A Journey Thru Genesis

civic

Active member
I'm not sure how one can journey through Genesis(the book of beginnings) without identifying the Creator of all things who was "in the beginning" God.

But as Burger King advertises you can have it your way. I'm not sure how many will but into it, good luck.
 

Dant01

Member
.
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.

It's okay to pity people who refuse to be identified by their gender and prefer to be
known as non binary, i.e. as neither male nor female. But there is no just no way
on God's green earth that Bible-believing Christians should ever be supportive of
the non binary movement because the image and likeness of God finds its
completeness in distinct male and female gender identities.

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". But God-honoring Christian
churches dare not accept into their membership someone known to identify
themselves as non binary.

"See to it that no one misses the grace of God, and that no bitter root grows up to
cause trouble and defile many." (Heb 12:15)

A bitter root is one belonging to a species unfit for human consumption. When you
find noxious vegetation sprouting in your garden, you've got to get out there with a
hoe and dig that stuff up before it spreads out of control.


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 everyone; 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 of the 'adam species 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 the female because she was made with human material taken from a
man'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.
_
 

Dant01

Member
.
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 the
wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a law.

It's always best to regard blessings as benefits, approvals, and/or empowerments
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.


NOTE: The popular interpretation of Matt 5:27-28 is extremely contrary to the
blessing of fertility. It has served to warp thousands of innocent young psyches,
and burdened men with unnecessary guilt complexes over sex and the human
body.

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" is from kabash (kaw-bash') which emphasizes
coercion and force; and means: to disregard; to conquer, and to violate.

The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down; to
subjugate.

kabash and radah are very strong language. Those two words combined leave no
room for doubt regarding Man's supremacy in the sphere of things. God blessed
humanity with the authority to dominate and to violate 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 this earth is 'adam's domain.

But the interesting thing is; the 'adam specie is also the monarch of the whole
cosmos; not just the dinky little third rock from the Sun where he hangs his hat.

"For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under
him." (Heb 2:6-8)

Gen 1:29-30 . . 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.

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, named 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)
_
 

Dant01

Member
.
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.

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,
made possible super germs, and seriously upset the balance of nature.

It seems that most everything 'adam touches, he ruins; and as if the Earth isn't
enough, he's 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.
_
 

Dant01

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.

The seventh day is unique. The other six days were bounded by an evening and a
morning. The seventh day is not bounded; which means it has not yet ended; viz:
God has been on a creation sabbatical ever since, and has created nothing new for
the current cosmos since the end of day six; i.e. the Earth that I live on today is the
very same planet that God created in the beginning.

Granted the Earth's topography has been altered quite a bit since Noah's day, for
example there is no longer any river systems connecting the Tigris and Euphrates
with Ethiopia. However, I consider those alterations as little more than remodeling;
so to speak. In other words; though a home undergoes remodeling; it's the same
home though it may have a different look.

Though it's stated in that passage that the creator finished His work and ceased
creating things for the current cosmos; yet people are still under the impression
that He creates new souls every time a baby is conceived in its mommy's womb.
But the seventh day isn't bounded by an evening and a morning; ergo: it has not
yet ended; which means God hasn't gone back to creating things for the current
cosmos.

Adam's progeny-- you and I and all the others --are not direct creations; no; we're
reproductions; viz: there's no need for mankind's creator to take a hand in
producing baby souls, or any other kinds of souls for that matter because He
created all life on earth as sustainable, transferable kinds of life. The blessing of
fertility is a remarkable blessing because it enables living things to reproduce
themselves sans divine micro management.

In the future; after the current cosmos is utterly obliterated, God will once again
roll up His sleeves, and go back to work creating things.

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be
remembered, nor come into mind." (Isa 65:17)

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens
shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,
the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up . . . we, according
to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth
righteousness." (2Pet 3:10-13)

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth
were passed away; and there was no more sea." (Rev 21:1)

Gen 2:3 . . 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 phrase "declared it holy" is from the word qadash (kaw-dash') which means: to
be clean, or to make, pronounce, or observe as clean; viz: sanitize. Pronouncing
something clean, or observing something as clean and/or conferring upon
something the status of clean and sanitized, doesn't mean it's intrinsically clean.
It's just regarded as fully dedicated to God's purposes; which is exactly what the
word "sanctified" implies. The Hebrew word for "sanctify" is also qadash: the very
same word as for "declared it holy".

Gen 2:4 . .These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
were created, in the day that Jehovah 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
categorizing each of the six days of creation as epochs 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."


BTW: According to Phil 2:9-11, God bestowed upon Jesus Christ the name that is
above every other name that can be named; viz: Jesus Christ has the God-given
right to be known as Yhvh. God also promoted His son to the highest of all
positions; viz: Jesus Christ now shares the very throne of God where he's known as
God, rules as God, and speaks as God; which has been pretty much his ultimate
destiny all along (Ps 2:1-12, Ps 45:1-7, Ps 110:1). That's all I dare say about that
for now lest I derail our journey thru Genesis.


NOTE: 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.
_
 

Dant01

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 'ed (ade). It's 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, and
humidity; 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, and/or humidity is a whole lot
more gentle on bare ground than falling water. (California's coastal redwoods
obtain a large percentage of their moisture from fog.)
_
 

Dant01

Member
.
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 "dust" is a bit ambiguous. It essentially refers to powder, but
can also be translated clay, earth, mud, mortar, ashes, and/or rubbish; viz: the
human body wasn't spoken into existence ex nihilo; God constructed it from
already-existing physical matter.


NOTE: Sooner or later most people eventually run afoul of the passage below so I
think it best if we include in our discussion of the creation story.

"I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul
knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in
secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see
my substance, yet being incomplete; and in thy book all my members were written,
which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." (Ps
139:14-16)

The Hebrew word for "substance" is 'otsem (o'-tsem). It appears in only three
places in the entire Old Testament: Ps 139:15, Deut 8:17, and Job 30:21.

There lacks a consensus on the word's precise meaning. Based upon what I found
in the Strong's Concordance, 'otsem apparently refers to the constitution of
something.

The Hebrew word for "curiously wrought" is raqam (raw-kam') which has to do with
skilled needlework, i.e. embroidering, knitting, etc, which produce multicolored
handmade articles rather than made by machines; suggesting that the human
body-- all of its intricacies --was crafted by the hand of God.

The Hebrew words for "lowest parts of the earth" always, and without exception,
refer to the netherworld; viz: underground. (e.g. Ps 63:9, Isa 44:23, Ezek 26:20,
Ezek 31:14, Ezek 31:16, Ezek 31:18, Ezek 32:18, and Ezek 32:24)

Some folk prefer to apply Ps 139:15 to a woman's womb; but I think it best, and
far more sensible, to interpret it as relating to the author's creation rather than his
conception because everyone is made, and has been made, from the dust of the
ground; which is from the Hebrew word 'adamah (ad-aw-maw') meaning soil.

Well then, from whence came soil?

Some of soil'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 soil's parent materials come from the disintegration
of the Earth's own rocks.

So: from whence came the Earth's rocks?

Many of the Earth's rocks 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.

In a nutshell: The author of Ps 139:14-16 believed that God saw his bodily
constituents while they were not yet even soil but were still underground, deep in
the Earth where they were being formed into rock which would later be broken
down to make soil. Well, if so, then God saw all the rest of us in that condition too.
_
 

Dant01

Member
.
Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life,

The transition from soil to soul is made possible by the mysterious force called the
breath of life. If that spoke of atmospheric gases, then it would be possible to
revive a corpse with artificial respiration; so we have to conclude that the breath of
life is an energy vastly more powerful than anything found in nature.

The word "life" is commonly employed to speak of all living things. But why are
some forms of life more sentient than others? And how is it that all humans are
constructed basically the very same way yet each has its own personality, and a
sense of individuality?

There is no real individuality in products manufactured on an assembly line. They're
all cookie-cutter duplicates and they can all be operated and maintained by the
very same set of instructions.

But people are not like that. We're not cookie-cutter duplicates manufactured on an
assembly line. Though our bodies are all basically designed and constructed with
the same number and manner of parts that all function the same way; we each
have a mind of our own and a will of our own. In other words: human life isn't
mechanical, rather, it's intelligent, thoughtful, and introspective. And each one is
best reckoned with on an individual basis rather than the oneness of a Borg hive
collective.

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 2:7d . . and man became a living soul.

The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh) which 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.


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.
_
 

Dant01

Member
.
Gen 2:8a . .The Lord God planted a garden in Eden,

The Hebrew word for "garden" is from gan (gan) which means 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.

The word "Eden" is from 'eden (ay'-den) and/or 'ednah (ed-naw') and 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 Yhvh 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 2:9b . . with the tree of life in the middle of the garden,

The tree of life doesn't give life; but rather, according to Gen 3:22 has something in
it that sustains immortality. It's also a good source for natural remedies (Rev 22:2).
Exactly how the chemistry of any plant could be so rich in nourishment as to stop
the human body from getting old and falling apart is currently unknown.

A very active field of modern scientific research in our own time is gerontology--
the study of the phenomena of the aging process. As yet, gerontologists have no
significant understanding of the aging process, and therefore no clue as to what
treatments, or nutrients might be employed to stop it.

Gen 2:9c . . and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.

The Hebrew word for "good" in 2:9 is from towb (tobe). It's an ambiguous word and
isn't restricted to morals, ethics, or scruples. Even a tasty meal or an entertaining
movie can be towb.

The word for "bad" is from ra' (rah) It's 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 the knowledge of good
and bad implies an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Though Man was created
intelligent; he was basically uneducated. A sense of right and wrong wasn't
programmed into his intuition. He was supposed to learn right and wrong via Divine
tutelage; not by trial and error nor by self initiative-- and certainly not by doing
something patently foolish like eating from a tree known to be unsuitable for
human consumption.
_
 

Dant01

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 nahar (naw-hawr') which 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" is Chaviylah (khav-ee-law'); which 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 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 2:14a . .The name of the third river is Tigris, the one that flows east of
Asshur.

According to Assyrian monuments, the Tigris was known to the post Flood ancients
as the Chiddekel, or the Hiddekel. Asshur was located in modern-day Iraq south of
Mosul on the western bank of the Tigris river in between the Great Zab and the
Little Zab rivers.

Gen 2:14b . . And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

The Tigris and Euphrates rivers of today headwater not too far from Elazig Turkey;
flowing roughly (very roughly) parallel to each other from out of Turkey, past Syria
and Mesopotamia, and down into modern-day Iraq before joining together and
emptying into the Persian Gulf.

The general picture in Genesis 2 is that of a major watercourse (the Eden River)
feeding an immense aqua system supplying water to a very large geographic area
comprising parts of Turkey, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nubia, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
Oman, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Iraq.

It would appear that the Eden River itself head-watered possibly in what the world
today knows as Russia; but it is impossible to tell exactly where it came from
because that region no longer generates a south flowing monster river system such
as the one from Eden described in Genesis 2.

The third and fourth rivers no longer connect to a larger river that elsewhere
branches off and flows to Ethiopia. It's pretty obvious from the author's
geographical descriptions that the world's current topography didn't exist prior to
the Flood. The antediluvian world was shaped quite different than the one we live in
now. The Tigris and Euphrates of today are but remnants of an ancient irrigation
system that at one time made the entire Middle East a very beautiful and fertile
region; but to look at it today; you'd never guess it.
_
 

Dant01

Member
.
Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden,
to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree
of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad,
you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of it, you shall die.


FAQ: Why on earth would God plant a hazardous tree in an otherwise perfect
environment? Was that really necessary? What real purpose does a tree serve that
has the potential to kill people and alter human consciousness? Why even create
such a tree in the first place?


A: The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was unfit for human consumption; but
it wasn't necessarily a bad tree. When God finished creating, He looked over His
work on the 6th day and pronounced it all not just good, but "very" good.

Take for example light. God pronounced it good; but in practice light has the
potential to burn your skin and/or cause permanent eye damage.

I don't know what that tree's purpose in the garden might have been but I'm
confident it was no more intrinsically evil than toad stools, poison ivy, lightening,
rattlesnakes, scorpions, avalanches, gravity, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes,
cactus needles, tsunamis, the solar wind, earthquakes, electricity, fire, lava, lead,
cadmium, and arsenic and hemlock are evil in and of themselves. Those things are
hazardous, yes, but they all fit into the natural scheme of things.

Gen 2:15-17 is a favorite among critics because Adam didn't drop dead the instant
he tasted the forbidden fruit. In point of fact, he continued to live outside the
garden of Eden for another 800 years after the birth of his son Seth (Gen 5:4). So;
is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

The first thing to point out is that in order for the warning to resonate in Adam's
thinking; it had to be related to death as he understood death in his own day rather
than death as modern Sunday school classes construe it in their day. In other
words: Adam's concept of death was primitive, i.e. normal and natural rather
spiritual.

As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie that God created with
immortality. The animal kingdom was given nothing like it. That being the case,
then I think it's safe to assume that death was common all around Adam by means
of vegetation, birds, bugs, and beasts so that it wasn't a strange new word in his
vocabulary; i.e. God didn't have to take a moment and define death for Adam
seeing as how it was doubtless a common occurrence in his everyday life.

Adam saw things born, he saw things grow to maturity, he saw things gradually
wither, he saw their life ebb away, and he saw them decay and dissolve into
nothing. So I think we can be reasonably confident that Adam was up to speed on
at least the natural aspects of death; viz: he was familiar with mortality and he was
familiar with immortality.

Death includes not only mortality but also disintegration.

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal
shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is
written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." (1Cor 15:53-54)

In other words; had Adam not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would've stayed
forever 21, but the very day that he tasted its fruit, his body became infected with
mortality-- he lost perpetual youth and began to age.

Mortality is a walking death, and it's slow, but very relentless. It's like Arnold
Swarzenegger's movie character; The Terminator-- it feels neither pain nor pity,
nor remorse nor fear; it cannot be reasoned with nor can it be bargained with, and
it absolutely will not stop-- ever --until you are deceased.
_
 

Dant01

Member
.
Gen 2:18 . .The Lord God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary; I will make
a fitting helper for him.

That is a curious statement considering that God had given His creation an
evaluation of "very good" back in Gen 1:31. Well; that evaluation was stated when
the job was all done. In this section, we're discovering what went on during the
sixth day before the job was all done.

Adam's construction came out exactly as God wished; which means that Adam's
creator deliberately made the man reliant upon a suitable companion right from the
very get-go; i.e. Eve wasn't a "fix" to address an unforeseen problem like the many
that plagued NASA during the Apollo program.

"fitting helper" is from two Hebrew words. "Fitting" is from neged (neh'-ghed) which
means: a front, i.e. part opposite; specifically a counterpart, or mate. The word for
"helper" is from 'ezer (ay'-zer) which means: aid.

Note that aid isn't spelled with an "e" as in aide; so that Eve wasn't meant to be the
man's Girl Friday, rather; someone to strengthen him. In other words: woman's
true role is a supporting role rather than a leading role; i.e. domineering women
are out of sync with humanity's creator. The same goes for masculine women-- viz:
so-called strong women.

I suspect that Adam didn't really have it all that easy in his world, and that Eve's
companionship made his life a lot more tolerable and worth the living. The helper
that God made for Adam would be both his counterpart, and his crutch. In other
words: wives are really at their best when they strengthen their men to go out that
door and face the big, bad, mean world.

In making a statement like Gen 2:18; God made it very clear right from the
beginning that human beings were not intended to live a celibate life. If male
human life was packaged in a box of software, one of its system requirements
would be Female Companion.

Woman's potential for companionship is the primary reason that God made her--
not for her sensual appeal nor for her reproductive value; no, for a man's
companionship; which is commonly expressed by cordiality, friendliness, friendship,
goodwill, kindness, civility, concord, harmony, rapport, charity, generosity,
compassion, empathy, sympathy, chumminess, intimacy, affection, devotion,
loyalty, fondness, and love.

From all that, I think we can safely conclude that a woman who tears her man
down instead of building him up is a broken woman; i.e. maladjusted.

Now; before God introduced the man to a woman, He first gave the man an
opportunity to seek appropriate companionship from among the creatures of the
animal kingdom. The results were unsatisfactory; and no surprise there seeing as
how critters aren't equipped to relate with humans on a high enough level.
_
 

Dant01

Member
.
Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while
he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord
God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman;

The Hebrew word for "rib" is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-22 contains the only
two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an English word
representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated "side"
which is really how tsela' should be translated because according to Gen 2:23, the
material taken from Adam included some of his flesh; and seeing as how the life of
the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11) then I think it's safe to assume that the flesh
God took from Adam's body to construct the woman contained some of his blood
too.

In other words: we can accept "rib" if we allow it a description similar to a
barbecued rib; a serving that contains not bone alone rather, bone, blood, and
meat.

The most important thing to note in that passage is that Eve wasn't created directly
from the soil as Adam was, viz: she wasn't a discreet creation, i.e. Eve wasn't her
own unique specie.

Being as Eve was created from Adam's flesh, blood, and bones, then the flesh,
blood, and bones of her body were reproductions of his flesh, blood, and bones.
Therefore any and all progeny produced by Eve's body, whether virgin-conceived or
normally conceived, would consist of Adam's body, i.e. they would be his progeny
just as much as Eve's if any part of her body was in any way at all involved in the
conception.

This section makes it appear that the woman was brought into existence after the
completion of the sixth day. But according to Gen 1:27, the male and the female
were both created at the very same time on the very same day. In point of fact, the
entire human species was created that day. It's easy to figure out because God
completed the cosmos on the sixth day. From thence He went on a perpetual
sabbatical.

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and
there was morning-- the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed
in all their vast array." (Gen 1:31-2:1)

If it was all very good, and all completed, then there was nothing else left to do.


FAQ: So; where was the woman prior to her actual appearance on the scene?

A: She was in Adam's body.

That's not a strange new idea. For example: Heb 7:9-10 says that Levi was in
Abraham's body; and that was literally centuries before Levi was born.
_
 

herman

Member
.
Hello;

For the idly curious, Genesis is a pretty good place to begin poking around in the
Bible. Lots of interesting stuff is there: the origin of the cosmos, Adam and Eve, Cain
and Abel, Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and
Ishmael, Rebecca, Jacob, Rachel, and Joseph's reunion with his brothers.

Not there are Moses vs. Pharaoh and the parting of the Red Sea. That story is in
Exodus; Samson and Delilah are in Judges, David and Goliath are in 1Samuel; and
Ruth and Esther are in books of the Bible named after them.

Back around the turn of the century; I got the daring idea to begin composing a
daily, bite size commentary on the book of Genesis practically verse by verse from
the opening gun to Joseph's coffin in Egypt. It was a clumsy effort at first and drew
a lot of mockery. But I weathered it out, and as time went by, the effort improved.
On just about every forum where I've survived opposition long enough to complete
the whole fifty chapters, Genesis has attracted several thousand views.

As of today's date, I'm 76 years old; and an on-going student of the Bible since
1968 via sermons, seminars, lectures, Sunday school classes, radio Bible programs,
and various authors of a number of Bible-related books. Fifty-two years of Bible
under my belt hasn't made me an authority; but they've at least made me
competent enough to tackle Genesis.

The author of Genesis is currently unknown; but commonly attributed to Moses.
Seeing as he penned Exodus (Mark 12:26) it's conceivable that Moses also penned
Genesis; but in reality, nobody really knows for sure.

Scholars have estimated the date of its writing at around 1450-1410 BC; a mere
3,400± years ago, which is pretty recent in the grand scheme of Earth's geological
history.

Genesis may in fact be the result of several contributors beginning as far back as
Adam himself; who would certainly know more about the creation than anybody,
and who entertained no doubts whatsoever about the existence of an intelligent
designer since he knew the creator Himself like a next door neighbor.

As time went by, others like Seth and Noah would add their own experiences to the
record, and then Abraham his, Isaac his, Jacob his, and finally Judah or one of his
descendants completing the record with Joseph's burial.

Genesis is quoted more than sixty times in the New Testament; and Christ
authenticated its Divine inspiration by referring to it in his own teachings. (e.g. Matt
19:4-6, Matt 24:37-39, Mk 10:4-9, Luke 11:49-51, Luke 17:26 29 & 32, John
7:21-23, John 8:44 and John 8:56)

Pleasant Journey
_
What is your take on Genesis 22? Can you direct me to where I can read about it. Thanks

herman
 

Dant01

Member
.
Gen 2:22b . . and He introduced her to the man.

Why wasn't Eve given an opportunity to fit in with the animal kingdom before
introducing her to Adam? Well, I think it's because men can make do with a hound
dog and/or a soccer ball named Wilson if they have to; but normal women, as a
rule, can't.

Men and Women share a lot of similarities; but the resolve to go it solo, to be a
rugged individual, is not one of them. There are exceptions, of course; but as a
rule, women do not care to live alone and unloved in the world. It's curious, but
when we think of hermits; our minds typically think of them as male because
female hermits just seem so contrary to nature.

Upon seeing Eve for the very first time, Adam didn't exclaim: Hot diggity dog! Now
I can get lucky! No he didn't say that at all.

Gen 2:23a . .Then the man said: This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of
my flesh.

In other words: the woman was kin; somebody Adam could relate to; and the
expression became a colloquialism. (e.g. Gen 29:13-14)

Eve's primary purpose in life was to be her man's best friend; and that is precisely
why God made women: to be their husband's buddy. Therefore wives who aren't
their husband's buddy are seriously maladjusted; and can only be accepted as
cheap goods rather than top-of-the-line quality. Married men shackled to a
maladjusted woman aren't really in a marriage; they're in a cold war.

The one who designed a man said it is not good for a man to live alone. And if it's
not good for a man to live alone, then it goes without saying that it's not good for a
woman either. If men are supposed to be happier with a woman, then women
should be happier with a man. In other words: mankind's designer didn't intend
men and women to function independently of each other. They were created to be
together; as couples.

So Adam saw in Eve his true counterpart-- a blood relative who was just as human
as himself; and one who could truly relate to him, be sensitive to his feelings, and
understand his thoughts; something no other creature ever yet has been able to
do.

It's said that dogs are Man's best friend. No they aren't; dogs are domesticated
beasts. They might bring a man his slippers, guard his property, and lick his face;
but a dog lacks the capacity to be concerned that a man isn't eating right and
getting enough rest and/or sympathize with a man when his job is outsourced to
cheap labor in India. How many dogs shared their master's alarm when the housing
bubble burst in 2008 and Wall Street fell off a cliff resulting in thousands of people
all over the globe to suddenly find themselves unemployed and losing their homes?
Had one done so, that would've been a very unusual dog.

No; a man's true BFF is a loyal woman that looks out for him.

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times, and he'll have good times
Doin' things that you don't understand

But if you love him, you'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him, oh be proud of him
'Cause after all he's just a man.

Stand by your man, give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely.
Stand by your man, and show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can.
Stand By Your Man,
Tammy Wynette and Billy Sherrill

Epic Records, 1968
_
 

TrevorL

Member
Greetings civic,

I am interested in discussing Genesis 1:26 with you, but not sure if we should discuss this here, as Dant01 is mainly publishing his commentary on Genesis. I will give my brief answer to two aspects of your post.
"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" Genesis 1:26
Since man is created in the image and likeness of God then it cannot be the angels in the US/OUR likeness.
I believe the plural in Genesis 1:26 is the One God, Yahweh, God the Father inviting the Angels to participate in creating man in the image and likeness of God and the Angels. This is verified by Psalm 8:5 which is a summary and allusion to Genesis 1:26-27 and the distinction is stated between Yahweh and the Angels and the plural word Elohim is used here for the Angels.
Psalm 8:5 (KJV): For thou (Yahweh) hast made him a little lower than the angels (Elohim), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us ?"" Isaiah 6:8
The plural here is the King on the throne and the Seraphim.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

DrDavidT

Member
@Dant01 may I ask who you listened to and liked and what books you recommend on Genesis, Creation, the Flood etc..... ?

Thanks !
If he won't do it, I will. You can read my books on the topic, they are found in my profile. Also, The Battle of Beginnings by Dr. Del Ratzsch is a good one, the Demise of the Big Bang is another. After the Flood by Bill Cooper is good. That is just to mention a few
 

Dant01

Member
.
Gen 2:23b . .This one shall be called Woman, for from Man was she taken.

The Hebrew word for "woman" is from 'ishshah (ish-shaw') which is the feminine
form of 'iysh (eesh) which means a human being as an individual or as a male
person. So 'ishshah doesn't indicate another species of human life (e.g. Lilith) it
just simply indicates the opposite side of the same coin.

The word "taken" is accurate enough but in my estimation, "extracted" would be
better because the woman was in Adam all along; same goes for all the rest of us
too. We weren't created the day we were conceived; rather, we were created the
day that Adam was brought into existence. Pretty amazing when you think about it.

Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife,

Clinging implies need. Most people don't care much for needy spouses because
they're so high maintenance; but I don't think Genesis is talking about that kind of
clinging. It seems to me more like reliance and dependence; and if a man can't rely
and/or depend upon his wife; who can he rely and/or depend upon?

You know, people who indulge in starter marriages have got the wrong idea about
what it means to hook up with somebody.

There are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife in that verse
comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah. What makes an ishshah
somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun "his" So Eve became Adam's woman;
and Adam of course became Eve's man.

You don't own me
I'm not just one of your many toys
You don't own me
Don't say I can't go with other boys.

The lyrics of that song-- originally recorded by Lesley Gore in 1963 --depict a
defiant girl standing up to a possessive boyfriend. Well; those lyrics may be true for
temporary lovers; but are very contrary to God's thinking when it comes to
marriage.

Anyway; there comes a time in every youth's life when it's time for him to grow up,
sever the apron strings, leave home, become his own man, and take up residence
with his own woman.

Sometimes it's difficult for a young man to accept that his mother is another man's
woman. When my son was around 29 years old and home for Christmas one year,
his mother and I were having a disagreement and he stuck up for her. I had to take
my son aside and school him that it is a serious breach of male etiquette to come
between a man and his wife. I let him get by with it that time; but in another man's
home his meddling just might cost him a broken nose. He never did it again.

Gen 2:24b . . so that they become one flesh.

The term "one" indicates unification. According to Matt 19:6 and Rom 7:1-3, this
particular unification is permanent till death, which, according to 1Cor 6:15-16 isn't
limited to marriage; it takes effect even when people sleep around; ergo: when a
man sleeps with a woman, any woman, he becomes bonded to her for life, and she
with him. Whether they agree to it or not makes no difference because God's
decree trumps His creatures' feelings about it.


NOTE: According to Gen 2:24 and Matt 19:4-6, marriage is a non binary
relationship, though the participants themselves retain their individual gender
identity.

Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet they felt no
shame

They were naked at first, but there's really no reason to believe that they would've
remained that way. I mean, after all, human skin is not all that tough. They would
need to protect themselves from dirt and grime, and from sunburn, cuts, bruises,
and abrasions. The thing to note is that at this point of their existence, they lacked
a sense of propriety.

Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling of inferiority or
inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.

I think we could probably add self consciousness to that list; defined as
uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the observation of others.

In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche restraining him
from parading around in full frontal exposure; and actually, neither was there
anything in his psyche encouraging him to. Adam was a product of nature; hence
he was comfortable au naturel. They weren't exhibitionists by any stretch of the
imagination because in their innocence, Adam and his wife simply were neither
proud of, nor humiliated by, their appearance in the buff.

Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at first,
nor were they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet they knew no
cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt complex about sex and
the human body; and concepts like vanity and narcissism had no point of reference
in their thinking whatsoever. They had absolutely no natural sense of propriety, nor
were they even aware of any because their creator hadn't taught them any
proprieties yet at this point.

That was an interesting time in early human development. They had neither
intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. Had somebody
criticized the first couple's appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their
critic like a man taken leave of his senses.
_
 
Top