Paul : I see no logical connection between the fact that the account
>Shem's genealogy and the conclusion that therefore the people of Gen 11:2
>were just one branch of Shem's descendants.>
Dick: There is another reason. Ham's descendants and Japheth's descendants
depart the region in the previous chapter. The traditional interpretation
requires us to believe the Bible writer mixed up the chronology. Could it
be that the writer of Genesis got the chronology right, and the
interpreters are wrong? >>
Paul: Por favor: Ham's most noted descendant Nimrod went directly to the
region, indeed, right to Babel itself (Gen 10:10).
There are a number of exegetical reasons why the traditional interpretation
is correct--at least in that it understands that whoever all built the tower
of Babel, all people on earth at that time were speaking the same language.
And this is still the standard interpretation among modern scholars liberal
and conservative. Nor do they think the Bible writer "mixed up the
chronology." They think he was going back to speak more in depth about an
earlier event. Note that after the genealogy of Cain in chapter 4, he goes
back to Adam and the birth of Seth. One could scarcely argue that Seth was
not born until after Lamech because his birth is reported after mentioning
the activities of Lamech.
Could it be that the vast majority of exegetes got Gen 11:1 right, and only
those with the concordist presupposition got it wrong?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 18 2001 - 21:00:27 EDT