Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
8:1 VA YIZKOR ELOHIM ET NO'ACH VE ET KOL HA CHAYAH VE ET KOL HA BEHEMAH ASHER ITO BA TEVAH VA YA'AVER ELOHIM RU'ACH AL HA ARETS VA YASHOKU HA MAYIM
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
8:1 VA YIZKOR ELOHIM ET NO'ACH VE ET KOL HA CHAYAH VE ET KOL HA BEHEMAH ASHER ITO BA TEVAH VA YA'AVER ELOHIM RU'ACH AL HA ARETS VA YASHOKU HA MAYIM
וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ וְאֵת כָּל הַחַיָּה וְאֶת כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בַּתֵּבָה וַיַּעֲבֵר אֱלֹהִים רוּחַ עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם
KJ (King James translation): And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
BN (BibleNet translation): And Elohim remembered No'ach, and all the living creatures, and all the animals that were with him in the ark; and Elohim caused a wind to pass over the Earth, and the waters fell back.
And Elohim remembered! Simply a story-telling technique, though it seems like a rather absurd statement; after all, given the circumstances, he was hardly likely to forget. Indeed, given the circumstances, he had absolutely nothing else to do in the universe! And yet, remembering, as opposed to forgetting... I shall say nothing until the paragraph after next.
The wind is RU'ACH, and the RU'ACH is also the "spirit" (female) of Elohim that hovered over the abyss in the instants before Creation (Genesis 1:2); given that a wind would not be much use in blowing away the entire flood, and given that No'ach didn't have a mast and sails on his boat, the use of the word can only infer Creation. Go back to the previous chapter, where there are two instances of the word, in verses 14 and 22, both employing RU'ACH to mean spirit in the sense of "the breath of life".
YASHOKU: Or possibly YASOKU. This being the only occurrence of the verb in the Tanach, and it appearing to be a two-letter root.... with a Seen there is SECH (שך), which are a different kind of thorn from KOTS (which as we have seen also meant a unit of time), and which give SOCH (שך) = "a hedge". And SUKAH (שכה), which is a sharp-edged weapon. And the Mesopotamian languages have SOCHAH (שכה) for the act of looking and contemplating. But none of these are contextually meaningful here. With a Sheen there is... actually there is nothing that is known at all. So how do the commentators and translators deduce "assuaged", other than by the logic of the context? They go to the very late, Persian-connected, Book of Esther, and find, in Chapter 2 verse 1, King Xerxes' fury "subsiding", or possibly "being appeased", with the word SHOCH, or possibly SHOCK (כְּשֹׁ֕ךְ - the first letter Kaf is a conjunctive prefix so can be ignored for our purposes; the pointing is 8th century CE guesswork); and then, again, in 7:10, when Haman is hanged, and again the king's wrath is "pacified", the text gives SHACHACHAH (שָׁכָֽכָה). But SHACHACHAH, if it is a Yehudit word, means "to forget", which may well be what we do when our anger subsides - we forget that we were angry, and so become calm again. And often with a very deep sigh, just like the huge breath of divine wind here: the anger of the thunder and lightning, the thankfully-its-over deep-sigh when the eye of the hurricane passes over. Mythological science, explaining the workings of the world!
And now, please remember, please do not forget, to go back to the text of this verse, and my first note, and re-read them.
8:2 VA YISACHRU MA'YENOT TEHOM VA ARUBOT HA SHAMAYIM VA YIKAL'E HA GESHEM MIN HA SHAMAYIM
וַיִּסָּכְרוּ מַעְיְנֹת תְּהוֹם וַאֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמָיִם וַיִּכָּלֵא הַגֶּשֶׁם מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם
KJ: The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
BN: The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were also closed up, and the rain from the heavens was restrained.
YISACHRU (ויסכרו): stopped, according to the Midrashim, by borrowing two stars from Ursa Major, which to this day still pursues the Pleiades every night crying, "give me back my stars"; this connection to the stars and planets disappeared from Judaism during the Middle Ages and is now regarded as never having existed in the first place. To which one can only say, tongue firmly pressed to the cheek: Mazal Tov (the expression literally means "good stars"! And now take a look at Ya'akov dreaming the ladder of the angels at Beit-El, and tell me that it is not an allegory of the Milky Way (Genesis 28:10-22).
MA'YENOT TEHOM: Does one version use down-pouring rain, and the other an upsurging flood? It seems so. Also note the reference to Tehom yet again; again a Babylonian connection; again confirmation that this was originally a Creation myth.
ARUBOT: As in 7:11. By contrast, the window of the ark itself was a TSOHAR in 6:16, and translated there as a "sky-light".
8:3 VA YASHUVU HA MAYIM ME AL HA ARETS HALOCH VA SHOV VA YACHSERU HA MAYIM MI KETSEH CHAMISHIM U ME'AT YOM
וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ הָלוֹךְ וָשׁוֹב וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם
KJ: And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
BN: And the waters continued to retreat from the earth; and they retreated, and at the end of 150 days the waters decreased.
KETSEH: That KOTS again! Used so frequently as a unit of time, that we surely have to reconsider Genesis 3:18 and 4:3 and 4:25.
150 days, not 40 as in the YHVH version - see also verse 24. But remember that 150 was also the Elohim number connected to the size of the ark. This is where we really get into conflict within the text; at the moment we are unquestionably in the Elohim version. But does the next verse shift back to YHVH, whose sacred number is 7? If we take the maximum of these numbers that are difficult to discern, this would be the 237th day; at a minimum the 197th. I wonder if our full tale will come out at exactly a year?
8:4 VA TANACH HA TEVAH BA CHODESH HA SHEVIY'I BE SHIV'AH ASAR YOM LA CHODESH AL HAREY ARARAT
וַתָּנַח הַתֵּבָה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ עַל הָרֵי אֲרָרָט
KJ: And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
BN: And the ark came to rest, in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
TANACH (תנח): connecting to NO'ACH (נח) through the root; but this, as we have seen, is only one of several possible origins for his name.
HAREY ARARAT (הרי אררט): Note the plural, suggesting a range of mountains; the name having four letters and a final Tet (ט) is definitely not Yehudit. Ararat is known to be in Armenia, between the Araxes and Lakes Van and Urmia (known elsewhere as Aram and as Padan Aram), as the name is still in use today. The Tanach uses the name variously, sometimes for the mountain, sometimes for the whole land of Armenia.
The root of the word is probably the Sanskrit Arjawarta which means "holy ground", suggesting that Ararat was already a holy place for the Armenians before first Bavel and then Yisra-El took over the myth and sanctified it (cf Isaiah 37:38). The Septuagint translates Ararat as Armenia. Assyrian inscriptions call Ararat Urartu. But the bottom line, which no one wishes to draw, is that Ararat is in the Taurus mountains, which get their name from the ancient bull-cult which was the centre-piece of the Hittite civilisation, and its empire which extended all the way from Minoan Crete and Aegean Cyprus and Hyksos Egypt, across Chevron in Yisra-El through Babylonia, and on to Sanskrit India – these adjectives added because each one was a relict of the Beney Chet (Hittites), including the common languages, and myths, and pantheons; and of course the Phoenicians derived from them too, so the whole Greco-Roman civilisation that followed, and the earliest settlers of the Americas – which Jones called "the common source", without any realisation that he was speaking about the Beney Chet.
The land is also known as Anatolia – named for its fertility goddess Anat, who in Kena'an became the wife of Ba'al, in Babylonia and further east Anata, in Greece Athene, and whose shrine at Beit Anatot later came to be known as Bethany, where Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:38-44).
THE SEVENTH MONTH, ON THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH: The dates are interesting. In verse 11 of the last chapter we heard that the flood began in the 600th year of No'ach's life, in the second month, on the 17th day of the month. Exactly five months later the ark comes to rest. We are told this is a period of 150 days, which is mathematically correct since months in the calendar of the Beney Yisra-El have thirty days. But... unless No'ach was born on the first day of the first month, what kind of calendric system is this that works from a man's birthday? Unless... unless here we are again at the Creation and New Year festival... And which month is it anyway? Go back again to the earlier note (7:18) about the ark as a variant of the sun's chariot sailing across the upper waters of the sky; and then to another earlier note (7:11) that wondered whether this all happened in the spring or the fall, and do some math: if the first day of the 150 was the first of Nisan, where are we in the calendar after 150 days? And if we regard Tishrey as the 7th month (as the Mosaic change from spring to fall in Exodus 12:12 makes clear), what if anything is happening on the 17th, which is 2 days after the full moon, which is Sukot? Something connected with the tides, or equinoxes? Perhaps, but it's four days too early for the autumn equinox, even on the pre-Fra Angelus calendar – though of course, if Angelus' calculations were correct, it might well have been a further 4 days earlier, back then in 3,500 BCE when this story was first made up!
And one other minor detail to confirm this. In Exodus 40:17 Mosheh sets up that other ark, the Tabernacle - on exactly the same date, the first of Tishrey.
8:5: VE HA MAYIM HAYU HALOCH VE CHASOR AD HA CHODESH HA ASIYRI BA ASIYRI BE ECHAD LA CHODESH NIR'U RASHEY HE HARIM
וְהַמַּיִם הָיוּ הָלוֹךְ וְחָסוֹר עַד הַחֹדֶשׁ הָעֲשִׂירִי בָּעֲשִׂירִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ נִרְאוּ רָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים
KJ: And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
BN: And the waters receded gradually until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
TENTH MONTH: Tevet, December to January, according to the standard calendar; based on Nisan as the first month, which is not in fact how the Beney Yisra-El calendar works, because New Year was moved from Nisan to Tishrey, as noted above; if we regard Tishrey as the first month, and we have seen that this is crucial to our understanding of the Flood story, then the tenth month would in fact be Sivan, which falls in May and June.Five months of flood, a symmetrical five months for the waters even to reach the summit of the mountains; yet wasn't the ark on one of these mountain-tops; how did it "come to rest" if there were that much water on it? why so long?
The waters continued to decrease for a further 73 days. Add that to the 237 we maxed out at in verse 3, and we are now up to 310 days - exactly fifty short of a full year (lunar calendar - 360 days; solar calendar - 365). I think I need to go back and double-check, but I am wondering if I have missed a second 50 day block. Or perhaps I'm being impatient and there's another 50 day block still to come.
8:6 VA YEHI MI KETS ARBA'IM YOM VA YIPHTACH NO'ACH ET CHALON HA TEVAH ASHER ASAH
וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וַיִּפְתַּח נֹחַ אֶת חַלּוֹן הַתֵּבָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה
KJ: And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
BN: And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that No'ach opened the window of the ark which he had made.
I was being impatient! Here are forty of them. Which makes it the 10th day of the 12th month... and the inference of the phrasing is that this is YHVH again...
ARBA'IM YOM (ארבעים יום): This time forty days. Or is it a further forty days after the long list before? I wonder if the editor, required to amalgamate the YHVH and Elohim versions into a unified whole, found the synthesis impossible and therefore left the days and dates deliberately equivocal? (No, you're right. The numbers aren't in the slightest bit equivocal. Just complex to deduce.)
This time CHALON (חלון) for window, not TSOHAR (צוהר), nor ARUBOT (ארבת), which were used before (Genesis 6:16 and 7:11 respectively). So there are two different descriptions of the ark, one with what appears to be a sky-light, the other with at least one window.
YIPHTACH (יפתח): One cannot ignore these word games - this time the root connection is YAPHET (יפת), No'ach's son. And of course there is another man named YIPHTACH too - he who sacrificed his daughter, in a Beney Yisra-Eli equivalent of the tale of Iphigenia (Judges 11).
8:7 VA YESHALACH ET HA OREV VA YETS'E YATS'O VA SHOV AD YEVOSHET HA MAYIM ME AL HA ARETS
8:7 VA YESHALACH ET HA OREV VA YETS'E YATS'O VA SHOV AD YEVOSHET HA MAYIM ME AL HA ARETS
וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת הָעֹרֵב וַיֵּצֵא יָצוֹא וָשׁוֹב עַד יְבֹשֶׁת הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ
KJ: And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
BN: And he dispatched a raven, and it flew back and forth , until the waters had dried up from the Earth.
VA YESHALACH: In the Pi'el or "intensive" form - the difference between, say, "writing" and "scribbling", or between "breaking" and "smashing". We would expect it to say VA YISHLACH (and of course, without the pointing, it might well do so).
VA YESHALACH: In the Pi'el or "intensive" form - the difference between, say, "writing" and "scribbling", or between "breaking" and "smashing". We would expect it to say VA YISHLACH (and of course, without the pointing, it might well do so).
HA OREV (יערב): "raven" or "crow" (the difference is explained here)? The root gives dozens of key words (particularly ערב = "evening", the dark time associated with crows and ravens and other symbolic birds of the moon-goddess), but probably this is not the same root anyway, rather a foreign word, perhaps the Sanskrit KARAVA, which had been picked up in Babylon and happened to coincide. Midrashim (the one linked here includes an orthodox discussion of Edgar Allen Poe's poem "The Raven", and believe me it is well worth the reading) claim that the raven could have brought No'ach an olive-branch, but would not on the following grounds: the raven was an unclean creature, and therefore only one pair was taken on board the ark; the raven was furious about being separated from his mate, lest, if the Flood had not died down, he be unable to return and therefore his species die out. As soon as No'ach let him go the raven took refuge on the roof of the ark and did not budge until the ark was safe on Ararat. No'ach was thus forced to send a dove, which he did not want to do, lest he jeopardise the future of clean creatures, which are more important than unclean ones.
This of course is wonderful Judaic theology, but has nothing to do with the original: ravens and doves are symbolic birds, totem-birds, for specific gods; and more than one god(dess) needed to be part of the Creation side of this.
The raven is a complicated bird. In Psalm 147:9 YHVH takes special care of it. Deuteronomy 14:14 classifies it among the unclean birds; in Proverbs 30:17 they pluck out and eat the eyes of the ungodly. In 1 Kings 17:4-6 they feed Eli-Yahu (Elijah) despite their cursed beaks. In Song of Songs 5:11 Shelomoh's (Solomon's) locks are praised for being black as a raven's wing. It may very well be that the original version had the raven turned black as a punishment, and not Cham, as in the Greek myth it was by Anat-Ishtar for bringing her the bad news of the death of her priestess. Cham's descendants were in fact the non-Negroid Beney Kena'an (Canaanites), though history has always seen Cham as the father of the black peoples (making even further nonsense of the racist slur noted previously).
8:8 VA YESHALACH ET HA YONAH ME ITO LIROT HA KALU HA MAYIM ME AL PENEY HA ADAMAH
KJ: Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
BN: And he also dispatched a dove, to see if the waters had receded entirely from the surface of the earth.
HA YONAH (היונה): "the dove"; root and origins unclear; the only similar root being YANAH (ינה) = "to act violently", or "to oppress", which is also used as an epithet for a sword - but this is clearly unconnected. My own view is that it probably has something to do with the Phoenician or Hellene and is perhaps YAVANAH, connected to Io, the moon-goddess of the Ionian, one of whose symbols is indeed the dove. The Babylonian-Mesopotamian form was Oannes - a variant of the Philistine deity Dagon - which becomes Johannes in Greek, whence John.
8:8 VA YESHALACH ET HA YONAH ME ITO LIROT HA KALU HA MAYIM ME AL PENEY HA ADAMAH
וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת הַיּוֹנָה מֵאִתּוֹ לִרְאוֹת הֲקַלּוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה
KJ: Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
BN: And he also dispatched a dove, to see if the waters had receded entirely from the surface of the earth.
HA YONAH (היונה): "the dove"; root and origins unclear; the only similar root being YANAH (ינה) = "to act violently", or "to oppress", which is also used as an epithet for a sword - but this is clearly unconnected. My own view is that it probably has something to do with the Phoenician or Hellene and is perhaps YAVANAH, connected to Io, the moon-goddess of the Ionian, one of whose symbols is indeed the dove. The Babylonian-Mesopotamian form was Oannes - a variant of the Philistine deity Dagon - which becomes Johannes in Greek, whence John.
It makes for an interesting literary comparison to picture this Yonah (English Jonah), this dove, locked up in the belly of the ark like a prophet in a whale for all those days while it swirled on the flood-waters, and then being spewed out to go and achieve the repentance both of the god and of humanity. Where did it go to find out if the waters had gone down or not? The nearest major city to Mount Ararat perhaps, which just happens to be Ninveh (Nineveh), Jonah's city? And Ninveh, as Dante reminds us in "The Inferno", was the city of that most licentious of all libertines and sinners, Semiramis, who even went so far as to pass laws allowing her most libidinous of carnal sins rather than face a disillusioned populace. Semiramis, or Sammu-Ramat as she should be known, lived around 800 BCE.
8:9 VE LO MATS'AH HA YONAH MANO'ACH LE CHAPH RAGLAH VA TASHAV ELAV EL HA TEVAH KI MAYIM AL PENEY CHOL HA ARETS VA YISHLACH YADO VA YIKACH'EHA VA YAV'E OTAH ELAV EL HA TEVAH
KJ: But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
BN: But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she went back to him in the ark, for there was still water across the entire face of the Earth; and he put out his hand, and caught her, and gathered her back into the ark.
MANO'ACH (מנוח) - again playing with the same root that gives the name No'ach.
8:10: VA YACHEL OD SHIV'AT YAMIM ACHERIM VA YOSEPH SHALACH ET HA YONAH MIN HA TEVAH
8:9 VE LO MATS'AH HA YONAH MANO'ACH LE CHAPH RAGLAH VA TASHAV ELAV EL HA TEVAH KI MAYIM AL PENEY CHOL HA ARETS VA YISHLACH YADO VA YIKACH'EHA VA YAV'E OTAH ELAV EL HA TEVAH
וְלֹא מָצְאָה הַיּוֹנָה מָנוֹחַ לְכַף רַגְלָהּ וַתָּשָׁב אֵלָיו אֶל הַתֵּבָה כִּי מַיִם עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וַיִּשְׁלַח יָדוֹ וַיִּקָּחֶהָ וַיָּבֵא אֹתָהּ אֵלָיו אֶל הַתֵּבָה
KJ: But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
BN: But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she went back to him in the ark, for there was still water across the entire face of the Earth; and he put out his hand, and caught her, and gathered her back into the ark.
MANO'ACH (מנוח) - again playing with the same root that gives the name No'ach.
8:10: VA YACHEL OD SHIV'AT YAMIM ACHERIM VA YOSEPH SHALACH ET HA YONAH MIN HA TEVAH
וַיָּחֶל עוֹד שִׁבְעַת יָמִים אֲחֵרִים וַיֹּסֶף שַׁלַּח אֶת הַיּוֹנָה מִן הַתֵּבָה
KJ: And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
BN: And he waited yet a further seven days, and again he sent the dove out of the ark.
Why does it take so long for the waters to abate? More importantly, once again we have the seven day wait, so everything always happens on the same god-day. We have now reached the seventeenth day of the 12th month, the 17 giving us a repeated symmetry. Or have we? We were short of our full year by ten days, and this gives us seven of them; but did he send the raven in the morning, the dove in the afternoon, and it came back in the evening, or each a day apart, spread over three? The story-telling method obscures the numbers again.
8:11 VA TAV'O ELAV HA YONAH LE'ET EREV VE HINEH ALEH ZAYIT TARAPH BE PHI'HA VA YED'A NOA'CH KI KALU HA MAYIM ME AL HA ARETS
וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו הַיּוֹנָה לְעֵת עֶרֶב וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ וַיֵּדַע נֹחַ כִּי קַלּוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ
KJ: And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
BN: And the dove came in to him at evening twilight, and there in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive-leaf ; so No'ach knew that the waters had receded abated from the Earth.
EREV (ערב): It turns out that there is more than just a linguistic connection between the OREV (ערב - blackbird) and the EREV (ערב - evening). We are in the realms of the moon-goddess again! But perfectly balanced now, in the equal of male-female creation. There are two ephemeral moments every day when this takes place, at dawn and at dusk, the even-ing of light and darkness, sun and moon, Shimshon (Samson) and Delilah, Adam and Chavah: the "still point of the turning world" as T.S. Eliot named it.
Interesting to catch a glimpse of ancient scientific "understanding"; and it would be even more interesting if an understander of modern science could comment on this as well: the Earth has been totally submerged for the best part of a year, and yet the trees are still producing leaves, and those leaves and twigs are still dry enough that a dove can just come along and peck one crisply off.
How does No'ach know that the waters have abated? He is beached on top of Ararat, so he has a panoramic view of the nearby world, and can see with his own eyes whether there is anything to see besides water. As to the dove, there might have been an olive tree growing hundreds of feet above what was still the flood-line, and the dove took the leaf from this.
8:12 VA YIYACHEL OD SHIV'AT YAMIM ACHERIM VA YESHALACH ET HA YONAH VE LO YASPHAH SHUV ELAV OD
KJ: And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.
BN: And he waited yet another seven days, and sent forth the dove; but she did not come back to him again.
Why three times? Do we really need to ask? Only eight chapters into the book and we can already identify the endlessly repeated symbolic and sacred numbers; where 7 is the sun-god, 3 is always the moon-goddess, or her "beloved son" - the three phases of the moon which are the daughters of al-Lah, or Cinderella and her step-sisters, Cordelia and her sisters; the three days in the Underworld, or the belly of the whale, which are the three nights of darkness between the death of the waning moon and the rise of the new moon... et cetera.
וַיִּיָּחֶל עוֹד שִׁבְעַת יָמִים אֲחֵרִים וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת הַיּוֹנָה וְלֹא יָסְפָה שׁוּב אֵלָיו עוֹד
KJ: And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.
BN: And he waited yet another seven days, and sent forth the dove; but she did not come back to him again.
Why three times? Do we really need to ask? Only eight chapters into the book and we can already identify the endlessly repeated symbolic and sacred numbers; where 7 is the sun-god, 3 is always the moon-goddess, or her "beloved son" - the three phases of the moon which are the daughters of al-Lah, or Cinderella and her step-sisters, Cordelia and her sisters; the three days in the Underworld, or the belly of the whale, which are the three nights of darkness between the death of the waning moon and the rise of the new moon... et cetera.
And as to our calculations of the total time of the tale, I think we can regard the return of the dove with the olive leaf as the confirmation of Creation, and therefore the completion of the cycle. The seven days of this verse are the first seven days of the recreated world, a new year, Eden, so to speak, restored. All of which of course needs a sign to confirm it - maybe a rainbow could provide that. And some sort of calendrical confirmation of all this would be useful to - see the very next verse!
8:13 VA YEHI BE ACHAT VE SHESH ME'OT SHANAH BA RISHON BE ECHAD LA CHODESH CHARVU HA MAYIM ME AL HA ARETS VA YASAR NO'ACH ET MICHSEH HA TEVAH VA YAR VE HINEH CHARVU PENEY HA ADAMAH
KJ: And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
BN: And it came to pass in the 601st year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the waters dried up on the earth; and No'ach opened the roof of the ark, and looked out, and behold the surface of the ground was dry.
8:13 VA YEHI BE ACHAT VE SHESH ME'OT SHANAH BA RISHON BE ECHAD LA CHODESH CHARVU HA MAYIM ME AL HA ARETS VA YASAR NO'ACH ET MICHSEH HA TEVAH VA YAR VE HINEH CHARVU PENEY HA ADAMAH
וַיְהִי בְּאַחַת וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ חָרְבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ וַיָּסַר נֹחַ אֶת מִכְסֵה הַתֵּבָה וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה חָרְבוּ פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה
KJ: And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
BN: And it came to pass in the 601st year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the waters dried up on the earth; and No'ach opened the roof of the ark, and looked out, and behold the surface of the ground was dry.
And of course the first day of the first month being the day the waters dry makes it the day of re-creation, and therefore logically a new year...
And remember (Genesis 7:6) that No'ach was himself 600 years old on the day that the Flood began.
ET MICHSEH (את מכסה) covering, what covering? See 6:14 and the note there which reflects the parallels between the covering of No'ach's ark and the covering of the Ark of the Covenant, that other great vehicle in which YHVH traverses the Heavens.
CHARVU (חרבו): properly "to be dry" or "dried up", but it also has sense of "to be desolate" or "laid waste". From the same root comes CHEREV (חרב) = "a sword". In Deuteronomy 28:22 it is used to describe a drought; from the sense of "dry", "desert" et cetera comes CHOREV (חורב) which is Mount Chorev (Horeb in the normal English mispronunciation), (references to "Mount Sinai" really mean the range, in the way that we speak of Mont Blanc as the mountain but the Alps as the range, or Everest and the Himalayas); and which allows us a new understanding of that holy mountain; no ancient Yisra-Eli would have missed the verbal pun that makes Mount Ararat suddenly CHARAV = "dry" (apparently), but holy too. And at the end of the Eden story (Genesis 3:24) the flaming sword or fire-wheel placed at the entrance to guard it like a dragon the Golden Fleece or the Minotaur the Cretan Labyrinth, was Lahat ha-Cherev (להט החרב).
8:14 U VA CHODESH HA SHENI BE SHIV'AH VE ESRIM YOM LA CHODESH YAVSHAH HA ARETS
KJ: And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
BN: And by the second month, by the 27th day of the month, the earth was dry.
YAVSHAH (יבשה): which also means dry in the sense of the YAVESHET (יבשת) = "dry land" of Genesis 1; further evidence that an old Creation myth has been adapted here. What is actually being described over these forty day and fifty day periods is the "separation" of the "waters" from the "waters", and then the "dry land" from the "seas", that we first encountered in Genesis 1:6-8 and 1:9-10 (click here).
וּבַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ יָבְשָׁה הָאָרֶץ
KJ: And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
BN: And by the second month, by the 27th day of the month, the earth was dry.
YAVSHAH (יבשה): which also means dry in the sense of the YAVESHET (יבשת) = "dry land" of Genesis 1; further evidence that an old Creation myth has been adapted here. What is actually being described over these forty day and fifty day periods is the "separation" of the "waters" from the "waters", and then the "dry land" from the "seas", that we first encountered in Genesis 1:6-8 and 1:9-10 (click here).
The exact dates are presumably always from the same version - why so exact? Babylonian festival dates? Was the 27th of any month particularly significant to the Babylonians? I have no idea, and can find nothing through research. One plausible hypothesis might be that the 28th day of the month was the summative day of four solar weeks; given that the No'ach story is a sun-story being told by a moon-worshiping people (who therefore have thirty-day months, fifteen days to a full moon, fifteen more to the new moon), this may have been a way of honouring the sun-deity without simultaneously offending the moon-deity. But we could also calculate this in a different way, that the 27th day of the 2nd month, in a lunar calendar, is the 57th day of the year - 50 + 7, our two key sun-numbers yet again.
We are also thrown on the time scales, because the earlier sections use No'ach's birthday, before now suddenly seeming to switch to a new calendar - or were those two the same date? How long has it been since the first day of the flood? It is deducible, and from it we can synchronise the two calendars and draw some useful conclusions, especially about who No'ach was. Will someone please do it for me, using the notes I have offered! But remember, this story is supposed to come from more than two thousand years BCE, an era long before the invention of clocks even of the most primitive kind, or calendars, or any other means of recording time - well, water-clocks, and sand-clocks, and twice-daily astronomical observation... so there can have been no way of recording dates this precisely, can there? So the only logical reason for giving them so precisely (which is to say: making them up this precisely) has to be cultic-mythological; doesn't it?
Samech break here; end of third fragment
8:15 VA YEDABER ELOHIM EL NO'ACH LEMOR
KJ: And God spake unto Noah, saying,
BN: Then Elohim spoke to No'ach saying:
Elohim again.
8:16 TSE MIN HA TEVAH ATAH VE ISHTECHA U VANEYCHA U NESHEY VANEYCHA ITACH
We are also thrown on the time scales, because the earlier sections use No'ach's birthday, before now suddenly seeming to switch to a new calendar - or were those two the same date? How long has it been since the first day of the flood? It is deducible, and from it we can synchronise the two calendars and draw some useful conclusions, especially about who No'ach was. Will someone please do it for me, using the notes I have offered! But remember, this story is supposed to come from more than two thousand years BCE, an era long before the invention of clocks even of the most primitive kind, or calendars, or any other means of recording time - well, water-clocks, and sand-clocks, and twice-daily astronomical observation... so there can have been no way of recording dates this precisely, can there? So the only logical reason for giving them so precisely (which is to say: making them up this precisely) has to be cultic-mythological; doesn't it?
Samech break here; end of third fragment
8:15 VA YEDABER ELOHIM EL NO'ACH LEMOR
יְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֶל נֹחַ לֵאמֹר
KJ: And God spake unto Noah, saying,
BN: Then Elohim spoke to No'ach saying:
Elohim again.
8:16 TSE MIN HA TEVAH ATAH VE ISHTECHA U VANEYCHA U NESHEY VANEYCHA ITACH
צֵא מִן הַתֵּבָה אַתָּה וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּבָנֶיךָ וּנְשֵׁי בָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ
KJ: Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
BN: "Leave the ark, you, your wife, your sons, and your sons' wives with you.
8:17: KOL HA CHAYAT ASHER IT'CHA MI KOL BASAR BA OPH U VA BEHEMAH U VE CHOL HA REMES HA ROMES AL HA ARETS HA VETS'E (HA YETS'E) ITACH VE SHARTSU VA ARETS U PHARU VE RAVU AL HA ARETS
KJ: Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
BN: And all the livestock that is with you, the birds as well as the beasts, and all the species of reptiles that creep on the earth, bring them out with you, so that they can spread out over the Earth, and be fruitful, and multiply on the Earth.
I do hope he let all those creatures out in slow stages, genus by genus, and gave them time to get away, or any number of the survivors would have become lunch for the other survivors before they had the opportunity to start breeding and provide sufficient for all the many creatures' needs.
U PERU U REBU (ופרו ורנו): just as in the first Creation story, bearing fruit and multiplying is the key commandment; still further proof that this is a redacted version of an ancient sun-god creation myth.
There is another consideration, however. What if the cultic leaders at the start, or perhaps the Redactor of the texts later, were confronted by two alternate Creation myths, both held as equally sacred by different sectors of the cult (say Genesis 1 by Yeru-Shala'im and No'ach by the returnees from Bavel); how best to deal with it? A simple solution would be to destroy the first Creation and make a second one… in which case, can we look at No'ach as though it were a Creation myth and not a re-creation myth, and ask if it works? To which the answer is not only: yes it works, but actually it works much better.
IT'CHA... ITACH: Traditional cantillation clearly gives both of these; yet grammatically they cannot both be correct. IT'CHA is the normal masculine, ITACH the normal feminine... so the error seems apparent. Yet this is so blatant that it doesn't take a Rashi to spot it... so there must be something else going on here... And in fact we will see this repeatedly in the Tanach, both with IT'CHA/ITACH and with LECHA/LACH. The comment box is available at the foot of the page for anyone with expertise to offer.
HA VETS'E: Most Jewish texts offer the alternative that is in the parenthesis here, because they are simply unable to work out what HA VETS'E might mean; this also is why it is unpointed. HA YETS'E makes perfect sense, and is in fact what the English translation has gone for - it is also the verb used in the following verse. The problem, which we will see again and again throughout the Tanach, is that a hand-written Yud (י) could very easily be a Vav (ו), it is simply a question of over-extending the vertical line; Dalet (ד) and Reysh (ר) cause a similar problem, and occasionally Hey (ה) and Chet (ח) do too. (in English we have the same problem with lower case g and q, upper case I and 1, and sometimes the four lower case mirrors - b, d, p and q - can be confused).
8:18: VA YETS'E NO'ACH U VANAV VE ISHTO U NESHEY VANAV ITO
כָּל הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר אִתְּךָ מִכָּל בָּשָׂר בָּעוֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ הוצא (הַיְצֵא) אִתָּךְ וְשָׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ
KJ: Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
BN: And all the livestock that is with you, the birds as well as the beasts, and all the species of reptiles that creep on the earth, bring them out with you, so that they can spread out over the Earth, and be fruitful, and multiply on the Earth.
I do hope he let all those creatures out in slow stages, genus by genus, and gave them time to get away, or any number of the survivors would have become lunch for the other survivors before they had the opportunity to start breeding and provide sufficient for all the many creatures' needs.
U PERU U REBU (ופרו ורנו): just as in the first Creation story, bearing fruit and multiplying is the key commandment; still further proof that this is a redacted version of an ancient sun-god creation myth.
There is another consideration, however. What if the cultic leaders at the start, or perhaps the Redactor of the texts later, were confronted by two alternate Creation myths, both held as equally sacred by different sectors of the cult (say Genesis 1 by Yeru-Shala'im and No'ach by the returnees from Bavel); how best to deal with it? A simple solution would be to destroy the first Creation and make a second one… in which case, can we look at No'ach as though it were a Creation myth and not a re-creation myth, and ask if it works? To which the answer is not only: yes it works, but actually it works much better.
IT'CHA... ITACH: Traditional cantillation clearly gives both of these; yet grammatically they cannot both be correct. IT'CHA is the normal masculine, ITACH the normal feminine... so the error seems apparent. Yet this is so blatant that it doesn't take a Rashi to spot it... so there must be something else going on here... And in fact we will see this repeatedly in the Tanach, both with IT'CHA/ITACH and with LECHA/LACH. The comment box is available at the foot of the page for anyone with expertise to offer.
HA VETS'E: Most Jewish texts offer the alternative that is in the parenthesis here, because they are simply unable to work out what HA VETS'E might mean; this also is why it is unpointed. HA YETS'E makes perfect sense, and is in fact what the English translation has gone for - it is also the verb used in the following verse. The problem, which we will see again and again throughout the Tanach, is that a hand-written Yud (י) could very easily be a Vav (ו), it is simply a question of over-extending the vertical line; Dalet (ד) and Reysh (ר) cause a similar problem, and occasionally Hey (ה) and Chet (ח) do too. (in English we have the same problem with lower case g and q, upper case I and 1, and sometimes the four lower case mirrors - b, d, p and q - can be confused).
8:18: VA YETS'E NO'ACH U VANAV VE ISHTO U NESHEY VANAV ITO
וַיֵּצֵא נֹחַ וּבָנָיו וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּנְשֵׁי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ
KJ: And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him:
BN: And No'ach disembarked, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him.
8:19: KOL HA CHAYAH KOL HA REMES VE CHOL HA OPH KOL ROMES AL HA ARETS LE MISHPECHOTEYHEM YATSU MIN HA TEVAH
KJ: Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
BN: And every beast, every reptile, every fowl, everything that crawls across the Earth, each according to its species, they too disembarked from the ark.
MISHPECHOTEYHEM (למשפחתיהם): strange choice of word - it really does mean "family", though I have translated it as "species". But given that the animals were depicted as weddinged earlier, having nuclear families now is not really all that surprising (two by two – definitely a nuclear family!)
8:20 VA YIVEN NO'ACH MIZBE'ACH LA YHVH VA YIKACH MI KOL HA BEHEMAH HA TEHORAH U MI KOL HA OPH HA TEHOR VA YA'AL OLOT BA MIZBEYACH
8:19: KOL HA CHAYAH KOL HA REMES VE CHOL HA OPH KOL ROMES AL HA ARETS LE MISHPECHOTEYHEM YATSU MIN HA TEVAH
כָּל הַחַיָּה כָּל הָרֶמֶשׂ וְכָל הָעוֹף כֹּל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיהֶם יָצְאוּ מִן הַתֵּבָה
KJ: Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
BN: And every beast, every reptile, every fowl, everything that crawls across the Earth, each according to its species, they too disembarked from the ark.
MISHPECHOTEYHEM (למשפחתיהם): strange choice of word - it really does mean "family", though I have translated it as "species". But given that the animals were depicted as weddinged earlier, having nuclear families now is not really all that surprising (two by two – definitely a nuclear family!)
8:20 VA YIVEN NO'ACH MIZBE'ACH LA YHVH VA YIKACH MI KOL HA BEHEMAH HA TEHORAH U MI KOL HA OPH HA TEHOR VA YA'AL OLOT BA MIZBEYACH
וַיִּבֶן נֹחַ מִזְבֵּחַ לַיהוָה וַיִּקַּח מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה וּמִכֹּל הָעוֹף חַהַטָּהֹר וַיַּעַל עֹלֹת בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ
KJ: And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
BN: And No'ach built an altar to YHVH; and took one from every clean beast, and one from every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar.
At some point, whether exactly here or slightly earlier (perhaps at verse 18), this has become YHVH again...
At some point, whether exactly here or slightly earlier (perhaps at verse 18), this has become YHVH again...
From a literary point of view this verse simply does not work. Where did he find dry wood, given the scale and length of the flood?
And what a waste of animals, to bring them two by two in order to save them from extinction, denying them sexual activity en route so no progeny have been added, and then slaughtering them as an act of thanksgiving now - which will render them immediately extinct. But no, that would only apply in the Elohim version; in the YHVH he brought the clean in sevens.
Which animals then - given the numbers, and the implied consequences, it cannot have been any that we know now. (The last paragraph of the notes to this verse will revise this statement, but you need to read the intervening parts to understand why).
MIZBE'ACH (מזבח): from the root ZAVACH (זבח) = "to slaughter animals in sacrifice" (as opposed to TAVACH - טבח- which means "to slaughter animals for food"; whence MITBACH - מטבח= "kitchen"; though of course, as we shall see later in the Torah, the real purpose of sacrifice was indeed the human act of eating: the difference between ZAVACH and TAVACH is really the divine authorisation and then the methodology of post-slaughter cuisine), whence "an altar".
The various altars of which we know are MIZBE'ACH HA OLAH (מזבח העלה), the altar of burnt offering (Exodus 30:28); MIZBE'ACH HA NECHOSHET (מזבח הנחשת), the brazen or brass altar connected to the serpent-god depicted on Mosheh's banner and by name NECHUSHTAN (נחושתן); cf NACHASH for the serpent of Eden; the brazen altar was maintained in the outer court (Exodus 39:39); and MIZBE'ACH KETORET (מזבח קטרת) the altar of incense, also called the golden altar, which stood inside the temple. The MIZBE'ACH HA OLAH (מזבח העלה) was probably the most ancient, and this is the one which the next verse suggests was built here, as we know that YHVH likes to smell the sweet savour. It must have been one hell of a feast, bearing in mind that - very sensibly if you think about it - the cult always maintained that the god liked the smell best of all; this meant that the people present could eat the meat themselves; most (all?) sacrifices are to YHVH, not to Elohim. And of course, a good barbecue after such a long abstention would have been precisely what the humans wanted. And yet, what a terrible act of cruelty, to have brought all these animals all this way, and not to repopulate the world after all, but to slaughter and roast them. And then think of all the other poor animals, not the herbivorous sheep and cows, but the hungry lions and the starving cheetah, not to mention the jackals and hyenas and presumably there were vultures on the boat too. Did they get the leftovers?
On the other hand, burnt-offerings were the holiest because they had to be consumed entirely in the fire; with nothing saved for the priest or the bringer. Other sacrifices were simply an excuse for a party. And this was on OLAH - so they didn't get to eat!
And now we understand why, in the YHVH version, unlike the Elohim, No'ach took seven of every kind of clean animal, but only two of the unclean. Obviously not all the seven were slaughtered, so there would still be enough to repopulate. One question though: if the gods have declared certain animals unclean, why not take this opportunity to extinguish them?
8:21 VA YARACH YHVH ET REYACH HA NICHO'ACH VA YOMER YHVH EL LIBO LO OSIPH LEKALEL OD ET HA ADAMAH BA AVUR HA ADAM KI YETSER LEV HA ADAM RA MI NE'URAV VE LO OSIPH OD LEHAKOT ET KOL CHAI KA ASHER ASIYTI
8:21 VA YARACH YHVH ET REYACH HA NICHO'ACH VA YOMER YHVH EL LIBO LO OSIPH LEKALEL OD ET HA ADAMAH BA AVUR HA ADAM KI YETSER LEV HA ADAM RA MI NE'URAV VE LO OSIPH OD LEHAKOT ET KOL CHAI KA ASHER ASIYTI
וַיָּרַח יְהוָה אֶת רֵיחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל לִבּוֹ לֹא אֹסִף לְקַלֵּל עוֹד אֶת הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּר הָאָדָם כִּי יֵצֶר לֵב הָאָדָם רַע מִנְּעֻרָיו וְלֹא אֹסִף עוֹד לְהַכּוֹת אֶת כָּל חַי כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי
KJ: And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
BN: And YHVH smelled the sweet aroma; and YHVH said in his heart, "I shall never again curse the ground because of humankind; because his inclination, right from childhood, is towards wickedness. Nor will I ever again destroy all living things, as I have done...
REYACH HA NICHO'ACH: As noted above, the deity likes the smell of the cooking, but never sits down to the meal. How very convenient for the humans!
Much discussion already in the Kayin episodes about the incense as a way of calming YHVH's anger; and here is proof of it. Propitiation works! YHVH smells the sweet smell, his anger with Humankind is immediately gone, and he is contrite over the tantrum he threw when he should have known better. The saddest part though is that he has recognised the inevitable fallibility of Humankind ("for the imagination of the human heart is evil from his youth"), but he goes on expecting perfection nonetheless, and having further tantrums when history proves him right again and again (Sedom and Amorah, the Yonah story, et al). When will they (the gods) ever learn? O, when will they ever learn
Connection between YARACH (ירח) = "smell" and YAREYACH (ירח) = "moon"? Undoubtedly. Is there is a link of the same significance between NICHAH (ניחח) = "sweet" and NO'ACH (נח), where the play on words is equally apparent; this is less certain, but again it emphasises why you need to read these texts in Yehudit and not in translation.
LO OSIPH (לא אסף): YHVH repents of what he has done and promises to be a better boy in future; a promise which of course he will not keep (maybe he made the vow on Erev Erev Yom Kippur, and the next evening being Kol Nidre the vow was annulled). We are not told if Elohim also regrets his actions, in the other version of the tale. We have to hope he does, but the evidence of global warming is not helpful to this optimism.
8:22 OD KOL YEMEY HA ARETS ZERA VE KATSIR VE KOR VA CHAM VE KAYITS VA CHOREPH VE YOM VA LAILAH LO YISHBOTU
8:22 OD KOL YEMEY HA ARETS ZERA VE KATSIR VE KOR VA CHAM VE KAYITS VA CHOREPH VE YOM VA LAILAH LO YISHBOTU
עֹד כָּל יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ
KJ: While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
BN: "While the Earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
Creation achieved (Brahma), Creation destroyed (Shiva), Creation Sustained (Vishnu). The Hindu visible within the Yehudit.
At which point chapter 9 begins in Christian translations, even though this appears to be an unfinished sentence; did something get lost? Or is "while the Earth remains" a warning?
At which point chapter 9 begins in Christian translations, even though this appears to be an unfinished sentence; did something get lost? Or is "while the Earth remains" a warning?
Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment