Is Nehesi Related to the Name Nahor?

Alice C. Linsley


A reader from Torrence, California has asked if the name Nehesi might be the same as the Biblical name Nahor. On the surface this seems a possibility since the vowels are not certain and the root is the same. Removing the vowels, we have NH as a common root. Na-Hor means the Na of Horus, that is to say "One who serves Horus." In the Akkadian, Na is a modal prefix indicating service to, affirmation, or affiliation. Nahor was apparently a Horite ruler-priest, as was his father Terah. Terah means priest. Terah and Nahor are not names. They are titles.

Nehesi is also a title. It means One who serves Hesi.  Hesi refers to wisdom. There is a relationship between the Nehesi and Nahor in that both appear to be dedicated to Horus and his mother Hathor-Meri, the patroness of smiths and an ancient symbol of wisdom (sophia). Shrines were dedicated to both Horus and Hathor throughout ancient Canaan, Syria and Lebanon. These were mound cities with water sources. Tell-Hesi is an example. Other mound shrines included Hazor and Beersheba.

Nahor was Abraham's older brother. He was named after his maternal grandfather. Nahor the Younger ascended to the throne of his father Terah in the region of Aram Naharaim, between the western Tigris and the Euphrates. This territory was ruled by Nimrod, one of Nahor's ancestors (Gen. 10:8-12).

Nehesi refers to people of the Upper Nile, a region called Ta-Nehesi, meaning "Land of Nehesi." This was earlier called Wawat. The Upper Nile appears to be the point of origin of the features of religion that are associated with Moses and his people. This includes animal sacrifice, the burning of incense, circumcision, ruler-priests, the Holy Name YHWH, and the solar imagery of the Habiru/Hebrews.

Red and black Nubians

Terah is a title found among the ancient Nubians. Tera-neter designated a nobleman of the Ainu people, pre-dynastic inhabitants of the Upper Nile. Neter refers to ruler or a deified king. Neter was retained in the Coptic language as Nuti.


The Line of Nahor the Elder

Nahor the Elder was Abraham's maternal grandfather. He was a descendant of Nimrod, the great Kushite kingdom builder. Erech (Uruk), Accad (Akkad or Agade) and Calneh were centers of Nimrod's initial territory. From there he went north and conquered or founded Asshur, Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen. All these city-states were united by a common script, the Akkadian cuneiform. The language of Nimrod's territory was related to Elamite, Dravidian, Chadic and Kushite languages. This should not surprise us since Nimrod was a son of Kush (Gen. 10:8-12).


Related reading:  God's African Ancestors; Issues in the Historical Phonology of Chadic Languages; Abraham's Kushite Ancestors; Tomb of Nubian Priest Found; Terah's Nubian Ancestors

Biblical Anthropologists Discuss Darwin

The following is an email correspondance with Biblical Anthropologist Susan Burns.  Susan and I had the opportunity to meet last summer in Washington.  She is bright, articulate, highly intuitive and a great stimulation to my research. Susan writes, "A point I am trying to make in my blog is that unless we incorporate the contribution of religious tradition, we will never understand what has made us human."

Alice,

I am very curious about your views on human evolution. For some reason, I assumed you agreed with Darwin's basic premise although I can't remember what post I read that brought me to that conclusion. Could you elaborate on your views? I am sure they are very insightful.

You stated that H. Afarensis was human and I would love to hear your reasoning on this subject. Although it is difficult to determine what is the criteria for "human", I am sure your opinion is more informed than most. I say that because of the same reasons you outline in your frustrations about young earthers. IMHO Australopithecines have the dentition for papyrus consumption so that is the human line of descent.

I am not hung up on race but there is some kind of genome relationship to the sons of Noah. What a beautiful design! First we are isolated and evolve adaptations to regional conditions and then we are mixed together and use the best of the variables for new adaptations.

Which brings me to the million dollar question: How do you reconcile Genesis and Darwin?


Kind regards,

Susan

Susan,

As you are aware, my research is on-going so I am not able to speak definitively on the Genesis-Darwin question. I do agree with this statement:  "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin." -- Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (1994)

The Young-Earthers' simplistic view that the races came from the three sons of Noah is without support in genetics and in Genesis. Distinct populations descend from them, but not races. I discuss this here.

Evolutionists speak of "species" and "genus" and paint a picture consistent with their ideology. They persist in classifications that confuse people. A species is either human or ape. Darwin's view that we share a common ancestor remains unproven. The differences between ape and human fossils is obvious. I prefer to speak of archaic human populations and modern human populations. That there are some anatomical differences between these is not indicative of evolutionary branching but is evidence of human adaptation to environment.

Additionally, a range of anatomical features is to be expected among human populations that were isolated and practiced endogamy. This is one of the observations Darwin made concerning the isolation of species. 

Further, most archaic populations lived in dense rain forests in the equatorial belt. They were well adapted to the heavy wet conditions. This is indicated by the evidence of air sacks in the throat, as do apes of the tropics. However, this does not mean that these human populations evolved from apes or that humans and apes had a common ancestor. It simply means that Darwin was right about adaptability of species. Humans exhibit great adaptability.  I agree with you that this has been divinely guided.

In the Bible, Adam and Eve represent the First Couple created by God. If this is historically true, they would have lived before 3.6 million years ago. That is when A. afarensis lived in tropical Africa. There is no reason to assume that A. afarensis were not human. The morphology of the hyoid that suggests this population had air sacks in the throat is not indicative of them being apes. The same hyoid bone shape has been found in other human populations as an adaption to jungle or tropical environments such as existed in Israel around 60,000 B.C. Similar hyoid structure was found with the archaic population that lived in the Kebara Caves in Israel. All other traits of A. afarensis indicate that this population was fully human, including evidence of controlled fire.

When it comes to natural selection, human populations are unique among animal species.  Many factors have an impact on human survival and adaptation. These include imagination, innovation, diplomacy, intuition, collective memory, kinship and non-random mating structures. Molecular genealogists recognize mating structure as a key factor in genetic flow. This is where my research on the marriage pattern of Abraham's Nilotic ancestors comes into play. This unique marriage pattern was well established among Abraham's ruler-ancestors between 4000-3000 B.C., and the ascendancy of firstborn sons by two wives drove the migration out of Africa into Mesopotamia and into West Central Africa.

I have no doubt that A. afarensis was an archaic human population.  The term Australopithecus afarensis was coined by South African anatomist Donald C. Johanson. These remains were first found in Hadar, Ethiopia in 1973. For about 20 years A. afarensis was described as the earliest known “human ancestor species.” Australopithecus means “Ape of the South” and afarensis refers to the Afar Triangle of Ethiopia where the fossils were found. Johanson now recognizes that this was an archaic human species. The first discovered skeleton of this population was named "Lucy" and she was described as Homo by Mary Leakey. She was not pleased with Johanson's attempt to classify her Hadar find as ape.

Since 1974, many more A. afarensis bones have been found, mainly in Cameroon, Ethiopia and Tanzania. All are at least 3 million years old. The bone structure reveals that these were archaic humans. They were erect and had human ankle bones.

When Jeremy DeSilva, a British anthropologist, compared the ankle joint, the tibia and the talus fossils of  these 4.12 to 1.5 million year remains, he discovered that all of the ankle joints resembled those of modern humans rather than those of apes. Chimpanzees flex their ankles 45 degrees from normal resting position. This makes it possible for apes to climb trees with great ease. While walking, humans flex their ankles a maximum of 20 degrees. The human ankle bones are quite distinct from those of apes. (Read about DeSilva’s research here.)

As you point out, the Australopithecine had human dentition.  I agree that dentition for papyrus consumption is indicative of early archaic humans. This would be expected for river, coastal and marsh populations. Archaic humans lived near the major water sources which ancient rulers came to control.

All the evidence surrounding the Australopithecine points to archaic humans.  They walked upright, used butchering tools and controlled fire. Further, it appears that they shared food which they gathered/hunted collectively. This has never been observed among apes, as far as I know.

Best wishes,

Alice


Alice,

Darwin's theory does not propose humans evolved from apes. It simply says we have a common ancestor. Although I am sure you are aware of this, it does seem to be a sticking point with Young-Earth Creationists.

Your point about air sacs is really key. Humans did evolve in wet conditions as I point out in my blog. Before I had my children, I was extremely inspired by a book I read called "The Aquatic Ape" by Elaine Morgan. She outlines all of the attributes humans share with aquatic mammals. I was extremely inspired by Morgan's work and used my own children as guinea pigs. Both girls could float and propel themselves underwater and on their backs before they could walk.

You and I seem to have very similar views and are just a few degrees on either side of the dividing line of Darwin's theory. Although I am an evolutionist, I am not an atheist and I find that it is almost impossible to talk with secular scientists about the effects of religious traditions on the evolutionary process.

I would agree with your frustration with Young-Earthers and extend that frustration to anthropologists. At least Young-Earthers are usually civil.

I am still somewhat unclear on your view of the origin of H. Afarensis. Do you think archaic humans came from a completely separate line of descent that does not share a evolutionary branch with other primates or even hominids?

Kind regards,
Susan


Susan,

I am a creationist.  I believe that from "the beginning" God created humans in the divine image and fully human, and that humans and apes have always been separate species.  As far as I have been able to determine, finds labled "hominids" in evolutionary taxonomy represent different archaic human populations.
 
After almost 100 years of frantic searching, there remains no material evidence that humans and apes had a common ancestor.  This aspect of Darwin simply has not been proven. Until it is, I feel no compulsion to relent in my position. That's the empirical approach, afterall.

This doesn't mean that I reject a role for natural processes. These can be observed. I wonder why such observations must be forced into Neo-Darwinian interpretations. The air sacs being an example. Many features that Darwinians insist are evidence of evolution have other likely explanations. The morphology of the hyoid that suggests that A. afarensis had air sacks in the throat is not indicative of evolution of humans and apes from a common ancestor. The same hyoid bone feature has been found in other archaic human populations as an adaption to aquaboreal environments. Similar hyoid structure appears in the Kebara Cave population of Israel that lived around 60,000 B.C.

Genesis tells us that God created in an orderly fashion over a period of time and according to a plan. It is the work of science to discover the order and the work of theologians and Bible scholars to discern the plan.  For Abraham's ancestors the order was perceived as fixed, though they recognized flux within the fixed boundaries. Their acute observation of the patterns in nature suggested a divine plan.

Are you familiar with the BioLogos Group? Their website might interest you. They are theistic evolutionists, mostly Evangelical Protestants. BioLogos sees evolution as the means by which God created life, in contrast to Atheistic Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism.

Personally, I think they try too hard to align Darwin with Genesis. Genesis isn't about the origin of the universe and life on Earth. It is about the origin of Messianic expectation among Abraham's Nilotic ancestors. Their focus on the evolutionary angle causes people to lose sight of this.

I too have found it nearly impossible to discuss the impact of religion on human advancement with secular or atheistic Darwinians. Religion simply does not fit into their Materialist worldview.

They are ignorant of ancient civilizations and dismiss the importance of this knowledge because in their evolutionary scheme, humans have evolved to a higher consciousness. Therefore the ancient past has little to teach us.

Materialists recite a litany of Dawkins' writings and his ignorance of ancient civilizations is shocking. When I bring up examples of how religion is the early foundation for science, materialists dismiss this.  Recently, I cited the example of how the trinity of pyramids of Giza, Saqqara and Abusir aligned to the temple of Horus at Heliopolis, and in reply, I was told that this could just as easily have been the work of aliens! 

Best wishes,

Alice


Alice


The Biologos group is heavy on the logos and light on the bio. They do try very hard but everything I read was conjecture. Genesis may be about Messianic expectation but its backdrop is an archaic world view that could provide invaluable insights. However humanity evolved, its story is told in the ethnography of religion. Why this resource is not being exploited is unfathomable to me.

Comparing the air sacs of humans to other indigenous primates places the ancestor of man and ape someplace in equatorial Africa. The air sac adaptation allowed this ancestor to adapt to ever wetter environments. While the ape branch became more specialized by knucklewalking, the human branch acquired more aquatic adaptations. Hairlessness, adipose fat distribution, deep diving reflex, ear ichthyosis, even upright walking allowed Pithecines to exploit the semi-aquatic ecosystem of tropical papyrus swamps. All primates are arboreal but the pithecine branch was apparently aquaboreal. Their forest ecosystem was cane.

The aquaboreal ecosystem that nurtured early man must have been coastal. The reason is our need for so much salt. Human blood contains .9% salt and is crucial for healthy brain development. Every bodily system down to the cellular level uses salt to function normally. It is especially important for pregnant women to get enough salt. Babies are able to tolerate much higher levels of salt than adults. This is why I think the aquaboreal home of early man was a brackish swamp. This brackish swamp also needed an inflow of fresh water. Babies need so much water! They spit up almost as much as they take in.

Susan



Susan,

Yes, the papyrus sedge was a food source among Abraham's Nilotic ancestors.  It was likely the main vegetable.  The soft lower part of the plant was baked, often with fish. Herodotus wrote about this, saying:

... they pull up from the fens the papyrus which grows every year, and the upper parts of it they cut off and turn to other uses, but that which is left below for about a cubit in length they eat or sell: and those who desire to have the papyrus at its very best bake it in an oven heated red-hot, and then eat it.  (Herodotus, Histories, Vol. 2)

The reeds were used to fuel fires, make sleeping mats, sandals, boats, and papyrus paper and its flowers were offered to the Virgin Queen Hathor at river shrines and temples. The papyrus reed and its flowers symbolized the Upper Nile. The sema (shown right), with its segments, represents the papyrus reed. It was the symbol for the Upper Nile and the sema-tawy, composed of lilies and papyrus reeds knotted around the hieroglyphic sign for union, was the symbol of the union of the Upper and Lower Nile regions. These regions were first united by Menes.


Related reading: Why Anthropologists Rejected the Aquatic Ape Theory; Genesis: Is it Really About Human Origins?; Biblical Anthropology is Scientific Study; Theories of Creation: An Overview

Thoughts and Poems about the Universe

Religious and natural explanations of the universe have been expressed in countless poems and prose. Here are four works on that topic. They range from atheistic to profoundly Christian.

John Godfrey Saxe makes the accusation that none have seen the Truth and God is unknowable.

William Herbert Carruth's poem presents his Unitarian-Universalist view that the same phenomena may be described using different words.

G.K. Chesterton's prose speaks of the freshness and youthfulness of the Creator who delights in making daisies. At first this appears to be merely fanciful, but the theology is profound.

The poem by Catherine Faber contains two lines that I especially like: "Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks" and "Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky." I agree with her up to a point. Humans wrote the Bible. In fact, numerous authors wrote those 66 books over about 1200 years. Yet throughout we find the singular theme of the Seed/Son of God whose incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension and coming again transforms all of nature. That this theme is consistent from Genesis to Revelation reveals that the Bible was divinely superintended.

The Blind Men and the Elephant

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind 

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl: God bless me!
but the Elephant
Is very like a wall! 

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear! 

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
I see, quoth he, the Elephant
Is very like a snake! 

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain, quoth he;
'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: Even the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an
Elephant Is very like a fan!? 

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
I see, quoth he, the Elephant
Is very like a rope! 

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong! 

Moral: So oft in theologic wars, 

The disputants, I ween, 

Rail on in utter ignorance 

Of what each other mean, 

And prate about an Elephant 

Not one of them has seen!

-- John Godfrey Saxe

Each in his own Tongue




 A fire-mist and a planet,
     A crystal and a cell,
 A jelly-fish and a saurian,
     And caves where the cave-men dwell;
 Then a sense of law and beauty
     And a face turned from the clod, --
 Some call it Evolution,
     And others call it God.

 A haze on the far horizon,
     The infinite, tender sky,
 The ripe, rich tint of the cornfields,
     And the wild geese sailing high;
 And all over upland and lowland
     The charm of the golden-rod, --
 Some of us call it Autumn,
     And others call it God.

 Like tides on a crescent sea-beach,
     When the moon is new and thin,
 Into our hearts high yearnings
     Come welling and surging in:
 Come from the mystic ocean,
     Whose rim no foot has trod, --
 Some of us call it Longing,
     And others call it God.

 A picket frozen on duty,
     A mother starved for her brood,
 Socrates drinking the hemlock,
     And Jesus on the rood;
 And millions who, humble and nameless,
     The straight, hard pathway plod, --
 Some call it Consecration,
     And others call it God.


--William Herbert Carruth (1859-1924) 




From The Little Book of American Poets. Ed. Jessie B. Rittenhouse. Cambridge: The Riverside Press,1915.

Perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is
younger than we.

-- G. K. Chesterton

The Word of God 

From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline...
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground. 
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night,
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light.
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still 
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars,
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars.
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky.

By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur,
How the living things that are descend from things that were.
The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies,
These tiny, humble, wordless things -- how shall they tell us lies?
We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring.
The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing.
Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life.

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade 
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

--Catherine Faber 
From here.

Thoughts on "Rightly Dividing the Word"

Alice C. Linsley

In a letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul advises the younger man to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  II Tim. 2:15

What does it mean to "rightly divide" the word of truth?  Paul answers that question when he tells Timothy that it requires study motivated by the desire to please God.

What was Timothy to study since the New Testament did not yet exist?  He was to study the Old Testament, which along with Saint Paul's enlightened guidance, was all he needed. Today we have the New Testament and are blessed also to have the writings of the Church Fathers.

But how are we to interpret what we read in the Bible so that we too may find favor with God?

Some insist that only a literal interpretation leads to a proper understanding of biblical truth.  They pursue the "plain sense of the word."

Others insist that cultural context should be taken into consideration. They are interested in biblical history and in the discoveries of biblical archaeology.

Still others believe that "rightly dividing the word" involves study of how the various books came to be compiled. They recognize that each book represents a different type of literature and believe that sources and traditions influence what the authors have written.

Most people who pick up the Bible probably recognize that there is value in all of these approaches. They may not be committed to any one of them.  They read the Bible because they sense the Spirit speaking to them through its pages.  They come with sorrow, desperation, hopes and needs and God meets them in the Psalms or in the writings of the Evangelists.

The main thing is to read the Bible from cover to cover to gain a picture of the scope of God's work in the world.  Don't read it only once.  Read regularly and use different versions.  Read prayerfully and trust that God's word never fails.

Most of the difficult passages of the Bible are explained in other places in the Bible and have been expounded upon by the Church Fathers.  Therefore, private interpretation is not justified.  Interpreting the Bible contrary to what the Bible and the Church Fathers say is dangerous and the opposite of "rightly dividing the word."

Some accuse me of private interpretation in what I write at Just Genesis.  I admit to some speculation based on the information that is available, but I believe that the substance of Genesis is historically accurate and what is revealed there is truly of God. I attempt to do as Saint Paul says.  I study, trusting that God speaks through Genesis and that He holds me accountable for every word I write. Therefore, my brothers and sisters, I ask your prayers.


Related reading:  Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers

Patrick Henry Reardon: Why Did God Test Abraham?

This piece appeared in Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, and at Orthodoxy Today.


Abraham and God's Power: Why Did God Test Abraham?
Patrick Henry Reardon


Readers of Genesis 22—from Sirach to Kierkegaard—have pondered long what thoughts may have intruded themselves into the struggling mind of Abraham when the Lord required him to offer his son Isaac in sacrifice.

Perhaps the most insuperable problem was one of logic: How did Abraham reconcile in his thought the imminent loss of his son with the Lord’s earlier promise that this same son would be the father of many people? Just how could he resolve the contradiction between God’s promise, which he completely believed, and God’s command, which he was completely resolved to obey?

In fact, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the earliest Christian commentary on this story, explicitly cited God’s earlier promise—“in Isaac your seed shall be called”—in the context of the command that Isaac was to be sacrificed (Heb. 11:18). How was it possible to reconcile God’s promise with God’s command? Abraham had three days to think about it.

The author of Hebrews reflected that Abraham, in order to resolve that contradiction, must have introduced into his reasoning process one further consideration—to wit, God’s power: “He reasoned that God . . . is able”— logisamenos hoti . . . dynatos ho Theos.

The wording of this argument is quite precise. In speaking of God, the author of Hebrews uses the adjective dynatos instead of the verb dynatai (“is able” instead of “can”). He thereby indicated he was thinking of an abiding quality of God—his power.

Abraham had already experienced God’s power in the conception of Isaac, when he and Sarah, for all practical purposes, were as good as dead: “And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb” (Rom. 4:19).

In other words, Abraham reasoned that God’s power had already overcome the forces of death in the very circumstances of Isaac’s conception. And if God had overcome death once, he was always able to do so. Thus, says Hebrews, Abraham “considered that God is able [dynatos] to raise from the dead.” (Contrary to most English translations, there is no direct object to the verb “raise” in this verse. The text does not mean simply that God can raise Isaac; it means he can raise anybody.)

When the Sadducees challenged Jesus about the resurrection from the dead, he likewise appealed to the power of God. “Are you not therefore mistaken,” he asked, “because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power [dynamis] of God?” (Mark 12:24). And it is passing curious that Jesus spoke of both Abraham and Isaac in that context of the resurrection: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” By way of explaining the reference, Jesus concluded, “He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living” (12:26–27).

For the author of Hebrews, the mind of ancient Abraham raced ahead in prophecy to the doctrine of the resurrection—it was an experienced inference from what he already knew of God. From the very temptation he endured, Abraham arrived at a new understanding of the living God—namely, that he is powerful to raise the dead to life. This was a true prophetic revelation granted to the struggling mind of his servant.

St. Augustine was much impressed by this story. “The pious father,” he wrote, “faithfully clinging to this promise—because it had to be fulfilled by the one whom God commanded him to kill—did not doubt that this son, whom he had had no hope of being given to him, could be restored to him after his immolation [sibi reddi poterat immolatus].”

For the author of Hebrews, the restoration of Isaac was enacted “in parable” (en parabole—Heb. 11:19). St. Augustine, translating “parable” as similitudo, correctly understood it to refer to the Resurrection of Christ, when God’s Son was restored to him after his immolation on the Cross. There was a “likeness”—similitudo—between God and Abraham, revealed in the mystery of the Resurrection (The City of God 16.32).

Why did God test Abraham? In order to reveal an essential aspect of himself: his power over death. Abraham smelted this truth in the furnace of his mind, as he struggled to reconcile God’s promise with his command. God’s power over death was not an abstract truth of theology, available to abstract thought; it was learned on the pounding pulse of an ancient Mesopotamian, as he assumed a personal likeness to the very God who put him to the trial.

---

Patrick Henry Reardon is pastor of All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church in Chicago, Illinois. His newest book is The Jesus We Missed: The Surprising Truth About the Humanity of Christ.  Father Reardon is a senior editor of Touchstone.  Read more of his work on Genesis here.

To read other views on the Binding of Issac, go here and here.

False Assumption #2 of Young-Earth Creationists

Alice C. Linsley

As I have written here, the false assumptions of Young-Earth Creationists present the greatest obstacles to understanding the book of Genesis. Their assumption that Cain's line perished in the flood contradicts what Genesis tells us. Because Young-Earthers assume that Cain's line died out they ignore the relationship between the Begats of Genesis 4 and Genesis 5. They miss that Methuselah's wife was Naamah, a descendant of Cain. She named their firstborn son Lamech after her father, according to the cousin bride's naming prerogative. This naming pattern explains why there are two rulers named Lamech, two named Esau, two named Sheba, and two named Joktan.

Analysis of the Genesis 4 and 5 King Lists reveals that these royal lines intermarried exclusively. Therefore Abraham was a descendant of both Shem and Ham.

The intermarriage between the lines of Cain and Seth is paralled by the intermarriage between the lines of Ham and Shem, between the lines of Eber and Sheba, and between the lines of Abraham and Nahor. In fact, analysis of the Genesis genealogies reveals a consistent and unchanging marriage pattern among the Horite rulers before and after Abraham.

The Young-Earth assumption that Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died overlooks the fact that all the rulers listed in Genesis had two wives. Abraham's first wife was his half-sister, Sarah.  His second wife was his patrilineal cousin, Keturah. He married Keturah before Sarah died. Likewise, Moses married Zipporah before his Kushite half-sister wife died. With two wives there were likely to be two firstborn sons. The firstborn son of the half-sister wife ascended to the throne of his father. The firstborn son of the cousin/niece wife ascended to the throne of his maternal grandfather.  Marriage partners appear to have been selected using a modular formula. Because of this pattern, the Genesis King lists cannot be used to calculate the age of the Earth.

Further, there is a gap of time between the first humans and Kain and Seth. The oldest human fossils are between 165,000 and 3.6 million years, depending on whether one regards A. Afarensis as a human species (as I do).  Kain and Seth ruled territories in Africa approximately 3050 B.C., about 650 years before Noah.

As I explained here, the Young-Earth reading of Genesis as linear history produces an inaccurate picture because this is not how Abraham's Nilotic ancestors recounted historical events. Instead, their narratives employ binary tensions expressed in parallel accounts. The parallel stories sometimes highlight similarities such as the moral lapses of Noah and Lot. Noah's drunken behavior led him to blame ("curse") his grandson. Lot's drunkeness led to incest with his daughters. Sometimes the parallel stories express contrast, as in the accounts of Abraham and Isaac attempting to pass off their wives as their sisters. Sarah was Abraham's half-sister whereas Rebecca was Isaac's patrilineal cousin. In other words, Abraham did not lie and Isaac did.

This is not to say that Abraham's ancestors lacked a device for narrating linear events. This was done through recounting their ruler ancestors and their exploits. These are the kings listed in the Genesis Begats. These are authentic lists that establish that Kain lived before Noah, Noah lived before Nimrod, and Nimrod before Abraham, etc. We can imagine a Nilotic story teller elaborating on the character of various rulers as is evident in Genesis 4:23, where we are told that Lamech bragged to his two wives. Another elaboration is found in Genesis 10:8-12 concerning the Kushite kingdom-builder Nimrod.

Young Earth Creationist Assumption #2: The Genesis "Begats" list the first and only people living on Earth.

The veracity of this second assumption must be evaluated in light of relevant Bible passages and the evidence from anthropology and archaeology.

The "Begats" list the rulers of the first nations. These were kingdom builders who spread far and wide. They are the rulers of the Ancient Afro-Asiatic Dominion.  They originated in Africa and established themselves in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia.  Some came to North America where they are called "First Nations People." Among these first people were the Nilotic Ainu who are at the center of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza's Genetic Distance Chart, as would be expected.

In Noah's time, people in Malaysia were planting rice. In Sweden and Norway people were skiing as evidenced by rock paintings and the oldest known ski found at Hoting in Sweden. Clearly, the rulers of Genesis 4, 5, 10 and 11 were not the first humans, nor were they the only humans on Earth.

The Genesis genealogical material must be evaluated on the basis of its proper cultural context. These are annals of ancient royal lines which intermarried.  Only some sons could ascend to the throne. Other sons were sent away to establish territories for themselves.  These sent-away sons drove the Kushite expansion out of Africa, an expansion that has been verified by DNA studies.

The Genesis 4 and 5 king lists show an established marriage and ascendancy pattern, indicating that these ruling lines were already well established in Kain's time. Kain married his patrilineal cousin, a daughter of Enoch. Since he married a patrilineal cousin, Kain's father had a brother.  That brother is the first Enoch (Nok) found in the Bible. He is not actually named in Genesis 4, but his name is given to his grandson by his daughter.  Enoch is a royal title and means "heir to the throne."

Kain and Seth were great rulers in Africa. Kain's territory probably extended between Kano and Nok in modern Nigeria. Seth or Seti is a name found among the Nilotic rulers.

During the reigns of Kain and Seth a great fortified city was built at Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) on the Upper Nile. It was a shrine city dedicated to Horus. Votive offerings at the temple were ten times larger than the normal mace heads and bowls found elsewhere, suggesting that this was a very prestigious shrine. Horite priests placed invocations to Horus at the summit of the fortress as the sun rose.

Nekhen was the religious and political capital of Upper Egypt between 3200–2686 BC and had as many as 10,000 inhabitants. The original settlement dates from the Naqada culture (4400 BC) or the late Badarian culture (5000 BC).  The oldest known zoo was in Nekhen.

Before Kain and Seth, there were numerous river populations in China between 7000-3000 B.C. In southern Africa, there were forest populations who mined red ochre from the Lebombo Mountains more than 30,000 years ago. This blood-like substance was used to bury nobles in the hope of life beyond the grave. The practice was widespread, perhaps global, long before Noah's time.

Noah lived between about 2490-2415 B.C. in the region of Lake Chad when the Sahara experienced a wet period (Karl W. Butzer1966). This is the period of the Old Kingdom, a time of great cultural and technological achievement in Egypt. The population count of Egypt under the first dynasties was between 1 and 2 million inhabitants. Edward S. Ellis put the New Kingdom population at 5 million. The author of the Royal Ontario Museum website gives an estimate of between 1.5 and 5 million Egyptians during the Pyramid Age.

Pyramid G1-c was built with an inscription to Horus, King of the Upper and Lower Nile. Devotion to Horus, who was also called "son of God", spread across the Ancient Afro-Asiatic Dominion. The Harappa civilization became established in the Indus River Basin during the time that Kain and Seth ruled in Africa. Har-appa means "Horus is Father." The temple city of Mohenjo-Daro was constructed about 400 years before Noah's flood and continued as a prosperous city until about B.C.1880. It was seven square miles in size and had a population of between 20,000 to 50,000.

Related reading: YEC Dogma is NOT Biblical; Calculating the Dates of the Patriarchs; Answers to High Schoolers' Questions About the Flood; Overview of Human Origins; Answers to High Schoolers' Questions About Adam and Eve; The Marriage and Ascendancy Pattern of Abraham's People

False Assumption #1 of Young-Earth Creationists

Alice C. Linsley



As I have written here, the false assumptions of Young-Earth Creationists present the greatest obstacles to understanding Genesis. Their assumptions are the most pervasive cause of confusion and their doctrines are contrary to what Genesis reveals.

In this essay, we consider the first of five Young-Earth assumptions and evaluate its veracity in light of relevant texts.


Assumption 1: Genesis is history and should be read as a chronological account.

Genesis contains historical details that can be verified through disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, molecular genealogy and climate studies. However, the book should not be read as a chronology of past events. That is not how Abraham's ancestors recounted their tribal histories and stories.

It is often repeated that the Hebrews viewed events as moving along a straight line, but Abraham and his ancestors were not Hebrews. They were Nilotic peoples who tended toward binary tensions expressed in parallel accounts.  The parallel stories highlight similarities such as the moral lapses of Noah and Lot while drunk.  Noah's misbehavior led him to blame ("curse") his grandson. Lot's drunkeness led to incest with his daughters.

Sometimes the parallel stories contrast the character of two figures, as in the accounts of Abraham and Isaac attempting to pass off their wives as their sisters. Sarah was Abraham's half-sister whereas Rebecca was Isaac's patrilineal cousin. In other words, Abraham did not lie and Isaac did.

Other parallel accounts include the two creation stories. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 are parallel accounts from different traditions. The second story about the garden, the serpent, and the tree of life is older than the first story about the six days of creation.

Likewise, there are two flood accounts. In one we read that Noah was to save one pair of animals, a male and female, and in the other we read that he was to save seven pairs of "clean" animals.

This parallelism is not limited to the book of Genesis.  It is found in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament. Adam and Enoch are paralleled in Hebrew in Psalm 8:4. The story of Korah opposing Moses' authority has a parallel in the story of Sheba who opposed David's authority.  In the end, both Korah and Sheba lost their lives.

The blood on the door posts in Egypt has a parallel in the story of the passover of Rahab and her family by the scarlet cord hung from the window.

The story of Sarah's miraculous conception of Isaac is paralleled by Hannah's conception of Samuel.  In the New Testament, we find a parallel between Elizabeth's miraculous conception of John the Baptist and Mary's conception of the Son of God, to whom John would bear witness.

There are also parallel stories about cousin wives. Nahor, Abraham's older brother, married his cousin wife Milcah before ascending to the throne of his father, Terah. This happened before Abraham made his journey to the land of Canaan. However we are not told about Nahor's wife and children until after Sarah's burial.

Likewise, Abraham married his cousin wife before Sarah died, but Keturah is not mentioned until after Sarah's burial. This has lead people to assume that Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died. Instead we have parallel cousin-wife stories.

Abraham and all the Horite rulers listed in the Genesis "begats" had two wives.  This was their custom. The first wife was a half-sister, as was Sarah to Abraham. The second wife was a patrilineal cousin or niece, as was Keturah to Abraham. This pattern describes Moses' wives also.  His first wife was his Kushite half-sister and his second wife was his Midianite patrilineal cousin, Zipporah.

By insisting that Genesis be read as a chronological history, Young-Earth Creationists miss the remarkable parallels which are intended to enlighten us as we read Scripture. They miss the patterns of the Bible because they are intent on forcing the Bible into their preconceived template. They miss that Jesus Christ, as the Heir to the eternal Kingdom, is prefigured in the marriage and ascendancy pattern of Abraham's people. St. Paul understood this. That is why he wrote that the Gospel had been proclaimed to his Hebrew ancestors (Heb. 4:2).

This is not to say that Abraham's ancestors lacked a device for narrating linear events. This was done through recounting the lists of rulers found in the Genesis Begats. These are authentic king lists that establish that Noah lived before Nimrod and Nimrod before Abraham, etc. We can imagine a Nilotic story teller elaborating on the character of various rulers as is evident in Genesis 4:23, where we are told that Lamech bragged to his two wives. Another elaboration is found in Genesis 10:8-12 concerning the Kushite kingdom-builder Nimrod.

To make the Bible fit their template, Young Earthers overlook many significant details. They seem unaware that Abraham had at least eight sons, and Isaac was not his firstborn.  They ignore the intermarriage between Abraham's people and the Horites of Seir/Edom (Gen. 36).  They overlook that Nimrod was a Kushite (Gen. 10:8-12) and the founder of a Mesopotamian empire to which Abraham's father and older brother were heirs.

The other key assumptions of Young-Earth Creationists are:

Assumption 2: The Genesis “begats” list the first people living on Earth.

Assumption 3: Bishop Ussher's timeline is reliable and can be used to calculate the age of the Earth.

Assumption 4: All the peoples of the Earth came from Noah’s three sons.

Assumption 5: The world’s linguistic diversity is the result of God’s judgment at the Tower of Babel.


Each assumption will be considered in subsequent posts at Just Genesis, so stay tuned!



Related reading:  Cousin Brides and Their Ruler Sons; The Genesis King Lists; The Scarlet Cord Woven Through the Bible; Kushite Wives; Binary Sets in the Ancient World