For records about the Labor Day Storm of 1935, see here. That site terms the Labor Day storm as the “most intense” to make landfall on record. I used the phrase “strongest” but that, of course, depends on how one defines a storm. For a detailed story about the storm, see here and further background here. For normal atmospheric pressure, see here. The articles on the Labor Day storm didn’t use the phrase storm surge, but referred to the effects of tides and waves causing damage to a railroad 30 feet above sea level. For the background of what causes a storm surge, see here. For the elevation of the Florida keys, see here which suggests most of the land area is 3-4 feet above sea level and here which refers to some of the highest elevations being 5 meters (about 18 feet). For the effects of 200 mile per hour winds in a storm, see here and here as well as here.

For the year the Flood occurred, as well as the year of creation, see the timeline given in Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pg. 278). Master Books.

For a discussion of the timeline of events for the seven days preceding the start of the Flood, see show notes on Episode 12.

Genesis doesn’t give specifics about what happened outside the Ark on the morning the Flood began, but given evidence around the world, as well as the first-hand accounts we have of smaller-scale natural disasters, we can make some educated guesses.

For the idea that the world was free of clouds and rain until the start of the Flood, see discussion in Episode 12.

For how thunderstorms form, see here. For how lightning is formed, and other interesting facts, see here. For the speed of updrafts in a thunderstorm, see here.

There are more interesting kinds of lightning than just cloud-to-cloud or cloud-to-ground lightning including things dubbed “blue jets,” “sprites,” and “elves,” some of which were only recently discovered. For details, see here.

For the prevalence of lightning in the world today, see here. For the number of lightning storms occurring around the world every day, see here.

For factors that cause certain thunderstorms to have more lightning than others, see here. For more on the Catatumbo lightning in Venezuela, see here.

If the Ark was built on top of a hill, perhaps they planted trees around it as natural lightning rods (see here. For what happens when a tree is hit by lightning, see here.

I assume the rain fell quite hard since it was a main factor in a global Flood meant to kill everything on land, but that’s an assumption. Most of the water could have come from the fountains of the deep.

For the amount of rain that fell on Reunion Island in 2007, see here. For the location of Reunion Island, see here.

For the record amount of rain in one minute, see here.

Though the Bible doesn’t say there were no volcanoes prior to the Flood, that is, perhaps, the most reasonable guess, especially if the world had a stable and rain-free environment as discussed in the last episode.

For the definition of springs and geysers, see here and here.

The “fountains of the deep” in Genesis 7 most closely describe natural springs or geysers (see lexicon reference here), but there are a few reasons to suspect that these eruptions involved more than just water. First, volcanoes were probably absent at creation. Choking clouds of ash don’t fit a common understanding of the phrase, “very good” from Genesis 1:31. This suggests that the plate tectonics we study today began with the Flood. If so, the volcanoes that often occur at plate boundaries (see here) would also first appear at the Flood. Secondly, the geology of the Earth shows evidence of very large volcanoes that are dated to times before recorded history (see here). Assuming the timeline in the Bible to be correct, these volcanoes had to occur sometime after the start of the Flood, with it most likely that they occurred during the Flood or immediately after it as the Earth settled down into its new geography. Thus, while Genesis refers to “fountains” with an emphasis on water, it is perhaps reasonable to speculate that volcanoes were also associated with the break-up of Earth’s crust.

For details on Paricutin volcano, see here, here, and here, and here.

For the suggestion that hydrogen sulfide smells like rotting eggs, see here.

For more on Mount St. Helens, see here.

For scale, Mount St. Helens released about 0.3 cubic miles of ash when it erupted (see here). Krakatoa sent up 6 cubic miles of ash (see here). Tambora released 36 cubic miles. I mentioned Tambora in the first episode of WiderBible when it was the cause, in 1816, of New England’s “year without a summer.” For more details, see here.

For the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, see here for the reference to 1 cubic mile of ash and here for the lowering of global temperatures due to the ash reaching the upper atmosphere.

For the size of the pre-historic New Zealand volcano, see here. For comparing to Tambora, I used the 530 cubic kilometer value and converted it to cubic miles. For the size of the Yellowstone Huckleberry Ridge volcano, see the image here, which also includes other large eruptions scaled to relative areas.

Even today, likely as aftershocks of the Flood, there are still more than 1500 active volcanoes on Earth. For more, see here.

For the story of Vesuvius and the destruction and rediscovery of Pompeii, see here. For the use of plaster to make statues of people in their last moments and the example of a possible family of four caught trying to escape, see here. For a plaster cast of a dog, see here. For a horse, see here. For a plaster cast of someone crawling, see here. For a cast of someone clenching their hand, see here. For the remains of people huddled together in boat houses, in this case in the also-buried town of Herculaneum, see here.

Pliny the Younger’s story of his uncle, Pliny the Elder (who died in the eruption) can be found in book 6, part 16, here.

Recent sources of acid rain were industrial, but volcanoes, perhaps a major factor in the Flood, also put out the same acid rain prerequisites that can lead to rainstorms with a pH of 3.0 as well as acid fogs. For more, see here. For acid rain erosion of marble and limestone, see here. For sources of acid rain, see here.

For the dangers of flash floods, see here and here.

For the flooding of the Yangtze river in 1931, see here.

For details on the Malpasset Dam breach, see information about the town down stream, here, a discussion of causes of the failure, here, and interviews of people who lived through it here.

For details about the causes of landslides and mudslides, see here. Landslides and dam failures can combine to make disasters, too. In 1841, a landslide in Pakistan blocked the Indus river for 5 months. Then, in June, that natural dam burst sending a 100 foot tall wall of water down through the valley wreaking havoc. For more, see here.

For the landslide in Elm, Switzerland, see here.

For the events in Lituya bay, Alaska, in 1958, see here. For the height of the Empire State Building, see here.

I said “tidal wave” when I should have said “tsunami.” A tidal wave is due to the effect of tides. Less accurately, it also refers to waves caused by wind (see here and here). I should have said “tsunami.” A tsunami is caused by an earthquake or a volcano erupting under water (see here).

In the note on Genesis 7:21-24, one commentary goes so far as to make the reasonable suggestion that some of the people fleeing the Flood probably tried to grab on to the Ark or climb on top of it, only to be washed off or otherwise perish.

We assume Noah warned the people of the world about the Flood (see show note on Episode 12 for details). How many people is an open question. In terms of the world population, it is not hard to get billions or even trillions of people in the world at the time of the Flood, but that’s just based on population growth math from an assumed number of children each couple had and the gap between generations. On the note for Genesis 7:21, one source referred to calculations that offered somewhere between 11 billion and 80 billion in world population. I assume the global population was probably in the millions or billions at the Flood, but the upper bound could be much higher. For more on pre-Flood population growth, see Episode 9 and the show notes associated with it.

With the Flood, God wiped out the world Himself, but with the Canaannites (likely the same as the Phoenicians, see here) a thousand years later He delegated the task to the Israelites, trying to get them to do locally what He’d done globally. The results were uninspiring. The Israelites failed to follow-through on their orders and ended up mixing their religion with the religions they were supposed to destroy, ultimately joining in the crimes God had condemned, and then going even further than the people before them. For God’s command to destroy the kingdoms of Canaan, a region along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean sea (noted here, see Deuteronomy 7:1-5. For the results of failing to destroy the nations who opposed the worship of God, see Judges 2:1-3. For the Israelites doing even worse things than those people from the nations before them, see 2 Kings 21:9. For the years of the Flood and the conquest of Canaan, see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pg. 278). Master Books.

For religion being an unavoidable part of Phoenician culture as well as examples of the places they used for worship, see here. The Phoenician Baal could refer to either a local god “a baal” or the specific head deity “Baal” according this source as well as Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 104). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For the mythology of Baal, including incest and bestiality, see here, here, and here. For Baal fighting the deity who ruled the waters in order to become king of the gods, see here.

Asherah was associated with Astarte according to this article as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. It’s possible the two names were thought of as separate goddesses, but if so, Astarte was still a part of the Phoenician pantheon, so her influence on their culture remains whether she and Asherah were the same or separate deities. Asherah is referred to as a mother goddess with El as the father, and also as Baal’s consort in this reference, but I couldn’t tell if Baal was supposedly her son or came from somewhere else. For Astarte’s association with love and war, see here. For the worship of Astarte being associated with prostitution, see here.

For records of child sacrifices among the Phoenicians, see here for where it mentions them being brought to Astarte, pg. 470 here where it refers to them being brought to Molech and describes the sacrifice, and here where it suggests Molech and Baal were, at least in some cases, the same deity. For other name alternatives, see here. For comparisons of different translations, see here.) The description of the sacrifices to Molech, given in the above reference, is talking about things done during the time of Solomon, not Moses, but I assume similar things were going on previously. For more references to sacrifices to Molech, see here. The note on 2 Chronicles 28:3, here suggests that these sorts of sacrifices really took place and were not just a “passing through the fire” but literally involved burning the child. Even so, that source goes on to suggest that this was probably only done in extreme cases. For God’s direct comment against this practice, see Jeremiah 32:35.

Carthage was founded by the Phoenicians, see here. In Carthage they find the remains of children and animals underneath inscriptions that refer to sacrifices. There’s debate about whether the remains are from sacrifices or a regular child cemetery. One article supports the idea that they were indeed the remnants of sacrifices and also combats the idea that they were postmortem sacrifices by pointing out that offering an already dead child to the gods wouldn’t be much of an offering. To investigate the question further, researchers analyzed the teeth in these graves to determine the ages of the children when they died and found that infants under 3-months old are statistically over-represented in the sample, suggesting that young children were indeed sacrificed. For more, see here. On the opposite side, this article suggests the evidence points to the fact that child sacrifice occurred, but that the burial places included other children as well. That said, historical authors such as Plutarch (see here) and Diodorus Siculus (see pg. 343 here) reference the Carthaginians sacrificing children, though they’re open to the accusation of just offering Roman propaganda that vilified the Carthaginians.

As for the appeal of the Phoenician religion, that’s an open question. One argument could be the draw of hedonism in the religion as mentioned here. I imagine other things contributed to the attraction of the religion as well, including the power structure of priests and kings who could use the fear of the gods as a method of maintaining control over the population at large. One other argument for the appeal of idolatry was its low standards which were easier for adherents to meet according to Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 519). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Support for the idea that it really took 120 years to build the Ark can be found in the show notes on Episode 11.

For an overview of the Babylonian flood story, see here. For the gods’ agreement that no humans should be warned, see Tablet 11 here. For one god’s warning to a human, see here. There is a close relationship between the Sumerian, Babylonian, and other Mesopotamian flood stories as seen here.

For the patience of God in the instances listed in the episode, see Genesis 4:1-15 for God’s patience with Cain and Genesis 6:1-7 for God’s patience here before the start of the Flood. You can also see God’s patience in at another time when God removed a specific people group on Earth. That story comes just a few chapters after the Flood in Genesis 19 with the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain. In that case, Sodom was already known as an evil city (see Genesis 18:22-33 where Abraham was hoping at least 10 good people could be found in it). Two angels are investigating the city when last straw comes as all the men of the city, both young and old, gather around a house and start a riot attempting to rape the two angelic visitors. In the story, not only did God delay judgment and punishment until due diligence was finished, He rescued the only people willing to leave the city, just 3 of them, and they far from examples of virtue. (Lot is called a righteous man in 2 Peter 2:7, but it’s fair to say Genesis 19 records some significant blemishes).

For the reference to God waiting another 400 years until the inhabitants of Canaan had completed their “iniquity” see Genesis 15:13-16. That reference refers specifically to the Amorites who are included among a list of nations the Israelites were supposed to drive out in Deuteronomy 7:1-2. Presumably the other nations listed were descendants of the Amorites of Abraham’s time or otherwise behaved in similar fashion to the Amorites mentioned in Genesis 15.

Many of the features of Phoenician religion can also be found in Greek and Egyptian mythology (and other places) including the myths of Leda, Ganymede, and Europa in Greece and the mythology of Isis in Egypt. It would be nice if human sacrifice was the detail that set the Phoenicians apart, but many cultures have that as a part of their history or mythology including the Romans (see reference below), Greeks (see here), and the British Druids (see here), not to mention Aztecs and Incans in the New World (see here). Given these other examples, it’s hard to tell why the Phoenicians were singled out by God for destruction in Deuteronomy 7:1-2. Perhaps they were more committed to their religion and unwavering in following through. We can’t say for all communities, but at least in Rome, while they committed various atrocities, human sacrifice was viewed in a negative light, even if they sometimes did it, suggesting there was yet some hope for them to change (see here and here). While we don’t know for certain why God designated one group of people for destruction while allowing other groups who did much the same thing live, we can get some insight from the story of Sodom, referenced above, where God begins by saying He will investigate Sodom to see if it is altogether as bad as He’d heard (Genesis 18:20-21 giving us an indication that God doesn’t act impetuously, but with careful judgment. In short, God knows the big picture while we only dimly see part of it and, as such, can only make our best guess as to why one group was allowed to go on while another was destroyed.

For support for the idea that what people did wasn’t the real issue but rather their unwillingness to change, see Hebrews 13:8 that says that Jesus doesn’t change and John 10:30 which declares that Jesus and God are the same. 1 John 1:9 comments that sins are forgiven when we admit them, and, by extension, when we ask that they be forgiven. 1 Peter 3:9 emphasizes that God (text says “the Lord”) doesn’t want anyone to die, but to repent instead. The Old Testament bears this out as the entire collection of books is a record of people rebelling against God and being forgiven when they repent. From this, perhaps these people were destroyed because they no longer had any inkling to repent so nothing more could be done for them.

The idea that unwillingness to change, to abandon sin, is a key feature of the crimes of the Phoenicians and the people before the Flood might be supported by a statement Jesus makes in Matthew 12:31. In that passage Jesus declares that “blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” Some commentaries consider this blasphemy to occur when someone rejects what they know to be true (see France, R. T. (1985). Matthew: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 1, p. 214). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press). Tyndale refers to it as, “Sin against the Holy Ghost is despising of the gospel and his working” (see note on Matthew 12:31, here. Perhaps the Phoenicians in the kingdoms along the east coast of the Mediterranean sea and the people living before the Flood so purposely and habitually rejected God’s call that they no longer had any interest in repenting and coming back to Him. In those cases, since God will not force people, there is nothing more He can do to save them, but that is speculation. For more, see the sentence beginning, “But if, when the Holy Ghost is given” in the commentary here.

There is precedent in other stories in the Bible for people changing their behavior and repenting and God calling off the impending disaster, with perhaps the best example being the short book of Jonah.

For the back-and-forth of a reporter and a Biblical scholar discussing the justice of God, in which the idea that God committed genocide comes up, as well as the issue of “innocent” people who died in the Flood, see here.

I try to avoid overly graphic details, but I wanted to give some sense of the types of crimes God may have been trying to stop when He sent the Flood. If the same things were going on in Noah’s day as occurred in Canaan when God sent the Israelites in to destroy the kingdoms there, God wasn’t being cruel, but merciful by stopping people intent on causing suffering to others. If God didn’t intervene, wouldn’t we accuse Him of injustice in letting such abuses go on? This is the no-win situation the Christian faces. Either God is cruel for punishing those who make others suffer or God is cruel for failing to prevent such suffering.

From our perspective today, it’s not hard to make the case that the punishment of destroying the world with a Flood did fit the crime regardless of the specifics of the crimes people were committing. Supporting this is the fact stated in Romans 6:23 that wages of sin is death, but you can see these “wages” as a punishment or as a natural consequence. God is the source of life. When Adam and Eve sinned, they rejected God and, by extension, rejected life. The fact that they didn’t die right away has more to do with God delaying the consequences of their choice. In the case of people before the Flood, God isn’t being cruel to them, He’s granting them the freedom to make their own choices, even if that decision leads to their death. If God forced the people to live when they had rejected Him, the source of life, that would be injustice for it would remove from those people the freedom to decide for themselves whether they wanted to live and be around God or be away from Him. Adam and Eve might’ve died the moment they rejected God, but God waited to see if they, or their children would change their minds before letting them have the natural consequences of leaving God, life, behind, and choosing death.

The destruction of the world before the Flood might bring up questions, but it’s interesting to note that commentaries written in the last few-hundred years don’t seem to have any concerns about the death of so many people outside the Ark. Perhaps they viewed their destruction as a fitting result for their crimes and didn’t feel a need to elaborate. Instead, more than one author discusses the death of so many animals (see note on Genesis 7:21 here, here, and here for examples) and suggest that eight people would be overwhelmed by so many animals if they’d all been left alive (see Exodus 23:28-30 for a parallel concept) or that the animals, as being under man’s authority, had to share in man’s punishment.

Assuming the parallel between the wickedness before the Flood and the crimes of the Canaanites is true, what’s more concerning than God’s judgment on the people before the Flood is the fact that today we worry about God’s injustice to those people, suggesting that modern society has come to accept those sorts of crimes as commonplace and no longer recognizes their true heinous character the way God does. For this concept, see the abstract to the article found here.

In destroying everyone in the world except for the eight people on the Ark, there’s still the problem of the “innocent” people. These people would be the ones who were prevented from getting to the Ark by others, young children who were incapable of traveling on their own, or babies below the age where they would be responsible for their choices. These “innocents” do present a problem, but only a hypothetical one. “Innocent” people are only a hypothetical idea. Genesis 6 emphasizes that the whole world was evil continually. There weren’t innocent people around, only wicked people. Regarding children, there are a few ideas. First, due to the anomaly of Noah not having children until he was already 500 (see Genesis 5:32), one article suggested that there weren’t many children in the world at this point. Second, with rampant crime, continual violence, and a society obsessed with pleasure and selfishness, people may not have had children or may have gotten rid of unwanted babies. Third, if the people before the Flood engaged in the child sacrifice that is recorded later in Canaan, perhaps few children were left. This isn’t a complete answer to the question, nor is it a proof, only some plausible explanations. We don’t know enough of the details in this story to prove God was just. Instead the Bible gives us many evidences of God’s love, and then leaves us the choice of deciding whether or not to trust Him in the instances where we don’t know enough to grasp the big picture.

One commentary (see reference below) suggests the Flood was a form of salvation for the righteous and considers the “destruction” of everyone else closer to the concept of “erasing,” which fits with the idea that God was returning most of the world to a pre-creation state during the Flood. For more, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pgs. 138-140). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

One could argue about more “humane” ways to destroy the world than with a Flood, but the method of destruction probably needed to accomplish more than just removing the people from the Earth, it also needed to wash the world clean of the evidences of their debauchery. If God used a different method of destruction, and left the record of their crimes clearly visible, it might work as a shortcut to people in the future going down the same path. Instead, by wiping the world clean, for people to engage in the same wickedness, they would have to start from scratch and figure it out for themselves rather than picking up where the previous rebels left off. Beyond this factor, the pre-Flood world, so near to creation, was probably quite fertile despite the curse on the ground in Genesis 3:17-19. This fertility would, perhaps, have made it much easier to grow food than it is today. Maybe, by removing that fertility with the Flood, God made survival a greater challenge, decreasing the time available for people to engage in the evil that pre-occupied a world blessed with so much ease.

At the very end of the rising waters, with the Ark the only thing left, you can imagine people trying to get inside, but God closed the door, and He didn’t open it again. For God closing the door on Noah to protect him from people outside, see speculation from various commentators in the note on Genesis 7:13-16 here, the note on Genesis 7:16 here, and the note on Genesis 7:15 here.

For a brief history of the Channel Tunnel (or “chunnel” as I learned it) see here. As far as the timeline of the Chunnel, the idea was revived sincerely in 1986 according to the first link, but there was lots of history there including plans in 1802 by Napoleon and a mile long start in 1880 that the developer abandoned as mentioned here.

For the story of the Three Gorges Dam in China, see here. The 12-year timeline doesn’t include the planning and debate (which went back to the 1920s) or building the construction access roads (that began in 1993) or the subsequent installation of generators and boat lifts (which finished in 2015). Even then, from the earliest actual work to the current state, it took only 22 years (1993 - 2015).

For the time it took to build cathedrals during the middle ages, see here for details on the building of Notre Dame, and here and here for the location of York and the building of the cathedral there.

In this episode, I use the terms “boat” and “ship” interchangeably. This might upset some people. Generally speaking a “boat” is smaller than a “ship,” or refers to a submarine (see here), or, according to this reference, is less than 40 feet long. According to one article the debate about the words goes back over a hundred years. For me, I use both “ship” and “boat” to refer to the Ark because I like variety.

For details on the size of the Ark compared to the Titanic see show notes on Episode 11, here.

We can’t say whether Noah did or didn’t have any boatbuilding experience, but even if he had some background, even the most expert shipwright, given the task of building the Ark, would probably do some research on how to build such a large ship before jumping right in.

God gave Noah the design of the Ark, but either the record we have in Genesis is just the overview, and God gave a lot more specifics than those few lines (which I think is likely) or God gave Noah the only parts he needed to know, and left out details that Noah was capable of figuring out for himself. In my estimation, there could be truth to both theories: God told Noah more than Genesis records, and Noah still had to figure out other less critical details for himself.

For the calculation that it was cheaper to haul grain across the Mediterranean from Egypt to Rome than it was to haul it 75 miles over land, see the second page of the article here, pg. 262 in the journal.

For a moment-by-moment list of the launch procedures of the Titanic when it descended the slipway, see here. For a more general description of slipway launches, see here on pgs. 161-163.

The ship sheds found in Piraeus are speculated to have housed the Athenian fleet that may have taken part in defending Greece from a Persian invasion around 480 BC. For more, see here, here, and here. For more on Piraeus, see here.

This source also gives some details of ship launching, including the addition of a side-launch, which is a more recent method than using a rear-launch slipway.

For issues and considerations when using a slipway to launch a ship, see pg. 287 here as well as pg. 162 here which I referenced earlier.

For the disastrous slipway launch of the SS Princessa Jolanda, see here and here. The images here make it clear that it was a stern-first launch.

For the definition of a dry dock and its use, see here and here. The second link emphasizes that lots of planning and experience are needed to properly slide a ship into the water.

For the use of a dry dock by the Egyptians around 200 BC, see here which describes the ship and it’s launch in detail. In the episode, I said the drydock was probably used for maintenance, because the first reference, above, says they launched the ship off of a framework of other smaller ships, and then floated it from the harbor into the newly dug canal with hull supports before draining the water out. Given this, perhaps the drydock wasn’t invented originally, but only later when they needed to do maintenance on the large vessel or remove it from the water for storage and it was too large to haul up a ramp into a slipshed like those mentioned above from Piraeus, but this is all my best guess based on Athenaeus’ description. For other information, you can read about triremes and larger ships, here, including the speculation that the very large ship of Ptolemy IV was a catamaran. For a timeline, also see here which lists the years Ptolemy IV Philopater reigned.

For the relative safety of deep water during a tsunami, see this document. I suppose it’s possible that Noah could have built the Ark near the sea, and then launched it into deep water to wait for the start of the Flood, but we have no evidence in Genesis that he wasn’t still on dry land when the Flood started.

The observation and argument that a hill-top building and launch site was best for the Ark comes from an Answers in Genesis article here. They also mention the likely risks of high velocity currents that the ship would experience if near the shoreline. Some support for the concept that the Ark was on top of a hill, perhaps the highest hill, might come from Genesis, depending on how you understand the 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Martin Luther thought that the Ark rested upon some plain for the first forty days before the water got high enough for it to float (see paragraph starting “For forty days the ark stood” here). That makes some sense. The water wasn’t immediately at its greatest depth on the first day of the Flood, for what would the additional 39 days of rain do, especially if the total depth was only 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain as mentioned by Genesis 7:20? Instead, the Flood may have been rising for some or all of that time, only floating the Ark free toward the end of the forty days when the water reached a great enough depth, but this is conjecture. It’s possible the Ark was built on a plain, floated fairly early, and God protected it from running into the surrounding hills, but using our best guesses about how we would do Noah’s job today suggests that building at the summit of one of the tallest if not the tallest hill in the pre-Flood world would bring the most security to the ship, even if it complicated the building process.

For specifics on the HMS Victory, see here. For the number of oak trees and the estimated forest area required for those trees, see here. Another source referenced 2,500 oak and elm trees as well as a significant amount of wood that was imported from elsewhere (see paragraph beginning “Designed by Thomas Slade” at this source.

For calculations on how much bigger the Ark was than the HMS Victory, see dimensions of Victory on pg. 7 here. That source doesn’t list the height of the ship, only the height of the hold. To get the height of the Victory, I used a drafted image from pg. 25 here and determined the height by using a proportion from the known length. For the size of the Ark, I used the conversion of cubits to feet for the dimensions of the Ark listed in a show note on the previous episode. Admittedly, using a proportion to calculate the amount of wood used in the Ark requires that the Ark and the Victory be of the same shape, hull thickness, and use similar internal members. In this case, I’d guess the Ark had a greater hull thickness and more substantial internal bulkheads (both in size and frequency) suggesting that this calculation could be conservative and the real total for the number of trees required to build the Ark was higher, especially if you include the wood needed for cranes, scaffolding, and other infrastructure. That said, one commentary pointed out that the construction of the Ark had a lot of things going for it. Creation wasn’t that far in the past so people were still strong and healthy and able to work hard and that nature itself probably produced wood and other resources more abundantly than it does today. If that was true, Noah probably didn’t need an extended supply chain to get the materials for the Ark. Instead, he may have been able to buy most supplies within a fairly local area. For a list of the benfits Noah had in building the ark, see the note on Genesis 6:15, here.

For the proportion of wood wasted in building a ship during the time period when the Victory was constructed, see pg. 380 here. Whether the waste was accounted for in the requirement of 2000 oak trees is unclear.

According to the second page of one source, wood fresh from being cut might contain 30-300% water. Ideally, you want to get that down to 15-20% before you use it. If you don’t it might split, warp, or shrink while you’re building with it. Furthermore, for boat-building, getting the wood to dry out before you use it helps with waterproofing because when those dry boards are put into the water, they swell and seal the gaps between one board and the next. The first page of that document also references the need for years of air-drying to properly prepare larger sections of wood, the same thing that was done for the wood eventually used in the HMS Victory according to the paragraph starting “Designed by Thomas Slade” here and again with the paragraph beginning “According to Chatham Dockyard’s records” at the same source where the completed hull was left to season for most of another year after it was put together. There are methods of working with fresh-cut wood. The wood for a log cabin is probably still wet when they put the building together, but in that case, the joints between logs aren’t nearly as critical as they can be packed with mud or moss to keep out the rain and wind. I did find a reference to the Venetians seasoning wood under water (see paragraph beginning “Besides showing off the Arsenal’s treasure troves” here). I don’t know if they were doing that to minimize rotting since the wood wasn’t exposed to air or because the boards were intended for below-the-waterline uses and would always be wet so keeping them in their swelled state was desirable. Even so, given the assumption that the Ark was built on a hill, and likely to sit out of the water for the better part of a century, dried wood was probably the better option, even if it did require lots of up-front inventory.

We don’t know if Noah hired help or not, but after 480 years of farming and other labor, he could, perhaps, have saved a considerable sum enabling him to hire assistants to help him build the Ark. As with most things here, whether he did or didn’t is speculation.

For the Venetian Arsenal as the best of manufacturing during the middle ages as well as a brief description of the assembly-line technique using a canal, see here. You get an idea of how deeply merchant-life ran in the Venetian population from pg. xxviii here. That book also gives the founding of the Arsenal as 1104 (see pg. 35), it talks of inventorying parts of a ship in kit form (see pg. 280), and the production of 10 ships in 6 hours this way (see pg. 281), as well as the quality control the Venetians instituted as well as the practice of holding craftsmen personally responsible for their work (see pgs. 278-279). For the building of a ship in just the time it took King Henry III to eat dinner, as well as other stories of how fast the Ventians assembled their ships, see pgs. 144-145 here as well as the paragraph starting “Besides showing off” here. For the Arsenal’s area of more than 60 acres, see that same source with the paragraph starting “Not all master craftsmen.” The Arsenal is famous enough in history, that the word, “arsenal” comes from Venetian, with no clear etymology further back according to pg. 96 here.

For Venice’s success being linked to the success of their ships, see here which notes that their wealth was founded on maritime trade. Also, see pg. 519 here states that the Venetians viewed the Arsenal as the source of their prosperity.

I didn’t reference Viking shipbuilding much in this episode, but if you want to read up on their methods, which involved a lot more splitting than sawing, see here.

For the year of Julius Caesar’s first invasion of Britain, see here. For the distance across the English channel at the narrowest point, see here. For damage to Caesar’s ships in the first raid on Britain, see here. For the construction of more ships for the second attack of Britain the following year, and the use of Caesar’s own requirements in their design, see here. For the second round of ship damage and repair, see here and here). Caesar’s ships were probably built to be light and, perhaps, somewhat disposable since he only needed them for this short trip across the channel. In contrast, the Ark had the opposite requirement. Furthermore, in both cases for the Romans, the ships were badly damaged while at anchorage or beached on the shores of Britain where they risked colliding with the ground or one another during a storm, the very situation Noah may have been trying to avoid by launching into deep water from the top of a hill. Given those details, perhaps Caesar’s ships were more reliable once they gained the open ocean. Even so, in the course of the Flood, the Ark risked similar peril, especially as the water was rising at the beginning and falling toward the end before the Ark ran aground, so the Ark had to survive similar circumstances shoreline-during-a-storm risks without failure and therefore needed to be sturdier than Caesar’s fleet. For more searchable text on the Gallic wars, see here.

One could argue that Noah didn’t need to be a perfectionist in building the Ark because God could miraculously patch any leaks to keep it afloat, but this goes against the context of the story. In order for Noah to save his family and the animals, God asked Noah to do all that Noah could do, He didn’t offer Noah a miracle, He offered Noah a job. If Noah could do the minimum, why didn’t he just use driftwood? Instead, the context suggests that Noah did as much as he could humanly do, an idea perhaps supported by Genesis 6:22 that Noah did “all that God commanded him.”

A couple of things favor the idea that Lamech (Noah’s dad) and Methuselah (Noah’s granddad) remained faithful to God. First, at Noah’s birth, Lamech made a statement suggesting faith in God’s promises, even though they were 1000 years old by that point (see the Genesis 5:29 and references in the show notes near the start of Episode 11. Second, as I talked about in Episode 9, Methuselah might be named in the genealogy of Genesis 5 not because he was Enoch’s oldest son, but because he was the one who was faithful to God and therefore stood in the line of faithful people going from Adam to Noah. If that’s the case, there’s every reason to think that Methuselah would’ve joined in the Ark building, even as old as he was. For one general suggestion that other descendants of Seth worked with Noah on building the Ark, see the note on Genesis 6:16, here.

References to God’s promise to save Noah along with Noah’s wife, sons, and daughters-in-law come from Genesis 6:17-18.

The Bible isn’t explicit about whether Noah had children other than Japheth, Shem, and Ham, and commentaries come down on both sides of the debate. We don’t know for sure, but there are a few reasons to lean toward the conclusion that Noah had just the three boys. The details are pretty long for a show note, but you can read about it in a WiderBible article here.

As far as name meanings go, Japheth could mean “wide spreading” according to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. It could also mean “beauty” or “let him make wide” in the definitions given by Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 551). Review and Herald Publishing Association. In Hebrew, the word “Shem” is often translated “person” according to Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 170). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Finally, “Ham” seems to mean “warm” or “hot” and is also an Egyptian word meaning “black” as recorded by Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Summaries about Noah’s kids come from a few places including Genesis 5:32 and Genesis 6:10 but who was oldest and youngest takes stringing a few different verses together. You can read about the details in a WiderBible article here.

For the comment that 40,000 hours were needed to build a 100 foot Viking ship, see Line, P. The Vikings and Their Enemies (chapter 3). I rounded the 30 meter length in the book (98 feet) up to 100 feet. The book goes on to state that 40,000 hours would be about the amount of time provided by the surplus hours of 100 men for a year.

For the comment that Noah would’ve been able to put the iron tooling inventions of Tubal-Cain to use in building the Ark, see note on Genesis 6:16, here.

For Noah referred to as a “preacher” (KJV) or “herald” (ESV) of righteousness, see 2 Peter 2:5. This comment is taken as evidence that he warned the people around him about what was coming by both Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. 2 Peter 2:5, note. Zondervan and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (pp. 800–801). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Noah wasn’t the only preacher, either. According to Jude 1:14-15, Enoch was recorded prophecying as well. See also this commentary.

For the land “rising” out of the sea at creation, see Genesis 1:9-10.

People debate whether or not there was rain before the Flood. The best argument against it raining earlier in history is Genesis 2:5-6 which mentions a mist watering the land when God had not yet caused it to rain, but that detail is part of the creation story, not necessarily a description of the steady-state climate of the pre-Flood world. Other support for the idea that it hadn’t rained before the Flood might come from Hebrews 11:7 which commends Noah for faith in things he hadn’t yet seen, though there were a lot of parts of a global flood he’d never before seen, so narrowing it down to rain isn’t necessarily warranted. In Genesis 7:4, God mentions “rain” to Noah. This suggests that either (A) there had been rain, and Noah knew what it was, (B) God explained rain to Noah, but Genesis only records an abridged version of what God told him, or (C) when Moses wrote the story in Genesis, with rain being a well-known phenomena, he used the term the audience was familiar with in the same way rain is already mentioned in Genesis 2:5-6. That said, later, after the Flood (spoiler alert) there’s a rainbow (see Genesis 9:13-16. Genesis doesn’t say it was a new thing, but that conclusion makes the most sense. If people were used to seeing clouds and rainbows before the Flood, they wouldn’t think anything of seeing them afterward. On the other hand, if clouds and rainbows were unknown until the Flood struck, seeing them again in the future could bring mass panic without God’s promise of no future global Flood. All that said, there’s scholars on both sides of the debate. For the “no rain until the Flood” argument, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 222). Review and Herald Publishing Association which suggests some of these ideas. For counterpoints and the conclusion that we can’t tell whether or not it had rained before the Flood based on what the Bible says, see this article.

For an overview of the water cycle as well as a reference to those solid bits that water vapor needs in order to condense, see here and here. Even ice crystals generally start forming on some solid surface, as mentioned here. In the case of that study, the particles that formed ice crystals in clouds were salt and organic matter, but it goes on to say that the particles are probably geography dependent: more sea salt over the ocean, more minerals or organic matter over land. Too much pollution, can also lead to decreased rain, probably because the water condenses onto many small particles rather than merging into a drop big enough to overcome gravity and fall from the cloud, but that’s my speculation. See the abstract here. For one reference to condensation nuclei, see here. For the scale of condensation nuclei, see here.

For how contrails form, see here.

For the comment that most of the sites of nucleation in the atmosphere today come from mineral dust and metal particles, see here. At the same time, another source suggested that pollen could also be a nucleation site, to it is unclear whether human pollutants are or are not a major driver of rainfall.

75 mile-per-hour winds are common in the Hami basin. They’ve also clocked 120 mile-per-hour winds. For more, see the article here. For the Saffir-Simpson Hurrican Wind Scale, see here. For sand from the Sahara blowing out across the Atlantic Ocean, see here.

One article also references the heat from the tropics spiraling toward the poles as a source of wind, which makes you wonder how that weather pattern would change if the Earth were square to the sun rather than tilted on its axis.

For the causes of the Great Plains “dust bowl” of the 1930s, including a reference to the lack of plants holding the topsoil in place, see here.

We have no idea who Japheth, Shem, and Ham married, we just know from Genesis 7:7 that they were married when the Flood came. Furthermore, given statements in 1 Peter 3:20, we know that only 8 people got on the Ark, so, in spite of the polygamy in society before the Flood, Noah and his sons were monogamous. Among people who followed God, polygamy only shows up a few hundred years later with Abraham as observed by Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 98). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. One commentary expressed surprise that Noah’s sons didn’t have kids of their own by this point, but it’s important to remember that (A) perhaps they had kids but those kids refused to board the Ark, (B) the previous three generations of the family were each born when the father was older than 180 (see Genesis 5:25-32) so late-in-life children wouldn’t have been so unusual, and (C) with the imminence of the Flood, perhaps those couples held off on having kids by choice.

For a more detailed discussion of the design of the Ark, see the end of Episode 11.

For the idea that the Ark was a daily reminder of imminent judgment, see the note on Genesis 6:18 here.

For the Hebrew word for “ark” being similar to the root for an Egyptian word for “coffin,” see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 94–95). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

One interesting article I stumbled across notes the fire-resistant qualities of some cypress trees. In 2012 a fire near the town of Andilla in Valencia, Spain burned 77 square miles of forest, except for a cluster of around 950 cypress trees. There’s a photo of it that shows a green patch of trees on a burned out hillside. As of 2012, scientists didn’t know why the cypresses survived, but they were starting to talk about planting cypresses as fire-breaks to stop forest fires from spreading. If the Gopher wood Genesis mentions is Cypress, it may have had fire resistant qualities. Even so, barring Divine intervention, I would guess the Ark was a high fire risk. First, whether the live tree burns easily or not, at least some varieties burn easily enough to make tar and be dubbed the “tar tree” by Arabic sources as referenced here. Second, even if the wood of the Ark was fire resistant, the tar the Ark itself was coated in was probably quite flammable.

For a commentary imagining the labors of Noah and the danger and tedium of the work of building the Ark, see the note from Genesis 6:22 here. For emphasis of Noah’s obedeince, see Genesis 6:22 as well as the note in Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 6:22, note. Zondervan.

For the production of pine tar in a pit furnace, see here, For the use of trees for tar and turpetine for naval ships, see here. For the history of the name “Tar Heel” in North Carolina, see here as well as one of its sources here which also mentions the channels of sticky tar that flow out from under a fire deprived of airflow.

For tar production during the Viking age, see here and here.

For the amount of tar you get from a tree, see this source that references 50 gallons of tar from a cord of wood. For the volume of firewood produced by a tree, see this source which suggests a tree measuring 22-inches in diameter (4.5 feet up from the ground) yields about 1 cord of wood.

For the color of pine tar, see here.

Genesis isn’t explicit about how the animals came. The ESV translates the text by just saying the animals “went into the ark.” The notes on Genesis 7:9 here and here suggests that God compelled the animals to present themselves to Noah. The note on Genesis 7:5 here says the animals came to Noah by God’s direction. Scholarly opinions aside, Genesis isn’t explicit, but given that God, not Noah, knew which animals would be best to save from the Flood to use to repopulate the world, and that these might not be the same animals Noah was most able to trap, cage, and drag into the Ark, it makes sense that God brought them to Noah.

For a discussion of the number and types of animals that came to the Ark, see Genesis 6:19-20 for God’s original command and [Genesis 7:2-3 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A2-3&version=ESV) for God’s command to Noah right before the Flood. According to statements here and in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 96). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press the initial command was the general rule and only later did God spell out the caveat for greater numbers of the clean animals. As far a the ambiguity between seven clean animals or seven pairs of clean animals, the ESV leaves both options open (see the footnotes on Genesis 7:2-3), but there’s some debate. The note on Gensis 7:2 in this commentary suggests only seven clean animals came, with the clean ones being there because they could be used for sacrifices. The same idea comes up in the note on Genesis 7:2 here, here, and here (as well as others) where three pairs were for breeding to build up a new herd and the odd one out was for a sacrifice. One source (Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.) claims that there were seven pairs of every kind of bird, but I couldn’t figure out where that idea came from. The distinction between “clean” and “unclean” animals flies under the radar a little here, but the fact that such a system is used this early in history, even though the details are spelled out only later in the Bible (see Leviticus 11) makes it clear that people as early as Noah understood that there was a difference between certain types of animals. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pgs. 254-256). Review and Herald Publishing Association as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 146). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

On the note for Genesis 6:13, one commentary describes the ridicule Noah probably faced for telling people about a looming disaster when there was no external reason to think anything was wrong in the world. The note on Genesis 6:18 in this commentary also suggests Noah was mocked for his efforts.

For more on motivated reasoning, see here.

My estimate of “tens of millions of people” in the world at the time of the Flood is based on assuming each couple had 7 kids and the generations were spaced 117 years apart, the average gap listed in the genealogy in Genesis 6 if you remove Noah, who had kids at 500 and is a mathematical outlier. I go into a little more detail on these numbers in Episode 9. That said, the “tens of millions” number is probably conservative. Having 7 kids per couple is doable with lifespans a tenth the length of those listed in Genesis and the generation gaps could also be much shorter. If the generation gap was 65 years instead of 117, the population at the time of the Flood was in the tens of trillions, not accounting for wars and such. That said, I gave some sense of how many people may have rejected Noah’s warning, but with the data available in Genesis, the true number could be much lower or much, much higher.

As part of the cautionary tale, it’s worth noting that Jesus said (in Matthew 24:37-39 that the world before His return would be like it was in the days when Noah entered the Ark, and if they were good at rationalizing away evidence of God’s warning then, people will be again.

Like so many patriarchs, it’s not entirely clear what Methuselah’s name means. One suggestion was that it simply translates as, “the man of Shelah” where “Shelah” is assumed to refer to a deity (see here). Other options come from various sources. For “the armed warrior,” see here. For “man of a dart” or “man of military arms,” as well as other suggestions, see here as well as Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. For “man of the javelin,” see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 734). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Another source suggests “Man of the sword,” is the right translation. For “Methuselah” referring to a coming judgment see here, which translates the name as “he dies, there is a dart,’ and refers to ‘a sending forth,’ of the Flood. Alternatively, this commentary says, “He dieth, and the sending forth” and attributes the name as a prophecy from Enoch. This one paraphrases the name as, “He dies, and the dart or arrow of God’s vengeance comes;” or, “He dies, and the sending forth of the waters comes.” Finally, pg. 128 here gives the translation of “when he is dead, it shall be sent.”. If this is the case, it fits. Methuselah did die the same year the Flood came, and there may be evidence of God’s patience here. Methuselah lived to be older than anyone else recorded in the Bible. Perhaps he lived so long because God delayed judgment on the world.

It’s interesting to note that Genesis 5 begins with the line, “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” In one commentary that comment was taken to be a reference to the existence of writing prior to the Flood, and if you think about it, it might imply that the very words we have recorded in the fifth chapter of Genesis are the same words the people before the Flood recorded and the writing that would have been on documents Noah packed up and carried aboard the Ark with him. All of this is by no means certain. Noah could have written everything down from memory after the Flood. Moses could have written it down from oral tradition hundreds of years later. We don’t know if these words come direct from the pen of Noah, but it is certainly an intriguing thought. For more, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 85). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

The ESV footnote for Genesis 7:4 makes it clear how total the Flood would be since the phrase saying God would wipe out “every living thing,” can also be translated, “all existence.”

In the New Testament, the Flood works as an analogy for baptism. Here, Noah let go of the world that was “only evil continually” and went into something reminiscent of a coffin because that was the only way to survive the Flood. In the case of baptism, the Christian symbolically dies to their old life of sin and comes up out of the water committed to living a new life of faithfulness to God. For more, see 1 Peter 3:18-22. For baptism as an analogy for death to sin, see Romans 6:1-4.

For details on the Venetian ships with their horse cargo and the practice of caulking the door to make it watertight after the horses were on board, see pg 36, here.

For a reference to the Babylonian (Chaldean) story where the main character in the Flood has to shut himself into the ship, see the note on Genesis 7:16, here.

For God closing the door of the Ark, one reference says the phrase is literally "covered him round about” and means that Noah was under God’s personal care. Another commentary sees the act of closing the door as a protective gesture that was to be a blessing for humans (see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 148). Pacific Press Publishing Association.). In that sense, God shutting Noah into the Ark should be understood as a form of protection, not imprisonment. This is supported by the comments on Genesis 7:16 from a Jewish commentary that points out that the word used for God shutting Noah in is used to mean “in front of,” often in the context of shielding or protecting someone.

Jesus gives a summary in Matthew 24:37-39 of what happened to all of Noah’s contemporaries after he went aboard the Ark. In that passage Jesus describes carefree behavior right up until the Flood swept them away and then Jesus draws a parallel between those people and others who will do the same thing right before the end of time.

Scholars have a lot of different views on what happened during that last week before the Flood. Perhaps the most common chronology suggests that God told Noah to enter the Ark seven days before the Flood, and Noah spent that seven days getting his family, the animals, and the food on board the ship, but only finished getting on board on the seventh day, at which point God closed the door to the Ark. In support of this timeline, see note on Genesis 7:1 here, as well as here, here, note on Genesis 7:7 here, note on Genesis 7:13 here, note on Genesis 7:4 here, and note on Genesis 7:13 here. Other sources (see note on Genesis 7:4 here as well as notes on Genesis 7:1-12 here) mention that the last week was a last chance for people to change their minds and come on board. That’s one option for the order of events. An alternative timeline suggests that Noah boarded the Ark at the start of the week. There are two versions of this scenario. In the first, the door on the Ark was left open throughout that week as an invitation to anyone who wanted to repent and come aboard (see note on Genesis 7:5, here). In the second version, the door to the Ark was closed right after Noah boarded on that first day of the week, and he and his family and the animals were sealed off from the world for a week before the Flood began. Although not explicitly stated, this is probably the timeline followed here as well as the one from the note on Genesis 7:4 here. This order of events, with Noah entering the Ark on the first day of the week and the door being closed on that same day, is also the timeline followed by Adventist scholars. It is offered by Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 256). Review and Herald Publishing Association., Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 801). Review and Herald Publishing Association. and by Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 146-148). Pacific Press Publishing Association. By way of support for this apparently minor view of the pre-Flood timeline, Doukhan’s explanation of the verses in Genesis 7 notes that Genesis uses different grammar in Genesis 7:7 for “enter” than it does in Genesis 7:13. In the first case Noah “enters,” the Ark. In the second, Noah “had entered” or “had already entered” the boat. In terms of Adventist understanding, the delay before the Flood could be related to the idea of the close of probation at the end of time (see the entry for “probation” in The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. (1996). Review and Herald Publishing Association.), an event which is analogous to the world in Noah’s day according to Christ’s statements in both Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 17:26-30. Furthermore, that last week perhaps functioned as an opportunity for heavenly angels and other created beings to verify for themselves that God was just and fair in wiping out the people in the world who ignored Noah’s warning and were set on being “only evil continually,” an idea that fits within the framework Adventists refer to as the “Great Controversy” (see here), but that is my speculation. In any case, this episode follows the timeline as understood by Seventh-Day Adventists, but the alternative chronologies supported by the scholars mentioned above are also possible given the statements in Genesis 7, Matthew 24, and Luke 17.

For the seven days on the Ark before the Flood being seven days of mourning for Methuselah according to Jewish tradition, see note on Genesis 7:10, here.

In terms of when the Flood itself started, on day seven or day eight, the ESV translation is ambiguous. It uses “For in seven days” in Genesis 7:4 and “After seven days,” in Genesis 7:10. Of the two ideas, the eighth day is probably the better conclusion. Different conjugations are used for that phrase in the two texts in the NASB lexicon (see here and here) but the NASB translates them both as “after,” as does the ESV for Genesis 7:10. This supports the idea that rain didn’t come on the seventh day, but after the seventh day was over. For more, see here.

We know the Flood began on the seventeenth day of the month according to Genesis 7:11, but as for it beginning in October see the explanation here, though recognize that this is a “most likely” conclusion.

Whether animals have an ability to sense certain natural disasters before they strike is up for debate. On the one hand, birds sometimes shelter before a storm and sharks do swim out to deeper water before a hurricane, but the data on animals fleeing tsunamis and earthquakes is less clear. For more, see here and here.

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.

The word, “nephilim” is used only three times in the Bible, once in Genesis 6:4 and twice in Numbers 13:33. It is translated “giants” by Strong’s concordance and refers to two different groups of people, one before the Flood and one after. For more, see here. For the related verb that means “violent death” see here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 865). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

We don’t know where Methuselah lived, but it makes sense that he would’ve stayed away from the influences of Cain’s metropolis and near the gate to the Garden of Eden where, as scholars have speculated, the offerings to God were probably presented. That said, these are only reasonable guesses. We know very few actual details. For the sources supporting the idea that the followers of God lived near the gate to the Garden of Eden, see WiderBible Episode 8, and for reasons to think Methuselah was a follower of God, and not just a member of the family tree, see WiderBible Episode 9.

To be clear, as mentioned in the last episode, both Methuselah’s son and Methuselah’s distant uncle are named Lamech. Same name, different people, different genealogies. See Genesis 4:17-18 and Genesis 5:25.

We don’t know how famous Lamech’s kids were early on, but certainly by the end of Methuselah’s life, their accomplishments were probably common knowledge or they wouldn’t be singled out and listed as they are in Genesis.

Assuming the genealogy of Cain’s family found in Genesis 4:17-22 doesn’t skip generations, then Lamech, Cain’s descendant, is the same distance from Adam as Enoch, Methuselah’s father. By the same extension, Lamech’s kids would be Methuselah’s distant cousins. Furthermore, if the generation gaps are about the same in each branch of the family, Methuselah and Lamech’s kids should be about the same age.

For Jabal’s name meaning “wanderer,” see here. It also might mean “a stream” (from Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.) though this could be another way of referring to a wandering life.

We know Abel was a shepherd, but at least one commentary suggested that Abel stayed near home, perhaps with a local pasture, and Jabal was the first to move flocks around the countryside as a nomad. For more, see here.

“Jubal” could mean “music-player” according to this reference. Another possible meaning of “Jubal” is “joyful sound” according to Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 243). Review and Herald Publishing Association. His name might be related to the the word, “jubilee,” (see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.) but the etymology is complicated (see here).

For the suggestion that we really don’t know what instruments Jubal invented, see here, but they could refer to some version of string instrument and some version of wind instrument. For more, see here and here. For the reference to “pipe” being “Pan’s pipe” see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. Alternatively, the instrument may have been a flute as referenced in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 243). Review and Herald Publishing Association..

The instruments we find in Ur and Egypt in the early layers of world history would be reproductions of previous instruments designed or built prior to the Flood unless they survived by riding in the Ark which is probably unlikely. For the history of musical instruments, see the article here. For the reference to instruments in Ur, see here. Note that the timeline is not accurate to a Biblical timeline. The reference to 2600 BC should be somewhat more recent.

The word “Tubal” appears as a name in other places in the Old Testament. The addition of the “Cain” to the end of his name may have been just to indicate that this Tubal was a descendant of Cain. See Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 243). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

In Persian, “Tubal” means copper. In addition, in Ezekiel 27:13 “Tubal” brings copper to the market in Tyre. This leads some to think Tubal-Cain refers to working with copper instead of bronze as mentioned here. The ESV translates the word as “bronze” as shown in the link, but Strong’s concordance says either copper or bronze is accurate (see here). Beyond these observations, there’s also an argument that the “Cainites” from before the Flood and the “Kenites” from afterward are the same people. The Arabic word means ‘smith,’ but this parallel doesn’t mean some of Cain’s descendants survived the Flood. Instead, both the Cainites and the Kenites were perhaps known for being “smiths,” who worked with metal. For more, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 84). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,.],

For the suggestion that Jabal’s occupation was evidence that the descendants of Cain were both numerous and prosperous, see note Genesis 4:20, here.

Supporting the idea that Jubal’s music making shows that life was easy, see note on Genesis 4:21 here.

For music bringing order to the world in some versions of the Egyptian creation story, see here.

The stone, bronze, and iron age definitions of history started as a way to organize things for a museum exhibit, and only came to be seen as a timeline of human development later on. For details, see here as well as the introduction to the book here. For copper being found in a fairly pure state in nature, see the comment here as well as here. For bronze as an alloy of copper and tin, see here. For the timing of Homer and the start of the Iron age, see here and here. According to one commentary iron was so rare in Homer’s time that it was considered quite valuable.

For more on the Roman author who talked about primitive humans progressing gradually to the use of iron tools, see Lucretius here. and his comment here.

For more about Hesiod, see here. For his list of ages, see here (as well as the next two pages of the text). As far as Hesiod’s description of the ages goes, it doesn’t line up perfectly with the history in the Bible, but there are some parallels. In my opinion, the Golden Age matches best with Adam and Eve, though they weren’t perfect but sinned. His Silver Age aligns in some ways with the time before the Flood that this episode deals with since it talks about a time when people might still be a child at the age of one hundred but were foolish, kept sinning, and didn’t bring sacrifices to the gods. For the parallels of the later ages, it’s hard to know how the Bronze, Heroic, and Iron periods are divided over the time from the Flood to Hesiod’s own day. As mentioned on pg. 70 here, the phrase “Golden Age” doesn’t come directly from Hesiod, but through Latin, where it can be translated as either “Golden Age” or “Golden Race.”

To be fair to modern science, the concept of a progression human technology from stone to bronze to iron might hold true from the time period after the Flood through the modern age, but that’s only if the pre-Flood advances were completely forgotten. This memory-loss is possible, but not necessarily the case. Iron artifacts, perhaps from meteorites, show up in the earliest periods of recorded history in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East suggest it wasn’t a wholly unknown material as mentioned by Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 243). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Proponents of the modern idea of human progress through time might suggest there’s no evidence for a past golden age, but it depends what evidence you have to account for. The pyramids of Egypt and Central America, the monoliths found in the Incan empire, and places like Stonehenge all suggest that we don’t have as good a grasp of what people were capable of in the past as we sometimes like to believe.

Today, we often use fossil fuels to manufacture tools and products from iron. If fossil fuels were largely generated during the Flood, Tubal-Cain may not have had that resource, but he could still employ other sources of power, including wind, solar, water, geothermal energy, heat from burning wood, or power gained by harnessing animals or slaves.

For the history of musical instruments, and the doubts about the idea that instruments only evolved over time from simple to complex forms, see this article.

If you think we are more advanced at making instruments today people were in the past, you only have to go back about 400 years to question that assumption. In the late 1600s and early 1700s, Antonio Stradivari made around 1200 stringed instruments, and we still can’t figure out why they sound the way they do. Researchers have investigated both the wood — part of each violin came from slow growing spruce trees in the alps — and the chemicals in the wood to see if either give the instruments their character, but they can’t find the answer. Today, people aren’t sure if the violins really are better, or if it’s just our perception. Music is complex, and the fact that, even long ago, humans invented instruments that could play on the octave or pentatonic scale shows that human intelligence isn’t a recent phenomena. For details about Stradivarius violins, see this article. For different types of music scales, see octaves here and the pentatonic scale here.

For “cattle” referring to “possession” in the verse about Jabal, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 243). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For a statement that cattle, including cows, sheep, and camels, were one of the earliest, if not the earliest, form of money, see here. For cattle as wealth in the Bible you can use Abraham or Jacob as examples, but perhaps the most succinct statement comes from Job (see Job 1:1-3). For cattle as a sign of wealth in ancient Egypt, see here. For the suggestion that “capital” and “cattle” have the same ancient root, see here.

For the connection between Jabal and wealth or the seeking of wealth by accumulating flocks and herds, see note on Genesis 4:20 here.

For the history of steam engines, see here.

For the history of telegraphy, see here

The first telegraph line across the Atlantic was laid in 1858 but failed soon after due to bad insulation. The first long-term successful telegraph lines across the ocean came in 1866. For the speed of communication on early telegraph lines, see here. For Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone patent in 1876, see here. For the first voice and music over radio in 1906, see here.

For the first automobile, see here. For the first flight, see here.

For a general description of robber barons and several examples, see here. For where the term “robber barons” come from, see this article that describes their origins as illegal river traffic toll-takers on the Rhine during the middle ages.

For details about John Jacob Astor, see here and here.

For details about Leland Stanford, see here for a description of his completion of the transcontinental railway, here for his founding of Stanford University, and here for Stanford’s ranking as the 2nd best engineering school in the U.S. For Leland Stanford’s more questionable activities, see a summary here.

For the history of Black Friday, see here. For Charles M. Schwab’s Russian railroad bribery, see here.

Neither Rockefeller or Carnegie was perfect, but they don’t exemplify the greed of other industrialists of their day. J.D. Rockefeller built the Standard Oil monopoly and was worth about 1.5% of the US economy by the time he died, but he was also devoutly religious and one of modern history’s greatest philanthropists. Andrew Carnegie sold his company and founded a university, donated to libraries, and gave thousands of church organs to buildings all around the world. For details on J.D. Rockefeller, see here, here, and here. For Andrew Carnegie, see here.

For the Hebrew root of the names Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 4:20-22, note. Zondervan.

One commentary sees the inventions of Cain’s descendants and notes that Cain’s children were not necessarily all bad (see note on Genesis 4:23, here). For the idea that mentioning positive aspects of Cain’s family is evidence that Genesis is giving an unbiased history, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 83). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

For the idea that this section on Lamech’s children says nothing about God or His service, see here.

The suggestion that Tubal-Cain sharpened or hammered the metal can be found in 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. 83). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., here, and here. The connection between Tubal-Cain and the manufacturing of arms is also speculated here along with references to things like “whetter” mentioned here.

For the suggestion that Tubal-Cain might have been a reference to Tubal of the spear or lance, see note on Genesis 4:22, here.

Josephus makes the reference that Tubal-Cain was, “expert and famous in martial performances” in section 2.2 here. I simplified that phrase to “expert in war” based on the definition of martial, found here.

For positive references to shepherds in the Bible, see 2 Samuel 5:3 for David, a shepherd that God called to be king, Exodus 3 for Moses, a shepherd that God called to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, and here where Jesus applies the analogy of a shepherd to Himself. For the etymology of the word “pastor,” see here.

For the idea that Jabal was the father of those who bred and kept flocks and herds for the sake of wealth, see here.

For references to music in the Bible, see tambourines and singing in Exodus 15:20-21 and trumpets and harps in 2 Chronicles 20:27-28. For the, perhaps poetic, reference to the morning stars singing together in celebration of creation, see Job 38:4-7.

For the use of musical instruments in ancient history, see the article here. For the reference to instruments in Ur, see here.

For the uses of music in ancient Egypt, see here.

For the reference to the use of music in modern religious ceremonies, save some types of Islam and the Eastern Orthodox church, see here.

For research into music’s relationship to dopamine, see here.

Comparing Jubal’s music to something used to manipulate people makes me think of the sirens in Homer’s Odyssey. These sirens would sing and sailors, curious about the sound would sail toward them to investigate, only to have their ships destroyed when they ran aground on the Rocks of Scylla. For more, see here.

The term “mighty men” meaning warriors or heroes is often used in a good sense, as mentioned here, and talks about people who are risk-takers (see here), but the context of this section might imply that this term is meant in a negative way in this passage. For the idea that these “mighty men” were oppressive and violent, see Genesis 6:4 notes here, here, here, and here. For the suggestion that “nephilim” refers to “violent ones” rather than physical “giants,” see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 251). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For references to “fallen ones” or “mighty ones” in the sense of violence, see Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (p. 137). Pacific Press Publishing Association).

As I mentioned when talking about snakes and trees in the stories of other cultures, (see WiderBible Episode 5), if the Bible is telling the truth about the origins of Earth and humans, an assumption I make in this podcast, the mythology you hear around the world could be some sort of telephone game based off of that original resource, …but there’s a lot of guess-work here. It can be dicey trying to untangle ancient mythology, and I’m no expert. Most, if not all, of a given myth could be a complete fabrication. Instead of being twisted versions of history, it may have been passed down to convey a lesson. If that myth is based on real events, there’s no way to know whether the core story overlaps with the few stories we have from this time period in the Bible or are records of events the Bible doesn’t mention. Take this section comparing mythology to the history in the Bible with a grain of salt. It’s interesting to think about humanity’s common origins, and see what different cultures remember that might be from the same history, but the stories in the Bible are the reliable facts.

Memories of Tubal-Cain, Jabal, and Jubal as gods was also, perhaps, bolstered by the Flood. The Flood likely wiped out many of the advancements of this first civilization and significantly shortened human lifespans, making it easier for those living afterward to imagine the pre-Flood times, and the men who lived during them, it as gods or demigods rather than regular humans.

For the background of Tammuz, as first a shepherd god and later a god of agriculture, see here. The article suggests the “multiplier of pasture” title refers to the ability to grow grass, but I wonder, given this parallel to Jabal, if there is either a nomadic connection (someone who always finds more pasture) or a business one (someone who multiplies pastures by buying them up or seizing them from others). For raising animals as a thing that came from the gods in ancient Mesopotamian beliefs, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7543-7546). Zondervan. Kindle Edition

For the idea that Jabal and Pales are the same, see pg. 38 here. For the background of “Pales,” see here which refers to it as two gods, male and female, and here which suggests that the deity is referred to as both a god and a goddess, but androgynously, not necessarily two separate entities. The second source also makes reference to “Pales” as a possible root for the name “Palestine,” but goes on to suggest that the name probably comes from reference to the Philistines who once lived there, not to this shepherd god, though from the etymology given here, “Pales” as a root appears at least as plausible as “Phillistia.”

For the belief in cultures around the world that music came from the gods, see here. For the belief in Greece that Apollo invented the harp, see pg. 38 here. For details on the mythology of Apollo, see here. For Orpheus, who, with his magical skill with a lyre given by Apollo persuaded even the animals and rocks to dance, see here.

The list of metalsmith gods in ancient cultures includes the Greek Hephaestos, the Roman Vulcan, and possibly the Egyptian Ptah whom the Greeks connected with their own Hephaestos.

The idea that Tubal-Cain and Vulcan recall the same person or god can be found on pg. 38 here which makes a reference to the idea that their names are similar. For the ability to swap “b” and “v” sounds in Hebrew, see here. For the same swap in Spanish, see here.

For the reference to Vulcan making thunderbolts for his father Jupiter in Roman mythology, see pg. 38 here.

For Gilgamesh’s proportions of god to man and a description of his appearance, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Location 7628). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. and Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7653-7656). Zondervan. Kindle Edition

The occupation of each son of Lamech is mentioned, but nothing is said about Naamah. This leads one commentary to suggest that Naamah was famous, but the stories about her have been lost. To me, that might imply that she was well known at the time Genesis was written.

For the connection between Ishtar and goddesses in other cultures, see here. For Inanna, see here. For Aphrodite, see here. For the connection between Tubal-Cain and Naamah in the Bible and Vulcan and Venus in Roman mythology, see here and here. The second source also notes that “Naamah” was the Phoenician name for the goddess the Babylonians called “Ishtar” and further speculates, as I mentioned earlier with respect to the brothers, that “Naamah” was likely connected with the idea of luxury and was famous with associated stories that have now been lost. It’s interesting that Naamah was Tubal-Cain’s sister in the Bible and Venus was Vulcan’s wife in Roman lore (see here. For “Naamah” meaning “beauty” or “pleasant” or “lovely” see references here, here, here, and here. Jewish tradition suggests Naamah was Noah’s wife, but given that the main sin referenced at the time of Noah was the intermarriages between the Godly descendants of Seth and the ungodly descendants of Cain, this seems unlikely. See Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 243). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the comparison between Eve and Naamah, suggesting that the different names illustrate the degeneracy of humans, see comment made here.

Josephus, along with several early commentators, says the “sons of God” were angels who had children with women in section 3.1 here and the idea is taken up by this commentary, but the same commentary notes that if the “sons of God” were angels committing crimes by having children with human women, why were the humans punished with a Flood but the angels weren’t? See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 250). Review and Herald Publishing Association. The next theory, the idea that the “sons of God” are nobles who intermarried with commoners, doesn’t quite work as at least one reference points out that it’s not clear why marriages between different levels of society would be considered evil (see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7634-7635). Zondervan. Kindle Edition). This leaves the theory that the “sons of God” are those who obeyed God, or at least the descendants of men who did, and the “daughters of men” were the descendants of men who rebelled against God. This last idea is most likely and is widely accepted among scholars (see here, here, here, here, here, and a fairly thorough summary here. There are also comments in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 250). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Beyond all of this, it’s valuable to realize that the “nephilim” discussed earlier are not the descendants of these mixed marriages (or at least not only the descendants of those marriages), a point Genesis 6:4 makes it clear since the nephilim were on the Earth both before and after these mixed marriages took place, a point which is established by comments on that verse both here and here.

For the idea that the children of Seth were only interested in the attractiveness of potential wives rather than any truly valuable aspects or virtues, see here.

For the idea that the phrase “all they chose” implies they engaged in polygamy as well as Lamech, Cain’s descendant known for it, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (p. 136-137). Pacific Press Publishing Association).

For the idea that the problematic intermarriages occurred to increasing degree after Enoch went to heaven, see here, and here, as well as Josephus who suggests that Seth’s descendants followed God for 7 generations before things went amiss, here.

For Naamah being remembered as Ishtar or Inanna see earlier show note. For those goddesses remembered for both love and war, see the articles here and here. This connection to a vengeful deity is also made on pg. 38 here where some scholars connect Naamah to the Roman god Minerva (see here.

While we don’t have demographic data to know how many people were alive at the end of Methuselah’s life, the fact that the whole world was inundated by a Flood in order to cleanse it from the wickedness man had spread across it’s surface suggests there were enough people to spread evil far and wide. If there were only a few thousand people on the Earth, which seems unlikely, something less than a global Flood could’ve wiped them out. Admittedly, this is speculation. It is also possible part of the value of the global Flood was in making the Earth less habitable thereby forcing men to focus on survival rather than luxury and vice. Before that time, and despite God’s curse of the ground in Genesis 3:17-19, survival was probably easy enough (given by the references to parties during this era in Matthew 24:38) that people frequently turned their attentions to things of a wicked nature, and perhaps a less habitable Earth would remove that blessing so they couldn’t twist it for evil purposes.

For a book about Stephen Hopkins and all the historical events he took part in, see Here Shall I Die Ashore. Comments in support of his shipwreck inspiring Shakepeare’s The Tempest is on pgs. 57-58. The possibility of Hopkins going back to England on the same ship with Pocahontas is mentioned on pg. 61. For references to the Mayflower and Plymouth experiences, see the back cover as there is no preview for those pages.

For the details about Edmund Schulman, Tom Harlan, and when and where the Bristlecone pine tree was sampled, see here. For a further description of Bristlecone pine trees in general, see here. For more about the “Methuselah” tree, see here. Due to fears of vandalism, we don’t know exactly where the “Methuselah” tree is or what it looks like.

Figuring out a timeline of history from tree-rings is known as “dendrochronology,” and there are claims the dendrochronology of Bristlecones goes back nearly 8,000 years (see here. This timeline doesn’t match Biblical data which only goes back about 6,000 years. Researchers have made various suggestions to explain the discrepancy, the best being the chance that more than one ring forms in a year. For more, see the articles here and here.

To be clear, nothing says Methuselah was the oldest man in history, only that he is the oldest man mentioned in the Bible.

For details about Jeanne Calment the, until proven otherwise, longest lived person in history, see articles here (which had a helpful audio recording on how to pronounce Calment’s name) and here that explain the background and controversy as well as the Guinness World Record notes here.

For the 1215 signing of the Magna Carta, see here.

For some royal houses in English history, see here for the Plantagenets, here for the Tudors, and here for the Windsors, who changed to that name name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha during World War I.

As an example of a compressed genealogy, where “father” is used when “great-great-grandfather” would be more accurate, see Matthew 1:7-9 that skips some generations. The actual family tree from Joram to Azariah can be found in 2 Kings 8-15 and 2 Chronicles 22-26. In those lists, three other kings come between ones that are right next to each other in Matthew. (To be clear, “Uzziah,” listed in 2 Chronicles 26:1 and “Azariah,” listed in 2 Kings 15:1 are the same person). One theory suggests Matthew skipped over those names in the middle because of their wickedness or close family relationship to the evil family of Ahab and Jezebel in the north. For more, see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 37-39). Master Books. For ideas about why the lineage of Jesus is listed differently in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, see France, R. T. (1985). Matthew: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 77–78). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

As mentioned in footnote 5 here, a reliable timeline of Adam’s family works whether you assume the story skips generations or not since the age of each father when the son is born is explicitly recorded. In short, even if Seth was a great-great-grandson, Adam was still only 130 years old, so the timeline doesn’t change.

The comment that the word used in Genesis 5 for “he begot” refers to “a direct physical offspring” (see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (p. 126). Pacific Press Publishing Association).

Further support for the fact that there aren’t any skipped generations, at least between Adam and Enoch, comes from Jude 14 which mentions that Enoch was the seventh from Adam, just as Genesis describes. For more, see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 33). Master Books.

This commentary doesn’t think you can use Genesis 5 to make a reliable timeline. Another one admits the best conclusion is that Genesis 5 is probably talking about literal years but thinks they are exaggerated. See also here for a reference to the idea that some argue “year” means 3 months (i.e. season) and a statement that the Hebrews never had such a measurement.

The likelihood of getting 30 ages to all end in the same five digits is small. The low probability is offset a little by the fact that the third age in each set is just the sum of the first two, but still, in my simulation, the chances came back at around one in 570,000 (over 20,000,000 runs of 10 patriarchs). It’s possible some of the numbers could be due to rounding since a lot of the ages ended in 0 or 5, but there are numbers that end in 2, 7, and 9. Suffice it to say, while the odds of randomly generating this set of numbers is low, nothing suggests this record is intended to be understood as anything other than real numbers, and, as such, without evidence to the contrary, that’s the best way to understand these numbers.

If the ages in Genesis 5 aren’t literal, there are theories about what they symbolize, but none of the theories point to anything significant. Either the symbolism is just an artifact of Moses’ history in Egypt and Abraham’s history in Mesopotamia, which suggests the Bible’s message is no more important than any other ancient document, or the symbolism is religiously valuable (otherwise why would Moses have used it?), but we have no idea what it that valuable thing is, which makes it useless. For some theories about what the numbers in Genesis 5 might mean, see here.

I went through thirteen commentaries and Bible dictionaries as well as statements from Josephus to see whether the authors thought the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 were literal. Josephus and twelve of the thirteen other sources supported the idea that the ages were literal or intended to be taken literally. For Josephus’ words, see chapter 2, paragraph 3, here.

For a reference to the common belief that people live longer today than they once did, see here. In brief, the article says life expectancy has gone up, but life span hasn’t.

Genesis doesn’t say why people lived so long right after leaving the Garden of Eden but treats the subject as a matter-of-fact and moves on. For suggestions by scholars about why Adam’s early descendants lived so long, see here, here, and here, as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 245–246). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For a general reference to authors outside the Bible attesting to a memory of ancient people who had long lifespans, see here as well as a similar statement in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 89). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. There are also references to a primordial golden age in Hesiod’s “Work and Days,” but it gives no lifespan references there. For a translation, see here.

For the Iranian Epic of Kings, see here. To find references to the kings who ruled a long time, search “years” in the various sections. Interestingly, these long periods of time are interspersed with much more normal spans, still, it supports the idea that people believed such long lives were possible.

The Sumerian King list is a document discovered by archeologists and first published in 1906 that contains a record of various kings and dynasties from ancient Sumer. The striking thing about the list is that it begins by listing 8 kings who ruled before a flood swept over, and each of these kings, according to the account, reigned for thousands of years. These two details make it tempting to find connections between the 10 patriarchs in Genesis 5 and the 8 kings in the Sumerian King list, but the evidence linking the two documents is mixed at best. First, there is the problem of the time span. The Sumerian king list claims each king reigned for thousands to tens-of-thousands of years while Genesis refers to life spans of around a thousand years at most. This discrepancy could be due, in part, to a mix-up between the base-10 system we use today and the base-60 system the Sumerians and later Babylonians used. That would explain, in part, why each of the king’s reigns is a multiple of 3600 (60 times 60) but dividing them all by that number reduces each span to just a few years and removes the long-timeline significance. Beyond chronology, there is also the problem of different versions of the Sumerian list. Some copies have eight names, but others have seven or 10. In short, we don’t know what’s going on with the Sumerian King list. Perhaps it refers to the same people mentioned in Genesis, perhaps it doesn’t. Maybe it refers to other people who also lived before the Flood that the Bible makes no mention of, but that’s just speculation. For now, the only link between the Bible and the Sumerian King list is that they are both old and mention people who may or may not have lived a long time before a flood, which may or may not be the same worldwide Flood Genesis describes. For the first important publication of the Sumerian King list, see pg. 1 here. For the text of the Sumerian King list, see here. For a list of kings, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7595-7608). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.). For one theory about how the Sumerian King list was derived from a mistaken reading of the record contained in Genesis, see the article here. For the ancient Babylonian and Sumerian use of base-60 and the invention of minutes and seconds, see here. For a list of other problems with the idea that the Sumerian King list and Genesis refer to the same history, see here. For a conclusion that we don’t really know what’s going on with the Sumerian King list, see Bauer, Susan Wise. The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome (Kindle Locations 508-510). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

For Josephus’ list of ancient authors who also had records of people living for a thousand years in the past, see chapter 3 section 9, here.

Some dates in this episode are guesses. For instance, we know Cain and Abel were born after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, but we don’t know how long after. They might’ve been born right away or not for a while. Similarly, from Genesis 5:3 we know Seth was born when Adam was 130, and from Genesis 4:25 we know this happened after Abel was murdered, because Seth was recognized as a replacement for Abel, but the gap between when Abel was killed and when Seth was born is unknown. Admitting this ambiguity, for the purposes of imagining the civilization that developed during Methuselah’s life, I assume Cain was born shortly after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden and both he and each of his children had the same lifespan as the average lifespan of Adam, Seth, and their descendants (discounting Enoch and Lamech who are mathematical outliers).

The names of Adam’s descendants may have specific meanings, but those meanings aren’t clear. Seth probably means, “a substitute” given by what Eve said in Genesis 4:25 when he was born and from Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. The meaning of the names of Seth’s descendants, though, have a variety of options. Enosh (or Enos) might mean “man” according to this commentary, or “mortal, decaying man,” and “man, sickly” according to this one with the same idea presented here. Meanwhile, according to this commentary, Cainan (or Kenan), means “child,” “one begotten,” “a created thing,” “a creature,” “a young man,” “possessor,” or “spearsman.” Cainan might also mean “possession” or “smith” according to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. or even “worker in metal” as stated by Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 172). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Next, Mahalaleel (or Mahalalel) means, “praise of God” or “glory to God” (see here and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 696). Review and Herald Publishing Association.), while Jared means “a going down, or “the going down, or descending, river” (see here). “Jared” is translated as “descent,” in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers and “servant” in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 552). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Even more options are suggested for Jared here. With the origin of human history so close to when these men lived, as with the names “Cain” and “Abel,” we don’t know if name or the meaning of the name came first, and even figuring out the meaning is pretty tricky. One interesting idea is that the names or details have a form of story embedded in them. In that version, Seth means “put in the place”, Enosh is associated with the calling of the Lord, Cainan (Kenan) may be a reference to Cain and hope in reforming past failures, Mahalalel means “praising God,” and Jared means something like “May God come down.” For this idea, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (p. 131). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

Scholars disagree about whether the names in the genealogy in Genesis 5 are names of oldest children or not. For the belief that these were oldest sons, see here and here. For commentaries suggesting that these weren’t necessarily the oldest, see here and here.

For details on the history of the birthright, see “Birthright” in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 153). Review and Herald Publishing Association. and in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

In the Bible, the importance of being the oldest son in a family goes back to at least [Deuteronomy 21:15-17] which was written during the time of Moses (if you accept Moses wrote Deuteronomy), but there are lots of exceptions to the rule that the oldest son become the father’s main heir. In fact, of the main characters we know about, in Genesis the oldest son usually doesn’t get the birthright. At the beginning of the book, Seth is at least Adam’s third son (see Genesis 4:25). Shem is Noah’s second son (see notes on WiderBible Episode 10). Abram (Abraham) was either a second or third son (see end of note, below). Abraham’s heir, Isaac was Abraham’s first son with Sarah, his wife, but he also had Ishmael, an older son with his concubine (see Genesis 16:16 and Genesis 21:5). Jacob was Isaac’s second son, but bartered and stole the birthright from his older brother (see Genesis 25:24-26 and Genesis 27). Jacob’s oldest son was Reuben, but by Reuben’s poor choices the birthright went to Joseph, the first son by Jacob’s favorite wife (see Genesis 29:31-32, Genesis 49:3-4, Genesis 48:5, Genesis 30:22-24, and Genesis 29:30). Finally, at the end of Genesis, of Joseph’s two sons, the younger one gets a greater blessing than the older one (see Genesis 48:8-19). If you go on through the BIble, the examples of youngest children taking the lead are less frequent, but they include Moses, who wrote Genesis and was at best a second-oldest son (see Exodus 7:7), David, later king David, who was the youngest of several brothers (see 1 Samuel 16:6-13), and Solomon, who David crowned as king instead of Solomon’s older brother (see 2 Samuel 3:4 and 1 Kings 2:13-15). We don’t know for certain where the birthright tradition came from, but in the pages of the Bible, it seems clear that it wasn’t sacrosanct. There were plenty of exceptions to it. God could just as easily appoint a younger sibling as He could an older one. From above, you can derive the fact that Abram wasn’t an oldest child from Genesis 11:26, Genesis 11:32, Genesis 12:1-4, and Acts 7:4 as well as explanations in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 288). Review and Herald Publishing Association. and Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (p. 25). Master Books.

For the suggestion that the lineage given in Genesis 5 isn’t because of the status as eldest son, but because a son was more spiritual, see the reference on Genesis 5:18, here as well as statements here and chapter 2, paragraph 3, here I assume that this same reasoning applies to the generations besides Enoch as well.

There’s not much information in the genealogy descending from Adam. It’s possible the names in Genesis 5 are only there to bridge the gap between Adam and important people later on, but the idea that it is a list of people who were faithful or devoted to God is supported by a few bits of evidence. First, it is the traditional perspective found in a couple of commentaries where it says these people were the ones who were faithful or virtuous (see note on Genesis 5:6, here and note on Genesis 5:5, here as well as the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian from around 2000 years ago who also mentions it (see ch. 2, sec. 3, here. Beyond this traditional viewpoint, there’s also context. Genesis 4 is about Cain’s wicked family and Genesis 5 is contrasting that with Seth’s family, suggesting the family was, as a whole, more faithful. Finally, while we don’t have concrete evidence for eight of the ten names, there is specific mention of God during the 3rd generation (Genesis 4:26) and Genesis says the men in the 7th and 10th generations “walked with God” (see Genesis 5:22 and Genesis 6:9), and, though the faith of a father doesn’t become the religion of a son, it is, perhaps, more likely. Given these pieces of evidence, I assume each of the named men in the lineage in Genesis 5 were God-fearing.

Genesis 5:3 mentions that Adam was made in the image of God, but Seth was made in the image of Adam. Both this and this commentary see it as an emphasis that Seth was born with a sinful nature unlike the original perfect nature Adam was created with.

For a timeline of the events a person turning 700 in 2020 would be able to recall, see The Hundred Years’ War, The Battle of Crecy, The Black Death, Gutenberg’s printing, and Columbus’ voyages. See also Protestant Reformation, the Spanish Armada, and the Napoleonic wars, see here, here, and here.

In researching population models for the Bible, the best article I found was this one that weighs a lot of variables to see how they affect population growth, but even that article admits there are too many unknown variables from the time when Methuselah was alive to get a useful value. Changing values lets you have a small, sparse population or an enormous one.

My comment that each family would need to have an average of 6.9 children (5 children minimum) to have a son as well as other sons (at least 2) and daughters (at least 2) is based upon a Monte Carlo simulation of 1 million families having children until they had at least 3 sons and 2 daughters. I recognize “other sons and daughters” might be an idiom for “other kids” and not a statement meant to be used for statistics, but I was curious nonetheless. For background, the idea came from a comment on Genesis 5:4 in this commentary that claims 9 children would be required to meet the 3 boys and 2 girls quota, but there was no basis given for that conclusion and my simulation suggests ~7 children would be more accurate. You can find the birthrates of the world over the last 80 years here and the birthrates in the American colonies in chapter 11 here.

For the number of sons and daughters people claim Adam and Eve had, see comment on Genesis 5:4 here as well as Josephus’ comments in chapter 2 paragraph 3 and footnote 8 here. I should point out that these numbers are guesses or, at best, based on unknown traditions.

As an example of how the generations grow, if you assume the gap between generations in Seth’s day was 117 years (the average of the numbers in Genesis 5, minus an outlier), and Seth and his wife had 7 kids (3.5 kids per person per generation), there would be 389 descendants when Methuselah was born. If he had 10 kids (5 kids per person per generation), there would be over 2,000 descendants. Taking those same numbers, but decreasing the generation gap to 65 years (the youngest age of any father listed in Genesis 5) and still over twice the modern average, with 7 kids per family there would be 46,000 descendant when Methuselah was born and over 970,000 if each family had 10 kids. With the Earth being new and fertile, it’s possible that there were very large families and closely spaced generations as it could, potentially, supply enough food for greater population densities than today, but the numbers get hard to fathom and you begin to wonder when the planet’s carrying capacity would come into play. For the average age of mothers around the world when their first child was born, see here.

At this point, five centuries after Cain left, many of Seth’s descendants may have already defected to Cain’s side, but assuming the didn’t, and estimating land use from the 2,000 square meters per person per year noted here, even if Methuselah lived at the outer fringe of that 389 person group, he still might be less than a mile away.

Genesis mentions Cain building a city in Genesis 4: 17 but says nothing about Seth and his descendants doing the same thing. This could be part of the contrast between the two branches of the family, and if that’s the case, the natural assumption is that Seth’s family followed a more rural, probably agrarian, lifestyle that practiced the farming and shepherding Cain and Abel were involved in from the early days of Adam’s life outside the Garden of Eden.

To figure how far Methuselah might’ve traveled to see Adam, the distance between the gate to the Garden of Eden and Enoch’s homestead, I assumed people radiated in a half-circle as they settled, always blocked by the border to the Garden of Eden, but this is, of course, wild speculation. Eden could’ve been circular, rectangular, square, trapezoidal, or of a more random border defined by natural valleys and rivers.

For the history of personal computers, see [here]. For fountain and ballpoint pens, see here. For typewriters, see here.

For the history of feather quills, see here. Feather quills are enough a part of tradition that the United State Supreme Court still places quill pens at the tables whenever the court sits in session (see here). For preparing a feather quill and using it, see here.

For oral tradition as the most used form of communication both in the past and today, see here.

For the study of Yugoslavian oral tradition, see comments here.

For details about the sacred Hindu writings, originally passed down orally, see here.

Though Genesis doesn’t say Adam’s memory was “perfect,” it is, perhaps, a reasonable conclusion given God’s statement in Genesis 1:31 that Adam and the rest of the world was “very good” at the end of the sixth day of creation.

For details about savants, see here and here.

For a chart of the overlapping generations between Adam and Methuselah and beyond, see the diagram on the WiderBible website here.

For “city” referring to any size settlement, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 82–83). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press as well as Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 4:17, note. Zondervan.

The name of Cain’s son, and the city he built, is “Enoch.” To be clear, this is not the same Enoch as Methuselah’s father. According to this commentary, in Proverbs 22:6, Enoch means “train” as in ”train up a child,” but it is also used in Deuteronomy 20:5 to refer to the dedication of a house, so the name of Cain’s son might mean “dedicated.”

Cain probably built his city as a distraction, for security, and maybe in an attempt to protect himself from God’s judgment according to speculation here, here, and here which also mentions that it wasn’t so much a city as a fort. See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 242). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For forts in the Plymouth colony, see here. For the Jamestown colony, see here. For Roman forts, see here.

Mentioning how animals changed after Adam and Eve sinned opens up any number of discussions about evidences for Creation versus evidence for the Theory of Evolution. I stated my position in the first episode of WiderBible (see here), and don’t plan to make this podcast about that debate. If you are interested in the evidence for creation, while I can’t vouch for everything that is written, I’ve used both Creation.com and Answers in Genesis to study the evidence in my own research.

For details about the lizard experiment on the island in Croatia, see the article here as well as a discussion of it here.

For God’s statement that the animals were good, even “very good,” and that they were originally meant to eat plants, see Genesis 1:30-31. It was not till after the Flood that God gave man permission to eat of the flesh of animals (see Genesis 9:3).

For a description of different eye shapes in the animal kingdom, see this article.

The origin of the word “dinosaur” comes from here. The award for largest dinosaur is speculative, but this article suggests 131 feet long, 19 feet tall at the shoulder, and 70 tonnes of weight (which, from the source and spelling, I assume means metric tons). For the mass of an African elephant, see here. That source gives US tons, I think. To be accurate, I should’ve said that the largest dinosaurs might’ve weighed at least 10 times as much as an African elephant. There were also small dinosaurs. For the predators, saber-toothed tigers are found here, For the discovery large crocodile jaw bones, see here and for the length of the crocodile itself, see here. For the largest crocodile (at least in captivity), see here.]. To get a sense of this, look up If you need some scale, look up pictures of salt water crocodiles in Australia, but then take that image and make it one-and-a-half or two times larger. For the length of a school bus, see pg. 39, here.

For details about humans bred dogs for the traits they wanted, and some speculation about what wild dogs the domesticated ones descended from, see here. For details about Rottweilers, see here and here. For general information on dog senses, see here and here.

For the comment that there’s no reason to believe Cain or his descendants died any younger than Seth or his children, see comments on Genesis 5:3 here.

For the use, later in the Bible, of “calling upon the name of the Lord” as a reference to formal worship, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 244). Review and Herald Publishing Association. as well as Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 4:25-26, note. Andrews University Press.

For the “call upon the name of the Lord” potentially meaning they were called by the name of the Lord, a title perhaps given as an insult by the non-followers of God see note on Genesis 4:26, here as well as comments on the same verse here. For the “call upon the name of the Lord” being a reference to followers of God first calling themselves, “Jehovah,” see here. If true, this has a parallel in how how the followers of Christ were first called “Christians” in Acts 11:26, their religion called by the name of their God. Another option, given here and here, suggests this phrase refers to praying to God or worhip of God in a public and respectful way. While both this source and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.) suggest it was referencing a sort of revival. In any case, it’s interesting that later in the Bible, the exact same words referring to calling upon the name of the Lord are used in Joel 2:32 as the definition of those who would be saved (see lexicons for the two verses here and here.

For the use of “United States War of Independence” as an alternative title for the American Revolution, see here. For the background to the song “Yankee Doodle” and it’s use in the American Revolution, see the transcript of an interview here. Unlike the reference in the interview, but assuming his other facts are right, the British did not surrender at the Battle of Bunker hill, but it was a hard won victory which encouraged the Americans to keep fighting. For more, see here. For the use of the song by the rebels through to the end of the war, and it’s status as an unoffical national anthem, see here.

The ancient sources used for Bible translations sometimes vary on the ages of the patriarchs listed in Genesis 5. For instance, the Septuagint, an Egyptian translation, claims Methuselah was only 167 (instead of 187) when Lamech was born. It also says Lamech was 188 (instead of 182) when Noah was born. If Noah was 600 at the time of the Flood (as the Septuagint admits, and if Methuselah lived to be 969 (as the Septuagint also claims) then he outlived the Flood by 14 years. Considering only 8 people were on the Ark, and none of them was Methuselah, it seems the Septuagint dates aren’t the most reliable and the dates from the Hebrew manuscripts ought to be used instead. For more about the Septuagint, see here and for the dating issue, see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pg. 11). Master Books.

For the case of Cain’s family, I assume Lamech was five generations away from Cain since only four other names are mentioned as coming between them, but with so little information, it’s entirely possible other generations were skipped. As with the names of Seth’s descendants, the meaning of the names of Cain’s descendants is open for debate. The name of Cain’s grandson, “Irad,” might mean “runner,” or “wild ass,” according to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers, or alternatively “townsman,” or “ornament of a city,” according to Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 242). Review and Herald Publishing Association. “Mehujael” might mean “smitten of God” or “God gives life” (see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 725). Review and Herald Publishing Association.). “Methusael” could mean “God’s hero” (see here) or “man of God” (according to Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 734). Review and Herald Publishing Association.) or “champion of El” by the translation in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Unlike the earlier names, “Adah” and “Zillah,” the names of Lamech’s wives, appear to have clear meanings most translators agree about. “Adah” means “ornament” or “adornment” and refers to the decoration of a person. There’s a chance it also means “brightness” or “the dawn.” (For meanings of “Adah,” see here and here). “Zillah” means “shadow” and apparently implies “comfort” and “coolness” as mentioned here and here. The suggestion that the names refer to sensual attractions, as well as some other possible translations, see here.

For the suggestion that the meaning of “Adah” and “Zillah” suggest a focus on luxury and pleasure, see comments on Genesis 4:19 and Genesis 4:24 here.

For this as the first example of polygamy in the Bible, see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

One scholar suggested that Jesus’ advice to forgive in Matthew 18:22 with a reference to either seventy-seven times or seventy times seven (depending on the translation) is a reference back to this boast by Lamech, which, to me, would suggest Jesus is saying one ought to forgive even the Lamech’s of the world. For the idea, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 83–84). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

One commentary suggests the word Lamech used for “killed” refers to the use of a sharp weapon, but the lexicon for that terms means more like “slew,” “murdered,” or “slaughtered.” For more, see here.

For the lexicon reference to the word Lamech uses to describe the person he killed, see here as well as comment in verse 14, here.

For overreaction and murder as the point of Lamech’s boast, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 83–84). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

For the concept of a blood feud in Lamech’s words, see here.

There’s a lot of argument over what the “If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.” means. One idea is that his crime was self-defense, so it was certainly not as bad as Cain’s act of cold-blooded murder, and therefore if someone were to kill him, the vengeance on that person should be greater than it was on Cain. Alternatively, it might be a boast that Lamech’s act of violence was more impressive than Cain’s, therefore the vengeance should be 11 times greater. Origen, an early Christian leader, apparently wrote two books on this passage and still couldn’t figure it out (see here). For various opinions, see here.

For the idea that Lamech was treating God’s tolerance of Cain as permission to kill, see here.

For various burial customs, see here and here.

“Enoch” means “initiated” according to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

For the reference to the Greek version of the Old Testament that mentions that Enoch “pleased” God, see here.

We might now know specifically what it means to “walk with God” or whether it is solely metaphorical, but there is a rhetorical question later in the Bible that says, “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” (see Amos 3:3) so it’s reasonable to assume this statement is evidence of Enoch’s close companionship with God. After this time, the phrase came to be a common way of referring to a constant companionship (see here. For more, see the description Matthew Henry gives, here.

For a quote of Enoch in the New Testament, see Jude 1:14-15. This quote from Enoch is not to say that other quotes, sometimes attributed to Enoch, and found outside the Bible in various places, are also genuine or accurate.

Regarding Enoch going to heaven when he was 365 years old, you might hear it suggested that this is just a myth about some sort of solar deity, since Enoch’s age was the same as the number of days in a year, but this is projecting our current calendar back on a culture that thought about things differently. According to one scholar, the Hebrew calendar was 354 days, and the Chaldean (Babylonian) calendar was 360, neither of which gives you the modern 365 days in a year. That said, there is still, perhaps, room to see how the story of Enoch was known by people around the world, but twisted over time as, according to one source, the seventh king of the Babylonian dynasty from before the Flood received information from the sun-god and built a city dedicated to the sun-god. For more, see here.

The fact that Enoch didn’t die is evident from context, language, and an explicit comment in the New Testament. First, the reference that God took im is later used for the translation of Elijah to heaven in [2 Kings 2:3-10] according to this commentary. Second, the chapter of Genesis 5 is focused on people getting old and dying, with the sole exception of Enoch. Claiming “God took him” is a euphemism for death doesn’t fit since death is stated explicitly in the case of everyone else besides Noah, who ends the chapter. Finally, Hebrews 11:5 provides the most concrete evidence as it state that Enoch did not see death.

For the suggestion that there must’ve been witnesses to Enoch’s translation, see here.

For the reference of Enoch’s translation as proof of the accuracy of the things he taught, see Jude 1:14-15 and the comment on Genesis 5:24, here.

We don’t know what Adam and Eve’s house was like. I’m guessing the climate was fairly nice, so I imagine their hut much like you would find today in tropical parts of the world. For roof thatching see here.

For the chronology of the first 11 chapters of the Bible and how many years they cover, see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (p. 278). Master Books.

For the details of Samoset, Squanto, and the Plymouth colony, see here.

There is some debate about what Eve meant when she said she’d gotten a man, “the Lord.” On the one hand, maybe she knew the promised descendant would be the Son of God. On the other hand, there’s no evidence Adam and Eve were given those details of the plan of Salvation since those pieces are only explained later in the Bible. In figuring this out, it’s important to remember that we can’t limit what Eve knew to what’s written down in Genesis 3. Like I said, Genesis is an abridged version of history. We don’t know what else God may have explained that’s not recorded there. In other places in the Bible, people mention details of history that aren’t recorded in Genesis and may have passed down through other traditions. For instance, if you look in the New Testament, Jude 1:14 quotes something Enoch says that’s not mentioned in the story about Enoch found in Genesis (see Genesis 5:21-24). In short, we have to take what Eve said at face value. She said, “I have gotten a man, the Lord,” so she either thought Cain might be the Deliverer or, perhaps, he was just the first proof there would be children that would lead to the promised Deliverer. For the literal translation of Eve’s words when Cain was born, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For Eve using “YHWH” to refer to Cain, see the lexicon here. For the suggestion that Eve might have thought Cain was the promised Seed God mentioned in the Garden of Eden, see Matthew Henry’s comments here. Another commentary suggests she at least saw Cain’s birth as significant and related to God’s promise. For the suggestion Eve’s reference to YHWH was a general statement of faith in the promise and that name was only used to refer to God specifically later on, see here. For the Jews refusing to pronounce the name YHWH for fear of desecrating it, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 1192). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For the reference that Eve would have a descendant that would crush the serpent’s head, see Genesis 3:15.

Because Genesis doesn’t have the phrase “and she conceived,” and because of some other unusual ways of putting things, commentators like John Calvin have suggested Abel was Cain’s twin brother. This is possible but far from certain. For more, see here, here, and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Supporting the idea that shepherding and gardening were each, on their own, fine professions to go into, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Cain may have become a farmer because he followed Adam’s occupation, according to this reference. For evidence God told Adam to work as a farmer in Eden, see Genesis 2:5 where it says that plants hadn’t sprouted because there was no man to “work the ground,” and Genesis 2:15 where it talks about how Adam was put in the garden to “work” it, with “work” being the same basic word in both cases, a word referring to “cultivate.” For more on the actual words used in Hebrew, see here and here. In addition to Cain’s gardening as an occupation sanctioned by God, there’s some speculation here about God giving Adam and Eve the job of taking care of livestock as a way to get their clothing.

Genesis doesn’t say, but it’s possible God gave Adam and Eve an explanation of the reasons and symbolism of the a sacrifice when he supplied them with skins to cover their nakedness in the Garden of Eden as mentioned in Memories of Eden, part 3. Interestingly enough, the words used to describe the skins God gave Adam and Eve is similar to the way Moses later describes the garments the priests were to wear when they served in the tabernacle. Exodus 29:4-5. In addition, the priests also had to be naked before being clothed with the new garments. For more, see Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 3:21, note. Andrews University Press. For the bringing of offerings as evidence both Cain and Abel recognized God’s superiority, see here.

There are a lot of interpretations about Cain and Abel bringing their harvest at “the end of days.” One commentator thought it referred to when Cain and Abel had grown up and were old enough to give offerings. Another thinks it is talking about the Sabbath at the end of the week. Elsewhere, it’s suggested it refers to harvest-time or the end of the year, which seems plausible as it fits with Leviticus 23:9-10 where the Israelites are commanded to bring their first fruits as an offering to God. This idea also comes up in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association. A summary of commentators and their different viewpoints can be found here.

For bananas with large seeds, see here. For the history of the Hass avocado, see here. For the Fuerte avocado, see pg. 28 here.

It’s only a guess to imagine what kind of sheep Abel herded, but for both goats and sheep being in a shepherd’s flock in the places Moses lived, see here.

For speculation Cain and Abel made their offerings at the place where God stood guarding the way to the Tree of Life, see here and here. See here for the suggestion Adam and Eve worshiped facing paradise.

Genesis 8:20 is the next sacrifice mentioned in the Bible, and an altar is built in that case, so it seems reasonable to expect Cain and Abel to build altars here, too. For the rules given later in the Bible about how to build an altar, see Exodus 20:24-25. For various types of altars found by archeologists, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (pp. 32–33). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the use of flint knives for surgery in the Bible, see Exodus 4:25 and Joshua 5:2-3. For the history of the use of flint knives as surgical instruments, see pg. 382 here, which goes on to talk about obsidian and its use in surgery as well. There are further comments about obsidian on pg. 19 here. Steel scalpels outshine stone ones in their ability to be mass produced, and the fact that obsidian is brittle, as mentioned here. No one likes a scalpel that might shatter.

The method for killing a sacrificial animal isn’t explained in the Bible, and while we don’t know that it is what Abel did, the best guess might be the traditional kosher methods used today as explained here. The word “altar” comes from a word meaning “to slay” to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. or “to slaughter” according to Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 33). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

We don’t know how Cain and Abel knew whether their sacrifices were accepted or not. One author suggested it was either an audible or visible sign, specifically mentioning fire from heaven as one option. The origins of this “fire from heaven” theory aren’t obvious. This commentary thinks the idea is only speculation based upon fire coming down to consume sacrifices in other instances in the Old Testament (see 1 Kings 18:38, 1 Chronicles 21:26, and 2 Chronicles 7:1). Regardless of how the idea started, it was supported by Theodotion around the 2nd century A.D., and another commentary referenced Jerome and Chrysostom. Other writers are mentioned here. Overall, fire from heaven is a common idea for about the last 1800 years. One commentary refers to the idea, but thinks it is bad practice to embellish Bible story with this sort of unsupported detail. Fire or not, the relevant key seems to be that it was somehow clear Abel’s offering was accepted by God, and Cain’s was not.

For details about “bolts from the blue,” see this article. For the distance to the horizon being less than than 25 miles (unless you’re standing on something tall, an even worse idea in a lightning storm), see here. For the temperature of a lightning bolt, see here. For a description of what happens when fire from heaven hits a sacrifice, see 1 Kings 18:38-39.

We don’t know how God talked to Cain, but one idea is that it was in a vision or a dream. For this story as evidence that God was still making personal contact with men and that God was trying to reason with Cain, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 239). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

This source affirms that for Cain to have willfully done wrong implies that there were rules he knew. For Cain’s lack of argument with God when God confronted him as evidence he knew what the rules for sacrifices were, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 235–236). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For comments that sins are only forgiven by the shedding of blood, see Leviticus 17:11 and Hebrews 9:22.

One commentary argues that Cain was probably jealous of Abel because Abel’s flocks were growing and Cain’s farm wasn’t doing well, but if Cain was truly so poor he couldn’t afford an animal, the laws regarding sacrifices also included a provision where the very poor were allowed to offer flour for their sins (see Leviticus 5:7-13). Cain probably didn’t fit this category, but it does suggest the animal-versus-plant question wasn’t the only reason Cain’s offering wasn’t acceptable.

From the Bible we can’t say for certain that the lack of life in Cain’s offering was the problem. Besides the more recognizable offerings for atonement, there were also offerings of first fruits (see Deuteronomy 26 and thank offerings (see Leviticus 2) where it was fine to bring grain. See also Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. The word used in the original Hebrew to refer to the offerings Cain and Abel brought is usually used to refer to plants, though here it must include both the plants Cain offered and the animals Abel brought. For more, see here. For it being logical for Cain to bring plants and Abel to bring animals if there weren’t rules to the contrary, see here.

For the first fruits offering being made up of the best part of the first ripe produce, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 369). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For the description of Abel’s offering as a reference to the best Abel had to offer, see here as well as Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. For the suggestion that Cain brought only common stuff rather than the best, see here. This commentary references the idea of “leftovers.” For the belief that Cain’s gift indicated thoughtlessness, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 4:3-4, note. Zondervan.

For the idea that no acceptance came for Cain because he only brought the gift because he had to, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7512-7546). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Commentators also point out that God accepted first Abel, then his sacrifice suggesting how the person came mattered more than what the person brought (see here, as well as the paragraph starting “Abel, on the contrary,” here, and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 239). Review and Herald Publishing Association.). For commentaries that focus on the attitude of Cain as the main issue deciding the acceptability of his offering, see here, here, here, and here. This commentary refers to the great difference being in the state of mind of the two brothers. You can also find this idea in Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 4:3-5, note. Zondervan and the Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 4:3-5, note. Andrews University Press.

The suggestion that Cain was arrogant might be derived from the second part of Genesis 4:5 since Cain gets angry when he’s not accepted, a reaction that might be expected to accompany disappointed arrogance. Proverbs 21:27 may also shed some light on Cain’s frame of mind. See Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

For the background of Matthew Henry, see here. For his comments about the difference of attitude between Cain and Abel, see here. Matthew Henry was a nonconformist. A nonconformist was an English protestant who didn’t follow the Church of England, as defined here. For Martin Luther’s idea that Cain came with the belief that he was good enough on his own, see the paragraph starting, “And it is in this manner,” here.

For the idea that Cain was bringing only an offering acknowledging God’s authority, see here. Supporting the idea that Abel’s faith was important is Hebrews 11:4. For a comment suggesting it was the state of Cain and Abel’s hearts that mattered, see here as well as Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

God had this conversation with Cain in the form of questions. For the idea that God knew the answers to the questions but was trying to get Cain to realize his error, see here. For the reference that the phrase “lifting up” is referring to Cain’s countenance rather than forgiveness, as might be suggested, see here as well as Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Sometimes the idea of Cain having “charge” is thought to refer to Abel, but it better fits the context of having charge over sin. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 240). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

There is a suggestion that the term “sin” in Genesis 4:7 ought to be “sin offering” since it is translated that way in nearly half of the places it shows up in the Old Testament, but there’s a grammar challenge there. Instead, Moses might be trying to draw an analogy between “sin” and a wild animal. For more, see here, here (where it is noted that the word refers to both the sin and the sin-offering), and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 240). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Admittedly, there’s a chicken-and-the-egg problem with Mesopotamian mythology. Cain came before the Mesopotamians, but Moses came after them. Either the Mesopotamians remembered the analogy given to Cain by God of something “crouching at the door,” and updated it to refer to a demon hiding outside and waiting to pounce, or Moses used the possibly well-known Mesopotamian analogy to illustrate in his own words the point God was making. Since Genesis presents this as something God said, I went with the first option. In either case, a similar idea is presented in the New Testament in 1 Peter 5:8 where the devil is compared to a roaring lion looking for someone to eat. For more, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7512-7546). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

I paraphrase C.S. Lewis’ comment. The actual quote about the fastest way forward being to turn around if you are going the wrong way is on pg. 28, here.

In modern times, being born a few minutes after your sibling usually doesn’t make much of a difference unless there are very particular circumstances. For instance, twins born around midnight might have their birthdays on different dates. If that midnight was December 31, they might have birthdays in separate years. If they were born near February 29, one child might have a birthday only every four years while the other has them at the regular clip. The most interesting scenario is twins born while a ship or plane is crossing the international dateline going from west to east. In that situation, the child born second has a birthday that comes the day before the child born first. Today, outside of monarchies, being the oldest son of a family doesn’t matter much, but in Bible times those benefits, referred to as a “birthright,” were significant. The son who received the birthright became the priest and judge in family affairs as well as receiving twice as much inheritance as his brothers. After Cain’s offering was rejected, several commentaries (see here, here, here, and here) suggest Cain was upset because he believed Abel would get the birthright, but as no one had ever inherited anything in history up to that point, it’s hard to know if the birthright tradition even existed at that point. For more, see “Birthright” in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

As mentioned in a footnote on Genesis 4:8, a bunch of old texts add Cain suggesting to Abel that they both go out to the field, but this isn’t found in the original Hebrew and seems like an insertion as mentioned here, though it does fit the context according to Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 240). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

In Hebrew, “Abel” means “vanity” or “nothingness” according to Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association. His name might also mean “transitoriness” according to Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 3). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For a comparison of “Abel” to “breath or vapour” see here. It’s interesting that the same word comes up in Psalm 39:5 where it is translated “vanity” as referenced here and here. There is also a suggestion that “Abel” is a cognate with a Sumerian word for “son” from the Akkadian language, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., though this might be due to Sumerians remembering Eve’s son named Abel, and using that name as a generic term in the same way “adam” was the generic term for “man” in a few different ancient languages as mentioned under “Adam” in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. For suggestions that the names of Cain and Abel weren’t given at birth, but later on, see here for Cain, and here for Abel. This idea is also mentioned in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 3). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the story of John Hancock, see here.

The word “Cain” might sound like the word for “possession” according to a footnote on Genesis 4:1 as well as a similar comment here, but elsewhere it is translated as literally meaning “a lance” here and “a spear.” in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers, which also mentions the “possession” reference. Beyond those definitions, another idea is that “Cain” is related to a word meaning “to strike” and that the name was a reference to his killing of Abel.

For John’s comment in the New Testament about Cain and Abel, see 1 John 3:12. For the meaning of the word “murder” in 1 John 3:12 see here.
For commentaries that reference this passage, see here, Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 238–244). Review and Herald Publishing Association., and Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Genesis 5:3-4 says that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, but he may have counted his age from when he was created or from when he sinned and would someday die. We don’t know how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden before they sinned, but considering they were commanded to multiply at creation (see Genesis 1:28) and that hadn’t happened by the time they sinned, it probably wasn’t long.

For the idea that there were already more people on the Earth than just the four mentioned in the story so far, see here, here, here and Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., as well as this source which specifically mentions the idea that Adam and Eve probably had lots of kids and their descendants continued the pattern. For the minimum and maximum global birthrates for the last 60 years, see here.

Various commentaries have different opinions about how God had this conversation with Cain. Apparently Martin Luther thought Adam said it (see here, paragraph starting, “Moreover Moses has arranged all this narrative”). while another writer thought it was a voice in Cain’s heart. One commentary thought the voice probably came from between the cherubim at the entrance to the Garden of Eden, but all three ideas are speculation.

For the idea Cain was claiming it wasn’t his job to baby-sit Abel, see here and here. For “keeper” as a play on words referencing Abel’s job as a keeper of sheep, see here.

For the meaning of the word “keep” in the original Hebrew, and the fact that Cain used the same word about Abel that God used for Adam’s job in the Garden of Eden and for the description Genesis gives of God blocking the way to the Tree of Life, see here.

For the idea Cain may have premeditated the murder of Abel, see here as well as Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 4:7, note. Zondervan. For the opposite position, that Abel’s murder wasn’t premeditated, see here and here.

For the number of times Abel is referred to as Cain’s brother, and the suggestion it is a way of emphasizing the seriousness of Cain’s crime, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

In the original language, the reference to Abel’s blood is plural. It is the voice of “bloods,” which probably refers to all the children Abel would have had if he hadn’t been killed (see here and here). For the use of “Hark!” instead of “voice” see here. For evidence of the belief in blood crying out in the Bible and needing to be covered by soil to be silenced, see Job 16:18. There’s also a reference to the idea of Abel’s blood speaking in Hebrews 12:24. See also, here.

For this being the first time a human was cursed in the Bible, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 241). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For this curse referring to any plot of ground Cain might farm, and not all ground in general, see here and here. The fact that human blood pollutes the ground is brought up specifically in Numbers 35:31-33. For the idea that Cain had polluted the ground by pouring blood on it see here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 241). Review and Herald Publishing Association. It’s interesting that in refusing to grow things, one commentary suggested the ground was, essentially, more horrified by Abel’s murder than Cain was. For John Calvin’s comment that the earth acted as a witness against Cain, see here.

One commentary argues that Cain was probably jealous of Abel because Abel’s flocks were growing and Cain’s farm wasn’t doing well, but that doesn’t seem well supported. If the ground only stopped yielding its strength (see Genesis 4:12) at this point, it would seem Cain must have been doing well as a farmer up until then and not that he was struggling and envious of Abel’s success. Instead, as stated in 1 John 3:12, Cain hated Abel because Abel did righteous things and Cain did evil things. He hated Abel for following God.

There is a popular theory that before humans knew how to cultivate land and grow crops, before they knew agriculture, they roamed around and ate what they could find growing in the wild. This idea of human society beginning as ‘hunter-gatherers’ misses the beginning of the story. Cain was a farmer first, and then a wanderer only later, after he murdered Abel. There’s irony in the punishment God pronounces. Cain liked to stay in one place. Abel liked to roam with the sheep. Now Cain was condemned to a life of wandering.

For other words conveying “fugitive” see here and here.

For the practice of vengeance for the death of a clan member in the ancient world, here, as well as Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7512-7546). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. For where the idea shows up in the Bible, see Numbers 35:9-34 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13. For other examples, see here. For the idea that Cain is realizing everyone on Earth would be a near kinsman of Abel, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

For God changing the death penalty to exile, Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 241). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Some translations of Cain’s response suggest that Cain was either saying his sin was too great to be forgiven or asking if it was too great to be forgiven, but most commentators agree Cain was focused on the punishment, not feeling guilt for the crime. For their comments, see here, here, here, and here. For Cain going from defiance to despair and complaining about the punishment rather than expressing remorse for the crime, see here, here, and here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 238–244). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For Cain seeming to suggest the punishment was unfair or cruel, see here and here.

For God being against human revenge, see Deuteronomy 23:35. For God giving Cain a mark in order to keep humans from getting involved in revenge, see here.

God says that Cain’s hypothetical killer will be punished “seven times” more than Cain. What this “seven times” means is up for debate. One commentary suggested it might be that if Cain were killed, seven other people would be killed in response. Another idea is that it was just a way of saying “lots more,” perhaps similar to how someone today might say they had, “a ton of work” when they aren’t actually referring to 2000 pounds of material. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 241–242). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Some commentaries suggest that the “mark” referred to was some sort of sign to reassure Cain that he wouldn’t be killed, but it seems that it would also need to be something physically obvious so other people would recognize him later on. A few places noted that the mark of Cain was a sign of protection from God, but that protection seems more like a warning than a shield. Cain was worried that anyone who found him might kill him, and when God gave him the mark he said “if any one kills Cain…” It seems that Cain still could be killed, but the mark was there as a deterrent, a warning, of what the consequences would be for any would-be murderer. For the purpose of this mark as something to make Cain stand out from other people, perhaps something visible, see here, here, and here. For the idea that Cain wasn’t branded but given some sort of sign as a promise, see here, here, and here. A good overview of the different opinions can be found here. See also Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7512-7546). Zondervan. Kindle Edition and Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

These are not all the possible translations of “Nod.” Like other pre-Flood geography, any details of the land of Nod were lost in the Flood. For the meaning of “Nod” see the footnote on Genesis 4:16 as well as other definitions offered here and in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 242). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the suggestion that Cain went where he thought God couldn’t see him, see here. For his abandonment of the worship of God and of following any of God’s laws, see here and here.

Scholars sometimes see the story of Cain and Abel as a discussion of the competition between farmers and shepherds, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. This commentary source suggests wandering flocks were prone to stray onto cultivated land and that maybe Abel’s flocks did that to Cain, but the idea is speculation.

For examples of histories that might have roots in the story of Cain and Abel, there are two stories archeologists in Mesopotamia found about competitions between a shepherd and a farmer. In one version the farmer wins, in another the shepherd does (see pgs. 63-64 here for the first story and the second one here). In another example folklore in Mexico describes two brothers, the sons of a the first god and goddess, offering sacrifices to the gods before a great flood (see here).

For the frequency of sacrifices as a part of religion around the world and throughout history, see here. For the possible origins of sacrifices as a practice, see here. For the story of Cain and Abel as the most likely common origin for the near universal practice of animal sacrifice in the ancient world, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 235–236). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 3:21, note. Andrews University Press. For more on the symbolism of animal sacrifice, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 233). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Among the anecdotes from ancient Chinese history that line up with this story in the Bible, there is the first emperor of China who also offered sacrifices (see here).

For the Chinese history of the annual sacrifice, according to the best records available, the emperor Shun sacrificed to God around the 23rd century BC. This is before the start of the first Chinese dynasty. For Shun’s sacrifice to the “Highest” God at the winter solstice sacrifice, see pg. 34 here. For the concept that these particular sacrifices were to a supreme God, see the reference to “Shangti” here as well as comments on pp. 24-33 here. For details of the winter solstice sacrifice as given over 3000 years later by the Ming dynasty, see here and pp. 24-25 here. For an overview of Confucius, see here. For Confucius’ reference to the sacrifices, see pg. 404 here. For the building of the temple complex by the Ming dynasty, see here and here. For the layout of the Temple of Heaven complex, see here and here. For the size of the temple complex compared to Central Park, see areas here and here. For use of the Temple of Heaven by by the Ming and Qing dynasties and it’s status as a world heritage site, see here. For the inconsistency of the emperor offering sacrifices in the Temple of Heaven, see p. 842 here. The final use of the Temple of Heaven for the annual sacrifice on the winter solstice was performed (as far as I could find) by Yuan Shikai, the first president of the Republic of China, in 1914 during his futile attempt to legitimize himself as the first emperor of a new dynasty. Shortly thereafter, the Temple of Heaven became a museum and is now a tourist attraction and a United Nations world heritage site as referenced above. Details about the last use of the temple complex come from a number of places. For Yuan Shikai, the first president of the Republic of China, see here. The American ambassador was there during Shikai’s ceremony and describes it on pg. 25 here. For details of Shikai’s use of the temple complex and the previous American desecration of it, see pp. 1-2 and 235-236 here. For British soldiers feasting in the temple complex, see p. 302 here. For the 16th Bengal Lancers looting golden bells from the temple, see p. 100 here which mentions that the looting was a rumor, and here, which tells how the remaining bell was returned in 1994, a comment that seems to substantiate the earlier rumor. For a actual picture of the 16th Lancers, see here. If this seems like an overly detailed footnote, it is. I’d collected this information for an earlier draft of the episode, but it fit poorly.

For a description of the Egyptian afterlife judgment and paradise, see here.

For details on the Mesopotamian beliefs about the afterlife, see here.

Greek beliefs about the afterlife seem to have developed over time according to this article. In the oldest form of the belief, there were only punishments in specific cases, but by the time of Plato there were different tiers depending on whether people were selfish or good during life. Interestingly enough the survival of the spirit in the afterlife, or at least the good part of the afterlife, seemed to depend on people who were alive remembering them in a positive way (see here). For more, see here and here.

For Abel as an example of righteousness and faith in the New Testament, see Hebrews 11:4 and Matthew 23:35.

For one list of Cain’s descent from impiety to murder to abandonment of God, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 4:13, note. Zondervan. For the concept that one theme of Genesis is how far people fell when they left God and his law behind, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 204). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the meaning of the name “Seth” see here.

Eve didn’t necessarily say that Seth was the Deliverer, only that he was compensation for the loss of Abel, perhaps suggesting he would be another faithful son unlike Cain. Seth did follow God, and he is listed in the lineage of Christ in Luke 3:23-38. John Calvin suggested here that all of Eve’s other children probably went the way of Cain.

For details on the life of Robert Parker, see here, here, and here.

For Parker being the leader of a gang, and that gang forming in 1896 according to western lore, see this article.

For details on the life of Harry Longabaugh, see here. And, yes, if you’re wondering, I’m only making a guess at how to pronounce “Longabaugh.”

For Parker’s time in Rock Springs, Wyoming and his work for a butcher, see here.

For the comment that neither Cassidy nor Sundance killed anyone until the end of their lives, see the introduction to the book found here.

For rivers flowing from the mouth of an Egyptian god that represented the cosmic abyss, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7415-7417). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

For four rivers emanating from a godlike figure in Assyrian artwork, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7415-7417). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

For the story of a cow supplying four rivers of milk in the Norse creation story, see here.

For details on what various oracle bone symbols might mean, see Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. (pg. 27). The symbol that is hypothesized to mean “God” is also referenced on a few other pages.

Among historic garden designs, there is one type in which channels or paths cross through the middle of the garden separating it into quadrants. This is called a chahar bagh and it shows up in, among other places, the gardens of the Taj Mahal. This symbolism of four paths or channels meeting at the center of a garden might refer back to the garden of Eden, but the age of the symbolism is unclear. Cyrus the Great had a garden somewhat like this in Pasagardae, but his garden had only one water channel cutting through it with a hypothetical path cutting the other way to separate the halves into quadrants, so the link is far from certain (see here). Altogether, there’s not enough evidence to determine where the symbolism of the chahar bagh originated and whether it is refers to the four rivers in the garden of Eden or not.

For the background of Ovid, see here. For Ovid’s description of a perfect world, see here.

For the quote from a Sumerian poem and a discussion of Dilmun, the paradise garden of the gods in Sumerian lore, see here. The latter part of the poem is also referenced in Bauer, Susan Wise. The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome (Kindle Locations 693-698). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition. For a description of Sumeria, see here.

For the original descriptions of the Horned serpent, the Uktena, the Aztec feathered serpent, and the Naga, see WiderBible Episode 5 and the show notes from that episode.

For the tree god who looked like a serpent and could take human form in ancient Mesopotamia, see here.

For details on the cobra god wrapped around a papyrus stem in Egyptian lore, see here.

For the Garden of the Hesperides and Ladon, the dragon guarding the apples, see here as well as a more extended note on the topic in the show notes for WiderBible Episode 5.

For the evil snake in Norse mythology, see here. For the original story text of the Norse myth, see here and search “XXXIV.” to find the paragraph about where the snake came from and “LI.” to find the paragraph about the snake coming up on land. For Yggdrasil as a tree supporting the universe and acting as a source of life in the future, see here. For Nidhoggr as a snake gnawing at the roots of Yggdrasil see here and search “Nidhoggr”.

For the memory of dragons as a great snake and the idea that they were controlled by a supernatural power, see pg. 2 here as well as this article.

For more on the Egyptian beliefs surrounding snakes, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7463-7471). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

I had planned to include a story from the Tungu people, but the references available make it unclear whether it was an original story or something that had a Christian influence. Throughout this episode, there is often a risk that such influences can give a false parallel, making a story seem like the story in Genesis, but only due to the fact that people heard the story in Genesis from a Christian and mixed it together with their own previous religion. Overall, it’s hard to tell when this happens, but that’s some of the value of the very old stories and the stories from very far away from the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity, because those stories seem most likely to be remembering their own traditions and history rather than something that was accidentally mixed together with stories from the Bible.

For the story of the two fisherman and the snake in Nicaraguan lore, see pg. 29 here. In addition, the source went on to state that the snake could not be killed by human weapons, only by lighting.

For details from the Creek indian stories about how Tie snakes or Horned serpents got their start, see pg. 26 here.

For the ancient Babylonian image of a snake whispering in a woman’s ear as she and a man hold out their hand toward fruit on a tree, see here.

For details on the “nagas” of Hindu stories, see pg 333 here, and pgs. 2-4 here. For details about Indra, the Hindu god, see here.

The belief that a dragon guards a tree of life or something like it is linked to the common idea in India, China, and Europe that a dragon guards treasure. For more, see here.

For details on what various oracle bone symbols mean, see Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. (pgs. 46-48). Besides the book noted above, the symbol for "not" can be seen in the article here.

For a comment regarding winged creatures outside palaces and temples in Mesopotamia, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 3:24, note. Zondervan.

For more on the Babylonian palace guardians, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 609). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For details on the sphinx, see here as well as a Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 202). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the historic location of the Hittite empire, see here. For the description of a griffin and where it appears in ancient ruins, see here. You can also find references here to the griffin as a guard of holy things.

For the winged bulls being called shedu or lamassu, see here.

For the relationship between the Assyrian “karibu” and the Biblical cherubim, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 236). Review and Herald Publishing Association as well as here.

For more on the Babylonian artifact showing serpent-like creatures guarding gates to the netherworld, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 206863-206865). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

For the quote from the Epic of Gilgamesh, see pg 98, here.

For what happened after Gilgamesh passes the scorpion guards, see Tablet 9 here. For a snake taking the plant away, see Tablet 11.

According to one source, “Nin-ti,” the Sumerian goddess known as “Lady-of-the-rib,” (with “ti” meaning rib) was also known as “she who makes live.” From this, and the fact that “Eve” in Genesis only means “mother of all living,” it’s argued that Eve is just a copy of Nin-ti and the pun on the word “rib” was lost in the new name, but the reasoning could also run the other direction. Rather than assuming Eve was a copy, one could guess that either (A) “Nin-ti” was the copy, probably in a new language springing up around the time of Babel (see Genesis 11:1-9), and the name was invented to remember the first woman as being both a mother and made from a rib, or (B) that both Eve and Nin-ti are names hearkening back to the same original story and neither is explicitly copied from the other. In either case, there isn’t any reason to suspect that “Eve” is based on “Nin-ti,” only that they share the similarities one would expect of people telling a story about a person who was both created from a rib and was the first human mother. For more, see here.

For more on Apopis, the Egyptian serpent of chaos, see here. See also Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7463-7471). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

For spells and curses on snakes that might interfere with a pharoah’s trip to the afterlife, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7493-7494). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

For more on the Adapa epic and the reference to snakes and the food of life, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7463-7471). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. For a more detailed discussion of the parallels between the Adapa epic and the story found in Genesis, see [here](For more on the Adapa epic and the reference to snakes and the food of life, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7463-7471). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. For a more detailed discussion of the parallels between the Adapa epic and the story found in Genesis, see here.

For another story from natives of North America, the Cherokee tale ends with animals getting back at man for being cruel by giving him dreams of snakes that are wrapping around him. For more, see here.

For the frequently found motif of a Supreme Being who created a perfect world only to see it ruined, see this article.

Sources suggesting that similar myths might arise independently can be found here and here. In the second article, they talk about dragon stories, but, if dragon stories were “invented” by looking at dinosaur fossils or whale bones, why did those bones turn into snakes so much of the time? It seems like large versions of wolves or bears or lions or tigers should also show up fairly often, especially in colder parts of the world.

One summary of comparative mythology assumes that many of the stories in Europe and Asia are connected by some common heritage, and notes that even the names of some gods appear to be linguistically related. The article goes on to admit, however, that there are also other stories that come up in North America and seem similar to stories from Greece, though without any obvious connection to explain the similarity.

For details about the Aztec feathered serpent god, see here.

For snakes in North American, Australian, and Chinese mythology, see pg. 97, here. Further details regarding the opinions of the Chinese and Japanese about dragons can be found here.

For the statement that snakes were in charge of the natural world, one reference, on pg. 97 here notes that Australian beliefs included a Rainbow Serpent and that dragons ruled nature. Another, here references various beliefs in rainbow serpents including controlling rain and as a creator.

For the snake-eating-its-own-tail in Greek and Egyptian symbolism, see here.

For the use of Asclepius’s rod with the snake wound around in modern medical practice, see here for the WHO, here for the AMA, and here for the use of the symbol on an ambulance. For more on the use of Asclepius’ rod and the confusion between that symbol and the winged staff with two serpents that is also sometimes used, see here.

In several stories from history, as mentioned in the episode, people seem to reverse the role of the snake in the garden of Eden so that serpents are seen as a positivie character. At first glance, this pattern appears to show up in the story of the bronze serpent found in the Bible, too (see (Numbers 21:6-9). Looking closer at that story, however, there are a couple of details worth pointing out. First, when Moses was told to make the bronze serpent, it was supposed to look like the snakes that were biting people at the time, not like some mythical animal from history. Second, in the New Testament, Jesus refers back to the bronze serpent and uses it to symbolize how He would die on the cross and people must believe in Him in order to have eternal life (see John 3:14-15). These details explain that the snake wasn’t meant to reference back to creation, but rather to a very real problem the people were dealing with in the desert, and that the symbolism was supposed to point forward to Jesus, not to some unknown snake with healing powers. The story in the Bible can seem like the other stories referenced in the episode, but part of what sets it apart is that we don’t have only a fragment of the story, we also have its historical and relgious context. If all we knew was that the ancient Israelites once made a statue of a snake because they thought it would heal them, then the story would fit with these other stories of a snake associated with the power of healing. Knowing the rest of the story, though, dispels that interpretation. Think of it another way. If, for instance, we knew why Asclepius had a snake wound around his rod, and it was for some very practical reason, then it wouldn’t make sense to associate that story with a belief in the mystical healing power of a snake either. As it stands, though, since we don’t have those details, since we don’t know why Asclepius carried a snake around, we are left to wonder.

For Marduk as the chief or patron god of Babylon, see here and here. For Marduk represented by the image of a snake-dragon, see here. For details about the original Ishtar gate, see here and here. For how the Ishtar gate was excavated and rebuilt in a German museum, see here and here.

For more on the Chinese stories of the first emperor, see here.

Though the Fon people trace the creation of the world to a dual male-female character that’s associated with a snake, they also claim there was an even earlier god who came before these creators. For more details, see references here and here, and here, as well as this definition of who the Fon people are.

For more on Egyptian gods, see here and here.

For Enlil as the king of the gods, see here. For the story of humans being destroyed by this grumpy god, see here.

In addition to a beauty contest, the Trojan war also started as a way for Zeus to keep the human population in check. For details on the origins of the Trojan war, see here and here.

For the idea that death came as a punishment in myths around the world, see this article.

For the belief that humans were made from “evil” material in ancient Babylon, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 158). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For more on the creation stories from Africa, see here.

For death arising because of a god’s fears of overcrowding, see here.

By the 16th century, Pandora was seen as a reference to the historical story of Eve. An earlier version of the podcast said the connection went back to Origen and Tertullian, but the references they made may have been for making an illustration rather than seeing them as the same historical character. For the history of people linking Pandora and Eve, see pg. 37 here.

For details on Hesiod, see this article.

In case you were wondering, no, it doesn’t make sense to me either that Prometheus gives fire to humans and then Zeus makes the first woman as punishment. For details, see here and here.

As this article states, a later version of the Pandora story has blessings escaping from the jar rather than curses. These are blessings that would have remained for humans if Pandora hadn’t lost them. Either version can be seen as a parallel to the story in Genesis since the humans are left with hope regardless.

You can get the idea that Moses was an editor of previous documents from Andrews Study Bible (2010) pg. 4. Andrews University Press.

For a more thorough description of how the stories in Genesis might’ve been passed down from Adam to Moses, see Calling Long Distance as well as WiderBible Episode 1.

For the reversed parallel structure that shows up in the Bible as well as the center part of that reveral often being the most important point, see pg. 14 here.

For an example of the climax appearing in the middle of a Bible passage, see the story of Lucifer’s fall from heaven mentioned in Ezekiel 28:12-19 and the discussion in Andrews Study Bible (2010) Ezekiel 28:12-19, note. Andrews University Press.

For the literary structure showing the reversed parallels surround eating from the tree in Genesis 3, see pgs. 21-23 here.

The potential chiasm in Genesis 3:9-19 is my own speculation, and I haven’t been able to validate it from a qualified source. That said, the parallels surrounding what God says to the serpent seem to be fairly obvious, and the fact that God’s comments to the snake reference Christ’s victory (as noted by some commentaries), it seems reasonable to wonder if the structure of the story was intended to focus the reader’s (or listener’s) attention on the promise God made that the snake would someday be destroyed.

For “name” and “character” often being used interchangably in the Bible, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 769). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For God’s proclamation of His own name, see Exodus 34:5-8.

For the meaning of “Lucifer,” see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, pp. 170–171). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

In Job, “the adversary” is the one who accuses Job in heaven as mentioned by Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 3, p. 500). Review and Herald Publishing Association. “Satan” can also mean “accuser” according to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Several of Lucifer’s names are linked together helpfully in Revelation 12:7-9 where he’s called dragon, serpent, devil, satan, and deceiver. See also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1980). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 7, p. 810). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

It’s ahead of the story, but humanity’s second chance came around 4000 years later with the voluntary death of Christ (see Hebrews 2:14-15) who came into the world specifically to overcome the devil (see 1 John 3:8). There are also references to this sacrifice being something God gave before time began (see 2 Timothy 1:9 and Ephesians 3:8-11). For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 232–233). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For a timeline showing the 4000 year gap, see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pgs. 277-280). Master Books. For the probable year of Jesus’ death, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 589). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Details of James Ruse’s life were taken from this site and from pgs. 49-52 here. A map of the various places in Cornwall mentioned in the story can be seen here.

The town of Bodmin was named as a dwelling place of monks and was the most important religious center in Cornwall at one point. During the 1400s and 1500s it was the center of three rebellions, but became the headquarters for the royalist army during the English civil war. For more details about the town of Bodmin, see here.

The Act for the building of Bodmin jail was passed in 1778 but it’s unclear when the jail was completed. For more details about Bodmin jail, see here.

I say the sentence for James Ruse doesn’t seem to have been in question, but the details are scarce. All I could find was that Ruse was brought to jail, charged, and convicted. We don’t know if he was caught red-handed, plead guilty, plead not-guilty, or what evidence they had against him. All I can say is that the records I found don’t mention any protestations of innocence.

According to pg. 49 in this book, mentioned previously, James Ruse was accused of stealing 5 pounds and 10 shillings. For those (like me) unfamiliar with the British monetary system, you can find an article here showing 12 pence went into each shilling and 20 shillings made up a pound. At the time, the death penalty threshhold was 12 pence as mentioned on pg. 322 here. This means Ruse stole 5.5 pounds at a time when 1/20th of a pound (1/110th of the amount he stole) resulted in capital punshiment.

For the definition of a court of assizes, where Ruse was held, see here.

For the verb conjugation meaning that God was “walking for pleasure” in the garden of Eden, see comment here. That same site also mentions the “cool” of the day as referring to the “wind” of the day, along with this commentary which calls it a “breeze.”

For more on fight-or-flight response, see this article.

For the description of why Adam and Eve were ashamed at being naked, this commentary suggests it was a reaction to having lost communion with God. Perhaps it was physical reaction to feeling spiritually exposed because they no longer measured up to perfection and couldn’t face a perfect God.

For verses in the Bible supporting God’s all-knowing capacity, see Psalm 44:21 where David says that God knows the secrets of the heart. Add to that Hebrews 4:13 where Paul (probably, the authorship of Hebrews is debated) points out that no creature is hidden from God. Finally, in 1 John 3:20, John mentions that God knows everything. For commentaries claiming that God already knew what had happened, and didn’t need Adam and Eve to confess in order to find out, see here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 231). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For comments about Adam blaming both God and Eve, see here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 232). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the translation of “beguile” being “caused to forget” and for Eve not really being at fault, see commentary note here on Genesis 3:13. For Eve blaming God indirectly, see comment on commentary at end of Genesis 3:13, here.

For God starting judgment where the sin started, see comment on Genesis 3:14 here. For the serpent being cursed “among” animals instead of “above” them, see comment on Genesis 3:14 here.

For a synopsis of dragons and their different forms, see here. These dragons still show up today, including on the modern Welsh flag. For another style of dragon, see “wyverns,” a term used to describe dragons with wings and only 2 legs. From here it’s interesting to note that “wyvern” comes from the word “viper.”

For comments later in the Bible about animals bearing responsibility for their actions, see Genesis 9:5 and Exodus 21:28-29.

For more on John Chrysostom, see here. For his comment about breaking a sword, see here.

For the punishment of the snake as a symbol of the effects of sin for Adam and Eve’s benefit, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 232). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

It’s odd ot think of, but instantanous “withering” of the snake’s legs or wings wouldn’t be out of place given other stories in the Bible. In the Old Testament, a king’s hand withers after trying to arrest a prophet (1 Kings 13:4) and in the New Testament a fig tree whithers after Jesus pronounces a curse on it (Mark 11:13-21, Matthew 21:18-20). Given this, it’s possible the snake went through a sudden change right in front ot Adam and Eve’s eyes. For the meaning behind the fig tree story, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1980). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 5, p. 644). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the definition of ophidiophobia, see here.

For the common fear of spiders and snakes in both babies and university students, see here. A Biblical argument would suggest the fear of snakes stems from Adam and Eve’s experience early-on. Why people are likely to be afraid of spiders is unclear, but some Gallup polling data suggests a fear of snakes is considerably more significant. This particular poll only says that ophidiophobia is the most common fear among a sample of people in one geographic area. This may not be true of other places in the world or across cultures, but the fact remains that the fear of snakes is prevalent enough for people to feel a need to develop evolutionary arguments to explain the source of humanity’s ophidiophobia. One evolutionary argument is that humans were once monkeys, and snakes eat monkeys, so we have an ingrained fear of snakes, but that fails to explain why we aren’t equally paranoid about eagles or other monkey-munching predators.

When Genesis talks about “seed” the reference is singular suggesting that one child of Adam and Eve would crush the snake’s head, not that they’d all do it together. For specifics, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 233). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the timeline of Jesus’ birth, see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (pg. 280). Master Books as well as a discussion in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 588). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For Jesus being born in Bethlehem, see Luke 2:1-7.

This curse on the snake, and the promise that a man would crush the snake is the first reference in the Bible to the plan of Salvation. For the conclusion of it, in brief, see 1 John 3:8 where the Son of God comes to destroy the works of the devil, 1 Peter 1:16-17 where Jesus is declared to be the Son of God, 1 John 2:1-2 where Jesus is stated as the atoning sacrifice for the whole world, Hebrews 9:12 where Jesus entered into the holy places by His own blood to secure an eternal redemption, and Revelation 21:1-4 where the devil is destroyed and the Earth made new.

Support for the idea that the whole world was ruled by Lucifer can be found in his temptation of Christ in Luke 4:5-6.

In saying that God didn’t curse Adam and Eve (see commentaries here), I suggested His messages to them were about consequences. More aptly, one could see them as being about consequences and discipline. Elsewhere in the Bible it says that God is love (1 John 4:7-12), God wants good things for us (Jeremiah 29:11), God disciplines us for our good (Proverbs 6:23, Hebrews 12:10-11), and that God doesn’t change (Malachi 3:6). Using those statements as a guide, it seems unlikely God was punishing Adam and Eve for the sake of making them miserable. Instead, explaining natural consequences and discipline appear to be the reasons for God’s statements. Thorns and thistles might be a natural consequence of plants developing defense mechanisms for living in a dangerous world. Difficulty growing food is potentially a combination of an imperfect world and a form of discipline to keep Adam busy where he’d have less time to listen to Lucifer’s temptations. Eve’s pain in having children is harder to categorize. Given the texts listed above and the more obvious statements to Adam, it seems reasonable to suggest it was either a natural consequence (with some possibilities given in the episode in support of that idea) or a type of discipline that was somehow for humanity’s benefit.

In the Bible there are examples where it says God is doing something when He really might be allowing it to happen. One example is Exodus 4:21 where God hardens pharaoh’s heart. One commentary used the analogy of sunlight melting wax but drying out and hardening clay. God’s influence, the sunlight, was the same in both cases, but the nature of the substance it was working on was different. In another case, in 1 Kings 22:20-22, there’s a story about God sending a lying spirit to trick Ahab, but the story is a parable, Ahab was determined to follow the advice of false prophets and God allowed it to happen. For a further explanation on each story, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 516 and Vol. 2, p. 840). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For commentaries on Genesis 3:16 and why having children would be painful for Eve, see this page. In particular, “Barnes’ notes on the Bible” spells out the idea that child-raising as well as child-bearing would be painful. The idea that a woman in Eden might have felt sensation without it being painful is also suggested in this article.

For the word “pain” being translated as “sorrow” see the various different versions for that phrase in Genesis 3:16 listed here and here.

For more on Eve being created as Adam’s equal, see Episode 3: A Forgotten History, part 2 and the show notes for that episode.

God said that Eve’s desire would be for her husband, but he would rule over her. You can interpret this as either a punishment, that Eve would be subjugated, or as something to alleviate the the situation by making Eve desire a close relationship with Adam. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 234). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

The symbiosis of Adam and Eve’s marriage in Eden was lost after their sin resulting in an unequal partnership. To the extent possible, Paul’s advice in Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:22-32 tries to mitigate this, showing how to have a happy marriage even in an imperfect world. For the reasons Eve’s opinion came second as a consequence of sin, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 234). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For Adam and Eve’s original diet and how it changed after they sinned, compare Genesis 1:29-30 and Genesis 3:18 and see also Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 217 and 234). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For difficulty growing food and the effort required being a blessing in disguise, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pgs. 234-235). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

We don’t know how much Adam and Eve understood about the plan of Salvation or whether they recognized the idea of their own resurrection, but the concept of a second chance at life is embedded very early in the history of the Bible. Specifically, it comes up in a verse in the book of Job, another book that might’ve been written by Moses, where Job says he will see God again even after death (see Job 19:25-26). For more, see comments in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 233) and (Vol. 3, pp. 490-493 and 549-550). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

You can find the suggestion that God was, in some form, explaining to Adam and Eve the idea of a stubstitute being sacrificed when He gave them the animal skin clothing in various commentaries here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 235). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 3:21, note. Andrews University Press.

Cutting off access to the Tree of Life kept Adam and Eve from living for eternity in a state of pain and suffering and it gives us insight into God’s character. When the Earth is made new at the end of the Bible, the Tree of Life shows up again along with the people who died in faith that God would fix this world’s problems (Revelation 22:1-4, Revelation 14:1-5, and Revelation 21:27). In that sense, you can see death as God giving us a break from continual suffering. Those who believe in Christ sleep peacefully with the hope of a return to perfection when God ressurects them in the future. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 236). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For more on Cherubim, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 201). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For references to cherubim in the Bible, see Exodus 25:18, 1 Kings 6:23, Psalms 99:1, Ezekiel 1, Ezekiel 10, and Revelation 4:7. In every case, the beings are shown in proximity to God’s throne. The term “cherubim” isn’t used in Ezekiel 1, but it is used in Ezekiel 10. In the reference in Revelation, John describes something that might be cherubim, but in his version, each creature is a single animal rather than each having the face of a man along with three other animals and they have six wings instead of four. In short, in Revelation they are not called cherubim, but they bear significant similarity to the creatures Ezekiel describes. In either case, these might be symbolic imagery rather than strictly physical descriptions. For comments about what Ezekiel saw, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 609). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For a discussion of John’s description of what might be cherubim, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1980). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 7, p. 768). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the actual translation of “a flaming sword” and “turned every way,” see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 236). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

When God put Adam and Eve in the Garden, they were to “keep,” or guard, the garden. Later on in the Bible, both verbs show up again in the description of the duties the Levites had for the Israelites where the Tabernacle in the wilderness took over the role of meeting place that the Garden of Eden was originally meant to occupy. For more, see Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 2:8, note and Genesis 2:15, note. Andrews University Press.

I referenced the meaning of “Eden” a couple of episodes ago, and the origin of the name depends on who you ask. It might be from a Mesopotamian word for “plain,” as in the “Great Plains,” or from a couple of Hebrew words that mean “bliss” or “delight.” For more on the etymology, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 2:8, note. Zondervan.

For more on “transportation” as a punishment, see article here.

More accurately the prison ship Ruse went to was known as a “hulk.” Hulks were former ships that were no longer seaworthy and were used as backup prisons because of a shortage of prison space during the 1700s and 1800s. Hulks were anchored off-shore and the living conditions on them were… not great. For more you can see here. For a longer history, see this article.

For more on the history of the First Fleet, see here. For the history of New South Wales, the first British colony in Australia, see here.

For the climate and history of Cornwall, see this article. For the fauna of the United Kingdom, see here.

For details about the dryness of Australia, see here. For facts about the snakes of Australia, see here. For dangerous spiders of Australia, see this list. For saltwater crocodile information, see here. For a recent study on how many Great White sharks live off of Australia’s east coast, see here.

To any listeners in Australia, I’m sorry your continent got the short-end of the comparison in this episode. Using the sentence of transportation for convicts in England as a parallel for the eviction of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden is both good and bad. There is some truth to the analogy, Cornwall does have good plant growth and Australia does have lots of dangerous animals, but as with all examples, the system also breaks if you dig into the details. In this case, England came off lots nicer than it probably was. Specifically, regardiging just the legal system, the set of British laws under which James Ruse was convicted are known today as the Bloody Code (see here and here). During that period, crimes against property were considered as serious as assault or murder (see pgs. 49-52 as referenced earlier here). People could be sentenced to death for theft of items valued at as little as $7, in 2019 money (see pg. 322 here). In the case of at least one person on the First Fleet, children as young as 9 were sentenced to exile (see here). Given all of this and the opportunities offered by life on a new unexplored continent, even if they did have the funds to go home after their sentence was up, there were plenty of good reasons for an ex-convict to stay in Australia.

For some of the history of transporting convicts from England to the American colonies, see this article.

For the math of the ratio of convicts to the general population in 1776, see pg. 9 here for an estimate that the population in 1780 was 2.4 million and pg. 1 here for an estimate that 50,000 convicts were shipped to the American colonies.

Details on the life of Benedict Arnold come from here and here.

For the Battles of Saratoga being a turning point in the American Revolutionary war, see here. The surrendering general, Burgoyne, gave Arnold the credit of victory for the patriots as stated in UXL Encyclopedia of World Biography found here.

For an overview of John Andre, see here.

For God’s commands to Adam and Eve about being in charge of the Earth and care takers in the Garden of Eden, see Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:15.

The instruction God gave humans to “subdue” the planet may be less about conquering the dangers of nature and more about learning and using its resources. This probably includes farming, but might also refer to making tools, constructing buildings, and harnessing water or other sources of energy. See Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 217). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

God’s command regarding the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” is taken from Genesis 2:16-17.

For a more complete account of the the story of Lucifer, see the first piece of this series at Memories of Eden, part 1 and the show notes for that episode.

For the meaning of “to keep” in Genesis 2:15, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 224–225). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

We don’t know when the story in Genesis 3 took place. In his chronology, Ussher thought it was probably the same day that Adam and Eve were first placed in the Garden of Eden, though there isn’t any clear support for that idea. Ussher also assumed this happened on the 10th day of the world, probably becaues he believed the Day of Atonement was a memorial of that event and it occurred on the 10th day of the month according to Leviticus 16:29. Even if Adam and Eve were forced to leave on the 10th day of history, which is speculation at best, it isn’t clear why Ussher thought that was their first day in the garden. Genesis 1:27-31 says that man and woman were made on the 6th day, and in the detailed description in Genesis 2, Adam and was put in the garden in Genesis 2:15 before the description of Eve’s creation. As best I can tell, this makes it seem like Adam and Eve were in the garden by the 6th day of history, or the 7th at the latest. For Ussher’s dates, see Pierce, L., Pierce, M. (2012) The Annals of the World. (pgs. 17-18). For the concept that Genesis 2 is a more detailed version of the story of creation in Genesis 1 (rather than a different version of the story as some might argue) see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 221–222). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

I did eventually find the combination and get the safe open. There was nothing exciting inside.

For the length of the story in the ESV translation of Genesis, I used the words in Genesis 2:15-17 and Genesis 3:1-9.

We often think of the temptation of Eve as occurring by the tree with the snake in the tree or near to it and at least one commentary pictures it that way, but Genesis doesn’t say. Even so, while the Bible doesn’t note whether or not Lucifer was restricted to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, there are a couple of reasons to think he might have been. First, the warning God gave Adam and Eve focused on a location not a person. Second, it’s hard to see the rest of the garden being much of a paradise if Lucifer could follow Adam and Eve around as a traveling forbidden-fruit salesman. In any case, given that Eve later saw that the tree itself was nice looking (Genesis 3:6), it seems likely that the final temptation and decision happened close to the tree itself.

As evidence that this snake and the devil are one and the same, see Revelation 4:7-9.

For Genesis’ introduction of the snake, see Genesis 3:1. The description of the snake as “crafty” comes from a word that can mean a couple of different things in the Bible. Sometimes it refers to a negative trait of character, but it can also mean things like “prudent.” For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 229). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For details on the Titanoboa fossils, see here. For the Smithsonian model, see here. Sometimes anacondas get over 30 ft long, (about 75% of the average titanoboa length) but most aren’t any longer than 16 feet as mentioned in the show. For details on anacondas, see here.

For the Olmec rattlesnake with a feathered covering, see pg. 180 here.

The Maya referred to the feathered snake god as “Kukulkan,” the Aztecs referred to “Quetzacoatl,” and there are even more names from other tribes. For more about Quetzalcoatl, see here and here. See this article for a picture of the Quetzal bird.

For the codice written by a Spanish friar around 1550, see here. There are also scans with the drawing of the feathered serpent (eating a person) here.

For more on the Creek Indian story about the Horned serpent or the Tie snake, see pgs. 24-30 here.

For Joel Martin’s description of the Tie snake, see pg. 26, here. In the article referenced earlier, on pgs. 24-25, it mentions that Joel Martin doesn’t distinguish between the “Tie snake” and the “Horned serpent,” but then goes on to say that other scholars do see a difference between them, and that Martin’s description might fit the Horned serpent better. Horned Serpent symbolism is, by no means, cut-and-dried. Mythology and iconograpy is complicated and unclear. For instance, people also link the Horned serpent to a lion-like being they called a “Water Cougar” with the head of a mountain lion replacing the head and antlers of a deer. In that depiction, the animal has four legs, no feet, long hair, and a long, fishlike tail. For more, see pgs. 24-30 here. A brief bio of Joel Martin can be found here.

For an overview of James Mooney, see here. For more on the Cherokee in general, see here. For the story of the “Uktena” serpent and the quote describing it, see pgs. 297-298 here. As background, the Uktena, the copperhead, rattlesnake, and a type of adder all used to be men but were turned into snakes by the “little men” in order to fight the sun as described on pgs. 252-253 in the above source (with the origin of the “little men” given on pgs. 242-248 in that source). The rest of the story of the Uktena doesn’t parallel the history in Genesis so whether the description of the Uktena is a recollection of the serpent from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or simply a made up thing is open for speculation though it is interesting to me that the rest of the snakes that were made to fight the sun are known species, that the Uktena is given a special separate description that sounds much more fantastic, and that it parallels the Muskogee serpent referenced above which, according to the legend on pgs. 26-27 here came from people eating some sort of a forbidden food from a tree or stump.

For more information on “nagas,” the snakes in the Hindu religion, see here. For the jewel they supposedly carry in their heads, see here.

For the historic use of “dragon” to mean “huge serpent,” see here.

For reference to the Hittites writing stories about dragons in 1500 BC, see here.

For more on the ancient Babylonian dragon, see here. For “Chaldean” becoming synonymmous with “Babylonian” see comment in this article.

For the Garden of the Hesperides and Ladon, the dragon guarding the apples, see here. Whether the tree of golden apples in the Garden of the Hesperides was guarded by a snake or a dragon might be semantics given that “dragon” refers to a large snake as mentioned earlier. This article refers to a dragon. Pausanias, a Greek geographer who lived during the Roman Empire, talks about a a snake coiled in the tree. For more, see this article about Pausanias and here for what Pausanias wrote.

For the Chinese description of a dragon, something they considered benevolent despite its terrifying appearance, see here.

For evidence of dragon stories all around the world, see here and pg. 97, here.

For birds with fluorescent feathers, see here and here. For what makes a highlighter seem so bright, see here.

For the definition of iridescence, see here, and for a further discussion, see here.

For a description of boa constrictor’s skull shape, see here.

For Luther’s comments on Eve’s lack of fear, see here starting with the paragraph that begins “But we further reply”

For the comment about Lucifer being “perfect in wisdom” see Ezekiel 28:12. For a full discussion of Lucifer in heaven and further show notes about it, see the last episode here as mentioned earlier.

For the ancient Babylonian image of a snake whispering in a woman’s ear as she and a man sit under a tree full of dates, see here, and for a description, see here. The cylinder shows Adam in the scene too, though, for reasons I get to later, Adam was probably somewhere else in the garden when Eve talked to the snake.

Quotes of of the conversation between Eve and the snake are from Genesis 3.

For more on how the snake’s question to Eve tried to confuse the command God had given, see here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 229–230). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the significance of Eve referring to the tree by a generic label rather than it’s name, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 230). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the idea that there was more to the conversation between Eve and the snake than what fits in the story in Genesis, see here.

Some translations say that the snake told Eve she would be as “gods,” but as “God” is probably the better translation. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 230). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the idea that Lucifer was trying to get Eve to wonder why God had held back this one fruit, see comment on Genesis 3:1, here.

For the background of what the forbidden fruit might be, and how it became the apple we think of today, see this article.

For the etymology of the word, “apple” see here.

For the idea that the Chinese might record a Mulberry tree as the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” and the reasoning behind it, see Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. (pg. 36).

For the discovery of unexploded bombs in various World War II locations in recent years, see this article. Even in 2016, more than 2,000 tons of unexploded munitions were discovered in Germany every year as mentioned here.

Supporting the idea that Lucifer was speaking through a real animal, is Genesis 3:1 which refers to the serpent and compares to the the “other” beasts of the field that God had made. This seems to suggest the serpent was one of those beasts. Later on in the story, the serpent is punished, further supporting the concept that it was a real animal, and not just the way Lucifer “appeared.”

For the suggestion that the snake learned to speak by eating the fruit, see here.

Eve’s desire for the forbidden fruit uses the same Hebrew term that describes coveteousness in the 10th commandment. In that sense, it is interesting to note that the 10th commandment tripped up Eve, and it was also the one that made Paul realize his own flaws based upon Romans 7:7-9. For more, see Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 3:6-8, note. Andrews University Press and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 230 and Vol. 6, p. 549). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the history of the phrase, “crossing the Rubicon,” see this explanation.

For more about Durian, the fruit so pungent there are laws about it, see here.

Depending on how you read the story in Genesis, There’s a debate about whether Adam and Eve were standing together while the snake talked to Eve or if Adam was actually off somewhere else. Specifically, the language says that “Eve gave to Adam, who was with her.” but this leaves a lot of ambiguity. You can interpret that statement to mean Adam was standing there silently the whole time Eve was being tempted, or it could mean that Adam was “with her” in the garden somewhere. Thre might be some support for this second suggestion since Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the snake. If Adam was standing next to Eve the whole time, she might’ve accused him of being deceived by the snake too, but no such intimation is made. Moreover, when God pronounces judgment in Genesis 3:17, He says, “because you have listened to the voice of your wife,” and refers to Eve, rather than the snake. From this it seems reasonable to think that Eve was on her own when she talked to the serpent and first ate the fruit. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 231). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Supporting the idea that Adam’s choice was worse than Eve’s are comments from Paul in the New Testament. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Paul talks about Eve being deceived. He states the same thing again in 1 Timothy 2:14 but adds that Adam was not decieved. Elsewhere, in Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21, he talks about sin entering the world through a man. Now, it’s possible that this was a generic term used to refer to a human, or because Paul wanted to draw a clear parallel between Adam’s sin and Christ’s salvation, but it could also be pointing out the seriousness of Adam’s choice compared to Eve being tricked. For more about Adam and Eve’s different choices, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 231). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the background of Stalin, see his bio here.

Notes on the history of the Berlin wall came from here. For the percentage of people crossing from East Germany to West Germany, see pg. 122 here. If you read further in that source, it also mentions the US doing a less obvious wall on their own citizens by restricting international travel to certain people by refusal to provide a passport during the 1950s and 1960s. That system was ultimately struck down by the courts (see pgs. 127-129).

For details on the Cuban election system, see here.

For a variety of statistics about rigged elections, see this article.

For more on why Adam and Eve were allowed to sin, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 225). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For evidence that God wanted humans to live while other societies believed the gods wanted humans to be mortal, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 2:9, note. Zondervan.

For the making of linen see here.

For cotton as a textile, see the article here.

For more on figs and fig leaves, see this article.

For more on Vidkun Quisling, a traitor to Norway during World War II, see here. His name has also made it into the dictionary as a synonym for traitor, a rather unfortunate legacy.

For an overview of Kim Philby, see here.

For the background of the story of Atlantis, see here. For the full text of Timaeus and Critias see here and here respectively. For more about Solon, the Athenian statesman, see here. For more about Plato, see here. For connecting the “Pillars of Hercules” with the modern Strait of Gibraltar, see here.

Plato says the island was 3000 stadia long by 2000 stadia wide. If you assume the island was elliptical, that gives it an area of 62,000 - 92,000 square miles (depending on the length of the stadia), or somewhere around the size of the island of Great Britain. For the size of Atlantis according to Plato, see here. For the size of Great Britain, see here. For the conversion between stadia and feet, see this definition.

For the location of the capitol of Atlantis relative to the shore, Critias states that the channel running from the shore to the capitol city was 50 stadia. According to this definition, a Greek stadia varied between 607 and 738 feet making the canal 5.75 to 7 miles long.

Critias states that the outer wall was covered in brass, and the middle wall in tin, but it says the inner wall “flashed with the red light of orichalcum.” According to the story, orichalcum was dug out of the earth and was more precious than anything except gold. If it existed, no one knows what orichalcum was. Since the other walls were covered in protective metal, the inner wall probably was too, but that’s speculation. For the references to orichalcum in Critias, see here.

For more on the Hyperboreans, see here. For more on Herodotus, see here.

For the mythological background of Lyonesse, the lost city, see here.

For the French lost city of Ys, see here and here.

Originally the story of El Dorado, or “the gilded one” was was about a ruler in South America who covered himself in gold dust before rinsing in a lake while his subjects threw in jewels and golden objects. Over time the story turned into a tale about a country of gold. The story of El Dorado is recent enough that we still have some details of how it developed over time, and it gives us some insight into how stories change when they are told and embellished. For more on El Dorado, see here.

For more on Francisco de Orellana, see here. His tales of the female warriors he met on the expedition ultimately led to the region being named after the warrior women from Greek mythology, the Amazons, as mentioned here.

For more on recent discoveries of the civilization that used to live in the Amazon basin, see here as well as comments on pg. 173, here about extensive roadways and canals.

Modern scholars think Plato made up everything about Atlantis as a way of illustrating his philosophy. It doesn’t help that Plato is the only source for any references to Atlantis. For the origin of the Atlantis story, see here and here. For more on Plato and Atlantis, see here.

Depending on who you ask, the word “Eden” might be from a Mesopotamian word for “plain,” as in the “Great Plains,” or from a couple of Hebrew words that mean “bliss” or “delight.” For more on the etymology, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 2:8, note. Zondervan.

For details on the Euphrates, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 2:14, note. Zondervan. and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (pp. 345–346). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For lack of further mentions of “Pishon” elsewhere in the Bible, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 224). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For “Pishon” meaning “gusher” see see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 2:11, note. Zondervan.

For references to “Havilah,” see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 464). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

What “onyx” was in the Bible isn’t really clear, but it was used as a gem in the Jewish High Priest’s garments. For more, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 815). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

It’s unclear if the bdellium mentioned in Havilah is the same as the bdellium mentioned by the Roman Naturalist Pliny the Elder. In Pliny’s day, bdellium came from India, Arabia, and Persia, but destruction and rearrangement during the Flood in Genesis 8 means that today’s geography probably bears little resemblance to the “Havilah” mentioned in this part of Genesis. Later in the Bible, Manna is compared to bdellium (Numbers 11:7). For more information, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 224). Review and Herald Publishing Association, Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers., as well as here and here.

For “Gihon” meaning “spurter,” see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 2:13, note. Zondervan.

For more on the Gihon spring outside Jerusalem (not the same as the river from the Garden of Eden) see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 420). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For the location of “Cush” see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 420). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

If you look at the quote about the Pishon and Gihon in Genesis 2:10-14, they may have been “lost” rivers even when Genesis was written. Both the Pishon and Gihon “flowed” (past tense), while the Tigris “flows.”

For possible locations of the Pishon and Gihon, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 2:11, note and Genesis 2:13, note. Zondervan.

For details about Josephus, see here.

For Josephus thinking the Pishon was the Ganges, see here.

For alternative suggestions about the locations of the Pishon and Gihon, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 224). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For a map of the Tigris and Euphrates river system, see here.

For the river formed by the last 120 miles of the Tigris and Euphrates, where they merge before reaching the Persian Gulf, see here.

For a map of the Tigris and Euphrates, see here.

The verse in Genesis states that the Tigris flowed east of Assyria. This is referring to the Tigris as it exists now, and the Assyrian empire as it existed around three-thousand years ago. This river bed is probably not the same as the one flowing from Eden but for one reason or another, it had the same name after the Flood. For a map of the Assyrian empire, see here.

Actually, if you dig into the names a of the rivers a little bit more, the four rivers were originally called the Pishon, Gihon, Hiddegel, and Perat. If we didn’t have a paper trail through history showing that “Hiddegel” was later called “Idiglat” and the “Idiglat” was later named the “Tigris,” or, that the “Perat,” or “great river,” was called the “Uruttu” for a while before being renamed the “Euphrates,” then we would have lost track of all the rivers Genesis describes and wouldn’t have the names of any of them on our maps today. For the various names the Tigris and Euphrates have used through history, see Bauer, Susan Wise. The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome (Kindle Locations 14608-14611). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Genesis 2:8 says that God planted Eden “in the east,” but what this means is unclear. Since Moses lived around the Sinai peninsula, this would probably be a reference to a location to the east of where he was writing, or around what we think of as Mesopotamia. We don’t know what led Moses to say that’s where the Garden of Eden used to be. With the rearranging of the Earth during the Flood, the location was either based upon tradition or given to Moses by divine revelation. Since the post-Flood civilization began in Mesopotamia, people may have thought that Noah’s ark grounded on a mountain near where it started, and that it’s starting place was near where the Garden of Eden used to be, but this is speculation.

For the traditional location of the Garden of Eden near where the Tigris and Euphrates meet, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 2:8, note. Zondervan.

Why river names were chosen 4500 years ago is speculation, but I wonder if marketing had something to do with it. If you had the story of a place that used to exist that was famous for its gold, gems, and perfume, you might name your new colony that just to gain the reputation. It’s a little like calling the place “Greenland” rather than “Snow-and-glacier-land.” The same thing could be said of the freshwater spring outside Jerusalem. Perhaps they were just calling it a “spurter,” but maybe they also wanted people to think their water was just as good as the water that used to flow from the Garden of Eden.

For the evidence of large animals listed below, some of them would have been fossilized after the Flood rather than during it, so we don’t know if their large size was due to adaptations to conditions after the Flood or representative of how large they had been in the world before the Flood.

For the timeline of when the giant dragonfly (technically griffinfly) fossil was discovered, see here, for the location, see here, and for the wingspan, see here. For the wingspan of the largest modern dragonfly, see here.

The sea turtle that was about 12 feet long can be found here, though this says 11 feet. Even so, the largest example of Archelon is in Vienna, and it measures about 15 feet from tip to tail according to this article. This appears to be a pre-Flood fossil based on reference in the Britannica article (linked above) to the Cretaceous and an alignment between those ages and a creationist model found here.

For the recent discovery of large penguin leg bones, see this article that references the paper found here which is said to come from Paleocene strata that would be during the middle of the Flood according to creationist chart here.

For the discovery of the bones of the large bird at the Charleston Airport in 1983 and images of the recreated skeleton along with the silhouette of a human for scale and a claim that the bird comes from the Eocene, see here. That site gives the wing span as 20-24 feet, but the paper here lists 6.4m which is just under 21 feet as an estimate along with claiming the bones are from the Oligocene era. For comparison, the largest living bird, given here, is a type of albatross with a confirmed wingspan of 3.63m or just under 12 feet. The creationist chart here gives both the Eocene and Oligocene as occurring during the time the waters of the Flood were receding.

For the dinosaur skeleton found in the American Museum of Natural History, see here that gives a length of 122 feet and 2017 as the year it was named. For the femur being over seven feet long, see here where the length is given as 2.38 meters. Both of those sources put the find as old enough to be in the middle Flood period according to the creationist chart here.

For a recent dinosaur that, as a of 2016, contends for the largest ever found, see articles here and here.

In this whole discussion of the fossils we find of animals before the Flood, it’s important to remember that the animals we reconstruct are based on incomplete information. We could have fossils of the whole skeleton of one animal, while for another we’re extrapolating from only a few small parts. It’s hard to know. Given this uncertainty, the conclusions we draw about their size, let alone their lifestyle and habits, should be taken with a grain of salt.

For the original vegetarian diet of both people and animals, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 1:29-30, note. Zondervan.

For examples of large tree species, see here.

For facts on the General Sherman and other sequoias, see here, here, and here.

For petrified wood in Ecuador, see here.

For petrified wood in Greece, see here.

For a list of US sites with petrified wood, see here.

For a petrified forest in Germany, see here.

For a petrified forest in New South Wales, Australia, see here.

For evidence of tall trees in Utah, see here.

For the size of trees in Florissant, Colorado, see here.

For petrified trees in Argentina, see here.

For heights of trees that used to exist in Thailand, see here.

The suggestion that these forests were extensive in the world Eden was a part of is speculation. It’s hard to make a clear case for the extent of ancient forests or the sizes of trees that were in them. We have some evidence of large trees in different places around the world, but the data is limited and there is no clear evidence that the trees were bigger than ones we have today, only that the world Eden was a part of may have had an environment that supported growing big trees in more places based on how the fossils are spread out around the world.

For the dimensions of the Statue of Liberty, see here.

The fact that Adam and Eve had to eat from the Tree of Life in order to live forever is clear from Genesis 3:22. Some commentators see this as a measure of faith, that Adam and Eve had to look to something external, to some gift of God, for life. Immortality wasn’t an intrinsic part of their nature. For more, see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

There isn’t a lot of information on the Tree of Life in the Bible. There are some references here in Genesis (Genesis 2:9, some in Proverbs (Proverbs 11:30, Proverbs 13:12) where it is used metaphorically, and some in Revelation (Revelation 22:1-2) that describes the Tree of Life on a new Earth. I assumed the "new" Tree of Life in Revelation is the same, or at least very similar, to the original Tree of Life discussed in Genesis.

For more on the Garden of the Hesperides, see this article about Pausanias and here for what Pausanias wrote.

At first glance, it might not seem like the Babylonian cylinder of a Palm tree is a picture of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but look at the whole picture here before you decide.

For more on the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” depicted as a Mulberry tree in Chinese history, see Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. (pg. 36).

For the timelines of Moses, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, see “Moses,” “Isaiah,” and “Ezekiel” in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.

One opinion about the passage in Isaiah suggests that Isaiah (and perhaps Ezekiel as well) is just using figurative language to refer to human kings (see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Isaiah 14:12-15, note and Ezekiel 28:12-19, notes. Zondervan.). On the other hand, Christians were already interpreting the Isaiah passage as referring to something more significant than an analogy before 300 AD. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 675). Review and Herald Publishing Association. as well as here. For a fuller discussion of the question, see From Lucifer to Satan.

The gems Ezekiel lists as covering the “guardian cherub” are 9 of the 12 jewels used for the Jewish high priest (Exodus 28:17-20 and Exodus 39:8-14), emphasizing the closeness that once existed between Lucifer and God in heaven. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 676). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

I gave a paraphrase of the passage from Ezekiel. If you want the text word-for-word, see Ezekiel 28:12-17.

In the paraphrase of Ezekiel 28:13, I left out the phrase, “You were in Eden, the Garden of God.” This would seem to make a pretty good argument for connecting this story of the origin of evil to the Garden of Eden, but at least one commentary suggests the phrase should be symbolic of heaven due to context and the fact that the angel was still perfect. I can see it both ways. Ezekiel might be referring to heaven, since the angel was dressed in gems, or he could be making a side comment about where the angel would soon be (i.e. the angel would later be in Eden) to help the audience know who was being described. I left the comment out to avoid confusing things too much. For specifics, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, pp. 675–676). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For a sense of how close this angel once was to God, the phrase “guardian cherub” brings to mind the cherubs that were set over the Ark of the Covenant, God’s throne on Earth, in the Jewish Temple. Ezekiel is saying that this being was one of those cherubs, right next to the throne of God, in heaven. See Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 675). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

To get a better idea of how bright Lucifer was, note that the same name, “light bearer” is used to describe Christ in 2 Peter 1:19. John also refers to Christ this way in Revelation 22:16. This gives a sense of how high Lucifer was in heaven and how close he was to God. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, pp. 170–171). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

For more on the “mountain” analogy from Isaiah and the Babylonian myth about a mountain in the north, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 171). For Ezekiel, see The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol 4, p. 675). Review and Herald Publishing Association. You can also see this idea in Psalms 48:2.

The “trade” referenced in Ezekiel 28:16 refers to trading in goods or in words (slandering). If the passage is taken as referring to the king of Tyre, trading in “goods” fits. If it is taken as referring to the guardian cherub in heaven, the definition of “slander” seems to fit better. For more, see Andrews Study Bible (2010) Ezekiel 28:16, note.

As evidence that Lucifer’s ultimate rebellion was more than just himself, you can see references in see 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 to other angels. Revelation 12:4 makes reference to a dragon sweeping a third of the stars from heaven, leading some to suspect that a full third of the angels in heaven followed Lucifer and were expelled with him, while others think it refers symbolically to the Romans taking away Jewish kingship, one of the three branches of their government. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1980). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 7, pp. 809–810). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

While it is literally true that God made the devil, it’s more accurate to say that God made a perfect angel, and by choice, that angel changed into the devil on his own. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 675). Review and Herald Publishing Association.