The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis book. Happy reading The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis Pocket Guide.
The New Testament

We should examine this further. Kopher is translated as asphaltos in the LXX which is only used two other times. Once in Genesis to describe the tar pits in the Valley of Siddim, and once in Genesis where they used tar for mortar between the bricks of the Tower of Babel. Both other times, the LXX translates the Hebrew word chemar. Chemar is only used one other time, in Ex. The LXX combines tar and pitch in Ex. In all of these verses, all of these words are translated as bitumen in the Vulgate. There leaves little doubt then that the kopher in Genesis is in the realm of an asphalt, bitumen, tar or pitch; all of which are hydrocarbons in some fashion.

Geologically, asphalt occurs naturally where oil has been biodegraded at or near the surface. There are naturally occurring bitumen deposits around the world at the surface with an estimated 5. The largest deposit of naturally occurring asphalt is located in Pitch Lake in southwestern Trinidad. This asphalt was used to caulk ships during the time of the explorers in the 16 th Century. They are famous for their preservation of Ice Age fossils such as mastodons.

Tar and pitch can be used somewhat interchangeably although pitch is more solid and tar is more liquid in nature. Both of these can form from plant material or petroleum. Pitch that is derived from plant material is called resin, while pitch associated with petroleum is called bitumen. All of these materials are well known from ancient times for their ability to waterproof wooden vessels.

The La Brea Tarpits in Los Angeles, California are pools of biodegraded oil that has seeped up to the surface through fractures.

The Bible states that similar material was available to Noah before the Great Flood, thus suggesting that the Flood was not responsible for such features. These tarpits nicely preserve an entire Ice-Age ecological community from insects to mammoths. No marine fossils or dinosaurs or any other non-native species are found, which further proves the tarpits were not formed by a global Flood photo by author.

Although it is possible from the English translations to interpret the pitch coming from plant material and being more of a resin, the more ancient translations use 'asphalt' and 'bitumen' which connote a petroleum affiliation. It then seems clear that the best interpretation is that the pitch that Noah used was a petroleum product. This presents a serious challenge to the view that there were no hydrocarbons before the Flood.

If there were hydrocarbons, then there MUST have been fossils in abundance enough to cover the ark. In addition, we know that asphalt is a secondary petroleum product. It forms from the biodegradation of an oil that was already there previously. The oil would have formed at depth, then upon upheaval to a depth suitable for biogenic activity, it would have been transformed into the asphalt. Typically this will happen where reservoir temperatures are less than 80 degrees Celsius.

Above that temperature, the bacteria should not survive. We know approximately where the story of Noah's Flood takes place. In Genesis , the Bible says that the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. Presently, Mt. Ararat is in Turkey near the Iranian and Armenian borders. In this Transcaucasian Province, the USGS estimates almost half a billion barrels of naturally occurring bitumen in place.

This would have been an ample source of the pitch Noah needed to cover the ark. In fact, the North Caspian Basin and the Volga-Ural Province are the third and fourth largest sources of natural bitumen in the world. There may not have been much better provision for Noah to build the ark anywhere else on earth. In addition to the instructions to cover the ark in pitch, elohim gives Noah the exact measurements and structure of the ark. It is to be feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high and have three levels.

It is also to have a window that is a foot and a half from the top of the ark. It is not until verse 17 that we find the actual means of the judgment. Here, elohim tells Noah, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Taken out of context in any English Bible, this verse would clearly point to a global, worldwide Deluge. To arrive at the best interpretation, however, we must look at the words used in the original languages. We must also be extremely careful to distinguish between a universal extent which would refer to totality and a global extent which would refer to geography.

First let us look at what exactly is the nature of this judgment. It is a flood of waters Heb. The word mabbul is used 13 times in the OT, 12 of which are in the Genesis chapters on the Flood and refer to the Flood itself. The other use is in Ps. The Hebrew and the LXX use the same words throughout the Flood narrative, but there are other Hebrew words used to describe floods in other passages.

In Exodus Moses uses tehom to describe the waters that covered the Egyptian soldiers; in 2Sam. The related verb katakluzo is used in Job to describe water that flows calmly and washes away soil. In Jer. Similarly in Ezekiel , 13 it is used to portray God's wrath as a deluge of rain.

This is a figurative deluge of rain, but the torrential rains of Ezekiel are most likely literal rains along with hail and burning sulphur that will defeat Gog's army which invades Jerusalem at the end of the Millennium. The four NT uses of kataklusmos all refer to Noah's Flood. Even though our words can be used to describe a figurative flood of God's judgment, it is quite apparent that the great mabbul LXX: kataklusmos is a very real, literal flood. And, with the exception of the odd LXX translation of Job , it appears that this flooding is not gentle but is a result of torrential down pouring of rain.

Even though our English word 'cataclysm' is derived from kataklusmos , we must be careful not to think of the Flood in today's English terminology. We should hope to attain a biblical description of the Flood that would have been the understanding of a Hebrew living in the 15 th century BC. The history of the word mabbul is difficult, but a similar Akkadian word bubbulu refers to an inundation i. All this to say that the biblical terminology for Noah's Flood is special, and it describes a flood that was, in a sense, cataclysmic and would serve its purpose of judging the human population for its corruption.

We now turn to the matter of extents. The exact interpretation of the extent of the words such as 'earth' and 'all flesh' can be tricky. On the one hand, God defines flesh as corrupt verses , and since we know the Hebrew word speaks of a moral corruption, we can logically deduce from the text that flesh here refers to human beings. On the other hand, flesh is also clearly referring to animals in other places in the account see and Similarly, the phrase the breath of life can refer to both humans only, and humans and animals see Since these words and phrases can be ambiguous when interpreting the extent of the Flood, the best clue is in the word erets.

To arrive at the best interpretation of erets , we should examine its uses in all the OT, the different literary Book groupings, and in this Flood account exclusively. It is used times in the OT, 37 of which occur in Genesis Semantically, it can mean the entire planet earth as in Genesis or it can mean a local plot of land ranging in size from no bigger than a human body which bows with his face to the erets 1Chr.

Erets can also be used to describe a group of people as in 2Sam. It was the people who wept, and not the physical ground of the earth. The following chart shows the graphical distribution of the term by semantic category. In an overwhelming majority of the cases, erets is used to describe a plot of ground of some size less than the entire globe. Here are some interesting uses of the word erets where the meaning is clear and any attempt to take it in any other way is impossible.

In Gen. Surely He did not give him the entire global earth. He even defines the extent of the land as from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates. Even without that definition, it is doubtful that Abram would have thought he was receiving the entire global earth as a possession. In Ex. Did the Egyptians think they would leave the planet?

Of course not. Likewise in Deut. The battle between David and Absolom's men in 2Sam. Obviously it did not encompass the globe. In 2Kings we read that the water came from the direction of Edom, till the erets was filled with water.

OT Detailed Lists

This verse is interesting in that it could be translated to say that this water came and filled the earth. We know from the context that this interpretation is wrong. The water simply filled a local plot of land. To be sure, nobody would dare mention the Great Flood of 2Kings as one which affected the planet's geological processes. There are certainly many more examples where the usage of erets clearly does not mean the global planet earth, but let us now turn to its use in the various literary styles. First we see that in the historical Books, the meaning of erets is almost exclusively local even if you include all the uncertain uses as global.

That is because these Books are mainly narratives that tell accounts of real people in real geographical areas. There is no real reason to think that an Israelite living at this time would have had a concept of a global planet earth with the exception of considering all of what is under heaven as created by and belonging to God. That is exactly how it is used in places such as Gen. As we move on to the poetic Books we find that erets is inarguably local in meaning in only about half of the occurrences. This section contains the highest percentage of global uses because of the author's intent on praising the qualities of God that are abundant in all the earth as in Ps.

It is for this reason that the authors give a greater number of calls to worship for all the erets in these cases referring to people groups as in Ps. The fewer occurrences of the local meaning can be accounted for strictly by the literary nature and intent of these Books. In the middle between the historical and poetic Books lie the prophets. As was the case in the historic Books, the overwhelming use is local, but there is an increased global usage primarily to show that God who created the earth alone is powerful and all-knowing to bring about the fulfillment of the prophecies as in Is.

From this point count approach it is clear that there is a time and a place in Scripture where an intended extent of erets is employed. This lengthy and detailed background on the word erets was necessary in order to determine its proper use in context here in Genesis From the use of wayyiqtol verbs we can be certain that this is a historical narrative which tells about real people and real places in real time. Significantly, similar literary styles in the OT almost exclusively use erets when describing a local portion of the earth of varying geographical extents.

The exceptions are when the author wishes to describe the erets as being created by and belonging to God. Such is not the context of the Flood account although the Flood is depicted here in Gen. Since we know this corruption is referring only to mankind, it seems fitting that only the earth which contained man would be impacted by this judgment. We come now to the term all flesh in verse We know that the proper definition of the phrase in verse 12 is referring to just human beings because only they could have corrupted their way on the earth. Since sin and redemption are not possible in the animal world, it is logically deduced that this is only referring to humans.

But it may also logically be deduced that any animal caught up in this judgment against mankind would also perish. Since we have good evidence that erets may mean a local or regional portion of land, we may substitute that into the passage for the last part of verse It then states that everything that is on the land shall die. Reading it this way takes much of the interpretation problems of a global reading away.

For example, we know that God did not tell Noah to take any fish on the ark. Because they would not need saving in a flood of water. They would have easily survived. It would not be a true statement that everything on the planet earth would die, since we know that fish, plants and microorganisms survived just fine.

I believe it is statements like this, rendered with the English 'earth' that have greatly mislead people and kept them from a proper interpretation of the Flood, not only biblically, but also geologically. With the gloomy news of the impending judgment behind, elohim then comforts Noah by saying I will establish my covenant with you in verse This is the first time this word, beriyth , is used in the Bible. It is used times in the OT.

Here, the covenant is between God and Noah. The covenant is not given here, but it will be in where God promises never again to flood the land and wipe out all flesh, and tells Noah and the creatures on the ark to be fruitful and multiply and fill the land. Over the next three verses elohim instructs Noah on what to take with him on the ark. He is to take a male and female of every living thing of all flesh. This is later expanded to the birds or winged insects: oph , the animals domesticated: behema and the creeping things lizards and rodents: remes , so we know this does not truly mean ALL flesh.

There again is no mention of fish or the beasts of the earth mentioned in Gen. This is just another example where it is difficult to interpret extents based on traditionally global terminology. Noah is also instructed to take food for his family and all the animals. The term maakhal is not strictly vegetarian and does not exclude meat. Noah was careful to obey all that elohim told him v. The personal name of God is again employed in this section which opens with the wayyiqtol verb wayyomer and [ Yahweh ] said.

Naturally this would mean that the storyline is continued uninterrupted from the end of chapter 6. While this is true, there is a notable gap of about years between the chapters. This is the time it took for Noah and his family to build the ark. This text does not specifically say that Noah needed years to build the ark, but we know that Noah was years old at the end of chapter 5 verse 32 , and that the Flood began in his th year and we are now just 7 days away from its onset During that years we know from 1Pet.

As noted above, years have passed since elohim instructed Noah to build the ark, and now just 7 days before the rains come Yahweh tells Noah to enter the ark. In his first years, Noah walked with God and found His favor. After years, Noah still is seen as righteous before Yahweh v. In this passage, Noah is instructed to take an increased number of clean animals v. The first of many time markers is now given in verse 4. We are now just 7 days before the Flood and it will rain on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Even though the number 40 is found many times in Scripture, there is no reason to think these are anything other than 40 literal days as they are mentioned elsewhere in this account , The word here for rain matar is used 17 times in its verbal form, 16 of which are in the hiphil stem which designates active causative action. The main idea behind the word in its verbal form is that God is the One who rains on His people either blessings Ex.

The noun form also matar is used 38 times in the OT and refers to a common rain. Interestingly the noun form is not used in this Flood narrative, but rather geshem is employed. It is used in both Gen. According to Easton's Bible Dictionary, these rains usually fall between the middle of December to March in Palestine.

From the terminology used by Moses, we may infer that these were to be rains similar even if only a seasonal similarity to the familiar but sometimes torrential winter rains. In any case, we may safely say that these rains were seen as caused by Yahweh. One idea that is tossed about, usually in global-extent YEC camps, is that these rains were the first ever seen on the earth. This idea is taken mainly from Gen.

There are two big problems with this thinking, however. First, there is no biblical evidence warranting the absence of rain from Adam to Noah. In fact, the text in Gen. We have already seen the ample evidence from the text that 'land' fits the context much better in Gen. This is a great example of relying solely on a faulty English translation to come up with a faulty interpretation of earth history. The implications are such that there would have been no rain on the entire planet for a minimum of years assuming a continuous genealogical progression in Genesis 5.

This has led to a hypothesis that there was a vapor canopy above the earth before the Flood, taken in part from Gen. This hypothesis has severe problems both biblically the concept is never mentioned in the Bible and scientifically the greenhouse effect of all the water vapor in the atmosphere would make earth uninhabitable. With all the evidence from the Scripture that the pre-Fall and pre-Flood natural world was virtually identical to the one we know today, this view can be easily dismissed as unbiblical if not unthinkable.

Rain was certainly an integral part of earth history, and rain drop marks can even be observed in the rock record, such as in the Triassic rift sediments of New England and the Permian Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon. Whether or not Noah was familiar with the rain he would encounter seemed to have no bearing on his faith. Noah was found to be righteous and therefore he did everything just as Yahweh instructed. In this section we find the beginning of the Great Flood. From the Hebrew verbs we can rightly outline this passage as follows: v. There is only one verb in verse 6 chayah 'came ' and it is in the perfect tense.

The other verb in most English translations was is not found in the Hebrew, although it is a proper interpolation and is even found in the LXX en. Chayah is the verb 'to be' and is best translated as such. The NET Bible goes too far with their translation 'engulfed. These word choices may have been fueled by the fact that every translation favors 'earth' rather than 'land' for erets. We have already seen, however, that 'land' is not only a possible translation, but the more likely one based on the context. Our first wayyiqtol verb appears in verse 7 wayyavo 'and they came' , thus beginning the storyline of Noah and his family entering the ark.

Noah also takes all of the clean and unclean animals, the birds and the remes creeping animals, small rodents or tiny reptiles just as elohim commands. Again, there is no mention that Noah boarded any fish or plants. The account continues in verse 10 where after seven days the waters of the Flood came upon the earth.

The verse begins the wayyiqtol verb wayyahiy and it was. Unfortunately, many modern translations leave the verb untranslated. Nevertheless the seven days encountered in verse 4 have now passed and the waters Heb. The verb here translated as 'came' is the same as in verse 6 chayyah. The Hebrew simply tells us that the waters 'came' on the erets land. The Flood officially begins on the 17 th day of the 2 nd month of Noah's th year of life v.

We must look closely at what exactly happens to the natural world according to the text beginning with this verse. The English reads on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights Gen.

Many YEC global Flood adherents use this verse to suggest the entire earth was catastrophically hit by torrential rains from above as well as tectonically altered by the bursting forth of the fountains of the deep. He says again that the Flood "obscured the original continent s " p. Specifically relating to this verse, Barrick states that, "[the] word [ baqa -burst open] is loaded with geological significance. It indicates that in the prevailing phase of the floodwaters there was massive tectonic activity in the crust of the earth. These earthquakes would have caused volcanoes and tsunamis as earthquakes do today on a global scale, with incredible destructive power" p.

Lets explore the terminology used in verse 11 and see if Barrick's geological significance is well-founded. Before we get to the verb burst forth , we need to determine what the fountains of the great deep Heb. The word maayan fountain is used 22 times in the OT. The primary use of this word is for a common fountain or spring of water. In Proverbs wisdom is said to exist when there were no depths tehom and when there were no springs maayan.

The great deep is mentioned three other times in the OT. In Is. In Amos , the prophet sees a vision in which fire rains down and burns up the great deep and the land. Amos intercedes for Israel and God decides not to follow through. Finally in Psalm , God's judgments are compared to the great deep. The latter two are clearly figurative, and in the only other historical use Is. That is not to say that Noah's Flood need be localized to the Red Sea for tehom can clearly refer to the world's oceans as in Gen The LXX translates tehom as abussos from which we get the word abyss: a term geologists use today to describe the environment of the deep ocean.

So then it is difficult to determine the extent of these fountains just from the terminology despite Barrick's claim that it is abundantly clear. Especially since the only other historical reference to the great deep is local and does not refer to the world's oceans. It can even be logically assumed that the reference in Amos is local as well as it is a prophecy against Israel.

In any case, these fountains of the great deep were burst open. Indeed the English translation has catastrophic connotations. Barrick considers this word baqa to be loaded with geologic significance.


The word here is in the niphal stem and should therefore be translated as the passive 'were burst open. Likewise almost all modern English translations lose the passive voice for this verb while retaining it for the windows of heaven - were opened.

Interpreting Genesis 1-11

Baqa is used 51 times in the OT, 15 in the niphal. According to TWOT, the basic idea seems to be a strenuous cleaving of recalcitrant materials. Sometimes these can be natural materials of the earth such as the waters of the Red Sea splitting for the Israelites in Ex. Others refer to the splitting of the rock for the water to gush out for the wandering Israelites Is. Still others refer to the splitting of the ground presumably an earthquake Num. Proverbs refers directly to Genesis and says that the deeps broke open by God's knowledge. From these verses, the TWOT definition seems justified. The interesting verse here may be Ps.

Here, the deep appears to be the groundwater beneath the wilderness that was released as a spring maayan in Ps. There does appear to be ample biblical evidence that the word baqa carries some geological significance as Barrick states. That said, there is some ambiguity as to the extent of the words 'deep', 'fountain' and 'burst forth. However, the text does not specifically say that, and there is no evidence from the geologic record that this took place. Some adherents suggest the mid-oceanic ridges bear the scars of these sub-oceanic fountains Barrick's chapter in Coming to Grips with Genesis , p.

Indeed, when one looks at a bathymetric map of the earth, it is an appealing place to start, but if we look at the present-day ridges, they have nothing to do with water. They are places where magma from the mantle is coming to the surface and creating new oceanic crust. There is no possibility that these formations could have been storehouses for sub-surface pockets of water because the crust is too thin.

Additionally, just because the mid-ocean ridges appear global the system is nearly 50, miles in length does not mean that they would have been able to store water enough to cover the entire globe. There are places that are thousands of miles from this system, so the amount of water stored in these pockets would have been immense and would have left a geologic trace. No such traces have been found. It is well known that there are pockets of water in the subsurface. This water is interpreted as being left in the pore space of the sediment as it was buried after deposition in the paleo-ocean.

The water is a brine, and is frequently encountered during drilling for oil and natural gas much to the dismay of the drilling company. This water can be abundant but it usually occurs in very small, sometimes unconnected pore spaces within the rock. Occasionally it can occupy underground karsts caves , but these have never been seen or inferred to have burst forth onto the surface.

Hermeneia series | Fortress Press

In places where the crust is thin, conditions can be just right to bring subterranean water forcefully to the surface, such as at Yellowstone National Park. For these geysers to have supplied water for a global Flood would imply a thin crust over the entire earth. The geologic record speaks heavily against that, however. Such places are called hot spots and are very localized, and most have left a breadcrumb trail of where they have been such as the Hawaiian Island chain. Again, the geologic record does not support the notion of there being subterranean or sub-oceanic pockets of abundant water that at some time in the past burst forth onto the surface.

Such catastrophic actions should be glaringly obvious when looking at the record all over the earth. Perhaps there is a better explanation to reconcile the Scriptural account with the geologic account.


We have already seen the semantic ranges of the words deep, fountain and burst forth. We have also noted that baqa does carry with it substantial proof of a geologic event of some level. Certainly the splitting of the ground in Numbers indicates an earthquake or sinkhole in which the earth opened its mouth and swallowed Korah and his family. This anthropomorphic language is very common in the OT where attributes and actions of the creation and the Creator are described using terms familiar to the human audience. While the true action taken by the fountains of the deep in Genesis may never be known, it is apparent that it need not be a worldwide catastrophic phenomenon.

In fact, the predominant usage of baqa in Scripture is local in extent i. Genesis is one of the most often cited verses by global Flood advocates to show the immense catastrophic tectonic upheavals caused by God's judgment on the earth in Noah's Flood. It appears that the terminology used does speak of catastrophe, but this interpretation stretches the semantic range to the max and is not consistent with other uses in Scripture, nor is it remotely consistent with the geologic record.

Based on these other occurrences of the terms mentioned here, I would propose the following, general, biblical interpretation of verse the fountains of the great deep would refer to any water already on or just underneath the surface of the ground, and the bursting is the geologic activity that brought the water to the area of the judgment. This action could be an earthquake, or quakes, that triggered the release of a dammed body of water or the release of groundwater in the form of springs or geysers. We must be honest in saying it is difficult to determine the extent of this geologic activity, although the overwhelming use of these terms in Scripture is local in extent.

The definition given may seem vague, but it is biblically accurate and will serve as the framework for the interpretation of the Flood narrative and its effects on the natural world. There is abundant geologic evidence that many of the bodies of salt water in the vicinity of Europe, Asia and the Middle East were fresh water in the recent past and suddenly flooded and became the seas we know today.

For example, the Black Sea was a large fresh water lake 8, years ago. We know this from fossils of fresh water mollusks and the remains of man-made tools and structures in feet of present-day salt water. It is postulated that the retreating glaciers at the end of the last ice age melted and infilled the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas.

This water broke through a natural dam at the Bosporus and flooded the Black Sea. Similarly, the Mediterranean Sea was once completely evaporated, leaving behind the Messinian Salt deposit. Then, the natural dam at the Strait of Gibraltar gave way when the ground shifted and the Atlantic Ocean came in and filled up the basin in perhaps just a few months.

This is believed to have happened around 5. Also, the Eastern Mediterranean has a more recent history of salt to fresh water cyclicity. The Gulf of Corinth was a disconnected fresh water lake until about 13, years ago when the sediments became marine, according to several cores taken on the sea bottom. The change was primarily due to glacial melting and rising seas, but the very active tectonics in the region and the evidence of mudslides and sharp contacts in the cores suggests the transition may have happened rather suddenly. Indeed there are other examples in the region that speak of similar histories.

I have been careful not to link any of these geologic case histories with the biblical account of Noah's Flood. These examples were given simply to provide evidence that geologic events have happened in the region that caused the flooding of an area in a relatively short amount of time. The geologic events listed in Genesis could easily be similar to the ones that caused the floods mentioned above. The processes could be the same. The terminology used in Scripture for the bursting forth of the fountains of the great deep may well be referring to the breaking of a natural dam that protected the inhabitants of Noah's day from the level of the sea that was above them.

This interpretation may not be correct, but, importantly, it fits within the semantic range of the words used, and can be backed up by other passages in the Bible. We must be careful to not only practice sound biblical exegesis, but to also look to the rock record to help strengthen our interpretation in cases like this. Unfortunately, so many people let their interpretation of one side of the story run wild without making sure the other side agrees. This is true of some who only let their biblical interpretation speak without having corroborating evidence from the natural world, as well as those who only focus on their interpretation of the rocks and dismiss the Bible as a collection of myths.

I believe the truth of Noah's Flood should show itself in both accounts. We come now to the next event of verse the windows of the heavens were opened. The phrase 'windows of the heavens' in Hebrew reads waaruboth hashamayim. In 5 out of its 9 occurrences, aruvah window is used with shamayim heaven s , sky. Many have imagined that this phrase speaks of a torrential rain such as has not happened before or since the Great Flood.

It does seem that the other uses of this phrase suggest an abundant amount of rainfall see the hypothetical usage in 2Kings , But also consider God's promise of blessings to pour out of these same windows in Mal. While the terminology does infer plentiful rainfall, it does not specifically speak of catastrophic worldwide downpours.

Rather, the words themselves simply refer to avenues of God's abundant judgment and blessing in the form of rainfall. We should be careful not to read too much into this phrase in the Flood narrative when it is used elsewhere in Scripture to depict just a heavy rain. What is unique about this rainfall in Scripture is its duration. Verse 12 picks up the storyline again with another wayehiy 'and it was', or 'and it came about' and says that the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Again, sadly, most modern English translations ignore that verb, but it is very helpful in outlining the account.

We have also seen wayehiy in verse 10 and will encounter it again in verse So, this verse adds to its background information in verse 11 to say that the rain began to fall and did so for 40 days and nights. As we will see, this is different than what is written in verse 17 where it says that the Flood was on the land 40 days. That is not simply a redundancy. It is significant to point out, and this may come as a complete surprise to most readers, that the Bible does not say that the rain ONLY lasted 40 days and 40 nights. In fact, a closer reading of the text will show that the rains lasted days, not Even in verse 12 Moses is careful not to limit the rains to only 40 days.

We will see the evidence for the day rainfall below. So, what then is the significance of the 40 days? I believe the main reason for mentioning the 40 days is that there is a significant event that happens on that day: the ark is lifted up off the ground see verse Another possibility is to add symmetry to the account in the way of a chiasm using the day markers i.

Nevertheless it has now been raining on the land for 40 days. In the next four verses Moses retells the part of the account where Noah and his family enter the ark. We know the story pauses because of the lack of wayyiqtol verbs, and the parallels between verses and suggests a reiteration of the same event. Wayyiqtol verbs are first seen here in verse 15 and they went , and again in verse 16 shut. It is theologically significant that Noah did as elohim commanded in verse 10, and then goes on to say that it was Yahweh that shut him in. It is the personal Name that is used here to show the intimate saving and sealing of Noah and his family.

The narrative continues in verse 17 with the wayyiqtol verb wayehiy and it came about. Sadly, as was the case in verses 10 and 12, this verb is not translated. In my opinion, this is how Moses moves the storyline along. He takes the recount of Noah entering the ark with his family and the animals and moves it up to the logical point where it was in verse Whereas then it was the rain that continued for 40 days and nights, here the emphasis is on the flood Heb. Note here that it does not say 40 days and nights in the Hebrew text like it does in verse The LXX does read kai tessarakonta nuktas and 40 nights in attempt to parallel verse Fortunately all English translations follow the Hebrew and omit this later addition.

The idea here is to focus not on the continuing rain, but on the flooding. It is not the rain or the bursting of the fountains of the deep that is the judgment: it is the Flood Gen. It is often neglected that we are in a flowing part of the narrative as evidenced by the chain of wayyiqtol verbs. In order to properly understand and interpret these passages we need to read them as such.

The second verb in verse 17 is wayyirebu and they [the waters] increased. This is the same verb used by God when He told the sea creatures and the birds to multiply on the earth on the 5 th Creation Day in Genesis We are located still on Flood Day 40, and we are told that the waters Heb. Read more about the condition. New Hard cover. Back to home page Return to top. Back to home page. Listed in category:. Email to friends Share on Facebook - opens in a new window or tab Share on Twitter - opens in a new window or tab Share on Pinterest - opens in a new window or tab Add to Watchlist.

  • Dance integration for teaching science and mathematics.
  • Guru Rinpoche: His Life and Times (Tsadra Foundation Series)?
  • Stay in touch?
  • A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis by Skinner John - AbeBooks?
  • Historical Books.

Condition: Brand New. Ended: Aug 16, PDT. Shipping: May not ship to Germany - Read item description or contact seller for shipping options. Item location: Sparks, Nevada, United States. Seller Inventory TMB. More information about this seller Contact this seller 2. Published by Andesite Press. From: glenthebookseller Montgomery, IL, U.

About this Item: Andesite Press. Textbooks may not include supplemental items i. CDs, access codes etc. Seller Inventory ZZ3. More information about this seller Contact this seller 3. From: Gyan Books Pvt. Delhi, India. About this Item: Condition: New. Reprinted in with the help of original edition published long back []. As these are old books, we processed each page manually and make them readable but in some cases some pages which are blur or missing or black spots.

If it is multi volume set, then it is only single volume, if you wish to order a specific or all the volumes you may contact us. We expect that you will understand our compulsion in these books. We found this book important for the readers who want to know more about our old treasure so we brought it back to the shelves. Hope you will like it and give your comments and suggestions. Language: English. Seller Inventory PB More information about this seller Contact this seller 4. About this Item: Condition: Good. Shows some signs of wear, and may have some markings on the inside.

Seller Inventory GRP More information about this seller Contact this seller 5. Reprinted from edition. The book is printed in black and white. Illustrations if any are also in black and white. Sewn perfect bound for longer life with Matt laminated multi-Colour Soft Cover.

The content of this print on demand book has not been changed. Each page is checked manually before printing. Fold-outs, if any, are not included. If the book is a multi volume set then this is only a single volume. This is a reprint of a very old book so there might be some imperfections like blurred pages, poor images or missing pages. Seller Inventory S More information about this seller Contact this seller 6. More information about this seller Contact this seller 7. More information about this seller Contact this seller 8. Condition: Fair. As well, answers may be filled in.

Lastly, may be missing components, e. Seller Inventory ZZ4. More information about this seller Contact this seller 9. More information about this seller Contact this seller

The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis
The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis
The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis
The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis
The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis
The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis
The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis

Related The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved