written; and that the actual authors of Genesis were Adam, Noah, the sons of
Noah, Shem, Ishamel, Isaac, Esau, Jacob and Joseph; That the authors other than Joseph, probably wrote in
cuneiform on clay tablets; and that Moses, utilizing these records, with the "wisdom of the Egyptians" that he
learned in Egypt, was the redactor or EDITOR OF GENESIS RATHER THAN ITS AUTHOR!
Wiseman says that every time we see the phrase "This is the book of the generations of...", that the NAME in that
phrase is most likely the AUTHOR AS WELL!
Wiseman by internal evidence suggests that Genesis was written on a series of clay tablets.[2]
That same article cited another reference
Halley's Bible Handbook comes to a similar conclusion:
The age-old Hebrew and Christian tradition is that Moses, guided of God, composed Genesis out of ancient
documents existent in his day. The book closes something like 300 years before Moses. Moses could have gotten
41 | P a g e
this information only by direct revelation from God, or through such historical records as had been handed doom
from his forefathers.[3]
Despite the above claims, a Bible encyclopedia has this to say
For these reasons, Vitringa and others since have understood each use of tohledhohth in Genesis to refer to
an already existing written historical document that Moses had in his possession and that he relied upon for the
majority of the information recorded in Genesis. They believe that the persons named in direct connection with such
histories (Adam, Noah, Noahs sons, Shem, Terah, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob) were either the writers or
original possessors of those written documents. This, of course, would still leave unexplained how all such
documents came to be in the possession of Moses. It also leaves unexplained why documents obtained from men
who were not distinguished as faithful worshipers of Jehovah (such as Ishmael and Esau) should be the source of
much of the information used. It is entirely possible that the expression This is the history of is simply an
introductory phrase serving conveniently to divide off the various sections of the long overall history. Compare
Matthews use of a similar expression to introduce his Gospel account.Mt 1:1; see WRITING.
No definite conclusion can be arrived at, therefore, as to the immediate source from which Moses obtained the
information he recorded.[4]
References
[1] Murphy, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Genesis with a New Translation, Boston:
Estes and Lauriat, 1873, , p.170
[2] Salemi, Peter. Who Wrote the Book of Genesis?, Available (online) - http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm
[3] Ibid.
[4] Genesis, Book of. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 920.
42 | P a g e
1.12.2 The Origin of Nations

Chapter 10 of Genesis lists the origin of nations traced from the family of Noah. Hebrew professor Murphy comments
on this section
The present chapter signalizes a new step in the development of the human race. They pass from the one family
to the seventy nations. This great process covers the space of time from Noah to Abraham. During this period the
race was rapidly increasing under the covenant made witli Noah. From Shem to Abraham were ten generations
inclusive ; and, therefore, if we suppose the same rate of increase after as we have supposed before, there would
be about fifteen millions of inhabitants when Abraham was thirty years of age. If, however, we take eight as the
average of a family, and suppose eleven generations after Shem at the hundredth year of Abraham's life, we have
about thirty millions of people on the earth. The average of the three sons of Noah is higher than this; for they had
sixteen sons, and we may suppose as many daughters, making in all thirty-two, and, therefore, giving ten children
to each household. The present chapter does not touch on the religious aspect of human affairs: it merely presents
a table of the primary nations, from which all subsequent nationalities have been derived.[1]
Regarding these seventy nations, a Bible encyclopedia has this to say
The listing in Genesis, chapter 10, therefore might be termed the oldest tabulation of nations, 70 in number.
Fourteen were Japhetic, 30 Hamitic, and 26 Shemitic in origin.[2]
This Bible encyclopedia has the chart that lists the nations
NOAH
JAPHETH Aryan Branch of Speech:

Indo-European (14 families)
GOMER Cimmerians, N of Black Sea
ASHKENAZ SE of Black Sea
RIPHATH Paphlagonians
TOGARMAH Armenians
MAGOG
MADAI Medes, S of Caspian Sea
JAVAN Ionians, Greeks of SE Europe
ELISHAH Near Greece
TARSHISH Pre-Spanish in SW Europe
KITTIM Cyprus
DODANIM (RODANIM) Island of Rhodes and Aegean Islands
TUBAL Tibareni, in Asia Minor
MESHECH Phrygians of Asia Minor
TIRAS Tyrrhenians, of the Aegean Islands and Coastlands
43 | P a g e
HAM Hamitic Branch of

Speech: Afro-Asiatic (30 families)
CUSH Ethiopians in E Africa and Arabia
SEBA In E Africa
HAVILAH In SW Arabia
SABTAH In S Arabia
RAAMAH In SW Arabia
SHEBA In SW Arabia
DEDAN In Arabia
SABTECA In S Arabia or Ethiopia
MIZRAIM Egyptians
LUDIM In N Africa
ANAMIM In Egypt
LEHABIM Libyans
NAPHTUHIM In N Egypt
PATHRUSIM In Upper Egypt
CASLUHIM
PHILISTINES Coastal Plain of Palestine
CAPHTORIM Cretans
PUT In N Africa
CANAAN W of Jordan River
SIDON Sidonians (Phoenicians)
HETH Hittites
JEBUSITE Around early Jerusalem
AMORITE In Palestine
GIRGASHITE W of Jordan River
HIVITE Central Palestine
ARKITE W of the Lebanon Mountains
SINITE
ARVADITE Island off Syrian Coast
ZEMARITE N Phoenician Coast
HAMATHITE N of Palestine
SHEM Semitic Branch of
Speech: Asiatic (26 families)
ELAM SE of Mesopotamia
ASSHUR Assyrians
ARPACHSHAD
SHELAH
EBER In Arabia and Mesopotamia
PELEG
JOKTAN Arabians
ALMODAD
SHELEPH
44 | P a g e
HAZARMAVETH
JERAH
HADORAM
UZAL
DIKLAH
OBAL
ABIMAEL
SHEBA
OPHIR
HAVILAH
JOBAB
LUD Lydians of Asia Minor
ARAM Aramaeans, Syrians
UZ
HUL Near Armenia
GETHER
MASH Syro-Arabian Desert or N Mesopotamia[3]
One Bible displays a map that tried to identify where these 70 nations were dispersed
[4]
45 | P a g e
References
[1] Murphy, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Genesis with a New Translation, Boston:
Estes and Lauriat, 1873, p. 218.
[2] Nations. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 473.
[3] Origin of Nations. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 329
[4] Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha, New York:
Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 23.
46 | P a g e
1.12.3 Nimrod
Who is Nimrod? Why is he a special mention that momentarily disrupted the list to tell his story? The Bible
encyclopedia comments
Nimrod was the founder and king of the first empire to come into existence after the Flood. He distinguished
himself as a mighty hunter before (in an unfavorable sense; Heb., liphneh; against or in opposition to;
compare Nu 16:2; 1Ch 14:8; 2Ch 14:10) or in front of Jehovah. (Ge 10:9, ftn) Although in this case some
scholars attach a favorable sense to the Hebrew preposition meaning in front of, the Jewish Targums, the
writings of the historian Josephus, and also the context of Genesis chapter 10 suggest that Nimrod was a mighty
hunter in defiance of Jehovah.
The beginning of Nimrods kingdom included the cities of Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, all in the land of
Shinar. (Ge 10:10) Therefore it was likely under his direction that the building of Babel and its tower began. This
conclusion is also in agreement with the traditional Jewish view.[1]
One online article talks about different theories in identifying in Ancient Near East documents a historical Nimrod.
Here is part of the report
Numerous attempts have been made to identify Nimrod with historical or legendary figures from Mesopotamia.'
Boscawen tied the biblical account to a Babylonian story of a wicked king who gathered his people atop a mound
(the tower) and caused them to sin before the gods."' Other scholars, noting that Nimrod's father was Cush,
speculated that Nimrod was the Bible's way of representing the Kassite (= Cushite) invaders of the Late Bronze
era, who took Babylon and ruled for a period of four centuries.''
Still others have sought to identify Nimrod with one of the early rulers of Mesopotamia, such as the great Sargon
of Akkad. Indeed, Akkad (Agade, the Accad of KJV) is one of the cities whose building is credited to Nimrod (Gen.
10:10). Sargon is known from later Mesopotamian history as the monarch who unified all of Mesopotamia and
sedentarized the region of Subartu. [2]
Nimrod is also credited for starting organized religion that deviated from the worship of one God. One online
article makes this report
Legends are difficult to prove; they are almost impossible to disprove. Nimrod, the mighty hunter before (against) the
Lord, was the first to organize cities into a kingdom under human rule, Genesis 10:8-10. This much we know from
the Bible. The name Nimrod comes from the word,marad, meaning he rebelled. Legend has it that Nimrod married
his own mother, Semiramis. After Nimrod died, Semiramis claimed Nimrod was the sun-god. She later had a child,
Tammuz, whom she claimed was Nimrod reborn, supernaturally conceived, the promised seed, the
savior. Semiramis developed a religion of mother and child worship. Symbols were used to develop a mystery
religion. Since Nimrod was believed to be the sun-god (Baal), fire was considered his earthly representation. In other
forms, Nimrod was symbolized by sun images, fish, trees, pillars, and animals. Tammuz, son of the sun-god, was
represented by the golden calf. And so it was, that mankind followed this religion of worshipping the creation (creature)
rather than the Creator, Romans 1:21-26.
Whether or not the Nimrod-Semiramis-Tammuz legends are completely historical or not is immaterial. The result of
these legends is that mankind in general, has followed variations of one kind or another, of the religion of Babylon,
to this day.[3]
One reference work points to Babylonian god Ninurta as fitting Nimrod rather than Marduk. The reference work
explains
In several respects, then, Ninurta fits the description of Nimrod given in Gen 10:8-12. The literary tradition of
Mesopotamia makes Ninurta indeed "the first on earth to be a hero." His heroism manifested itself mainly in his
exploits as a formidable hunter (a gibbr say id) of mythical animals.
47 | P a g e
Also the dominion (mamlk) ascribed to Nimrod has its equivalent in the career of Ninurta. The only thing to
distinguish Nimrod from Ninurta is the former's reputation as a builder of (Assyrian) cities. The importance of this
discrepancy, however, should not be overestimated. In cuneiform literature, Ninurta is celebrated as the founder
of the Mesopotamian civilization. Though the texts at our disposal do not say that he built cities, they imply that he
laid the foundations of all civilized life and thus created the conditions under which human settlements could
prosper.[4]
References
[1] Nimrod. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 503
[2] Warren, Bruce. In Search of the Historic Nimrod, Available (online) http://ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/r1vg0nqa/03%20In%20search%20of%20the%20historicc%20Nimro
d.htm?n=0
[3] Woodrow, Ralph. All Roads Lead to Babylon, Available (online) - http://www.jesus-issavior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/babylon.htm
[4] van der Toorn, K. and van der Horst, P.W. Nimrod Before and After the Bible, Harvard Theological Review,
1990, p. 13.
48 | P a g e
1.13 Reflections on Abraham

1.13.1 Abraham, Ur, and Camels
If I were living very comfortably as a wealthy, successful man, in a modern, metropolitan city and God would ask
me to leave the city and my relatives to go to some remote, agricultural country and dwell in tents instead, moving
from one place after another, how would I have felt about that? Would I inconvenience myself for God? Would I
drop whatever is making me happy at that point and yield to Gods request?
Abraham said yes to God. A very, wealthy man with about 300 male servants (Genesis 14:14) in his household,
he uprooted everyone from the city of Ur. What kind of place did Abraham left behind? Archaeology provided
some enlightenment about the city of Ur.
But is Abraham a real person? Bible critics claim that he is a mythical person. Can archaeology help with the
Genesis details here?
Critics often malign the patriarchs without just cause. They insist that camels were not domesticated during the
patriarchal age, thus constituting an anachronism in the biblical text. Yet evidence of camel domestication
appears as early as 2000 B.C. in several places in Mesopotamia, concurrent with Abrahamif not slightly
preceding him (Kitchen, 2003, p. 339). Another point of confidence is the names of the patriarchs. While God
selected Jacobs name, they all highlight the Mesopotamian roots of Abraham since the names of Isaac, Jacob,
Ishmael, and Joseph are all of Amorite origin (pp. 341-342). These names were at the height of their popularity
when the patriarchs lived in the early second millennium and quickly fell into disuse in subsequent centuries.[1]
An online article reports the efforts of archaeologists investigating the Ur of the Chaldeans from where Abraham
came from
Genesis 11:31 says that the patriarch's father, Terah, took his son (who was then called Abram before God
renamed him Abraham) and their extended family out of a city called Ur of the Chaldeans. Archaeologists took
this notation as something to investigate, because according to The Biblical World: An Illustrated Atlas, the
Chaldeans were a tribe that didn't exist until somewhere around the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., nearly 1,500
years after Abraham is believed to have lived. Ur of the Chaldeans has been located not far from Haran, whose
remnants are found today in southwestern Turkey.[2]
What have they found? The article continues
Some of the tablets have been dated back 200 years before Zimri-Lim's time, which would place them around the
same time that the Bible says Abraham's family departed Ur. Information translated from the Mari tablets would
seem to indicate that the Sumerian Ur, not Ur of the Chaldeans, is more likely the place where Abraham and his
family started their journey.[3]
Regarding this Ur, a Bible-based magazine reported
These discoveries gave many scholars a fresh view of Abraham. We had been accustomed to think of Abraham
as a simple dweller in tents, and find him a possible occupant of a sophisticated brick house in a city, wrote Sir
Leonard Woolley in his book Digging Up the Past. Abraham, stated archaeologist Alan Millard in his book
Treasures From Bible Times, left the sophisticated city, with all its security and comfort, to become one of the
despised nomads![4]
One article though disagreed with this find of a Sumerian Ur
I have shown in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Vol. 17, p. 28, 1958) that Ur of the Chaldees must be in the
Haran area and has nothing to do with Sumerian Ur. This was, as a matter of fact, the consensus of opinion until
the name of Sumerian Ur began to turn up in the cuneiform inscriptions deciphered during the latter half of the
nineteenth century. Finally, the identification of Ur of the Chaldees with Sumerian Ur in the south took firm hold as
a result of C. Leonard Woolleys glamorous finds at Sumerian Ur, which finds were worthy of Abraham.[5]
49 | P a g e
Regarding camels at the time of Abraham (Genesis 12:16), archaeologists claim that camels were not yet in use
during Abrahams time. One online article quoted some known archaeologists (belonging to the minimalist camp
or basically non-Bible believing archaeologists)
Finkelstein and Silbermann state, We now know through archaeological research that camels were not
domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millennium and were not widely used in that
capacity in the ancient Near East until well after 1000 BCE.[6]
Who is this Finkelstein? One online article described him
The book to which Levin refers in his article is The Bible Unearthed: Archaeologys New Vision of Ancient Israel
and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001). Finkelsteins work has drawn substantial
criticism from other scholarseven those who doubt the Bibles veracity. Virtually no archaeologists have
adopted his somewhat radical conclusions.[7]
But, what does the archaeological facts show recently about camels from the time of Abraham? The online report
continues
However, numerous discoveries have turned up in several areas of the Near East arguing for a much earlier
domestication date. First, an Aramean camel-rider carving on display in the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, dated
to the 10th century BC, conflicts with the latest suggested 9th century BC domestication. The artifact was found at
Tell el-Halaf in Mesopotamia by Max von Oppenheim, who had originally dated the piece to the early 3rd
millennium BC.[8]
The article continued to show artifacts from the Ancient Near East indicating camel domestication at the time of
Abraham and concluded this way
For those who adhere to a 9th century BC or even 12th century BC date of domestic camel use in the ancient
Near East, archaeological and textual evidence must be either ignored or explained away. Bones, hairs, wall
paintings, models, inscriptions, seals, documents, statues, and stelae from numerous archaeological sites all
suggest the camel in use as a domestic animal in the ancient Near East as early as the 3rd millennium BC, and
certainly by the Middle Bronze Age. The wide geographical and chronological distribution of findings related to
camel domestication further strengthen the argument that the camel was domesticated far before the Iron Age,
and with new excavations and analyses, additional evidence will likely reinforce this theory.
References
[1] ] Bryant, Dewayne. Armchair Archaeology and the New Atheism, Available (online) http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3823
[2] Astle, Cynthia. Archaeological Evidence About the Story of Abraham in the Bible, Available (online) http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/amen/a/122710-CW-Archaeological-Evidence-About-The-Story-Of-AbrahamIn-The-Bible.htm
[3] Ibid.
[4] Abraham-Gods Prophet and Friend, The Watchtower, July 1, 1989, p. 5.
[5] Gordon, Cyrus. Where is Abrahams Ur?, Available (online to BAR subscribers)
[6] Kennedy, Tim. The Date of Camel Domestication in the Ancient Near East, Available (online) http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2014/02/17/The-Date-of-Camel-Domestication-in-the-Ancient-NearEast.aspx
[7] Bryant, Dewayne. Armchair Archaeology and the New Atheism, Available (online) http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3823
[8] Kennedy, Tim. The Date of Camel Domestication in the Ancient Near East, Available (online) http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2014/02/17/The-Date-of-Camel-Domestication-in-the-Ancient-NearEast.aspx
50 | P a g e
1.13.2 Urs religion, Abraham, Lot, Eliezer and Patriarchal customs

How is life in Ur like? The archaeologist Schaeffer wrote in his book
The plan of the city gives some idea of the density of the population. The closely packed houses were grouped into
quarters divided by lanes which ran parallel or at right angles to each other Most of these comfortable dwellings
consisted of a large number of rooms, including bathrooms, and sanitary arrangements of a very high order.[1]
What about the religious climate? One paper decribes it
Another title that is commonly ascribed to Athirat in the Ugaritic texts is qnyt ilm. This is most often translated as
Creatress of the Gods, or Progenitor of the Gods. There is virtually no contention about this translation among
scholars. Athirat is referenced in the texts as being the mother of the gods in many places. The traditional view of
scholars has been that Athirat begat many gods by El, but that perhaps they were no longer together, possibly because
of Els apparent impotence. El is viewed as an old man while Athirat is somewhat younger. Later texts pair Athirat with
Baal, as do the biblical writers, which is also seen as a possible consequence of Els impotence.[2]
Yes, Ur believes in many gods. But, El, later replaced by Baal, as chief god. Els wife, Athirat, is called the Mother of
gods. One of her god-sons became her husband, Baal. But, Abraham believed in only one God, Jehovah. That must
have been a difficult religious climate to live in despite the material abundance around the city.
According to the Bible, when Abraham left, his nephew Lot joined him. Jehovah God promised to give Abraham the
entire land of Canaan if he chose to remain faithful. And Abraham was willing to wait for this to happen. This
willingness to wait I personally valued during the conflict that arose between the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot.
Despite being older and leader of the clan, he honored Lot by having him choose where he wanted to move out to and
Abraham will go the other way. Abraham knew he will inherit all the land but that knowledge did not influence him to
impose on Lot. Abraham, from my view, was willing to wait for Gods time table and so he behaved accordingly. He was
not willing to lose their family bond over material things. Abraham even cited their being brothers. That is a fine point
of reflection for me when it comes to dealing with Christian friends who are my brothers and sisters as well.
In the succeeding chapters of Genesis, the patriarchal customs narrated there has been substantiated by ancient
documents as a typical practice in Abrahams day king-priests, arrangement for heirs in the case of the owners are
childless, the giving of a female servant like Hagar to Abraham, for Hagar to bear children for Abraham.
Who is Eliezer? A Bible encyclopedia has this to say
A man of Damascus and the apparent heir of childless Abraham. Abraham referred to him as a son of my
household. (Ge 15:2, 3) Archaeological discoveries, such as the tablets from Nuzi, shed light on why Abraham
considered Eliezer his heir. Often childless couples adopted a son who would then care for them in old age and
arrange for their burial at death, thereupon inheriting the property. It was stipulated, however, that, in the event a
son was born to them after the adoption, the real son would become the principal heir.[3]
Regarding these Nuzi tablets, one online article raised this problem
But the Nuzi texts date to the fifteenth-fourteenth centuries. How does that mesh with the scholarly claim that
Abraham dates to the early second millennium B.C.E.coinciding with the migration of West Semites from
Mesopotamia to Palestine that allegedly occurred at that time? How could the Nuzi texts have an influence on
Abraham in the 1900s B.C.E., when they did not exist yet?[4]
One archaeologist from the minimalist camp (non-Bible believer) cited that the Nuzi tablet finds cannot be used
for Genesis 15
In the story of Abraham in Genesis, Abraham adopted Eliezer of Damascus as his heir because he had no
children (Gen 15:2-3). At Nuzi, slaves were adopted by childless couples.
51 | P a g e
Thompson, however, disagrees with this view. On pages 225-226, he summarizes his findings on the preceding
pages. According to Thompson, Genesis 15 contradicts the Nuzi texts. First of all, Eliezer is a servant, and the
Nuzi texts do not deal with the adoption of servants, but rather with free people who can enter into a mutually
binding contract. Second, Genesis 15:4 indicates that Abraham having a son would invalidate Eliezer as an heir,
but that is not how the Nuzi texts prescribed things. Rather, the Nuzi texts guarantee the right to an inheritance
portion by the adopted, even if the father has children.[5]
This position by Thompson was criticized by another online article
In Thompson's discussion of Eliezer's possible adoption, for instance, he discusses only eleven of the Nuzi real
sonship adoption contracts against an actual total of almost fifty documents, which though it represents an
improvement on the maximum of five texts normally considered, still falls far short of an adequate
investigation.[6]
The author of the above article noted that the initial comparisons though no longer valid, writes below
Although some problems have clearly arisen in recent assessments of parallels to the patriarchal narratives, this does
not mean that the cuneiform documents must now be treated with considerable suspicion, and that for all practical
purposes they are of little value for the patriarchs. On the contrary, a stage has now been reached where initial
enthusiasm must be supported by careful and accurate scholarship. Methods need to be refined and improved, not
rejected altogether, since it is clear that parallels do exist in a wide range of cuneiform sources. In this way, the
background of the patriarchal narratives can be more clearly depicted, with genuine examples no longer being
hampered by their association with other results reached at a time when more detailed evidence was not available.[7]
References
[1] Schaeffer, Claude. The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra-Ugarit, London:Published for the British Academy, 1939, p.
18.
[2] Watkins, Justin. Athirat: As Found at Ras Shamra. Studia Antiqua 5.1, Spring 2007, p. 48.
[3] Eliezer. Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 709.
[4] Thompson on the Nuzi Texts and Genesis 15, James Ramblings, Available (online) https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/thompson-on-the-nuzi-texts-and-genesis-15/
[5] Ibid.
[6] Selman, Martin. Comparative Methods and the Patriarchal Narratives, Themelios 3.1, September 1977, pp. 9-16.
[7] Ibid.
52 | P a g e
1.13.3 Elam and Abrahams military victory

In my reading, I never imagined Abraham as capable of combat. But, that is exactly what he did in recovering Lot from
the kings of Mesopotamia. Leading about 300 men, he pursued the Mesopotamian forces, defeated them and
recovered the loot from the four kings. The Bible reports upon his return he meets a king-priest, Melchizedek.
This part of the Bible story of Abraham is considered by minimalists (non-Bible believing archaeologists) as fiction. One
paper cautioned its readers on taking the side of the minimalists wholesale
In addition, do not be daunted by the current propaganda from archaeologists who, because of the lack of data, claim
frequently that historical evidence are wrong. For example, most archaeologists believed that major trade trips between
Mesopotamia and Canaan were mythical despite the fact that around 2500 BCE a trip of 1620 km between
Uruk and Lebanon is already mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh (III:9-12), however several archaeological surveys
since 1990 have shown that these trips were quite frequent.
Many academics refer again and again to Albright's statements of 1940, for who camels in the Bible were anachronistic,
persisting to ignore archaeological evidence of a domestication around 2000 BCE. Professor E. Lipinski, in contrast,
states: Camel seems to have been domesticated in Arabia since the 3rd millennium BCE. Archaeologists claim that at
that time most people were illiterate and only professional scribes knew writing, however an analysis of the
correspondence from the Assyrian merchants, circa 1850 BCE, in Kanesh (Hittite capital in Anatolia) shown that many
of them were sending letters to their family, including their wives, and they got written responses through letters.[1]
This same paper associates Chedorlaomer with the Elamite king KuddurLegamar which is a compound name meaning
servant of Lagamar. Lagamar is a goddess. His incursion into Canaan and looting the cities by the Dead Sea was
described by this paper this way
The Chedorlaomer's route and the description of his actions show that this king came to this region near Egypt in
order to maintain control over this new land trade route. The same way that main cities on the path from Ur to Ugarit
or Byblos were vassal of ulgi and paid him taxes, Chedorlaomer had made vassals some major cities on the King's
Road. The revolt which occurred in the 13th year of his rule (Genesis 14:4) was likely caused by an excessive
withdrawal. During this year (1955 BCE) ulgi's archives report an exceptional booty that the king got from imaki108
(Elam). Chedorlaomer's trip was therefore a police operation to force rebel kings to pay, but as they refused their cities
were looted.[2]
Regarding the 318 men Abraham assembled to pursue his enemies, this paper said
A cursory reading might suggest that the enormous gift to Abraham by the Pharaoh could be a compensation for clear
his name, but this is not the case. The biblical text states that among the many Egyptian menservants that Abraham
received there were 318 picked men generated133 in his household (Genesis 14:14). The term anik "picked man" is
unique in the whole Bible, but it appears frequently in the execration texts to designate elite warriors.[3]
The NWT uses the expression trained men. This could be the men who the Egyptian Pharaoh gave to Abraham
(Genesis 12: 16), making him his ally in Canaan.
Kitchen summarized the history of this investigation on the historicity of the patriarchs
Julius Wellhausen claimed that no historical knowledge of the patriarchs could be gotten from Genesis. Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob were merely a glorified mirage from later Hebrew history, projected back in time.
Then between the 1940s and 1960s, such scholars as William Foxwell Albright and Cyrus H. Gordon tried to show that
the Patriarchal Age as described in the Bible could be set against specific Near Eastern backgrounds, namely the Middle
53 | P a g e
Bronze Age, roughly 1800 B.C. Since the mid-1970s, a small but vocal group of scholars, notably Thomas L. Thompson,
John Van Seters and Donald B. Redfordm have re-examined some of the material relied on by Albright and Gordon,
rightly dismissing a variety of faulty comparisons, especially those between the patriarchal narratives and the social
conditions reflected in the Nuzi tablets (15th century B.C.) these scholars failed to deal with the full weight of the
evidence, however, preferring to set the clock back 100 years; like Wellhausen, they concluded that the stories of the
patriarchs are fictional creations- dating to the Babylonian Exile (6th century B.C.) or later- and are historically
worthless.[4]
Kitchen, however, defends the Bible by saying
But the absence of names of the patriarchs in the extra-Biblical historical record is, in itself, inconclusive: Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence. What the future will bring we cannot know, except that it will be full of surprises,
as the recent discovery of the House of David inscription attests.[5]
References
[1] Dating the Chedorlaomers Death- Scientific Approach to an Absolute Chronology Through Synchronisms Dated by
Astronomy, Available (online) - http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ChronoChedorlaomer.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Kitchen, Kenneth. The Patriarchal Age: Myth or Mystery, Biblical Archaeology, p. 48.
[5] Ibid.
54 | P a g e
1.13.4 Melchizedek
Who is Melchizedek? Where did he come from? A Bible encyclopedia describes him this way
He is the first priest mentioned in the Scriptures; he occupied that position sometime prior to 1933 B.C.E. Being
the king of Salem, which means Peace, Melchizedek is identified by the apostle Paul as King of Peace and, on
the basis of his name, as King of Righteousness. (Heb 7:1, 2) Ancient Salem is understood to have been the
nucleus of the later city of Jerusalem, and its name was incorporated in that of Jerusalem, which is sometimes
referred to as Salem.[1]
There was a proposition of who this high priest is. The encyclopedia continues
A view that appears in the Targums of Jerusalem and of Jonathan and that has gained wide acceptance among
the Jews and others is that Melchizedek was Noahs son Shem. Shem was then alive and even outlived
Abrahams wife Sarah. Also, Noah specifically blessed Shem. (Ge 9:26, 27) But this identification has not been
confirmed.[2]
One paper proposes that Melchizedek is an Amorite king in Jerusalem
However, to the Bible reader the connection may seem unsettling, to associate the famous priest king noble
enough to be held up as a forerunner of the Messiah with an infamous people listed among the nations that the
Lord God of Israel commanded his chosen people to wipe out from under the heavens. Jewish traditions from the
Second Temple period identify the lofty character of Melchizedek with the venerable Shem, son of Noah, who
according to the genealogies of Genesis still was alive and well in the days of Abraham.
But the evidence, both external and also internal from within the Bible itself, seems to be conclusive. The Book of
Joshua tells about an Amorite king of Jerusalem at the time of the conquest (13th century BC) called AdoniZedek, which squares well with what we know about Amorite names from other sources. Being Semites, the
Amorites used names such as Abam-ram (Abraham) and Jacob-el (Jacob), and therefore the name of
Melchizedek fits well into an Amorite context.[3]
However, the Bible encyclopedia says this
The fact remains that Melchizedeks nationality, genealogy, and offspring are left undisclosed in the Scriptures.
This is so for him to best foreshadow the Messiah who is a priest after Melchizedek.
References
[1] Melchizedek, Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 366.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Larsson, Tony. The Priest-King Melchizedek- Biblical, archaeological and historical sources shed light opn the
first known ruler of pre-Israelite Jerusalem. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, December 2003, p. 6.
[4] Melchizedek, Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 367.
55 | P a g e
1.13.5 Sodom and Gomorrah

Two scholars and archaeologists have an opposing theory of where were the original cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
were. Bryant Wood adopts the traditional view that the two cities are in the southern part of the Dead Sea. The other
scholar, Stephen Collins, took the new view that it is in the northern part of the Dead Sea.
The paper by Collins states quoting another expert
[There] is no longer any particular reason to insist that Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira are definitely Sodom and
Gomorrah, especially if we wish to have Abraham both as an eyewitness and living in the Middle Bronze Age Perhaps
it would be wise to untether Sodom and Gomorrah from Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira and search elsewhere for them.
But where? Steven Collins, a professor at Trinity Southwest Universitys College of Archaeology, rejects the
identification of Sodom and Gomorrah with Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira and suggests instead that biblical Sodom is
located at a site named Tall elHammam in Jordan, which he is currently excavating Thus, the location, and indeed the
very existence, of Sodom and Gomorrah remains a mystery. It may be that a team of archaeologists, such as the one
led by Collins, will definitively locate the cities. Until then, we can only speculate on the additional hypotheses that will
be suggested in the meantime.[1]
It is interesting to me that scholars are now debating whether Sodom and Gomorrah were in the north or south of the
Dead Sea. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was aggressively rejected by minimalists (archaeologists who do not
believe the Bible). One paper summarizes the situation
In the last century, critics attacked the Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah in two major points: they deny
that there were densely populated cities in the plain during the early patriarchal age. Another point of assault is
the nature of the destruction of the cities. Genesis says that brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven
was poured out on the cities which might imply a volcanic activity or similar. But geologists firmly say that the
latest volcanic activity in that region took place thousands of years before Abraham. No volcanic eruptions had
occurred in that locality as recently as four thousand years ago.[2]
For a while, just like in other Bible issues, the critics had their day. But, according to this paper, new evidence had
come up and the issue is now being re-examined. This development came with the archaeological discoveries at
Ebla during the 1970s. How did the discovered Ebla tablets help the Sodom and Gomorrah story? This paper
reports
They furnish evidences to the existence of these five cities of the plain. It was reported that the five Cities of the
Plain were all found listed in an economic tablet from Ebla and in the same order as in the Bible. It is a strong
extra-biblical proof that these cities really existed and stood in close relationship with one another at the time of
Patriarchs.[3]
The web site www.tallelhammam.com has this view of the archaeological work under the section A cautionary
word about biblical sites
As active members of the community of Levantine archaeologists, the TeHEP team is quite aware of the
prevailing sentiment among many in the discipline who feel that archaeology should not be used to "prove"
components of biblical narrative. We certainly agree that objective archaeology should take us where the
evidence leads; but we also understand the importance of ancient texts like the Bible that often provide an
historical framework for the identification of geographical locations. Responsible archaeology uses every possible
resource to gain a window into the past. Let us not forget that Jordanian sites like Heshbon, Aroer, Dibon, Nebo,
Bethany Beyond Jordan, and many others, are principally identified because of their inclusion in biblical narrative.
Many have speculated about the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 13-19) and the so-called "Cities of
the Plain," but their location and identification have remained elusive in the minds of some scholars. Several have
linked Sodom and Gomorrah with Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira, but unconvincinglythese sites are too early and
in the wrong place. W.F. Albrightarguably the most influential Near Eastern scholar of the 20th centuryand his
protg G.E. Wright thought the Cities of the Plain might be under water at the south end of the Dead Sea.
56 | P a g e
Others, including Tristram, Conder, Merrill and Thomson in the late 19th century, following the major historical
tradition, made a case for a location north of the Dead Sea in the southern Jordan Valley. Still others, such as
Burton MacDonald in his excellent work East of the Jordan: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew
Scriptures (ASOR, 2000), identify two separate geographical traditions, one north and one south, for the locations
of Admah/Zeboiim and Sodom/Gomorrah respectively.
Another paper justified the use of the Bible as the resource for locating these cities
A bias consciously adopted here is that written records (Biblical or otherwise) speak more clearly than unwritten
ones. They provide a starting point and must be given priority. Moreover, since the Bible is the primary source for
the location of the cities it will figure most prominently here.[4]
A Bible encyclopedia reflects this status
Many scholars believe that the original sites of Sodom and the other cities of the District now lie submerged
beneath the waters of the Dead Sea, though some others recently have claimed that the ruins of the cities may be
identified with sites along wadis to the E and SE of the Dead Sea.[5]
Now, the work is on locating these cities. The Bible has again been vindicated.
References
[1] Collin, Stephen. A Response to Bryant G. Woods Critique of Collins Northern Sodom Theory, Biblical Research
Bulletin, Trinity Southwest University, 2007, p. 8.
[2] Gnanaraj, D. Fire From Heaven? Archaeological Light on the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:2328), New Life Review Vol 1, July 2012, p. 2.
[3] Ibid., p. 5.
[4] Howard, David. Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, December 1984,
p. 385.
[5] Sodom, Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 984.
57 | P a g e
1.13.6 Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited

Up to this point of my Bible reading, the journey has proven what the apostle Paul in the letter to the Hebrews said
about the Bible and how we as readers will be impacted by the book
For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the
dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.
(Heb. 4:12)
That is a powerful message the Bible is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart. The first 19 chapters of
Genesis has divided readers across the centuries. Those who see the Bible only as a cultural heritage, written by
creative story tellers, that continue to fascinate us with its so-called myths, legends and allegories, and lump it with
other literature of the ancient Near East, have exposed their unbelief in God. They are vocal and militant in
campaigning against the book in the media. They wear authority in the field of textual criticism, archaeology and other
fields of science.
Yet, the journey has shown me how these unbelievers and their strong adherence to their positions would fall and
shake from those hard positions.
The simplicity of the opening verse of the whole Bible in the beginning, God created which contrasts with other
ancient creation religious views, has now found support in science. The theory that the universe had a beginning has
strengthened that statement. Unbelievers are now trying to come up with new theories to dislodge the idea of an allpowerful, all-wise God out of the picture by presenting a more difficult to prove theory of a multi-verse (many universes
existing).
The conversion of atheists into accepting the existence of an intelligent Mind that guided the appearance of life in this
universe, of purpose-driven, communicating, intelligent beings has shown that evolution is a myth, requiring people to
believe that a huge gap between non-life and life has been bridged without any empirical explanation.
In the field of textual criticism, what used to be the proud theory of Documentary Hypothesis that claimed the first five
books of the Bible were not written by Moses but by several editors, compilers and redactors, and that it was not
written in the time Moses wrote it but by several writers later after the Babylonian exile, and therefore all the content in
them were not historical but legends, has fallen by the wayside. Textual critics, from Higher Criticism, are now figuring
out what to replace it with.
And so religious leaders, pastors and priests, who sided with these theorists and promoted the idea that the Bible is a
book of allegories, legends and myths have exposed their thoughts and intentions of their hearts as the apostle Paul
wrote.
Archaeology and the study of ancient Near East civilization has thrown light into the historical backgrounds of the
patriarchs. The excavations in Ur, Haran, Ebla, Mari, Nuzi and around the Dead Sea, have given Bible readers through
the continuous study of the ancient tablets and potteries, that what is in the Bible is in fact real places with real people.
It overturned the view that that part of the Bible is just plain myth.
So, go ahead and read your Bible, confident that what it contains are factual and historical. And more than that it is
God communicating to me and you.
Now, setting aside these matters, I finally, through repetition, saw Abrahams journey of his faith in God. And the
Sodom and Gomorrah story is pivotal. There I see an Abraham, in dialogue with Jehovah God, in a lively exchange,
asking questions, haggling as it were, about what God will do or can do. To Abraham, the post-Sodom scenario with
the survival of Lot and his family, helped him discover and affirm that Jehovah God is a loving, just, wise and allpowerful God.
A Bible-based magazine commented on that part of Abrahams life
For example, when God judged the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and determined to bring them to ruin, the faithful
man Abraham was concerned about the justice of the matter. He could not imagine that his just God would sweep
58 | P a g e
away the righteous with the wicked. Patiently, God reassured him that if there were even ten righteous people in
Sodom, He would spare the city on their account. (Genesis 18:20-33) Clearly, God searched through the hearts of those
people and saw the depth of their wickedness.1 Chronicles 28:9.[1]
One paper noted this important theme
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah really belongs within the overall narrative of Abraham and his coming to faith in the
God who has calls him out of the land and makes a promise to him. Sodom fits in on the way as perhaps one of the
hallmarks that would have defined his development to a matured faith from one who frequently doubted to one who
trusted God enough to willingly sacrifice his son.[2]
This was also raised to the future missionaries of how they will need to build their faith in God in their future
assignments, to reach the point where trust in God is implicit like Abraham.
I believe that reading the Bible every day is an act of implicit faith in Jehovah God, its Author. I believe that despite the
many demands on my time, from other things, God has a solid place in my schedule. Sustaining it will only make my
faith stronger but make me wiser with the wisdom found from the book.
This is best so that when I extend help to others, for them to learn to value the Bible as Gods Word, I have my own
life as witness.
References
[1] Divine Judgments Were They Cruel?, The Watchtower, May 1, 2013, p. 6. Available (online) http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013324
[2] Maharaj, Thaddeus. Sodom and Gomorrah A Historical, Archaeological and Theological Analysis,
Liberating Lions, October 30, 2014, Available (online) https://liberatinglions.wordpress.com/?s=Sodom+and+Gomorrah
59 | P a g e
1.13.7 What can I learn from Lot?

The first thing I remember about biblical Lot and caught my attention is his decision to separate from Abraham
and settle in the area of Sodom. The decision looked practical because it is a well-watered place perfect for his
cattle. But how wrong that decision turned out to be. A Bible-based magazine commented on this decision
WHEN Abraham offered Lot the first choice of the land, Lots eyes were drawn to a well-watered region that was
like the garden of Jehovah. It must have seemed to be the perfect place to settle his family, since Lot chose for
himself the whole District of the Jordan and set up camp near Sodom. However, outward appearances were
deceptive, for nearby lived the men of Sodom [who] were bad and were gross sinners against Jehovah.
(Genesis 13:7-13) As events unfolded, Lot and his family suffered terrible losses. Eventually, he and his
daughters were reduced to living in a cave.[1]
Sometimes, when faced with decisions, we are easily sold to the positive side of things, and the unwillingness to
look at the downside or minimize them inevitably will haunt us in the end for not counting the cost correctly. It is
no wonder that this is where the counsel on two specific areas of a Christians life is coming from parents
working in another country and leaving behind their children and/or a spouse to achieve material abundance and
pursuing higher education.
Working in another country with promise of material abundance to the family has blinded many to the social costs
of this arrangement. This issue, specifically, for the Philippines has been studied. A UN paper reviewing these
studies quotes some of them
For young children, they only see migration as a form of abandonment of their parents; while adolescents may
either be receptive or resentful. Related articles on children left behind also focus on the effects of mothers
absence to children, where children have varied reactions to migration situation depending on the age of the child
i.e. for pre-school children (0-5 years old), the absence of mothers is somewhat easily accepted since no
bonding has yet been established but the adjustment for those children ages 6-16 years of age is more difficult
because they had already known and established affection with their mothers.[2]
Although many advertisements showcase the use of technology to bridge the gap of absent-parenting, this paper
notes the social cost
The absence of the parents is substituted through the different technological mechanisms (cellphones, emails,
videocams) to make their presence felt by their children even if they are thousand miles away. Unfortunately, this
techy parenting will still not replace the emotional bonding that can develop in the relationship when they are
physically present. At the same time, they will miss the growing up years of their children and their value
formation.[3]
It adds this with the case of absent mothers
On a sad note, the children of migrant mothers reported being lonely, angry, unloved, unfeeling, afraid, different
from the other children, and worried compared to all groups of children, including non OFW children.[4]
These problems are recognized by the present Philippine administration which includes it in a report paper
On the other hand, other studies suggest that children and adolescents left behind are at greater risk for drug
abuse, teenage pregnancy, psychosocial dysfunction and criminal behaviorThe extended separation of
families, including parental absence and increased household burdens, can have detrimental effects. (taken from
EUs paper on Improving the International Migration Management System of the Philippines, 2010)
A Philippine Institute for Development Studies (Zosa and Orbeta) notes that there is still no quantification of the
social costs of migration. Much of what is known about these costs are in the form of anecdotes and narratives.
Some of these migration-induced problems include juvenile delinquency, self-esteem issues, drug abuse, sexual
promiscuity leading to early pregnancies, loneliness, marital problems, overdependence on migrant remittances,
among many others.[5]
60 | P a g e
A similar case is true in the field of higher education. In the Philippine setting, aside from the fact that one paper
reports that back in 2007, the government spends 5,500 pesos per student (Elem and High School) compared to
world average of 40,000 pesos per student [6] (which relatively increased to 6,000 pesos, in 2000 prices, in the
Aquino administration), the other more important cost is spiritual cost when pursuing post-high school or higher
education. There are alternatives to college education and in the Philippine setting this is represented by the
TESDA program.
A USAID paper on the Philippine education sector has this to say on the technical-vocational segment
TVETs growth is still limited due to societys poor perception of it. There is a notion that TVET is for those who
cannot enter university; that it is limited to technical-vocational trade areas, appropriate for males; anda terminal
option with limited upward mobility both in education and in the work place. TVETs development is also
determined by the way the sub-sector is managed. TVETsuffers, too, when the entire education system is poorly
coordinated.[7]
The lure of higher education is in the potential to secure higher wages. In the US, this is evident based on a blog
article by Steven Strauss
Basically, the higher the education level, the higher the income. For example, people with professional degrees
earned 6x as much as people who did not graduate from high school (in 2009: $128,000 vs. $20,000).[8]
There is a similar findings in the Philippines according to this report
In 2003, the probability of being employed was 57% for individuals with tertiary education and 34% for those with
a primary education only. This difference in employability increased from 1997 to 2003. Furthermore, the
difference in employability due to differences in educational attainment was more pronounced among poorer
households.[9]
Regarding unemployment rate between those with higher education and those without, another paper reports
The population with an elementary school certificate or high school certificate has the lowest employment rate.
However, the unemployment rate is considerably higher for the better educated over 9 percent for both with
high school certificate and university certificate or above, compared to 3 percent for those with less than
elementary education and 5 percent for those with only elementary education.[10]
A Senate report that income inequality is higher if you dont finish at least high school education
In terms of wages, Reyes (2013) pointed out that the average daily wage of someone who has finished high
school is 40 percent higher than the wage of someone who has only reached some years in elementary.[11]
So, for a Christian, is it worth it to pursue higher education for its material gain? Consider the observation from a
US context
Bloom and Levine suggest that colleges currently are doing a poor job in facilitating the moral development of
students.[12]
Although the authors of that work disputes the findings of others, a news report on the state of co-ed dorms in the
US cites a problem
One 2009 study found that students in coed housing were more likely to have multiple sexual partners, even
when controlling for factors like gender and religiosity. Kaczor also quoted a 2002 study noting that students in
coed dorms incurred more problem consequences related to drinking, and were more likely to report heavy
episodic drinking. (Fraternities and sororities known for heavy drinking and hook-up environments were not
counted as single-sex housing in these studies.)[13]
One report cited some statistics on college alcohol and sexual assault problems
61 | P a g e
Nearly one in four women will become a victim of sexual assault while attending college. It is estimated that over
100,000 students each year are too intoxicated to know whether they consented to sexual intercourse and more
than 70,000 students a year are [survivors] of alcohol-related sexual assault or acquaintance rape.[14]
One article cites a freshmans experience with college dorm life in The Guardian
It's freshman year. I'm at a new student orientation party at the University of Pennsylvania, wondering what
exactly is in my cup. "Jungle juice", I'm told, as if that should explain things. I make out the words "everclear" and
"blackout drunk" over the din of awful house music blasting from the expensive-looking speakers in some
fraternity house. I have no idea what's going on, and neither do many of my fellow classmates, which doesn't stop
them from passing out drunk.
I stayed for an hour or so enough time to get asked, in the tradition of great cliches, if I were a lesbian, a prude,
or a slut. Enough time to see multiple strangers pair off in dark corners, trying and failing to stand up straight[15]
So, what is the choice here? Be like Lot and pick your well-watered region that Sodom was and suffer the
consequences of a bad choice? Or listen to counsel that serves to protect ones spirituality?
References
[1] Keep Your Senses Completely, The Watchtower, March 1, 2006, p. 22.
[2] Reyes, Melanie. Migration and Filipino Children Left-Behind: A Literature Review, p. 2.
[3] Ibid., p. 3.
[4] Ibid., p. 4.
[5] Sec. Imelda Nicolas, Heroes and Heroines from the Homeland: Migration from a Philippine Perspective, p. 9.
[6] Arellano, Flora. Philippine Education: Roadmap and Challenges, p. 32.
[7] Philippine Education Sector Assessment Project, USAID, July 2011.
[8] Strauss, Steven. The Connection Between Education, Income Inequality, and Unemployment, The Blog, February
11, 2011. Available (online) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/the-connection-betweened_b_1066401.html
[9] Ravi Kanbur, Changyong Rhee, and Juzhong Zhuang, editors. Inequality in Asia and the Pacific: Trends, Drivers
and Policy Implications, A Co-Publication of the Asian Development Bank and Routledge, Routledge, 2014, p. 43
[10] Xubei Lo and Takanobu Terada, Education and Wage Differentials in the Philippines, Policy Research Working
Paper, The World Bank, November 2009, p. 5.
[11] Trends in Poverty and Inequality, At a Glance, Senate Economic Planning Office, October 2013, p. 2.
[12] James Rest and Darcia Narvaez. The College Experience and Moral Development, p. 230.
[13] Grasgreen, Allie. Sex, Booze and Dorms, Inside Higher ED, June 15, 2011. Available (online)https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/15/catholic_university_will_move_back_to_single_sex_dormitories
[14] Neidig, Justin. Sex, Booze, and Clarity: Defining Sexual Assault on a College Campus, William and Mary Journal
of Women and the Law, Vol. 16, Issue 1, p. 179.
[15] Jalabi, Raya. College culture? An alcohol-fueled frenzy of sexual harassment, The Guardian, July 23, 2013.
Available (online) - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/college-culture-alcohol-sexual-harassment
62 | P a g e
1.13.8 Homosexuality
There is a proliferation of literature from the pro-LGBT movement that claims the Bible does not say anything
against homosexuals or homosexuality. The literature also claims that people are reading their Bible wrong. One
columnist took this position against using the Bible
However, the Bible includes all sorts of mandates that have no place in today's civilized world.[1]
Based on that last statement, the article dismisses Leviticus prohibition against homosexual practices as purely
religious in nature and is no longer relevant today.
Other articles accuse others of misinterpreting Bible passages to use it against homosexuals. One Bible study
article explained it this way
The historical-critical approach was developed in the nineteenth century to take seriously the historical, cultural,
and linguistic contexts in which the Bible was written. In other words, this approach tries to understand what the
original writers really meant and were talking about when they wrote the words. This approach can be frustrating
because we are not all biblical scholars, and even scholars struggle to understand what some of these ancient
writings meant.[2]
This paper offered the reason that the sin of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were failure to show hospitality
rather than homosexuality, and that gang rape (what the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to do) was
different to consensual sex.
Another pro-homosexual article cites the rarity of the topic on the Bible
Throughout the Bible, homosexuality is mentioned rarely. Jesus never spoke on the topic himself, and the
passages that do address homosexuality are often interpreted with unwarranted assumptions and
misunderstandings of the world that produced the Bible.[3]
All the literature written for the pro-gay movement lists the same Bible verses often associated with what many
concludes as passages condemning homosexuality. These publications were written to persuade a reader that
they are getting their Bibles wrong. [4]
The approach taken by these pro-gay religious groups is that you need to understand the culture for which the
Bible writers were writing to understand what they are saying rather than just applying today what it is saying in
the past. But, is this a valid approach to examine the Bibles statement about homosexuality? Does it change the
message written from the past when applying it today?
One theologian was quoted saying that the word homosexuality was coined into the Bible and was never there
According to White, in 1958, a translator for the New Amplified Bible set historical precedent by translating this
mysterious Greek word into English as the word homosexuals, even though no such word exists in either
Greek or Hebrew. It was that translator, according to White, who placed the word homosexual in the Englishlanguage Bible for the very first time.[5]
The author of this paper responded to this theologian writing that the use of the word homosexual is not arbitrary.
He offers this explanation
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was
originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common
language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the
Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.
The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man
(arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words
together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1
Corinthians and 1 Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.
63 | P a g e
Jones believes, then, that the most credible translation of what Paul is condemning in 1Corinthians6:9 is a person
doing exactly what Leviticus condemns: engaging in homosexual sex (a man being a man-lier). Far from
dismissing the relevance of Leviticus, Paul is implicitly invoking its enduring validity for our understanding of
sexual sin, and drawing on it as the foundation of his teaching on homosexual conduct. He is saying, Remember
what it said not to do in Leviticus18:22and 20:13? Dont do that! [6]
Pro-gay religious are insisting that the Greek word arsenokoitai is mysterious and has no definite meaning. Yet,
in this paper, he traces the use of Pauls use of the Greek word to the Greek translation of the Old Testament or
Septuagint (LXX).
Another research paper traced the history of this Greek word and how it was explained across the years and
concluded with this
A third principle is that words usually mark out a field of meaning. That is, words usually do not have a point of
meaning, i.e., a very small area of meaning. The historical-cultural study above shows that homosexuality`or
whatever word describes it`existed in various forms including prostitution, pederasty, lesbianism, orientation, and
mutuality. The Greeks and Romans employed scores of terms to describe such orientation and behavior.
Therefore, it is plausible that such a term as arsenokoitai has a broad meaning when its etymology is simply
"male-bed" or "lying with a male," assuming that the context does not restrict it to a narrower meaning. [7]
He adds this to his conclusion
It seems quite likely that Paul himself coined a new term which he virtually derived from the LXX of Lev 20:13. No
other current explanation is as practical as this. If this be true, there are significant consequences, assuming that
Paul wrote prescriptively. Obviously he viewed the moral law (derived from Leviticus 18`20; Exodus 20) as
authoritative for his Christian audience. Since he and his readers in Corinth and Ephesus knew also about samesex orientation or condition, sufficient reason exists to apply his term to those today who are inverts or
homosexuals in orientation. [8]
A Bible-based magazine has this to offer about homosexuality and the twin cities
Genesis also offers guidance on morality. It contains the account about Sodom, Gomorrah, and their neighboring
cities, which God destroyed because of the gross sexual perversion of their inhabitants. (Genesis 18:2019:29)
Verse 7 of the Bible book of Jude says: Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they . . . had
committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning
example.[9]
This particular verse of Jude is interesting in associating the cause of judgment sexual deviant behavior, that is,
fornication and unnatural use and not about being inhospitable. Jude uses a Greek word here that is associated
with the twin cities a form of the Greek word porneia (fornication in English). A Bible-based magazine comments
It is because of its being a broad term (broader in its scope than the word fornication is in the minds of many
English-speaking people) that many Bible translators use expressions such as gross immorality, sexual
immorality, sexual sins, or similar, when translating porneia.
Does this mean that unnatural and perverted sexual relations such as those engaged in by homosexuals are
included in the meaning of this term used by the apostle in recording Jesus words? Yes, that is the case. This
can be seen by the way Jesus half brother Jude used porneia when referring to the unnatural sex acts of the
men of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Jude 7) Concerning the use of porneia by Greek-speaking Jews around the start
of the Common Era, the sixth volume of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says:
[porneia] can also be unnatural vice, . . . sodomy. [10]
64 | P a g e
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah does reveal Gods feelings not just over the potential of gang rape and
being inhospitable, but with respect to the practice of homosexuality
The well-known Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah reveals Gods feelings about homosexuality. God
declared: The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy.
(Genesis 18:20) The extent of their sinful depravity at that time was apparent when two guests visited the
righteous man Lot. The men of Sodom . . . surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one
mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring
them out to us that we may have intercourse with them. (Genesis 19:4, 5) The Bible says: The men of Sodom
were bad and were gross sinners against Jehovah.Genesis 13:13. [11]
References
[1] LaSala, Michael. Religion and Acceptance of Gays, Psychology Today, November 21, 2011, Available (online) http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay-and-lesbian-well-being/201111/religion-and-acceptance-gays
[2] McKinney, Jack. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, October 2008.
[3] Christianity and Homosexuality: What Does the Bible Say?, Asian and Pacific Islanders for Marriage Equality,
August 2009.
[4] Cannon, Justin. The Bible, Christianity and Homosexuality Revised and Expanded, 2009.
[5] Mayhall, Wayne. Is Arsenokoitai Really That Mysterious?, Practical Hermeneutics, Christian Research Journal, Vol.
30, No. 6, 2007, Available (online) - http://www.equip.org/article/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/#christianbooks-5
[6] Ibid.
[7] De Young, James. The Source and NT Meaning of Arsenokoitai With Implications for Christian Ethics and Ministry,
p. 211.
[8] Ibid., p. 217.
[9] The Bible-Authentic History?, Awake!, March 8, 2001, p. 9.
[10] Questions from Readers, The Watchtower, December 15, 1972, p. 767.
[11]Does God Approve of Same-Sex Marriage?, Awake! April 8, 2005, p. 27
65 | P a g e
1.13.9 Lots offering his daughters to the mob, the lingering of Lot in Sodom, wife of Lot, his getting
drunk
What about Lots offering his daughters to the sex-crazed mob? A Bible-based magazine presented this analysis.
While some have said that Lot should have offered himself, it is unlikely that the perverted mob would have been
satisfied with an old married man. Yet the offer of two virgins might have been somewhat confusing to the mob:
Here were two young virgins, and the chance to soil their purity might have had some appeal to the mob. But on
the other hand these were females and engaged to two men of the city. So that offer could have the effect of
distracting or dividing the perverted mob.
Furthermore, although Lot had at first entertained angels unawares, by now he well may have realized these to be
messengers from God. (Heb. 13:2) Hence, Lot could have felt that, as deeply attached to his daughters as he
was, he would be willing to sacrifice them if necessary. (Compare Genesis 22:1-14; 2 Samuel 12:3.) In offering
his daughters to the mob, Lot could have been confident that, if it was Jehovahs will, God would protect his
daughters even as God had already protected Sarah in Egypt. (Gen. 12:17-19) And Jehovah did direct matters so
that Lot and his daughters were kept safe, not only from the homosexual mob, but also from the fiery destruction
that came on the cities.Gen. 19:15-29. [1]
Every time I read the part of Lot lingering and Gods response, I feel warm inside over Gods loving-kindness. This was
pointed out by this Bible-based magazine
For example, think about how Jehovah delivered Abrahams nephew Lot and his family when He brought about
the destruction of Sodom, the city where they lived. As that time drew closer, the angels who had come to Lot
urged him to take his family and quickly leave the city. When he kept lingering, says the Bible, then in the
compassion of Jehovah upon him, the [angels] seized hold of his hand and of the hand of his wife and of the
hands of his two daughters and they proceeded to bring him out and to station him outside the city. Are not our
hearts touched when we reflect on this saving act, and are we not moved to acknowledge that it was an
expression of Gods loving-kindness?Gen. 19:16, 19. [2]
Another issue commented on this lingering
Lot kept lingering, and the angels almost had to drag him and his family out of the city of Sodom. We are wise
not to lose our sense of urgency as we await the end of the wicked world. [3]
However, it is a sad thing that Lot lost his wife for disobeying Gods instructions
But why did Lots wife look back? Was she curious about what was happening? Did she turn back because of
disbelief or lack of faith? Or, rather, was hers a longing gaze for all the things that she had left behind in Sodom?
(Luke 17:31) Whatever the reason for her looking back, she paid for her disobedient act with her life. Just think of
it! She died the same day as those perverted inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. No wonder Jesus said:
Remember the wife of Lot! [4]
A very uncomfortable account in the life of Lot is his children making him drunk and having sex with him. One issue of
a Bible-based magazine commented on this
Did Jehovah condone Lots getting drunk and fathering sons by his two daughters? Jehovah condones
neither incest nor drunkenness. (Leviticus 18:6, 7, 29; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10) Lot actually deplored the lawless
deeds of Sodoms inhabitants. (2 Peter 2:6-8) The very fact that Lots daughters got him intoxicated suggests
that they realized that he would not consent to having sexual relations with them while he was sober. But as
aliens in the land, his daughters felt that this was the only way to prevent the extinction of Lots family. The
account is in the Bible to reveal the relationship of the Moabites (through Moab) and the Ammonites (through
Benammi) to Abrahams descendants, the Israelites. [5]
References
66 | P a g e
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Questions from Readers, The Watchtower, December 1, 1979, p. 31.

Let the Law of Loving-Kindness Safeguard Your Tongue, The Watchtower, August 15, 2010, p .22.
Highlight from the Book of Genesis-II, The Watchtower, January 15, 2004, p. 28.
Do Not Look at the Things Behind, The Watchtower, March 15, 2012, p. 25.
Highlight from the Book of Genesis-II, The Watchtower, January 15, 2004, p. 27.
67 | P a g e
1.13.10 Abrams tactic to present Sarai as his sister twice, in Egypt and in Gerar
Bible scholars try to link up the customs of the ancient Near East with some of the accounts of Abraham and his
wife as reported in Genesis. For example, the relationship of Abraham and Sarah as husband and wife and
brother and sister. This was featured in a Question from Readers section of a Bible-based magazine
When Abraham (and later Isaac) represented his wife as his sister, was this an example of the wifesister relationship that once existed in the Middle East?
Modern scholarship has advanced that theory, but there seems to be more underlying Abrahams and Isaacs
conduct.
Professor E. A. Speiser presented the wife-sister idea in The Anchor Bible. He noted discoveries about the
ancient Hurrians who appear to have lived in northern Mesopotamia, including Haran where Abraham resided for
a time and where Rebekah may have lived. Speiser wrote:
In Hurrian society the bonds of marriage were strongest and most solemn when the wife had simultaneously the
juridical status of a sister, regardless of actual blood ties. This is why a man would sometimes marry a girl and
adopt her at the same time as his sister, in two separate steps recorded in independent legal documents.
Violations of such sistership arrangements were punished more severely than breaches of marriage contracts . . .
The wife-sister relationship is attested primarily among the upper strata of Hurrian society . . . Not only was
Rebekah a native of Hurrian-dominated Har(r)an, but she was actually given as wife to Isaac, through an
intermediary, by her brother Laban . . . There are thus sufficient grounds for placing the two marriages, those of
Abraham and Sarah and of Isaac and Rebekah, in the wife-sister category.
The Genesis history tells us that Abraham twice represented his wife Sarah (who actually was his half sister) as
his sister, not as his wife. This happened when they were in Egypt and again in Philistia. (Genesis 12:10-20; 20:17) Isaac followed a similar course with Rebekah. Since Isaac and Rebekah were related, he could call her his
sister.Genesis 26:6-11.
In these cases Abraham and Isaac wanted their wives thought of as a sister because of an apparent danger to
the husbands if it became known that the beautiful women were married. (Genesis 12:12; 26:9) So it does not
seem that the men were appealing to a supposed wife-sister status as a means of protection; the object was to
hide the marital status of Sarah and Rebekah.
Abraham married his half sister prior to Gods giving Israel laws against such close unions. Still, many have been
critical of his (and Isaacs) representing his wife as his sister. Of course, we must not forget that the Bible
sometimes relates events without approving of the conduct involved. (Genesis 9:20, 21; 19:30-38) Yet there are
ways of viewing what Abraham/Sarah and Isaac/Rebekah did that are consistent with their exemplary standing
with God.
Before these events took place, God told Abraham: I shall make a great nation out of you and I shall bless you
and I will make your name great; and prove yourself a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you, and him that
calls down evil upon you I shall curse, and all the families of the ground will certainly bless themselves by means
of you. (Genesis 12:2, 3) Jehovah also indicated that the blessing depended on Abrahams seed. (Genesis 12:7;
compare Genesis 15:4, 5; 17:4-8; 22:15-18.) Hence, Abraham (and later Isaac) needed to stay alive to produce
offspring.
This may well have moved Abraham and Isaac to represent their faithful wives as their sisters. If public knowledge
that Abraham was the legal husband of desirable Sarah, and Isaac of lovely Rebekah, would endanger the line of
the seed, these men of faith might have determined that it was prudent not to let such relationship be known while
they were in dangerous territory. [1]
The fear of Abraham for his life because of his beautiful wife has sound basis in Egyptian history. One such
documentation is mentioned by this report
One example, which is found in the Pyramid Texts, records a king boasting of his virility by declaring, I am the
owner of seed who takes women from their husbands whenever he wishes, according to his desire. Similarly, the
Papyrus DOrbiney recounts the Tale of Two Brothers, in which the Pharaoh, on the advice of his wise men, sent
68 | P a g e
envoys in search of the daughter of Ra-Harmachis. The text describes her as more beautiful . . . than any woman
in the whole land. Unfortunately for the Pharaoh, she was married to Bata, who was willing to slay anyone who
tried to take her from him. When Bata killed his envoys, the Pharaoh sent soldiers and a woman who lured the
daughter of Ra-Harmachis away from her husband with all kinds of beautiful ladies jewelry. The story then
explains that, having been given the rank of Great Lady, the woman advised the Pharaoh to dispose of Bata,
which he promptly did. Although in this instance the Pharaoh acted at the behest of the wife, it is clear that he had
no compunction in terminating Batas life so that he could have an uncontested claim to a beautiful woman. [2]
Other commentaries did not find the incident a positive thing for Abraham even citing the words Abraham would
later use when this happened again in Gerar. There Abraham claimed that God caused me to wander from the
house of my father. The word translated wander does not give English readers a positive meaning. The word
carries the negative meaning of staggering like a drunk, unable to walk straight. Abraham might have meant here
his constantly moving one place to another in the land of Canaan which he really did.
References
[1] Questions from Readers, The Watchtower, March 1, 1985, p. 31.
[2] Strathearn, Gay. The Wife/Sister Experience: The Introduction of Pharaoh to Jehovah, Sperry Symposium Classis:
The Old Testament, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young
University, and Deseret Book 2005), 100-116.
69 | P a g e
1.13.11 Hagar
Regarding Hagar, an Egyptian slave, who became a second wife to Abram and was tasked to bear a child in
behalf of Sarai her master, many commentaries noticed that was Abram and Sarai going ahead of Jehovah their
God on the matter of having children? Abram, previously, already sort of complained to Jehovah about this.
However, some commentaries noticed that Abram did not include Sarai as part of the equation. It was he who
was childless not he and Sarai. Jehovah Gods promise did not yet indicate that the promised offspring will be
through Sarai. Given this context, the Bible just presents the facts without commenting on the actions of both
Abram and Sarai. A Bible-based magazine comments on this matter
Was it proper for Sarai to offer her maidservant Hagar as a wife to Abram? Sarais offer was in line with the
custom of the daythat a barren wife was obligated to provide her husband with a concubine in order to produce
an heir. The practice of polygamy first appeared in the line of Cain. Eventually, it became a custom and was
adopted by some worshipers of Jehovah. (Genesis 4:17-19; 16:1-3; 29:21-28) However, Jehovah never
abandoned his original standard of monogamy. (Genesis 2:21, 22) Noah and his sons, to whom the command to
be fruitful and fill the earth was repeated, were evidently all monogamous. (Genesis 7:7; 9:1; 2 Peter 2:5) And
this standard of monogamy was reasserted by Jesus Christ.Matthew 19:4-8; 1 Timothy 3:2, 12. [1]
A research paper reading the story of Sarah and Hagar in the context of ancient Near East customs and practices
concludes this way
One can offer an interpretation that combines the best elements of both readings. The ancient codes are relevant to
explain the conventions that Sarah and Hagar followed. Since there were clear legal standards, Hagar breached them
by asserting freedom, and Sarah acted within her rights to reassert Hagar's servitude. Therefore, the angel ordered
Hagar to return to her legal servitude and called her slave of Sarai. In this regard, R. Samet's analysis is textually
sound, and the Torah appears to vindicate the behavior of Abraham and Sarah.
Simultaneously, Prof. Leibowitz is correct when she maintains that the Torah offers a sympathetic treatment of Hagar,
including the poignant comment of the angel that God responded to Hagar's innui and blessed her that that her
descendants would be free and a great nation. However, the Torah is not criticizing Sarah, who had acted legally in her
context. It is critical of the entire social context of the Mesopotamians. While Sarah was legally correct and therefore
acted morally in her context, the story remains painful at the human level. God expresses sympathy toward Hagar,
indicating that the moral-legal system of that era would necessarily lead to tragic results, such as what occurred with
Sarah and Hagar.
This thesis is corroborated by the later Torah legislation to help a runaway slave escape: You shall not turn over to his
master a slave who seeks refuge with you from his master. He shall live with you in any place he may choose among
the settlements in your midst, wherever he pleases; you must not ill treat him (Deut. 23:16-17).
Contrast this law with the Code of Hammurabi (#15-16), which prescribed death for anyone who helped a slave escape
or who harbored a runaway slave. The Torah shifts its moral focus to the humanity of a slave, who is ultimately
endowed with rights as well. The Torah's radical departure from the prevailing laws of slavery would push humanity
toward a morality that would finally abolish slavery altogether.
In highlighting Hagar's suffering and God's sympathy for her, the Torah illustrates its dissatisfaction with the morality of
the ancient Near East. Through its narratives and laws, the Torah paved a moral path that would prevent the
recurrence of these painful stories in the future.
Today, the lives of the patriarchs are studied in the context of these ancient Near East documents. Some Bibles
already refer to these documents in the footnotes such as in the online Bible of the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops. One will find these footnotes for Genesis 16 as the ones below
* [16:116] In the previous chapter Abraham was given a timetable of possession of the land, but nothing
was said about when the child was to be born. In this chapter, Sarah takes matters into her own hands, for
she has been childless ten years since the promise (cf. 12:4 with 16:16). The story is about the two women,
Sarah the infertile mistress and Hagar the fertile slave; Abraham has only a single sentence. In the course
of the story, God intervenes directly on the side of Hagar, for she is otherwise without resources.
70 | P a g e
* [16:2] The custom of an infertile wife providing her husband with a concubine to produce children is widely
attested in ancient Near Eastern law; e.g., an Old Assyrian marriage contract states that the wife must
provide her husband with a concubine if she does not bear children within two years.
* [16:4] Because barrenness was at that time normally blamed on the woman and regarded as a disgrace,
it is not surprising that Hagar looks down on Sarah. Ancient Near Eastern legal practice addresses such
cases of insolent slaves and allows disciplining of them. Prv 30:23 uses as an example of intolerable
behavior a maidservant when she ousts her mistress. [3]
References
[1] Highlights From the Book of Genesis II, The Watchtower, January 15, 2004, p. 27.
[2] Angel, Hayyim. Sarahs Treatment of Hagar, Jewish Bible Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2013, p. 217.
[3] Available (online) - http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/16
71 | P a g e
1.13.12 Jehovah as represented in His interactions with Abraham

Jehovah is a God who is presented as someone who makes promises and keeps them. This is how he is introduced into
the life of Abraham when he was 75 years old
I will make you a great nation (Genesis 12: 2)
Many Bible commentaries found Abrams faith at this point as weak because they felt that he did not fully comply with
Jehovah Gods request. When he left Ur, he was with his family and relatives. Not exactly what Jehovah God asks him
to do as claimed by these commentaries.
We should not find this discouraging, but consistent with our own reluctance to put our future on the line in active,
aggressive, unquestioning faith. Abraham was a man of great faith--after years of testing by God. But at the point
of Abrams call, he was a man whose faith was meager; real, but meager. And if we are honest with ourselves,
that is just about where most of us are. In our best moments, our faith is vibrant and vital, but in the moments of
testing, it is weak and wanting. [1]
A Bible-based magazine saw the move of Abraham in a different light
What about Abrams immediate family members? Evidently, Abrams faith and conviction had a dramatic effect
on them, for both his wife, Sarai, and his orphaned nephew named Lot were moved to obey Gods call and leave
Ur. Abrams brother Nahor and some of his offspring later left Ur and took up residence in Haran, where they
worshiped Jehovah. (Genesis 24:1-4, 10, 31; 27:43; 29:4, 5) Why, even Abrams father, Terah, agreed to leave
with his son! The Bible thus credits him, as family head, with making the move toward Canaan. (Genesis 11:31)
Might we too enjoy a measure of success if we tactfully witness to our relatives? [2]
When Abraham obeyed Gods bidding for him to leave Ur and go to a land that God will direct him to, Jehovah God
again makes another promise
To your offspring I am going to give this land (Genesis 12: 7)
Due to famine in the land of Canaan, Abraham chose to go to Egypt and became anxious with what could happen to
him there because of his wife Sarah. A commentary made this interesting remark on this move by Abraham
Now he may be pursuing his own course, and, without waiting patiently for the divine counsel, venturing to cross
the boundary of the land of promise. He may therefore be without the fortifying assurance of the divine approval.
[3]
Even so, the account later on relates how Jehovah God actively intervened in behalf of Sarai. Jehovah God is
taking action to keep his promise to Abraham.
After the separation of Lot from Abraham, Jehovah God repeated his promise
All the land that you see, I will give to you and your offspring as a lasting possession (Genesis 13: 15)
God even instructed Abraham to make an act of claim of ownership to the land by asking him to go through the entire
land that his eyes can see. This act is understood this way in ancient times. One web site made this comment
According to Nahum Sarna, general editor of the JPS Torah Commentary Series, early Jewish exegesis
understood this traversing of the length and breadth of the land to be a symbolic act constituting a mode of legal
acquisition termed hazakah in rabbinic Hebrew. That is, Abrams walking the land symbolized legal ownership.
The background for this custom can be found in the early Egyptian and Hittite empires, where the king would take
a periodic ceremonial walk around a field or a tour of his realm in order to symbolize the renewal of his
sovereignty over the land.
72 | P a g e
In Nuzi, a Mesopotamian city east of the Tigris River, property was transferred from one person to another by the
former owner lifting his foot from his property and placing the new owners foot on it at the same time a deed was
drawn up. Thus, the action with the foot symbolized a legal property transaction. [4]
After more than two decades, Abraham freely opened up to his God about his concern on God keeping his promise. He
said to Jehovah God
You have given me no offspring (Genesis 15: 3)
This was not the only time that Abraham would be raising questions to his God. He would do so again in the case of
Sodom and Gomorrah. The outcome of Sodom and Gomorrah and the survival of Lot and his family affirmed to him the
kind of God Jehovah is.
Once more, Jehovah God is presented as someone who makes promises and intends to keep it. For the first time on
record, the Bible says of Abraham and his attitude towards Gods promise
And he put faith in Jehovah (Genesis 15: 6a)
A commentary on this verse notes what it meant for Abraham using the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs
The root means to be strong or to lean upon. Abraham put his complete trust in the promise of God that he
would have descendants. It was an act of faith without sight (cf. 22:16,18; Heb. 11:1). Abram took God at His
word, by faith, without demanding physical sight. [5]
What is interesting is what the Bible reports on how God responded to Abrahams action
and He counted it to him as righteousness (Genesis 16: 6b)
Regarding the word counted, a Bible encyclopedia explains its usage in the Bible
This Greek verb logizomai was used regularly in ancient times for numerical calculations or computations such
as in accounting, being used when referring both to something that was entered on the debit side of an account
and also to something entered on the credit side thereof. In the Bible it is used to mean reckon, credit, count, or
take into account. [6]
How then did God count to Abraham righteousness? The Bible encyclopedia continues
So, also, Abrahams faith, combined with works, was counted [reckoned, credited, or attributed] to him as
righteousness. (Ro 4:20-22) This, of course, does not mean that he and other faithful men of pre-Christian times
were perfect or free from sin; yet, by virtue of their exercise of faith in Gods promise concerning the seed and
because they were striving to follow Gods commands, they were not classed as unrighteous with no standing
before God, like the rest of the world of mankind. (Ge 3:15; Ps 119:2, 3) Jehovah lovingly accounted them
guiltless, when compared with the world of mankind alienated from God. (Ps 32:1, 2; Eph 2:12) [7]
After this important phase in Abrahams life, Jehovah God is once more presented as making a promise. This
time, God expanded the details of this promise.
Your name will no longer be Abram; your name will become Abraham, for I will make you a father of many
nations. I will make you very, very fruitful and will make you become nations, and kings will come from you.
(Genesis 17: 5)
This promise carry two components a father of many nations and kings will come from you. In addition to this
God symbolized this covenant by introducing circumcision. With respect to Sarai, Jehovah God expanded his
promise
I will bless her and also give you a son by her (Genesis 17: 15)
73 | P a g e
For the first time, now it is clear that the offspring God has promised will be through Sarai whose name had now
changed to Sarah. It is interesting how Abraham responded to this clarification and expansion of Gods promise
by somewhat endorsing Ishmael, his first son. How did Jehovah God respond to Abraham?
But as regards Ishmael, I have heard you. Look! I will bless him (Genesis 17:20)
Abraham had to accept the direction of God and work with Him with His purpose. God has also shown Abraham
that He is a loving and considerate God. This was affirmed to Abraham one more time the sort of God dealing
with Him and who is keeping His promises according to His own purposes.
What have I learned here as I keep watch on the development of Abrahams story until this point? God keeps His
promises. God discloses details at the appropriate time. Sometimes, we have to wait for Gods time table when
He chooses to take the next action towards the fulfillment of His promises. Meanwhile, like Abraham, I need to put
faith in Jehovah God.
References
[1] Deffinbaugh, Bob. Commentary on Genesis, 2003, p. 5.

[2] Abraham- An Example of Faith, The Watchtower, August 15, 2001, p. 16.
[3] Murphy, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Genesis With a Translation, Boston:
Estes and Lauriat, 1873, p. 269.
[4] Black, John. Footprints of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem Post Christian Edition, January 17, 2013. Available
(online) - http://int.icej.org/news/special-reports/footprints-ancient-israel
[5] Genesis Commentary, p. 49
[6] Declare Righteous, Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1998, p. 604.
[7] Ibid.
74 | P a g e
1.13.13 Jehovah as a God of prophecy

The first time the Bible introduces Jehovah, our loving heavenly Father, as a God of prophecy was when God declared
the war between the offspring of the serpent (Satan) and the offspring of the woman (not Eve). God declared that the
offspring of the woman will crush the head of the serpent. With that statement, God has declared that Evil will not exist
forever. On that first Bible prophecy, Satan knew he will be exterminated.
The Bible introduces God again as a God of prophecy with respect to Abraham,
Then He said to Abram: Know for certain that your offspring will be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the
people there will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years. (Genesis 15:13)
When does this 400 years start and when will it end? A Bible encyclopedia describes it this way
Five years later, when Isaacs 19-year-old half brother Ishmael poked fun at him, Abraham was compelled to
dismiss Ishmael and his mother Hagar. It was then, in 1913 B.C.E., that the 400 years of affliction upon
Abrahams offspring began.Ge 21:8-21; 15:13; Ga 4:29.[1]
A Bible-based magazine answered this concisely
When was the foretold 400-year affliction of Abrams offspring fulfilled? This period of affliction began in
1913 B.C.E. when Abrahams son Isaac was weaned at about 5 years of age and his 19-year-old half brother,
Ishmael, was poking fun at him. (Genesis 21:8-14; Galatians 4:29) It ended with the deliverance of the Israelites
from Egyptian bondage in 1513 B.C.E. [2]
Another reference described it this way
Another line of evidence supports the above reckoning: At Acts 7:6 mention is made of the seed of Abraham as
being afflicted 400 years. Since Jehovah removed the affliction by Egypt in 1513 B.C.E., the beginning of affliction
must have been in 1913 B.C.E. This was five years after the birth of Isaac and corresponds to Ishmaels poking
fun at Isaac on the occasion of his weaning.Gen. 15:13; 21:8, 9. [3]
The Bible has again presented Jehovah as a God whose words we can trust because He can see far into the future and
actively works to ensure His purpose is realized.
References
[1] Abraham, Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1998, p. 31

[2] Highlights from the book of Genesis-II, The Watchtower, January 15, 2004, p. 27.
[3] Study Number 3- Measuring Events in the Stream of Time, All Scripture is Inspired of God, Jehovahs
Witnesses, p. 286
75 | P a g e
1.13.14 Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac

What have I learned about who Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac is in the course of my Bible reading? Some
commentaries present Sarah as a complicated person.
Yet, Sarah also is a complicated character who has to face some difficult choices that at times compromised her moral
integrity, and forced her into a different identity. Twice in her life, as recorded in Genesis 12 and 20, she had or
chose to agree to pretend that she is not the personage she truly is. In those instances, she acquiesced to being
presented as Abraham's sister, and not as his lawful wife.
In addition, Sarah had to come to terms with what appeared to be her inability to produce an heir for Abraham,
probably the ultimate failure for a woman of the time. Niditch states:
Surrogate motherhood allowed a barren woman to regularize her status in a world in which children were a woman's
status and in which childlessness was regarded as a virtual sign of divine disfavor (see [Genesis] 16:2; 30:1-2; . . . 38).
Childless wives were humiliated and taunted by co-wives.
One can imagine further that Sarah was mortified, for custom required that she offer Abraham her very own
maidservant as a surrogate womb. [1]
A Bible-based magazine presented Sarah in a positive light
How might Sarah have felt when Abraham revealed that they were going to leave Ur? Leaving the security of a
pleasant home, moving to some strange and potentially hostile land, and accepting a lower standard of living
might have concerned her. Nevertheless, Sarah was submissive, thinking of Abraham as her lord. (1 Peter
3:5, 6) Some scholars consider this a manifestation of Sarahs customary, respectful attitude and behavior
toward him, evidence of real habits of thought and feeling. But above all, Sarah trusted in Jehovah. Her
submission and faith stand as a fine example for Christian wives. [2]
But it adds this note
Abraham and Sarah acted in good faith, adopting a course that accorded with accepted practices of their day.
However, it was not Jehovahs way of producing Abrahams seed. Our culture might dictate that certain actions
are right under various circumstances, but this does not necessarily mean that Jehovah agrees. His view of our
situation might be entirely different. Hence, we need to seek Gods direction, praying that he indicate the way he
wants us to act.Psalm 25:4, 5; 143:8, 10. [3]
It concludes with an overall assessment of Sarah this way
Of course, Abraham and Sarah were imperfect, even as we are. When Gods will became clear to them,
however, they promptly complied with itregardless of the cost. Abraham is thus remembered as Jehovahs
friend and Sarah as a holy woman who was hoping in God. (James 2:23; 1 Peter 3:5) By striving to imitate the
faith of Abraham and Sarah, we too can enjoy precious intimacy with God. We can also benefit from the precious
promises Jehovah made to Abraham.Genesis 17:7. [4]
Regarding Ishmael, the Bible reports that God was with the boy (Genesis 21: 20). The second time a Bible reader will
find this in the Bible is with Joseph (Genesis 39: 2). This was after the incident between the older Ishmael, aged 19
then, and Isaac who was then 5 years old. Various Bible versions render the Hebrew word metzachek as mocking,
making fun of, or scoffing. Some commentaries are reading something else with Ishmaels behavior because the same
Hebrew word was used to describe later Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 26:8) where different Bible versions render
metzachek as displaying affections for or caressing. The older translations for both instances were playing.
According to one reference, this is how some Jews looked at this incident
Metzacheck? What is Ishmael doing? Is he playing? Fooling around? Mocking the proceedings? The ancient Rabbis go
through their mental lexicons of the Hebrew Bible and come up with every conceivable use of the term tzachak to
76 | P a g e
explain Ishmaels actions. It could mean that he was worshiping idols. It could mean that he was engaged in acts of
violence.[5]
According to this same reference, Ishmaels mother, Hagar, did a lot of first in Bibles record of history
First woman that an angel spoke to in person

First woman mentioned in the Bible who wept (because of her child)
First woman to designate a description of Jehovah, a God of sight
We see in the ancient Near East customs that Sarah complied with, and Abraham acceded to, the difficulties and
complexities of extended families. It will later be difficult for Abraham because Ishmael is his son. It was difficult for
Sarah because she wants only Isaac to be heir. It was difficult for Hagar who apparently forgot that she remained a
slave of Sarah despite bearing the child of Abraham.
But, Gods purpose remain set, despite these difficulties. The promised offspring of Abraham will go through Sarah.
References
[1] Zucker, David. What Sarah Saw: Envisioning Genesis 21:9-10, Jewish Bible Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, 2008, p.
[2] Abraham and Sarah- You Can Imitate Their Faith, The Watchtower, May 15, 2004, p. 26.
[3] Ibid., p. 27.
[4] Ibid., p. 29.
[5] Salkin, Jeffrey. Righteous Gentiles in the Hebrew Bible: Ancient Role Models for Sacred Relationships,
Jewish Lights Publishing, 2008, p. 13.
77 | P a g e
1.13.15 Abimelech of Gerar

Abimelech of Gerar is from the land of the Philistines. Liberal Bible scholars have an issue with this personality.
One scholarly web site has this to say
Supposedly, Philistinesdid not come into Palestine until after the time of Moses (Gottwald, 1959, p. 104), and
any mention of them before that time represents an historical inaccuracy (Frank, 1964, p. 323). Thus, as Millar
Burrows concluded, the mention of Philistines in Genesis may be considered a convenient and harmless
anachronism, which is undoubtedly a mistake (1941, p. 277). [1]
Another scholarly web site has this to say of the problem
But what about the mention of Philistines in the book of Genesis some 900 years earlier? Scholars have a
ready answer: the Bible is wrong! For example, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary article on the Philistines, author
Katzenstein states, The references to the Philistines in Gen 21:3234 26:1, 8, 1415 and in Exod 13:17 15:14
23:31 are all anachronisms (1992: 326), that is, material that is chronologically out of place. Let us probe this
Bible problem a little deeper. [2]
The web site reports that archaeological evidence have been discovered that places the Philistines much earlier
than thought. It discussed the Phaistos Disk, a baked clay disk, found in Crete in 1908. Why is this disk
important? It relates the artifact with Philistines identically pictured in the walls of Rameses IIIs mortuary temple.
In Medinet Habu, Egypt. So? The Bible reports that people from the island of Crete came and occupied the
southwest coastal areas of Canaan before the time of Moses, the very location where Abraham was said to be
dealing with Abimelech of Gerar.
It also adds is another archaeological find, a Minoan graffito (Minoans are also from Crete)
Of particular interest is a Minoan graffito found in the sacred precinct dating to ca. 1600 BC. Analyses of the
sherd determined that it originated in Crete, most likely the south coast (Day et al. 1999 Oren et al. 1996). There
are four Minoan signs on the graffito, inscribed prior to firing, which represent a bulls head, cloth, branch and figs
(Oren et al. 1996: 99109). In addition to the graffito, an unusual chalice of Canaanite shape and fabric was found
in a room on the east side of the sacred area. What makes the chalice unusual is its high arching handles, a well
known feature of Minoan chalices, but not of Canaanite (Oren et al. 1996: 95, 96 Oren 1993: 581) [3]
The first web site cites the same migration from the island of Crete
The word Philistine was a rather generic term meaning sea people. No doubt, some of the Aegean Sea
people made their way to Palestine long before a later migration took placea migration that was considerably
larger. In commenting on these Philistines, Larry Richards observed:
While there is general agreement that massive settlement of the coast of Canaan by sea peoples from Crete took
place around 1200 B.C., there is no reason to suppose Philistine settlements did not exist long before this time. In
Abrams time as in the time of Moses a variety of peoples had settled in Canaan, including Hittites from the far
north. Certainly the seagoing peoples who traded the Mediterranean had established colonies along the shores of
the entire basin for centuries prior to Abrahams time. There is no reason to suppose that Philistines, whose
forefathers came from Crete, were not among them (1993, p. 40). [4]
A Bible encyclopedia quoted a reference that in general sense echo the same information above
Some object to the Genesis references to Philistine residence in Canaan, arguing that the Philistines did not
settle there until the 12th century B.C.E. But this objection does not rest on a solid basis. The New Bible
Dictionary edited by J. Douglas (1985, p. 933) observes: Since the Philistines are not named in extra-biblical
inscriptions until the 12th century BC, and the archaeological remains associated with them do not appear before
this time, many commentators reject references to them in the patriarchal period as anachronistic. However, in
showing why such a position is not sound, mention is made of the evidence of a major expansion of Aegean trade
reaching back to about the 20th century B.C.E. It is pointed out that a particular groups not being prominent
enough to be mentioned in the inscriptions of other nations does not prove that the group did not exist. The
78 | P a g e
conclusion reached in that New Bible Dictionary is: There is no reason why small groups of Philistines could not
have been among the early Aegean traders, not prominent enough to be noticed by the larger states.
[4]
Hence, we are reading genuine history in the pages of the Bible.
References
[1] Lyons, Eric. Philistines in the Time of Abraham- Fallacy or Fact?, Apologetics Press, Available (online)
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=671
[2]Wood, Bryant. The Genesis Philistines, Associate for Biblical Research web site, Available (online)
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/05/31/The-Genesis-Philistines.aspx#Article
[3] Ibid.
[4] Lyons, Eric. Philistines in the Time of Abraham- Fallacy or Fact?, Apologetics Press, Available (online)
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=671
[5] Philistia, Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1998, p. 632.
79 | P a g e
1.13.17 The offering of Isaac

The thought of God asking a father to sacrifice his Son repulses many and considering that the contemporaries of
Abraham are probably doing the same thing with their children to their gods. This is how one professor is quoted
to have reacted from recall her first reaction
As recorded in the Bible book of Genesis, Jehovah God asked Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice.
(Genesis 22:2) Some Bible readers struggle to understand that account. When I first heard this story as a child, I
was outraged, says a professor named Carol. What kind of God would ask such a thing? While such feelings
are understandable, we do well to keep a couple of points in mind.[1]
Then it listed four reasons to consider
First, consider what Jehovah did not do. He did not allow Abraham to go through with the sacrifice, even though
Abraham was prepared to do so, nor has God ever again made such a request of anyone. Jehovah wants all of
his worshippers, including children, to continue livingto enjoy a long and satisfying life.
Second, the Bible suggests that Jehovah had a special reason for asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God knew
that many centuries later, He would allow His own Son, Jesus, to die in our behalf. (Matthew 20:28) Jehovah
wanted to convey to us just how much this sacrifice would cost him. He provided a powerful demonstration of that
future sacrifice by what he asked of Abraham. How so?
Consider Jehovahs words to Abraham: Take, please, your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac, and . . .
offer him up as a burnt offering. (Genesis 22:2) Notice that Jehovah referred to Isaac as the son whom you so
love. Jehovah knew how precious Isaac was to Abraham. God also knew how He felt about his Son, Jesus.
Jehovah loved Jesus so dearly that he twice spoke from heaven, directly referring to Jesus as my Son, the
beloved.Mark 1:11; 9:7. [2]
Another web site also cited nearly the same things
First, we should realize what God was not doing:
God was not tempting Abraham. God was not enticing Abraham to do wrong, but was testing him to see if he
would do what was right. (See the article on tempting.)
God was not instituting or condoning child sacrifice. As seen in Deuteronomy 12:31 and the other passages
above, God abhors child sacrifice. It's important to remember that God prevented the sacrifice from actually
occurring. He did not desire the sacrifice as an act of worship or for any other reason beyond testing Abraham.
God was not telling Abraham to do wrong. God has the right to take human life (see the article on God's moral
authority) and could therefore authorize Abraham to do so in a particular case. Note that had Abraham decided
of his own accord to sacrifice Isaac, he would have been wrong and his act would have been condemned by
God (as were other human-initiated sacrifices). [3]
And the sacrifice did not push through.
The other notable thing with this experience is why Abraham agreed to go through it after all the years he had
waited to have a son that God promised he will have? One Bible-based book comments
Centuries earlier, Abraham believed that Jehovah has such restorative powerand for good reason. When
Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah was 90, Jehovah restored their deadened reproductive powers,
miraculously enabling Sarah to bear a son. (Genesis 17:17; 21:2, 3) Later, when the boy was fully grown,
Jehovah asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham showed faith, reckoning that Jehovah could restore his
beloved Isaac to life. (Hebrews 11:17-19) Such intense faith may explain why Abraham, before ascending the
mountain to offer up his son, assured his servants that he and Isaac would return together.Genesis 22:5.[4]
80 | P a g e
The most important reflection in this story of Abraham is highlighted here
Note, too, that Jehovahs request to Abraham included the word please. One Bible scholar suggests that Gods
use of this word indicates that the LORD appreciates the costliness of what he is asking. As we can imagine,
that request would have grieved Abraham deeply; in a similar way, we can barely imagine the intense pain that
Jehovah must have felt as he watched his beloved Son suffer and die. It was undoubtedly the greatest pain
Jehovah had ever experienced or ever will experience. [5]
References
[1] Our Readers Ask Why Did God Ask Abraham to Sacrifice His Son?, The Watchtower, January 1, 2012, p.
23.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Why did God tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?, Rational Christianity web site, Available (online) http://www.rationalchristianity.net/abe_isaac.html
[4] Restorative Power-Jehovah is Making All Things New, Draw Close to Jehovah, Jehovahs Witnesses, 2002,
p. 84.
[5] Our Readers Ask Why Did God Ask Abraham to Sacrifice His Son?, The Watchtower, January 1, 2012, p.
23.
81 | P a g e
1.13.18 The death of Sarah and the purchase of a burial place from the sons of Heth
When Sarah died, Abraham purchased a burial place from the sons of Heth or from the Hittites. Is this a true
story? What is known of these people called the Hittites? A Bible encyclopedia has this to report
Secular Attempts at Identification. Historians and archaeologists have tried to identify the Hittites of the Bible
in secular history. Their primary basis for making identifications has been linguistic, the comparison of words
apparently having similar sound or spelling.
In the Assyrian cuneiform texts, frequent reference is made to Hatti in a context that usually places it in Syria or
Palestine. These may be references to the Biblical Hittites. However, on the basis of this term Hatti, scholars try
to identify the Bible Hittites with the so-called Hittite Empire that had its capital in Asia Minor, far to the N and W of
the land of Canaan. This they try to do in the following manner, but in doing so they refer to three different groups
of people. [1]
According to this reference, several types of Hittites are identified by scholars. But, it is not sure that these were
the Hittites mentioned in Genesis. The reference adds
Another historian, E. A. Speiser, concludes: The problem of the Hittites in the Bible is . . . complex. To begin
with, there is the question as to which type of Hittites may be involved in any given Biblical passage: Hattians,
Indo-European Hittites of the cuneiform records, or hieroglyphic Hittites.The World History of the Jewish
People, 1964, Vol. 1, p. 160 [2]
A web site refers to these three groups
In scholarly usage, the term Hittite bears at least three meanings. It can denote: (1) the aboriginal inhabitants of
the central plateau of Asia Minor, more accurately designated as Hattians, (2) that branch of Indo-European
immigrants that settled in central Anatolia c. 2000 b.c. and wrote in a language that they called Nesite
(nesumnili), and (3) the people who lived in several large city-states of N Syria during the first millennium b.c.,
which had been vassal states of the Anatolian Hittites during the period c. 1400-1200 b.c.Some scholars
designate this third group by the term neo-Hittites. To the Assyrians and Hebrews of the first millennium b.c., the
term Hittites covered all the inhabitants of the earlier Hitt. empire and its Syrian dependencies, irrespective of
their linguistic or ethnic affiliation. [3]
So, was Abraham dealing with a real people with advanced governance rules and commerce? How does a Bible
reader view these accounts in the light of theories that considers Abraham and other Bible stories of his time are
all myths and fabrications? The blog site Bible Archaeology has this to report
The problem is one of semantics and terminology. As the term Hittites for the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia and
north Syria is firmly embedded in the scholarly and popular literature, that name cannot be hanged. Because the
Bible writers distinguished between the two groups, this should be reflected in our English translations. I suggest
an ecumenical solution to the problem. Since the demonyms ( ittm) and ( ittyt) refer to the IndoEuropeans of Anatolia and northern Syria, I propose retaining the Protestant term "Hittites" for those entities. For
the ethnonyms ( itt)
and ( ittt), on the other hand, the Roman Catholic term Hethite(s) is the correct
choice, since ( itt) is synonymous with ( ben t) and ( haittt) is synonymous with
( bent t). If these changes were incorporated into future translations of our English Bibles, it would clearly
distinguish the indigenous descendants of ( t) from the people of atti and alleviate present
misunderstandings. [4]
This is one of the many example issues on the Bible and archaeology. This was surveyed by an online article in
the context of the two opposing camps of archaeologists (minimalists- non-Bible believers; maximalists Bible
believers) and wrote
During this same period (80s-90s), the issue of minimalism vs maximalism arose. A small number of advocates
(Whitelam, Thompson, Davies, Lemche, Finkelstein, e.g.) exercising a disproportionate influence on the scholarly
world, argue for no historicity of the Bible prior to the sixth century B.C. So, again, we have come full circle to the
place where Albright began to debunk the hyper-critical views of the 19th century. See Dever (himself no
82 | P a g e
conservative) debunking this. Kenneth Kitchen came out with his monumental work in 2003. In my opinion he
devastates the arguments of the minimalists. [5]
Another paper cited that the lack of archaeological data for dating the period of Abraham should not be an issue
and cites the reason below
Scholars who prefer to see the patriarchal narratives as unhistorical products of the first millennium BC have
justified their view in part by referring to the difficulty of locating the patriarchs in an early archaeological period. In
response, N. M. Sarna has rightly pointed out that an inability to place the patriarchs in a historical framework
according to the present state of our knowledge does not necessarily invalidate the historicity of the narratives.
Our knowledge of the centuries around 2000 BC is very small, and our ignorance very great. [6]
References
[1] Hittites. Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1998, p. 1124.
[2] Ibid., p. 1125.
[3] Hittites. Biblical Training web site. Available (online) - https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/hittites
[4] Wood, Bryant. Hittites and Hethites: A Proposed Solution to an Etymological Conundrum, Available (online) http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2011/11/08/Hittites-and-Hethites-A-Proposed-Solution-to-an-EtymologicalConundrum.aspx
[5] Current Attitudes On Bible History and Archaeology. Bible History and Archaeology: An Outline series, p. 57.
[6] Bimson, John. Archaeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs. Leicester: IVP, 1980, p. 59-60.
83 | P a g e
1.13.19 Looking for the future wife of Isaac

One reference noted an important realization in studying the life and times of the various biblical patriarchs related to
the truthfulness of these stories rather than being reduced to myths and legends
In every case, a prominent though not necessarily preeminent position was accorded to the evidence of the
social customs, for the patriarchal practices had been shown to be parallel in many cases to those known from a
variety of places and periods in the ancient near east. Arguments concerning these customs, therefore, played a
major part in the modern reconstruction of the Patriarchal Age, and without such considerations, the case for
patriarchal historicity, quite apart from any question of a date for the Patriarchal Age, would be seriously
weakened. [1]
There was an early enthusiasm to the findings in Nuzi of ancient documents that initially appeared to be similar to
the social customs of the patriarchs in Genesis. However, it turned out that many of the parallels were not valid.
Despite that, the author has this to say
'Positively, it can be said that many of the customs in Genesis, that cannot be directly related to known literary
motifs, fit very well into the general context of ancient near eastern family law, and a comparison of these stories
with this legal material is quite helpful in understanding the intention of these narratives. [2]
Regarding the Genesis account of the marriage of Rebekah to Isaac and how it was arrange this paper reports
Although Thompson rejects Speiser's sistership theory as an explanation of Rebekah's marriage, he does draw
attention to the fact that the arrangement of the marriage by Rebekah's brother Laban is paralleled by a number
of instances where a brother takes responsibility for his sister's welfare. These include three cases of the
arrangement of his sister's marriage, twice in the Old Babylonian period and once in the NeoBabylonian. [3]
The role of Laban, Rebekahs brother, in the arrangement is studied in comparison to ancient customs
Whereas in Thompson's understanding of Rebekah's marriage (Gn. 24) it is the brother's action which is
significant, the more relevant parallels for van Seters are those cases from the Old and NeoBabylonian periods
where the marriage is the joint responsibility of the bride's mother and brother. In fact, no great distinction should
be drawn between those instances where a brother acts alone and those where he acts with his mother. It was
quite usual in ancient near eastern marriage contracts for a father, mother or brother to take the responsibility,
even though in most cases it was the duty of the girl's father. Rather, one should note the continuity through the
millennia of the way in which the arrangement of marriages is described, and not attempt hairline distinctions
which were probably dictated by family circumstances. As for Rebekah's father, his inactivity is not to be identified
automatically with his absence, and he cannot simply be relegated to a scrthal gloss without good reason. [4]
Why is this Near Eastern data important to the study of the book of Genesis? These data attests to the historicity
of the biblical patriarchs. K. A. Kitchen wrote
If the patriarchs were really generalized figures instead of real characters (strong or weak), if their stories
reflected the conditions of monarchic and exilic Israel, or if their movements and activities took place in what was
demonstrably a never-never land of legend, corresponding to no known consistent cultural backgroundthen
indeed we would have good reason to ask with Professor Eissfeldt whether they were in fact personifications
(tribal or other) and what they reflected. This is clearly not the case: first and last their figures are those of
individuals and their activities on the basis of external data correspond closely with those of real life observable at
first hand. [5]
From a research point of view, Kitchen wrote
This is an assumption, a hypothesis, but it is a fair and methodologically justified assumption in the present state
of knowledge, and may legitimately be presented as a working hypothesis. [6]
References
84 | P a g e
[1] Selman, Martin. Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age, Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives.
Leicester:IVP, 1980. Hbk. p. 94.
[2] Ibid., p. 113
[3] Ibid., p. 114.
[4] Ibid., p. 117.
[5] Kitchen, K. A. Historical Method and Early Hebrew Tradition, Tyndale Bulletin 17, 1966, p. 77.
[6] Ibid., p. 81.
85 | P a g e
1.14 The Bible is vindicated with the Documentary Hypothesis losing its power to explain
The Bible is a great book but it is a human book about God. This was the thinking that pervaded the previous 100
years. Liberal bible scholars have reduced both the Old and the New Testaments to products of human culture, a
human book that makes claims about God.
For example, Wellhausens articulation of what later would be called documentary hypothesis became the
orthodox view about the Bible. Wellhausen does not believe in the supernatural, nor in the inspiration of the
Bible by God. He and his followers insisted and became the default scholarly view about the Bible on the
following
That the first five books of the Bible, also known as the Pentateuch, were NOT written by Moses
That the Pentateuch was NOT written during the time the Bible claimed it was written in the 15th century BCE
That the story of the Patriarchs were NOT real history
What is the truth then? According to Wellhausen and a variation of this theory
The Pentateuch was written by different writers and later compiled into the collection we know today
This compilation was produced sometime between the 9th and 6th century BCE
The story of the Patriarchs is more an allegory to justify the existence of the people and religion of Israel
Towards the early 70s and 80s, what change swept the bible scholars world that favored the idea that the
Bible was inspired by and from God though written by men, and that the history that we read in it are real
history in the ancient sense, instead of allegories or legends that the Documentary Hypothesis-inclined scholars
made it appear to be?
A review of the scholarly literature in the decades of the 70s and 80s show the great loss of respect for this
once very popular theory about the Bible. But, the damaged has been done to the publics faith in the Bible.
A 1990s reference identify the key scholar that showed the weaknesses of this once mighty atheist-inclined
hypothesis of the Bible in the 70s
Rendtorff is certainly correct to move away from a documentary approach that sees the present text as the
awkward joining of different continuous documents. His approach takes into account the smoothness of the
narrative in a way foreign to the older critical approach. But more recent literary approaches question the older
approach, and indeed the tradition-critical approach, at an even deeper level. [1]
Professor Rendtorff died just last April 2014. But according to the reference, this once mighty liberal theory of the
Bible started facing legitimate criticisms from conservative scholars back in the 19th century. It cites the following
Incisive attacks on the method were rendered in the nineteenth century most notably by Hengstenberg and
Delitzsch (who held a modified source approach himself), and in the twentieth century by O. T. Allis, U. Cassuto,
K. Kitchen, and G. J. Wenham. All of these works may still be read today with great profit, though their most
pointed criticisms are directed at Wellhausen, many of whose distinctive views are no longer live options.[2]
The reference continues its survey of the present bible scholarship
Recent years have witnessed a surge of skepticism about the documentary hypothesis (Kikiwada and Quinn;
Whybray). In the first place, there is doubt concerning the criteria (listed above) used to separate the sources. [3]
The discovery and study of ancient texts in the Near East, have contributed to the failure of the documentary
hypothesis. K. Kitchen is one of those scholars whose field of bible research is ancient texts of the Near East. In
his own book, Kitchen back in the 1960s wrote about this important field of research called Ancient Near East
studies and the Bible
Now geographically, historically and culturally, the Ancient Near East is the world of the Old Testament, while
humanly speaking the Old Testament is a part of Ancient Near Eastern literature, history and culture. Therefore,
86 | P a g e
what can be known about the history, literatures, linguistics, religion, etc., of the Ancient Orient will have a direct
bearing upon these same aspects of the Old Testament. [4]
Kitchen predicted in the 1960s that as more data from the Ancient Near East becomes available, the
Documentary Hypothesis will fall
What then will become of time-honoured theory? This has not yet happened, nor does this book make any such
attempt; but as time passes, it is increasingly likely that the continuous flow of new material (and fuller utilization
of data) may cause this kind of thing to happen, and we must take this prospect very seriously. [5]
Thompson, in his Ancient Near East study of treaties noted this regarding their similarities with Old Testament
data
But where evidence has been preserved, comparison with contemporary or nearly contemporary treaties among
Israel's neighbours provides external, objective evidence that the kind of situation depicted in the Old Testament
did, in fact, obtain in the contemporary non-Israelite scene; and therefore there is every reason to accept the Old
Testament picture as authentic. [6]
Yes, contrary to the Documentary Hypothesis, the facts show that what is in the Bible is indeed historical rather
than allegories or myth. Joel Baden who is trying to resurrect this theory re-labelled as Neo-Documentary
Hypothesis reviews how this theory has lost its appeal
Moreover, the shift in European scholarship away from the Documentary Hypothesis happened very quickly: one can
almost draw a line at the publication of Rendtorffs Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch in 1977, with
pre-Rendtorff scholarship being largely documentary and post-Rendtorff scholarship being almost entirely nondocumentary. [7]
Longman continues to narrate the collapse of the Documentary Hypothesis as it became more complex in its
explanation of the origin of the Bible (the claim that the Pentateuch were written by many writers identified by
liberal scholars as J, E, D and P.)
Besides the criteria themselves, the critical approach has always foundered on the failure to achieve consensus
in the delineation of the sources. Apparently a subjective element is involved that casts doubt on the scientific
basis for the method. This failure to achieve consensus is represented by the occasional division of source strata
into multiple layers (see Smends J1 and J2) that often occasions the appearance of new sigla (for instance,
Eissfeldts L(aienquelle) , Noths G(rundschrift) , Fohrers N (for Nomadic), and Pfeiffers S (for Seir). A further
indication of the collapse of the traditional documentary hypothesis is the widely expressed doubt that E was
never an independent source (Voz, Rudolph, Mowinckel, cf. Kaiser, IOT , 42 n.18). [8]
References
[1] Raymond Dillar and Tremper Longman III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Zondervan Publishing House,
1993.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Kenneth A. Kitchen. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966, p. 24.
[5] Ibid., p. 27.
[6] Thompson, J.A. The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament. London: The Tyndale Press,
1964, p. 24.
[7] Joel Baden. The Re-emergence of Source Criticism: The Neo-Documentary Hypothesis. Available (online)
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/bad368008.shtml
87 | P a g e
[8] Raymond Dillar and Tremper Longman III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Zondervan Publishing House,
1993.
88 | P a g e
1.15 Abraham, Keturah and the other children

Did Abraham take another wife, Keturah, while Sarah was alive, besides Hagar? A Bible encyclopedia notes
Also, it seems proper to consider Abrahams general regard for Sarahs feelings, which makes it unlikely that he
would risk the possibility of further discord in the household (comparable to that involving Hagar and Ishmael) by
taking another concubine during Sarahs lifetime. The order of events as set forth in the book of Genesis is quite
conclusive in indicating that it was after Sarahs death that Abraham took Keturah as his wife. [1]
The reference notes that Keturah as a wife did not attain the status of wife similar to Sarah. She was a secondary
wife where another place in the Bible calls her concubine (1 Chronicles 1:32).
One reference wrote regarding the status of Keturah and her children
Presumably Sarai provided the primary reason for Abrahams marrying Keturah as a concubine. Sons of
secondary wivesconcubines and slave-wiveswere not heirs of their fathers under any known ancient legal
code, although they were heirs of their mothers estates. Unfortunately, secondary wives rarely had meaningful
estates. [2]
Another reference makes this comment
First Chronicles 1:32 refers to Keturah as Abrahams concubine, and Genesis 25:6 suggests that both Hagar
and Keturah held this same designation. Concubine was likely used to legally differentiate between Isaacthe
rightful heir through Sarahand Abrahams other children, who did not have the same right of inheritance.
In Abrahams day, the right of inheritance belonged to the children of the primary marriage. The Code of
Hammurabi, which reflected the customs and practices of the ancient Near East in Abrahams day, noted
specifically that concubines never had the same rights as wives.1 This legal distinction of heirs demonstrates that
even in biblical times, monogamy was regarded as the ideal, though legal allowance was made to provide
additional children to a household that required them. This practice also explains why Isaac received all of
Abrahams possessions after his death.
The term concubine, therefore, doesnt indicate that Keturah was a live-in lover or illicit mistress whom Abraham
took to satisfy his carnal lusts. Rather, the term was likely used to distinguish between Sarah, the wife whose
child had full rights of inheritance, and Keturah, the wife whose children did not have the same legal rights. [3]
The Bible reports though of what Abraham did for the children of Keturah
Later on Abraham gave everything he had to Isaac, 6 but Abraham gave gifts to his sons by his concubines. Then
while he was still alive, he sent them eastward, away from Isaac his son, to the land of the East. (25:5,6)
Just like Hagars son Ishmael, they have no share with Isaac, as son of promise. But Jehovah blessed this other
sons and fulfilled Abraham becoming father to many nations.
Here I understood that the Midianites and Edomites as well as the Moabites and Ammonites were members of
Abrahams family but who chose to oppose a people Jehovah gathered for himself. In the end, no one among
these Israelite relatives survived to this day as Jehovah God decreed thru His prophets. This should encourage
Bible readers to value the wisdom of God because He makes His word come true.
References
[1] Keturah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p.147.
[2] Baker, James. Womens Rights in Old Testament Times, Signature Books, Inc., 1992, p. 97.
[3] Swindoll, Charles. Abraham: One Nomads Amazing Journey of Faith, Available (online) http://www.insightforliving.com/pdf/messagemates/10.30.2014-mm.pdf
89 | P a g e
1.16 Isaac, Rebekah and the selling of Esaus birthright

1.16.1 Isaac and Rebekah
One reference paper presents this view of Isaac
The most enigmatic of all the patriarchs is Isaac. Strangely, we know hardly anything about him, although in
length of life (180 years) he surpassed the other Jewish forefathers. We have far more information about his
father, Abraham, and his sons, Jacob and Esau. Isaac is mentioned many times, but never acts independently.
Everything written about him is merely repetition of stories from Abrahams life.[1]
This author concludes about Isaac this way
Perhaps the more humble place given to Isaac in the lives of the patriarchs is a matter of the fact that his favorite
son was Esau, the forefather of the Edomites, and not Jacob, the ancestor of the Hebrews. The Bible does not
conceal the fact that Isaac openly preferred Esau and not so much because Esau was his first-born, but
because he found him emotionally more to his liking. Had considerable attention been paid to Isaac, this would
inevitably have led to a strong focus on Esaus role among the sons and to Jacob being reprimanded for
breaching his fathers will. [2]
Isaac is aware of the contrast between Jehovah Gods promise about an offspring and the barrenness of
Rebekah for 20 years. The Bible reports
Isaac kept pleading with Jehovah regarding his wife, because she was barren. (25:21)
A Bible-based encyclopedia comments about this phase of Isaacs life
From the history of Isaac we learn that Rebekah continued barren for 20 years. This afforded Isaac the
opportunity to show whether he, like his father, had faith in Jehovahs promise to bless all the families of the earth
through a seed yet unborn, and this he did by continually entreating Jehovah for a son. (Ge 25:19-21) As in his
own case, it was again demonstrated that the seed of promise would come, not through the natural course of
events, but only through Jehovahs intervening power. [3]
The Bible reports how old Isaac was when it happened.
Isaac was 60 years old when she gave birth to them. (25: 26)
This would place Abraham as alive during the birth of the twins. Abraham must be 160 years old by them. He
would still live to see the twins become teen-agers up to 15 years of age.
1.16.2 Esau, selling his birthright

What do we know about the practice of selling birthright like what Esau did in the Genesis account, Thus Esau
despised the birthright. (25:34)? When examining practices like this, Nuzi was initially always used as reference
for parallel social customs. Why? One paper reports
Weir concludes his discussion by saying, The Nuzi documents do not mention any Old Testament incident or
personage, nor do they indicate with certainty that any of Israels ancestors ever lived in or visited Mesopotamia.
Their fifteenth-century provenance cannot accurately date patriarchal traditions since the customs they portray
may have originated much earlier and may have persisted in Palestine until the monarchial period. They reveal,
however, that the social customs, much of the terminology, and many of the personal names in the Pentateuch
90 | P a g e
and elsewhere in the Old Testament were those current in parts of the Near East during the second millennium
B.C., and to that extent they validate Israelite tradition.[4]
This is how one Jewish publication sees what happened according to its understanding of the Hebrew language
Jacobs act seems to have been something he had been thinking about, awaiting the opportunity. Indeed, the
words (Jacob cooked stew [25:29]), hint at aforethought. The verb vayazed (to cook), here clearly a play on the
noun nazid (stew), in one verbal form or another is often employed in Scripture, but never with the meaning of
cooking food except here. Rather, it always refers to concocting a malicious plan or intentionally violating a
stricture, derived from the word (intentional evil), for example, (And when a man schemes against his fellow-man
to kill him by cunning Exod. 21:14). Jacob was anticipating the possibility of Esau coming in from the field
vulnerable. [5]
Regarding Esau it writes
While ones sympathies may be with Esau, this episode also reveals several unappealing traits he possessed. To
speak of food as this red, red (stuff), calling the lentils by their color, speaking of things by external
characteristics, is indicative of a superficial person. The verb (allow me to gulp down) a word not found again in
the Bible but attested in the Mishnah for the feeding of animals is seemingly a crudity. Although exhausted, it
does not take any greater effort to speak in a more cultivated manner if such is the person s wont. Most
important, upon Jacobs request that he sell him his firstborn rights, Esau comments, Behold I am going to die,
so of what use to me is the firstborn. [6]
Regarding the effort to see biblical patriarchal accounts to have some parallel in ancient Near Eastern texts,
caution has been advised
The many mistakes made in interpreting extrabiblical material should warn us to be more cautious in future.
Selman urges that any text being considered as a possible 'parallel' must be properly understood in its own
context. Questions to be asked should include: Do we understand this text's literary characteristics. purpose and
dating? Is it typical of other texts on the same subject from the same site? Finally the text should be compared
with others from a variety of locations to establish how widespread the practice is.
On the other hand we must also be judicious in our treatment of the biblical material itself. Misapplication of a
parallel to a text can totally change the text's meaning, as in the case of Rachel and the household gods. We
have to ask: Does the text itself demand the use of the parallel to explain it? It has to be admitted that a view of
the patriarchal age based on these 'parallels' owes more to the ingenuity of 'parallelogists' than to the biblical
record.
In many areas the archaeological study of the patriarchal period it has to be conceded that we simply do not have
the evidence to make any statement as to the historicity of events one way or the other. The best that can be said
is that they have a ring of authenticity and that they do not now appear as far-fetched as was once thought.
Charges of provable anachronisms no longer carry the weight that they once had. We may conclude therefore
that the burden of proof is very much on those who would deny a second millennium context for the patriarchs.
[7]
Taking this archaeological issues aside, Esau is a negative example that is used in the Bible as a warning for
Christians. The apostle Paul wrote
who does not appreciate sacred things, like Esau, who gave up his rights as firstborn in exchange for one meal..
91 | P a g e
References
[1] Lipovsky, Igor. At the Sources of Biblical History, p. 14.
[2] Ibid., p. 15.
[3] Isaac. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1217.
[4] Ancient Middle Eastern Culture and the Bible, Bible.org, Available (online) - https://bible.org/seriespage/8ancient-middle-eastern-culture-and-bible
[5] The Jacob-Esau Interaction Concerning the Birthright, Sephardic Institute, 2009, p. 3
[6] Ibid., p. 3.
[7] Bradshaw, Robert. Archaeology and the Patriarchs, Biblical Studies, Available (online) http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_archaeology.html
92 | P a g e
1.16.3 Isaac and Rebecca, another famine, and peace-making
In the 26th chapter, I encounter again the name Abimelech from Gerar. A name I encountered reading the
account of Abraham. But these two Abimelechs live in two different eras, one 100 years earlier than the other. A
Bible encyclopedia notes
Either a personal name or an official title of several Philistine kings, perhaps similar to the title Pharaoh among
the Egyptians and Caesar among the Romans. [1]
Other commentaries note the same thing
Both Abimelek and Phikol seem to have been official names. [2]
Others are intrigued that the story of Isaac and Rebekah with the king of Gerar is identical with Abraham and
Sarah previously. One web site has this comment
It would be natural for unbelieving critics to devise a theory that what we really have is just one incident that
has been given in three different places in the Book of Genesis, multiplied into three accounts, and
consequently, we do not expect the account of the Book of Genesis to be totally accurate. [3]
However, a careful reading will highlight important differences between the experience of Abraham and now
with Isaac. Abraham went into Egypt during the famine in his time. Isaac was probably wanting to do the same
to avoid the famine of his time. Yet, Jehovah God forbade Isaac from doing that
Do not go down to Egypt. (26:2)
At this point, Jehovah God repeats the covenant promise to Isaac. Like his father Abraham, Isaac received
instruction to dwell as a foreigner in the land of Canaan but soon his future offspring will lay claim on the land.
I will multiply your offspring like the stars of the heavens. (26:4)
Many commentaries consider that both Abraham and Isaac presented their wives as sisters as an act of fallen
man, a sin. However, note the view of a Bible encyclopedia first on Abraham, and then with Isaac
In this not too friendly Philistine country, Isaac, like his father Abraham, used strategy by claiming his wife was
his sister. [4]
It was Isaacs turn to copy his fathers strategy to hide his marriage to Abimelech. However, this Philistine king
soon discovered that the two were really husband and wife.
93 | P a g e
And he saw Isaac displaying affection for Rebekah his wife. (26: 8)
In the Hebrew language, Isaac is laughter and displaying affection could mean causing to laugh. Moses was
playing on Hebrew words here, was their analysis.
Some Bible commentators on Hebrew note that the word display affection is also the word used for what
Ishmael did to Isaac, but is rendered mocking. One paper notes
Depending on the context of where the word is found, its possible translations include laughing, playing,
mocking, jesting, lewd revelry, seduction (and perhaps rape), bantering, or sexual fondling. [5]
A Bible-based magazine once commented on this father and son actions
We may view Isaacs handling of matters with his wife Rebekah from the same standpoint as that of Abraham
with Sarah. Abraham and Isaac may have had a fear, but they did not in fear make an ungodly alliance with
pagan kings for self-protection. Hence we may not apply to them the stinging rebuke of Isaiah 57:11-13 (RS):
Whom did you dread and fear, so that you lied [played the traitor, AT], and did not remember me, did not give
me a thought? Have I not held my peace, even for a long time, and so you do not fear me? I will tell of your [self] righteousness and your doings, but they will not help you. When you cry out, let your collection of idols deliver
you! Jehovah always delivered Abraham and Isaac because they shunned the world. [6]
Regarding Abrahams previous example, this magazine offered this explanation
He could have gone to war with them; with 318 of his household slaves he had once put to rout the armies of
four kings from Mesopotamia who invaded Palestine and carried off his nephew Lot and his household. But
Abraham chose to maintain peaceful relations with the inhabitants of lands where he sojourned. He was not
disposed to go to war with them over his wife. [7]
I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid. (26:24)
When Jehovah God had mention this to assure Isaac, this was after he avoided confrontation, several times,
with the Philistines over different wells of water. God must have been pleased with the peaceful actions of Isaac
that he was moved to reassure him of His protection.
They were a source of great grief to Isaac and Rebekah. (26:35)
This presented to me how an imperfect life, even with Jehovahs blessings, is still a difficult life, where an
individual has to cope with the challenges that come his way. Some of the decisions could be wrong, some could
be right. In the case of Isaacs family, despite having a grandfather who is Jehovahs friend, and a father who
loved Jehovah too, it turned out different in the case of Esau. Esau knew of the example of finding a marriage
mate from the worshipers of Jehovah as his father did. He chose a different path. How spiritually divided
families know the grief of children choosing to walk away from Jehovah.
References
[1] Abimelech. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 24.
[2] Murphy, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the book of Genesis with a New Translation,
[3] John, SL. Isaac Passive, Patient Patriarch. SLJ Institute, 2007.
[4] Isaac. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1218.
94 | P a g e
[5] Zucker, David. Isaac, a Life of Bitter Laughter, Jewish Bible Quarterly Vol. 40, No. 2, 2012, p. 107.
[6] Cautious as Serpents Among Wolves, The Watchtower, February 1, 1956, p. 79.
[7] Ibid.
95 | P a g e
1.16.4 Isaac and El Shaddai

Isaac used the expression El Shaddai in Genesis 28:3. It is certainly not a personal name for God but a title.
However, liberal bible scholars claim that based from the discovered documents of the Ugarit culture, the Ugarits
refer to their god as il or El as a proper name
The name of the head Canaanite god is il or El, which is the same word for god in many of the West Semitic
traditions and other ancient Near Eastern cultures, including Israel. While El can also be used as an appellative of
deity in the Ugaritic texts, it is much more commonplace as a proper name. Frank Moore Cross shows evidence
of El being used in the earliest old Akkadian sources without the case ending, unambiguously the divine name
and not an appellative. Cross also points out that Amorites used the term il to denote god and that il is also
found as a divine proper name in Old South Arabic.15 Cross believes that because of the fact that il appears as a
proper name in the earliest strata of languages belonging to East Semitic, Northwest Semitic, and South Semitic,
we may conclude that this denotation of il belongs to Proto-Semitic. The question of whether El was the proper
name of a god is laid to rest by the texts found at Ugarit where El is repeatedly portrayed as the head of the
pantheon. [1]
The paper then makes an interpretation of how El Shaddai of the Bible could be the same god of the ancient
Ugarits
The connection between the Canaanite god El and the El of Israel largely centers on the religion of the great
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Mark Smith points out that Israel is called Isra-el instead of Isra-yahwe,
or, perhaps better, Isra-yah, which would be in accordance with other proper names containing the divine
name. This suggests that the name of the early god may have been El, not the Mosaic god Yahweh. [2]
These liberal scholars are using the theory of documentary hypothesis which presumes how Israelite religion
developed, whose root came from the Canaanites or the ancient Ugarits, which later developed into the worship
of Yahweh (Jehovah).
They are also using literary or form criticism to trace the usage of words in parallel to ancient literature. In my
laymans understanding, this does not hold water. Why? A closer reading of the book of Genesis have shown the
use of Gods personal name in many instances and by the patriarch themselves.
The first occurrence of Gods personal name Jehovah appeared in Genesis chapter 2 verse 4. Eve was the first
human on biblical record to use that personal name (4:1) and then by Abram (12:8; 13: 4) together with the title El
Elyon or Most High God (14:22) and Adhonai Yahweh or Sovereign Lord Jehovah (15:2) to name a few
examples. Yes, God introduced himself with titles such as El Shaddai but it was not meant in context to be His
name, the way liberal bible scholars who believe in the discarded theory of documentary hypothesis would like to
claim as the name of the God of the patriarchs just because liberal bible scholars like Cross asserts it is the way
the ancient Ugarits used El. God himself declared that he is Jehovah to Jacob (28:13).
Wikipedia also following this thinking cites Psalms 82:1, it calls the Council of El, as proof point of shared tradition
with the ancient Ugarits. With this reasoning, Yahweh is reduced to the chief god of a pantheon of gods. What
does the Psalms 82: 1 says?
God (Heb. El) takes his place in the divine assembly;
In the middle of the gods he judges.
But are the liberal scholars correct in presuming that this is a reference to polytheism? A Bible encyclopedia
explains this verse
96 | P a g e
At Psalm 82:1, 6, elohim is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John
10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses
was told that he was to serve as God to Aaron and to Pharaoh.Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.[3]
Jesus himself quoted this psalms and applied it the same way (John 10: 34)
Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your Law, I said: You are gods
Jesus was referring to the Jewish leaders. Certainly, a far cry from what liberal scholars are claiming to be a trace
of ancient Ugarit polytheism in the Bible. In the effort to reduce the Bible into a human work, these liberal scholars
stretch the parallelism with ancient Near East texts so far that it breaks in closer examination.
In Genesis 28:12, the Bible mentions of a stairway to heaven that Jacob saw in a dream and on that place that
Jacob would later call Bethel, he would build a simple pillar or altar (28:18).
Some scholars refer to the parallel concept of stairway to heaven in other ancient Near Eastern culture. Egyptians
allude to the stairway to heaven for their dead pharaohs to ascend. In the Sumerian culture, only gods ascend or
descend to this stairway. There are also cited by scholars as similar temple-building dreams as a means of
showing a king the approval by the gods. [4]
A Bible-based magazine commented on this incident in the life of patriarch Jacob
Jehovah confirmed that promises given to Abraham and Isaac would spiritually enrich Jacobs family. Jacob was
made aware that angels can minister to those having Gods approval, and he was assured of divine protection. In
grateful recognition, Jacob vowed to be faithful to Jehovah.Genesis 28:16-22. [5]
What are we to conclude with these efforts of liberal bible scholars in this regard? A Bible-based magazine made
this analysis
Examination of the Ras Shamra texts has led some scholars to claim that certain Bible passages are adaptations
of Ugaritic poetic literature. Andr Caquot, member of the French Institute, speaks of the Canaanite cultural
substratum at the heart of Israelite religion.
Regarding Psalm 29, Mitchell Dahood of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome comments: This psalm is a
Yahwistic adaptation of an older Canaanite hymn to the storm-god Baal . . . Virtually every word in the psalm can
now be duplicated in older Canaanite texts. Is such a conclusion justified? No indeed!
More moderate scholars recognize that similarities have been exaggerated. Others have criticized what they call
pan-Ugaritism. No single Ugaritic text parallels Psalm 29 in full, states theologian Garry Brantley. To suggest
that Psalm 29 (or any other biblical text) is an adaptation of a pagan myth has no evidential basis.
Is the fact that similarities exist in figures of speech, poetic parallels, and stylistic features proof of adaptation? On
the contrary, such parallels are to be expected. The Encyclopedia of Religion notes: The reason for this similarity
of form and content is cultural: notwithstanding the significant geographical and temporal differences between
Ugarit and Israel, they were part of a larger cultural entity that shared a common poetic and religious vocabulary.
Garry Brantley therefore concludes: It is improper exegesis to force pagan beliefs into the biblical text simply
because of linguistic similarities.
Finally, it should be noted that if any parallels do exist between the Ras Shamra texts and the Bible, they are
purely literary, not spiritual. The ethical and moral heights reached in the Bible are [not] to be found in Ugarit,
remarks archaeologist Cyrus Gordon. Indeed, the differences far outweigh any similarities. [6]
97 | P a g e
References
[1] Robinson, Jed. The God of the Patriarchs and the Ugaritic Texts: A Shared Religious and Cultural Identity,
Studio Antiqua 8.1, Spring 2010, p. 27-28.
[2] Ibid., p. 29
[3] God. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 969.
[4] Lipton, Diana. Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis, A&C Black,
1999, p 63-64.
[5] The Watchtower, October 15, 2003, Jacob Appreciated Spiritual Values, p. 29.
[6] The Watchtower, July15, 2003, Ugarit-Ancient City in the Shadow of Baal, p. 23.
98 | P a g e
1.17 Reflections on Jacob

1.17.1 Jacob, his marriages
The Bible reported that Jacob departed from Beersheba to Haran. That is going from the southernmost tip of what
would become the Promised Land to the north, past the Promised Land. In what would later become Bethel, God
introduced himself to Jacob in a dream (28:13)
I am Jehovah the God of Abraham your father.
Is there a significance here in calling upon Jacob, God used the expression Abraham your father? Lipton in his
book considers this a rejection of Isaac who favored Esau. However, a consideration of Gods introduction of
himself to Jacob in other occasions including this one cast doubt to this view. God has called himself the God of
Isaac. This has become a formula in the Bible all the way to the New Testament. Isaac just like his father
Abraham and other humans is imperfect. However, Jehovah God continued to use Isaac despite his
imperfections.
The second instance that tithing is mentioned early in the Bible after Abrahams is his grandson Jacob making a
conditional promise to give a tenth to God if he is blessed. Bible commentators understand this to be a voluntary
act on the part of Jacob. A Bible-based encyclopedia concurs
These two accounts, however, are merely instances of voluntarily giving one tenth. There is no record to the
effect that Abraham or Jacob commanded their descendants to follow such examples, thereby establishing a
religious practice, custom, or law. It would have been superfluous for Jacob, if already under a compulsory
obligation to pay tithes, to vow to do so, as he did. It is therefore evident that the tithing arrangement was not a
custom or a law among the early Hebrews. It was instituted with the inauguration of the Law covenant, not
before. [1]
In Canaan where the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and now Jacob traversed, wells are important part of the
landscape because of the huge number of livestock and sheep that they have. A Bible-based encyclopedia says
about these wells
Wells were frequently surrounded by low walls and were kept covered with a large stone, doubtless to keep out
dirt and to prevent animals and persons from falling into them. (Ge 29:2, 3; Ex 2:15, 16) Near some wells, there
were drinking troughs or gutters for watering domestic animals. (Ge 24:20; Ex 2:16-19) Throughout the hills of
Palestine, wells were dug in the limestone, and steps, leading down to the water, were often cut in the rock. In
some wells, after descending, the one drawing water simply dipped a vessel directly into it. However, from very
deep sources, water was commonly drawn up by means of a leather bucket (Nu 24:7) or an earthenware jar (Ge
24:16) suspended from a rope. [2]
When Jacob reached Haran one such well was covered with stone. (29:3)
In this account, the Bible now introduces an important personality in the life of Jacob Rachel. Regarding her, an
article from a Bible-based magazine wrote
Rachel had run to tell her father that she had met a stranger at the well who claimed to be a relative. He turned
out to be her cousin Jacob, the son of her fathers sister and a worshipper of Jehovah. A month later, Jacob
offered to serve Laban for seven years for Rachels hand in marriage. Seeing how well his nephew worked and
knowing that it was customary among their people for relatives to wed, Laban accepted the offer. [3]
Bible scholars have tried to explain the marriage arrangement of Jacob to Labans daughters according to ancient
documents found in the ancient Near East. However, later scholars in their review of this development notes
99 | P a g e
Even though there may be no validity in speaking of an errebu marriage, it still remains to compare the JacobLaban story with those texts which describe the marriage of an adopted son to the daughter of an adopter. The
fundamental issue in the alleged similarity as expounded by Gordon is Jacobs adoption by Laban. If it cannot be
proved that Jacob was adopted by Laban, then the whole basis upon which the Nuzi parallels to the Jacob story
have been built is completely destroyed. [4]
This reference concludes after noting all the many details in the Jacob account
We may summarize the analysis of the marriage customs in the Jacob-Laban story thus. First, many parallels
have been proposed between the Biblical story and the Nuzi texts which were based on a serious
misunderstanding of the cuneiform sources. This is the case with the so-called errebu marriage. Secondly, some
parallel customs are common to both the second and the first century millenium B.C. and so are completely
indecisive for the dating of the traditions. Thirdly, there are certain elements of the story, such as the remarks of
Labans daughters, which actually seem to reflect more closely the situation reflected in the texts of the mid-first
millenium B.C. and would suggest a rather late date for the final composition of the Jacob story and written in
keeping with the customs practised in the time of the narrator. [5]
The Bible-based encyclopedia notes Nuzi under the subject Archaeology
Nuzi, an ancient city to the E of the Tigris and SE of Nineveh, excavated during 1925-1931, yielded an inscribed
clay map, the oldest yet discovered, as well as evidence that as early as the 15th century B.C.E. there was buying
and selling on the installment plan there. Some 20,000 clay tablets, considered to have been written by Hurrian
scribes in the Babylonian language, were unearthed. These contain a wealth of detail regarding the legal
jurisprudence at that time, involving such things as adoption, marriage contracts, rights of inheritance, and wills.
Certain aspects show a relatively close parallel to customs described in the Genesis account concerning the
patriarchs. The practice of a childless couples adopting a son, whether freeborn or slave, to care for them, bury
them, and be their heir, shows a similarity to the statement by Abraham concerning his trusted slave Eliezer at
Genesis 15:2. The selling of birthrights is described, recalling the case of Jacob and Esau. (Ge 25:29-34) The
texts also show that possession of the family gods, often small clay figurines, was viewed as similar to holding a
title deed, so that the one possessing the gods was considered to hold the right to the property or the inheritance
thereof. This may illustrate the situation involving Rachels taking her fathers teraphim and his great concern for
their recovery.Ge 31:14-16, 19, 25-35. [6]
The detail of Rachel giving Bilhah to Jacob as a wife was studied by scholars in relation to discoveries of ancient
documents
We should also include one passage from the Jacob story, Gen 30 3, in which Rachel gives her maid Bilhah to
Jacob for the same reason that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham. Rachel says to Jacob, "Here is my maid Bilhah.
Consort with her, that she may bear on my knees and that through her I too may have children." The first
important point to be noted in these narratives is that the wife of the patriarch gives her maid to her husband in
order that she herself may have children through her maid. This is partly obscured in the Abraham story because
the story of ch. 16 in its present context focuses on Abraham's need for an heir. But originally as an independent
unit this was not the issue in the story. This is clear from the similar situation in the Jacob story where Jacob
already has four sons? So the biblical custom is clearly for the sake of the wife and not the husband who can
always procure another wife as Abraham does (25 i1), or who already has a second wife as in the case of Jacob.
[7]
100 | P a g e
1.17.2 Teraphim
Teraphim was also mentioned in Jacobs account. Regarding these household gods, a paper writes (Genesis
31:30)
Recent interpretation of the significance of household gods at Nuzi and among Laban's family has moved away
from seeing the gods as a title to an inheritance, following Greenberg's strong denial of the earlier view.
Thompson and van Seters have also acknowledged the force of Greenberg's arguments. In their view, the Nuzi
evidence has been wrongly understood and uncritically applied to the account of Rachel's theft, and even apart
from this, the Old Testament story on its own gives no indication that either Jacob or Rachel had any interest in
inheriting Laban's estate. And yet this was the earliest and the parade example of a Nuzi parallel to a patriarchal
custom, as indicated by Speiser, 'perhaps the outstanding example of an exclusively Hurrian custom which the
patriarchal account records, but which became incomprehensible later on in Canaanite surroundings'. [8]
The study of ancient documents and the effort to relate this in the Genesis story is presently in a flux. It appears
that it is not conclusive to cite these documents as corroborative evidence for the Bible. But, the practices in these
documents undeniably has certain similarities with the Genesis accounts which prompted the rush of initial but
now erroneous conclusions.
Although certain scholars do not consider the Genesis patriarchal stories as history, the existence of like customs
and laws has cast doubts on such positions in favor of the Bible.
References
[1] Tithe. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1109.
[2] Well. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1179.
[3] The Watchtower, Distressed Sisters Who Built the House of Israel, October 1, 2007, p. 8.
[5] Van Seters, John. Jacobs Marriages and Ancient Near East Customs: A Reexamination, The Harvard
Theological Review Vol. 62, No. 4, October 1969, p. 389.
[5] Ibid., p. 395.
[6] Archaeology. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 149.
[7] Van Seters, John. The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel, Journal of
Biblical Literature, Vol. 87, No. 4, December 1968, p. 403.
[8] Selman, Martin. Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age, Essays on the Patriarchal Age, Leicester:
IVP, 1980 p. 110.
101 | P a g e
1.17.3 Jacob and Laban

The studies of ancient documents from the Near East have been very helpful in authenticating the social
circumstances of the patriarchal life as presented in Genesis. Bible scholars are also using these documents to
be able to frame the date of when these events did occur which affirms that the Bible narrative is anchored on real
history.
Why is that important to me? This is one core proof why the Bible is God's Word - harmony in content across
different writers. The Bible has one plot and Genesis provides the context of this plot and its initial unfolding. If
Genesis were fiction as some liberal scholars and theologians would like us to believe, everything that follows it in
the Bible has no value to me as a Christian.
A notable reflection on the story of Jacob and his wives, is the ever present tension and rivalry between the loved
wife, Rachel, and her older sister, Leah. A Bible-based magazine relates the issues
Jacob loved Rachel. When God saw that in comparison Leah was hated, he opened her womb, while Rachel
remained barren. But Leah wanted more than a child; she wanted Jacobs affection. Seeing that affection go to
Rachel, she felt wretched. Still, Leah hoped for Jacobs love on account of her bearing his first son, Reuben,
meaning See, a Son! Leah had reason for thus naming her child: It is because Jehovah has looked upon my
wretchedness, in that now my husband will begin to love me. But Jacob did not; nor did he on the birth of another
son. Leah called that son Simeon, meaning Hearing. She reasoned: It is because Jehovah has listened, in that
I was hated and so he gave me also this one.Genesis 29:30-33.
That God listened meant that Leah had prayed about her lot. She was seemingly a faithful woman. Yet, her pain
persisted even after she bore a third son, Levi. His name, meaning Adherence, or Joined, is explained by
Leahs words: Now this time my husband will join himself to me, because I have borne him three sons.
Evidently, though, Jacob felt no closer to her. Perhaps Leah resigned herself to that fact, for her fourth sons
name contained no reference to her hopes of better relations with Jacob. Instead, the naming of Judah expressed
her thankfulness to God. The name Judah means Lauded, or Object of Laudation. Leah simply said: This
time I shall laud Jehovah.Genesis 29:34, 35. [1]
What I learned here about Leah is that you can be faithful to God but it does not necessarily lead to improvements
in ones circumstances in life. God does not necessarily control others that they will be coerced to make decisions
against their will. Jacob does not love Leah and has not learned to love Leah despite her faithfulness.
The magazine article continues
If Leah felt wretched, Rachel felt no better. She begged Jacob: Give me children or otherwise I shall be a dead
woman. (Genesis 30:1) Rachel had Jacobs love, but she sought motherhood. Leah had children, but she sought
love. Each desired what the other had, and neither was happy. Both loved Jacob and wished to bear his children.
Each was jealous of the other. What a sad situation for that family! [2]
Clearly, the story of Jacobs family illustrate the tensions in a polygamous marriage. The article did state that
despite the imperfections of these two women, Jehovah used them to fulfill the promise of building up a nation
with Jacob.
Laban and Jacobs working arrangement were also studied by scholars in the light of the ancient documents.
Here is what they found
The agreements between Jacob and Laban bear a strong resemblance to Old Babylonian herding contracts. By
these contracts free herdsmen agreed with livestock owners to tend the flocks and herds in return for a share of
the profits in the form of young stock, wool, and dairy products. The herdsmen were responsible for repaying any
animals that were lost or became diseased because of the herdsman's negligence. According to the Code of
Hammurapi, however, the herdsmen were exempted from replacing losses resulting from the depredations of wild
animals or lipit ilim, literally "the touch of a god." The contracts were also used to calculate the expected increase
in the flock and, thus, the shares of the livestock owner and the herdsmen. The Larsa administrative texts
indicate, at least for state herding, that the expected birthrate was eighty lambs per one hundred ewes and that a
fifteen-percent loss to the original flock was allowed the herdsman. Shortfalls in the numbers of young returned to
the livestock owner and losses above the fifteen-percent loss rate, barring, presumably, those for which the
herdsman was not responsible, were to be made up by the herdsman. [3]
102 | P a g e
It adds
Other events in the narrative refer to the time when accounts were settled and new contracts drawn up, that is,
the shearing time. In the meetings with Laban in both Genesis 29:21-27 and Genesis 30:25-36, Jacob declares
that he has fulfilled his contractual obligations, requests his wages, and then enters new contracts. The first event
occurs when all of the men of the place are available for the marriage feast. The second is followed immediately
by Laban's separation of the flocks by a "three days' journey" Though Laban's motives as to the composition of
the flock are clear, the departure of the flocks from settled areas after contracts were drawn up is typical of
ancient Near Eastern herding practices. Even the first contract of Genesis 29:15-19 occurs after a time when the
flocks were in local pastures, and probably coincides with the beginning of the herding year. [4]
It concludes
The practices and institutions of Nuzi presented here are not unlike those of other settled centers of the Near
East in the second millennium B.C.E. such as Mari, Alalakh, and Ugarit. Moreover, similar patterns are attested
throughout the first millennium, and the herding practices persist to the present day in certain areas of the Near
East [5]
In the Jacob account, he has this idea that his shepherd stick has something to do with the kind of sheep that is
born. Regarding this, a Bible-based encyclopedia has this to say
In his dream Jacob learned that certain principles of genetics, and not the sticks, were responsible for his
success. Whereas Jacob was tending only solid-colored animals, yet the vision revealed that the male goats were
striped, speckled, and spotty. How could this be? Apparently they were hybrids even though of uniform color, the
result of crossbreeding in Labans flock before Jacob began being paid. So certain of these animals carried in
their reproductive cells the hereditary factors for spotting and speckling future generations, according to the laws
of heredity discovered by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century.Ge 31:10-12. [6]
References
[1] The Watchtower, Distressed Sisters Who Built the House of Israel, October 1, 2007, p. 9.
[2] Ibid., p. 10.
[3] Morrison, Martha. The Jacob and Laban Narrative in Light of Near Eastern Sources, The Bible Archaeologist,
Vol. 46, No. 3, Summer 1983, The American Schools of Oriental Research, p. 156.
[4] Ibid., p. 158.
[5] Ibid., p. 163.
[6] Jacob. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1242.
103 | P a g e
1.17.4 Jacob, his shepherding life, Laban covenant, his meeting with Esau, the wrestling with an angel
The first name I associate with a biblical shepherd is David while a young man. But, the Bible also presents Jacob
as the second shepherd after Abel. Genesis provides a description of a shepherds life through the disclosures of
Jacob
By day the heat consumed me, and the cold by night, and sleep would flee from my eyes. (Genesis 31: 40)
Regarding the wages of the shepherd, Jacob narrated this
I never ate the rams of your flock and I did not bring you any animal torn by wild beasts. I would stand the loss
of it myself.
These aspects were cited by a Bible-based encyclopedia as indeed part of a shepherds task
A Rigorous Life. The shepherds life was not an easy one. He was exposed to both heat and cold, as well as to
sleepless nights. (Ge 31:40; Lu 2:8) With personal danger to himself, he protected the flock from predators, such
as lions, wolves, and bears, as well as from thieves. (Ge 31:39; 1Sa 17:34-36; Isa 31:4; Am 3:12; Joh 10:10-12)
The shepherd had to keep the flock from scattering (1Ki 22:17), look for lost sheep (Lu 15:4), carry feeble or
weary lambs in his bosom (Isa 40:11), and care for the sick and injuredbandaging broken limbs and rubbing
injuries with olive oil. (Ps 23:5; Eze 34:3, 4; Zec 11:16) He had to exercise care when shepherding ewes giving
suck. (Ge 33:13) Daily, generally around noon, the shepherd watered the flock. (Ge 29:3, 7, 8) If the animals were
watered at wells, gutters in the ground or troughs had to be filled with water. (Ex 2:16-19; compare Ge 24:20.) At
the wells there sometimes were unpleasant encounters with other shepherds.Ge 26:20, 21.
The shepherd was entitled to a share of the flocks produce (1Co 9:7), and often his wages were paid in animals
(Ge 30:28, 31-33; 31:41), although sometimes also in money. (Zec 11:7, 12) He might have to make
compensation for losses (Ge 31:39), but under the Law covenant no compensation was required for an animal
torn by a wild beast.Ex 22:13. [1]
The issue over the way Laban treated Jacob on his wages led to a tension-filled relationship. This caused Jacob
to finally separate from Laban under the instruction and protection of God. Regarding the resolution of this matter
after which Laban finally fades away from the story of Jacob, it states
When Laban states that everything is his own, he con-cedes that he had not formally transferred his daughters
and their children and the livestock to Jacob. Then he asks, what can he do for his daughters and their children,
that is, how he can rectify the situ-ation? The answer is, by establishing a covenant which includes the terms of
the marriage agreement (Genesis 31:50). The covenant, in this case a treaty between free and equal parties,
confirms the relation-ship between Jacob and Laban, and, at the same time, formalizes the marriage of Laban's
daughters. With the completion of the marriage agreement, the terms of the first two herding contracts are
finally fulfilled. [2]
After this incident, I personally find it noteworthy Jacobs prayer requesting protection from Jehovah God from his
brother Esau
I am unworthy of all the loyal love and of all the faithfulness that you have shown toward your servant, for with
only my staff I crossed this Jordan and now I have become two camps. (Genesis 32: 10)
Jacob expressed confidence that Jehovah who made the promises to him will make His promises come true.
Interestingly, Jacob did not just wait for that deliverance to come. He took practical steps for Jehovah to bless and
make successful.
Regarding this peace making effort by Jacob, a Bible-based magazine comments
The account of Jacob and Esau shows that we should make earnest and practical efforts to settle matters when
problems arise that may threaten the peace we enjoy within the Christian congregation. Jacob sought to make
peace with Esau, but not because Jacob had erred against his brother and owed him an apology. No, Esau had
104 | P a g e
despised his birthright and had sold it to Jacob for a bowl of stew. (Gen. 25:31-34; Heb. 12:16) However, the way
Jacob approached Esau illustrates the extent to which we should be willing to go to preserve the peace with our
Christian brothers. It also shows that the true God blesses our prayerful efforts to make peace. The Bible contains
numerous other examples that instruct us to be peacemakers. [3]
Before Jacob and Esau met, Jacob wrestled with an angel. What is the significance of this report? A Bible-based
encyclopedia notes
Why did the angel with whom Jacob wrestled cause Jacob to limp?
During the night that Jacobs household crossed the Jabbok on the way S to meet Esau, Jacob had the most
unusual experience of wrestling with an angel, and because of his perseverance his name was changed to Israel,
meaning Contender (Perseverer) With God; or, God Contends. (Ge 32:22-28) Thereafter both names often
appear in Hebrew poetic parallelisms. (Ps 14:7; 22:23; 78:5, 21, 71; 105:10, 23) In this struggle the angel touched
the socket of Jacobs thigh joint, and Jacob limped for the rest of his lifeperhaps to teach him humility; a
constant reminder not to be overly exalted because of his God-given prosperity or for having grappled with an
angel. In commemoration of these momentous events Jacob called the place Peniel or Penuel.Ge 32:25, 3032. [4]
What can be learned from this? A Bible-based magazine comments
Wrestling with an angel and reunion with Esau were not the only crises that Jacob had to overcome. Yet, the
events considered here illustrate the sort of man he was. Whereas Esau would not endure a little hunger for the
sake of his birthright, Jacob struggled all his life to obtain blessings, even wrestling with an angel. As God
promised, Jacob received divine guidance and protection, becoming the progenitor of a great nation and the
forefather of the Messiah.Matthew 1:2, 16.
Are you willing to exert yourself to gain Jehovahs favor, wrestling for it, as it were? Life today is full of difficulties
and challenges for those who want to do Gods will, and sometimes it is a struggle to make the right decisions.
However, the fine example of Jacob offers strong incentive for us to hold on to the hope of the reward that
Jehovah sets before us. [5]
References
[1] Shepherd. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 925.
[2] Morrison, Martha. The Jacob and Laban Narrative in the light of ancient Near Eastern Sources, The Biblical
Archaeologist Vol 46 No. 3 (Summer 1983), The American Schools of Oriental Research, p. 163.
[3] Jehovah-The God Who Gives Peace, The Watchtower, August 15, 2011, p. 24.
[4] Jacob. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1245.
[5] Jacob Appreciated Spiritual Values, The Watchtower, October 15, 2003, p. 31.
105 | P a g e
1.17.5 The price of peace

Jacob send a gift to Esau his brother as a sort of peace offering. In todays prices, the total worth of the gifts is
about half a million dollars. That says much about how blessed Jacob became from just owning a walking stick to
multi-million, if not billion, dollars worth of livestock.
This is the tally of what Jacob offered and their current prices
200 female goat @$300 = $ 60,000
20 male goat @$300 = $ 6,000
200 female sheep @$300 = $ 60,000
20 rams @$300 = $ 6,000
30 camels @$10,000 = $ 300,000
40 cows @$1,000 = $ 40,000
10 bulls @$5,000 = $ 50,000
20 female donkeys @$3,000 = $ 60,000
10 male donkeys @$3,000 = 30,000
Here again, we find the mention of camels that recently the media picked up some archaeologist report that there
were no camels in the time the Bible says it did. So, it appears that the Bible is wrong here. Could this be true?
One paper on this subject reacted this way
Here is a simple breakdown of whats happening. The camel paper says that there is no evidence of
domesticated [vs. wild] camels in Palestine prior to about 930 BC. Based upon the lack of camel bones in
excavated cities and their presence in paintings, camels were not an essential staple of Ancient Near Eastern
living. This is an apparent problem because the mention of camels in Gen. 1250 (Abraham thru Joseph) are
dated roughly to 2000 1700 BC. Further, they are mentioned in Ex. 9:3; Lev. 11:4 and Deut. 14:7, which was
written around the time of the Exodus (approx. 1400 BC). There are other mentions in Judges, Samuel and Kings
as well. Is the Bible wrong? If domesticated camels did not appear in Palestine until about 930 BC, then why does
the Bible say that they were there about 1000 years earlier?
My first reaction is to argue; but then I stop and remember that this is not the first time something like this has
happened. Our memories are short, and our perspective is small, and headlines do what they are designed to
doattract readers. Ill give three (really big) examples of where this kind of things has popped up in the past.
First, the Hittites are mentioned throughout the Old Testament. This problem, historically, was that there was
no archaeological proof of their existenceuntil the late 1800s. In 1853, Francis Newman wrote, if the
Hittites existed at all This was the kind of critical approach to the Bible. The Hittites were a fictional people
who never really existed; but time proved him wrong, and now there is much to say about the Hittites.
Second, Dan. 5 & 8 refers to the last king of Babylon as Belshazzar. The problem was that until 1854 the only
known records of the NeoBabylonian Empire listed Belshazzars father, Nabonidus, as the last king of Babylon.
The only apparent answer at the time was to claim that the Bible must be wrong. Then, in 1854 the Cylinders of
Nabonidus were discovered in Ur. As it turns out, the Bible taught something that secular archaeological history
did not. [1]
What is the present state of consensus among scholars? Do they believe that camels did exist during the time of
the patriarchs, including Jacob? A Bible-based magazine reports
106 | P a g e
Some do not accept this. The New International Version Archaeological Study Bible reports: Scholars have
debated the historicity of these references to camels because most believe that these animals were not widely
domesticated until approximately 1200 B.C., long after the time of Abraham. Any earlier Biblical reference
to camels would therefore be considered an anachronism, or a chronological misplacing. [2]
The article then cites other factors for consideration
Other scholars, however, argue that although the domestication of camels became a factor of importance about
the end of the second millennium, this does not mean that camels were not used earlier. The
book Civilizations of the Ancient Near East states: Recent research has suggested that the domestication of the
camel took place in southeastern Arabia some time in the third millennium [B.C.E.]. Originally, it was probably
bred for its milk, hair, leather, and meat, but it cannot have been long before its usefulness as a beast of burden
became apparent. This dating to before Abrahams time seems to be supported by bone fragments and other
archaeological remains.
Written evidence also exists. The same reference work says: In Mesopotamia, cuneiform lists mention the
creature [the camel] and several seals depict it, indicating that the animal may have reached Mesopotamia by the
beginning of the second millennium, that is, by Abrahams time.
Some scholars believe that South Arabian merchants involved in the incense trade used camels to transport their
goods northward through the desert, heading to such areas as Egypt and Syria and thereby introducing camels to
these areas. This trade was probably common as early as 2000 B.C.E. Interestingly, Genesis 37:25-28 mentions
Ishmaelite merchants who used camels to transport incense to Egypt about a hundred years after the time of
Abraham. [3]
Another paper cited some specific reports that bolster the biblical record
Other scholars are skeptical, too. Gordon Govier reports, Two recent academic papers written by evangelical
scholarsKonrad Martin Heide, a lecturer at Philipps University of Marburg, Germany; and Titus Kennedy, an
adjunct professor at Biola Universityboth refer to earlier depictions of men riding or leading camels, some that
date to the early second millenium BC. Among other evidence, Kennedy notes that a camel is mentioned in a list
of domesticated animals from Ugarit, dating to the Old Babylonian period (19501600 BC)
(Govier 2014, www.christianitytoday.com (http://www.christianitytoday.com/)). [4]
One blog cited another reference work
Written by Martin Heide of the Philipp University of Marburg, the article was published in 2011 in
UgaritForschungen. The title is The Domestication of the Camel: Biological, Archaeological and Inscriptional
Evidence from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel and Arabia, and Literary Evidence from the Hebrew Bible. [5]
From this blog and this article, we read
The two humped (Bactrian) camel was in use in southern Turkmenistan not long after 3000 BC. It was the
standard for the region by the second half of the third millennium (344). Abraham lived after this time, and it is not
difficult to imagine that other peoples recognized the value of camels and used them. The debate is partly
between the positive evidence (attestation in the biblical record) and negative evidence (limited evidence in
excavations and
inscriptions).
A Sumerian love song from the Old Babylonian period (18001600 BC) mentions the milk of the camel and is best
taken as referring to a domestic camel (35657).
Evidence for Mesopotamian use of domesticated Bactrian camels includes two lexical lists from the Old
Babylonian period and probably also by the Sumerian tablet mentioning the G.URUGU and the cylinder seal
from the Walters Art Gallery (358). A photo of the cylinder seal can be seen here.
To sum up the early evidence, it is certain that based on archaeological evidence the domesticated two humped
107 | P a g e
camel appeared in Southern Turkmenistan not later than the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE. From there or
from adjacent regions, the domesticated Bactrian camel must have reached Mesopotamia via the Zagros
Mountains. In Mesopotamia, the earliest knowledge of the camel points to the middle of the 3rd millennium, where
it seems to have been regarded as a very exotic animal. The horse and the Bactrian camel may have been
engaged in seaborne and overland global trading networks spanning much of the ancient world from the third
millennium BCE onwards (359) [6]
Due to the above documentations on the camel in the ancient Near East, the Bible-based magazine concludes its
article
Perhaps camels were not widely used in the ancient Near East at the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E.,
but evidence seems to confirm that they were not completely unknown.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia therefore concludes: It is no longer necessary to regard the
mention of camels in the patriarchal narratives as anachronisms, since there is ample archeological evidence for
the domestication of the camel before the time of the patriarchs. [7]
In other words, the mention of camels from Abraham to Jacob and beyond it, in the Bible, is trustworthy.
References
[1] Boyer, Ryan. Whats All the Talk About Camels. Available (online)
[2] Did Abraham Really Own Camels?, The Watchtower, June 15, 2011, p. 16-17.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Chilton, Brian. What Camels Teach Us About the Necessity of Apologetics. Available (online).
[5] Bolen, Todd. The Domestication of the Camel: Observation from Heide, Bible Places blog, Available
(online).
[6] Ibid.
108 | P a g e
1.17.6 The meeting of the brothers Esau and Jacob

At this point, it is evident to me how much Jacob loves Rachel and her son Joseph by the way he organized his
two camps as they approached Esau. The Bible reports
He put the female servants and their children in front. Leah and her children after them, and Rachel and Joseph
behind them.
We can only speculate how this organization was accepted emotionally by the mothers and their children knowing
full well that 400 men are marching up to meet them, uncertain if it meant peace or their annihilation. But what is
clear is that Jacob favors Rachel and her son Joseph. Did Jacob do the right or wisest thing here? The Bible itself
does not comment on the event.
However, I learned something from Jacob worth emulating by Christians when it comes to peace-making. When
he finally approached Esau, the Bible reports this, that Jacob
bowed down to the earth seven times as he came near to his brother.
What does this act mean in ancient times? One article describes the implication
The act of bowing down or prostration in antiquity was a common act of submission of an inferior before a
superior. One classical example was the image of Jehu bowing down in an act of submission to Shalmaneser III
on the Black Obelisk.
Bowing seven times was a demonstration of reverence that was the customary act of homage a vassal offered to
his overlord. According to Claus Westermann (Genesis 12-36[Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995]), Jacob greeted
his brother as a vassal greeted his overlord with an act of reverence that had its origin in the royal court. [1]
The same article offers its own interpretation as it tries to relate the act with similar acts in ancient times
It is possible to interpret the act of bowing seven times as a demonstration of complete submission to the
overlord. However, I would like to suggest another possible reason why Pharaohs vassals bowed seven times
before his feet.
In the three examples listed above, the vassals of Pharaoh call him my Sun-god or the Sun-god of the lands.
Thus, bowing seven times before Pharaoh was an act that acknowledged him to be not only lord and king, but
also a god.
It would be interesting to find out whether in other literature of the Ancient Near East the vassals bowed seven
times before their overlords and called them gods. When Jacob bowed before Esau, Jacob indirectly recognized
him as a god. Jacob said: To see your face is like seeing the face of God (Genesis 33:10). [2]
The Bible also reports that Jacob kept on calling his older brother Esau my lord. Bible commentators see this as
a reversal of what Isaac told Jacob in a blessing that nations will bow down to Jacob.
The gifts and the act of abasement by Jacob softened the heart of Esau that they embraced and kissed. Although
their long time hostility has finally ended between them, each has to go on to their separate ways.
After this the account completes by reporting that Jacob and his family finally settled in Shechem and purchased
land from the sons of Hamor. Sadly, it was here that Dinah was raped by Shechem and his brothers in retaliation,
killed the men of Shechem. What led to this very sad state of affairs? The Bible reports
Now Dinah, Jacobs daughter by Leah, used to go out to spend time with the young women of the land.
(Genesis 34:1)
One blog suggests that Dinah was not raped but that what happened between them was consensual
109 | P a g e
The story invites two opposing interpretations. The traditional understanding is that Dinah has been raped by
Shechem. Her brothers Simeon and Levi retaliate by violently slaying and plundering Shechem, Hamor, and the
Shechemite community. But the retaliation puts Jacobs group in jeopardy by making subsequent social
intercourse and peaceful coexistence impossible. Jacob thus reprimands his sons for their behavior. But
concerning the question of whether Dinah has been raped, the final clue comes in the last sentence of the story.
Simeon and Levi say, Should our sister be treated like a whore? (34:31). Prostitutes engage in sexual
intercourse for financial gain, and their sexual actions involve mutual consent. Rape therefore does not
characterize either prostitution or what has happened to Dinah. Furthermore, one of the purposes of sexual
intercourse in the ancient world was to create permanent bonding and obligation; but in prostitution, there is no
bonding or obligation. By saying that Dinah has become like a prostitute, Simeon and Levi might be suggesting
that, from their perspective, Dinah and Shechems intercourse could never lead to bonding and obligation. They
are not suggesting that she was raped. [3]
Liberal Bible scholars due to their predisposition to the documentary hypothesis are also marginalizing the rape
story
Using historical methodologies, the interpretation of renowned Old Testament scholar Gerhard von Rad is an
example for the marginalization of the rape and Dinah. To von Rad, the narrative does not report actual events in
the family life of Leah and Jacob. Rather, it remembers a prehistoric conflict in early Israelite tribal history: The
narrative seems to go back to the time when Israelite tribes were not yet settled in Palestine but on their way
thither in search of new pasture. Grounded in some catastrophe related to territorial dispossession, the
personalized saga describes that Shechem has fallen in love with the girl, Dinah. It emphasizes Shechems
great love for the girl, which brooks no hindrance. In fact, von Rad claims: The figure of Shechem is made more
human for the reader than the brothers who purify the honor of their violated sister at the cost of a morally
ambiguous deed. Thus, from von Rads historical perspective, the story remembers the departure of the tribes of
Simeon and Levi from the territory around Shechem. Rape is not an issue in this past.
Also marginalizing the rape, other interpreters use anthropological methods. For instance, Lynn M. Bechtel
suggests that Genesis 34 reflects ancient Israels struggle between the integration and the exclusion of foreign
people. As a group-oriented society, Israel disagreed whether or not to interact with non-Israelites and to cross
tribal boundaries. The characters of Genesis 34 represent the different positions. One faction personified by
Dinah and Jacob wants to interact with outsiders. The other group personified by the brothers, the militant
folks votes for separation and group purity. Bechtel believes that the writers of the narrative opposed the
excluding position: The story seems to be challenging this attitude [of the brothers] by showing the potential
danger in which it places the group. [4]
It adds a third interpretation by liberal Bible scholars
Another group of scholars bases their interpretations on source criticism and so neglects the rape. For instance,
Yair Zakovitch applies this method to reconstructing the earliest version of Genesis 34. Particularly one
observation leads him to exclude the rape from the original literary source of the text. He states: The sequence of
actions at the beginning of the story is difficult: Shechem lay with the girl and ravished her (verse 2), and only
afterward became infatuated with her and sought to persuade her (verse 3). [6] Thus, to Zakovitch, later editors
added the rape in verse 2b to justify the brothers. The editors needed a motive for the murder, which the rape
provided. Zakovitch also proposes that the editors wanted to assimilate the original story to two biblical texts: the
story of the rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13) and Jacobs curse of his two sons (Genesis 49:5-7). Accordingly, the
changes resulted in a contrived version in which rape explains the fraternal violence. In contrast, the original story
did not contain the rape element. It reported only Shechems innocent attraction to Dinah and Jacobs sons
treacherous exploitation of the situation in order to plunder the city.[5]
Suzzane Scholz then breaks down the verse (34:2) and explains the Hebrew sense
110 | P a g e
The first set of verbs. In staccato fashion, the narrative combines the first three verbs to describe the rape: He
took her, and he laid her, and he raped her (verse 2b). The verbs underscore the increasing severity of the
violence. Whereas the first verb means simply to take, the second verb presents an interesting twist in Hebrew
grammar. The verb is not connected to the expected proposition with which would indicate the willing
participation of Dinah. Rather, the verb is followed by a Hebrew object marker (t)), which stresses Dinah as the
object of the activity. Shechem does not lie with her. No doubt, Shechem laid her.
The third verb, to rape , has posed many problems for translators. For instance, none of the standard English
Bible versions translate the verb as he raped her. The King James Bible translates the verse: He took her, and
lay with her, and defiled her. The more recent New Revised Standard Version and the Tenakh write: He seized
her and lay with her by force. Some scholars justify this translation. They argue that the verb in Hebrew does not
mean to rape because Hebrew does not have a specific word for this action. However, classical reference books
indicate that the verb signifies an act of violence. Mandelkerns concordance translates the Hebrew into the Latin
equivalent opprimere, vim affere, which refers to violent and oppressive action. The English dictionary of biblical
Hebrew, edited by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, translates the verb as 1. humble,
mishandle, afflict; 2. humble, a woman by cohabitation; 3. afflict; 4. humble, weaken. Wilhelm Gesenius
dictionary provides the most direct translation: to weaken a woman, through rape. Thus, the classic reference
books support that the verb describes a form of violent interaction, including rape. Interestingly enough, the verb
is sometimes translated as to rape in other biblical passages. For example, the NRSV translates Lamentations
5:11: Women are raped in Zion. Additionally, all major commentaries emphasize that Amnon raped Tamar in 2
Samuel 13:14. Also Erhard Gerstenbergers word analysis supports the translation of to rape. He states that the
verb describes unjust situations, the creation of a miserable situation, and physical or psychological violence.
Another example illustrates why scholars are so reticent to translate verse 2b as a reference to rape. Discussing
Deuteronomy 22:13-29, Moshe Weinfeld claims that the verb connote[s] sexual intercourse in general rather than
rape. However, later he holds that the author of Deuteronomy does not differentiate between cases of seduction
and rape because sexual relations with a young, even unbetrothed, girl had always been taken as coercive.
Acknowledging that ancient Near Eastern men forced young women to have intercourse, Weinfeld still hedges to
translate the verb as to rape. But why is he hesitant? The contemporary word for such activity is to rape. Do
readers feel uncomfortable that the Bible tells of rape? In any case, the last verb of Genesis 34:2b represents the
culmination of Shechems increasing use of violence against Dinah. According to classical reference books, other
biblical texts, and contemporary terminology, Shechem raped Dinah. [6]
Others noted that in this account there was no outrage from Jacob but only from Dinahs brothers Simeon and
Levi, children of Leah. They ask speculatively was this because Dinah was not his child by Rachel? However, the
Bible does not say anything in this regard.
There is a valuable lesson here for young Christians when it comes to choice of associations. This was pointed
out by a Bible-based magazine
Jacobs daughter Dinah was an example of one who got into serious trouble because of associating with worldly
companions. The Genesis account about her tells us that she was in the habit of associating with the young
Canaanite women in the area where her family dwelled. The Canaanites did not have the same high moral
standards as Jehovahs worshippers. On the contrary, what archaeologists have found indicates that the
Canaanites ways led to their land becoming filled with idolatry, immorality, depraved sex worship, and violence.
(Ex. 23:23; Lev. 18:2-25; Deut. 18:9-12) Recall the outcome of Dinahs association with these people.
A local man, Shechem, described as the most honorable of the whole house of his father, saw Dinah and then
took her and lay down with her and violated her. (Gen. 34:1, 2, 19) What a tragedy! Do you suppose Dinah ever
imagined that such a thing could happen to her? Perhaps she was simply seeking the friendship of the local
youths, whom she considered harmless. However, Dinah was greatly deceived.
What does this account teach us? That we simply cannot socialize with unbelievers and hope to suffer no ill
consequences. The Scriptures state that bad associations spoil useful habits. (1 Cor. 15:33) On the other hand,
association with people who share your beliefs, your high moral standards, and your love for Jehovah is a
safeguard. Such good association will encourage you to act wisely.Prov. 13:20. [7]
111 | P a g e
References
[1] Mariottini, Claude. Bowing Seven Times, Dr. Claude Mariottini Professor of Old Testament blog, Available
(online)
[2] Ibid.
[3] Dinah: Bible. The Jewish Womens Archive. Available (online).
[4] Scholz, Suzanne. What Really Happened to Dinah, Lecti Defficilior blog. Available (online)
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Find Security Among Gods People, The Watchtower, June 15, 2010, p. 8.
112 | P a g e
1.17.7 Simeons anger

Simeon and Levi, brothers of Dinah, resorted to violence to avenge Dinah. The Bible reports
Each took his sword and went into the unsuspecting city and killed every male. They killed Hamor and his son
Shechem with the sword and then took Dinah from Shechems house and left. (34:25, 26)
After this, the rest of the brothers did the same and they plundered the city.
Simeon is described this way in a Bible-based encyclopedia
When his father Jacob was encamped near Shechem, Simeon, together with his next younger brother Levi,
displayed a vengeful anger that was unreasonably harsh and cruel. Arbitrarily, without their fathers knowledge or
consent, they set about avenging the honor of their younger sister Dinah by slaughtering the Shechemites,
bringing ostracism upon Jacobs whole family.Ge 34:1-31. [1]
Jacob would later recall this incident and he cursed Simeons anger
Shortly before Jacobs death, when blessing his sons, Jacob recalled with disapproval the violence of Simeon
and Levi in connection with the Shechemites many years earlier, saying: Instruments of violence are their
slaughter weapons. Into their intimate group do not come, O my soul. With their congregation do not become
united, O my disposition, because in their anger they killed men, and in their arbitrariness they hamstrung bulls.
Cursed be their anger, because it is cruel, and their fury, because it acts harshly. Let me parcel them out in
Jacob, but let me scatter them in Israel. (Ge 49:5-7) Jacob thus removed any hope Simeon may have
entertained of receiving the birthright forfeited by his older brother Reuben. Simeon had six sons, one from a
Canaanite woman. As prophesied, Simeons tribal allotment was not united with Levis, but these two were
scattered; even internally, Simeons portion was divided up as enclave cities in Judahs territory.Ge 46:10; Ex
6:15; 1Ch 4:24; Jos 19:1. [2]
And it was not to stop here. In the time of Moses, Simeon was excluded from the blessings. A Bible-based
magazine explains
Why was Simeon not specifically mentioned in the blessing with which Moses blessed the sons of
Israel? This was because Simeon as well as Levi had acted harshly, and their anger was cruel. (Genesis
34:13-31; 49:5-7) Their inheritance was not quite the same as that of the other tribes. Levi received 48 cities, and
Simeons portion was within Judahs territory. (Joshua 19:9; 21:41, 42) Hence, Moses did not specifically bless
Simeon. However, Simeons blessing was included in the general blessing to Israel. [3]
What can we learn from Shechem incident when it comes to anger? A Bible-based magazine counsels
Wisely, Gods Word, the Bible, recommends the opposite course. It says: Let anger alone and leave rage; do
not show yourself heated up only to do evil. (Psalm 37:8) Following that advice can prevent great sins.
Ecclesiastes 10:4; see also Proverbs 22:24, 25. [4]
References
[1] Simeon. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 944.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Highlights from the Book of Deuteronomy, The Watchtower, September 15, 2004, p. 27.
[4] Putting to Sea in a Storm, The Watchtower, April 15, 1999, p. 31.
113 | P a g e
1.17.8 Jacob goes to Bethel

Get rid of the foreign gods that is in your midst (35:2)
A technical paper expressed its assessment on what this meant for the state of religion in the family of Jacob
based on two extracted stories or periscopes in Genesis
There are two pericopes in Genesis suggesting that Jacobs entourage has not given up its pagan beliefs. First,
Genesis 31:19 tells us that Rachel steals Labans household gods (teraphim) as Jacobs family prepares to flee
from Labans house. Although we are not given an explicit account of Rachels motivation for this act of filial
disloyalty, the implicit meaning can be interpreted as follows: Rachel wants the escape to succeed and steals the
teraphim in order to hinder Labans ability to pursue Jacobs clan. If that is the case, then Rachel must believe in
the potency of the idols who watch over Laban. Presumably she thinks the teraphim might help Laban find the
fugitives if the gods were to stay in his possession. Therefore, in Rachels mind the idols are not dead, and, as S.
Teubal argues, Rachels [...] carrying off of the teraphim [...] possesses a religious aspect (52; cf. 98-9).
The second pericope deals with another escape by Jacob and his family, this time from the neighboring
Canaanites sometime after the departure from Labans house. In order to enlist Yahwehs help in the clans flight,
the patriarch orders a religious purge: So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, Get rid of
the foreign gods you have with you, and purify yourselves and change your clothes (Gen 35:2). The reader
might even be tempted to surmise, as does S. Teubal (52), that these foreign gods are the very teraphim stolen
by Rachel from Laban (see below). However, whatever the idols may be, it appears that up to this point idolworship has been tolerated in Jacobs family, and if it were not for the pressing circumstances at hand, the
patriarch might not have paid any attention to these pagan practices among his wives and children. [1]
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight has this to say about these idols
Jacob had nothing to do with idols. At the latest, the teraphim would have been disposed of when Jacob hid all
the foreign gods turned over to him by his household under the big tree that was close to Shechem.Ge 35:1-4
[2]
I must admit that I was surprised by this realization, these not so obvious details due to my lack of awareness of
the cultural context of the biblical events. But, this was a turning point in the state of spirituality of the family of
Jacob. Their move to Bethel signal a transformation in their growing relationship with Jehovah God. How far back
is this worship of idols? The Bible encyclopedia on the topic of Terah, Abrahams father, and the greatgrandfather of Jacob, writes
Terah lived in Ur of the Chaldeans, and there his family grew up. (Ge 11:28) According to Joshua 24:2, Terah at
one time worshiped gods other than Jehovah, perhaps the moon-god Sin, the favored deity of Ur. Nonetheless,
when Jehovah called Abraham to leave Ur, Terah as family head went along to Haran where they all lived until
after his death about 1943 B.C.E.Ge 11:31, 32; Ac 7:2-4. [3]
What about Abraham himself, the grandfather of Jacob? Was he influenced by his father Terah to worship idols
before he worshiped Jehovah God? The same reference writes
In Abrahams time, the city of Ur was steeped in Babylonish idolatry and the worship of its patron moon-god Sin.
(Jos 24:2, 14, 15) Nevertheless, Abraham proved to be a man of faith in Jehovah God, even as his forefathers
Shem and Noah; and as a consequence, he earned the reputation the father of all those having faith while in
uncircumcision. (Ro 4:11) Since true faith is based on accurate knowledge, Abraham may have received his
understanding by personal association with Shem (their lives overlapped by 150 years). Abraham knew and used
the name of Jehovah; to quote him: Jehovah the Most High God, Producer of heaven and earth, Jehovah, the
God of the heavens and the God of the earth.Ge 14:22; 24:3. [4]
114 | P a g e
That accurate knowledge passed to Isaac and then to Jacob is an indication of the spiritual leadership of
Abraham with his family.
What did Jacob do with the idols or images? The Bible reports
and Jacob buried them under the big tree that was close to Shechem. (35: 4)
Regarding this action, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight writes
Jacob himself found it necessary to instruct his household to put away all their foreign gods, and he hid the idols
turned over to him. (Ge 35:2-4) Perhaps he disposed of them in this way so that none in his household might
reuse the metal as something having special value on account of its previous idolatrous use. Whether Jacob
initially melted or smashed the images is not stated. [5]
How would Jacobs family move from Shechem to Bethel after what his sons to the people of Shechem, the news
of which would have circulated in the neighboring cities? The Bible reveals
the terror of God struck the cities around them, so they did not chase after the sons of Jacob (35: 5)
This dread of Jehovah will be cited again during the time of Rahab after the Israelites led by Moses left Egypt.
Rahab reported to the Israelite spies
She said to the men: I do know that Jehovah will give you the land and that the fear of you has fallen upon us.
All the inhabitants of the land are disheartened because of you. (Joshua 2:9)
In the Bible narrative, Jehovah made a promise to Abraham about giving him an offspring and a blessing.
Jehovah God repeated this promise to Isaac. Now, the time has come for God to make the same promise to
Jacob. And Jehovah begins by introducing himself this way
I am God Almighty (35: 11)
In Hebrew, Jehovah was saying that he is ElShaddai. Regarding the English translation of this Hebrew phrase,
the reference work Insight writes
The exact derivation of the word Shaddai is a matter of discussion. The translators of the Septuagint used
several Greek words in translating it, but in the book of Job they did employ the word Pantokrator (All Powerful)
16 times for Shaddai. In a few cases they rendered it by a Greek term (hikanos) meaning sufficient or fit (Ru
1:20, 21; Job 21:15; 31:2; 40:2), and later Greek translators such as Aquila and Symmachus followed this
interpretation, thereby presenting Shaddai as the Sufficient (Fit) One.
The view of some modern critics is expressed in the comment on Genesis 17:1 in the Catholic translation known
as The Jerusalem Bible (ftn b), which states: The usual translation Almighty God is inaccurate; Mou[n]tain God
is the probable meaning. Such extreme view, however, is based on an imagined linkage of Shaddai with the
Akkadian term shadu (mountain). Ungers Bible Dictionary (1965, p. 1000) comments: This view, however, is
unacceptable and Shaddai is best taken from the root shadad [shadhadh], to be strong or powerful, as in
Arabic.See also The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, by Benjamin Davidson, p. 702.
Shadhadh in the Bible text commonly implies violent power, as used in despoiling. (Compare Ps 17:9; Pr 11:3.)
Isaiah 13:6 states: Howl, you people, for the day of Jehovah is near! As a despoiling [keshodh] from the Almighty
[mishShaddai] it will come. While the idea of violent action is basic in the Biblical use of this root word, some
scholars suggest that its original sense or primary meaning was simply be strong or act strongly. The Jewish
Encyclopedia (1976, Vol. IX, p. 162) states: It is possible, however, that the original significance was that of
overmastering or overpowering strength, and that this meaning persists in the divine [title]. [6]
This is enlightening to me because I see the translation More Than Enough alongside the phrase El Shaddai.
Now, I understand that the source of this is the two Greek words used to translate the Hebrew pantokrator and
hikanos. A quick check in Wikipedia on the subject affirms that the original meaning of Shaddai is a subject of
debate. One Bible translation, the New Jerusalem Bible, because of the debate decided not to translate the
Hebrew word. Instead they use Shaddai on the English text. [7]
115 | P a g e
How does this introduction relate to Gods own personal name Jehovah? Insight has this to say
In harmony with this, Jehovah could later say to Moses: I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God
Almighty [beEl Shaddai], but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them. (Ex 6:3)
This could not mean that the name Jehovah was unknown to these patriarchs, since it was frequently used by
them as well as by others before them. (Ge 4:1, 26; 14:22; 27:27; 28:16) In fact, in the book of Genesis, which
relates the lives of the patriarchs, the word Almighty occurs only 6 times, whereas the personal name Jehovah
was written 172 times in the original Hebrew text. Yet, while these patriarchs had come to appreciate by personal
experience Gods right to and qualifications for the title of the Almighty One, they had not had opportunity to
appreciate the full meaning and implications of his personal name, Jehovah. In this regard, The Illustrated Bible
Dictionary (Vol. 1, p. 572) comments: The former revelation, to the Patriarchs, concerned promises belonging to
a distant future; it supposed that they should be assured that He, Yahweh, was such a God (el) as was
competent (one possible meaning of sadday) to fulfill them. The revelation at the bush was greater and more
intimate, Gods power and immediate and continuing presence with them being all wrapped up in the familiar
name of Yahweh.Edited by J. D. Douglas, 1980. [8]
References
[1] Tumanov, Vladimir. Yahweh vs. the Teraphim: Jacobs Pagan Wives in Thomas Manns Joseph and his
Brothersand in Anita Diamants The Red Tent, Nebula 4.2, June 2007. Available (online).
[2] Teraphim. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1087.
[3] Terah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1087.
[4] Abraham. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 29.
[5] Idol, Idolatry. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1169.
[6] Almighty. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 78.
[7] El Shaddai. Wikipedia entry. Available (online).
[8] Almighty. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 78.
116 | P a g e
1.17.9 The pillars erected by Jacob

In the Genesis story, altars and pillars are often mentioned, being erected at specific locations. One of those
instance is mentioned about Jacob
Jacob setup a pillar in the place where he had spoken with him, a pillar of stone, and he poured a drink offering
on it and poured oil on it. (35: 14)
Regarding these pillars, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight has this to say
Quite apart from the improper use of pillars hated by God, the Hebrew Scriptures mention the setting up of pillars
or stones of a commemorative nature. Such pillars were neither objects of idolatrous worship nor symbolic of sex
organs. They served to recall historic acts or events.
On two occasions Jacob set up stone pillars at Bethel. Both instances involved taking note of Jehovahs dealing
with Jacob in a special way at that place. (Ge 28:18, 19, 22; 31:13; 35:14, 15) The pillar Jacob stationed over
Rachels grave was no doubt stone and still existed in Moses day. (Ge 35:19, 20) [1]
About these stone pillars as commemorative functions, one study paper described this as one of the many
functions of such stone pillars
The masseba was basically a stone "set up," as its etymological origin (from nsb "to set up") indicates. In this
position it served as a marker, jogging the memory. It would arrest the attention of the on-looker because it stood
in a position it would not take naturally from gravity alone; only purposeful human activity could accomplish such
"setting up." The study of massebot, therefore, is the study of those purposes that led to that "setting up." [2]
The paper describes such stone pillars
Biblical descriptions and the growing number of excavated massebot indicate that a wide variety of stones could
be used as a masseba, rang-ing from any unworked natural slab to fine-hewn stones. As a rule it was a "plain
stone," that is, it bore no inscription and had no relief or figure inscribed on it, however nicely it may have been
shaped. In this the Palestinian stones differ markedly from those of the empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia. There
inscriptions and reliefs were an almost unbroken rule. Long excavation in those areas has unearthed only a small
handful of "plain" stones. On the other hand, plain stones predominate by far in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron
ages. [3]
And then the paper describes the functions of these stones
Briefly stated, the masseba may perform four functions: memorial, to mark the memory of a dead person; legal,
to mark a legal relation-ship between two or more individuals; commemorative, to commemorate an event, and
more specifically, to call to mind the participants in all the honor and glory of that event; and cultic, to mark the
sacred area where the deity might be found, or more narrowly, to mark that exact point where the deity is cultically
immanent, where worship and sacrifice will reach the deity. It is important to note that a single stone was not
limited to a single function but often carried out several at one and the same time. [4]
Then it cites the example of Jacob
Jacob set up the classic cultic masseba at Bethel to mark the presence of Yahweh there who appeared in the
dream. "Surely Yahweh is in this place. . . . how fearful is this place. This is the very house of God; this is the gate
of heaven" (Gen. 28:16-17). The other account of the erection of this stone also stressed communication between
God and man: "Jacob set up a masseba in the place where he [God] had spoken with him" (Gen. 35:14). Jacob
anointed the stone, presumably to dedicate it, and poured out a libation before it, the only ritual before a cultic
masseba ever explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament (Gen. 28:18; 35:14). In addition, the stone served other
functions. It commemorated the theophany. There is also a hint that it had some votive significance: "I am the
God of Bethel where you anointed a masseba and made a vow to me" (Gen. 31:13; cp. 28:18-22). Presumably
the stone served as the focus of the ritual of Jacob's vow, but the close connection of stone and vow hints at an
Israelite custom of votive massebot, perhaps even used as "stones of petition." [5]
117 | P a g e
However, due to the possible misuse and misinterpretation of these stones one article concludes
Because of the potential for misuse and misunderstanding the religious community of Israel decided to give up
the use of standing stones altogether. To this end the stones that had served only symbolically and were plain
un-inscribed stones, were prohibited and treated as though they were images. Leviticus 26 declares, You shall
not make idols for yourselves, or set up for yourselves carved images or standing stones, or place figured stones
in your land to worship upon, for I the Lord am your God. This was not because the stones themselves went
against the tradition of representing God in iconic forms, but rather because the potential for misuse existed. [6]
References
[1] Pillar, Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 642.
[2] Graesser, Carl. Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine, The Biblical Archaeologist XXXV, The American
School of Oriental Research, May 1972, p. 34.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Standing Stones: A Blessing and a Curse, eTeacher Biblical blog, Available (online).
118 | P a g e
1.17.10 Death in the family

One encounters human death in the journey of reading the Bible every day. First human to die is Abel, murdered
by his brother Cain, out of envy, one of the oldest vice of man. Next to die are Adam and Eve themselves, paying
for the price of falling away from God which the Bible calls sin. Their deaths were reported as a matter of fact,
unceremoniously, without any eulogy or commentary from the writer of Genesis, Moses.
Then, there is one who was secured from violent death is Enoch. But he died peacefully away from violence of his
day.
Next, we encounter the death of someone we got to know a little bit Noah. We were with him, in his story, as he
was instructed to build an ark, together with his family, and in their gathering the animals into the ark (who turned
out to be very feasible as someone did the math), their voyage into the global Flood, their survival, his first
sacrifice after the deluge, his getting drunk, becoming a farmer, starting all over again.
After being with Noah for about three chapters of Genesis, Moses ended his story this way
So all the days of Noah amounted to 950 years, and he died. (Genesis 9:29)
Just like that. And he died. No eulogy, no commentary. A short-lived life form consumed his life span.
Next, we are introduced to an important Bible personality that became the foundation of the nation of Israel
Abram, later named Abraham. In my Bible reading, I was with Abram/Abraham and his wife Sarah, for the next 11
chapters of Genesis.
I was with the couple when they left Ur with all their properties, to move up north to Haran, a major trade hub in
the ancient world. I was with them when Abrams father died. The Bible plainly reported, And Terah died in
Haran. (Genesis 11:32) I joined them when they crossed into what will be called the Promised Land. I was with
them when they were forced into Egypt because of the famine, when Abram worried that he has been in Canaan
for a while and no signs of the promise of a son becoming a reality, when Sarah gave Abram Hagar, and Hagar
gave Abram Ishmael. I was with them when this became a source of tension for Sarah until one day Sarah has to
push the mother and son out into the wilderness on their own. I was with them when finally Sarah got pregnant at
a very old age and gave birth to Isaac. I was with them when Ishmael maltreated Isaac leading to a final dismissal
of Hagar and son from the midst of Abrahams family. Moses finally ended the story of Sarah this way
Abraham began to mourn and to weep over Sarah. (Genesis 23:2)
This is the first recorded mourning over someone dead that I know of or aware of in the Bible. For the first time,
death has become something personal and emotional. It was not just someones life span has ended as a natural
progression. It was a termination of joint memories both bad and good. It was finally someones hand who can no
longer hold yours firmly and warmly.
The Bible now talks about extended grief. It is not a one time event after which one moves on. About Isaac, the
Bible reports
Thus he took Rebekah as his wife and he fell in love with her, and Isaac found comfort after the loss of his
mother. (Genesis 24: 67)
Then, my journey with Abraham also ended. The Bible reports
Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, old and satisfied. (Genesis 25: 8)
119 | P a g e
This is the first time I read in the Bible, of someone dying at 175 years of age, as dying at a good old age and
satisfied. The impression I got was like Abraham after counting the years of his life, made the assessment, and
said something like, OK, Im done, I can go now.
Interestingly, there is a footnote in this verse that explains the phrase used in this verse is a poetic device when
death is mentioned. And it is first used with Abraham. It was also used to describe the death of Isaac. (Genesis
35: 29) Regarding this poetic device, one paper notes
In the two genealogies, each of 10 generations, between Adam and Noah and between Noah and Abraham, the
Torah text merely records begettings and births by the single term vayoled [and he had a child] and deaths by the
single term vayamot [and he died]. Subsequently, however, the Bible uses five different expressions in connection
with dying: "vayigva [perished, expired]," "vayeasef el amav [and he was gathered unto his people]," "vayishkav
im avotav [and he lay with his fathers]," "vaye'esaf raglav el hamita [he gathered his legs into the bed]," and
"betzeit nafshah [as her life was leaving her]." [1]
Specifically, regarding Abraham, this paper noted
The Bible's report of the death of Abraham includes this expression in Genesis 25:8: Vayigva va'yamat Avraham
b'seiva tova, zaken v'saveah va'yeasaf el amav. The JPS translators had a difficult time with this verse. In 1916,
they translated the "vayigva va'yamat" as "he expired and died." In 1986, they mistranslated "vayigva" as
"breathed his last," which, as we will see, translates a different term entirely. We can sympathize with them
because it is difficult to perceive a difference between the first two terms. Perhaps in this instance "vayigva" was
expanded to mean a stage of clinical death, and "vayamat" to the actual collapse of the body. [2]
The 1984 NWT and 2013 NWT reflects the same translations (expired, 1984 and breathed his last, 2013).
Regarding this poetic device gathered to his people, a Bible-based magazine comments
And this is exactly what happened. Genesis 25:8 states: Then Abraham expired and died in a good old age, old
and satisfied, and was gathered to his people. Who were these people? Genesis 11:10-26 lists his ancestors as
far back as Noahs son Shem. So it was to these already sleeping in Sheol that Abraham was gathered at death.
The expression gathered to his people occurs frequently in the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, it is logical to conclude
that Abrahams son Ishmael and Moses brother, Aaron, both went to Sheol at their death, there to await a
resurrection. [3]
Finally, after being with Abrahams story, 14 chapters in all, my journey with him ended.
One other death similar to Sarah in this incomplete Genesis journey is Deborah, the nurse of Rebekah. Regarding
her death, the Bible reports
Later Deborah, Rebekahs nurse died and was buried at the foot of Bethel under an oak. (35:8)
The Bible-based encyclopedia, Insight, comments
Rebekahs nurse. When Rebekah left the household of her father Bethuel to move to Palestine and marry Isaac,
Deborah accompanied her. (Ge 24:59) After years of service in Isaacs household, Deborah came to be in
Jacobs household, perhaps after the death of Rebekah. Evidently some 125 years after Rebekahs marriage to
Isaac, Deborah died and was buried under a big tree at Bethel. The name given to the tree (Allon-bacuth,
meaning Massive Tree of Weeping) indicates how beloved she had become to Jacob and his family.Ge 35:8.
The other woman in the Genesis story that was loved very much is Jacobs wife Rachel. But her end was simply
recorded in the Bible this way
120 | P a g e
So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath, that is, Bethlehem. (35: 19)
References
[1] Chinitz, Jacob. Death in the Bible, Jewish Bible Quarterly Vol. 32 No. 2, 2004. Available (online).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Who Will Be Resurrected?, The Watchtower, May 1, 2005, p. 14.
[4] Deborah. Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 600.
121 | P a g e
1.17.11 Do the Patriarchs Believe in Life After Death? Did Moses?

When reading about death and the expression gathered to his people spoken of the death of Abraham and
Isaac, there are some quarters who are convinced that this meant that the spirits of Abraham and Isaac were reunited with their forefathers. In other words, the Bible here is teaching about life after death. But, is this correct?
One blog takes up this position
The last interpretation is that this is a reference to immortality. Several commentaries agree with this
interpretation. Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch determine that Abraham died at the good old age of 175,
and was gathered to his people. This expression, which is synonymous with going to his fathers (Gen. 15:15),
or being gathered to his fathers (Judg. 2:10), but is constantly distinguished from departing this life and being
buried, denotes the reunion in Sheol with friends who have gone before, and therefore presupposes faith in the
personal continuance of a man after death, as a presentiment which the promises of God had exalted in the case
of the patriarchs into a firm assurance of faith (Heb. 11:13). [1]
One paper finds fault with this understanding
The phrase falls into two parts. The second part, gathered to his fathers, is particularly problematic for those
who assert that this indicates a positive postmortem reunion because of the exceptions to the rule, such as the
the earthly minded man of who will join the generation of his fathers and yet never see the light of life (Psalm
49:19-20) and that the violent death of the wicked King Ahab is spoken of in this way (1 Kings 22:37-40).78 Bailey
rightly points out that it is difficult to decide whether what is reflected in the idiom gathered to his fathers is a
communal existence in the tomb/underworld, or the physical reality of communal burial, or whether it is merely the
equivalent of N died.79 The phrase is ambiguous and those who place great weight on this phrase have
assumed too much. [2]
Bible scholars also agree that the expression gathered to his people cannot mean that the spirit of Abraham
rejoined his forefathers in view of the following
The pre-Exilic period is dominated by the belief that death, as a purely natural phenomenon, marked the end of
life. The after-life, if one can call it that, consisted of a silent existence in Sheol, the realm of the dead, where both
righteous and wicked shared a common fate, isolated for eternity from God and the living. [3]
It also adds
The weight of evidence surely favours the view that death was indeed perceived by the Hebrews as a
punishment for mans rebellion against God. [4]
Another blog puts it this way
A more appropriate way of dealing with this expression theologically is to compare it to other expressions found
in scripture which touch on the same topic. Conditionalists see the expression gathered to his people/fathers as
ambiguous, so when we are looking for more content about the intermediate state, we compare such statements
with lie down (or rest or sleep) with (ones) fathers. That expression is used by Jacob to refer to his expected
death. The LORD uses it to refer to Moses expected death. The LORD also uses it to describe Davids death
when he tells him When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring
after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. The expression is used repeatedly
(35 times) in the books of 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Sometimes the expression does refer to the
place of burial, but not always. Its essential meaning must be that the deceased is united in death with his fathers
or relatives who died before them. [5]
That metaphor of lie down with ones fathers is suggested by the article to be the source of another death
metaphor sleep
This also appears to be the origin of the word sleep as a metaphor for death, which appears in the New
Testament as well. Before raising a little girl from death, Jesus said that she was sleeping. Jesus told his disciples
122 | P a g e
that Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him. At the time of Jesus crucifixion, some of the
saints who had fallen asleep were raised. Peter tells of scoffers who argue Where is the promise of his coming?
For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation. [6]
The article concludes
There are two major metaphors, then, which originate in the Old Testament and speak to the issue of the
intermediate state. One speaks of the dead person being gathered to his or her relatives. The other speaks of that
person lying down or sleeping or resting with those same relatives. When these two expressions are combined,
they help establish a basis for some theological principles about what happens at death.
1) All who die go to the same place. Death is not a place of judgment. It is a state where one is reduced to
the same status as ones ancestors. This does not preclude a day of judgment later, but neither does it
establish that judgment is taking place during the intermediate state.
2) Since death is described as sleep, the natural assumption is that the intermediate state is unconscious.
The scriptures verify this assumption by describing the intermediate state as one of darkness, and
silence.
3) The hope of the believer is found in neither of these realities, but looks beyond them. To be true to the
scriptures, the believer does not look forward to death or the intermediate state. The believer anticipates
the resurrection, just as someone who lies down and sleeps looks forward to the morning light. [7]
References
[1] What does gathered unto his people mean in Genesis 25:8, Pastor Passing Through! Blog. Available (online).
[2] Wright, Tony. Death, the Dead and the Underworld in Biblical Theology, Churchman.
[3] Alexander, Desmond. The Old Testament view of life after death, p. 41.Available (online).
[4] Ibid., p. 42.
[5] Vann, Jefferson. To be gathered to his people, After life blog. Available (online)
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
123 | P a g e
1.17.12 Notes on Esau

This is the history of Esau (36:1,9)
This phrase is known in Hebrew as toledoth. One article explains this term
The Hebrew word 3toledoth (KJV: generations) appears 13 times in Genesis and is clearly related to its
structure and authorship, but just how? The word is best translated as record(s) or account(s). Taylor says it is
plural but best translated as singular in certain contexts. It can refer to a line of descendants, family structure, an
historical account, or a combination thereof, that has come from a named or referenced subject(s). [1]
This is an important document divider in the book of Genesis, so important that the comment below was made of
the once, powerful anti-Moses authorship theory
The modern awareness of ancient scribal methods would serve to show up with embarrassing starkness the
numerous defects in the old "Documentary Hypothesis". [2]
The archaeological discoveries of the ancient Near East have exposed the ancient writing methods that confirm
the antiquity of the book of Genesis. The blog adds
Now we are really beginning to understand the nature of the sources used for the compilation of the first book of
our Bible. Genesis, it appears, was not compiled from sources that long postdated the Mosaic era - as
Graf/Wellhausen and their colleagues had imagined. These latter had commenced their analysis, "without a single
piece of writing of the age of Genesis to assist them". They ended up by dissecting Genesis into a series of
unknown writers and editors all of whom they alleged could be detected by their "style" or "editorial comments".
They committed the fallacy of subjecting Genesis to a type of contemporary literary analysis, just as if it were a
piece of modern writing. [3]
An issue about toledoth is how to interpret its location. The journal already mentioned at the outset says
Then, accepting the idea that an editor used PTs [personal toledoth] to cite original authors, he considers
whether PTs appear as (3) headers (titles) or (4) footers (signatures). He and Sewell present some impressive
statistics and analysis to support the signature theory (4) with three PTG exceptions. (Below, I show that they
should have considered five more PTGs.) [4]
The journal adds how best to understand toledoth
Theories (3) and (4) have Genesis divided into sections, each respectively starting or ending with a PT. In
contrast, I suggest a less rigid and more hermeneutical, fifth approach. If we first analyse the structure of Genesis
in terms of its pericopes (stories or complete subsections), then observe how the PTs fit into that structure, we
can determine how each is employed: as a title, signature, bridge, or otherwise. [5]
The blog adds about the placement of toledoth and its understanding
Another important fact needs to be emphasized in connection with the use of the Toledoth formula. The second
time that it occurs, in Genesis (5:1), we read: "This is the book of the origins of Adam". Here the Hebrew
word sepher, translated "book", means "written narrative", or as F. Delitzsch has translated it, "finished writing".
The Septuagint actually goes so far as to render the first Toledoth (Genesis 2:4) as: "This is the book of the
origins of the heavens and the earth". Regarding this fact, Wiseman has pointed out: "We must realize that the
'books' of antiquity were tablets, and that the earliest records of Genesis claim to have been written down, and not
as is often imagined passed on to Moses by word of mouth".
124 | P a g e
Moreover, a careful examination of the name of the person stated at the end of the various phrases, "These are
the generations of ...", makes it clear that the Toledoth refers to the owner or writer of the tablet, rather than to the
history of the person named. Thus for instance: "These are the generations of Noah" does not necessarily
mean: "This is the history about Noah", but rather the history written or possessed by Noah. To put this into a
modern perspective, the Toledoth, or colophon is really like a kind of signature from a contemporary of the events
recorded. In the case of Noah's document, the Toledoth would convert to something like: "This is Noah signing
off".
As previously mentioned, nowhere is there a phrase: "These are the generations of Abraham", yet the great
Patriarch's story has been written in full; for we are told that Abraham's own sons, Isaac and Ishmael, either wrote
or owned the series of tablets containing their father's story [180]. [6]
However, the Bible-based encyclopedia offers a different view on whether Toledoth is a signature for signing off a
tablet document which follows the pattern offered by the cited journal above
The thought has been advanced that the words, this is the book of Adams history, may indicate that Adam was
the writer of this book. (Ge 5:1) Commenting on the phrase this is the history (these are the origins),
occurring frequently throughout Genesis, P. J. Wiseman notes: It is the concluding sentence of each section, and
therefore points backward to a narrative already recorded. . . . It normally refers to the writer of the history, or the
owner of the tablet containing it.New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 53.
Examination of the contents of these histories casts considerable doubt on the correctness of the view advanced
by Wiseman. For example, according to this view, the section beginning with Genesis chapter 36, verse 10, would
conclude with the words of Genesis 37:2, This is the history of Jacob. However, nearly the entire record pertains
to Esaus offspring and makes only incidental reference to Jacob. On the other hand, the information that follows
presents extensive information about Jacob and his family. [7]
References
[1] DeRemer, Frank. Structure, toledoths and sources of Genesis, Journal of Creation Vol 28, 2014, p. 53.
[2] Mackey, Damien. The First Book of Moses and the Toledoth of Genesis. Available (online).
[3] Ibid.
[4] DeRemer, Frank. Structure, toledoths and sources of Genesis, Journal of Creation Vol 28, 2014, p. 53.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Mackey, Damien. The First Book of Moses and the Toledoth of Genesis. Available (online).
[7] Writing. Insight on the Scritures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1212.
125 | P a g e
1.17.13 The Story Moves with Jacob

The development of the story between the two brothers has come to parallel that of Abraham and Lot. The
Bible reports
and he went to another land some distance away from Jacob his brother. For their goods had become too
many for them to dwell together. (36:6,7)
One blog noted this
This passage resembles a parallel passage in Genesis 13, where we read of Lot leaving Abraham. Even the
language used there is similar; note especially the similarity of Genesis 13:6 with verse 7 above: "so that the land
could not support them staying together; for their possessions were so great that they could not remain together."
Both subject matter and language are similar, however in the case at hand it is unclear why Esau had to leave.
In Lekh Lekha, chapters 12-13, the sequence of events is clear: When Abraham and his household were in Egypt
because of the famine, Pharaoh treated him well, bestowing economic benefits on him, on account of having
taking Sarah into Pharaoh's house. Thus both Abraham and Lot, who accompanied him, amassed extensive
flocks. While the areas of lush vegetation in Egypt could support all of their livestock, the meager vegetation on
the edge of the desert in Canaan could not; therefore Abraham had to part ways with Lot.
But what happened with Esau? Esau, after all, was a "skillful hunter, a man of the outdoors." As a farmer and
hunter, how did Esau have so many flocks as to make it necessary for the brothers to part ways? This is told us at
the beginning of the parasha: as an offering of submission and pacification, Jacob sent him many flocks.
Henceforth, both brothers had much livestock, similar to the condition of Abraham and Lot. We have no way of
knowing if that had been Jacob's intention when he sent numerous flocks to his brother Esau, or whether this
result was directed by the hand of Providence. [1]
A Bible-based encyclopedia notes this parting as well
After the conclusion of the amiable meeting between Jacob and Esau, these twins, now about 97 years old, each
went his separate way, presumably not to meet again until they jointly buried their father Isaac some 23 years
later. Esau went S to Seir with his gifts, and Jacob turned N, recrossing the Jabbok.Ge 33:1-17; 35:29. [2]
One commonly criticized verse to bolster the already discarded documentary hypothesis is the commentary of
Moses about Israelite kings below
before any kings reigned over the Israelites (36: 31)
Kings would rise in Israel on a future date post-Moses. So, the question was, how could have Moses wrote about
it? One blog noted this too
Surprisingly, to some, this often-overlooked chapter contains one of the more controversial phrases in the book.
Genesis 36:31 states: Now these were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over
the children of Israel (emp. added). According to skeptics and liberal theologians, the notation before any king
reigned over the children of Israel points to the days of the monarchs. Dennis McKinsey declared in his
book,Biblical Errancy: This passage could only have been written after the first king began to reign. It had to
have been written after Saul became king, while Moses, the alleged author, lived long before Saul (2000, p. 521).
Paul Tobin also indicated that this portion of the Bible must therefore have been written, at the very earliest, after
the first Jewish King, Saul, began to rule over the Israelites which was around three centuries after the death of
Moses (2000). Tobin went on to ask (what he feels certain cannot be answered): Now how could Moses have
known that there would be kings that reigned over the Israelites? [3]
The blog explains

126 | P a g e
There actually are two logical reasons why Moses could mention future Israelite kingship. First, Moses knew
about the express promises God had made both to Abraham and Jacob concerning the future kings of Israel. On
one occasion, God informed Abraham and Sarah that many kings would be among their posterity. He promised
Abraham saying, I will bless her [SarahEL] and also give you a son by her; then I will bless her, and she shall
be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be from her (Genesis 17:16, emp. added). Years later (and just
one chapter before the verse in question), when God appeared to Jacob at Bethel and changed his name to
Israel, He said: I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from
you, and kings shall come from your body (Genesis 35:11, emp. added). The fact that Genesis 36:31 reads,
Now these were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel
(emp. added), does not mean this account must have been written by someone who lived after the monarchy was
introduced in Israel. Rather, this statement was written with the promise in mind that kings would come out of the
loins of Abraham and Jacob, and merely conveys the notion that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier time than
Israel. Keil and Delitzsch remarked: Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the
idea, that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down
to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster (1996). Furthermore, the
placement of this parenthetical clause (before any king reigned over the children of Israel) in 36:31 was
exceedingly natural on the part of the sacred historian, who, having but a few verses before (Gen 35:11) put on
record the divine promise to Jacob that kings should come out of his loins, was led to remark the national
prosperity and regal establishment of the Edomites long before the organization of a similar order of things in
Israel. He could not help indulging such a reflection, when he contrasted the posterity of Esau with those of Jacob
from the standpoint of the promise (Gen 25:23) [Jamieson, et al., 1997]. [4]
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments basically on the same line of thought
Some critics have viewed the reference at Genesis 36:31 to the Edomite rulers as the kings who reigned in the
land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel as an anachronism or as a later insertion. This is
not the case, however, since Moses, the recorder of Genesis, already knew Gods clear promise to Jacob (Israel)
that kings will come out of your loins. (Ge 35:11) Moses himself foretold that Israel would eventually have a
king.De 28:36. [5]
This blog adds
A second reason Moses is justified in having knowledge of Israelite kingship before it was known
experientially is because Moses was inspired (John 5:46; Mark 12:26; cf. Exodus 20:1; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2
Peter 1:20-21). For someone to say that the author of Genesis could not have been Moses, because the
author spoke generally of Israelite kings prior to their existence, totally ignores the fact that Moses received
special revelation from Heaven. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in Deuteronomy 17:14-15. Here Moses
prophetically stated:
When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, I
will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me, you shall surely set a king over you whom the
Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a
foreigner over you, who is not your brother (emp. added).
Under normal circumstances, such foreknowledge would be impossible. One must keep in mind, however, that
with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26)and God was with Moses (cf. Exodus 3:12; 6:2; 25:22). [6]
References
127 | P a g e
[1] Ben-Yashar, Menachem. Jacob and Esau: A Parting of Ways, Parashat Va-Yishlah, 5761/December 1, 2001.
Available (online).
[2] Jacob. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1242.
[3] Lyons, Eric. Before Any King Reigned in Israel, Apologetics Press, Available (online).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Edom. Insight on the Scripture Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 680.
[6] Lyons, Eric. Before Any King Reigned in Israel, Apologetics Press, Available (online).
128 | P a g e
1.17.14 Joseph, the dreamer, and his brothers

After meeting up with Joseph as a 6 year old boy with his mom, Rachel, returning from Haran to Canaan, with his
father Jacob, he now grows up to a 17-year old young man. The Bible introduced him back to us this way
And Joseph brought a bad report about them to their father. (37:2)
Regarding this incident, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight commented
At the age of 17, Joseph, in association with the sons of Jacob by Bilhah and Zilpah, tended sheep. While doing
so, he, although their junior, did not share in their wrongdoing but dutifully brought a bad report about them to his
father.Ge 37:2. [1]
Joseph grew up in a family environment where his older brothers were hostile to him. This hostility only increased
over time. They envy Joseph for being loved by their father more, being the son of her beloved Rachel, and for his
dreams.
Regarding these dreams, the Bible-based encyclopedia comments
The fact that Joseph spoke about his dreams does not mean that he entertained feelings of superiority. He was
merely making known what God had revealed to him. Jacob may have recognized the prophetic nature of the
dreams, for he observed the saying.Ge 37:3-11. [2]
Jacob himself was a dreamer. Jehovah God communicated to him in dreams. So, Joseph having such dreams
must have reminded Jacob of Gods communications to him as well.
Next, Joseph is introduced to us as accepting an assignment from his father to check his brothers. Regarding this
assignment, the Bible-based encyclopedia comments
In view of their animosity, this would not have been a pleasant assignment for Joseph. Yet unhesitatingly he said:
Here I am! From the Low Plain of Hebron he then set out for Shechem. [3]
How far apart are these locations? A Bible-based magazine estimates
It was quite a trekin all, perhaps four or five days of walking. Shechem lay about 50 miles (80 km) to the north
of Hebron. But at Shechem, Joseph learned that his brothers had moved on to Dothan, which lay another
14 miles (22 km) or so to the north. When Joseph finally neared Dothan, his brothers saw him coming from a
distance. [4]
From Shechem to Dothan that was a total of about 100 kilometers. This lets us glimpse into the personality of
Joseph, his positive traits as a young man relative to his older brothers.
This visit of Joseph would turn into a sad series of events. His hostile brothers plotted to murder him but the
eldest sibling, Reuben, is reported by the Bible to have done something good
when Reuben heard this, he tried to rescue him from them (37:21)
This positive step was noted by the Bible-based encyclopedia
Some of Reubens good qualities displayed themselves when he persuaded his nine brothers to throw Joseph
into a dry well instead of killing him, Reuben intending to return secretly and deliver Joseph out of the well. (Ge
37:18-30) More than 20 years later when these same brothers reasoned that the spy charges against them down
in Egypt were due to their mistreatment of Joseph, Reuben reminded the others that he had not shared in their
plot on Josephs life. [5]
Another brother, Judah, also stepped in, to prevent the murderous plot. Joseph got sold to travelling merchants as
noted by the Bible report with again a mention of camels
caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead. Their camels (37:25)
129 | P a g e
The Bible-based encyclopedia commented on the use of Ishmaelites and Midians interchangeably
Since Ishmael and Midian were half brothers, any intermarriage of their respective descendants with the
amalgamation of their blood, habits, traits, and occupations could have given rise to an interchangeable usage of
the terms Ishmaelites and Midianites, as is noted in the description of the caravan that sold Joseph into
Egyptian slavery. (Ge 37:25-28; 39:1) [6]
Another important detail that affirms the authenticity of the account of Joseph was the price by which he was sold
to the travelling merchants. The Bible reports the price to be
and sold him to Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver (37:28)
One blog reports the significance of this detail
In Genesis 37:28, we read that his brothers sold Joseph for 20 shekels of silver. The price of slaves through
successive epochs of antiquity is a matter of some interest. Away back in the late third millennium BC, a decent
slave fetched (on average) from 10 to 15 shekels of silver. A rate of 10 shekels was the commonest during the
Third Dynasty of Ur (21st century BC). In the first half of the second millennium BC (esp. ca. 18001700), 20
shekels as for Josephis the basic average price. [7]
It adds
Thus, Joseph at 20 shekels fits the early second millennium BC, Exodus at 30 shekels fits the later second
millennium BC, Menahem at 50 shekels fits the early first millennium BC, and none of these fit the altogether
higher prices of the later exilic and postexilic periods. [8]
Another detail is how Reuben and later Jacob responded to the disappearance of Joseph. Reuben is reported
that
he ripped his garments apart (37: 29)
while the father, Jacob, is reported to have done the same
Jacob ripped his garments apart and put sackcloth around him (37:34)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on this act
A common sign of grief among the Jews, as well as among other Orientals, particularly upon hearing of the death
of a near relative. In many cases such ripping consisted of a rending of the garment in front just sufficient to lay
open the breast, thus not necessarily a complete ripping of the garment so as to make it unfit for wearing.
The first instance of this practice recorded in the Bible is that of Reuben, Jacobs eldest son, who, upon returning
and not finding Joseph in the waterpit, ripped his garments apart. [9]
On the wearing of Jacob of sackcloth, Insight notes
It was the traditional garment of mourning, and we first read of its use when Jacob mourned over the supposed
death of his son Joseph, girding sackcloth upon his hips. [10]
Finally, Joseph reaches Egypt and was sold to an Egyptian official.
Potiphar, a court official of Pharaoh and the chief of the guard (37: 36)
Now, the story will take a new turn as Joseph leads a new life in a foreign land. About this, a Bible-based
magazine cites some scholarly work
130 | P a g e
Regarding the Genesis narrative about Joseph, a son of the patriarch Jacob, as well as the Bible book of
Exodus, J. Garrow Duncan says in his book New Light on Hebrew Origins: [The Bible writer] was thoroughly well
acquainted with the Egyptian language, customs, beliefs, court life, and etiquette and officialdom. He adds: [The
writer] employs the correct title in use and exactly as it was used at the period referred to. . . . In fact, nothing
more convincingly proves the intimate knowledge of things Egyptian in the Old Testament, and the reliability of
the writers, than the use of the word Pharaoh at different periods. Duncan also states: When [the writer] brings
his characters into the presence of Pharaoh, he makes them observe the correct court etiquette and use the
correct language. [11]
References
[1] Joseph. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 106.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Please Listen to This Dream, The Watchtower, August 1, 2014, p. 13.
[5] Reuben. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 795.
[6] Ishmaelite. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1227.
[7] Kitchen, Kenneth. The Joseph Narrative (Genesis 37, 39-50), Associates for Biblical Research blog,
Available (online).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ripping of Garments. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 813.
[10] Sackcloth. Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 834.
[11] Egypt in Bible History, Awake!, November 2010. Available (online) http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201011/egypt-in-bible-history/
131 | P a g e
1.17.15 Judah and his transgression, and the levirate marriage

Judah is another example in the Bible of how Jehovah continue to use individuals for his purposes despite their
shortcomings as recorded. Eventually, Judah will improve and later qualify for being the descendant of the
Messiah.
A blog provided some helpful notes in understanding this incident in Judahs life.
In studying the text of the passage and comparing various English translations, several words/phrases were of
interest. Upon closer study and analysis of the Hebrew, the differences in translation of some words are not really
important as they do not change the meaning of the passage. They are, nonetheless, interesting and do bear
explanation:
a) In verse 24, when Judah is alerted of Tamar's pregnancy, she is said to be pregnant variantly by
"prostitution" or by "fornication", two words with different meaning in English. The Hebrew for the phrase,
however, zanah, has a broader meaning and can be translated as prostitution, fornication, or adultery.
b) In verses 7 and 10 the Lord "took the life of", "slew", or "put to death" both Er and Onan. Exactly how
these men died at the Lord's hand would be interesting to know. Again the Hebrew text itself is
inconclusive, muwth meaning simply to kill or put to death.
c) Several different euphemisms for sex are used in the English accounts: "know", "come into", "sleep with",
and "lay with". The Hebrew bow' shares the euphemism of one of the English translations, literally
meaning: "go in, enter, come in". [1]
Those were new to me. The blog goes on
Other differing phrases and words have more significance for interpretation of the passage:
a) In verse 14, the Authorized Version says Tamar sat "in an open place," while other translations say she
sat "in the gateway [or entrance] to Enaim." These are quite different translations and possibly of
importance as it establishes the setting of the action. The Hebrew phrase is 'ayin pethach. 'Ayin is either
an unknown primitive word or a proper noun, while pethach means "entrance, opening." The more
popular interpretation and that used in the later translations is as the proper noun Enaim, corresponding
to a known city in the lowlands of Judah, 'Eynayim, mentioned in Joshua 15:34 (Westermann, 53).
b) The nuance and meaning of the word "righteous" as Judah uses it to describe Tamar is very significant in
understanding whether her actions were justified. The Hebrew word used is tsadaq, "to be just or
righteous." This word and its derivatives are used hundreds of times throughout the Old Testament. It is
used to describe the righteousness of Noah (Gen. 7:1), the Law (Deu. 4:8), David (1 Sa. 24:17), and even
Yahweh (2 Ch. 12:6). The meaning is thus: correct, right before God, or justified, in a very strong sense of
the word righteous.
c) In verse 8, the Hebrew word yabam is translated alternately as "marry" and "perform your duty as a
brother-in-law." Literally it means to perform levirate marriage or duty as a brother-in-law. It is significant
here whether the brother-in-law (or other male relative) was actually required to marry the widow or just to
father a child by her. The latter seems to be supported in verse 9 where Tamar is referred to as "his
[Onan's] brother's wife." [2]
132 | P a g e
A very important event in the family of Judah was Jehovahs putting to death of his sons. The Bible does not
disclose how this has happened. As for the firstborn, the Bible does not disclose the specific reason why. In this
context, the concept of levirate marriage is first introduced
Have relations with your brothers wife and perform brother-in-law marriage (38:8)
What is levirate marriage? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
Known also as levirate marriage; a custom whereby a man would marry his deceased brothers sonless widow in
order to produce offspring to carry on his brothers line. The Hebrew verb meaning perform brother-in-law
marriage is yavam, related to the Hebrew terms for brother-in-law and brothers widow.Ge 38:8; De 25:5,
ftn; 25:7. [3]
Interestingly, one blog highlights the nature of levirate marriage as recorded in the Bible
Ironically, biblical texts offer more evidence of levirates potential failures than of its successes. In Gen 38, Onan
refuses to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law Tamar; after Onans death, a third brother is withheld from
Tamar. Only by deceiving her father-in-law Judah does Tamar obtain the children she wantsfrom her father-inlaw, not her brother-in-law! Deuteronomy itself acknowledges that a man who refuses to marry his brothers
widow can be publicly shamed but is then released from his obligation to the widow and his dead brother.
Although levirate is a strategy for preserving a mans legacy and property by producing a posthumous heir for
him, biblical menOnan, Judah, the reluctant brother-in-law in Deut 25seem to resist obligations to deceased
kinsmen and their widows. It is the womenTamar, Naomi, and Ruthwho seek to reintegrate widows into their
late husbands families and pursue the engendering of children through levirate or levirate-like unions. Perhaps
despite the Hebrew Bibles emphasis on the aim of providing a name for a man who has died without children,
the true goal of levirate was viewed as the protection of widows, a goal more passionately valued and pursued by
women than men. [4]
One material compared this practice with other ancient Near Eastern women
Both in Hittite and biblical law the custom of levirate marriage occurs, whereas the Assyrian material and the
evidence from the Ugaritic literary texts is inconclusive, but seems to point out to a similar practice. The primary
purpose of biblical levirate marriage was the perpetuation of the name of the deceased husband. Secondly, it
provided the widow with the security of marriage. Thirdly, any dower property the window might have remained in
the family of her in-laws. [5]
Another reference writes about Babylonians and levirate marriage
Despite occasional attempts at identifying comparable laws, the consensus of scholarly opinion is that no such
institution as the levirate existed in Babylon. It would seem to be the case that the misfortune of having no son
was solved through adoption customs. [5a]
It adds about the Assyrians
A far better case can be made for the presence of the levirate custom in Assyria though even here there is room
for dispute. The generally accepted date for the [Middle Assyrian Laws], which are closely related to the [Code of
Hammurabi], is from 1500 to 1100 B.C. MAL 30, 33, and 43 from Tablet A have the most direct bearing on the
question of the levirate. Meek cites MAL 30 as a law which the Assyrian code held in common with the levirate
law in Israe1. It reads: "If a father has conveyed (or) brought the betrothal-gift to the house of his son's
(prospective) father-in-law, with the woman not yet married to his son and another son of his, whose wife is living
in her father's house, died, he shall give his dead son's wife in marriage to his other son to whose father-in-law's
house he brought (the gift). . ." On this law he comments, "The Levirate was to be enforced even though other
133 | P a g e
marriage plans had been made for the deceased man's brother." Driver and Miles however, do not regard this as
a case comparable to the Hebrew levirate, since the girl is not a widow in the strict sense. The marriage
transaction has been legally completed but the bride has not yet been given to her husband. She is the "assatu"
of her dead bridegroom, living with her father. "This, however, does not seem to be a case of the levirate, as there
is nothing showing a legal duty on the second son to marry her apart from the duty to fulfill his father's wish. [5b]
Another reference also comments
The levirate law of Deut.25:5-10 limited the obligation of marrying the widow to the brothers of the deceased
alone. However, the narrative of Gen 38 may reflect an earlier phase of the levirate duty whereby the obligation
devolved not only upon the brothers of the deceased but also upon his father. A similar custom obtained among
the Hittites for stipulates that the obligation to marry the widow of the deceased falls successively upon his
brother, his father and his paternal nephew. Similarly in the Middle Assyrian laws the marriage of the childless
widow to the father-in-law is permitted. Such laws may enable us to see the narrative of Gen 38 in a fresh light.
Commentators have generally branded the liaison between Judah and Tamar as one of incest in breach of the
law of Lev.18:15: you must not have intercourse with your daughter-in-law, because she is your sons wife; you
must not bring shame on her. However, the ancient Near Eastern laws may suggest that Tamar was quite within
her rights in forcing Judah to fulfil his levirate duty, and it is significant that Judah himself is compelled to
acknowledge the legitimacy of her conduct: She is more in the right than I am'(Gen38:26). [5c]
Moving on, the Bible reported that the second son of Judah refused to comply with levirate marriage
he wasted his semen on the ground so as not to give offspring to his brother (38:9)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments about Onan
But Onan knew that the offspring would not become his; and it occurred that when he did have relations with his
brothers wife he wasted his semen on the earth so as not to give offspring to his brother. (Ge 38:8, 9) Because
Onan refused to fulfill his obligation in connection with the arrangement of brother-in-law marriage, Jehovah put
him to death. [6]
What did Onan actually do? A Bible-based magazine comments
This was not an act of masturbation on the part of Onan, for the account says when he did have relations with
his brothers wife he spilled his semen. Apparently it was a case of coitus interruptus, in which Onan purposely
prevented ejaculation of his semen into Tamars genital tract. For his disobedience to his father, his
covetousness, and his sin against the divine arrangement of marriage, not for self-abuse, Onan, himself also
childless, was put to death by Jehovah.Ge 38:6-10; 46:12; Nu 26:19. [7]
Related to this incident is Judahs failure to uphold Jehovahs standard of marriage. He had relations with one he
thought was a prostitute
[Judah] at once took her for a prostitute, because she had cover her face (38:15,21)
Regarding the practice of prostitution in patriarchal times in Canaan, one blog reports
Sacred prostitution may have been part of Canaanite religious practice, and Canaanites were the dominant
social group at the time of Tamar and Judah.
The Canaanites saw sexuality, either human or in Nature, as a divine force. According to Herodotus, a Greek
historian writing in about 450BC, a Babylonian woman would undertake the following ritual:
134 | P a g e
she would disguise herself at least once during her life, covering her face with a veil. In this way she
discarded her own personal identity. She would then go to the temple and receive a man who was a
stranger to her (Herodotus1.199). This man, in this particular act, represented the incarnate god. Their
sexual act was meant, by what is called sympathetic magic, to reflect and encourage fertility in the Great
Mother, Nature. Herodotus emphasized that, once a woman had fulfilled this obligation, she was virtuous
and loyal to her husband for the rest of her life. [8]
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight adds on this subject

The early view of harlotry among Gods servants is illustrated in the case of Judah the great-grandson of
Abraham. While living as an alien resident in Canaan, where harlotry was tolerated, the family head Judah had
relations with his son Ers widow Tamar, who was disguised as a harlot. When it was discovered that Tamar was
pregnant from the act, it was reported to Judah: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot, and here she
is also pregnant by her harlotry. Judah then ordered her to be burned (that is, first put to death, then burned as
detestable) because she was considered to be espoused to Judahs son Shelah. [9]
References
[1] Ropp, Matthew. An Exegetical Glimpse of Genesis 38: The Story of Judah and Tamar. Available (online).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Brother-in-Law Marriage. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 370.
[4] Weisberg, Dvora. Levirate Marriage. Bible Odyssey blog site. Available (online).
[5] Marsman, Hennie. Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the
Ancient Near East, The Brill, Copyright 2013.
[5a] Leggett, Donald. The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament, Mack Publishing Company, 1974, p.
12.
[5b] Ibid., p. 13.
[5c] Davies, Eryl. Judah, Tamar and the Law of Levirate Marriage. Available (online).
[6] Onan. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 555.
[7] Question from Readers. The Watchtower, January 15, 2004, p. 30.
[8] Tamar and Judah Their World. Women in the Bible blog. Available (online).
[9] Harlot. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1036.
135 | P a g e
1.17.16 Joseph Into Egypt 1

The primary reason there are scholars that reject the story of Genesis and Exodus when it involves Egypt is that
Egyptian history and chronology does not support the biblical account time-wise. The Bible-based encyclopedia
notes these discrepancies and why
Concern is often expressed over the need to try to harmonize or reconcile the Biblical account with the
chronology found in ancient secular records. Since truth is that which conforms to fact or reality, such coordinating
would indeed be vitalif the ancient secular records could be demonstrated to be unequivocally exact and
consistently reliable, hence a standard of accuracy by which to judge. Since the Biblical chronology has so often
been represented by critics as inferior to that of the pagan nations, it is worthwhile to examine some of the ancient
records of nations and peoples whose activities and life touch on and connect with the people and events
recorded in the Bible. [1]
Then, it comments on the these pagan chronologies
The Bible is a historical book, preeminently so among ancient writings. The histories of the ancient Egyptians,
Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either
obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical. Thus, the ancient document known as The Sumerian King
List begins: When kingship was lowered from heaven, kingship was (first) in Eridu. (In) Eridu, A-lulim (became)
king and ruled 28,800 years. Alalgar ruled 36,000 years. Two kings (thus) ruled it for 64,800 years. . . . (In) Badtibira, En-men-lu-Anna ruled 43,200 years; En-men-gal-Anna ruled 28,800 years; the god Dumu-zi, a shepherd,
ruled 36,000 years. Three kings (thus) ruled it for 108,000 years.Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by
J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 265.
What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of
information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical
historiographers of the Greek and Roman period. While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay
tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt,
the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds,
and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either
in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their
emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms. [2]
The reference then drills down into Egyptian chronological problems
Uncertainties are multiple. The works of Manetho, used to give order to the fragmentary lists and other
inscriptions, are preserved only in the writings of later historians, such as Josephus (first century C.E.), Sextus
Julius Africanus (third century C.E., hence over 500 years from Manethos time), Eusebius (fourth century C.E.),
and Syncellus (late eighth or early ninth century C.E.). As stated by W. G. Waddell, their quotations of Manethos
writings are fragmentary and often distorted and hence it is extremely difficult to reach certainty in regard to what
is authentic Manetho and what is spurious or corrupt. After showing that Manethos source material included
some unhistorical traditions and legends that introduced kings as their heroes, without regard to chronological
order, he says: There were many errors in Manethos work from the very beginning: all are not due to the
perversions of scribes and revisers. Many of the lengths of reigns have been found impossible: in some cases the
names and the sequence of kings as given by Manetho have proved untenable in the light of monumental
evidence.Manetho, introduction, pp. vii, xvii, xx, xxi, xxv.
The probability that concurrent reigns rather than successive reigns are responsible for many of Manethos
excessively long periods is shown in the book Studies in Egyptian Chronology, by T. Nicklin (Blackburn, Eng.,
1928, p. 39): The Manethonian Dynasties . . . are not lists of rulers over all Egypt, but lists partly of more or less
independent princes, partly . . . of princely lines from which later sprang rulers over all Egypt. Professor Waddell
(pp. 1-9) observes that perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time; . . . thus it was not a
succession of kings occupying the throne one after the other, but several kings reigning at the same time in
different regions. Hence arose the great total number of years. [3]
136 | P a g e
Regarding Manetho and his list, one article also wrote
There is little doubt that Manetho was trying to prove to the Greeks that the Egyptians were the worlds oldest
civilization. This was a hot issue amongst the different cultures of the day. Berosus was attempting to claim the
same about the Mesopotamians, as was Eratosthenes15(Greek), who was the chief librarian at the great library of
Alexandria and, interestingly, the first person to calculate the circumference of the earth.16 In his
work Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt), Manetho compiled Egyptian history into the thirty dynasties that are
commonly used today. This does not include the Ptolemies, who were added later as a 31st Dynasty. As part of
his agenda to extend Egyptian civilization as far back as he could, Manetho also included the names of many of
the pre-Old Kingdom/pre-dynastic kings that are now thought to be mythical gods, with many of them also being
related to creation events. For example, Ra (called Helios in the Greek by Manetho) was the sun god
and Ptah (Greek: Hephaistos) was the craftsman creator god who was before all things. Even though Manethos
chronologies are the most widely used, no original copies of his writings exist today. The earliest surviving
reference to Aegyptiaca is in Josephuss Against Apion. [4]
Additional details are cited by one blog about the Joseph story in Egypt as typical of a historical period in Egypt
and Palestine
Analysis of the Joseph story reveals details of the narrative that demonstrate a setting in ancient Egypt and even
suggest a specific time known as the 2nd Intermediate Period. The account begins with a clear distinction
between Joseph and his brothers, apparent by happenings such as Jacob giving Joseph a tunic of many colors
(Genesis 37:3). Tunics of many colors were in style during the Middle Bronze Age in Canaan, as exhibited by the
clothing of migrants from Canaan depicted on the walls of the Tomb of Khnumhotep II (Newberry, Beni Hasan).
Preferential treatment lead to jealousy and eventually culminated in Joseph being captured and sold by his
brothers for 20 shekels of silver, which was the standard rate for slaves in the 18th century BC according to the
Code of Hammurabi (Law of Hammurabi #116, 214, 252). This information is both a chronological and historical
marker. Since the price of slaves slowly increased over time due to inflation, the match in price situates the early
life of Joseph around the 18 century BC and demonstrates this detail of the narrative to be historically accurate.
[5]
References
[1] Chronology. Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 448.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Bates, Gary. Egyptian chronology and the Bible- framing the issues. Available (online) http://creation.com/egypt-chronology
[5] The Ancient Egyptian Setting of the Joseph Story. Available (online)http://www.apxaioc.com/article/ancientegyptiansettingjosephstory0
137 | P a g e
1.17.17 Joseph into Egypt 2

What can we learn from the title of Potiphar in the Bible -Potiphar, a court official of Pharaoh and chief of the
guard (39:1)?
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on Potiphars title
Potiphars title court official translates the Hebrew word saris, eunuch, which in its broader usage meant a
chamberlain, courtier, or trusted officer of the throne. The court official [saris] that had a command over the men
of war when Jerusalem fell in 607 B.C.E. was no doubt a high government official, not a castrated person lacking
masculinity. (2Ki 25:19) So, also, Potiphar was a military man, chief of the bodyguard, as well as a married man,
facts that indicate that he was not a eunuch in the more common sense. [1]
Surely, it was a difficult thing to be separated from your loved ones, your father who loved you dearly, and the
anxiety of how Josephs father has handled the disappearance of his beloved son. From the son of a powerful
man, Josephs life was transformed to that of a slave. But the Bible recorded via Moses, three times, regarding
this phase of Josephs life first that Jehovah was with Joseph (39:2); next, but Jehovah continued to be with
Joseph (39: 21); and finally, Jehovah was with Joseph (39:23).
This expression Jehovah was with was used several times in the Bible. It was used with respect to Joshua
(Joshua 6: 27), with the tribe of Judah (Judges 1:19), the tribe of Joseph (Judges 1:22), with David (1 Samuel
18:12), and with Hezekiah (2 Kings 18: 7). And in each occasion, Jehovah was making the way of the
personalities successful.
The blessing of Jehovah was visible and obvious to his master that over time, he was promoted to an overall
position for Potiphars house
He became his personal attendant. So he appointed him over his house, and he put him in charge of all that was
his. (39: 4)
Regarding this promotion, one article said
Once he arrived in Egypt, Joseph initially became a household servant at the estate of Potiphar, then soon was
appointed over his house (Genesis 39:4). The 13 Dynasty Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 contains a list of
household servants in Egypt around the time of Joseph. The papyrus attests to the presence of Semitic servants
in Egypt and also uses the same terminology when referring to a chief servant of the house (Hayes, A Papyrus of
the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum). The Egyptian title Hry-pr is translated as he who is over the
house and is equivalent to the title mentioned in the book of Genesis. [2]
From 17 years old, Joseph matured into a man. Regarding his appearance, the Bible reported
Joseph grew to be well-built and handsome
Joseph, son of Jacob, was described in the Bible as "well-built and handsome". Turns out it runs in the family. Her
mother, Rachel, grandma Rebekah and grand-grandma Sarah are all described as pretty. But, it's not the physical
appearance that made him special to Jehovah God. It's his courage to stand for righteous principles while isolated
from family in Egypt.
When Joseph was faced with sexual temptation, he revealed his attitude toward this unfaithful act as
actually sin against God (39:9)
138 | P a g e
What can we learn from Josephs attitude toward the sex advances of Potiphars unfaithful wife? A Bible-based
magazine comments
Wrongdoing damages our relationship with Jehovah God. When King David recognized the seriousness of his
adultery with Bath-sheba and the murder of her husband, he no doubt felt great shame. But what concerned him
mostand rightly sowas that his sins had offended God. He contritely admitted to Jehovah: Against you, you
alone, I have sinned, and what is bad in your eyes I have done. (Psalm 51:4) Likewise, when Joseph was
tempted to commit adultery, his conscience caused him to ask: How could I commit this great badness and
actually sin against God?Genesis 39:9.
Sin, then, is not just a question of feeling bad about ourselves because we may have lost face. It is not just a case
of having to answer to public opinion or to society because we may have fallen short of some ideal. Violating
Gods laws on sex, honesty, respect, worship, and so on, damages our personal relationship with him. If we
deliberately practice sin, we are making ourselves Gods enemies. This is a truth that demands sober reflection.
1 John 3:4, 8. [3]
Josephs refusal to commit sin against God brought a sad, unexpected consequence- jail time.
So Josephs master took him and gave him over to the prison (39:20)
Regarding this punishment, one article wrote
Joseph was put into the jail, the place where the kings prisoners were confined as punishment due to the false
accusation of Potiphars wife (Genesis 39:20). He remained there for 2 years until the Pharaoh freed him
(Genesis 41:1). Punishments in Egypt were generally less harsh in comparison to the rest of the ancient world at
this time, and only Egypt used prisons to punish criminals rather than merely as holding areas for judgment. In
law codes such as the aforementioned Code of Hammurabi, Joseph may have been killed or maimed as
punishment for what he was accused of. In Egypt, pits, temples, palaces, and border fortresses are known to
have been used as prisons, which accords with the situation in the Joseph narrative (Breasted, Ancient Records
of Egypt; Aling, Joseph in Egypt; Yahuda, The Accuracy of the Bible). [4]
References
[1] Potiphar. Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 656.
[3] The Truth About Sin, The Watchtower, June 1, 2010, p. 9.
139 | P a g e
1.17.18 The Rise of Joseph 1

Many Bible critics claim that the details in the Joseph story does not fit in the time frame the Bible claims it does.
Critics claim, these include Donald Redford, distinguished Egyptologist and archaeologists and scholar John van
Seters, that the story is false or fiction because the details are for the 1st millennium BCE.
The Bible believing scholars and Egyptologists assert that the details fit the 2nd millennium BCE. They include
Kenneth Kitchen and James K. Hoffmeier. I will highlight some of these details along the way.
First, finally, I get to the portion where Joseph is lifted up by Jehovah in His due time. After 13 years of isolation
from his family, and many of them spent in prison, Jehovah now uses this opportunity to reward Josephs
integrity. Joseph taught me to never waver in confidence about Gods personal care. He sees what all of us are
going through. His timing may not synch with ours but it does not mean that He is not preparing something for us.
At first, Joseph counted on the imprisoned but later released official of Pharaoh, the official cup-bearer, to help
him escape imprisonment. But relying on another human leads to disappointment. The Bible records that this
official keeps forgetting Joseph after his release (Gen. 40:23). That must have disappointed Joseph a lot.
I also see Josephs humility during this trialsome period. He had a gift about dreams and interpreting them. He did
not secure credit for the revelation, to lift up himself before others. He gave the credit to Jehovah God. Others find
this courageous of Joseph because he was living among pagans who worship many gods.
A Bible-based magazine featuring examples of faithful men and women, commented about Joseph
Joseph was 28 years old now, with about a decade of slavery and imprisonment behind him. To put it mildly, his
life was not turning out as he had hoped. Would he ever be set free? Would he see his dear elderly father again
or his beloved younger brother, Benjamin? How long would he be stuck in this pit? Have you ever felt as Joseph
did? Sometimes life turns out to be a far cry from our youthful hopes. Indeed, painful situations can seem to drag
on endlessly, and it can be hard to see a way out or a way to endure. Let us see what we can learn from the faith
of Joseph. [1]
And then it added about his possible frustrations
In these difficult times, who of us does not need to work on our endurance? In order to face lifes ongoing trials,
we need the kind of determination, patience, and inner peace that only God can give us. As he did with Joseph,
he can help us to fight despair and hold on to hope.Romans 12:12; 15:13. [2]
I will now highlight some details. Is the story of Joseph, just a fairy tale rags-to-riches story? Or is there evidence
that Semites actually have opportunities to rule in Egypt? One reference cites two examples Bay and Aper-el
who are both Semites and were given authority to rule in Egypt. Regarding Aper-el, this reference writes
One of these figures, Aper-el, with a name that includes the name of a Semitic, and Hebrew, god (El), was the
Vizier during the reign of one Pharaoh, Amenhotep III, and seems to have been a transitional figure who also
served under the next Pharaoh, the famous Akhenaten. [3]
In the coffin of Aper-el, discovered in the 1980s, the reference continues
It contains the coffin of a Semite named Aper-el along with the coffins of his wife and children. His titles include
Vizier, Mayor of the City, Judge, Father of God and Child of the Nursery. Hoffmeier points out that Aperels name was the first of a high-ranking, Semite official to be found there. [4]
In the Genesis story of Joseph, prisons are often mentioned
140 | P a g e
jail of the house of the chief of the guard (40:3)

Charles Aling on his paper wrote about the Egyptian prisons
Prisons were rare in the ancient world. To see this, one need only look at the Old Testament Law. There is
nothing there about serving a prison sentence for any sin or crime, and in fact there is nothing Biblically or
archaeologically that would lead us to believe that the Hebrews even had prisons as we know them. The
importance, then, of the prison sentence of Joseph is that the author of the book of Genesis is recording correct
information, for Egypt was one of the few nations in the ancient Near East that had prisons in the classical sense
of the term.
We are very fortunate to have an Egyptian papyrus, translated and published by the Egyptologist W. C. Hayes,
that deals at length with Egyptian prisons (Hayes 1972). We have mentioned it also deals with Asiatic slaves in
Middle Kingdom Egypt. Let us look at what this papyrus tells us about prisons and prison life in Egypt in the days
of Joseph (Hayes 1972: 37-42). [5]
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight has this to add
Among various ancient peoples, including the Egyptians, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians,
imprisonment was a form of legal punishment. (Ge 39:20; Jg 16:25; 2Ki 17:4; Ezr 7:26; Jer 52:31-33) Prisoners
might be bound with fetters and forced to work at hard labor, such as grinding. (Jg 16:21; 2Ki 17:4; Ps 105:17, 18;
Jer 52:11) In Egypt, a trusted prisoner (as was Joseph) might be placed in charge of other inmates and assigned
to wait upon those who had held prominent positions before their confinement.Ge 39:2140:4.
Prisons date back at least to the 18th century B.C.E., for it was then that Joseph was wrongly confined to the jail
that was connected to the house of the chief of the bodyguard. (Ge 39:20; 40:3; 41:10) This Egyptian jail
apparently had a dungeon, or hole shaped like a cistern, where some prisoners were kept.Ge 40:15; 41:14;
compare Isa 24:22. [6]
Another detail is Egyptian birthday celebration. According to research, the Egyptians invented birthday
celebrations as the birth of a god. The Greeks copied them and the Romans later introduced the birthday of the
common man. In fact, the oldest birthday party was in the Bible, in the pagan world of the Egyptians
Now the third day was Pharaohs birthday, and he made a feast for his servants (40:20)
Scolnic in his book wrote about the nature of this pharaohs birthday
When a prince became a king at his coronation, he was born as a god. That is, his birthday was no longer
significant; what was very important was the day he became king and god. Redford himself has shown that the
texts that speak of the appearance of the king concern the accession/coronation of the pharaoh. The festival is
known from the Sixth Dynasty on (2345-2181 BCE); there is evidence of the feast during the 18th Dynasty (15701293 BCE) reigns of Thutmose I and II and Amenhotep II, a period in which we might look for Joseph.
Hoffmeiers brilliant and plausible suggestion is that the celebration of Pharaohs birthday recorded in Gen. 40:20
is a celebration of his coronation. We would thus have a plenty of evidence for the celebration of such a festival in
the 2nd millennium BCE, the time of Joseph. The Biblical narrator did not distinguish between the anniversary of
the pharaohs actual birth date (which might not have been a cause for celebration) and the anniversary of his
birth date as a god-king (which we know was a cause for celebration). [7]
Hence, birthday celebrations were originally pagan Egyptian celebrations - commemorating the enthronement of
the pharaoh as a god-king. Incidentally, the only second birthday celebration recorded in the Bible was in the New
141 | P a g e
Testament during Roman rule of pagan Herod Antipas. No other personalities were recorded to have celebrated
their birthday. Not Jesus, not his apostles, who are not pagans.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it cites the reason why the first Christians did not celebrate birthdays
"Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of
feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G.,
XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday."
References
[1] Do Not Interpretations Belong to God?. The Watchtower, February 1, 2015, p. 12.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Scolnic, Benjamin Edidin. If the Egyptians Drowned in the Red Sea Where are the Pharaohs Chariots?
Studies in Judaism. University Press of America, Inc., 1984, p. 54.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Aling, Charles. Joseph in Egypt: Part III, Associate of Biblical Research blog. Available (online) http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/03/04/Joseph-in-Egypt-Part-III.aspx
[6] Prison. Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witness, 1988, p. 689.
[7] Scolnic, Benjamin Edidin. If the Egyptians Drowned in the Red Sea Where are the Pharaohs Chariots?
Studies in Judaism. University Press of America, Inc., 1984, p. 56.
142 | P a g e

Another important feature of the Joseph story is the various dreams. These dreams reflect authentic Egyptian
details. Nili Shupak of the University of Haifa noted that these dreams are different from the prior dreams
recorded in Genesis. He writes
Therefore, the features of the obscure symbolic dreamconceptual and verbal associations (see below)
meant to facilitate its solution, are missing. A different picture arises from the Egyptian dreams in the Joseph
story. No god appears in the dreams of the officials and of Pharaoh, which are ambiguous to them. The message
is not transmitted vocally but is present in a vision and a picture, interwoven with symbols and words plays. The
interpreter is not a god but a charismatic sage, the gods messenger. Parallels to these dreams appear only in the
Book of Daniel (chaps. 2 and 4), these being the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniels interpretation of them.
But it has already been said that Daniel and his deeds are only a mirror of the story of Joseph, and perhaps even
a satire on it, for everything Joseph does, Daniel does better. [1]
Shupak classifies Egyptian dreams into the following and examines the Genesis Egyptian dreams using form
criticism (structure or organization of the story, words and phrases, etymology of key words, etc.)
(a) stories about dreams, which can be divided into three kinds: a message dream (theorematic), which is clear
and needs no explanation an obscure symbolic dream (allegoric), which requires interpretation; and an incubation
dream; (b) collections of (symbolic) dreams (omina) and their interpretation. [2]
Then, he relates these Egyptian dreams as found on Egyptian records to the Genesis dream
The picture that emerges from the Bible is the opposite: unlike the transparent Egyptian royal dream, in which the
divinity presents a clear and distinct message to the king, the dreams of the gentile kings in the Bible, including
those of Pharaoh in Genesis 41, are symbolic and obscure. [3]
Regarding the two dreams of Pharaoh which Joseph said meant the same thing, Shupak writes
The doubling of a dream- usually a symbolic dream- is known from the ancient Near East and is meant to verify
and emphasize the message, particularly when the dreams interpretation is not understood by the dreamer. [4]
Another blog wrote about the significance of cows in the Pharaohs dream
In Egyptian mythology, the goddess of fate was Hathor, the cow-goddess. Ancient Egyptians believed that at the
birth of a child, Hathor would appear in all her seven forms and decree the fate of the newborn.[7] When the
pharaoh saw seven cows in his dream, he knew that is was an omen of the future of Egypt, but he knew not what
that was until Joseph interpreted the dream. Had the Biblical "author(s)" invented this story a thousand years
later, it would have been truly amazing for them to be aware of this little-known tidbit of ancient Egyptian
mythology. [5]
Shupak goes on the other details of the Egyptian dreams in the Joseph story and he relates them to the many
details of Egyptian life as well as to similar customs, images, and gods of the ancient Near East. One other
accurate detail is the mention below of
magic-practicing priests of Egypt (41:8)
In the original language, this is hartummim. He writes
By contrast, in Israel, at least according to the evidence of the Bible, there were no professional dream
interpreters. The hartummim, to whom Pharaoh turned for help in interpreting his dreams in Genesis 41, were
thus a manifestly Egyptian institution. [6]
Regarding dreams, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight has this to say about dreams and pagans
143 | P a g e
Concerning the pagan view of dreams, it is stated: Babylonians had such trust in dreams that on the eve of
important decisions they slept in temples, hoping for counsel. Greeks desiring health instruction slept in shrines of
Aesculapius, and Romans in temples of Serapis. Egyptians prepared elaborate books for dream interpretation.
(Harpers Bible Dictionary, edited by M. and J. L. Miller, 1961, p. 141) But such practices did not exist among
faithful Hebrews and early Christians. The Scriptures warn against looking for omens, whether in natural dreams
or in various incidents.De 18:10-12; see DIVINATION. [7]
With respect to Egyptian dreams in Genesis, Insight comments
Some dreams from God experienced by persons not worshiping him were also prophetic. In Egypt, while Joseph
was imprisoned with Pharaohs chief of the cupbearers and chief of the bakers, these men had dreams that God
enabled Joseph to explain as meaning that in three days the chief of the cupbearers would be restored to his
position, whereas the chief of the bakers would be executed. These events occurred three days later, on
Pharaohs birthday. In time these dreams served the purpose of bringing Joseph to Pharaohs attention as a man
having Gods spirit.Ge 40.
Warning and the prophetic element were combined in two dreams that Pharaoh of Josephs day had in one night.
In the first, he saw seven fat-fleshed cows devoured by seven poor, thin-fleshed cows. In Pharaohs second
dream, seven full and good ears of grain came up on one stalk, only to be swallowed up by seven shriveled, thin,
wind-scorched ears of grain. Joseph, ascribing the interpretation to God, correctly explained that both dreams
pointed to seven years of plenty to be followed by seven of famine. (Ge 41) It was Gods direction to save many
from starvation and particularly to preserve the life of Abrahams descendants, to fulfill his promises to
Abraham.Ge 45:5-8. [8]
Does God continue to use dreams to day to deliver a message to mankind? A Bible-based magazine reports
Although God did use dreams in the past to reveal prophetic events and give instructions while his written Word
was being produced, he has no need to do so today. That written Word contains all the instructions from God that
mankind needs at this time, and its prophecies concern events more than a thousand years into the future.
(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) So we can be confident that our dreams are not indications from God of future events but
essential functions of the brain for maintaining our mental well-being. [9]
References
[1] Shupak, Nili. A Fresh Look at the Dreams of the Officials and of Pharaoh in the Story of Joseph (Genesis 4041) in the Light of Egyptian Dreams, an updated version of a Hebrew article that was published in Shnaton, An
Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 15 (2005), 55-95.
[2] Ibid., p. 107.
[3] Ibid., p. 110.
[4] Ibid., p. 111.
[5] Reznick, Leibel. Egyptology in the Torah: Biblical Archaeology, Available (online) http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48967121.html
Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 15 (2005), 55-95. (Page 134).
[7] Dream. Insight from the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 651.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Can Dreams Foretell the Future? The Watchtower, October 1, 1996, p. 7.
144 | P a g e

The Joseph story has in fact many details of authentic Egyptian culture although the Genesis story is not about
the Egyptians per se. Why is this important? The Bible claims to be the Word of God. What is in its pages are all
true. Hence, reading it brings us closer to its Divine Author, helps us appreciate how loving, merciful and just He
is. It gives us an insight on how Jehovah God deals with imperfect men that He uses to accomplish His will. And
that is encouraging for me, to continue to make choices that elevate God as the center of my universe just as the
men I read in its pages did before me.
Let me now consider these small details.
1. Before appearing to Pharaoh, Joseph performed some preparations
he shaved and changed his clothes and went in to Pharaoh (41:14)
Regarding this preparation, a Bible-based magazine commented
Hebrew men of ancient times grew beards. Yet, the Bible tells us that Joseph shaved prior to appearing before
Pharaoh. (Genesis 41:14) Why did he shave? To conform with Egyptian custom and etiquette, which considered
facial hair to be a sign of uncleanness. [The Egyptians] prided themselves on being clean-shaven, says the
book Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt. In fact, cosmetic sets consisting of razors, tweezers, and mirrors, along with
their containers, have been found in tombs. Clearly, Moses was a meticulous chronicler. The same can be said of
other Bible writers who documented events relating to ancient Egypt. [1]
2. How about the names mentioned Asenath, Potiphera, Zaphenathpaneah?

Potiphar or Potiphera was claimed to be a name popular in the 1st millennium BCE. However, Kitchen has found a
stela with this name and such names were found as early as the New Kingdom.
3. Shupak comments on the phrase below which is part of the Pharaohs dream
scorched by the east wind (41:23)
Shupak writes
The depiction of the ears as blighted by the east wind, namely scorched by that wind, is difficult; the term
qadim, east wind, does not suit the Egyptian environment. The east wind is the hot hamsin in the Land of Israel,
but in Egypt the hot wind blows from the south. In any event, mention of wind in this context is interesting as it
fits well with the Egyptian notion of the rise and fall of the Nile. According to this, the north wind brings blessings
and high flood, while the south wind causes aridity and want. [2]
4. After successfully, revealing the meaning of Pharaohs dream who his magic-practicing priests cannot
interpret, the Pharaoh recognized Joseph this way
Then Pharaoh removed his signet ring from his own hand and put it on Josephs hand and clothed him with
garments of fine linen and placed a necklace of gold around his neck (41:42)
One blog has this interpretation of this event
145 | P a g e
In one of the walls in a royal Egyptian tomb is a beautiful engraving of the investiture ceremony for a new prime
minister. The official is clothed in a white linen gown and wears a gold chain around his neck. As Werner Keller
maintains:
"Joseph's elevation to be viceroy of Egypt is reproduced in the Bible exactly according to protocol. He is invested
with the insignia of his high office, he receives the ring, Pharaoh's seal, a costly linen vestment, and a golden
chain. This is exactly how Egyptian artists depict this solemn ceremony on murals and reliefs. As viceroy, Joseph
rides in Pharaoh's 'second chariot.' That could indicate the 'period of the Hyksos' at the earliest, for it is only
during the period of the 'rulers of the foreign lands' . . . that the fast war chariot reached Egypt . . . Before their day
this had not been the practice on the Nile. The ceremonial chariot harnessed to thoroughbred horses was in those
days the RollsRoyce of the governors. The first chariot belonged to the ruler, the 'second chariot' was occupied by
his chief minister" (The Bible as History, 1980, p. 89). [3]
Charles Aling in his blog has this differing opinion

What is happening in these verses is a twofold ceremony. In verses 4041, Pharaoh officially appoints Joseph to
high office in Egypt (in our next article, we will try to establish exactly which Egyptian titles Joseph held).
However, in verses 4245, Pharaoh rewards Joseph for what he has revealed. [4]
Aling continues
Let us look at how Joseph was rewarded. Of the three items of personal adornment mentioned, the gold chain is
by far the most important. As Redford has pointed out, this is a common item in reward scenes in Egyptian tomb
paintings (most of the examples come from the New Kingdom period, somewhat later than the days of Joseph).
While the ring and the linen robes are not prominently mentioned in Egyptian reward scenes, the gold chain
catches our attention because one would not expect an Egyptian reward ceremony to occur without it. This again
indicates the accurate Egyptian nature of the details of the Joseph Story. [5]
5. Regarding the chariot, Aling differs from Siegle

Josephs new chariot is also of special interest (Aling 1981:4445). As a vehicle for war, the chariot seems to
have only been introduced into Egypt during the Hyksos period, 17861570 BC. This would be, according to the
dates calculated from the Bible itself, too late for Joseph. There is, however, nothing strange about the Egyptians
having a few chariots for high officials to use in the Middle Kingdom period when Joseph lived. In this passage of
Scripture we are not looking at war chariots lined up for battle in some anachronistic way. In fact, the implication
of the Biblical text is that there were not many chariots in Egypt at this time. Josephs chariot is called the second
chariot, implying that the only person who outranked him, Pharaoh himself, had the other. [6]
6. What is the significance of Joseph marrying a priestly-class family?
Asenath the daughter of Potiphera the priest of On (41:45)

Aling explains it with respect to historically timing relative to the Hyksos
We are also told that the father of Asenath was a priest. This in itself is not terribly significant, other than to show
that Joseph was being highly favored since priests were at the pinnacle of Egyptian society. What is important is
the further information we are given in Genesis 41:45. Asenaths father was Priest of the city of On. On was
known to the Greeks as Heliopolis, and was the center of worship of the sun god Re. It was also the educational
center of ancient Egypt. The High Priest of the god Re at that city was a key figure in Egyptian religion and
politics.
That Joseph married the daughter of a priest of Re at Heliopolis is important as confirmation of our date for
Joseph in the Middle Kingdom and not in the Hyksos period as so many scholars wish to do. His marriage must
be regarded as a high honor, as it is part of the rewards given him for what he has done. [7]
146 | P a g e
Why does Aling think so?

That Joseph marries a daughter of the Priest of Re is evidence for his belonging to a period of history when
native Egyptian kings ruled in Egypt, not Hyksos foreigners. [8]
Regarding the Hyksos, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight reports
Hyksos Period. Many commentators place Josephs entry into Egypt and that of his father and family in what
is popularly known as the Hyksos Period. However, as Merrill Unger comments (Archaeology and the Old
Testament, 1964, p. 134): Unfortunately, [this period] is one of great obscurity in Egypt, and the Hyksos conquest
is very imperfectly understood.
Some scholars assign the Hyksos to the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Dynasties with a 200-year rule; others
confine them to the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties during a century and a half or only one century. The name
Hyksos has been interpreted by some as meaning Shepherd Kings, by others, Rulers of Foreign Countries.
Conjectures as to their race or nationality have been even more varied, with Indo-Europeans from the Caucasus
or even in Central Asia, Hittites, Syrian-Palestinian rulers (Canaanites or Amorites), and Arabian tribes all being
suggested. [9]
It also adds the following
Egyptian documents immediately following their rule called them Asiatics. Regarding this period of Egyptian
history, C. E. DeVries noted: In attempting to correlate secular history with the biblical data, some scholars have
tried to equate the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt with the Israelite Exodus, but the chronology rules out this
identification, and other factors as well make this hypothesis untenable. . . . The origin of the Hyksos is uncertain;
they came from somewhere in Asia and bore Semitic names for the most part.The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, edited by G. Bromiley, 1982, Vol. 2, p. 787. [10]
References
[1] Egypt in Bible History, Awake!, November 2010. Available (online) http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201011/egypt-in-bible-history/
Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 15 (2005), 55-95. (Page 123).
[3] Siegle, Mario. The Bible and Archaeology: Archaeology and Genesis What Does the Record Show? Part 2.
Available (online) http://www.ucg.org/science/bibleandarchaeologyarchaeologyandgenesiswhatdoesrecordshowpart2/
[4] Aling, Charles. Joseph in Egypt: Part IV, Associate of Biblical Research blog. Available (online) http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/03/15/Joseph-in-Egypt-Part-IV.aspx
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Egypt, Egyptian. Insight on the Scriptures, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 695.
[10] Ibid.
147 | P a g e
1.17.21 Joseph and His Brothers

As the Joseph story progresses to his reunion with his brothers, two key terms stand out to me for my reflection
famine and Sheol.
1. Famine is reported in Genesis several times. Regarding these ancient famine reports, the Bible-based
encyclopedia comments
The first truly historical famine is the one that forced Abram (Abraham) to leave Canaan and take up alien
residence in Egypt. (Ge 12:10) In Isaacs day another famine occurred, but Jehovah told him not to go to Egypt.
(Ge 26:1, 2) The seven-year famine that came upon Egypt while Joseph served as prime minister and food
administrator evidently reached far beyond the boundaries of Egypt, for people of all the earth came to Egypt to
buy [food] from Joseph.Ge 41:54-57.
While the Egyptian inscriptions scrupulously avoid any reference to Israels sojourn in Egypt, there are ancient
Egyptian texts that describe periods of famine due to insufficient rising of the Nile River. One text describes a
period of seven years of low Nile risings and the resulting famine. According to the account, certain portions of
land were granted to the priesthood when relief from the famine came. Although the question is raised as to
whether the document is a priestly forgery of some late period, justifying their claim to territorial privileges, at
least we see reflected a tradition of a period of seven lean years.Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by
J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 31. [1]
The reason why Genesis famine reports are difficult to synchronize with Egyptian history is cited by a
Conservapedia entry on Famine in Egypt
Perhaps the one reason why dating the famine has been so difficult is that Egyptian chronology, once regarded
as settled, is now anything but settled. [2]
Bible scholars themselves are divided as to when Joseph lived in Egypt. One paper cited the various claims
Certainly the possible dates given for Joseph cover a wide range. Among the main views, Erich Zehren has
found Joseph in the person of Irsu the Syrian, who lived about 1200 BC. C. H. Gordon argued for a Ramesside
date. H. H. Rowley affirmed that he connects the life of Jacob (and Joseph) with the Amarna age. Yet the majority
of experts today assign Joseph to the time of the Hyksos. This last view is perhaps the most secure, since
inscriptional evidence is almost totally lacking for the Hyksos period in Egyptian history. Could Joseph, however,
have lived before the Hyksos domination? Some scholars are of this opinion. [3]
It was during this famine that Joseph finally realized that his dreams had come true when the Bible reports that
Josephs brothers came and bowed low to him with their faces to the ground (42:6)
Now, Joseph was able to see the connection of his being sold as slave into Egypt and becoming a powerful ruler
there and the preservation of his family from the famine. This is important as it plays out the biblical plot of the
Messianic line being preserved.
2. It was also during this time that the Bible uses for the first time the Hebrew word for the grave Sheol. Jacob
expressed himself this way with the news that Josephs brother Benjamin needed to go to Egypt as well. At
this point, Jacob is looking at losing three sons - Joseph, Simeon (who was left behind in Egypt), and now
Benjamin.
bring down my grey hairs to the Grave in grief (42:38)
The Jewish Encyclopedia defines Sheol or the Grave as
It connotes the place where those that had died were believed to be congregated. Jacob, refusing to be
comforted at the supposed death of Joseph, exclaims: "I shall go down to my son a mourner unto Sheol" (Gen.
148 | P a g e
xxxvii. 36, Hebr.; comp. ib. xlii. 38; xliv. 29, 31). Sheol is underneath the earth (Isa. vii. 11, lvii. 9; Ezek. xxxi. 14;
Ps. lxxxvi. 13; Ecclus. [Sirach] li. 6; comp. Enoch, xvii. 6, "toward the setting of the sun"); hence it is designated
as
(Deut. xxxii. 22; Ps. lxxxvi. 13) or
(Ps. lxxxviii. 7; Lam. iii. 55; Ezek. xxvi. 20, xxxii. 24). It is very
deep (Prov. ix. 18; Isa. lvii. 9); and it marks the point at the greatest possible distance from heaven (Job xi. 8;
Amos ix. 2; Ps. cxxxix. 8). The dead descend or are made to go down into it; the revived ascend or are brought
and lifted up from it (I Sam. ii. 6; Job vii. 9; Ps. xxx. 4; Isa. xiv. 11, 15). Sometimes the living are hurled into Sheol
before they would naturally have been claimed by it (Prov. i. 12; Num. xvi. 33; Ps. lv. 16, lxiii. 10), in which cases
the earth is described as "opening her mouth" (Num. xvi. 30) [4]
In laymans terms, Sheol, is where the dead are, and where they remain silent or inactive. The Bible-based
encyclopedia Insight defines Sheol as
The common grave of mankind, gravedom; not an individual burial place or grave (Heb., qever, Jg 16:31;
qevurah, Ge 35:20), nor an individual tomb (Heb., gadhish, Job 21:32).
While several derivations for the Hebrew word sheohl have been offered, apparently it is derived from the
Hebrew verb shaal, meaning ask; request. Regarding Sheol, in A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon, Samuel Pike
stated that it is the common receptacle or region of the dead; so called from the insatiability of the grave, which is
as it were always asking or craving more. (Cambridge, 1811, p. 148) This would indicate that Sheol is the place
(not a condition) that asks for or demands all without distinction, as it receives the dead of mankind within it.Ge
37:35, ftn; Pr 30:15, 16.
The Hebrew word sheohl occurs 65 times in the Masoretic text. In the King James Version, it is translated 31
times as hell, 31 times as grave, and 3 times as pit. The Catholic Douay Version rendered the word 63 times
as hell, once as pit, and once as death. [5]
One technical paper noted the practice of the English Bible, King James Version, of translating Sheol often as
hell as well as grave
However, entries on Sheol and Hell indicate that they would hardly justify the translation of Sheol as hellsince they stress that Sheol is to be understood as the abode of all the dead and not a place of punishment for
the wicked. Apparently no one previously had argued properly that hell- was a theological imposition made by
the KJV translators, thus the original intent of the present essay was meant to demonstrate that the translation of
Sheol as hell- was indeed a result of cultural imposition, a consequence of the seventeenth centurys
fascination with hell. [6]
Some proponents of life after death interpret the words of Jacob to mean that he believes that Joseph was still
alive and that he will be reunited with Joseph in Sheol, alive after death. Regarding this view, a Bible-based
magazine commented
In the Bible, we find the first occurrence of the word Sheol at Genesis 37:35. Following the apparent loss of his
beloved son Joseph, the patriarch Jacob refused to take comfort, declaring: I shall go down mourning to my son
into Sheol! Believing that his son was dead, Jacob desired to die and be in Sheol. Later, nine of Jacobs older
children wanted to take his youngest son, Benjamin, down to Egypt to find relief from the famine. However, Jacob
refused, saying: My son will not go down with you men, because his brother is dead and he has been left by
himself. If a fatal accident should befall him on the way on which you would go, then you would certainly bring
down my gray hairs with grief to Sheol. (Genesis 42:36, 38) These two references link death, not some kind of
afterlife, with Sheol. [7]
What do we conclude with these data? Jacob clearly does not believe that Joseph is alive in Sheol. He himself
said that Joseph is dead. There is no support in the Old Testament to claim that souls are spirits and that they
separate from the body to go to Sheol. The creation of man is very clear in what constitutes a soul when the Bible
said that man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7) What became a soul? Answer: the physical man.
149 | P a g e
More technical data can be found here
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005157?q=sheol&p=par
References
[1] Famine. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 809.
[2] Famine in Egypt. Conservapedia entry. Available (online) - http://www.conservapedia.com/Famine_in_Egypt
[3] Battenfield, James. A Consideration of the Identity of the Pharaoh of Genesis 47. Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society. Available (online).
[4] Sheol. Jewish Encyclopedia. Available (online) - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13563-sheol
[5] Sheol. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 922.
[6] Lewis, Timothy. Translating Sheol as Hell: A Clear Case of Cultural Imposition? for Jewish Bible Society.
Available (online) https://www.academia.edu/2942759/Translating_Sheol_as_Hell_A_Clear_Case_of_Cultural_Imposition
[7] Who Will Be Resurrected? The Watchtower, May 1, 2005, p. 14.
150 | P a g e
1.17.22 Joseph and His Brothers

In my effort to bring to life the Genesis account, I need to understand not only its social and cultural context, but
many small details related to the physical environment of its personalities. Below is an important detail about
valuable plants in the ancient Near East
a little balsam, a little honey, labdanum, resinous bark, pistachio nuts, and almonds (43:12)
Regarding these items, a JW.org article has this information
What is incense? The term can refer to the smoke or to the substance burned. It is made of aromatic resins and
gums, such as frankincense and balsam. These are pounded into a powder and are often mixed with such
substances as spices, tree bark, and flowers to create certain fragrances for specific applications.
Incense was such a desirable and thus valuable commodity in ancient times that its ingredients became important
items of trade. Caravans following trade routes carried these from distant lands. You may recall that Jacobs
young son Joseph was sold to Ishmaelite traders who were coming from Gilead, and their camels were carrying
labdanum and balsam and resinous bark, on their way to take it down to Egypt. (Genesis 37:25) The demand for
incense became so great that the frankincense trade route, no doubt initiated by incense merchants, opened up
travel between Asia and Europe. [1]
Wikipedia also has this to say about labdanum

Labdanum was produced on the banks of the Mediterranean in antiquity. The Book of Genesis contains two
mentions of labdanum being carried to Egypt from Palestine. The word loth ("resin") in these two passages is
usually interpreted as referring to labdanum on the basis of Semitic cognates. [2]
What does this tell me about the quality of life of the ancients? Who can afford aromatic plants, perfume and
incense? The Bible describes Jacob and his family as wealthy. Jehovah God had blessed him so much that
things like these are accessible to him.
Another important social detail is when the sons of Jacob reached Egypt, I found this detail
gave them water for washing their feet (43:24)
I encountered the first time the washing of feet custom back in the days of Abraham and Lot in Canaan and in
Haran (18:4; 19:2; 24:32). How about the Egyptian custom? Is this authentic? One reference describes this
To those who arrived from a journey, or who desired it, water was brought for their feet, previous to entering the
festive chamber; and it was either now, or immediately before dinner, that the guests washed their hands, the
water being brought in the same manner as the present day It is certain that basins were kept for the purpose
of washing the hands and feet of the guests, and that in the houses of the rich they were of gold, or other costly
materials; but those who lived near their host were probably expected to perform their ablutions before they left
home; and hence, I conceive, we may account for not finding any representation of this preliminary ceremony in
the paintings at Thebes. [3]
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on this
A welcome and hospitable act that often preceded the eating of a meal in the generally warm climate of the
ancient Middle East, where persons customarily wore open sandals, walked on dry soil, and traveled on foot
along dusty roads. In the average home of the common people, the host provided needed vessels and water, and
visitors washed their own feet. (Jg 19:21) A wealthier host usually had his slave do the foot washing, and this was
considered a menial task. Abigail indicated her willingness to comply with Davids wish that she become his wife
by saying: Here is your slave girl as a maidservant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord. (1Sa 25:40-42)
151 | P a g e
Especially was it a display of humility and affectionate regard for guests if the host or hostess personally washed
the visitors feet. [4]
Another detail I noticed is the one reported in Genesis about Egyptians and Hebrews and eating meals
for the Egyptians could not eat a meal with the Hebrews (43:32)
The Bible-based magazine commented on this
Why was eating a meal with the Hebrews detestable to the Egyptians? This may largely have been because
of religious prejudice or racial pride. The Egyptians also detested shepherds. (Genesis 46:34) Why?
Sheepherders may simply have been near the bottom in the Egyptian caste system. Or it could be that since the
land available for cultivation was limited, the Egyptians despised those seeking pasture for flocks. [5]
Another small but important detail is the reference to a silver cup

place my cup, the silver cup (44:2)
A Bible commentary commented
Silver was used throughout antiquity as a common item of exchange. Since Egypt lacked native silver deposits,
this metal was particularly desirable as a standard for business transactions. [6]
Regarding this silver cup, Joseph described it as a cup from which Joseph
drinks from and uses to read omens expertly (44:5)
A JW.org article explains the mention above of omens and Joseph
When Joseph confronted his brothers, he continued with his subterfuge, asking them: Did you not know that
such a man as I am can expertly read omens? (Genesis 44:15) Thus, the cup was evidently all part of the
stratagem. Josephs use of the cup to read omens was no more real than Benjamins theft of it. [7]
A footnote to the article above explains this ancient practice
Describing this ancient practice, The Holy Bible, With an Explanatory and CriticalCommentary, edited by
F. C. Cook, explains: It was practised either by dropping gold, silver, or jewels, into the water, and then
examining their appearance; or simply by looking into the water as into a mirror. Bible commentator Christopher
Wordsworth says: Sometimes the cup was filled with water, and the answer was given by means of imagery,
produced by the sun on the water in the cup. [8]
Another reference comments on the title of Joseph while in Egypt

appoint me as chief adviser [lit. father] to Pharaoh (45:8)
Genesis 45:8, by calling Joseph Ruler of all Egypt, seems to suggest that he became the Vizier of Egypt. And,
when Pharaoh promoted and rewarded Joseph, he said that only as King would he be greater than Joseph. But
the modern scholar William Ward has argued that Joseph never became Vizier (Ward 1960:14450). Ward states
that Hebrew phrases such as those mentioned above are not specific equivalents of the Egyptian title of Vizier,
but are rather only renditions of vague Egyptian epithets given to other, lesser, officials.
However, Joseph obviously held only one of the vague epithets discussed by Ward and that epithet was Chief of
the Entire Land. While Ward is correct in stating that this epithet was at times used for officials of lower rank, it
was most commonly used for Viziers. And, for the phrase in Genesis 41:40, Only with respect to the throne will I
be greater than you, no exact Egyptian parallel exists. The Hebrew text strongly suggests that Joseph became
the Vizier of Egypt. [9]
152 | P a g e
Not all the details in the Bible can be verified today. One example is the location of Goshen
you must dwell in the land of Goshen (45:10)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
A region in Egypt where the Israelites resided for 215 years (1728-1513 B.C.E.). (Ge 45:10; 47:27) While the
exact location of Goshen is uncertain, it appears to have lain in the eastern part of the Nile Delta, the entrance to
Egypt proper. This is indicated by the fact that Joseph, leaving his Egyptian quarters, met his father (who was
traveling from Canaan) at Goshen. (Ge 46:28, 29) Greek Septuagint renderings indicate that Goshen was in the
vicinity of the Wadi Tumilat. [10]
References
[1] Incense Burning- Does It Have a Place in True Worship? The Watchtower, June 1, 2003, p. 28.
[2] Labdanum. Wikiwand entry - http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Labdanum
[3] Wilkinson, John. Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians p. 210-12
[4] Washing of Feet. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1170.
[5] Highlights from the Book of Genesis-III, The Watchtower, January 15, 2004, p. 29.
[6] John Walton, Victor Matthews and Mark Chavalas. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, p.
74.
[7] Questions from Readers. The Watchtower, February 1, 2006, p. 31. Available (online) http://wol.jw.org/tl/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006086
[8] Ibid.
[9] Aling, Charles. Joseph in Egypt: Part V, Associates for Biblical Research blog, Available (online) http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/04/05/Joseph-in-Egypt-Part-V.aspx#Article
[10] Goshen. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 989.
153 | P a g e
1.17.23 Jacobs Family in Egypt

In the ancient world of Genesis, their cultural gestures does not come across as clear to me. Some of these
gestures I mention below
and Joseph will lay his hand upon your eyes (46:4)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
Laying hand on eyes of deceased. Jehovahs expression to Jacob, Joseph will lay his hand upon your eyes
(Ge 46:4), was a way of saying that Joseph would close Jacobs eyes after his death, which was ordinarily a duty
of the firstborn son. So it seems that Jehovah here indicated to Jacob that the right of firstborn should go to
Joseph.1Ch 5:2. [1]
The other one is mentioned below
place your hand under my thigh (47:29)
Again, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
The word thigh applies to the upper part of the leg from the hip to the knee, in which the femur is located.
According to the Jewish rabbi Rashbam, this method of swearing was used when a superior adjured an inferior,
such as a master his servant or a father his son, who also owes him obedience. And according to another Jewish
scholar, Abraham Ibn Ezra, it was the custom in those days for a servant to take an oath in this manner, placing
his hand under his masters thigh, the latter sitting upon his hand. This signified that the servant was under his
masters authority.The Soncino Chumash, edited by A. Cohen, London, 1956, p. 122. [2]
Another reference also comments
Gen. xlvii, 29. Various conjectures have been made as to the precise position of the hand or hands in taking this
oath, for which, as well as for the supposed significance of the oath, commentators may be consulted. [3]
At this point I am introduced into an important family whose children will perform an important role in the worship
of God in the new nation of Israel in support of the Aaronic priesthood.
the son of Levi were Gershom, Kohath , and Merari (46: 11)
The way Moses listed the children of Jacob, I can still sense the difference that Jacob and Rachel have. Only
Rachel is introduced as Jacobs wife. All the other women did not get that distinction.
These are the sons of Leah (46:15)
These are the sons of Zilpah (46:18)
The sons of Jacobs wife Rachel (46:19)
These are the sons of Bilhah (46:25)
In the final records of Genesis, a variance is raised with the way the number of people of Jacob that stayed in
Egypt is accounted for when compared to the report made in the New Testament.
All the people of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were 70 (46:27)
For example, when speaking with men from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia, the disciple Stephen said:
Joseph sent out and called Jacob his father and all his relatives from that place [Canaan], to the number of
seventy-five souls. (Acts 6:8-10; 7:12-14) The Hebrew text in Genesis chapter 46 says that the number of
154 | P a g e
Josephs relatives was seventy. But the Septuagint uses the number seventy-five. Apparently, Stephen quoted
from the Septuagint.Genesis 46:20, 26, 27, footnote [4]
A blog proposed some explanations for this difference
One of the more inexplicable things regarding the 70 (or 75) of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt,
revolves around the mention of some of Jacobs descendants who apparently were not born until
sometime after the journey to Egypt was completed. If one accepts the Septuagints tally of 75, including the
grandchildren of Joseph, he also must conclude that Manasseh and Ephraim (Josephs sons) fathered these
children sometime after Jacobs migration to Egypt, and possibly before Jacobs death seventeen years later
(since Ephraim and Manasseh still were very young when the house of Jacob moved to Egypt). If one
excludes the Septuagint from this discussion, there still are at least two possible indications in Genesis 46 that
not all seventy were born before Jacobs family arrived in Egypt. First, Hezron and Hamul (the sons of Perez)
are included in the seventy (46:12), yet the evidence strongly leans toward these great-grandsons of Jacob
not being born until after the migration. Considering that Judah, the grandfather of Hezron and Hamul, was
only about forty-three when the migration to Egypt took place, and that the events recorded in Genesis 38
(involving his family) occurred over a number of years, it seems logical to conclude, as did Steven Mathewson
in his Exegetical Study of Genesis 38, that Judahs sons Perez and Zerah were quite young, perhaps just a
few months old, when they traveled to Egypt. Therefore it would have been impossible for Perez to have
fathered Hezron and Hamul, his two sons mentioned in Genesis 46:12, before the journey into Egypt (1989,
146:383). He went on to note:
A close look, however, at Genesis 46:12 reveals a variation in the mention of Hezron and Hamul. The end of
the verse reads: And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul. Yet throughout Genesis 46, the listing of
descendants was done without the use of a verbal form. For example, verse 12a reads, And the sons of
Judah: Er and Onan and Shelah and Perez and Zerah (146:383). [5]
Another cultural detail in the time of Joseph in Egypt is this commentary of Moses about the Egyptians
for every herder of sheep is detestable to the Egyptian (46:34)
Thus at Genesis 43:32 we read that it was a detestable thing (abomination, KJ; abhorrent, AT) for Egyptians
to eat with Hebrews, and at Genesis 46:34 that every herder of sheep is a detestable thing [abomination, KJ;
abhorrent, AT] to Egypt. According to G. Rawlinson, this aversion was based on the Egyptian contempt for
foreigners in general and for herdsmen in particular. Again, at Exodus 8:25-27, we find Moses, fully aware of the
Egyptians adoration of certain animals (and particularly of the cow) as sacred, insisting that Pharaoh allow the
Israelites to withdraw into the wilderness to make their sacrifices because these would be a thing detestable to
the Egyptians. (Egypt and Babylon From Sacred and Profane Sources, 1885, p. 182) Such Egyptian standards,
of course, were not divinely set or approved by Jehovah God.See ABHORRENT THING. [6]
How did Joseph take advantage of this known Egyptian preference? Again, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight
comments
Thus, wisely and lovingly Joseph made the best of an Egyptian prejudice against shepherds. It resulted in
safeguarding Jacobs family from being contaminated by Egyptian influence and eliminated the danger of their
being completely absorbed by the Egyptians through marriage. [7]
Another detail in the Genesis account that cannot be verified today using archaeology is the mention of
Rameses
in the land of Rameses (47: 11)
155 | P a g e
When Jacobs family moved into Egypt they were assigned to live in the land of Rameses. (Ge 47:11) Since
elsewhere they are spoken of as residing in the land of Goshen, it appears that Rameses was either a district
within Goshen or was another name for Goshen. (Ge 47:6) [8]
An important commentary about the special place of Egyptian priests in Egyptian society is mentioned below by
Moses during the famine
only the land of the priests he did not buy, because the ration for the priests were from Pharaoh (47:22)
Regarding this special place of Egyptian priests
In Egypt, for example, the priests owned portions of the land (Ge 47:22, 26) and by crafty maneuvering
eventually were the richest and most powerful men in Egypt. James H. Breasted, in A History of the Ancient
Egyptians (1908, pp. 355, 356, 431, 432), records that during the so-called Twentieth Dynasty the Pharaoh was
reduced to a mere puppet. The priesthood had possession of the Nubian gold country and the great province of
the Upper Nile. The high priest was the most important fiscal officer of the state, next to the chief treasurer
himself. He commanded all the armies and held the treasury in his hands. He is represented more prominently in
the monuments than the Pharaoh. [9]
The Genesis account has introduced a sort of taxation during the famine, introduced by Joseph.
a fifth belongs to Pharaoh (47:26)
This taxation was commented on by a paper on taxation and the Bible
Income taxes, property taxes, special assessment taxes, and poll taxes are all mentioned in the Bible. Though
tax terms, such as rate and base, are not technically discussed in the Bible, the tax attributes indicated by these
terms are sufficiently implicit to distinguish these four types of direct taxation. Indirect taxes, such as custom
duties or sales taxes, are also mentioned in the Bible.
Income Tax: An income tax is a levy based on the income of a person or the yield of property, such as farmland
or herds of livestock. Genesis 47:26 mentions such a tax:
So Joseph established it as law concerning land in Egypt still in force today that a fifth of the produce
belongs to Pharaoh . . .
This was a 20% tax on the yield of property, a precursor to a government timposed income tax. Other parties
have also typified a levy based on property yield as an income tax. One author referred to this Egyptian practice
as follows, Agricultural production was taxed at a hefty 20%. This was . . . exactly like our income tax [Adams,
1993, p. 3]. [10]
References
[1] Attitudes and Gestures. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 220.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Freeman, James. Handbook of Bible Manners and Customs, New Yotk: Nelson and Phillips, 1875, p. 25.
[4] The SeptuagintUseful in the Past and the Present, The Watchtower, September 15, 2002, p. 27
[5] Lyons, Eric. Jacobs Journey to Egypt, Apologetics Press, Available (online) http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=808
[6] Detestable Thing. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 617.
[7] Joseph. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 109.
[8] Raamses. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 723.
[9] Priest. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 684.
156 | P a g e
[10] Manuel Jose and Charles Moore. The Development of Taxation in the Bible: Improvement in Counting,
Measurement, Computation in the Ancient Middle East, Available (online) http://www.accountingin.com/accounting-historians-journal/volume-25-number-2/the-development-of-taxation-inthe-bible-improvements-in-counting-measurement-and-computation-in-the-ancient-middle-east/
157 | P a g e
1.17.24 The Final Days of Jacob in Egypt

Genesis began with the creation of life. It ends with two deaths Jacob and his son, Joseph.
Where before death happens as a matter of fact to individuals in the beginning of Genesis, after the fall from
grace, but from the death of Sarah, Moses is now inspired to write how the survivors felt the loss of another
human.
In the closing chapters of Genesis, I am introduced to the dying Jacob and eventually his death. I was with him
when he was born with his twin Esau. I followed his life story when he grew up as a boy tending the flock. He
must have listen a lot to his grandfather Abraham, of Jehovah Gods promise of an offspring, and how the nations
of the world will someday be blessed because of that offspring, and how someday they will inherit the very land
where their family is a stranger. I was with him when he bought the right of the firstborn, when he secured it by
pretending to be Esau, and when he left all by himself to journey to Haran where he would meet his future wife
Rachel. I was with him when Laban, his father in law, deceived him by giving Leah instead of Rachel and how
Leah would endure the consequences of that deception all her life. I was with him while Jehovah blessed and
protected Jacob from Laban, and when he returned to Canaan to meet his brother Esau, and when his sons
slaughtered the men of Shechem. I was with him when he has grown old and his family grew and multiplied as
Jehovah promised Abraham. Now, Jacob the patriarch, exits the scene of the world, and dies.
The Bible reports
Joseph then threw himself on his father and wept over him and kissed him (50:1)
We are all like Joseph in this respect. We lost loved ones along the way and how we missed them. Death has
never been portrayed in the Bible as a friend. It has always been the enemy. Death, the penalty of the curse of
sin, has been claiming all of us in its time.
In preparation for his death, Jacob said the statement below, which reminds me how Abraham was described at
his death
I am being gathered to my people (49:29)
Those who choose to believe that souls are spirits and are immortal, believe that this phrase refers to Jacob
planning to rejoin his ancestors, in the spirit world. Jacob once said that when he dies, he will go to Sheol, a
Hebrew word for the world of the dead, or where the dead are.
But this line of reasoning has no support in the Bible. Sheol is the world of the inactive, silent dead. No one is
alive in Sheol. Genesis has explicitly described that man became a living soul. Hence, the Bible soul is not a
spirit. In fact, the Hebrew word for soul is nephesh which literally means a breather.
Finally, after his death,
so the physicians embalmed Israel (50:2)
I am still figuring out from available information why the Bible reported that physicians rather than embalmers do
the embalming of Jacob/Israel. However, on this practice, Insight commented
Embalming of Jacob and Joseph. There are only two cases specifically called embalming in the Bible and
both of these took place in Egypt. It was there that Jacob died, and after relating Josephs expression of sorrow
over his fathers demise, the inspired Record states: After that Joseph commanded his servants, the physicians,
to embalm his father. So the physicians embalmed Israel, and they took fully forty days for him, for this many days
they customarily take for the embalming, and the Egyptians continued to shed tears for him seventy days. (Ge
50:2, 3) Joseph died at the age of 110 years, and they had him embalmed, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.
(Ge 50:26) In Jacobs case the principal purpose apparently was preservation until his burial in the Promised
Land. Josephs prominence may have been the reason in his case.Ge 49:29-32; 50:13, 24, 25; Ex 13:18, 19;
Jos 24:32. [1]
158 | P a g e
Another important detail about the Egyptian practice of embalming is mentioned in Genesis
they took the full 40 days for him, for this is the full period for embalming (50:3)
Insight continues
According to Herodotus, Egyptian embalming methods included placing the corpse in natron for seventy days.
Yet, when Jacob was embalmed by Egyptian physicians at a much earlier time, the Bible says they took fully
forty days for him, for this many days they customarily take for the embalming, and the Egyptians continued to
shed tears for him seventy days. (Ge 50:3) Scholars have made various efforts to reconcile Genesis 50:3 with
the words of Herodotus. For one thing, the 40 days may not have included the time of the bodys immersion in
natron. However, it is quite possible that Herodotus simply erred in saying the dead body was placed in natron for
70 days. The later Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (of the first century B.C.E.) said that the Egyptian embalming
process lasted over 30 days. (Diodorus of Sicily, I, 91, 5, 6) Of course, there may have been Egyptian embalming
procedures that neither of these historians discussed, and it is possible that different time periods were involved in
the embalming processes at various points in history. [2]
Another reference reports on this practice around natron
The Egyptians aided this natural drying process, however. They packed the body with a powdery substance
called natron (basically sodium carbonate and sodium bi-carbonates)> This chemical is found naturally in several
locations in Egypt (Luca 1962:263ff).).
It is important to realize that a liquid solution was not used, but rather the body was packed in this dry powder for
a period of many days. The exact length of time in the natron varied according to which period of Egyptian history
the mummy belonged and according to the amount being spent on the process. Presumably, a rich family spend
more on preserving the family members.
A second thing necessary for mummification was the removal of the vital organs of the body. If these are left
inside the person, they will speed decay. Thus, the Egyptian embalmers removed all the of the abdominal organs
except the heart, and also removed the brain.
This last procedure created a problem, however. The Egyptians were concerned about the body retaining its
identity, and they did not want to harm the head or face in any way. They resolved this problem by unraveling and
removing the brain through the nose with a sharp hook of some kind. [3]
An additional detail of this embalming practice is provided by another reference
The knives found in the excavations and tombs, many which are preserved in our European museums, are
generally of two kinds; one broad and flat like the blade of a knife, the other narrow and pointed at the summit,
several of which are preserved in the Berlin Museum. These last are supposed to have been used for making
incision in the side of the body, for the purpose of removing the intestines, preparatory to the embalming process
already mentioned; and considering how strongly mens minds are prepossessed in favor of early habits
connected with religion, and how scrupulous the Egyptians were, above all people, in permitting the introduction
of new customers in matters relating to the gods, we are not surprised that they should have retained the use of
these primitive instruments in a ceremony of so sacred a nature as the embalming of the dead. [4]
The Bible adds this detail on top of the embalming
and the Egyptians continued to shed tears for him 70 days (50:3)
The reference above adds
That the seven-day division was known to the Egyptians seems to be proved by the seven-days fete of Apis (a
fourth part of the number twenty-eight assigned to the years of Osiriss life) as well as by their seventy days
mourning for the dead, or ten weeks of seven days. [5]
159 | P a g e
When finally, the sons of Israel brought Jacobs mummified body into Canaan, it was witnessed by those living in
the area
the Canaanites saw them mourning (50:11)
What the Canaanites called the place of mourning reflects the origin of the Egyptian
One of the sons of Ham was named Mizraim. (Gen. 10:6) The Scriptures unmistakably point to him as the
forefather of the ancient Egyptians. For example, when the Canaanites observed the mourning rites of the
Egyptians at the threshing floor of Atad, they called the place Abel-mizraim, meaning mourning of the
Egyptians.Gen. 50:7-11. [6]
Genesis finally closes with the death of Joseph and his expression of faith that the promises he heard from his
father Jacob will come true
So Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying: God will without fail turn his attention to you. You must take
my bones up out of here. (50:25)
All the details in the life of Joseph in Egypt has proven to be authentic, a true historical record. One blog
summarizes this section of Genesis below
According to multiple specific practices, phrases, words, names, and locations, the setting of the Joseph
narrative is ancient Egypt, while the price of slaves, the multicolored tunic, Josephs title, the renaming of
servants, and the presence of free Asiatics with a select few even holding positions of power in northern Egypt
together indicate that the events occurred in the 18 and 17 centuries BC during the 2 Intermediate Period of Egypt
and the Middle Bronze Age in Canaan. According to the chronological scheme found throughout various books of
the Bible, Combined with king lists from Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, Joseph lived in the 18 and 17 centuries BC,
demonstrating agreement between the Joseph narrative in the book of Genesis and the available archaeological
data (cf. Genesis 15:13-16, 37:2, 41:46, 47:6-9, 50:22; Joshua 5:6; Judges 11:26; 1 Kings 6:1; Galatians 3:1617). [7]
References
[1] Embalming. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 721.
[2] Ibid., p. 722.
[3] Aling, Charles. Joseph in Egypt: Part VI. Bible Archaeology Blog. Available (online) http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/04/09/JosephinEgyptPartVI.aspx
[4] Wilkinson, James. The Manners and Customs of The Ancient Egyptians Vol 2, New York: Dodd, Mead and
Company, chapter 9, p. 260.
[5] Ibid., p. 320.
[6] Who Descended from Mizraim? The Watchtower, March 1, 1979, p. 8.
[7] The Ancient Egyptian Setting of the Joseph Story. APXAIOC blog. Available (online) http://www.apxaioc.com/article/ancientegyptiansettingjosephstory0
160 | P a g e
1.17.25 Ephraim and Manasseh

Jacob has the opportunity to bless each one of his sons with a prophetic blessing. I did some research on the
significance of his pronouncements.
A new addition to the family of Jacob and considered by him as his own sons were the sons of Joseph
Ephraim and Manasseh are mine just as Reuben and Simeon are mine (48:5)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight has this to say
On his deathbed, Jacob, in effect, adopted his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh and appointed them to be the
equals of his direct sons. (Ge 48:5) Their father Joseph, who received the right as firstborn among Jacobs sons,
received two parts of his fathers inheritance by means of the tribal inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh. (1Ch
5:1; compare Ge 48:21, 22; De 21:17; Jos 14:4.) [1]
Jacob started blessing his sons, starting with the sons of Joseph, who now earned the right of the firstborn
Israel put his right hand on Ephraims head, although he was the younger (48:14)
Regarding this gesture, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
Blessing. Putting hands on head; lifting hands. Since the Hebrew word barakh has to do with bending the
knees and kneeling as well as blessing, it is probable that, when receiving a blessing, persons knelt down and
bowed themselves toward the one giving the blessing. Then the one blessing would put his hands on the head of
the one being blessed. (Ge 48:13, 14; Mr 10:16) [2]
Between the two sons of Joseph, Jacob chose to give the better blessing to Josephs younger son. The Bible
reports Josephs reaction
it was displeasing to him (48:17)
The giving of the better blessing is signified by placement of the right hand. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight
comments
The Right Hand. The right hand was considered to be of great importance, symbolically. Joseph was
displeased when Jacob crossed his hands in order to lay his right hand on Ephraim, Josephs younger son. But
Jacob did this purposely, to give Ephraim the superior blessing. (Ge 48:13-20) [3]
Jacob confirmed to Joseph that he has received the right of the firstborn of the entire 12, not just of Rachel, with
the declaration
I do give you one portion of land more than to your brothers (48: 22)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight commented
After blessing Josephs sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob said to Joseph: I do give you one shoulder [of
land] more than to your brothers, thereby designating Joseph as the possessor of firstborn rights. (Ge 48:22;
compare De 21:17; 1Ch 5:1, 2.) [4]
Jacob then made a prophetic statement
which I took from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and my bow (48:22)
Regarding this statement, Insight comments
Shortly before Jacobs death in Egypt, that patriarch promised Joseph: I do give you one shoulder of land more
than to your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorites by my sword and by my bow. (Ge 48:22) Since
the word rendered shoulder in this text is shekhem in Hebrew, some have claimed that Jacob was here referring
to the plot of ground he had purchased near Shechem (Heb., Shekhem). (Ge 33:18, 19) The purchase was a
peaceable transaction, however, and there is no record of any battle waged by Jacob in connection with the land.
While Jacobs sons later did make a savage attack on the people of Shechem, Jacob disavowed responsibility for
161 | P a g e
the act at the time (Ge 34:30); and on his deathbed he cursed the anger of Simeon and Levi that had motivated
the attack. (Ge 49:5-7) Thus, it seems more reasonable to understand Jacobs promise as a prophetic utterance
in which he envisioned by faith the future conquest of Canaan as though it were already effected, with Jacob
taking the land of the Amorites vicariously through the sword and bow of his descendants. [5]
Jacob used an expression that would later be a common phrase used by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Daniel, Hosea and Micah
the final part of the days (49:1)
Again, Insight commented on this instance
Jacobs Deathbed Prophecy. When Jacob said to his sons, Gather yourselves together that I may tell you
what will happen to you in the final part of the days or in days to come (AT), he meant in that future time when
his words would begin undergoing fulfillment. (Ge 49:1) Over two centuries earlier Jehovah had stated to Jacobs
grandfather Abram (Abraham) that his offspring would suffer affliction for 400 years. (Ge 15:13) Therefore, in this
case, the future time referred to by Jacob as the final part of the days could not begin until after the 400 years of
affliction ended. (For details on Genesis 49, see the articles on the sons of Jacob under their respective names.)
A later application of the prophecy that would involve the spiritual Israel of God could also be expected.Ga
6:16; Ro 9:6. [6]
References
[1] Ephraim. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 753.
[2] Attitudes and Gestures. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 217.
[3] Hand. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1029.
[4] Shoulder. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 936.
[5] Amorite. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 97.
[6] Last Days. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 206.
162 | P a g e
1.17.26 The Blessings of the Sons of Jacob

1.17.26.1 Reuben
Jacob declared to Reuben
you will not excel, because you have gone up to your fathers bed (49:4)
Insight commented
There was also the matter concerning the firstborn rights. Reuben, Jacobs firstborn, was entitled to a double
portion in the inheritance (compare De 21:17), but he forfeited this right by committing incestuous immorality with
his fathers concubine. (Ge 35:22; 49:3, 4) [1]
1.17.26.2 Simeon and Levi

Jacob declared to Simeon and Levi
let me disperse them in Jacob, and let me scatter them in Israel (49:7)
Insight commented
In harmony with Jacobs prophecy at Genesis 49:5, 7, Simeon and Levi were not given a separate section of
territory as inheritance. Simeons territory consisted of land (along with enclave cities) inside the territory of Judah
(Jos 19:1-9), while Levi was granted 48 cities throughout the entire territory of Israel. Since the Levites received
the appointment to special service at the sanctuary, Jehovah was said to be their inheritance. They received the
tithe as their portion or inheritance in return for their service. (Nu 18:20, 21; 35:6, 7) Families were given
assignments within the territory of their tribe. As families would increase and sons would inherit, the land would be
progressively divided up into smaller and smaller parcels. [2]
In addition, the detail of being scattered is commented by Insight here
Simeons inheritance consisted of cities that were located within Judahs territory, because the latters allotment
proved to be too large for them. (Jos 19:1-9; MAPS, Vol. 1 pp. 744, 947) The 48 cities administered by the
Levites, including the 6 cities of refuge, were all enclaves in the territory of other tribes. (Jos 21:3-41) In this
manner Jacobs deathbed prophecy concerning Simeon and Levi was fulfilled, that they shall have a portion in
Jacob, but will be scattered in Israel.Ge 49:7. [3]
1.17.26.3 Judah
Jacob declared to Judah
the scepter will not depart from Judah, neither the commanders staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes
(49:10)
This signifies a movement to the promise declared by Jehovah to Abraham regarding kings in his offspring. This
identified on which tribe the future Messiah will go through.
1.17.26.4 Zebulun
Jacob declared to Zebulun
Zebulun will reside by the seashore (49:13)
Insight comments
163 | P a g e
Tribal Inheritance. Regarding the inheritance of the tribe of Zebulun, the dying patriarch Jacob stated: Zebulun
will reside by the seashore, and he will be by the shore where the ships lie anchored; and his remote side will be
toward Sidon. (Ge 49:13) Since Sidon was to the N of Israel and since Zebuluns territory was to be toward
Sidon, the location of Zebuluns territory was to be a northern one. While not bordering directly on the sea, the
area assigned to Zebulun was situated between the Sea of Galilee on the E and the Mediterranean on the W and
thus gave the Zebulunites easy access to both bodies of water. Hence, they could easily engage in commercial
trade, which may be alluded to by Moses words of blessing: Rejoice, O Zebulun, in your going out.De 33:18.
[4]
1.17.26.5 Isacchar
Jacob declared to Isacchar
[Isacchar] will bend his shoulder to bear the burden and will submit to forced labor (49:15)
Insight comments
The tribe of Issachar was foretold to bend down his shoulder to bear burdens. (Ge 49:14, 15) In Israels history
this tribe was willing to take responsibility and do hard work. It supplied many courageous fighters for Judge
Barak and, later, provided Judge Tola; also, in the time of David, this tribe furnished many wise and valiant
men.Jg 5:13, 15; 10:1, 2; 1Ch 7:1-5; 12:23, 32. [5]
1.17.26.6 Dan
Jacob declared to Dan
Dan will judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel (49:16)
Insight comments
Samson the faithful servant of Jehovah as judge of Israel for 20 years proved true both Jacobs deathbed
prophecy (Dan will judge his people) and Moses prediction (Dan is a lion cub). (Ge 49:16; De 33:22; Jg 13:2,
24, 25; 15:20) [6]
1.17.26.7 Gad
Jacob declared to Gad
but [Gad] will raid at their heels (49:19)
Insight comments
All these things were in harmony with Jacobs blessing of Gad: As for Gad, a marauder band will raid him, but
he will raid the extreme rear. (Ge 49:19) The tribe was not afraid to have one side (the E) of their boundary open
to marauder bands. They did not choose to live on the eastern highlands just to get out of fighting for the land of
Canaan. Jacobs parting words to Gad were as a command to strike back confidently at marauders attacking him
and violating his borders. Moreover, the Gadites raided the raiders, making these turn about in flight, and then the
Gadites would pursue their extreme rear. [7]
1.17.26.8 Asher
Jacob declared to Asher
Ashers bread will be abundant (49:20)
Insight comments
164 | P a g e
This included some of the most fertile land in all Israel, where olive trees would provide abundant oil, while other
fruits would provide dainties fit to grace a royal table. (Ge 49:20; De 33:24) [8]
1.17.26.9 Naphtali
Jacob declared to Naphtali
[Naphtali] is a slender doe (49:21)
Insight comments
Possibly with reference to skillfulness and swiftness in warfare, Jacob prophetically described the tribe of
Naphtali as a slender hind. (Ge 49:21) [9]
1.17.26.10 Benjamin
Jacob declared to Benjamin
Benjamin will keep on tearing like a wolf (49:27)
Most of the Scriptural references to the wolf are illustrative. In his deathbed prophecy, Jacob likened his son
Benjamin to a wolf, this undoubtedly with reference to the tribes fighting abilities. (Ge 49:27; see BENJAMIN
No. 2.) [10]
In addition, Jacob said
like a wolf. In the morning he will eat the prey, and in the evening he will divide spoil (49:27)
Benjamite fighters were noted for their ability with the sling, slinging stones with either the right hand or the left
and hitting the mark to a hairbreadth. (Jg 20:16; 1Ch 12:2) Left-handed Judge Ehud, the slayer of oppressive
King Eglon, was of Benjamin. (Jg 3:15-21) [11]
References
[1] Israel. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1229.
[2] Inheritance. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1200.
[3] Enclave Cities. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 724.
[4] Zebulun. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1222.
[5] Shoulder. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 935.
[6] Dan. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 573.
[7] Gad. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 877.
[8] Asher. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 190.
[9] Hind. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1119.
[10] Wolf. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 1195.
[11] Benjamin. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1988, p. 289.
165 | P a g e

Personal Bible Reflections - Genesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personal Bible Reflections - Genesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERSONAL BIBLICAL REFLECTIONS - GENESIS

Personal Biblical Reflections

COMPILATION OF BIBLICAL RESEARCH

1.1.2. "God created"

1.1.3. "the heavens and the earth"

1.2 A Closer Look at the Creation Days

1.3 The Negative View of Critics on Genesis

1.4 Some gems from Genesis Creation account

1.5 The Documentary Hypothesis and supposed contradictions in Genesis

1.5.2 Supposed contradictions between Genesis chapter 1 and 2

[7] The Bible-Gods Word or Mans?, Jehovahs Witnesses, 2006, p. 94.

1.6 Exploring some details of Genesis chapters 2 and 3

1.6.2 The prohibition on eating two types of fruit

1.6.3 The need of man for a woman

1.7.1 The serpent

1.7.2 The deception

1.8.1 Gods holy name Jehovah

that evil will not last forever

1.9.2 Gods judgment on Adam

[1] Creation, Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, p. 545.

1.10.2 Cain and his wife

1.10.3 Details on Noah and the Flood

The complete verse reads

1.10.3.3 Ratio of Noahs ark relative to modern ships

1.11.1 Observation from the Genealogical Lists (Adam-Noah)

When I compared this list to the post-Noah list below

1.12 More reflections post-Flood

1.12.2 The Origin of Nations

JAPHETH Aryan Branch of Speech:

HAM Hamitic Branch of

1.13 Reflections on Abraham

1.13.2 Urs religion, Abraham, Lot, Eliezer and Patriarchal customs

1.13.3 Elam and Abrahams military victory

1.13.5 Sodom and Gomorrah

1.13.6 Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited

1.13.7 What can I learn from Lot?

Questions from Readers, The Watchtower, December 1, 1979, p. 31.

1.13.12 Jehovah as represented in His interactions with Abraham

[1] Deffinbaugh, Bob. Commentary on Genesis, 2003, p. 5.

1.13.13 Jehovah as a God of prophecy

[1] Abraham, Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovahs Witnesses, 1998, p. 31

1.13.14 Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac

First woman that an angel spoke to in person

1.13.15 Abimelech of Gerar

1.13.17 The offering of Isaac

1.13.19 Looking for the future wife of Isaac

1.15 Abraham, Keturah and the other children

1.16 Isaac, Rebekah and the selling of Esaus birthright

1.16.2 Esau, selling his birthright

Other commentaries note the same thing

Do not go down to Egypt. (26:2)

1.16.4 Isaac and El Shaddai

1.17 Reflections on Jacob

1.17.3 Jacob and Laban

1.17.5 The price of peace

1.17.6 The meeting of the brothers Esau and Jacob

1.17.7 Simeons anger

1.17.8 Jacob goes to Bethel

1.17.9 The pillars erected by Jacob

1.17.10 Death in the family

1.17.11 Do the Patriarchs Believe in Life After Death? Did Moses?

1.17.12 Notes on Esau

1.17.13 The Story Moves with Jacob

The blog explains