Bible Study The First Book of Moses Called Genesis

[Asyncritus]

Tell ya what SB. Here's what you actually wrote:

Let me put it this way. Abraham and Abel may very well have written down their accounts

I would have said that much more strongly than that: Abr and Abel most certainly wrote down their accounts of what happened.

Now my problem with what you did say:

and I wouldn't doubt that they passed the stories down orally from generation to generation until the time when Moses put them all under one writing we now know as Genesis.

My real question is: why would they do such a thing? Yes, they had preachers: Noah was one of them, as was Melchizedek and Abraham himself.

But what did they preach from? Oral traditions passed down however accurately or inaccurately for generations? Or as we ought to do: from the precisely written inspired historical accounts?

What do you think?

Please, I'm not looking for a fight here. Merely a correct assessment of what actually happened, and a rejection of higher critical evil which has taken such hold of the universities and seminaries. And of the theologians who have uncritically swallowed that stuff.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 1:4-5a . . God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Day and Night simply label two physical conditions-- the absence of light, and/or the absence of darkness. Labeling those physical conditions may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing crucifixion week in the New Testament, it's essential to keep those physical conditions separate in regards to the Lord's burial and resurrection if one is to have any hope of deducing the correct chronology of Easter week. In other words: in regards to crucifixion week; Day is when the sun is up, and Night is when the sun is down. (cf. Mtt 12:39-40)

Anyplace there's light, there is no true darkness because light always dispels darkness. However, darkness is powerless to dispel light. In other words; science and industry have given the world a flashlight; but they have yet to give the world a flashdark. So then, light is the superior of the two and rules the dark. That is a biblical axiom; and, typically: light is good, and dark is just the opposite.

Light has huge significance in the Bible. Whether in the form of atomic energy, spiritual truth, good times, or all that is noble; true Light (in the biblical sense) always brings with it blessing and order, and Dark always brings just the opposite; for example :

†. Mtt 8:11-12 . . I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

†. Job 10:20-22 . . My days are few, so desist! Leave me alone, let me be diverted a while before I depart-- never to return-- for the land of deepest gloom; a land whose light is darkness, all gloom and disarray, whose light is like darkness.

†. Amos 5:18-20 . .Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light; as if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him. Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

In contrast to those passages; the 60th chapter of Isaiah characterizes Messiah's kingdom as a place of perpetual Light.

†. Isa 60:19-20 . . No longer shall you need the sun for light by day, nor the shining of the moon for radiance [by night]; for Yhvh shall be your light everlasting, your God shall be your glory. Your sun shall set no more, your moon no more withdraw; for Yhvh shall be a light to you forever, and your days of mourning shall be ended.

†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

The Hebrew word for "evening" is 'ereb (eh'-reb) which means: dusk. And the word for "morning" is boqer (bo'-ker) which can mean either dawn (as the break of day) and/or AM (as the early part of day)

The Bible's dusk is a bit ambiguous and somewhat different than Webster's dusk. In the Bible, evening is actually anytime between high noon and sunset when the sun is losing altitude as opposed to morning which is anytime between sunrise and high noon when the sun is gaining altitude. The terms evening and morning therefore are limited to daylight hours since Day is clearly defined as a time of light rather than a time of darkness. Officially; a civil day is no more than twelve hours (John 11:9). However, as we're going to see very soon, a creation day is quite a bit longer-- but the point to note is that creation's days were periods of light rather than periods of darkness.

Students of earth sciences are well aware it's not all that difficult to prove that the Earth as we know it is at least 4.5 Billion years old and that homo sapiens has existed on it for only a relatively teensy percentage of those years. But how do we reconcile the Bible with that knowledge?

One way that seems to work pretty well for some people is the thousand-year theory.

†. 2Pet 3:8 . . But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

But that theory won't work because it would mean that the earth as completed on the sixth day was only 6,000 years old; which is nowhere close to harmonizing with the earth's known geological age.

Another is the gap theory; which inserts an arbitrary number of years in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, suggesting that the original cosmos underwent a colossal cataclysm at some time in the distant past requiring God to rebuild it from the rubble; which He accomplished in six calendar days of 24 hours each. But that won't work either because it puts dinosaurs together with homo sapiens; and besides, a "day" of 24 hours would be an amalgam of light and darkness; which can't be because Day is clearly distinct from Night.

An interesting modification of the gap theory is one that inserts arbitrary amounts of time not only between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, but also in between each of the six days. That theory is plausible since the Bible doesn't really say that creation's six days run consecutively with no delay between them; but again that theory puts dinosaurs together with homo sapiens.

A fourth theory, one that satisfies my scientific curiosity, is the epoch theory; which suggests that the lengths of creation's days are actually indeterminable. The concept isn't without precedent. For example Gen 2:4 labels the whole of creation week itself as just one day.

How do I know that creation's days are epochs? I don't: it's what I choose to believe; and you-- if not yet --will choose what to believe too: just like I did.

Ironically, modern man has a much better understanding of the "week" of creation than the author himself who penned Genesis. He was aware that God created the cosmos and the earth, but didn't really know very much about how God went about it. We today do.

Some Bible students regard science an enemy of the Bible; but that is not only a very isolationist attitude but self-defeating as well. Science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science itself reinforces religion. Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies-- two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and religion are not at odds; no, in reality, science is just simply too young to understand; but it's rapidly catching up.

If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend watching History Channel's two-season series titled: "How The Earth Was Made". The earth's geological past, and its present, are just astounding. The series takes some liberties here and there-- especially in its theories about the origin of the blue planet's huge volume of water --but by and large, it's very informative; and I believe quite useful to students of Genesis.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Gen 1:6a . . God said: Let there be an expanse

The word for "expanse" is from raqiya' (raw-kee'-ah) and means: a great extent of something spread out, a firmament, the visible arch of the sky.

The expanse here in Gen 1:6 is doubtless included in the "heavens" of Gen 1:1 where the sky is labeled shamayim (shaw-mah'-yim). Raqiya' is distinct from shamyim in that it indicates the location of the earth's atmosphere; which is sort of sandwiched between the earth's surface and the vacuum of space.

†. Gen 1:6b-8 . . in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from water. God made the expanse, and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse. And it was so. And God named the expanse Sky.

We can easily guess what is meant by water that's below the sky. But is there really water that's above it? Yes, and it's a lot! Earth's atmosphere alone holds roughly 2,900 cubic miles of water in the form of vapor.

Suppose you had a tank one mile wide, and one mile high. What length would it have to be to contain 2,900 cubic miles of water. Answer: 2,900 miles; and the tank would stretch from San Diego California to the Brooks Range in Alaska.

Now supposing we again make the tank one mile wide, but this time only as tall as the Eiffel Tower. How far would a tank of those dimensions containing 2,900 cubic miles of water go? Answer: the Eiffel Tower is 984 feet tall; which is .1863636 miles. So a tank 1 mile wide, and .1863636 miles tall, whose volume is 2,900 cubic miles, would be 15,561 miles long.

If that tank was poked into the Earth, it would go all the way through the planet, out the other side, and keep going for another 7,634 miles into space; which is roughly 31 times further out than a Space Shuttle orbit. Laid south to north, the tank would stretch from Antarctica past Bangladesh to the North Pole and keep going over the pole southwards for yet another 3,151 miles to Minneapolis Minnesota.

The number of gallons of water in a single cubic mile is 1,100,956,999,000 gallons. That's over 1.1 trillion gallons of water. Multiply those gallons by 2,900 to obtain the number of gallons in the form of vapor dissolved at any given time in Earth's atmosphere; and you get 3.2 quadrillion-- which is fourteen zeroes after the 2; and looks like this:

3,200,000,000,000,000

A quadrillion is a thousand trillions. The US national debt hasn't topped a hundred trillion yet, and still a good ways off from a quadrillion. God help us if it ever gets to a quad. By then, we'll all be working side by side with the child labor in Chinese factories.

Global warming isn't as unnatural as some folks would have us to believe; but rather, it's an essential element in our environment. Global warming is the result of two sunlight catchers: gases and water vapor. Some of the more familiar global warming gases are carbon dioxide, fluorocarbons, methane, and ozone. But as popular as those gases are with the media, they're bit players in comparison to the role that ordinary water vapor plays in global warming. By some estimates; atmospheric water vapor accounts for more than 90% of global warming; which is not a bad thing because without atmospheric water vapor, the earth would be so cold that life as we know it couldn't exist here.

†. Gen 1:8b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.


Buen Camino
/

 

[Atonement]

.
†. Gen 1:6a . . God said: Let there be an expanse

The word for "expanse" is from raqiya' (raw-kee'-ah) and means: a great extent of something spread out, a firmament, the visible arch of the sky.

The expanse here in Gen 1:6 is doubtless included in the "heavens" of Gen 1:1 where the sky is labeled shamayim (shaw-mah'-yim). Raqiya' is distinct from shamyim in that it indicates the location of the earth's atmosphere; which is sort of sandwiched between the earth's surface and the vacuum of space.

†. Gen 1:6b-8 . . in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from water. God made the expanse, and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse. And it was so. And God named the expanse Sky.

We can easily guess what is meant by water that's below the sky. But is there really water that's above it? Yes, and it's a lot! Earth's atmosphere alone holds roughly 2,900 cubic miles of water in the form of vapor.

Suppose you had a tank one mile wide, and one mile high. What length would it have to be to contain 2,900 cubic miles of water. Answer: 2,900 miles; and the tank would stretch from San Diego California to the Brooks Range in Alaska.

Now supposing we again make the tank one mile wide, but this time only as tall as the Eiffel Tower. How far would a tank of those dimensions containing 2,900 cubic miles of water go? Answer: the Eiffel Tower is 984 feet tall; which is .1863636 miles. So a tank 1 mile wide, and .1863636 miles tall, whose volume is 2,900 cubic miles, would be 15,561 miles long.

If that tank was poked into the Earth, it would go all the way through the planet, out the other side, and keep going for another 7,634 miles into space; which is roughly 31 times further out than a Space Shuttle orbit. Laid south to north, the tank would stretch from Antarctica past Bangladesh to the North Pole and keep going over the pole southwards for yet another 3,151 miles to Minneapolis Minnesota.

The number of gallons of water in a single cubic mile is 1,100,956,999,000 gallons. That's over 1.1 trillion gallons of water. Multiply those gallons by 2,900 to obtain the number of gallons in the form of vapor dissolved at any given time in Earth's atmosphere; and you get 3.2 quadrillion-- which is fourteen zeroes after the 2; and looks like this:

3,200,000,000,000,000

A quadrillion is a thousand trillions. The US national debt hasn't topped a hundred trillion yet, and still a good ways off from a quadrillion. God help us if it ever gets to a quad. By then, we'll all be working side by side with the child labor in Chinese factories.

Global warming isn't as unnatural as some folks would have us to believe; but rather, it's an essential element in our environment. Global warming is the result of two sunlight catchers: gases and water vapor. Some of the more familiar global warming gases are carbon dioxide, fluorocarbons, methane, and ozone. But as popular as those gases are with the media, they're bit players in comparison to the role that ordinary water vapor plays in global warming. By some estimates; atmospheric water vapor accounts for more than 90% of global warming; which is not a bad thing because without atmospheric water vapor, the earth would be so cold that life as we know it couldn't exist here.

†. Gen 1:8b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.


Buen Camino
/

Greetings to you on this wonderfully blessed day

I don't want you to think I have not been paying attention to your post on here. I have been reading them but for the lack of time I have not been responding to many post(s) for the past couple of days or so. But I am reading these and find your post(s) helpful and brings another perspective into Genesis.

Have a wonderfully blessed weekend

LJ

 

[jasoncran]

jeff they dont understand. they wont. sadly.

 

[Webers_Home]

!

******

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 1:9 . . God said : Let the waters below the sky be gathered into one area, that dry ground may appear. And it was so.

If you're a student of geology, then you know Gen 1:9 speaks volumes and fully deserves some serious consideration. Shaping the earth's mantle in order to form low spots for the seas and high spots for dry ground was a colossal feat of magma convection and volcanism combined with the titanic forces of tectonic plate subduction; all of which require beaucoup centuries to accomplish.

At the ocean's deepest surveyed point-- the Challenger Deep; located in the Mariana Islands group, at the southern end of the Mariana Trench --the water's depth is over 11,000 meters; which is about 6.8 statute miles (36,000 feet). That depth corresponds to the cruising altitude of a Boeing 747. At that altitude, probably about all you're going to see of the airliner without straining your eyes is its contrail. Were Mt Everest to be submerged in the Challenger Deep it would still have about 7,000 feet of water over its peak.

Note : The discovery of fossilized sea lilies near the summit of Mt Everest proves that the Himalayan land mass has not always been mountainous; but at one time was the floor of an ancient sea bed. This is confirmed by the "yellow band" below Everest's summit consisting of limestone: a type of rock made from calcite sediments containing the skeletal remains of countless trillions of organisms who lived, not on dry land, but in the ocean.

†. Ps 104:5-9 . . He established the Earth on its foundations, so that it shall never totter. You made the deep cover it as a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. They fled at your blast, rushed away at the sound of your thunder-- mountains rising, valleys sinking to the place you established for them. You set bounds they must not pass so that they never again cover the Earth.

Psalm 104 is stunning; and clearly way ahead of its time. It says that the land masses we know today as mountains were at one time submerged; and it isn't talking about Noah's flood. The speech of "mountains rising, and valleys sinking" isn't Flood-speak, no, it's geology-speak. I seriously doubt that the Psalmist knew about the science of tectonic plates, magma pressure, and the forces of subduction, but he was clearly somehow aware that the Earth's crust is malleable. And that's true. With just the right combination of temperature and pressure, solid rock can be made to bend; even forced to hairpin back upon itself like taffy.

†. Gen 1:10 . . God called the dry ground Land, and the gathering of waters He called Seas. And God saw that this was good.

"good" meaning not that the dry ground and seas are perfectly moral, but rather, perfectly suitable for the purposes that God had in mind for them.

†. Gen 1:11a . . And God said: Let the earth sprout vegetation

Before God could set out plantings; He first had to create soil for them to grow in; which is only barely alluded to in Genesis' reference to dry land making its appearance: and this is where any young-earth theory really falls on its face because it takes a long time for nature to manufacture soil-- upwards of three hundred years to a millennium to produce just one inch; which indicates that it took an enormous number of years after the formation of dry land for the earth's crust to weather and break down on its own to make soil enough for plantings; hence the proliferation of "aged earth" creation theories which essentially postulate that God got vegetation up and going with a starter kit of fertile dirt.

The soil requirements of different species vary widely, and no generalizations can be made concerning an ideal soil for the growth of all plants; e.g. avocado trees; which thrive just fine in the relatively dry, sunny climate and alkaline soil of San Diego; do poorly in the acidic soil and much wetter, not-so-sunny climate of Oregon's Willamette valley. There are upwards of 30,000 different soils in the USA alone.

†. Gen 1:11b-12 . . seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it. And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that this was good.

All vegetation was created on the third day. Every plant since then, and all plants that will ever be, pre-existed in the cell structures, and in the DNA, of the original flora because God created nothing else after the sixth day.

God produced the origin of species, but from then on, the various species reproduced themselves with subsequent adaptations and mutations; which is okay except that the ability to adapt and mutate has made possible serious problems with organisms like Escherichia coli O157-H7.

That deadly little pathogen didn't exist in nature till the 20th century. It's the progeny of regular E-coli adapting itself to overcome the antibiotics used to control disease in large-scale, overcrowded, unsanitary feed lots where animals are rapidly fattened up on a brief diet of genetically modified grain prior to slaughtering them for food.

Although the creator made O157-H7 possible; I doubt if anybody would have any luck suing Him for product liability since it's homo sapiens' own greed and stupidity that forced E-coli O157-H7 into the food distribution system. Its mommy was just trying to give her lethal little offspring the tools necessary to survive. It's like chaos theorist Dr. Ian Malcolm said in Jurassic Park; "Life finds a way"

†. Prv 1:32 . .The prosperity of fools shall destroy them.

†. Gen 1:13 . . And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.


Buen Camino
/

 

[Atonement]

Deleted

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 1:14a . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky

On the fourth day, God spent time up in the higher reaches of the Sky. It might seem odd that He began work on the surface of the Earth, and then before finishing, stopped short and moved off into space. Why not finish building down here on the planet first?

Because many types of plants and animals need sunlight if they're to be strong and healthy. At this point in the creation, planet Earth was very dark and freezing cold. The dark side of the Moon gets down to like 279º below zero; so it was time to turn the Earth into a greenhouse. And besides, temperature variations play a role in the process of erosion; which assists in soil formation.

Oxygen is a must gas for sustaining life on earth and a very large percentage of it is produced by photosynthesis which is a chemical process that works best in sunlight. No doubt the original atmosphere contained oxygen enough, but would eventually be absorbed by oxidation and other kinds of chemical activity. Plant life plays a major role in both filtration and replenishment; hence the need to get the Sun shining as soon as possible.

The atmosphere contains about 19.5 to 23.5 percent oxygen at any given time and even with all the fossil fuel burned around the world, along with the destruction of savannas, prairies, woodlands, wetlands, and rain forests, coupled with volcanic activity, the percentage remain fairly stable.

The lights created in verse 14 are luminous objects; and one of them; the Moon, doesn't generate its own light. It reflects light from the Sun. But for practical purposes, both of them shed light upon the Earth just as God intended for them to do.

†. Gen 1:14b . . to distinguish Day from Night;

On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light; and Night as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day on earth is when the sun is up; and Night on earth is when the sun is down. These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they easily escape the memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always thinking of Days as periods of one earth rotation of 24 hours. That's okay for calendars but can lead to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical schedules, predictions, and/or chronologies.

†. Gen 1:14c . . they shall serve as signs for the set times-- the days and the years;

The word for "signs" is from 'owth (oth) and means: a signal; such as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.

The Sun and the Moon are very useful time keepers. The period of time between full moons, roughly 29.5 earth-rotations, is handy for dividing the year into major divisions. Though the moon doesn't divide the year into equal months, it is nevertheless close enough for practical purposes. If you were to tell somebody your intention to visit them in five moons, they would have a pretty good idea when to get ready for your arrival.

The Earth's orbit is handy too because it makes the Sun appear to move along a vast circular path in space called the Ecliptic. The Sun's location along the Ecliptic, relative to the stars, at any given time, is always against the backdrop of one of the constellations of the Zodiac. So a person familiar with those signs, can, without even looking at a calendar, come pretty close to telling you the month of the year. That may seem superfluous to us modern city slickers, but if you were a farmer or a rancher living in ancient times, or even today living in a third world country, that information might come in very handy. When the Sun gets back to the same place in the Zodiac, everyone is older by one solar year, depending on their sign.

More »
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 1:15-18a . . and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth. And it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness.

Stars illuminate the Earth too. They may appear too dim for that purpose, but that's because the unaided human eye isn't all that sensitive. If you have never looked at the universe through a pair of binoculars on a pitch black night, by all means try it sometime. You will be amazed at its brilliance! Some animals' eyes are more sensitive to light than the human eye so starlight is perfectly adequate for their nocturnal way of life.

George Ellery Hale, the man who concerted construction of the Palomar telescope, was dismayed at all the starlight going to waste in our world. That's why he was so obsessed with building instruments with huge mirrors to collect and focus starlight from a surface area much larger than his own eye.

The pupil diameter of the average human eye in the dark is roughly 7 millimeters; yielding a surface area of about 38 square mm. Palomar's 200 inch mirror yields a surface area of approximately 20,268,299 square mm. That is a significant gain in light collection; a ratio of about 2,895,471 to 1.

Every square inch of your neighborhood is bathed in starlight on a clear night. If you could see all of it falling around your house, you might have to squint or wear dark glasses when you went out at night.

Scientists have attempted to estimate the age of the universe by calculating the number of light years between Earth and distant objects. For example: this past decade, Hubble telescope detected a galaxy at a distance of 12.8 billion light years-- given the label A1689-zD1.

Chronologically; the cosmos' creator began constructing the Earth before He began constructing the stars; which indicates that as a physical structure, the Earth is older than the sun, moon, and stars. But geologists have pretty good reasons to believe the Earth to be only something like 4.5 billion years old; while A1689-zD1 appears to be a minimum 12.8 billion years old. So then, it seems reasonable to conclude that A1689-zD1 is Earth's senior by at least 8.3 billion years; but there's a rub.

Estimating the distance of celestial objects by analyzing their light doesn't really tell much about the age of the light; nor even about the age of the objects from which the light came. In other words: A1689-zD1is estimated to be 12.8 billion light years distant from Earth; but there's no way to ascertain if that distance in any way relates to its age.

A theory that satisfies me is that stars, regardless of their distance, became visible on Earth the instant God created them-- no delay, and no waiting period. He just punched their light right on through because it was His intent in Gen 1:15 for the cosmos' first stars to shine upon the Earth, and they did so on day four.

A very interesting aspect of starlight is that the universe is expanding in all directions. In other words: every galaxy in the cosmos is moving away from every other galaxy. And not only is it expanding; but the velocity of the cosmos' expansion is not slowing down as might be expected; but rather, contrary to expectations, the velocity of the cosmos' expansion is accelerating; which means that the stars God created on the fourth day are quite a bit farther away now than when He first made them. How much farther away I don't know; but it's my guess the difference is significant.

But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in deep space? Well, for one thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite pretty. Celestial objects decorate the night like the ornamentation people put up during holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was totally black. But decorated with stars; the night sky is like a beautiful tapestry, or a celestial Sistine Chapel. Stars makes better sense that way than to try and find some other meaning for them.

†. Ps 19:2 . .The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork.

The universe is simply a magnificent work of art-- just as intriguing, if not more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Monet, Vermeer, and da Vinci -- testifying to the genius of an engineer-artist without peer. It was never meant to be a home for Mr. ET.

Sadly, many intelligent people like Carl Segan look to the sky for the wrong reasons. Personally, I think it's futile to look to the sky for SETI reasons. Why not just look to the sky for inspiration instead of intelligent extraterrestrial life? What's so bad about visiting the sky as a Metropolitan Museum of your maker's many-faceted talents?

†. Rom 1:19-22 . . For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord Him glory as God or give Him thanks. Instead, they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools

Which would you rather be: a fool, or an idiot? Well, I'd prefer being the idiot. At least the mentally challenged man has an excuse for being stupid.

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


Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 1:20 . . God said: Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and birds that fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.

The Hebrew word for "birds" is 'owph (ofe) which just simply means covered with wings rather than covered with feathers. It's a rather unusual word because it includes not only aerial creatures with feathers, but according to Lev 11:13-23, 'owph also pertains to bats and flying insects. The English word "birds" was obviously an arbitrary translation since owph is ambiguous.

What did those early winged creatures look like? My money is on the Pterosaurs (pterodactyls). Precisely when God phased out those early skin-winged creatures and replaced them with feather-winged creatures isn't stated; but since no winged creatures are reported created on the sixth day, then we have to give the birdies a share of the fifth; so I think we're talking about a pritt-tee long fifth "day" with quite possibly some carry-over into the sixth. What I mean is; I don't think it prudent to rule out the possibility that those early skin-winged creatures were the ancestors of later-to-come feather-winged creatures.

How can water be used to create both winged creatures and sea creatures? Well, it can't be any harder than creating terra creatures from the dust of the earth seeing as how the very same elements are dissolved in earth's waters; and in point of biological fact, land creatures are composed of not only dust, but also water. Dehydrate an air-breathing land creature, and it will die.

"bring forth swarms" is derived from sharats (shaw-rats') and means: to wriggle, i.e. (by implication) swarm or abound. Sharats, strictly speaking, simply indicates large numbers; like in Ex 1:7 where Yhhv's people multiplied like rabbits, and in Ex 8:3 where ka-zillions of frogs infested the land of Egypt.

Sharats is a different word than the ones translated "bring forth" in Gen 1:12 and Gen 1:15. The word in Gen 1:12 is from dasha' (daw-shaw') which means: to sprout. The word in Gen 1:15 is from yatsa' (yaw-tsaw') which is a word of motion and means: to go, to cause to go, send away, or to bring out, or proceed.

It's important to note that winged creatures were just as distinct a creation as aqua creatures. So winged creatures didn't evolve from creatures who once lived in the sea. Winged creatures are a separate genre of life in their own right, and absolutely did not evolve from some other order of life.

The word for "creature" is from nephesh (neh'-fesh) and just simply indicates animals as opposed to vegetation. This is the very first mention of nephesh. According to Gen 2:7, nephesh are not only beasts, but homo sapiens himself is a nephesh too. The word nephesh implies an innermost being, a mind, a consciousness of one's existence, a sense of individuality, and a consciousness of one's surroundings. Some say that animals are people too. Well . . they're certainly not human, but according to the Bible, they are very definitely just as much a nephesh as a human being. So I guess we could consent, at least to some degree, that beasts are people too; in their own way.

†. Gen 1:21a . . God created the great sea monsters, and all the living creatures of every kind that creep, which the waters brought forth in swarms,

"sea monsters" is from tanniyn (tan-neen') and/or tanniym (tan-neem') which mean: a marine or land monster. Tanniyn is sometimes translated "dragon" as in Isa 27:1

It wasn't a tanniyn, however, that swallowed Jonah. That creature was either a dagah (daw-gaw') a dag (dawg) or a da'g (dawg). All three words mean a fish.

Note: the reason I quoted the three Hebrew words for "fish" is because to tell the truth, translators are not always confident what they're looking at. In point of fact, there are ancient Hebrew words that nobody really knows what they mean so translators are forced to take educated guesses here and there.

"of every kind that creep" in this case regards only aquatic creatures that creep e.g. starfish, lobsters, clams, and crabs et al. The terra creepers are coming up in a little bit.

But what about aquatic dinosaurs? Well . . according to Discovery's web site "Walking With Dinosaurs" paleontologists believe there were some amphibious reptiles such as plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs, but those creatures didn't have the gills necessary to be truly aquatic like Nemo and his dad Marlin.

More »
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 1:21b . . and all the winged creatures of every kind.

"kind" is from miyn (meen) and means: to portion out: to sort; viz: species.

In other words: God created a variety of winged species all at once, rather than just one specie like He did with man.

†. Acts 17:25-26 . . From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth;

Man is a one-of-a-kind specie. From just one man's genes came all the other variations of Man; ranging anywhere from Pygmies to Eskimos; and has to make you wonder how that works if evolution is total bull. Well; I don't think it's wise to relegate Darwin to the category of total bull. I mean, just look at how well pathogens adapt and mutate in order to cope with antibiotics. That's a natural process and the pathies don't even have to give it any thought. I believe Darwin was on to something, but shot himself in the foot by leaving intelligent design out of the equation. An origin of living species theory is incomplete without an originator of life.

God built mysterious genetic reactions into living organisms that give them the ability to make adjustments to themselves in order to survive-- adjustments that are triggered by conditions in their respective environments. It's because of those kinds of involuntary adaptations and mutations that I'm very curious sometimes what the original homo sapiens really looked like.

†. Gen 1:21b-22a . . And God saw that this was good.

Well; I have to agree it's good too. I love exploring tide pools, watching birds, and dining upon sea food and fowl-based foods like teriyaki chicken and Thanksgiving turkey.

†. Gen 1:22b . . God blessed them, saying: Be fertile

Without the blessing of fertility, nephesh couldn't reproduce. Although reproductive systems are built into all nephesh; those systems are merely glands and plumbing without the miracle of fertility. God himself personally enabled the reproductive systems of nephesh to not only reproduce their own bodies; but also to transfer their own life. That is very interesting, and to this good day, the transfer of nephesh life from one generation to another is still a great big mystery. The transfer of flesh is biological. But the transfer of life isn't; hence; it's a bit more complicated.

†. Gen 1:22c . . and increase, fill the waters in the seas, and let the winged creatures increase on the earth.

Sea creatures exist in the most unlikely places. When the crew of the bathyscaphe Trieste descended into the 35,761 feet Challenger Deep located in the deepest part of the Mariana Trench in 1960, they didn't really expect to find anything living down there; but to their surprise, the saw some flat fish similar to sole and flounder where the pressure is about 15,945 pounds per square inch which is roughly equal to the weight of a block of Portland cement measuring 5.5 feet x 5.5 feet x 5.5 feet

If all the weight of that block were concentrated on an area no larger than a 25¢ piece, you'd have a pretty good idea of what 15,945 pounds per square inch represents. The palm of my hand can be covered with approximately fourteen 25¢ pieces, which at a the bottom of the Challenger Deep would represent a weight of 223,230 pounds sitting on my hand which is roughly equal to the combined weight of two D9 Caterpillar Tractor bulldozers.

But those fourteen 25¢ pieces don't really tell the whole story. The dimensions of my palm and fingers are roughly 4" x 7" which is 28 square inches. At the bottom of Challenger Deep, the cumulative force on palm and fingers would be about 446,460 pounds. But in water, the pressure is all around, so if we add the pressure from the backside of my hand, then the combined pressure on my hand would be 892,920 pounds (446 tons) and that's not factoring in the edges of my hand nor the inside surfaces of its fingers. Those tons aren't just dead weight, but rather, the measure of a squeeze-- a monster hand-shake --that would compress my entire hand into a rather grotesque sight in no time at all if the pressure inside my hand were only atmospheric; which is a mere 14.7 psi which isn't near enough to resist the vice-grip pressure of 892,920 pounds.

You know, the Creator must regard the oceans as His own private aquarium or why else would He put fish where nobody sees them but Himself?

†. Col 1:16 . . all things were created by Him, and for Him

†. Gen 1:23 . . And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 1:24-25 . . God said: Let the earth [produce] every kind of living creature: cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts of every kind. And it was so. God made wild beasts of every kind and cattle of every kind, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. And God saw that this was good.

Now we come to the sixth day when all terra life was created; including dinosaurs and homo sapiens.

This grouping of creatures (except for Man) isn't specifically given the blessing of fertility. But if God would bless sea creatures and those with wings, why ever would He not bless the cattle and such too who are just as important? But since they've been reproducing all this time, then I'd have to say there is sufficient empirical evidence to support the assumption that that they were equally blessed with fertility just like everything else.

The Hebrew word for "living creature" is nephesh (neh'-fesh); the same word used in verse 20 regarding winged creatures and aquatic life. Terra critters consist of the very land masses upon which they live. They, like Man, weren't created out of thin air; but rather, God used all-natural earthly materials and ingredients already at hand to manufacture them. Neat-O. Not only are the various plants and animals indigenous to planet Earth; but they are part of it too and blend right back in when they die and decompose.

For example: trees that investors cultivate for carbon credits lose their value as credits the moment they're harvested or left to rot on the forest floor. In other words: trees are viable carbon credits only while they're alive taking carbon dioxide out of the global air because when they're dead; they stop taking and start giving it all back. But their release of carbon dioxide back into the global air isn't pollution; no, it's a natural cycle.

Carbon credits for growing trees is ridiculous when it's taken into consideration that all trees, even mighty redwoods, eventually die of old age, get harvested, or end up felled by storms and/or insects and disease. At best, trees are temporary containments for carbon dioxide because it's only a matter of time, due to one cause or another, before that stockpiled carbon is released back into the global air. But even if trees covered every square foot of arable soil in the world, it wouldn't be near enough to keep up with the millions of tons of carbon dioxide being released into the air by burning fossil vegetation; e.g. oil, coal, and natural gas.

The word for "cattle" is behemah (be-hay-maw') and means: a (mute) dumb beast; especially any large quadruped or animal (often collective) These kinds of animals are the herd species from which come those that can be domesticated for Man's uses. They can pull plows and wagons, provide tallow for candles and soap, and hide and wool for clothes, meat and dairy for table, carry loads on their backs, and give people rides. Not all herd animals can be tamed. Zebras, for instance, and male elephants are not particularly suited to domestication.

The plural of behemah is behemowth (be-hay-mohth') a word which some have construed to indicate dinosaurs; citing Job 40:15-24 as their proof text. But even if Job 40:15 did indicate a species of dinosaur, it would be limited to one that ate grass like an ox, lived near lakes and rivers, and drank lots of water. However, it's easily proven that the era of monster reptiles was long gone before Mr. Job was even born.

It's no accident that some of the animals are so useful to Man. God made them for the express purpose of serving people. Although they're nephesh, same as Man, that doesn't make them equals with Man. However, although they are below the rank of Man, people have no right to be cruel to animals. But Man does have the right, by the Creator's fiat, to take advantage of them; and to induct them into slavery for Man's benefit.

"creeping things" is the word remes (reh'-mes) and means: a reptile; or any other rapidly moving animal. Dinosaurs would've been included in this grouping.

Some Christians are embarrassed by the big guys because paleontologists have easily dated them to cease existing a good many thousands of years prior to the emergence of mammals; but that's not really a problem if we but permit creation's days to be epochs rather than 24-hour solar events.

"wild beasts" is from chay (khah'-ee) which doesn't mean wild beasts at all. It simply means animal life. It also means: alive, living, raw, fresh, and strong. Man himself is chay. It's just a nondescript classification and is the very same word as in verse 20 where it regarded swarms of aquatic life. This time chay regards swarms of terra life; viz: herds and hives, et al.

MORE »
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
Parenthesis

When I was a little boy, my dad bet me that he could make a dollar bill stand on edge. Well, I passed on the bet because I didn't own any money at the time. So my dad proceeded to fold a dollar bill in half into a vee and it easily stood on edge like that. When I protested, he replied: You didn't say I couldn't fold it.

We have a really interesting museum in the Portland Oregon metro area called OMSI with lots of interesting exhibits, a real Navy submarine (it had a brief role in the movie Red October) and some brain-busting puzzles too.

One of the puzzles consists of maybe five large jig-saw looking wooden pieces that when correctly arranged depict a jockey riding a horse. Try as I might, I could not make those pieces come out right. Well, a museum volunteer came by and asked me if I had tried stacking the pieces. I replied by telling him that the instructions don't say I can stack the pieces. He responded by asking me: Do the instructions say you can't stack the pieces one on top of another? No, they don't, and that's the secret to the puzzle. My mind assumed all the pieces had to be arranged side by side but in reality, the instructions don't say one way or the other.

As a follow up to reinforce the reality of the human mind's propensity to make assumptions; the volunteer told me he had two coins in his pocket adding up to 55¢ and one of them wasn't a nickel. He then proceeded to extract a 50¢ piece and a nickel from his trouser pocket. When I protested that he said one of the coins wasn't a nickel, he calmly replied: That would be the half dollar. You see; he said "one" of the coins wasn't a nickel, rather than neither coin. The volunteer then proceeded to lecture me on the importance of paying attention to words and grammar.

Moral of the story: It's just as important to discern what words do say, as well as discern what they don't say; thus avoiding false conclusions derived from a so-called "argument from silence" a kind of logic which essentially believes that if something isn't clearly stated, then it's inferred from the silence that there was nothing to state.

It was a humiliating experience, but a valuable one too because in time; I began applying that principle to the Bible in regards to what it does say, and in regards to what it doesn't say; and one thing it does not say right from the outset is that creation's six days consisted of twenty-four hours each; but most of us assume the terms evening and morning insist upon it; when even those terms define only daytime rather than daytime plus nighttime.

This has been a chronic problem for just about everybody who takes Genesis seriously. We assume the "days" of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with the age of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events. It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 1:26a . . And God said: Let us make Man

No doubt by the time Adam arrived, the world of his portion of day six scarcely resembled the world that existed when day six began . I'm confident in my own mind that quite a number of millennia elapsed by the time human life came on the scene, and the Earth had already undergone some large-scale geological incidents resulting in mass extinctions and colossal effects upon the earth's topography and its various climates and environments; which is not all that bad a thing. A world suitable for humanoid mammals is, of necessity, going to be different than a world suitable for giant reptiles and whatever else roamed the earth prior to man.

The introduction of the plural pronoun "us" into the narrative at this point has given rise to some interesting speculation regarding the identity of the antecedent. To whom was creation's God referring when He spoke to us?

According to Jewish folklore, "us" indicates that holy angels assisted God in putting the cosmos together. And who really knows?

†. Job 38:4-7 . .Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

To others "us" indicates the presence, and the activity, of the Word of John 1:1; whose counterpart in sacred Jewish literature is a divine entity known as the Memrá; and in targums Jonathan and Onkelos known as The Word of The Lord God.

According to the pragmatist "us" is merely a rhetorical kind of expression; like when you see a link on a web page and click on it, thinking to yourself: hmmm; let's see where this goes. The possibility of creation's God talking to Himself may seem odd; but I really don't think that's so strange-- I mean, after all, humans talk to themselves all the time, and nobody seems to think much of it.

According to some, the plural pronoun indicates there's more than one God out there.

And to others, the plural pronoun indicates that creation's God, although a lone individual, is somehow a composite unity-- a man of many parts; so to speak.

One way to resolve this issue is to simply parse the words in the verse. The Hebrew word for "God" is 'elohiym (el-o-heem') which is, you guessed it, a plural noun; so that, grammatically, "us" is correct.

All the other acts of creation up to this point were impersonal; like when a building contractor erects a shopping center. It's just a job . . just a task. But when that same contractor comes home and remodels his wife's bathroom on the week-end; then it becomes personal. The words "let us" indicate to me that when it came time to manufacture Man; God really rolled up His sleeves went to work; viz: Man is the only thing God ever created in this cosmos that His heart was really in it.

The lack of details regarding the incredible processes of creation aggravates many intellectuals because Genesis reveals so little-- hardly any scientific information at all. Many, many questions still remain unanswered regarding the origin of the universe. But that stuff is biblically superfluous. I think the first parts of creation actually made God impatient and He could hardly wait to get to the people part of creation because the soul of the Bible's God desires interaction with human beings. Why? I don't know; and David didn't know either.

†. Ps 8:4 . . What is man that you are mindful of him: the son of man that you care for him?

Some of the atheists with whom I've dialogued allege that the Bible's God is an egotist who craves a following; viz: an entourage of admirers. Well, if that were the case, then He certainly didn't need man for that purpose; I mean, after all, the Bible's God already had a following of angels if admiration were His goal. Besides, David wrote that God "cares" for man. Egotists usually regard their entourages as expendable commodities; and they'll scrape you off at the drop of a hat with no more regard for your loyalty than a man who cheats on a faithful wife.

Other atheists allege that the Bible's God is a bully who isn't happy unless He has someone to dominate. (chuckle) That one's my favorite-- not that I agree: it's just that it's so grossly contrary to the Bible God's nature.

†. Ps 103:13-14 . . Like as a father pities his children, so The Lord pities them that fear Him-- for he knows our frame; He's aware that we are dust.

People mean something to Man's creator. They're creatures with whom He desires not to dominate; but rather, to interrelate. I really like that because it makes me feel special. I'm not just another mass-produced swarm of wild beasties, or dumb animals, or screeching dinosaurs, and bugs, birds, fishies, crabs and earthworms. I'm somebody. All the other creations-- the water, the land, the air, space, stars, and all the rest-- were merely tasks; just chores. But Man himself was neither a task nor a chore. People were a Divine labor of love. Humans were what God was really after all along; and the rest is just habitat.

†. Prv 8:30-31 . . Then I was the craftsman at His side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in His presence, rejoicing in His whole world and delighting in mankind.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 1:26b . . in our image, after our likeness.

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

†. John 4:24 . . God is spirit

Spirits don't have solid physical bodies.

†. Luke 24:36-39 . . Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them: Peace to you. But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And he said to them: Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.

Moses warned Yhvh's people to avoid making any kind of mannequin, figurine, totem pole, or statue representing God since no one has any true concept of what creation's God actually looks like in person. (Ex 4:10-19)

There exists absolutely nothing in nature physically resembling creation's God; except maybe the air in front of your face-- neither Man, nor beast, nor plant, nor bird, nor bug, nor reptile nor anything out in the void (Rom 1:21-23). Concepts that portray creation's God as a human being are purely fictional. (Rom 1:25)

The terms "image and likeness" in relation to creation's God therefore don't indicate a reproduction of God; no, not by any means. Rather; those terms indicate the status of a son; for example:

†. Gen 5:3-4 . .When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and named him Seth.

The Bible's God clearly labels Man a son of his creator.

†. Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are all sons of the Most High.

It's important to note that Man was "made" a son rather than born a son; ergo: his status as a son is conferred rather than intrinsic.

It's also important to note that Man's status wasn't conferred upon other of God's creatures. Therefore Man easily outranks everything else in the whole cosmos: all animals, all vegetables, and all minerals; because a king's son outranks the king's servants and they all have to bow and scrape to the king's son out of respect for the king; for example: Moses was, in a manner of speaking, the chief steward in God's house; but Christ is God's heir, so he easily outranks Moses.

†. Heb 3:5-6 . . Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house . . . But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house.

In other words: Moses was "in" God's house; but Christ is "over" God's house and that's because he's kin, whereas Moses was just an employee.

†. Gen 1:26c . .They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.

The word for "rule" is from radah (raw-daw') and means: to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically: to crumble off.

I saw a pretty interesting bumper sticker some time ago that went like this:

We are not above the Earth;
We are of the Earth.

Well . . I appreciate the Native American cultural feelings behind that statement. It's very folksy. But creation's God decreed that Man is very definitely above the Earth, and has the God-given right to subjugate every living thing on the planet including the whole earth itself: its forests, its grasses, its rivers, its seas, its soil, its rocks, its air, its minerals, its mountains, its valleys, and even its tectonic plates and the very atmosphere itself.

†. Ps 8:4-9 . .When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that You set in place-- what is man that You have been mindful of him, mortal man that You have taken note of him? You have made him little less than divine, and adorned him with glory and majesty; You have made him master over Your handiwork, laying the world at his feet, sheep and oxen, all of them, and wild beasts, too; the birds of the heavens, the fish of the sea, whatever travels the paths of the seas.

†. Gen 1:27a . . And God created man in His image,

Although Adam was made in the image of God, his imagery isn't precise. The Hebrew word used to describe Adam's imagery in Genesis is tselem (tseh'-lem); which means: a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol.

The shadow of a tree is something like Adam's likeness of God. On the ground, a tree's shadow is little more than an irregular puddle of contrasts, just a patchy smirch. But when we look up, oh! the tree comes alive with color and detail. We can see how tall it is, the features of the bark, and the shape and texture of the leaves and how they are arranged on the branches. And then we notice that the tree is an ecosystem in itself; a habitat for insects and other creatures invisible in the tree's shadow. When we look at ourselves, we don't really see God at all; no, all we really see is something akin to a tree's shadow.

The word for "Man" is from 'adam (aw-dawm') and means ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.). 'Adam is derived from a very similar word that means to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy.

Is that an indication of Adam's color? Was he a Red Man, like we sometimes call Native Americans? Maybe; but it's far more likely he was brown (or coffee) although nobody really knows for sure. However, all human life, regardless of race or color is 'adam because this is the only occurrence on record where God made human beings. After the sixth day, He stopped creating and has made no further additions to the cosmos since then.

Note : on numerous occasions, Jesus identified himself as son of man. That title was neither new nor unique in the Lord's day. God addressed the prophet Ezekiel as "son of man" on at least 93 occasions; and in every case, the Hebrew word for man is 'adam the same as it is here in Genesis; which is the proper name of the human race God created in the beginning. (Gen 1:26-27, Gen 3:9, Gen 5:2)

†. Gen 1:27b . . in the image of God created He him; male and female He created them.

Some women would be offended to be called a "him" but it's a biblical designation nonetheless. Regardless of one's gender, all human beings are of the genus 'adam and can be legitimately referred to as a him or as a he. Bible students really have to watch for that because when they run across the word "man" in the Bible, it doesn't eo ipso indicate males.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

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

Some interpret that verse to be a mandate requiring married people to have children; and that they have no business getting married for any other reason. But the wording is so obviously a blessing rather than a mandate; especially since God said the very same thing to the winged creatures, and the fish, and the reptiles, and the bugs, and the beasts.

It's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise. Some blessings have to be merited (e.g. Deut 28:1-13) but not this one. It was neither requested nor was it earned-- it was freely given without any strings attached and nothing asked in return.

Note : The belief that couples should enter marriage for no other reason than procreation is an invention right out of an ascetic imagination; and if truth be known, it's in defense of a celibate clergy. According to Gen 2:18-24 and 1Cor 7:7-9, marriage is primarily for the purpose of companionship rather than procreation. If in fact deliberately childless marriages are wrong, then Catholicism's platonic union of Joseph and the Lord's mom would be a sinful relationship.

Without the gift of fertility, Man would be just as sterile as a soup spoon. So it was a very essential blessing. And a very interesting blessing it is because the blessing of fertility empowers living things to pass their own kind of life on to a next generation. God quit creating after six days. So unless creatures were enabled to reproduce, all would soon die out and become quite extinct in a very short time.

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

†. Mtt 22:30 . . For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

The discussion leading up to the Lord's statement concerned an Old Testament law requiring a Jewish man's nearest eligible male kin to marry his widow and attempt to produce a male child with her who would become the deceased man's legal heir; viz: essentially a posthumous adoption. (Deut 25:5-10)

The opposition's error was in assuming that the blessing of fertility carries over into the resurrection. It doesn't because angels don't reproduce. So your first life is the time to have a family because death closes that door forever.

It's difficult to imagine an existence sans libido; but I have to say: it will be a welcome relief. In my opinion; sexual frustration and sexual tension are major downsides for people born with my looks.

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

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

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

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

But the interesting thing is; 'adam is also the monarch of the whole cosmos; not just the dinky little rock third rock from the Sun he calls home.

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

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

Prior to the Flood; man, beast, bug, and birds too-- even the lions and tigers --subsisted on fruits, nuts, grains, and vegetables. Precisely what kind of diet God intended for sea life is not stated.

That raises an interesting question: why do carnivores have teeth so uniquely suited for killing other creatures and ripping their flesh? Well, I think it's obvious that they didn't use their teeth like that at first. For example; buck-toothed beavers have incisors that could take your hand off but they don't use them for that purpose. Male musk deer have saber-like upper canine teeth and their diet is moss and grass and sometimes twigs and lichen. Though the fossilized remains of a therapsid, named Tiarajudens eccentricus, exhibits saber tusks, it is believed to have efficiently chewed leaves and stems with interlocking incisors and cow-like molars.

In the kingdom of God, carnivores won't be carnivorous any more, and nothing in the animal kingdom will any longer pose a threat either to Man or to each other.

†. Isa 11:6-9 . .The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yhvh as the waters fill the sea.

Note : "the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yhvh" indicates that in the future there will be only one religion, one god, and one universal set of beliefs about that god. Plus; man will no longer govern the Earth according to his own whims; but will govern the Earth according to Yhvh's whims.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 1:31 . . And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Some feel that the cosmos was created incomplete, not quite up to snuff-- that it was to Man that God entrusted the task of bringing the Earth to perfection. But that is very doubtful. Why ever would God, after an overall inspection, conclude His work by pronouncing it all good-- and not just good, but "very" good. Why would He say the creation was very good if in truth it wasn't?

In reality, Man hasn't improved the planet at all. He has actually ravaged it and left it with terrible damage-- indiscriminately obliterated habitat, wiped out animals to extinction, denuded water sheds thus causing unnecessary erosion and stream sedimentation, dammed rivers thus disrupting ancient fish migration routes, over-exploited natural resources, filled the atmosphere with toxins and greenhouse gas emissions, destroyed soil and waterways with massive chemical pollution, genetically modified crops, and seriously upset the balance of nature.

It seems that everything Man touches, he ruins; and as if the earth isn't enough, he's moved out into space where in just the 55 years since Russia launched its first Sputnik into low earth orbit on Oct 04, 1957, humans have littered the sky around our planet with 13,000 catalogued pieces of space junk, which is only a fraction of the more than 600,000 objects circling the globe larger than one centimeter (a centimeter is a little over 3/8ths of an inch). He's even deposited 374,782 pounds of litter on the Moon, including Alan Shepherd's golf balls.

So; when God looked over His work and "found" that it was very good, does that mean He was surprised it came out like it did? (chuckle) No. It would be a strange craftsman indeed who couldn't look over their work with pride and satisfaction in a job well done.

I believe the Bible's God knew precisely what He was doing and where He was going with creation; and was highly pleased that it came out exactly as planned. I seriously doubt that God was feeling His way along like experimenters in medicine and rocket science. Nobody could build a fully functioning cosmos and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy unless they knew what they were doing from beginning to end.

†. Ps 104:24 . . O Yhvh! . . what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you have made them all.

Note : the information disclosed in the first chapter of Genesis is incorporated in the text of a gospel labeled as "everlasting".

†. Rev 14:6-7 . . And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, announcing with a loud voice: Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
†. Gen 2:1-3 . .The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their array. On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He had done. And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He had done.

Thrice it's stated in that passage that creation's God finished His work and ceased creating things for the current cosmos; yet people are still under the impression that He creates new souls every time a baby is conceived in its mommy's womb.

God hasn't created anything new for the current cosmos since the sixth day of creation when He completed Adam and his wife. What that means is: Adam's progeny-- you and I and all the others --are not direct creations; no; we're reproductions; viz: there's no need for creation's God to take a hand in producing baby souls, or any other souls for that matter-- either birds, bugs, beasts, or fish --because He created all life on earth as sustainable, transferable kinds of life which means that the blessing of fertility is a pretty amazing blessing because it enables living things to reproduce themselves sans divine micro management. That's pretty amazing when you think about it.

The seventh day, although included among the days of creation week, is a peculiar day because it lacks the boundaries of an evening and a morning like the others; but is instead an open-ended period of repose; in other words: I think it's pretty safe to assume that when creation's God went into sabbath mode, He wouldn't come out of it till the time to start all over again.

†. Isa 65:17 . . For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

†. 2Pet 3:10-13 . . But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up . . . we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

†. Rev 21:1 . . And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

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

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

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

Gen 2:4 is the very first time in Scripture where God's most famous of His names appears. Up to this point, The Creator has been identified by 'elohiym (el-o-heem') which is a nondescript label for any and all kinds of gods; whether true or false.

The noun is grammatically plural but doesn't necessarily indicate creation's God is a plural being. Sheep, fish, and deer are plural too but don't always indicate more than one of each. So plural nouns don't eo ipso denote more than one item. There are other gods in the Bible, such as Baal and Dagon, to whom the word 'elohiym is applied and those gods aren't composite entities; e.g. 1Kgs 18:25-29 and Jgs 16:23.

Yhvh's appellation is so sacred among pious Jews that they make every effort to avoid speaking it except under very special circumstances. In some of their writings, in order to avoid using the four sacred letters comprising the tetragrammaton, they write instead "The Name" and/or sometimes "Hashem". So Ex 20:3 could be written : "I, The Name, am your god" or "I, Hashem, am your god."

Note : The Bible's God is commonly referred to with masculine pronouns. Why masculine? Because Yhvh is a king; and kings are always males rather than females.

†. Isa 44:6 . . Thus testifies Yhvh, the king of Israel, and His redeemer, Yhvh of hosts: I am the First and I am the Last; other than Me there is no god.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Genesis

.
- - - - - Parenthesis - - - - -

In any treatment of the creation record, one has to factor in the age of the earth; which geologists are pretty sure now is somewhere around 4.5 Billion years; and is very easy to substantiate.

For example, both the Alps and the Rockies were at one time ancient sea beds. How do I know? Because of the fossilized remains of sea creatures indicating that the Alps and the Rockies did not always exist at their current elevations. In point of fact, the Alps are actually shrinking as erosion is steadily tearing them down so that the height and shape of the Alps today are not even the same as when Hannibal crossed them to attack Rome.

Then there is also the testimony of glaciers, the past ice ages, erosion, the evidence of unbelievable massive volcanic events such as those that continue to shape the Yellowstone area, and the forces of plate tectonics; not to mention the fossilized remains of dinosaurs; the vast coal and oil deposits, and the layers of salt formed by the evaporation of ancient seas that once inundated the area where the Great Lakes exist today. No joke, something like 1,700 feet below the surface of the Great Lakes is a really immense expanse of thick, multilayered deposits of salt from the evaporation of seas that existed many, many years prior to the Lakes that now exist above them, and there are land masses, islands, and reefs that came into being by the deposit of the calcified remains of multiplied zillions of teensy little marine organisms over long, long periods of time.

It is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty to ignore the findings of Geology and Paleontology. Bible believers have got to come to grips with true science or end up looking like fanatical buffoons. It is far better to formulate a plausible theory to harmonize the age of the earth with the Genesis record than to just ignore the findings of science and/or label them all a Devil's trick.

A popular theory going around is the so-called Gap Theory, which inserts a lengthy, undisclosed interval of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 meaning that somewhere between the universe's original creation, and that second verse, the original underwent some kind of catastrophic event that made it necessary for God to reconstruct it; sort of like a plastic surgeon reconstructs someone's face after an accident.

Whatever theory, or one of their variations, are okay by me; but it is absolutely unacceptable to have no theory at all. The earth's geology itself simply will not permit a young earth. No, today's earth, and the universe it resides in, are easily proven to be much older than the relative youth that many of today's theologians prefer. All I can say to them is that stubbornness has never been a virtue.

Buen Camino
/