Gleanings from Genesis Lesson 2 Part 7 the Babel Dispersion

Doc Notes Gleanings from Genesis Lesson 2 Part 7 the Babel Dispersion

 

                 

Gentle Reader,

 

We might add just another word about the Noachian Flood before we continue to look at the Babel Dispersion. And that is the Noachian Flood should not be confused with the prehistoric flood of which our geologist speak. All around the crust of this planet there are the marks of a vast flood; but these are not that in Noah’s day was such as could have been left by the inudation of such short duration as that in Noah’s day, even if that in Noah’s day was universal. The flood to which geology bears witness is that of Genesis 1:2. It is to this, also that 2 Peter 3:5 refers.

 

And we also note, finally that when the whole Adamic race was destroyed there was one man and his family who "found grace" in the sight of God. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. (Gen 6:8-9) This man and his family were spared: it was vital for he was the tenth man from Adam in the Messianic line, from which the Saviour was to come in "the fullness of the time."

 

Satan may do his worst, and man may sink to his lowest and judgement may fall to the utermost; but the ultimate purpose of Jehovah cannot be thwarted. It moves on, and will yet triumph in a "new heavens and a new earth" wherein shall be righteousness and undimmed glory.

 

The Tower Of Babel

 

We must not think of the pre-flood age as one of primitive crudity. The indications are that it was the most remarkable civilization that our race has ever known. {Note; It is my belief that Adam and his progeny were as close to "perfect and intellectually superior as possible. We are told that today’s human being uses only  less than 1/10 of his brain can you imagine what we would have been like using 100% of our brains? We could continue to learn for an 1000 years and never fill up our understanding.}

 

 Human longevity in that era, uniformity of language, nearness to the Divine revelation and the freer communication between God and men-think what these must have meant. We get significant hints as to the arts and industries of that time in Genesis 4:20-24. But that first civilization, with its accumulation of knowledge and experience, its treasures of art and literature, its agriculture and industries, is now gone, and the Adamic race is to havea new start in Noah and his three sons with their families.

 

The record of the tower of Babel is one of the most well known but most misunderstood passages of the Bible. People remember in general terms the great tower, man’s challenge to God, and the confusion of language, but they usually remember the specific details imperfectly.

It’s a short record, so let’s read it now so we know what it actually says:

Genesis 11:
1 The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary.
2 When the people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
3 Then they said to one another, "Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly." (They had brick instead of stone and tar instead of mortar.)
4 Then they said, "Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth."
5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building.
6 And the Lord said, "If as one people all sharing a common language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be beyond them.
7 Come, let’s go down and confuse their language so they won’t be able to understand each other."
8 So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building the city.
9 That is why its name was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth.

It is a surprise to most people to realise that the Bible does not present the narrative of the tower of Babel as an explanation of how all the languages of the world came about, though many people wrongly believe it says this.

 

From the previous chapter of Genesis, we find that many nations with their own languages already existed outside the Middle East at this time:

Genesis 10:
4 The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim, and the Dodanim.
5 From these the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to its language, according to their families, by their nations.

From this record we can see that the descendants of Japheth already had their own languages at the time that the descendants of Ham had moved to Shinar. The Bible does not connect these two events, and although the history of Genesis 11 certainly steps back in time to the events of Genesis 10:9-10 (just after 2,900 BC), whereas the historical record of Genesis 10 contains events least as late as the building of Calah in verse 11 (about 1,200 BC), it does not make any reference to the descendants of Shem, Ham, or Japheth, or explain their diversity of language as a result of the events at Shinar (a diversity already referred to in Genesis 11:5-6, 20, 31).

 

The most decisive proof that this incident is not related in order to explain the origin of the world’s languages, is that the record says no such thing, and actually uses this event to explain something else entirely:

Genesis 11:
8 So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building the city.
9 That is why its name was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth.

The record explicitly uses this event to explain why the Hebrew name ‘Babel’ was given to this city. The record tells us exactly what it intends to use this event to explain, and it is certainly not to explain the origin of the world’s languages.

 

It is also important to understand that the Babel narrative is confined to a local area within Mesopotamia, in the Middle East. The record is not speaking of the entire globe. The ‘earth’ in verse 1 is to be understood in its local sense. We saw that this is the same language as was used to describe the flood.

 

The proof of this is found in the first two verses of Genesis 11:

* Verse 1: the ‘whole earth’ shared a common language, but Genesis 10:5 tells that many nations with their own languages already existed outside the Middle East at ths time, so the word ‘earth’ in chapter 11 cannot be speaking globally

 

* Verse 2: ‘the people moved eastward’, a statement which cannot refer to all the people on the planet (did all the people on the planet really move eastward?), and must therefore refer to a group of people belonging to a local area

 

* Verse 2: the people moved from the west and arrived in a plain in the land of Shinar, a statement which only makes sense if referring to a group of people moving eastward from a local area west of Shinar, and makes no sense if applied globally (people in India or Russia could not be said to be travelling ‘eastward’ to Babylon)

 

* Verse 2: the group of people was small enough to consider a plain in nearby Shinar to be an area sufficient to accommodate their new urban development, indicating that this refers to a local group of people, and not the entire planet

 

What then is the record intending to teach us? What lessons are we to learn from this?

Some have seen the narrative as condemning urbanization, connecting the tower of Babel with God’s calling of Abraham out of Ur (an event which takes place in the very next chapter). It is suggested that the urban dwellers at Babel were deliberately scattered by God in order to teach them that the nomadic lifestyle was acceptable to God, whereas the urban lifestyle was not.

 

Since the city of Ur belonged to the same civilization to which the tower of Babel belonged, and since God called Abraham out of the urban lifestyle to a nomadic lifestyle, this seems at first to be a legitimate conclusion. However, whilst there are certainly important connections between the tower of Babel and the call of Abraham (and the two narratives do appear to have been placed next to each other in deliberate contrast), God’s punishment of the people at Babel is clearly declared to be the Divine judgment on a certain attitude, not simply a way of life.

 

The urbanization at Babel is a symptom of that attitude, but it is the attitude rather than the symptom which is punished:

Genesis 11:
4 Then they said, "Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that11 we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered13 across the face of the entire earth."
6 And the Lord said, "If as one people all sharing a common language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be beyond them. [18]

[18] tn Heb "all that they purpose to do will not be withheld from them."

It is this attitude of challenging the Divine, the assumption that man can dominate not only the natural realm of his own environment, but also the Divine realm of heaven, which is the attitude God condemns. This challenge to Divine authority, and the remaking of God in the image of man, is the sin which the tower of Babel represents, an attitude which is displayed today whenever Babel is used as a sign of man’s achievements or aims.

 

In fact, the lessons of the tower of Babel are so well understood that for centuries the tower of Babel has been used as a symbol of the very attitudes God condemned there.

 

Now lets consider the Bable Dispersion fron external evidence

 

The Tower of Babel: Outside The Bible

 

Archaeological evidence proves that the Bible’s description of the tower of Babel is historically accurate on the following points:

* The description of the building
* The time at which it was built
* The specific materials from which it was constructed
* The order of the construction process
* The motives involved in its construction

The Bible describes the tower of Babel using a term which is historically appropriate:

‘Gen 11:4 tells us that the settlers in Sumer decided to build "a city and a tower." The word used for tower is ldgm (migdal). Since this word is often used in the OT for a watchtower or a defensive tower (e.g., Judg 9:45, 51; 2 Kgs 9:17; 17:9; Isa 5:2) and nowhere else refers to a ziggurat, what reason is there to believe that in Gen 11:4 it refers to a ziggurat?

The first reason is that the setting is in Babylonia where the ziggurat was the most prominent structure in a city – both visually and ideologically. [18]

Secondly, the tower in our text was designed to bring fame and glory to the builders ("so that we may make a name for ourselves"). Mesopotamian kings often took pride in building ziggurats, but no such pride was taken in defensive towers which were simply parts of the city wall. [19]‘

‘As for the use of the word migdal, one wonders what other choice the Hebrews had for a word to refer to a ziggurat? Since they had no ziggurats in their culture, they would either have to borrow a word or use the closest word they could find in their own language. As Walton has pointed out, the word migdal is not inaccurate and has a similar etymology to ziggurat, being derived from gedal (to be large), while ziggurat is derived from the Akkadian word zaqaru (to be high). [22]‘

‘There is very good reason then to believe that the tower in our text refers to a ziggurat and not just to a defensive tower. The vast majority of scholars agree that a ziggurat is intended.

[18] Elizabeth C. Stone, "The Development of Cities in Ancient Mesopotamia," CANE 1:236, 238.

[19] Singer, A History of Technology, 1:254-55; Forbes, Studies, 1:68.

[22] John Walton, "The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications," BBR 5 (1995), 156’

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, pages 18-19, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

The Biblical account of the tower of Babel comes just after the record of the flood, and since it has been demonstrated that the flood occurred around 3,000 BC, we know that the events surrounding the tower of Babel must have taken place not long after this date.

 

The available archaeological evidence proves that the Bible is accurate in describing a building such as the tower of Babel as having been constructed at this time. In fact, this was precisely the era during which constructions made of baked bricks, with bitumen mortar, were being built in the Mesopotamian region:

‘Indeed, Jacquetta Hawkes indicates in her archaeological survey that baked brick was not used for architecture anywhere in the entire world until c. 3000B.C. [15]

The use of baked brick in the tower of Babel indicates very clearly, therefore, that it was not built before c. 3500 to 3000 B.C. The use of bitumen (asphalt) for mortar also gives clear evidence of the earliest date to which we can ascribe the events of Gen 11:1-9. Since there are extensive remains of brick buildings in the sites of the ancient Near East and bituminous mortar is nearly as indestructible as baked brick, [16] it is easy to ascertain when bitumen began to be used as mortar for bricks.

The evidence from thousands of bricks shows that bitumen was not used as a mortar for brick until baked brick appeared. Until c. 3500 to 3000 B.C., if mortar was used, it was gypsum or just mud.

[15] Jacquetta Hawkes, The Atlas of Early Man (New York: St. Martin’s, 1976), 50, 76.

[16] Forbes, Studies, 1:69.

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, pages 17-18, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

This tower could not have been built prior to 3,000 BC. The Biblical record is therefore correct in describing the building of this tower as being shortly after the Mesopotamian flood of 2,900 BC.

 

The specific materials which the Bible describes as having been used to build the tower are also historically accurate, indicating that it was indeed a ziggurat, as the Hebrew word suggests:

‘The use of baked brick and bitumen also tells us that the migdal in our text was a ziggurat rather than a defensive tower, for baked brick and bitumen were very expensive in Mesopotamia and hence were saved for luxurious architecture like palaces, temples, and ziggurats.’

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, page 18, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

Likewise, the order of construction described in the Biblical record is also accurate:

‘It is also telling that in our text the making of the baked bricks is specifically mentioned first (v. 3) and after that the building of the city and tower (v. 4). This is exactly the way the building of the temple and ziggurat of Babylon are described in Enuma Elish (6.50-70) as well as in the account of Nabopolassar in Neo-Babylonian times. [20]

[20] So strong is the parallel with Enuma Elish that E. A. Speiser thought Gen 11:1-9 was a response to Enuma Elish. Andre Parrot, The Tower of Babel (London: SCM, 1955), 19.’

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, pages 18-19, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

One of the motives the Bible ascribes to the builders of the tower, is the desire to reach heaven. This aim is commonly found in the records of the ziggurats of this era:

‘In addition, Nabopolassar is told to make the foundation of Babylon’s ziggurat "secure in the bosom of the nether world, and make its summit like the heavens" just as our text describes the tower as having "its head in the heavens." Indeed it is typical of the descriptions of Mesopotamian ziggurats that they have their heads in the heavens. Thus King Samsuiluna is said to have made "the head of his ziggurat … as high as the heavens." The top of Hammurabi’s ziggurat was said to be "lofty in the heavens." And Esarhaddon, speaking of the ziggurat he built, says, "to the heavens I raised its head."

[21] John H. Walton, The Tower of Babel (Ph.D, diss., Hebrew Union College, 1981), 44-45.’

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, page 18, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

Archaeological also evidence shows that the theological attitude on Mesopotamia changed significantly at this time, with the development of the urban state. The gods were no longer seen as simply the impersonal manifestations of natural forces, but were redefined in more human terms:

‘From every angle, then, the narrative, taken against its historical and cultural background, continually points us to the early period of urbanization in southern Mesopotamia.

As the urbanized state began to function, the universe came to be considered a state ruled by the gods. [45]‘

‘Jacobsen has presented the view that the earlier picture of the gods was one in which each god, or numinous power, was seen as bound up by a particular natural phenomenon through which he was made manifest. The god was seen to be the power behind the phenomenon, and the phenomenon circumscribed the power of the god and was the god’s only form. [46]

As the situation developed, however, a change took place. Rather than continuing to emphasize the powerful uncontrolled manifestation of deity in natural phenomena, the view of the cosmos as a state emerged, with the now humanized gods as citizens and rulers.

[45] Jacobsen, Before Philosophy, 142.

[46] Jacobsen, "Formative Tendencies In Sumerian Religion," Toward the Image of Tammuz, 2.’

John H. Walton, ‘The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 5, pages 167-168, 1995

This new religious attitude was a direct product of the new urbanization process which took place after the flood:

‘Mesopotamian theology that is reflected in most of the mythology of Babylon and Assyria has an urbanized society as its foundation. This theological perspective arose sometime early in the urbanization process, for even the Early Dynastic literature reflects that point of view. One indicator of this shift is the sudden popularity of the practice of setting up statues in temples that were intended to pray for the life of the benefactor. Nissen observes,

We can assume that it is highly probable that the custom of setting up statues in temples with this intention began in the Early Dynastic Period.’

‘The ziggurat and the temple complex provide the link between urbanization, of which they are the central organ, and Mesopotamian religion which they typify.’

‘Jacobsen further comments:

Particularly powerful and concrete in the new anthropomorphic view was the symbol of the temple, the god’s house. Towering over the flat roofs of the surrounding town, it gave the townsmen visible assurance that the god was present among them. [49]

The development in Mesopotamian religion that took place with the development of urbanization, was that men began to envision their gods in conformity with the image of man.

[50] J. J. Finkelstein, "Bible and Babel," Commentary 26 (1958) 440.’

John H. Walton, ‘The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 5, pages 167-168, 1995

It must be noted that the entire purpose of the ziggurat was to provide a physical connection between the human and the Divine, But although the ziggurat builders often speak of reaching the heavens with their towers, their aim was not to personally ascend to the gods, but to cause the gods to descend to earth. The ziggurat was not so much a stairway to heaven, as a stairway to earth. The gods would come down to earth at the request of men:

‘Man was no longer attempting to be like God, but more insidiously, was trying to bring deity down to the level of man. The gods of the Babylonians were not only understood to interact with each other and operate their affairs as humans do, but they also behaved like humans, or worse. Finkelstein observes,

The Babylonian gods … although not themselves BOUND by moral or ethical principles, nevertheless appreciated them and expected man to live by them. The Babylonians, it would seem, fashioned their gods in their own image more faithfully than the Israelites did theirs. [50]

This is what is represented by the ziggurat. The function of the ziggurat that was suggested earlier as a result of our study of the names further supports this. The needs and nature of the deities who would make use of such a stairway reflect the weakness of deity brought about by the Babylonian anthropomorphization of the gods. It is this system of religion that was an outgrowth of the urbanization process as it unfolded in Mesopotamia, and it was this system that had as its chief symbol the towering ziggurat.

[50] J. J. Finkelstein, "Bible and Babel," Commentary 26 (1958) 440.’

John H. Walton, ‘The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 5, pages 167-168, 1995

The Biblical description thus displays evidence of being an excellent historical account, demonstrating a considerable knowledge of many details of these ziggurats, including:

* The era during which they were built
* The specific materials from which they were made
* The specific order of their construction
* The motivation behind them

　

In addition, there is a specific time duration in which this tower must have been built. Archaeological evidence proves that such a ziggurat must have been built no later than 2,400 BC:

‘We see then that the archaeological facts coalesce around the dates 3500 to 3000 B.C. The building of a city not just a settlement, the use of baked brick, the use of bitumen for mortar and the fact that a ziggurat is being built all dovetail in date. This remarkable agreement makes it highly probable that the earliest date to which we can ascribe the tower of Babel as described in Gen 11:1-9 is c. 3500 to 3000 B.C.

But, what is the latest date to which we can ascribe its building? There is a text saying that Sharkalisharri restored the temple-tower at Babylon c. 2250 B.C., and another text indicates that Sargon I destroyed Babylon c. 2350 B.C. [24]

This suggests that there was a city established at Babylon efore 2350 B.C.; so, allowing a modest 50 years of city history, we can set 2400 B.C. as the terminus ante quem for the first ziggurat built in Babylon. [25]

We can thus date the building of the tower of Babel sometime between 3500 and 2400 BC.

[24] CAH3 1:1:219; Evelyn Klengel-Brandt, "Babylon," OEANE 1:254.

[25] Ziggurats began as elevated temples and did not become "true ziggurats" until c. 2100 B.c., after which they continued to be built or at least rebuilt until the fall of Babylon in the sixth century B.C.’

Paul H Seely, ‘The Date Of The Tower Of Babel And Some Theological Implications’, page 19, originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38

This detail provides evidence that the Biblical record of the tower of Babel must itself be very old. Many modern scholars (especially secular academics), wish to argue that the Pentateuch was written at a very late date, supposedly during the Babylonian captivity (6th century BC), though incorporating some earlier material from no earlier than the 10th century BC.

It must be asked how even a 10th century writer living in Israel could possibly have such a precise knowledge of these specific details of religious buildings constructed over 1,400 years before he lived, during a kingdom long since ended, in a geographical area he had never visited.

Aside from the specific details of the tower itself, there is evidence for the key historical events described in Genesis 11, specifically:

* A time when the people had a common language and culture (Genesis 11:1)
* A new era of urbanisation subsequent to the flood (Genesis 11:3-4)
* The confusion of language (Genesis 11:5-7)

In agreement with the Biblical record, the Sumerian King List (copies of which date from at least 2170 BC), records that a new dynastic era commenced after the flood:

‘After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kiš.

In Kiš, Gišur became king; he ruled for 1,200 years.’

The city of Kish was the first of the Sumerian Early Dynastic I era. This era is known as the ‘Golden Age’, and dates from 2,900-2,700 BC. It was the construction of monumental buildings which had previously not been made (such as the ziggurat), and large scale urbanization in the form of new city states:

‘The bloom and further development of the city states is called the Early Dynastic period (2900-2400 BCE) or Old Sumerian period. It is divided into three periods in which different cities dominate. The Old Sumerian period is characterized by strong rivalry between city states and an increasing division between state and religion. Monumental buildings that should be called palaces as opposed to temples are attested for the first time.’

John Heise, ‘Akkadian Language’, chapter 3, 1996

The fact that Early Dynastic I commences shortly after 2,900 BC, proves that both the Sumerian King List and the Genesis 11 record are correct to describe a new era of urbanization and monumental architecture subsequent to the Mesopotamian flood of 2,900 BC.

Significant for the Biblical narrative of the tower of Babel, this was an era during which the region shared a common culture, religion, and language:

‘Despite the rivalry there are strong similarities in architecture, building materials, motives of ornaments etc., The people shared a common religion and spoke the same language. So in general one could speak of a Sumerian art and culture.’

John Heise, ‘Akkadian Language’, chapter 3, 1996

The Sumerian King List informs us that Enmekar ruled subsequent to the kingship of Kis, meaning some time after 2,900 BC:

‘Then Kiš was defeated and the kingship was taken to Eanna.

In Eanna, Meš-ki’ag-gašer, son of Utu, became lord and king; he ruled for 324 years. Meš-ki’ag-gašer entered the sea and disappeared.

Enmekar, son of Meš-ki’ag-gašer, the king of Uruk, who built Uruk, became king; he ruled for 420 years.’

The list of kings of the Early Dynastic I era continues to the first dynasty of Ur, which took place some time after the reign of Enmekar. The sequence given in the Sumerian King List is clearly inaccurate, since archaeological evidence demonstrates that the kings during this time actually reigned between 2,900 and 2,600 BC, many of them being contemporary with each other. The reign of Enmekar therefore took place between 2,900 and 2,700 BC.

A legendary account of the reign of Enmekar, written some time after, includes a significant reference to the division of men’s languages by one of the gods. The exact details of the translation are uncertain, but it is undisputed that the text refers specifically to the languages of men having been divided by the god Enlil, some time prior to the reign of Enmekar.

Here are two translations of the text:

‘Once upon a time there was no snake, there was no scorpion,
There was no hyena, there was no lion,
There was no wild dog, no wolf,
There was no fear, no terror,
Man had no rival.
In those days, the lands of Subur (and) Hamazi,
Harmony-tongued (?) Sumer, the great land of the decrees of princeship,
Un, the land having all that is appropriate (?), The land Martu, resting in security, The whole
universe, the people in unison (?)

To Enlil in one tongue [spoke].

[...]

(Then) Enki, the lord of abundance (whose) commands are trustworthy,
The lord of wisdom, who understands the land,
The leader of the gods,
Endowed with wisdom, the lord of Eridu
Changed the speech in their mouths, [brought (?)] contention into it,
Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.’

‘Chant to him the holy song, the incantation sung in its chambers — the incantation of Nudimmud: "On that day when there is no snake, when there is no scorpion, when there is no hyena, when there is no lion, when there is neither dog nor wolf, when there is thus neither fear nor trembling, man has no rival!

At such a time, may the lands of Cubur and Hamazi, the many-tongued, and Sumer, the great mountain of the me of magnificence, and Akkad, the land possessing all that is befitting, and the Martu land, resting in security — the whole universe, the well-guarded people — may they all address Enlil together in a single language! For at that time, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, Enki, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings

– Enki, the lord of abundance and of steadfast decisions, the wise and knowing lord of the Land, the expert of the gods, chosen for wisdom, the lord of Eridug, shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one.’

Regardless of which translation is preferred, in both it is clear that this passage contains a reference to an earlier time, before the reign of Enmekar, when unity of language was ended by a Divine act resulting in a diversity of languages. The second translation sees this invocation as an appeal to the gods to reverse this process.

The Modern Babel

The modern manifestation of Babel was foretold in Scripture, just as the ancient Babel is recorded there. The spirit which drives men to form vast organisations aimed at uniting nations in political empires is as alive and well today as it was thousands is years ago on the plain on Shinar. Neither the attitudes, nor the aims have changes, and even the catchcry is the same:

‘For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire we have the opportunity to unite Europe, not by force of arms, but on the basis of shared ideals and agreed common rules.’

Romano Prodi, EU Commission President, EU Parliament, 13 October 1999

‘The last step will then be the completion of integration in a European Federation, such a group of States could conclude a new European framework treaty, the nucleus of a constitution of the Federation.

On the basis of this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions, establish a government which, within the EU, should speak with one voice… a strong parliament and a directly elected president.’

Joschka Fischer, Geman Foreign Minister, Berlin, 12 May, 2000

As if this were not enough, these modern builders of Babel explicitly identify themselves with the ancient tower and its architects, even to the point of building their own tower. Many of us would be familiar with the poster printed by the European Council depicting the tower of Babel depicted in Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s painting of 1563, and the words ‘Europe: Many Tongues, One Voice’, an explicit challenge to the Divine judgment on the men of Shinar. We may also be familiar with the European Parliament building in Strasbourg, also designed deliberately to look like the same depiction of the tower of Babel.

These modern expressions of the spirit of Shinar show that the lesson is well understood and is being consciously rejected. But such schemes, though oft repeated over the centuries, are doomed to failure:

Daniel 2:
42 In that the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, the latter stages of this kingdom will be partly strong and partly fragile.
43 And in that you saw iron mixed with wet clay, so people will be mixed with one another without adhering to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

‘Time and again men have dreamed of rearing on these dominions one mighty kingdom. Charlemagne tried it. Charles V tried it. Louis XIV tried it. Napoleon tried it. But neither succeeded.

A single verse of prophecy was stronger than all their host.

…’Partly strong, and partly broken,’ was the prophetic description. And such, too, has been the historic fact concerning them.

…It is ‘partly strong’–i.e., it retains, even in its broken state, enough of its iron strength to resist all attempts to mold its part together.

‘This shall not be,’ says the word of God.
‘This has not been,’ replies the book of history.’

William Newton, ‘Lectures on the First Two Visions of the Book of Daniel’, pages 34-35, 1859

Daniel 2:
44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will raise up an everlasting kingdom that will not be destroyed and a kingdom that will not be left to another people. It will break in pieces and bring about the demise of all these kingdoms. But it will stand forever.
45 You saw that a stone was cut from a mountain, but not by human hands; it smashed the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold into pieces. The great God has made known to the king what will occur in the future. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is reliable."

We will continue this study and draw some conclusions next time.

Denis

"Doc Notes" Lesson 2 Part 6 "Sons of God"

 

Gentle Reader,

 

There are good men on either side of a discussion, here we find another enignia wrapped in a mystery the "sons of God" in Genesis I certainly have an opinion, but as my mither used to say "opinions are like noses everyone has one." So I will try to be as objective as I am able and allow you to decide on which side to come down on (if you wish to take sides)!

Satan's object therefore was to frustrate this counsel of God.

 

Having as yet no clue as to the line by which "the seed of the woman" should come into the world, his first effort was to corrupt and destroy the whole human race. This he carried out as described in Genesis 6 and Jude 6. "The sons of God" were angels; "the angels who sinned." All beings who are the direct creation of God are called his "sons." Adam was "a son of God" (Gen 5:1; Luke 3:38). We are not. By nature we are sons of Adam begotten in his likeness (Gen 5:3). The New nature in us makes us "sons of God," because that is God's own new-creation work (Eph 2:10; 2 Cor 5:17; Rom 8:14-17). For the same reason also, angels are called "sons of God," because they are the direct creation of God. In the Old Testament the expression always has this meaning. Before Adam was created "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" (Job 38:7). An angel was sent to the lions' den to shut the lions' mouths (Dan 6:22), as another was sent to the fiery furnace to deliver Jehovah's servants; this angel is called "a son of God" (for there is no article).

 

They cannot (in Gen 6) be the seed of Seth, as is generally taught, because they are contrasted with "the daughters of MEN"; which shows they must be of a different nature.

We know from Genesis 6 how nearly that great plot succeeded; how the whole earth was corrupted* (Gen 6:11,12).

* (shachath), to ruin, lay in ruins, to make good for nothing. Hence (shackath), a sepulcher, corruption.

All, except Noah's family, were tainted with this uncanny and unholy breed called **"Nephilim." [ Longer Note at the end] Noah was tamim, i.e., "without blemish," as the word for "perfect" here is generally rendered elsewhere. All had to be destroyed by the Flood; but the angels who sinned are "reserved," in "chains" and "in prison" (1 Peter 3:19; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6), for their judgment at a yet future day.

The aim of Satan was to corrupt, and so secure the destruction of the whole human race. And his plot would have succeeded but for the direct interposition of Divine judgment.

 

"The seed of the woman" ultimately came into the world. The Word of God was fulfilled; and now, though His heel had been bruised, and He suffered and died, yet God raised Him from the dead, the token that Satan's head shall in due time be crushed.

 

This glorious triumph had to be heralded forth. Those who had taken part in that awful plot had to learn that the designs of Satan, their lord and master, had failed. This was the reason why Christ, having risen from the dead, went and proclaimed His glorious triumph.

 

This is why it is "better to suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. FOR Christ also suffered" [for well doing], "the just for the unjust." And, it was "better" for Him; for He has triumphed gloriously: and it is "better" for us also; for we are thereby saved eternally.

 

Not merely saved through* the judgment (as the digression shows); not saved by means of material water; but by the "suffering" of that perfect sacrifice, which has made the comers thereunto "perfect as pertaining to the conscience" (Heb 9:9, 10:1), and given them "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (1 Peter 3:21).

* This is the force of (diasozo). See its only occurrences: Matthew 14:36; Luke 7:3; Acts 23:24, 27:43,44, 28:1,4; and here 1 Peter 3:20.

**The Nephilim were an antediluvian race (pre-flood) race which are referred to in the Bible as giants. They were reportedly the children born from the "daughters of men'', and the "Sons of God''. It is most important to note that they are mentioned almost simultaneous to God's statement that He would destroy the earth by flood, and it seems from this association that their affect upon mankind was one of the primary justifications that brought the destruction.

Genesis 6:1-7
1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." NIV

The Sons of God

Nobody knows what the ''Sons of God'' were, but the most obvious interpretation is that the Nephilim were a hybrid race between two distinct but sexually compatible beings. Many believe the ''Sons of God'' were fallen angels who corrupted mankind. The ''Sons of God''' are clearly distinguished from the daughters of men. This suggests the ''Sons of God'' were either not born on earth or simply righteous men as opposed to earthly. We can only speculate, but as angels are not biological organisms, they are not likely to be reproductively compatible with humans.

 

Another logical interpretation for the ''Sons of God'' is they were other created men. It is largely assumed that Adam and Eve were the only humans created in the beginning, but the Bible does not describe every person on earth, nor even everyone that was important to God. Only key individuals or situations are included within the text, and we can not say with certainty that God only created one pair of humans.

 

The phrase "sons of God" used in Genesis 6 is "bene elohim", which used apparently only three other times in Scripture and in each of the other cases it is found in the book of Job which is accepted as one of the most ancient books written. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.

 

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

And Also Afterward

 

In Genesis 6:4 it is said the Nephilim were on the Earth in those days - and also afterward. This seems to clearly imply that the Nephilim were also on the Earth after the flood of Noah. Although the Nephilim are only mentioned one other time in scripture after Genesis 6, during a false report brought back to Moses by the explorers of Canaan, this reference would suggest that the Israelites were familiar with the Nephilim.

Numbers 13:30-33

30 Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, "We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it." 31 But the men who had gone up with him said, "We can't attack those people; they are stronger than we are." 32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." NIV

And now Gentle reader from another point of view:

　

The increasingly popular interpretation of the following passage is that it relates a story of angels interbreeding with the human race, and that this was a primary reason for God destroying most of humanity with the great flood.

 

First of all, it should be pointed out that angels are not humans, they are quite different creations of God. Satan and the other angels are spirit beings, and simply cannot have physical offspring (children). They do not marry (Matt. 22:28, Mark 12:25), they are incapable of procreation, and so are genderless creatures.

 

Let's look at this passage in an attempt to shed some light:

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

So now let's evaluate each verse, and what it is saying-

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

This verse is straightforward. The human population on earth began to increase in numbers.

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Now this verse is full of meaning. Some will point to Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7 where the same phrase "sons of God" is translated sometimes as angels, and conclude that this also refers to angels as well. The Hebrew words used are - ben: H1121 and 'elohiym: H430:

1121. ben, bane; from  (Strong's Concordence H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of lit. and fig. relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., [like H1, H251, etc.]) ...

So the phrase "Sons of God" is a generic term that can mean the subjects or nation of God. It is not a phrase limited to just the angelic host, it has a wider meaning.

 

The sons of God in Gen 6:2, in context, speaks of those men who were (or claimed to be) obedient to the will of God, they were the people of God, from the lineage of Seth (Gen. 5). In opposition to this are the daughters of men (not obedient to God), from the lineage of Cain (Gen. 4). These woman were quite attractive and alluring, and had little trouble enticing the sons of God into intimate relations and marriage. In doing so, the sons of God quickly abandoned God for these women and their ways.

 

This is basically a retelling of the fall of Adam and Eve. Eve listened to the lies of Satan and doubted God. She ate from the forbidden tree and fell from the spiritual nature she previously enjoyed. That tree was the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9, 17). Upon eating from the tree, Eve was aware of what she had done. She now had the knowledge of evil and she was aware that she had sinned against God. In that knowledge, and having fallen, she then offered the fruit from the tree to Adam.

 

Adam was not deceived (1 Tim 2:14). He knew when he saw Eve that she had sinned, because she had lost the spiritual glow that results from being in close spiritual harmony with God. Moses had this same glow when he came down from Sinai (Exo 34:29, 30). Adam elected to eat the fruit, knowing what he was doing. His love for Eve (whom he knew had sinned) was greater than his love of God.

 

This is a tactic used time and again by Satan. The downfall of God's people is frequently through the temptations of godless women (See Numbers 25:1-9). Other examples that come to mind are Samson and Delilah, and David and Bathsheba.

 

So, now back to Gen 6:2. The same basic scenario is being repeated after the garden of Eden, only on a larger scale. There is a wholesale abandonment of God and his righteous ways by the descendants of Seth for women of the lineage of Cain, known to be in rebellion and sin. This is what God calls fornication, not referring only to a sexual sin, but the sin of mixing the righteous with the wicked, truth with evil. (One example of this is the word fornication as attributed to the harlot church in Rev 17:4 and 18:3) This sin was so prevalent, and so blatant a rejection of God that it could not be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

God in this verse has just set a period of probation of 120 years on the human race to repent of their wicked ways. It could not be allowed to continue.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The word "giants" here in the Hebrew is listed in Strong's as follows-

5303. nephiyl, nef-eel'; or nephil, nef-eel'; from H5307; prop., a feller[*], i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.

*Main Entry: 4fell
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English fel, from Middle French, from Old French -- more at FELON
1 a : FIERCE, CRUEL, TERRIBLE b : SINISTER, MALEVOLENT <a fell purpose> c : very destructive : DEADLY <a fell disease> –Webster’s Onelinehttp://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

So rather than being perhaps physical giants, in contrast to the meek people of god, these people were rebellious bullies and tyrants, forceful in character and great in their sins. This same phrase of "giants" is also used to describe the Canaanites following the exodus (Num 13:33). Again, this probably referred to their godless and lawless character, as much as their physical stature.

Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The fault here is laid squarely on the wickedness of the people themselves. The first part of this verse is a restatement of the first part of verse 4. As a result of choosing godless women, men were turned away from God as well, and sin and wickedness flourished. God was rejected, and forgotten.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Sin became so great, that God had to bring the flood on them, to cleanse the earth of such great wickedness.

Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Noah was the exception, and he was given the task to build the ark, that would be the refuge from the flood for those obedient to God.

So, now back to the popular story about this passage. Based on a very narrow interpretation of the phrase "sons of God" as found here in Genesis, and bolstered by Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and Psalms 29:1; 82:6, the case is made that this is referring to heavenly beings/angels that interbred with women, causing a ghastly mixed breed of creatures that God had to destroy.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The above verses make clear that phrase "sons of God" applies to anyone with faith. Note how the righteous 144,000 are described

Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

"Not defiled with women" alludes back to Genesis 6 and the sons of God and the daughters of men. The 144,000 walk with God just like Noah, and are not defiled by the great whore of Revelation 17, or her harlot daughters, which are symbolic of apostasy.

 

So the angelic interbreeding story appears to be nothing more than an attempt to put the blame on angels rather than man. The passage in Genesis 6 speaks only to the wickedness of humanity, and places no blame at all on angels. Humanity had turned their back on God, and did it on such a scale that God was moved to destroy them. Yet, God in His mercy, amid all the wickedness, still did not act hastily to exact his judgment. He gave humanity a period of probation. A time of 120 years, during which Noah could preach the message of God, of repentance and faith. Through that period of probation, people heard the word of God, that they might be saved. Eventually Noah and 7 members of his family were saved in the ark.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

It should be clear, to even a casual reader, that we have entered into the days of the Son of Man. History is repeating itself. There are "giants" on the Earth again. The Nephilim, those who follow the way of Cain, and are bold in their rebellion against God, again are filling the earth with sin and violence. Man's cup of iniquity is again reaching the brim, and God will not let it continue much longer. We have no angels to place blame on, and neither did those people in the time of Noah. Mankind is willfully abandoning God for the sake of the sins of iniquity. Yes, Satan and the other fallen angels can tempt mankind, just as Eve was tempted, but the choice to sin was Eve's and Adam's, and is also ours to make. The door of probation is soon to close again on this wicked world, just as it did for the people of Noah's generation, but this will be for the final time.

here were giants in the earth - נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by γιγαντες, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above; children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints; the former were termed γιγαντες, earth-born, and the latter, ἁιοι, i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth

 

So gentle reader we have two perspectives one that the "giants" were Nephilim or "monsters" and the second was that these Nephilim were in contrast to the children of the Seth line. The Line of Cain vs the line of Seth the wicked disobedent vs the obedient. The "sons’ of God those who were not fallen angels but wicked men contrasted by those who followed after righteous.

 

There you have it Gentle Reader, two perspectives who were the sons of God? Men or monsters?

 

Next time we’ll consider the Babel Dispersion.

 

Love,

 

Denis

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

"Doc Notes" Lesson 2 Part 5 Gleanings from Genesis ~The Flood~

 

                         Doc notes lesson 2 part 5 Gleanings from Genesis The Flood


Dear Gentle Reader,

If there were one period of Biblical history more than another about which we could wish for fuller information, it is the antediluvian, the period between the Fall and the Flood. I have been recently reading a book called Edgar Cayce “The sleeping Prophet” in which he gives his perspective on what happened with the “Sons of God” and why the flood took place (see our research on the canopy “the shining waters”. There are many Flood narratives we want to examine a few so that we may better understand our Biblical view point.

The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Babylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become "the end of all flesh". He selected Ut-Napishtim, to build an ark to save a few humans, and samples of other animals.

The Babylonian text "The Epic of Galgamesh" 1,8 and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common. Their texts are obviously linked in some way. Either: In both the Genesis and Galgamesh stories:

The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.
The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).
The ark would be sealed with pitch.
The ark would have with many internal compartments
It would have a single door
It would have at least one window.
The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.
A great rain covered the land with water.
The mountains were initially covered with water.
The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.
The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.
The hero was blessed.
The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

The were a number of differences between the two stories:

Noah received his instructions directly from Jehovah; Ut-Napishtim received them indirectly during a dream.
Noah's ark was 3 stories high and rectangular in shape. Two estimated dimensions are 547 x 91 ft. and 450 x 75 ft. The Babylonian ark was 6 stories high and square.
Ut-Napishtim invited additional people on board: a pilot and some skilled workmen.
Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat; Ut-Napishtim'sat on Mt. Nisir; these locations are both in the Middle East, and are located few hundred miles apart

In the Bible, some of the water emerged from beneath the earth. And the rains from above lasted for 40 days and nights. A 40 day interval often symbolized a period of judgment in the Hebrew Scriptures. 2 In the Babylonian account, the water came only in the form of rain, and lasted only 6 days.

Noah released a raven once and a dove twice; Ut-Napishtim released three birds: a dove, swallow and raven.

The significance of the two stories

To conservative Christians, Genesis is inerrant: it is completely truthful and contained no error in its original form. God inspired Moses to write the book and preserved him from including any errors. Thus the Noachian flood really happened exactly as stated in Genesis. The similarities between the Babylonian and Hebrew texts were probably caused by two factors:

1.Both were accounts of the same worldwide flood.

2. The Genesis account is absolutely true and was written during the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt. The Babylonian account was written later; its author may have copied elements from the Hebrew story.

"The Epic of Gilgamesh, then, contains the corrupted account as preserved and embellished by peoples who did not follow the God of the Hebrews." Frank Lorey, Impact #285: The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh", Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA (1997)

Imagine: 
A Flatter Earth because mountains had not yet been heaved upward by the weight of new water on the earth's mantle.........

40 days of steady, pouring rain.........

Hundreds of volcanoes exploding all at once and myriads of new, large springs gushing huge amounts of water because "the fountains of the deep were broken up." (Genesis 7:11)
This was the flood of Noah's day. It was a worldwide catastrophic flood sent by God to destroy all living things except for eight people who survived on the Ark. And I must say, in passing, that "all living things" means ALL!

Two problems about which there are great differences are: the date of the flood, and whether it was local or universal. As for the date, I do not insist on it being exactly 3000 BC. It could be somewhere between 2400 and 4000 BC.

Critics of the flood narrative consider it either a myth, or a local flood story. There are seeming conflicts between the Bible and some areas of "science" relative to the date of the Great Flood. However, both biblical and extra-biblical literature, being eye-witness accounts, should control the dating, with secondary importance given to scientific opinions, and radiometric dating techniques. (After all, the C14 scale was calibrated using artifacts with known historical dates.)

For nineteen centuries Christian scholars were convinced by God's Word that the earth was created by fiat in six days, a few thousand years ago. Only in the last 150 years or so have Christian scholars cooperated with evolutionary philosophers who insist that the universe and earth are billions of years old. Many scholars, if they believe in a flood at all, contend that it was a local event and happened as long as 100,000 years ago. In general they hold to the following principles:
"Universal" means all that Noah could see. Only his personal "world" was flooded.

Present high mountains have been there for millions of years and were as high before the flood as they are now. There simply was not enough water to cover them all (Mt. Everest, for instance, is 29,000 feet high, thus the flood waters would have to be almost six miles deep). "If that much water covered all the earth, where could it possibly have gone after the flood?" they ask.

The "days" of Genesis 1 were long periods of time. Most local flood proponents believe in a very old earth been in existence at least a million years with long palaeo-, meso-, and neolithic prehistorical periods.

Languages Used

The Hebrew word mabbul is the word for "flood" used throughout Genesis 6-9. It is a unique word used only for this stupendous event. Eight other Hebrew words are used to describe floods in local streams and rivers. But none of these compare with the extent of the Great Flood.

The Greek word, κατακλυσμὸ, used both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, hardly needs interpretation. Cataclysm describes violent destruction. It occurs in Matthew 24: 38-39; and Luke 17: 26-27. In 2 Peter 3: 5-6 we are reminded of that which mankind desires to forget: that is, that God made the heavens and earth with its water, and by that water the world was "cataclysthized" destroying the surface of the earth and all living, breathing creatures. Peter prophesied in 2 Peter 3: 3-6 that scoffers will deny the world was destroyed by a flood. He said these willfully ignore this stupendous event.

In verses 10-11, a prophecy of the destruction of the entire universe is described, with the Great Flood used as an analogy. How could a local flood be the analogy for this awful event?
As you call see there is as much controversy over the issue of the flood narrative as any part of our Bible. And I have only touched on one small part of the issue. The Genesis narrative is severely reticent, and that for a plain reason. Sixteen hundred years are packed into two pages, so that whatever else we may see or desire to know, we may not miss the significant connection between the Fall and the Flood. Our inspired writer omits all that is not vital to his purpose. Biblical narrative is never concerned with the mere lapse of time, but with the moral significance of events.

There is an almost dramatic development from the Fall to the Flood. Let us get a handle on these first. In Chapter 3 we have the Fall. In Chapter 4 we have Cain and the Cain line- “the sons of men. ” In Chapter we have Seth and the Seth line- “the sons of God.” In Chapter 6 the two lines cross with tragic moral results. In Chapter 7 judgement falls - the Flood. Once this dramatic sequence is seen, it can not be forgotten. The separation of the two lines was vital. Their confusion was fatal. The resultant moral condition was appalling. The corruption was extreme. Divine Intervention became unavoidable. Retribution was inevitable. The Flood came, both as an act of judgement (and mercy) and as a moral salvage measure. This then is the Bible lesson on the indispensability of separation and no-compromise. The Divine insistence all the way through is that God’s spiritual seed shall “come out and be separate.”

Next time we’ll consider the “sons of God” in Chapter 6 men or monsters?

Love,

Denis

Doc notes lesson 2 part 4 The Fall Mankind through Adam and Eve

 

Gentle Reader,

 

I have found that this study brings more to the surface than I had expected for example: Original sin for example was term used by Saint Augustine (354-430) was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin. The basis of his belief is from the Bible (Genesis 3:17-19) where Adam is described as having disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden.

 

 This, the first sin of man, became known as original sin.

My understanding of original sin certainly was coloured by my childhood where I was raised in a Roman Catholic home by good Irish Catholics. And it has only been recently that I have looked once again at this concept. For many years as a pastor when teaching through the book of Romans, I would make a distinction between SIN and sins SIN being "a hereditary corruption" from Adam and sins then being "accumulated transgressions".

 

Note: There is a vital distinction in the New Testament between the word SINS and the word SIN (when used generically). SINS are to be distinguished from SIN as the fruits of an evil are to be distinguished from their root, and as symptoms are to be distinguished from the disease. SINS are committed offenses: SIN is the defect which we inherit from Adam by natural generation, SINS must be forgiven for we are morally accountable for them. SIN, the disease, is not forgiven but covered (in the Old Testament), and cleansed, or taken away, or put away (in the New Testament). SINS are the cause of our spiritual death: SIN is the cause of our physical death.

 

On the Day of Atonement, two goats not one were sacrificed. One was "sent away" into the wilderness, there to perish in isolation, the sins of God's people having been laid upon its head. This goat represented the break in fellowship between the Son and the Father during the three hours of darkness. The other goat was slain and its blood sprinkled on the altar in the Holy of Holies. The first sacrifice was an offering for SINS; the second was a SIN-offering.

These two requirements, an offering for SINS and an offering for SIN, were both fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ on the day He made an atonement. Since these sacrificial animals which prefigured Him as Saviour and Redeemer had to be perfect, so He also had to be perfect both in spirit and in body.

In the Old Testament ritual on the Day of Atonement, the two goats were brought before the judges in the Temple. They were, first of all, declared satisfactory and then both were "slain," one by banishment, the other by being slaughtered. Two goats were required because a single animal could not physically be both ritually slain and banished.

But the Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled both roles. His innocence having been established, He was then in a position to be appointed to both kinds of dying ? under circumstances which were altogether exceptional. Moreover, the manner of his dying (by crucifixion) was not at all customary in Jewish law. Yet the mode of his execution was necessary in order to provide a stage which would allow both kinds of dying to be fulfilled.

But this is not the final act. The Lamb of God has been sacrificed. In this sacrifice He was both victim and High Priest. He offered Himself. It was then necessary that He, as High Priest, present the blood of his own sacrifice before the very presence of God in the Holy of Holies which is in heaven. For this, his bodily resurrection was essential.
He then returned in Person, bodily, to present Himself before his people, as the High Priest under the old Covenant presented himself again before his people the signal that his atoning sacrifice had been accepted before God. Any other form of resurrection than a bodily one would have placed in doubt the efficacy of his role as our sacrificial victim and his role as our great High Priest.

We may think of the Lord's work in salvation as a purely spiritual exercise. Yet so much that He accomplished depended upon the possession of a body. It was through his body that He lived out a perfect human life and thus qualified as our sacrificial victim. It was through his body that He was able to die. And it was in his resurrection body, a body which was not allowed to see corruption, that He returned to proclaim God's acceptance of the sacrifice He had made.

 

 Returning to our study of Genesis,

Based upon Romans Chapter 5 where we read from the pen of Paul the apostle "Wherefore, as by one man[Adam]sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom 5:12-19)

 

The "wherefore" refers to the reconciliation (atonement) of Christ spoken of in Rom 5:11. Christ's work of atonement and the effect of Adam's sins are contrasted.

 

Some say that it was Turtellian who first coined the phrase "original sin" but in any case it was well established by the time of Christ and Paul that something momentous had taken place that had removed man from intimate fellowship with his Creator. That which we refer to as sin, with all its attendant sufferings exists throughout our world, (perhaps we could call it evil, but sin is just as good a name) How did it get in?

 

 The Scriptural explanation is given to us in Chapter 3 of Genesis. It would do no good to try and vindicate the Scripture explanation against the contrary opinions of men (although to be perfectly frank I have, along with Marti and even my brother-in-law have examined hundreds of commentaries to see what other have thought). We are touching on it expositorily, not controversially. So Gentle reader, we accept the account from Scripture and its explanation; and we note three things which make up the account.

 

First, we have the tempting "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." (Gen 3:1-6) The first thing we notice is that the tempting was permitted (see Job 1). It is not easy to see how it could have been otherwise in the educating of a rational and volitional being such as man. The real tragedy is that there was a tempter. The fact that man was under a simple probation mentioned in chapter 2 " But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Heb. Dying thou shalt die)" (Gen 2:17) meant that he was liable to temptation. But consider the tempter could only tempt. There need not have been sin. And there was no reason to yield. We note too, that the temptation was introduced to Eve in solitariness.

 

Note also that this is Satan’s common method. The temptation was connected with the beautiful: its real character was concealed. There was the gradual growth in the strength of the temptation. First, God’s word was merely questioned (verse 1) then it is flatly contradicted (verse 4). And then, as the tempted one continues to listen, the very motive behind God’s word is maligned (verse 5). Consider also it there were two trees in the garden (the tree of life-which would have given mankind conditional immortality).

 

 It was not Eve's failure but Adam's that resulted in the introduction of physical death into human experience. "By one man," not by one woman, nor even by one pair, death entered and passed by natural generation upon all men (Romans 5:12). The language of both Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 is precise and is surely to be taken to mean exactly what it says.

Consider, then, the circumstances surrounding this fatal test of Eve and of Adam in the Garden of Eden. I believe we should accept the fact that the forbidden fruit was a real fruit, even as the Tree of Life was a real tree with leaves having therapeutic value. That both trees may also be used symbolically to teach us spiritual truths is not in question. But in this study it is the actual trees in their physical character that we are examining. By gathering all the explicit and implicit information available from the biblical account we appear to have a situation in the temptation of Eve and of Adam in that order which was far more complex than the childish stealing of a forbidden fruit as traditionally presented.

Consider the circumstances. Scripture, it seems to me, has gone out of its way to make it perfectly clear that Adam really was entirely alone in the world. First of all, it is apparent that although he was in a real sense complete in himself, God evidently considered that this kind of self-sufficiency was not a good thing. Perhaps even in a state of perfection Adam needed some fundamental human inter-dependence in order to develop his character. As a potential companion, God may have brought to him certain of the creatures which man has since domesticated and whose company he has learned to enjoy as pets. In his fallen state, man can now often find solace in the 'companionship' of a dog or a horse or even of a bird or a cat. In his unfallen state such creatures were inadequate companions. Certainly God knew this of course: but perhaps He wanted Adam to discover it for himself. To none of these creatures which came to him by divine impulse (Genesis 2:19,20) did Adam respond in such a way as to indicate their sufficiency as true companions or mates. His response was revealed by the names which he gave them. He did not assign his own name to any of them as a groom now assigns his name to his wife.

So God performed an operation isolating part of Adam and constituting that part into a new whole which, when brought to him, he at once identified as the companion he had not found among the other animals. Accordingly, he named her "Woman," which is a translation of the Hebrew word Ishah - And Ishah is the feminine form of the word Ish which means man, the name by which he himself was called. Surely he must have loved her at once, for she was literally part of himself.

Without sin, radiant in health, and beautiful as only God could make her in the full perfection and maturity of womanhood, she must have returned his love. In the truest possible sense they were verily made for each other. Each completed for the other the cup of happiness in their idyllic garden home. Without doubt, her presence became as essential to his own fulfillment as his presence was to hers. And thus, in their earthly paradise, Adam and Eve passed cloudless days (because sinless) in fellowship and open communion with God, * with neither fear nor shame, and with complete freedom to do whatever they willed and to eat whatever they desired of the fruits of the garden except one tree which was forbidden them.

And then Satan put Eve to the test. Whether Satan used a serpent as an agent by controlling its behaviour from without, or whether he indwelt a serpent (as the legion of demons indwelt the Gadarene swine, Luke 8:32,33) or whether he assumed a serpent form, we cannot tell precisely from the record. Indeed, the word rendered serpent may not even mean a serpent at all.† But one could well imagine such a creature reaching up into the forbidden tree in Eve's presence and there eating its fruit with complete confidence and manifest enjoyment and, to her amazement perhaps, with apparent impunity. Possibly the thought came to Eve that if other creatures could eat of the fruit with safety, why could not she? It is a common practice of country people in all ages to be guided in their choice of safe foods by observing what animals can safely eat. Why should the same thought not have occurred to Eve?

Yet the serpent may well have actually spoken to Eve in some language clear to her understanding, as Balaam was spoken to by his ass (Numbers 22:27-32). Or was it that Eve was really speaking to herself? Perhaps when doubts arose in her mind, the Satan-inspired creature reassured her by deliberately returning to the tree sometime later and taking the fruit a second or a third time, until in her own mind she came to doubt that there were any fatal consequences involved. And yet, her intuition persisted in warning her that she should neither eat the fruit nor even touch it. To touch was to take. In the end she was deceived as the New Testament tells us (1 Timothy 2:14) and, having plucked the fruit from the tree, she tasted it and found it to be all she had anticipated, not only beautiful to look at but good to the taste and in some unexpected way enlightening to the mind . . . as some modern drugs are.

But now a subtle change took place in her body, for she had unknowingly introduced a fatal poison. Even when she went back to Adam and invited him to share her experience, she still apparently had no real comprehension of what had happened to herself. And here we come to the crux of the story. For while Eve was, in one sense, as innocent as a child who has disobeyed but is not sure exactly in what way, Adam was not deceived at all. In a moment he realized that he was once again completely alone, but now it was an aloneness of a different kind, for he had lost his other self, his love, his sole human companion in the whole wide world. Part of him was missing.

We know that he was alone in this sense, for Eve became (so the Hebrew says ) the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20). There was no other woman who might have taken her place. She stood before him; yet she stood completely apart from him. They belonged to different kingdoms. Adam knew it at once, and in that moment he faced a trial surely more heart-rending than has ever been the lot of any man since who is called upon to surrender his dearest possession. For while many other men have made such a sacrifice for one reason or another (millions were forced to do so by the Nazis), Adam could never for all he knew expect to recover a helpmeet again. There was no other woman in the world...Nor was there any other man who, placed in similar circumstances, might have shared the burden of loss with him. For a little while he had been alone before in his undivided state as he came from the hand of his Creator but very probably without any awareness of loneliness as he now felt it in his divided self. He had to face the prospect of an aloneness made acute because of what he had experienced and what he had now lost. And for all he could see, this loss was for ever. Adam was still immortal: but for Eve a subtle change had already begun and she was, as God had said she would be, from that very day a dying creature. Here lay the gulf between them: a mortal creature could not be a proper companion to a still immortal one.

Thus God, who overrules all human history, had allowed the first man to be brought into a position of trial, the severity of which is far beyond our true comprehension. Adam was faced with a choice that was quite literally a matter of life and death for him. And it had all been brought about by the eating of the fruit of a forbidden tree.

In the Hebrew original, at verse 6, there is a small mark which indicates a pause after the words "and gave also unto her husband with her" and before the words "and he did eat." The little 'mark' in the Hebrew text at the word which is translated into English "with her," is called a Tiphkha. Every Hebrew sentence is given certain accents to guide the reader as to the appropriate emphasis, and some of these are called 'separation' marks. They are somewhat analogous to our comma, colon, and so forth. The strongest separation mark in a Hebrew sentence is called a Silluq. It marks the end of a sentence, and usually in translation also marks the end of a verse. The strongest separation mark within the sentence, and therefore standing for a pause by way of emphasis, is called a Tiphhha. It is this little mark that tells us there is to be a pause after the words "with her."

It might be thought that this was hanging too much weight on so small a thread. But I think it is necessary to bear in mind that when a literary work is characterized by extreme simplicity and brevity, as Genesis is, and when the circumstances are of tremendous significance in human history, it is important to observe all the clues that the writer has given as to his intention. Adam was about to make a choice which was to affect profoundly all subsequent generations. If he joined Eve, he was settling once for all the question of whether mankind would retain the potential immortality which God had provided for. When he followed his wife and ate the fatal fruit, he, not she (as we shall show), introduced death into human experience. Death entered by one man and passed upon all men so that every one of us now lives out his whole life under the shadow of a sentence of death. This was the consequence of Adam's decision.

There is no knowing what might have been the course of history had Eve been allowed to go out of the Garden alone, for ever separated from Adam. We know from Genesis 4:1 that Eve was not pregnant at this time since Adam did not "know" her until sometime later. Such a separation would therefore seem to bring an end to the human race in terms of further multiplication, unless we suppose that God might have allowed Adam to go with her into exile even though he had not disobeyed. Their children would still have been immortal in such a case, for the seed of the man was still uncorrupted and the seed of the woman had been protected against corruption. Though she herself would die, since she had fatally poisoned her own body, yet Adam and her children would still have retained their potential immortality for we know that the fatal poison is not transmitted through or in the woman's seed, and the seed of Adam still unfallen would in such a circumstance have retained its purity also. But it seems most unlikely that God would have permitted Adam to leave the Garden, and the hypothesis has very little validity: but it is an interesting one to contemplate.

Adam cannot perhaps have anticipated all the profound consequences of his action, but we should not underestimate the perceptive powers of the human mind untouched by any poison and perfect as God created it. As Rev. J. B. Heard rightly observed, even Aristotle was "but the rubbish of an Adam."

I cannot imagine Adam simply agreeing to follow Eve's unhappy choice, blithely and without thought. We know in fact that he was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). He must surely have known at least something of what the consequences would be. When he decided to eat the fruit, he must have done so only after pondering the matter deeply. It must have been an agonizing decision to make.

He was faced with a choice, the choice of staying in the Garden and living for ever in complete and daily fellowship with God, in perfect health and sinless but without Eve. Or he could surrender his immortality and his innocence, and his sojourn in the Garden and his daily sense of the Lord's fellowship but preserve the companionship of his love, the woman whom God Himself had "given to be with him." And who can tell but that his own awareness of the reality of the situation may have communicated itself to Eve. Would she not appeal to him not to desert her? How could he contemplate a separation on such terms as these which would leave him in the sunshine of Eden and God's presence, while exiling her to the unknown world outside the Garden. I do not think we can really grasp the situation that Adam found himself in, because wherever we go we are likely to find people. Adam and Eve were entirely alone in the world.

This, then, was the situation. Can one imagine what must have been Adam's thoughts as he contemplated the sending forth of his beautiful help meet out of the Garden into an entirely unknown and supposedly uninhabited world while he remained within the Garden. And can we imagine what Adam's thoughts would be as he looked into the future and saw his beloved lying somewhere "out there" dying alone and unattended, in her aged condition? There can be little doubt that he perceived at least something of what such a future could mean both for her and for himself.

 

As for the yielding (verse 6) we see the Satin first captured the ear, then the eye, then the inward desire and finally the will. Eve allowed her ear to listen to the tempter. Then she allow her eyes to feast on the object of the temptation. Then she allow desire to run away with the will. Compare verse 6 with that of 1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. The first temptation in Eden and all the myriad temptations by which men and women have been lured into sin ever since, are fundamentally the same. And the tempter’s great purpose is ever to divorce the will of man more and more from the will of God.

 

The results we know in part, 1) there was shame (they realized they were naked, I think that they had be clothed with the reflection of the Shechinah glory of God, which was immediately removed when God first command was violated. 2) Their eyes were opened! And they knew! But what and eye-opening and what a knowing! 3) Note also there was a change in the human body, in Romans we read For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (Rom 8:3) That cannot mean that our Lord’s human nature was in any way infected by sin. How was it that he was in the likeness of sinful human flesh? The answer may be that he did not have about his body the pristine glory, the original glory of unfallen man, in Eden.

 

The inference is that before the fall there was a radiant glory about the bodies of Adam and Eve which was itself their resplendent covering. We are told that the very skin of Moses’ face shone after his 40 days of communion with God on Sinai. Lost, departed immediately after the fall, and "they knew they were naked." that was the third result.

 

Nor was that all. There was a tragic inward change. There suddenly sprang into consciousness a strange war within where all had hitherto been love, joy and peace. There came the terror of a newly-awakened faculty- the faculty of conscience. Thus with the first temptation and the first sin came the first fear: Adam and Eve fled from God (something we have all done at some time or other until God calls us back to Himself) and tried to hide from Him. This was the fourth result- note for the record there did not seem to be any humble contrition, even when the sin was exposed before God.

 

The result: immediate spiritual death, alienation of man from God. Spiritual death had set in. Man is expelled from the Garden, Why? The Tree of Life was there, and if eaten of that fruit, man would have never been able to have his fellowship restored! The ground is cursed, the Serpent is cursed. Yet amid all of these effects God is merciful, and the first great promise of the coming Saviour is given in verse 15 as the full music and revelation unfolds. The promise "the seed of the woman" should break the head of the serpent. Remember not the seed of the man, think about how it is the egg within the woman encased not penetrated by the man, that our Saviour comes. Sinless....

 

Next time we look at the flood.

 

Love,

 

Denis

* It has no historical value, but it is interesting that in an apocryphal book known only from an early Slavonic manuscript titled The Secrets of Enoch (Chapter XXXII, 3) the unknown author states that "Adam was five and a half hours in paradise"! The same view appears in several of the Adam Books. In the Book of Jubilees the life in Paradise is said to have lasted seven years: so also Syncellus taught. Josephus puts its duration as at least several days (cf. John Damascus, De. orth. fide, 11. 10; Augustine, De Civitas XX. 26; Gregory (Great), Dialogue, IV. 1). These authorities are followed by Pererius and Ussher. R. Anuni (Bereshith Rabba II), Irenaeus, Ephrem, Epiphanius, and some scholastics fix upon one day as its limit. Eusebius (Chronicles 1.16, 4, edited by Mai) said no one could tell anything about it! He was probably the most correct...

† The Hebrew original nachash, which Driver suggests is onomatopoeic (= the word hiss) is of uncertain root but might possibly be related to the word for bronze, or even to a verbal root connected with divination.

 

Addendum:

a sin said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam; "Adam and Eve committed the original sin when they ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of ...
The Hebrew words rendered "sin" are also to be distinguished:

('asham), is sin moral or ceremonial committed through mistake or ignorance. Usually translated trespass.

(chatah), sin, as a missing of the mark; a falling short of what ought to be done.

('avon), sin, as to its nature and consequences, iniquity.

(pesha'), sin, as revolting from constituted authority.

(shagah), error through inadvertence.

Doc Notes Gleanings from Genesis Lesson 2 Part 3

Dear Gentle reader,

So we find that the first verse of Genesis simply states the fact of the original creation, and leaves it there, in the dateless past. As hard as we may seem to think that thee ought to be more information God has not seen fit to provide more (but only little glimpses of a greater narrative than we are provided. One can only surmise but that is truly all we can do. Verse two tells of a chaos which came later. And then we have the six “days” which follow the re-formation of the earth with a view to its becoming the habitation of man. What brought about this cataclysm which laid the earth “waste and void” we can not tell with any certainty. Scripture does seem to give a certain veiled indications that it had to do with a pre-Adaminte rebellion and Judgement of Lucifer and associated angel-beings Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? (Isa 14:9-17)

Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. (Eze 28:12-18)

where the language certainly transcends any merely local or temporal limits. See also Job, Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.(Job 1:6-7). It is not my present purpose to go into these things here, but we have other ancient documents that give the basics of the creation story.

What I do want to re-emphasize is that these six days in this first chapter of Genesis do not describe the original creation. No where in scripture are they said to be an account of the original creation. During the first four days no creative act is recorded. It is only when we come to the animals and man that the Hebrew word for “create” is used (verse 21 and 27)

Note: your Strongs concordance will give this word ( בּרא baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).) For those of you interested in following this rabbit trail.

In a word these six days give account of a new beginning; but they are not the first beginning. Once this is clearly appreciated the supposed conflict between Genesis and geology dies away.

In chapter 2 the creation of Adam and first condition of Adam are described. There are four stages- production, provision, probation, progression. The act of production is narrated in verse 7. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7) Man is formed of the “dust of the ground”

Science has proved that the substance of his flesh, sinews, and bones, consists of the very same elements as the soil which forms the crust of the earth and the limestone that lies embedded in its bowels. But from that mean material what an admirable structure has been reared in the human body.

Yet he is inbreathed of God with the “breath of lives” Notice the word man became a living soul. A poor translation for it implies that we have a soul but in fact we are a soul! Read again the seventh verse and think about what is being presented man created out of the dust of the earth, God breath into him the “Neshamah” (the breath of lives). Behold Adams littleness and his loftiness! -his earthliness and heavenliness.

Next, in verse verses 8-14, we see the divine provision for man. It was provision in perfection and profusion.

Next, in verses 15-17, we see man placed under probation. Man’s liberty was to be conditioned by loyalty. Amid many provisions there was just ONE prohibition. Finally, note the progression as indicated in verses 18-25. Point by point there is a forward movement. We can see this in the relation between man and the animals; in the calling forth of the latent faculty of speech; and supremely in the provision of Eve for that deeper need of Adam, and in that perfect bliss of Eden. Thus there is production in the likeness of God; provision for the body, probation for the mind and progression to the point of heart-satisfaction. In these four stages we see the man the servant, the king the husband.
Next time we will take a look at what we call the FALL.

Doc Notes Gleanings from Genesis Lesson 2 Part 2

 

Dear Gentle reader,

 

As we consider the interesting perspective of verse 2 in Genesis one we must consider two points of view. One is that their must be a gap between verse one the creation and verse two.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen 1:2)

 

It is supposed by many that the words "without form, and void" describe the first condition of the earth after its creation, and that the six "days" of chapter One are therefore the six successive stages of the original creation-process; but the more one examines this the less tenable it becomes.

 

Let’s begin with presenting one of the several possible sides of this seeming difficult passage. I remind those of you who might say "God said it and that settles it"! God also gave you life and a brain (as a dear Rabbi once said) and He expects you to make use of both." It is of no use if all you ever do is merely read a passage of Scripture and close the Book and walk away never to think again about what was said, or the meaning of what you read, or what is the significance of the meaning, or how does that impact my understanding of Scripture? Does God want to reveal Himself to those who seek Him out? Did God not say " And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart". (Jer 29:13)".

 

If the Bible is the inspired word of God (I use that Greek prepositional if - if and it is true) , nothing can be more important that to understand aright its teachings as to the origin of things. Yet the fact is no chapters in the Bible have been more misunderstood and misrepresented that these first two chapters and these first two verses of Genesis.

 

Note: The following is presented as the best and most persuasive argument of the so called gap theory (to which I must admit I subscribe to for many years until I began to look for myself "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."—This is "the world that then was" of 2 Peter 3:6.

And the earth became tohu and bohu.—The verb "was" means, and is translated "became" in Genesis 2:7, 4:14, 9:15, 19:26, etc.

It became (tohu). Whatever may be the meaning of the word rendered "without form," it is distinctly stated in Isaiah 44:18 that God "created it not tohu." It must therefore have "become" so, as stated in Genesis 1:2.

The combination of the two words tohu and bohu occurs in Isaiah 45:19, 34:11, and Jeremiah 4:23, where it may be seen that it denotes ruin, emptiness, waste, desolation.

 

This was the end of "the world that then was" (2 Peter 3:5,6).

The chapter next goes on to describe the creation of "the heavens and the earth which are now" (2 Peter 3:7); and in 2 Peter 3:13 we are informed that these will be followed hereafter by "a new heavens and new earth."

 

If we interpret the chapter on these lines, and do not make Moses or the Holy Spirit responsible for the mistakes of translators and commentators, we have a surer foundation for any application we make.

 

In doing this we destroy the miserable imagination of a criticism which regards it as either an "allegory" or as a "myth."

The interpretation tells us that at some time in the eternal ages past, "God created the heavens and the earth."

 

And then, that at some time, in some manner, and for some reason (which are not revealed) it became a ruin, empty, waste, desolate, and overwhelmed with water.

 

"The world that then was" (Gen 1:2).—The accurate reading in the English of the AV  (KJV) Genesis 1:2 will be sufficient to show there is something in the verse which needs explanation; and when we have explained it we shall find that it points to a wonderful exposition of the Creation, and provides a complete answer to all the cavils of Geologists.

 

This discovery would be impossible if the Revised Version were used, as the Revisers deliberately discarded the use of italics in certain cases, one of which was in the case of the verb "to be," which does not exist in Hebrew.

 

In Genesis 1:2 (AV) we read: "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

Here, it will be seen that, the first "was" is in Roman type, while the second is in Italic type. This accuracy tells us that the latter verb, "was," represents the verb to be; and that the former "was" must represent a different verb, and not the verb "to be." This is the case; and the verb is hyahaf (hayah), to become, come to pass.

 

That this is its meaning is clear from the very next verse (v 3): "Let there be light, and there was light." Here the verb for "be" and "was" is hayah, and means become, while, in verse 4, the verb "was" is the verb to be, and is in italics.

The same use of "was" (Roman type) and "was" (Italic type) may be seen in verses 9 and 10; and in verses 11 and 12.

If we enquire further about the verb hayah we find it in Genesis 2:7, "and man became a living soul; 4:14, "it shall come to pass"; 9:15, "the waters shall no more become a flood"; 19:26, Lot's wife "became a pillar of salt."

 

From all this we assuredly learn that Genesis 1:2 should read, "and the earth BECAME without form."

 

Having made this discovery we now pursue it further; and we "search the Scriptures" to find out whether God has said anything else about the way in which He created the earth. And we find it in Isaiah 45:18. Here the sentences are heaped together, in order to impress us with the fact that, He who created the earth, ought to know, and be able to tell us, how He made it. Note the words:

"Thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens;
Elohim himself that formed the earth, and made it;
He hath established it,
He created it not tohu."

But this word (tohu) is the very word which is translated "without form" in Genesis 1:2. So that, whatever tohu means, it is evident that God did not create the earth tohu. Therefore it must have become so, at some time, in some way, and from some cause which we are not told.

It is clear from this that in Genesis 1:1 we have the record concerning what is called in 2 Peter 3:6 "the world that then was." This earth, we are there told also, "being overflowed with water perished." This is exactly what is stated in Genesis 1:1, 2.

 

So that at the end of the first verse we must put a very large full stop; or draw a line; or leave a blank space, so as to separate verse 1 from what follows in verse 2, which relates to "the heavens and earth which are now" (2 Peter 3:7), and which will continue, until the time comes for "the new heavens and the new earth" of 2 Peter 3:13, and of many other Scriptures.

 

When Geologists have settled how many years they require between the first and second verses of Genesis 1 there is ample room for all they want, and a large margin beside.

 

Meanwhile, we may well conclude that all the fossils and remains which are found belonged to "the world that then was," and thus, at one stroke, remove all friction between Geology and Scripture.

Again, we ask, why assume that all the Geological phenomena pertain to the earth "which is now," when it is this very assumption which creates the difficulty? and compels us to ignore all the phenomena of God's Word mentioned above? It is quite correct to say we have the original creation of the universe stated in chapter 1:1 and the subsequent creation of the present animal order in verse 21 and the creation of man in verse 27 yet the statement needs qualifying and explaining.

 

A discrimination must be made (the Bible certainly makes it) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of the truth. (2Ti 2:15)

 

 Between the original creation of the earth and its subsequent reconstruction with view to its becoming the habitation of man. We can not too strongly emphasis that the six "days" in this first chapter of Genesis do not describe the original creation of the earth. Those who suppose or assert this are then obliged to treat the "six days" as vast periods of time, so as to make Genesis fit with what has been shown by modern science concerning the antiquity of our earth. Yet what they fail to do is to reconcile Genesis and geology; and what is worse, they involve the Scriptures itself in unresolvable self-contradictions. It is for this very purpose that we must read and study Scripture carefully, If there is a error you may be sure that it is on our part, from not understanding Scripture aright.

 

To begin with the needless conflict between Scripture and Science is unnecessary, caused by I fear those who are neither Scientists nor scholars of the Word. According to the reckoning based on Bible chronology, the race of Adam did not appear on this earth until six or seven thousand years ago; but modern geology has now shown beyond doubt that the earth existed immense ages before then. How are we to account, then, for that vast period of earth’s existence before the time when, according to the Bible, the Adamic race first appeared? If we say that there is no break between the first two verses of Genesis, and that the words, "without form and void" in verse 2, describe the first condition of the earth at its creation away back beyond all the geologic ages, then of course, the only way we can fit in the vast expanse of time between the creation of the earth and the comparatively recent appearances of man is to say that the six "days" of Genesis 1 were six great ages, and that man appeared somewhere in the sixth.

 

I might point out as an aside that vegetable remains from the pre-Adamite ages are found in the earth’s strata, as also are fossils of animals which had eyes. However in the six days of Genesis no creatures having eyes were created until after the fourth day, when the sun was caused to shine on the earth. How shall we explain re-Adamite vegetables, and these animals having eyes? If we deny the break between the first two verses of Genesis, and say that the words "without form, and void" describe the earth at its original creation, we find ourselves shut up to three expedients, each of which is untenable.

First, we may say that the six days were six ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, immediately following the creation of the earth in its waste and void condition. But in that case Genesis is made to teach that the earth is only six or seven thousand years old (seeing that man was created on the sixth of those days, and the human race is only six or seven thousand years old), and at once geology parts company with Scripture.

 

Second, we may say that the six days were six ordinary days but not following the original creation of the earth in its vast period waste and void condition. But in that case, during the vast period between the original creation of the earth and those six days of only a few thousand years ago, the earth must have remained in its condition of chaos and emptiness and darkness; and this again puts us at war with geology; for how can we account for that pre-Adamite vegetation, and animals having eyes, in that dense, age-long chaos and darkness?

 

Third, we may say that the six days were immense ages which followed upon the earth’s original creation in its waste and void condition. But in this case the beginning of the present order of the animals and man is carried thousands and thousands of years further back than any fair dealing with the language of Scripture would allow.

 

If, however we reject these three expedients, recognizing that there is a break between the first two verses of Genesis, so that verse 1 refers to the original creation, and verse two refers to a desolation with occurred later, all such difficulty is removed. There is ample and intelligent play for all geological discoveries, and at the same time we do justice to the language of Scripture.

 

Enough for now gentle reader, consider what we have proposed and next time I will show further how Science does not in any way refute Scripture but actually confirms the truth of the Word of God,

　

To be continued.....