Gen 9:20 Weird Statement

Weird statement that I don't understand that seems to be directly refuted in Gen 8:21 where the wickedness of man's heart is reaffirmed.
In my opinion this last statement, "The sin of humankind that began with Adam had been erased" is unhelpful and inaccurate.

Find more posts tagged with

Resources

Comments

tom

Weird statement that I don't understand that seems to be directly refuted in Gen 8:21 where the wickedness of man's heart is reaffirmed.
In my opinion this last statement, "The sin of humankind that began with Adam had been erased" is unhelpful and inaccurate.

I agree. I will also say that the first part (Noah is the first person described as being born after the death of Adam) is also not accurate. Scripture only talks about one line of genealogy. There were many many many other lines of genealogy, other births, and impossible to say that Noah was the first person to be born after the death of Adam.

Simon’s Brother

Agree this is conflicts with the Gen 8:21 and the note on Gen 8:21 in FSB. I am posting a reference to this forum post on the FSB Users Forum at faithlife.com. The FSB editor's monitor that forum fairly well.

https://faithlife.com/fsb-users/activity

David Paul

I'm guessing here...that the intention of the statement is that YHWH, by the flood, eradicated the sinful element of creation that existed at that time--which He did...up to a point. Of course, there is the whole Ham incident. Apparently, sin, like a rat, snuck aboard the ark as a stow away. [li]

Jerry M

The note in Gen 9:20 is badly worded to say the least. "I am a man of unclean lips and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips", there is the personal and the social aspect of sin. I think the author of the note intended it to be taken in the social sense.

Michael Grigoni

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/401324#Comment_401324

Thanks for the discussion regarding the note on Gen 9:20. We’ve
made an edit that will be included in the upcoming update. When the update goes
live, I invite you to forward any remaining feedback at editor@logos.com.

Jacob Hantla

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/401714#Comment_401714

Thanks for the discussion regarding the note on Gen 9:20. We’ve
made an edit that will be included in the upcoming update. When the update goes
live, I invite you to forward any remaining feedback at editor@logos.com.

When we have feedback in the future should we just email it to editor@logos.com rather than forums?

Michael Grigoni

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/401811#Comment_401811

We regularly check the editor@logos.com email address, so it's the best way to ensure that your feedback receives prompt attention. Thanks again for the feedback.

Alan Charles Gielczyk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/401272#Comment_401272

Weird statement that I don't understand that seems to be directly refuted in Gen 8:21 where the wickedness of man's heart is reaffirmed.
In my opinion this last statement, "The sin of humankind that began with Adam had been erased" is unhelpful and inaccurate.
I agree. I will also say that the first part (Noah is the first person described as being born after the death of Adam) is also not accurate. Scripture only talks about one line of genealogy. There were many many many other lines of genealogy, other births, and impossible to say that Noah was the first person to be born after the death of Adam.

It says Noah was the first person described as being born after the death of Adam. It does NOT say Noah was the first person born after the death of Adam.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402059#Comment_402059

Weird statement that I don't understand that seems to be directly refuted in Gen 8:21 where the wickedness of man's heart is reaffirmed.
In my opinion this last statement, "The sin of humankind that began with Adam had been erased" is unhelpful and inaccurate.
I agree. I will also say that the first part (Noah is the first person described as being born after the death of Adam) is also not accurate. Scripture only talks about one line of genealogy. There were many many many other lines of genealogy, other births, and impossible to say that Noah was the first person to be born after the death of Adam.

It says Noah was the first person described as being born after the death of Adam. It does NOT say Noah was the first person born after the death of Adam.

Agree. As I read it that part of the note, it is not suggesting Noah was the first person born after Adam's death, just the first person mentioned in the biblical text as being born after Noah.

EDIT: A balance has to be stuck between clarifying every statement the notes make, and keeping them exactly that - notes. And the danger with providing a clarification of that statement is it can then up sounding as if the note is saying it doesn't agree with the biblical text. I believe this part of the narrative is a history, but not in the modern sense of history. It's redemption history, its HIS story and so only details relevant to that are reported. There may well be other's born after Adam's death, before Noah's birth, but in terms of the story the biblical narrative is telling,the genealogy it is presenting, Noah's is the significant one and so told of it first in the scriptures.

Keeping that in mind I don't have an issue with the statement , "Noah is the first person described as being born after the death of Adam" but if it were to be made more 'explicit', how about something along the lines of:

"In the biblical narrative, Noah's birth is seen to be significant; it is the first birth after the Adam's death the Gen 5 genealogy describes"

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402059#Comment_402059

It says Noah was the first person described as being born after the death of Adam. It does NOT say Noah was the first person born after the death of Adam.

I disagree, when I read the statement, it sounds like to me that the author is saying Noah was the first person born after the death of Adam.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402183#Comment_402183

Okay, Tom. What do you think is the purpose of the word "described" in the meaning of sentence? I do agree that when one is reading, the sentence is easily misread.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402245#Comment_402245

Okay, Tom. What do you think is the purpose of the word "described" in the meaning of sentence?

lol [:P]

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402245#Comment_402245

Okay, Tom. What do you think is the purpose of the word "described" in the meaning of sentence? I do agree that when one is reading, the sentence is easily misread.

For me, the way the word "described" is being used as saying "as written in the bible" Therefore, I read this statement as "Noah is the first person described [as written in the bible] as being born after the death of Adam." For me, the author using the word described is also saying, 'I didn't say this, it is written in the bible. Go and check it out for yourself. There is nothing in the author's statement that limits his/her comments to just one lineage.

I will even say that we cannot say that Noah is the first person born after the death of Adam because what is listed is first born males. We do know that Noah had brothers and sisters. What we do not know is if any of his sisters were older than Noah. '

Randy W. Sims

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402345#Comment_402345

Noah is the first person described as being born after the death of Adam. His birth, ... signify continuity with Adam ... The connections ... cast Noah as a new Adam.

The way the whole paragraph is worded and structured looks to me like they are trying to demonstrate continuity. The next sentence and the paragraph as a whole seem to indicate that they are making a deliberate link from the death of Adam to the birth of Noah to show continuity.

Alan Charles Gielczyk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402345#Comment_402345

Okay, Tom. What do you think is the purpose of the word "described" in the meaning of sentence? I do agree that when one is reading, the sentence is easily misread.

For me, the way the word "described" is being used as saying "as written in the bible" Therefore, I read this statement as "Noah is the first person described [as written in the bible] as being born after the death of Adam." For me, the author using the word described is also saying, 'I didn't say this, it is written in the bible. Go and check it out for yourself. There is nothing in the author's statement that limits his/her comments to just one lineage.

I will even say that we cannot say that Noah is the first person born after the death of Adam because what is listed is first born males. We do know that Noah had brothers and sisters. What we do not know is if any of his sisters were older than Noah. '

You are inferring much more than is being implied.

Paul Golder

"The sin of humankind that began with Adam had been erased" is unhelpful and inaccurate.

Very true:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Romans 5:12–14

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402362#Comment_402362

"The sin of humankind that began with Adam had been erased" is unhelpful and inaccurate.

Very true:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Romans 5:12–14

Not bothering to understand a person in their own terms (intentions) and judging them (or their comments) without considering the context of their intention is unnecessarily confrontational and leads to animosity when it doesn't have to.

Might the FSB comments in the OP have been more deftly worded? Sure. But again, just as I summarized, it seems clear that the intention of that writer (whoever it was) was to make reference to the sinfulness of the world that existed at that time (i.e. the sinfulness that was being judged by means of the flood). To assume that the writer was referring to all sin through time is to foist onto his words a meaning that almost certainly wasn't intended. Was sin destroyed for all time by the flood? Of course not...and I'm quite sure the writer would never suggest or imagine that it had been. To react as if that was the person's intention is to be guilty of an error no better than whatever the writer was guilty of in not being as clear as some readers might have preferred.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402345#Comment_402345

For me, the way the word "described" is being used as saying "as written in the bible"

Thanks, Tom. I see why you interpret it as you do. It is a reasonable reading although not how I read it.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402434#Comment_402434

To react as if that was the person's intention is to be guilty of an error no better than whatever the writer was guilty of in not being as clear as some readers might have preferred.

Point taken David, but in this case we do not have the writer's intentions, we only have his words. For me (and I would imagine most others), when commenting on a biblical narrative, nothing is more important than choosing words that accurately reflect my thoughts.

Just saying.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402492#Comment_402492

Just saying.

Say on. On that point I certainly agree.

Jacob Hantla

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402553#Comment_402553

The new edit is much easier to not misunderstand. Still not sure that all of this can be gleaned from "Noah began to be a man of the soil" as that may merely explain where the wine came from with which he became drunk. Nevertheless, it is a much better entry now. Thanks:

The parallel to Adam is evident and deliberate (see 2:5, 15) and signifies continuity with Adam’s original blessing and mandated task. Taken together, the account of Noah’s birth (5:29), his deliverance from the flood, the repetition of the command to “be fruitful and multiply” (8:17), and this description of his occupation cast Noah as a new Adam: Creation finds renewal after the flood, and the relationship between God and humanity begins anew.1

1 Barry, J. D., Grigoni, M. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Mangum, D., & Whitehead, M. M. (2012). Faithlife Study Bible (Ge 9:20). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402843#Comment_402843

Commentaries are not inherently statements of fact...they are expressions of what people see.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402481#Comment_402481

For me, the way the word "described" is being used as saying "as written in the bible"

Thanks, Tom. I see why you interpret it as you do. It is a reasonable reading although not how I read it.

I respect you read it that way Tom, though personally even if I read it the way you are suggesting I still don't take it to mean that the biblical writer is saying. Noah was the first person born after Adam's death. I just take it as the establishing a link between the main characters in the narrative of salvation history. My expectation of the genre is to not expect it to provide every link in the chain of historical chronology. Rather the biblical writer is including only people and events relevant to the 'biblical theology' he is trying to establish (as working under the direction of the Holy Spirit). of why man needs a Saviour, why Christ came and died for us. All that said I respect you have read it differently and appreciate you explaining how you have read it differently. Its a good reminder to not make assumptions based on our own perceptions of how others might interpret what is being communicated.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402860#Comment_402860

Commentaries are not inherently statements of fact...they are expressions of what people see.

[Y]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/402345#Comment_402345

For me, the way the word "described" is being used as saying "as written in the bible" Therefore, I read this statement as "Noah is the first person described [as written in the bible] as being born after the death of Adam." For me, the author using the word described is also saying, 'I didn't say this, it is written in the bible. Go and check it out for yourself. There is nothing in the author's statement that limits his/her comments to just one lineage.

I will even say that we cannot say that Noah is the first person born after the death of Adam because what is listed is first born males. We do know that Noah had brothers and sisters. What we do not know is if any of his sisters were older than Noah. '

Taking this approach is unnecessarily oppressive since it gives supremacy to all possible arguments from silence. Perhaps more than any other book ever written, the Bible is concerned about what is contained within its pages...and very little about what is not. "Described" may not be the correct word since a significant bit of math calculation is involved to arrive at the conclusion, but IF the calculation bears out, then the statement's purpose, shining light on the established fact that Noah was the first Biblical character born after Adam's death is a legitimate and prophetically important nugget. Possible others who might have come into existence between Adam's death and Noah's birth are superfluous and NOT WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION from a prophetic prospective.

While the statement in question from the OP might have been more deftly and carefully worded, its statements are not materially incorrect (assuming the math bears out).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403199#Comment_403199

its statements are not materially incorrect (assuming the math bears out).

[Y]