Essay 4: Near Eastern Myths and Genesis

Genesis 1 +2
1. Polytheism
Israelite conception of divinity in Genesis 1-11, and the Near Eastern equivalent in
the Atrahasis and the Gilgamesh epic in corollary to this. Where as the former
posits a single God Elohim who utters the words of creation. to bring the cosmos
into being, the Gilgamesh instead maintains a polytheistic understanding, as seen
in the following verse;
Gilgamesh

When the Sky god, An, had carried off the heavens,
And the Air God, Enlil, had carried off the Earth,
When the Queen of the Great Below, Ereshkigal, was given the underworld 1
(Endiku, and the Netherworld- The Huluppu tree)

v.
Gen 1:1 At the start of God creation of the Heavans and the earth.
(does a remancance of this remain us)

2. Order v. Chaos
Earth was not created through great conflict or death, as in the Babylonian
creation epic Enma Eli where the god Marduk defeats the sea monster Tiamat
and fashions the cosmos from her carcass, but through order (Genesis 1)
v. the ordered structure of Genesis 1 shown through the repetition:
And there was evening, and there was morning.
And God saw that it was good.

Yetagainperhapsweareguiltyofthefallacyofusingcomparativeinterpretationtogiveinsightinto
theBiblicaltext.Forithasbeensuggestedthatbyemphasizinganorderedcosmos,itopposestheidea
inNearEasternmythologyofwarfareandchaosamongthegods,whichresultedincreation.For
instance,Gunkelfocusonthisideaofdeitiesincombat,lookingparticularlyatMarduksbattle
againstTiamatinEnumaElish,andsuggestedthatGenesis1waspolemicalagainstthisideaforthere
isnoevidenceofabattlemotifinGenesis.ThestoryofAnzucanbeseentohavesimilar
characteristics,asitalsohasafightbetweenspiritualbeingswithwarriorGodNinurtadepicted
fightingtheasakkudeamons.

Argument from Silence: is generally a conclusion based on silence of opponent, failing

to give evidence

However,onecanquestionwhetherGenesishereisprovidingapolemicbynotincludingthese
instancesofwarfare,forthereisawealthofotherNearEasternmythologicalcounterpartswhichalso
donotdepictabattleofgodsbeingthecatalystforcreation;Atrahasisbeingoneofthem.Themere
absenceofadivinebattledoesnotnecessitateapolemic,infactitmightmerelysuggestalackof
knowledgeoftheNearEasterncounterpartorthattheIsraelitewritersdidntholdthatelementofthe
mythologyasbeingsignificantenoughtoinclude,orindeedpointedlyexclude.

1 Walton, p189

3. Slaves/ Blessed
For whilst in Genesis a Man are created as blessed subordinates of Yahweh, in
Near Eastern often literature Man (llulu men) are created as slaves or gods- and it
is this status by which they are measured, in blessing and so too in condemnation
Atrahasis Let him bear the yoke, the task of Enlil, Let man assume the
drudgery of god, reads the
Enki and Nimah

- The corve of the gods has been forced on it.

v.
Gen: 1: 28 man Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the
fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
3. But if we look further
Genesis and Near Eastern texts we find evidence not of man as a slave, or as one
made in Yahwehs image, but as a creature paralleled with the gods, who belongs
to the divine realm.
Kar 4 for instance depicts an original pair from which humanity came forth
(presenting a monogenesis in agreement with Genesis, and in general
disagreement with the Polygenism held by much Near Eastern literature)They will be named Ullegarra and Annegarra (Ashur, line 39). The names are
preceded by the divine determinative, and they are thereby identified as deities,
not humans.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male
and female he created them.
Gen 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground

4. The Fall of Man Gen 2

With this in mind, I turn briefly to the offence mankind commits as a prefix to the
flood. Now the serpent says to the woman you will not surely die (3:4), and she
eats the fruit with her husband, the fruit to which God had said from when you
eat of it you shall surely die (2:17).
3:4 Snake deciteful You shall not die for God knows that when you eat of it your
eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing Good and evil.
Mankind was surely victim of deceit, yet the emphasis is that man has committed
an action Yahweh had expressly forbidden- and true to his word Yahweh
condemned the humans to return to dust, and expelled them from the garden
(3:19,23).
There is also fear from God that he will become like God because they have eaten
from the tree of knowledge, that they might: (this is a direct result of their
actions).
Gen 3:22 take also from the tree of life, and eat and live for ever.
In a similar manner it is a snake who deprives mankind of the rejuvenation of life
in the adventures of Gilgamesh.

In order to save his companion Enkidu, Gilgamesh embarks on a quest to find

immortality.2 At the edge of the earth Ut-napishtim tells him the secret of the
gods- that if he obtains a plant and eats it his life will be rejuvenated. Gilgamesh
descends to the depths of the sea and gains the plant, but as he returns home a
serpent perceives its fragrance, arises from the water and eats it. 3
Whilst the two stories cannot be posited as connected or significantly similar for
the sake of the presence of a snake alone, the link is enhanced by the theme of
lost immortal life.

5. Flood
Reasoning:
In the Atrahasis we see the god Enlil becoming restless at the noise (rigmu) and
tumult (hubru) which the humans, posited to lighten the toil of the gods, are
making. Rigmu can be used to be descriptive of rebellion.
e.g. used in Genesis 18 rebellion of Sodom and Gomorrah
Babal comparison
tower of Babel, which assaulted the sky- and God scattered the people, for
otherwise
Gen 11:6 nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them
The Pericopae which closely precedes the flood, in which the sons of God
married the daughters of men (6:2). A couple of verses later in verse five
Genesis read:
Gen 6:5 The Lord saw how great mans wickedness on the Earth had become
Atrahasis shares the theme of human rebellion into the divine sphere: although
this must remain a hypothesis.
Other flood stories dont posit a reason for it:
1. Gilgamesh epic, which does not give a reason- the opening lines of the
flood story state that it was the heart of the gods that cause them to bring
the flood about (Tablet XI:14).
2. After the flood Ea refers to the cataclysm as being due to the sin of man
but this sin is not made explicit
Perhaps the reason for the plague and droughts and the Great Flood was instead,
in reference to the Atrahasis, to cull the ever-growing human population, who
stood as the source of the noise. 4 This is supported by the anticipation of
infertility and birth demons, which were forecasted near the end of the tablet.

2 Walton, p51
3 Heidel, p10
4 Olden, p207

If this was indeed the objective of the gods then the epic would instead stand
polar to the Genesis account, in which God commands man to be fruitful and
increase in number (1:28), and significantly this command is repeated after the
flood (9:7).
However,
1. But let us consider this proposal. Enlil does not lose sleep because the
people have grown numerous, but because of the noise and tumultconnected though these may be.
2. But further than this, nowhere else is overpopulation deemed a
phenomenon to be feared, any further references are not to be found in
the Atrahasis or the Gilgamesh epic
The Flood Itself:
The Gilgamesh epic:
Enlil calls a flood, but Atrahasis is told to build an ark by the god Ea. The hero
evades the sentence of Enlil that no man shall live through the destruction, by the
mercy of the god Ea who sees Enlils indiscriminate annihiliation an injustice and
so saves through deceit.
1) God flood himself who makes a definitive moral judgment, and when he looks
at humanity, who are corrupt in his sight and full of violence (6:11) he
says- surely I am going to destroy both them and the earth (6:13) but
chooses to save one richteous man. Whereas in the Gilgamesh epic it is Ea
who saves Atrahasis.
2)

His verdict is not challenged

Enlils is.

3)

Whilst the Near Eastern Flood Heros left the ark at their own discretion,
Noah waited until God says come out of the ark (8:16).
This control is not paralleled in the Gilgamesh epic, as the gods sat
bowed (and) weeping, and they grew so hungry that upon the Heros
exit from the ark and his sacrifice they gathered like flies over the
sacrificer. 5 To these gods the humans were slaves on whom they relied for
food, but to Israel man was dependent on Yahweh.

4) Further, whilst Yahweh does show human qualities, he walked in the garden
(3:8), grieved that he had made man on the earth (6:6), and he
remembered Noah (8:1), it is not to the effect of bickering between the
gods, trickery, injustice and cowardice as the flood is manifested. Yahweh
is depicted as just and righteous in his anger, and the Near Eastern Gods
do not neatly correspond to this.
But

Gen 8: 12
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again
will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of
his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living
creatures, as I have done.
The gathering to smell the offering has been cited as a direct parallel to the
Genesis account, where God smelt the pleasing aroma of the sacrifice, and the
wording is undoubtedly similar.6
,But exactly the same terminology is used in Amos 5: 21

5
6

The stories have the same skeleton - to take up an analogy Heidel uses.
Yahwehs moral discrimination between Noah and his contemporaries exhibits this
justice, whilst Enlils treatment of the slaves who have angered him in their
constant noise and tumult is indiscriminate and it is this which Ea contests.
Enlil has a change of heart, and blesses Ut-napishtim and his wife; Hitherto Utnapishtim has been but a man; but now Ut-napishtim and his wife shall be like
unto us gods. (Tablet XI:193-195)- bestowing to them divinity and immortality.
It is interesting to note that whilst Noah is blessed (9:1-3), he does not become
divine, and after 350 years Noah dies (9:28). , whilst in the Near Eastern texts
man can be immortalized as a god, this gap is permenantly maintained in
Genesis, as man is expelled from Eden, condemned for marrying the divine, and
prevented from building a tower which could reach the heavens.

Scholars Quotes and Views for Genesis Mythology Essay

Stephanie Dalley:
suggestedthattheremaybeanindependentoriginbehindthedifferentmythicaltraditions,suchasthe
ideaofaFloodmayhavearisentoexplainobservationsindifferentplacesofmarinefossilsinrocks
highabovesealevel.
However,thefloodtraditionspanssomanyculturesthatitseemsimplausiblethatsuchaminor
conundrumsuchasmarinefossilsliesbehindthebreadthandimportanceofthisstory.Itseemsalmost
belittlingtosuggestthattherootofthistraditionliesmerelyasaresultofaninquiringmind.
J.VanSeters
suggeststhatthecherubfoundinGenesisguardingthetreeoflifehasnosignificanceintermsofthe
Genesisstoryandthereforecanonlybeexplainedwithreferencetocontemporarymythology.
(However,thiscanbecounteredbythefactthattheCherubinGenesis3:24mayhavemore
significancethatVanSeterssuggests,forithasbeensuggestedthatacherubistypicalofdivine
displeasureandthereforeissymbolofYahwehsdiscontentwiththefirsthumans)
DallynotesinGenesis,thedovebringsbacktoNoahanOliveleaf,whichbelongstothefloraof
Palestine;olivestreesdonotgrowinMesopotamia
WaltonnotesthemissinterpretationofmanyscholarsinunderstandingtheBabalnarrativeasastory
whichdepictsmantryingtoattackheaven,wheninfactitshouldbeunderstoodasprovidingawayfor
Godtodescendfromheaven.Thismistakenconclusionwasreached,accordingtoWalton,throughthe
comparativeinterpretationwithcontemporaryMyths,whichscholarsusedtofillinthegaps.
intermsofthefloodstoryithasbeensuggestedthattheIsraelitesandBabyloniansgainedtheir
traditionsfromthepassingonofindependenttraditionsoftheSummeriansandAmorites.

Walton
ThegodsinAtrahasishadtheequivalentofcivilizationintheirdivinerealmwhereasthesingularity
ofGodsexistenceisemphasizedintheHebrewbible.Theseareoneofmanydistinctionsintheir
cosmologicaloutlook,whichdifferentiatethem.

Essay2Sourcecriticaltheories
ScholarsViews
Wellhausen:E, P, J and D.
-

R. N. Whybray - documentary hypothesis is a fault of logic due to inconsistencies.

As if they where redacted why would there be inconsistencies: they seem
incongruous. If the documents postulated bythe hypothesis possessed some kind of
unity and consistency- and it is this which is held to give them plasiblity- then the
redactors were the persons who wantonly destroyed that unity and consistency and
again, the hypothesis depends on believing that they did. Therefore we must conclude
that the ancient isralites have a different understanding of consistency: that they
where fundamentaly unconcerned with the concept.

Jeffrey Tigay suggests that this kind of inconsistancies have been seen before in
literary texts. E.g. he gives examples of conflation of stories in the Qumran
scrolls (as in the case of the conflate text of the Decalog in the All Souls
Deuteronomy Scroll); in the Septuagint (as in the Bigtan and Teresh
episode in the book of Esther); in the Samaritan Pentateuch; in postbiblical
literature (as in the Temple Scroll); and even in modern works

David Clines puts it: what may be postulated as the historical development of the
Pentateuch material stands out the more clearly if the final shape of the work is
analysed first-not last.

As R. N Whybray notes, there has certainly been an error in previous scholarship to

assign these neutral passages to other documents so as to contribute to its
continuity as a consistent work.

Whybray asserts through the postulation of more documents it demonstrates that the
same methods could produce quite different results

WhybrayWherethewritersofthedocumentsprimarilyauthorsorcollections?
Thecriteriaofvocabularyandstyleofdifferenceofpointofviewhad,itwasbelieved,provedthat
eachdocumentclearlyreflectedtheagewhichithadbeenwritten:inotherwords,thetraditional
materialwhichituntilizedhavebeenremodeledbyonewhowasfundamentallyanhistorian,

interpretingitaccordingtohisownlightsandrestatingitinthelanguageofhisownday.Ifthiswere
notso,theanaylisisofthedocumentswouldbeillusory.Yetitwasatthesametimerecognizedthatthe
evideneinparticular,theindividualflavorwhichstillclungtomanyofthestoriesofgenesis,tandthe
remarkablesimilarityinmanycasesbetweentwoversionsofthesamestoyrindifferentdocumentats
thattheseauthorshadinfactbeenremarkablyfaithfultotheirtraditionalsources.

E. Nicholson : For the use of the different names for God being a marker for different sources
is unhelpful as they are written in the Hebrew vernacular which, in the absence of other
criteria would not enable us to differentiate reliably between them. 7
Blums assertion that Elohim is a noun rather than a proper name and therefore cannot be
compared on the same level as the use of the name of God YHWH, and instead can be
understood as a substitute for the divine name.
Oral Tradition which lay behind the text. This can be used in the context of repetition, for it
has been suggested that the variations we find within the text, such as that which we find in
the Genesis flood narratives, may have been present at the Oral stage of the transmission.
This concept can be attributed to Gunkel, in his seminal work The Legends of Genesis.
Clements: However, what this concept does suggest is important in terms of dating the
documents (Gunkels theory); for it reduces the confident and chronological dating of the
sources on the part of Wellhausen.8

Quotes from Genesis for Sources Essay

Repetition:
Genesis 6.5-7 it states that God said I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have
created
repeated Genesis 6: 13-14 And God said to Noah, I have determined to make an end of all
flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.
Contradiction in details of flood:
states that the flood lasts different lengths of time.
The flood continued for forty days on the earth (Gen 7.17) is contradicted later in the
same chapter when it says that and the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred and
fifty days (Gen 7.24).
This is also found earlier in the flood story with the different numbers of animals which
accompany Noah and his family on the ark However, while this could be attributed to
human error it seems more likely that these inconsistencies are a result of different
literary traditions behind the text which have differing facts.
Indeed, the close proximity of the contractions to one another makes it improbable that a
single writer would forget the detail by the end of a verse.
Use of different names for God:
Whybray = 2 Samuel (15:20), where David is referred to as David, the king and
king David for the sake of variety

7 E. Nicholson. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. P229
8R.E. Clements. A Century of Old Testament Study. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1976.p22.

Numbers 23:8 the names for God are used interchangeably by Balaam as he asks,
How can I curse whom El has not cursed?
How can I denounce whom Yahweh has not denounced?

Linguisticdifferences:PandJ.
The word Bara (create) (1:1.21.27.2:4) is lost in favor of the verb yasar (from), and
man is no longer cast in the image and likeness of God, but as a living being
(nepesh hayah), as animals are living beings. This God (no longer designated the
name Elohim but Yahweh) plants a garden in the East (2:8)

Historicalimplications

Proponents of the documentary hypothesis can thus posit the Priestly source (which
accounts for Gen 1:1-2:4a and 5:1-32) and the Yahwist source (2:4b-4: 26), and also a
redactor who was responsible for the insertion of a J pericopae into P material at 5:29,
and the conjuncture of the names Yahweh Elohim in order that they might be
recognized as one God

J and E are both selections. J in the south and E in the north, from a sotkc
of common traditions. E is shown to be written later by its more advanced
theology and ethics, and may to some extent be dependent on J. But in
both cases the motive was to preserve, arrage in chronological sequence.
Ps motive in composiing yet another work running parallel with JE was to
express, partly through narrative but predominatly through a new corpus
of legislation, the theology of the post-exilic priesthood.

What are the major theological themes of Gen 1-11 and how far do they reflect the proposed
historical circumstances of the books authors?
Firstly, it seems necessary to note instances of the theme of God and Mans relationship which are
prevalent in the text: we see humans in Genesis 1 being made in the image or likeness of God; in
Genesis 2 this has negative connotations with the chastisement of Adam and Eve for trying to be like
God; the narrative depicting the Sons of God and Daughters of Men directly precedes the flood
narrative (a punishment for the sins of humanity), and finally the Tower of Babel depicts humanity
again trying to advance above their prescribed status.
Genesis 1 the humans importance above other creatures is made clear yet in Genesis 2 they are
humbled by their unknowing (they require the eating of the Tree of Knowledge to gain insight) and
their failure.
The relationship between God and humanity is different: humanitys likeness to God in Genesis 2 is not
decreed by God is gained through disobedience, it is against the natural order: You will be like
Elohim, knowing good and evil.
Whichever historical outlook we take, the theme of anti-monarchy makes sense in terms of the
narrative of Genesis: for the God in Genesis 1 can be seen as depicting a kind of kingship for he rules
over his creation. Yet rather than suggesting that these should be the royal ideals that kings should
uphold, it does in fact suggest that there is one true ruler over creation and thereby perhaps implicitly
criticising humanities self-exaltation. Similarly, Genesis 2, through its chastisement of the selfadvancement of humanity to become like Elohim, reflects a similar disapproval of humanitys selfaggrandisement and hierarchy within itself. Mans punishment for this self-aggrandising is to work the
land as did God when he created Eden. Here God and Man are juxtaposed, both creating something out
of the land, yet Man is humbled for unlike Yahweh, the mans fate is linked to the arable land from
which he came.9 Adam notably comes from Adamah.
the Tower of Babel depicts a theme of the singular importance of God, for humanity is limited when it
strives to make a name for itself.
Perhaps we can even see Mans dominance over the land in Genesis 2 as a foreshadowing of the later
promise of the Land of Israel.
Etiologies are scattered throughout the text: in Genesis 4:17-26 we see the beginning of musical
instruments, with those who play the lyre and pipe; we see the first signs of occupations, with the
beginning of metal working (bronze and iron); in Genesis 6:1-4 can be seen as an explanation for
the origin of the Nephilim, and the list goes on.

9 A. Brenner (ed.). A Feminist Companion to Genesis. Sheffield: SAP, 1993. P5

Genesis 9:18-27 and the curse of Canaan, for it provides a later reason for the suppression of the
Canaanites. Here we see a direct contradiction of the idealism of a world with no social hierarchy.
This tension can be explained through different editorial voices, but it may simply reflect the difference
between an idealised world view (depicted in Eden and the first creation story) and the realities of
existence.
so evening and morning came.
Cain murders his brother Abel and is condemned to be a restless wanderer of the
Earth (4:14).
Yet underneath this ordered exterior we can see glimpses of the chaos: for it has been suggested that the
chaos of the dark mass of water in the second verse of Genesis 1 is primordial. This is perhaps
reflective of other Near Eastern myths, however if we view Genesis on its own terms as a literary text,
perhaps this is the first example of a running theme: chaos is inherent both in humanity and in the
universe and there is a need for it to be quelled
Here social chaos is prevalent, again depicted through the figure of the serpent behind which we can
perhaps detect the cults practiced by the native inhabitants of the land and behind the words he utters
the promises which they hold out for their practitioners. (Anderson)
This idea of the editors opposing certain aspects of reality is reinforced by the inclusion of ethical
absolutes in the text. For instance, in Genesis 9.6 the text states that He who sheds human blood, by
humankind his blood will be shed for in the image of Elohim was the human made.
Murray: This again is a working in of the ethical to a text in order provide a moral principle that the
reader is expected to uphold; here we see a beautiful example of midrash already within the Hebrew
bible.
Scholars for themes essay:
M. G. Brett proposes in his work Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Ideology, the hierarchy found
in Genesis 1 is displaced in Genesis 2, for the advocation of humanitys rule over the creeping
creatures of the land is directly opposed in the figure of the snake in Genesis 2, with the snake
presented as possessing greater knowledge than the first humans.
Robert Murray suggests that Genesis 1 was written when there were no more kings, and the claim of
King to be in a special relationship to God was transmuted by a process which modern scholars call
democratization The Priestly Writer transferred the image of God from the king to the whole of
humankind.
Criticise as:
Brett suggests the opposite: Some have suggested too, that the anti-monarchical tone was directed
against the contemporary Persian King.

(Brett) As both creation accounts present the ideal (only after the Fall is existence more reflective of
reality), a universal message is sought from the start. Indeed the use of Elohim rather than Yahweh the
God associated with Israel, although it could be argued that this is merely a linguistic signal of the P
source, suggests a universalism for it doesnt differentiate between Israel and other nations. This

R Murray : chaos v. order. Although it must be noted that this may be more than a metaphor, in that it
is possible to see in Israelite thinking a connection between cosmic and social order and disorder.
John Day : It is not hard to see this as fitting the outlook of the P source (to which this text is most
commonly attributed) for God here mirrors the role that the Priests themselves would have had: God
blesses his creation (1.22,28) as a Priest would his flock; consecrating the Sabbath day would have
been central to religious understanding

Perhaps we can even see Mans dominance over the land in Genesis 2 as a foreshadowing of the later
promise of the Land of Israel. The concept of depicting a beginning for all things in different cultures
was not new; indeed as J. Blenkinsopp notes in Mesopotamia, the idea of historical progress is
conspicuously absent. Everything necessary for society, including political and religions institutions,
the social order and even the basic technologies, had been present from the beginning.10

Bible Quotes for Genesis

Gen 1:2 ;the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the face of the deep.
1:26 Let us make mankind in our image, according to our lankness, and let them have domino over the
fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the
earth.
1:27 so god created mankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he
created them.
1:28 God blessed them, and said Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it; and have
domino over the fish of the sea. ..
1:31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and
there was morning the sixth day
2:7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and the man became a living being.
2:15 ;but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it
you shall die.
3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made.
3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,
knowing good and evil.
3:8 Then they heard the sound of God walking in the garden.
3:18 cursed is the ground because of you, in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.
3:22 and now he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for evertherefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was
taken.
4:4-5 And the Lord had regard for Abal and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no
regard. INJUSITCE!
4:12 (Cain is punished to be a ) wanderer of the earth.
4:15 And the Lord put a Mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him.
FORGIVENESS
6:2 When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, the daughters were born to them, the
sons of God saw that they were fair and they took views for themselves of all that they chose.
6:4 the nepehilim were on the earth in those days

10 Ibid. p54

6:5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth and that every inclination
of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.
(repeated in 6:11 Now the earth as corrupt in Gods sight and the earth was filled with violence.)
6:8 But Noah found favour in the sight of the Lord.
6:9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.
6:18 But I will establish my covenant with you and you shall come into the ark.
a) 7:4 For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty night,
b) 7:24 and the waters swelled on the Erath for one hundred and fifty days.
8:1 But God remembered Noah
8:7-8 Noah sent out the raven and it went to and from until the waters were dried up from the
earth. Then he sent out the dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the
ground.
8:11 and the dove came back to him in the evening and there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive
leaf, so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.
8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the lord and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and
offered, burn offerings on the alter.
9:1 God blessed Noah and his sons and he said to them Be fruitful and multiply on the earth.
9: 4 Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood
9:4 whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that persons blood be shed for in his own
image God made humankind.
9:9 As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you.
11:1 now the whole earth had one language and the same words.
11:4 come let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens and let us make a name
for ourselves
11:5 the lord came down to see the city and the tower which mortals had built.
11:6 nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.