Tue, Jun 30th - 7:50AM
Genesis 7:1-9 †. Gen
7:1 . .The Lord then said to Noah: Go into the ark, you and your whole family,
because I have found you righteous in this generation. Noah is
sometimes criticized for not utilizing more of the ark's cargo space to take
human life aboard instead of animals. But it wasn't for Noah to say. Passage
aboard the ark was by invitation only; and to qualify for an invitation, the
passengers had to be righteous. Well; only Noah was righteous, so he alone was
invited to go aboard with his family. The
antediluvians weren't left on their own to figure out what's righteous and
what's not righteous. According to 2Pet 2:5, Noah was a preacher; and he wasn't
the only one at it. Prior to him, Enoch pounded a pulpit. (Jude 1:1) So then, the
people who died in the Flood had no one to blame for missing the boat but
themselves. Had they listened to the available preaching and changed their
ways; the Flood wouldn't have been necessary to begin with. †.
Gen 7:2-3 . . Of every clean animal you shall take seven pairs, males and their
mates, and of every animal that is not clean, two, a male and its mate; of the
birds of the sky also, seven pairs, male and female, to keep seed alive upon
all the earth. Official
specifications for identifying clean, and unclean animals, are located at Lev
11:1-46, and Deut 14:3-20. Those specs were written many, many centuries after
Noah; so precisely which animals he regarded as clean in his day, and which not
clean is impossible to tell. But I think we can safely assume that
"clean" animals were those suitable for ceremonies, and for human
consumption, because up ahead Noah will be given the green light to begin
eating meat. The specific
species that Noah took aboard were limited to the ones that God said in 6:20
"shall come to you". Any, and all, species that failed to come to
Noah, went extinct in the Flood. He didn't go out and hunt them down, nor take
them by force against their will. No; they had to show up on their own, or be
left behind; and I have a sneaking suspicion that many were. †.
Gen 7:4 . . For in seven days' time I will make it rain upon the earth, forty
days and forty nights, and I will blot out from the earth all existence that I
created. The expression
"all existence" is from yequwm
(yek-oom') which means: standing (extant) i.e. a living thing. Yequwm appears
in only three verses of the entire Old Testament. Two of them are here in
chapter 7, and the other one is in Deut 11:6. God's
prediction didn't include vegetation; because when the Flood ended, at least
one olive tree was still standing. So "all existence" only meant
creatures; in particular those that live on land and need air to survive; like
birds, bugs, and beasts; whether subterranean or on the surface. (Gen 7:21-23) The seven-day
deadline hung over the world's head like a sword of Damocles; and the Flood was
now imminent. But a final warning was issued probably just in case somebody
might change their mind about going along with Noah. Compare this moment of
silence to the one at Rev 8:1 just prior to sounding the seven trumpets. †.
Gen 7:5 . . And Noah did just as the Lord commanded him. Not many
people can say, with all honesty and a good conscience, that they do "just
as" the Lord commands. It is a very unusual person who is careful to
comply with God's will to the letter. (cf. John 8:29) †.
Gen 7:6a . . Noah was six hundred years old Years of life
in Noah's age were expressed in what's known as prophetic years; which consist
of twelve equal months of thirty days each. So in Gregorian time; 600 years of
Noah's age was but 591.4 Noah died at
950 prophetic years. According to the US Department of Health, an average
American born in 2013 could expect to live to about 78 Gregorian years. Using
that as a point of reference: one year of America's average age was about
equivalent to 12.004 years of Noah's
age. So in American years; Noah would have been as youthful as a 50 year-old
when the Flood began. †. Gen
7:6b . . when the Flood came, waters upon the earth. The word for
Flood is from mabbuwl (mab-bool')
which means: a deluge. There's another word for "flood" in the Old Testament,
but the Hebrew is different. Mabbuwl appears twelve times in Genesis regarding
Noah's worldwide cataclysm. The only other place in the entire Old Testament
where that word is shows up again is Ps 29:10; and even there it relates to
Noah. †.
Gen 7:7-9 . . Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives, went into the
ark because of the waters of the Flood. Of the clean animals, of the animals
that are not clean, of the birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,
two of each, male and female, came to Noah into the ark, as God had commanded
Noah. Here again
it's mentioned that the animals came to Noah rather than he and his sons going
on safari to round them up. It was right
about there that I would have become very nervous had I lived next door to the
Noahs. Up till then, he probably seemed like an ordinary crack pot-- a nice
enough guy, but kind of kooky. I mean: who builds a great big barge on dry
land? But when all those birds and animals showed up out at his place, and
started boarding Noah's Folly all by themselves, in neither chaos nor
confusion, and without Noah and his boys having to herd them in-- that was
definitely cause for alarm. It's true
that wildlife at that time was not yet afraid of humans; and it was probably a
very common sight to see them mingling with people all over the place-- maybe
even assisting Noah to construct the ark --but not on such a scale as this.
People had to wonder why all those bugs, and beasties, and birdies were
migrating out there to Noah's spread. What's that all about? Did they maybe
think to themselves that old fool might know something after all? Well; maybe
they did; but according to Jesus they didn't really take Noah seriously but
went about the business of their daily lives as usual. (Matt 24:38-39) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Mon, Jun 29th - 8:40AM
Genesis 6:21-22 †.
Gen 6:21-22 . . For your part, take of everything that is eaten and store it
away, to serve as food for you and for them. Noah did so; just as God commanded
him, so he did. Noah was
every supervisor's dream. He did just what he was told and all with nary an
argument; nor a single protest. God didn't specify
precisely how much food to load aboard. He only instructed Noah to store things
that are edible; but not their quantity. Nobody can be sure whether or not Noah
knew just how long the Flood was going to last. If he didn't, then of course he
would have no idea how much food he needed to bring along. So what about
the carnivorous animals that came aboard with Noah-- the lions and tigers and
hawks and eagles and meerkats and alligators and crocodiles? Well; those kinds
of animals can live on vegetation when they have to. According to Isa 11:6-9
and Isa 65:25, there's a day coming when the diet of carnivores will be changed
to that of herbivores. Some have
proposed that the animals hibernated so they wouldn't have to be fed very often
nor require much room for exercise nor would they generate much manure to clean
up. That's actually a very plausible explanation. For example: arctic ground
squirrels can lower their body temperature below freezing and avoid serious
head injuries while hibernating for as long seven months. Why the little guys
don't freeze to death is a mystery. Others have
proposed that Noah didn't actually load an entire year's supply of food aboard
the ark. Just a minimum amount that God then miraculously sustained. That too
is a very plausible explanation. For example:
there are incidents in the Bible where small amounts of food stuffs were
miraculously extended. One example is 1Kgs 17:8-16 where a tiny bit of flour
and oil nourished Elijah and a widow woman, and her son, for a good many days
during a time of prolonged drought. Another
incident is at 2Kgs 4:1-7 where a certain widow's husband died and left her
deeply in debt. God extended her last pot of oil sufficiently to sell off
enough to retire her debts, thereby saving her two sons from slavery. At 1Kgs
19:5-9, when Elijah was running away from that horrible Jezebel, he was
fatigued and napping under a bush when a messenger of God woke him up to eat a
single biscuit and drink some water. Elijah survived on the nourishment of that
measly little snack for the next forty days. I'm not
insisting that God sustained everyone aboard the ark via hibernation and/or
like He did Elijah and the widows. But in the light of nature's examples, and
the Bible's examples, it isn't unreasonable to believe that's exactly what
happened. Many details remain a mystery and apparently God didn't feel it was
important for everybody to know how He and Noah did it. Well; that's His
decision and I respect it; but I still wish Genesis told us more. Another
logistics problem was feeding everybody when the Flood was over. What would
they eat then? Well, that was no problem. The olive leaf that a dove had in her
beak at Gen 8:10-11 indicates that earth's flora was spared mass extinction by
the Flood. The Hebrew word for "plucked-off" is from taraph (taw-rawf') which means: recently
torn off; in other words: the dove didn't pick up an old dead leaf lying around
on the ground; no, it was fresh cut and green right off the tree. NOTE: It's not unreasonable to believe
vegetation survived the Flood. The prairie grasses that once flourished in
America's corn belt was some really hardy stuff. Prior to the White Man,
prairie grass roots grew as deep as four feet, and sometimes eleven, so that no
matter how much or how often the grass was burned off, it bounced right back. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Sun, Jun 28th - 9:09AM
Genesis 6:18-20 †.
Gen 6:18 . . But I will establish My covenant with you, and you shall enter the
ark, with your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives. Biblical
covenants are legally-binding contracts; and may include stipulations for all
parties involved; and then again may stipulate responsibilities for only one of
them with the other simply being along for the benefit; sort of like an
irrevocable trust. Covenants may, or may not, include penalties for breach of
contract; and sometimes those penalties are very severe; e.g. Lev 26:3-38, Deut
27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69. †.
Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each
into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female. From birds
of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing on earth, two
of each shall come to you to stay alive. Apparently
one pair of each kind was a minimum; I mean; Noah took four pairs of humans
aboard; and he was later given updated instructions to take seven pairs of some
species. Fortunately
Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers. The Bible says two
of each "shall come to you." which implies of course that species who
failed to come got left behind and died in the Flood. There was
plenty of time for them to make it because Noah was 120 years building the ark
and getting it ready. Since the animals selected were cooperative and docile,
then the smaller beasties could hitch rides on the larger ones and thus save
themselves some steps. A man named
Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4 years from June
1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450 miles, crossing four continents
and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of shoes, and walking more than 20
million steps. That was an odd thing to do, but does prove it can be done in a
relatively short time; so 120 years was plenty enough for all the critters to
make it on over to Noah's place in time for the Folly's maiden voyage. If the ark
were to launch in 2020, critters would have been on the move towards it since
1900-- three years before the Wright Brothers historical flight, and twelve
years before the Titanic foundered --and probably reproduced many times along
the way since there are not all that many species that live to see 120 years of
age. But how did
they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny theological problem.
But with today's knowledge of the geological science of plate tectonics, the
answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know that continental land
masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry parts brought so close
together as to form one single super continent. Scientists
also know about magma hot spots and pressure points that can raise and lower
the earth's crust like a service elevator. Subduction no doubt played a role by
pushing sea beds up above sea level and made to form land bridges; thus
expediting migration. This idea is
by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old stone structure used
to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the surface of Lake Huron; and
is the most complex structure of its kind in the Great Lakes region. The structure
consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac. Within the
lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters hid while
taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that hunting was
probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down the lanes towards
the blinds while another group waited to attack. The site--
discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley Ridge, 35 miles
southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor connecting
northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario. Ten miles off
the coast of Alabama in 60 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico, are the remains
of a Bald Cypress grove that's estimated to be eight to fourteen thousand years
old; testifying that the earth's topography was quite a bit different in the
ancient past. Actually the
Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) mass anyway, although its
profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea level at various high
spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were smooth, the world would
be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the Earth's mantle were
perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough water present even today
to cover the land to a depth of 9,000 feet of water. That would be equivalent
to a global ocean approximately 1.7
miles deep. Normal
geological processes take thousands of years to accomplish, but when you factor
in the creator's participation in the Flood event, it's no problem at all for
the supreme being who has absolute power over not just the earth's geological
processes; but all the rest of nature's processes too. What about
dinosaurs? Did they go aboard with Noah too? No; too late. Paleontologists are
pretty sure the Jurassic era was over and gone by means of a mysterious mass
extinction event several millennia before the entrance of human life on the
earth; which, in my layman's opinion, is pretty good proof that the six
"days" of creation were quite a bit greater in length than 24 hours
apiece. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Sat, Jun 27th - 8:19AM
Genesis 6:16b-17 †.
Gen 6:16b . . Put the entrance to the ark in its side; make it with bottom,
second, and third decks. A hatch in
the hull was practical. Its cover could be let down as a boarding ramp. The very
bottom of a ship is normally not counted as a deck. The lowest deck is usually
somewhat above the bottom and separated from it by a void called the double
bottom. That way if the actual bottom is pierced, the ship won't sink because
the void is sealed. Whether or
not Noah's craft had a double bottom is unknown; but likely it had at least a
bilge because the lowest deck needs to be above the bottom a bit so the
passengers and crew don't have to slosh around down there in the lower parts of
the ship where fetid water and other unsavory liquids typically collect. The spaces
between decks were fairly tall. If we divide 45 by 3 we get roughly 15 feet
apiece not counting a bilge, nor the thickness of the deck planks and their
beams. Fifteen feet can accommodate pretty tall animals; and provide enough
room for the birds to exercise now and then too. An ark 450
feet by 75 feet, with three decks would have provided 101,250 square feet of
living space. If Noah were resourceful, he might have installed shelves and cabinets
on the hull and the bulkheads, plus more on the overheads, and the underside of
the ark's roof for even more storage/living space. thus he would have taken
advantage of not just the ark's square feet; but also its cubic feet. Critics
insist there wasn't enough space aboard for all the various creatures in Noah's
day, but they fail to take into account a few facts. For one, nobody really
knows how long the cubit of Noah's day was and, most importantly, nobody really
knows how many species of life existed in his day. By the time h.sapiens appeared on this old earth of
ours, some colossal mass extinctions had already taken place; and on top of
that, the species that exist on earth in our day, may not have existed in
Noah's day, but instead what we are seeing in our day is the result of
millennia of somatic mutations and adaptations. Larger
creatures could have shared their spaces with smaller creatures, even
permitting the ones smaller than themselves to climb up and rest on their
backs. Life finds a way. They say
there are seven wonders of the ancient world, but that is not quite accurate.
There's actually eight if we include Noah's ark. Sure, building a giant
floating barn like Noah's would be child's play for a modern shipyard like
Northrop Grumman Newport News; but in his day, it had to be quite a feat. †.
Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters upon the earth--
to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything
on earth shall perish. Some think
the Flood was merely a local event rather than a global deluge. But that is not
the way Genesis describes it. The author quotes God saying; to destroy
"all flesh under the sky" and: "everything on earth" shall
perish. If the Flood
were to be local, then it would only be necessary for Noah and his family and
the animals to simply migrate to a different region rather than go to all the
trouble of building an ark. No. The idea of localized flooding is totally
unacceptable because "the sky" is everywhere. Ironically,
and perhaps even humorously, many of the people arguing for a localized Flood
are convinced it's a myth anyway so I have no clue where they see the point of
arguing its extent. The word for
"waters" is from mayim
(mah'-yim) which is a plural noun that can be used either in a plural sense as
here in Gen 6:17, or in a singular sense as in Gen 21:14. Were the
waters of the Flood fresh or salt? It doesn't matter, since the one who created
the physical requirements of all life is easily able to adapt it to suit His
purposes. But the sea's saltiness isn't static; it's increasing all the time,
and always has. Which means that if you were to go back in time, the sea was a
lot less salty in Noah's day than it is today; ergo: aquatic life's adjustment
to dilution back in his day wouldn't have been as extreme as aquatic life's
adjustment would be in our day. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Fri, Jun 26th - 7:35AM
Genesis 6:15-16a †.
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 courtesy of 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. †.
Gen 6:15b . . the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width
fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. There was a
cubit among the Babylonians, and one in Egypt too. But there seems to have
existed double standards in both countries. Because of that, there exists no
undisputed example of the cubit that remains to the present time; so the length
of the cubit has been variously estimated. One of the
ancient cubits was the length of a man's forearm, from the elbow to the tip of
the middle finger, as is implied from the derivation of the word in Hebrew and
from the Latin cubitum. It seems to
be referred to also in Deut 3:11 as "after the cubit of a man." But
that's too vague, and unsuitable for a scientific standard because not all
men's arms are exactly alike. The
Babylonians employed two different cubits: the so-called royal cubit and the
common cubit. From the remains of buildings in Assyria and Babylonia, the royal
cubit is made out to be about 20.6 inches. A cubit of similar length was used
in Egypt. This was probably the cubit mentioned by Ezk 40:5 and possibly that
of Solomon's temple as "cubits after the first measure" (2 Chr 3:3) The
commercial cubit was shorter, and has been variously estimated at between 16
and 18 inches or more, but the evidence of the Siloam inscription and of the
tombs in Palestine seems to indicate 17.6 inches as the average length. This
was the cubit of six palms, while the longer one was of seven (Ezk 40:5). The
cubit mentioned in Judges 3:16 is from a different word, the Hebrew gomedh, and was probably shorter. The cubit of
Noah's day remains a total mystery. We have no way of knowing exactly how long
it was. Maybe Noah and his boys passed on their antediluvian knowledge of
weights and measures to the post-flood world and it stayed pretty close to the
original standards over the years; but it's impossible to know for sure. If we use an
18-inch cubit as a close approximation, then the ark would have been in the
neighborhood of 450' long x 75' wide x 45' high. The ark's beam was 30 feet
wider than its height, so should have proved very stable, and difficult to
capsize even in rough seas-- especially since it had a flat bottom, which was
good too for the purpose intended. Nothing
fancy. Since the ark didn't have to navigate; then it didn't require a means of
propulsion nor was there any practical use for a bow, or a stern, or a wheel
house, a rudder, sails, engine room, anchor, windlasses, or masts-- not even a
handrail around the main deck. Since the ark didn't have to cut through the
water like a schooner, then it didn't need tapered undersides. All the ark
really had to do was float. It was really nothing in the world but a barge: and
a very crude barge at that. Really little more than a very large watertight
crate. Compared to
modern ships, 450 feet is not all that big. Oil tankers are around 1,500, and
the Nimitz aircraft carrier is about 1,092 feet. The distance from home plate
to the center field fence in major league baseball, averages 400 feet or
better. So the ark would just about fit into Yankee stadium. The main playing
area of a football field is 300 feet. Add 26 more for the end zones, and the
total is 326; which is still 124 feet short of the ark's length but at least
gives some idea of its scale. †.
Gen 6:16a . . Make an opening for daylight in the ark, and terminate it within
a cubit of the top. The ark was
probably capped with a steeply sloped roof so the immense volumes of water
falling from the sky during the rain stage of the Flood wouldn't impinge it
perpendicularly; but rather strike a glancing blow; and the eves were likely
quite considerable so water running off the roof wouldn't find its way to the
window. Whether or not the window was shuttered isn't stated, but was very
likely a practical consideration. The first forty days of the Flood were
extremely inclement; and later on down at the end of the voyage there was a
howling wind to reckon with. The
dimensions of the window aren't stated, and it's design is a bit of a mystery
because later we'll see that Noah was apparently unable to look out and see for
himself whether the ground was dry. It could have been as wide as six feet and
extended the full length and width of the ark-- all the way around it; who
really knows. The only requirement was that it be adequate for light; but
undoubtedly served for ventilation too. With all that respiration going on in
there, Noah's air supply would become foul in very short order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Thu, Jun 25th - 9:02AM
Genesis 6:11-14 †.
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, and everyone will be so
desperate to survive. 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. †.
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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Wed, Jun 24th - 9:11AM
Genesis 6:8-10 †.
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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Tue, Jun 23rd - 8:00AM
Genesis 6:5-7 †.
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) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Mon, Jun 22nd - 8:06AM
Genesis 6:3-4 †.
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 nephiyl (nef-eel') or nephil
(nef-eel') and I have no clue why the KJV's scholars translated it giants
because it doesn't mean that at all. For one thing; it's an ambiguous word with
more than one meaning. It can indicate someone who cuts, knocks, or brings
things down, or a killer; and/or bullies and tyrants. Now; granted
that some bullies are big guys; but not all tyrants are big guys. Take for
example Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, He isn't especially imposing but Mr. Kim
sure knows how to exercise power excessively and brutally. In other
words: nephiyl doesn't necessarily indicate a special race of people; but
simply people whose ambition is to dominate others; even if they have to
completely destroy their culture and kill them all off to do it; viz: nephiyl
personalities are not good followers nor are they very good team players. It
can be accurately said of nephiyl personalities that they would rather rule in
hell than serve in heaven. In other words: if they can't conquer God, then they
would just as soon have nothing to do with Him. Historical
examples of nephiyl types 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. 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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Sun, Jun 21st - 8:39AM
Genesis 6:1-2 †.
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 believing men who threw caution to the wind and built
themselves harems of humanistic women who believed in existential philosophies. Intermarriage
between men of faith and infidel women is as old a practice as adultery; and 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) In a mixed
relationship-- one a believer and the other an infidel --the believer will be
forced to compromise their convictions in order to keep the relationship going.
Compromise in the area of spiritual values is not a good thing for God's
people. It's not only bad for the conscience, but will quickly ruin a believer's
relationship with their Lord. (1John 1:6) Most people
want love, romance, companionship, and a family of their own. According to Gen
1:27-28, and Gen 2:21-24, those things are Divine blessings, they're perfectly
normal and nothing to be ashamed of; nor is there anything intrinsically
naughty or sinful about them. But a believer has to be self controlled, and not
permit their base nature to make them lose their heads and ruin their chances
for happiness. Adult dating
is where it starts. And adult dating isn't harmless. It leads to other things,
and it leads into commitments and promises that are not easily reneged. The end
result of adult dating is ultimately marriage and children (quite possibly
illegitimate children). Whose spiritual philosophy will prevail in the
marriage? Whose spiritual philosophy will be taught to the children? The
believer's or the infidel's? And ultimately, who will get the children's souls--
God, or the Serpent? Some couples
try to accommodate each other's beliefs by teaching their children the concepts
of both religions. For example, a marriage between a Buddhist and a Christian.
The children are given a choice between the Bible and the Four Noble Truths;
and between Christ and Siddhartha Gautama, and between resurrection and
reincarnation. That may seem like a good idea, but it only creates confusion in
the minds of the children. Why are mom and dad not in agreement? Whose religion
is right? Can both be right? Does it mean that one religion is just as good as
the next; or does it even matter? Wives can be
very effective in influencing an otherwise pious man to compromise his
convictions (e.g. Gen 3:6). All too often, in a mixed marriage, the mother's
religion will be taught to her children because husbands, as a rule, put a
higher priority on peace in the home than religion, so they won't risk
alienating mama by forcing the issue. 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. It's never
wise for believers to marry outside their faith. A good example is Solomon. He
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) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Sat, Jun 20th - 8:38AM
Genesis 5:28-32 †.
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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Fri, Jun 19th - 7:18AM
Genesis 5:10-27 †.
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) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Thu, Jun 18th - 9:02AM
Genesis 5:1-9 †.
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. †.
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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Wed, Jun 17th - 8:40AM
Genesis 4:23-26 †. 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 expecting 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 Joseph and his wife to
give her baby the name Jesus (Matt 1:21, Luke 1:31) and claimed the boy as His
own son. (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. According to
a note in the Stone Tanach, the four letters of this name are those of the
Hebrew words "He always was, He always is, and He always will be"
signifying that Yhvh is timeless, perpetual, and infinite; ergo: self existent. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Tue, Jun 16th - 8:59AM
Genesis 4:20-22 †.
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). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Mon, Jun 15th - 8:12AM
Genesis 4:17-19 †.
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) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Sun, Jun 14th - 9:27AM
Genesis 4:13-16 †. 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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Sat, Jun 13th - 7:51AM
Genesis 4:9-12 †.
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 insolent 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-- and even passionate --when He lowers the boom on
people, I think we can be confident that even when angry, God remains fair
rather than prejudiced. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Fri, Jun 12th - 7:25AM
Genesis 4:7b-8 †.
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. †.
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. Many years
ago when I and my siblings were teen-agers attending an evening service at our
church, the minister asked us all to stand and promise God that we would live a
good life. Well, my brother stood, but he didn't promise. Later at home, I
asked him why he didn't make the promise. He said: "There's some things I
want to do". Unbeknownst
to us at the time; the minister, in his own words, had called the congregation
to heed Gen 4:7 just as God had called Cain all those many years ago. My sister
and I, though not the best examples of self control, at least began making an
effort. But my brother; none at all. He preferred the land of Nod, so to speak,
where he could do as he pleased away from God's interference. †.
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 envious 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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Thu, Jun 11th - 8:18AM
Genesis 4:3-7a †.
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. †.
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. Now, assuming
for the moment that Cain's offering was correct; then why didn't God accept it?
Well; before God snubbed Cain's offering, He first snubbed Cain. The reason
given for Cain's rejection is an elephant in the middle of the room that quite
a few Bible students seem content to ignore. †.
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 Cain's piety was flawed, i.e. his personal conduct
didn't meet God's standards, viz: Cain wasn't devout, thus his impious ways
tainted the 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. For
example Gen 18:17-19 where God predicted that Abraham would pass his spiritual
knowledge on to his posterity. Seeing as there's no biblical evidence that
Abraham's knowledge was in written form, then I propose that we can safely
assume it was all in his head, i.e. verbal. 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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Wed, Jun 10th - 8:16AM
Genesis 4:2 †.
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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Tue, Jun 9th - 8:16AM
Genesis 4:1 †.
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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Mon, Jun 8th - 9:33AM
Genesis 3:21-24 †.
Gen 3:21 . . And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and
clothed them. Precisely
what species of animal God slaughtered in order to make the Adams their first
suit of real clothing is unknown. That day,
humans learned something about the advantages of leather goods. Most of it is
produced from cattle hides: calfskin, goatskin, kidskin, sheepskin, and
lambskin. Other hides and skins used include those of the horse, pig, kangaroo,
deer, crocodile, alligator, seal, walrus, and of late; python. Humans have used
animal skins for a variety of practical purposes since ancient times, and to
this good day leather is still a useful material all around the world. The exact cut
and design of their garments isn't specified; the Hebrew words kethoneth
(keth-o'-neth) and/or kuttoneth
(koot-to'-neth) just indicate a shirt, or covering; as hanging from the
shoulder. A garment
hanging from the shoulder indicates that Eve's topless days were over; although
that wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility that she may have become the
Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel of her day and created some interesting
necklines. The garments
actually facilitated the people's association with God. They were unbearably
uncomfortable around their maker in the buff, even in the semi-buff, and that
was principally the reason they hid from the Lord when He came calling.
However, fig leaves aren't very durable; they're merely an expedient. God
showed them a much better way-- actually a way they would never have thought of
all by themselves because who would have guessed that animals could be killed
and stripped of their hides for clothing until God showed them? The point to
note is that the clothing that humanity's maker crafted for the Adams didn't
cost them one red cent nor did they have to contribute even the slightest bit
of labor to its construction. God slaughtered the animals, treated the hides,
and fabricated the garments Himself; and gave the clothing to them totally free
of charge and no strings attached. However, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if
the couple watched how God went about the whole business so they'd know how to
take care of themselves. NOTE: They'd eventually have to know how to
make fire; no doubt God showed them how to do that too. I believe God
went to all that trouble for a couple of reasons. First;
because He wasn't indifferent to their situation; rather, God felt compassion
for the Adams-- defined as sympathetic consciousness of others' distress
together with a desire to alleviate it. And secondly; He didn't want anything
hampering His association with the humans. In other words, Adam's felt-shame
and embarrassment over undress was a barrier between himself and his maker, so
God showed him a really good way to overcome it: a way that not only improved
the quality of Adam's association with God; but also greatly enhanced his
limited survival skills. †.
Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God said: Now that Man has become as one of us Humanity was
created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). But that image and
likeness stopped short of "one of us". In other words: humanity
didn't come from the hand of God as an equal; i.e. though humanity was given
the status of divine beings; humans are imitations rather than actual deities--
real gods are impervious to death; humans die like flies. (Ps 82:6-7) Seeing as how
humanity wasn't created "as one of us" then we're safe to conclude
that humanity made itself "one of us"; i.e. made itself an autonomous
deity setting its own standards of right and wrong. Unfortunately
humanity, as an autonomous deity, isn't God's associate, rather, His
competitor; i.e. a rival sheik so to speak. From the
limited amount of information we're given, it's readily seen that it's fairly
easy to make one's self an autonomous deity; it's only necessary to rebel
against constituted authority; viz: go your own way instead of complying with
the laws, rules, and dictates of a higher power; viz: anarchy. (cf. Judg 17:6
and Isa 53:6) †. Gen
3:22b . . discerning good and evil, Discerning
good and evil isn't a bad thing per se; that is; if it's an instructed
discernment rather than a natural, intuitive discernment. (Rom 12:2 and Heb
5:13-14) †.
Gen 3:22c . . what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the
tree of life and eat, and live forever! The Old
Testament Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't always indicate
infinity. Normally it just means perpetual as "in perpetuity" viz:
indefinitely; which Webster's defines as: having no exact limits. Adam
contracted mortality from the other tree. Had God allowed him access to the
tree of life, it's fruit would've healed the mortality infecting his body and
restored it to immortality. The thing is:
God predicted Adam's demise; so in order to ensure that the prediction came to
pass; God had to cut off his access to the tree of life; which is a pretty
interesting tree seeing as how it's not only an elixir, but also a remedy for
whatever ails you. (Rev 22:2) NOTE: The Old Testament Hebrew word
translated "forever" doesn't always indicate infinity. Normally it
just means perpetual as "in perpetuity" viz: indefinitely; which
Webster's defines as: having no exact limits. †.
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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Sun, Jun 7th - 8:20AM
Genesis 3:17-20 †.
Gen 3:17a . .To Adam He said: Because you did as your wife said, and ate of the
tree about which I commanded you; "You shall not eat of it" A portion of
God's gripe with Adam was that he put a subordinate creature's wishes over and
above the wishes of the creature's superior; thus forcing God to compete for
Adam's loyalty; i.e. a rival. Unfortunately, when it comes to choosing between
pleasing women or pleasing God; men all too often sell their souls to the
women. (cf. Luke 14:26) †.
Gen 3:17b . . Cursed be the ground because of you That was
unexpected; it isn't specifically listed in Gen 2:17 as a consequence for
tasting the forbidden fruit. It's likely discipline relative to Adam's throwing
God over for his wife. Not only
would Man himself be effected by a curse upon the ground, but every living
thing that depends upon the ground for its survival would be effected too; from
lowly nematodes and earthworms right on up to the top of the food chain. The
whole animal world, and all the seed-bearing plant life too, would suffer
collateral damages for Adam's mistake. God somehow
manipulated the soil's fertility so that it now no longer produces as well as
it did in the beginning. The abundant swarms of life that God created in the
beginning would, at that point, begin to thin out as the competition for
available natural food stuffs would begin to intensify. †.
Gen 3:17c . . By toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life Adam was no
stranger to work because God already had him tending the garden. But matters
worsened with a new ingredient. The word for "toil" is from 'itstsabown (its-tsaw-bone') and means
the very same thing as it did in Gen 3:16. The element
of 'itstsabown took some of the pleasure out of Adam's existence. Where before
his daily routine was relatively care-free, now he'd begin to worry and fret
over things that are especially pertinent to farmers e.g. weather, insects, and
plant diseases; which, among farmers, are common causes of anxiety and feelings
of insecurity. †.
Gen 3:18a . . thorns and thistles shall it sprout for you. God finished
the entire cosmos in six days; and no more creating took place after that
because He's been on sabbatical ever since day 7: so thorns and thistles
already existed prior to the events of chapter 3. But in the
beginning, noxious plants doubtless weren't so dominant. Today they're a
nuisance because if ground is left fallow, it will soon be covered with dock,
mustard, dandelion, chaparral, wild flowers, brambles, reed canary grass, and
stuff like that. Those kinds of plants may be okay for wildlife, but humanity
needs something quite a bit more nutritious. †.
Gen 3:18b . . and your food shall be the grasses of the field; Apparently
Adam was a fruitarian at first, and then his diet later expanded to include
other kinds of vegetation. However, I don't think Man is supposed to graze on
pasture like buffalo or deer and elk. Many of the grasses God intended for him
to eat fall into the food group we call cereals; which are raised primarily for
their grain; e.g. corn, wheat, oats, and rice; et al. In their natural form--
whole grain --cereals are a rich source of vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates,
fats, oils, and protein. After refinement grains are pretty much good for
nothing but carbs. †.
Gen 3:19a . . By the sweat of your brow shall you get bread to eat, Adam was
given a farm complete with orchards already in place and producing before he
came along; all he had to do was take care of it. But now, if he wanted a farm,
he was going to have to make one of his own, on his own; from scratch. Plus
he'll be faced with stubborn soil that needs plowing, sowing, and weeding. Very
few natural grains exist abundantly in nature. These days; if he wants them in
any sizable amount, Man has to farm. Those of us
who live in 9 to 5 leisure-intensive America really don't appreciate just how
laborious and time consuming the work is to grow your own food. Early
humanity's days were hard. They're still hard in many developing countries.
Adam had to get out there with a hoe and a plow to provide for his family.
Today, only about 2% in the USA work the soil for a living. †.
Gen 3:19b . . until you return to the ground-- for from it you were taken. For
dust you are, and to dust you shall return. Did God have
to smite Adam in order for him to stop living? No; it was only necessary to
deny Adam access to the tree of life and let nature and hard work take their
toll. In other words: since he was no longer immortal, it would be only a
matter of time before Adam simply gave out and passed away from wear and tear
and old age. NOTE: Adam was likely spared disease seeing
as how all animals great and small would remain on friendly terms with Man
until the Flood subsided. (Gen 9:2) But what
happened to Adam when his body returned to dust? Did he return to dust too? No;
and that's because Adam wasn't entirely organic. His body came from the soil;
but according to Gen 2:7, his consciousness came from God. The afterlife
disposition of human consciousness is one of life's greatest mysteries. Heck,
even the origin of human consciousness is mystery enough for some, let alone
where it goes when people pass away. †.
Gen 3:20 . .The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the
living. Though Eve
became the mother of all the living she isn't the source of life for all the
living: Adam is. There's an
important parallel to this in the New Testament where Christ is depicted as the
source of eternal life for all the living in him; just as Adam is the source of
human life for all the living in him. (Rom 5:12-21) There is one
"living" that Eve did not produce and that's her own self. She was
constructed from organic human material taken from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got
her human life from Adam; hence any and all human life traceable to Eve is
traceable to Adam. NOTE: Most everybody on both sides of the
aisle agrees that Gen 3:15's prediction refers to Christ; so we are on safe
ground to believe that he obtained his human life from Adam too just the same
as Eve and all the rest of us. (Luke 3:23-38) The word for
"mother" is from 'em (ame)
which can mean a mother in an immediate family, or the matriarch of a blood
line, or the mother (as the rootstock) of an entire nation. The word for
"Eve" is from Chavvah
(khav-vaw') and means: life-giver. Genesis says
Adam named his wife Eve because she was the life-giver of all the living, not
just a portion of the living. Some people have a problem with that. They just
can't believe she's everybody's mother. According to
the Bible, humanity wasn't created in groups nor in swarms like the other nephesh.
The human race was created in its entirety a singular, solo, male specimen.
Every human being since, including the first woman, came from the
constitutional elements of that one lone male. "He has
made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the
earth." (Acts 17:26-28) NOTE: The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an
interesting scientific diagram that traces all forms of life back to a singular
genetic heritage regardless of species. In other words; if you started with a
raccoon, and followed its branch down the tree far enough, you'd eventually
intersect with another branch that you could then trace to mushrooms. The tree
is sort of the equivalent of a Big Bang of living things. The branch on
that tree that interests me the most is the one that traces human life.
According to the diagram; any two people you might select-- no matter what
their age, race, or gender --if traced back far enough, can eventually be
linked to a common ancestor; which of course is no surprise to Bible students. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Sat, Jun 6th - 8:42AM
Genesis 3:15-16 †.
Gen 3:15a . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, The Hebrew
word for enmity indicates hostility; i.e. ill will. Never again would the
Serpent be allowed to get chummy with Eve nor would she ever again trust him
like she once did. From now on, the woman would eye the Serpent with suspicion;
so he would have to figure out ways to deceive the humans indirectly rather
than one-on-one face to face. †.
Gen 3:15b . . And between your offspring and her offspring. The word for
"offspring" is from zera'
(zeh'-rah) which is an ambiguous Hebrew word that technically means seed; but
not always the biological kind. It can also mean a product and/or a result
(e.g. Isa 53:10) and also fruit, plant, sowing-time, and/or progeny and
posterity. The offspring
predicted here is just as much Adam's as Eve's seeing as how she was
constructed with flesh and bone taken from Adam's body. It's pretty
much agreed by upon by Christians that Eve's predicted offspring found its
fulfillment in Christ. "When
the time had fully come, God sent His son, born of a woman" (Gal 4:4) †.
Gen 3:15c . . Hers will pound your head, "Since
then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of
the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of
death, that is, the Devil" (Heb 2:14) †.
Gen 3:15d . . and yours will bite his heel. Who were the
"yours"? Well, as much as is known; the Devil doesn't reproduce. So
his progeny shouldn't be thought of as biological. Judas Iscariot is certainly
a likely candidate; but in my opinion, he's a red herring. Romans
carried out the dirty business of crucifying Christ, but his own countrymen are
responsible for getting him executed. (Matt 26:3-5, Act 7:52) Jesus told
his Jewish enemies face to face that they were the Serpent's offspring. (John
8:44) NOTE: I suggest keeping all of the above
under your hat lest by blabbing about it you get yourself unnecessarily accused
of anti-Semitism. †.
Gen 3:16a . . And to the woman He said: I will make most severe your pangs in
childbearing; The Hebrew
word for "pangs" is 'itstsabown
(its-tsaw-bone') and means: worrisome-ness. Webster's defines worrisome-ness
as: causing distress or worry or inclined to worry or fret; viz: anxiety,
insecurity, and perhaps melancholy. For many
women, the preggers stage of motherhood is often characterized by bloating,
illness, nausea, depression, anxiety, insecurity, and irritability. For them,
pregnancy is more like a curse than the intended blessing of Gen 1:28. †.
Gen 3:16b . . in pain shall you bear children. It's
difficult to imagine bearing children without pain because that's the way it's
always been right from the beginning, even with Eve's very first child.
Apparently before Man's fall, having a baby would've caused no more discomfort
than doing one's business in the ladies room-- and just as lacking in danger to
mom and infant. The thing to
note is: this particular punishment was unexpected; viz: it isn't specifically
listed in Gen 2:17 as a consequence for tasting the forbidden fruit. Something
else that's notable is that neither the Serpent nor the tree's chemistry,
played a role in Eve's new circumstances. God said "I will make". In
other words; the physical and emotional unpleasantries associated with bearing
children came about via the hand of God. There's more. †.
Gen 3:16c . .Your desire shall be for your husband, The Hebrew of
that passage is very difficult; not even the great rabbis Rashi and Ramban were
in agreement how best to interpret it. But it appears to me simply the very
first prohibition against adultery and pre-marital intimacy. Precisely why
God waited till this moment to lay down some moral law is a mystery; but
suggests to me that even had they not eaten the forbidden fruit, He would've
gotten around to it; after all, in the beginning, Adam and his wife knew
nothing of right and wrong. I believe
it's reasonable to assume that their association with God would've eventually
included some form of catechism because left to themselves, it would've been
natural for the first couple, in their innocence, to assume it was okay to
sleep with everybody and anybody that opportunity afforded. And then
there's this: †.
Gen 3:16d . . and he shall rule over you. That is
probably one of the most hated verses in the book of Genesis. Eve's daughters
do not like to be subjugated to, and/or dominated by, men. It really goes
against their grain; and if the women's suffrage movement that took place in
America's early 1900's were to be thoroughly analyzed, it would not surprise me
that women's right to vote wasn't really a political issue: it was rebellion against
male supervision; which of course is to be expected in a world gone mad with
evil. The current
"strong woman" attitude is no doubt another aspect of that same kind
of rebellion; which in reality is not only a standing up to men, but also a
standing up to God seeing as how Gen 3:16d is a divine requirement rather than
human. Gen 3:16d
isn't restricted to marriage. It regulates women's place in church too-- all
churches. "As in
all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law
says." (1Cor 14:34) "If they
desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is
improper for a woman to speak in church." (1Cor 14:35) "Let a
woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. I do not allow a
woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
(1Tim 2:11-14) My guess is
that the purpose of Gen 3:16d is mostly to discourage wives from making
life-changing decisions on their own, independent of their husband's feelings
about it. I mean; if Eve had first consulted with her husband to see what he
thought of the Serpent's discussion before tasting the fruit, things may have
turned out quite differently. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Fri, Jun 5th - 10:13AM
Genesis 3:12-14 †.
Gen 3:12 . .The man said: The woman You put at my side-- she gave me of the
tree, and I ate. Adam
attempted to get himself off the hook by accusing God of entrapment. Like:
"This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't imposed that female upon me.
Did I ask for a wife? NO! And what kind of person is this woman you gave me
anyway? She has managed to ruin my life in very short order. Is this your
concept of the perfect companion for a man?" †.
Gen 3:13 . . And Yhvh God said to the woman: What is this you have done? The
woman replied: The serpent duped me, and I ate. That's a very
popular excuse even still today; like when it turned out that Iraq didn't have
any weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion; President Bush said he
was given some bad information. The first
couple exhibited early-on a very common aspect of human nature of which all of
us are so familiar-- blaming others for the way we act. I once worked in a
boatyard with a very hot tempered man. Previous to his employment with us, we
had another with just about the same temperament who quit right before the
second one signed on. Some time later, the new guy got irate about something or
other and said: Now I know why that other guy was difficult. You made him that
way. (chuckle) Wasn't that a perfectly natural excuse? I dated a
girl like that once. When I pointed out one day that she was behaving
peevishly; she retorted: "I'm only responding to you". (chuckle) Ms.
Peevish employed the age-old excuse of blaming someone else for the way she
acted when really the blame was just simply her own lack of self-control; which
can be roughly defined as inadequate restraint exercised over one's own
impulses, emotions, and/or desires. †.
Gen 3:14a . .Then the Lord God said to the serpent: A marked
departure in procedure is very evident here. God gave the humans an opportunity
to defend themselves; but not so with Mr. Serpent. On the page of scripture,
the trial phase was skipped and proceedings went straight to the sentencing
stage just like Osama Bin Laden's assassination. It's almost as if the Serpent
had already discussed with God how it planned to turn the humans against Him;
like when it later moved against Job. One thing for
sure about the Serpent; it is an utterly condemned individual. Repentance is
out of the question and definitely NOT an option. Its destiny was determined
long, long ago. "Then
shall he say also unto them on the left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41) The apostle
John saw the Serpent's fate; like a video clip from the future. "And the
Devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, and
shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev 20:10) It is only
too obvious that the Serpent crossed over a line somewhere in the past and now
there is no going back. Humanity is
redeemable; but the Serpent is beyond hope. The scary part is: the Serpent is
not only doomed, but busy making every effort to take as many people down with
it as possible-- like a disgruntled postal worker coming in one day and cutting
loose on everybody with a shotgun. †.
Gen 3:14b . . Because you did this, more cursed shall you be than all cattle
and all the wild beasts: The Hebrew
word for "curse" is from 'arar
(aw-rar') which means: to execrate. Webster's defines execrate as: to declare
to be evil or detestable; viz: denounce. Synonyms listed for execrate are:
hate, abhor, abominate, detest, and loathe. When the Bible's God has those
kinds of feelings for someone; they are really in trouble. But what
really caught my attention is that God implied cattle and beasts would be
cursed too. Up ahead we'll see that even the soil would be cursed. In other
words: Adam's progeny would never live on the planet as it was when their
ancient grandparents were created. We today exist on a cursed world. In point of
fact, an article in the January 15 edition of Scientific American magazine
said: "Earth is past its prime and the biosphere is nearing its end. All
things considered, our planet is only marginally habitable." The third
chapter began by stating that the Serpent was more cunning than any of the
beasts of the field, a creature that began with a level of dignity way over and
beyond the land animals; but fell to a position of esteem far below them
because of what it did to the Adams family. In other words, the Serpent is now
lower than the lowest thing on the face of the earth. †.
Gen 3:14c . . On your belly shall you crawl and dirt shall you eat all the days
of your life. Ancient Jews
thought maybe the Serpent was originally equipped with feet. T. Upon thy belly thou shalt go, and thy
feet shall be cut off, and thy skin thou shalt cast away once in seven years;
and the poison of death shall be in thy mouth, and dust shalt thou eat all the
days of thy life. (Targum Jonathan) It's probably
best to interpret Gen 3:14c as poetic language because I have never seen, nor
yet heard of, a species of snake that eats soil for its food. True, snakes
crawl on their bellies; but they probably always did; because that's the way
they're designed. Some snakes live in trees and others live in water. Those
kinds don't spend a whole lot of time on the ground so not all snakes are
alike. I really don't think snakes crawl because they were condemned to crawl.
Nor was every species of snake condemned; just the one snake in verse 14. A person who
crawls and eats dirt is typically someone held in very low regard; in other
words: a worm. And "all the days of your life" is saying that God's
low opinion of the Serpent will never be rescinded. Serpents will
eat dirt in the kingdom of God; possibly as a perpetual reminder of Man's first
great mistake. "The
wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the
ox, and the serpent's food shall be earth." (Isa 65:25) Today, snakes
don't eat earth, they eat prey. How serpents will survive on dirt is unclear,
unless their digestive system will be changed to that of a night crawler. Serpents are
never portrayed in the Bible as beneficial to Man. They are always of the
poisonous variety and a serious threat to Man's health and well being. That
will all be different in the kingdom of God. "A babe
shall play over a viper's hole, and an infant pass his hand over an adder's
den. In all of My sacred mount nothing evil or vile shall be done; for the land
shall be filled with devotion to the Lord as water covers the sea. In that day,
the stock of Jesse that has remained standing shall become a standard to
peoples-- nations shall seek his counsel and his abode shall be honored."
(Isa 11:8-10) NOTE: Targums aren't translations; rather,
very old Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew bible. They were authoritative, and
spoken aloud in the synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah and Haftarah
readings. Public
readings of the scriptures in ancient synagogues were accompanied by commentary
in Aramaic because that was the spoken language of most Jews in Israel and
Babylonia during the Talmudic era. The normal practice was that after each
verse was read from the sacred Torah scroll, an official commentator known as
the Turgeman, or Meturgeman, would then recite orally an Aramaic explanation;
usually from memory. Targums were
utilized in the synagogues before, during, and after the times of Christ--
being necessary because many of the Jewish people of that day could not
understand Hebrew. The major
Targums are those that originated in Palestine and those that were revised in
Babylon. Recently a complete manuscript of the Palestinian Targum has come to
light-- Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library. The best known Babylonian Targums are
those of Onkelos and Jonathan. Targums are
important as evidence for a history of thought among the Jewish communities in
Israel and abroad during Christ's day. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Thu, Jun 4th - 8:15AM
Genesis
3:8-11 †.
Gen 3:8a . . They heard the voice of the Lord God moving about in the garden at
the breezy time of day; The Hebrew
word for "voice" is somewhat ambiguous. It can not only indicate a
vocal sound, but lots of other kinds of noises too; e.g. horns, crackling,
snapping, cackling, bleating, tweeting, roaring, whooshing, swishing, hissing,
barking, thudding, whistling, and booming, et al. †.
Gen 3:8b-9 . . and the man and his wife hid from Yhvh God among the trees of
the garden. Yhvh God called out to the man and said to him: Where are you? Since God is
omniscient, "where are you" can be taken to mean: Adam; come out,
come out, wherever you are! †.
Gen 3:10 . . He replied: I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was
afraid because I was naked, so I hid. Adam wasn't
totally disrobed; just partially. But even that degree of undress lacked
adequate propriety to his newly acquired sense of right and wrong. But the
thing to note is Adam's unease in the presence of God while lacking what he
thought in his own mind to be appropriate clothing. This incident
tells me that even the most seasoned exotic dancer, normally comfortable
disrobed in a room of leering men, would probably want to put something on
should God come thru the door and take a seat around the dance floor. (cf. John
21:7) †.
Gen 3:11 . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the
tree from which I had forbidden you to eat? In other
words: who said undress is indecent? Where'd you get that idea? Well; nobody
had said undress is indecent, nor even suggested that it's indecent-- the
concept of a dress code was unheard of at that time. No; they just
"felt" it's indecent. In other words; it was their new perception of
right and wrong telling them that undress is indecent. Unfortunately, their
newly acquired moral compass was unreliable; the reason being they didn't get
it from God. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Wed, Jun 3rd - 9:25AM
Genesis 3:7 †.
Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that
they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves
loincloths. Adam was
warned that he would lose immortality by tasting the forbidden fruit, but it
appears he wasn't warned about this new perception of themselves; at least not
on record. If we can safely read between the lines, then we may assume that he
and God discussed this issue during one of their daily meetings. And again, the
prophets didn't record everything they knew. For example; prophecy predicted
that Jesus would be called a Nazarene (Matt 2:19-23) but good luck finding that
in the Old Testament because it isn't there. It's believed
by a pretty large percentage of Christians that the couple's new perception of
themselves is inherited from one's parents; specifically one's biological
father. But Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did
he, pass it on to her biologically by means of procreation or by means of his
body parts that God used to put Eve together. In the past,
I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had something to do with
their new state of mind; but now I seriously doubt it because Eve was the first
to eat it, and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and went
about in the buff as usual. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that something
altered Eve's conscience; so I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far
more serious than the chemistry of that fruit. We're left
with two alternatives: either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My
money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2) He has the
power of death (Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with the human body and the
human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2. The Serpent
was apparently all set and ready to wield his power of death the moment that
Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it worked on
Adam and Eve. As soon as he tasted the fruit, they immediately set to work with
the fig leaves. FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the power of death when she
tasted the forbidden fruit? A: It was apparently God's wishes that death come into the
world via a man's actions just as righteousness would later be offered to the
world via a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Tue, Jun 2nd - 8:01AM
Genesis 3:6 †.
Gen 3:6a . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating By watching
what birds and animals eat, people can often tell what's safe for human
consumption. That's not always true of course, but it's a pretty good rule of
thumb. So the woman could safely assume the tree wasn't poisonous if there
wasn't a growing pile of sick and/or dead critters at the base of the tree. †.
Gen 3:6b . . and a delight to the eyes, Most fruits
and vegetables are appealing-- just look at bananas and pears and apples and
oranges and watermelon and cantaloupe and grapes and carrots, and radishes, and
plums and mangoes and strawberries and whatever. God doubtless made them that
way so Man could not only nourish himself, but also enjoy his food; viz: not
only eat because he has to, but also because he'd like to. †.
Gen 3:6c . . and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, The Hebrew
word for "wisdom" is sakal (saw-kal')
which essentially means circumspect, i.e. sensible; which Webster's defines as
careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences, viz: prudence. People with a
high degree of circumspection make fewer mistakes in life while those of us
with a low degree oftentimes fail to do, say, or decide what's best. Sakal shows
up no less than thirteen times in the book of Proverbs alone, and is always
depicted as desirable; so it's not like Eve was wanting something that was eo
ipso bad for her. Anyway, Eve
probably figured that a fruit as attractive to the eye, and appealing to one's
mind, as that of the forbidden tree couldn't possibly be as bad as God led them
to believe. I mean, if it at least had some sharp needles like cactus pears, or
maybe a prickly surface like a pineapple, then it would at least have been a
bit intimidating; but the forbidden fruit was nothing like that; no, it looked
very benevolent. NOTE: Ironically, Eve's first step towards
obtaining wisdom was to do something really stupid. †.
Gen 3:6d . . she took of its fruit and ate. The important
thing to note at this point, is that Eve was unaffected by the fruit: she
experienced no ill side effects and went right on naked as usual; feeling no
shame about it whatsoever. †.
Gen 3:6e . . She also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Did Eve first
deftly dice the fruit and camouflage it in a tasty parfait so her husband
wouldn't know what he was eating? No; according to 1Tim 2:14 Adam went into it
with eyes wide open. I have to
wonder why the husband followed his wife's lead and did something he knew full
well to be breaking God's edict and putting himself at risk of death. Genesis
doesn't reveal why Adam chose to eat the fruit. I suppose he had his reasons,
but apparently God didn't think they were sufficient to excuse the man's
defiance. But I think
Adam was cautious at first, and kept a wary eye on Eve for some time waiting to
see if she would get sick; and when she didn't, he surely had to wonder if
maybe he misunderstood God. I think most
husbands would sympathize with Adam. I mean: he was told by a supposedly
competent source that the forbidden tree was unfit for human consumption. But
here's your wife sitting right beside you happily munching away and she's still
healthy, lucid, and exhibiting no ill side effects. How is a reasonable man supposed
to argue with empirical evidence as good as that? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Mon, Jun 1st - 8:44AM
Genesis
3:1b-5 †.
Gen 3:1b . . He said to the woman, A
characteristic of Eden's world was not only a lack of human death, but also a
lack of fear. Man feared neither himself, nor the other creatures, nor the
dark, nor the boogie man. The woman
displayed no recorded astonishment whatsoever when the Serpent spoke to her;
which suggests it had associated with the Adams on other occasions before this
incident; and possibly had become a close family friend. Before making its move
to wreck their life, the Serpent more than likely spent some time in advance
nurturing a rapport with the Adams so the woman would have no cause for alarm
when it approached; and would. therefore not suspect its intentions. That's
actually a pretty effective sales approach. Many years ago I sold vacuum
cleaners for a little while. I was trained to engage potential customers in
chit-chat, a.k.a. small talk, to break the ice and get them to let their guards
down. In other words; to build some trust before I got down to the predatory
business of talking them into buying something expensive that they could easily
get by without. Being an
innocent who had never been exposed to evil, the woman would certainly never
suspect one of God's creatures to be anything but honest and truthful. Up to
this point, Eve wasn't even aware that something called dishonesty existed. And
actually, she didn't even know what honesty was either because nobody had
taught her anything about it yet. †.
Gen 3:1c . . Did God really say: You shall not eat of any tree of the garden? Why didn't
the Serpent attempt to trick the male before turning to Eve? Well, Adam was a
tougher nut to crack because he got his intel straight from the horse's mouth.
But the woman quite possibly was instructed second hand, in conversations with
her husband; who was, in effect, her personal rabbi. So it would be fairly easy
to convince Eve that maybe she didn't hear her husband correctly; or worse;
that he didn't know what he was talking about. I mean: isn't there more than
one way to interpret the Bible? How do you know your way is the right way? Of course it
was ridiculous to suggest the humans were forbidden to eat of "any"
tree. But the Serpent was slowly sneaking up on the woman with subtle
suggestions. Probing for weak points, the Serpent tested her understanding of
God's instructions by asking a question that she should have been able to
answer with relative ease. In response; the woman bounced right back and quoted
God like a pro (or so she thought). †.
Gen 3:2-3 . . The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the
other trees of the garden. It is only about fruit of the tree in the middle of
the garden that God said: You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die. Is that
really what God said? No, that's not what God said. He forbad their eating the
fruit, yes; but said nothing about touching it. (Gen 2:16-17) Eve failed to
repeat what God said, rather, she interpreted what He said. Apparently, in her
mind's eye, the ban on eating the fruit implied not touching it. Consequently;
Eve's humanistic reasoning put a spin on God's instructions so that instead of
following them to the letter, the woman revised them to mean something that God
didn't actually say. Eve fell prey
to a very human weakness-- not only of revising God, but of a tendency to make
the laws of God more cumbersome and more strict than they really are. Revisions in
the form of interpretations change the meanings of God's sayings and inevitably
leads people into error. While often containing a kernel of truth, revisions
are nevertheless not pure truth, rather, amalgams of truth and human error that
falsify God's teachings and direct people off in the wrong direction; leading
them to believe, and to repeat, things that aren't true. Revisions are
also very useful for manipulating people to favor the Serpent's wishes rather
than their creator's. Thus, without their knowing it, they fall in line and
become the Serpent's sheep instead of Christ's. †.
Gen 3:4 . . And the serpent said to the woman: You are not going to die, Having
already tested the woman's understanding of God's instructions, and found it in
error, the Serpent was encouraged to push on and attempt to influence her
thinking a bit more. Hence, we
have the beginnings of what's known as deceptive ambiguity. In other words; the
Serpent's statement can be understood in more ways than one. Without an
explanation, Eve was left to her own imagination as to what he meant. But it
likely never occurred to her to ask for clarification. The Serpent
was somehow aware that Eve wouldn't drop dead to the floor from eating the
forbidden fruit. So that much of his statement was true. However, what he
didn't tell Eve was that the fruit would cause her to lose immortality, i.e.
she would become mortal, which is a walking death rather than a sudden death. †.
Gen 3:5 . . God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened,
and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. If someone
presented you with an opportunity to bring your mind up to the level of God's
intelligence, and you didn't know any better, wouldn't you take it? I think so. The thing to
note is that the Serpent's prediction wasn't altogether untrue. In time their
eyes were opened and they became conscious of good and evil (Gen 3:7 and Gen
3:22) but as upcoming events will reveal, his prediction was a half-truth; viz:
their consciousness of good and evil was natural, i.e. human rather than
divine. Anyway: the
Serpent insinuated that their creator was withholding the tree, not because it
was poisonous or anything like that; but to keep the humans in check: much in
the way that some of the world's despots utilize illiteracy, control of radio
and television programming, restricted contact with foreigners, and limited
internet access to keep their citizens subdued. In effect,
the Serpent was saying that God got His wisdom from that very same tree and
that's why He didn't want to share the fruit with them; because then they might
become savvy enough to go out on their own without depending so much upon their
maker. In her
defense; the woman was inexperienced, and certainly no match for the Serpent's
cunning nor his powers of persuasion. But her defeat wasn't inevitable. She
could have easily resisted the Serpent by simply sticking to her guns and
parroting God's instructions over and over again until the Serpent got
disgusted and gave up. She also could've talked the matter over with her
husband before deciding what to do. But no, she dropped God's instructions
early on and left her husband out of it; thus laying the groundwork for the
utter ruin of her own posterity. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comment (0)
|
Back to Blog Main Page
|
|
About Me |
|
Archives
|
|
|