Author Topic: A Journey Thru Genesis (Read 7822 times)

guest8 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 17, 2019, 11:02:27 am »

Quote from: Olde Tymer on January 17, 2019, 10:03:51 am

.
● Gen 3:21 . . And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

Precisely what species of animal God slaughtered in order to make the Adams their first suit of real clothing is unknown.

That day, humans learned something about the advantages of leather goods. Most of it is produced from cattle hides: calfskin, goatskin, kidskin, sheepskin, and lambskin. Other hides and skins used include those of the horse, pig, kangaroo, deer, crocodile, alligator, seal, walrus, and of late; python. Humans have used animal skins for a variety of practical purposes since ancient times, and to this good day leather is still a useful material all around the world.

The exact cut and design of their garments isn't specified; the Hebrew words kethoneth (keth-o'-neth) and/or kuttoneth (koot-to'-neth) just indicate a shirt, or covering; as hanging from the shoulder.

A garment hanging from the shoulder indicates that Eve's **** days were over; although that wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility that she may have become the Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel of her day and created some interesting necklines.

The garments actually facilitated the people's association with God. They were unbearably uncomfortable around their maker in the buff, even in the semi-buff, and that was principally the reason they hid from the Lord when He came calling. However, fig leaves aren't very durable; they're merely an expedient. God showed them a much better way-- actually a way they would never have thought of all by themselves because who would have guessed that animals could be killed and stripped of their hides for clothing until God showed them?

The point to note is that the clothing humanity's maker crafted for the Adams didn't cost them one red cent nor did they have to contribute even the slightest bit of labor to its construction. God slaughtered the animals, treated the hides, and fabricated the garments Himself; and gave the clothing to them totally free of charge and no strings attached. However, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the couple watched how God went about the whole business so they'd know how to take care of themselves.

NOTE: They'd eventually have to know how to make fire; no doubt God showed them how to do that too.

I believe God went to all that trouble for a couple of reasons.

First; because He wasn't indifferent to their situation; rather, God felt compassion for the Adams-- defined as sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it. And secondly; He didn't want anything hampering His association with the humans. In other words, Adam's felt-shame and embarrassment over undress was a barrier between himself and his maker, so God showed him a really good way to overcome it: a way that not only improved the quality of Adam's association with God; but also greatly enhanced his limited survival skills.

● Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God said: Now that Man has become as one of us

Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). But that image and likeness stopped short of "one of us". In other words: humanity didn't come from the hand of God as an equal; i.e. though humanity was given the status of divine beings; humans are imitations rather than actual deities-- true gods are impervious to death, humans die like flies. (Ps 82:6-7)

Seeing as how humanity wasn't created "as one of us" then we're safe to conclude that humanity made itself "one of us"; i.e. made itself an autonomous deity setting its own standards of right and wrong.

Unfortunately humanity, as an autonomous deity, isn't God's associate, rather, His competitor; i.e. a rival sheik so to speak.

From the limited amount of information we're given, it's readily seen that it's fairly easy to make one's self an autonomous deity; it's only necessary to rebel against constituted authority; viz: go your own way instead of complying with the laws, rules, and dictates of a higher power; viz: anarchy. (cf. Judg 17:6 and Isa 53:6)

● Gen 3:22b . . discerning good and evil,

Discerning good and evil isn't a bad thing per se; that is; if it's an instructed discernment rather than a natural, intuitive discernment. (Rom 12:2 and Heb 5:13-14)

● Gen 3:22c . . what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!

The Old Testament Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't always indicate infinity. Normally it just means perpetual as "in perpetuity" viz: indefinitely; which Webster's defines as: having no exact limits.

The thing is: God predicted Adam's demise; so in order to ensure that the prediction came to pass; God had to cut off his access to the tree of life; which is a pretty interesting tree seeing as how it's not only an elixir, but also a remedy for whatever ails you. (Rev 22:2)

The tree of life didn't contain enough nutrients to give Adam eternal life. It couldn't even give him immortality. But the tree could've given Adam perpetual youth; but even then, only so long as he supplemented his diet with regular doses of it; for example: I have an under-active thyroid gland that if left untreated would eventuate in my untimely death. But so long as I continue to supplement my diet with a prescribed daily dose of a medication called levoxyl, I can expect to live to a normal old age.

However; I can't get by on just one dose of levoxyl, nor can I take a lifetime of doses all at once. Levoxyl has to be taken a little at a time on a daily basis. What I'm saying is: as long as Adam supplemented his diet with nutrients from that tree on a regular basis; he wouldn't die of natural causes; thus he had the potential to remain forever twenty-one. But that was not to be since God had already decreed that Adam lose his life for disobeying an explicit command when he was fully apprised of the consequences for doing so.
_

You Said:"A garment hanging from the shoulder indicates that Eve's **** days were over; although that wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility that she may have become the Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel of her day and created some interesting necklines.

Seeing as how humanity wasn't created "as one of us" then we're safe to conclude that humanity made itself "one of us"; i.e. made itself an autonomous deity setting its own standards of right and wrong."

No, The morals we of True Believers go by those morals God gave us. In Eden, He had one commandment and that was not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. EVE and then ADAM did eat and brought upon evil(Sin) for everyone of us from birth.

Mankind would like to think it is an autonomous Diety but there will be a day of reckoning for those non-believers, Rev 4:1 -> 20:11-14.

In the, OT the necklines of women were covered up as just showing the lower legs was considered indecent.

Your view of Genesis is skewed by your religious doctrine, not by the WORD of GOD.

Have a good day SIR:

Blade

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #40 on:** January 18, 2019, 07:58:34 am »

.
● Gen 3:23-24 . . So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he was taken. He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #41 on:** January 19, 2019, 04:40:06 pm »

.
● Gen 4:1a . . Now the man knew his wife Eve,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #42 on:** January 21, 2019, 08:59:37 am »

.
● Gen 4:2a . . She then bore his brother Abel.

Abel's name is from hebel (heh'bel) and means: emptiness or futility. Figuratively: something transitory and unsatisfactory. Poor Eve; she's only had two kids and already motherhood has lost its appeal. Cain was her very first pregnancy. It was a new, exciting adventure. Well, Abel's birth was no big deal. He was redundant; just another bun in the oven. The first one is the best. After that, they're all Same-O, Same-O.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew word translated "sheep" is either tso'n (tsone) or tse'own (tseh one') which mean a flock; defined by Webster's as a group of birds or mammals assembled or herded together. So you can see there that "sheep" is an arbitrary choice of words. Abel could just as easily have been a cowboy wrangling bovine and/or tending goats rather than sheep; but I won't argue the point. Sheep will do.

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

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

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #43 on:** January 22, 2019, 09:59:33 am »

.
● Gen 4:3-4a . . It came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to The Lord of the fruit of the ground. And Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

● Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed.

Now, assuming for the moment that Cain's offering was correct; then why didn't God accept it? Well; before God snubbed Cain's offering, He first snubbed Cain. The reason given for Cain's rejection is an elephant in the middle of the room that quite a few Bible students seem content to ignore.
_

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #44 on:** January 23, 2019, 10:23:13 am »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Luke 11:49-51 says that Cain's kid brother Abel was a prophet; so Cain at least had a verbal source, which is adequate enough. For example Gen 18:17-19 where God predicted that Abraham would pass his spiritual knowledge on to his posterity. Seeing as there's no biblical evidence that Abraham's knowledge was in written form, then I propose that we can safely assume it was all in his head, i.e. verbal.

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps the classic example is the one below.

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

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

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #45 on:** January 24, 2019, 11:38:19 am »

.
● Gen 4:7b . . But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #46 on:** January 25, 2019, 10:15:40 am »

.
● Gen 4:9 . . Yhvh said to Cain: Where is your brother Abel? And he said: I don't know. Am I my brother's keeper?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: The punishments that God inflicted upon Cain weren't according to the letter of a legislated code. They've been judgments that've taken Cain's personality into consideration along with his conduct rather than his conduct alone. God is at liberty to proceed that way in situations where no law has been broken.
_

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #47 on:** January 27, 2019, 12:53:06 pm »

.
● Gen 4:13 . . Cain said to the Lord: My punishment is too great to bear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #48 on:** January 28, 2019, 07:33:28 am »

.
● Gen 4:17a . . Cain knew his wife,

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

Prehistoric inbreeding was apparently common; and in point of fact quite necessary if humanity was to be fruitful and increase and fill the Earth. (Gen 1:28)

Take for example Noah and his three sons and their wives. Nobody else survived the Flood; ergo: Shem's, Ham's, and Japheth's children married amongst themselves-- brothers with sisters and/or cousins with cousins. (Gen 9:18-19)

Obviously the human genome was very pure back in those days. The proof of it is prehistoric human life's amazing longevity-- Adam lived to be 930, and Noah to 950.

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

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

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

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

Whether Cain actually lived in a permanent settlement is doubtful since he was stuck with vagrancy and wandering. Cain's city was very likely nothing more than a migratory village like those of the American West's early-day Native Americans.

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

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

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

Lamech's marriages are the very first incidence of polygamy in the Bible, and I have yet to see a passage where God either approved or disapproved of it other than the restrictions imposed upon Jewish monarchs (Deut 17:17) and Christian church officers. (1Tim 3:2, 1Tim 3:12, and Titus 1:6)

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

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

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #49 on:** January 29, 2019, 08:33:40 am »

.
● 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).
_

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #50 on:** January 30, 2019, 10:56:26 am »

.
● Gen 4:23-24 . . And Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice! O wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech! I have slain a man for wounding me, and a lad for bruising me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: God instructed Joseph and his wife to give her baby the name Jesus (Matt 1:21, Luke 1:31) and claimed the boy as His own son. (Luke 1:32, Matt 17:5)

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently up to this point in time, people addressed God in a sort of general way instead of a personal way.

According to a note in the Stone Tanach, the four letters of this name are those of the Hebrew words "He always was, He always is, and He always will be" signifying that Yhvh is timeless, perpetual, and infinite; ergo: self existent.
_

Olde Tymer · « **Reply #51 on:** January 31, 2019, 01:51:01 pm »

.
● Gen 5:1a . .This is the record of Adam's line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

patrick jane forums

News:

User

Stats ezBlock

Author Topic: A Journey Thru Genesis (Read 7822 times)

guest8

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Olde Tymer

Re: A Journey Thru Genesis

Related Topics

Recent Topics