Genesis 6 to 10

[Shin]

But these sorts of matters really aren't I think the areas we should be discussing, rather the spiritual and moral.

And most especially what the saints have to say about these passages.  

For instance in Genesis 8 we have:

'And after that forty days were passed, Noe, opening the window of the ark which he had made, sent forth a raven: Which went forth and did not return, till the waters were dried up upon the earth.  He sent forth also a dove after him, to see if the waters had now ceased upon the face of the earth. But she, not finding where her foot might rest, returned to him into the ark: for the waters were upon the whole earth: and he put forth his hand, and caught her, and brought her into the ark. And having waited yet seven other days, he again sent forth the dove out of the ark.

Did not return: The raven did not return into the ark; but (as it may be gathered from the Hebrew) went to and fro; sometimes going to the mountains, where it found carcasses to feed on: and other times returning, to rest upon the top of the ark.

And she came to him in the evening, carrying a bough of an olive tree, with green leaves, in her mouth. Noe therefore understood that the waters were ceased upon the earth. And he stayed yet other seven days: and he sent forth the dove, which returned not any more unto him.'

And there's a such a depth of deeper meaning to it all.

The dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit. The Ark, the symbol of the Church and Our Lady.

'I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven, and he remained upon him.'

John 1:32

'The Ark, which in the midst of the Flood was a symbol of the Church, was wide below and narrow above; and, at the summit, measured only a single cubit. . . It was wide where the animals were, narrow where men lived: for the Holy Church is indeed wide in the number of those who are carnal minded, narrow in the number of those who are spiritual.'

Pope St. Gregory the Great

And I think there's a good deal we can think about regarding the water and its meaning.. 

[pebbles]

Again sorry for taking us back  
My understanding is that the Book of Genesis was written by at least three authors, each with his own characteristic style or form of writing. These were the Yahwist, the Elohist and the Priestly. The first two I understand, but who were the Priestly authors? What was their form of writing? And while we are at it, what of the Deuteronic authors?

Odhiambo,

I’ll type here a bit of what the Jerusalem Bible says  in the “Introduction to the Pentateuch”...can't type them all 'coz it's very long

"(First paragraph...end half)
Initially there were, it was held , two narrative sources: the Yahwistic (J) which, from the story of  Creation onwards, uses the divine name Yahweh that was revealed to Moses, and the Elohistic (E) which uses Elohim, the common noun for God.  The Yahwistic source was committed to writing in Judah in the 9th century, the Elohistic in Israel a little later.  After the fall of the Northern Kingdom these two documents were combined (JE).  After the time of Josiah the Deuteronomic source (D) was added (JED).  The Priestly Code (P), made up for the most part of laws, though with a certain amount of narrative matter, was after the Exile joined to the existing compilation which it served to weld and bind together (JEDP).  It should be noted that the literary analysis behind this hypothesis was allied with an evolutionary theory of the religious development of Israel.

(Sixth paragraph)
So far as the Book of Genesis is concerned it is not difficult to recognize and follow the threads of the three traditions: Yahwistic, Elohistic, Priestly.  Nor is it hard to trace the Priestly tradition in the closing chapters of Exodus, in the whole of Leviticus and in the greater part of Numbers; but it is difficult to decide which part of the remainder belongs to the Yahwistic tradition and which to the Elohistic.  After the Book of Numbers all three traditions disappear; they are replaced by a single tradition: the Deuteronomic.  This is characterized by a most distinctive style which is exuberant and rhetorical; certain clear-cut formulae frequently recur.  Its doctrine, too, is characteristic – a doctrine it never tires of repeating: of all the nations Israel has been chosen as God’s people by an act of spontaneous divine favour; nevertheless a condition is attached to this choice and to the pact that seals it, namely that Israel must be faithful to the law of its God and to the prescribed worship that is to be offered in the one and only sanctuary.  It may be that the substance of the Deuteronomic tradition basically represents Northern custom as introduced to Jerusalem by Levites after the fall of the kingdom of Israel.  This body of law rediscovered in the Temple during the reign of Josiah, was then promulgated within the framework of a Mosaic discourse.  In the first years of the Exile there was issued another edition, new but on the same lines as its predecessor."

Until you've mentioned these things...I've never really known about them.  They are nice to know to get the background of the Bible.  But they seem more "academic" than food for the soul. Just knowing Moses wrote Genesis is actually good enough for me  

[martin]

I found that sermon I mentioned earlier in the thread.
Go to Audio Sancto site and type into the search box, "Unless We Believe in Scripture We Can Neither Be Christians Nor Be Saved" and that will bring you to the sermon. 

It deals with how even non-Christian civilizations can/have traced their ancestry back to Noah's family.
It's very edifying for one's faith to know these things, especially when even the reality of the Great Flood is questioned in our time with the suggestion that we can understand it in a purely metaphorical way rather than literally.

[Shin]

I'm glad you found it Martin! I remembered it too, but I did not remember which one it was!

That has happened to me more than once, I have wanted to recommend one, but forgot which one it was! And it can be quite hard to find again!

Thanks be to God for your finding it! Was it hard work? 

[martin]

Thanks be to God for your finding it! Was it hard work? 

Surprisingly Shin I had an idea as to which category to look under and then when I clicked on the sermon I felt might be it, it actually was. 
A small mercy. Thank you dear Lord. 

[Shin]

What is 'patristic' ?

Oh patristic is just another way of saying 'Church Fathers', like St. John Chrysostom, it's from the Latin 'pater' for father. Which always reminds me of the German, 'vater'.

[pebbles]

Uhm... this sort of has nothing to do with the discussion  but in my country a colloquial(?) or groovy(?) way of referring to one's father is "Erpat" (Erpats for plural  "ermat" for mother  ). I've always wondered why.  In my language the word father is "tatay" or "ama" and mother is "nanay" or "ina".  If it's in English father would have been "er-fath". I guess it's from Latin then...  of the "pig-Latin" kind, that is  . Filipinos sometimes would interchange syllables of a word.  Like we have an officemate named Lito, but we call him Tolits (but not plural this time) or our word for hungry "gutom" we'd say "i'm already tomguts". Or an old popular song "Nosi ba lasi" (Sino ba sila....meaning "Who are they, anyway?"  Ok...I'm waaay off 

[Shin]

Ah! I see! Er pats from pat er. .. .

It sounds like something I would do, mix up the words front and back. . saying one word before the other rather than in order.. Haha! It's like I have a bit of Filipino in me, even though I don't!

There's still a decent deal of family respect in the Philippines too, isn't there? For elders and elder brothers and sisters, and fathers?

[Shin]

We can see what happens in the scriptures swiftly enough when there's lack of respect!

[odhiambo]

Again sorry for taking us back  
My understanding is that the Book of Genesis was written by at least three authors, each with his own characteristic style or form of writing. These were the Yahwist, the Elohist and the Priestly. The first two I understand, but who were the Priestly authors? What was their form of writing? And while we are at it, what of the Deuteronic authors?

Odhiambo,

I’ll type here a bit of what the Jerusalem Bible says  in the “Introduction to the Pentateuch”...can't type them all 'coz it's very long

"(First paragraph...end half)
Initially there were, it was held , two narrative sources: the Yahwistic (J) which, from the story of  Creation onwards, uses the divine name Yahweh that was revealed to Moses, and the Elohistic (E) which uses Elohim, the common noun for God.  The Yahwistic source was committed to writing in Judah in the 9th century, the Elohistic in Israel a little later.  After the fall of the Northern Kingdom these two documents were combined (JE).  After the time of Josiah the Deuteronomic source (D) was added (JED).  The Priestly Code (P), made up for the most part of laws, though with a certain amount of narrative matter, was after the Exile joined to the existing compilation which it served to weld and bind together (JEDP).  It should be noted that the literary analysis behind this hypothesis was allied with an evolutionary theory of the religious development of Israel.

(Sixth paragraph)
So far as the Book of Genesis is concerned it is not difficult to recognize and follow the threads of the three traditions: Yahwistic, Elohistic, Priestly.  Nor is it hard to trace the Priestly tradition in the closing chapters of Exodus, in the whole of Leviticus and in the greater part of Numbers; but it is difficult to decide which part of the remainder belongs to the Yahwistic tradition and which to the Elohistic.  After the Book of Numbers all three traditions disappear; they are replaced by a single tradition: the Deuteronomic.  This is characterized by a most distinctive style which is exuberant and rhetorical; certain clear-cut formulae frequently recur.  Its doctrine, too, is characteristic – a doctrine it never tires of repeating: of all the nations Israel has been chosen as God’s people by an act of spontaneous divine favour; nevertheless a condition is attached to this choice and to the pact that seals it, namely that Israel must be faithful to the law of its God and to the prescribed worship that is to be offered in the one and only sanctuary.  It may be that the substance of the Deuteronomic tradition basically represents Northern custom as introduced to Jerusalem by Levites after the fall of the kingdom of Israel.  This body of law rediscovered in the Temple during the reign of Josiah, was then promulgated within the framework of a Mosaic discourse.  In the first years of the Exile there was issued another edition, new but on the same lines as its predecessor."

Until you've mentioned these things...I've never really known about them.  They are nice to know to get the background of the Bible.  But they seem more "academic" than food for the soul. Just knowing Moses wrote Genesis is actually good enough for me  

Thanks for taking the trouble pebbles  
It is good enough for me too. That was just a "by the way" query  

[Shin]

Odhiambo, how is it where you are with respect for parents and elders?

[odhiambo]

Odhiambo, how is it where you are with respect for parents and elders?

Time was when it was everything.
A young person had a lot of respect for the elders of the family and of the community at large.
Example:
The parents’ word was “law” and no one would think of going against it.
When giving something to, or accepting something from a parent or any  elder for that matter, a young person, if a girl, was expected to kneel respectfully to do so.
A young person did not answer back when being “corrected by an adult”
A youth did not refer to his /her parents with their given names; only as Baba; Mama or Baa and Maa . Adwong and Imat once they have become advanced in years.
Etc.
Alas, young people these days look on some of those earlier customs as “primitive” and no longer adhere to them. 

[Patricia]

The same goes for India. Respect for elders comes naturally.
Last Sunday at church there was a little Fillipino old lady who was distributing Our Lady of Perpetual Succour novena pamphlets to the people sitting around her and I was one of them. She said they were from the Phillipines and instructed us how to say the novena.  During the Sign of Peace she wanted to bless my children and did so placing her hand on their heads.  I liked that because being blessed by elders is a common part of Indian culture too and is considered very important
I bless my children too after the family Rosary. 

[pebbles]

The same goes for India. Respect for elders comes naturally.
Last Sunday at church there was a little Fillipino old lady who was distributing Our Lady of Perpetual Succour novena pamphlets to the people sitting around her and I was one of them. She said they were from the Phillipines and instructed us how to say the novena.  During the Sign of Peace she wanted to bless my children and did so placing her hand on their heads.  I liked that because being blessed by elders is a common part of Indian culture too and is considered very important
I bless my children too after the family Rosary. 

For Filipinos, as a sign of respect to our elders, we take their hand place the back of the hand to our foreheads. It's an automatic response of children towards their elders since they are taught since they were still babies.  Usually you'd say "Mano po" (Mano is hand I think is Spanish) "po" is basically means respectfully.  You can know a Filipino is not respectful if "po" is not used when speaking to someone who is older than you.  Other versions of "po" is "ho".  But then again in some provinces "po" is not a cultural habit.  (Actually, some people us the "po" so many times in their sentences that my classmates and I used to count who says the most "po"    After doing this, the one who receives the "mano po." would say, "Bless you!"  I think we got this from kissing the hands of priests during the Spanish era, and how it came to the forehead...hmmm...maybe they don't like their hands being kissed?    The instances you do this is when your family has a gather and you've not seen older relatives for sometime (and when the get-together is over), after mass, visiting an older relative, and after praying the rosary as a family.   But I think in the past, before you leave the house you do this to say goodbye to your parents and when you get back home. For the more conservative, I think you even have to do this for the elder siblings.  But sad to say, some people don't want to do this and instead, they prefer the Western style of greeting of hugging or kissing the cheeks. 

A Filipino would never ever call their parents by their first names.  The rule for siblings are: If there's only two of you, the eldest brother is called "Kuya" or "Ate" (if the eldest is the sister).  If there are more kids ... For boys: "Kuya" (eldest); "Dikong" (2nd oldest); "Sangkong" (3rd oldest).  For girls: "Ate" (eldest); "Diche" (2nd oldest); "Sanse" (3rd oldest).  There is no need to add their name... the rest who are still not the youngest will be called Kuya or Ate and their name will be added.  Not many use this honorific names these days...only the "kuya and ate".  I have an older brother named Denis...but I never call him Denis.  Only "kuya".  And we don't call older relatives without the honorifics "Tita" (aunt), "Tito" (uncle), "Lolo" (grandpa) and "Lola" (grandma).  I am "Ate" to my younger cousins and "Tita" (aunt)  to my nieces and nephews.  At work, mostly in government offices, we also use "kuya" or "ate" for older co-employees.  These honorific words, I think we got from Chinese and Indian influence. 

[Patricia]

This is so similar to Indian culture