The problem is there are Hebrew words for mists and (water) vapor, and also clouds, too. But the Hebrew word here refers to liquid water, not water vapor. The firmament (raqia) was also believed to be a *firm* solid dome. Hence, the Latin *firmament.*
Genesis, Start To Finish
- Thread starter Odë:hgöd
- Start date
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● Gen 1:26a . . And God said: Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness.
Similar language is employed at Gen 5:3 describing Adam's son Seth; suggesting
that the boy was an assembly-line duplicate of his dad; which is highly unlikely.
The Hebrew word translated "Man" is 'adam (aw-dawm') which, in this case, simply
refers to all human life regardless of age, race, or gender (Gen 5:1-2). It's actually
a specie name rather than a proper name. Its Greek equivalent in the New
Testament is anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) which, again, refers to all human life
regardless of age, race, or gender.
The thing is: humans are material beings whereas God's characteristics are those of
a ghost, i.e. spirit. (John 4:24) so mankind and God are very much unalike in their
appearance.
Adam came into being as a "living soul" which we find later indicates consciousness,
self awareness, and individuality. The critters were created as living souls too, but
none of them are said to be in the image and likeness of God.
The big difference between mankind and the animal kingdom is morality. Mankind
was created moral whereas the critters were created amoral. Mankind was intended
to be responsible, whereas the other critters have no clue pertaining to
responsibility.
Mankind then has the ability to contemplate the consequences of its actions,
whereas the animal kingdom's various behaviors are driven by instincts with
typically no concern for consequences.
● Gen 1:26b . . and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along
the ground.
Nobody in their right mind would entrust the care of all life on earth to an amoral
beast; which is exactly what mankind would've been had God not created them like
Himself, i.e. beings with a sense of responsibility.
NOTE: The introduction of the plural pronouns "us" and "our" into the narrative at
this point has given rise to some interesting speculation regarding the identities of
the antecedents.
Deut 6:4 says God is a singularity. But until the 'us" and the "our" of Gen 1:26 and
Gen 3:22 are positively identified; we must insist that God wears more than one
hat; and thus far those hats have been Himself (Gen 1:1) His spirit (Gen 1:2) and
His voice (Gen 1:3).
* God's voice is notable because John 1:1-3 tells of a divine being involved in the
work of creation called The Word; translated from a Greek noun that basically
refers to speech.
The Hebrew word for "rule" basically means to tread down, i.e. subjugate;
specifically: to crumble off.
I saw a pretty interesting bumper sticker some time ago that went like this:
We Are Not Above The Earth;
We Are of the Earth.
Well . . I respect Native America's cultural sentiment underlying that statement;
and must admit that I agree with it to a certain extent. But the creator decreed that
though Man is of the earth; he is very definitely above it too, and has the God
given authority to subjugate every living thing on the planet including its forests, its
grasses, its rivers, its seas, its soil, its rocks, its air, its minerals, its mountains, its
valleys, and even its tectonic plates and the earth's very atmosphere itself.
According to Heb 2:8, humanity is on track to dominate even more.
_
● Gen 1:26a . . And God said: Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness.
Similar language is employed at Gen 5:3 describing Adam's son Seth; suggesting
that the boy was an assembly-line duplicate of his dad; which is highly unlikely.
The Hebrew word translated "Man" is 'adam (aw-dawm') which, in this case, simply
refers to all human life regardless of age, race, or gender (Gen 5:1-2). It's actually
a specie name rather than a proper name. Its Greek equivalent in the New
Testament is anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) which, again, refers to all human life
regardless of age, race, or gender.
The thing is: humans are material beings whereas God's characteristics are those of
a ghost, i.e. spirit. (John 4:24) so mankind and God are very much unalike in their
appearance.
Adam came into being as a "living soul" which we find later indicates consciousness,
self awareness, and individuality. The critters were created as living souls too, but
none of them are said to be in the image and likeness of God.
The big difference between mankind and the animal kingdom is morality. Mankind
was created moral whereas the critters were created amoral. Mankind was intended
to be responsible, whereas the other critters have no clue pertaining to
responsibility.
Mankind then has the ability to contemplate the consequences of its actions,
whereas the animal kingdom's various behaviors are driven by instincts with
typically no concern for consequences.
● Gen 1:26b . . and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along
the ground.
Nobody in their right mind would entrust the care of all life on earth to an amoral
beast; which is exactly what mankind would've been had God not created them like
Himself, i.e. beings with a sense of responsibility.
NOTE: The introduction of the plural pronouns "us" and "our" into the narrative at
this point has given rise to some interesting speculation regarding the identities of
the antecedents.
Deut 6:4 says God is a singularity. But until the 'us" and the "our" of Gen 1:26 and
Gen 3:22 are positively identified; we must insist that God wears more than one
hat; and thus far those hats have been Himself (Gen 1:1) His spirit (Gen 1:2) and
His voice (Gen 1:3).
* God's voice is notable because John 1:1-3 tells of a divine being involved in the
work of creation called The Word; translated from a Greek noun that basically
refers to speech.
The Hebrew word for "rule" basically means to tread down, i.e. subjugate;
specifically: to crumble off.
I saw a pretty interesting bumper sticker some time ago that went like this:
We Are Not Above The Earth;
We Are of the Earth.
Well . . I respect Native America's cultural sentiment underlying that statement;
and must admit that I agree with it to a certain extent. But the creator decreed that
though Man is of the earth; he is very definitely above it too, and has the God
given authority to subjugate every living thing on the planet including its forests, its
grasses, its rivers, its seas, its soil, its rocks, its air, its minerals, its mountains, its
valleys, and even its tectonic plates and the earth's very atmosphere itself.
According to Heb 2:8, humanity is on track to dominate even more.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● Gen 1:27a . . So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He
created him;
Seeing as how Man is a physical being whereas God is a spirit being, then we are
safe to conclude that Man's image and likeness of God isn't as some sort of
duplication, rather, that Man exhibits some of God's characteristics, e.g. He's
sentient, regulated, responsible, intelligent, sociable, verbal, imaginative, artistic,
resourceful, and conscionable.
● Gen 1:27b . . male and female He created them.
We live in a time of gender dysphoria wherein folks are defying both their
chromosomes and their natural physical structure-- the non binary folk preferring
no gender at all.
There's a term for people who believe themselves to be someone and/or something
other than what and/or who they really are. I think it might be called Dissociative
Disorder. There was a time when society confined people with those kinds of
conditions to psychiatric facilities for observation and therapy, but nowadays
political correctness requires that they be "included".
NOTE: The pronoun "them" in Gen 1:27 is a bit ambiguous. It can refer to the first
couple; but it can just as easily refer to the human species in total. In other words:
Gen 1:26-27 speaks of all of us; and by extension, so does Gen 2:16-17 because
according to Acts 17:26, that's how it worked out.
Some women would be offended by association with a male pronoun but it's a
biblical designation nonetheless. Regardless of one's natural gender, all human
beings are mankind and can be legitimately referred to as a him or as a he because
all of us, regardless of gender, are extensions of a solo specimen; including Eve
because she was made with human material taken from a male's body. Bible
students really have to watch for that because when they run across the word
"man" and/or "men" in the Bible, it doesn't always indicate males only.
● Gen 1:28a . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and increase,
Some interpret that verse to be an edict requiring married people to have children;
and that they have no business getting married for any other reason. But the3
wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a law.
It's always best to regard blessings as benefits, approval, and/or empowerment
unless clearly indicated otherwise. Some blessings have to be merited (e.g. Deut
28:1-13) but not this one. It was neither requested nor was it earned— it was
freely given without any strings attached and nothing asked in return.
Without the empowerment of fertility, Man would be just as sterile as a soup spoon.
So it was a very essential blessing. And a very interesting blessing it is because the
blessing of fertility empowers living things to pass their own kind of life on to a next
generation. God quit creating after six days. So unless creatures were enabled to
reproduce, all would soon die out and become quite extinct in a very short time.
Libido therefore, is an essential element of the blessing of fertility. God intended for
His creatures to reproduce; and to ensure that they did, He wired them all with an
attraction to the opposite sex of their own kind rather than instilling within them a
sense of duty.
It isn't necessary to cajole creatures to mate; no, they will do so on their own,
propelled by built-in sensual proclivities and predilections. Had libido not been
included in the blessing, human life would've become an endangered species within
just a few generations. Anybody familiar with the birds and bees understands very
well that attraction is crucial to multiplication.
● Gen 1:28b . . fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of
the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.
The Hebrew word for "master" emphasizes coercion and force; and means: to
disregard; to conquer, and to violate.
The word for "rule" means: to tread down; to subjugate.
Those two Hebrew words combined leave no room for doubt regarding Man's
supremacy in the sphere of things. God blessed humanity with the authority to
dominate planet Earth at will, and exploit it to his own advantage. Man answers to
no plant nor animal on this entire globe. The whole Earth is within the scope of
humanity's purview. If aliens ever come here unannounced, they can be arrested
for trespassing, and/or charged for parking because the Earth is Adam's world; and
there's more to his domain than meets the eye.
"For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under
him." (Heb 2:6-8)
_
● Gen 1:27a . . So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He
created him;
Seeing as how Man is a physical being whereas God is a spirit being, then we are
safe to conclude that Man's image and likeness of God isn't as some sort of
duplication, rather, that Man exhibits some of God's characteristics, e.g. He's
sentient, regulated, responsible, intelligent, sociable, verbal, imaginative, artistic,
resourceful, and conscionable.
● Gen 1:27b . . male and female He created them.
We live in a time of gender dysphoria wherein folks are defying both their
chromosomes and their natural physical structure-- the non binary folk preferring
no gender at all.
There's a term for people who believe themselves to be someone and/or something
other than what and/or who they really are. I think it might be called Dissociative
Disorder. There was a time when society confined people with those kinds of
conditions to psychiatric facilities for observation and therapy, but nowadays
political correctness requires that they be "included".
NOTE: The pronoun "them" in Gen 1:27 is a bit ambiguous. It can refer to the first
couple; but it can just as easily refer to the human species in total. In other words:
Gen 1:26-27 speaks of all of us; and by extension, so does Gen 2:16-17 because
according to Acts 17:26, that's how it worked out.
Some women would be offended by association with a male pronoun but it's a
biblical designation nonetheless. Regardless of one's natural gender, all human
beings are mankind and can be legitimately referred to as a him or as a he because
all of us, regardless of gender, are extensions of a solo specimen; including Eve
because she was made with human material taken from a male's body. Bible
students really have to watch for that because when they run across the word
"man" and/or "men" in the Bible, it doesn't always indicate males only.
● Gen 1:28a . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and increase,
Some interpret that verse to be an edict requiring married people to have children;
and that they have no business getting married for any other reason. But the3
wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a law.
It's always best to regard blessings as benefits, approval, and/or empowerment
unless clearly indicated otherwise. Some blessings have to be merited (e.g. Deut
28:1-13) but not this one. It was neither requested nor was it earned— it was
freely given without any strings attached and nothing asked in return.
Without the empowerment of fertility, Man would be just as sterile as a soup spoon.
So it was a very essential blessing. And a very interesting blessing it is because the
blessing of fertility empowers living things to pass their own kind of life on to a next
generation. God quit creating after six days. So unless creatures were enabled to
reproduce, all would soon die out and become quite extinct in a very short time.
Libido therefore, is an essential element of the blessing of fertility. God intended for
His creatures to reproduce; and to ensure that they did, He wired them all with an
attraction to the opposite sex of their own kind rather than instilling within them a
sense of duty.
It isn't necessary to cajole creatures to mate; no, they will do so on their own,
propelled by built-in sensual proclivities and predilections. Had libido not been
included in the blessing, human life would've become an endangered species within
just a few generations. Anybody familiar with the birds and bees understands very
well that attraction is crucial to multiplication.
● Gen 1:28b . . fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of
the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.
The Hebrew word for "master" emphasizes coercion and force; and means: to
disregard; to conquer, and to violate.
The word for "rule" means: to tread down; to subjugate.
Those two Hebrew words combined leave no room for doubt regarding Man's
supremacy in the sphere of things. God blessed humanity with the authority to
dominate planet Earth at will, and exploit it to his own advantage. Man answers to
no plant nor animal on this entire globe. The whole Earth is within the scope of
humanity's purview. If aliens ever come here unannounced, they can be arrested
for trespassing, and/or charged for parking because the Earth is Adam's world; and
there's more to his domain than meets the eye.
"For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under
him." (Heb 2:6-8)
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● Gen 1:29-30 . . God said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon
all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for
food. And to all the animals on land, to all the winged creatures of the sky, and to
everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of life, I give all the
green plants for food. And it was so.
Prior to the Flood; humans, beasts, creepy crawlies, and winged creatures too--
even the lions and tigers and hawks and eagles and pythons, vultures and
crocodiles --subsisted on vegetation. Precisely what kind of diet God intended for
aqua life isn't stated. But even today there are a number of aquatic species of
vegetation important to the survival of a variety of creatures that live in water.
That raises an interesting question: why do carnivores have teeth so uniquely
suited for killing other creatures and ripping their flesh? Well, I think it's clear they
didn't use their teeth like that at first.
For example; buck-toothed beavers have incisors that could take your hand off but
they don't use them for that purpose. Male musk deer have saber-like upper canine
teeth and their diet is moss and grass and sometimes twigs and lichen. And
everybody knows about Wally the walrus' big ol' tusks; which he doesn't use to kill
his food, but rather, to plow up the sea bottom in search of his favorite mollusks.
Though the fossilized remains of a therapsid called Tiarajudens eccentricus exhibits
saber tusks, it is believed to have efficiently chewed leaves and stems with
interlocking incisors and cow-like molars.
In the future kingdom of God, carnivores won't be carnivorous any more, and
nothing in the animal kingdom will any longer pose a danger to either Man or to
each other. (Isa 11:6-9)
● Gen 1:31 . . And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And
there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
_
● Gen 1:29-30 . . God said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon
all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for
food. And to all the animals on land, to all the winged creatures of the sky, and to
everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of life, I give all the
green plants for food. And it was so.
Prior to the Flood; humans, beasts, creepy crawlies, and winged creatures too--
even the lions and tigers and hawks and eagles and pythons, vultures and
crocodiles --subsisted on vegetation. Precisely what kind of diet God intended for
aqua life isn't stated. But even today there are a number of aquatic species of
vegetation important to the survival of a variety of creatures that live in water.
That raises an interesting question: why do carnivores have teeth so uniquely
suited for killing other creatures and ripping their flesh? Well, I think it's clear they
didn't use their teeth like that at first.
For example; buck-toothed beavers have incisors that could take your hand off but
they don't use them for that purpose. Male musk deer have saber-like upper canine
teeth and their diet is moss and grass and sometimes twigs and lichen. And
everybody knows about Wally the walrus' big ol' tusks; which he doesn't use to kill
his food, but rather, to plow up the sea bottom in search of his favorite mollusks.
Though the fossilized remains of a therapsid called Tiarajudens eccentricus exhibits
saber tusks, it is believed to have efficiently chewed leaves and stems with
interlocking incisors and cow-like molars.
In the future kingdom of God, carnivores won't be carnivorous any more, and
nothing in the animal kingdom will any longer pose a danger to either Man or to
each other. (Isa 11:6-9)
● Gen 1:31 . . And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And
there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
Some feel that the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --was
created incomplete, not quite up to snuff: that it was to Man that God entrusted the
task of putting on the finishing touches. But that is very doubtful. Why ever would
God, after an overall inspection, conclude His work by pronouncing it all good-- and
not just good, but "very" good. Why would He say the creation was very good if in
truth it was incomplete?
In reality, humans haven't improved the planet at all. They've actually ravaged
Earth and left it with terrible damage-- leveled mountains, dried up rivers, emptied
lakes, drained marshes, indiscriminately obliterated habitat, wiped out animals to
extinction, scraped away perfectly good cropland and replaced it with warehouses
and factories and malls and residential communities.
A prime example of this kind of destruction is INTEL's massive Ronler Acres
Campus located on what was once agricultural land in Hillsboro Oregon. Thousands
of cubic yards of perfectly good topsoil was scraped away during construction of the
facility. What did they do with it? Was it transferred elsewhere in order to use it for
farming? No, instead INTEL used it to build a massive privacy berm all around the
facility where the soil will never again grow food. NIKE did the very same thing with
the topsoil scraped away during construction of its facility in Beaverton.
Denuded watersheds have caused unnecessary erosion and stream sedimentation.
Man dams rivers, thus disrupting ancient fish migrations. He's over-exploited
natural resources, filled the atmosphere with toxins and greenhouse gas emissions,
poisoned aquifers, contaminated soil and waterways with chemical fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides; littered the oceans with billions of pounds of plastic
debris, (India's sacred river Ganges alone deposits an estimated 6,000 tons of
plastic annually into the Bay of Bengal) made possible super germs, and seriously
upset the balance of nature.
It seems that most everything the Adams touch, they ruin; and as if the Earth isn't
enough, they've moved out into space where in the years since Russia launched its
first Sputnik into low Earth orbit on Oct 04, 1957, humans have littered the sky
around their planet with 13,000 catalogued pieces of space junk, which is only a
fraction of the more than 600,000 objects circling the globe larger than one
centimeter (a centimeter is a little over 3/8ths of an inch). Humans have even
discarded 374,782 pounds of litter on the Moon, including the golf balls that
astronaut Alan Shepherd left behind.
So; when God looked over His work and "found" that it was very good, does that
mean He was surprised it came out like it did? (chuckle) No. It would be a strange
craftsman indeed who couldn't look over their work with satisfaction in a job well
done.
I believe the universe's architect knew precisely what He was doing, and where He
was going with His work; and was highly pleased that it came out exactly as
planned. I seriously doubt that God was feeling His way along like experimenters in
medicine and chemistry. Nobody could build a fully functioning cosmos and all of its
forms of life, matter, and energy unless they knew what they were doing from
beginning to end.
_
Some feel that the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --was
created incomplete, not quite up to snuff: that it was to Man that God entrusted the
task of putting on the finishing touches. But that is very doubtful. Why ever would
God, after an overall inspection, conclude His work by pronouncing it all good-- and
not just good, but "very" good. Why would He say the creation was very good if in
truth it was incomplete?
In reality, humans haven't improved the planet at all. They've actually ravaged
Earth and left it with terrible damage-- leveled mountains, dried up rivers, emptied
lakes, drained marshes, indiscriminately obliterated habitat, wiped out animals to
extinction, scraped away perfectly good cropland and replaced it with warehouses
and factories and malls and residential communities.
A prime example of this kind of destruction is INTEL's massive Ronler Acres
Campus located on what was once agricultural land in Hillsboro Oregon. Thousands
of cubic yards of perfectly good topsoil was scraped away during construction of the
facility. What did they do with it? Was it transferred elsewhere in order to use it for
farming? No, instead INTEL used it to build a massive privacy berm all around the
facility where the soil will never again grow food. NIKE did the very same thing with
the topsoil scraped away during construction of its facility in Beaverton.
Denuded watersheds have caused unnecessary erosion and stream sedimentation.
Man dams rivers, thus disrupting ancient fish migrations. He's over-exploited
natural resources, filled the atmosphere with toxins and greenhouse gas emissions,
poisoned aquifers, contaminated soil and waterways with chemical fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides; littered the oceans with billions of pounds of plastic
debris, (India's sacred river Ganges alone deposits an estimated 6,000 tons of
plastic annually into the Bay of Bengal) made possible super germs, and seriously
upset the balance of nature.
It seems that most everything the Adams touch, they ruin; and as if the Earth isn't
enough, they've moved out into space where in the years since Russia launched its
first Sputnik into low Earth orbit on Oct 04, 1957, humans have littered the sky
around their planet with 13,000 catalogued pieces of space junk, which is only a
fraction of the more than 600,000 objects circling the globe larger than one
centimeter (a centimeter is a little over 3/8ths of an inch). Humans have even
discarded 374,782 pounds of litter on the Moon, including the golf balls that
astronaut Alan Shepherd left behind.
So; when God looked over His work and "found" that it was very good, does that
mean He was surprised it came out like it did? (chuckle) No. It would be a strange
craftsman indeed who couldn't look over their work with satisfaction in a job well
done.
I believe the universe's architect knew precisely what He was doing, and where He
was going with His work; and was highly pleased that it came out exactly as
planned. I seriously doubt that God was feeling His way along like experimenters in
medicine and chemistry. Nobody could build a fully functioning cosmos and all of its
forms of life, matter, and energy unless they knew what they were doing from
beginning to end.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● Gen 2:1-2 . .The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their array. On the
seventh day God finished the work that He had been doing, and He ceased on the
seventh day from all the work that He had done. And God blessed the seventh day
and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He
had done.
The seventh day memorialized the completion of creation. However, although it was
made a holy day, it wasn't made a day of obligation until quite a few years later:
after Noah's flood, and not till the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with
God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
An important thing to note is that God is still on sabbatical, viz: the other six days
were bounded by an evening and a morning whereas the seventh isn't bounded;
indicating that it hasn't ended, i.e. God has yet to pick up where He left off and
begin adding to the current grand scheme of things. (cf. Ecc 1:9-10)
The seventh day of the civil week was eventually labeled "sabbath" which is from a
Hebrew word that basically means intermission, i.e. a pause. It became an
important day for Jews (Ex 31:16-17) but has never been made a special day for
Gentiles, that is; unless they immigrate to Israel; wherein a one day pause in folks'
weekly routines are supposed to be the law of the land. (Deut 5:12-14)
A day off once a week is not only humane, but also reminds the Jews that the
cosmos-- all its forms of life, matter, and energy --is the product of intelligent
design. It also reminds them that the God of their providence is extremely strong.
In point of fact: Abraham knew their God as 'El Shadday (Gen 17:1) the God of
every kind of power and control that can be named, and then some: an
unstoppable juggernaut beyond compare.
"Is anything too hard for The Lord?" (Gen 18:14)
● Gen 2:4 . .These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
were created, in the day that The Lord God made earth and heaven.
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very same
word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm here refers to a
period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour calendar day; it justifies
suggesting that each of the six days of creation were eras of indeterminate length.
Gen 2:4 is the very first time in Scripture where the name YHVH appears. The
correct pronunciation is currently unknown. Sometimes it's pronounced Yehovah,
sometimes Jehovah, and sometimes Yahweh.
The appellation is so sacred among pious Jews that they make every effort to avoid
speaking it except under very special circumstances. In some of their writings, in
order to avoid using the four sacred letters comprising the tetragrammaton, they
write instead "The Name" and/or sometimes "Hashem". So Ex 20:3 could be
written: "I, The Name, am your god" or "I, Hashem, am your god."
YHVH is commonly referred to with masculine pronouns because He's a king;
and kings are always males rather than females; e.g. Isa 44:6.
_
● Gen 2:1-2 . .The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their array. On the
seventh day God finished the work that He had been doing, and He ceased on the
seventh day from all the work that He had done. And God blessed the seventh day
and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He
had done.
The seventh day memorialized the completion of creation. However, although it was
made a holy day, it wasn't made a day of obligation until quite a few years later:
after Noah's flood, and not till the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with
God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
An important thing to note is that God is still on sabbatical, viz: the other six days
were bounded by an evening and a morning whereas the seventh isn't bounded;
indicating that it hasn't ended, i.e. God has yet to pick up where He left off and
begin adding to the current grand scheme of things. (cf. Ecc 1:9-10)
The seventh day of the civil week was eventually labeled "sabbath" which is from a
Hebrew word that basically means intermission, i.e. a pause. It became an
important day for Jews (Ex 31:16-17) but has never been made a special day for
Gentiles, that is; unless they immigrate to Israel; wherein a one day pause in folks'
weekly routines are supposed to be the law of the land. (Deut 5:12-14)
A day off once a week is not only humane, but also reminds the Jews that the
cosmos-- all its forms of life, matter, and energy --is the product of intelligent
design. It also reminds them that the God of their providence is extremely strong.
In point of fact: Abraham knew their God as 'El Shadday (Gen 17:1) the God of
every kind of power and control that can be named, and then some: an
unstoppable juggernaut beyond compare.
"Is anything too hard for The Lord?" (Gen 18:14)
● Gen 2:4 . .These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
were created, in the day that The Lord God made earth and heaven.
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very same
word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm here refers to a
period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour calendar day; it justifies
suggesting that each of the six days of creation were eras of indeterminate length.
Gen 2:4 is the very first time in Scripture where the name YHVH appears. The
correct pronunciation is currently unknown. Sometimes it's pronounced Yehovah,
sometimes Jehovah, and sometimes Yahweh.
The appellation is so sacred among pious Jews that they make every effort to avoid
speaking it except under very special circumstances. In some of their writings, in
order to avoid using the four sacred letters comprising the tetragrammaton, they
write instead "The Name" and/or sometimes "Hashem". So Ex 20:3 could be
written: "I, The Name, am your god" or "I, Hashem, am your god."
YHVH is commonly referred to with masculine pronouns because He's a king;
and kings are always males rather than females; e.g. Isa 44:6.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● Gen 2:5 . . and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the
earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Bible students have to exercise caution when reading that section in order to avoid
making the mistake of concluding that human life was created prior to vegetation;
when we know for a fact from the day-by-day account in the first chapter that
humans were the very last to be put on earth. Gen 2:4-7 is only saying that when
God created vegetation on day three, it wasn't permitted to flourish right away.
● Gen 2:6 . . a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the
ground.
The Hebrew word for "mist" is a very rare word and appears only one more time in
the whole Bible at at Job 36:27 where it's apparently speaking of the process of
evaporation; which typically produces water in the form of fog, dew, humidity, and
vapor; which are very gentle ways to irrigate young plants and/or bare ground.
Had God brought rain prior to flourishing ground cover, the land would have eroded
something awful and millions of cubic yards of perfectly good dirt would have
washed into creeks, and streams, and rivers to be carried out to sea where it would
be lost in perpetuity. Water in the form of dew, fog, humidity and vapor is a whole
lot more gentle on bare ground than falling water and/or running water.
(California's coastal redwoods obtain a large percentage of their moisture from fog.)
● Gen 2:7a . . And the Lord God formed a man's body
Mankind's creator didn't give birth to humanity like women give birth to children or
baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't God's biological progeny-- humans
are God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by craftsmen in Murano;
where they make things from scratch using mostly sand for their base material.
● Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground
The Hebrew word for "ground" basically refers to soil, viz: the human body wasn't
created ex nihilo; God constructed it from already-existing physical matter.
Some of the ground's minerals are derived from the disintegration of meteors that
burn up in the atmosphere-- commonly referred to as star dust. But that only
accounts for a small percentage. The bulk of ground's parent materials come from
the disintegration of the Earth's own rocks which are, and were, formed
underground and end up on or near the surface via natural processes like
volcanism, continental plate subduction, and mighty earthquakes, etc. Once on the
surface, the action of wind, water, and temperature begin to erode rock and make
dust with it.
God could've-- had He wanted --created h.sapiens from nothing more than stone.
(cf. Luke 19:37-40 and Matt 3:9)
● Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life,
If the breath of life were atmospheric gases, it would be possible to revive a corpse
with artificial respiration; so we have to conclude that it's an energy vastly more
powerful than anything found in nature.
The breath of life isn't unique to humans. Every creature aboard the ark with Noah
was alive due to the breath of life, and every creature that drowned in the Flood
too. (Gen 7:12-23)
_
● Gen 2:5 . . and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the
earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Bible students have to exercise caution when reading that section in order to avoid
making the mistake of concluding that human life was created prior to vegetation;
when we know for a fact from the day-by-day account in the first chapter that
humans were the very last to be put on earth. Gen 2:4-7 is only saying that when
God created vegetation on day three, it wasn't permitted to flourish right away.
● Gen 2:6 . . a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the
ground.
The Hebrew word for "mist" is a very rare word and appears only one more time in
the whole Bible at at Job 36:27 where it's apparently speaking of the process of
evaporation; which typically produces water in the form of fog, dew, humidity, and
vapor; which are very gentle ways to irrigate young plants and/or bare ground.
Had God brought rain prior to flourishing ground cover, the land would have eroded
something awful and millions of cubic yards of perfectly good dirt would have
washed into creeks, and streams, and rivers to be carried out to sea where it would
be lost in perpetuity. Water in the form of dew, fog, humidity and vapor is a whole
lot more gentle on bare ground than falling water and/or running water.
(California's coastal redwoods obtain a large percentage of their moisture from fog.)
● Gen 2:7a . . And the Lord God formed a man's body
Mankind's creator didn't give birth to humanity like women give birth to children or
baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't God's biological progeny-- humans
are God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by craftsmen in Murano;
where they make things from scratch using mostly sand for their base material.
● Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground
The Hebrew word for "ground" basically refers to soil, viz: the human body wasn't
created ex nihilo; God constructed it from already-existing physical matter.
Some of the ground's minerals are derived from the disintegration of meteors that
burn up in the atmosphere-- commonly referred to as star dust. But that only
accounts for a small percentage. The bulk of ground's parent materials come from
the disintegration of the Earth's own rocks which are, and were, formed
underground and end up on or near the surface via natural processes like
volcanism, continental plate subduction, and mighty earthquakes, etc. Once on the
surface, the action of wind, water, and temperature begin to erode rock and make
dust with it.
God could've-- had He wanted --created h.sapiens from nothing more than stone.
(cf. Luke 19:37-40 and Matt 3:9)
● Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life,
If the breath of life were atmospheric gases, it would be possible to revive a corpse
with artificial respiration; so we have to conclude that it's an energy vastly more
powerful than anything found in nature.
The breath of life isn't unique to humans. Every creature aboard the ark with Noah
was alive due to the breath of life, and every creature that drowned in the Flood
too. (Gen 7:12-23)
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● Gen 2:7d . . and man became a living soul.
The Hebrew word translated "soul" isn't unique to human beings. Its first
appearance is at Gen 1:20-21 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures;
again at Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy crawlies, and wild beasts;
and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature; and yet again at Gen 9:10 to classify
every living thing aboard Noah's ark.
Soul is somewhat ambiguous. It can be said that creatures are souls and also that
they have souls. But here in the beginning, nephesh simply refers to consciousness,
individuality, and self awareness, i.e. sentient existence.
All fauna life was created sentient in the book of Genesis. However, I've yet to
discover a passage in the Bible indicating that flora life was created sentient, ergo:
flora life isn't self aware; flora life has no soul.
So then it's safe to say Man is a person, and it's safe to say that parakeets and
meerkats are persons (in their own way) but it would likely be unwise to posit that
turnips, saguaro cactus, and kelp are persons because it's necessary to be a soul
and/or have a soul, in order to qualify as a person.
NOTE: According to Matt 10:28, the body and the soul are perishable. However;
though the body is perishable by any means, the soul is perishable only by divine
means; i.e. the deaths of body and soul aren't necessarily simultaneous, viz: the
soul lives on until such a time as God decides to give it either a thumb up or a
thumb down.
● Gen 2:8a . .The Lord God planted a garden in Eden,
The Hebrew word for "garden" pertains to a garden as fenced (or possibly just a
tract with definite boundaries and dimensions). If walled, I assume to protect it
from foraging animals; which makes sense seeing as how the garden would be
Adam's primary food source. I'm guessing it was very likely a full-blown farm
complete with grains, vegetables, and orchards; and meant for husbandry.
● Gen 2:8b . . in the east
"east" in that verse was an east that the author(s) of Genesis understood. Out west
here in Oregon, we consider east to be New York and Chicago; while the world
considers the Orient to be east. For the purposes of modern navigation, everything
towards sunrise from the meridian of Greenwich England around the world to
Samoa is East longitude, and everything towards sunset around the world to Samoa
is West longitude.
So if you were standing in Mexico, then Greenwich would be to the east; but if you
were standing in Iran, then Greenwich would be to the west. It's all a matter of
perspective.
Just exactly where "the east" was in Adam's day is hard to tell. But the garden itself
is not to be confused with Eden. The garden was located "in" Eden; an ancient pre
Flood unspecified geographic region. Some people think Eden was somewhere in
Africa but that's just a shot in the dark, i.e. an educated guess.
The word "Eden" basically means pleasure, and delight. So Adam's farm was in a
very nice location and we could, if we had a mind to, name his spread Happy Valley
or Pleasant Acres.
● Gen 2:8c-9a . . and placed there the man whom He had formed. And from the
ground The Lord God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and
good for food,
The exact site where God did the work of creating Man is unknown but there's no
reason to doubt he wasn't created right there in his intended home. And I think we
can safely assume the garden was already viable and productive when Man arrived.
God didn't just throw him in the water to sink or swim. He gave the man a suitable
habitat right from the get go. Adam wasn't a hunter-gatherer like some sort of
rootless nomad; no, he had a place to settle down and call home.
* Man came into being by the designs of a superior intelligence who looked out for
the unique little creature made in His own image right from the first, and got him
off to a good start; which was fortunate because at that point in time, humans were
an endangered species seeing as how there was only one breeding pair in
existence.
_
● Gen 2:7d . . and man became a living soul.
The Hebrew word translated "soul" isn't unique to human beings. Its first
appearance is at Gen 1:20-21 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures;
again at Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy crawlies, and wild beasts;
and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature; and yet again at Gen 9:10 to classify
every living thing aboard Noah's ark.
Soul is somewhat ambiguous. It can be said that creatures are souls and also that
they have souls. But here in the beginning, nephesh simply refers to consciousness,
individuality, and self awareness, i.e. sentient existence.
All fauna life was created sentient in the book of Genesis. However, I've yet to
discover a passage in the Bible indicating that flora life was created sentient, ergo:
flora life isn't self aware; flora life has no soul.
So then it's safe to say Man is a person, and it's safe to say that parakeets and
meerkats are persons (in their own way) but it would likely be unwise to posit that
turnips, saguaro cactus, and kelp are persons because it's necessary to be a soul
and/or have a soul, in order to qualify as a person.
NOTE: According to Matt 10:28, the body and the soul are perishable. However;
though the body is perishable by any means, the soul is perishable only by divine
means; i.e. the deaths of body and soul aren't necessarily simultaneous, viz: the
soul lives on until such a time as God decides to give it either a thumb up or a
thumb down.
● Gen 2:8a . .The Lord God planted a garden in Eden,
The Hebrew word for "garden" pertains to a garden as fenced (or possibly just a
tract with definite boundaries and dimensions). If walled, I assume to protect it
from foraging animals; which makes sense seeing as how the garden would be
Adam's primary food source. I'm guessing it was very likely a full-blown farm
complete with grains, vegetables, and orchards; and meant for husbandry.
● Gen 2:8b . . in the east
"east" in that verse was an east that the author(s) of Genesis understood. Out west
here in Oregon, we consider east to be New York and Chicago; while the world
considers the Orient to be east. For the purposes of modern navigation, everything
towards sunrise from the meridian of Greenwich England around the world to
Samoa is East longitude, and everything towards sunset around the world to Samoa
is West longitude.
So if you were standing in Mexico, then Greenwich would be to the east; but if you
were standing in Iran, then Greenwich would be to the west. It's all a matter of
perspective.
Just exactly where "the east" was in Adam's day is hard to tell. But the garden itself
is not to be confused with Eden. The garden was located "in" Eden; an ancient pre
Flood unspecified geographic region. Some people think Eden was somewhere in
Africa but that's just a shot in the dark, i.e. an educated guess.
The word "Eden" basically means pleasure, and delight. So Adam's farm was in a
very nice location and we could, if we had a mind to, name his spread Happy Valley
or Pleasant Acres.
● Gen 2:8c-9a . . and placed there the man whom He had formed. And from the
ground The Lord God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and
good for food,
The exact site where God did the work of creating Man is unknown but there's no
reason to doubt he wasn't created right there in his intended home. And I think we
can safely assume the garden was already viable and productive when Man arrived.
God didn't just throw him in the water to sink or swim. He gave the man a suitable
habitat right from the get go. Adam wasn't a hunter-gatherer like some sort of
rootless nomad; no, he had a place to settle down and call home.
* Man came into being by the designs of a superior intelligence who looked out for
the unique little creature made in His own image right from the first, and got him
off to a good start; which was fortunate because at that point in time, humans were
an endangered species seeing as how there was only one breeding pair in
existence.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● Gen 2:9b . . with the tree of life in the middle of the garden,
The tree of life doesn't give life; rather, according to Gen 3:22 and Rev 22:2 it's a
remedy for whatever ails you including, apparently, the aging process. Exactly how
the chemistry of any plant could be so rich in nourishment as to stop the human
body from falling apart is currently unknown.
A very active field of modern scientific research in our own time is gerontology--
the study of age. As yet, gerontologists have no significant understanding of why
our bodies deteriorate, and therefore no clue as to what treatments, or nutrients
might be employed to keep it youthful.
* It's very possible the tree of life existed as a grove rather than a solo
specimen because according to Gen 1:11, fruit-bearing vegetation was meant to
reproduce. Same goes for all the other trees, including the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil.
● Gen 2:9c . . and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
The Hebrew word translated "good" is ambiguous. It isn't limited to morals, ethics,
or scruples. Even a tasty meal or an entertaining movie can be good.
The word for "bad" is another ambiguous word; and includes anything that's bad for
us like poison ivy, playing with matches, E.coli 0157-H7, toxic chemicals,
salmonella, eating without washing your hands, bungi jumping, investing in penny
stocks, walking on train tracks, pimples, a sore throat, and going to bed without
brushing your teeth.
From the gist of upcoming verses, it's readily apparent that this particular
knowledge of good and bad pertains to an intuitive sense of right and wrong, viz:
righteous and unrighteous, decent and indecent, proper and improper, appropriate
and inappropriate, guilt and innocence.
Though Man was created intelligent; he was basically uneducated. His conscience
was intended to be conditioned via Divine tutelage (e.g. Rom 12:2) rather than trial
and error and/or by self initiative; and certainly not by doing something patently
foolish like experimenting with fruit from a tree known to be unsuitable for human
consumption.
_
● Gen 2:9b . . with the tree of life in the middle of the garden,
The tree of life doesn't give life; rather, according to Gen 3:22 and Rev 22:2 it's a
remedy for whatever ails you including, apparently, the aging process. Exactly how
the chemistry of any plant could be so rich in nourishment as to stop the human
body from falling apart is currently unknown.
A very active field of modern scientific research in our own time is gerontology--
the study of age. As yet, gerontologists have no significant understanding of why
our bodies deteriorate, and therefore no clue as to what treatments, or nutrients
might be employed to keep it youthful.
* It's very possible the tree of life existed as a grove rather than a solo
specimen because according to Gen 1:11, fruit-bearing vegetation was meant to
reproduce. Same goes for all the other trees, including the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil.
● Gen 2:9c . . and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
The Hebrew word translated "good" is ambiguous. It isn't limited to morals, ethics,
or scruples. Even a tasty meal or an entertaining movie can be good.
The word for "bad" is another ambiguous word; and includes anything that's bad for
us like poison ivy, playing with matches, E.coli 0157-H7, toxic chemicals,
salmonella, eating without washing your hands, bungi jumping, investing in penny
stocks, walking on train tracks, pimples, a sore throat, and going to bed without
brushing your teeth.
From the gist of upcoming verses, it's readily apparent that this particular
knowledge of good and bad pertains to an intuitive sense of right and wrong, viz:
righteous and unrighteous, decent and indecent, proper and improper, appropriate
and inappropriate, guilt and innocence.
Though Man was created intelligent; he was basically uneducated. His conscience
was intended to be conditioned via Divine tutelage (e.g. Rom 12:2) rather than trial
and error and/or by self initiative; and certainly not by doing something patently
foolish like experimenting with fruit from a tree known to be unsuitable for human
consumption.
_
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 356
- Points
- 83
The Malone study revealed that Joseph collected the verbal accounts through Ch 39. Joseph is also credited in that doc with producing an alphabet. Thus the material is not like the secret Egyptian pictographs. Malone: THE MOSES CONTROVERSY.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 356
- Points
- 83
Creation week is not the same event as the rest of the universe, says 2 Peter 3. It means this system is highly unique. While earth materials may have been waiting here some time in water, Viking’s radiometrics showed that the planets are not that old. Velikovsky said Jupiter would be ‘hot’ and it was. And Plutos ice mountains and Saturns rings cannot last long, meaning they are young or the event producing them was recent.
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● Gen 2:10a . . A river issues from Eden to water the garden,
The verb "issues" is in grammatically present tense; indicating whoever wrote Gen
2:10, did so while the land of Eden yet existed. The authorship of Genesis has yet
to be positively established. A verse like 2:10 strongly suggests that the data used
to compile Genesis, was progressively accumulated in hand-me-down journals or in
oral rote, generated by people who lived prior to the final compiler's input.
The Hebrew word for "river" is another of those ambiguous Bible words. It can
indicate a stream or a sea and/or metaphorically: prosperity. It was stated
previously in Gen 2:6 that the face of the whole ground was watered by fog; which
suggests that the Eden river was either an aquifer or something similar to the slow
moving water of the Florida everglades.
● Gen 2:10b-11 . . and it then divides and becomes four branches. The name of the
first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah where there is
gold,
The Pishon river has yet to be positively identified.
The Hebrew word for "Havilah" basically means circular. It's not only a place-name
but also a person-name (e.g. Gen 10:7, Gen 10:29) which may indicate that the
land of Havilah was named after an antediluvian individual who settled in that area.
● Gen 2:12 . . (The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli.)
Again, the author used a present tense verb. The gold "is" good, not was good—
strongly suggesting the author actually lived in the period he wrote about.
As a money; gold has intrinsic value, whereas fiat currency as a money is worth
little more than the good faith and dependability of the country that issues it. In
other words: the US Government could, if it wished, simply outlaw the currency you
have on hand and in an instant your paper money would be totally worthless. But
gold has never yet been totally worthless.
Gold is valuable no matter where it comes from but some gold is easier to mine
than others and some is a whole lot more plentiful. Placer gold for example is
usually in the form of dust and requires dredging, sluicing, and washing. Hard rock
gold is better; but requires boring tunnels, rock crushing, and refinement in
smelters. I'd say the really good gold is that in the form of nuggets.
However, rather than the quality of Havilah's gold, the author's use of the word
"good" might just be saying that its gold is bountiful; as opposed to scarce. Gold
can be found just about everywhere, but concentrations of it exist in only a
relatively few places.
Bdellium is a gum resin similar to myrrh; obtained from various trees. The author
could have been referring to amber; a hard yellowish to brownish translucent fossil
resin that takes a fine polish and is used chiefly in making ornamental objects like
beads and such. Bdellium was the comparison Moses used to describe the color of
manna in Num 11:7.
In ancient Egypt lapis lazuli was a favorite stone for amulets and ornaments such as
scarabs; it was also used in ancient Mesopotamia by the Sumerians, Akkadians,
Assyrians, and Babylonians for seals and jewelry. Lapis jewelry has been found at
excavations of the Predynastic Egyptian site Naqada (3300–3100 BC), and
powdered lapis was used as eye shadow by Cleopatra. In ancient Mesopotamia,
lapis artifacts can be found in great abundance, with many notable examples
having been excavated at the Royal Cemetery of Ur (2600-2500 BC).
● Gen 2:13 . .The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that winds through
the whole land of Cush.
Cush of the post-Flood world is associated in Scripture with both a region of Arabia
and the present-day land of Ethiopia. But the exact geographic site of the Cush of
antediluvian days is impossible to know. If it's the same, then we can be pretty
sure that the Earth underwent some dramatic geological events in the distant past
because it is now impossible for any river in Ethiopia to connect in any way at all
with the Tigris and Euphrates rivers of today's world.
_
● Gen 2:10a . . A river issues from Eden to water the garden,
The verb "issues" is in grammatically present tense; indicating whoever wrote Gen
2:10, did so while the land of Eden yet existed. The authorship of Genesis has yet
to be positively established. A verse like 2:10 strongly suggests that the data used
to compile Genesis, was progressively accumulated in hand-me-down journals or in
oral rote, generated by people who lived prior to the final compiler's input.
The Hebrew word for "river" is another of those ambiguous Bible words. It can
indicate a stream or a sea and/or metaphorically: prosperity. It was stated
previously in Gen 2:6 that the face of the whole ground was watered by fog; which
suggests that the Eden river was either an aquifer or something similar to the slow
moving water of the Florida everglades.
● Gen 2:10b-11 . . and it then divides and becomes four branches. The name of the
first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah where there is
gold,
The Pishon river has yet to be positively identified.
The Hebrew word for "Havilah" basically means circular. It's not only a place-name
but also a person-name (e.g. Gen 10:7, Gen 10:29) which may indicate that the
land of Havilah was named after an antediluvian individual who settled in that area.
● Gen 2:12 . . (The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli.)
Again, the author used a present tense verb. The gold "is" good, not was good—
strongly suggesting the author actually lived in the period he wrote about.
As a money; gold has intrinsic value, whereas fiat currency as a money is worth
little more than the good faith and dependability of the country that issues it. In
other words: the US Government could, if it wished, simply outlaw the currency you
have on hand and in an instant your paper money would be totally worthless. But
gold has never yet been totally worthless.
Gold is valuable no matter where it comes from but some gold is easier to mine
than others and some is a whole lot more plentiful. Placer gold for example is
usually in the form of dust and requires dredging, sluicing, and washing. Hard rock
gold is better; but requires boring tunnels, rock crushing, and refinement in
smelters. I'd say the really good gold is that in the form of nuggets.
However, rather than the quality of Havilah's gold, the author's use of the word
"good" might just be saying that its gold is bountiful; as opposed to scarce. Gold
can be found just about everywhere, but concentrations of it exist in only a
relatively few places.
Bdellium is a gum resin similar to myrrh; obtained from various trees. The author
could have been referring to amber; a hard yellowish to brownish translucent fossil
resin that takes a fine polish and is used chiefly in making ornamental objects like
beads and such. Bdellium was the comparison Moses used to describe the color of
manna in Num 11:7.
In ancient Egypt lapis lazuli was a favorite stone for amulets and ornaments such as
scarabs; it was also used in ancient Mesopotamia by the Sumerians, Akkadians,
Assyrians, and Babylonians for seals and jewelry. Lapis jewelry has been found at
excavations of the Predynastic Egyptian site Naqada (3300–3100 BC), and
powdered lapis was used as eye shadow by Cleopatra. In ancient Mesopotamia,
lapis artifacts can be found in great abundance, with many notable examples
having been excavated at the Royal Cemetery of Ur (2600-2500 BC).
● Gen 2:13 . .The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that winds through
the whole land of Cush.
Cush of the post-Flood world is associated in Scripture with both a region of Arabia
and the present-day land of Ethiopia. But the exact geographic site of the Cush of
antediluvian days is impossible to know. If it's the same, then we can be pretty
sure that the Earth underwent some dramatic geological events in the distant past
because it is now impossible for any river in Ethiopia to connect in any way at all
with the Tigris and Euphrates rivers of today's world.
_
"Yom" as a normal 24 hr day is still the most straightforward understanding and really the only interpretation that makes sense in context ("And there was evening and morning the first 'long period of time'"). But I think the bigger issue is not the "days," but the mistake of trying to read modern science back into Genesis instead of properly interpreting Genesis in its original, historical context.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 356
- Points
- 83
And the earth was divided in large and small ways.
I mean the error of anachronism, reading back into Scripture something that Scripture isn't referring to. Like when some Christians read Jeremiah 10 as a prohibition against Christmas trees before there was such a thing as Christmas trees, or reading modern science back onto Genesis 1 before there was such a thing as modern science. If that's the correct way to interpret Genesis, then that means Genesis was written only for us in the modern times and could not be understood until the advent of modern scientific knowledge.
But this is the error of anachronism in hermeneutics. Correct interpretation requires interpreting in the original historical context of the time. When we do that we see that modern science neither contradicts nor supports Genesis but has very little to do with it at all. The two are apples
and oranges 
and speak to different questions.Here's a great article by an evangelical OT scholar I know that shows the best evidence we have is that Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths. Genesis 1 reads like a point by point refutation of Egpytian pagan cosmology. Even the order of creation events is the same in many places. If you copy paste into Google Scholar you should find a number a free pdfs of the article you can download. This article makes more clear what I am attempting to articulate (and does a better job at it than I can
). Best.Johnston, Gordon H. "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths." BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 165.658 (2008): 178.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 356
- Points
- 83
I mean the error of anachronism, reading back into Scripture something that Scripture isn't referring to. Like when some Christians read Jeremiah 10 as a prohibition against Christmas trees before there was such a thing as Christmas trees, or reading modern science back onto Genesis 1 before there was such a thing as modern science. If that's the correct way to interpret Genesis, then that means Genesis was written only for us in the modern times and could not be understood until the advent of modern scientific knowledge.
But this is the error of anachronism in hermeneutics. Correct interpretation requires interpreting in the original historical context of the time. When we do that we see that modern science neither contradicts nor supports Genesis but has very little to do with it at all. The two are apples
Here's a great article by an evangelical OT scholar I know that shows the best evidence we have is that Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths. Genesis 1 reads like a point by point refutation of Egpytian pagan cosmology. Even the order of creation events is the same in many places. If you copy paste into Google Scholar you should find a number a free pdfs of the article you can download. This article makes more clear what I am attempting to articulate (and does a better job at it than I can
Johnston, Gordon H. "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths." BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 165.658 (2008): 178.
I do understand that element, in fact, Hebrew scholar Walter, formerly at DTS, thought it also spoke to Persian and Hindi doctrines.
Let me link something from a broader set of references.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 356
- Points
- 83
“TracingGenesis…”
I mention this Bc of the Sequalish cosmology. See the thread. The point of both instances being the wide sweep of reference which Genesis has, so that the British museum curators that “tracing” quotes at the end say that they can assert the degeneration of all world myth from Genesis. Wide enough for me!
The Seattle area tribe is as far as you can get geographically from the ANE yet preserves extremely essential Genesis detail.
There might be apples and oranges that don’t relate to each other, but I can show much more of a fraudulent practice of science, rendering it unworthy to relate to. So the end result is not that they are irrelevant to each other but that science is so fraught with scandal and propaganda as to be ignored.
A recent article like this at Christian Post called it a matter of Biblical truth vs pantheism.
EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,321
- Reaction score
- 356
- Points
- 83
In other words, modern science is actually pantheism
Sure, there's the occasional "scandal," but science is not "fraught" with it (no more than anything else, whether it's politics, or even church scandals). Plus, that's why there is a professional peer review process in place to limit and weed out the bad apples. As believers we're pro-God, but that doesn't mean we have to be anti-science, nor is there any reason to be anti-science.
Similar threads
