Episode 11: The Millennials, part 3
This is the second part of the story of two civilizations. It’s about family, technology, crime, and the betrayal that was the beginning of the end.
Quotes from the Bible were were taken from the English Standard Version (see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a place to contact me at the bottom of the page.
Show notes:
Both Methuselah’s distant uncle, known for his violence, and Methuselah’s son are named Lamech. We don’t know why they have the same name. The meaning of “Lamech” isn’t clear, as mentioned in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 87). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 247). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For the idea that Lamech was expressing faith in his comment about Noah’s name, see here as well as Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 87). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
For “Noah” meaning “rest” or “comfort” see footnote here and comment here. See also Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. as well as Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 87). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., both of which also talk about the prophetic nature of Lamech’s words.
For the popularity of baby names in the United States for the decade of the 2010s, see data here. That list ranks “Noah” as the #1 name out of the top 200 most popular names for 20 million boy babies born 2010-2019. If you go back through previous decades, “Noah” is only a popular name in recent years. In the decade of the 2000s, it was #20, in the 1990s, it was #69, and then it doesn’t show up on any list of the top 200 until you get all the way back to the earliest records, the 1880s, when it comes in at #155. For the data on England and Wales, in this case for just 2019, see here. That chart shows “Noah” in the top ten for mothers of all ages and the most popular boy name for mothers younger than 25 years old. If you click adeptly on the chart, the name shows the same rush from obscurity to prominence over the last ~15 years. It’s less official than a government database, but you can see trend lines for the popularity of the name “Noah” in many western countries on the page here. Most of them show an increase in the names’ popularity in recent years, though evidently the Swiss have liked it for a long time.
For a comment that all the patriarchs that lived before the Flood, except Noah, could have met Adam while he was alive, see the comment here as well as a chart here.
Though the Bible says nothing about Enoch’s appearance, it does say he walked with God, and, depending on how close he got while on Earth, you can imagine more than a figurative glow. Later, after Moses spent time in person with God, he wore a veil since his face glowed too much for the Israelites’ comfort. For the story, see Exodus 34:29-34. If Enoch, too, had this glow, that would be one more piece of evidence to everyone he came in contact with that he served God and had Him as a friend.
For a general history of Boston, see here. For more about the Puritans, see here. For details about the Quakers, see here and here. There are also details about the execution of Quakers in Boston, known as the Boston Martyrs, here. For the banning of books in Boston, see here. For the specifics of Upton Sinclair and his banned book Oil! which wasn’t selling well before it was banned, see pgs. 99 and 107-108. For “banned in Boston” seeming helpful in selling books by 1882, see pg. 17. If you’d never heard of Sinclair’s book, and want to go read the Wikipedia synopsis of it now that you heard it was banned, well, I guess the “Banned in Boston” advertising effect is still working.
For a recent example of censorship backfiring, take an example from China. In their case, they censored a popular social media website and it forced a bunch of people, otherwise good, upstanding Chinese citizens, to go figure out how to use virtual private networks to get around the ban. The problem is, once they were on a VPN, those same people who’d never before bothered to get around censorship restrictions could now access a bunch of other websites that were usually blocked. These were websites that they might never have otherwise found. This wasn’t just a few people. According to research published by Cambridge, the number was in the millions. If China hadn’t censored that one extra website, the other stuff might’ve stayed hidden. For more, see here.
The hypothetical risks of Cain’s descendants prohibiting access to the Garden of Eden could have a parallel to God telling Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but it depends on how you interpret the warning. In the Garden of Eden, God’s warning was for Adam and Eve’s own good. Kings, emperors, and dictators down through history issue prohibitions for the opposite reason. They do it for the dictator’s own good (although they often paint their reasoning as more altruistic). The motives for the prohibition are different, but they have the same weakness: the rule depends on how much people trust the leader who set the rule. After Eve’s curiosity gave him an opening, the serpent exploited this vulnerability when he made Eve question God’s truthfulness, casting God’s rules in a selfish light. In the same way, if Cain’s family blocked all access to the Garden of Eden, and given the fact that they probably showed selfish traits in at least a few other areas, rather than killing off the worship of God, it might’ve led to a spike in interest.
In my speculation about rewriting the history of the world and dismissing the physical evidence from the Garden of Eden and the Flaming Sword and the angels, I didn’t replace the origin story of humans (creation) with an alternative. It’s tough to come up with an alternative origin story that fills in the gaps. Even today, with the theory of evolution, the ultimate origin of matter and life is an open question. We can imagine our way back to the Big Bang, but we don’t know what would’ve caused it, or what would’ve caused whatever came before it.
We know sacrifices were offered to God at least by Abel, but the rest of the details about the history of offerings is deduction and best-guesses. From details in Episode 8, the best guess is that the practice was instituted by God when Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden and God gave them animal skins for clothes. Altars themselves aren’t mentioned until the end of the upcoming Flood, but it’s fair to guess that Abel built one, probably by the gate to the Garden of Eden as that is where God’s Spirit (exemplified by the Flaming Sword, see notes on Episode 6) stood blocking the way to the Tree of Life.
I imagined people rewriting the story of Cain to see him as someone breaking free from a superstitious and oppressive religion. That’s just a guess, but if such a thing did happen, it would fit with the inverted story of Eden you find in cultures around the world where the serpent is remembered as the hero and God as a cruel master rather than a Savior. For more details on those stories, see Episode 7.
For the background of Machiavelli, see here. In a fantastic string of words, that article defines “Machiavellian” as, “the teaching of worldly success through scheming deceit.”
For the interesting story of Francisco Franco making his own film and then later trying to re-make it with a different story, see here.
For the story of Leopold II of Belgium, his insincere concern for the natives and his focus on wealth, see here. For the atrocities committed in Congo during his sole control of the colony, see here.
For Julius Caesar’s family tree propaganda, see here where he claims he’s descended from both kings and gods, with specific reference to Venus. Another article here points out that Caesar had coins minted with both Aeneas and Venus on them. For Aeneas’ connection to Romulus and Remus, see here.
For Alexander the Great’s claim of descent from various Greek gods see here. In short, his father’s side of the family claimed to be a descendant of Heracles while his mother’s family claimed Achilles as an ancestor. According to the same article, Alexander’s mother claimed that Zeus was Alexander’s actual dad. In another article, it says that Alexander claimed Zeus as his father (see here) but it’s tough to tell whether he really said it that way and believed it himself or only let people believe that he had divine parentage as a propaganda. Plutarch makes the case that it was propaganda here (see paragraph starting “And another time, when it thundered”).
For the Assyrians tampering with each other’s inscriptions, see comments on pgs. 150-151 of Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 6-7). Master Books. For the time timeline of Ashur-nasir-pal II see pg. 286.
For the smashing of Hatshepsut memorbilia and the timing of Thutmose III’s reign, see here and here.
For the definition of propaganda, and its history, first as a religious organization and later more focused on politics, see here.
For a synopsis of the networks of secret police and internal spying that took place in Nazi Germany during World War II and the Soviet Union and East Germany during the Cold War, see pgs. 8-9 here. For comparison, that source suggests that the Soviet Union employed about one KGB agent for every 5,800 people, the Nazis one Gestapo agent for every 2,000 people, and the Stasi one agent for every 166 people. The maximum value of one informant per 6.5 people (about 15% of the East German population) is based on including Stasi employees as well as estimates of regular and occasional informants.
For the meaning of “Ivory Tower” see here as well as a possible etymology here.
For the reference that men were evil “every day” or “all day long” see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 251). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
One commentary pointed out an inversion between the end of creation and the preliminaries to the Flood. At the end of creation God saw that the Earth was good. At this point, He looked down and the Earth is completely evil. As you go on, the Flood soon turns the Earth back where it began, formless and void and covered in water. For the specifics, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pgs. 137-138). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
For a discussion of God “repenting” and what it means, see note on Genesis 6:6 here, here, here, and here.
From the last episode, some people argue that the “Sons of God” were angels rather than a reference to humans who followed God. One commentary sees Genesis 6:7 as a refutation of that idea since God goes to destroy men, which doesn’t make sense if angels were the ones causing all the corruption.
For the idea that God destroyed a world that had essentially destroyed itself already, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 94). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Scholars debate whether this “120 years” refers to human lifespans, to how long people would live, and means that God would lower their age at death from nearly a thousand years to just 120, or if it means that God would delay judgment on the whole human race for 120 years. Considering the fact that people continued to live longer than 120 years for several centuries and multiple generations after this point, it makes the most sense to see this as God’s ultimatum that He’d be patient with their rebellion for another 120 years, that He’d wait that long for people to realize their mistake and repent, but no longer. One commentary suggests that Genesis 6:3 should be interpreted in the sense of judgment, the same way it is in Jeremiah 30:13. The same word is used in both places (see the lexicons here and here). In Genesis it is translated as “strive,” in Jeremiah, the same word is translated “plead.” Furthermore, 1 Peter 3:20 says that God was patient in the days of Noah, which could be a reference to this 120 year period rather than to patience in general. For more on this point, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 137). Pacific Press Publishing Association. For a variety of opinions on what Genesis is referring to when God says that His Spirit will not abide in man forever, the ESV notes that “abide in,” can also be translated “contend with” (see footnote here). For the idea that this refers to human lifespans being shortened to 120 years, see section 3.2, here where Josephus says the lifespans were shortened to 120 years, but only for the giants. For the 120 years referring to a final chance for people to repent before judgment, see note on Genesis 6:3 here, here, and here, as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 250–251). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers says this 120 years was the time spent building the Ark as does the note on Genesis 6:3 in the commentary here. Some places present both ideas as mentioned in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 90). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press and Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 6:3, note. Zondervan. For an interesting parallel between Egyptian creation stories and this detail about God in Genesis, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7642-7650). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Genesis doesn’t explicitly say God talked to Noah when he was 480 years old. In Genesis 6:3 it says that God’s Spirit wouldn’t contend with men forever and gave them 120 years. 10 verses later God is talking to Noah about destroying the world. The Flood came when Noah was 600 (see Genesis 7:11). The best assumption is to understand God talking to Noah at the start of the 120 years, otherwise if God only told sometime Noah later, the 120 years is an arbitrary figure since no one knew about the impending Flood. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 253). Review and Herald Publishing Association. which mentions that the idea of communicating the destruction of the world to Noah well in advance of the Flood fits with the comment in Amos 3:7 that God warns people before He does something.
For the concept that Noah was honest and virtuous see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 252). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For the idea that Noah was un-hypocritical, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (p. 140). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
For the idea that the first adjective (that Noah was “just”) referred to the relationship between people and Noah and the second (”perfect”) referred to the relationship between God and Noah, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 93–94). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
The comment in Genesis 6:8 that Noah found “favor” in the eyes of the Lord can also be translated “grace,” the first reference to the idea of imputed righteousness in the Bible. As mentioned in the note on Genesis 6:8 here, it shows that Noah had the same flawed human nature as the rest of humanity, but that God pardoned him. This pardon was based on faith as gathered from Hebrews 11:7. For the translation of the word, see the concordance entry here. For this reference in Genesis referring to the same concept as the grace referenced in the New Testament, see the commentary note on Genesis 6:8 here.
For the suggestion that Noah was perfect in the sense of complete faith, and that he had a simple, sincere faith, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (p. 140). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
To compensate for lack of eyesight, people can learn to read by touch and navigate by sound, including telling the difference between a wooden and metal fence.
For the percent of people in the general population affected by dyslexia, see here. The idea that dyslexia could be, for some, an asset in disguise comes Gladwell, M. (2013) David and Goliath (p. 106 or chapter 3 in general). Little Brown and Company. For the suggestion that a third of high level CEOs are dyslexic and that they could enjoy more success due to a greater ability to delegate, see here, the original article Gladwell referenced in his book.
For commentaries talking about “walking with God” and how Noah’s walk resembled that of Enoch, see here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 252). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For “destroy” meaning to wipe the slate clean, see Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 6:5-8, note. Andrews University Press.
The word for ‘Ark’ is the same word that Moses, the author of Genesis, would use when writing Exodus to refer to the little basket he rode in as a baby in the waters of the Nile river (see here. A similar root word to this Hebrew term is an Egyptian word that means “coffin.” For details, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 94–95). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. For the word “ark” used to refer to Egyptian boats on the Nile, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 253). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For the idea of a temple in the shape of a box, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (p. 140). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
For “gopher” being a transliterated name from a Hebrew word rather than a known species of wood, see footnote on Genesis 6:14. For the suggestion that the wood was cypress, see note on Genesis 6:14, here, here, here, here (which also mentions pine and cedar as options) and pg. 125 here which suggests it means a collection of resin-filled woods including cypress as well as pine and cedar. See also Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 95). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. and Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (p. 141). Pacific Press Publishing Association. This source thinks cypress is just a guess, but also goes on to suggest the Biblical Flood was taken from other sources.
For the qualities that make cypress a good choice for a boat-building material, see here which describes it as long-lasting, resistant to water and rot, and good for heavy construction, specifically citing boats as an example of a good use. Furthermore, the industry promotes cypress as rot-resistant due to a naturally occurring preservative, cypressene, impregnated in the wood (see here). For the comment that cypresses can grow straight and tall, see here.
For the story of the cypress doors in Rome that hadn’t decayed in 1100 years, I only could find the anecdote on pg. 125 here. That same source points out that both the Egyptians and Athenians would use cypress to make coffins, presumably for the same reasons of durability.
For the use of cypress to make tar, see here. For “pitch” referring to natural bitumen, see note on Genesis 6:14, here. For the suggestion that ‘pitch’ refers to the sap of the trees used to build the ark, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (p. 141). Pacific Press Publishing Association. Further references can also be found in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 253). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
The size of the ark is given in Genesis 6:15 as 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits. The footnote says a cubit was, “about 18 inches.” Generally speaking, a cubit would be the length of a man’s arm from the tip of the middle finger to his elbow, or about a fourth of his height according to the note on Genesis 6:15 in this commentary, but there’s some debate about the length because different cubits were used in ancient history including cubits from 17.5 to 20.6 inches (see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 252). Review and Herald Publishing Association.) and even ~21.9 inches according Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. One commentary (Nichol, see reference below) uses 20.6 inches, the Egyptian Royal cubit, as the cubit intended for the dimensions of the Ark (a conclusion supported by the article here). Converting to feet, that would make the Ark something like 515 feet long, over 85 feet wide, and over 51 feet high. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 253). Review and Herald Publishing Association. As far as ulterior motives for “picking” a cubit, one might be tempted to think that saying the cubit was on the long side makes it easier to combat arguments that Noah didn’t have enough room for all the animals and food, but there are trade-offs. More interior space makes it easier to fit the cargo, but it also means the ship is bigger and opens up the claim that it was too big of a wooden ship to survive in all but the calmest of seas. For more on the size question, see other show notes, below.
For a discussion of this window near the top of the ark, see note on Genesis 6:16 here and Genesis 6:15 here as well as Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 95). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Most of us don’t really have a sense of how big the Titanic, or any ship, really was, but since people always measure ships by the scale of the Titanic, see the dimensions here. The height of the ship from keel to bridge is given as 104 feet on pg. 22 here.
For a list of arguments against the validity of the ark, see one article here. It lists weaknesses of big wooden ships, problems with rotting, and the dangers of launching and landing a big vessel in shallow water (among other issues). The idea of big wooden ships being fragile isn’t a new. It’s mentioned in a note on Genesis 6:15 in the commentary here, written as far back as 1885 according to publication information here. For a description of the weaknesses of wooden joints and the oakum used to seal wood that contacts water, see the paragraph here that begins, "Wood joints are also nearly all stationary." For a definition of “oakum,” see here.
I found several points about how to build a robust wooden ship the scale of the Ark that Noah built in this article from the Answers in Genesis ministry. Since that ministry has a vested interest in proving the story of the Ark to be historically feasible, it makes for a biased source. At the same time, the article is detailed, footnoted, and well-reasoned, and, given their focus on the topic, biased or not, they are probably well versed on the practicality of large wooden boats. If you want more detail than the summary points in the podcast, see that link. For general details on carvel-framing of ships, see this article that describes its edge-to-edge structure and weakness in heavy seas. For diagrams of Chinese ships using interior bulkheads for watertight compartments starting in 410 A.D., see here.
For the scale of the ships built by the Chinese for the expeditions in the 1400s, see this article. For the lengths of ships in ancient times, see the table on the second page of the article here. That source lists the length of Ptolemy’s Forty as 103.6 meters (336 feet) but the original description from Plutarch says 280 cubits (see here, or 420 feet, assuming a cubit was 18 inches. As I mentioned earlier, cubits could range in length from 17.5 inches to 20.9 inches, so using 18 as the conversion factor is conservative. If the cubit in Genesis is identical in length to the cubit Plutarch uses, then the Ark’s 300 cubits was only, maybe, 30-35 feet longer than the Egyptian galley Plutarch describes.
For the rot resistance of the Bald cypress found in the U.S., see pg. 26 here. It’s unclear from that source whether rot resistance translates to other species of cypress. In any case, we don’t know what species of cypress Noah used or if Gopher wood was something else entirely. Beyond the durability of cypress, Noah might’ve also used pitch along the way rather than only at the end of the project (as mentioned here). Working that way would keep moisture level up in the timber so it didn’t dry too quickly and warp or split.
The suggestion that the Ark was built at the top of a hill may be supported by Genesis 7:17 which describes the Ark being lifted up as if the water rose beneath it rather than washed down or washed along as you’d expect if it was hit by moving water from the side rather than rising water from below.
For a comparison of the proportions of the Ark to modern container ships, I used values gathered from the charts on this site (note that ”Depth,” in nautical terms, is defined here). Taking the center of the range from the charts at several different TEUs (twenty-foot-equivalents, referring to the container size according to this source), I calculated the ratio of ship length to beam (width), ship length to depth, and ship beam to depth. For those ratios, the Ark is 6, 10, and 1.67 compared to the average across all the TEUs for modern container ships which yields 6.94, 12.39, and 1.79. The proportions of the Ark are quite close to the ideal values modern naval architects use.
The reference to the 1993 study about the seaworthiness of the Ark versus other hull designs is cited by multiple creation-promoting ministries including Answers in Genesis (see here). The text of the article can be found here which makes it clear that the research was supported by the Korea Association of Creation Research. This again brings up the question of bias, but at the same time, there are few unbiased organizations discussing the feasibility of building Noah’s Ark. For the definition of seakeeping, see here.
Other Flood stories can’t argue good ship design the way you can using the proportions in Genesis. The Assyrian story of the Flood doesn’t say how long the boat was, but does say it was as tall as it was wide, which sounds like a recipe for capsizing. In one Babylonian record, the ratio of the length to the width was only 2.5, while, in other records, it was a square, nowhere close to the proportions people use in designing large ships today. For comments from Berossus as well as Assyrian traditions about the boats that survived the Flood, see note on Genesis 6:15 here. For the dimensions of the ship that survived the Flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh see pg. 20 here.
For the idea that humans can’t be saved without God, but that God doesn’t force them to be saved, see note on Genesis 6:13 here.
Update: I updated a note on 2/16/2021 to give more support to the conclusion that the 120 years referenced in Genesis 6 are the time remaining until the Flood and not a measure of men's future lifespans.