civic
Well-known member
agreed and is very evasive when asked questions.
A Journey Thru Genesis
- Thread starter Dant01
- Start date
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 3:23 . . So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the
soil from which he was taken.
One of the societal problems associated with STDs is the development of
treatments for those kinds of diseases. The treatments are not bad per se; the
problem is that knowing that there's treatments emboldens people to indulge in
immorality.
In other words: had God allowed the man continued access to the garden, no doubt
he and his wife would've included the forbidden fruit in their diets on a regular basis
because there would be little to fear from its effects due to the ready availability of
fruit from the tree of life. They would, as it's said, have their cake and eat it too.
• Gen 3:24 . . He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden the
cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.
This is the Bible's first mention of cherubim. They show up now and again in the Old
Testament upwards of 90 times. Their description as per Ezek 1:1-28 and Ezek
10:1-22 suggests that they may be symbolic visions rather than realities.
Another classification of celestial beings are the seraphim (e.g. Isa 6:2).
I think it's safe to assume that the garden, and the cherubim with its flaming
sword, were in existence up till the time of the Flood; so people could go and see it
for themselves rather than take a preacher's word for it. But for some reason,
there's no record of anybody making pilgrimages to that area. Well; were that
cherubim and its fiery sword anywhere on Earth in our day, I should think it would
draw more people to it than even Mecca because it would definitely be a wonder to
behold, but I suspect that back then people were afraid of it.
_
• Gen 3:23 . . So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the
soil from which he was taken.
One of the societal problems associated with STDs is the development of
treatments for those kinds of diseases. The treatments are not bad per se; the
problem is that knowing that there's treatments emboldens people to indulge in
immorality.
In other words: had God allowed the man continued access to the garden, no doubt
he and his wife would've included the forbidden fruit in their diets on a regular basis
because there would be little to fear from its effects due to the ready availability of
fruit from the tree of life. They would, as it's said, have their cake and eat it too.
• Gen 3:24 . . He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden the
cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.
This is the Bible's first mention of cherubim. They show up now and again in the Old
Testament upwards of 90 times. Their description as per Ezek 1:1-28 and Ezek
10:1-22 suggests that they may be symbolic visions rather than realities.
Another classification of celestial beings are the seraphim (e.g. Isa 6:2).
I think it's safe to assume that the garden, and the cherubim with its flaming
sword, were in existence up till the time of the Flood; so people could go and see it
for themselves rather than take a preacher's word for it. But for some reason,
there's no record of anybody making pilgrimages to that area. Well; were that
cherubim and its fiery sword anywhere on Earth in our day, I should think it would
draw more people to it than even Mecca because it would definitely be a wonder to
behold, but I suspect that back then people were afraid of it.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 4:1a . . Now the man knew his wife Eve,
Throughout the Old Testament, "knew his wife" is a common idiom for people
sleeping together.
There is more to knowledge than just information. Some kinds of knowledge can't
be learned from a book or a lecture; they can only be learned by personal
experience.
Carnal knowledge is one of those kinds of knowing. It's one thing for a young man
to learn things about girls from looking at their pictures and reading about them in
biology books and/or in magazines like Cosmopolitan, and Maxim; but it's quite
another learning experience to actually cuddle with a girl and sleep with her skin to
skin.
Genesis records no human intimacy in the garden prior to Man's eviction; but that
doesn't prove none occurred; it just proves that none is mentioned till the fourth
chapter.
• Gen 4:1b . . and she conceived and bore Cain, saying: I have gained a male child
with the help of the Lord.
God wrapped creation on the seventh day (Gen 2:2) and rested after that. Not
because He was tired, but because He was all done. At that time, the human race
was all done too. Everyone since then has just been a reproduction of Adam.
"It was you who created my consciousness; you fashioned me in my mother's
womb. I praise you, for I am awesomely, wondrously made; your work is
wonderful; I know it very well. My frame was not concealed from you when I was
shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the earth. Your eyes saw
my unformed limbs; they were all recorded in your book; in due time they were
formed, to the very last one of them." (Ps 139:13-16)
The writer of that Psalm believed that God saw him way before he was ever
conceived in his mother's womb. In fact; saw his substance in the recesses of the
earth before his mom even conceived: which attests that everyone pre-exists in
Adam because he alone was actually created directly from "the recesses of the
earth". Everyone else stems from Adam's organic tissues and it's just a matter of
time before the right combination of genes brings them out.
"Just as you do not know how the spirit of life passes into the limbs within the
womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of God, who
causes all things to happen." (Ecc 11:5)
Acts of creation don't take place when babies are conceived. No, everybody's
creation took place back when Adam was created. Babies are merely reproductions
of Adam via the blessing of fertility.
Adam received life from God on the sixth day of creation. When God formed the
woman, He didn't breathe the breath of life into her nostrils like He did Adam. God
simply used Adam's already-existing life to energize Eve. And ever since then,
parents have been passing their life onto their children. In other words: human life
- like bird life, fish life, bug life, reptile life, and beast life --is a transferable kind of
life; passing from one generation on to the next. It's not a miraculous process; no,
it's a perfectly natural process; and it's a pretty amazing process too.
According to ancient Jewish thought, Eve thought Cain to be a very special boy.
T. And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived,
and bare Kain; and she said: I have acquired a man, the Angel of The Lord.
(Targum Jonathan)
Apparently Eve expected her firstborn son to be "the God-sent one" who was
supposed to fulfill the promise of Gen 3:15 and crush the Serpent's head. But alas,
Cain was just an ordinary kid.
NOTE: The Hebrew word for "angel" is mal'ak (mal-awk') which doesn't especially
indicate a celestial being. The word is a bit ambiguous and essentially means a
dispatched deputy or a messenger; viz: someone who speaks for, and/or
represents, another; i.e. an ambassador and/or someone selected by God for a
special purpose. The New Testament equivalent is aggelos (ang'-el-os) and means
pretty much the same thing.
_
• Gen 4:1a . . Now the man knew his wife Eve,
Throughout the Old Testament, "knew his wife" is a common idiom for people
sleeping together.
There is more to knowledge than just information. Some kinds of knowledge can't
be learned from a book or a lecture; they can only be learned by personal
experience.
Carnal knowledge is one of those kinds of knowing. It's one thing for a young man
to learn things about girls from looking at their pictures and reading about them in
biology books and/or in magazines like Cosmopolitan, and Maxim; but it's quite
another learning experience to actually cuddle with a girl and sleep with her skin to
skin.
Genesis records no human intimacy in the garden prior to Man's eviction; but that
doesn't prove none occurred; it just proves that none is mentioned till the fourth
chapter.
• Gen 4:1b . . and she conceived and bore Cain, saying: I have gained a male child
with the help of the Lord.
God wrapped creation on the seventh day (Gen 2:2) and rested after that. Not
because He was tired, but because He was all done. At that time, the human race
was all done too. Everyone since then has just been a reproduction of Adam.
"It was you who created my consciousness; you fashioned me in my mother's
womb. I praise you, for I am awesomely, wondrously made; your work is
wonderful; I know it very well. My frame was not concealed from you when I was
shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the earth. Your eyes saw
my unformed limbs; they were all recorded in your book; in due time they were
formed, to the very last one of them." (Ps 139:13-16)
The writer of that Psalm believed that God saw him way before he was ever
conceived in his mother's womb. In fact; saw his substance in the recesses of the
earth before his mom even conceived: which attests that everyone pre-exists in
Adam because he alone was actually created directly from "the recesses of the
earth". Everyone else stems from Adam's organic tissues and it's just a matter of
time before the right combination of genes brings them out.
"Just as you do not know how the spirit of life passes into the limbs within the
womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of God, who
causes all things to happen." (Ecc 11:5)
Acts of creation don't take place when babies are conceived. No, everybody's
creation took place back when Adam was created. Babies are merely reproductions
of Adam via the blessing of fertility.
Adam received life from God on the sixth day of creation. When God formed the
woman, He didn't breathe the breath of life into her nostrils like He did Adam. God
simply used Adam's already-existing life to energize Eve. And ever since then,
parents have been passing their life onto their children. In other words: human life
- like bird life, fish life, bug life, reptile life, and beast life --is a transferable kind of
life; passing from one generation on to the next. It's not a miraculous process; no,
it's a perfectly natural process; and it's a pretty amazing process too.
According to ancient Jewish thought, Eve thought Cain to be a very special boy.
T. And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived,
and bare Kain; and she said: I have acquired a man, the Angel of The Lord.
(Targum Jonathan)
Apparently Eve expected her firstborn son to be "the God-sent one" who was
supposed to fulfill the promise of Gen 3:15 and crush the Serpent's head. But alas,
Cain was just an ordinary kid.
NOTE: The Hebrew word for "angel" is mal'ak (mal-awk') which doesn't especially
indicate a celestial being. The word is a bit ambiguous and essentially means a
dispatched deputy or a messenger; viz: someone who speaks for, and/or
represents, another; i.e. an ambassador and/or someone selected by God for a
special purpose. The New Testament equivalent is aggelos (ang'-el-os) and means
pretty much the same thing.
_
Last edited:
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 4:2a . . She then bore his brother Abel.
Abel's name is from hebel (heh'bel) which means: emptiness, futility, and/or
lacking permanent satisfaction. (cf. Ecc 1:2)
Poor Eve; she's only had two kids and already motherhood has lost its appeal. But
you know; in her day, women didn't have access to all the baby supplies, clothing,
conveyances, and conveniences that modern women in industrial nations have
today. Eve's situation and its conditions, were primitive, viz: pretty much third
world.
Cain and Abel are very interesting and share a lot in common. In fact, they share
so much in common that their individual personalities must be an enigma to
behavioral scientists.
Neither man came from a large gene pool because there were no grandparents.
Their genealogy stopped abruptly right in their own home with mom and dad and
went back no farther. They both had the same parents, lived in the same home in
the same neighborhood, grew up with the same customs, ate the same food,
associated with the same people, breathed the same air, survived in the same
environment, went to the same church, and worshipped the same God.
Yet those men were noticeably very different from each other. Abel was an inspired
man (Luke 11:50-51) but Cain, though religious; was not. And he was violent too.
(1John 3:11-12)
Both men were living souls as per Gen 2:7, and both men existed by means of the
breath of life as per the same verse. But souls are not the result of cookie-cutter
manufacturing processes. Souls are sentient individuals with a mind of their own.
Individuality is one of the unsolved mysteries of life. How does the human brain's
three-pound lump of flabby organic tissue produce self awareness and a sense of
being unique? I don't know; it's very curious.
• Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.
The Hebrew word translated "sheep" is either tso'n (tsone) and/or tse'own (tseh
one') which mean: a flock; defined by Webster's as a group of birds or mammals
assembled or herded together. Abel could just as easily have been a cowboy
wrangling bovine and/or tending goats rather than sheep. In point of fact, the
Hebrew word for Abraham's "lamb" in the 22nd chapter of Genesis is ambiguous
too. It too can mean either sheep or goats. Sometimes translators have to make
arbitrary decisions which, at times, can be misleading. But we won't argue the
point. Sheep will do.
Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to the
Adams' survival. Man at this time was a vegetarian so Cain farmed and raised the
family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending flocks for leather;
and possibly fleece too.
NOTE: The Hebrew language didn't exist in Adam's day; nor would it exist till some
time after the Flood and the tower of Babel. Ancient names given in Hebrew aren't
the native-tongue names of people prior to Babel; but rather: Hebrew equivalents
of those names.
_
• Gen 4:2a . . She then bore his brother Abel.
Abel's name is from hebel (heh'bel) which means: emptiness, futility, and/or
lacking permanent satisfaction. (cf. Ecc 1:2)
Poor Eve; she's only had two kids and already motherhood has lost its appeal. But
you know; in her day, women didn't have access to all the baby supplies, clothing,
conveyances, and conveniences that modern women in industrial nations have
today. Eve's situation and its conditions, were primitive, viz: pretty much third
world.
Cain and Abel are very interesting and share a lot in common. In fact, they share
so much in common that their individual personalities must be an enigma to
behavioral scientists.
Neither man came from a large gene pool because there were no grandparents.
Their genealogy stopped abruptly right in their own home with mom and dad and
went back no farther. They both had the same parents, lived in the same home in
the same neighborhood, grew up with the same customs, ate the same food,
associated with the same people, breathed the same air, survived in the same
environment, went to the same church, and worshipped the same God.
Yet those men were noticeably very different from each other. Abel was an inspired
man (Luke 11:50-51) but Cain, though religious; was not. And he was violent too.
(1John 3:11-12)
Both men were living souls as per Gen 2:7, and both men existed by means of the
breath of life as per the same verse. But souls are not the result of cookie-cutter
manufacturing processes. Souls are sentient individuals with a mind of their own.
Individuality is one of the unsolved mysteries of life. How does the human brain's
three-pound lump of flabby organic tissue produce self awareness and a sense of
being unique? I don't know; it's very curious.
• Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.
The Hebrew word translated "sheep" is either tso'n (tsone) and/or tse'own (tseh
one') which mean: a flock; defined by Webster's as a group of birds or mammals
assembled or herded together. Abel could just as easily have been a cowboy
wrangling bovine and/or tending goats rather than sheep. In point of fact, the
Hebrew word for Abraham's "lamb" in the 22nd chapter of Genesis is ambiguous
too. It too can mean either sheep or goats. Sometimes translators have to make
arbitrary decisions which, at times, can be misleading. But we won't argue the
point. Sheep will do.
Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to the
Adams' survival. Man at this time was a vegetarian so Cain farmed and raised the
family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending flocks for leather;
and possibly fleece too.
NOTE: The Hebrew language didn't exist in Adam's day; nor would it exist till some
time after the Flood and the tower of Babel. Ancient names given in Hebrew aren't
the native-tongue names of people prior to Babel; but rather: Hebrew equivalents
of those names.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 4:3-4a . . It came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering
to The Lord of the fruit of the ground. And Abel, on his part also brought of the
firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions.
It's evident from Heb 11:4 that what's taking place here was a legitimate part of a
God-given religion.
It's commonly assumed that Abel's offering was slain; but there isn't enough
evidence in this section to support it. Noah's offerings were obviously slain because
they're listed as burnt on an altar (Gen 8:20). But Abel's offering is not said to end
up the same way.
FAQ: How did Abel get the fat out of his animal without killing it?
A: The Hebrew word for "fat" is somewhat ambiguous. It can mean fleshy material,
and it can also refer to prosperity, abundance, and/or the best of the best; for
example:
"Take your father and your households and come to me, and I will give you the
best of the land of Egypt and you shall eat the fat of the land." (Gen 45:18)
This all tells me that Abel not only offered an animal from among his blue ribbon
stock, but he picked out the choicest one of them all.
There's no indication in this scene suggesting their oblations were sacrifices for sin.
The Hebrew word for their offerings is from minchah (min-khaw') and means: to
apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial
offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).
Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- essentially gifts and/or tributes
rather than atonements --it would be unwise to insist Abel slew his firstling and/or
burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings go by the name of 'olah (o
law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 22:2.
Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of
oblation.
T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of
the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things
before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)
Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce was the
appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal
husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate first fruits
offering.
I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather, responsible
men in this particular scene because God is going to treat them that way.
This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God. The
brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing gifts for
many years; ever since they were kids. And up to this point, apparently both men
were doing everything right and God was just as much pleased with Cain and his
gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.
_
• Gen 4:3-4a . . It came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering
to The Lord of the fruit of the ground. And Abel, on his part also brought of the
firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions.
It's evident from Heb 11:4 that what's taking place here was a legitimate part of a
God-given religion.
It's commonly assumed that Abel's offering was slain; but there isn't enough
evidence in this section to support it. Noah's offerings were obviously slain because
they're listed as burnt on an altar (Gen 8:20). But Abel's offering is not said to end
up the same way.
FAQ: How did Abel get the fat out of his animal without killing it?
A: The Hebrew word for "fat" is somewhat ambiguous. It can mean fleshy material,
and it can also refer to prosperity, abundance, and/or the best of the best; for
example:
"Take your father and your households and come to me, and I will give you the
best of the land of Egypt and you shall eat the fat of the land." (Gen 45:18)
This all tells me that Abel not only offered an animal from among his blue ribbon
stock, but he picked out the choicest one of them all.
There's no indication in this scene suggesting their oblations were sacrifices for sin.
The Hebrew word for their offerings is from minchah (min-khaw') and means: to
apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial
offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).
Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- essentially gifts and/or tributes
rather than atonements --it would be unwise to insist Abel slew his firstling and/or
burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings go by the name of 'olah (o
law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 22:2.
Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of
oblation.
T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of
the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things
before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)
Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce was the
appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal
husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate first fruits
offering.
I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather, responsible
men in this particular scene because God is going to treat them that way.
This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God. The
brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing gifts for
many years; ever since they were kids. And up to this point, apparently both men
were doing everything right and God was just as much pleased with Cain and his
gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain
and his offering he did not look with favor.
Regardless of whether their offerings were correct, the first thing The Lord did was
look upon the men themselves. He looked with favor upon Abel but not with favor
upon Cain. In other words; Abel was the kind of man whom God approves whereas
Cain was the kind of man whom God cannot approve.
• Gen 4:5b . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell.
Cain was a whole lot worse than distressed. He was blazing mad. The word for
"distressed" is from charah (khaw-raw') and means: to glow or grow warm;
figuratively (usually) to blaze up, of anger, zeal, jealousy. Cain is actually in a
passionate rage over this and certainly in no mood for a lecture.
• Gen 4:6 . . And The Lord said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your
face fallen?
God made a sincere effort to talk things over with Cain and resolve their
differences; but Cain didn't respond; he was too busy sulking in a black pout.
• Gen 4:7a . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?
Cain believed in the existence of a supreme being; that was good, and his ritual
was timely; that was good too. But Cain's piety was flawed, i.e. his personal
conduct didn't meet God's standards, viz: Cain wasn't devout, thus his impious
ways tainted the offering and made it unacceptable. (cf. 1Pet 1:18-19 where it's
implied that Christ's blood is an acceptable offering because his ways were
acceptable.)
FAQ: How could Cain possibly know God's standards without a written code to
inform him?
A: Luke 11:49-51 says that Cain's kid brother Abel was a prophet; so Cain at least
had a verbal source, which is adequate enough when it's coming from an inspired
man.
Cain's situation is well illustrated at Isa 1:11-20. Moses' people were offering all the
covenanted sacrifices, they were praying up a storm, and observing all the God
given feasts and holy days. He rejected all of it, even though He himself required it,
because the people's personal conduct was unbecoming.
"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah." (Prv 15:8)
Perhaps the classic example is the one below.
"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in
burnt offerings." (Ps 51:16)
When David wrote that; he had only just committed the capital crimes of adultery
and premeditated murder. There was just no way that God was going to accept his
sacrifices and offerings on top of that; and David knew it too.
The principle shows up again in Jesus' teachings.
"Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice." (Matt 9:13)
Some folk honestly believe that Christ's statement, taken from Hosea 6:6,
practically repealed the entire God-given book of Leviticus. But that's not what
either Hosea or Jesus were saying. They meant that God much prefers that people
be civil with each other rather than religious to their fingertips.
In other words; an ungracious person's lack of things like sympathy, patience,
tolerance, lenience, helpfulness, pity, and common courtesy causes God to reject
their worship just as thoroughly and bluntly as He rejected Cain's.
It's likely a foregone conclusion that God is deeply insulted when people whose
conduct is unbecoming all during the week come to church on Sunday actually
thinking He's glad to see them show up for some quality time together.
FAQ: In what way might Cain's piety have been lacking?
A: Well, my first guess would be bad blood between him and his younger sibling.
(Matt 5:23-24)
And his attitude was deplorable; Cain was insolent and rude; even to God. (Gen
4:9)
_
• Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain
and his offering he did not look with favor.
Regardless of whether their offerings were correct, the first thing The Lord did was
look upon the men themselves. He looked with favor upon Abel but not with favor
upon Cain. In other words; Abel was the kind of man whom God approves whereas
Cain was the kind of man whom God cannot approve.
• Gen 4:5b . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell.
Cain was a whole lot worse than distressed. He was blazing mad. The word for
"distressed" is from charah (khaw-raw') and means: to glow or grow warm;
figuratively (usually) to blaze up, of anger, zeal, jealousy. Cain is actually in a
passionate rage over this and certainly in no mood for a lecture.
• Gen 4:6 . . And The Lord said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your
face fallen?
God made a sincere effort to talk things over with Cain and resolve their
differences; but Cain didn't respond; he was too busy sulking in a black pout.
• Gen 4:7a . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?
Cain believed in the existence of a supreme being; that was good, and his ritual
was timely; that was good too. But Cain's piety was flawed, i.e. his personal
conduct didn't meet God's standards, viz: Cain wasn't devout, thus his impious
ways tainted the offering and made it unacceptable. (cf. 1Pet 1:18-19 where it's
implied that Christ's blood is an acceptable offering because his ways were
acceptable.)
FAQ: How could Cain possibly know God's standards without a written code to
inform him?
A: Luke 11:49-51 says that Cain's kid brother Abel was a prophet; so Cain at least
had a verbal source, which is adequate enough when it's coming from an inspired
man.
Cain's situation is well illustrated at Isa 1:11-20. Moses' people were offering all the
covenanted sacrifices, they were praying up a storm, and observing all the God
given feasts and holy days. He rejected all of it, even though He himself required it,
because the people's personal conduct was unbecoming.
"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah." (Prv 15:8)
Perhaps the classic example is the one below.
"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in
burnt offerings." (Ps 51:16)
When David wrote that; he had only just committed the capital crimes of adultery
and premeditated murder. There was just no way that God was going to accept his
sacrifices and offerings on top of that; and David knew it too.
The principle shows up again in Jesus' teachings.
"Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice." (Matt 9:13)
Some folk honestly believe that Christ's statement, taken from Hosea 6:6,
practically repealed the entire God-given book of Leviticus. But that's not what
either Hosea or Jesus were saying. They meant that God much prefers that people
be civil with each other rather than religious to their fingertips.
In other words; an ungracious person's lack of things like sympathy, patience,
tolerance, lenience, helpfulness, pity, and common courtesy causes God to reject
their worship just as thoroughly and bluntly as He rejected Cain's.
It's likely a foregone conclusion that God is deeply insulted when people whose
conduct is unbecoming all during the week come to church on Sunday actually
thinking He's glad to see them show up for some quality time together.
FAQ: In what way might Cain's piety have been lacking?
A: Well, my first guess would be bad blood between him and his younger sibling.
(Matt 5:23-24)
And his attitude was deplorable; Cain was insolent and rude; even to God. (Gen
4:9)
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 4:7b . . But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door;
This is the very first instance in the Bible of the word "sin". The Hebrew word is
chatta'ah (khat-taw-aw') and/or chatta'th (khat-tawth') which are ambiguous words
that technically mean an offense; as in repeat offender. In other words; not just an
occasional slip-up, but a life style.
• Gen 4:7c . . it desires to have you, but you must master it.
This is the first mention of self control in the Bible. In other words: God created
humanity with the capability to choose bad ways for itself; but that's only half the
story. God also created humanity with the capability to choose good ways for itself;
so He wasn't requiring something impossible from Cain like touching his right elbow
with the thumb of his right hand.
Many years ago when I and my siblings were teen-agers attending an evening
service at our church, the minister asked us all to stand and promise God that we
could live a good life. Well, my brother stood, but he didn't promise. Later at home,
I asked him why he didn't make the promise. He said: "There's some things I want
to do".
Unbeknownst to us at the time; the minister, in his own words, had called the
congregation to heed Gen 4:7 just as God had called Cain all those many years
ago. My sister and I, though not the best examples of self control, at least began
making an effort. But my brother; none at all. He preferred the land of Nod, so to
speak, where he could do as he pleased away from God's interference.
• Gen 4:8a . . Now Cain talked with Abel his brother;
Cain probably complained to his brother that Yhvh was unfair. But the poor man
couldn't have picked a worse sounding board because Abel was a prophet (Luke
11:50-51). In Cain's dispute with the Lord, Abel no doubt took Yhvh's side in it.
That was too much. There's no way a man like Cain was going to take a lecture
from his own kid brother. Abel's popularity with God was bad enough, but
preaching only made it worse and added insult to injury.
No doubt Cain was very envious of his kid brother's on-going popularity with God.
Poor Abel lost his life just because he was a pious man.
"Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And
why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were
righteous. Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you." (1John 3:12
13)
One of the boys involved in the April 20, 1999 Columbine High School shooting
incident shot and killed a girl in the cafeteria just because she believed in God. Isn't
that amazing? That boy was nothing in the world but a twentieth century Cain with
a gun.
• Gen 4:8b . . and when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother Abel and
killed him.
Whether or not Cain premeditated his brother's death that day is difficult to tell.
The word for "killed" is from harag (haw-rag') and means: to smite with deadly
intent. So the attack on his kid brother, whether premeditated or not, was definitely
meant to end Abel's life rather than to just rough him up and teach him a lesson.
How Cain planned to explain Abel's death to his parents isn't stated. He couldn't
very well blame it on a carnivorous predator since man and beast were on friendly
terms prior to the Flood. It's my guess he set up the crime scene to make it look
like an accident but then too, in light of verse 10, Cain may have buried Able; that
way he'd be reported as a missing person instead of possibly murdered.
_
• Gen 4:7b . . But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door;
This is the very first instance in the Bible of the word "sin". The Hebrew word is
chatta'ah (khat-taw-aw') and/or chatta'th (khat-tawth') which are ambiguous words
that technically mean an offense; as in repeat offender. In other words; not just an
occasional slip-up, but a life style.
• Gen 4:7c . . it desires to have you, but you must master it.
This is the first mention of self control in the Bible. In other words: God created
humanity with the capability to choose bad ways for itself; but that's only half the
story. God also created humanity with the capability to choose good ways for itself;
so He wasn't requiring something impossible from Cain like touching his right elbow
with the thumb of his right hand.
Many years ago when I and my siblings were teen-agers attending an evening
service at our church, the minister asked us all to stand and promise God that we
could live a good life. Well, my brother stood, but he didn't promise. Later at home,
I asked him why he didn't make the promise. He said: "There's some things I want
to do".
Unbeknownst to us at the time; the minister, in his own words, had called the
congregation to heed Gen 4:7 just as God had called Cain all those many years
ago. My sister and I, though not the best examples of self control, at least began
making an effort. But my brother; none at all. He preferred the land of Nod, so to
speak, where he could do as he pleased away from God's interference.
• Gen 4:8a . . Now Cain talked with Abel his brother;
Cain probably complained to his brother that Yhvh was unfair. But the poor man
couldn't have picked a worse sounding board because Abel was a prophet (Luke
11:50-51). In Cain's dispute with the Lord, Abel no doubt took Yhvh's side in it.
That was too much. There's no way a man like Cain was going to take a lecture
from his own kid brother. Abel's popularity with God was bad enough, but
preaching only made it worse and added insult to injury.
No doubt Cain was very envious of his kid brother's on-going popularity with God.
Poor Abel lost his life just because he was a pious man.
"Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And
why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were
righteous. Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you." (1John 3:12
13)
One of the boys involved in the April 20, 1999 Columbine High School shooting
incident shot and killed a girl in the cafeteria just because she believed in God. Isn't
that amazing? That boy was nothing in the world but a twentieth century Cain with
a gun.
• Gen 4:8b . . and when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother Abel and
killed him.
Whether or not Cain premeditated his brother's death that day is difficult to tell.
The word for "killed" is from harag (haw-rag') and means: to smite with deadly
intent. So the attack on his kid brother, whether premeditated or not, was definitely
meant to end Abel's life rather than to just rough him up and teach him a lesson.
How Cain planned to explain Abel's death to his parents isn't stated. He couldn't
very well blame it on a carnivorous predator since man and beast were on friendly
terms prior to the Flood. It's my guess he set up the crime scene to make it look
like an accident but then too, in light of verse 10, Cain may have buried Able; that
way he'd be reported as a missing person instead of possibly murdered.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 4:9 . . Jehovah said to Cain: Where is your brother Abel? And he said: I don't
know. Am I my brother's keeper?
The Hebrew word for "keeper" indicates, in this case, a guardian; viz: responsibility
for someone or something put in one's care; for example: Abel was a keeper of the
sheep: a shepherd. (Gen 4:2)
This religious man's reaction to the object of his worship is just as unexpected as
the murder he'd just committed. Cain worshipped the true God, and his rituals were
correct and timely; yet Cain was insolent and responded to his maker's inquiry with
a lie and a sarcastic rejoinder.
It's not too difficult to appreciate God's refusal of this man's recent offering. Over
time Cain had become an insensitive jerk. It would be interesting to know what
changed him.
• Gen 4:10 . .Then He said: What have you done? Hark, your brother's blood cries
out to me from the ground!
The Hebrew word for "cries out" is from tsa'aq (tsaw-ak') and means: to shriek;
which can be defined as a wild, involuntary scream.
Whether or not human blood actually has an audible voice isn't nearly important as
to what it might be saying. And in this case, it certainly couldn't be good.
In civil law, it's handy to produce the corpus delicti in a homicide case because it's
very useful for proving the reality of a death, and for establishing the cause, and
the time, of its occurrence. It's interesting that God didn't produce Abel's body for
evidence. He could have, but instead relied upon the voice of his body's blood. So a
murder victim's blood can be introduced as a witness in the courts of Heaven. That
is very interesting.
Abel's blood accuses. In contrast, Christ's blood defends (e.g. Rom 5:6-11, Heb
12:24, and 1Pet 1:18-19). Christ's blood is a whole lot more to people's advantage.
• Gen 4:11 . .Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground which opened
its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
The original curse upon the soil reduced its agrarian productivity. But the curse
upon Cain brought his agrarian productivity to a complete and irrevocable end.
• Gen 4:12 . . If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You
shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth.
Ceaseless wandering was an inevitable consequence of the inability to raise an
adequate amount of your own food in that day and age. Nobody was eating meat
yet, so the soil was pretty much it as far as nourishment went.
Cain went on to become a very hungry, very overworked man. Wherever he tried to
farm, the ground would respond in such a way as to act infertile. The curse was
leveled right at his diet and the source of his food. Up till now, Cain had been a
successful, independent farmer. But no amount of agricultural wisdom would ever
restore his independence, nor his once green thumb no matter how hard he tried to
overcome it. Cain had crossed over a line and there was no going back.
Since Cain could no longer sustain himself by farming, it would be difficult to settle
down and build himself a home; so he was forced to become migratory and forage
for seasonal foods.
Though the Bible doesn't say; it would seem to me a reasonable assumption that
the curse upon Cain extended to his posterity (cf. Num 14:18). Up ahead we'll see
that they became renowned as a commercial/industrial society rather than
agrarian. As time went by, and the Adams family multiplied and spread out; Cain's
community no doubt traded with them using income from the sale of manufactured
goods to barter for the foods that they themselves were unable to grow.
Dependence upon imported food may not be ideal; but it's certainly better than
going hungry.
NOTE: The punishments inflicted upon Cain weren't according to the letter of a
legislated code. They were judgments under the table, so to speak, that took Cain's
personality into consideration along with his conduct rather than his conduct alone.
God is able to proceed that way in situations where no law has been broken.
Another element in this case pertains to the relationship between God and Cain. In
other words; Cain's punishment was personal, slammed on him directly from the
hand of God. Compare Gen 3:16 where the physical and emotional unpleasantries
associated with bearing children were slammed on Eve in a personal way too.
But though God sometimes gets personal-- and even passionate --when He lowers
the boom on people, I think we can be confident that even when angry, God
remains fair rather than prejudiced.
_
• Gen 4:9 . . Jehovah said to Cain: Where is your brother Abel? And he said: I don't
know. Am I my brother's keeper?
The Hebrew word for "keeper" indicates, in this case, a guardian; viz: responsibility
for someone or something put in one's care; for example: Abel was a keeper of the
sheep: a shepherd. (Gen 4:2)
This religious man's reaction to the object of his worship is just as unexpected as
the murder he'd just committed. Cain worshipped the true God, and his rituals were
correct and timely; yet Cain was insolent and responded to his maker's inquiry with
a lie and a sarcastic rejoinder.
It's not too difficult to appreciate God's refusal of this man's recent offering. Over
time Cain had become an insensitive jerk. It would be interesting to know what
changed him.
• Gen 4:10 . .Then He said: What have you done? Hark, your brother's blood cries
out to me from the ground!
The Hebrew word for "cries out" is from tsa'aq (tsaw-ak') and means: to shriek;
which can be defined as a wild, involuntary scream.
Whether or not human blood actually has an audible voice isn't nearly important as
to what it might be saying. And in this case, it certainly couldn't be good.
In civil law, it's handy to produce the corpus delicti in a homicide case because it's
very useful for proving the reality of a death, and for establishing the cause, and
the time, of its occurrence. It's interesting that God didn't produce Abel's body for
evidence. He could have, but instead relied upon the voice of his body's blood. So a
murder victim's blood can be introduced as a witness in the courts of Heaven. That
is very interesting.
Abel's blood accuses. In contrast, Christ's blood defends (e.g. Rom 5:6-11, Heb
12:24, and 1Pet 1:18-19). Christ's blood is a whole lot more to people's advantage.
• Gen 4:11 . .Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground which opened
its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
The original curse upon the soil reduced its agrarian productivity. But the curse
upon Cain brought his agrarian productivity to a complete and irrevocable end.
• Gen 4:12 . . If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You
shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth.
Ceaseless wandering was an inevitable consequence of the inability to raise an
adequate amount of your own food in that day and age. Nobody was eating meat
yet, so the soil was pretty much it as far as nourishment went.
Cain went on to become a very hungry, very overworked man. Wherever he tried to
farm, the ground would respond in such a way as to act infertile. The curse was
leveled right at his diet and the source of his food. Up till now, Cain had been a
successful, independent farmer. But no amount of agricultural wisdom would ever
restore his independence, nor his once green thumb no matter how hard he tried to
overcome it. Cain had crossed over a line and there was no going back.
Since Cain could no longer sustain himself by farming, it would be difficult to settle
down and build himself a home; so he was forced to become migratory and forage
for seasonal foods.
Though the Bible doesn't say; it would seem to me a reasonable assumption that
the curse upon Cain extended to his posterity (cf. Num 14:18). Up ahead we'll see
that they became renowned as a commercial/industrial society rather than
agrarian. As time went by, and the Adams family multiplied and spread out; Cain's
community no doubt traded with them using income from the sale of manufactured
goods to barter for the foods that they themselves were unable to grow.
Dependence upon imported food may not be ideal; but it's certainly better than
going hungry.
NOTE: The punishments inflicted upon Cain weren't according to the letter of a
legislated code. They were judgments under the table, so to speak, that took Cain's
personality into consideration along with his conduct rather than his conduct alone.
God is able to proceed that way in situations where no law has been broken.
Another element in this case pertains to the relationship between God and Cain. In
other words; Cain's punishment was personal, slammed on him directly from the
hand of God. Compare Gen 3:16 where the physical and emotional unpleasantries
associated with bearing children were slammed on Eve in a personal way too.
But though God sometimes gets personal-- and even passionate --when He lowers
the boom on people, I think we can be confident that even when angry, God
remains fair rather than prejudiced.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 4:13 . . Cain said to the Lord: My punishment is too great to bear!
His punishment was actually very lenient. In point of fact, it wasn't punishment at
all, it was discipline. It's true that Cain would struggle to survive; but at least he
was allowed to live. His kid brother was dead. How is that fair?
FAQ: How did Cain get off with only a slap on the wrist? Why wasn't he executed
for murder since God himself mandates capital punishment for murderers as per
Gen 9:5-6, Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num 35:31-34? Does God
practice a double standard?
A: Murder is intrinsically evil, yes; however; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15,
Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, laws of God enacted ex post facto are too late, i.e. they're
not retroactive.
This wasn't an oversight on God's part. The incident with Cain served to introduce
very early in the Bible one of Christianity's foundational principles, which is: "Where
there is no law, there is no transgression." and "Sin is not imputed when there is no
law."
• Gen 4:14a . . Since You have banished me this day from the soil, and I must
avoid Your presence and become a restless wanderer on earth--
Who said he must avoid God's presence? Somebody can be a ceaseless wanderer
without losing touch with God; I mean, after all: He's everywhere at once. (Ps
139:7-12)
Estrangement was Cain's decision, just as it was Judas' decision to break with
Jesus. Both men could've turned it around if they wanted; but didn't. Cain walked
out on God of his own volition. Now he would face life very insecure.
• Gen 4:14b . . anyone who meets me may kill me!
I'm curious as to who Cain feared might slay him. The Adams family were the only
people on earth at that time. It appears to me that Cain did not believe his father
Adam was the only man ever created directly from soil by the hand of God.
• Gen 4:15a . .The Lord said to him: I promise, if anyone kills Cain, sevenfold
vengeance shall be taken on him.
Humanistic senses of right and wrong demand that Cain pay for murdering his kid
brother. But up to that point in God's association with humanity, He had not yet
announced any edicts related to criminal justice. So then, were somebody to go
after Cain and execute him for the crime of murder, they would be nothing less
than a lynch mob taking the law into their own hands; which is clearly a very
serious thing to do.
• Gen 4:15b . . And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone who met him should
kill him.
The nature of Cain's mark is totally unknown. However, the "mark" wasn't so
people would hoot at Cain wherever he went. It was a "No Hunting" sign so future
generations of the Adams' family would know the real Cain from imposters who
might be inclined to give themselves a sort of diplomatic immunity by
impersonating Abel's brother.
God allows ignorance as an excuse; to a point. However, information creates
responsibility. When a person knows an act is wrong, and goes ahead and does it
anyway, they are in much deeper trouble than one who did not know that a
particular act was wrong.
No one had been forbidden to kill Abel, nor forbidden to kill any other man for that
matter. But soon it would become widespread public knowledge that God strictly
forbade killing Cain. Therefore, anyone who ignored God would pay dearly for
knowingly, and willfully, ignoring His wishes; just as Adam died for tasting the
forbidden fruit because the tasting was willful, and done in full understanding of
both the ban and the consequence. (cf. Num 15:30-31, Matt 11:20-24, Luke
12:47-48, Heb 10:26-27)
• Gen 4:16a . . Cain left the presence of The Lord
Cain's departure from the presence of the Lord wasn't a forced eviction as had been
the Adams' departure from the garden. And even though the Adams were driven
from the garden, they weren't driven from God. The family kept that connection
and brought up their boys to keep it too.
Cain's self-imposed exile has the aura of a dreadful finality. He renounced God, and
his native religion, and was content to forego its privileges so that he might not be
under its control. He forsook not only his kin but also their worship, and cast off all
pretenses to the fear of God-- apparently putting out of his mind God's statement:
"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?"
Gen 4:16a is a terrible epitaph upon the tombstone of Cain's life, and you can
almost feel the concussion of a dreadful thud as the mighty doors of perdition close
solidly behind him; sealing his passage into permanent darkness.
Why didn't God plead with Cain to stay in touch? Well, that would be like throwing
good money after bad. God had already tried at Gen 4:7; and like Einstein once
remarked: Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing the same way over and
over again and expecting a different result. Well; God's not insane; He knows when
to say when. Sadly, there are people for whom it can be said: That was the last
straw.
Of all the things that Cain had done up to this point, walking out on God was his
worst mistake. Yes, he would have to scrounge for food; but that was just a bump
in the road; not the end of the road. People need to think that over. No matter how
harsh your circumstances are, and no matter what life has thrown in your face, loss
of contact with your maker is much worse. It is wise to stay in touch with God even
if your life is a train wreck and God seems oblivious to your circumstances.
"The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast
love. He will not contend forever, or nurse His anger for all time . . As a father has
compassion for his children, so The Lord has compassion for those who fear Him.
For He knows how we are formed; He is mindful that we are dust." (Ps 103:8-14)
That Psalm's encouragement is restricted to "those who fear Him". The Cains of this
world are of course eo ipso excluded.
• Gen 4:16b . . and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
The Hebrew word for "Nod" is from nowd (node) and means: wandering, vagrancy
or exile. Precisely how Nod got its name, or where it was located is unknown; and
this is the only place in the entire Old Testament where nowd is found so we can't
compare it with other uses.
_
• Gen 4:13 . . Cain said to the Lord: My punishment is too great to bear!
His punishment was actually very lenient. In point of fact, it wasn't punishment at
all, it was discipline. It's true that Cain would struggle to survive; but at least he
was allowed to live. His kid brother was dead. How is that fair?
FAQ: How did Cain get off with only a slap on the wrist? Why wasn't he executed
for murder since God himself mandates capital punishment for murderers as per
Gen 9:5-6, Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num 35:31-34? Does God
practice a double standard?
A: Murder is intrinsically evil, yes; however; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15,
Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, laws of God enacted ex post facto are too late, i.e. they're
not retroactive.
This wasn't an oversight on God's part. The incident with Cain served to introduce
very early in the Bible one of Christianity's foundational principles, which is: "Where
there is no law, there is no transgression." and "Sin is not imputed when there is no
law."
• Gen 4:14a . . Since You have banished me this day from the soil, and I must
avoid Your presence and become a restless wanderer on earth--
Who said he must avoid God's presence? Somebody can be a ceaseless wanderer
without losing touch with God; I mean, after all: He's everywhere at once. (Ps
139:7-12)
Estrangement was Cain's decision, just as it was Judas' decision to break with
Jesus. Both men could've turned it around if they wanted; but didn't. Cain walked
out on God of his own volition. Now he would face life very insecure.
• Gen 4:14b . . anyone who meets me may kill me!
I'm curious as to who Cain feared might slay him. The Adams family were the only
people on earth at that time. It appears to me that Cain did not believe his father
Adam was the only man ever created directly from soil by the hand of God.
• Gen 4:15a . .The Lord said to him: I promise, if anyone kills Cain, sevenfold
vengeance shall be taken on him.
Humanistic senses of right and wrong demand that Cain pay for murdering his kid
brother. But up to that point in God's association with humanity, He had not yet
announced any edicts related to criminal justice. So then, were somebody to go
after Cain and execute him for the crime of murder, they would be nothing less
than a lynch mob taking the law into their own hands; which is clearly a very
serious thing to do.
• Gen 4:15b . . And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone who met him should
kill him.
The nature of Cain's mark is totally unknown. However, the "mark" wasn't so
people would hoot at Cain wherever he went. It was a "No Hunting" sign so future
generations of the Adams' family would know the real Cain from imposters who
might be inclined to give themselves a sort of diplomatic immunity by
impersonating Abel's brother.
God allows ignorance as an excuse; to a point. However, information creates
responsibility. When a person knows an act is wrong, and goes ahead and does it
anyway, they are in much deeper trouble than one who did not know that a
particular act was wrong.
No one had been forbidden to kill Abel, nor forbidden to kill any other man for that
matter. But soon it would become widespread public knowledge that God strictly
forbade killing Cain. Therefore, anyone who ignored God would pay dearly for
knowingly, and willfully, ignoring His wishes; just as Adam died for tasting the
forbidden fruit because the tasting was willful, and done in full understanding of
both the ban and the consequence. (cf. Num 15:30-31, Matt 11:20-24, Luke
12:47-48, Heb 10:26-27)
• Gen 4:16a . . Cain left the presence of The Lord
Cain's departure from the presence of the Lord wasn't a forced eviction as had been
the Adams' departure from the garden. And even though the Adams were driven
from the garden, they weren't driven from God. The family kept that connection
and brought up their boys to keep it too.
Cain's self-imposed exile has the aura of a dreadful finality. He renounced God, and
his native religion, and was content to forego its privileges so that he might not be
under its control. He forsook not only his kin but also their worship, and cast off all
pretenses to the fear of God-- apparently putting out of his mind God's statement:
"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?"
Gen 4:16a is a terrible epitaph upon the tombstone of Cain's life, and you can
almost feel the concussion of a dreadful thud as the mighty doors of perdition close
solidly behind him; sealing his passage into permanent darkness.
Why didn't God plead with Cain to stay in touch? Well, that would be like throwing
good money after bad. God had already tried at Gen 4:7; and like Einstein once
remarked: Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing the same way over and
over again and expecting a different result. Well; God's not insane; He knows when
to say when. Sadly, there are people for whom it can be said: That was the last
straw.
Of all the things that Cain had done up to this point, walking out on God was his
worst mistake. Yes, he would have to scrounge for food; but that was just a bump
in the road; not the end of the road. People need to think that over. No matter how
harsh your circumstances are, and no matter what life has thrown in your face, loss
of contact with your maker is much worse. It is wise to stay in touch with God even
if your life is a train wreck and God seems oblivious to your circumstances.
"The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast
love. He will not contend forever, or nurse His anger for all time . . As a father has
compassion for his children, so The Lord has compassion for those who fear Him.
For He knows how we are formed; He is mindful that we are dust." (Ps 103:8-14)
That Psalm's encouragement is restricted to "those who fear Him". The Cains of this
world are of course eo ipso excluded.
• Gen 4:16b . . and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
The Hebrew word for "Nod" is from nowd (node) and means: wandering, vagrancy
or exile. Precisely how Nod got its name, or where it was located is unknown; and
this is the only place in the entire Old Testament where nowd is found so we can't
compare it with other uses.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 4:17a . . Cain knew his wife,
According to Gen 3:20 and Acts 17:26, all human beings-- regardless of race, color
and/or ethnic identity --are Adam's and Eve's biological progeny. Ergo: Cain
married his kin; whether a sister or a niece is difficult to know for sure.
NOTE: Scientists have identified 100,000 pieces of retrovirus DNA in human genes,
making up eight percent of the genome. As to whether those retroviruses have
contributed to the shortening of the human life span, I don't know; but I'd bet that
those bugs were not in the human genome at first. I think it safe to say that the
current human genome is a malfunctioning genome, and has been for quite a
number of years; possibly several millennia.
Now, as to the "sin" of incest; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and
Gal 3:17, divine laws enacted ex post facto are too late; viz: they aren't enforced
until after they're codified. Well, incest wasn't prohibited until the covenant that
Moses' people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy.
• Gen 4:17b . . and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he then founded a city, and
named the city after his son Enoch.
The "city" probably wasn't the kind of city we're used to thinking. The word for it is
from 'iyr (eer) and simply means a community, in the widest sense; even of a mere
encampment or post.
Whether Cain actually lived in a permanent settlement is doubtful since he was
stuck with vagrancy and wandering. Cain's city was very likely nothing more than a
migratory village.
• Gen 4:18-19 . .To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael
begot Methusael, and Methusael begot Lamech. Lamech took to himself two wives:
the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other was Zillah.
Adah is from 'Adah (aw-daw') and means: ornament. It's not unusual for people to
name their little girls after precious stones like Jewel, Pearl, Ruby, Jade, Emerald,
Sapphire, and Amber.
Zillah is from tsillah (tsil-law') which is derived from tsel (tsale) and means: shade
(or shadow), whether literal or figurative. Shade is a good thing in sunny locales so
Zillah's name may have been associated with shelter, protection, peace, serenity,
and rest-- as in Song 2:3.
Lamech's marriages are the very first incidence of polygamy in the Bible; and I
have yet to see a passage in the Old Testament where God forbids it other than the
restrictions imposed upon Jewish monarchs. (Deut 17:17 cf. 2Sam 12:8)
Aside from the obvious sensual benefits men derive from harems; polygamy does
have its practical side. The gestation period for human beings is nine months. At
that rate, it would take a man many years to build up his clan to a respectable size.
But with multiple wives, he could speed things up considerably. In primitive
cultures, large families are very influential, and their numbers crucial to survival
and self preservation.
"Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are sons born to a man in his youth. Happy is
the man who fills his quiver with them; they shall not be put to shame when they
contend with the enemy in the gate." (Ps 127:4-5)
_
• Gen 4:17a . . Cain knew his wife,
According to Gen 3:20 and Acts 17:26, all human beings-- regardless of race, color
and/or ethnic identity --are Adam's and Eve's biological progeny. Ergo: Cain
married his kin; whether a sister or a niece is difficult to know for sure.
NOTE: Scientists have identified 100,000 pieces of retrovirus DNA in human genes,
making up eight percent of the genome. As to whether those retroviruses have
contributed to the shortening of the human life span, I don't know; but I'd bet that
those bugs were not in the human genome at first. I think it safe to say that the
current human genome is a malfunctioning genome, and has been for quite a
number of years; possibly several millennia.
Now, as to the "sin" of incest; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and
Gal 3:17, divine laws enacted ex post facto are too late; viz: they aren't enforced
until after they're codified. Well, incest wasn't prohibited until the covenant that
Moses' people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy.
• Gen 4:17b . . and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he then founded a city, and
named the city after his son Enoch.
The "city" probably wasn't the kind of city we're used to thinking. The word for it is
from 'iyr (eer) and simply means a community, in the widest sense; even of a mere
encampment or post.
Whether Cain actually lived in a permanent settlement is doubtful since he was
stuck with vagrancy and wandering. Cain's city was very likely nothing more than a
migratory village.
• Gen 4:18-19 . .To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael
begot Methusael, and Methusael begot Lamech. Lamech took to himself two wives:
the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other was Zillah.
Adah is from 'Adah (aw-daw') and means: ornament. It's not unusual for people to
name their little girls after precious stones like Jewel, Pearl, Ruby, Jade, Emerald,
Sapphire, and Amber.
Zillah is from tsillah (tsil-law') which is derived from tsel (tsale) and means: shade
(or shadow), whether literal or figurative. Shade is a good thing in sunny locales so
Zillah's name may have been associated with shelter, protection, peace, serenity,
and rest-- as in Song 2:3.
Lamech's marriages are the very first incidence of polygamy in the Bible; and I
have yet to see a passage in the Old Testament where God forbids it other than the
restrictions imposed upon Jewish monarchs. (Deut 17:17 cf. 2Sam 12:8)
Aside from the obvious sensual benefits men derive from harems; polygamy does
have its practical side. The gestation period for human beings is nine months. At
that rate, it would take a man many years to build up his clan to a respectable size.
But with multiple wives, he could speed things up considerably. In primitive
cultures, large families are very influential, and their numbers crucial to survival
and self preservation.
"Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are sons born to a man in his youth. Happy is
the man who fills his quiver with them; they shall not be put to shame when they
contend with the enemy in the gate." (Ps 127:4-5)
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 4:20 . . Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who dwell in tents
and amidst herds.
This is the Bible's very first mention of man-made portable shelters. Tents, teepees,
wigwams, etc; make it possible to roam long distances in relative comfort while
searching for foods and pastures.
Abraham and Sarah were housed in portable shelters the whole time they lived in
Canaan. With portable shelters, Enochville could be a mobile community, staying in
one place only long enough to deplete its natural resources before moving on to
better diggings to invade, plunder, exploit, pollute, and depredate.
Jabal wasn't the father of animal husbandry as the passage seems to suggest. Abel
was already tending flocks before Jabal was born (Gen 4:2). Dwelling "amidst"
herds describes the lifestyle of North America's early plains Indians; whose
livelihood depended a great deal upon wild buffalo. Though they followed the herds,
the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa, Crow, Blackfoot, Comanche, and Shoshone,
et el; didn't actually raise any of their own buffalo like on a ranch.
Dwelling amidst herds is a nomadic way of life rather than one that's domesticated;
hence the need for portable shelters; and the herds (e.g. deer, elk, wild goats,
antelope, wildebeests, et al) would provide fabric for not only the tents, but also for
shoes and clothing; which would need replacement quite often.
One of Lewis' and Clark's complaints, when they were passing through the Oregon
territory, was that moccasins rotted off their feet in the Northwest's climate. Even
without rot, the soles of moccasins are not all that resistant to wear. Buckskins,
manufactured from Elk hide and/or deerskin, fared little better.
• Gen 4:21 . . And the name of his brother was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all
who play the lyre and the pipe.
The word for "ancestor" is from 'ab (awb); a primitive word which means father, in
a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application. In this particular case,
'ab wouldn't mean literal kin, but likely analogous to an inventor who is the first to
introduce a new concept which then later becomes widely adopted.
The word for "lyre" is from kinnowr (kin-nore') and means: to twang. So the actual
instrument itself is difficult to identify. It could have been a harp. But then again, it
may have even been something as simple as a string stretched between a washtub
and a broom stick.
A stringed instrument is a pretty advanced musical tool and certainly not something
you would expect to find among so primitive a people as the antediluvians. The
interesting thing about a twanging instrument is its string. How did the Cainites
make them? Of what material?
String can be made from plant fibers. For example the ancient Kumeyaay (Koom'
yi) people of southern California made surprisingly strong, sturdy twine for bows
and baskets from agave leaves.
The word for "pipe" is from 'uwgab (oo-gawb') and means: a reed-instrument of
music.
A modern reed instrument is typically a woodwind that produces sound by vibrating
a thin strip of wood against the mouthpiece; like clarinets and saxophones (hence
the classification: woodwinds). But in that culture, it could very well have been
something as simple as a tube whistle made from a single hollow section of plant
stem; or several of those bundled together like a Pan flute.
• Gen 4:22a . . As for Zillah, she bore Tubal-cain, who forged all implements of
copper and iron.
Copper, in its natural form, is too soft and pliable for practical purposes; but it's a
classification of metals called work-hardening. In other words, by pounding or
rolling cold copper, its mechanical properties can be greatly improved. It probably
didn't take Mr. Tubal-cain long to figure that out.
Adding a little tin to copper produces bronze, which is much stronger and tougher
than pure copper.
Copper's advantage in cooking is its natural heat conduction, which is very fast as
compared to iron and/or steel. It's also an excellent conductor of electricity, but
unless they were bottling lightening in those days, copper's electrical properties
would have to wait for future exploitation.
Iron, though stronger and harder than copper, is relatively soft and pliable in its
natural condition too; but with the addition of small amounts of carbon, it becomes
steel, which is quite a bit tougher than natural iron. Whether Tubal-cain figured that
out is difficult to know for sure.
• Gen 4:22b . . And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
Her name is from Na'amah (nah-am-aw') which means pleasant, amiable, or
agreeable. A girl named Joy would probably fit that category. Na'amah suggests
that the people of Enochville were content with their way of life.
So all in all, Enochville, though unproductive in agriculture, prospered through
manufacturing and commerce instead; trading the goods and services of their
industrial base for much needed produce; the same way that most urbanites still do
even today. People in towns and cities typically don't support themselves directly
from nature. They earn a medium of exchange in some sort of skill or profession,
then trade it with merchants to buy the things they need to survive.
The technological, and cultural, level of early Man was very high. It's interesting
that the identifying marks which evolutionary anthropologists use to denote the
emergence of a stone age culture into a civilized society were extant prior to the
Flood-- animal husbandry, agriculture, trades, urbanization, music, and metallurgy.
All these civilizational technologies emerged very early: within just a few
generations of Adam; rather than thousands upon thousands of years of human
development.
I'm not saying there were never any "stone-age" peoples. Obviously there were.
But though Cain's community may have started out as cave men, by Noah's day
they were past primitive conditions and actually pretty advanced.
It's too bad the Flood wiped early Man off the map. Who can tell what he might
have accomplished had his progress not been interrupted (cf. Gen 11:6).
_
• Gen 4:20 . . Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who dwell in tents
and amidst herds.
This is the Bible's very first mention of man-made portable shelters. Tents, teepees,
wigwams, etc; make it possible to roam long distances in relative comfort while
searching for foods and pastures.
Abraham and Sarah were housed in portable shelters the whole time they lived in
Canaan. With portable shelters, Enochville could be a mobile community, staying in
one place only long enough to deplete its natural resources before moving on to
better diggings to invade, plunder, exploit, pollute, and depredate.
Jabal wasn't the father of animal husbandry as the passage seems to suggest. Abel
was already tending flocks before Jabal was born (Gen 4:2). Dwelling "amidst"
herds describes the lifestyle of North America's early plains Indians; whose
livelihood depended a great deal upon wild buffalo. Though they followed the herds,
the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa, Crow, Blackfoot, Comanche, and Shoshone,
et el; didn't actually raise any of their own buffalo like on a ranch.
Dwelling amidst herds is a nomadic way of life rather than one that's domesticated;
hence the need for portable shelters; and the herds (e.g. deer, elk, wild goats,
antelope, wildebeests, et al) would provide fabric for not only the tents, but also for
shoes and clothing; which would need replacement quite often.
One of Lewis' and Clark's complaints, when they were passing through the Oregon
territory, was that moccasins rotted off their feet in the Northwest's climate. Even
without rot, the soles of moccasins are not all that resistant to wear. Buckskins,
manufactured from Elk hide and/or deerskin, fared little better.
• Gen 4:21 . . And the name of his brother was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all
who play the lyre and the pipe.
The word for "ancestor" is from 'ab (awb); a primitive word which means father, in
a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application. In this particular case,
'ab wouldn't mean literal kin, but likely analogous to an inventor who is the first to
introduce a new concept which then later becomes widely adopted.
The word for "lyre" is from kinnowr (kin-nore') and means: to twang. So the actual
instrument itself is difficult to identify. It could have been a harp. But then again, it
may have even been something as simple as a string stretched between a washtub
and a broom stick.
A stringed instrument is a pretty advanced musical tool and certainly not something
you would expect to find among so primitive a people as the antediluvians. The
interesting thing about a twanging instrument is its string. How did the Cainites
make them? Of what material?
String can be made from plant fibers. For example the ancient Kumeyaay (Koom'
yi) people of southern California made surprisingly strong, sturdy twine for bows
and baskets from agave leaves.
The word for "pipe" is from 'uwgab (oo-gawb') and means: a reed-instrument of
music.
A modern reed instrument is typically a woodwind that produces sound by vibrating
a thin strip of wood against the mouthpiece; like clarinets and saxophones (hence
the classification: woodwinds). But in that culture, it could very well have been
something as simple as a tube whistle made from a single hollow section of plant
stem; or several of those bundled together like a Pan flute.
• Gen 4:22a . . As for Zillah, she bore Tubal-cain, who forged all implements of
copper and iron.
Copper, in its natural form, is too soft and pliable for practical purposes; but it's a
classification of metals called work-hardening. In other words, by pounding or
rolling cold copper, its mechanical properties can be greatly improved. It probably
didn't take Mr. Tubal-cain long to figure that out.
Adding a little tin to copper produces bronze, which is much stronger and tougher
than pure copper.
Copper's advantage in cooking is its natural heat conduction, which is very fast as
compared to iron and/or steel. It's also an excellent conductor of electricity, but
unless they were bottling lightening in those days, copper's electrical properties
would have to wait for future exploitation.
Iron, though stronger and harder than copper, is relatively soft and pliable in its
natural condition too; but with the addition of small amounts of carbon, it becomes
steel, which is quite a bit tougher than natural iron. Whether Tubal-cain figured that
out is difficult to know for sure.
• Gen 4:22b . . And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
Her name is from Na'amah (nah-am-aw') which means pleasant, amiable, or
agreeable. A girl named Joy would probably fit that category. Na'amah suggests
that the people of Enochville were content with their way of life.
So all in all, Enochville, though unproductive in agriculture, prospered through
manufacturing and commerce instead; trading the goods and services of their
industrial base for much needed produce; the same way that most urbanites still do
even today. People in towns and cities typically don't support themselves directly
from nature. They earn a medium of exchange in some sort of skill or profession,
then trade it with merchants to buy the things they need to survive.
The technological, and cultural, level of early Man was very high. It's interesting
that the identifying marks which evolutionary anthropologists use to denote the
emergence of a stone age culture into a civilized society were extant prior to the
Flood-- animal husbandry, agriculture, trades, urbanization, music, and metallurgy.
All these civilizational technologies emerged very early: within just a few
generations of Adam; rather than thousands upon thousands of years of human
development.
I'm not saying there were never any "stone-age" peoples. Obviously there were.
But though Cain's community may have started out as cave men, by Noah's day
they were past primitive conditions and actually pretty advanced.
It's too bad the Flood wiped early Man off the map. Who can tell what he might
have accomplished had his progress not been interrupted (cf. Gen 11:6).
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 4:23-24 . . And Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice! O
wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech! I have slain a man for wounding me, and
a lad for bruising me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.
Brag, Brag, Brag-- boy, I tell you some men sure love to show off and glorify
themselves in front of women; no doubt about it.
Apparently ol' Lamech figured the homicide he committed wasn't nearly as severe
as Cain's because he killed in retribution; whereas Cain killed in a rage. Also, Cain
killed his kid brother, whereas Lamech killed his relative a little more distant. So to
Lamech's way of thinking, Cain's killing was a much more serious crime; and if a
dirty rotten scoundrel like gramps was under divine protections, then, in Lamech's
mind, he certainly deserved to be under them even more so.
It almost appears that Lamech killed two people, but really it was only one; and in
fact a person younger than himself. Two words describe Lamech's opponent. The
first word is from 'enowsh (en-oshe') and simply means a mortal; viz: a human
being (of either gender), in general (singly or collectively); viz: someone and/or
somebody. The second word reveals the person's age. The word for "lad" is yeled
(yeh'-led) and means something born, i.e. a lad or offspring-- boy, child, fruit, son,
young one and/or young man.
Apparently Lamech got in a disagreement with somebody and they settled their
differences in a fight. The injury Lamech received in the ensuing scuffle could have
been something as simple as the man biting his ear or kicking him in the groin. It's
my guess Lamech over-reacted and stabbed the man to death with a spiffy hunting
knife that his son Tubal-cain made for him over in the blacksmith shop.
Lamech's sense of right and wrong reflects the humanistic conscience of a man void
of God's mentoring. In his earthly mind, revenge was an okay thing; which is a
common attitude in many primitive cultures.
But his opponent only wounded him. In return, Lamech took his life. The scales of
justice don't balance in a situation like that-- they tip. Pure law says eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, burning for burning, stripe for stripe, life for life, and no more. If
the lad's intent was obviously upon great bodily harm; Lamech would probably be
justified to kill in self defense since his opponent was a younger man and had the
advantage in age. However, according to Lamech's own testimony, he killed the
man in revenge; not self defense.
Cain's side of the Adams family is characterized by technology, invention, boasting,
achievement, commerce, and violence. But not one word is recorded concerning its
association with, nor its interest in, their maker. Cain's entire community was
impious and went on to be completely destroyed right down to the last man,
woman, and child in Noah's flood. No one survives him today.
The Bible doesn't record even one single incident of a Cainite blessing God for His
goodness; nor for His mercy, nor for His providence. There is no record that any of
them ever said even one single prayer-- not even a simple lay-me-down-to-sleep
kind of prayer. Every one of the little kids in Enochville went to bed each night
without the slightest assurance that humanity's creator cared at all for the well
being of their little souls.
How many homes right here today in modern America reflect that very same
Cainish culture? The parents and the children are unthankful, unholy, and
irreligious; caring little or nothing for things of eternal value: moving towards an
inevitable head-on rendezvous with death and the hereafter, and totally unprepared
to meet their maker.
• Gen 4:25 . . And Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a
son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring
in place of Abel; for Cain killed him."
Seth's name in Hebrew basically means a substitute, defined by Webster's as a
person or thing that takes the place or function of another; e.g. substitute teachers,
generic medications, pinch hitters, and/or after-market car parts.
Apparently Eve was still anticipating that she herself would be the woman to give
birth to the man promised by God to defeat the Serpent's wiles. (Gen 3:15)
• Gen 4:26a . . And to Seth, in turn, a son was born, and he named him Enosh.
Sometimes the record shows the mother naming a child, and sometimes the father;
which suggests that in all cases there was very likely mutual consultation between
husband and wife on this important decision. But it's always important for the
father to take a hand in naming the children because the act testifies that he's
legally, and officially, accepted them as his own (e.g. Gen 16:15, Gen 21:3, Luke
1:13, Luke 1:63).
NOTE: God instructed both Joseph and Mary to give her baby the name Jesus (Matt
1:21, Luke 1:31). By doing so, Jesus went on record as both their son rather than
only Mary's. (Luke 1:32, (Matt 17:5)
God also selected Ishmael's name (Gen 16:11) Isaac's (Gen 17:19) and Solomon's
too (1Chron 22:9) changed Abraham's name (Gen 17:5) changed Sarah's name
(Gen 17:15) and changed Jacob's name (Gen 32:28).
Christ changed Peter's name (Mark 3:16). Way out in the future, Christ will be
changing quite a few names. (Rev 2:17)
"Enosh" is from 'enowsh (en-oshe') and means: a mortal; hence a man in general,
singly or collectively-- thus differing from the more dignified 'adam (aw-dawm')
which is the proper name of the human race (Gen 5:2). There's really nothing
special about an 'enowsh-- just a feller. Sometimes boys are named Guy, or Buddy,
so 'enowsh would be a common enough name.
• Gen 4:26b . .Then men began to call on the name of The Lord.
The Hebrew word for "Lord" in this case is Jehovah (a.k.a. Yahweh); which always,
and without exception, refers to the one true god.
Apparently up to this point in time, people addressed God in a sort of general way
instead of a personal way, and some still do. For example; during the Native
American funeral service held for my No.1 nephew, a tribal elder prayed to God as
"Grandfather" rather than by a personal moniker like Shiva or some such.
_
• Gen 4:23-24 . . And Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice! O
wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech! I have slain a man for wounding me, and
a lad for bruising me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.
Brag, Brag, Brag-- boy, I tell you some men sure love to show off and glorify
themselves in front of women; no doubt about it.
Apparently ol' Lamech figured the homicide he committed wasn't nearly as severe
as Cain's because he killed in retribution; whereas Cain killed in a rage. Also, Cain
killed his kid brother, whereas Lamech killed his relative a little more distant. So to
Lamech's way of thinking, Cain's killing was a much more serious crime; and if a
dirty rotten scoundrel like gramps was under divine protections, then, in Lamech's
mind, he certainly deserved to be under them even more so.
It almost appears that Lamech killed two people, but really it was only one; and in
fact a person younger than himself. Two words describe Lamech's opponent. The
first word is from 'enowsh (en-oshe') and simply means a mortal; viz: a human
being (of either gender), in general (singly or collectively); viz: someone and/or
somebody. The second word reveals the person's age. The word for "lad" is yeled
(yeh'-led) and means something born, i.e. a lad or offspring-- boy, child, fruit, son,
young one and/or young man.
Apparently Lamech got in a disagreement with somebody and they settled their
differences in a fight. The injury Lamech received in the ensuing scuffle could have
been something as simple as the man biting his ear or kicking him in the groin. It's
my guess Lamech over-reacted and stabbed the man to death with a spiffy hunting
knife that his son Tubal-cain made for him over in the blacksmith shop.
Lamech's sense of right and wrong reflects the humanistic conscience of a man void
of God's mentoring. In his earthly mind, revenge was an okay thing; which is a
common attitude in many primitive cultures.
But his opponent only wounded him. In return, Lamech took his life. The scales of
justice don't balance in a situation like that-- they tip. Pure law says eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, burning for burning, stripe for stripe, life for life, and no more. If
the lad's intent was obviously upon great bodily harm; Lamech would probably be
justified to kill in self defense since his opponent was a younger man and had the
advantage in age. However, according to Lamech's own testimony, he killed the
man in revenge; not self defense.
Cain's side of the Adams family is characterized by technology, invention, boasting,
achievement, commerce, and violence. But not one word is recorded concerning its
association with, nor its interest in, their maker. Cain's entire community was
impious and went on to be completely destroyed right down to the last man,
woman, and child in Noah's flood. No one survives him today.
The Bible doesn't record even one single incident of a Cainite blessing God for His
goodness; nor for His mercy, nor for His providence. There is no record that any of
them ever said even one single prayer-- not even a simple lay-me-down-to-sleep
kind of prayer. Every one of the little kids in Enochville went to bed each night
without the slightest assurance that humanity's creator cared at all for the well
being of their little souls.
How many homes right here today in modern America reflect that very same
Cainish culture? The parents and the children are unthankful, unholy, and
irreligious; caring little or nothing for things of eternal value: moving towards an
inevitable head-on rendezvous with death and the hereafter, and totally unprepared
to meet their maker.
• Gen 4:25 . . And Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a
son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring
in place of Abel; for Cain killed him."
Seth's name in Hebrew basically means a substitute, defined by Webster's as a
person or thing that takes the place or function of another; e.g. substitute teachers,
generic medications, pinch hitters, and/or after-market car parts.
Apparently Eve was still anticipating that she herself would be the woman to give
birth to the man promised by God to defeat the Serpent's wiles. (Gen 3:15)
• Gen 4:26a . . And to Seth, in turn, a son was born, and he named him Enosh.
Sometimes the record shows the mother naming a child, and sometimes the father;
which suggests that in all cases there was very likely mutual consultation between
husband and wife on this important decision. But it's always important for the
father to take a hand in naming the children because the act testifies that he's
legally, and officially, accepted them as his own (e.g. Gen 16:15, Gen 21:3, Luke
1:13, Luke 1:63).
NOTE: God instructed both Joseph and Mary to give her baby the name Jesus (Matt
1:21, Luke 1:31). By doing so, Jesus went on record as both their son rather than
only Mary's. (Luke 1:32, (Matt 17:5)
God also selected Ishmael's name (Gen 16:11) Isaac's (Gen 17:19) and Solomon's
too (1Chron 22:9) changed Abraham's name (Gen 17:5) changed Sarah's name
(Gen 17:15) and changed Jacob's name (Gen 32:28).
Christ changed Peter's name (Mark 3:16). Way out in the future, Christ will be
changing quite a few names. (Rev 2:17)
"Enosh" is from 'enowsh (en-oshe') and means: a mortal; hence a man in general,
singly or collectively-- thus differing from the more dignified 'adam (aw-dawm')
which is the proper name of the human race (Gen 5:2). There's really nothing
special about an 'enowsh-- just a feller. Sometimes boys are named Guy, or Buddy,
so 'enowsh would be a common enough name.
• Gen 4:26b . .Then men began to call on the name of The Lord.
The Hebrew word for "Lord" in this case is Jehovah (a.k.a. Yahweh); which always,
and without exception, refers to the one true god.
Apparently up to this point in time, people addressed God in a sort of general way
instead of a personal way, and some still do. For example; during the Native
American funeral service held for my No.1 nephew, a tribal elder prayed to God as
"Grandfather" rather than by a personal moniker like Shiva or some such.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 5:1a . .This is the record of Adam's line.
I suspect that Adam's genealogy would be better defined as "a" record rather than
"the" record because the Bible's version isn't exhaustive.
Adam's genealogy doesn't include every natural-born human being who ever lived
and/or will live; rather, it's primarily concerned with the branch leading to Jesus of
Nazareth: the Bible's central figure.
• Gen 5:1b-2 . .When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; male
and female He created them. And when they were created, He blessed them and
called them Man.
As a preamble to Seth's line, Genesis reminds the reader that Man's origin was by
intelligent design and special creation, and that he was made in the likeness of his
creator, and that he's been an h.sapiens right from the get go. Man didn't begin his
existence as some sort of pre-human hominid named Ardi who lived in Ethiopia's
Afar Rift some 4.4 million years ago.
Some people take issue with Genesis because it seems to them so unscientific and
contrary to the (known) fossil record. But they need to be cautious because science
doesn't have perfect understanding of everything yet, nor has it discovered
everything there is to discover, and it often has to be revised to reflect new
discoveries, and to correct outdated theories and opinions.
But to be fair, Bible students don't know everything yet either so I would advise
watching the sciences for new discoveries that help fill in some of the Bible's
blanks.
• Gen 5:3a . .When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son
Bible genealogies often have very large gaps in them, omitting insignificant male
siblings; and typically all of the girls. In one instance (1Chrn 1:1) the record skips
Abel and jumps right to Seth.
Taking advantage of this rather strange Bible practice; critics are quick to point out
generational gaps in Christ's genealogy with the intent of invalidating the entire
New Testament. But gaps are to be expected or otherwise the list would be
cumbersome and require a book all its own. For example; a sizeable quantity of
time passed between Noah's ark and the arrival of Abraham on the scene; and
probably a couple of ice ages too. We're talking about a lot of generations there,
and naming them all to a man would be just as useless as it would be impractical.
• Gen 5:3b . . in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth.
The best application for "likeness and image" that I've discovered thus far is as a
technical term related to kin: physical and/or non physical. For example; in the
beginning God made Man in His own image and likeness. However; Man bears no
physical resemblance to God at all. Adam exclaimed that Eve was bone of his bone
and flesh of his flesh, and she was; but God is neither.
Seth too, like Eve. was bone of Adam's bone and flesh of his flesh; meaning of
course that Seth was born as Adam's physical kin; whereas likeness and image
refers to Seth as simply kin, i.e. one of the family; physical and/or non physical.
• Gen 5:4-5 . . After the birth of Seth, Adam lived 800 years and begot sons and
daughters. All the days that Adam lived came to 930 years; then he died.
Well, there goes grandpa Adam, just as God predicted at Gen 3:19. But hey?
Where's the listing of the rest of his kids? Didn't God bless him with the words "be
fruitful, increase in number, and fill the earth". Well, I seriously doubt that he and
Eve stopped after just three kids. But the rest of his progeny-- for reasons I can
only guess --didn't make the cut.
But when did Eve die? Did she outlive Adam? Who died first, Adam or Eve? Nobody
really knows. But supposing Eve died quite a while before Adam? Did he remarry?
And if he remarried, who did he marry? One of his own grandchildren?
Well . . in Adam's case, what's so bad about that? I mean, after all, his first wife
was constructed from the organic tissues of his own body; so that in reality, Eve
was his first child which means that by today's social standards; Adam practiced
the worst kind of incest. At least his grandkids would have been several times
removed.
• Gen 5:6-7 . .When Seth had lived 105 years, he begot Enosh. After the birth of
Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and begot sons and daughters.
No doubt some people envy the longevity of the antediluvians; but I don't. Their life
was hard, and for the most part, pretty boring too. Would you want to live for 912
years in pre historic conditions without a single modern convenience? Not me.
Was Enosh the first of Seth's children? Maybe, but probably not. However, he is the
only child that counts because it's through him that we're moving towards Noah;
and ultimately Abraham, David, and Christ.
• Gen 5:8 . . All the days of Seth came to 912 years; then he died.
(sigh) The story of our futile lives. So and So was born, he got married and
reproduced; he lived X number of years after that, and then died-- same O, same
O. The weary circle of life.
"Meaningless! Futile! complains the Teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everything is
meaningless. What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the
sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever." (Ecc
1:2-4)
The earth is dumber than a brick; yet easily outlives its human potentate; whose IQ
is infinitely greater.
_
• Gen 5:1a . .This is the record of Adam's line.
I suspect that Adam's genealogy would be better defined as "a" record rather than
"the" record because the Bible's version isn't exhaustive.
Adam's genealogy doesn't include every natural-born human being who ever lived
and/or will live; rather, it's primarily concerned with the branch leading to Jesus of
Nazareth: the Bible's central figure.
• Gen 5:1b-2 . .When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; male
and female He created them. And when they were created, He blessed them and
called them Man.
As a preamble to Seth's line, Genesis reminds the reader that Man's origin was by
intelligent design and special creation, and that he was made in the likeness of his
creator, and that he's been an h.sapiens right from the get go. Man didn't begin his
existence as some sort of pre-human hominid named Ardi who lived in Ethiopia's
Afar Rift some 4.4 million years ago.
Some people take issue with Genesis because it seems to them so unscientific and
contrary to the (known) fossil record. But they need to be cautious because science
doesn't have perfect understanding of everything yet, nor has it discovered
everything there is to discover, and it often has to be revised to reflect new
discoveries, and to correct outdated theories and opinions.
But to be fair, Bible students don't know everything yet either so I would advise
watching the sciences for new discoveries that help fill in some of the Bible's
blanks.
• Gen 5:3a . .When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son
Bible genealogies often have very large gaps in them, omitting insignificant male
siblings; and typically all of the girls. In one instance (1Chrn 1:1) the record skips
Abel and jumps right to Seth.
Taking advantage of this rather strange Bible practice; critics are quick to point out
generational gaps in Christ's genealogy with the intent of invalidating the entire
New Testament. But gaps are to be expected or otherwise the list would be
cumbersome and require a book all its own. For example; a sizeable quantity of
time passed between Noah's ark and the arrival of Abraham on the scene; and
probably a couple of ice ages too. We're talking about a lot of generations there,
and naming them all to a man would be just as useless as it would be impractical.
• Gen 5:3b . . in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth.
The best application for "likeness and image" that I've discovered thus far is as a
technical term related to kin: physical and/or non physical. For example; in the
beginning God made Man in His own image and likeness. However; Man bears no
physical resemblance to God at all. Adam exclaimed that Eve was bone of his bone
and flesh of his flesh, and she was; but God is neither.
Seth too, like Eve. was bone of Adam's bone and flesh of his flesh; meaning of
course that Seth was born as Adam's physical kin; whereas likeness and image
refers to Seth as simply kin, i.e. one of the family; physical and/or non physical.
• Gen 5:4-5 . . After the birth of Seth, Adam lived 800 years and begot sons and
daughters. All the days that Adam lived came to 930 years; then he died.
Well, there goes grandpa Adam, just as God predicted at Gen 3:19. But hey?
Where's the listing of the rest of his kids? Didn't God bless him with the words "be
fruitful, increase in number, and fill the earth". Well, I seriously doubt that he and
Eve stopped after just three kids. But the rest of his progeny-- for reasons I can
only guess --didn't make the cut.
But when did Eve die? Did she outlive Adam? Who died first, Adam or Eve? Nobody
really knows. But supposing Eve died quite a while before Adam? Did he remarry?
And if he remarried, who did he marry? One of his own grandchildren?
Well . . in Adam's case, what's so bad about that? I mean, after all, his first wife
was constructed from the organic tissues of his own body; so that in reality, Eve
was his first child which means that by today's social standards; Adam practiced
the worst kind of incest. At least his grandkids would have been several times
removed.
• Gen 5:6-7 . .When Seth had lived 105 years, he begot Enosh. After the birth of
Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and begot sons and daughters.
No doubt some people envy the longevity of the antediluvians; but I don't. Their life
was hard, and for the most part, pretty boring too. Would you want to live for 912
years in pre historic conditions without a single modern convenience? Not me.
Was Enosh the first of Seth's children? Maybe, but probably not. However, he is the
only child that counts because it's through him that we're moving towards Noah;
and ultimately Abraham, David, and Christ.
• Gen 5:8 . . All the days of Seth came to 912 years; then he died.
(sigh) The story of our futile lives. So and So was born, he got married and
reproduced; he lived X number of years after that, and then died-- same O, same
O. The weary circle of life.
"Meaningless! Futile! complains the Teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everything is
meaningless. What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the
sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever." (Ecc
1:2-4)
The earth is dumber than a brick; yet easily outlives its human potentate; whose IQ
is infinitely greater.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 5:9 . .When Enosh had lived 90 years, he begot Kenan.
Kenan's name in the Hebrew is Qeynan (kay-nawn') which means fixed or
permanent; sort of like birds' nests, homes; and drifters finally ending their
nomadic life and putting down some roots. Fixed can also mean that someone's life
has a noble purpose and that their mind is focused upon that purpose rather than
looking two ways at once. Or it can also mean somebody's life is a dead end; for
example "this is as good as it's ever going to get". Kind of pessimistic; but had I
lived back then, I would have agreed; heartily.
• Gen 5:10 . . After the birth of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and begot sons and
daughters.
You know, some of these guys really didn't accomplish very much. All they seemed
to do was reproduce. But the important thing is: they made a line to Messiah and,
as is the duty of patriarchs, preserved whatever sacred teachings were handed
down from their fathers.
• Gen 5:11 . . All the days of Enosh came to 905 years; then he died.
(yawn) Over and over again. Just about everybody reproduces in chapter five. And
just about everybody dies too.
• Gen 5:12-20 . .When Kenan had lived 70 years, he begot Mahalalel. After the
birth of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and begot sons and daughters. All the
days of Kenan came to 910 years; then he died. When Mahalalel had lived 65
years, he begot Jared. After the birth of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and begot
sons and daughters. All the days of Mahalalel came to 895 years; then he died.
. . .When Jared had lived 162 years, he begot Enoch. After the birth of Enoch, Jared
lived 800 years and begot sons and daughters. All the days of Jared came to 962
years; then he died.
Four of those men-- Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, and Kenan (Cainan) --are listed in
Christ's genealogy at Luke 3:37-38.
• Gen 5:21 . .When Enoch had lived 65 years, he begot Methuselah.
Methuselah's name is Methuwshelach (meth-oo-sheh'-lakh) which is a compound
word made up of math (math) which means an adult (as of full length or full size),
and shelach (sheh'-lakh) which means a missile of attack, i.e. a spear, sling stone,
or perhaps an arrow. Methuselah was a man-size weapon rather than one that
might be employed by little children.
Today our preferred missile of attack from a hand held weapon is the bullet. A
Methuselah bullet would probably be known today as a magnum. Magnums cost
more than normal ammo but hit harder, go further, and cause more damage
(they're louder too). A modern name that might correspond to Methuselah is Long
Tom-- a nickname often given to very large canons. Maybe they meant to call him
Big Guy because he was such a heavy newborn.
• Gen 5:22-23 . . After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years;
and he begot sons and daughters. All the days of Enoch came to 365 years.
Enoch was a fiery preacher, speaking the words recorded in Jude 1:14-15; warning
people prior to the Flood that Almighty God intends to hold people's feet to the fire
some day.
• Gen 5:24a . . Enoch walked with God;
Enoch was the exact opposite of Cain: he walked with God rather than away from
God.
This is the very first man on record who is actually said to have walked with God;
though no doubt Abel did too.
Those who are outwardly religious, but don't actually walk with God, might be wise
to give this next little saying some thought.
Ye call me Lord and respect me not.
Ye call me Master and obey me not.
Ye call me Light and see me not.
Ye call me Way and walk me not.
Ye call me Life and choose me not.
Ye call me Wise and heed me not.
Ye call me Kind and love me not.
Ye call me Just and fear me not.
If I condemn thee, blame me not.
On the page of Scripture, Enoch isn't said to walk with God until after his little boy
Methuselah was born; suggesting perhaps that parenthood gave him cause to
ponder his manner of life thus far.
• Gen 5:24b . . then he was no more, because God took him away.
The Hebrew word for "no more" is 'ayin (ah'-yin) which is primarily a negative
indicating that one minute Enoch was on earth, and the next he wasn't.
It's difficult to ascertain from so little information in the book of Genesis whether
Enoch died of natural causes or the hand of God; but according to Heb 11:5, he
didn't undergo death at all but was instantaneously transferred from this life to the
next; apparently leaving behind no remains for his family to bury.
It's assumed by many that Enoch was taken to heaven; but according to Christ; no
man had been to heaven prior to himself. (John 3:13)
• Gen 5:25-27 . .When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he begot Lamech. After the
birth of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and begot sons and daughters. All the
days of Methuselah came to 969 years; then he died.
Ol' Methuselah holds the record for longevity. He outlived his son Lamech, dying
five years after him in the very year the Flood came; when Methuselah's grandson
Noah was 600.
Whether or not Methuselah died in the Flood or by natural causes is not said. He
may have perished in it right along with all of the rest of Noah's relatives. Just
because men are listed in Messiah's genealogy doesn't necessarily mean they were
righteous. In point of fact, some of the Davidic kings in Jesus' line were totally
incorrigible men beyond remedy. (e.g. Jer 22:24-30)
_
• Gen 5:9 . .When Enosh had lived 90 years, he begot Kenan.
Kenan's name in the Hebrew is Qeynan (kay-nawn') which means fixed or
permanent; sort of like birds' nests, homes; and drifters finally ending their
nomadic life and putting down some roots. Fixed can also mean that someone's life
has a noble purpose and that their mind is focused upon that purpose rather than
looking two ways at once. Or it can also mean somebody's life is a dead end; for
example "this is as good as it's ever going to get". Kind of pessimistic; but had I
lived back then, I would have agreed; heartily.
• Gen 5:10 . . After the birth of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and begot sons and
daughters.
You know, some of these guys really didn't accomplish very much. All they seemed
to do was reproduce. But the important thing is: they made a line to Messiah and,
as is the duty of patriarchs, preserved whatever sacred teachings were handed
down from their fathers.
• Gen 5:11 . . All the days of Enosh came to 905 years; then he died.
(yawn) Over and over again. Just about everybody reproduces in chapter five. And
just about everybody dies too.
• Gen 5:12-20 . .When Kenan had lived 70 years, he begot Mahalalel. After the
birth of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and begot sons and daughters. All the
days of Kenan came to 910 years; then he died. When Mahalalel had lived 65
years, he begot Jared. After the birth of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and begot
sons and daughters. All the days of Mahalalel came to 895 years; then he died.
. . .When Jared had lived 162 years, he begot Enoch. After the birth of Enoch, Jared
lived 800 years and begot sons and daughters. All the days of Jared came to 962
years; then he died.
Four of those men-- Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, and Kenan (Cainan) --are listed in
Christ's genealogy at Luke 3:37-38.
• Gen 5:21 . .When Enoch had lived 65 years, he begot Methuselah.
Methuselah's name is Methuwshelach (meth-oo-sheh'-lakh) which is a compound
word made up of math (math) which means an adult (as of full length or full size),
and shelach (sheh'-lakh) which means a missile of attack, i.e. a spear, sling stone,
or perhaps an arrow. Methuselah was a man-size weapon rather than one that
might be employed by little children.
Today our preferred missile of attack from a hand held weapon is the bullet. A
Methuselah bullet would probably be known today as a magnum. Magnums cost
more than normal ammo but hit harder, go further, and cause more damage
(they're louder too). A modern name that might correspond to Methuselah is Long
Tom-- a nickname often given to very large canons. Maybe they meant to call him
Big Guy because he was such a heavy newborn.
• Gen 5:22-23 . . After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years;
and he begot sons and daughters. All the days of Enoch came to 365 years.
Enoch was a fiery preacher, speaking the words recorded in Jude 1:14-15; warning
people prior to the Flood that Almighty God intends to hold people's feet to the fire
some day.
• Gen 5:24a . . Enoch walked with God;
Enoch was the exact opposite of Cain: he walked with God rather than away from
God.
This is the very first man on record who is actually said to have walked with God;
though no doubt Abel did too.
Those who are outwardly religious, but don't actually walk with God, might be wise
to give this next little saying some thought.
Ye call me Lord and respect me not.
Ye call me Master and obey me not.
Ye call me Light and see me not.
Ye call me Way and walk me not.
Ye call me Life and choose me not.
Ye call me Wise and heed me not.
Ye call me Kind and love me not.
Ye call me Just and fear me not.
If I condemn thee, blame me not.
On the page of Scripture, Enoch isn't said to walk with God until after his little boy
Methuselah was born; suggesting perhaps that parenthood gave him cause to
ponder his manner of life thus far.
• Gen 5:24b . . then he was no more, because God took him away.
The Hebrew word for "no more" is 'ayin (ah'-yin) which is primarily a negative
indicating that one minute Enoch was on earth, and the next he wasn't.
It's difficult to ascertain from so little information in the book of Genesis whether
Enoch died of natural causes or the hand of God; but according to Heb 11:5, he
didn't undergo death at all but was instantaneously transferred from this life to the
next; apparently leaving behind no remains for his family to bury.
It's assumed by many that Enoch was taken to heaven; but according to Christ; no
man had been to heaven prior to himself. (John 3:13)
• Gen 5:25-27 . .When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he begot Lamech. After the
birth of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and begot sons and daughters. All the
days of Methuselah came to 969 years; then he died.
Ol' Methuselah holds the record for longevity. He outlived his son Lamech, dying
five years after him in the very year the Flood came; when Methuselah's grandson
Noah was 600.
Whether or not Methuselah died in the Flood or by natural causes is not said. He
may have perished in it right along with all of the rest of Noah's relatives. Just
because men are listed in Messiah's genealogy doesn't necessarily mean they were
righteous. In point of fact, some of the Davidic kings in Jesus' line were totally
incorrigible men beyond remedy. (e.g. Jer 22:24-30)
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 5:28-29 . .When Lamech had lived 182 years, he begot a son. And he named
him Noah, saying: This one will provide us relief from our work and from the toil of
our hands, out of the very soil which the Lord placed under a curse.
The word for "Noah" is from nuwach (noo'-akh) and means: rest or quiet. But not
the kind of quiet one might find in a sound-proof room. More like the tranquility a
person would experience by getting away from anxiety, fear, conflict, and toil.
Lamech speaks as one fatigued with the business of living, and as one grudging
that so much energy, which otherwise might have been much better employed in
leisure, entertainment, or self improvement, was unavoidably spent in toil and labor
necessary simply to survive back in that day.
Lamech undoubtedly saw that Noah was a very special boy; the next patriarch after
himself. Perhaps he hoped Noah was the promised seed of the woman; the one who
would crush the Serpent's head, remove the curse, and restore the Earth to its
former prosperity and glory; thus making for Man a much more enjoyable
experience than the one he is subjected to for now.
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the
glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the
revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its
own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself
will be set free from its slavery to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the
children of God." (Rom 8:18-21)
"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that
times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send
Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the
times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy
prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:19-21)
According to Acts 3:19-21, men have been pounding pulpits since the very
beginning, and all of the prophets, ever since Abel, have looked ahead in anxious
anticipation to Messiah's intervention in world affairs and bringing into existence a
much better world than the one that is now.
• Gen 5:30-32 . . After the birth of Noah, Lamech lived 595 years and begot sons
and daughters. All the days of Lamech came to 777 years; then he died. When
Noah had lived 500 years, Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Lamech escaped the Flood by a mere 5 years. It came when Noah was 600 (Gen
7:6).
Shem was the next patriarch after his dad Noah. But the names of all three boys
are given probably because of the role they will play in re-populating the Earth after
the Flood. The Bible doesn't say that Shem, Ham, and Japheth were especially good
men. They survived the Flood in spite of their character only because they got
aboard the ark with their dad when it was time for the rain to begin. If they had
mocked, and remained on land with the rest of the world, then they would have
certainly drowned right along with everyone else in spite of their ancestry.
So; were Mr and Mrs Noah childless until Noah was 500 years old? Probably not.
The other kids, if there were any, didn't count as far as God was concerned, and, if
there were any, they perished in the deluge.
NOTE: Being related to holy men like rabbis, pastors, deacons and/or missionaries
etc doesn't guarantee a ticket to safety. Everyone has to make their own personal
decisions in that regard (e.g. Gen 19:12-14). God commands all people everywhere
to repent. The alternative is the sum of all fears no matter how important, nor well
connected, your relatives might be.
_
• Gen 5:28-29 . .When Lamech had lived 182 years, he begot a son. And he named
him Noah, saying: This one will provide us relief from our work and from the toil of
our hands, out of the very soil which the Lord placed under a curse.
The word for "Noah" is from nuwach (noo'-akh) and means: rest or quiet. But not
the kind of quiet one might find in a sound-proof room. More like the tranquility a
person would experience by getting away from anxiety, fear, conflict, and toil.
Lamech speaks as one fatigued with the business of living, and as one grudging
that so much energy, which otherwise might have been much better employed in
leisure, entertainment, or self improvement, was unavoidably spent in toil and labor
necessary simply to survive back in that day.
Lamech undoubtedly saw that Noah was a very special boy; the next patriarch after
himself. Perhaps he hoped Noah was the promised seed of the woman; the one who
would crush the Serpent's head, remove the curse, and restore the Earth to its
former prosperity and glory; thus making for Man a much more enjoyable
experience than the one he is subjected to for now.
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the
glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the
revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its
own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself
will be set free from its slavery to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the
children of God." (Rom 8:18-21)
"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that
times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send
Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the
times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy
prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:19-21)
According to Acts 3:19-21, men have been pounding pulpits since the very
beginning, and all of the prophets, ever since Abel, have looked ahead in anxious
anticipation to Messiah's intervention in world affairs and bringing into existence a
much better world than the one that is now.
• Gen 5:30-32 . . After the birth of Noah, Lamech lived 595 years and begot sons
and daughters. All the days of Lamech came to 777 years; then he died. When
Noah had lived 500 years, Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Lamech escaped the Flood by a mere 5 years. It came when Noah was 600 (Gen
7:6).
Shem was the next patriarch after his dad Noah. But the names of all three boys
are given probably because of the role they will play in re-populating the Earth after
the Flood. The Bible doesn't say that Shem, Ham, and Japheth were especially good
men. They survived the Flood in spite of their character only because they got
aboard the ark with their dad when it was time for the rain to begin. If they had
mocked, and remained on land with the rest of the world, then they would have
certainly drowned right along with everyone else in spite of their ancestry.
So; were Mr and Mrs Noah childless until Noah was 500 years old? Probably not.
The other kids, if there were any, didn't count as far as God was concerned, and, if
there were any, they perished in the deluge.
NOTE: Being related to holy men like rabbis, pastors, deacons and/or missionaries
etc doesn't guarantee a ticket to safety. Everyone has to make their own personal
decisions in that regard (e.g. Gen 19:12-14). God commands all people everywhere
to repent. The alternative is the sum of all fears no matter how important, nor well
connected, your relatives might be.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 6:1-2 . . Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the
land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the
daughters of men were good; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they
chose.
The Hebrew word for "good" in that passage is towb (tobe) which is one of those
ambiguous Hebrew words that can be utilized in a wide variety of applications. It
can indicate morality, a tasty meal, a job well done, a nice man, a pretty dress, a
shapely woman and/or a handsome man, and an expert musician and/or a really
groovy song. But in this case; I think it's pretty safe to assume towb refers to a
woman's looks.
NOTE: Ambiguous Hebrew words like towb serve to illustrate why it's virtually
impossible to translate Hebrew into English with 100% verbatim precision. No
linguist in his right mind would dare to say that English versions of the Hebrew Old
Testament are perfect word-for-word renditions of the original manuscripts-- no;
they can't even be certified perfect word-for-word renditions of the available
manuscripts let alone the originals.
The characteristics of the "sons of God" has been debated. Some say they were
members of the aristocracy of that day who married attractive women from among
the commoners. Others say they were renegade spirit creatures who donned fully
functioning human avatars-- replete with synthetic male genomes --so they could
cohabit with women; thus producing a hybrid strain of hominid freaks. Others say
they were God-fearing men who threw caution to the wind and built themselves
harems of humanistic women who believed and practiced existential philosophies.
Intermarriage between men of faith and infidel women is a proven tactic for
watering down, compromising, and even extinguishing Bible beliefs and practices
(e.g. Num 31:7-16). The people of God are strictly, unequivocally, and clearly
forbidden to marry outside their faith. (Deut 7:1-4, 2Cor 6:14 18)
Wives can be very effective in influencing an otherwise pious man to compromise
his convictions; for example Solomon got off to a good start but down the road
accumulated a harem of foreign women who led him into idolatry; which
subsequently caused The Lord to engineer rebellion in the kingdom. (1Kgs 11 & 12)
The sons of God in Noah's day-- whose wives were chosen based solely upon
sensual appeal sans any spiritual prudence whatsoever --all perished in the Flood
right along with their infidel wives and children. Not a one of them had the good
sense to go aboard the ark with Noah.
NOTE: Jude urged his readers to contend for the faith-- i.e. struggle (Jude 1:3)
which doesn't imply getting into brawls over it. He means to hang on to it with the
same desperate clinging that would be applied to a life ring thrown to a man
overboard because there are unfaithful elements in churches all 'round the world
pressuring God's people to become flexible.
_
• Gen 6:1-2 . . Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the
land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the
daughters of men were good; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they
chose.
The Hebrew word for "good" in that passage is towb (tobe) which is one of those
ambiguous Hebrew words that can be utilized in a wide variety of applications. It
can indicate morality, a tasty meal, a job well done, a nice man, a pretty dress, a
shapely woman and/or a handsome man, and an expert musician and/or a really
groovy song. But in this case; I think it's pretty safe to assume towb refers to a
woman's looks.
NOTE: Ambiguous Hebrew words like towb serve to illustrate why it's virtually
impossible to translate Hebrew into English with 100% verbatim precision. No
linguist in his right mind would dare to say that English versions of the Hebrew Old
Testament are perfect word-for-word renditions of the original manuscripts-- no;
they can't even be certified perfect word-for-word renditions of the available
manuscripts let alone the originals.
The characteristics of the "sons of God" has been debated. Some say they were
members of the aristocracy of that day who married attractive women from among
the commoners. Others say they were renegade spirit creatures who donned fully
functioning human avatars-- replete with synthetic male genomes --so they could
cohabit with women; thus producing a hybrid strain of hominid freaks. Others say
they were God-fearing men who threw caution to the wind and built themselves
harems of humanistic women who believed and practiced existential philosophies.
Intermarriage between men of faith and infidel women is a proven tactic for
watering down, compromising, and even extinguishing Bible beliefs and practices
(e.g. Num 31:7-16). The people of God are strictly, unequivocally, and clearly
forbidden to marry outside their faith. (Deut 7:1-4, 2Cor 6:14 18)
Wives can be very effective in influencing an otherwise pious man to compromise
his convictions; for example Solomon got off to a good start but down the road
accumulated a harem of foreign women who led him into idolatry; which
subsequently caused The Lord to engineer rebellion in the kingdom. (1Kgs 11 & 12)
The sons of God in Noah's day-- whose wives were chosen based solely upon
sensual appeal sans any spiritual prudence whatsoever --all perished in the Flood
right along with their infidel wives and children. Not a one of them had the good
sense to go aboard the ark with Noah.
NOTE: Jude urged his readers to contend for the faith-- i.e. struggle (Jude 1:3)
which doesn't imply getting into brawls over it. He means to hang on to it with the
same desperate clinging that would be applied to a life ring thrown to a man
overboard because there are unfaithful elements in churches all 'round the world
pressuring God's people to become flexible.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 6:3a . . And the Lord said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever
Some translations have "abide" instead of strive. But the Hebrew word is diyn
(deen) which means: to rule; by implication: to judge (as umpire); also to strive
(as at law). It can also mean to plead the cause of; or to contend in argument.
So; how did "My Spirit" accomplish this striving with man? In person Himself? No;
just like He always has: via inspired men; e.g. Noah and Enoch. (2Pet 2:5 & Jude
1:14-15)
NOTE: According to 1Pet 3:18-20, the Spirit of Christ and My Spirit are one and the
same spirit. In point of fact; according to 1Pet 1:10-11, all the Old Testament
preachers (a..k.a. prophets) were motivated by the Spirit of Christ. (cf. Rom 8:9
and 1Cor 6:19 where the Spirit of Christ and The Spirit are seen as one and the
same spirit)
• Gen 6:3b . . for they are only mortal flesh.
A problem with flesh is it's brevity. The human body eventually loses its vigor, so
God has a limited amount of time to work with people before they pass on. Were
humans immortal, He would have plenty of time to turn people around; but alas,
without access to the tree of life, such is not the case; which is why I sometimes
advise certain folk to use what time they have remaining to begin preparing
themselves for the worst when they pass on.
• Gen 6:3c . . yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.
Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But people still
continued to live long lives for a great number of years afterwards. Even Abraham,
who lived many, many years after the Flood, didn't die till he was 175 years old.
It's far more reasonable to conclude that God was announcing a deadline; viz: they
had 120 years left to get ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed
anybody? Heck no. They went right on; business as usual.
"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the
day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke
17:26-27)
The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz: reprieves
are not pardons-- though God bear a great while, He never bears forever.
• Gen 6:4 . .There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward,
when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to
them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
The Hebrew word for "giants" in that passage is somewhat ambiguous. It not only
refers to people of unusual stature, but also to bullies, i.e. alpha males, achievers,
tyrants, movers and shakers, and Machiavellian types.
Historical examples would be men like Genghis Khan of Mongolia, and Alexander
the Great of Greece; Napoleon of France, Peter Alekseyevich Romanov of Russia,
Chandragupta Maurya of India, shogun Minamoto no Yoritomo of Japan,
conquistador Hernando Cortes of Spain, Timur: founder of the Timurid dynasty, and
Zahir-ud din Muhammad Babur: founder of the Mughal dynasty that ruled the
Indian subcontinent for over three centuries.
In other words: nephiyl doesn't necessarily indicate a special race of people; but
can also refer to strong men whose ambition is to dominate others; even if they
have to completely destroy their culture and kill them all off to do it.
I would categorize Nimrod as a nephiyl. He was the first statesmen to successfully
unite the world; and it was such a solid unity that only divine intervention could
bring it down.
The phrase "men of renown" indicates that the nephil types got all the press: they
were the Man Of The Year back then while guys like Noah and Enoch were
marginalized and went largely unnoticed.
FAQ: If all the nephiyl types drowned in the Flood; then how did their
characteristics manage to resurface down the road?
A: Well; from whence did nephiyl types originate in the first place? Same place
every other personality type originated: from Adam's genes; viz: since Noah and
his wife, and his sons and their wives, were Adam's biological descendants, then
nephiyl characteristics survived the Flood by riding it out in the DNA of the people
aboard the ark.
_
• Gen 6:3a . . And the Lord said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever
Some translations have "abide" instead of strive. But the Hebrew word is diyn
(deen) which means: to rule; by implication: to judge (as umpire); also to strive
(as at law). It can also mean to plead the cause of; or to contend in argument.
So; how did "My Spirit" accomplish this striving with man? In person Himself? No;
just like He always has: via inspired men; e.g. Noah and Enoch. (2Pet 2:5 & Jude
1:14-15)
NOTE: According to 1Pet 3:18-20, the Spirit of Christ and My Spirit are one and the
same spirit. In point of fact; according to 1Pet 1:10-11, all the Old Testament
preachers (a..k.a. prophets) were motivated by the Spirit of Christ. (cf. Rom 8:9
and 1Cor 6:19 where the Spirit of Christ and The Spirit are seen as one and the
same spirit)
• Gen 6:3b . . for they are only mortal flesh.
A problem with flesh is it's brevity. The human body eventually loses its vigor, so
God has a limited amount of time to work with people before they pass on. Were
humans immortal, He would have plenty of time to turn people around; but alas,
without access to the tree of life, such is not the case; which is why I sometimes
advise certain folk to use what time they have remaining to begin preparing
themselves for the worst when they pass on.
• Gen 6:3c . . yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.
Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But people still
continued to live long lives for a great number of years afterwards. Even Abraham,
who lived many, many years after the Flood, didn't die till he was 175 years old.
It's far more reasonable to conclude that God was announcing a deadline; viz: they
had 120 years left to get ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed
anybody? Heck no. They went right on; business as usual.
"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the
day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke
17:26-27)
The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz: reprieves
are not pardons-- though God bear a great while, He never bears forever.
• Gen 6:4 . .There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward,
when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to
them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
The Hebrew word for "giants" in that passage is somewhat ambiguous. It not only
refers to people of unusual stature, but also to bullies, i.e. alpha males, achievers,
tyrants, movers and shakers, and Machiavellian types.
Historical examples would be men like Genghis Khan of Mongolia, and Alexander
the Great of Greece; Napoleon of France, Peter Alekseyevich Romanov of Russia,
Chandragupta Maurya of India, shogun Minamoto no Yoritomo of Japan,
conquistador Hernando Cortes of Spain, Timur: founder of the Timurid dynasty, and
Zahir-ud din Muhammad Babur: founder of the Mughal dynasty that ruled the
Indian subcontinent for over three centuries.
In other words: nephiyl doesn't necessarily indicate a special race of people; but
can also refer to strong men whose ambition is to dominate others; even if they
have to completely destroy their culture and kill them all off to do it.
I would categorize Nimrod as a nephiyl. He was the first statesmen to successfully
unite the world; and it was such a solid unity that only divine intervention could
bring it down.
The phrase "men of renown" indicates that the nephil types got all the press: they
were the Man Of The Year back then while guys like Noah and Enoch were
marginalized and went largely unnoticed.
FAQ: If all the nephiyl types drowned in the Flood; then how did their
characteristics manage to resurface down the road?
A: Well; from whence did nephiyl types originate in the first place? Same place
every other personality type originated: from Adam's genes; viz: since Noah and
his wife, and his sons and their wives, were Adam's biological descendants, then
nephiyl characteristics survived the Flood by riding it out in the DNA of the people
aboard the ark.
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 6:5 . . And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and
every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.
Man's descent into depravity didn't catch his creator by surprise. After all; not only
can God see the future but He can also manipulate it; so He was well aware even
before beginning that the people He was about to create were destined for a global
deluge.
Also, when God inspected His handiwork at Gen 1:31, He evaluated it not just
good, but "very" good. So as far as He was concerned; everything went smoothly
and according to plan-- nothing was broken, no parts were missing, and nothing
failed to mate with its matching part.
• Gen 6:6 . . And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He
became grieved in His heart.
When God created the people of man, it was no doubt with the awareness that the
day would come when He would have to put a number of them down like dogs gone
mad with rabies.
If it can be safely assumed that God saw man's depravity coming well in advance--
prior to creating even one of the many forces, energies, and particles that would go
into the construction of the cosmos --then we have to wonder why it is that He felt
remorse for going ahead as planned. Surely it wasn't because He made a terrible
mistake. I seriously doubt that a master architect with the creator's intelligence
would fail to foresee every possible ramification of their actions.
Well; it's at least comforting to know the destruction of life is not something God
enjoys as if He were an outdoor guy who kills fish and wildlife for sport with no
more sensitivity than a kid blasting aliens in a video game. Man's creator knew the
day was coming when He would have to do what He was about to do next, and
clearly wasn't looking forward to it, but nevertheless; leaves us with unavoidable
questions about His sanity because from a rational perspective, God's procedures
make no sense at all.
Anyway, aside from all that; it appears to me that God had high expectations for
the people of man, and was very disappointed that numbers of them went bad; sort
of like how parents feel when a kid, whom they've given every privilege, every
opportunity, and every advantage imaginable, lets it all go overboard and somehow
ends up incorrigible and a total failure instead.
NOTE: The Hebrew word translated "regret" is somewhat ambiguous. Though it
includes feeling rue for making a mistake, it also implies taking an unpleasant
course of action that you know will cause people harm and/or inconvenience though
for sure the course is the wise thing to do.
For example: God was poised to destroy the city of Nineveh lest they changed their
ways. Within that city were 120,000 underage children, and numbers of beasts, that
would've been collateral damage had not the adults heeded Jonah's preaching.
God impressed upon Jonah that He would not take pleasure in destroying those
children, nor those beasts. However, God would have done so because it was the
wise thing to do.
I cannot even begin to imagine how it was wise (or right) for God to go ahead and
create mankind while knowing well in advance by means of precognition that they
would go bad and He would have to kill off just about everything-- birds, beasts,
men, women, and underage children too.
From a purely rational perspective, the Judeo/Christian God is fiendish. I mean
think about it: why would a sensible designer proceed to bring into existence,
without their consent, human lives whom he knew in advance that some day he
would be destroying most of them.
For example: the creator knew in advance that if He went ahead as planned, the
end result would be the termination of untold numbers of terrified people not only
in a Flood, but also in the brimstone depicted by Rev 20:10-15.
It's a mystery. People brighter and better educated than I have thus far been
unable to figure it out: they make excuses for God (a.k.a. apologetics) instead of
coming to grips with the reality that we're all little more than an insect zoo: just
bugs imprisoned in a terrarium constructed for the supreme being's amusement.
"O Lord our God . . you created everything, and it is for your pleasure that they
exist and were created." (Rev 4:11
• Gen 6:7 . . And the Lord said: I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the
face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens,
for I regret that I made them.
The destruction of earth's birds and beasts was unavoidable; they became collateral
damage in God's contention with the evil antediluvians.
The Hebrew word for "blot" is from machah (maw-khaw') which means: to stroke or
rub; by implication, to erase; also to smooth (as if with oil), i.e. grease or make
fat; also to touch, i.e. reach to.
God intended to not only remove the antediluvians from the face of the earth, but
also to scrub off all of their works too so that when He was done, it would be very
difficult, if not impossible, to even be able to tell the antediluvians were ever here
at all.
It's always been a mystery to me why paleo-anthropologists have managed to find
so few fossilized remains of pre-historic human beings.
In 1992, Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, discovered the
fossilized skeletons of human-like creatures in Ethiopia's Afar Rift who lived 4.4
million years ago but those are not the remains of h.sapiens; but rather, of beasts
that resemble h.sapiens. To my knowledge; no truly human remains have been
found from that era.
While mysterious; that lack of remains isn't exclusive. Take for instance the
Passenger Pigeon. That bird at one time numbered an estimated four to five billion
individuals; which is a number equal in quantity to the current year-round
population of all North American birds combined. Yet an archeological search for the
pigeon's bones left behind by people who ate the bird for food, through all pre
Columbian times, has thus far yielded very few remains; at only two sites.
But my point is: where are the remains of the antediluvians? They're gone; lock,
stock, and barrel-- no metal implements from Tubal-Cain's blacksmith shop, no
musical instruments from Jubal's work shop, no dwellings, no footprints, no bones,
no pottery, no pictographs, no petro glyphs, not even any geological evidence of a
world-wide deluge: nothing. It's like they were never here.
God moved against the antediluvians like a relentless newspaper editor deleting
superfluous words and sentences so skillfully that the reader cannot even tell those
superfluous words and sentences ever existed in the original copy.
Why would God do that? I would hazard to guess that His purpose in doing so was
to prevent people from believing too easily that the Flood actually happened.
The funny thing about the Bible is that portions of it are just as effective at driving
people away from God as they are at attracting them. No doubt it is God's wishes
that everybody believe the Bible; but at the same time it seems He's thwarted His
own longings by taking steps to ensure that a substantial number of people don't.
For example:
"Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: You have seen all that The Lord did
before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his
land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders.
Yet to this day The Lord has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor
ears to hear." (Deut 29:2-4)
_
• Gen 6:5 . . And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and
every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.
Man's descent into depravity didn't catch his creator by surprise. After all; not only
can God see the future but He can also manipulate it; so He was well aware even
before beginning that the people He was about to create were destined for a global
deluge.
Also, when God inspected His handiwork at Gen 1:31, He evaluated it not just
good, but "very" good. So as far as He was concerned; everything went smoothly
and according to plan-- nothing was broken, no parts were missing, and nothing
failed to mate with its matching part.
• Gen 6:6 . . And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He
became grieved in His heart.
When God created the people of man, it was no doubt with the awareness that the
day would come when He would have to put a number of them down like dogs gone
mad with rabies.
If it can be safely assumed that God saw man's depravity coming well in advance--
prior to creating even one of the many forces, energies, and particles that would go
into the construction of the cosmos --then we have to wonder why it is that He felt
remorse for going ahead as planned. Surely it wasn't because He made a terrible
mistake. I seriously doubt that a master architect with the creator's intelligence
would fail to foresee every possible ramification of their actions.
Well; it's at least comforting to know the destruction of life is not something God
enjoys as if He were an outdoor guy who kills fish and wildlife for sport with no
more sensitivity than a kid blasting aliens in a video game. Man's creator knew the
day was coming when He would have to do what He was about to do next, and
clearly wasn't looking forward to it, but nevertheless; leaves us with unavoidable
questions about His sanity because from a rational perspective, God's procedures
make no sense at all.
Anyway, aside from all that; it appears to me that God had high expectations for
the people of man, and was very disappointed that numbers of them went bad; sort
of like how parents feel when a kid, whom they've given every privilege, every
opportunity, and every advantage imaginable, lets it all go overboard and somehow
ends up incorrigible and a total failure instead.
NOTE: The Hebrew word translated "regret" is somewhat ambiguous. Though it
includes feeling rue for making a mistake, it also implies taking an unpleasant
course of action that you know will cause people harm and/or inconvenience though
for sure the course is the wise thing to do.
For example: God was poised to destroy the city of Nineveh lest they changed their
ways. Within that city were 120,000 underage children, and numbers of beasts, that
would've been collateral damage had not the adults heeded Jonah's preaching.
God impressed upon Jonah that He would not take pleasure in destroying those
children, nor those beasts. However, God would have done so because it was the
wise thing to do.
I cannot even begin to imagine how it was wise (or right) for God to go ahead and
create mankind while knowing well in advance by means of precognition that they
would go bad and He would have to kill off just about everything-- birds, beasts,
men, women, and underage children too.
From a purely rational perspective, the Judeo/Christian God is fiendish. I mean
think about it: why would a sensible designer proceed to bring into existence,
without their consent, human lives whom he knew in advance that some day he
would be destroying most of them.
For example: the creator knew in advance that if He went ahead as planned, the
end result would be the termination of untold numbers of terrified people not only
in a Flood, but also in the brimstone depicted by Rev 20:10-15.
It's a mystery. People brighter and better educated than I have thus far been
unable to figure it out: they make excuses for God (a.k.a. apologetics) instead of
coming to grips with the reality that we're all little more than an insect zoo: just
bugs imprisoned in a terrarium constructed for the supreme being's amusement.
"O Lord our God . . you created everything, and it is for your pleasure that they
exist and were created." (Rev 4:11
• Gen 6:7 . . And the Lord said: I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the
face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens,
for I regret that I made them.
The destruction of earth's birds and beasts was unavoidable; they became collateral
damage in God's contention with the evil antediluvians.
The Hebrew word for "blot" is from machah (maw-khaw') which means: to stroke or
rub; by implication, to erase; also to smooth (as if with oil), i.e. grease or make
fat; also to touch, i.e. reach to.
God intended to not only remove the antediluvians from the face of the earth, but
also to scrub off all of their works too so that when He was done, it would be very
difficult, if not impossible, to even be able to tell the antediluvians were ever here
at all.
It's always been a mystery to me why paleo-anthropologists have managed to find
so few fossilized remains of pre-historic human beings.
In 1992, Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, discovered the
fossilized skeletons of human-like creatures in Ethiopia's Afar Rift who lived 4.4
million years ago but those are not the remains of h.sapiens; but rather, of beasts
that resemble h.sapiens. To my knowledge; no truly human remains have been
found from that era.
While mysterious; that lack of remains isn't exclusive. Take for instance the
Passenger Pigeon. That bird at one time numbered an estimated four to five billion
individuals; which is a number equal in quantity to the current year-round
population of all North American birds combined. Yet an archeological search for the
pigeon's bones left behind by people who ate the bird for food, through all pre
Columbian times, has thus far yielded very few remains; at only two sites.
But my point is: where are the remains of the antediluvians? They're gone; lock,
stock, and barrel-- no metal implements from Tubal-Cain's blacksmith shop, no
musical instruments from Jubal's work shop, no dwellings, no footprints, no bones,
no pottery, no pictographs, no petro glyphs, not even any geological evidence of a
world-wide deluge: nothing. It's like they were never here.
God moved against the antediluvians like a relentless newspaper editor deleting
superfluous words and sentences so skillfully that the reader cannot even tell those
superfluous words and sentences ever existed in the original copy.
Why would God do that? I would hazard to guess that His purpose in doing so was
to prevent people from believing too easily that the Flood actually happened.
The funny thing about the Bible is that portions of it are just as effective at driving
people away from God as they are at attracting them. No doubt it is God's wishes
that everybody believe the Bible; but at the same time it seems He's thwarted His
own longings by taking steps to ensure that a substantial number of people don't.
For example:
"Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: You have seen all that The Lord did
before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his
land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders.
Yet to this day The Lord has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor
ears to hear." (Deut 29:2-4)
_
Dant01
Member
.
• Gen 6:8 . . But Noah found favor with The Lord.
The word for "favor" is from chen (khane) and means: graciousness. Translators
sometimes render chen as grace. But the important thing is that The Lord didn't
find chen with Noah. No, just the opposite-- Noah found chen with The Lord.
Webster's defines graciousness as: kind, courteous, inclined to good will, generous,
charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial,
sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.
Those are all good qualities, and the very things you would expect to see in
someone you loved and trusted-- like your spouse or a very close friend.
• Gen 6:9a . .This is the line of Noah.-- Noah was a righteous man;
The Hebrew word for "righteous" is tsaddiyq (tsad-deek') which means: just.
Webster's provides several definitions of "just", but perhaps the ones best suited
for our purpose are: conscientious, honest, honorable, right, scrupulous, true,
dependable, reliable, tried, trustworthy, dispassionate, equal, equitable, impartial,
nondiscriminatory, objective, unbiased, uncolored, and unprejudiced. So then, Noah
was not only religious to his fingertips; but he was a pretty decent guy to boot.
The kind of righteousness spoken of in Gen 6:9a is a personal kind of
righteousness. There's also a spiritual righteousness, but I don't think that's in view
here. The emphasis is upon Noah as a man rather than a believer; though
according to Heb 11:7 he was that too.
• Gen 6:9b . . he was blameless in his era; Noah walked with God.
Blameless in the Bible means something altogether different than what you'd
expect. In this case, "blameless" means that God had nothing negative to say about
Noah; i.e. on the books, Noah's performance was spotless. How is that possible?
Well; if God chooses not to record your badness, then the only thing remaining to
record is your goodness.
This is a very important aspect of not just Old Testament piety, but New Testament
too.
"God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses
against them" (2Cor 5:19)
The Greek word translated "counting" is logizomai (log-id'-zom-ahee) which means
to take an inventory; i.e. an indictment. 2Cor 5:19 is quite an advantage because
when there is nothing bad on the books, then there is nothing that can in any way
be used to prove that somebody has ever been anything less than 100% innocent;
i.e. blameless. This may seem like cooking the books, but God has a way to do it on
the up and up.
NOTE: Too often Supreme Court judges-- the State level and the US level --are
unjust; viz; they're biased and they're prejudiced; and that's because seldom, if
ever, are they nominated on the basis of their objectivity; rather, they're typically
nominated solely on the basis of their political leanings.
God highly recommended Noah, but it's doubtful Noah would ever be considered for
a federal judgeship let alone America's supreme.
The most incredible thing about Noah was his degree of piety in a world gone mad
with evil. He was actually a nobody in his day; eclipsed by the nephiyl types. They
got all the press, the publicity, and the notoriety while God's man went
marginalized and largely ignored. Yet he persisted; and continued pounding a pulpit
right up to the end.
• Gen 6:10 . . Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Were those the only kids Noah had? And no daughters? I seriously doubt it. Noah
was six hundred when the flood began. It is unlikely that a healthy, hard working,
robust man would live that long without engendering a much larger family than
three; especially in those days without birth control. But these three boys are the
only ones that count now because they're going on the ark with their dad.
_
• Gen 6:8 . . But Noah found favor with The Lord.
The word for "favor" is from chen (khane) and means: graciousness. Translators
sometimes render chen as grace. But the important thing is that The Lord didn't
find chen with Noah. No, just the opposite-- Noah found chen with The Lord.
Webster's defines graciousness as: kind, courteous, inclined to good will, generous,
charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial,
sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.
Those are all good qualities, and the very things you would expect to see in
someone you loved and trusted-- like your spouse or a very close friend.
• Gen 6:9a . .This is the line of Noah.-- Noah was a righteous man;
The Hebrew word for "righteous" is tsaddiyq (tsad-deek') which means: just.
Webster's provides several definitions of "just", but perhaps the ones best suited
for our purpose are: conscientious, honest, honorable, right, scrupulous, true,
dependable, reliable, tried, trustworthy, dispassionate, equal, equitable, impartial,
nondiscriminatory, objective, unbiased, uncolored, and unprejudiced. So then, Noah
was not only religious to his fingertips; but he was a pretty decent guy to boot.
The kind of righteousness spoken of in Gen 6:9a is a personal kind of
righteousness. There's also a spiritual righteousness, but I don't think that's in view
here. The emphasis is upon Noah as a man rather than a believer; though
according to Heb 11:7 he was that too.
• Gen 6:9b . . he was blameless in his era; Noah walked with God.
Blameless in the Bible means something altogether different than what you'd
expect. In this case, "blameless" means that God had nothing negative to say about
Noah; i.e. on the books, Noah's performance was spotless. How is that possible?
Well; if God chooses not to record your badness, then the only thing remaining to
record is your goodness.
This is a very important aspect of not just Old Testament piety, but New Testament
too.
"God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses
against them" (2Cor 5:19)
The Greek word translated "counting" is logizomai (log-id'-zom-ahee) which means
to take an inventory; i.e. an indictment. 2Cor 5:19 is quite an advantage because
when there is nothing bad on the books, then there is nothing that can in any way
be used to prove that somebody has ever been anything less than 100% innocent;
i.e. blameless. This may seem like cooking the books, but God has a way to do it on
the up and up.
NOTE: Too often Supreme Court judges-- the State level and the US level --are
unjust; viz; they're biased and they're prejudiced; and that's because seldom, if
ever, are they nominated on the basis of their objectivity; rather, they're typically
nominated solely on the basis of their political leanings.
God highly recommended Noah, but it's doubtful Noah would ever be considered for
a federal judgeship let alone America's supreme.
The most incredible thing about Noah was his degree of piety in a world gone mad
with evil. He was actually a nobody in his day; eclipsed by the nephiyl types. They
got all the press, the publicity, and the notoriety while God's man went
marginalized and largely ignored. Yet he persisted; and continued pounding a pulpit
right up to the end.
• Gen 6:10 . . Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Were those the only kids Noah had? And no daughters? I seriously doubt it. Noah
was six hundred when the flood began. It is unlikely that a healthy, hard working,
robust man would live that long without engendering a much larger family than
three; especially in those days without birth control. But these three boys are the
only ones that count now because they're going on the ark with their dad.
_
CrowCross
Well-known member
Psalms 148:4 sems to indicate there is water out by the edge of the universe.....Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
It's hard to be dogmatic on this stuff as the water may mean something else.
Do you think the existance of the water pretty much in one place would have created its own gravatational field?
Light.....
The question is...what was the light?
I don't believe it was the sun as the sun wasn't made yet.
Many suggest the light was the shekinah glory of God likened to Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it:
Some suggest the light was the light given off from the just created angels.
Job 38:4Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know!
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6On what were its foundations set,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7
There are several theories out there that may explain how the starlight reached earth using literal 24 hour long days.
The one I heard growing up was the star light was created in place..instantly..on day 4.
Others such as Setterfield think thight traveled faster during creation week while other such as Humphreys have produced models using gravity and it's effect on time....allowing billons of years to pass in outer deep space while one day passed on earth.
That's enough for now. Very interesting though.