This Way To Genesis

  • 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.


Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
I am sorry but Kent Hovind has NO authority to speak for GOD...The Holy Bible does.....
I think you need to read what it says instead of watching movies.
I'm not sorry, and Kent Hovind has forgotten more about the Bible
than most of us will ever know, and especially flat-earthers like you.
No need to lecture me on reading what the Bible says.
I know what it says.
Please point out chapter and verse where the Holy Bible says Moses wrote Genesis.
I'll save you some time.
It says it nowhere.
Dec 28, 2016
I am sorry but Kent Hovind has NO authority to speak for GOD...The Holy Bible does.....I think you need to read what it says instead of watching movies.
Yep...Hovind is hardly any kind of authority nor is he sound.


Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
I don't know who you are, but I have no doubt that Kent Hovind is a profoundly
more reliable source for information concerning Scriptural exposition than you are.
He can also get his thoughts into coherent paragraphs,
a task which you are evidently unable to accomplish.
Thanks, sorry for my grammar . I am trying to make what I offer easier. Dropped out of school. But he is way off track.

Everyone knows there is only one author of scripture written by the finger of God who is not served with human hands.. and God does not accept the witness of men. His idea of generations as many authors is simply not a biblical teaching.

I believe the scripture speaks of two generations as creations. The generations (plural) of natural unconverted man in a book all of the names he intended to create. the generations of Adam the whole human race

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations(plural many seeds) of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

And the Lambs book of life slain from the foundation of the world demonstrated at Calvary those who have the spirutl seed Christ seeing if any man has not the Spirit of Christ the Holy Spirit of God he does not belong to Christ. .

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation(one, seed) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Using the words generation as a way claiming multiple authors as the witness of men takes way the authority of scripture .

Three that bear God's witness . Not sinful man four.

1John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.


Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
I am sorry but Kent Hovind has NO authority to speak for GOD...The Holy Bible does.....I think you need to read what it says instead of watching movies.
I would agree we should buy truth and not sell it. Why separate what God calls together as one. . Moses was the not the editor of the chapter/book called Genesis and he decided whose heresy as a opinion he should include or not. .

He did not put together the word of God coming from different authors to give us Genesis . I would question why even think it was possible to divide in that way? What's the purpose? To give glory to man?

Scripture is God’s interpretation to us as one who was there working in the heart of man to both will and perform His good pleasure. He moved Moses to write the words he put on Moses tongue. Moses did not commit blasphemy or plagiarism by usurping the authority of God .It’s not Moses private interpretation as a infallible interpreter that stands as a umpire between God and man . No such thing as a Pope.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.2Pe 1:20


Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
I'm not sorry, and Kent Hovind has forgotten more about the Bible
than most of us will ever know, and especially flat-earthers like you.
No need to lecture me on reading what the Bible says.
I know what it says.
Please point out chapter and verse where the Holy Bible says Moses wrote Genesis.
I'll save you some time.
It says it nowhere.
I was suggest slowing down .first things first...Kent Hovind is not in the place of God, our defender. It would seem you are trying to make the things of God (not seen)and those of men (seen) as if they were one.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.2Pe 1:20


Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
Genesis 1:15-19

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 means it.

Gen 1:18b-19 . . And God saw that this was good. And there was
evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Gen 1:24-25 . .Then God said: Let the earth bring forth living
creatures after their kind-- cattle and creeping things and beasts of
the earth after their kind, And it was so. And God made the beasts of
the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and
everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw
that it was good.

We've come now to the sixth day when all terra life was created; including
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 words for "living creature" are chay (khah'-ee) and nephesh

Chay makes it first appearance at Gen 1:20 in reference to aqua creatures
and winged creatures; and many times in the Old Testament thereafter;
including fifteen times in reference to God; e.g. Jer 10:10, indicating that
the originator of life actually exists as opposed to a totem pole or a mythical
fantasy. There is a very large number of instances recorded in the Old
Testament where God speaks of Himself as "I am".

Nephesh first appears in Gen 1:20-21 in reference to sea creatures and
winged creatures; again at Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy
crawlies, and wild beasts; and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature.

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 earthly
materials and ingredients already at hand to construct them. Neat-O. Not
only are the various plants and animals indigenous to planet Earth; but they
are part of it too and blend right back in when they die and decompose.

The word for "beasts" (of the earth) is chay, which, in this instance, simply
refers to wild life as opposed to domesticated life.

The word for "cattle" is behemah (be-hay-maw') and means a mute beast
(a.k.a. dumb animal). Behemah are the herd species from which came those
that can be domesticated for Man's uses. They can pull plows and wagons,
provide tallow for candles and soap, and hide and wool for clothes, meat and
dairy for table, carry loads 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.
However, it's easily proven that the era 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

"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

Some Bible students suffer anxiety over dinosaurs because paleontologists
have easily dated them extinct a good many thousands of years prior to the
emergence of humans; but that's not really a problem if we but permit
creation's days to be epochs of indeterminate length rather than 24-hour



Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
Some Bible students suffer anxiety over dinosaurs because paleontologists
have easily dated them extinct a good many thousands of years prior to the
emergence of humans; but that's not really a problem if we but permit
creation's days to be epochs of indeterminate length rather than 24-hour
Now you're putting out heresy.
Genesis is credible as it is literally written,
and it's corroborated emphatically in Exodus 20.
You claim to be on the "summit" of Genesis, but you're woefully
ignorant and unqualified for this exposition which you've undertaken.
But no doubt you'll keep on happily hacking out your heresy.


Senior Member
Aug 22, 2016
I strongly disagree.
Compare Genesis 2:3 (God) with 2:4 (LORD God).
Seriously, watch the video.
It's less than seven minutes and could profoundly enlighten you.

Have you read John 5:45-47.."45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

Mt 8:4; 19:7,8; 23:2; Mk 1:44; 10:3,4; 7:10; Lk 5:14; 16:19, 31; 20:37; 24:27,44; Jn 3:14; 5:39,45,46; 6:32; 7:19, 22,23.

The video is not one of his best....He has fallen( like so many others into discrediting the authorship of the first book 'Genesis' to HOW many people?????

When I read John 5:45-47, Kent Hovend's words falls on deaf ears.


Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
Genesis 1:26-27

Gen 1:26a . . And God said: Let us make Man in our image, after
our likeness.

Because of the terms "image and likeness" there are some who believe that
man's creator is a human being; or at least resembles one. But according to
Christ, creation's God is non physical.

"God is spirit" (John 4:24)

Spirits don't have solid bodies. (Luke 24:36-39)

Moses instructed 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)

There exists absolutely nothing in nature physically resembling its 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
fantasy. (Rom 1:25)

The introduction of the plural personal pronouns "us" and "our" into the
narrative at this point has given rise to some interesting speculation
regarding the identities of the antecedents.

Gen 1:26b . . let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of
the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground.

Humanity's right to dominate the earth is where we find its image and
likeness of God. In other words: Man's image and likeness of God is all about
sovereignty, power, control, and authority. (cf. Gen 44:18)

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 is of the earth; he is very
definitely above it too, and has the God-given right to subjugate every living
thing on the planet including its forests, its grasses, its rivers, its seas, its
soil, its rocks, its air, its minerals, its mountains, its valleys, and even its
tectonic plates and the earth's very atmosphere itself. According to Heb 2:8,
humanity is on track to take control of even more.

Gen 1:27 . . So God created man in His own image, in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created them.

The language of that verse is inconsistent with verse 26. In that location
Man was created in "our" image. In this verse Man is said to be created in
"His" image. It appears to me that the difference is due to the word "own".
In other words; "our image and likeness" is not quite the same as "His own
image". There seems to be a subtle difference between "us create" and "He
created"; or maybe it's just my imagination.

NOTE: The pronoun "them" in Gen 1:27 is a bit ambiguous. It can refer to
the first male and the first female; but it can just as easily refer to the
human race in total. In other words: Gen 1:26-27 is where we all began.

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 Adam species and can be legitimately referred to as a him or as a he
because all of us, regardless of gender, are extensions of Adam; including
Eve because she was made from a human tissue sample amputated from
Adam's body. Bible students really have to watch for that because when
they run across the word "man" and/or "men" in the Bible, it doesn't eo ipso
indicate males



Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
Genesis 1:28-30

Gen 1:28a . . God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and

Some interpret that verse to be an edict requiring married people to have
children; and that they have no business getting married for any other
reason. But the wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a law;
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 empowerment of fertility, Man would be just as sterile as a soup
spoon. So it was a very essential blessing. And a very interesting blessing it
is because the blessing of fertility empowers living things to pass their own
kind of life on to a next generation. God quit creating after six days. So
unless creatures were enabled to reproduce, all would soon die out and
become quite extinct in a very short time.

Libido therefore, is an essential element of the blessing of fertility. God
intended for His creatures to reproduce; and to ensure that they did, He
wired them all with libido rather than instilling within them a sense of duty.
It isn't necessary to cajole creatures to mate; no, they will do so on their
own, propelled by built-in sensual proclivities and predilections.

Gen 1:28b . . fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the
birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.

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

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

kabash and radah are very strong language. Those two words combined
leave no room for doubt regarding Man's supremacy in the sphere of things.
God blessed humanity with the authority to dominate and to violate planet
Earth at will, and exploit it to his own advantage. Man answers to no plant
nor animal on this entire globe. The whole Earth is within the scope of
humanity's purview. If aliens ever come here unannounced, they can be
arrested for trespassing, and/or charged for parking because this earth is
Man's domain.

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

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

Gen 1:29-30 . . God said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is
upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be
yours for food. And to all the animals on land, to all the winged creatures of
the sky, and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath
of life, I give all the green plants for food. And it was so.

Prior to the Flood; 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 danger to either Man
or to each other. (Isa 11:6-9)



Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
Genesis 1:31

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 Man touches, it ruins; and as if the earth isn't
enough, he's moved out into space where in the years since Russia launched
its first Sputnik into low earth orbit on Oct 04, 1957, humans have littered
the sky around their planet with 13,000 catalogued pieces of space junk,
which is only a fraction of the more than 600,000 objects circling the globe
larger than one centimeter (a centimeter is a little over 3/8ths of an inch).
Humans have even discarded 374,782 pounds of litter on the Moon,
including 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 and 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• He deserves respect.

3• There's a frightful reckoning looming on the horizon, and

4• 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 cannot answer.

Giving "glory" simply indicates giving someone credit where credit is due;
and "worship" can be roughly defined as reverence, i.e. honor and respect.

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: people either believe in intelligent design, or they
don't. If they do believe, then they will admire both the designer's genius
and His handiwork. If they don't believe; then they will neither admire nor
respect anything about Him: simple as that.



Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
Genesis 2:1-5

Gen 2:1-2 . .The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their array.
On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been doing, and He
ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He had done.

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)

Gen 2:3 . . And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because
on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He had done.

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

NOTE: Seeing as how God grabbed the seventh day for His own purposes,
then we have to respect His prerogative to determine how that day is used.
For example: at Mark 2:28, Jesus claimed to be lord of the sabbath; which
anyone familiar with the Old Testament easily understands that he claimed
to be the God written up in Genesis 2:1-3. That's a pretty serious claim.

Gen 2:4 . .These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when
they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm
here refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies categorizing each of the six days of creation as
epochs of indeterminate length.

Gen 2:4 is the very first time in Scripture where the name Yhvh appears.
The correct pronunciation is currently unknown. Sometimes it's pronounced
Yehovah and sometimes Jehovah.

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: The Bible's God is commonly referred to with masculine pronouns
because Yhvh is a king; and kings are always males rather than females; for

"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 every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and
every herb of the field before it grew: for Yhvh God had not caused it to rain
upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Bible students have to exercise caution when reading that section in order to
avoid making the mistake of concluding that human life was created prior to
vegetation; when we know for a fact from the day-by-day account in the
first chapter that humans were the very last to be put on earth. Gen 2:4-7 is
only saying that when God created vegetation on day three, it wasn't
permitted to flourish right away.



Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
Genesis 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 at Job 36:26-30 where translators render it
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 b
craftsmen in Murano; where they make things from scratch using mostly
sand for their base material.

Gen 2:7b . . from the dust of the ground

The Hebrew word for "dust" is a bit ambiguous. It essentially refers to
powder, but can also be translated clay, earth, mud, mortar, ashes, and/or

A major ingredient in the human body's construction is water, without which
his "dust' wouldn't coalesce. Water is essential to complex organisms; which
is why scientists get really excited when they discover it out in in the

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.

Naphach is sort of like what Indy Car drivers do when they're given the
order to start their engines.

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 is a kind of artificial respiration, but not the
regular kind 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.

However, there's abundant evidence in the Bible, starting here in Genesis,
indicating that it's possible to pump life into a corpse. But in order to do
that, one first needs a source of life just as in regular artificial respiration
one first needs a source of air.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by
him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was
life; and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)

That says pretty much the same thing as Gen 2:7, and then adds the fact
that God himself is the source of life from which He drew the life He used to
fire up the man's body.

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

The Hebrew word for "soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh). Its first appearance is at
Gen 1:20-21 in reference to aqua creatures and winged creatures; again at
Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; viz: cattle, creepy crawlies, and wild beasts;
and again in Gen 2:7 as the human creature.

Soul is somewhat ambiguous. In the beginning, it refers to sentient life--
both human life and animal life --as opposed to non sentient life, i.e.
vegetation. In other places, soul refers to the bottom of one's heart, i.e. the
very core of their being; e.g. Gen 27:4 and Gen 34:3.

Souls exist as individuals, i.e. beings with a sense of self; viz: a sense of
personal identity; which is more or less permanent.

For example: when Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31
passed away, they all left their organic bodies behind, yet on the other side
they are perceptive; fully conscious, and fully sentient.

I don't know for sure in what form they exist on the other side, but one
thing I do know is that they have not ceased to exist as individuals, nor have
they lost their identities-- Abraham is still Abraham, Lazarus is still Lazarus,
and the rich man is still the rich man.



Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
Genesis 2:8-9

Gen 2:8a . .Yhvh God planted a garden in Eden,

The remainder of Earth's flora was planted in a large scale, landscaping
manner. But the garden was specially prepared for Man like someone might
build a home for their family. It's true that Man is a creature and Yhvh isn't
his actual biological kin. But Man is much more than just another nephesh
like as if he were a pet canary or a gerbil. No, human beings were given the
honor of God's image, and are as close to being God's kin as a creature can
possibly get in the natural world.

The Hebrew word for "garden" is from gan and means: a garden as fenced.
So the garden wasn't just a nondescript parcel of acreage with apricots and
turnips growing wild on it. The garden (which very likely was a full-blown
farm complete with orchards) was meant to be tended.

Gen 2:8b . . in the east

"east" in that verse was an east that the author(s) of Genesis understood.
Out west here in Oregon, we consider east to be New York and Chicago;
while the world considers the Orient to be east. For the purposes of modern
navigation, everything towards sunrise from the meridian of Greenwich
England around the world to Samoa is East longitude, and everything
towards sunset around the world to Samoa is West longitude.

So if you were standing in Mexico, then Greenwich would be to the east; but
if you were standing in Iran, then Greenwich would be to the west. It's all a
matter of perspective.

For Bible purposes, the State of Israel is oftentimes regarded the geo
political center of the Earth. Its position is spiritually elevated too. So
whenever you go to Jerusalem, you go up. And when you leave, you go
down. It was from the east (east of Jerusalem) that magi came to pay their
respects to the young Jesus. (Matt 2:1)

Just exactly where "the east" was in Adam's day is hard to tell. But the
garden itself is not to be confused with Eden. The garden was located "in"
Eden; an ancient pre-Flood unspecified geographic region. Some people
think Eden was somewhere in Africa but that's just a shot in the dark.

The word "Eden" is from 'eden (ay'-den) and/or 'ednah (ed-naw') and
means: pleasure, and delight. So Adam's farm was in a very nice location
and we could, if we had a mind to, name his spread Happy Valley or
Pleasant Acres.

Gen 2:8c-9a . . and placed there the man whom He had formed.
And from the ground Yhvh God caused to grow every tree that was
pleasing to the sight and good for food,

The exact site where God did the work of creating Man is unknown but
there's no reason to doubt he wasn't created right there in his intended
home. And I think we can safely assume the garden was already viable and
productive when Man arrived. God didn't just throw him in the water to sink
or swim. He gave the man a suitable habitat right from the get go. Adam
wasn't a hunter-gatherer like some sort of rootless nomad; no, he had a
place to settle down and call home.

Man came into being by the designs of a Superior Intelligence who looked
out for the unique little creature made in His own image right from the first,
and got him off to a good start; which was a good thing because at this
point in history, humans were an endangered species seeing as how there
was only one breeding pair in existence.

Gen 2:9b . . with the tree of life in the middle of the garden,

The tree of life doesn't give life; but rather, according to Gen 3:22 has
something in it that sustains life: indefinitely. Exactly how the chemistry of
any plant could be so rich in nourishment as to stop the human body from
getting old and falling apart is currently unknown.

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

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

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

The word for "bad" is from ra' (rah) It's another ambiguous word; and
includes anything that's bad for us like poison ivy, playing with matches,
E.coli 0157-H7, toxic chemicals, salmonella, eating without washing your
hands, bungi jumping, investing in penny stocks, walking on train tracks,
pimples, a sore throat, and going to bed without brushing your teeth.

From the gist of upcoming verses, it's readily apparent that the knowledge
of good and bad implies an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Though Man
was created intelligent; he was basically uneducated. A sense of right and
wrong wasn't programmed into his intuition. He was supposed to learn right
and wrong via Divine tutelage; not by trial and error nor by self initiative--
and certainly not by doing something patently foolish like eating from a tree
known to be toxic to humans.

I mean: how smart is it to experiment with Meth after you've been
adequately instructed that it will ruin your skin, permanently damage blood
vessels in your brain possibly causing a stroke, rot your gums and loosen
your teeth, and make you look haggard and repulsive?



Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
Genesis 2:10-14

Gen 2:10a . . A river issues from Eden to water the garden,

The verb "issues" is in the present tense; indicating whoever wrote Gen
2:10, did so while the land of Eden yet existed. The authorship of Genesis
has yet to be positively established. A verse like 2:10 strongly suggests that
the data used to compile Genesis, was progressively accumulated in hand
me-down journals or in oral rote, generated by people who lived prior to the
final compiler's input.

The Hebrew word for "river" is nahar (naw-hawr') which is another of those
ambiguous Bible words. It can indicate a stream or a sea and/or
metaphorically: prosperity. It was stated previously in Gen 2:6 that the face
of the whole ground was watered by fog; which suggests that the Eden river
was either an aquifer or something similar to the slow-moving water of the
Florida everglades.

Gen 2:10b-11 . . and it then divides and becomes four branches.
The name of the first is Pishon, the one that winds through the
whole land of Havilah where there is gold,

The Pishon river has yet to be positively identified.

The Hebrew word for "Havilah" is Chaviylah (khav-ee-law'); which means
circular. It's not only a place-name but also a person-name (e.g. Gen 10:7,
Gen 10:29) which may indicate that the land of Havilah was named after an
antediluvian individual who settled in that area.

Gen 2:12 . . (The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and
lapis lazuli.)

Again, the author used a present tense verb. The gold "is" good, not was
good-- strongly suggesting the author actually lived in the period he wrote

As a money; gold has intrinsic value, whereas fiat currency as a money is
worth little more than the good faith and dependability of the country that
issues it. In other words: the US Government could, if it wished, simply
outlaw the currency you have on hand and in an instant your paper money
would be totally worthless. But gold will never be totally worthless.

Gold is valuable no matter where it comes from but some gold is easier to
mine than others and some is a whole lot more plentiful. Placer gold for
example is usually in the form of dust and requires dredging, sluicing, and
washing. Hard rock gold is better; but requires boring tunnels, rock
crushing, and refinement in smelters. I'd say the really good gold is that in
the form of nuggets.

However, rather than the quality of Havilah's gold, the author's use of the
word "good" might just be saying that its gold is bountiful; as opposed to
scarce. Gold can be found just about everywhere, but concentrations of it
exist in only a relatively few places.

Bdellium is a gum resin similar to myrrh; obtained from various trees. The
author could have been referring to amber; a hard yellowish to brownish
translucent fossil resin that takes a fine polish and is used chiefly in making
ornamental objects like beads and such. Bdellium was the comparison Moses
used to describe the color of manna in Num 11:7.

In ancient Egypt lapis lazuli was a favorite stone for amulets and ornaments
such as scarabs; it was also used in ancient Mesopotamia by the Sumerians,
Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians for seals and jewelry. Lapis jewelry
has been found at excavations of the Predynastic Egyptian site Naqada
(3300–3100 BC), and powdered lapis was used as eye shadow by Cleopatra.
In ancient Mesopotamia, lapis artifacts can be found in great abundance,
with many notable examples having been excavated at the Royal Cemetery
of Ur (2600-2500 BC).

Gen 2:13 . .The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that
winds through the whole land of Cush.

Cush of the post-Flood world is associated in Scripture with both a region of
Arabia and the present-day land of Ethiopia. But the exact geographic site of
the Cush of antediluvian days is impossible to know. If it's the same, then
we can be pretty sure that the Earth underwent some dramatic geological
events in the distant past because it is now impossible for any river in
Ethiopia to connect in any way at all with the Tigris and Euphrates rivers of
today's world.

Gen 2:14a . .The name of the third river is Tigris, the one that flows
east of Asshur.

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

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

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

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

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

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



Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
Genesis 2:10-14

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

That passage is a favorite of the Bible's critics because Adam didn't drop
dead the instant he tasted the forbidden fruit. In point of fact, he continued
to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800 years after the birth of his
son Seth. (Gen 5:4)

So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

Well; first thing to point out is that in order for the threat to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in
his day, rather than death as modern Bible thumpers understand it in their
day. In other words: Adam didn't expect to die spiritually. No, he expected
to die normally; viz: physically; like as in pass away.

How can I be so sure that God meant normal death instead of spiritual
death? Because according to Gen 3:19 that's how it worked out; and to
make sure Adam stayed normally dead, God blocked his access to the tree
of life. (Gen 3:22-24)

Anyway; the trick is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted
the fruit. God's exact words were "in the day"

According to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It can
easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours; viz: the
day of everybody's death began the moment Adam ate the fruit.

"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this
way death came to all men." (Rom 5:12)

Well; like Jack Palance's character Curly in the movie City Slickers said: The
day ain't over yet.

"It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of gaiety, for
death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this seriously." (Ecc



Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
— Parenthesis —

The ban on the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, was tempered by a
carte blanche to eat fruits from all the rest of the trees; including the tree of
life. So it's not like God pigeonholed Adam and forced him to eat from the
wrong tree in order to survive.

Earlier, in Gen 1:29, God gave Adam permission to eat all manner of plant
life. So he had lots of options. An abundance of other nutrition was available.
Therefore, if Adam ate from the wrong tree, he had no excuse for it. And
that is what really made eating from that tree so serious-- it was willful, and
done in full understanding of both the ban and the consequence.

Compare Num 15:27-31 where willful sin is described as a category of sin
for which there is neither atonement nor forgiveness under the terms and
conditions of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Q: Why on earth would God plant a deadly tree in an otherwise perfect
environment? Was that really necessary? What real purpose does a tree
serve that has the potential to kill? Why even create such a tree in the first

A: The tree wasn't a bad tree. When God finished creating, He looked over
His work on the 6th day and pronounced it all not just good, but "very"

The tree of the knowledge of good and bad wasn't a bad tree per se; any
more than toad stools, poison ivy, lightening, rattlesnakes, scorpions,
avalanches, gravity, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes, cactus needles,
tsunamis, earthquakes, electricity, fire, lava, lead, cadmium, and arsenic
and hemlock are bad in and of themselves. Those things are hazardous, yes,
but they all fit into the natural scheme of things. When people willfully cross
over boundaries, ignoring the dangers, and start messing around, then they
get hurt and it's really no one's fault but their own. For example:

San Francisco was once destroyed by an earthquake related to the San
Andreas fault; but where did they rebuild San Francisco? Right back in the
same place.

Los Angeles is at risk of the same San Andreas, and are even now as I write
this preparing for a major quake. Are there plans to evacuate Los Angeles
and relocate the city? No. They plan to ride out whatever the San Andreas
and/or any of the other faults throw at them and city planners and disaster
control specialists have already calculated the body count because the
Andreas is overdue for a massive slip and so is the Puente Hills Blind Thrust
System. City officials know big quakes are coming but nobody is getting out
of the way.

All around the island of Japan are ancient monoliths, some as much as 600
years old, with the inscription "Do not build your homes below this point".
The monoliths testify to past tsunamis. People back then set up those
monoliths to warn future generations; but do future generations listen? No;
they don't. 25,000 Japanese are listed as dead and/or missing from the
tsunami of 2011 because they settled in communities below those ancient
water marks.

The below-sea-level city of New Orleans was flooded by hurricane Katrina in
2005. Did city planners wise up and relocate the city to higher ground? No;
they rebuilt right back in the same place.

On the eastern edge of the Democratic Republic of the Congo rumbles Mount
Nyirangongo; one of the most active volcanoes in the world. The city of
Goma, consisting of something like one million people, will be pelted with
falling rocks and lava splatter, and buried by molten rock and pyroclastic
flows of superheated dust just as sudden as the city of Pompeii if that
mountain should ever decide to get serious about its business. Past
eruptions bear this out.

And as if the volcano itself isn't threat enough, 2,590 hectares Lake Kivu
nearby conceals an enormous underwater concentration of carbon dioxide
and methane which could be released by a major eruption, spreading a
lethal cloud across Goma that would spare no one.

Are Gomites concerned? No. Thousands of homes--shacks constructed of
hand-hewn eucalyptus boards and sheet metal roofs --have been built right
on top of the solidified lava of past eruptions. In other words; the Gomites
are knowingly living at ground zero; right in Mt. Nyirangongo's known kill

The Cumberland River inflicted major flood damage throughout the city of
Nashville in 2010. Pete Fisher, manager of the Grand Ole Opry needed a
canoe to get across the parking lot and enter the theater. He reported that
had someone been sitting in the front row seats, they would have seven feet
of water over their heads. Did the owners move the Opry to higher ground?
Nope, the Opry is still right there on the banks of the Cumberland targeted
for the next flood event.

City planners have known for years that Manhattan is so few feet above
mean sea level that any sizable tsunami at all would flood both the city and
its subway system; but have the Sand Hogs stopped boring tunnels or have
construction workers stopped erecting buildings? No, they keep right on
boring and erecting; and in 2012 hurricane Sandy pushed a surge of sea
water inland and crippled the city's public transportation and much of its
electrical power.

A pretty good percentage of south Florida is built upon what used to be
swamp land; and it was no secret the path of destructive hurricanes like
Irma. But they've already begun cleaning up Irma's mess and rebuilding
right back in the very same place.

Adam was given fair warning what would happen if he ate from the tree. It
was just as fair a warning as parents give their kids not to poke paper clips
into wall sockets or lean over too close with their face when they pet a
strange dog. Consequences for spurning a parent's instructions in those
cases can be very terrible.

"A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the
simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." (Pro 22:3)

Last edited:


Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
Gen 2:18 . .Yhvh God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary; I
will make a fitting helper for him.

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

Note that aid isn't spelled with an "e" as in aide; so that Eve wasn't meant to
be either Adam's servant, nor his assistant; but rather, his assistance-- in
other words; his aid as in first aid. Note that assistance is not spelled the
same as assistant nor are the two words synonyms. An assistant does what
they're told, while assistance is supportive.

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

In making a statement like Gen 2:18; God made it very clear right from the
beginning that human beings were not intended to live a celibate life. If male
human life was packaged in a box of software, one of its system
requirements would be Companion. Woman's potential for companionship is
the primary reason that God made her-- not for her sex appeal nor for her
reproductive value; no, for companionship.

Before God introduced the man to a woman, He first gave the man an
opportunity to seek appropriate companionship from among the creatures of
the animal kingdom. That route proved futile.

Gen 2:19-20a . . And the Lord God formed out of the earth all the
wild beasts and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to the man
to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each
living creature, that would be its name. And the man gave names to
all the cattle and to the birds of the sky and to all the wild beasts;

Adam's task would have been overwhelming if as many varieties existed in
his day as ours; which I honestly don't think did because, for one thing,
prior to the existence of humans the earth underwent some mass extinction
events. I'm sure Adam loved animals; I mean look: he gave them all names;
which is something that people who make their living in animal husbandry
try to avoid because the practice can lead to attachments; thus making the
situation very difficult when it's time for sale and/or slaughter.

My wife's kindergarten class visits a working dairy farm every year where all
the cows and the calves have number tags stapled in their ears. On the
books, those numbers are the bovines' names; but in a matter of minutes,
my wife's kinders give the little calves real names because it's just in human
nature to do that. (I named one White Shoulder because it had an epaulette
of white hair on its right shoulder)

But as cute and cuddly as creatures are, they just don't have what it takes
to be the kind of companion that a human being really needs.

Gen 2:20b . . but for Adam no fitting helper was found.

That's telling me that people who seek companionship from a pet are out of
kilter because pets are unbefitting-- they're a lower form of life than people;
and God didn't create them to be people's personal companions, no,
according to Gen 1:26-28 He created them to be people's servants. I think
that even to this day, were most people given a choice between human
companionship and that of a lower form of life; they would opt for the



Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017

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

​How old do you think the earth is?