Kicking Off With Genesis

  • 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!

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
-
Genesis 2:15-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of gaiety, for
death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this seriously." (Ecc
7:2)

/

In Genesis 2:17 it tells us that God warned Adam that if he ate the fruit from the Tree of knowing God and evil that he would "die the second death." The transliterated is "mont taamunt" where mont and taamunt are both derived from the same Hebrew Root word H:4171. God was warning Adam that if he ate of the fruit of the Tree of knowledge that he would become a candidate for the consequences of the second death in the distant future.

Sadly "mont" which has the meaning of "die" in this instance but is wrongly translated in English as "surely" and "taamunt" which has the meaning of "the second death" is also wrongly translated as just "die."

In Revelation 20:14 both the bottomless pit, i.e. the deep from Genesis 1:2 and the second death is cast into the Lake of fire so that they will no longer existed in eternity.

A very different understanding to the one that you provided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
day must be 24hrs, especially according to context because one cannot have six seconds or minutes or hours or months or years shall thou labour or a local flood after forty thousand years of non stop rain or resurrection that just has not even happened after three thousand years but "ye shall surely die in the day that you eat of the forbidden fruit" could be true in Adam's case if that day was a thousand years since Adam died just within a thousand years - twinc

If we do a word search for the Hebrew word with the embedded Hebrew root word H:3117 as is found in Genesis 1:5 in the expression "the first day" we would discover that within the Westminister Text that this word is different to the word for day that was created by the Sun.

As such, the length of each "day" of creation is very different to a 24 hr period of time that we understand as a "solar day."

This difference is also discernible when God after His Sabbath day of rest went and looked closely at the activities of man around the time of Noah and his birth. But that is getting in front of the story being told by the originator of this thread.
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
-
Genesis 3:5b-6

Gen 3:5b . . who know good from evil.

I think it safe to assume that good and evil in this instance wasn't limited to
morality, rather, included the difference between smart and dumb, e.g. it's
smart to set aside something for the future, while its dumb to spend every
penny from payday to payday. It's also dumb to marry the first person you
meet, while smart to make some comparisons.

The Serpent was correct about one thing though. Eve would know good from
evil after eating from the tree alright; only he didn't tell her that the knowing
would be humanistic rather than divine, i.e. hers would be a natural knowing
rather than an enlightened knowing. In other words; man wasn't designed to
be a god; but rather, the student of a god.

"I know, O Yhvh, that a man's way is not in himself; nor is it in a man who
walks to direct his steps." (Jer 10:23)

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, which Webster's defines as careful to consider all circumstances
and possible consequences, i.e. to be smart and/or prudent.

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 for us. So we end up seeking advice and guidance from experts
because us dummies just aren't sharp enough to go it alone.

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 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.

You can just see Eve's eyes brighten from the sugar rush as she realized the
Serpent was right after all-- she didn't drop dead. So the woman brought it
home and convinced her man to try it too.

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. Adam knew exactly what
he was doing. He went into it with eyes wide open.

"Adam was not the one deceived" (1Tim 2:14)

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.

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 God was wrong. I think most husbands would
sympathize with Adam. I mean: here's your wife sitting right beside you
happily munching away on something that you were led to believe was toxic,
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
was?

Adam was told by a competent source that the forbidden tree was lethal.
Though he could see for himself that Eve was experiencing no ill side effects;
he should have refused to taste it until at the very least he consulted with
somebody who knows what they're talking about: which in his case was the
maker of the fruit.

There's a useful lesson to be learned from it. In other words: Faith doesn't
rely entirely upon empirical evidence, but instead; believes what's revealed
to it rather than only what makes sense to it.

Eve's apparent immunity to the fruit's toxins wasn't really reason enough to
assume that God's instructions were unreliable. But even had they been
unreliable; it was still wrong of Adam to brush them aside and do as he
pleased. He was told not to eat the fruit. Whether it was actually toxic or
harmless is unimportant. This episode is primarily about the quality of
Adam's attitude towards authority rather than about the quality of the fruit.

/

Satan, the serpent drove a wedge between Eve and God and even her own husband, in that Satan force her to look for the answers for herself rather than go directly to God to hear first hand the reason why she should not eat from the tree of knowledge.

If you want to destroy a relationship between two people, then tell one of the two something about the other that makes that person question the validity of their relationship such that they cannot go to the other person to find out the truth from the horses mouth so to speak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
-
Genesis 3:15-16

Gen 3:15a . . I will put enmity between you and the woman,

I don't think the kind of enmity that God spoke of was the kind where
friends fall out of harmony; but rather, He decreed a sort of poetic justice;
viz: "You caused her downfall; and now I'm going to make it so that she
causes yours."

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 can also mean a product
and/or a result, and also fruit, plant, sowing-time, and/or progeny and
posterity.

For example: the 53rd chapter of Isaiah predicts that Yhvh's servant would
"see seed" in spite of the fact that Isaiah also predicted Yhvh's servant
would die and leave behind no posterity. In that case; zera' can't possibly
mean that Yhvh's servant would see biological seed; but rather, see the
fruits of his labor; which within the context of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah
consists of bearing the sins of many and thus shielding them from the wrath
of God.

Zera' is one of those words that can be either singular or plural, depending
upon the context. Other words like that are deer, sheep, Man, and head (as
in head of livestock). Every kid in a family can be called the parents' zera'
whether there's eight kids or a lone child.

Gen 3:15c . . He will pound your head, and you will bite his heel.

The Hebrew word translated "he" isn't gender specific. It can mean either
he, she, and/or it. So that Gen 3:15c could be-- and in some translations is
-translated: "It will pound your head, and you will bite its heel". The decision
to use "he" was an arbitrary choice; but seeing as how the Serpent, to my
knowledge, is unable to reproduce itself with biological offspring, I'd
recommend going with "it".

Anyway; from that point onwards the Serpent has made it his mission in life
to prevent Eve's seed from doing the very thing God predicted; eventuating
in Herod's slaughter of Jewish toddlers and Christ's execution.

Who are the Serpent's seed? Liars and Murderers; for starters (John 8:44).
Additional Serpentary seed are people who exist solely to satisfy their
passions and desires (Eph 2:1-3). And people given to rivalry and strife (Jas
3:14-15). Those kinds of seed are seed from the aspect of being products of
the Serpent's handiwork.

Gen 3:16a . . And to the woman He said: I will make most severe
your pangs in childbearing;

For many women, the pregnancy 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 childbirth 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 have been no more
painful than doing one's business in the ladies room-- and just as lacking in
danger to mom and baby.

Gen 3:16c . .Yet your urge 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.

Gen 3:16d . . and he shall rule over you.

That is probably one of the most hated verses in the whole Bible. 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 an equality
issue: it was a rebellion against male domination.

That rule 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. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their
own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the
church." (1Cor 14:33-35)

"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. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not
Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into
transgression." (1Tim 2:11-15)

How long the Adams lived together sans the imposition of a gender
hierarchy isn't stated; but evidently there was no need for it prior to the tree
incident. But the incident aptly demonstrates that manipulative women can
quickly lead men to ruin in no time at all because it's all too easy for them to
persuade men to behave themselves in ways contrary to their own better
judgment; which reminds me of a really cute line from "My Big Fat Greek
Wedding".

Toula Portokalos complains to her mother: "Ma, dad is so stubborn. What
he says goes. Ah, the man is the head of the house!"

Toula's mom, Maria Portokalos, responds: "Let me tell you something, Toula.
The man is the head, but the woman is the neck; and she can turn the head
any way she wants."

That's humorous but it's not a laughing matter. Many a man has been led
like sheep to the slaughter by women who got them to do things contrary to
their own better judgment.

/

Here we see the Covenant, between God and mankind, being expanded to take into account the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden with a future event that will undo the work of Satan in the garden of Eden.

We can also see the consequences of later writings such as the Holiness Code also embedded in this dialogue between God, the woman and mankind.
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
-
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; viz: a habit.

Whatever it was that God found displeasing in Cain's life at the time of the
minchah disaster was moved to the back burner at this point because
something far worse is looming on Cain's horizon; and it wasn't his kid
brother's murder; no, it's something far more fatal to one's spiritual welfare.

It's a perpetual unwillingness to talk things over with God and get some
things straightened out between the two of you. This is not just serious— it's
extremely serious and apparently quite common among people with Cain-ish
attitudes.

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

That attitude is one of the very reasons why some people are sent to hell.

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

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

This is the first mention of self control in the bible. In other words; yes, God
created humanity with the capability to choose the wrong paths for itself,
and the capability to choose the wrong behavior too; but that's only half the
story. God also created humanity with the capability to choose the right
paths for itself, and the capability to choose the right behavior.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Cain planned to explain Abel's death to his parents isn't stated. He
couldn't very well blame it on a carnivorous predator since man and beast
were on friendly terms prior to the Flood. It's my guess he set up the crime
scene to make it look like an accident.

/

In the above scriptural passage God was offering Cain redemption if he would trust in the Lord because the Lord was offering Cain help in doing it right.
 

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
In Genesis 2:17 it tells us that God warned Adam that if he ate the fruit from the Tree of knowing God and evil that he would "die the second death." The transliterated is "mont taamunt" where mont and taamunt are both derived from the same Hebrew Root word H:4171. God was warning Adam that if he ate of the fruit of the Tree of knowledge that he would become a candidate for the consequences of the second death in the distant future.

Sadly "mont" which has the meaning of "die" in this instance but is wrongly translated in English as "surely" and "taamunt" which has the meaning of "the second death" is also wrongly translated as just "die."

<snip>

Huh?

It is: mot tamut

They are verbs, the first, mot, is the infinitive binyan Qal, meaning "to die", the second is the Binyan Qal, future tense 2nd pers. masc. sing. "you will die". There is nothing mythical, mystical or anything else here. It is simply saying that be-yom (in the day) you eat from the tree, to die you will die.

Tamut means no such thing as "the second death", it is "you will die".

I have seen many do what you are attempting to do here. I have even seen some render evil for good and good for evil. I offer you a strong word of caution.

IHL,
Richard
 

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
If we do a word search for the Hebrew word with the embedded Hebrew root word H:3117 as is found in Genesis 1:5 in the expression "the first day" we would discover that within the Westminister Text that this word is different to the word for day that was created by the Sun.

Huh?

I do not own a copy of the "Westminister" text, however in the texts I do have a copy of, there are two occurrences of yom in Bere'shit (Genesis) 1:5: yom ; yom 'ekhad : day ; day one.

In verse 14 ha-yom ; the-day : u-le-yamim and-to/for-days conjunction-preposition-plural

In verse 16 ha-yom ; the-day

In verse 18 ba-yom ; in/over-the-day. The preposition beit here forms a contraction with the definite article.

Perhaps I am not seeing something and maybe you can show me. Otherwise, I see no differences here.
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Huh?

It is: mot tamut

They are verbs, the first, mot, is the infinitive binyan Qal, meaning "to die", the second is the Binyan Qal, future tense 2nd pers. masc. sing. "you will die". There is nothing mythical, mystical or anything else here. It is simply saying that be-yom (in the day) you eat from the tree, to die you will die.

Tamut means no such thing as "the second death", it is "you will die".

I have seen many do what you are attempting to do here. I have even seen some render evil for good and good for evil. I offer you a strong word of caution.

IHL,
Richard

Ezekiel 18 from memory would disagree with you.
 

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
Ezekiel 18 from memory would disagree with you.
Seems that we may have a disconnect in communication.

If you would like, we can examine the occurrences of "mot" within Ezekiel 18. Such as in v4, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32. I can readily transliterate them for you and we can see if there is any disagreement.

Eze 18:21 But if the wicked turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 None of his transgressions that he hath committed shall be remembered against him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

PS: How do you read 1 Peter 3:19-20?
 
Last edited:

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Seems that we may have a disconnect in communication.

If you would like, we can examine the occurrences of "mot" within Ezekiel 18. Such as in v4, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32. I can readily transliterate them for you and we can see if there is any disagreement.

Eze 18:21 But if the wicked turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 None of his transgressions that he hath committed shall be remembered against him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

PS: How do you read 1 Peter 3:19-20?
What is your source for the transliterated text?
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Genesis 4:20-22
Continuing from Post #58

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 very 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.

The interesting thing about an ancient twanging instrument is its string. How
did the Cainites make them? Of what material? 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 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
evident in Cain's day-- 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).

/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Miss Hepburn

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
What is your source for the transliterated text?
The source text, as in the Hebrew codex / manuscript?
Or the source / standard of the transliteration itself?

My primary goto is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia which is based upon the Leningrad Codex. However I can use the Masoretic text.

The transliteration is mine. If you would prefer, I can use the Michigan-Claremont standard.
 

twinc

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2011
1,593
265
83
93
Faith
Country
United Kingdom
If we do a word search for the Hebrew word with the embedded Hebrew root word H:3117 as is found in Genesis 1:5 in the expression "the first day" we would discover that within the Westminister Text that this word is different to the word for day that was created by the Sun.

As such, the length of each "day" of creation is very different to a 24 hr period of time that we understand as a "solar day."

This difference is also discernible when God after His Sabbath day of rest went and looked closely at the activities of man around the time of Noah and his birth. But that is getting in front of the story being told by the originator of this thread.

a 24hr day had nothing to do with the sun which was created on the fourth revolution of the earth on its axis - twinc
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Genesis 4:23-26
Continuing from Post #71

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 4:26a . . 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 Yhvh; 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.

/
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Genesis 5:1-8

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 includes every natural-born human being who ever lived
and/or will live, but the only branch in his tree that really counts is the one
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

Adam lived to be 930. If we compare that age to that of the average life
expectancy of American men today, Adam would have been an eleven year
old kid when Seth was born.

Eve understood Seth to be Abel's replacement. But that doesn't necessarily
mean Seth was the very next boy born into the Adams family after Abel. It
doesn't even mean Seth was her third child. 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.

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 human body 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;
which Webster's defines as reproduction; viz: biological progeny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Genesis 5:9-27

Gen 5:9 . .When Enosh had lived 90 years, he begot Kenan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
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. Being related
to holy men like rabbis, pastors or deacons 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.
Refuse, and it's curtains; no matter how important, nor well connected, your
relatives might be.

/
 

Jay Ross

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
6,760
2,523
113
QLD
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
-
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. Being related
to holy men like rabbis, pastors or deacons 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.
Refuse, and it's curtains; no matter how important, nor well connected, your
relatives might be.

/

Noah was 601 years old when the flood was over. Shem's son, Arpachshad was born 2 years after the flood was over so Noah would have been 603 years old when he was born. We also know that Shem was 100 years old when Arpachshad was born.

Genesis 11:10-11: - When Shem was a hundred years old, he became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood; Shem lived after the birth of Arpachshad five hundred years, and had other sons and daughters.

That means that Shem was born when Noah was 503 years old.
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
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 the very
same word that Genesis utilizes to evaluate God's handiwork in creation;
e.g. Light (Gen 1:4) Land and Seas (Gen 1:10) Vegetation (Gen 1:12) Sun,
Moon, and Stars (Gen 1:18) Birds and Aquatic Life (Gen 1:21) Beasts and
Bugs (Gen 1:25) and the finished product. (Gen 1:31)

Towb is one of those ambiguous Hebrew words that can be utilized as either
a noun or an adjective in a wide variety of applications. It can indicate
morality, it can indicate a tasty meal, it can indicate a job well done, it can
indicate a nice man, it can indicate a pretty dress, it can indicate a shapely
woman and/or a handsome man, and it can indicate an expert musician
and/or a really groovy song like Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance"

In my judicious estimation, when God's handiwork turned out "good" towb
indicates that the cosmos-- and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy -
came out just the way God wanted it to; perfectly suited to the purposes He
had in mind when He designed everything. But in this case; I think it's pretty
safe to assume towb indicates 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 precise identity of the "sons of God" has been debated. Some say they
were the sons of the aristocracy of that day who married attractive women
from among the commoners. Others say they were renegade spirit creatures
who cohabited with humans to produce a hybrid strain of hominid freaks.

Others say they were believing men who threw caution to the wind and built
themselves harems of irreverent women instead of marrying believing
women of like faith; viz: the men married infidels-- implying that "daughters
of men" were women who didn't fear the Bible's God. (e.g. Gen 26:34-35)

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?

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 sex and 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
sex 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)


NOTE: What might we get by crossing a sequoia cactus with a raccoon?
Nothing because the genetic chemistry of the cactus is incompatible with
that of a raccoon. What might we get by crossing a spirit being with a
human being? Nothing because the genetic chemistry of a being consisting
of spirit is incompatible with that of a being consisting of matter. I should
think that anyone with even average intelligence would have little trouble
understanding that it's impossible to get a woman pregnant by injecting her
womb with air.

"Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your
thinking be adults." (1Cor 14:20)

/
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Genesis 6:3-4

Gen 6:3a . . And Yhvh 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)

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 again seen as one and the same spirit)

Anyway, point being: there does come a time when God's patience runs out.
Not because He can't take it anymore, but because when human beings
become too decadent and too incorrigible, then any more reasoning with
them would be like throwing good money after bad; and risky too.

"Do not give what is sacred to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to
pieces." (Matt 7:6)

It's sad but true: there are people out there so devoid of spiritual values that
they're practically feral.

Contrary to the mushy, sob-sister brand of Christianity going around like
swine flu, there is a time when forgiveness is not only impractical, but it's
also unreasonable. Hell is populated with people who will never, ever be
forgiven. They crossed a line and now there's no going back; ever. God no
longer has any interest in their welfare. They are forgotten and ignored; and
can expect neither pity nor sympathy from God ever again.

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

The problem with flesh is it's brevity. Because people eventually die, God
has a limited amount of time to work with them before 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)

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. Jong Il 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.

Q: 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 descendants,
then nephiyl characteristics survived the Flood by riding it out in the DNA of
the people aboard the ark.

/
 
Last edited: