Genesis 1 Q&A

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BibleStu

Member
Jul 8, 2021
67
13
8
55
Indiana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Next: Genesis 2

I warned you. And then I warned you again.

So here I am unloading my study Q&A on Genesis in general, and then on Genesis 1. Feedback welcome. Read this to learn what I am up to and what I am trying to accomplish.


General Questions
Who wrote Genesis? Or, given that the traditional answer is that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch, what are we to make of criticisms of this?

If you believe the Bible itself, then you believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, because it says so; Jesus attributes authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46) The apostles also said as much. The Documentary Hypothesis, which attributes different texts within the Genesis (and the Pentateuch as a whole) to different sources, which were cobbled together, has a number of well-known problems. Since my focus in this Q&A commentary is exposition rather than apologetics or critical analysis, I will say no more.

Why does it matter—if it does matter—that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch?

It matters because it goes to the very heart of the question whether the Bible can be believed. The Bible gets whatever authority it carries from the fact that it is the word of God, and it claims to be the word of God in significant part because that very word was communicated by God himself directly to Moses, who, as the text says, was instructed to write it down. As the ground of the Bible’s supposed credibility, there are no more important doctrines than these. If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the Bible loses its credibility. The Pentateuch generally gets its authority not because of some priestly traditions (as the Documentary Hypothesis says), but because it was authored by Moses, with whom God himself spoke and to whom he even dictated. If Moses did not get this law from God, and did not write it down himself, and if instead it was written down later by later priests who were frankly lying about the nature of their real source—indeed, some would have to have lied, because they would have invented some words that they deliberately intended to pass off as Moses’ ownthen why believe the rest of this tradition, which is lying about something so foundational and deeply important? If the Pentateuch is unreliable, then the rest comes tumbling down like a house of cards.

What is the function of Genesis 1?

There is, as one commentator pointed out, a polemic at work in Genesis 1. This polemic does not aim to undermine modern science, of course—but instead ancient pagan religions. Genesis stands against ancient religions that taught that different gods were responsible for different pieces of the creation, that some were champions of chaos and evil, that matter pre-existed the gods, that the gods were limited, had foibles, and were even mortal. Only one divine personage matters here, and it is not the highest god of some pantheon. It is the god with a capital “g,” God himself, El Shaddai, God Almighty—named Lord, or Yahweh, i.e., he whose essence is to exist, and whose existence is sovereign. The text, qua polemic, replaced pantheons of capricious and deeply flawed gods with a single all-powerful creator god.


First Day: Creation and Light
Prefatory note—I do not plan to ask quite this many questions about later chapters, but this one is particularly important, one or perhaps two orders of magnitude more important than later chapters, and it presents all sorts of intriguing and puzzling claims and issues. So the extra space seems well worth it.

Why is the plural form of the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִ֔ים, or elohim, employed for “God” (e.g., Gen. 1:1) and why is a pluralized word meaning “in our image” (בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ, betzalmenu) used (1:26), if “the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:4)?

A common and traditional explanation is theological: this is because the Holy Spirit and Jesus were part of the Godhead, and it was, apparently, acceptable to refer to the Godhead using the plural. While true enough, it does not seem this is why the plural was used here, because the author of this text presumably did not believe in a trinitarian Godhead and hence not intend to refer to one. But perhaps the author was inspired to use the plural, for reasons he himself did not quite understand. Another traditional explanation, however, is possible: this was what is called in Hebrew grammar the emphatic plural or the plural of majesty. By using the plural form (for the noun) with singular verb forms, the author conveys particular respect or emphasis. So this was not any old god; it was God.

Of course, plenty of other texts in the Old Testament make the latter statement obviously true. So, apparently, calling God “elohim” was a way of reverently magnifying him. What did God create first, precisely?

As the text says, he created “the heaven and the earth.” This is a phrase that Sailhamer calls a hendiadys—a unitary concept formed out of two words conjoined with “and”—to mean the entire universe. This does not mean that he first created everything in all its glory and detail, because in the very next sentence, he says the earth that he just created was “without form, and void.” Also, see the next question.

God is said to create the heaven and the earth in Gen. 1:1, and yet he creates “heaven” in 1:6-8 and “dry land” or earth in 1:9-10. Is this a contradiction?

No. There are various ways of explaining this, but the way that makes most sense to me is that what is created is neither heaven in the sense of the sky (which does not appear until the second day, Gen. 1:6) nor earth in the sense of dry land (which does not appear until the third day, 1:9). So what is it? We are told its features, or rather, its lack of features: it is “without form, and void,” it is described as “the deep,” which has “waters” that are evidently not gathered-together “seas” (such seas do not appear, with the dry land, until the third day, 1:10). Indeed, the very fact that “waters” need to be separated from “waters” in order to make a “firmament” or expanse, which is only then (second day, 1:8) to be called “heaven” or “sky,” means that the initial “heaven and earth” are very strange and primordial indeed. Hence, to say that God created “the heaven and the earth” is simply to say that God created the universe. It is possible that we should interpret “heaven” here to mean the spiritual dwelling-place of God, but presumably that existed well before the material universe or “earth” in that sense (this is discussed more below).

But is Gen. 1:1 to be translated as part of an adverbial phrase or as an independent main clause?

In other words, is it “God created” or is it “When God created, …” with either Gen. 1:2 or 1:3 the consequent of “when”? In the first case, God created a primordial universe, then structured and filled it; in the second case, God created a complete universe, and thereafter that previously good universe was reduced to chaos—as if there were a “gap” between 1:1 and 1:2. This is a common theory, but, without getting into the tedious details, there is nothing in the text to support it. For one thing, “when” does not appear in the text. Moreover, the notion that God would begin with an unshaped, empty universe makes excellent sense considering that the rest of Genesis 1, he is shaping and filling the universe.

So did God create the universe ex nihilo in Gen. 1:1, according to the Bible? What reason is there to think so?

Yes, although perhaps the text does not say so in a way that would satisfy a critical philosopher on the point. The argument, briefly stated, is theological: the first sentence of the Bible is, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” Is there anything other than the heaven and the earth? The author doubtless did not think so; and if so, then this statement amounts to saying that God created everything there was to create. Peter in Acts 4:24 is perhaps more explicit on this point: “Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that is in them”. Even more pointed is a verse that Grudem rightly makes much of in this connection: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Heb. 11:3) Unless the author here is saying—as he very probably is not—that visible things are made out of invisible things, this implies that all visible things are made ex nihilo.

What word is used for “create” in Gen. 1:1 and why does it matter?

The word in Gen. 1:1 for “created,” בָּרָ֣א or bara, is used here, while in other contexts, a word meaning “made,” וַיַּ֣עַשׂ or wayyasas, is used. The distinction appears to be that between creating out of nothing and assembling out of pre-existing parts—between originating and transforming. Basically, God is said to bara things out of nothing, while he wayyasas them by assembling them from pre-existing things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wynona

BibleStu

Member
Jul 8, 2021
67
13
8
55
Indiana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In Gen. 1:2, what does “without form, and void” mean? How about “the deep” and the primordial“waters” and their “face”?

It seems what was initially created by God was something like “raw stuff,” Aristotelian matter without form; it was essentially chaotic, without order. It had to be given some shape or nature by God, and it did not originally have any such shape or nature. Hence, to say that the earth was “without form, and void” is to say that it was an amorphous, chaotic blob. That nicely coheres with scientific theories about the formation of the primordial earth out of a disc of dust and gas, floating formlessly in space. The early earth was deep, dark, wet (at least, full of frozen water molecules), chaotic, impenetrable mass of earth and (ice) water. That is what is meant by a “heaven and earth” that is nonetheless “without form, and void.” Then certainly “the deep” and “the waters” both might be understood as descriptions of such a chaotic and wet mass.

What is the “light” that God created on the first day (Gen. 1:3), particularly if not the Sun (created on the fourth day)?

The way to make this narrative cohere best both with common sense and with science is to envision the events of the narrative unfolding from a point of view on the very early proto-earth, making use of human-type perceptual equipment, not from way out in space or from some abstract, scientific point of view. Hence, we can imagine the light from the sun shining through the proto-earth’s gas cloud, there would be periods of light and periods of dark, as the gas blob began to rotate (Gen. 1:5). Atmospheric conditions at some early point might well be such that there were no distinctive clouds visible from the planet surface, and so neither “firmament” nor solid ground or ocean, but merely a massive, slightly opaque dust cloud.

What is the “Spirit of God” and why is it said to move upon “the face of the waters” in Gen. 1:2?

Here we are invited to picture the proto-earth as being one giant ocean, as a 2020 study theorizes actually happened in the proto-earth. It is precisely the Spirit of God that, in other places in the Bible, is said to be the original creator and mover of the universe. It helps to bear in mind that the word for “Spirit” here, רוּחַ or ruach, also means “breath or wind,” and that it is one of the products of “breath”—the Word of God—that is elsewhere said (and demonstrated in Gen. 1) to be particularly creative. As Psalm 33:6 puts it, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath [ruach] of his mouth.” The notion that some agent of the Godhead was present to initially move things about is also consistent with theology going back to ancient times, not just in Aristotle’s Prime Mover argument but also on the view that divine intervention is always needed to sustain the universe in its existence and activity. So it is particularly apropos that God’s presence and activity are noted precisely in the first moments of the chaotic proto-universe.

What is the “light” that God created on the first day (Gen. 1:3), particularly if not the Sun (created on the fourth day)?

In fact it might have been the Sun, but enshrouded by clouds of as yet unthinned and un-”divided”, formless dust and ice. Another possibility, that strikes me as being a little too anachronistic, is the notion that this is the light following the Big Bang.

As one can see in Gen. 1:3-5, with “And God said...and there was…,” then “God saw…” and “it was good”; and all is followed by “the evening and the morning were the nth day”. Is there not a fair bit of repetition of this sort in the six “days” of creation?

Indeed there is. Commentators make much of this repetition: there is the report that God said something, then there is the command (or “divine fiat”) itself, then a report of the action being done (the “fulfillment formula”), then God names the thing created, judges it good (the “approval formula”), and finally, the day comes to a close.

What is the purpose and significance of God’s declaration, as at Gen. 1:4, that the things he has created are “good”?

This is a good illustration of the Bible’s understatement and tendency to require the reader to pay close attention in order to get the full message. The message here is not merely that God approves of his own creation, but that creation was, at first, good; but this changes, as we will see, with the Fall of Man in Gen. 3. It is this change that makes the emphasis apropros.

How many things here is God said to “divide” (as at Gen. 1:4), and so, what might its significance be?

God is said to divide light from darkness (Gen. 1:4); the waters under the sky (the sea) from those above (the clouds, I think; 1:7); day from the night (1:14); light from darkness again (1:18), but on my interpretation this really is the same insofar as it is the sun’s light, whether obscured by the proto-earth’s clouds or not, that performs this function. Moreover, although the text does not explicitly say so, the land is clearly “divided” from the sea (1:9). These “divisions” seem to distinguish the main components of the visible universe, which was at first “without form.” Hence with these actions God gives form to the world.

How long is a “day” (as at Gen. 1:5)?

In this text, a “day” (י֔וֹם or yowm) need not mean a standard 24-hour period, however much some insist on this. Elsewhere in the Bible itself we are told, “a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past” (Psalm 90:4), a verse Peter seems to have recalled when he wrote, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (1 Pet. 3:8) Moreover, the seven “days” are recounted on a divine scale, as for most of the time, God is the only actor. It is also a strong and perfectly acceptable argument to point out that, on the most plausible account of the meaning of the events described—an account that attempts to be squared with a respectful, good-faith, scientific observation of the God-made creation before us—the events would quite naturally (but also divinely) extend over billions of years. Given this, the purposes of the sentences seems clear enough: they divide up and order the events using a metaphor.

What are we to make of the repeated refrain, “And the evening and the morning were the [ordinal number] day” (as at Gen. 1:5)?

I propose to gloss the sentence this way: “After an evening, and with the dawning of the next morning, the first day ended.” In the text, these sentences come after the descriptions of each day’s creation activities, implying that the evening and the dawn came after those activities. If this sentence were, instead, a recapitulation of the whole day—a day lasting from “morning” until “evening”—then it is hard to know why the word “evening” (עֶ֥רֶב, ereb) always occurs before “morning” (בֹ֖קֶר, boqer). It seems that, contrary to the usual Hebrew day which begins at sundown, each 24-hour day begins at dawn and ends with the conclusion of the following night.

Days 2-4: Sky; Sea, Land, and Plants; Sun, Moon, and Stars
What is the “firmament” of Gen. 1:6?


The firmament is the sky, i.e., the space between the land and sea below, and the clouds and stars above. To understand the notion at work here, remember that we are to imagine a world utterly beclouded, with vague light glimmering through, but lighting nothing in particular. Then, once the dust settles enough, on Day 2—although there might still be massive, impenetrable clouds of water vapor—water oceans might well become visible and distinguishable from the clouds.

What are the “waters” of Gen. 1:9, and why are some “under” and others “above” the firmament?

Since rains falls from the clouds of water vapor, and since there is usually some visible space between the ocean and such clouds (if there is enough ambient light), it might well make sense to say, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters (of the ocean) from the waters (of the clouds).” (Gen. 1:6)

Did God not create heaven in Gen. 1:1? Then why is this newly-created firmament called “Heaven” in 1:8? And do either of these things have to do with the spiritual place where God dwells?

As I said above, in Gen. 1:1, “the heaven and the earth” was probably meant as a compound phrase with a singular meaning, a hendiadys, standing for something like “the universe” or “the world.” Moreover, the “heaven” that was created in 1:1 was simply the vaguely-conceived upper regions, perhaps the unseen cloudtops above the proto-earth. As to “Heaven” in the sense of God’s spiritual dwelling-place—that is, assuming that we should assume that God’s dwelling-“place” is indeed spiritual and not located in any physical/spatial relation to the earth—clearly it must already have existed before 1:1. Of Jesus, Paul said, “by him were all things created” (Col. 1:16), and “he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Hence, if it must be said that the Godhead dwelt “somewhere” and “before” the creation—though perhaps this makes dubious sense—then that place existed before God created “the heaven and the earth.” So we are really dealing with two, or perhaps three, concepts of “heaven” in Gen. 1.
 
Last edited:

BibleStu

Member
Jul 8, 2021
67
13
8
55
Indiana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In reference perhaps especially to Gen. 1:6, do any other ancient cosmogonies (creation myths) sufficiently resemble that of Genesis 1 as to be a plausible inspiration of it? Might they have a common source, anyway?

The short answer is that other contemporaneous ancient cosmogonies—Egyptian, Sumerian, and Assyrian—all have enough and striking elements in common with the Genesis account that it is unlikely that they are utterly independent and unrelated. Just for example, one pagan god is said to plan and then speak certain things into existence. In another, the “Enuma Elish” myth of the ancient Babylonians, following a long and complicated back-story, it is a created god, Marduk, who becomes king of the universe and leader of the divine assembly, by defeating the goddess of salt water, Tiamat, which he divides (as some would say God does in 1:6). And the Egyptian god Atun is said to be the original and supreme god, and to have gotten the creation started. But he is by no means the only god, and there are many very important differences. Probably, there was one original tradition, which the Hebrew account gets most correct, being most sensible and being connected with a tradition deeply imbued with other qualities that compel belief.

Do the limited points of similarity of ancient cosmogonies (and theological elements, such as the “divine council” and speaking things into existence) make that of the Hebrews less credible? Why or why not?

It seems not. No other cosmogony has significant enough similarities to be plausible as a sole or even main origin of the Hebrew cosmogony. All of these texts are hard to date precisely. Finally, we have independent theological reasons to find Genesis 1 plausible, and if God shared that story during some antediluvian or patriarchal ages (not with Moses himself, which is another possible original source), then we might well expect to find multiple pagan versions of the original story, i.e., versions of the Hebrew (Yahwist) narrative twisted by pagan cults, handed down from days gone by. In that case, the similarity with pagan accounts means only that the pagans misrepresented the truth, and that Genesis 1 is adequately reflects the original, faithful source.

What are the “lights in the firmament” of 1:15?

These are, of course, the Sun, Moon, and stars. One commentator speculated that these are not named as such in order to convey that they are mere “lights,” created objects, not gods—since these items in the “host of heaven” were often the objects of worship. Not naming them was a way to reduce these mere objects in dignity.

Isn’t it a problem that Sun and Moon are said to be created (Gen. 1:14-17) after the earth (1:1)?

Again, if the narrator of Gen. 1 is occupying a position close to the surface of a proto-earth, then at some point, enough of the primordial dust cloud would have settled or burned off that there would be clear periods in which the Sun and Moon became visible, perhaps for the first time. One potential problem here is that the text actually states, “Then God made two great lights” and “God set them in the firmament” (1:16-17); but current theory about the formation of the solar system has it that the Sun ignited before the Earth formed. What is very likely the case, however, if that is so, is that the early Sun and Moon were for a long time invisible from the surface of the proto-Earth, as it was still forming. If so, then the events described as taking place on days 2 and 3 followed the creation of the Sun and Moon, but the Sun and Moon became visible after them.

As to “heaven” in 1:14-17, shouldn’t we say, as the illustrators sometimes show, that God dwells in the clouds or among the stars? Is that not a sufficient sense of “heaven”?

Perhaps early theologians thought so, but we now know they would have been mistaken, because the regions above the clouds—outer space, with its planets and stars—are every bit as “fleshly” as the rest of the material creation. It seems to have been thought that the loftier regions were not like “here below,” so it was possible to think of a spiritual heaven as being simply, “up there.” But Copernicus and even more modern astronomy and space exploration have shown that space is material and not particularly holy. Yet we are specifically told that God is “a spirit” (John 4:24). Visions of God on his throne, and surrounded by adoring angels (e.g., Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, and Revelation 4), are distinctly otherworldly visions and typically interpreted as somewhat clumsy, metaphorical attempts to describe wholly spiritual visions. So any divine dwelling place cannot reside “at” any particular place “in” this material world.

What does it mean to say the Sun and Moon “rule over the day and over the night” (Gen. 1:18)?

This does not suggest the author indulged in a pagan sort of personalization of these objects, or that he was tipping his hat toward Egyptian and other mythology. Of course the author of Genesis 1 did not mean to avow Sun and Moon gods (which, again, is perhaps one reason they were not named as such). The language of Genesis is poetic, though not poetry. Doubtless, the pagan traditions ultimately suggested the metaphor of the Sun “ruling” the day, just in the sense that it was the most prominent universal presence in daytime; but this hardly meant that the author of Genesis 1 took the metaphor to be understood literal. That language even as early in the Bible as this first chapter could be metaphorical is obvious. This is said to be “divided” by God from that; there are six “days” which are probably metaphorical; Sun and Moon are “great lights”; animals are enjoined to be “fruitful”; man is said to have “dominion,” as if royalty; etc.


Days 5 and 6: Marine Life and Birds; Land Animals and Man
How can we best reconcile the notion that birds (Gen. 1:20) were created before land animals (1:24)?


“Cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth” (Gen. 1:24) come only after birds (1:20), which evolutionary history says is wrong. One way to approach this problem is to point out that reptile or amphibian would be an instance of a “living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly.” This is, after all, true, according to evolutionary theory. In other words, in the Mesozoic (dinosaur) era, even as fish and birds were evolving, so were the earliest, creeping land animals, and even if indeed they spent millions of years on land, it was in that earlier era that they came out of the sea. It was only in a later era, the Cenozoic, when mammals appeared, i.e., the sorts of animals the author doubtless had in mind when listing “cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth.” And it is rather strikingly apropos, I think, that the last living creature to appear was man. Besides all that, this is not a scientific treatise but a brief, suggestive account of the orderly way in which God created things; it is probably not a requirement that such an account match perfectly to the order in which things were actually created, particularly if the “days” are used as conceptual markers used for exposition rather than six consecutive 24-hour periods.

Why are various categories of animals, and then man, encouraged to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Gen. 1:22, and in the case of man, at 1:28)? What is the significance of this injunction?

Reproducing and flourishing as a group seems to be both specially valued by God and is presented as a blessing (“God blessed them, saying”; 1:22). Other natural processes are not similarly blessed; probably, there is some special meaning behind an emphasis on reproduction, particularly because it is repeated several times as a blessing, promise, or injunction (especially at Genesis 9:7, after the Flood: “be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein”). In short, life as such is specially prized by God: sacrificing the life of the most valuable animals atoned for sin; the most serious sins concerned unjust killing as well as improper reproduction; and the very most horrible pagan heresies involved sacrificing human life, especially a child’s life. Accordingly, the greatest reward of the Hebrews was to “multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore.” (Gen. 22:17) Moreover, one of the saddest and desperate conditions of a young woman in the Bible was the inability to bear children. Life, in the Bible, is repeatedly shown to be among the greatest of blessings and holiest of things we can value.
 

BibleStu

Member
Jul 8, 2021
67
13
8
55
Indiana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What does Gen 1:26 mean with the claim that man is made “in the image of God”?

This doctrine is theologically deep and consequential, and is made the basis of all sorts of important concepts regarding the nature of man, theological ethics, the relationship between man and God, etc.—as well as the basis of heresies. But, I will keep this answer brief. The Hebrew words suggest we are made in God’s “image” or form, “after our likeness” or similitude or model. We are in God’s likeness—the imago dei—but how? John (4:24) writes that “God is a Spirit” or, as more recent translations have it, “God is spirit.” The Spirit of God is mentioned as early as Gen. 1:2 in the Bible, and in many other places thereafter. Hence it seems likely that the claim that we are made in the image or form of God is to say that our spirits, or souls, or minds, or characters were made in some fashion like God’s. It is not hard to find ways in which this might be true: God is represented as having a free will, with the ability to make plans and form purposes, as we do; of having a mind, thoughts, and reasons, as we do; and of having assorted emotions, including love and anger, as we do. Moreover, in the same sentence, God says he would give man dominion over other living beings; so a common suggestion is that we resemble God in that we have this “dominion,” although in a much narrower domain. Finally, we are also supposed to be like God in that we are can be evaluated morally, as righteous or sinful. Of course, since God is perfectly righteous, it follows that in Adam’s fall, man’s nature became less like God’s, insofar as man became sinful; so also, in our ultimate redemption and rebirth, according to the New Testament, the imago dei in us will be more fully restored.

Could the Gen. 1:26 “image of God” be a physical, rather than spiritual, image?

In other words, could God have a physical body which ours resembles? Perhaps, perhaps not, although this might have been the first thing that the mere words would have brought to mind to the original reader. After all, God is portrayed in the Pentateuch as having an appearance, e.g., a face, which it is deadly for a man to see, and which Moses was forbidden to see, though he could see God’s back. Moreover, we are told over and over that God appeared in various theophanies, i.e., bodily or physical forms, such as Abraham’s visitor, Jacob’s wrestling partner, the burning bush, and the shekhina, i.e., the physically appearing “glory” or presence of God in and about the tabernacle. Most importantly, there is God’s appearance in the form of Jesus. But as God is primarily spirit, the way in which we are in his image is likely also spiritual. It is possible that our “new creation” bodies will be like the perfect, glorified body of the risen Christ, but that is not how we are, now, in the image of God. But one thing we can certainly infer from the variety of theophanies: God does not have any one physical manifestation, hence cannot be identified with any of them. Hence our bodies could at best resemble one of his theophanies, not all of them.

Is original man (Gen. 1:29) said to be vegetarian?

It might seem so, but the matter is not altogether clear. Although the God does not specifically forbid the eating of meat, plants and their fruit are the only food that is clearly mentioned before Abel sacrificed the firstlings of his flock (Gen 4:4). As Abel seemed to be a meat-eater; he raised sheep and set aside the fat for God. But this is puzzling, because if eating meat became acceptable immediately after the Fall, God would have said so in Gen. 1:29, and a bit later when he describes “the herb of the field” (Gen. 3:18) that he would henceforth eat. Cain’s descendant Jabal is called father of “such as have cattle.” (Gen 4:20) Noah is said to taken seven (probably, seven pair) of the various animals described as “clean” (Gen 7:2); the food laws (later articulated in Leviticus) clarify that clean animals were those acceptable to eat. Still, God first explicitly describes the eating of meat to Noah, generations later, when he says, “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you” (Gen 9:3). See below for discussion of that. Finally, consider carefully that God mentions man’s “dominion over” the animal world twice (1:26, 1:28), and that would have been thought to include eating animals; animal meat would have been a blessing. So it is hard to say and I am inclined to think early man did eat animals, at least after the Fall.

Are animals originally said to be herbivorous (Gen. 1:30)?

It seems so. The fact that animals are, of course, carnivorous, you would think it would bear specifically mentioning that the first animals were not so, if that were the point of saying they ate plants. But perhaps saying only that they ate plans was commonly understood, at the time, to mean that animals at only plants (this is a logical fallacy, but it could be an understood implication). Besides, key texts in Rom. 8:18-25 as well as Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25 suggest that on the recreated New Earth, animals will live in peace (as herbivores). So it seems creation at first was absolutely free of death and hence no animals were eaten, and that in the new creation, wiped clean of all sin, there will again be no death, not even of animals. If this were the case, then perhaps the original condition of the creation was equally idyllic. In any case, the difficulty here is that there is there is no scientific evidence that vicious carnivorous predators like lions and eagles ever ate plants; they have sharp teeth (or beaks) and claws (or talons) in order to capture and hold their prey. Why should animals be “punished” by changing their diet in this way as a response by God to man’s sin?

So were animals immortal, like man, before the Fall?

Perhaps, but this seems doubtful. For one thing, they did not eat of the Tree of Life, which seems to be the best explanation of why Adam was said to be offered to live forever. Death would come from Adam only after eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, promised at Gen. 2:17: “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” But it does not say that animals did not die previous to this, and at no point does any Bible verse explicitly link Adam’s sin with the introduction of animal death. Some point to Rom. 5:12 as indicating that Adam’s sin introduced death to the animal world: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin”. But the same sentence concludes: “and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” It says nothing specifically about animals, and “death by sin” is too vague to hang a whole doctrine upon: obviously, it could mean only “death of man by sin,” since that is the context. The same problem afflicts 1 Cor. 15:22-23: the remark “in Adam all die” leaves “all” with a vague domain of application: I would be inclined to think it means “all men,” not “all living beings.” After all, later in that same chapter’s argument, the redemption for that original sin is said to make resurrection possible, and that certainly does not include the resurrection of animals.

If “everything” God had made was “very good” (Gen. 1:31) was it perfect?

It depends on what you mean by “perfect.” After all, the serpent was in the Garden, ready to tempt Adam and Eve, and even if they had not yet sinned, they possessed both the freedom and the willfulness that enabled the Fall. More to the point, Adam and Eve were like innocent children, and innocent children, however morally pure and indeed holy they might be, are not fully formed and are hence complete in that (quite distinct) sense. In other words, there are at least two senses of the word “perfect”: (a) beyond moral reproach and (b) incapable of any sort of improvement. God’s initial creations were perfect in the sense of (a), but not (b); after all, each day of creation represents an improvement over the last. This is not to say that it was preferable that Adam and Eve lost their innocence and became more sophisticated. Indeed, God is often contemptuous and wrathful toward man’s pretensions to wisdom and power (as in God’s reaction to the Tower of Babel in Gen. 11:1-9). But it is a matter for God himself, and perhaps for debate in philosophical theology, whether in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21-22) we will be in a “more perfect” state, being far more mature than Adam, but also having sinned and having had our sins wiped clean by Jesus.
 

BibleStu

Member
Jul 8, 2021
67
13
8
55
Indiana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's it. Feedback? I'll post what I have for Gen 2 in a day or two (unless I'm told not to).
 

Wynona

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Jan 27, 2021
3,489
7,175
113
North Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@BibleStu
Thank you for posting that. My favorite part was your answer about what it means to be made in the image of God.

I want to be clear on my next opinion: While it might matter to others that the Genesis account match with modern science, I personally am more likely to take the Genesis text at face value in spite of what modern science says.

For example, I don't necessarily believe the earth is billions of years old. If Genesis says, God created the earth in seven days, I believe that. I think the days are 24 hour periods. The only objection to that comes from modern science, which, if I have to go by science or the Bible on authority, I choose the Bible.

That being said, I wouldn't necessarily take away from all the answers trying to reconcile with science. That approach does have merit. I would just be prepared to recieve critique from young-earth creationists.

I also don't believe in the Big Bang and evolution. But I know a lot of people do and accept these things as authoritative.

I did like your explanation on why its important that the Pentateuch is attributed to Moses.

I look forward to Genesis 2. This would make a great book! Your answers are concise and make sense. I don't have to read it more than once to get exactly what your saying. Your writing style is neither overdone or overly simplistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

BibleStu

Member
Jul 8, 2021
67
13
8
55
Indiana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hey, thanks for the positive feedback. That helps. I know Young Earth creationists will have problems with this, and I actually do have objections to evolution, but I’m far from convinced it has been ruled out by those objections. As to the Big Bang, that’s the best theory on offer as far as we know, and it is not inconsistent with the Genesis 1 account, so, why not?

Any other responses from anyone else?
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,505
3,695
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I warned you. And then I warned you again.

So here I am unloading my study Q&A on Genesis in general, and then on Genesis 1. Feedback welcome. Read this to learn what I am up to and what I am trying to accomplish.


General Questions
Who wrote Genesis? Or, given that the traditional answer is that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch, what are we to make of criticisms of this?

If you believe the Bible itself, then you believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, because it says so; Jesus attributes authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46) The apostles also said as much. The Documentary Hypothesis, which attributes different texts within the Genesis (and the Pentateuch as a whole) to different sources, which were cobbled together, has a number of well-known problems. Since my focus in this Q&A commentary is exposition rather than apologetics or critical analysis, I will say no more.

Why does it matter—if it does matter—that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch?

It matters because it goes to the very heart of the question whether the Bible can be believed. The Bible gets whatever authority it carries from the fact that it is the word of God, and it claims to be the word of God in significant part because that very word was communicated by God himself directly to Moses, who, as the text says, was instructed to write it down. As the ground of the Bible’s supposed credibility, there are no more important doctrines than these. If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the Bible loses its credibility. The Pentateuch generally gets its authority not because of some priestly traditions (as the Documentary Hypothesis says), but because it was authored by Moses, with whom God himself spoke and to whom he even dictated. If Moses did not get this law from God, and did not write it down himself, and if instead it was written down later by later priests who were frankly lying about the nature of their real source—indeed, some would have to have lied, because they would have invented some words that they deliberately intended to pass off as Moses’ ownthen why believe the rest of this tradition, which is lying about something so foundational and deeply important? If the Pentateuch is unreliable, then the rest comes tumbling down like a house of cards.





What word is used for “create” in Gen. 1:1 and why does it matter?

The word in Gen. 1:1 for “created,” בָּרָ֣א or bara, is used here, while in other contexts, a word meaning “made,” וַיַּ֣עַשׂ or wayyasas, is used. The distinction appears to be that between creating out of nothing and assembling out of pre-existing parts—between originating and transforming. Basically, God is said to bara things out of nothing, while he wayyasas them by assembling them from pre-existing things.

Moses was not the author of the book of Genesis but its editor! Adam was created innocent and perfect and very intelligent. He knew how to communicate with god. We know form history that information was passed down orally, on steles (or staffs) , papyrus, animal skins etc. so Moses had the records of the beginnings with Him (probably rewritten several times) and wrote Genesis from these under the inspiration of God.

to say that the other 65 books were written in near or actual time and that Genesis was given to Moses after nearly 3 millennium is silly.

In Genesis we see these words: "Now these are the generations of....". The words generation is toledeth and those show the divisions of the writings. Adam wrote through His generation then Seth, then Lamech, etc.etc.
 

BibleStu

Member
Jul 8, 2021
67
13
8
55
Indiana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Moses was not the author of the book of Genesis but its editor!

Why not both? Yes, he had inspiration and sources, but the words were (mostly) his choosing. Unless you think his inspiration was word-for-word.

Adam was created innocent and perfect and very intelligent. He knew how to communicate with god.

See above on two senses of the word “perfect.” He might have been morally perfect, or perfectly acceptable to the Lord, but he was both fallible and like a child in terms of his acquaintance with evil, suffering, and all the trappings of later human culture.

We know form history that information was passed down orally, on steles (or staffs) , papyrus, animal skins etc. so Moses had the records of the beginnings with Him (probably rewritten several times) and wrote Genesis from these under the inspiration of God.

We have no evidence of writing that predates the Sumerians and Egyptians. The Bible is wholly silent on the question how writing arose. Oral traditions, especially across such a relatively few generations (i.e., Noah could have known people who spoke to Adam, etc.), could easily explain the transmission of such info, without written records. I think probably Moses learned to write in Egypt. There’s no indication that those who preceded him in the Bible accounts could.

to say that the other 65 books were written in near or actual time and that Genesis was given to Moses after nearly 3 millennium is silly.

Not sure how you are interpreting me here. Doesn’t sound like anything I said.

In Genesis we see these words: "Now these are the generations of....". The words generation is toledeth and those show the divisions of the writings. Adam wrote through His generation then Seth, then Lamech, etc.etc.

Right, I’ll get into that in Gen 2, where the first toledoth appears.
 

post

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2021
1,544
601
113
_
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Moses was not the author of the book of Genesis but its editor! Adam was created innocent and perfect and very intelligent. He knew how to communicate with god. We know form history that information was passed down orally, on steles (or staffs) , papyrus, animal skins etc. so Moses had the records of the beginnings with Him (probably rewritten several times) and wrote Genesis from these under the inspiration of God.

to say that the other 65 books were written in near or actual time and that Genesis was given to Moses after nearly 3 millennium is silly.

In Genesis we see these words: "Now these are the generations of....". The words generation is toledeth and those show the divisions of the writings. Adam wrote through His generation then Seth, then Lamech, etc.etc.

i'm of the opinion that God taught all these things to Moses while he was on mt. Sinai -- maybe even took him in the spirit to see them, who knows?
it's speculation, necessarily.
what we do know is that Moses has been attributed authorship of Genesis ((& the whole Torah)) by pretty much every source throughout history. however Moses came to this info, he is the one who wrote it all down.
 

post

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2021
1,544
601
113
_
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I also don't believe in the Big Bang and evolution.

you might be interested to know that the whole big-bang thing is relatively new, and atheistic evolutionary science absolutely HATES it. they need very long periods of time with very uniform characteristics for their evolution ideas to have any merit, but big-bang looks a lot more like the truth, and that means the universe has radically changed over time, and causes all kinds of problems for evolution and very-old-universe theories. one very important 'problem' to look into is 'the horizon problem' -- the universe seems to all have the same temperature ((see 'cosmic background radiation')) but it's too big for it to have all evened out. this implies things move waaay faster than light or the speed of light hasn't been constant all this time. if the speed of light hasn't been the same for the whole age of the universe, then the age of the universe is seriously thrown into question, because all astrophysics etc depends on it being constant.

what evolutionists want is called 'steady-state universe' theory. that's what everyone thought until Hubble came along and discovered red-shifted light correlating with far away galaxies. the idea that the universe has existed forever and has always looked pretty much the same.

they HATE big bang because it means the universe obviously had a beginning. if it has a beginning it has Someone who made it begin :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BibleStu

post

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2021
1,544
601
113
_
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is not to say that it was preferable that Adam and Eve lost their innocence and became more sophisticated

I don't know that I'd call 'gaining firsthand experience in committing sin and experiencimg death' becoming more sophisticated.

Every indication is that Adam was/is extremely intelligent and wise. Satan could not deceive him. He named every living soul apart from himself. He recognized and believed the proto-Evangelion and God called him 'become like Us' - something He didn't say about Eve, which is, he didn't gain this from the fruit as Satan had suggested.

If Adam is extraordinarily intelligent and wise, doesn't it stand to reason that his wife was likewise, even if not at the same degree? The conversation she has with the Devil is not child's play; God makes a point of drawing our attention to the fact the Serpent is more clever than any other creature. He has to be, to trick Woman.

in fact it's possible their minds degraded as the corruption of sin and death worked in their bodies. This is what we read of later concerning those who are not set free from sin, that their thoughts are darkened ((Romans 1)) - we'd have to be able to answer the question, are they saved or not saved? How effective is the blood-covering God made for them, ah!

However in that they have Salvation through Christ prophesied to them, they certainly do gain knowledge of God. You might say, they learn goodness from evil.
 

post

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2021
1,544
601
113
_
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As Abel seemed to be a meat-eater; he raised sheep and set aside the fat for God.

There are reasons to keep flocks besides eating them.
We have to understand why they are making an offering. Is this the first time they have done this, in Genesis 4? I do not think so.
I think this is commemorating the first passover, when God kills a Lamb to make tunics for their parents. I think every year they do this. I think they are very very sad when they do - remember Adam knows this lambs name. He named all of them.

So consider this scenario:
Abel keeps the flocks, tending them as his parents had tended the garden. Every year he and his brother take one and offer it to God as a rembrance and a supplication before God. and it's like Abraham offering Isaac, they are still very much in touch with all the other living souls ((creature is a mistranslation. Look it up in Hebrew. They are living souls, just like Adam)). It is a very somber occasion.
And Cain doesn't have sheep. He has to go get a blood covering from someone else. He has to receive it. He has to depend on someone for his redemption.
Cain hates that, and resents the One who provides him a Lamb. Abel is a figure of Christ here, freely offering salvation - but Cain instead decides one year - say maybe when Abel is about 33 - to offer his own works instead of the free gift. God says this is unacceptable. So Cain murders the one who had so many times before freely offered him a Lamb for his covering.

Interesting eh
 

post

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2021
1,544
601
113
_
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
All of Genesis is pictures of Christ. The whole Bible is. See John 5:39
IMO until we are seeing Him testified of in the narrative, we are not fully understanding what the narrative is really about. They are real, literal events - and they are portraying aspects of our Lord all of it is like this.

That's how I arrive at what I said about Cain and Abel. Because it is picturing Christ. Find Him and we find the truth.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Moses was not the author of the book of Genesis but its editor!
That statement contradicts what Christ said about Moses. The Author was God, but the writer was Moses. When Jesus called the Torah "Moses" He included all five books in that, and the Torah is one scroll. There was no "editing" of the Torah by anyone, and that is just modernist nonsense.
 

Curtis

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2021
3,268
1,573
113
70
KC
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I warned you. And then I warned you again.

So here I am unloading my study Q&A on Genesis in general, and then on Genesis 1. Feedback welcome. Read this to learn what I am up to and what I am trying to accomplish.


General Questions
Who wrote Genesis? Or, given that the traditional answer is that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch, what are we to make of criticisms of this?

If you believe the Bible itself, then you believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, because it says so; Jesus attributes authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46) The apostles also said as much. The Documentary Hypothesis, which attributes different texts within the Genesis (and the Pentateuch as a whole) to different sources, which were cobbled together, has a number of well-known problems. Since my focus in this Q&A commentary is exposition rather than apologetics or critical analysis, I will say no more.

Why does it matter—if it does matter—that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch?

It matters because it goes to the very heart of the question whether the Bible can be believed. The Bible gets whatever authority it carries from the fact that it is the word of God, and it claims to be the word of God in significant part because that very word was communicated by God himself directly to Moses, who, as the text says, was instructed to write it down. As the ground of the Bible’s supposed credibility, there are no more important doctrines than these. If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the Bible loses its credibility. The Pentateuch generally gets its authority not because of some priestly traditions (as the Documentary Hypothesis says), but because it was authored by Moses, with whom God himself spoke and to whom he even dictated. If Moses did not get this law from God, and did not write it down himself, and if instead it was written down later by later priests who were frankly lying about the nature of their real source—indeed, some would have to have lied, because they would have invented some words that they deliberately intended to pass off as Moses’ ownthen why believe the rest of this tradition, which is lying about something so foundational and deeply important? If the Pentateuch is unreliable, then the rest comes tumbling down like a house of cards.

What is the function of Genesis 1?

There is, as one commentator pointed out, a polemic at work in Genesis 1. This polemic does not aim to undermine modern science, of course—but instead ancient pagan religions. Genesis stands against ancient religions that taught that different gods were responsible for different pieces of the creation, that some were champions of chaos and evil, that matter pre-existed the gods, that the gods were limited, had foibles, and were even mortal. Only one divine personage matters here, and it is not the highest god of some pantheon. It is the god with a capital “g,” God himself, El Shaddai, God Almighty—named Lord, or Yahweh, i.e., he whose essence is to exist, and whose existence is sovereign. The text, qua polemic, replaced pantheons of capricious and deeply flawed gods with a single all-powerful creator god.


First Day: Creation and Light
Prefatory note—I do not plan to ask quite this many questions about later chapters, but this one is particularly important, one or perhaps two orders of magnitude more important than later chapters, and it presents all sorts of intriguing and puzzling claims and issues. So the extra space seems well worth it.

Why is the plural form of the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִ֔ים, or elohim, employed for “God” (e.g., Gen. 1:1) and why is a pluralized word meaning “in our image” (בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ, betzalmenu) used (1:26), if “the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:4)?

A common and traditional explanation is theological: this is because the Holy Spirit and Jesus were part of the Godhead, and it was, apparently, acceptable to refer to the Godhead using the plural. While true enough, it does not seem this is why the plural was used here, because the author of this text presumably did not believe in a trinitarian Godhead and hence not intend to refer to one. But perhaps the author was inspired to use the plural, for reasons he himself did not quite understand. Another traditional explanation, however, is possible: this was what is called in Hebrew grammar the emphatic plural or the plural of majesty. By using the plural form (for the noun) with singular verb forms, the author conveys particular respect or emphasis. So this was not any old god; it was God.

Of course, plenty of other texts in the Old Testament make the latter statement obviously true. So, apparently, calling God “elohim” was a way of reverently magnifying him. What did God create first, precisely?

As the text says, he created “the heaven and the earth.” This is a phrase that Sailhamer calls a hendiadys—a unitary concept formed out of two words conjoined with “and”—to mean the entire universe. This does not mean that he first created everything in all its glory and detail, because in the very next sentence, he says the earth that he just created was “without form, and void.” Also, see the next question.


So did God create the universe ex nihilo in Gen. 1:1, according to the Bible? What reason is there to think so?

Yes, although perhaps the text does not say so in a way that would satisfy a critical philosopher on the point. The argument, briefly stated, is theological: the first sentence of the Bible is, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” Is there anything other than the heaven and the earth? The author doubtless did not think so; and if so, then this statement amounts to saying that God created everything there was to create. Peter in Acts 4:24 is perhaps more explicit on this point: “Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that is in them”. Even more pointed is a verse that Grudem rightly makes much of in this connection: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Heb. 11:3) Unless the author here is saying—as he very probably is not—that visible things are made out of invisible things, this implies that all visible things are made ex nihilo.

What word is used for “create” in Gen. 1:1 and why does it matter?

The word in Gen. 1:1 for “created,” בָּרָ֣א or bara, is used here, while in other contexts, a word meaning “made,” וַיַּ֣עַשׂ or wayyasas, is used. The distinction appears to be that between creating out of nothing and assembling out of pre-existing parts—between originating and transforming. Basically, God is said to bara things out of nothing, while he wayyasas them by assembling them from pre-existing things.

Moses didn’t write the law of Moses, as in inventing the law in his head.

Moses wrote down what Yahweh commanded in the law, and put it in a book:

Deu 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

Deu 30:16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Deu 6:23 And he brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers.

Deu 6:24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

Deu 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us

God also gave Moses the history of creation, in case you were implying Moses dreamed up the Genesis creation account.

Shalom Aleichem
 

Curtis

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2021
3,268
1,573
113
70
KC
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So did God create the universe ex nihilo in Gen. 1:1, according to the Bible? What reason is there to think so?

Yes, although perhaps the text does not say so in a way that would satisfy a critical philosopher on the point. The argument, briefly stated, is theological: the first sentence of the Bible is, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” Is there anything other than the heaven and the earth? The author doubtless did not think so; and if so, then this statement amounts to saying that God created everything there was to create. Peter in Acts 4:24 is perhaps more explicit on this point: “Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that is in them”. Even more pointed is a verse that Grudem rightly makes much of in this connection: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Heb. 11:3) Unless the author here is saying—as he very probably is not—that visible things are made out of invisible things, this implies that all visible things are made ex nihilo.

What word is used for “create” in Gen. 1:1 and why does it matter?

The word in Gen. 1:1 for “created,” בָּרָ֣א or bara, is used here, while in other contexts, a word meaning “made,” וַיַּ֣עַשׂ or wayyasas, is used. The distinction appears to be that between creating out of nothing and assembling out of pre-existing parts—between originating and transforming. Basically, God is said to bara things out of nothing, while he wayyasas them by assembling them from pre-existing things.

I think it’s believed by most Christians that what was made is comprised of atoms, which are invisible to the naked eye - so that which appears is made out of that which cannot be seen.

Creating seemingly out of nothing is interesting, in that Einstein showed by his famous formula that states: Energy = mass times the speed of light squared, that matter is solidified energy that can be converted back into energy.

In fact, in quantum physics, atoms are not made up of particles, but of energy packets called Quanta.

And in string theory atoms are made of vibrating strings, instead of particles.

Taking all three together: Einstein, Quantum physics, and string theory - matter is made of energy vibrating at such a very high frequency, that it appears to be, or is, a solid mass.

And God spoke it all into being using words.

Amazing.

God, who dwells in unapproachable light, or energy, spoke matter into existence from pure energy.
 

forever

Member
Jul 7, 2021
162
12
18
51
Kampen
Faith
Christian
Country
Netherlands
That's it. Feedback? I'll post what I have for Gen 2 in a day or two (unless I'm told not to).

i m proud
your reasoning is good and buildup as well

but please try forget 'this earth' first ;
you know that Heaven is 'in the east'
and that there is "an evil dimension in the West",
as where the goat came from , in Daniel

.. in the 'midsection' inbetween both
is a "dualistic realm" [imagine the pepsi logo]
of which the northern half is corrupted-masculine , a monster called 'behemoth',
and the south one 'dualistic feminine', the monster leviathan
okay

the twerm "sea" always means "[evil-] dimension"
while 'waters' is "eden's dimension" (compare 'living waters')
-- but be aware that scripture is not word-for-word true , that is , parts are corrupted ,
either by genuine scribal errors [or , as prophets , deliberate]

so
when God "seperates the seas (not 'waters') ,
he seperated the pepsi logo ,
and built eden inbetween :
this is the reason that the land only appears in line 4

...you d need to read Enoch as well , he describes these realms ,
and says that "after eden fell , it will not take long before the dualistic realm
will mingle again [read : be one whole again] ;
see , eden was placed in the centre of that dualistic realm , to break it's power ;
but after eden fell , that realm 'united again'

so the eden-paradise was upon "Gods holy mountain", tsiun ,
which was in the centre of that dualistic realm , ruling both
[and when eden will be restored - soon - she will rule again in the centre]

... the "tree of good and evil" was ""a represent OF that dualistic realm",
since good is not 'Gods good' but corrupted 'good' ,
and Adam gave them the right to rule again

after paradise fell , a region was created above eden ,
we know that as 'mystery-babylon',
together with the solarplane and planets and earth as we know it
- so that was not created by God

..the deluge therefore was not 'on earth'
but represents a dimensional change
from us living in eden to us living on this earth

many think that God showed the rainbow to Noah
but it were the eloheim , the deities [=spirits] ,
first because that story is repeated 4 times , meaning to us : pay attention , read carefully ! ,
but second because a rainbow belongs to a curbed dimension [=read , serpentine ; of good and evil]
but also ofcourse because noah got drunk :
while when he was born in eden [=in the other reality] ,
his father panicked because he thought he d gotten an angel as son
...while ofcourse God dont make a [rain-bow-] covenant
and later annull that by destroying earth [Revelation]

and many things more
- i for one am curious ; )
 

BibleStu

Member
Jul 8, 2021
67
13
8
55
Indiana
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't know that I'd call 'gaining firsthand experience in committing sin and experiencimg death' becoming more sophisticated.

Sophistication isn’t necessarily better; adults are said to be more sophisticated than children precisely because of their experience with the seedy underside of life.

Every indication is that Adam was/is extremely intelligent and wise. Satan could not deceive him.

Both of these claims are not at all clear to me, but better discussed in the context of Gen 2-3, which I’ll post soon. Two things are very clear in any case: he was fallible (and so not perfect in that sense) and he learned something as a result of eating of the tree.

He named every living soul apart from himself. He recognized and believed the proto-Evangelion

That’s quite an inference, but again I’ll push back in that in discussing Ch. 3.

and God called him 'become like Us' - something He didn't say about Eve, which is, he didn't gain this from the fruit as Satan had suggested.

(a) The Bible often talks about just the man when all humanity is meant. (b) The total context of the 3:22 makes clear that the fruit did make Adam more like “one of us” in some sense. The question really is just what sense is meant. If you have an alternative theory, I don’t know what it would be.

If Adam is extraordinarily intelligent and wise, doesn't it stand to reason that his wife was likewise, even if not at the same degree? The conversation she has with the Devil is not child's play; God makes a point of drawing our attention to the fact the Serpent is more clever than any other creature. He has to be, to trick Woman.

Of course they were like innocent children. They had no experience of evil, nor of human nature beyond each other. I personally see no good evidence here that they were especially intelligent, and anyway, intelligence does not always confer wisdom or the experience necessary to anticipate trickery, especially in a young world wholly devoid of trickery (before the Serpent).

in fact it's possible their minds degraded as the corruption of sin and death worked in their bodies. This is what we read of later concerning those who are not set free from sin, that their thoughts are darkened ((Romans 1)) - we'd have to be able to answer the question, are they saved or not saved? How effective is the blood-covering God made for them, ah!

However in that they have Salvation through Christ prophesied to them, they certainly do gain knowledge of God. You might say, they learn goodness from evil.

Your overall point seems to be that Adam and Eve (or maybe just Adam?) were perfect after all, contrary to me. You don’t address the distinction I drew, between moral and developmental perfection. There is no doctrine that rests on the frankly implausible claim that Adam and Eve were developmentally perfect. Suppose them be as “intelligent” as you like, they still had a heck of a lot to learn. Besides, as I said, they were both made manifestly fallible because they fell, and they were both punished severely by God as a result.

I discuss these things in more depth in chs. 2-3.