Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Interesting Conversation at Amazon.com


Alice C. Linsley


My Amazon review of the book Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (May 29, 2010) led to an interesting conversation with someone who posts by the name spfdgreg (hereafter “Greg”). He concluded that I have distorted Genesis. Here is the conversation.


Greg: Would you care to tell us where the Bible says that Cain and Seth married the daughters of this Nok fellow?

Alice: Nok is the Hamitic form of the Hebrew Enoch. Analysis of the Genesis genealogies reveals a unique kinship pattern in which the cousin brides name their firstborn sons after their father. Cain and Seth married sisters, the daughters of Enoch. That is why Cain and Seth's firstborn sons are named Enoch. Likewise, Lamech's daughter Naamah (Gen. 4) married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah (Gen. 5) and named their firstborn son Lamech, after her father. This Lamech (the Younger) is the father of Noah.

The anthropological tools of kinship analysis applied to the Genesis genealogies have demonstrated that the men listed are indeed historical persons. All this research is available to read online. Best wishes to you.


Greg: I am looking at Genesis right now, and there is no mention of either Cain or Seth marrying cousins. It says nothing about their wives, who could not have been cousins anyway, as that would mean the boys had aunts and uncles. But since Adam and Eve were the first humans the second generation did not have aunts and uncles. So the two must have married two of their sisters. Also, Methuselah's wife's name is not given, so why do you think he married Naamah? Yes, they were of the same generation, but the text gives the impression that Cain's clan did not live in the same area as Seth's. It is possible that the two never even met. Also, Seth's firstborn was named Enosh, not Enoch.


Alice: Enoch and Enosh are linguistically equivalent names as are Irad and Jared, and Elkanah and Elkaniah. Compare the spelling of names that come from the Masoretic text vs the Septuagint. You will see differences like these. All the men listed are rulers. Do a search for The Genesis Kings Lists and you will see the diagrams of the Genesis genealogies. Much easier to study the kinship pattern when looking at a diagram.
http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2011/02/genesis-king-lists.html

Also, http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2011/03/sister-wives-and-cousin-wives.html

Anthropological science shows that the Genesis genealogical information is authentic.


Greg: I have looked at your website, and would like to know where you get this stuff. I have taken seminary-level classes on the Old Testament, and nothing like this was mentioned, either in class, or in our textbooks. You are obviously using extra-biblical sources. Are you sure they are reliable?


Alice: I'm an anthropologist by training and hold a Master of Divinity degree. I believe that the Bible is true. My research is based on 32 years of study.


Greg: If you believe the Bible, why are you distorting what it says? It clearly says that Adam and Eve were the first two humans. On what grounds do you reject that?


Alice: In biblical parlance Adam and Eve ARE the archetypal first ancestors. Now the question is "Whose ancestors?" Genesis answers that question - Abraham's. As Abraham is our Father in the Faith, we must try to understand what this meant to his people. We can do that once we place Abraham in the correct cultural context. The Bible does that for us. We are told that he is a descendant of the ruling lines that originated in the Nile region of Africa (Kush/Cush). Are there similar origin stories to the Adam and Eve story in that part of the world? Indeed, ONLY in that part of the world. See the story of Kikuyu and Mumbi.
Perhaps this will clarify: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2010/09/abrahams-kushite-ancestors.html


Greg: I wonder if you are reading the same Bible I am. Adam and Eve are not the archetypal first ancestors, they are the ACTUAL first ancestors, of the entire human race. Abraham was not from the Nile region, he was from Ur of the Chaldeans, which was in Mesopotamia, not Egypt.


Alice: The archetype among Nilotic peoples does not require that we read the Adam and Eve story as historical. History is only one way of speaking about Truth.

Genesis makes it very clear that Abraham's ancestors came out of Africa. He is a descendant of Kush. The link I provided will show you how that is so. I don't invent the diagrams. They are diagrams of the information found in Genesis.

I recognize that this is all new, and that it feels as if I'm distorting, but that is not so. It appears that you are seeking to draw closer to the God of Abraham, so I hope that you will pursue this.

Greg: I appreciate your prompt replies to my questions, but I see a major problem with your theory. Cush [as the NKJV spells his name] was a son of Ham (Gen 10:6), but Abraham was a descendant of Shem (Gen 11:10-26), and was from Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen 11:27-31), not Africa. Your diagrams are in error.

Yes, I am seeking to draw closer to the God of Abraham, and I am doing so by the only means He has provided, His Son Jesus.


Alice: You fail to recognize that the ruler-priest lines intermarried exclusively, which is a trait of castes. Abraham's Horite people were a ruler-priest caste. Cain and Seth's lines intermarried exclusively, as did the lines of Ham and Shem. Therefore Abraham is a descendant of both Cain and Seth and Ham and Shem. That's what the Genesis genealogies reveal.

What the Bible shows about the intermarriage between Cain and Seth's lines is here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/05/lamech-segment-analysis.html

What the Bible shows about intermarriage between Ham and Shem's lines is here:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/03/sheba-lines-of-ham-and-shem.html

The lines of Abraham and his brother Nahor intermarried according to this identical pattern. The evidence is here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2010/09/abrahams-nephews-and-niece.html

Abraham was living in Ur-Haran region because he is a descendant of Nimrod, the son of Cush. Nimrod was a great kingdom builder. His name is Nilotic. (See the Egyptian ruler Nimlot, as an example.) The Kushites spread their worldview across the ancient Afro-Asiatic Dominion as they moved north and eastward out of Africa. This has been verified by DNA studies, migration studies, and archaeological and anthropological findings.

I apologize for being short with you. We do agree that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the ONLY way to the Father.


Related reading: The Genesis King Lists; Moses' Horite Family; Samuel's Horite Family; The Horite Ancestry of Jesus Christ; The Marriage and Ascendancy Pattern of Abraham's Horite People; Lamech Segment Analysis


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Fascinating. So much I've never read about, thank you for your work. Nice and patient responses to your questioner. -- Bob

Alice C. Linsley said...

I wish that patience were one of my virtues, but it really isn't.

Anonymous said...

Alice,
I am so very intrigued about studying permanant binary distinctions in Genesis. As a somewhat new visitor to the JustGenesis blog. Please help me "where" to begin what could be an amazing journey about the beginnings of our history. Even studying Genesis as a whole. Help. Dave Abshear

Alice C. Linsley said...

Dave, welcome to Just Genesis. All of the articles are posted with links in the INDEX (see home page). Topics are arranged alphabetically.

This is a good place to start:

The Importance of Binary Distinctions
Binary Sets in the Ancient World
A Conversation About Binary Distinctions
Blood and Binary Distinctions
Circumcision and Binary Distinctions

Let me know if I can be of further help.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Linsley, be quite and quit telling the Truth. It makes you dangerous. Best, Brent