.
Hello;
Back around 2000 or 2001; I got the daring idea to begin composing a daily, bite-size commentary on the book of Genesis. It was a clumsy effort at first but I stuck with it and as time went by, it got pretty good. On some forums where I've survived opposition long enough to complete the whole fifty chapters, Genesis has attracted several thousand views.
As of today's date, I'm 76 years old; and an on-going student of the Bible since 1968 via sermons, seminars, lectures, Sunday school classes, radio Bible programs, and various authors of a number of Bible-related books. Fifty-two years of Bible under my belt hasn't made me an authority; but they've at least made me competent enough to tackle Genesis.
Barring emergencies, accidents, vacations, unforeseen circumstances, and/or insurmountable distractions, database errors, pandemic shut-downs, computer crashes, black outs, brown outs, deaths in the family, Wall Street Armageddon, thread hijackers, excessive quarrelling and debating, the dog ate my homework, visiting relatives, ISIS, car repairs, Black Friday, Cyber Monday, student walk-outs, Carrington events, gasoline prices, medical issues, and/or hard luck and the forces of nature; I'm making an effort to post something every day including Sundays and holidays.
Some really good stuff is in Genesis: the origin of the cosmos, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the Flood, tower of Babel, and the origin of the Jews.
Big-name celebrities like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Ishmael, Rebecca, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph are here.
Not here are Moses vs. Pharaoh and the parting of the Red Sea. That story is in Exodus; Samson and Delilah are in Judges, David and Goliath are in 1Samuel; and Ruth and Esther are in books of the Bible named after them.
The author of Genesis is currently unknown; but commonly attributed to Moses. Seeing as he penned Exodus (Mark 12:26) it's conceivable that Moses also penned Genesis; but in reality, nobody really knows for sure.
Scholars have estimated the date of its writing at around 1450-1410 BC; a mere 3,400± years ago, which is pretty recent in the grand scheme of Earth's geological history.
Genesis may in fact be the result of several contributors beginning as far back as Adam himself; who would certainly know more about the creation than anybody, and who entertained no doubts whatsoever about the existence of an intelligent designer since he knew the creator Himself like a next door neighbor.
As time went by, others like Seth and Noah would add their own experiences to the record, and then Abraham his, Isaac his, Jacob his, and finally Judah or one of his descendants completing the record with Joseph's burial.
Genesis is quoted more than sixty times in the New Testament; and Christ authenticated its Divine inspiration by referring to it in his own teachings. (e.g. Matt 19:4-6, Matt 24:37-39, Mk 10:4-9, Luke 11:49-51, Luke 17:26 29 & 32, John 7:21-23, John 8:44 and John 8:56)
Buen Camino
(Pleasant Journey)
_
Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Moderator: Moderators
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Post #11.
● Gen 1:22a . . God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and increase,
This is the very first place in the Bible where the Hebrew word for "bless" shows up. It's somewhat ambiguous, but in this case I think it's pretty safe to assume that it means to furnish freely or naturally with some power, quality, or attribute; i.e. provide, endow, and/or empower. In other words: the blessing of fertility was a providential act; and no doubt included microscopic creatures as well as those visible to the naked eye.
Providence is common in the Bible; especially in Genesis.
● Gen 1:22b . . fill the waters in the seas, and let the winged creatures increase on the earth.
Winged creatures have the advantage of flight; which, in my estimation, makes them more fortunate than creatures confined to water. The wingers get a much better world view from above than those below. Flying broadens one's horizons, so to speak, and gives us a bigger picture. Amphibious flyers, e.g. cormorants and grebes, have the best of both environs; they see things from above as well as from below.
Aqua creatures exist in the most unlikely places. When the crew of the bathyscaphe Trieste descended into the 35,761 feet Challenger Deep located in the deepest part of the Mariana Trench in 1960, they didn't really expect to find anything living down there; but to their surprise, they saw a flat fish similar to sole and flounder.
The video camera on board the Kaiko probe spotted a sea cucumber, a scale worm and a shrimp at the bottom.
The Nereus probe spotted a polychaete worm (a multi-legged predator) about an inch long.
● Gen 1:23 . . And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
● Gen 1:24-25 . .Then God said: Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind-- cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind, And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
We've come now to the sixth day when all terra life was created; including humans.
This grouping of creatures (except for Man) isn't specifically given the blessing of fertility; but if God would bless aqua creatures and those with wings, why ever would He not bless the terra species too who are just as important? But since they've been reproducing all this time, then I'd have to say there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the assumption that they too were empowered to reproduce.
The Hebrew word for "living" is chay (khah'-ee) which basically indicates existing as life as opposed to existing as non life. For example, the structural elements of Noah's ark existed as non life; while it's passengers existed as life.
(Some people insist that all things are alive. I recommend leaving that belief at the door when crossing the Bible's threshold because scripture doesn't accommodate it; and that kind of thinking only fosters confusion in the minds of those who entertain it.)
Chay makes it first appearance at Gen 1:20 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures; and many times in the Old Testament thereafter; including fifteen times in reference to the Creator; e.g. Jer 10:10, indicating that the creator is a living being as opposed to a totem pole or a mythical fantasy. There is a very large number of instances recorded in the Old Testament where the Creator speaks of Himself as "I am".
Terra critters weren't created ex nihilo; rather, from the very land upon which they live; i.e. God used earthly materials and ingredients already at hand to construct them. Neat-O. Not only are the various plants and animals indigenous to planet Earth; but they are part of it too and blend right back in when they die and decompose.
Beasts of the earth, in this instance, simply refers to wild life as opposed to domesticated life. Dinosaurs would've been in the wild classification.
Cattle refers to mute beasts (a.k.a. dumb animals) --the herd species from which came those that can be domesticated for Man's uses. They can pull plows and wagons, provide tallow for candles and soap, and hide and wool for clothes, meat and dairy for table, carry loads, and transport people from place to place on their backs. (Probably one of the better things that Spain did for Native Americans was make it possible for them to have horses.)
NOTE: Looking a steed on the cheap? Well; according to the May 2017 issue of Smithsonian magazine; there are something like 70,000 wild horses and burros running free on Federal lands causing an unacceptable amount of environmental damage. No doubt the BLM would appreciate your help in reducing those numbers.
Not all herd animals can be tamed. Zebras, for instance, and male elephants are not particularly suited to domestication.
It's no accident that some of the animals are so useful to Man. God made them for the express purpose of serving people. Although they're nephesh, same as Man, that doesn't make them equals with Man. However, although beasts are below the rank of the image and likeness of God, people have no right to be cruel to animals. But Man does have the right, by the creator's fiat, to take advantage of them; and to induct them into slavery for Man's benefit.
No doubt some of us would be happy if a few of the creeping species had not been created, e.g. scorpions, centipedes, cockroaches, tarantulas, fleas, ticks, ants; et al.
_
● Gen 1:22a . . God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and increase,
This is the very first place in the Bible where the Hebrew word for "bless" shows up. It's somewhat ambiguous, but in this case I think it's pretty safe to assume that it means to furnish freely or naturally with some power, quality, or attribute; i.e. provide, endow, and/or empower. In other words: the blessing of fertility was a providential act; and no doubt included microscopic creatures as well as those visible to the naked eye.
Providence is common in the Bible; especially in Genesis.
● Gen 1:22b . . fill the waters in the seas, and let the winged creatures increase on the earth.
Winged creatures have the advantage of flight; which, in my estimation, makes them more fortunate than creatures confined to water. The wingers get a much better world view from above than those below. Flying broadens one's horizons, so to speak, and gives us a bigger picture. Amphibious flyers, e.g. cormorants and grebes, have the best of both environs; they see things from above as well as from below.
Aqua creatures exist in the most unlikely places. When the crew of the bathyscaphe Trieste descended into the 35,761 feet Challenger Deep located in the deepest part of the Mariana Trench in 1960, they didn't really expect to find anything living down there; but to their surprise, they saw a flat fish similar to sole and flounder.
The video camera on board the Kaiko probe spotted a sea cucumber, a scale worm and a shrimp at the bottom.
The Nereus probe spotted a polychaete worm (a multi-legged predator) about an inch long.
● Gen 1:23 . . And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
● Gen 1:24-25 . .Then God said: Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind-- cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind, And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
We've come now to the sixth day when all terra life was created; including humans.
This grouping of creatures (except for Man) isn't specifically given the blessing of fertility; but if God would bless aqua creatures and those with wings, why ever would He not bless the terra species too who are just as important? But since they've been reproducing all this time, then I'd have to say there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the assumption that they too were empowered to reproduce.
The Hebrew word for "living" is chay (khah'-ee) which basically indicates existing as life as opposed to existing as non life. For example, the structural elements of Noah's ark existed as non life; while it's passengers existed as life.
(Some people insist that all things are alive. I recommend leaving that belief at the door when crossing the Bible's threshold because scripture doesn't accommodate it; and that kind of thinking only fosters confusion in the minds of those who entertain it.)
Chay makes it first appearance at Gen 1:20 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures; and many times in the Old Testament thereafter; including fifteen times in reference to the Creator; e.g. Jer 10:10, indicating that the creator is a living being as opposed to a totem pole or a mythical fantasy. There is a very large number of instances recorded in the Old Testament where the Creator speaks of Himself as "I am".
Terra critters weren't created ex nihilo; rather, from the very land upon which they live; i.e. God used earthly materials and ingredients already at hand to construct them. Neat-O. Not only are the various plants and animals indigenous to planet Earth; but they are part of it too and blend right back in when they die and decompose.
Beasts of the earth, in this instance, simply refers to wild life as opposed to domesticated life. Dinosaurs would've been in the wild classification.
Cattle refers to mute beasts (a.k.a. dumb animals) --the herd species from which came those that can be domesticated for Man's uses. They can pull plows and wagons, provide tallow for candles and soap, and hide and wool for clothes, meat and dairy for table, carry loads, and transport people from place to place on their backs. (Probably one of the better things that Spain did for Native Americans was make it possible for them to have horses.)
NOTE: Looking a steed on the cheap? Well; according to the May 2017 issue of Smithsonian magazine; there are something like 70,000 wild horses and burros running free on Federal lands causing an unacceptable amount of environmental damage. No doubt the BLM would appreciate your help in reducing those numbers.
Not all herd animals can be tamed. Zebras, for instance, and male elephants are not particularly suited to domestication.
It's no accident that some of the animals are so useful to Man. God made them for the express purpose of serving people. Although they're nephesh, same as Man, that doesn't make them equals with Man. However, although beasts are below the rank of the image and likeness of God, people have no right to be cruel to animals. But Man does have the right, by the creator's fiat, to take advantage of them; and to induct them into slavery for Man's benefit.
No doubt some of us would be happy if a few of the creeping species had not been created, e.g. scorpions, centipedes, cockroaches, tarantulas, fleas, ticks, ants; et al.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Post #12.
● Gen 1:26a . . And God said: Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness.
The introduction of the plural personal pronouns "us" and "our" into the narrative at this point has given rise to some interesting speculation regarding the identities of the antecedents.
The Hebrew word translated "Man" is 'adam (aw-dawm') which, in this case, simply refers to human life; i.e. humanity. It's actually a specie name rather than a proper name.
Because of the terms "image and likeness" there are some who insist that humanity's creator is some sort of hominid; or at least resembles one. But the terms "image and likeness" aren't synonyms for facsimile, i.e. doppelgänger; so let's let's not make that mistake because according to Christ, humanity's creator isn't physical.
"God is spirit" (John 4:24)
Spirits don't have solid bodies. (Luke 24:36-39)
God instructed Moses' people to avoid making any kind of mannequin, figurine, totem pole, or statue representing God since no one has any true concept of what creation's God actually looks like in person. (Ex 4:10-19, John 1:18, John 5:37)
There exists absolutely nothing in nature physically resembling its creator; except maybe the air in front of our face-- neither Man, nor beast, nor plant, nor bird, nor bug, nor reptile nor anything out in the void (Rom 1:21-23). Pagan concepts that portray creation's God as a human being are purely fantasy. (Rom 1:25)
The apostle Paul once said to the men of Athens, relative to the creator: "We are His offspring." (Acts 17:28-29)
The Greek word translated "offspring" means kin; which Webster's defines as a group of persons of common ancestry. In other words: humans were created to be their creator's relatives; not biologically of course, but legally, i.e. adoption.
As God's kin, humans have a status far and away above the status of every other form of life on Earth.
● Gen 1:26b . . let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
Humanity's sovereignty, power, and control over nature is primarily where we find the exercise of its image and likeness of God; in other words: Man does not answer to nature-- just the opposite --nature answers to Man. (Ps 8:4-8)
The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically: to crumble off.
I saw a pretty interesting bumper sticker some time ago that went like this:
We Are Not Above The Earth;
We Are of the Earth.
Well . . I respect Native America's cultural sentiment underlying that statement; and must admit that I agree with it to a certain extent. But the creator decreed that though Man is of the earth; he is very definitely above it too, and has the God-given authority to subjugate every living thing on the planet including its forests, its grasses, its rivers, its seas, its soil, its rocks, its air, its minerals, its mountains, its valleys, and even its tectonic plates and the earth's very atmosphere itself. According to Heb 2:8, humanity is on track to take control of even more.
_
● Gen 1:26a . . And God said: Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness.
The introduction of the plural personal pronouns "us" and "our" into the narrative at this point has given rise to some interesting speculation regarding the identities of the antecedents.
The Hebrew word translated "Man" is 'adam (aw-dawm') which, in this case, simply refers to human life; i.e. humanity. It's actually a specie name rather than a proper name.
Because of the terms "image and likeness" there are some who insist that humanity's creator is some sort of hominid; or at least resembles one. But the terms "image and likeness" aren't synonyms for facsimile, i.e. doppelgänger; so let's let's not make that mistake because according to Christ, humanity's creator isn't physical.
"God is spirit" (John 4:24)
Spirits don't have solid bodies. (Luke 24:36-39)
God instructed Moses' people to avoid making any kind of mannequin, figurine, totem pole, or statue representing God since no one has any true concept of what creation's God actually looks like in person. (Ex 4:10-19, John 1:18, John 5:37)
There exists absolutely nothing in nature physically resembling its creator; except maybe the air in front of our face-- neither Man, nor beast, nor plant, nor bird, nor bug, nor reptile nor anything out in the void (Rom 1:21-23). Pagan concepts that portray creation's God as a human being are purely fantasy. (Rom 1:25)
The apostle Paul once said to the men of Athens, relative to the creator: "We are His offspring." (Acts 17:28-29)
The Greek word translated "offspring" means kin; which Webster's defines as a group of persons of common ancestry. In other words: humans were created to be their creator's relatives; not biologically of course, but legally, i.e. adoption.
As God's kin, humans have a status far and away above the status of every other form of life on Earth.
● Gen 1:26b . . let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
Humanity's sovereignty, power, and control over nature is primarily where we find the exercise of its image and likeness of God; in other words: Man does not answer to nature-- just the opposite --nature answers to Man. (Ps 8:4-8)
The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically: to crumble off.
I saw a pretty interesting bumper sticker some time ago that went like this:
We Are Not Above The Earth;
We Are of the Earth.
Well . . I respect Native America's cultural sentiment underlying that statement; and must admit that I agree with it to a certain extent. But the creator decreed that though Man is of the earth; he is very definitely above it too, and has the God-given authority to subjugate every living thing on the planet including its forests, its grasses, its rivers, its seas, its soil, its rocks, its air, its minerals, its mountains, its valleys, and even its tectonic plates and the earth's very atmosphere itself. According to Heb 2:8, humanity is on track to take control of even more.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Post #13.
● Gen 1:27 . . So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
It's okay to pity people who refuse to be identified by their gender and prefer to be known as non binary, i.e. as neither male nor female. But there is no just no way on God's green earth that Bible-believing Christians should ever be supportive of the non binary movement because the image and likeness of God finds its completeness in distinct male and female gender identities.
There's a term for people who believe themselves to be someone and/or something other than what and/or who they really are. I think it might be called Dissociative Disorder. There was a time when society confined people with those kinds of conditions to psychiatric facilities for observation and therapy, but nowadays political correctness requires that they be "included". But God-honoring Christian churches dare not accept into their membership someone known to identify themselves as non binary.
"See to it that no one misses the grace of God, and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many." (Heb 12:15)
A bitter root is one belonging to a species unfit for human consumption. When you find noxious vegetation sprouting in your garden, you've got to get out there with a hoe and dig that stuff up before it spreads out of control.
NOTE: The pronoun "them" in Gen 1:27 is a bit ambiguous. It can refer to the first couple; but it can just as easily refer to the human species in total. In other words: Gen 1:26-27 speaks of all of us; and by extension, so does Gen 2:16-17 because according to Acts 17:26, that's how it worked out.
Some women would be offended by association with a male pronoun but it's a biblical designation nonetheless. Regardless of one's natural gender, all human beings are of the 'adam species and can be legitimately referred to as a him or as a he because all of us, regardless of gender, are extensions of a solo specimen; including Eve because she was made with human material taken from a man's body. Bible students really have to watch for that because when they run across the word "man" and/or "men" in the Bible, it doesn't always indicate males only.
_
● Gen 1:27 . . So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
It's okay to pity people who refuse to be identified by their gender and prefer to be known as non binary, i.e. as neither male nor female. But there is no just no way on God's green earth that Bible-believing Christians should ever be supportive of the non binary movement because the image and likeness of God finds its completeness in distinct male and female gender identities.
There's a term for people who believe themselves to be someone and/or something other than what and/or who they really are. I think it might be called Dissociative Disorder. There was a time when society confined people with those kinds of conditions to psychiatric facilities for observation and therapy, but nowadays political correctness requires that they be "included". But God-honoring Christian churches dare not accept into their membership someone known to identify themselves as non binary.
"See to it that no one misses the grace of God, and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many." (Heb 12:15)
A bitter root is one belonging to a species unfit for human consumption. When you find noxious vegetation sprouting in your garden, you've got to get out there with a hoe and dig that stuff up before it spreads out of control.
NOTE: The pronoun "them" in Gen 1:27 is a bit ambiguous. It can refer to the first couple; but it can just as easily refer to the human species in total. In other words: Gen 1:26-27 speaks of all of us; and by extension, so does Gen 2:16-17 because according to Acts 17:26, that's how it worked out.
Some women would be offended by association with a male pronoun but it's a biblical designation nonetheless. Regardless of one's natural gender, all human beings are of the 'adam species and can be legitimately referred to as a him or as a he because all of us, regardless of gender, are extensions of a solo specimen; including Eve because she was made with human material taken from a man's body. Bible students really have to watch for that because when they run across the word "man" and/or "men" in the Bible, it doesn't always indicate males only.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Post #14.
● Gen 1:28a . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and increase,
Some interpret that verse to be an edict requiring married people to have children; and that they have no business getting married for any other reason. But the wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a law.
It's always best to regard blessings as benefits, approvals, and/or empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise. Some blessings have to be merited (e.g. Deut 28:1-13) but not this one. It was neither requested nor was it earned-- it was freely given without any strings attached and nothing asked in return.
NOTE: According to Gen 2:18-24, marriage is primarily for the purpose of companionship rather than procreation.
Without the empowerment of fertility, Man would be just as sterile as a soup spoon. So it was a very essential blessing. And a very interesting blessing it is because the blessing of fertility empowers living things to pass their own kind of life on to a next generation. God quit creating after six days. So unless creatures were enabled to reproduce, all would soon die out and become quite extinct in a very short time.
Libido therefore, is an essential element of the blessing of fertility. God intended for His creatures to reproduce; and to ensure that they did, He wired them all with libido rather than instilling within them a sense of duty. It isn't necessary to cajole creatures to mate; no, they will do so on their own, propelled by built-in sensual proclivities and predilections.
● Gen 1:28b . . fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.
The Hebrew word for "master" is from kabash (kaw-bash') which emphasizes coercion and force; and means: to disregard; to conquer, and to violate.
The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down; to subjugate.
kabash and radah are very strong language. Those two words combined leave no room for doubt regarding Man's supremacy in the sphere of things. God blessed humanity with the authority to dominate and to violate planet Earth at will, and exploit it to his own advantage. Man answers to no plant nor animal on this entire globe. The whole Earth is within the scope of humanity's purview. If aliens ever come here unannounced, they can be arrested for trespassing, and/or charged for parking because this earth is 'adam's domain.
But the interesting thing is; the 'adam specie is also the monarch of the whole cosmos; not just the dinky little third rock from the Sun where he hangs his hat.
"For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him." (Heb 2:6-8)
● Gen 1:29-30 . . God said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food. And to all the animals on land, to all the winged creatures of the sky, and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of life, I give all the green plants for food. And it was so.
Prior to the Flood; humans, beasts, creepy crawlies, and winged creatures too-- even the lions and tigers and hawks and eagles and pythons, vultures and crocodiles --subsisted on vegetation. Precisely what kind of diet God intended for aqua life isn't stated.
That raises an interesting question: why do carnivores have teeth so uniquely suited for killing other creatures and ripping their flesh? Well, I think it's clear they didn't use their teeth like that at first.
For example; buck-toothed beavers have incisors that could take your hand off but they don't use them for that purpose. Male musk deer have saber-like upper canine teeth and their diet is moss and grass and sometimes twigs and lichen. And everybody knows about Wally the walrus' big ol' tusks; which he doesn't use to kill his food, but rather, to plow up the sea bottom in search of his favorite mollusks.
Though the fossilized remains of a therapsid, named Tiarajudens eccentricus, exhibits saber tusks, it is believed to have efficiently chewed leaves and stems with interlocking incisors and cow-like molars.
In the future kingdom of God, carnivores won't be carnivorous any more, and nothing in the animal kingdom will any longer pose a danger to either Man or to each other. (Isa 11:6-9)
_
● Gen 1:28a . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and increase,
Some interpret that verse to be an edict requiring married people to have children; and that they have no business getting married for any other reason. But the wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a law.
It's always best to regard blessings as benefits, approvals, and/or empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise. Some blessings have to be merited (e.g. Deut 28:1-13) but not this one. It was neither requested nor was it earned-- it was freely given without any strings attached and nothing asked in return.
NOTE: According to Gen 2:18-24, marriage is primarily for the purpose of companionship rather than procreation.
Without the empowerment of fertility, Man would be just as sterile as a soup spoon. So it was a very essential blessing. And a very interesting blessing it is because the blessing of fertility empowers living things to pass their own kind of life on to a next generation. God quit creating after six days. So unless creatures were enabled to reproduce, all would soon die out and become quite extinct in a very short time.
Libido therefore, is an essential element of the blessing of fertility. God intended for His creatures to reproduce; and to ensure that they did, He wired them all with libido rather than instilling within them a sense of duty. It isn't necessary to cajole creatures to mate; no, they will do so on their own, propelled by built-in sensual proclivities and predilections.
● Gen 1:28b . . fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.
The Hebrew word for "master" is from kabash (kaw-bash') which emphasizes coercion and force; and means: to disregard; to conquer, and to violate.
The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down; to subjugate.
kabash and radah are very strong language. Those two words combined leave no room for doubt regarding Man's supremacy in the sphere of things. God blessed humanity with the authority to dominate and to violate planet Earth at will, and exploit it to his own advantage. Man answers to no plant nor animal on this entire globe. The whole Earth is within the scope of humanity's purview. If aliens ever come here unannounced, they can be arrested for trespassing, and/or charged for parking because this earth is 'adam's domain.
But the interesting thing is; the 'adam specie is also the monarch of the whole cosmos; not just the dinky little third rock from the Sun where he hangs his hat.
"For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him." (Heb 2:6-8)
● Gen 1:29-30 . . God said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food. And to all the animals on land, to all the winged creatures of the sky, and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of life, I give all the green plants for food. And it was so.
Prior to the Flood; humans, beasts, creepy crawlies, and winged creatures too-- even the lions and tigers and hawks and eagles and pythons, vultures and crocodiles --subsisted on vegetation. Precisely what kind of diet God intended for aqua life isn't stated.
That raises an interesting question: why do carnivores have teeth so uniquely suited for killing other creatures and ripping their flesh? Well, I think it's clear they didn't use their teeth like that at first.
For example; buck-toothed beavers have incisors that could take your hand off but they don't use them for that purpose. Male musk deer have saber-like upper canine teeth and their diet is moss and grass and sometimes twigs and lichen. And everybody knows about Wally the walrus' big ol' tusks; which he doesn't use to kill his food, but rather, to plow up the sea bottom in search of his favorite mollusks.
Though the fossilized remains of a therapsid, named Tiarajudens eccentricus, exhibits saber tusks, it is believed to have efficiently chewed leaves and stems with interlocking incisors and cow-like molars.
In the future kingdom of God, carnivores won't be carnivorous any more, and nothing in the animal kingdom will any longer pose a danger to either Man or to each other. (Isa 11:6-9)
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Post #15.
● Gen 1:31 . . And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Some feel that the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --was created incomplete, not quite up to snuff: that it was to Man that God entrusted the task of putting on the finishing touches. But that is very doubtful. Why ever would God, after an overall inspection, conclude His work by pronouncing it all good-- and not just good, but "very" good. Why would He say the creation was very good if in truth it was incomplete?
In reality, humans haven't improved the planet at all. They've actually ravaged Earth and left it with terrible damage-- leveled mountains, dried up rivers, emptied lakes, drained marshes, indiscriminately obliterated habitat, wiped out animals to extinction, scraped away perfectly good cropland and replaced it with warehouses and factories and malls and residential communities.
A prime example of this kind of destruction is INTEL's massive Ronler Acres Campus located on what was once agricultural land in Hillsboro Oregon. Thousands of cubic yards of perfectly good topsoil was scraped away during construction of the facility. What did they do with it? Was it transferred elsewhere in order to use it for farming? No, instead INTEL used it to build a massive privacy berm all around the facility where the soil will never again grow food. NIKE did the very same thing with the topsoil scraped away during construction of its facility in Beaverton.
Denuded watersheds have caused unnecessary erosion and stream sedimentation. Man dams rivers, thus disrupting ancient fish migrations. He's over-exploited natural resources, filled the atmosphere with toxins and greenhouse gas emissions, poisoned aquifers, contaminated soil and waterways with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides; littered the oceans with billions of pounds of plastic, made possible super germs, and seriously upset the balance of nature.
It seems that most everything 'adam touches, he ruins; and as if the Earth isn't enough, he's moved out into space where in the years since Russia launched its first Sputnik into low Earth orbit on Oct 04, 1957, humans have littered the sky around their planet with 13,000 catalogued pieces of space junk, which is only a fraction of the more than 600,000 objects circling the globe larger than one centimeter (a centimeter is a little over 3/8ths of an inch). Humans have even discarded 374,782 pounds of litter on the Moon, including the golf balls that astronaut Alan Shepherd left behind.
So; when God looked over His work and "found" that it was very good, does that mean He was surprised it came out like it did? (chuckle) No. It would be a strange craftsman indeed who couldn't look over their work with satisfaction in a job well done.
I believe the universe's architect knew precisely what He was doing, and where He was going with His work; and was highly pleased that it came out exactly as planned. I seriously doubt that God was feeling His way along like experimenters in medicine and chemistry. Nobody could build a fully functioning cosmos and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy unless they knew what they were doing from beginning to end.
_
● Gen 1:31 . . And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Some feel that the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --was created incomplete, not quite up to snuff: that it was to Man that God entrusted the task of putting on the finishing touches. But that is very doubtful. Why ever would God, after an overall inspection, conclude His work by pronouncing it all good-- and not just good, but "very" good. Why would He say the creation was very good if in truth it was incomplete?
In reality, humans haven't improved the planet at all. They've actually ravaged Earth and left it with terrible damage-- leveled mountains, dried up rivers, emptied lakes, drained marshes, indiscriminately obliterated habitat, wiped out animals to extinction, scraped away perfectly good cropland and replaced it with warehouses and factories and malls and residential communities.
A prime example of this kind of destruction is INTEL's massive Ronler Acres Campus located on what was once agricultural land in Hillsboro Oregon. Thousands of cubic yards of perfectly good topsoil was scraped away during construction of the facility. What did they do with it? Was it transferred elsewhere in order to use it for farming? No, instead INTEL used it to build a massive privacy berm all around the facility where the soil will never again grow food. NIKE did the very same thing with the topsoil scraped away during construction of its facility in Beaverton.
Denuded watersheds have caused unnecessary erosion and stream sedimentation. Man dams rivers, thus disrupting ancient fish migrations. He's over-exploited natural resources, filled the atmosphere with toxins and greenhouse gas emissions, poisoned aquifers, contaminated soil and waterways with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides; littered the oceans with billions of pounds of plastic, made possible super germs, and seriously upset the balance of nature.
It seems that most everything 'adam touches, he ruins; and as if the Earth isn't enough, he's moved out into space where in the years since Russia launched its first Sputnik into low Earth orbit on Oct 04, 1957, humans have littered the sky around their planet with 13,000 catalogued pieces of space junk, which is only a fraction of the more than 600,000 objects circling the globe larger than one centimeter (a centimeter is a little over 3/8ths of an inch). Humans have even discarded 374,782 pounds of litter on the Moon, including the golf balls that astronaut Alan Shepherd left behind.
So; when God looked over His work and "found" that it was very good, does that mean He was surprised it came out like it did? (chuckle) No. It would be a strange craftsman indeed who couldn't look over their work with satisfaction in a job well done.
I believe the universe's architect knew precisely what He was doing, and where He was going with His work; and was highly pleased that it came out exactly as planned. I seriously doubt that God was feeling His way along like experimenters in medicine and chemistry. Nobody could build a fully functioning cosmos and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy unless they knew what they were doing from beginning to end.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Post #16.
● Gen 2:1-2 . .The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their array. On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He had done.
The seventh day is unique. The other six days were bounded by an evening and a morning. The seventh day is not bounded; which means it has not yet ended; viz: God has been on a creation sabbatical ever since, and has created nothing new for the current cosmos since the end of day six; i.e. the Earth that I live on today is the very same planet that God created in the beginning.
Granted the Earth's topography has been altered quite a bit since Noah's day, for example there is no longer any river systems connecting the Tigris and Euphrates with Ethiopia. However, I consider those alterations as little more than remodeling; so to speak. In other words; though a home undergoes remodeling; it's the same home though it may have a different look.
Though it's stated in that passage that the creator finished His work and ceased creating things for the current cosmos; yet people are still under the impression that He creates new souls every time a baby is conceived in its mommy's womb. But the seventh day isn't bounded by an evening and a morning; ergo: it has not yet ended; which means God hasn't gone back to creating things for the current cosmos.
Adam's progeny-- you and I and all the others --are not direct creations; no; we're reproductions; viz: there's no need for mankind's creator to take a hand in producing baby souls, or any other kinds of souls for that matter because He created all life on earth as sustainable, transferable kinds of life. The blessing of fertility is a remarkable blessing because it enables living things to reproduce themselves sans divine micro management.
In the future; after the current cosmos is utterly obliterated, God will once again roll up His sleeves, and go back to work creating things.
"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." (Isa 65:17)
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up . . . we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2Pet 3:10-13)
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." (Rev 21:1)
● Gen 2:3 . . And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He had done.
The phrase "declared it holy" is from the word qadash (kaw-dash') which means: to be clean, or to make, pronounce, or observe as clean; viz: sanitize. Pronouncing something clean, or observing something as clean and/or conferring upon something the status of clean and sanitized, doesn't mean it's intrinsically clean. It's just regarded as fully dedicated to God's purposes; which is exactly what the word "sanctified" implies. The Hebrew word for "sanctify" is also qadash: the very same word as for "declared it holy".
● Gen 2:4 . .These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven,
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm here refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour calendar day; it justifies categorizing each of the six days of creation as epochs of indeterminate length.
Gen 2:4 is the very first time in Scripture where the name Yhvh appears. The correct pronunciation is currently unknown. Sometimes it's pronounced Yehovah, sometimes Jehovah, and sometimes Yahweh.
The appellation is so sacred among pious Jews that they make every effort to avoid speaking it except under very special circumstances. In some of their writings, in order to avoid using the four sacred letters comprising the tetragrammaton, they write instead "The Name" and/or sometimes "Hashem". So Ex 20:3 could be written: "I, The Name, am your god" or "I, Hashem, am your god."
NOTE: According to Phil 2:9-11, God bestowed upon Jesus Christ the name that is above every other name that can be named; viz: Jesus Christ has the God-given right to be known as Yhvh. God also promoted His son to the highest of all positions; viz: Jesus Christ now shares the very throne of God where he's known as God, rules as God, and speaks as God; which has been pretty much his ultimate destiny all along (Ps 2:1-12, Ps 45:1-7, Ps 110:1). That's all I dare say about that for now lest I derail our journey thru Genesis.
FYI: Yhvh is commonly referred to with masculine pronouns because He's a king; and kings are always males rather than females; e.g. Isa 44:6.
_
● Gen 2:1-2 . .The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their array. On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He had done.
The seventh day is unique. The other six days were bounded by an evening and a morning. The seventh day is not bounded; which means it has not yet ended; viz: God has been on a creation sabbatical ever since, and has created nothing new for the current cosmos since the end of day six; i.e. the Earth that I live on today is the very same planet that God created in the beginning.
Granted the Earth's topography has been altered quite a bit since Noah's day, for example there is no longer any river systems connecting the Tigris and Euphrates with Ethiopia. However, I consider those alterations as little more than remodeling; so to speak. In other words; though a home undergoes remodeling; it's the same home though it may have a different look.
Though it's stated in that passage that the creator finished His work and ceased creating things for the current cosmos; yet people are still under the impression that He creates new souls every time a baby is conceived in its mommy's womb. But the seventh day isn't bounded by an evening and a morning; ergo: it has not yet ended; which means God hasn't gone back to creating things for the current cosmos.
Adam's progeny-- you and I and all the others --are not direct creations; no; we're reproductions; viz: there's no need for mankind's creator to take a hand in producing baby souls, or any other kinds of souls for that matter because He created all life on earth as sustainable, transferable kinds of life. The blessing of fertility is a remarkable blessing because it enables living things to reproduce themselves sans divine micro management.
In the future; after the current cosmos is utterly obliterated, God will once again roll up His sleeves, and go back to work creating things.
"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." (Isa 65:17)
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up . . . we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2Pet 3:10-13)
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." (Rev 21:1)
● Gen 2:3 . . And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He had done.
The phrase "declared it holy" is from the word qadash (kaw-dash') which means: to be clean, or to make, pronounce, or observe as clean; viz: sanitize. Pronouncing something clean, or observing something as clean and/or conferring upon something the status of clean and sanitized, doesn't mean it's intrinsically clean. It's just regarded as fully dedicated to God's purposes; which is exactly what the word "sanctified" implies. The Hebrew word for "sanctify" is also qadash: the very same word as for "declared it holy".
● Gen 2:4 . .These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven,
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm here refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour calendar day; it justifies categorizing each of the six days of creation as epochs of indeterminate length.
Gen 2:4 is the very first time in Scripture where the name Yhvh appears. The correct pronunciation is currently unknown. Sometimes it's pronounced Yehovah, sometimes Jehovah, and sometimes Yahweh.
The appellation is so sacred among pious Jews that they make every effort to avoid speaking it except under very special circumstances. In some of their writings, in order to avoid using the four sacred letters comprising the tetragrammaton, they write instead "The Name" and/or sometimes "Hashem". So Ex 20:3 could be written: "I, The Name, am your god" or "I, Hashem, am your god."
NOTE: According to Phil 2:9-11, God bestowed upon Jesus Christ the name that is above every other name that can be named; viz: Jesus Christ has the God-given right to be known as Yhvh. God also promoted His son to the highest of all positions; viz: Jesus Christ now shares the very throne of God where he's known as God, rules as God, and speaks as God; which has been pretty much his ultimate destiny all along (Ps 2:1-12, Ps 45:1-7, Ps 110:1). That's all I dare say about that for now lest I derail our journey thru Genesis.
FYI: Yhvh is commonly referred to with masculine pronouns because He's a king; and kings are always males rather than females; e.g. Isa 44:6.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Post #17.
● Gen 2:5 . . and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Bible students have to exercise caution when reading that section in order to avoid making the mistake of concluding that human life was created prior to vegetation; when we know for a fact from the day-by-day account in the first chapter that humans were the very last to be put on earth. Gen 2:4-7 is only saying that when God created vegetation on day three, it wasn't permitted to flourish right away.
● Gen 2:6 . . a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
The Hebrew word for "mist" is 'ed (ade). It's a very rare word and appears only one more time in the whole Bible at at Job 36:27 where it's apparently speaking of the process of evaporation; which typically produces water in the form of fog, dew, and humidity; which are very gentle ways to irrigate young plants and/or bare ground.
Had God brought rain prior to flourishing ground cover, the land would have eroded something awful and millions of cubic yards of perfectly good dirt would have washed into creeks, and streams, and rivers to be carried out to sea where it would be lost in perpetuity. Water in the form of dew, fog, and/or humidity is a whole lot more gentle on bare ground than falling water. (California's coastal redwoods obtain a large percentage of their moisture from fog.)
_
● Gen 2:5 . . and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Bible students have to exercise caution when reading that section in order to avoid making the mistake of concluding that human life was created prior to vegetation; when we know for a fact from the day-by-day account in the first chapter that humans were the very last to be put on earth. Gen 2:4-7 is only saying that when God created vegetation on day three, it wasn't permitted to flourish right away.
● Gen 2:6 . . a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
The Hebrew word for "mist" is 'ed (ade). It's a very rare word and appears only one more time in the whole Bible at at Job 36:27 where it's apparently speaking of the process of evaporation; which typically produces water in the form of fog, dew, and humidity; which are very gentle ways to irrigate young plants and/or bare ground.
Had God brought rain prior to flourishing ground cover, the land would have eroded something awful and millions of cubic yards of perfectly good dirt would have washed into creeks, and streams, and rivers to be carried out to sea where it would be lost in perpetuity. Water in the form of dew, fog, and/or humidity is a whole lot more gentle on bare ground than falling water. (California's coastal redwoods obtain a large percentage of their moisture from fog.)
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Post #18.
● Gen 2:7a . . And the Lord God formed a man's body
Mankind's creator didn't give birth to man like women give birth to children or like baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't God's biological progeny-- humans are God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch using mostly sand for their base material.
● Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground
The Hebrew word for "dust" is a bit ambiguous. It essentially refers to powder, but can also be translated clay, earth, mud, mortar, ashes, and/or rubbish; viz: the human body wasn't spoken into existence ex nihilo; God constructed it from already-existing physical matter.
NOTE: Sooner or later most people eventually run afoul of the passage below so I think it best if we include in our discussion of the creation story.
"I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being incomplete; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." (Ps 139:14-16)
The Hebrew word for "substance" is `otsem (o'-tsem). It appears in only three places in the entire Old Testament: Ps 139:15, Deut 8:17, and Job 30:21.
There lacks a consensus on the word's precise meaning. Based upon what I found in the Strong's Concordance, `otsem apparently refers to the constitution of something.
The Hebrew word for "curiously wrought" is raqam (raw-kam') which has to do with skilled needlework, i.e. embroidering, knitting, etc, which produce multicolored handmade articles rather than made by machines; suggesting that the human body-- all of its intricacies --was crafted by the hand of God.
The Hebrew words for "lowest parts of the earth" always, and without exception, refer to the netherworld; viz: underground. (e.g. Ps 63:9, Isa 44:23, Ezek 26:20, Ezek 31:14, Ezek 31:16, Ezek 31:18, Ezek 32:18, and Ezek 32:24)
Some folk prefer to apply Ps 139:15 to a woman's womb; but I think it best, and far more sensible, to interpret it as relating to the author's creation rather than his conception. If so, then we probably should review Adam's beginning in the book of Genesis because everyone, from first to last, is his biological progeny; Eve too because she was made from human material taken from Adam's body.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7)
The Hebrew word for "ground" is 'adamah (ad-aw-maw') which refers to soil.
Well then, from whence came soil?
Some of soil's minerals are derived from the disintegration of meteors that burn up in the atmosphere-- commonly referred to as star dust. But that only accounts for a small percentage. The bulk of soil's parent materials come from the disintegration of the Earth's own rocks.
So: from whence came the Earth's rocks?
All the Earth's rocks are formed underground and end up on or near the surface via natural processes like volcanism, continental plate subduction, mighty earthquakes, and erosion, etc.
In a nutshell: The author of Ps 139:14-16 believed that God saw his bodily constituents while they were not yet even soil but were still underground, deep in the Earth where they were being formed into rock which would later be broken down to make soil. Well, if so, then God saw all the rest of us in that condition too.
_
● Gen 2:7a . . And the Lord God formed a man's body
Mankind's creator didn't give birth to man like women give birth to children or like baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't God's biological progeny-- humans are God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch using mostly sand for their base material.
● Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground
The Hebrew word for "dust" is a bit ambiguous. It essentially refers to powder, but can also be translated clay, earth, mud, mortar, ashes, and/or rubbish; viz: the human body wasn't spoken into existence ex nihilo; God constructed it from already-existing physical matter.
NOTE: Sooner or later most people eventually run afoul of the passage below so I think it best if we include in our discussion of the creation story.
"I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being incomplete; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." (Ps 139:14-16)
The Hebrew word for "substance" is `otsem (o'-tsem). It appears in only three places in the entire Old Testament: Ps 139:15, Deut 8:17, and Job 30:21.
There lacks a consensus on the word's precise meaning. Based upon what I found in the Strong's Concordance, `otsem apparently refers to the constitution of something.
The Hebrew word for "curiously wrought" is raqam (raw-kam') which has to do with skilled needlework, i.e. embroidering, knitting, etc, which produce multicolored handmade articles rather than made by machines; suggesting that the human body-- all of its intricacies --was crafted by the hand of God.
The Hebrew words for "lowest parts of the earth" always, and without exception, refer to the netherworld; viz: underground. (e.g. Ps 63:9, Isa 44:23, Ezek 26:20, Ezek 31:14, Ezek 31:16, Ezek 31:18, Ezek 32:18, and Ezek 32:24)
Some folk prefer to apply Ps 139:15 to a woman's womb; but I think it best, and far more sensible, to interpret it as relating to the author's creation rather than his conception. If so, then we probably should review Adam's beginning in the book of Genesis because everyone, from first to last, is his biological progeny; Eve too because she was made from human material taken from Adam's body.
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7)
The Hebrew word for "ground" is 'adamah (ad-aw-maw') which refers to soil.
Well then, from whence came soil?
Some of soil's minerals are derived from the disintegration of meteors that burn up in the atmosphere-- commonly referred to as star dust. But that only accounts for a small percentage. The bulk of soil's parent materials come from the disintegration of the Earth's own rocks.
So: from whence came the Earth's rocks?
All the Earth's rocks are formed underground and end up on or near the surface via natural processes like volcanism, continental plate subduction, mighty earthquakes, and erosion, etc.
In a nutshell: The author of Ps 139:14-16 believed that God saw his bodily constituents while they were not yet even soil but were still underground, deep in the Earth where they were being formed into rock which would later be broken down to make soil. Well, if so, then God saw all the rest of us in that condition too.
_
Last edited by WebersHome on Sat Oct 24, 2020 11:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Post #19.
● Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life,
The transition from soil to soul is made possible by the mysterious force called the breath of life. If that spoke of atmospheric gases, then it would be possible to revive a corpse with artificial respiration; so we have to conclude that the breath of life is an energy vastly more powerful than anything found in nature.
The word "life" is commonly employed to speak of all living things. But why are some forms of life more sentient than others? And how is it that all humans are constructed basically the very same way yet each has a sense of individuality?
There is no real individuality in products manufactured on an assembly line. They're all cookie-cutter duplicates and they can all be operated and maintained by the very same set of instructions.
But people are not like that. We're not cookie-cutter duplicates manufactured on an assembly line. We're all custom-made specimens with a mind of our own and a will of our own. In other words: human life isn't mechanical, rather, it's intelligent, thoughtful, and introspective. And each one is best reckoned with on an individual basis rather than the oneness of a Borg hive collective. All this, and more, from the breath of life.
The breath of life isn't unique to humans. Every creature aboard the ark with Noah was alive due to the breath of life, and every creature that drowned in the Flood was alive due to the breath of life. (Gen 7:12-23)
● Gen 2:7d . . and man became a living soul.
The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh) which isn't unique to human beings. Its first appearance is at Gen 1:20-21 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures; again at Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy crawlies, and wild beasts; and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature; and yet again at Gen 9:10 to classify every living thing aboard Noah's ark.
Soul is somewhat ambiguous. It can be said that creatures are souls and also that they have souls. But here in the beginning, nephesh simply refers to consciousness, individuality, and self awareness.
NOTE: According to Matt 10:28, the body and the soul are perishable. However; though the body is perishable by any means, the soul is perishable only by divine means; i.e. the deaths of body and soul aren't necessarily simultaneous, viz: the soul lives on until such a time as God decides to give it either a thumb up or a thumb down.
_
● Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life,
The transition from soil to soul is made possible by the mysterious force called the breath of life. If that spoke of atmospheric gases, then it would be possible to revive a corpse with artificial respiration; so we have to conclude that the breath of life is an energy vastly more powerful than anything found in nature.
The word "life" is commonly employed to speak of all living things. But why are some forms of life more sentient than others? And how is it that all humans are constructed basically the very same way yet each has a sense of individuality?
There is no real individuality in products manufactured on an assembly line. They're all cookie-cutter duplicates and they can all be operated and maintained by the very same set of instructions.
But people are not like that. We're not cookie-cutter duplicates manufactured on an assembly line. We're all custom-made specimens with a mind of our own and a will of our own. In other words: human life isn't mechanical, rather, it's intelligent, thoughtful, and introspective. And each one is best reckoned with on an individual basis rather than the oneness of a Borg hive collective. All this, and more, from the breath of life.
The breath of life isn't unique to humans. Every creature aboard the ark with Noah was alive due to the breath of life, and every creature that drowned in the Flood was alive due to the breath of life. (Gen 7:12-23)
● Gen 2:7d . . and man became a living soul.
The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh) which isn't unique to human beings. Its first appearance is at Gen 1:20-21 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures; again at Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy crawlies, and wild beasts; and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature; and yet again at Gen 9:10 to classify every living thing aboard Noah's ark.
Soul is somewhat ambiguous. It can be said that creatures are souls and also that they have souls. But here in the beginning, nephesh simply refers to consciousness, individuality, and self awareness.
NOTE: According to Matt 10:28, the body and the soul are perishable. However; though the body is perishable by any means, the soul is perishable only by divine means; i.e. the deaths of body and soul aren't necessarily simultaneous, viz: the soul lives on until such a time as God decides to give it either a thumb up or a thumb down.
_
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Genesis For The Mildly Curious
Post #20.
● Gen 2:8a . .The Lord God planted a garden in Eden,
The Hebrew word for "garden" is from gan (gan) which means a garden as fenced (or possibly just a tract with definite boundaries). If walled, I assume to protect it from foraging animals; which makes sense seeing as how the garden would be Adam's primary food source. I'm guessing it was very likely a full-blown farm complete with grains, vegetables, and orchards; and meant for husbandry.
● Gen 2:8b . . in the east
"east" in that verse was an east that the author(s) of Genesis understood. Out west here in Oregon, we consider east to be New York and Chicago; while the world considers the Orient to be east. For the purposes of modern navigation, everything towards sunrise from the meridian of Greenwich England around the world to Samoa is East longitude, and everything towards sunset around the world to Samoa is West longitude.
So if you were standing in Mexico, then Greenwich would be to the east; but if you were standing in Iran, then Greenwich would be to the west. It's all a matter of perspective.
Just exactly where "the east" was in Adam's day is hard to tell. But the garden itself is not to be confused with Eden. The garden was located "in" Eden; an ancient pre-Flood unspecified geographic region. Some people think Eden was somewhere in Africa but that's just a shot in the dark.
The word "Eden" is from 'eden (ay'-den) and/or 'ednah (ed-naw') and means: pleasure, and delight. So Adam's farm was in a very nice location and we could, if we had a mind to, name his spread Happy Valley or Pleasant Acres.
● Gen 2:8c-9a . . and placed there the man whom He had formed. And from the ground Yhvh God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food,
The exact site where God did the work of creating Man is unknown but there's no reason to doubt he wasn't created right there in his intended home. And I think we can safely assume the garden was already viable and productive when Man arrived. God didn't just throw him in the water to sink or swim. He gave the man a suitable habitat right from the get go. Adam wasn't a hunter-gatherer like some sort of rootless nomad; no, he had a place to settle down and call home.
Man came into being by the designs of a Superior Intelligence who looked out for the unique little creature made in His own image right from the first, and got him off to a good start; which was fortunate because at that point in time, humans were an endangered species seeing as how there was only one breeding pair in existence.
● Gen 2:9b . . with the tree of life in the middle of the garden,
The tree of life doesn't give life; but rather, according to Gen 3:22 has something in it that sustains immortality. It's also a good source for natural remedies (Rev 22:2). Exactly how the chemistry of any plant could be so rich in nourishment as to stop the human body from getting old and falling apart is currently unknown.
A very active field of modern scientific research in our own time is gerontology-- the study of the phenomena of the aging process. As yet, gerontologists have no significant understanding of the aging process, and therefore no clue as to what treatments, or nutrients might be employed to stop it.
● Gen 2:9c . . and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
The Hebrew word for "good" in 2:9 is from towb (tobe). It's an ambiguous word and isn't restricted to morals, ethics, or scruples. Even a tasty meal or an entertaining movie can be towb.
The word for "bad" is from ra' (rah) It's another ambiguous word; and includes anything that's bad for us like poison ivy, playing with matches, E.coli 0157-H7, toxic chemicals, salmonella, eating without washing your hands, bungi jumping, investing in penny stocks, walking on train tracks, pimples, a sore throat, and going to bed without brushing your teeth.
From the gist of upcoming verses, it's readily apparent that the knowledge of good and bad implies an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Though Man was created intelligent; he was basically uneducated. A sense of right and wrong wasn't programmed into his intuition. He was supposed to learn right and wrong via Divine tutelage; not by trial and error nor by self initiative-- and certainly not by doing something patently foolish like eating from a tree known to be unsuitable for human consumption.
_
● Gen 2:8a . .The Lord God planted a garden in Eden,
The Hebrew word for "garden" is from gan (gan) which means a garden as fenced (or possibly just a tract with definite boundaries). If walled, I assume to protect it from foraging animals; which makes sense seeing as how the garden would be Adam's primary food source. I'm guessing it was very likely a full-blown farm complete with grains, vegetables, and orchards; and meant for husbandry.
● Gen 2:8b . . in the east
"east" in that verse was an east that the author(s) of Genesis understood. Out west here in Oregon, we consider east to be New York and Chicago; while the world considers the Orient to be east. For the purposes of modern navigation, everything towards sunrise from the meridian of Greenwich England around the world to Samoa is East longitude, and everything towards sunset around the world to Samoa is West longitude.
So if you were standing in Mexico, then Greenwich would be to the east; but if you were standing in Iran, then Greenwich would be to the west. It's all a matter of perspective.
Just exactly where "the east" was in Adam's day is hard to tell. But the garden itself is not to be confused with Eden. The garden was located "in" Eden; an ancient pre-Flood unspecified geographic region. Some people think Eden was somewhere in Africa but that's just a shot in the dark.
The word "Eden" is from 'eden (ay'-den) and/or 'ednah (ed-naw') and means: pleasure, and delight. So Adam's farm was in a very nice location and we could, if we had a mind to, name his spread Happy Valley or Pleasant Acres.
● Gen 2:8c-9a . . and placed there the man whom He had formed. And from the ground Yhvh God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food,
The exact site where God did the work of creating Man is unknown but there's no reason to doubt he wasn't created right there in his intended home. And I think we can safely assume the garden was already viable and productive when Man arrived. God didn't just throw him in the water to sink or swim. He gave the man a suitable habitat right from the get go. Adam wasn't a hunter-gatherer like some sort of rootless nomad; no, he had a place to settle down and call home.
Man came into being by the designs of a Superior Intelligence who looked out for the unique little creature made in His own image right from the first, and got him off to a good start; which was fortunate because at that point in time, humans were an endangered species seeing as how there was only one breeding pair in existence.
● Gen 2:9b . . with the tree of life in the middle of the garden,
The tree of life doesn't give life; but rather, according to Gen 3:22 has something in it that sustains immortality. It's also a good source for natural remedies (Rev 22:2). Exactly how the chemistry of any plant could be so rich in nourishment as to stop the human body from getting old and falling apart is currently unknown.
A very active field of modern scientific research in our own time is gerontology-- the study of the phenomena of the aging process. As yet, gerontologists have no significant understanding of the aging process, and therefore no clue as to what treatments, or nutrients might be employed to stop it.
● Gen 2:9c . . and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
The Hebrew word for "good" in 2:9 is from towb (tobe). It's an ambiguous word and isn't restricted to morals, ethics, or scruples. Even a tasty meal or an entertaining movie can be towb.
The word for "bad" is from ra' (rah) It's another ambiguous word; and includes anything that's bad for us like poison ivy, playing with matches, E.coli 0157-H7, toxic chemicals, salmonella, eating without washing your hands, bungi jumping, investing in penny stocks, walking on train tracks, pimples, a sore throat, and going to bed without brushing your teeth.
From the gist of upcoming verses, it's readily apparent that the knowledge of good and bad implies an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Though Man was created intelligent; he was basically uneducated. A sense of right and wrong wasn't programmed into his intuition. He was supposed to learn right and wrong via Divine tutelage; not by trial and error nor by self initiative-- and certainly not by doing something patently foolish like eating from a tree known to be unsuitable for human consumption.
_
