Genesis By The Slice
- Thread starter WebersHome
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Gen 1:11-14b
-
†. Gen 1:11a . . And God said: Let the earth sprout vegetation
Before God could set out plantings; He first had to create soil for them to
grow in; which is only barely alluded to in Genesis' reference to dry land
making its appearance: and this is where young-earth theories run into
trouble because it takes a long time for nature to manufacture soil--
upwards of three hundred years to a millennium to produce just one inch;
which indicates that it took an enormous number of years after the
formation of dry land for the earth's crust to weather and break down on its
own to make soil enough for plantings; hence the aged-earth creation
theories which essentially postulate that God got vegetation up and going
with a starter kit of fertile dirt; which can't be argued with since there's
really no telling exactly how God proceeded with the manufacture of soil.
But since the earth was designed with the capability to make soil on its own,
I rather think it plausible that God was in no hurry and was pleased to let
nature take its course; as He designed it to take.
The soil requirements of different species vary widely, and no
generalizations can be made concerning an ideal soil for the growth of all
plants; e.g. avocado trees; which thrive just fine in the relatively dry, sunny
climate and alkaline soil of San Diego; do poorly in the acidic soil and much
wetter, not-so-sunny climate of Oregon's Willamette valley. There are
upwards of 30,000 different soils in the USA alone.
†. Gen 1:11b-12 . . seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth
that bear fruit with the seed in it. And it was so. The earth brought forth
vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind
bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that this was good.
All vegetation was created on the third day. Every plant since then, and all
plants that will ever be, pre-existed in the cell structures, and in the DNA, of
the original flora because God created nothing else after the sixth day. How
do I know that? Because the seventh day wasn't bounded by an evening and
a morning. In other words: God is still resting from His creation labors and
won't fire them up again till the 21st chapter of Revelation. (cf. Isa 65:18,
Isa 66:22)
NOTE: According to Gen 2:4-5, the sprouting spoken of in Gen 11a was
limited until such a time as the Earth's climatic conditions were up and
running.
God is the origin of species, but from the third day on, the various species
reproduced themselves with subsequent adaptations and mutations; which is
okay except that the ability to adapt and mutate has made possible serious
problems with organisms like Escherichia coli O157-H7.
That deadly little pathogen didn't exist in nature till the 20th century. It's the
progeny of regular E-coli adapting itself to overcome the antibiotics used to
control disease in large-scale, overcrowded, unsanitary feed lots where
animals are rapidly fattened up on a brief diet of genetically modified grain
prior to slaughtering them for food.
Although the creator made O157-H7 possible; I doubt if anybody would have
any luck suing Him for product liability since it's humanity's own greed and
stupidity that forced E-coli O157-H7 into the food distribution system. Its
mommy was just trying to give her lethal little offspring the tools necessary
to survive. It's like chaos theorist Dr. Ian Malcolm said in Jurassic Park; "Life
finds a way"
"The prosperity of fools shall destroy them." (Prv 1:32)
NOTE: It's believed by science that there was an era in Earth's youth called
the Carboniferous period when it was blanketed by dense jungles and
forests. As those plants and trees died, and were buried beneath layers of
sediment; their unique chemical structure caused them to be "cooked" into
solid coal; and there is really a lot of it.
Why isn't the Earth currently blanketed by dense jungles and forests? Well,
you can thank Adam for that. According to Gen 3:17 the Earth's soils aren't
as productive as they were in the beginning.
†. Gen 1:13 . . And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
†. Gen 1:14a . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky
On the fourth day, God spent time up in the celestial regions. It might seem
odd that He began work on the surface of the Earth, and then before
finishing, stopped short and moved off into space. Why not finish building
down here on the planet first?
Because many types of plants and animals need sunlight if they're to be
strong and healthy. At this point in the creation, planet Earth was very dark
and freezing cold. The dark side of the Moon gets down to like 279º below
zero; so it was time to turn the Earth into a greenhouse. And besides,
temperature variations play a role in the process of erosion; which assists in
soil formation. And climate is important too seeing as how most varieties of
vegetation are geared to seasonal variations.
Oxygen is a must gas for sustaining life on earth and a very large
percentage of it is produced by photosynthesis which is a chemical process
that works best in sunlight. No doubt the original atmosphere contained
oxygen enough, but would eventually be absorbed by oxidation and other
kinds of chemical activity. Plant life plays a major role in both filtration and
replenishment; hence the need to get a Sun shining as soon as possible.
The atmosphere contains about 19.5 to 23.5 percent oxygen at any given
time and even with all the fossil fuel burned around the world, along with the
destruction of savannas, prairies, woodlands, wetlands, and rain forests,
coupled with volcanic activity, the percentage remain fairly stable.
The lights created in verse 14 are luminous objects; and one of them; the
Moon, doesn't generate its own light. It reflects light from the Sun. But for
practical purposes, both of them shed light upon the Earth just as God
intended for them to do.
†. Gen 1:14b . . to distinguish Day from Night;
On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light; and defined Night
as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day, as pertains to
life on Earth, is when the sun is up; and Night is when the sun is down.
These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they easily escape the
memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always
thinking of Days as periods of one earth rotation of 24 hours. That's okay for
calendars but can lead to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical
schedules, predictions, and/or chronologies.
=================================
-
†. Gen 1:11a . . And God said: Let the earth sprout vegetation
Before God could set out plantings; He first had to create soil for them to
grow in; which is only barely alluded to in Genesis' reference to dry land
making its appearance: and this is where young-earth theories run into
trouble because it takes a long time for nature to manufacture soil--
upwards of three hundred years to a millennium to produce just one inch;
which indicates that it took an enormous number of years after the
formation of dry land for the earth's crust to weather and break down on its
own to make soil enough for plantings; hence the aged-earth creation
theories which essentially postulate that God got vegetation up and going
with a starter kit of fertile dirt; which can't be argued with since there's
really no telling exactly how God proceeded with the manufacture of soil.
But since the earth was designed with the capability to make soil on its own,
I rather think it plausible that God was in no hurry and was pleased to let
nature take its course; as He designed it to take.
The soil requirements of different species vary widely, and no
generalizations can be made concerning an ideal soil for the growth of all
plants; e.g. avocado trees; which thrive just fine in the relatively dry, sunny
climate and alkaline soil of San Diego; do poorly in the acidic soil and much
wetter, not-so-sunny climate of Oregon's Willamette valley. There are
upwards of 30,000 different soils in the USA alone.
†. Gen 1:11b-12 . . seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth
that bear fruit with the seed in it. And it was so. The earth brought forth
vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind
bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that this was good.
All vegetation was created on the third day. Every plant since then, and all
plants that will ever be, pre-existed in the cell structures, and in the DNA, of
the original flora because God created nothing else after the sixth day. How
do I know that? Because the seventh day wasn't bounded by an evening and
a morning. In other words: God is still resting from His creation labors and
won't fire them up again till the 21st chapter of Revelation. (cf. Isa 65:18,
Isa 66:22)
NOTE: According to Gen 2:4-5, the sprouting spoken of in Gen 11a was
limited until such a time as the Earth's climatic conditions were up and
running.
God is the origin of species, but from the third day on, the various species
reproduced themselves with subsequent adaptations and mutations; which is
okay except that the ability to adapt and mutate has made possible serious
problems with organisms like Escherichia coli O157-H7.
That deadly little pathogen didn't exist in nature till the 20th century. It's the
progeny of regular E-coli adapting itself to overcome the antibiotics used to
control disease in large-scale, overcrowded, unsanitary feed lots where
animals are rapidly fattened up on a brief diet of genetically modified grain
prior to slaughtering them for food.
Although the creator made O157-H7 possible; I doubt if anybody would have
any luck suing Him for product liability since it's humanity's own greed and
stupidity that forced E-coli O157-H7 into the food distribution system. Its
mommy was just trying to give her lethal little offspring the tools necessary
to survive. It's like chaos theorist Dr. Ian Malcolm said in Jurassic Park; "Life
finds a way"
"The prosperity of fools shall destroy them." (Prv 1:32)
NOTE: It's believed by science that there was an era in Earth's youth called
the Carboniferous period when it was blanketed by dense jungles and
forests. As those plants and trees died, and were buried beneath layers of
sediment; their unique chemical structure caused them to be "cooked" into
solid coal; and there is really a lot of it.
Why isn't the Earth currently blanketed by dense jungles and forests? Well,
you can thank Adam for that. According to Gen 3:17 the Earth's soils aren't
as productive as they were in the beginning.
†. Gen 1:13 . . And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
†. Gen 1:14a . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky
On the fourth day, God spent time up in the celestial regions. It might seem
odd that He began work on the surface of the Earth, and then before
finishing, stopped short and moved off into space. Why not finish building
down here on the planet first?
Because many types of plants and animals need sunlight if they're to be
strong and healthy. At this point in the creation, planet Earth was very dark
and freezing cold. The dark side of the Moon gets down to like 279º below
zero; so it was time to turn the Earth into a greenhouse. And besides,
temperature variations play a role in the process of erosion; which assists in
soil formation. And climate is important too seeing as how most varieties of
vegetation are geared to seasonal variations.
Oxygen is a must gas for sustaining life on earth and a very large
percentage of it is produced by photosynthesis which is a chemical process
that works best in sunlight. No doubt the original atmosphere contained
oxygen enough, but would eventually be absorbed by oxidation and other
kinds of chemical activity. Plant life plays a major role in both filtration and
replenishment; hence the need to get a Sun shining as soon as possible.
The atmosphere contains about 19.5 to 23.5 percent oxygen at any given
time and even with all the fossil fuel burned around the world, along with the
destruction of savannas, prairies, woodlands, wetlands, and rain forests,
coupled with volcanic activity, the percentage remain fairly stable.
The lights created in verse 14 are luminous objects; and one of them; the
Moon, doesn't generate its own light. It reflects light from the Sun. But for
practical purposes, both of them shed light upon the Earth just as God
intended for them to do.
†. Gen 1:14b . . to distinguish Day from Night;
On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light; and defined Night
as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day, as pertains to
life on Earth, is when the sun is up; and Night is when the sun is down.
These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they easily escape the
memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always
thinking of Days as periods of one earth rotation of 24 hours. That's okay for
calendars but can lead to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical
schedules, predictions, and/or chronologies.
=================================
C
I usually understand arguments, even the ones I disagree with, but am vague on what you're saying above.
WH, I think you may have a false view of what the Bible means by faith. It is not a stubborn belief in your own view. This is the modern view of faith, but biblical faith is trusting in God's word and saving faith is trusting in what Christ did for you. It also includes repentance which goes hand and hand with faith.
That you have a stubborn faith in your twist on Genesis is not a virtue biblical speaking. Faith, in and of itself, is only as valuable as the object in which it is placed. If you have faith in something false, it will profit you nothing, even if it's the strongest faith on earth. Faith in and of itself is nothing.
I have faith in God's Word in that I trust it even if it disagrees with the smartest men on earth. You trust men's theories first and then try to fit God's word into their theories. Yes you have great faith in your methods, but very little faith in God's word.
WH, I think you may have a false view of what the Bible means by faith. It is not a stubborn belief in your own view. This is the modern view of faith, but biblical faith is trusting in God's word and saving faith is trusting in what Christ did for you. It also includes repentance which goes hand and hand with faith.
That you have a stubborn faith in your twist on Genesis is not a virtue biblical speaking. Faith, in and of itself, is only as valuable as the object in which it is placed. If you have faith in something false, it will profit you nothing, even if it's the strongest faith on earth. Faith in and of itself is nothing.
I have faith in God's Word in that I trust it even if it disagrees with the smartest men on earth. You trust men's theories first and then try to fit God's word into their theories. Yes you have great faith in your methods, but very little faith in God's word.
J
ty. yes. faith in God is very much different and also opposed to faith in scholarssss and priestssss and pastorssss .... sssorry?no!
read the book. seek, believe,have faith in, and rely totally on God. that simple.
no one else, anywhere, can save anyone. only God. so believe Him. not man. (all men are liars, remember?)
God is not a man, that He should lie! He is the only trustworthy faithful and true One who won't ever, ever, ever let you down.
Hebrews 13:5Amplified Bible (AMP)
5 Let your [a]character or moral disposition be free from love of money [including greed, avarice, lust, and craving for earthly possessions] and be satisfied with your present [circumstances and with what you have]; for He [God] Himself has said, I will not in any way fail you nor [c]give you up nor leave you without support. [I will] not, [d][I will] not, [I will] not in any degree leave you helpless nor forsake nor [e]let [you] down ([f]relax My hold on you)! [[g]Assuredly not!]
read the book. seek, believe,have faith in, and rely totally on God. that simple.
no one else, anywhere, can save anyone. only God. so believe Him. not man. (all men are liars, remember?)
God is not a man, that He should lie! He is the only trustworthy faithful and true One who won't ever, ever, ever let you down.
Hebrews 13:5Amplified Bible (AMP)
5 Let your [a]character or moral disposition be free from love of money [including greed, avarice, lust, and craving for earthly possessions] and be satisfied with your present [circumstances and with what you have]; for He [God] Himself has said, I will not in any way fail you nor [c]give you up nor leave you without support. [I will] not, [d][I will] not, [I will] not in any degree leave you helpless nor forsake nor [e]let [you] down ([f]relax My hold on you)! [[g]Assuredly not!]
C
Re: Gen 1:11-14b
Actually, it's more than alluded to, it's explicitly revealed. 'erets in the hebrew means land. Virtually all occurrences of the english earth in scripture can be translated land (I would argue earth always means land). "And God called the dry land, earth."
What your alluding to is the naturalistic idea that land appeared on our planet million (even billions) of years after its initial formation. But this of course is a naturalistic fairytale and directly contradicts scripture.
But why doubt God? Is He not powerful enough to create fertile land instantaneously as He said?
And with this you reveal who you believe the creator really is—Nature. This is your main error above. Notice that you said it takes Nature this long, therefore, God must have taken this long. To you, natural processes and God are the same thing. But biblically, natural processes are a creation of God, and can never bind God.
I would be very curious how long you think Christ took to make wine. By your own logic, if nature can't do it instantaneously, then Christ must not have been able to either. How long did it take Christ to make additional bread and fish to feed the multitudes? Nature takes quite a bit of time to develop those things, so Christ couldn't have done it instantaneously as the Bible says (again, using your logic).
This is the pitfall of trying fit the Bible into a naturalistic framework. You in affect, take away the miraculous powers of God, and destroy the concept of theism.
Of course it was, in fact, God set up the sabbath day based on the creation week.
Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbatha to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work,.....11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth,a the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
If what your saying is true, then the sun never should have set after that seventh day. We'd still be it in now. But last I checked, evenings and mornings are still occurring every 24 hours.
Again, WH, your issue is faith in God's word. You have great faith in your own ideas, but virtually none in what God has revealed.
Actually, it's more than alluded to, it's explicitly revealed. 'erets in the hebrew means land. Virtually all occurrences of the english earth in scripture can be translated land (I would argue earth always means land). "And God called the dry land, earth."
What your alluding to is the naturalistic idea that land appeared on our planet million (even billions) of years after its initial formation. But this of course is a naturalistic fairytale and directly contradicts scripture.
But why doubt God? Is He not powerful enough to create fertile land instantaneously as He said?
And with this you reveal who you believe the creator really is—Nature. This is your main error above. Notice that you said it takes Nature this long, therefore, God must have taken this long. To you, natural processes and God are the same thing. But biblically, natural processes are a creation of God, and can never bind God.
I would be very curious how long you think Christ took to make wine. By your own logic, if nature can't do it instantaneously, then Christ must not have been able to either. How long did it take Christ to make additional bread and fish to feed the multitudes? Nature takes quite a bit of time to develop those things, so Christ couldn't have done it instantaneously as the Bible says (again, using your logic).
This is the pitfall of trying fit the Bible into a naturalistic framework. You in affect, take away the miraculous powers of God, and destroy the concept of theism.
Of course it was, in fact, God set up the sabbath day based on the creation week.
Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbatha to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work,.....11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth,a the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
If what your saying is true, then the sun never should have set after that seventh day. We'd still be it in now. But last I checked, evenings and mornings are still occurring every 24 hours.
Again, WH, your issue is faith in God's word. You have great faith in your own ideas, but virtually none in what God has revealed.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
I don't think that the original story teller thought this was odd because the original inspiration that generated this story was ignorant or unconcerned with the actual relationship between the elements involved. in other words, the original story teller didn't understand that a planet was a satellite of a star and that the sun is a star. Therefore, this ordering of events reveals an ignorance in the storyteller's cosmology and should not be explained away in spite of the basics of what is now known about God's universe.
Gen 1:14c-19
-
†. Gen 1:14c . . they shall serve as signs for the set times-- the days and
the years;
The word for "signs" is from 'owth (oth) and means: a signal; such as a flag,
beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.
The Sun and the Moon are very useful time keepers. The Sun of course
marks off days and years; and if you were to tell somebody your intention to
visit them in five Moons, they would have a pretty good idea when to get
ready for your arrival.
†. Gen 1:15-18a . . and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the sky
to shine upon the earth. And it was so. God made the two great lights, the
greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night,
and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the
earth, to dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish light from
darkness.
For the third time now in Genesis, "day" is defined as when the sun is up,
and "night" is defined as when the sun is down; and yet people still don't
think God is serious.
Stars require some special consideration because of their distances and the
time it takes for their light to reach the Earth. For example: this past
decade, Hubble telescope detected a galaxy at a distance of 12.8 billion light
years; which was subsequently given the label A1689-zD1.
Chronologically; the cosmos' creator began constructing the Earth before He
began constructing the stars; which indicates, biblically, that as a physical
structure, the Earth is older than the sun, moon, and stars. But geologists
have pretty good reasons to believe the Earth to be only something like 4.5
billion years old; while A1689-zD1 appears to be a minimum 12.8 billion
years old. So then, it seems reasonable to conclude that A1689-zD1 is
Earth's senior by at least 8.3 billion years; but there's a rub.
An article in the May 2013 issue of Astronomy magazine said that the
"horizon" of the so-called observable-- a.k.a. visible --universe is
approximately 46 billion light years away from Earth in all directions. No one
has actually detected light from that far away but curiously it is possible to
see objects that are that far away before they got there because light isn't
instantaneous. It takes a full second for it to travel 186,282.3 miles. In other
words: it takes a little over 8.3 minutes for light from the Sun to reach the
Earth, and roughly 4.1 hours to reach Neptune.
The available data suggests that the universe is expanding in all directions.
In other words: every galaxy in the cosmos appears to be moving away from
every other galaxy (with the exception apparently of the Milky Way and
Andromeda, which astronomers-- according to an article in the Mar/Apr
2013 issue of Science Illustrated --predict will collide in 4 billion years). And
not only is the cosmos expanding; but the velocity of its expansion isn't
slowing down as might be expected; but rather, contrary to common sense,
the velocity of the cosmos' expansion is accelerating; which means the stars
that God created on the fourth day are quite a bit farther away from Earth
now than when He first made them. How much farther away I don't know;
but if the age of the Earth is really and truly 4.5 billion years then it's my
guess the difference is significant.
Well; the light observed from galaxy A1689-zD1 didn't begin beaming
towards the Earth 12.8 billion years ago, but rather, when the galaxy was
quite a bit younger and closer to home. In other words: the 12.8 billion light
year figure is a calculated distance rather than an observed distance. The
trick is; due to the expanding universe, galaxy A1689-zD1 is much further
away from the Earth now than when it first began emitting photons in our
direction; ergo: 12.8 billion light years is what scientists figure is galaxy
A1689-zD1's true distance at present rather than the distance its observed
light suggests; which is of course much less than 12.8 billion light years.
Bottom line is: light-years are useful for expressing a star's distance; but
quite useless for calculating a star's age.
All the above suggests to me that the estimated age of the cosmos is only
loosely theoretical rather than actual. In other words; current dating
methods are grossly unreliable and it's very possibly true that the Earth
really did precede the stars just as the Bible says.
But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in deep space?
Well, for one thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite
pretty. Celestial objects decorate the night sky like the ornamentation
people put up during holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was
totally black. But decorated with stars; the night sky is like a beautiful
tapestry, or a celestial Sistine Chapel. Stars makes better sense that way
than to try and find some other meaning for them.
"The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork."
(Ps 19:2)
The universe is simply a magnificent work of art-- just as intriguing, if not
more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Monet,
Vermeer, and da Vinci -- testifying to the genius of an engineer-artist
without peer. It was never meant to be a home for Mr. ET. Sadly, many
intelligent people like Carl Segan look to the sky for the wrong reasons.
Personally, I think it's futile to look to the sky for SETI reasons. Why not just
look to the sky for inspiration instead of intelligent extraterrestrial life?
What's so bad about visiting the sky as a Metropolitan Museum of your
maker's many-faceted talents?
"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it
evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes
of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived
in what He has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they
knew God they did not accord Him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead,
they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were
darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:19-22)
Which would you rather be: a fool, or an idiot? Well, I'd prefer being the
idiot. At least the mentally challenged man has an excuse for being stupid.
†. Gen 1:18b-19 . . And God saw that this was good. And there was
evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
=================================
-
†. Gen 1:14c . . they shall serve as signs for the set times-- the days and
the years;
The word for "signs" is from 'owth (oth) and means: a signal; such as a flag,
beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.
The Sun and the Moon are very useful time keepers. The Sun of course
marks off days and years; and if you were to tell somebody your intention to
visit them in five Moons, they would have a pretty good idea when to get
ready for your arrival.
†. Gen 1:15-18a . . and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the sky
to shine upon the earth. And it was so. God made the two great lights, the
greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night,
and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the
earth, to dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish light from
darkness.
For the third time now in Genesis, "day" is defined as when the sun is up,
and "night" is defined as when the sun is down; and yet people still don't
think God is serious.
Stars require some special consideration because of their distances and the
time it takes for their light to reach the Earth. For example: this past
decade, Hubble telescope detected a galaxy at a distance of 12.8 billion light
years; which was subsequently given the label A1689-zD1.
Chronologically; the cosmos' creator began constructing the Earth before He
began constructing the stars; which indicates, biblically, that as a physical
structure, the Earth is older than the sun, moon, and stars. But geologists
have pretty good reasons to believe the Earth to be only something like 4.5
billion years old; while A1689-zD1 appears to be a minimum 12.8 billion
years old. So then, it seems reasonable to conclude that A1689-zD1 is
Earth's senior by at least 8.3 billion years; but there's a rub.
An article in the May 2013 issue of Astronomy magazine said that the
"horizon" of the so-called observable-- a.k.a. visible --universe is
approximately 46 billion light years away from Earth in all directions. No one
has actually detected light from that far away but curiously it is possible to
see objects that are that far away before they got there because light isn't
instantaneous. It takes a full second for it to travel 186,282.3 miles. In other
words: it takes a little over 8.3 minutes for light from the Sun to reach the
Earth, and roughly 4.1 hours to reach Neptune.
The available data suggests that the universe is expanding in all directions.
In other words: every galaxy in the cosmos appears to be moving away from
every other galaxy (with the exception apparently of the Milky Way and
Andromeda, which astronomers-- according to an article in the Mar/Apr
2013 issue of Science Illustrated --predict will collide in 4 billion years). And
not only is the cosmos expanding; but the velocity of its expansion isn't
slowing down as might be expected; but rather, contrary to common sense,
the velocity of the cosmos' expansion is accelerating; which means the stars
that God created on the fourth day are quite a bit farther away from Earth
now than when He first made them. How much farther away I don't know;
but if the age of the Earth is really and truly 4.5 billion years then it's my
guess the difference is significant.
Well; the light observed from galaxy A1689-zD1 didn't begin beaming
towards the Earth 12.8 billion years ago, but rather, when the galaxy was
quite a bit younger and closer to home. In other words: the 12.8 billion light
year figure is a calculated distance rather than an observed distance. The
trick is; due to the expanding universe, galaxy A1689-zD1 is much further
away from the Earth now than when it first began emitting photons in our
direction; ergo: 12.8 billion light years is what scientists figure is galaxy
A1689-zD1's true distance at present rather than the distance its observed
light suggests; which is of course much less than 12.8 billion light years.
Bottom line is: light-years are useful for expressing a star's distance; but
quite useless for calculating a star's age.
All the above suggests to me that the estimated age of the cosmos is only
loosely theoretical rather than actual. In other words; current dating
methods are grossly unreliable and it's very possibly true that the Earth
really did precede the stars just as the Bible says.
But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in deep space?
Well, for one thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite
pretty. Celestial objects decorate the night sky like the ornamentation
people put up during holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was
totally black. But decorated with stars; the night sky is like a beautiful
tapestry, or a celestial Sistine Chapel. Stars makes better sense that way
than to try and find some other meaning for them.
"The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork."
(Ps 19:2)
The universe is simply a magnificent work of art-- just as intriguing, if not
more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Monet,
Vermeer, and da Vinci -- testifying to the genius of an engineer-artist
without peer. It was never meant to be a home for Mr. ET. Sadly, many
intelligent people like Carl Segan look to the sky for the wrong reasons.
Personally, I think it's futile to look to the sky for SETI reasons. Why not just
look to the sky for inspiration instead of intelligent extraterrestrial life?
What's so bad about visiting the sky as a Metropolitan Museum of your
maker's many-faceted talents?
"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it
evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes
of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived
in what He has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they
knew God they did not accord Him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead,
they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were
darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:19-22)
Which would you rather be: a fool, or an idiot? Well, I'd prefer being the
idiot. At least the mentally challenged man has an excuse for being stupid.
†. Gen 1:18b-19 . . And God saw that this was good. And there was
evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
=================================
C
Re: Gen 1:14c-19
This is actually becoming a valuable thread in correcting false views of Genesis.
Looking at my Bible, yom in the hebrew is almost identical to day in english and is used different ways. But somehow you missed the simple reading of the days of Genesis that even children pick up on. Yes, yom can refer to the daytime, but the days of genesis were defined as morning evening cycles. "and there was morning and evening the ____ day."
Yom also can mean a period of time, just as day in english, but to deny the days of creation are referring to evening morning cycles is beyond bizarre. I can only speculate on your thought process.
and if you were honest, you'd admit this is the sole basis of your interpretation of Genesis. You're not deriving meaning from the text, but rather from ideas that come from outside the text.
But the question of starlight and time is not merely as simple citing distances and the speed of light (which you alluded to, but didn't quite connect the dots). We today are actually aware of mechanisms that speed up light travel and time. For instance, we see today, galaxies moving away from us many times the speed of light. And did you know that time is relative? Did you know it's affected by things like velocity and mass density? And those are just what we've discovered so far.
Here are some articles to browse if anyone wants to look further into this fascinating field.
A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., & D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 2
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., & D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 3
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., & D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Classic. God says this, but hey, we can't doubt those geologist........
If only we'd trust God's word to inform us about men's ideas, rather than trusting men to judge God's word.
This is actually becoming a valuable thread in correcting false views of Genesis.
Looking at my Bible, yom in the hebrew is almost identical to day in english and is used different ways. But somehow you missed the simple reading of the days of Genesis that even children pick up on. Yes, yom can refer to the daytime, but the days of genesis were defined as morning evening cycles. "and there was morning and evening the ____ day."
Yom also can mean a period of time, just as day in english, but to deny the days of creation are referring to evening morning cycles is beyond bizarre. I can only speculate on your thought process.
and if you were honest, you'd admit this is the sole basis of your interpretation of Genesis. You're not deriving meaning from the text, but rather from ideas that come from outside the text.
But the question of starlight and time is not merely as simple citing distances and the speed of light (which you alluded to, but didn't quite connect the dots). We today are actually aware of mechanisms that speed up light travel and time. For instance, we see today, galaxies moving away from us many times the speed of light. And did you know that time is relative? Did you know it's affected by things like velocity and mass density? And those are just what we've discovered so far.
Here are some articles to browse if anyone wants to look further into this fascinating field.
A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., & D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 2
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., & D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 3
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., & D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Classic. God says this, but hey, we can't doubt those geologist........
If only we'd trust God's word to inform us about men's ideas, rather than trusting men to judge God's word.
Gen 1:20-23
-
†. Gen 1:20 . . God said: Let the waters bring forth swarms of living
creatures, and birds that fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.
The Hebrew word for "birds" is 'owph (ofe) which just simply means covered
with wings rather than covered with feathers. It's a rather unusual word
because it includes not only creatures with feathers, but according to Lev
11:13-23, 'owph also pertains to bats and flying insects. The English word
"birds" was obviously an arbitrary translation since owph is ambiguous.
What did those early winged creatures look like? My money is on the
Pterosaurs (pterodactyls). Precisely when God phased out those early skin
winged creatures and replaced them with feather-winged creatures isn't
stated; but since no winged creatures are reported created on the sixth day,
then we have to give the birdies a share of the fifth; so I think we're talking
about a pritt-tee long fifth "day" with quite possibly some carry-over into the
sixth. What I mean is; I don't think it prudent to rule out the possibility that
those early skin-winged creatures were the ancestors of later-to-come
feather-winged creatures.
How can water be used to create both winged creatures and sea creatures?
Well, it can't be any harder than creating terra creatures from the dust of
the earth seeing as how the very same elements are dissolved in earth's
waters; and in point of biological fact, land creatures are composed of not
only dust, but also water. Dehydrate an air-breathing land creature, and it
will die.
"bring forth swarms" is derived from sharats (shaw-rats') and means: to
wriggle, i.e. (by implication) swarm or abound. Sharats, strictly speaking,
simply indicates large numbers; like in Ex 1:7 where Yhhv's people
multiplied like rabbits, and in Ex 8:3 where ka-zillions of frogs infested the
land of Egypt.
Sharats is a different word than the ones translated "bring forth" in Gen
1:12 and Gen 1:15. The word in Gen 1:12 is from dasha' (daw-shaw') which
means: to sprout. The word in Gen 1:15 is from yatsa' (yaw-tsaw') which is
a word of action and/or motion and means: to go, to cause to go, send
away, or to bring out, or proceed.
It's important to note that winged creatures were just as distinct a creation
as aqua creatures. So winged creatures didn't evolve from creatures who
once lived in the sea. Winged creatures are a separate genre of life in their
own right, and absolutely did not evolve from some other order of life.
The word for "creature" is from nephesh (neh'-fesh) and means: an air
breathing creature, viz: one that breathes atmospheric gases to survive--
whether in free air or dissolved in water. A nephesh is different than
vegetation. Although vegetation is alive, it isn't sentient.
This is the very first mention of nephesh. According to Gen 2:7, nephesh are
not only animal creatures, but humanity itself is nephesh too. The word
nephesh implies an innermost being, a mind, a consciousness of one's
existence, a sense of individuality, and a consciousness of one's
surroundings. Some say that animals are people too. Well . . they're
certainly not human, but according to the Bible, they are very definitely just
as much a nephesh as a human being. So I guess we could consent, at least
to some degree, that beasts are people too; in their own way.
†. Gen 1:21a . . God created the great sea monsters, and all the living
creatures of every kind that creep, which the waters brought forth in
swarms,
"sea monsters" is from tanniyn (tan-neen') and/or tanniym (tan-neem')
which mean: a marine or land monster. Tanniyn is sometimes translated
"dragon" as in Isa 27:1
It wasn't a tanniyn, however, that swallowed Jonah. That creature was
either a dagah (daw-gaw') a dag (dawg) or a da'g (dawg). All three words
mean a fish.
NOTE: the reason I quoted the three Hebrew words for "fish" is because to
tell the truth, translators are not always confident how best to represent a
Hebrew word with the English alphabet. In point of fact, there are ancient
Hebrew words that nobody really knows what they mean so translators are
forced to take educated guesses here and there.
"of every kind that creep" in this case regards only aquatic creatures that
creep e.g. starfish, lobsters, crayfish, newts, clams, and crabs et al. The terra
creepers are coming up in a little bit.
But what about aquatic dinosaurs? Well . . according to Discovery's web site
"Walking With Dinosaurs" paleontologists believe there were some
amphibious reptiles such as plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs, but those
creatures didn't have the gills necessary to be truly aquatic like Nemo and
his dad Marlin.
†. Gen 1:21b . . and all the winged creatures of every kind.
"kind" is from miyn (meen) and means: to portion out: to sort; viz: species.
In other words: God created a variety of winged species all at once, rather
than just one specie like He did with man.
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the
whole earth" (Acts 17:25-26)
Man is a one-of-a-kind specie. From just one man's genetic chemistry came
all the other variations of Man; ranging anywhere from Pygmies to Eskimos;
and has to make you wonder how that works if evolution is total bull. Well; I
don't think it's wise to relegate Darwin to the category of total bull. I mean,
just look at how well pathogens adapt and mutate in order to cope with
antibiotics. That's a natural process and the pathies don't even have to give
it any thought. I believe Darwin was on to something, but shot himself in the
foot by leaving intelligent design out of the equation. An origin of living
species theory is incomplete without an originator of life.
God built mysterious genetic reactions into living organisms that give them
the ability to make adjustments to themselves in order to survive--
adjustments that are triggered by conditions in their respective
environments. It's because of those kinds of involuntary adaptations and
mutations that I'm very curious sometimes what the original humans really
looked like.
†. Gen 1:21b-22a . . And God saw that this was good.
The Hebrew word for "good" in this instance is towb (tobe) which is horribly
ambiguous. It's meanings range from morally good, to good looking, to a job
well done, to something that's good to the taste; and to a whole lot of other
things in between; e.g. a good show, good food, as good as it gets, satisfactory;
etc, etc.
†. Gen 1:22b . . God blessed them, saying: Be fertile
Without the blessing of fertility, nephesh couldn't reproduce. Although
reproductive systems are built into all nephesh; those systems are merely
glands and plumbing without the miracle of fertility. God himself personally
enabled the reproductive systems of nephesh to not only reproduce their
own bodies; but also to transfer their own life. That is very interesting, and
to this good day, the transfer of nephesh life from one generation to another
is still a great big mystery.
†. Gen 1:22c . . and increase, fill the waters in the seas, and let the winged
creatures increase on the earth.
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, the 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.
Pressure at that depth is somewhere around 15,945 pounds per square inch
which is roughly equal to the weight of a block of Portland cement
measuring 5.5 feet x 5.5 feet x 5.5 feet.
If all the weight of that block were concentrated on an area no larger than a
25¢ piece, you'd have a pretty good idea of what 15,945 pounds per square
inch represents. The palm of my hand can be covered with approximately
fourteen 25¢ pieces, which at a the bottom of the Challenger Deep would
represent a weight of 223,230 pounds sitting on my hand which is roughly
equal to the combined weight of two D9 Caterpillar Tractor bulldozers.
But those fourteen quarters don't really tell the whole story. The dimensions
of my palm and fingers are roughly 4" x 7" which is 28 square inches. At the
bottom of Challenger Deep, the cumulative force on palm and fingers would
be about 446,460 pounds. But in water, the pressure is all around, so if we
add the pressure from the backside of my hand, then the combined pressure
on my hand would be 892,920 pounds (446 tons) and that's not factoring in
the edges of my hand nor the inside surfaces of its fingers. Those tons aren't
just dead weight, but rather, the measure of a squeeze-- a monster hand
shake --that would compress my entire hand into a rather grotesque sight in
no time at all if the pressure inside my hand were only atmospheric; which is
a mere 14.7 psi which isn't near enough to resist the vice-grip pressure of
892,920 pounds.
You know, the Creator must regard the Earth's waters as His own private
aquarium or why else would He put creatures where nobody sees them but
Himself?
†. Gen 1:23 . . And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
=================================
-
†. Gen 1:20 . . God said: Let the waters bring forth swarms of living
creatures, and birds that fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.
The Hebrew word for "birds" is 'owph (ofe) which just simply means covered
with wings rather than covered with feathers. It's a rather unusual word
because it includes not only creatures with feathers, but according to Lev
11:13-23, 'owph also pertains to bats and flying insects. The English word
"birds" was obviously an arbitrary translation since owph is ambiguous.
What did those early winged creatures look like? My money is on the
Pterosaurs (pterodactyls). Precisely when God phased out those early skin
winged creatures and replaced them with feather-winged creatures isn't
stated; but since no winged creatures are reported created on the sixth day,
then we have to give the birdies a share of the fifth; so I think we're talking
about a pritt-tee long fifth "day" with quite possibly some carry-over into the
sixth. What I mean is; I don't think it prudent to rule out the possibility that
those early skin-winged creatures were the ancestors of later-to-come
feather-winged creatures.
How can water be used to create both winged creatures and sea creatures?
Well, it can't be any harder than creating terra creatures from the dust of
the earth seeing as how the very same elements are dissolved in earth's
waters; and in point of biological fact, land creatures are composed of not
only dust, but also water. Dehydrate an air-breathing land creature, and it
will die.
"bring forth swarms" is derived from sharats (shaw-rats') and means: to
wriggle, i.e. (by implication) swarm or abound. Sharats, strictly speaking,
simply indicates large numbers; like in Ex 1:7 where Yhhv's people
multiplied like rabbits, and in Ex 8:3 where ka-zillions of frogs infested the
land of Egypt.
Sharats is a different word than the ones translated "bring forth" in Gen
1:12 and Gen 1:15. The word in Gen 1:12 is from dasha' (daw-shaw') which
means: to sprout. The word in Gen 1:15 is from yatsa' (yaw-tsaw') which is
a word of action and/or motion and means: to go, to cause to go, send
away, or to bring out, or proceed.
It's important to note that winged creatures were just as distinct a creation
as aqua creatures. So winged creatures didn't evolve from creatures who
once lived in the sea. Winged creatures are a separate genre of life in their
own right, and absolutely did not evolve from some other order of life.
The word for "creature" is from nephesh (neh'-fesh) and means: an air
breathing creature, viz: one that breathes atmospheric gases to survive--
whether in free air or dissolved in water. A nephesh is different than
vegetation. Although vegetation is alive, it isn't sentient.
This is the very first mention of nephesh. According to Gen 2:7, nephesh are
not only animal creatures, but humanity itself is nephesh too. The word
nephesh implies an innermost being, a mind, a consciousness of one's
existence, a sense of individuality, and a consciousness of one's
surroundings. Some say that animals are people too. Well . . they're
certainly not human, but according to the Bible, they are very definitely just
as much a nephesh as a human being. So I guess we could consent, at least
to some degree, that beasts are people too; in their own way.
†. Gen 1:21a . . God created the great sea monsters, and all the living
creatures of every kind that creep, which the waters brought forth in
swarms,
"sea monsters" is from tanniyn (tan-neen') and/or tanniym (tan-neem')
which mean: a marine or land monster. Tanniyn is sometimes translated
"dragon" as in Isa 27:1
It wasn't a tanniyn, however, that swallowed Jonah. That creature was
either a dagah (daw-gaw') a dag (dawg) or a da'g (dawg). All three words
mean a fish.
NOTE: the reason I quoted the three Hebrew words for "fish" is because to
tell the truth, translators are not always confident how best to represent a
Hebrew word with the English alphabet. In point of fact, there are ancient
Hebrew words that nobody really knows what they mean so translators are
forced to take educated guesses here and there.
"of every kind that creep" in this case regards only aquatic creatures that
creep e.g. starfish, lobsters, crayfish, newts, clams, and crabs et al. The terra
creepers are coming up in a little bit.
But what about aquatic dinosaurs? Well . . according to Discovery's web site
"Walking With Dinosaurs" paleontologists believe there were some
amphibious reptiles such as plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs, but those
creatures didn't have the gills necessary to be truly aquatic like Nemo and
his dad Marlin.
†. Gen 1:21b . . and all the winged creatures of every kind.
"kind" is from miyn (meen) and means: to portion out: to sort; viz: species.
In other words: God created a variety of winged species all at once, rather
than just one specie like He did with man.
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the
whole earth" (Acts 17:25-26)
Man is a one-of-a-kind specie. From just one man's genetic chemistry came
all the other variations of Man; ranging anywhere from Pygmies to Eskimos;
and has to make you wonder how that works if evolution is total bull. Well; I
don't think it's wise to relegate Darwin to the category of total bull. I mean,
just look at how well pathogens adapt and mutate in order to cope with
antibiotics. That's a natural process and the pathies don't even have to give
it any thought. I believe Darwin was on to something, but shot himself in the
foot by leaving intelligent design out of the equation. An origin of living
species theory is incomplete without an originator of life.
God built mysterious genetic reactions into living organisms that give them
the ability to make adjustments to themselves in order to survive--
adjustments that are triggered by conditions in their respective
environments. It's because of those kinds of involuntary adaptations and
mutations that I'm very curious sometimes what the original humans really
looked like.
†. Gen 1:21b-22a . . And God saw that this was good.
The Hebrew word for "good" in this instance is towb (tobe) which is horribly
ambiguous. It's meanings range from morally good, to good looking, to a job
well done, to something that's good to the taste; and to a whole lot of other
things in between; e.g. a good show, good food, as good as it gets, satisfactory;
etc, etc.
†. Gen 1:22b . . God blessed them, saying: Be fertile
Without the blessing of fertility, nephesh couldn't reproduce. Although
reproductive systems are built into all nephesh; those systems are merely
glands and plumbing without the miracle of fertility. God himself personally
enabled the reproductive systems of nephesh to not only reproduce their
own bodies; but also to transfer their own life. That is very interesting, and
to this good day, the transfer of nephesh life from one generation to another
is still a great big mystery.
†. Gen 1:22c . . and increase, fill the waters in the seas, and let the winged
creatures increase on the earth.
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, the 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.
Pressure at that depth is somewhere around 15,945 pounds per square inch
which is roughly equal to the weight of a block of Portland cement
measuring 5.5 feet x 5.5 feet x 5.5 feet.
If all the weight of that block were concentrated on an area no larger than a
25¢ piece, you'd have a pretty good idea of what 15,945 pounds per square
inch represents. The palm of my hand can be covered with approximately
fourteen 25¢ pieces, which at a the bottom of the Challenger Deep would
represent a weight of 223,230 pounds sitting on my hand which is roughly
equal to the combined weight of two D9 Caterpillar Tractor bulldozers.
But those fourteen quarters don't really tell the whole story. The dimensions
of my palm and fingers are roughly 4" x 7" which is 28 square inches. At the
bottom of Challenger Deep, the cumulative force on palm and fingers would
be about 446,460 pounds. But in water, the pressure is all around, so if we
add the pressure from the backside of my hand, then the combined pressure
on my hand would be 892,920 pounds (446 tons) and that's not factoring in
the edges of my hand nor the inside surfaces of its fingers. Those tons aren't
just dead weight, but rather, the measure of a squeeze-- a monster hand
shake --that would compress my entire hand into a rather grotesque sight in
no time at all if the pressure inside my hand were only atmospheric; which is
a mere 14.7 psi which isn't near enough to resist the vice-grip pressure of
892,920 pounds.
You know, the Creator must regard the Earth's waters as His own private
aquarium or why else would He put creatures where nobody sees them but
Himself?
†. Gen 1:23 . . And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
=================================
Gen 1:24-25
-
†. Gen 1:24-25 . . God said: Let the earth [produce] every kind of living
creature: cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts of every kind. And it was
so. God made wild beasts of every kind and cattle of every kind, and all
kinds of creeping things of the earth. And God saw that this was good.
Now we come to the sixth day when all terra life was created; including
dinosaurs and 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 empirical evidence to support the assumption that that
they were equally blessed with fertility just like everything else.
The Hebrew word for "living creature" is nephesh (neh'-fesh); the same
word used in verse 20 regarding winged creatures and aquatic life. Terra
critters consist of the very land masses upon which they live. They, like Man,
weren't created out of thin air; but rather, God used all-natural earthly
materials and ingredients already at hand to manufacture 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.
For example: trees that investors cultivate for carbon credits lose their value
as credits when the trees are harvested, or burned, or left to rot on the
forest floor. In other words: trees are viable carbon collectors only while
they're alive because once they die, or they're harvested, or burned; they
stop collecting carbon. In the processes of burning and/or rotting they
release their carbon back into the global air. But their released carbon isn't
pollution; no, it's a natural cycle of life and death.
The word for "cattle" is behemah (be-hay-maw') and means a mute beast
(a.k.a. dumb animal) especially any large quadruped or animal (often
collective) e.g. cattle, pigs, horses, wildebeests, goats, sheep, deer, elk,
giraffes, zebras, et al. These kinds of animals are the herd species from
which come 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 on their backs, and give
people rides. Not all herd animals can be tamed. Zebras, for instance, and
male elephants are not particularly suited to domestication.
The plural of behemah is behemowth (be-hay-mohth') a word which some
have construed to indicate dinosaurs; citing Job 40:15-24 as their proof text.
But even if Job 40:15 did indicate a species of dinosaur, it would be limited
to one that ate grass like an ox, lived near lakes and rivers, and drank lots
of water. However, it's easily proven that the age of monster reptiles was
long gone before Mr. Job was even born.
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.
"creeping things" is the word remes (reh'-mes) and means: a reptile; or any
other rapidly moving animal. Dinosaurs would've been included in this
grouping.
Some Christians suffer anxiety over dinosaurs because paleontologists have
easily dated them to cease existing a good many thousands of years prior to
the emergence of mammals; but that's not really a problem if we but permit
creation's days to be epochs of indeterminate length rather than 24-hour
solar events.
"wild beasts" is from chay (khah'-ee) which doesn't mean wild beasts at all.
It simply means animal life: as opposed to vegetable life. It also means:
alive, living, raw, fresh, and strong. Man himself is chay. It's just a
nondescript classification and is the very same word as in verse 20 where it
regarded swarms of aquatic life. This time chay regards swarms of terra life;
viz: herds and hives, et al.
=================================
-
†. Gen 1:24-25 . . God said: Let the earth [produce] every kind of living
creature: cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts of every kind. And it was
so. God made wild beasts of every kind and cattle of every kind, and all
kinds of creeping things of the earth. And God saw that this was good.
Now we come to the sixth day when all terra life was created; including
dinosaurs and 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 empirical evidence to support the assumption that that
they were equally blessed with fertility just like everything else.
The Hebrew word for "living creature" is nephesh (neh'-fesh); the same
word used in verse 20 regarding winged creatures and aquatic life. Terra
critters consist of the very land masses upon which they live. They, like Man,
weren't created out of thin air; but rather, God used all-natural earthly
materials and ingredients already at hand to manufacture 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.
For example: trees that investors cultivate for carbon credits lose their value
as credits when the trees are harvested, or burned, or left to rot on the
forest floor. In other words: trees are viable carbon collectors only while
they're alive because once they die, or they're harvested, or burned; they
stop collecting carbon. In the processes of burning and/or rotting they
release their carbon back into the global air. But their released carbon isn't
pollution; no, it's a natural cycle of life and death.
The word for "cattle" is behemah (be-hay-maw') and means a mute beast
(a.k.a. dumb animal) especially any large quadruped or animal (often
collective) e.g. cattle, pigs, horses, wildebeests, goats, sheep, deer, elk,
giraffes, zebras, et al. These kinds of animals are the herd species from
which come 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 on their backs, and give
people rides. Not all herd animals can be tamed. Zebras, for instance, and
male elephants are not particularly suited to domestication.
The plural of behemah is behemowth (be-hay-mohth') a word which some
have construed to indicate dinosaurs; citing Job 40:15-24 as their proof text.
But even if Job 40:15 did indicate a species of dinosaur, it would be limited
to one that ate grass like an ox, lived near lakes and rivers, and drank lots
of water. However, it's easily proven that the age of monster reptiles was
long gone before Mr. Job was even born.
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.
"creeping things" is the word remes (reh'-mes) and means: a reptile; or any
other rapidly moving animal. Dinosaurs would've been included in this
grouping.
Some Christians suffer anxiety over dinosaurs because paleontologists have
easily dated them to cease existing a good many thousands of years prior to
the emergence of mammals; but that's not really a problem if we but permit
creation's days to be epochs of indeterminate length rather than 24-hour
solar events.
"wild beasts" is from chay (khah'-ee) which doesn't mean wild beasts at all.
It simply means animal life: as opposed to vegetable life. It also means:
alive, living, raw, fresh, and strong. Man himself is chay. It's just a
nondescript classification and is the very same word as in verse 20 where it
regarded swarms of aquatic life. This time chay regards swarms of terra life;
viz: herds and hives, et al.
=================================
C
Re: Gen 1:20-23
Or we can just trust God that it was a morning/evening day as Genesis states. Scripture tells us all animals were made on days 5 and 6, and man was made on day 6. The question for the christian is, do you trust God's word, or some fallible human beings who says they evolved over millions of years?
What's interesting also is, we have legends of dragons and flying dragons in every ancient culture. But the best evidence is what's clearly stated in Genesis 1. The days were literal morning evening cycles, and all creatures were made within those literal days.
As Moses puts it:
Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,......11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them....
If what WH is attempting to support is true, the passage above makes no sense. Either your work week days are millions of years long each, or the creation days were normal days like the workweek days. For WH, either scripture is true, or it's not. What he believes is between him and the Lord.
Grace and Peace.
Or we can just trust God that it was a morning/evening day as Genesis states. Scripture tells us all animals were made on days 5 and 6, and man was made on day 6. The question for the christian is, do you trust God's word, or some fallible human beings who says they evolved over millions of years?
What's interesting also is, we have legends of dragons and flying dragons in every ancient culture. But the best evidence is what's clearly stated in Genesis 1. The days were literal morning evening cycles, and all creatures were made within those literal days.
As Moses puts it:
Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,......11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them....
If what WH is attempting to support is true, the passage above makes no sense. Either your work week days are millions of years long each, or the creation days were normal days like the workweek days. For WH, either scripture is true, or it's not. What he believes is between him and the Lord.
Grace and Peace.
C
Re: Gen 1:24-25
But what WH is not telling you is behemoth in Job has a tree-like tail. This is the dirty little secret old-earth compromisers often hide. This why most creationists rule out Hippos and Elephants, as they have tiny twig like tails. Currently sauropods seems to fit the description of behemoth quite well, being both vegetarian and having cedar-like tails. They were not aquatic animals, and likely not semi-aquatic either like Hippos, but apparently were more like elephants—land animals who perhaps enjoyed the water. Makes sense looking at their body structure.
But the real issue is WH's timeline vs. the biblical timeline. WH dismisses the biblical timeline solely due to the fact that modern scientists reject a supernatural beginning. I actually look at the Biblical timeline to judge the accuracy of the secular timeline, and passage like this in Job serve as a great "i told you so...."
Can hardly wait to see what WH posts next.
But what WH is not telling you is behemoth in Job has a tree-like tail. This is the dirty little secret old-earth compromisers often hide. This why most creationists rule out Hippos and Elephants, as they have tiny twig like tails. Currently sauropods seems to fit the description of behemoth quite well, being both vegetarian and having cedar-like tails. They were not aquatic animals, and likely not semi-aquatic either like Hippos, but apparently were more like elephants—land animals who perhaps enjoyed the water. Makes sense looking at their body structure.
But the real issue is WH's timeline vs. the biblical timeline. WH dismisses the biblical timeline solely due to the fact that modern scientists reject a supernatural beginning. I actually look at the Biblical timeline to judge the accuracy of the secular timeline, and passage like this in Job serve as a great "i told you so...."
Can hardly wait to see what WH posts next.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gen 1:26
-
†. Gen 1:26a . . And God said: Let us make Man
The Hebrew word for "man" is 'adam (aw-dawm') which means: ruddy. It's a
very common label in the Bible for human beings. Webster's defines "ruddy"
as having a healthy reddish color. But in this case ruddy is a noun rather
than an adjective.
No doubt by the time the first Ruddy arrived, the world of his portion of the
sixth day scarcely resembled the world that existed when the sixth day
began. I'm confident in my own mind that quite a number of millennia
elapsed by the time human life came on the scene, and the Earth had
already undergone some large-scale geological incidents resulting in mass
extinctions and catastrophic effects upon the earth's topography and its
various climates and environments; which is not all that bad a thing. A world
suitable for humanoid mammals is, of necessity, going to be different than a
world suitable for giant reptiles and whatever else roamed the earth prior to
man.
The introduction of the plural personal pronoun "us" into the narrative at this
point has given rise to some interesting speculation regarding the identity of
the antecedent; and there is no easy answer to this rather difficult
conundrum. If we are to remain steadfast in the Old Testament's testimony
that there is but one true god rather than a pantheon of gods; then to be on
the safe side I think we could safely assume "us" at the very least indicates
that God utilized a crew of angels in the process of manufacturing the
cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy; with of course
Himself as head supervisor and the supreme project manager.
A risky alternative to a crew of angels is the suggestion that "us" associates
God with a reproduction of Himself; viz: a son; who of course would be just
as much God as its father seeing as how like produces like. In other words:
if God were to reproduce, the resulting life would be His own; viz: more of
God.
The possibility of two divine beings with the same name shows up again. For
example when Abraham was in the act of offering his son Isaac as a burnt
offering; a celestial being, called the Angel of the Lord, spoke not only of
God; but also spoke as God (Gen 22:10-18). And then there's Ps 45:6-7
which goes like this:
"Your throne O God is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the
scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated
wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy
more than your fellows."
That passage clearly shows God speaking either to Himself or to a
reproduction of Himself; take your pick.
The lack of details regarding the incredible processes of creation aggravates
many intellectuals because Genesis reveals so little-- hardly any scientific
information at all. Many, many questions still remain unanswered regarding
the origin of the universe. But that stuff is biblically superfluous. I think the
first parts of creation actually made God impatient and He could hardly wait
to get to the people part because the soul of the Bible's God desires
interaction with human beings. Why? I don't know; and David didn't know
either.
"What is man that you are mindful of him: the son of man that you care for
him?" (Ps 8:4)
Some of the atheists with whom I've dialogued allege that humanity's
creator is an egotist who craves a following; viz: an entourage of admirers.
Well, if that were the case, then He certainly didn't need Man for that
purpose; I mean, after all, humanity's creator already had a following of
angels if admiration were His goal. Besides, David wrote that God "cares" for
man. Egotists usually regard their entourages as expendable commodities;
and they'll scrape you off at the drop of a hat with no more regard for your
loyalty than a man who cheats on a good woman.
Other atheists allege that humanity's creator is a bully who isn't happy
unless He has someone to dominate. (chuckle) That one's my favorite-- not
that I agree: it's just that it's so grossly contrary to the creator's nature.
"Like as a father pities his children, so The Lord pities them that fear Him--
for he knows our frame; He's aware that we are dust." (Ps 103:13-14)
†. Gen 1:26b . . in our image, after our likeness.
The pronoun "our" again probably refers to God and His labor force of angels
put to work in the process of manufacturing the cosmos with all of its forms
of life, matter, energy. Well; God and the angels are celestial beings rather
than terrestrial; indicating that Man is very nearly a celestial being himself.
(cf. Ps 8:4-9)
Because of the terms "image and likeness" there are some who believe that
creation's God is a human being; or at least resembles one. But according to
Christ, creation's God consists of spirit rather than solid matter.
"God is spirit" (John 4:24)
Spirits don't have solid-matter bodies. (Luke 24:36-39)
Moses warned Yhvh's 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, cf.
John 5:37)
There exists absolutely nothing in nature physically resembling creation's
creator; except maybe the air in front of your face-- neither Man, nor beast,
nor plant, nor bird, nor bug, nor reptile nor anything out in the void (Rom
1:21-23). Concepts that portray creation's God as a human being are purely
fictional. (Rom 1:25)
The terms "image and likeness" in relation to the creation's creator therefore
don't indicate a reproduction of God; no, not by any means. Rather; those
terms more than likely indicate the status of a son; for example:
"When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his
own image; and named him Seth." (Gen 5:3-4)
The Bible clearly labels Man a son of his creator.
"I said: You are all sons of the Most High." (Ps 82:6)
It's important to note that Man was "made" a son rather than born a son;
ergo: his status as a son is conferred rather than biological, so to speak.
It's also important to note that Man's status wasn't conferred upon other of
God's creatures. Therefore Man easily outranks everything else in the whole
cosmos: all animals, all vegetables, and all minerals; because a king's son
outranks the king's servants and they all have to bow and scrape to the
king's son out of respect for the king.
†. Gen 1:26c . .They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the
cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.
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 the Native American cultural feelings behind that
statement; and must admit that I agree with it whole-heartedly. But
creation's creator decreed that though Man was made of the earth; he is
very definitely above the Earth, and has the God-given right to subjugate
every living thing on the planet including the whole earth: 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 very atmosphere
itself.
=================================
-
†. Gen 1:26a . . And God said: Let us make Man
The Hebrew word for "man" is 'adam (aw-dawm') which means: ruddy. It's a
very common label in the Bible for human beings. Webster's defines "ruddy"
as having a healthy reddish color. But in this case ruddy is a noun rather
than an adjective.
No doubt by the time the first Ruddy arrived, the world of his portion of the
sixth day scarcely resembled the world that existed when the sixth day
began. I'm confident in my own mind that quite a number of millennia
elapsed by the time human life came on the scene, and the Earth had
already undergone some large-scale geological incidents resulting in mass
extinctions and catastrophic effects upon the earth's topography and its
various climates and environments; which is not all that bad a thing. A world
suitable for humanoid mammals is, of necessity, going to be different than a
world suitable for giant reptiles and whatever else roamed the earth prior to
man.
The introduction of the plural personal pronoun "us" into the narrative at this
point has given rise to some interesting speculation regarding the identity of
the antecedent; and there is no easy answer to this rather difficult
conundrum. If we are to remain steadfast in the Old Testament's testimony
that there is but one true god rather than a pantheon of gods; then to be on
the safe side I think we could safely assume "us" at the very least indicates
that God utilized a crew of angels in the process of manufacturing the
cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy; with of course
Himself as head supervisor and the supreme project manager.
A risky alternative to a crew of angels is the suggestion that "us" associates
God with a reproduction of Himself; viz: a son; who of course would be just
as much God as its father seeing as how like produces like. In other words:
if God were to reproduce, the resulting life would be His own; viz: more of
God.
The possibility of two divine beings with the same name shows up again. For
example when Abraham was in the act of offering his son Isaac as a burnt
offering; a celestial being, called the Angel of the Lord, spoke not only of
God; but also spoke as God (Gen 22:10-18). And then there's Ps 45:6-7
which goes like this:
"Your throne O God is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the
scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated
wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy
more than your fellows."
That passage clearly shows God speaking either to Himself or to a
reproduction of Himself; take your pick.
The lack of details regarding the incredible processes of creation aggravates
many intellectuals because Genesis reveals so little-- hardly any scientific
information at all. Many, many questions still remain unanswered regarding
the origin of the universe. But that stuff is biblically superfluous. I think the
first parts of creation actually made God impatient and He could hardly wait
to get to the people part because the soul of the Bible's God desires
interaction with human beings. Why? I don't know; and David didn't know
either.
"What is man that you are mindful of him: the son of man that you care for
him?" (Ps 8:4)
Some of the atheists with whom I've dialogued allege that humanity's
creator is an egotist who craves a following; viz: an entourage of admirers.
Well, if that were the case, then He certainly didn't need Man for that
purpose; I mean, after all, humanity's creator already had a following of
angels if admiration were His goal. Besides, David wrote that God "cares" for
man. Egotists usually regard their entourages as expendable commodities;
and they'll scrape you off at the drop of a hat with no more regard for your
loyalty than a man who cheats on a good woman.
Other atheists allege that humanity's creator is a bully who isn't happy
unless He has someone to dominate. (chuckle) That one's my favorite-- not
that I agree: it's just that it's so grossly contrary to the creator's nature.
"Like as a father pities his children, so The Lord pities them that fear Him--
for he knows our frame; He's aware that we are dust." (Ps 103:13-14)
†. Gen 1:26b . . in our image, after our likeness.
The pronoun "our" again probably refers to God and His labor force of angels
put to work in the process of manufacturing the cosmos with all of its forms
of life, matter, energy. Well; God and the angels are celestial beings rather
than terrestrial; indicating that Man is very nearly a celestial being himself.
(cf. Ps 8:4-9)
Because of the terms "image and likeness" there are some who believe that
creation's God is a human being; or at least resembles one. But according to
Christ, creation's God consists of spirit rather than solid matter.
"God is spirit" (John 4:24)
Spirits don't have solid-matter bodies. (Luke 24:36-39)
Moses warned Yhvh's 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, cf.
John 5:37)
There exists absolutely nothing in nature physically resembling creation's
creator; except maybe the air in front of your face-- neither Man, nor beast,
nor plant, nor bird, nor bug, nor reptile nor anything out in the void (Rom
1:21-23). Concepts that portray creation's God as a human being are purely
fictional. (Rom 1:25)
The terms "image and likeness" in relation to the creation's creator therefore
don't indicate a reproduction of God; no, not by any means. Rather; those
terms more than likely indicate the status of a son; for example:
"When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his
own image; and named him Seth." (Gen 5:3-4)
The Bible clearly labels Man a son of his creator.
"I said: You are all sons of the Most High." (Ps 82:6)
It's important to note that Man was "made" a son rather than born a son;
ergo: his status as a son is conferred rather than biological, so to speak.
It's also important to note that Man's status wasn't conferred upon other of
God's creatures. Therefore Man easily outranks everything else in the whole
cosmos: all animals, all vegetables, and all minerals; because a king's son
outranks the king's servants and they all have to bow and scrape to the
king's son out of respect for the king.
†. Gen 1:26c . .They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the
cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.
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 the Native American cultural feelings behind that
statement; and must admit that I agree with it whole-heartedly. But
creation's creator decreed that though Man was made of the earth; he is
very definitely above the Earth, and has the God-given right to subjugate
every living thing on the planet including the whole earth: 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 very atmosphere
itself.
=================================
C
Re: Gen 1:26
WH doesn't have the courages apparently to take on any challenges, and it's very likely I'm the only one following his comments anymore. But I do want to comment, in case someone comes across this thread and believes he has a good understanding of the original language.
Now I would just wonder what this confidence is based on. Christ said God made man from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). Yet WH is confident many eons passed placing man's creation relatively at the very end. Where does the confidence lie? Quite obviously, it comes from information obtained outside of scripture. That's would seem to be the opposite of trusting God's word.
Yet any child can read the text and see that biblically, Christ's statement is correct, and shows Christ took Genesis literally.
While it was a decent try, I don't think he quite captured the essence of this passage. We are in God's image in the sense we have moral understanding as He does. Adam not only could receive a command from God (do not eat), but was morally culpable for his choice. Animals do not think in terms of morality at all and thus do not have moral culpability.
A helpful article on Adam's moral nature might be: Did Adam Know Any Better?
Fascinated to see what's next.
WH doesn't have the courages apparently to take on any challenges, and it's very likely I'm the only one following his comments anymore. But I do want to comment, in case someone comes across this thread and believes he has a good understanding of the original language.
Now I would just wonder what this confidence is based on. Christ said God made man from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). Yet WH is confident many eons passed placing man's creation relatively at the very end. Where does the confidence lie? Quite obviously, it comes from information obtained outside of scripture. That's would seem to be the opposite of trusting God's word.
Yet any child can read the text and see that biblically, Christ's statement is correct, and shows Christ took Genesis literally.
While it was a decent try, I don't think he quite captured the essence of this passage. We are in God's image in the sense we have moral understanding as He does. Adam not only could receive a command from God (do not eat), but was morally culpable for his choice. Animals do not think in terms of morality at all and thus do not have moral culpability.
A helpful article on Adam's moral nature might be: Did Adam Know Any Better?
Fascinated to see what's next.
Gen 1:27-28
-
†. Gen 1:27a . . And God created man in His image,
I think it is really important to emphasize that man was "created" in God's
image. In other word: God didn't give birth to Ruddy like as if he were God's
biological child, so to speak. Certain ancient Greek poets thought that was
the case (Acts 17:28-30) but Paul labeled that kind of thinking "ignorance".
†. Gen 1:27b . . in the image of God created He him; male and female
He created them.
Some women would be offended to be called a "him" but it's a biblical
designation nonetheless. Regardless of one's gender, all human beings are
of the genus 'adam and can be legitimately referred to as a him or as a he.
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 eo ipso indicate males.
†. Gen 1:28a . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and
increase,
Some interpret that verse to be a mandate 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 mandate;
especially since God said the very same thing to the winged creatures, and
the fish, and the reptiles, and the bugs, and the beasts.
It's always best to regard blessings as benefits 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: the belief that couples should enter marriage for no other reason than
procreation is an invention right out of an ascetic imagination; and if truth
be known, it's in defense of a celibate clergy. According to Gen 2:18-24 and
1Cor 7:7-9, marriage is primarily for the purpose of companionship rather
than procreation. If in fact deliberately childless marriages are wrong, then
Catholicism's platonic union of Joseph and the Lord's mom would be a sinful
relationship.
Without the gift 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
"doped" 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 propensities.
†. 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.
But the interesting thing is; the Ruddy race 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 1:27a . . And God created man in His image,
I think it is really important to emphasize that man was "created" in God's
image. In other word: God didn't give birth to Ruddy like as if he were God's
biological child, so to speak. Certain ancient Greek poets thought that was
the case (Acts 17:28-30) but Paul labeled that kind of thinking "ignorance".
†. Gen 1:27b . . in the image of God created He him; male and female
He created them.
Some women would be offended to be called a "him" but it's a biblical
designation nonetheless. Regardless of one's gender, all human beings are
of the genus 'adam and can be legitimately referred to as a him or as a he.
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 eo ipso indicate males.
†. Gen 1:28a . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and
increase,
Some interpret that verse to be a mandate 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 mandate;
especially since God said the very same thing to the winged creatures, and
the fish, and the reptiles, and the bugs, and the beasts.
It's always best to regard blessings as benefits 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: the belief that couples should enter marriage for no other reason than
procreation is an invention right out of an ascetic imagination; and if truth
be known, it's in defense of a celibate clergy. According to Gen 2:18-24 and
1Cor 7:7-9, marriage is primarily for the purpose of companionship rather
than procreation. If in fact deliberately childless marriages are wrong, then
Catholicism's platonic union of Joseph and the Lord's mom would be a sinful
relationship.
Without the gift 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
"doped" 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 propensities.
†. 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.
But the interesting thing is; the Ruddy race 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)
=================================
Last edited:
Gen 1:29-31
-
†. 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; man, beast, bug, and birds too-- even the lions and tigers
and hawks and eagles and vultures and crocodiles --subsisted on fruits,
nuts, grains, and vegetables. Precisely what kind of diet God intended for
sea life is not 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 obvious that 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 kingdom of God, carnivores won't be carnivorous any more, and
nothing in the animal kingdom will any longer pose a threat either to Man or
to each other. (Isa 11:6-9)
†. Gen 1:31 . . And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good.
And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
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, Man hasn't improved the planet at all. He has actually ravaged it
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; plus
denuded water sheds thus causing unnecessary erosion and stream
sedimentation, dammed rivers thus disrupting ancient fish migration routes,
over-exploited natural resources, filled the atmosphere with toxins and
greenhouse gas emissions, poisoned aquifers, contaminated soil and
waterways with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, GMO vegetation; and made
possible super germs, and seriously upset the balance of nature.
It seems that everything Mr. Ruddy touches, he ruins; and as if the earth isn't
enough, he's moved out into space where in just the 57 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 Alan Shepherd's golf balls.
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 pride and
satisfaction in a job well done.
I believe creation's creator knew precisely what He was doing, and where He
was going with creation; 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 rocket science. Nobody could build a fully
functioning cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy unless
they knew what they were doing from beginning to end.
"O Yhvh! . . what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you have
made them all. (Ps 104:24)
NOTE: the information disclosed in the first chapter of Genesis is
incorporated in the text of a gospel labeled as "everlasting".
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting
gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and
kindred, and tongue, and people, announcing with a loud voice: Fear God,
and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship
him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
(Rev 14:6-7)
The everlasting gospel is very elementary. Pretty much all it says is (1)
there's a supreme being, (2) there's a frightful reckoning looming on the
horizon, and (3) the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --is
the product of intelligent design.
Of particular interest to me is the inclusion of water in the everlasting
gospel. Scientists theorize the origin of the earth's amazing quantity of water
without really knowing exactly where it came from, nor how it got here.
Well; that is one of the things that I like about Genesis. It takes an
essentially unsophisticated, uneducated blue-collar welder like myself and
gives him answers to questions that people much brighter, and better
educated than I cannot answer.
Giving "glory" to God simply indicates giving someone credit where credit is
due; and "worship" basically just simply means admiration.
It's quite natural to admire celebrities, pro athletes, and super achievers-- to
give them credit where credit is due --but not quite so natural to do the
same for their creator, Anyway, point being: you either believe in intelligent
design, or you don't. If you do believe, then you will admire both the
originator's genius and His handiwork. If you don't believe; then you won't
admire anything about Him-- simple as that.
=================================
-
†. 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; man, beast, bug, and birds too-- even the lions and tigers
and hawks and eagles and vultures and crocodiles --subsisted on fruits,
nuts, grains, and vegetables. Precisely what kind of diet God intended for
sea life is not 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 obvious that 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 kingdom of God, carnivores won't be carnivorous any more, and
nothing in the animal kingdom will any longer pose a threat either to Man or
to each other. (Isa 11:6-9)
†. Gen 1:31 . . And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good.
And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
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, Man hasn't improved the planet at all. He has actually ravaged it
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; plus
denuded water sheds thus causing unnecessary erosion and stream
sedimentation, dammed rivers thus disrupting ancient fish migration routes,
over-exploited natural resources, filled the atmosphere with toxins and
greenhouse gas emissions, poisoned aquifers, contaminated soil and
waterways with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, GMO vegetation; and made
possible super germs, and seriously upset the balance of nature.
It seems that everything Mr. Ruddy touches, he ruins; and as if the earth isn't
enough, he's moved out into space where in just the 57 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 Alan Shepherd's golf balls.
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 pride and
satisfaction in a job well done.
I believe creation's creator knew precisely what He was doing, and where He
was going with creation; 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 rocket science. Nobody could build a fully
functioning cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy unless
they knew what they were doing from beginning to end.
"O Yhvh! . . what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you have
made them all. (Ps 104:24)
NOTE: the information disclosed in the first chapter of Genesis is
incorporated in the text of a gospel labeled as "everlasting".
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting
gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and
kindred, and tongue, and people, announcing with a loud voice: Fear God,
and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship
him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
(Rev 14:6-7)
The everlasting gospel is very elementary. Pretty much all it says is (1)
there's a supreme being, (2) there's a frightful reckoning looming on the
horizon, and (3) the cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --is
the product of intelligent design.
Of particular interest to me is the inclusion of water in the everlasting
gospel. Scientists theorize the origin of the earth's amazing quantity of water
without really knowing exactly where it came from, nor how it got here.
Well; that is one of the things that I like about Genesis. It takes an
essentially unsophisticated, uneducated blue-collar welder like myself and
gives him answers to questions that people much brighter, and better
educated than I cannot answer.
Giving "glory" to God simply indicates giving someone credit where credit is
due; and "worship" basically just simply means admiration.
It's quite natural to admire celebrities, pro athletes, and super achievers-- to
give them credit where credit is due --but not quite so natural to do the
same for their creator, Anyway, point being: you either believe in intelligent
design, or you don't. If you do believe, then you will admire both the
originator's genius and His handiwork. If you don't believe; then you won't
admire anything about Him-- simple as that.
=================================
Gen 2:1-5
-
†. Gen 2:1-3 . .The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their
array. On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been
doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He
had done. And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy,
because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He had
done.
Thrice 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 souls for that matter-- either
birds, bugs, beasts, or fish --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. That's pretty amazing when you think about it.
In the future; after the current cosmos is destroyed, 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}
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.
Pronouncing something clean, or observing something as clean and/or
conferring upon something the status of clean, 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 in
the above verse 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 most famous of God's
names, yhvh, appears. Up to this point, The creator has been identified by
'elohiym (el-o-heem') which is a nondescript label for any and all kinds of gods;
both the true and the false and/or the real and the imagined.
The noun is grammatically plural but doesn't necessarily indicate creation's
God is a plural being. Sheep, fish, and deer are plural too but don't always
indicate more than one of each. So plural nouns don't eo ipso denote more
than one item. There are other gods in the Bible, such as Baal and Dagon, to
whom the word 'elohiym is applied and those gods aren't composite entities;
e.g. 1Kgs 18:25-29 and Jgs 16:23.
Yhvh's 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: Yhvh is commonly referred to with masculine pronouns. Why
masculine? Because He's a king; and kings are always males rather than
females; for example:
"Thus testifies Yhvh, the king of Israel, and His redeemer, Yhvh of hosts: I
am the First and I am the Last; other than Me there is no god." (Isa 44:6)
†. Gen 2:5 . . --and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and
no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for Yhvh God had not sent rain on
the earth and there was no man to work 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
saying that when God planted vegetation in chapter three, it wasn't
permitted to flourish till sometime in chapter six when it became needed as
food for first the beasts, and later; the Ruddy species.
=================================
-
†. Gen 2:1-3 . .The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their
array. On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been
doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He
had done. And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy,
because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He had
done.
Thrice 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 souls for that matter-- either
birds, bugs, beasts, or fish --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. That's pretty amazing when you think about it.
In the future; after the current cosmos is destroyed, 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}
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.
Pronouncing something clean, or observing something as clean and/or
conferring upon something the status of clean, 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 in
the above verse 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 most famous of God's
names, yhvh, appears. Up to this point, The creator has been identified by
'elohiym (el-o-heem') which is a nondescript label for any and all kinds of gods;
both the true and the false and/or the real and the imagined.
The noun is grammatically plural but doesn't necessarily indicate creation's
God is a plural being. Sheep, fish, and deer are plural too but don't always
indicate more than one of each. So plural nouns don't eo ipso denote more
than one item. There are other gods in the Bible, such as Baal and Dagon, to
whom the word 'elohiym is applied and those gods aren't composite entities;
e.g. 1Kgs 18:25-29 and Jgs 16:23.
Yhvh's 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: Yhvh is commonly referred to with masculine pronouns. Why
masculine? Because He's a king; and kings are always males rather than
females; for example:
"Thus testifies Yhvh, the king of Israel, and His redeemer, Yhvh of hosts: I
am the First and I am the Last; other than Me there is no god." (Isa 44:6)
†. Gen 2:5 . . --and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and
no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for Yhvh God had not sent rain on
the earth and there was no man to work 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
saying that when God planted vegetation in chapter three, it wasn't
permitted to flourish till sometime in chapter six when it became needed as
food for first the beasts, and later; the Ruddy species.
=================================
Gen 2:6-7
-
†. Gen 2:6 . . a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of
the ground.
The word "mist" is from 'ed (ade). It's a very rare word and appears only
one more time in the whole Bible.
"See, God is greater than we can know; the number of His years cannot be
counted. He forms the droplets of water, which cluster into rain, from His
mist. The skies rain; they pour down on all mankind. Can one, indeed,
contemplate the expanse of clouds, the thunderings from His pavilion? See:
He spreads His lightning over it; it fills the bed of the sea." (Job 36:26-30)
According to the translators; Job understood 'ed to mean water vapor; viz:
fog. California's coastal redwood trees derive much of their moisture from
fog.
The reason for the mist is something I learned in a high school science class.
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.
†. Gen 2:7a . . And Yhvh God formed a man's body
Mankind's creator didn't give birth to man like women give birth to children
or baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't God's biological progeny
--humans are God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by
craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch using mostly
sand for their base material.
†. Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground
Earth's dirt consists of all the basic metallic, non metallic, and gaseous
chemical elements such as carbon, silicon, calcium, phosphorous, hydrogen,
oxygen, iron, sodium, and stuff like that constituting everything that exists
in nature: both the organic and the inorganic. More than a hundred natural
elements are known to exist and many of them can be found in all living
things; not just Man.
†. Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life
The word for "breathed" is from naphach (naw-fakh') and means; among
other things: to kindle; which Webster's defines as (1) to start (a fire)
burning: light, (2) to stir up: arouse, (3) to bring into being: start, and (4)
to animate.
The word for "breath" is neshamah (nesh-aw-maw') which means: a puff.
Neshamah is a bit ambiguous and has been variously translated air, soul,
spirit, blast, and inspiration.
What we're looking at here isn't artificial respiration because it doesn't do a
bit of good pumping air into the lungs of a corpse. They won't come alive
like that; it's been tried. So, what is it that aroused the man's body? It was
life; which is neither a substance nor an energy, and that's why nobody yet
has been able to make it in a lab. Life isn't something that can be produced
by means of a recipe; no: life is derived from a source of life-- sort of like
filling a bucket with water from a well, or a fountain, or a river.
Some pretty amazing things can be produced by combining various elements
listed on the periodic table; but life is not one of them. The breath of life
then, can be defined as the mystery with power enough to produce
awareness; for example:
"Think not to say within yourselves: We have Abraham to our father. For I
say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto
Abraham." (Matt 3:9)
True enough; viz: if God can manufacture men from dirt; then He can just
as easily manufacture them from stone.
†. Gen 2:7c . . and man became a living soul.
The Hebrew words for "living soul" are chay nephesh which is the very same
nomenclature of every living thing aboard Noah's ark at Gen 9:10. Although
Man possess a higher intelligence than all the rest of the chay nephesh, he
is, nevertheless, a creature; and little more than brutish in his basic nature:
Men eat like brutes, sleep like brutes, react like brutes, reproduce like
brutes, excrete like brutes; territorial like brutes, drink water like brutes, run
and hide like brutes, squabble like brutes; and they die like brutes.
"For one can see that even wise men die; the stupid and the senseless
perish too; and leave their wealth to others. Their inner thought is: that
their estates are forever, and their dwelling places to all generations. They
have called their lands after their own names. But man's pomp will not
sustain him; he is little different than other perishable beasts." (Ps 49:10
-12)
Some feel that the "breath of life" is limited to humans; but it's easily shown
from those who missed a ride aboard Noah's ark that both man and beast
share that aspect of their creation.
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle,
and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and
every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the
dry land, died." (Gen 7:21-22)
The problem is: folks want something to account for mankind's interest in
religion. But the breath of life makes no one religious; it just makes them
alive instead of dead.
As we saw; the two Hebrew words composing "living soul" are chay and
nepehesh; which are very common and very definitely not restricted to
humans.
Nephesh, for example; is located in 1:20, 1:21, 1:24, 1:30, 2:19, and 9:4.
Chay is located in 1:20, 1:21, 1:24, 1:25, 1:28, 1:30, 2:9, 2:19, 2:20, and 3:1.
When all those references are compared, it's easy to see that a living soul is
simply a sentient creature like a koala bear as opposed to an unresponsive
object like a hula hoop or a Frisbee.
=================================
-
†. Gen 2:6 . . a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of
the ground.
The word "mist" is from 'ed (ade). It's a very rare word and appears only
one more time in the whole Bible.
"See, God is greater than we can know; the number of His years cannot be
counted. He forms the droplets of water, which cluster into rain, from His
mist. The skies rain; they pour down on all mankind. Can one, indeed,
contemplate the expanse of clouds, the thunderings from His pavilion? See:
He spreads His lightning over it; it fills the bed of the sea." (Job 36:26-30)
According to the translators; Job understood 'ed to mean water vapor; viz:
fog. California's coastal redwood trees derive much of their moisture from
fog.
The reason for the mist is something I learned in a high school science class.
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.
†. Gen 2:7a . . And Yhvh God formed a man's body
Mankind's creator didn't give birth to man like women give birth to children
or baby chicks hatch from eggs; no, humans aren't God's biological progeny
--humans are God's handiwork like the glass products manufactured by
craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch using mostly
sand for their base material.
†. Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground
Earth's dirt consists of all the basic metallic, non metallic, and gaseous
chemical elements such as carbon, silicon, calcium, phosphorous, hydrogen,
oxygen, iron, sodium, and stuff like that constituting everything that exists
in nature: both the organic and the inorganic. More than a hundred natural
elements are known to exist and many of them can be found in all living
things; not just Man.
†. Gen 2:7c . . and breathed into it the breath of life
The word for "breathed" is from naphach (naw-fakh') and means; among
other things: to kindle; which Webster's defines as (1) to start (a fire)
burning: light, (2) to stir up: arouse, (3) to bring into being: start, and (4)
to animate.
The word for "breath" is neshamah (nesh-aw-maw') which means: a puff.
Neshamah is a bit ambiguous and has been variously translated air, soul,
spirit, blast, and inspiration.
What we're looking at here isn't artificial respiration because it doesn't do a
bit of good pumping air into the lungs of a corpse. They won't come alive
like that; it's been tried. So, what is it that aroused the man's body? It was
life; which is neither a substance nor an energy, and that's why nobody yet
has been able to make it in a lab. Life isn't something that can be produced
by means of a recipe; no: life is derived from a source of life-- sort of like
filling a bucket with water from a well, or a fountain, or a river.
Some pretty amazing things can be produced by combining various elements
listed on the periodic table; but life is not one of them. The breath of life
then, can be defined as the mystery with power enough to produce
awareness; for example:
"Think not to say within yourselves: We have Abraham to our father. For I
say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto
Abraham." (Matt 3:9)
True enough; viz: if God can manufacture men from dirt; then He can just
as easily manufacture them from stone.
†. Gen 2:7c . . and man became a living soul.
The Hebrew words for "living soul" are chay nephesh which is the very same
nomenclature of every living thing aboard Noah's ark at Gen 9:10. Although
Man possess a higher intelligence than all the rest of the chay nephesh, he
is, nevertheless, a creature; and little more than brutish in his basic nature:
Men eat like brutes, sleep like brutes, react like brutes, reproduce like
brutes, excrete like brutes; territorial like brutes, drink water like brutes, run
and hide like brutes, squabble like brutes; and they die like brutes.
"For one can see that even wise men die; the stupid and the senseless
perish too; and leave their wealth to others. Their inner thought is: that
their estates are forever, and their dwelling places to all generations. They
have called their lands after their own names. But man's pomp will not
sustain him; he is little different than other perishable beasts." (Ps 49:10
-12)
Some feel that the "breath of life" is limited to humans; but it's easily shown
from those who missed a ride aboard Noah's ark that both man and beast
share that aspect of their creation.
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle,
and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and
every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the
dry land, died." (Gen 7:21-22)
The problem is: folks want something to account for mankind's interest in
religion. But the breath of life makes no one religious; it just makes them
alive instead of dead.
As we saw; the two Hebrew words composing "living soul" are chay and
nepehesh; which are very common and very definitely not restricted to
humans.
Nephesh, for example; is located in 1:20, 1:21, 1:24, 1:30, 2:19, and 9:4.
Chay is located in 1:20, 1:21, 1:24, 1:25, 1:28, 1:30, 2:9, 2:19, 2:20, and 3:1.
When all those references are compared, it's easy to see that a living soul is
simply a sentient creature like a koala bear as opposed to an unresponsive
object like a hula hoop or a Frisbee.
=================================
Last edited:
C
Re: Gen 1:29-31
It would appear WH has lost his audience..... except me. I can only speculate on why this is.
This actually reminds of the the plot of hollywood's recent Noah movie, where the real sin was polluting the environment. This is the type of revisionism that comes with compromised views.
But the real question here is, what did God mean by very good? WH posits that dinosaurs and man did not live together, but were separated by millions of years. This means that according to WH, death and suffering were part of God's original very good creation.
I think this corny cartoon describes his theology well.
This is really the primary problem with most old earth compromises. Rather than death and struggle being the byproduct of sin, it actually precedes sin. According to them, God created this world of suffering and death long before Adam came on the scene. WH says mankind is guilty of polluting the world as if that's the real source of suffering. But when we look at the fossil record we see terrible suffering like cancer and even cannibalism all apparently preceding the first man. Did God really create those things and then call them tov ma'od (very good)?
you decide.
It would appear WH has lost his audience..... except me. I can only speculate on why this is.
This actually reminds of the the plot of hollywood's recent Noah movie, where the real sin was polluting the environment. This is the type of revisionism that comes with compromised views.
But the real question here is, what did God mean by very good? WH posits that dinosaurs and man did not live together, but were separated by millions of years. This means that according to WH, death and suffering were part of God's original very good creation.
I think this corny cartoon describes his theology well.
This is really the primary problem with most old earth compromises. Rather than death and struggle being the byproduct of sin, it actually precedes sin. According to them, God created this world of suffering and death long before Adam came on the scene. WH says mankind is guilty of polluting the world as if that's the real source of suffering. But when we look at the fossil record we see terrible suffering like cancer and even cannibalism all apparently preceding the first man. Did God really create those things and then call them tov ma'od (very good)?
you decide.