Having A Go At 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.

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#41
.
Gen 3:23-24 . . So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden, to
till the soil from which he was taken. He drove the man out, and stationed
east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to
guard the way to the tree of life.

This is the Bible's first mention of cherubim. They show up now and again in
the Old Testament upwards of 90 times. Their description as per Ezek 1:1
28 and Ezek 10:1-22 suggests that they may be symbolic visions rather than
realities.

Another classification of celestial beings are the seraphim (e.g. Isa 6:2).

The cherubim and its sword blocked not only Adam's access to the tree of
life, but everybody else's access too; and I believe for a very practical
reason.

One of the societal problems associated with STDs is the development of
treatments for those kinds of diseases. The treatments are not bad per se;
the problem is that knowing that there's treatments emboldens people to
indulge in immorality.

In other words: had God allowed humanity continued access to the garden,
no doubt they would have included the forbidden fruit in their diets on a
regular basis because there would be little to fear from its effects due to the
ready availability of fruit from the tree of life. They would, as it's said, have
their cake and eat it too.

So, everyone was doomed to an eventual expiration no matter whether rich
or poor, young or old, male or female, righteous or unrighteous, holy or
unholy, pious or impious, vegetarian or meat eater. Even Jesus would have
eventually died of natural causes had he not been crucified. If the human
body-- as God created it --is to remain strong and healthy indefinitely, it has
got to have that tree in its diet; but not to happen because God wants
everyone to die at least once. (Heb 9:27)

NOTE: I think it's safe to assume that the garden, and the cherubim with its
flaming sword, were in existence up till the time of the Flood; so people
could go and see for themselves rather than take a preacher's word for it.
But for some reason, there's no record of anybody making pilgrimages to
that area. Well; were that cherubim and its fiery sword anywhere on Earth in
our day, I should think it would draw more people to it than even Mecca
because it would definitely be a wonder to behold, but I suspect that back
then people were afraid of it.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#42
.
Gen 4:1a . . Now the man knew his wife Eve,

There is more to knowledge than just information. Some kinds of knowledge
can't be learned from a book or a lecture; they can only be learned by
personal experience. Carnal knowledge is one of those kinds of knowing. It's
one thing for a young man to learn things about girls from looking at their
pictures and reading about them in biology books and/or in magazines like
Cosmopolitan, and Maxim; but it's quite another learning experience to
actually cuddle with a girl and sleep with her skin to skin. Throughout the
Old Testament, "knew his wife" is a common colloquialism for people
sleeping together.

Genesis records no human intimacy in the garden prior to Man's eviction;
but that doesn't prove none occurred; it just proves that none is mentioned
till the fourth chapter.

Gen 4:1b . . and she conceived and bore Cain, saying: I have gained a
male child with the help of the Lord.

God wrapped creation on the seventh day (Gen 2:2) and rested after that.
Not because He was tired, but because He was all done. At that time, the
human race was all done too. Everyone since then has just been a
reproduction of Adam.

"It was you who created my consciousness; you fashioned me in my
mother's womb. I praise you, for I am awesomely, wondrously made; your
work is wonderful; I know it very well. My frame was not concealed from you
when I was shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the
earth. Your eyes saw my unformed limbs; they were all recorded in your
book; in due time they were formed, to the very last one of them." (Ps
139:13-16)

The writer of that Psalm believed that God saw him way before he was ever
conceived in his mother's womb. In fact; saw his substance in the recesses
of the earth before his mom even conceived: which attests that everyone
pre-exists in Adam because he alone was actually created directly from "the
recesses of the earth". Everyone else stems from Adam's organic tissues and
it's just a matter of time before the right combination of genes brings them
out.

"Just as you do not know how the spirit of life passes into the limbs within
the womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of God,
who causes all things to happen." (Ecc 11:5)

Acts of creation don't take place when babies are conceived. No, everybody's
creation took place back when Adam was created. Babies are merely
reproductions of Adam via the blessing of fertility.

Adam received life from God on the sixth day of creation. When God formed
the woman, He didn't breathe the breath of life into her nostrils like He did
Adam. God simply used Adam's already-existing life to energize Eve. And
ever since then, parents have been passing their life onto their children. In
other words: human life-- like bird life, fish life, bug life, reptile life, and
beast life --is a transferable kind of life; passing from one generation on to
the next. It's not a miraculous process; no, it's a perfectly natural process;
and it's a pretty amazing process too.

According to ancient Jewish thought, Eve thought Cain to be a very special
boy.

T. And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she
conceived, and bare Kain; and she said: I have acquired a man, the Angel of
The Lord. (Targum Jonathan)

Apparently Eve expected her firstborn son to be "the God-sent one" who was
supposed to fulfill the promise of Gen 3:15 and crush the Serpent's head.
But alas, Cain was just an ordinary kid.

NOTE: The Hebrew word for "angel" is mal'ak (mal-awk') which doesn't
especially indicate a celestial being. The word is a bit ambiguous and
essentially means a dispatched deputy or a messenger; viz: someone who
speaks for, and/or represents, another; i.e. an ambassador and/or someone
selected by God for a special purpose. The New Testament equivalent is
aggelos (ang'-el-os) and means pretty much the same thing
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#43
.
Gen 4:2a . . She then bore his brother Abel.

Abel's name is from hebel (heh'bel) which means: emptiness, futility, and/or
lacking permanent satisfaction. (cf. Ecc 1:2)

Poor Eve; she's only had two kids and already motherhood has lost its
appeal. But you know; in her day, women didn't have access to all the baby
supplies, clothing, conveyances, and conveniences that modern women in
industrial nations have today. Eve's situation and its conditions, were
primitive, viz: pretty much third world.

Cain and Abel are very interesting and share a lot in common. In fact, they
share so much in common that their individual personalities must be an
enigma to behavioral scientists.

Neither man came from a large gene pool because there were no
grandparents. Their genealogy stopped abruptly right in their own home with
mom and dad and went back no farther. They both had the same parents,
lived in the same home in the same neighborhood, grew up with the same
customs, ate the same food, associated with the same people, breathed the
same air, survived in the same environment, went to the same church, and
worshipped the same God.

Yet those men were noticeably very different from each other. Abel was an
inspired man (Luke 11:50-51) but Cain, though religious; was not. And he
was violent too. (1John 3:11-12)

Both men were living souls as per Gen 2:7, and both men existed by means
of the breath of life as per the same verse. But souls are not the result of
cookie-cutter manufacturing processes. Souls are sentient individuals with a
mind of their own.

Individuality is one of the unsolved mysteries of life. How does the human
brain's three-pound lump of flabby organic tissue produce self awareness
and a sense of being unique? I don't know; it's very curious.

Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of
the soil.

The Hebrew word translated "sheep" is either tso'n (tsone) and/or tse'own
(tseh one') which mean: a flock; defined by Webster's as a group of birds or
mammals assembled or herded together. Abel could just as easily have been
a cowboy wrangling bovine and/or tending goats rather than sheep. In point
of fact, the Hebrew word for Abraham's "lamb" in the 22nd chapter of
Genesis is ambiguous too. It too can mean either sheep or goats.
Sometimes translators have to make arbitrary decisions which, at times, can
be misleading. But we won't argue the point. Sheep will do.

Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to
the Adams' survival. Man at this time was a vegetarian so Cain farmed and
raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending
flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.

NOTE: The Hebrew language didn't exist in Adam's day; nor would it exist
till some time after the Flood and the tower of Babel. Ancient names given in
Hebrew aren't the native-tongue names of people prior to Babel; but rather:
Hebrew equivalents of those names.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#44
.
Gen 4:3-4a . . It came about in the course of time that Cain brought an
offering to The Lord of the fruit of the ground. And Abel, on his part also
brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions.

It's evident from Heb 11:4 that what's taking place here was a legitimate
part of a God-given religion.

It's commonly assumed that Abel's offering was slain; but there isn't enough
evidence in this section to support it. Noah's offerings were obviously slain
because they're listed as burnt on an altar (Gen 8:20). But Abel's offering is
not said to end up the same way.

FAQ: How did Abel get the fat out of his animal without killing it?

A: The Hebrew word for "fat" is somewhat ambiguous. It can mean fleshy
material, and it can also refer to prosperity, abundance, and/or the best of
the best; for example:

"Take your father and your households and come to me, and I will give you
the best of the land of Egypt and you shall eat the fat of the land." (Gen
45:18)

This all tells me that Abel not only offered an animal from among his blue
ribbon stock, but he picked out the choicest one of them all.

There's no indication in this scene suggesting their oblations were sacrifices
for sin. The Hebrew word for their offerings is from minchah (min-khaw')
and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute;
specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).

Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- essentially gifts and/or
tributes rather than atonements --it would be unwise to insist Abel slew his
firstling and/or burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings go by
the name of 'olah (o-law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 22:2.

Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of
oblation.

T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain
brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation
of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the
flock. (Targum Jonathan)

Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce
was the appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an
animal husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate
first fruits offering.

I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather,
responsible men in this particular scene because God is going to treat them
that way.

This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God.
The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing
gifts for many years; ever since they were kids. And up to this point,
apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much
pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#45
.
Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on
Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.

Regardless of whether their offerings were correct, the first thing The Lord
did was look upon the men themselves. He looked with favor upon Abel but
not with favor upon Cain. In other words; Abel was the kind of man whom
God approves whereas Cain was the kind of man whom God disapproves.

Gen 4:5b . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell.

Cain was a whole lot worse than distressed. He was blazing mad. The word
for "distressed" is from charah (khaw-raw') and means: to glow or grow
warm; figuratively (usually) to blaze up, of anger, zeal, jealousy. Cain is
actually in a passionate rage over this and certainly in no mood for a lecture.

Gen 4:6 . . And The Lord said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is
your face fallen?

God made an honest effort to talk things over with Cain and resolve their
differences; but Cain didn't respond; he was too busy sulking in a black
pout.

Gen 4:7a . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

Cain believed in the existence of a supreme being; that was good, and his
ritual was correct; that was good too. but his piety was flawed, i.e. his
personal conduct didn't meet God's standards, viz: Cain wasn't devout, thus
his impious ways tainted his offering and made it unacceptable. (cf. 1Pet
1:18-19 where it's implied that Christ's blood is an acceptable offering
because the man's ways were acceptable.)

FAQ: How could Cain possibly know God's standards without a written code
to inform him?

A: Luke 11:49-51 says that Cain's kid brother Abel was a prophet; so Cain
at least had a verbal source, which is adequate enough when it's coming
from an inspired man.

But to the point: Cain's association with God was thwarted by his conduct.
That principle is a universal axiom; it governs everybody: Christians
included; they are not exempt. When Christians do what's right, they get
along with God just fine; but when they don't do what's right, they get the
cold shoulder just the same as if they were heathens.

"This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that
God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have
fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the
truth." (1John 1:5-6)

That is an irrevocable principle, and comes out very early in the Bible
because it is so foundational to humanity's association with its creator. Well;
Abel did do right and that's why his gift is said to be offered in faith.

Cain's situation is well illustrated at Isa 1:11-20. Moses' people were offering
all the covenanted sacrifices, they were praying up a storm, and observing
all the God-given feasts and holy days. He rejected all of it, even though He
himself required it, because the people's personal conduct was unbecoming.

"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah." (Prv 15:8)

Perhaps the classic example is the one below.

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure
in burnt offerings." (Ps 51:16)

When David wrote that; he had only just committed the capital crimes of
adultery and premeditated murder. There was just no way that God was
going to accept his sacrifices and offerings on top of that; and David knew it
too.

The principle shows up again in Jesus' teachings.

"Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice." (Matt
9:13)

Some folk honestly believe that Christ's statement, taken from Hosea 6:6,
practically repealed the entire God-given book of Leviticus. But that's not
what either Hosea or Jesus were saying. They meant that God much prefers
that people be civil with each other rather than religious to their fingertips.

In other words; an ungracious person's lack of things like sympathy,
patience, tolerance, lenience, helpfulness, pity, and common courtesy
causes God to reject their worship just as thoroughly and bluntly as He
rejected Cain's.

FAQ: In what way might Cain's piety have been lacking?

A: Well, my first guess would be bad blood between him and his younger
sibling.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your
brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar,
and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and
offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)

It's common for poorly-trained Bible students to trip up on the nature of the
men's offerings and totally miss the role that the nature of the men
themselves played in their worship; in other words: they assume Cain was
rejected because his offering was bloodless and they attempt to justify their
theory by citing the below:

"It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than
Cain did. God accepted Abel's offering to show that he was a righteous
man." (Heb 11:4)

The focus in both Genesis and Hebrews is not really upon the offerings
because it's okay for a minchah to be bloodless. The focus is actually upon
faith and righteousness; viz: Abel was a man of both faith and righteousness
whereas his brother wasn't. In a nutshell: Cain's association with God was
strictly via ritual.

It's not uncommon for John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer to associate with
God like that. On Sunday they go through all the proper motions; while the
rest of the week they think, feel, speak, and act like secular humanists with
little concern as to how God might feel about their conduct.

It's likely a foregone conclusion that God is deeply insulted when people
whose conduct is unbecoming all during the week come to church on Sunday
actually thinking He's glad to see them show up for some quality time
together.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#46
.
Gen 4:7b . . But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your
door;

This is the very first instance in the Bible of the word "sin". The Hebrew word
is chatta'ah (khat-taw-aw') and/or chatta'th (khat-tawth') which are
ambiguous words that technically mean an offense; as in repeat offender. In
other words; not just an occasional slip-up, but a life style; viz: a habit.

NOTE: John 1:29 implies that Christ's primary purpose for coming the first
time was to take away the world's sin, which is singular rather than plural;
strongly suggesting a reference to the very "sin" that God spoke about with
Cain right here in Genesis.

Whatever it was that God found displeasing in Cain's life at the time of the
minchah disaster was moved to the back burner at this point because
something far worse is looming on Cain's horizon; and it wasn't his kid
brother's murder; no, it's something far more fatal to one's spiritual
welfare-- a perpetual unwillingness to talk things over with God and get
some things straightened out between the two of you. This is not just
serious, it's extremely serious and apparently quite common among people
with Cain-ish attitudes; for example:

"But they refused to pay attention, and turned a stubborn shoulder and
stopped their ears from hearing. And they made their hearts like flint so that
they could not hear the law and the words which the Lord of legions had
sent by His spirit through the former prophets" (Zech 7:11-12)

That attitude is one of the very reasons why some people end up in the
wrong place.

"This is the condemnation: that the light has come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For
everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest
his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light,
that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." (John
3:19-21)

Gen 4:7c . . it desires to have you, but you must master it.

This is the first mention of self control in the bible. In other words: God
created humanity with the capability to choose bad ways for itself; but that's
only half the story. God also created humanity with the capability to choose
good ways for itself; so He wasn't requiring something impossible from Cain
like touching his right elbow with the thumb of his right hand.

It's not uncommon to encounter Christians sincerely believing it's impossible
to comply with God's law. No; it's not impossible. Abraham did it (Gen
26:5). A number of nondescript Jews did it (Judg 2:17). David did it (1Kings
3:14, 1Kings 11:34). Hezekiah did it (2Kings 18:1-6). Zachariah and his wife
Elizabeth did it (Luke 1:5-6),

The problem is people's indifference: they just don't want to make the effort.
(Rom 7:12-23, Rom 8:5-8, 1John 5:3)

Gen 4:8a . . Now Cain talked with Abel his brother;

Cain probably complained to his brother that Yhvh was unfair. But the poor
man couldn't have picked a worse sounding board because Abel was a
prophet (Luke 11:50-51). In Cain's dispute with the Lord, Abel no doubt
took Yhvh's side in it. That was too much. There's no way a man like Cain
was going to take a lecture from his own kid brother. Abel's popularity with
God was bad enough, but preaching only made it worse and added insult to
injury.

No doubt Cain was very jealous of his kid brother's on-going popularity with
God. Poor Abel lost his life just because he was a pious man.

"Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother.
And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his
brother's were righteous. Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world
hates you." (1John 3:12-13)

One of the boys involved in the April 20, 1999 Columbine High School
shooting incident shot and killed a girl in the cafeteria just because she
believed in God. Isn't that amazing? That boy was nothing in the world but a
twentieth century Cain with a gun.

Gen 4:8b . . and when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother
Abel and killed him.

Whether or not Cain premeditated his brother's death that day is difficult to
tell. The word for "killed" is from harag (haw-rag') and means: to smite with
deadly intent. So the attack on his kid brother, whether premeditated or not,
was definitely meant to end Abel's life rather than to just rough him up and
teach him a lesson.

How Cain planned to explain Abel's death to his parents isn't stated. He
couldn't very well blame it on a carnivorous predator since man and beast
were on friendly terms prior to the Flood. It's my guess he set up the crime
scene to make it look like an accident but then too, in light of verse 10, Cain
may have buried Able; that way he'd be reported as a missing person
instead of possibly murdered.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#47
.
Gen 4:9 . . Jehovah said to Cain: Where is your brother Abel? And he said:
I don't know. Am I my brother's keeper?

The Hebrew word for "keeper" indicates, in this case, a guardian; viz:
responsibility for someone or something put in one's care; for example: Abel
was a keeper of the sheep: a shepherd. (Gen 4:2)

This religious man's reaction to the object of his worship is just as
unexpected as the murder he'd just committed. Cain worshipped the true
God, and his rituals were correct and timely; yet Cain was impudent and
responded to his maker's inquiry with a lie and a sarcastic rejoinder.

It's not too difficult to appreciate God's refusal of this man's recent offering.
Over time Cain had become an insensitive jerk. It would be interesting to
know what changed him.

Gen 4:10 . .Then He said: What have you done? Hark, your brother's
blood cries out to me from the ground!

The Hebrew word for "cries out" is from tsa'aq (tsaw-ak') and means: to
shriek; which can be defined as a wild, involuntary scream.

Whether or not human blood actually has an audible voice isn't nearly
important as to what it might be saying. And in this case, it certainly
couldn't be good.

In civil law, it's handy to produce the corpus delicti in a homicide case
because it's very useful for proving the reality of a death, and for
establishing the cause, and the time, of its occurrence. It's interesting that
God didn't produce Abel's body for evidence. He could have, but instead
relied upon the voice of his body's blood. So a murder victim's blood can be
introduced as a witness in the courts of Heaven. That is very interesting.

Abel's blood accuses. In contrast, Christ's blood defends (e.g. Rom 5:6-11,
Heb 12:24, and 1Pet 1:18-19). Christ's blood is a whole lot more to people's
advantage.

Gen 4:11 . .Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground which
opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.

The original curse upon the soil reduced its agrarian productivity. But the
curse upon Cain brought his agrarian productivity to a complete and
irrevocable end.

Gen 4:12 . . If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you.
You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth.

Ceaseless wandering was an inevitable consequence of the inability to raise
an adequate amount of your own food in that day and age. Nobody was
eating meat yet, so the soil was pretty much it as far as nourishment went.

Cain went on to become a very hungry, very overworked man. Wherever he
tried to farm, the ground would respond in such a way as to act infertile. The
curse was leveled right at his diet and the source of his food. Up till now,
Cain had been a successful, independent farmer. But no amount of
agricultural wisdom would ever restore his independence, nor his once green
thumb no matter how hard he tried to overcome it. Cain had crossed over a
line and there was no going back.

Since Cain could no longer sustain himself by farming, it would be difficult to
settle down and build himself a home; so he was forced to become
migratory and forage for seasonal foods.

Though the Bible doesn't say; it would seem to me a reasonable assumption
that the curse upon Cain extended to his posterity (cf. Num 14:18). Up
ahead we'll see that they became renowned as a commercial/industrial
society rather than agrarian. As time went by, and the Adams family
multiplied and spread out; Cain's community no doubt traded with them
using income from the sale of manufactured goods to barter for the foods
that they themselves were unable to grow. Dependence upon imported food
may not be ideal; but it's certainly better than going hungry.

NOTE: The punishments inflicted upon Cain weren't according to the letter of
a legislated code. They were judgments under the table, so to speak, that
took Cain's personality into consideration along with his conduct rather than
his conduct alone. God is able to proceed that way in situations where no
law has been broken.

Another element in this case pertains to the relationship between God and
Cain. In other words; Cain's punishment was personal, slammed on him
directly from the hand of God. Compare Gen 3:16 where the physical and
emotional unpleasantries associated with bearing children were slammed on
Eve in a personal way too.

But though God sometimes gets personal when He lowers the boom on
people-- and even passionate --I think we can be confident that even when
angry, God remains fair rather than prejudiced.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#48
.
Gen 4:13 . . Cain said to the Lord: My punishment is too great to bear!

His punishment was actually very lenient. In point of fact, it wasn't
punishment at all, it was discipline. It's true that Cain would struggle to
survive; but at least he was allowed to live. His kid brother was dead. How is
that fair?

FAQ: How did Cain get off with only a slap on the wrist? Why wasn't he
executed for murder since God himself mandates capital punishment for
murderers as per Gen 9:5-6, Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num
35:31-34? Does God practice a double standard?

A: Murder is intrinsically evil, yes; however; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom
4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, laws of God enacted ex post facto are too
late, i.e. they're not retroactive.

This wasn't an oversight on God's part. The incident with Cain served to
introduce very early in the Bible one of Christianity's foundational principles,
which is: "Where there is no law, there is no transgression." and "Sin is not
imputed when there is no law."

Gen 4:14a . . Since You have banished me this day from the soil, and I
must avoid Your presence and become a restless wanderer on earth--

Who said he must avoid God's presence? Somebody can be a ceaseless
wanderer without losing touch with God; I mean, after all: He's everywhere
at once. (Ps 139:7-12)

Estrangement was Cain's decision, just as it was Judas' decision to break
with Jesus. Both men could've turned it around if they wanted; but didn't.
Cain walked out on God of his own volition. Now he would face life very
insecure.

Gen 4:14b . . anyone who meets me may kill me!

I'm curious as to who Cain feared might slay him. The Adams family were
the only people on earth at that time. It appears to me that Cain did not
believe his father Adam was the only man ever created directly from soil by
the hand of God.

Gen 4:15a . .The Lord said to him: I promise, if anyone kills Cain,
sevenfold vengeance shall be taken on him.

Humanistic senses of right and wrong demand that Cain pay for murdering
his kid brother. But up to that point in God's association with humanity, He
had not yet announced any edicts related to criminal justice. So then, were
somebody to go after Cain and execute him for the crime of murder, they
would be nothing less than a lynch mob taking the law into their own hands;
which is clearly a very serious thing to do.

Gen 4:15b . . And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone who met him
should kill him.

The nature of Cain's mark is totally unknown. However, the "mark" wasn't so
people would hoot at Cain wherever he went. It was a "No Hunting" sign so
future generations of the Adams' family would know the real Cain from
imposters who might be inclined to give themselves a sort of diplomatic
immunity by impersonating Abel's brother.

God allows ignorance as an excuse; to a point. However, information creates
responsibility. When a person knows an act is wrong, and goes ahead and
does it anyway, they are in much deeper trouble than one who did not know
that a particular act was wrong.

No one had been forbidden to kill Abel, nor forbidden to kill any other man
for that matter. But soon it would become widespread public knowledge that
God strictly forbade killing Cain. Therefore, anyone who ignored God would
pay dearly for knowingly, and willfully, ignoring His wishes; just as Adam
died for tasting the forbidden fruit because the tasting was willful, and done
in full understanding of both the ban and the consequence. (cf. Num 15:30
31, Matt 11:20-24, Luke 12:47-48, Heb 10:26-27)

Gen 4:16a . . Cain left the presence of The Lord

Cain's departure from the presence of the Lord wasn't a forced eviction as
had been the Adams' departure from the garden. And even though the
Adams were driven from the garden, they weren't driven from God. The
family kept that connection and brought up their boys to keep it too.

Cain's self-imposed exile has the aura of a dreadful finality. He renounced
God, and his native religion, and was content to forego its privileges so that
he might not be under its control. He forsook not only his kin but also their
worship, and cast off all pretenses to the fear of God-- apparently putting
out of his mind God's statement: "If you do what is right, will you not be
accepted?"

Gen 4:16a is a terrible epitaph upon the tombstone of Cain's life, and you
can almost feel the concussion of a dreadful thud as the mighty doors of
perdition close solidly behind him; sealing his passage into permanent
darkness.

Why didn't God plead with Cain to stay in touch? Well, that would be like
throwing good money after bad. God had already tried at Gen 4:7; and like
Einstein once remarked: Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing the
same way over and over again and expecting a different result. Well; God's
not insane; He knows when to say when. Sadly, there are people for whom
it can be said: That was the last straw.

Of all the things that Cain had done up to this point, walking out on God was
his worst mistake. Yes, he would have to scrounge for food; but that was
just a bump in the road; not the end of the road. People need to think that
over. No matter how harsh your circumstances are, and no matter what life
has thrown in your face, loss of contact with your maker is much worse. It is
wise to stay in touch with God even if your life is a train wreck and God
seems oblivious to your circumstances.

"The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in
steadfast love. He will not contend forever, or nurse His anger for all time . .
As a father has compassion for his children, so The Lord has compassion for
those who fear Him. For He knows how we are formed; He is mindful that
we are dust." (Ps 103:8-14)

That Psalm's encouragement is restricted to "those who fear Him". The Cains
of this world are of course eo ipso excluded.

Gen 4:16b . . and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

The Hebrew word for "Nod" is from nowd (node) and means: wandering,
vagrancy or exile. Precisely how Nod got its name, or where it was located is
unknown; and this is the only place in the entire Old Testament where nowd
is found so we can't compare it with other uses.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#49
.
Gen 4:17a . . Cain knew his wife,

According to Gen 3:20 and Acts 17:26, all human beings-- regardless of
race, color and/or ethnic identity --are Adam's and Eve's biological progeny.
Ergo: Cain married his kin; whether a sister or a niece is difficult to know for
sure.

NOTE: Scientists have identified 100,000 pieces of retrovirus DNA in human
genes, making up eight percent of the genome. As to whether those
retroviruses have contributed to the shortening of the human life span, I
don't know; but I'd bet that those bugs were not in the human genome at
first. I think it safe to say that the current human genome is a
malfunctioning genome, and has been for quite a number of years; possibly
several millennia.

Now, as to the "sin" of incest; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom
5:13, and Gal 3:17, divine laws enacted ex post facto are too late; viz: they
aren't enforced until after they're codified. Well, incest wasn't prohibited
until the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God as per Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Gen 4:17b . . and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he then founded a
city, and named the city after his son Enoch.

The "city" probably wasn't the kind of city we're used to thinking. The word
for it is from 'iyr (eer) and simply means a community, in the widest sense;
even of a mere encampment or post.

Whether Cain actually lived in a permanent settlement is doubtful since he
was stuck with vagrancy and wandering. Cain's city was very likely nothing
more than a migratory village.

Gen 4:18-19 . .To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad begot Mehujael, and
Mehujael begot Methusael, and Methusael begot Lamech. Lamech took to
himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the
other was Zillah.

Adah is from 'Adah (aw-daw') and means: ornament. It's not unusual for
people to name their little girls after precious stones like Jewel, Pearl, Ruby,
Jade, Sapphire, and Amber.

Zillah is from tsillah (tsil-law') which is derived from tsel (tsale) and means:
shade (or shadow), whether literal or figurative. Shade is a good thing in
sunny locales so Zillah's name may have been associated with shelter,
protection, peace, serenity, and rest-- as in Song 2:3.

Lamech's marriages are the very first incidence of polygamy in the Bible,
and I have yet to see a passage in the Old Testament where God either
approved or disapproved of it other than the restrictions imposed upon
Jewish monarchs (Deut 17:17)

Aside from the obvious sensual benefits men derive from harems; polygamy
does have its practical side. The gestation period for human beings is nine
months. At that rate, it would take a man many years to build up his clan to
a respectable size. But with multiple wives, he could speed things up
considerably. In primitive cultures, large families are very influential, and
their numbers crucial to survival and self preservation.

"Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are sons born to a man in his youth.
Happy is the man who fills his quiver with them; they shall not be put to
shame when they contend with the enemy in the gate." (Ps 127:4-5)
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#50
.
Gen 4:20 . . Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who dwell in
tents and amidst herds.

This is the Bible's very first mention of man-made portable shelters. Tents,
teepees, wigwams, etc; make it possible to roam long distances in relative
comfort while searching for foods and pastures.

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

Jabal wasn't the father of animal husbandry as the passage seems to
suggest. Abel was already tending flocks before Jabal was born (Gen 4:2).
Dwelling "amidst" herds describes the lifestyle of North America's early
plains Indians; whose livelihood depended a great deal upon wild buffalo.
Though they followed the herds, the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa,
Crow, Blackfoot, Comanche, and Shoshone, et el; didn't actually raise any of
their own buffalo like on a ranch.

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

One of Lewis' and Clark's complaints, when they were passing through the
Oregon territory, was that moccasins rotted off their feet in the Northwest's
climate. Even without rot, the soles of moccasins are not all that resistant to
wear. Buckskins, manufactured from Elk hide and/or deerskin, fared little
better.

Gen 4:21 . . And the name of his brother was Jubal; he was the ancestor
of all who play the lyre and the pipe.

The word for "ancestor" is from 'ab (awb); a primitive word which means
father, in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application. In
this particular case, 'ab wouldn't mean literal kin, but likely analogous to an
inventor who is the first to introduce a new concept which then later
becomes widely adopted.

The word for "lyre" is from kinnowr (kin-nore') and means: to twang. So the
actual instrument itself is difficult to identify. It could have been a harp. But
then again, it may have even been something as simple as a string stretched
between a washtub and a broom stick.

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

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

The word for "pipe" is from 'uwgab (oo-gawb') and means: a reed
instrument of music.

A modern reed instrument is typically a woodwind that produces sound by
vibrating a thin strip of wood against the mouthpiece; like clarinets and
saxophones (hence the classification: woodwinds). But in that culture, it
could very well have been something as simple as a tube whistle made from
a single hollow section of plant stem; or several of those bundled together
like a Pan flute.

Gen 4:22a . . As for Zillah, she bore Tubal-cain, who forged all implements
of copper and iron.

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

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

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

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

Gen 4:22b . . And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

Her name is from Na'amah (nah-am-aw') which means pleasant, amiable, or
agreeable. A girl named Joy would probably fit that category. Na'amah
suggests that the people of Enochville were content with their way of life.

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

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

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

It's too bad the Flood wiped early Man off the map. Who can tell what he
might have accomplished had his progress not been interrupted (cf. Gen
11:6).
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#51
.
Gen 4:23-24 . . And Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my
voice! O wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech! I have slain a man for
wounding me, and a lad for bruising me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then
Lamech seventy-sevenfold.

Brag, Brag, Brag-- boy, I tell you some men sure love to show off and glorify
themselves in front of women; no doubt about it.

Apparently ol' Lamech figured the homicide he committed wasn't nearly as
severe as Cain's because he killed in retribution; whereas Cain killed in a
rage. Also, Cain killed his kid brother, whereas Lamech killed his relative a
little more distant. So to Lamech's way of thinking, Cain's killing was a much
more serious crime; and if a dirty rotten scoundrel like gramps was under
divine protections, then, in Lamech's mind, he certainly deserved to be
under them even more so.

It almost appears that Lamech killed two people, but really it was only one;
and in fact a person younger than himself. Two words describe Lamech's
opponent. The first word is from 'enowsh (en-oshe') and simply means a
mortal; viz: a human being (of either gender), in general (singly or
collectively); viz: someone and/or somebody. The second word reveals the
person's age. The word for "lad" is yeled (yeh'-led) and means something
born, i.e. a lad or offspring-- boy, child, fruit, son, young one and/or young
man.

Apparently Lamech got in a disagreement with somebody and they settled
their differences in a fight. The injury Lamech received in the ensuing scuffle
could have been something as simple as the man biting his ear or kicking
him in the groin. It's my guess Lamech over-reacted and stabbed the man to
death with a spiffy hunting knife that his son Tubal-cain made for him over
in the blacksmith shop.

Lamech's sense of right and wrong reflects the humanistic conscience of a
man void of God's mentoring. In his earthly mind, revenge was an okay
thing; which is a common attitude in many primitive cultures.

But his opponent only wounded him. In return, Lamech took his life. The
scales of justice don't balance in a situation like that-- they tip. Pure law
says eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burning for burning, stripe for stripe, life
for life, and no more. If the lad's intent was obviously upon great bodily
harm; Lamech would probably be justified to kill in self defense since his
opponent was a younger man and had the advantage in age. However,
according to Lamech's own testimony, he killed the man in revenge; not self
defense.

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

The Bible doesn't record even one single incident of a Cainite blessing God
for His goodness; nor for His mercy, nor for His providence. There is no
record that any of them ever said even one single prayer-- not even a
simple lay-me-down-to-sleep kind of prayer. Every one of the little kids in
Enochville went to bed each night without the slightest assurance that
humanity's creator cared at all for the well being of their little souls.

How many homes right here today in modern America reflect that very same
Cainish culture? The parents and the children are unthankful, unholy, and
irreligious; caring little or nothing for things of eternal value: moving
towards an inevitable head-on rendezvous with death and the hereafter, and
totally unprepared to meet their maker.

Gen 4:25 . . And Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave
birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me
another offspring in place of Abel; for Cain killed him."

Seth's name in Hebrew basically means a substitute, defined by Webster's
as a person or thing that takes the place or function of another; e.g.
substitute teachers, generic medications, pinch hitters, and/or after-market
car parts.

Apparently Eve was still anticipating that she herself would be the woman to
give birth to the man promised by God to defeat the Serpent's wiles. (Gen
3:15)

Gen 4:26a . . And to Seth, in turn, a son was born, and he named him
Enosh.

Sometimes the record shows the mother naming a child, and sometimes the
father; which suggests that in all cases there was very likely mutual
consultation between husband and wife on this important decision. But it's
always important for the father to take a hand in naming the children
because the act testifies that he's legally, and officially, accepted them as his
own (e.g. Gen 16:15, Gen 21:3, Luke 1:13, Luke 1:63).

NOTE: God instructed both Joseph and Mary to give her baby the name Jesus
(Matt 1:21, Luke 1:31). By doing so, Jesus went on record as both their son
rather than only Mary's. (Luke 1:32, (Matt 17:5)

God also selected Ishmael's name (Gen 16:11) Isaac's (Gen 17:19) and
Solomon's too (1Chron 22:9) changed Abraham's name (Gen 17:5) changed
Sarah's name (Gen 17:15) and changed Jacob's name (Gen 32:28).

Christ changed Peter's name (Mark 3:16). Way out in the future, Christ will
be changing quite a few names. (Rev 2:17)

"Enosh" is from 'enowsh (en-oshe') and means: a mortal; hence a man in
general, singly or collectively-- thus differing from the more dignified 'adam
(aw-dawm') which is the proper name of the human race (Gen 5:2). There's
really nothing special about an 'enowsh-- just a feller. Sometimes boys are
named Guy, or Buddy, so 'enowsh would be a common enough name.

Gen 4:26b . .Then men began to call on the name of The Lord.

The Hebrew word for "Lord" in this case is Jehovah (a.k.a. Yahweh); which
always, and without exception, refers to the one true god.

Apparently up to this point in time, people addressed God in a sort of
general way instead of a personal way, and some still do. For example;
during the Native American funeral service held for my No.1 nephew, a tribal
elder prayed to God as "Grandfather" rather than by a personal moniker.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#52
.
Gen 5:1a . .This is the record of Adam's line.

I suspect that Adam's genealogy would be better defined as "a" record
rather than "the" record because the Bible's version isn't exhaustive.

Adam's genealogy doesn't include every natural-born human being who ever
lived and/or will live; rather, it's primarily concerned with the branch leading
to Jesus of Nazareth: the Bible's central figure.

Gen 5:1b-2 . .When God created man, He made him in the likeness of
God; male and female He created them. And when they were created, He
blessed them and called them Man.

As a preamble to Seth's line, Genesis reminds the reader that Man's origin
was by intelligent design and special creation, and that he was made in the
likeness of his creator, and that he's been an h.sapiens right from the get
go. Man didn't begin his existence as some sort of pre-human hominid
named Ardi who lived in Ethiopia's Afar Rift some 4.4 million years ago.

Some people take issue with Genesis because it seems to them so
unscientific and contrary to the (known) fossil record. But they need to be
cautious because science doesn't have perfect understanding of everything
yet, nor has it discovered everything there is to discover, and it often has to
be revised to reflect new discoveries, and to correct outdated theories and
opinions.

But to be fair, Bible students don't know everything yet either so I would
advise watching the sciences for new discoveries that help fill in some of the
Bible's blanks.

Gen 5:3a . .When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son

Bible genealogies often have very large gaps in them, omitting insignificant
male siblings; and typically all of the girls. In one instance (1Chrn 1:1) the
record skips Abel and jumps right to Seth.

Taking advantage of this rather strange Bible practice; critics are quick to
point out generational gaps in Christ's genealogy with the intent of
invalidating the entire New Testament. But gaps are to be expected or
otherwise the list would be cumbersome and require a book all its own. For
example; a sizeable quantity of time passed between Noah's ark and the
arrival of Abraham on the scene; and probably a couple of ice ages too.
We're talking about a lot of generations there, and naming them all to a man
would be just as useless as it would be impractical.

Gen 5:3b . . in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth.

NOTE: When human life was first created, it was in the image and likeness
of God; viz: human life was immortal. Well; when Adam tasted the forbidden
fruit, he lost immortality and became mortal, so any and all human life that
passed on from himself was mortal life, i.e. Seth wasn't born immune to
death. He was born with his dad's mortality, viz: Seth came from the womb
as a dead man walking because he was born in the image and likeness of
Adam rather than the image and likeness of God.

Seth's image and likeness of his father Adam testifies that he was not made
in the image and likeness of another species of human being. No; he was
made of Adam's organic human tissue just as his mother Eve was. Thus Seth
was an extension of Adam.

That may seem a trivial matter, but it's very important because it reflects
upon the kind of human being that Christ was born as. His human body
wasn't a celestial human body nor the body type of another species of
human being: no, his human body was an extension of Adam through and
through just as Seth's and just as Eve's.

Adam's image and likeness of God was obtained via the process of creation;
while Seth's image and likeness of Adam was by means of procreation;
defined by Webster's as reproduction; viz: biological progeny.

Gen 5:4-5 . . After the birth of Seth, Adam lived 800 years and begot sons
and daughters. All the days that Adam lived came to 930 years; then he
died.

Well, there goes grandpa Adam, just as God predicted at Gen 3:19. But hey?
Where's the listing of the rest of his kids? Didn't God bless him with the
words "be fruitful, increase in number, and fill the earth". Well, I seriously
doubt that he and Eve stopped after just three kids. But the rest of his
progeny-- for reasons I can only guess --didn't make the cut.

But when did Eve die? Did she outlive Adam? Who died first, Adam or Eve?
Nobody really knows. But supposing Eve died quite a while before Adam?
Did he remarry? And if he remarried, who did he marry? One of his own
grandchildren?

Well . . in Adam's case, what's so bad about that? I mean, after all, his first
wife was constructed from the organic tissues of his own body; so that in
reality, Eve was his first child which means that by today's social standards;
Adam practiced the worst kind of incest. At least his grandkids would have
been several times removed.

Gen 5:6-7 . .When Seth had lived 105 years, he begot Enosh. After the
birth of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and begot sons and daughters.

No doubt some people envy the longevity of the antediluvians; but I don't.
Their life was hard, and for the most part, pretty boring too. Would you want
to live for 912 years in pre historic conditions without a single modern
convenience? Not me.

Was Enosh the first of Seth's children? Maybe, but probably not. However,
he is the only child that counts because it's through him that we're moving
towards Noah; and ultimately Abraham, David, and Christ.

Gen 5:8 . . All the days of Seth came to 912 years; then he died.

(sigh) The story of our futile lives. So and So was born, he got married and
reproduced; he lived X number of years after that, and then died-- same O,
same O. The weary circle of life.

"Meaningless! Futile! complains the Teacher. Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless. What does man gain from all his labor at which
he toils under the sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth
remains forever." (Ecc 1:2-4)

The earth is dumber than a brick; yet easily outlives its human potentate;
whose IQ is infinitely greater.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#53
.
Gen 5:9 . .When Enosh had lived 90 years, he begot Kenan.

Kenan's name in the Hebrew is Qeynan (kay-nawn') which means fixed or
permanent; sort of like birds' nests, homes; and drifters finally ending their
nomadic life and putting down some roots. Fixed can also mean that
someone's life has a noble purpose and that their mind is focused upon that
purpose rather than looking two ways at once. Or it can also mean
somebody's life is a dead end; for example "this is as good as it's ever going
to get". Kind of pessimistic; but had I lived back then, I would have agreed;
heartily.

Gen 5:10 . . After the birth of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and begot
sons and daughters.

You know, some of these guys really didn't accomplish very much. All they
seemed to do was reproduce. But the important thing is: they made a line to
Messiah and, as is the duty of patriarchs, preserved whatever sacred
teachings were handed down from their fathers.

Gen 5:11 . . All the days of Enosh came to 905 years; then he died.

(yawn) Over and over again. Just about everybody reproduces in chapter
five. And just about everybody dies too.

Gen 5:12-20 . .When Kenan had lived 70 years, he begot Mahalalel. After
the birth of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and begot sons and daughters.
All the days of Kenan came to 910 years; then he died. When Mahalalel had
lived 65 years, he begot Jared. After the birth of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830
years and begot sons and daughters. All the days of Mahalalel came to 895
years; then he died.

. . .When Jared had lived 162 years, he begot Enoch. After the birth of
Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and begot sons and daughters. All the days of
Jared came to 962 years; then he died.

Four of those men-- Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, and Kenan (Cainan) --are
listed in Christ's genealogy at Luke 3:37-38.

Gen 5:21 . .When Enoch had lived 65 years, he begot Methuselah.

Methuselah's name is Methuwshelach (meth-oo-sheh'-lakh) which is a
compound word made up of math (math) which means an adult (as of full
length or full size), and shelach (sheh'-lakh) which means a missile of
attack, i.e. a spear, sling stone, or perhaps an arrow. Methuselah was a
man-size weapon rather than one that might be employed by little children.

Today our preferred missile of attack from a hand held weapon is the bullet.
A Methuselah bullet would probably be known today as a magnum.
Magnums cost more than normal ammo but hit harder, go further, and
cause more damage (they're louder too). A modern name that might
correspond to Methuselah is Long Tom-- a nickname often given to very
large canons. Maybe they meant to call him Big Guy because he was such a
heavy newborn.

Gen 5:22-23 . . After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300
years; and he begot sons and daughters. All the days of Enoch came to 365
years.

Enoch was a fiery preacher, speaking the words recorded in Jude 1:14-15;
warning people prior to the Flood that Almighty God intends to hold people's
feet to the fire some day.

Gen 5:24a . . Enoch walked with God;

Enoch was the exact opposite of Cain: he walked with God rather than away
from God.

This is the very first man on record who is actually said to have walked with
God; though no doubt Abel did too.

Those who are outwardly religious, but don't actually walk with God, might
be wise to give this next little saying some thought.

Ye call me Lord and respect me not.
Ye call me Master and obey me not.
Ye call me Light and see me not.
Ye call me Way and walk me not.
Ye call me Life and choose me not.
Ye call me Wise and heed me not.
Ye call me Kind and love me not.
Ye call me Just and fear me not.
If I condemn thee, blame me not.

On the page of Scripture, Enoch isn't said to walk with God until after his
little boy Methuselah was born; suggesting perhaps that parenthood gave
him cause to ponder his manner of life thus far.

Gen 5:24b . . then he was no more, because God took him away.

The Hebrew word for "no more" is 'ayin (ah'-yin) which is primarily a
negative indicating that one minute Enoch was on earth, and the next he
wasn't.

It's difficult to ascertain from so little information in the book of Genesis
whether Enoch died of natural causes or the hand of God; but according to
Heb 11:5, he didn't undergo death at all but was instantaneously transferred
from this life to the next; apparently leaving behind no remains for his
family to bury.

It's assumed by many that Enoch was taken to heaven; but according to
Christ; no man had been to heaven prior to himself. (John 3:13)

Gen 5:25-27 . .When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he begot Lamech.
After the birth of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and begot sons and
daughters. All the days of Methuselah came to 969 years; then he died.

Ol' Methuselah holds the record for longevity. He outlived his son Lamech,
dying five years after him in the very year the Flood came; when
Methuselah's grandson Noah was 600.

Whether or not Methuselah died in the Flood or by natural causes is not said.
However, he may indeed have perished in it right along with all of the rest of
Noah's relatives. Just because men are listed in Messiah's genealogy doesn't
necessarily mean they were righteous. In point of fact, some of the Davidic
kings in Jesus' line were totally incorrigible men beyond remedy. (e.g. Jer
22:24-30)
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#54
.
Gen 5:28-29 . .When Lamech had lived 182 years, he begot a son. And he
named him Noah, saying: This one will provide us relief from our work and
from the toil of our hands, out of the very soil which the Lord placed under a
curse.

The word for "Noah" is from nuwach (noo'-akh) and means: rest or quiet.
But not the kind of quiet one might find in a sound-proof room. More like the
tranquility a person would experience by getting away from anxiety, fear,
conflict, and toil.

Lamech speaks as one fatigued with the business of living, and as one
grudging that so much energy, which otherwise might have been much
better employed in leisure, entertainment, or self improvement, was
unavoidably spent in toil and labor necessary simply to survive back in that
day.

Lamech undoubtedly saw that Noah was a very special boy; the next
patriarch after himself. Perhaps he hoped Noah was the promised seed of
the woman; the one who would crush the Serpent's head, remove the curse,
and restore the Earth to its former prosperity and glory; thus making for
Man a much more enjoyable experience than the one he is subjected to for
now.

"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing
with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager
longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected
to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;
because the creation itself will be set free from its slavery to decay and
obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God." (Rom 8:18-21)

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so
that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that
He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven
must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has
spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." (Acts
3:19-21)

According to Acts 3:19-21, men have been pounding pulpits since the very
beginning, and all of the prophets, ever since Abel, have looked ahead in
anxious anticipation to Messiah's intervention in world affairs and bringing
into existence a much better world than the one that is now.

Gen 5:30-32 . . After the birth of Noah, Lamech lived 595 years and begot
sons and daughters. All the days of Lamech came to 777 years; then he
died. When Noah had lived 500 years, Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Lamech escaped the Flood by a mere 5 years. It came when Noah was 600
(Gen 7:6).

Shem was the next patriarch after his dad Noah. But the names of all three
boys are given probably because of the role they will play in re-populating
the Earth after the Flood. The Bible doesn't say that Shem, Ham, and
Japheth were especially good men. They survived the Flood in spite of their
character only because they got aboard the ark with their dad when it was
time for the rain to begin. If they had mocked, and remained on land with
the rest of the world, then they would have certainly drowned right along
with everyone else in spite of their ancestry.

So; were Mr and Mrs Noah childless until Noah was 500 years old? Probably
not. The other kids, if there were any, didn't count as far as God was
concerned, and, if there were any, they perished in the deluge.

NOTE: Being related to holy men like rabbis, pastors, deacons and/or
missionaries etc doesn't guarantee a ticket to safety. Everyone has to make
their own personal decisions in that regard (e.g. Gen 19:12-14). God
commands all people everywhere to repent. The alternative is the sum of all
fears no matter how important, nor well connected, your relatives might be.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#55
.
Gen 6:1-2 . . Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face
of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that
the daughters of men were good; and they took wives for themselves,
whomever they chose.

The Hebrew word for "good" in that passage is towb (tobe) which is one of
those ambiguous Hebrew words that can be utilized in a wide variety of
applications. It can indicate morality, a tasty meal, a job well done, a nice
man, a pretty dress, a shapely woman and/or a handsome man, and an
expert musician and/or a really groovy song. But in this case; I think it's
pretty safe to assume towb refers to a woman's looks.

NOTE: Ambiguous Hebrew words like towb serve to illustrate why it's
virtually impossible to translate Hebrew into English with 100% verbatim
precision. No linguist in his right mind would dare to say that English
versions of the Hebrew Old Testament are perfect word-for-word renditions
of the original manuscripts-- no; they can't even be certified perfect word
for-word renditions of the available manuscripts let alone the originals.

The characteristics of the "sons of God" has been debated. Some say they
were members of the aristocracy of that day who married attractive women
from among the commoners. Others say they were renegade spirit creatures
who donned fully functioning human avatars-- replete with synthetic male
genomes --so they could cohabit with women; thus producing a hybrid strain
of hominid freaks. Others say they were God-fearing men who threw caution
to the wind and built themselves harems of humanistic women who believed
and practiced existential philosophies.

Intermarriage between men of faith and infidel women is a proven tactic for
watering down, compromising, and even extinguishing Bible beliefs and
practices (e.g. Num 31:7-16). The people of God are strictly, unequivocally,
and clearly forbidden to marry outside their faith. (Deut 7:1-4, 2Cor 6:14
18)

Wives can be very effective in influencing an otherwise pious man to
compromise his convictions; for example Solomon got off to a good start but
down the road accumulated a harem of foreign women who led him into
idolatry; which subsequently caused The Lord to engineer rebellion in the
kingdom. (1Kgs 11 & 12)

The sons of God in Noah's day-- whose wives were chosen based solely upon
sensual appeal sans any spiritual prudence whatsoever --all perished in the
Flood right along with their infidel wives and children. Not a one of them had
the good sense to go aboard the ark with Noah.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#56
.
Gen 6:3a . . And the Lord said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever

Some translations have "abide" instead of strive. But the Hebrew word is
diyn (deen) which means: to rule; by implication: to judge (as umpire); also
to strive (as at law). It can also mean to plead the cause of; or to contend in
argument.

So. How did "My Spirit" accomplish this striving with man? In person
Himself? No; just like He always has: via a holy man.

"Noah, a preacher of righteousness" (2Pet 2:5)

NOTE: According to 1Pet 3:18-20, the Spirit of Christ and My Spirit are one
and the same spirit. In point of fact; according to 1Pet 1:10-11, all the Old
Testament preachers (a..k.a. prophets) were motivated by the Spirit of
Christ. (cf. Rom 8:9 and 1Cor 6:19 where the Spirit of Christ and The Spirit
are seen as one and the same spirit)

Gen 6:3b . . for they are only mortal flesh.

A problem with flesh is it's brevity. The human body eventually loses its
vigor, so God has a limited amount of time to work with people before they
pass on. Were humans immortal, He would have plenty of time to turn
people around; but alas, without access to the tree of life, such is not the
case; which is why I sometimes advise certain folk to use what time they
have remaining to begin preparing themselves for the worst when they pass
on.

Gen 6:3c . . yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But
people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years
afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood,
didn't die till he was 175 years old.

It's far more reasonable to conclude that God was announcing a deadline;
viz: they had 120 years left to get ready to meet their maker. But you think
that alarmed anybody? Heck no. They went right on; business as usual.

"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of
Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and
destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)

The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz:
reprieves are not pardons-- though God bear a great while, He never bears
forever.

Gen 6:4 . .There were giants on the earth in those days, and also
afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they
bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of
renown.

The Hebrew word for "giants" in that passage is somewhat ambiguous. It not
only refers to people of unusual stature, but also to bullies, i.e. alpha males,
achievers, tyrants, movers and shakers, and Machiavellian types.

Historical examples would be men like Genghis Khan of Mongolia, and
Alexander the Great of Greece; Napoleon of France, Peter Alekseyevich
Romanov of Russia, Chandragupta Maurya of India, shogun Minamoto no
Yoritomo of Japan, conquistador Hernando Cortes of Spain, Timur: founder
of the Timurid dynasty, and Zahir-ud din Muhammad Babur: founder of the
Mughal dynasty that ruled the Indian subcontinent for over three centuries.

In other words: nephiyl doesn't necessarily indicate a special race of people;
but simply strong men whose ambition is to dominate others; even if they
have to completely destroy their culture and kill them all off to do it. (I think
we can see some of that willingness to step over the bones of others right
now in the power plays going on in the handling of the coronavirus crisis.)

I would categorize Nimrod as a nephiyl. He was the first statesmen to
successfully unite the world; and it was such a solid unity that only divine
intervention could bring it down.

The phrase "men of renown" indicates that the nephil types got all the press:
they were the Man Of The Year back then while guys like Noah were
marginalized and went largely unnoticed.

FAQ: If all the nephiyl types drowned in the Flood; then how did their
characteristics manage to resurface down the road?

A: Well; from whence did nephiyl types originate in the first place? Same
place every other personality type originated: from Adam's genes; viz: since
Noah and his wife, and his sons and their wives, were Adam's biological
descendants, then nephiyl characteristics survived the Flood by riding it out
in the DNA of the people aboard the ark.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#57
.
Gen 6:5 . . And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth,
and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.

Man's descent into depravity didn't catch his creator by surprise. After all;
not only can God see the future but He can also manipulate it; so He was
well aware even before Gen 1:1 that the people He was about to create were
destined from day-one for a global deluge.

Also, when God inspected His handiwork at Gen 1:31, He evaluated it not
just good, but "very" good. So as far as He was concerned; everything was
going smoothly and according to plan-- nothing was broken, no parts were
missing, and nothing was maladjusted.

Gen 6:6 . . And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth,
and He became grieved in His heart.

I seriously doubt that the regret and grief that God felt was somehow related
to His thinking that creating human life was a big mistake. It's difficult to
discern from the language and grammar of the text; but it's far more likely
that the regret God felt in Gen 6:6 was directly related to what He was about
to do next: the destruction of a major portion of the life that He himself put
on earth.

In other words; the destruction of life is not something God enjoys as if He
were an outdoor guy who kills fish and wildlife for sport with no more
sensitivity than a kid blasting aliens in a video game. Man's creator knew the
day was coming when He would have to do what He was about to do next,
and clearly wasn't looking forward to it.

But to be quite forthright; it seems insane to me that God would go forward
with plans to create life on earth knowing in advance that He would one day
be destroying so much of it. Where's the logic in that? I just don't get it; but
then, no surprise there.

The human mind is produced by a three-pound lump of flabby organic
tissue, and not even all three of those pounds are utilized for cognitive
processes; 60% of the human brain's mass is fat. All considered: the human
mind is practically that of an insect in comparison to the mind of the
inventor who created human life.

Gen 6:7 . . And the Lord said: I will blot out man, whom I created, from
upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl
of the heavens, for I regret that I made them.

The destruction of earth's birds and beasts was unavoidable; they became
collateral damage in God's contention with the evil antediluvians.

The Hebrew word for "blot" is from machah (maw-khaw') which means: to
stroke or rub; by implication, to erase; also to smooth (as if with oil), i.e.
grease or make fat; also to touch, i.e. reach to.

God intended to not only remove the antediluvians from the face of the
earth, but also to scrub off all of their works too so that when He was done,
it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to even be able to tell the
antediluvians were ever here at all.

It's always been a mystery to me why paleo-anthropologists have managed
to find so few fossilized remains of pre-historic human beings.

In 1992, Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, discovered the
fossilized skeletons of human-like creatures in Ethiopia's Afar Rift who lived
4.4 million years ago but those are not the remains of h.sapiens; but rather,
of beasts that resemble h.sapiens. To my knowledge; no truly human
remains have been found from that era.

While mysterious; that lack of remains isn't exclusive. Take for instance the
Passenger Pigeon. That bird at one time numbered an estimated four to five
billion individuals; which is a number equal in quantity to the current year
round population of all North American birds combined. Yet an archeological
search for the pigeon's bones left behind by people who ate the bird for
food, through all pre-Columbian times, has thus far yielded very few
remains; at only two sites.

But my point is: where are the remains of the antediluvians? They're gone;
lock, stock, and barrel-- no metal implements from Tubal-Cain's blacksmith
shop, no musical instruments from Jubal's work shop, no dwellings, no
footprints, no bones, no pottery, no no pictographs, no petroglyphs, not
even any geological evidence of a world-wide deluge: nothing. It's like they
were never here.

God moved against the antediluvians like a relentless newspaper editor
deleting superfluous words and sentences so skillfully that the reader cannot
even tell those superfluous words and sentences ever existed in the original
copy.

Why would God do that? I would hazard to guess that His purpose in doing
so was to prevent people from believing too easily that the Flood actually
happened.

The funny thing about the Bible is that portions of it are just as effective at
driving people away from God as they are at attracting them. No doubt it is
God's wishes that everybody believe the Bible; but at the same time it
seems He's thwarted His own wishes by taking steps to ensure that a
substantial number of people don't. For example:

"Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: You have seen all that The
Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his
servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those
great signs and wonders. Yet to this day The Lord has not given you a heart
to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear." (Deut 29:2-4)

"No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father
except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Matt
11:27)
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#58
.
Gen 6:8 . . But Noah found favor with The Lord.

The word for "favor" is from chen (khane) and means: graciousness.
Translators sometimes render chen as grace. But the important thing is that
The Lord didn't find chen with Noah. No, just the opposite-- Noah found chen
with The Lord.

Webster's defines graciousness as: kind, courteous, inclined to good will,
generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial,
affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.

Those are all good qualities, and the very things you would expect to see in
someone you loved and trusted-- like your spouse or a very close friend.

Gen 6:9a . .This is the line of Noah.-- Noah was a righteous man;

The Hebrew word for "righteous" is tsaddiyq (tsad-deek') which means: just.

Webster's provides several definitions of "just", but perhaps the ones best
suited for our purpose are: conscientious, honest, honorable, right,
scrupulous, true, dependable, reliable, tried, trustworthy, dispassionate,
equal, equitable, impartial, nondiscriminatory, objective, unbiased,
uncolored, and unprejudiced. So then, Noah was not only religious to his
fingertips; but he was a pretty decent guy to boot.

The kind of righteousness spoken of in Gen 6:9a is a personal kind of
righteousness. There's also a spiritual righteousness, but I don't think that's
in view here. The emphasis is upon Noah as a man rather than a believer;
though according to Heb 11:7 he was that too.

Gen 6:9b . . he was blameless in his era; Noah walked with God.

Blameless in the Bible means something altogether different than what you'd
expect. In this case, "blameless" means that God had nothing negative to
say about Noah; i.e. on the books, Noah performance was spotless. How is
that possible? Well; if God chooses not to record your badness, then the only
thing remaining to record is your goodness.

This is a very important aspect of not just Old Testament piety, but New
Testament too.

"God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their
trespasses against them" (2Cor 5:19)

The Greek word translated "counting" is logizomai (log-id'-zom-ahee) which
means to take an inventory; i.e. an indictment. 2Cor 5:19 is quite an
advantage because when there is nothing bad on the books, then there is
nothing that can in any way be used to prove that somebody has ever been
anything less than 100% innocent; i.e. blameless. This may seem like
cooking the books, but God has a way to do it on the up and up.

NOTE: Too often Supreme Court judges-- the State level and the US level -
are unjust; viz; they're biased and they're prejudiced; and that's because
seldom, if ever, are they nominated on the basis of their objectivity; rather,
they're typically nominated solely on the basis of their political leanings.

God highly recommended Noah, but it's doubtful Noah would ever be
considered for a federal judgeship let alone America's supreme.

The most incredible thing about Noah was his degree of piety in a world
gone mad with evil. He was actually a nobody in his day; eclipsed by the
nephiyl types. They got all the press, the publicity, and the notoriety while
God's man went marginalized and largely ignored. Yet he persisted; and
continued pounding a pulpit right up to the end.

Gen 6:10 . . Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Were those the only kids Noah had? And no daughters? I seriously doubt it.
Noah was six hundred when the flood began. It is unlikely that a healthy,
hard working, robust man would live that long without engendering a much
larger family than three; especially in those days without birth control. But
these three boys are the only ones that count now because they're going on
the ark with their dad.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#59
.
Gen 6:11a . .The earth became corrupt before God;

The word for "earth" is 'erets (eh'-rets) which technically refers to the planet
(Gen 1:1).

I think we're going to see that the planet wasn't corrupt due to itself going
bad, rather, the activities of its human inhabitants.

The word for "corrupt" is shachath (shaw-khath') which means: to decay,
decompose, and/or disintegrate; viz: to become decadent.

The perspective "before God" indicates the Almighty's own personal
estimation. No doubt the antediluvians disagreed with His evaluation of their
spiritual condition just like people today disagree. And again, this disparity of
evaluations has its roots all the way back in the garden when humans
became their own gods; discerning right and wrong from within a natural
system of values instead of their creator's.

Gen 6:11b . . the earth was filled with lawlessness.

Crime is pretty much inevitable in a world of sinful beings sans cops and
courts. Nobody was accountable for a single thing in those days. The only
rules that may have existed were those among clans or in towns. But those
rules wouldn't be universal. Rules like that would be different from clan to
clan and from town to town. And primitive clans are known to war with each
other on a regular basis like the Native Americans did here in America's
early years.

I just hope I don't live to see the day when some sort of nationwide disaster,
like a nuclear holocaust, occurs in America. Nobody will be safe. Electrical
power will be out, the banks won't be open, ATM machines won't work,
everyone will be desperate to survive; and hoarders will strip supermarket
shelves of food and commodities practically overnight.

Roving gangs of thugs will prowl the rubble looking to scavenge and to steal
anything not nailed down or protected by guards. Law enforcement and
medical services will be so overwhelmed that dialing 911 will be no more
productive than writing a letter to Santa Claus; that is, if telephones even
work. If hurricanes Katrina and Sandy taught us anything in New Orleans
and Manhattan, it's that large-scale disasters produce large-scale anarchy
and chaos.

The criminal element has neither honor nor sympathy for its victims. After
the September 29, 2009 tsunami subsided in Samoa, residents returned to
neighborhoods only to find that their homes had been looted.

According to the 2016 World Almanac, in the year 2013, there were a total
of 1,163,146 violent crimes committed in the USA . The number of property
crimes totaled 8,632,512. Those totals exclude crimes like arson, perjury,
forgery, insider trading, contempt of court, bail jumping, internet hacking,
traffic violations, J-walking, trespassing, animal abuse, feeding parking
meters, cheating on taxes; et al.

And to think the USA and its territories are a society of law abiding citizens.
Just think what it must have been like in Noah's day with no law
enforcement whatsoever to control crime. All I can say is; if something really
bad should ever happen here in the USA, you'd better own deadly weapons
like swords and guns plus lots of pepper and/or bear spray because neither
your life nor your possessions will be safe after dark.

Gen 6:12-13a . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the
people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I am going
to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of
them.

Some people would probably like to translate some of that verse like this:
"for the earth is filled with violence through God." But Genesis doesn't say it
was filled with violence through God; no, God said it was filled with violence
through them.

Gen 6:13b . . I am about to destroy them with the earth.

Here is set a precedent of God forewarning His own when He is about to
execute a calamitous event. The Passover was another such example. God
forewarned Moses, and Moses' people, of the imminent annihilation of all the
firstborn of Man and Beast in Egypt; which would also impact Moses and his
people if they didn't do exactly as God said and paint the blood of a lamb on
their door jambs (Ex 11:1-13).

And our man Noah, super-duper righteous man that he was, would have
drowned right along with the rest of the antediluvians had he neglected to
construct an ark. When God gives a warning, it is best to respond
accordingly.

"A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going
and suffer for it." (Prov 22:3)

Gen 6:14a . . Make yourself an ark

The Hebrew word for ark is tebah (tay-baw') and just simply indicates, not a
ship, but a nondescript box. The only other place tebah is used again in the
Old Testament is of the little watertight container Moses' mom constructed
to hide her little boy from Pharaoh's assassins. (Ex 2:1-10)

Gen 6:14b . . of gopher wood;

Nobody really knows for sure exactly what kind of tree Noah used to make
the ark. The word for "gopher" has nothing to do with little subterranean
rodents. It's a transliteration of the Hebrew word gopher (go'-fer) which only
suggests a kind of tree suitable for building structures out of wood. Some
think it was cypress because the wood of those trees is so resinous that it
resists rotting even after prolonged submersion in water. Others think it may
have been cedar or spruce; which are good too.

Noah would've needed some massive structural members so in my
estimation; Redwood-- a.k.a. Sequoia --would've been an excellent choice
seeing as how the wood is not only resistant to rot, but the trees themselves
are typically very large and yield huge quantities of lumber.

Unfortunately, this is the one and only occurrence of gopher in the entire Old
Testament so there's no other passages that might help identify a specific
kind of tree.

Gen 6:14c . . make it an ark with compartments,

The word for "compartments" is from qen (kane) which means: a nest (as
fixed), sometimes including the nestlings; figuratively, a chamber or
dwelling. The construction of nests (and stalls) indicates the animals weren't
just herded or jammed together like the crowds attending an outdoor rock
concert. They were neatly stowed aboard in their own areas and apparently
made to feel quite comfortable.
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
1,604
266
83
Oregon
#60
.
Gen 6:14d . . and cover it inside and out with pitch.

The word for "pitch" is kopher (ko'-fer) which means: a cover. It can also
mean a village (as covered in); and also bitumen (as used for coating) and
the henna plant (as used for dye).

Kopher is a common word in the Old testament for "atonement" which is like
pitch as a coating, or a covering, which not only serves the purpose of a
sealing compound like the stuff people apply to weatherproof their patio
decks, but also a concealment coating like paint and/or tar and feathers.

NOTE: Old Testament atonements, while gaining offenders a pardon, do
nothing to exonerate them; viz: atonements don't expunge their history, i.e.
their offenses stay on the books like a rap sheet, and available to God as a
means of evaluating peoples' character. This is pretty serious because
according to Rev 20:11-15, those books are going to be opened for
examination to determine whether people qualify for a pass to heaven. (God
has figured out a way to expunge people's records so that they can be
legally adjudged innocent, but a discussion of it is not within the scope of a
study in Genesis.)

Anyway; coating the ark with bitumen not only served to waterproof it; but
also preserved the wood for future uses after the Flood subsided and Noah
no longer had need of a titanic water craft.

NOTE: Bitumen is a naturally-occurring kind of asphalt formed from the
remains of ancient, microscopic algae (diatoms) and other once-living
things. In order for bitumen to be available in Noah's day, the organisms
from whence it was formed had to have existed on the earth several
thousands of years before him. In point of fact, I read somewhere that the
biomass that gave us fossil fuels existed even before the dinosaurs. That's
really going back a ways.

Gen 6:15a . .This is how you shall make it:

What if Noah had some ideas of his own? Would that have been alright? No;
when God says "you shall" and/or "you shall not" then that's the law.

Some object that since paper and writing were not yet invented in Noah's
day, then God couldn't possible have provided him with plans for the ark.
But any pictograph, even one on a clay tablet or a rock face, qualifies as a
drawing. That objection infers that God was illiterate until Man learned to
read. (chuckle) I guess it just never occurs to them that holy men like Noah
were far more advanced than your average cave-dwelling hominid.

Other 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 the Egyptians
aren't the only ones to mystify us. There are ancient stone structures around
the world that seem impossible to be erected by human hands prior to the
age of heavy industrial machinery; but nevertheless, there they are.

And not to forget that Noah's God was in the project. Since that's the case,
it's not unreasonable to assume God also provided Noah the tools necessary
to complete the task He assigned; and very, very possibly chipped in to help
out with the construction too. When people fail to factor in God, they
invariably end up mystified. To this day scientists are baffled about the
origin of the cosmos, with all of its life, matter, and energy, because they
refuse to factor God into their thinking.

How did Noah cut the logs that went into constructing the ark? Well;
according to the Bible, Cain's people were proficient with metals. If nothing
else; it's probably pretty certain that Noah had at least a metal hammer and
an axe; maybe several metal hammers and axes; and quite possibly saws
too.

"And Zillah she too bore Tubal-cain, who sharpened all tools that cut copper
and iron" (Gen 4:2, Chabad.org)

How did Noah join the logs and other wooden pieces that went into
constructing the ark? Well; you know, a good cabinet maker can assemble a
very nice armoire without using nuts and bolts by the strategic use of dowels
and clever joinery like grooves, rabbets, dovetails, mortises, and tenons.

Others object that a wooden vessel the size of the ark would never hold up
on the open sea without steel reinforcement; especially when the super
storm of Gen 8:1 began blowing to mop up the water. But again; those
skeptics typically fail to factor God's involvement in the Flood. You really
think He left the only surviving humans and the only surviving beasts on the
whole planet to the mercy of the elements?

The Flood was a miraculous event, which by its very nature circumvented
the laws of physics.

With God's involvement, even a house of cards would have survived the
Flood had He wished it to because the strength of natural materials isn't
fixed; they can be greatly enhanced, e.g. Samson (Judg 13:2-16:31). He
was just an ordinary man of flesh and bone; but God made Samson strong
enough to do things that no one man alone could possibly attempt
unassisted.
_