Genesis Brief Overview

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 8:13-14 . . In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the
first of the month, the waters began to dry from the earth; and when Noah
removed the covering of the ark, he saw that the surface of the ground was
drying. And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month,
the earth was dry.

Calculating the duration of the Flood is not only an interesting exercise but
also an opportunity to get the hang of prophetic time keeping.

It began to rain on the 17th day of the second month of the 600th year of
Noah's life. The Earth was dry on the 27th day of the second month of his
601st year. So, reckoning time according to prophetic months of 30 days
each, and not counting the final day, Noah's passengers and crew were
aboard the ark for a total of 370 days; which is roughly 5 days over a solar
year, and 10 days over a prophetic year.

FAQ: Whence came the so-called prophetic year?

REPLY: The Flood began on the seventeenth day of the second month of
Noah's life, and it rained for forty days. Then the rain stopped so the water
could begin draining off and leave the ark aground. A period of exactly five
months went by. Those five months are recorded as exactly 150 days. If we
were to try and use the months of the Jewish calendar, the number of days
would not add up to 150. Here's why.

The months of the Jewish calendar supposedly equivalent to the months of
the Flood are:

lyar . . . . . . . . 29 days
Sivan . . . . . . . 30 days
Tammuz . . . . 29 days
Av . . . . . . . . . 30 days
Elul . . . . . . . . 29 days
Tishri . . . . . . . 30 days

Using the Jewish calendar, it would begin raining on the 17th of lyar, thus
flooding a total of 13 days during that month. Following would be 30 in
Sivan, 29 in Tammuz, 30 in Av, 29 in Elul, and lastly 16 in Tishri if we don't
count the day that the ark ran aground. The total number of days from the
beginning of the Flood until the day the ark went aground, would have been,
according to the Jewish calendar, 147; which is three days short of 150.

However, we can safely ignore the Jewish calendar, and just reckon the
elapsed time relative to Noah's birthday. The 150 days then average out to
five months of 30 days apiece. That doesn't really cause any problems
because a dating method of that nature is not intended to mark off the
actual passage of astronomical time in a calendar year; only the days of
time elapsed during an important event such as the Flood.

So; here in Genesis, very early in the Bible, a standard is set for specifying
the length of a special kind of year: the prophetic year. Since the months in
a year of this type are of thirty days apiece, then twelve such months add up
to 360 days; which is 5¼ days less than a calendar year.

The prophetic year is sort of like a baker's dozen. Though a baker's dozen is
not a dozen of twelve; it is nonetheless a dozen in its own right. As long as
students of the Bible are aware of the existence of such a thing as a
prophetic year, they won't be tripped up when they run across it in
prophecy; for example the one below:

"And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared
of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and
threescore days." (Rev 12:6)

"And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly
into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and
times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." (Rev 12:14)

Those two passages speak of a 3½ year period of exactly 1,260 days. Well,
3½ solar years is 1,274+ days; which is almost fifteen days too many. But if
we reckon those 3½ years as prophetic years of 360 days each, then it
comes out perfectly to 1,260 days.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 6:15b . . the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width
fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.

There was a cubit among the Babylonians, and one in Egypt too. But there
seems to have existed double standards in both countries. Because of that,
there exists no undisputed example of the cubit that remains to the present
time; so the length of the cubit has been variously estimated.

One of the ancient cubits was the length of a man's forearm, from the elbow
to the tip of the middle finger, as is implied from the derivation of the word
in Hebrew and from the Latin cubitum. It seems to be referred to also in
Deut 3:11 as "after the cubit of a man." But that's too vague, and unsuitable
for a scientific standard because not all men's arms are exactly alike.

The Babylonians employed two different cubits: the so-called royal cubit and
the common cubit. From the remains of buildings in Assyria and Babylonia,
the royal cubit is made out to be about 20.6 inches. A cubit of similar length
was used in Egypt. This was probably the cubit mentioned by Ezk 40:5 and
possibly that of Solomon's temple as "cubits after the first measure" (2 Chr
3:3)

The commercial cubit was shorter, and has been variously estimated at
between 16 and 18 inches or more, but the evidence of the Siloam
inscription and of the tombs in Palestine seems to indicate 17.6 inches as
the average length. This was the cubit of six palms, while the longer one
was of seven (Ezk 40:5). The cubit mentioned in Judges 3:16 is from a
different word, the Hebrew gomedh, and was probably shorter.

The cubit of Noah's day remains a total mystery. We have no way of
knowing exactly how long it was. Maybe Noah and his boys passed on their
antediluvian knowledge of weights and measures to the post-flood world and
it stayed pretty close to the original standards over the years; but it's
impossible to know for sure.

If we use an 18-inch cubit as a close approximation, then the ark would
have been in the neighborhood of 450' long x 75' wide x 45' high. The ark's
beam was 30 feet wider than its height, so should have proved very stable,
and difficult to capsize even in rough seas— especially since it had a flat
bottom, which was good too for the purpose intended.

Nothing fancy. Since the ark didn't have to navigate; then it didn't require a
means of propulsion nor was there any practical use for a bow, or a stern, or
a wheel house, a rudder, sails, engine room, anchor, windlasses, or masts—
not even a handrail around the main deck. Since the ark didn't have to cut
through the water like a schooner, then it didn't need tapered undersides. All
the ark really had to do was float. It was really nothing in the world but a
barge: and a very crude barge at that. Really little more than a very large
watertight crate.

Compared to modern ships, 450 feet is not all that big. Oil tankers are
around 1,500, and the Nimitz aircraft carrier is about 1,092 feet. The
distance from home plate to the center field fence in major league baseball,
averages 400 feet or better. So the ark would just about fit into Yankee
stadium. The main playing area of a football field is 300 feet. Add 26 more
for the end zones, and the total is 326; which is still 124 feet short of the
ark's length but at least gives some idea of its scale.

Skeptics object that a wooden vessel the size of Noah's ark couldn't be built
because the timbers required for its structural strength would have been so
massive that Noah would never have managed to assemble its pieces and
parts.

But ancient craftsmen were far more ingenious than most people living
today realize. For example, nobody yet has really figured out how the
Egyptians built the pyramids nor how the people of Easter Island cut,
carved, and moved all those big stone heads around. And those aren't the
only projects to mystify us. There are ancient stone structures around the
world-- e.g. Stonehenge --that seem impossible to be erected by human
hands prior to the age of heavy industrial machinery; but nevertheless,
there they are.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 8:3b-4 . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters
diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the
month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears
three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38,
and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat in the Bible always refers to a political area--
the country of Armenia --never a specific geological feature by the same
name.

The Hebrew word for "mountains" doesn't always indicate a prominent land
mass like Kilimanjaro; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range
of hills or highlands; for example:

In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San
Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There
were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was
very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and
cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and
calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top
of one of its peaks like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.

It makes better sense to beach the ark on the soil of one of Armenia's
elevated plains rather than up on one of Turkey's ancient volcanoes seeing
as how Noah took up agriculture after the Flood. Plus, had he been forced to
abandoned the ark atop a mountain, Noah would've lost ready access to an
abundant supply of hewn wood that he could appropriate for other purposes.

According to the dimensions given at Gen 6:15, the ark was shaped like
what the beautiful minds call a right rectangular prism; which is nothing in
the world but the shape of a common shoe box. So most of the lumber and
logs used in its construction would've been nice and straight; which is
perfect for putting together houses, fences, barns, corrals, stables, gates,
hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.

I think it's safe to assume that Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the
ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires.
Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using
refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody
needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs.

There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of
that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's
lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape
and should have been preserved for many years to come.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 9:5-6 . . But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I will
require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning for human
life, of every man for that of his fellow man! Whoever sheds the blood of
man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in His image did God make man.

One of the important things to note is that the language requires humanity
to perform the executions rather than laying this responsibility off on God.

Another point to note is that Gen 9:5-6 is neither a Jewish law nor a
Christian law. It's not even a religious law. It's what's known as universal,
i.e. it pertains to everybody, both man and beast, regardless of their politics
or their religion.

• Gen 9:8-10 . . And God said to Noah and to his sons with him: I now
establish My covenant with you and your offspring to come, and with every
living thing that is with you-- birds, cattle, and every wild beast as well --all
that have come out of the ark, every living thing on earth.

A third point to note is that murder is an outrage.

"for in His image did God make man."

So then; murder isn't banned because it's immoral, but rather, because it
demeans the name of God. Apparently, were humanity lacking His image,
people could go on safari and stalk each other like game animals and mount
human heads as trophies of the hunt.

James criticized the cursing of humans not because it's immoral, but
because it too demeans the name of God.

• Jas 3:7-9 . . People can tame all kinds of animals and birds and reptiles
and fish, but no one can tame the tongue. It is an uncontrollable evil, full of
deadly poison. Sometimes it praises our Lord and Father, and sometimes it
breaks out into curses against those who have been made in the image of
God.

The image of God lends humanity a measure of value that it wouldn't have
otherwise.

• Heb 2:7-8 . .You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him
with glory and honor and put everything under his feet.

Without that measure of value, humanity would just be another among
many knuckle-dragging primates.

Refusal to implement the death penalty for murder denigrates the sanctity
and dignity of Almighty God. So don't ever let anyone tell you capital
punishment for murder is wrong. No; capital punishment for murder isn't
wrong; au contraire, capital punishment for murder is divine.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 10:5 . .These are the descendants of Japheth by their lands-- each
with its language-- their clans and their nations.

Diverse languages didn't appear right away. First came the tower of Babel. It
was after that when people's languages became what we might call
"foreign".

• Gen 10:8-9 . . Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty
warrior on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before The Lord; that is why it
is said: Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before The Lord. The first centers of
his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar.

At first, mankind was scattered out in individual clans, and leadership was
pretty much restricted to local patriarchal Dons and Sheiks. But Nimrod
wasn't content with local rule. He was resolved not only to be head and
shoulders above his neighbors-- not only to be eminent among them but to
lord it over them.

There are some in whom ambition, achievement, and affectation of dominion
seem to be bred in the bone. Nothing short of Hell itself will humble and
break the proud, domineering spirits of men such as those.

The same spirit that actuated the mighty men and the men of renown prior
to the Flood, (by reason of whom the Flood came) now revived in Nimrod; a
nephiyl personage with humble beginnings: first as a professional hunter;
probably supplying meat to frontier towns and selling pelts at trading posts.
That was likely Nimrod's career path up until his exploits became famous
and he began to realize it was far more profitable to go into politics.

Lots of great men, some good and some bad, had humble beginnings--
Abraham Lincoln, King David, and even Hitler. Timely circumstances, and
fortuitous events, catapulted those blokes up to very high levels of control
over their fellow men.

A contemporary case in point is former US President Barak Hussein Obama:
a man who had little to no chance of winning a US Senate seat had it not
been for his shoo-in opponent's carnal indiscretions.

From thence, the voting public's disgust with the Republican party, coupled
with their infatuation with the color of Mr. Obama's skin (he's not really
Black, he's mulatto), practically assured his election to America's highest
federal office. He was but a junior senator with like zero executive
experience; yet there he was flying around the world in Air Force One.

To this very day Nimrod is still known as the outdoorsman who would be
king. He was such a famous icon of that day that his example became
descriptive of others who worked their way to the top like he did-- men of
vision, daring, energy, strong personal ambition, and dogged perseverance.

The common personality trait, among such men (and certain women) is their
strong desire not just to govern, but to quite dominate. There are those for
whom it isn't enough to win; no, it isn't enough for people like that to win:
everyone else has to lose. They don't want 50% market share, nor even
90% no, they're content with nothing less than 100%

Actually, Nimrod was one of the great men of history, though so little is
written about him. He was the first statesmen to successfully unite the
world; and it was such a solid unity that only divine intervention could bring
it down.
_

 

[FreeGrace2]

I’d like to hear your thoughts. I put together more then I had in the last thread.

Genesis

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2And the earth was a [a]formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the [c]surface of the waters. 3Then God said, “[d]Let there be light”; and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

How do I understand Genesis?

Ultimately, I understand the creation story as a way for the people of Israel to make sense of themselves in relationship to YHWH and the rest of the world. It’s a story that answers the questions of what is the meaning and purpose of their lives. As Christians today, we can relate to such a beginning kind of story and how it makes sense of our own lives because we too had a new beginning, a new birth, a new faith and commitments when we found Jesus Christ. Both kinds of beginnings, whether Genesis 1 with creation or John 3 with the new birth, explained their and our identity, meaning, and purpose. It explained their and our relationship to our God and King, as well as our relationship to the rest of the world.

Considering some of the details of Genesis 1.

1:1 - I understand “In the beginning” to refer to a moment in the past when God began to create. I don’t think this refers to an ultimate beginning of all beginnings. As if God hadn’t created a thing until this moment. The reason why is because the word “the” is not in the Hebrew. Therefore, it can refer to “a beginning” of sorts and could even be understood and translated as “When God began to create the heavens and the earth.”

Heavens. I understand “heavens” as “sky.” I no longer think it refers to all the heavens we can think of, although God did create every one of them. Rather, heavens (I think better should be translated as sky) which ties to the rest of the creation story, which I think further supports my claim.

Earth. I understand “earth” as “land.” The land of dirt, rocks, and dust. The land beneath the ancient Israelites feet. However, from a modern perspective I understand earth to be more then land, but a globe, turning on its axis, moving around the sun, and all that is on the earth. I’ve learned my modern perspective wasn’t what ancient people in Israel or their neighbors thought of.

1:2 “And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.”

Since you are asking for thoughts, ok, here I go.

The traditional translation of v.1 and 2 creates a conflict with Isa 45:18. The problem is whether God did or didn't create the earth "tohu".

If the traditional translation is correct, it says "in the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and earth AND the earth WAS tohu.

However, Isa 45:18 says "God did NOT create (bara) the earth tohu". So, which author messed up? Moses or Isaiah?

Well, I say neither. The Septuagint translates the conjunction in v.2 as BUT, rather than "and". This creates a contrast with v.1.

Then, the verb "was" is defined as "a verb of existence; to be or BECOME". The SAME form of the verb "hayah" is found 111 times in the OT, and in about 72% of the time it is translated either "become" or "became". The only difference is tense, with "become" referring to something about to happen, while "became" refers to something that already happened.

So, now v.2 looks like this: But, the earth became tohu.

So, what does tohu mean? The traditional rendering is "without form" or "formless". Which, if you think about it, isn't even possible. Every material thing HAS a form, even irregular, or "blob-like", etc. In most of the 10 occurrences in the OT it is translated as a "wasteland" or "waste place", etc. Hm.

So, v.2 looks like this: But the earth became an uninhabitable (void-bohu) wasteland. If this is correct, the conflict is eliminated completely.

iow, God didn't create the earth tohu. And the correct rendering of v.2 supports that.

So, chapter one isn't original creation, except v.1, but rather, a restoration of earth. God prepared it for humanity.

Speaking of restoration, Heb 11:3 uses the Greek word for restoration, but unfortunately is mostly translated as "formed", "framed" "created", etc.

However, 'katartizo' is translated as "mending" in the gospel of 2 disciples of Jesus mending their nets, and in Gal 6:1 the word is actually translated as "restored" for mature believers restoring a "fallen brother".

Heb 11;3 - By faith we understand that the universe was formed (katartizo - restored) at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

This verse is referring to Genesis 1.

Notice that I didn't include what may have happened in that obvious time gap between v.1 and v.2. So I'm not talking about a "gap theory". I am talking about a time gap between v.1 and v.2, meaning that the earth is way older than Adam.

And, no, I am absolutely NOT an evolutionist. I am a Berean type Bible student.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Prior to the Flood, folks sustained themselves on a 100% vegan diet. (Gen
2:16, Gen 3:18). But afterwards, God said:

• Gen 9:3 . . Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the
green grasses, I give you all these.

Man doesn't have to eat every creature if he doesn't want to-- they're optional
since Gen 9:1-3 is clearly a blessing rather than a commandment.

Apparently the inclusion of animal products in Man's diet after the Flood was
intended primarily as a source of natural supplements to make up for the
human body's gradually lessening ability to manufacture all its own essential
vitamins; much the same reason that modern vegans resort to synthetic
supplements in order to avoid contracting deficiency diseases.

According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York
Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture
all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to
manufacture all but K and D.

That seems plausible to me seeing as how Noah lived to be 950 years old,
but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased
considerably to 175; which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7
8) so the human body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day
than it was in Abraham's.

Bible students are often curious about the disparity between Noah's diet and
the diet for Moses' people. But God-given diets are what's known as
"dispensational" which means they're in effect for only a specific era, and
oftentimes only for a specific people. For example: it's wrong for Moses'
people to eat vultures, pigs, and/or lobsters, octopus, and clams; whereas
Noah was allowed to include all those critters in his diet.

Dispensations are an important aspect of Man's association with God; and
failure to discern them can sometimes lead to unnecessary confusion in
peoples' minds.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 11:1 . . Everyone on earth had the same language and the same
words.

The Hebrew word for "language" is from saphah (saw-faw') which means:
the lip. The one for "words" is from dabar (daw-baw') which means: a word
(as spoken or written)

Spoken languages are a combination of words and lips; viz: vocabulary and
pronunciation, i.e. accent and inflection. It's one thing to know the words of
a language, but it is quite another to speak them with the correct
pronunciation. In that day, everyone used the same words and spoke them
alike.

• Gen 11:2 . . And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a valley
in the land of Shinar and settled there.

The name "Shinar" was of course given later because these early migrations
were to lands heretofore uninhabited. According to Gen 10:10, Shinar
became Nimrod's turf.

The amount of time elapsed between Noah's bender and this migration isn't
stated in the Bible-- plus; there's really no way to tell which part of the
world was "the east" in the author's day.

Here in the USA, the Great Continental Divide is an east/west determinant.
Funny thing is, if you're located in Phoenix Arizona, then Billings Montana is
to your continental east even though geographically, it's almost directly
north; so when you see directions like "east" and/or "west" in the Bible, it's
probably best to NOT think cardinal points on a compass.

For example in the case of the Magi of Matt 2:1. As best as we can tell, their
city was somewhere east of the meridian that runs north/south through the
Jordan River Valley but that kind of an east is continental rather than
geographical so there's really no telling where they came from.

This particular migration was "from" the east; which means pioneers from
among Noah's progeny, whose numbers at this point are totally unknown,
went out west looking for greener pastures. Although the region of Shinar
has not yet been precisely pinpointed, we can take a relatively educated
guess at it.

"In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, King
Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and laid siege to it. The Lord
delivered King Jehoiakim of Judah into his power, together with some of the
vessels of the House of God, and he brought them to the land of Shinar to
the house of his god; he deposited the vessels in the treasury of his god."
(Dan 1:1-2)

The "Shinar" of Daniel's day is apparently the region where ancient Babylon
was located. Babylon's location today is marked by a broad area of ruins just
east of the Euphrates River, approximately 90 km (56 mi) south of Baghdad,
Iraq. It's part of an area commonly known as the Fertile Crescent; a very
large region arching across the northern part of the Syrian Desert and
extending from the Nile Valley to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. In the
early post-Flood years, this region was very lush. But today much of it is arid
wasteland.

• Gen 11:3a . .They said to one another: Come, let us make bricks and burn
them hard. (Brick served them as stone).

Brick are blocks of clay or other ceramic used for construction and
decorative facing. Bricks may be dried in the sun but are more usually baked
in a kiln. They cost relatively little, resist dampness and heat, and can
actually last longer than some kinds of stone.

Brick was the chief building material of ancient Mesopotamia and Palestine.
The inhabitants of Jericho in Palestine were building with brick about 9,000
years ago (7,000 bc). That's about 5,000 years before Abraham's day.

Sumerian and Babylonian builders constructed ziggurats, palaces, and city
walls of sun-dried brick and covered them with more durable kiln-baked,
often brilliantly glazed brick, arranged in decorative pictorial friezes. Later
the Persians and the Chinese built in brick, for example, the Great Wall of
China. The Romans built large structures such as baths, amphitheaters, and
aqueducts in brick, which they often covered with marble facing.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 11:3b . . and bitumen served them as mortar.

According to Webster's, bitumen is any of various mixtures of hydrocarbons
(as tar) often together with their nonmetallic derivatives that occur naturally
or are obtained as residues after heat-refining natural substances (e.g.
petroleum).

The stuff can be deadly if one isn't careful because once your feet become
stuck, they are very difficult to extract; as the museum at the La Brea tar
pits in Los Angeles attests. But it's a handy building material too. Noah
sealed the ark with a bituminous material, and Moses owed his life to it. (Ex
2:1-10)

• Gen 11:4 . . And they said: Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with
its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered
all over the world.

Magnificent cities have a way of attracting tourism, commerce, and industry.
People want to come and visit, and to live there. Politically, their scheme
made good sense. More people equals more prosperity; resulting in more
power and control over the region-- and of course the larger their tax base
the more city services they could provide citizens; including an effective civil
defense program.

There's nothing really intrinsically wrong in building a large beautiful city.
But in their case, it wasn't the right time for it. God wanted the post
Flooders to move out and populate the entire globe, rather than accumulate
in one local region.

Towers served a variety of purposes in the ancient world. Some were used
as look-outs, others were used as tombs, and yet others were used as
bloody altars for human sacrifices.

The purpose intended for the tower of Gen 11:4 isn't stated but guessing
from the wording, I'd say it was intended to be a grand monument; sort of
like the 630 foot stainless steel Gateway Arch in Ste. Louis Missouri, or a
magnificent minaret like the 239-foot Qutab Minar in Delhi India. Something
like that would certainly go a long ways towards getting the Shinarians the
renown they sought.

But their wish that the tower's top be in the sky suggests their primary
motive was to use its facade to display a variety of gods popular in that day.
There's towers like that right now that in the city of Madurai in the South
Indian state of Tamil Nadu, located on the banks of River Vaigai.

The towers are literally festooned with hundreds of gods. So if your favorite
god is up there somewhere, there's no need for you to leave town and go on
a pilgrimage elsewhere to worship. People are fond of their religions. So if
you give them the liberty and the means to practice it; they'll love you
forever. Tolerance is good politics; except of course in systems where
human rights abuses are essential management practices, e.g. communism.

• Gen 11:5 . .Jehovah came down to look at the city and tower that man
had built,

That verse presents an interesting theological problem. Wouldn't it make
better sense by saying Jehovah looked down, instead of saying He "came"
down? Why bother to come down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know
all? Isn't God omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see
everything from right where He is?

Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see the city and the tower
from Heaven, but He wasn't satisfied. It was His wish to inspect everything
up close and personal; to actually visit the city and the tower in person as an
on-site eye witness. He'll do it that way again with Sodom and Gomorrah.
(Gen 18:20-21)

• Gen 11:6 . . and Jehovah said: If, as one people with one language for all,
this is how they have begun to act, then nothing that they may propose to
do will be out of their reach.

I don't think The Lord objected to the people's unity per se. I mean, after
all; it's Christ's wish that his church be unified (John 17:1-26, 1Cor 1:10). I
think what He objected to was the direction that humanity's unity was
taking; and it was no doubt similar to the direction depicted below.

"Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the
earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against Yhvh and
against His anointed. Let us break their chains-- they say --and throw off
their fetters." (Ps 2:1-3)
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 11:7 . . Let us, then, go down and confound their speech there, so
that they shall not understand one another's speech.

The Lord speaks of Himself by the plural pronoun "us" in that passage.

Up to this point, Genesis has revealed The Lord in only three aspects as
Himself, His spirit, and His voice. Since that's the case; then I'm confident
there's sufficient reason to believe that those three aspects of God are
sentient beings, i.e. persons. ergo: the plural pronoun.

NOTE: God's voice is well-known to informed Christians as the Word (John
1:1-3) translated from the Greek noun logos (log'-os) which basically refers
to speech rather than thoughts. For example Gen 1:3 where "God said" viz:
God spoke.

• Gen 11:8 . .Thus the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the
whole earth; and they stopped building the city.

The language barrier was only a temporary delay because later on the city of
Babylon was eventually built. But at this point in time, the world had no
choice. It was just impossible to continue. Incidentally; the entire world has
never again been unified in a singular endeavor like it was on that tower.

• Gen 11:9 . .That is why it was called Babel, because there the Lord
confounded the speech of the whole earth; and from there the Lord
scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

In time, people branched out and colonized the entire planet. But barely
anything is said in the Bible about the world in the years between Babel and
Abraham.
_

 

[Inquisitor]

The Bible is for everyone. But, it was written to a particular audience. The people of Israel are mentioned throughout the OT. Most of the OT history and it’s details was their history, not our own. The NT also is similar in that for example the gospels were written with a certain audience in mind. They wrote things that the culture of the time would have known first hand, while we don’t normally know today, things like the book of Enoch or it’s details. It has a cultural smell and feel to it, or in the epistles a particular audience that it mentions. I agree the Bible is for all people. But it wasn’t written to all.

Would you agree with this qualification?

The OT was written in Hebrew, which meant that the Genesis account was written to a specific audience. A Greek translation did not exist till around 200 BC.

The main character in the Genesis account was Abraham. A third of Genesis is concerned with Abraham. This means that Genesis is mainly concerned with the genealogy of Abraham and his descendants. Establishing a link between the creation event and the nation of Israel.

Genesis 50:24
Joseph said to his brothers, “I am about to die, but God will surely take care of you and bring you up from this land to the land which He promised on oath to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob.”

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 9:2 . .The fear and the dread of you shall be upon all the beasts of the
earth and upon all the birds of the sky-- everything with which the earth is
astir --and upon all the fish of the sea;

From the start, the animal kingdom lived with Man in peaceful co
existence-- the birds, beasts, fish, and even the tiniest of creatures; the
microbes, as they would be included in the statement "everything with which
the earth is astir". That situation ended with the Flood.

It was God's wish that the critters, great and small, would be subordinate to
Man's sovereignty (Gen 1:26-28). But no longer. I don't know how He did it,
but God instigated anarchy in the animal world so that now all is in chaos;
and most, if not all, species have stopped accepting Man as their superior;
no, they view Man as both predator and prey. Quite a few species use Man--
dead and/or alive --for food.

I think we can safely assume that it was right about here in human history
when diseases became the norm as microbes, which at one time were
harmless, became pathogens.

Also about this time, it became necessary for Man to tame animals before
they would do his bidding. In the beginning they were cooperative, but
now; not so much.

NOTE: God regards impious folks as spirited livestock. (Ps 32:8-9)
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Cain founded a community and named it after his son Enoch. (Gen 4:17)

One of his grandsons was named Jabal: he invented portable shelters
(Gen 4:20) Tents, teepees, wigwams, etc; make it possible to roam long
distances in relative comfort while searching for foods and pastures.

Abraham and Sarah were housed in portable shelters the whole time they
lived in Canaan. With portable shelters, Enochville could be a mobile
community, staying in one place only long enough to deplete its natural
resources before moving on to better diggings to invade, plunder, exploit,
litter, and pollute.

Jabal is depicted as dwelling amidst herds, viz: the lifestyle of North
America's early plains Indians; whose livelihood depended a great deal upon
wild buffalo. Though they followed the herds, the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho,
Kiowa, Crow, Blackfoot, Comanche, and Shoshone, et el; didn't actually raise
any of their own buffalo like on a ranch.

Dwelling amidst herds is a nomadic way of life rather than one that's
domesticated; hence the need for portable shelters; and the herds (e.g.
deer, elk, wild goats, antelope, wildebeests, et al) would provide fabric for
not only the tents, but also for shoes and clothing; which would need
replacement quite often.

Jabal's brother Jubal invented stringed musical instruments, and he also
invented "pipes" (Gen 4;21) which in that culture could very well have been
something as simple as a tube whistle made from a single hollow section of
plant stem; or several of those bundled together like a Pan flute.

A stringed instrument is a pretty advanced musical tool and certainly not
something you would expect to find among so primitive a people as the
antediluvians. The interesting thing about a twanging instrument is its
string. How did the Jubal make them? Of what material?

String can be spun from plant fibers. For example the ancient Kumeyaay
(Koom'-yi) people of southern California made surprisingly strong, sturdy
twine for bows and baskets from agave leaves.

Another of Cain's grandsons, Tubal-cain, forged all implements of copper
and iron. (Gen 4:22)

Copper, in its natural form, is too soft and pliable for practical purposes; but
it's a classification of metals called work-hardening. In other words, by
pounding or rolling cold copper, its mechanical properties can be greatly
improved. It probably didn't take Mr. Tubal cain long to figure that out.

Adding a little tin to copper produces bronze, which is much stronger and
tougher than pure copper.

Copper's advantage in cooking is its natural heat conduction, which is very
fast as compared to iron and/or steel. It's also an excellent conductor of
electricity, but unless they were bottling lightening in those days, copper's
electrical properties would have to wait for future exploitation.

Iron, though stronger and harder than copper, is relatively soft and pliable in
its natural condition too; but with the addition of small amounts of carbon, it
becomes steel, which is quite a bit tougher than natural iron. Whether Tubal
cain figured that out is difficult to know for sure.

* I wouldn't be surprised if Tubal-cain made some of the tools Noah used in
the construction of his Ark.

So all in all, Enochville, though unproductive in agriculture, prospered
through manufacturing and commerce instead; trading the goods and
services of their industrial base for much needed produce; the same way
that most urbanites still do even today. People in towns and cities typically
don't support themselves directly from nature. They earn a medium of
exchange in some sort of skill or profession, then trade it with merchants to
buy the things they need to survive.

The technological, and cultural, level of early Man was very high. It's
interesting that the identifying marks which evolutionary anthropologists use
to denote the emergence of a stone age culture into a civilized society were
extant prior to the Flood— animal husbandry, agriculture, trades,
urbanization, music, and metallurgy. All these civilizational technologies
emerged very early: within just a few generations of Adam; rather than
thousands upon thousands of years of human development.

I'm not saying there were never any "stone-age" peoples. Obviously there
were. But though Cain's community may have started out as cave men, by
Noah's day they were past primitive conditions and actually pretty advanced.

Cain's side of the Adams family is characterized by technology, invention,
boasting, achievement, commerce, and violence. But not one word is
recorded concerning its association with, nor its interest in, their maker.
Cain's entire community was impious and went on to be completely
destroyed right down to the last man, woman, and child in Noah's flood. No
one survives him today.
_

 

[FreeGrace2]

.
Cain founded a community and named it after his son Enoch. (Gen 4:17)
------------------------------------------------------------
Cain's side of the Adams family is characterized by technology, invention,
boasting, achievement, commerce, and violence. But not one word is
recorded concerning its association with, nor its interest in, their maker.
Cain's entire community was impious and went on to be completely
destroyed right down to the last man, woman, and child in Noah's flood. No
one survives him today._

Huh? Are you saying his son wasn't a part of his "community"? Please elaborate.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 15:2-3 . . But Abram said: O Lord God, what can You give me, seeing
that I shall die childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of
Damascus? Abram said further: Since You have granted me no offspring, my
steward will be my heir.

When a man without children died in that day, common law stipulated that
his chief steward got it all and had a legal right to pass it all on to his own
son. Abram had no real estate, but if he did, then Eliezer would get that too
in the event Abram died with no heir. Sarai? Well, she'd probably stay on as
Eliezer's concubine.

• Gen 15:4-5 . .The word of The Lord came to him in reply: That one shall
not be your heir; none but your very own issue shall be your heir. He took
him outside and said: Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are
able to count them. And He added: So shall your offspring be.

In Abram's day, prior to the invention of optics, the only stars that people
could see with their own eyes were those in our home galaxy; the Milky
Way; which consists of an estimated 100-400 billion stars. But many of
those estimated billions of stars appear to the naked eye not as stars but as
glowing clouds; viz: they cannot be individually distinguished by the naked
eye so those didn't matter to Abram when it came to actually tallying the
heavens.

The entire global sky contains roughly five or six thousand stars visible to
the naked eye. However, we can't see all those stars at once; only the ones
when the sky is dark. So then; in Abram's day, he could see at most three
thousand discernible stars from dark till dawn. God had said "if you are able
to count them". Well; even at only three thousand, the task would be
difficult.

NOTE: The term "stars" may have been an ancient idiom for large numbers
of just about anything. Compare Heb 12:1 where "cloud" is a term for the
same purpose.

Anyway . . it finally sank in that God's promise was for real and that's when
one of the most significant events in history took place.

• Gen 15:6 . . And he believed in The Lord; and He counted it to him for
righteousness.

That is the very first time anything "righteous" was said about Abram in
Genesis; and it didn't result from piety, rather, from belief.

The Hebrew word for "belief" is horribly ambiguous; 'aman can mean,
among other things: (1) to build up or support, (2) to foster as a parent or
nurse, (3) figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, (4) to trust or
believe, (5) to be permanent or quiet, (6) to be morally true or certain, and
(7) to rely upon.

Any choice I make from that list would be entirely arbitrary; but my money
is upon trust and reliance because at that moment, Abram began seriously
pinning his hopes on God to do something about his childless situation.

The thing to note is that Abram's hope wasn't based upon wishful thinking.
No; he had a testimony from God to justify his confidence.

NOTE: Whether or not Abraham relied upon and/or trusted God's promise
would've had no influence upon its outcome because the promise was
unconditional, and the curses listed in the Law of Moses-- which came along
later --aren't retroactive. (Deut 5:2-3 & Gal 3:17)
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 21:10-11 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and
her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my
son Isaac. The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of
his own.

Although Ishmael would forever remain Abraham's biological son, there was
a way to break the boy's legal ties; and the way was actually quite to Hagar's
advantage.

The common law of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the
laws of Lipit-Ishtar) stipulated that if a slave-owner disowned his child's in
slavery biological mother; then the mother and his child would lose any and
all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.

The catch is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her. In
order for the common law to take effect; Abraham had to emancipate her;
which he did.

• Gen 21:14a . . Early next morning Abraham took some bread and a skin of
water, and gave them to Hagar.

The Hebrew word for "bread" is lechem (lekh'-em) which just simply means
food (for man or beast), which therefore includes grain. So Abraham didn't
necessarily send the poor woman out on her own with a ration of bread and
water like some sort of condemned criminal, but very likely provisioned Hagar
and his son Ishmael with enough camper-grade food stuffs to keep them
going for a while.

• Gen 21:14b . . He placed them over her shoulder, and together with the
child, sent her away.

NOTE: Ishmael was at least a teen-ager seeing as he underwent circumcision
at thirteen when Abraham was ninety-nine. (Gen 13:24-26) Isaac was born
one year later when Abraham was a hundred. (Gen 21:5) And Hagar wasn't
emancipated till after Isaac was weaned. (Gen 21:8-10)

The phrase "sent her away" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the
emancipation of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is
commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail
that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar,
then her son Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's
eldest son.

Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons (Gen 25:9)
but in legal matters relative to inheritance he's no son at all.

I believe it's important to emphasize that Hagar and Ishmael weren't cut
loose because they were no longer worthy to live in Abraham's camp any
more. No. It was only as a measure to expedite God's future plans for Isaac.
Even if Sarah hadn't proposed the idea of emancipating Hagar, I suspect
that God would have eventually required it so anyway.
_

 

[Randy4u2c]

I’d like to hear your thoughts. I put together more then I had in the last thread.

Genesis

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2And the earth was a [a]formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the [c]surface of the waters. 3Then God said, “[d]Let there be light”; and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

How do I understand Genesis?

Ultimately, I understand the creation story as a way for the people of Israel to make sense of themselves in relationship to YHWH and the rest of the world. It’s a story that answers the questions of what is the meaning and purpose of their lives. As Christians today, we can relate to such a beginning kind of story and how it makes sense of our own lives because we too had a new beginning, a new birth, a new faith and commitments when we found Jesus Christ. Both kinds of beginnings, whether Genesis 1 with creation or John 3 with the new birth, explained their and our identity, meaning, and purpose. It explained their and our relationship to our God and King, as well as our relationship to the rest of the world.

Considering some of the details of Genesis 1.

1:1 - I understand “In the beginning” to refer to a moment in the past when God began to create. I don’t think this refers to an ultimate beginning of all beginnings. As if God hadn’t created a thing until this moment. The reason why is because the word “the” is not in the Hebrew. Therefore, it can refer to “a beginning” of sorts and could even be understood and translated as “When God began to create the heavens and the earth.”

Heavens. I understand “heavens” as “sky.” I no longer think it refers to all the heavens we can think of, although God did create every one of them. Rather, heavens (I think better should be translated as sky) which ties to the rest of the creation story, which I think further supports my claim.

Earth. I understand “earth” as “land.” The land of dirt, rocks, and dust. The land beneath the ancient Israelites feet. However, from a modern perspective I understand earth to be more then land, but a globe, turning on its axis, moving around the sun, and all that is on the earth. I’ve learned my modern perspective wasn’t what ancient people in Israel or their neighbors thought of.

1:2 “And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.”

Observations:

1:1 is an introduction preparing the reader for a more detailed explanation. If v.2 follows v.1 as part of that introduction, it is strange in that it’s details describes things that are contrary to the “order” God brought as explained in days 1-7. V.2 doesn’t seem to reflect the “order” of things in the 7 days, but rather speaks of things without or lacking order. Therefore, this non-ordered description in v.2, in my understanding, isn’t part of the introduction about days 1-7, but an introduction of what God created prior to days 1-7, and provided a small detailed starting point moving from non-ordered (desolate, formless) creation to an ordered creation.

1:2 And the earth (earth = land) was desolate. The Spirit of God hovered over the waters. Both land and waters existed. V.2 describes non-order.

1:3-5 Day 1 seems to be referring to the creation of time. Augustine (early church patristic father) spoke about time as necessary to begin with otherwise creation would be operating in eternity. Whether this were the case, the period of light and period of darkness seems to be speaking on time itself ultimately. If it’s time that is created here, then speaking of this moment as day 1 and hence the beginning of order makes sense to me.

1:6-8 “Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the firmament, and separated the waters that were below the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament, and it was so. God called the expanse, “sky.” And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.”

Firmament. The word is a noun. It’s root is a verb. The verb root refers to the action of a metal worker hammering a piece of metal into something like a bowl or cup or some other useful solid thing. The firmament is therefore referring to a solid dome like structure that holds the waters above it back, allowing for an open space, an expanse called sky. The ancient people had an ancient cosmology where the earth= land was flat, and the solid “firm-ament” covered it holding back the waters above. The firmament was held up by the mountains.

V. 9-13 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

The creation specifics of land and water here didn’t have to due with the creation of these out of nothing. Rather, these already existing things and the naming of them brought about order. Then the plants and seed could have been created here, but it also could have been a further bringing order by naming them. Although, both ideas of creating these or naming these are lacking from these verses.
But what is plain is that God was behind it all.

V14-19 lights were created by God. The sun, moon reflecting the sun, and the stars would all produce light upon the earth. When clouds covered the sky and sun’s light, it would appear light came from the clouds themselves. Whatever the case, light in the ancient world was a natural phenomenon. Light is an immaterial thing. So, this day would not have been understood as God creating material things, but immaterial things, lights.

V.20-23 Whether this is God creating material things like fish or birds, or it is God bringing order to them, or a combination of the two, I’m unsure at this moment. To create in the ancient world didn’t necessarily have to do with God creating material things, although they did believe God did create material things. But God bringing order did refer to non-material creation, introducing order through naming or commands provided purpose which was contrary to v.2 details.

V.24-31 God created animals and human kind.
He named man, gave them roles and responsibilities, therefore he gave them meaning and purpose. Man was said to be made from the dust of the earth (land). If this was actually so, then mankind was not made from nothing but something. Parts of mankind were created out of nothing, for dust doesn’t contain a spirit or logic, but a human being does. As for dust, I don’t know if this is literal in that God took dust from the land literally and transformed it into man. Or whether the description was literal at all but referred to mankind as temporal in nature, as to dust you were made and to dust you shall return? There’s much to think about.

Day 7 nothing material was created.

With all that said. The creation story appears more then not in my understanding as myth. NOT myth as some fairytale. But rather myth as something believed upon that told a story that made sense of the people of Israel from beginning to their present and their relationship to God and the world. Their view of cosmology was ancient, not modern. A solid dome called firmament still hasn’t been supported by Ken Ham. So, I’d assume, his modern scientific view would interpret firmament according to his modern scientific beliefs and supported by his version of inerrancy.[/QUO The universe was created millions of years ago. We lived on the earth in spiritual bodies in the first world age along with the dinosaurs. Lucifer rebelled against God causing that first world age to be destroyed and flooded and then it sat in darkness. Perhaps that is why the firmament is no longer there. In this world age, Genesis came to pass as the Lord brought the earth back to life. It is no myth, it is a true story of God and the history of his people and those that came into contact with them. I know this goes over a lot of peoples head, but it is true.