7: Chronologies: Secular and Sacred Calendars: (Infoplease Almanac. Ussher. Bedford.)
1. Infoplease Almanac: “History of the Calendar”: The purpose of the calendar is to reckon past or future time, to show how many days until a certain event takes place—the harvest or a religious festival—or how long since something important happened. The earliest calendars must have been strongly influenced by the geographical location of the people who made them. In colder countries, the concept of the year was determined by the seasons, specifically by the end of winter. But in warmer countries, where the seasons are less pronounced, the Moon became the basic unit for time reckoning; an old Jewish book says that “the Moon was created for the counting of the days.” Most of the oldest calendars were lunar calendars, based on the time interval from one new moon to the next—a so-called lunation. But even in a warm climate there are annual events that pay no attention to the phases of the Moon. In some areas it was a rainy season; in Egypt it was the annual flooding of the Nile River. The calendar had to account for these yearly events as well.
History of the Lunar Calendar: The lunar calendar became the basis of the calendars of the ancient Chinese, Babylonians, Greeks, and Jews. During antiquity the lunar calendar that best approximated a solar-year calendar was based on a 19-year period, with 7 of these 19 years having 13 months. In all, the period contained 235 months. Still using the lunation value of 291/2 days, this made a total of 6, 9321/2 days, while 19 solar years added up to 6,939.7 days, a difference of just one week per period and about five weeks per century. Even the 19-year period required adjustment, but it became the basis of the calendars of the ancient Chinese, Babylonians, Greeks, and Jews. This same calendar was also used by the Arabs, but Muhammad later forbade shifting from 12 months to 13 months, so that the Islamic calendar now has a lunar year of about 354 days. As a result, the months of the Islamic calendar, as well as the Islamic religious festivals, migrate through all the seasons of the year.
History of the Egyptian Calendar: The Egyptian year coincided precisely with the solar year only once every 1.460 years The ancient Egyptians used a calendar with 12 months of 30 days each, for a total of 360 days per year (In addition to the civic calendar, the Egyptians also had a religious calendar that was based on the 291/2-day lunar cycle and was more closely linked with agricultural cycles and the movements of the stars.). About 4000 B.C. they added five extra days at the end of every year to bring it more into line with the solar year. (1. The correct figures are lunation: 29 d, 12 h, 44 min, 2.8 sec (29.530585 d); solar year: 365 d, 5 h, 48 min, 46 secs (365.242216 d); 12 lunations: 354 d, 8 h, 48 min, 34 secs (354.3671 d). These five days became a festival because it was thought to be unlucky to work during that time. The Egyptians had calculated that the solar year was actually closer to 3651/4 days, but instead of having a single leap day, every four years, to account for the fractional day (the way we do now), they let the one-quarter day accumulate. After 1,460 solar years, or four periods of 365 years, 1,461 Egyptian years had passed. This means that as the years passed, the Egyptian months fell out of sync with the seasons, so that the summer months eventually fell during winter. Only once every 1,460 years did their calendar year coincide precisely with the solar year?
History of the Roman (Julian) Calendar: The Romans were superstitious that even numbers were unlucky, so their months were 29 or 31 days long. When Rome emerged as a world power, the difficulties of making a calendar were well known, but the Romans complicated their lives because of their superstition that even numbers were unlucky. Hence their months were 29 or 31 days long, with the exception of February, which had 28 days. However, four months of 31 days, seven months of 29 days, and one month of 28 days added up to only 355 days. Therefore, the Romans invented an extra month called Mercedonius of 22 or 23 days. It was added every second year. Even with Mercedonius, the Roman calendar eventually became so far off that Julius Caesar, advised by the astronomer Sosigenes, ordered a sweeping reform. 46 B.C. was made 445 days long by imperial decree, bringing the calendar back in step with the seasons. Then the solar year (with the value of 365 days and 6 hours) was made the basis of the calendar. The months were 30 or 31 days in length, and to take care of the 6 hours, every fourth year was made a 366-day year. Moreover, Caesar decreed the year began with the first of January, not with the vernal equinox in late March. This calendar was named the Julian calendar, after Julius Caesar, and it continues to be used by Eastern Orthodox churches for holiday calculations to this day. However, despite the correction, the Julian calendar is still 111/2 minutes longer than the actual solar year, and after a number of centuries, even 111/2 minutes adds up. The Gregorian Reform: The Julian calendar is phased out. By the 15th century the Julian calendar had drifted behind the solar calendar by about a week, so that the vernal equinox was falling around March 12 instead of around March 20. Pope Sixtus IV (who reigned from 1471 to 1484) decided that another reform was needed and called the German astronomer Regiomontanus to Rome to advise him. Regiomontanus arrived in 1475, but unfortunately, he died shortly afterward, and the pope’s plans for reform died with him. Then in 1545, the Council of Trent authorized Pope Paul III to reform the calendar once more. Most of the mathematical and astronomical work was done by Father Christopher Clavius, S.J. The immediate correction, advised by Father Clavius and ordered by Pope Gregory XIII, was that Thursday, Oct. 4, 1582, was to be the last day of the Julian calendar. The next day would be Friday, Oct. 15. For long-range accuracy, a formula suggested by the Vatican librarian Aloysius Giglio was adopted: every fourth year is a leap year unless it is a century year like 1700 or 1800. Century years can be leap years only when they are divisible by 400 (e.g., 1600 and 2000). This rule eliminates three leap years in four centuries, making the calendar sufficiently accurate. In spite of the revised leap year rule, an average calendar year is still about 26 seconds longer than the Earth’s orbital period. But this discrepancy will need 3,323 years to build up to a single day.
Reform Adopted Gradually: The Gregorian reform was not adopted throughout the West immediately. Most Catholic countries quickly changed to the pope’s new calendar in 1582. But Europe’s Protestant princes chose to ignore the papal bull and continued with the Julian calendar. It was not until 1700 that the Protestant rulers of Germany and the Netherlands changed to the new calendar. In Great Britain (and its colonies) the shift did not take place until 1752, and in Russia a revolution was needed to introduce the Gregorian calendar in 1918. In Turkey, the Islamic calendar was used until 1926.
A Better Calendar? Despite its widespread use, the Gregorian calendar has a number of weaknesses. It cannot be divided into equal halves or quarters; the number of days per month is haphazard; and months and years may begin on any day of the week. Holidays pegged to specific dates may also fall on any day of the week, and few Americans can predict when Thanksgiving will occur next year. Since Gregory XIII, many other proposals for calendar reform have been made, but none has been permanently adopted. In the meantime, the Gregorian calendar keeps the calendar dates in reasonable unison with astronomical events.
Adoption of the Gregorian Calendar: The Gregorian reform was not adopted throughout the West immediately: Year Country: 1582 Catholic states of Italy, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Holland, and Poland. 1584 German and Swiss Catholic states. 1587 Hungary. 1700 German, Swiss, and Dutch Protestant States, Denmark and Norway. 1752 Great Britain and its possessions (including the American colonies). 1873 Japan. 1875 Egypt. 1918 Russia. 1924 Greece. 1925 Turkey. 1949 China.”))
(History of Calendars (Egyptian, Lunar, Roman, Gregorian Reform — When & Where). Copyrights. Information Please® Database, © 2007 Pearson Education Inc. All rights reserved: (Awaiting permission. I still have not received reply. I’ll try again.)
2. Ussher: (Oxford’s Cyclopedic Concordance) “Remarks. The Chronology of the Old Testament, as given In the Hebrew text, is represented with much accuracy by the marginal dates inserted in many editions of the Authorized English Version. These dates, reduced to system by Archbishop Ussher (Annales Veteris Testamenti, 1650), were first added to the English Bible by Bishop Lloyd, in the great edition of 1701. The dates of Archbishop Ussher for this period are convenient for keeping the succession of events, but are not authoritative, as is agreed by the most conservative scholars. They are only one of several possible arrangements. Opinions of chronologers as to the ‘ era of Creation ‘ vary indeed by many centuries. (Ussher 4004, Hales (Sept.) 5411 B.C., Jewish reckoning 3760 B. C., Alexandrian 5503 B.C “The question is, in fact, insoluble.”
Annals of the World: Preface: “Despite his success as a churchman, Ussher is perhaps most famous for having dated the start of the creation to the evening before 23rd October, 4004 B.C. Ussher calculated this timing in his Annals, a work of biblical chronology which he published in Latin in 1650 (Hartlib noted its progress through the press with great interest), and which was translated into English in 1658. The book was the fruit of many years labour; as early as the summer of 1640, Ussher had been reported ‘spending constantly all the afternoones’ in the Bodleian working at it (Constantine Adams to Hartlib, Hartlib Papers, 15/8/3A–4B). In the Annals, Ussher developed the chronological work of many earlier scholars, in particular Joseph Justus Scaliger (who had pioneered the use of the Julian period in calendrical calculations) to provide a framework for dating the whole Bible historically. He argued that, although scripture itself only tended to take notice of entire years, the Holy Ghost had left clues in the Bible which allowed the critic to establish a precise chronology of its events, through the application to the text of the results of astronomical calculations and its comparison with the dates of pagan history. Ussher’s system had the advantage of preserving several attractive numerical symmetries, for example the ancient Jewish notion, adopted by Christians, that the creation anticipated the birth of the Messiah by 4,000 years, but it was also heavily dependent on classical chronologies and on an interpretation of the calendar which already seemed outdated to many scholars. Although not wholly original, Ussher’s work was nevertheless influential and became widely accepted, not least because its dates were later incorporated into the margins of some editions of the Authorized Version. However, Ussher’s chronology rested too heavily on the Hebrew text of Old Testament to escape controversy even in his own day. Its findings were attacked by those who were persuaded that the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) or the Samaritan Pentateuch (both of which presented different chronologies from the Hebrew) were more reliable witnesses to the dictation of the Holy Ghost, or that they concurred more closely with the evidence of astronomy and pagan history. Yet, in the opinion of Hartlib, and perhaps of many others, Ussher’s critics were churlish individuals who were unwilling to admit their own debts to his scholarship. Despite such debates, most seventeenth-century readers of the Bible would have agreed with Ussher that it ought, in principle, to have been possible to establish an accurate and detailed biblical chronology. Illustrated opposite is the title-page from the Annals, engraved by Francis Barlow and Richard Gaywood. This shows a number of the crucial figures and episodes from Ussher’s chronology. Adam and Eve are flanked by the figures of Solomon and Nebuchadnezzar, the builder and destroyer of the first Temple, which is also shown both in its glory and after its fall. The engraving also depicts the second Temple, built after Cyrus allowed the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, and its eventual destruction. The figures of Cyrus and of Vespasian (who was Emperor at the time of the destruction of Herod’s Temple, in A.D. 70) flank a depiction of the Last Supper. This copy of the Annals has also been extra-illustrated by the pasting in of a contemporary engraved portrait of Ussher, which shows him holding ‘God’s Word’, the Bible, in his hand. It was executed for the London printseller, Peter Stent, who advertised it for sale in 1653, 1658, 1662, and 1663.))
Annals: Letter to Readers ….”The first Christian writer, (that I have known of) who attempted from the Holy Bible to calculate the age of the world, was Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch. Concerning this whole account, he states: “All times and years are made known to them who are willing to obey the truth” (Theoph. ad Autolyc. l. 3.) But concerning the exactness of this calculation he later states: “And haply we may not be able to give an exact account of every year, because in the Holy Scriptures there is no mention of the precise number of months and days” For the Scripture normally notes only entire years and not the days and months in each instance. Hence summing the years may give an inaccurate total because the partial years were not included. But granting this one thing, (and this is a most reasonable assumption) that the Holy Writers had this purpose in noting the years of the world in their various places with such diligence. They sought to reveal to us the history of the world that otherwise, no one could know. This, I say, being granted, we affirm that the Holy Spirit has anticipated this doubt. He has started and ended each of the periods, on which a series of time depends and added the very month and day. For example, the Israelites left Egypt on the 15th day of the first month. Nu 33:3. In the 480th year after their exodus, in the second month on the second day, Solomon began to build the temple. 1Ki 6:1. The months and days given for the start and end of the period show that 11 months and 14 days are to be taken away. The period is not 480 whole years, but only 479 years and 16 days. 2Ch 3:2 “Those who promise to give us an exact astronomical table of time, from the creation to Christ, seem to me more worthy of encouragement than praise in that they attempt a thing beyond human capacity.” Thus states David Paraeus, who, among the most recent of our writers, calculated the number the years to Christ’s time from the Holy Scriptures. Therefore he says, abandoning astronomical calculations, he used the civil time of the Hebrews, Egyptians and Persians as the only way to do this accurately. But if I have any understanding in this matter, it does not matter what rule we use to measure the passing of time, as long as it starts and ends with a certain number of days. Anyone could with D. Paraeus, by some equal measure of years, define the time between the foundation of the world and Christ’s time. Also it would be very easy without the help of any astronomical table, to set down how many years happened during that interval. The passing of time in any civil year from a season to the same season again is simply a natural astronomical or tropical year. Anyone can do this who is well versed in the knowledge of sacred and profane history, of astronomical calculations and of the old Hebrew calendar. If he should apply himself to these difficult studies, it is not impossible for him to determine not only the number of years but even the days from the creation of the world. Using backward calculations, Basil the great, told us we may determine the first day of the world. “You may indeed learn the very time when the foundation of the world was laid. If you return from this time to former ages, you may endeavour studiously to determine the day of the world’s origin. Hence you will find when time began.” {Basil. in Hexamer. Homil. 1.} the nations in various ages used different methods of calculating time and years. It is necessary that some common and known standard be used to which these may be reconciled. The Julian years and months are most suitable to the common collation of times. These starts on midnight, January 1, A.D. Using three cycles, every year are uniquely identified. For example, the Roman indiction {a} of 15 years, the cycle of the moon {b}, or golden number of 19 and the solar cycle {c} (the index of Sunday or Paschal days) containing the period of 28 years. It is known that the year 1650 A.D. is identified with the numbers of 3 in the Roman indiction {a}, 17 in the lunar cycle and 7 in the solar cycle. (I do not say that of the year of the birth of Christ, which is still disputed among the learned.) Since our Christian period comes long after the creation of the world, counting years backward is difficult and error prone. There is a better way. Modern chronologers have extrapolated these three cycles backward to the year when all the cycles would start at 1 on January first. This creates an artificial epoch of length 7980 years based on the product of the three cycles multiplied together. Lunar Cycle Solar Cycle Years of Interdiction Total 19 times 28 times 15 = 7980 Years 19 Years 28 Years 15 Years I think this was first noted by Robert Lotharing, Bishop of Hereford, in England. 500 years later Joseph Scaliger adapted this to chronological use and called it by the name of the Julian Period, because it extended the cycle of Julian years back in time and forward. The cycle starts at noon, January 1, 4713 BC. and is a leap year. Here the lunar cycle is 1, the Solar cycle is 1 and the Interdiction cycle is also 1. Hence 1 AD is the year 4714 of the Julian period and is identified by the Roman Indiction of 4, lunar cycle of 2, solar cycle of 10. Moreover we find that the years of our forefathers, the years of the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews were the same length as the Julian Year. It consisted of 12 months containing 30 days. (It cannot be proved that the Hebrews used lunar months before the Babylonian captivity.) 5 days were added to the 12th month each year. Every 4 years, 6 days were added to the 12th month. I have noted the continual passing of these years, as set forth in the Bible. Hence the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and the beginning of his son Evilmerodach’s reign was in the 3442 year of the world. (3442 AM) By collation of Chaldean history and the astronomical cannon it was in the 85 year of Nabonasar. This was 562 BC. or 4152 JP. (Julian Period) From this I deduce that the creation of the world happened in the beginning of the autumn of 710 JP. {d} Using astronomical tables, I determined the first Sunday after the autumnal equinox for the year 710 JP which was October 23 of that year. I ignored the stopping of the sun, in the days of Joshua and the going back of it in the days of Hezekiah. (See the notes in my Annals for 2553 AM and 3291 AM) From thence I concluded, that from the preceding evening of October 23, marks the first day of creation and the start of time. I ignored the difficulties raised by chronologers who are occupied by the love of contention, as Basil notes. Hence I deduce that the time from the creation until midnight, January 1, 1 AD. was 4003 years, 70 days, 6 hours. Also based on the death of Herod I conclude that the birth of our Saviour was four full years before January 1, 1 AD. According to our calculations, the building of Solomon’s temple was finished in the 3000th year of the world. In the 4000th year of the world, Mary gave birth to Christ Lu 2:6 (of whom the temple was a type). Joh 2:21 Hence Christ was born in 4 BC. not 1 AD. {e} But these things, (which I note at the present) God willing, shall be more fully explained in our “Sacred Chronology”. This I intend to write with a “Treatise of the Primitive Years” and the “Calendar of the Ancient Hebrews”. In the meantime I thought it best to publish the “Annals of the Old Testament”. Based on this foundation, I included a chronicle of all foreign affairs that happened in Asia and Egypt. These include events before the beginning of the Olympiads and matters relating to Greece and Rome and other areas. In doing the sacred history, I have followed the translation of Janius and Tremellius, using their Hebraism’s and the information from their work. In doing the secular history, I have noted the writings of their ancient authors or the best translation from the Greek of their works. In particular I used James Dalechamp translation in Athenaeus. Although in noting the chapters I observed the edition of “Natalis Comes”. From these I have written this history using material from Codomanes, Capellas Emmias, Pezelius, Eberus, Salianus, or any other chronologer, which I had. However, I always referred to the original authors and did most of my work directly from their writings and not second hand sources. Since my purpose was to create an accurate chronology, I may not have followed the exact wording of these writers in every case, but I have preserved the intent of their writings. Of the many historians, who lived before Julius Caesar, the passing of time leaves only four of note: Herodotus, Thucidides, Xenophon and Polibius. The last one is poor and inaccurate in many places. These I esteemed the most authentic for their antiquity. I used them to correct the frequent errors in chronology of Diodorus Siculus. However in matters that related to Alexander the Great, they are silent. For this period, I also followed not only Diodorus but Curtius and Arrian to try to determine the history of that period. I used the following abbreviations: ADYears from the start of the Christian era. AMYear of the World from creation. BCYears before the Christian era. JPJulian Year starting at January 1, 4713 BC. NKNorthern Kingdom of Israel. SKSouthern Kingdom of Israel. After the time denoted by AM, one of four letters may be affixed; aAutumn bWinter cSpring d Summer. Other things the prudent reader will figure out for himself. I wish you the enjoyment of these endeavours and bid you farewell. London, July 13, 1650 AD. Rev. James Ussher.))
“The Annals of the Old Testament from the Beginning of the World The First Age of the World 1a AM, 710 JP, 4004 BC 1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ge 1:1 This beginning of time, according to our chronology, happened at the start of the evening preceding the 23rd day of October in the year of the Julian calendar, 710. 2. On the first day Ge 1:1-5 of the world, on Sunday, October 23rd, God created the highest heaven and the angels. When he finished, as it were, the roof of this building, he started with the foundation of this wonderful fabric of the world. He fashioned this lower most globe, consisting of the deep and of the earth. Therefore all the choir of angels sang together and magnified his name. Job 38:7 When the earth was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep, God created light on the very middle of the first day. God divided this from the darkness and called the one “day” and the other “night”. 3. On the second day Ge 1:6-8 (Monday, October 24th) after the firmament or heaven was finished, the waters above were separated from the waters here below, en-closing the earth. 4. On the third day Ge 1:9-13 (Tuesday, October 25th) when these waters below ran together into one place, the dry land appeared. From this collection of the waters God made a sea, sending out from here the rivers, which were to return there again. Ec 1:7 He caused the earth to bud and bring forth all kinds of herbs and plants with seeds and fruits. Most importantly, he enriched the garden of Eden with plants, for among them grew the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Ge 2:8,9 5. On the fourth day (Wednesday, October 26th) the sun, the moon and the rest of the stars were created. 6. On the fifth day (Thursday, October 27th) fish and flying birds were created and commanded to multiply and fill the sea and the earth. 7. On the sixth day (Friday, October 28th) the living creatures of the earth were created as well as the creeping creatures. Last of all, man was created after the image of God, which consisted principally in the divine knowledge of the mind, Col 3:10 in the natural and proper sanctity of his will. Eph 4:24 When all living creatures by the divine power were brought before him, Adam gave them their names. Among all of these, he found no one to help him like himself. Lest he should be destitute of a suitable companion, God took a rib out of his side while he slept and fashioned it into a woman. He gave her to him for a wife, establishing by it the law of marriage between them. He blessed them and bade them to be fruitful and multiply. God gave them dominion over all living creatures. God provided a large portion of food and sustenance for them to live on. To conclude, because sin had not yet entered into the world, God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Ge 1:31 8. Now on the seventh day, (Saturday, October 29th) when God had finished his work which he intended, he then rested from all labour. He blessed the seventh day and ordained and consecrated the sabbath Ge 2:2, 3 because he rested on it Ex 31:17 and refreshed himself. Nor as yet (for ought to appears) had sin entered into the world. Nor was there any punishment given by God, either upon mankind, or upon angels. Hence it was, that this day was set forth for a sign, as well as for our sanctification in this world Ex 31:13 of that eternal sabbath, to be enjoyed in the world to come. In it we expect a full deliverance from sin and its dregs and all its punishments. Heb 4:4,9,10 9. After the first week of the world ended, it seems that God brought the newly married couple into the garden of Eden. He charged them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil but left them free to eat of everything else. 10. The Devil envied God’s honour and man’s obedience. He tempted the woman to sin by the serpent. By this he got the name and title of the old serpent. Re 12:9 20:2 The woman was beguiled by the serpent and the man seduced by the woman. They broke the command of God concerning the forbidden fruit. Accordingly when sought for by God and convicted of this crime, each had their punishments imposed on them. This promise was also given that the seed of the woman should one day break the serpent’s head. Christ, in the fulness of time should undo the works of the Devil. 1Jo 3:8 Ro 16:20 Adam first called her Eve because she was then ordained to be the mother, not only of all that should live this natural life, but, of those also who should live by faith in her seed. This was the promised Messiah as Sarah also later was called the mother of the faithful. 1Pe 3:6 Ga 4:31. 11. After this our first parents were clothed by God with raiment of skins. They were expelled from Eden and a fiery flaming sword set to keep the way leading to the tree of life so that they should never eat of that fruit which they had not yet touched. Ge 3:21, 22 It is very probable, that Adam was turned out of paradise the same day that he was brought into it. This seems to have been on the 10th day of the world. (November 1st) On this day also, in remembrance of so remarkable an event the day of atonement was appointed Le 23:27, and the yearly fast, spoken of by Paul, Ac 27:9 termed more especially by the name of nhsteian. On this feast all, strangers as well as native Israelites, were commanded to afflict their souls that every soul which should not afflict itself upon that day should be destroyed from among his people, Le 16:29 23:29 12. After the fall of Adam, Cain was the first of all mortal men that was born of a woman. Ge 4:1 130 AM, 840 JP, 3874 BC 13. When Cain, the firstborn of all mankind, murdered Abel, God gave Eve another son called Seth. Ge 4:25 Adam had now lived 130 years. Ge 5:3 from whence it is gathered, that between the death of Abel and the birth of Seth, there was no other son born to Eve. For then, he should have been recorded to have been given her instead of him. Since man had been on the earth 128 years and Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters Ge 5:4 the number of people on the earth at the time of this murder could have been as many as 500,000. Cain might justly fear, through the conscience of his crime, that every man that met him would also slay him. Ge 4:14,15 235d AM, 945 JP, 3769 BC 14. When Seth was 105 years old, he had his son, Enos. This indicates the lamentable condition of all mankind. For even then was the worship of God wretchedly corrupted by the race of Cain. Hence it came, that men were even then so distinguished, that they who persisted in the true worship of God were known by the name of the children of God. They, who forsook him, were termed the children of men. Ge 4:26 6:1, 2 325d AM, 1035 JP, 3679 BC 15.
Now in the 10th day of the second month of this year (Sunday, November 30th) God commanded Noah that in that week he should prepare to enter into the Ark. Meanwhile the world, totally devoid of all fear, sat eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage. Ge 7:1, 4, 10 Mt 24:38 35. In the 600th year of the life of Noah, on the 17th day of the second month, (Sunday, December 7th), he with his children and living creatures of all kinds had entered into the Ark. God sent a rain on the earth 40 days and 40 nights. The waters continued upon the earth 150 days, Ge 7:4, 6, 11-13, 17, 24. 36. The waters abated until the 17th day of the 7th month, (Wednesday, May 6th) when the ark came to rest upon one of the mountains of Ararat. Ge 8:3, 4 37. The waters continued receding until on the 1st day of the 10th month (Sunday, July 19th) the tops of the mountains were seen. Ge 8:5 38. After 40 days, that is on the 11th day of the 11th month (Friday, August 28th) Noah opened the window of the ark and sent forth a raven. Ge 8:6,7 39. 7 days later, on the 18th day of the 11th month (Friday, September 4th) as may be deduced from the other 7 days mentioned in Ge 8:10, Noah sent out a dove. She returned after 7 days. 25th day of the 11th month, (Friday, September 11th) He sent her out again and about the evening she returned bringing the leaf of an olive tree in her bill. After waiting 7 days more, 2nd day of the 12th month, (Friday, September 18th) he sent the same dove out again, which never returned. Ge 8:8,12
The Second Age of the World 1657 AM, 2366 JP, 2348 BC 40. When Noah was 601 years old, on the 1st day of the 1st month (Friday, October 23rd), the 1st day of the new post-flood world, the surface of the earth was now all dry. Noah took off the covering of the ark. Ge 8:13 41. On the 27th of the 2nd month, (Thursday, December 18th) the earth was entirely dry. By the command of God, Noah went forth with all that were with him in the ark. Ge 8:14, 15, 19 42. When he left the ark, Noah offered to God sacrifices for his blessed preservation. God restored the nature of things destroyed by the flood. He permitted men to eat flesh for their food and gave the rainbow for a sign of the covenant which he then made with man. Ge 8:15-9:17 43. Man’s lifespan was now half the length it was previously…….

3. Bedford’s The Scripture Chronology Demonstrated by Astronomical Calculations, and also by the Year of Jubilee, and the Sabbatical Year among the Jews: or an Account of Time from the Creation of the World, to the Destruction of Jerusalem as it may fed from the Writings of the Old and New Testament. by a Method hitherto Unattempted; and which was first proposed by the Learned Archbishop Ussher. In which the Hebrew Text is vindicated, and the Objections of it, as consisting of many Mutilations, and numerical Alterations, casionally considered 3 and the Authority of the Samaritan and against it, as consisting of many Mutilations, and numerical Alterations, are occasionally considered; and the Authority of the Samaritan and Septuagint Versions, in Opposition to the Original Copy, is confuted. Together, with The History of the WORLD, from the Creation, to the Time when Dr. Prideaux began his Connexion; Illustrated with a great Variety of Tables, Maps, and Copper Plates; by Arthur Bedford M. A. Rector of Newton……. M.DCC.XXX. (1730). London.
(Psal.19. 1,2,3,4,5. The heavens declare the glory of GOD, and the firmament sheweth his handy work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth; and their words unto the ends of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun; which is as bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoyceth as a giant to run his course. Psal. 89. 5. The heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD; thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the faints. Psal. 5.18. Known unto G O D are all his works, from the foundation of the world. Psal. 17. 24,25,26,27. GOD that made the world and all things therein, who is LORD of heaven and earth, who giveth to all life and breath and all things, hath determined the times before appointed That they should seek the L O R D, if haply they might seek after him, and find him, tho’ he be not far from every one of us.)
To the Reader: When it pleased GOD to remove me from Bristol to a private Living in Somersetshire, where I had more Leisure for my Studies, I happen’d to read over the Preface of the most learned Archbishop Usher to his Annal, in which he mentioned his Opinion concerning a more exact: Method of a Chronological System of the Sacred Scriptures by the Help of Astronomy, and a competent Skill in the Jewish Learning. I was far from thinking myself so well skilled in either of these Studies, as to undertake a Work of this Nature; however several Texts of Scripture coming into my Memory, made me endeavour to attempt it. I made many Calculations to no Purpose, and bestowed many an Hour about it, with this View, that if it was above my Ability to perform it, it could but be buried in Oblivion; but if GOD would enable me to do it, it might be useful. Sometimes I despair’d of Success, and laid the Design aside, at other Times I had Hope, and then fell to it again. At last I flatter’d myself, that I had succeeded, and then digested my Thoughts into some Method. After this, coming to London, to assist in the Correction of the Arabick Psalter, and New Testament, for the Benefit of the poor Christians in Asia, I shewed my Thoughts to some Friends, who advis’d me to publish them to which I comply’d, with a Design not to have exceeded fourscore or an hundred Pages in the whole. A few Sheets being printed off, I was informed, that a Work of this Nature was intended to be publish d from the Papers of the most famous Sir Isaac Newton. Upon this I stopp’d, expecting great Assistance in my Design from that most able Hand. When it was publish’d, I found his Astronomical Observations to be very few, and even those not to be satisfactory. And as the Septuagint and Samaritan Versions would destroy the Authority of the Hebrew Text, by Placing the Date of the Creation too far forward; so I found, that Sir Isaacs Hypothesis would have the fame Consequence, by bringing the History too far backward.
[Two instances of Isaac Newton’s poor Chronology of Scripture is given in which he had plainly contradicted Scripture (Animadversions on Sir Isaac Newton’s Book, titled, The Chronology of antient Kingdoms amended. London. Printed in the Year 1728.) Bedford writes: “Thus the Chronology of this learned Author puts the whole Scripture History into Confusion, and therefore he should not have mentioned in the least, that he had made his System agreeable to those sacred Writings…..So that when this learned Author saith, that he hath made his Chronology agree with Scripture, he can only mean the Scripture of his own Making.”]
But to return from this Digression; After a few Sheets of this Work had been printed off, I was advis’d by some Friends, contrary to my first Inclinations, to enlarge the Work by several other Additions, and particularly by a History of the World from the Creation, until the Time when Dean Prideaux began his learned Connection, and to add what could be found for this Purpose, in the Writings of the most authentick Eastern Historians, such as Sanchoniatho, Abul Pharagius, Elmachinus, Eutychius and Josephus; and Proposals for Subscriptions were printed accordingly. [Of the many booksellers and scholars, reverends and ministers, we find the names of John Gill, Samuel Wright, ….] As soon as Sir Isaac Newton’s Chronology was extant, I found it contrary to all Mankind, and utterly destructive of the Scripture History, which made me oblig’d to confute it (Animadversions on Sir Isaac Newton’s Book, entitled, The Chronology of antient Kingdoms amended. London, Printed in the Year 1728.); in a small Octavo printed for that Purpose, and this delay d the other Work for some Time. When I began to think on the Particulars promis’d in the Proposals, I found the Work to be much more difficult, and to require much more Time to finish it, then I at first imagin’d, and, as I fear, beyond my Abilities. However, I was oblig’d to perform what I had promised. I hope that I have reconciled the Differences of Numbers throughout the Old and New Testament, so that there is no need to alledge, that any of them were alter’d by Transcribers, but that the Original is still preserve! pure and entire. I hope, that I have reconciled the various Accounts of Time among the Chaldeans, Grecians, ‘Persians and Egyptians, and made them agree with those of the Hebrew Bible, in Opposition to the Septuagint, and especially the Samaritan Version, who place their Account too high, as well as others, who place it too low……. (Befford apologizes of some uncertain points, and explains more of his aim, one of which is to demonsrate that many or most of the ritual and ceremonies were observed on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, and that only among the Jews from Moses to Christ was it altered to the 7th day Sabbath, and then restored by Christ’s resurrection and continued in the Church; and that the Feasts of the OT are types of the NT realities…..
(The large folio book is divided into 8 Books and an Appendix, and these are subdivided by chapters. From Creation to the Flood, of Ancient years and Months, Astronomical Time of the Moon, Years and Duration of the Flood, of Paradise, of Noah’s Ark, World History before the Flood from Eastern Historians, of the Ark, Objections and Observations. The History continues from the Flood to Abraham, then to the Exodus, onto the Christ. Bedford treats of the Exodus and the Wilderness, then to Canaan, to the Temple, to Babylonian Captivity, and from Destruction of Jerusalem to Christ. The 1st Appendix is on the Stature of Men of the Antediluvian World; and the 2nd, is an Abstract of World History from the Flood to the Assyrian Monarchy by Nimrod.) (Bedford is quite learned and devoted to Christ and God’s Word; he is meticulous and thorough, with many new views not generally known before, and some clearly original. He innovates the Year Zero separating the year before Christ and the Year after Christ; he explores the details of Genesis with painstaking diligence, bringing in science and history, astronomy and geography, and much more. The sizes of the giants of the pre-flood centuries he calculates to be 10 times that our in accordance to the longevity of the ages recorded; his research and studies in Biblical Chronology is unsurpassed even by Ussher. Many have benefited from his work, and many have produced like works inspired and encouraged by his, but none has surpassed him. From him we inherit a host of popular views of ancient Bible Times, too many to count; but we might mention Bullinger’s Companion Bible is the best example; works like the Schofield Reference Bible and Dakes Annotated Bible also are by-products. Of Commentators like Gill and Clarke and many others I need not remind the reader, my Reflections would swell if I gave some more extracts of this great work.)
8. Modern Works: I omit the many modern writers on the Book of Genesis and its many matters of great importance. I have examined a good number of this endless stream of Solomon’s “of writing many books there is no end” and see no need to extract or cite from them. This example alone I may give: “In the Beginning, the Opening Chapters of Genesis” by Henri Blocher, Translated by D.G. Preston, from the French to English, © Inter Varsity Press, 1984. This excellent work treats hundreds of doctrines (like the text, inspiration, interpretation, science, religion philosophy, and the like) in strict exegesis of the Text, from creation to man in Eden and the fall to the flood and the ancient world (Chapters 1-2, 2-3, 4-11). He contends for a enlarged view of inspiration and interpretation; he harmonizes whenever possible; he rejects what would deny or destroy scripture and faith. (I cannot understand his remark that Calvin was one of the best Hebraist of his day; although he studied Hebrew and Greek.) The book closes with an Appendix: Scientific hypotheses and the beginning of Genesis (pages 213-231) in which he argues against the mental defects of both scientism (naturalists) and anti-scientism (creationists). The catastrophe of the fall of man, and the flood of Noah, ruined creation, and they of the Creation Research Society and like groups (Fundamentalists, Catholics and Protestants) interpret the earth and the universe in the light of this divine change. The creationists in a literal and a restrictive interpretation of the Text, rejects the geo-chronology of science, although most ordinary Christians readily concede to science. They insist on an early or young earth and universe (10,000 years or so), with time-measurements untrustworthy, and are willing to say that God created the earth and the universe with the appearance of age. Blocher surveys the controversy of dating and the various views developed from the theories and data. He favors a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and cannot rely on the unclear understanding of the present young geo-chronology, but regards that the evidence points to a very old earth and universe with not only catastrophe and entropy (classical) but transformations or evolution (non-Darwinian). He declares: ”Nothing in the idea of creation excludes the use of an evolutionary procedure” (p.226). He concludes that some form of evolution exists, that its exact definition and description is at best vague, and that faith does not rely on established science but revelation; and anti-scientism does harm and creates confusion or ignorance. Seeing we know little of what and how he created to deny what is in evidence. But man is in the Bible a unique animal, which with man share some basic natural affinities in varied ways and degrees, but far less in design and destiny. ((This last trend of evolutionary principles in creation, even an evolutionary God, has continued to surface in many recent works of the last few decades. Both orthodox fundamentalists and the unorthodox Bible believer are being compelled rationally to interpret and incorporate the new discoveries, science, and theology.))

GENESIS: Generations of the Sons of Noah: Gentiles:

The Generations of the Creation continues in its history, toldoth, after the Flood in Noah’s three Sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 7 sons or descendants of Japhet are given, and 7 grandsons of his are named; and these are said to have divided and populated their lands, in tongues, families, and nations (goim, 1st occur.). The sons and offspring of Ham were 5, and his grandsons were 5, and his great grandsons were 2; but Cush is first noticed as father of Nimrod the Mighty (Gibbor), and emphatically, the Mighty Hunter (Gibbor–Tzaiyid (Saidh) before or against the Lord (YHWH), whose kingdom extended from south Shinar or Sumer and Babel, to the north in Assyria and Armenia and Turkey; namely from Persian Gulf to the mountains of the very north, whence originates the Two Great Rivers of the pre-Flood age. Nimrod’s Kingdom being the first Mesopotamian power and civilization, which centuries later developes into Sumer and Accad, the Sumerian-Akkadian civilization and world. Ham’s generations is resumed: from his son Mizraim or Egypt he had 7 grandsons (and one of them progenerated the Philistines and Phoenicians); and from Canaan Ham’s grandsons were 11; and the Canaanites disseminated the east coast of the Great Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the land between the Great Sea and the Jordan River with the Sea of Galilee north, to the Dead Sea south, the country and land to be known as Canaan, Israel, and Palestine. Last we have Shem’s sons were 5; Shem’s grandsons were 5; one great grandson; one great great grandson (Eber or Hebrew); two great great great grandsons (Peleg and Joktan, in Peleg’s day the earth was divided (‘niphlegah, from palag); and Shem’s 4th great grandsons were 13, and these Joktanites settled and inhabited from Mesha to Sephar of the East (Sephorah Har haqQedem), which I am agreed with those who think the lands or countries of the Arabs, ancient Arabia and Saudi Arabia, or from Iraq to Yemen to Oman, and from Red Sea to Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, (a land mass that looks like a Big Boot. Iraq at the top, Yemen at the heel and back sole, and Oman the vamp and front sole, and the toe of the boot reaching to the Gulf of Oman and the United Arab Emirates).
The generations of Noah’s Sons are the families and nations, their history and languages, from the time of the Flood to days of Moses. These nations, the Goim or Gentiles or Ethnos or Ethne, or ethnic groups, are revealed in Genesis to have descended and originated from one common stock. Their genesis was the same in language and culture. They originated according to the Text in the Mesopotamian geography, and first established themselves as a simple civilization in the land of Shinar, which will later be called Summer, Accad or Akkad, and Babel and Babylonia or Babylon and Chaldea. They feared global or universal dispersion and migration beyond Mesopotamia, so they set about to build a city, and with a High Tower reaching to heaven, and with a name to match. Mankind at this time of human history, now some hundreds of years after the Flood, this based on the Genealogy of the Nations in chapter 10, is united in their effort to create a kingdom or domain which would prevent and protect against future crisis or catastrophe, human or divine. But God as Lord, not far removed from man, watches and judges to save, and that too, to fulfill His purposes for all generations and the dispensations therein. Man’s union will come to no good, and like before the Flood, so now, after the Flood, united mankind, global humanity, will not be able to be stopped from the impossible and unimaginable. Man is intent on evil. Man must not attain his progress in this way, and at this time of human experience, so he must be confused (balal) in speech to match his confusion in heart and mind. This confusion (babel) will naturally and of necessity scatter and disperse them in migration and exploration. Thus, the earth will be populated by the Gentiles in a new dispensation which will continue to the present, and its features and details will be unfolded in the pages of the Bible.
We will not review so many ancient records of the ancient peoples from the centuries before and after Abraham, but will reserve that treatment for the future, at the close of the times and generations of the Patriarchs, and the close of Genesis with Joseph and Israel in Egypt.

GENESIS: Generations of Shem and of Terah.


Posted in Bible Reflections, Christian Reflections, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment


8: Delitzsch’s System of Biblical Psychology. (1855.1861.1878).
(A System of Biblical Psychology by Franz Delitzsch, D.D., Prof Theology, Leipsic. Translated from German to English, 2nd Ed Thoroughly Rev & Enlarged; by Rev. Rob. E, Wallis, Phil.Dr.1861. Edinburgh, T&T Clark. 1885. From Translator Preface: “The peculiar difficulties with which the translator has had to contend, were not unanticipated by the learned author himself, and may therefore be reasonably pleaded in bar of severe criticism on the way in which the task has been accomplished. Dr Delitzsch, in a courteous reply to a communication in which he had been informed of the intention to translate his book, says: “You are right: that book of mine greatly resists translation into English; it is full of newly-coined words and daring ideas; and both its form and substance are most elaborately involved.” This witness is profoundly true; and should it approve itself so to the reader in the course of his perusal of the following pages, it is hoped that he will indulgently remember this testimony.”)
From Preface of 1st Ed., 1855. “My preparations for the subject are so old (1830-1840), that as early as the year 1846 I was endeavoring to arrange them. In a Latin dissertation upon the elements of man’s nature— sketched out at that time, but suppressed—I proposed to myself an answer to the fundamental question: Whether the soul, so far as it is distinguished from the spirit, belongs by its nature to matter or to spirit? This question I proposed to consider on the side of the ecclesiastical doctrine of dichotomy that had become prevalent, which, moreover, I defended in my Theology of Biblical Prophecy (1845), and in both editions of my Commentary on Genesis (1852 and 1853). (The first edition of the System of Biblical Psychology (1855), comes between the second (1858) and third (1860) editions of the Commentary on Genesis.) That dissertation, indeed, is absolutely right in maintaining the unity of nature of soul and spirit; but it suffers from the great defect, that it does not do justice to the substantial difference between the two that is everywhere presupposed in the Holy Scripture. If this defect were not remedied, the psychologic mode of speech and matter generally in the Holy Scripture would be an obscure and formless chaos. The key of biblical psychology is found in the solution of the enigma: How is it to be conceived, that spirit and soul can be of one nature, and yet of distinct substance? It was not until I was enlightened upon this question that my confused materials of biblical psychology formed themselves as if spontaneously into a systematic unity. My problem was an historical one, standing in a wholly different internal attitude to the psychologic views of the New Testament, from that in which it stood—say to those of Plato or of the Indian Vedanta. In seeking exegetically to ascertain these views, and to combine’ them into a whole which should correspond to their own internal coherence, I proceeded from the auspicious assumption, that whatever of a psychologic kind Scripture presents will neither be self-contradictory, nor be so confused, childish, and unsatisfactory, as to have any need to be ashamed in view of the results of late psychologic research. This favorable assumption has, moreover, perfectly approved itself to me, without my being afraid of having considered the psychologic statements of Scripture in any other than their own light. For while the Scripture testifies to us of the fact of redemption, which is the revealed secret of human history and the universe, it gives us also at the same time disclosures about the nature of man, which, as well to speculative investigation into the final causes and connections of things, as to natural and spiritual self-contemplation, manifest themselves to be divine suggestions. So far, perhaps, the book before us may claim some consideration from inquirers into natural science and philosophy—from such, namely, as are not concealing views of the same kind as were lately frankly avowed by Carl Vogt…..I have striven after this virtue; and as I seek at no point to overstep the limit of the church’s knowledge up to the present time, without at the same time assuring myself that I am abiding by the scripturally sound creed of my church, I shall not be blamed for some theosophic sympathies, especially as I have reduced what Jacob Bohme taught about God’s sevenfold nature to the more biblical conception of the divine glory (doxa), and, moreover, have only so far appropriated it as it commended itself to me on biblical grounds. It was just in the light of this conception that the solution of the psychological problem occurred to me. In it (scil. this conception)— hitherto unduly neglected, and, as Weisse (Philosophische Dogmatik, i. 617) not at all too strongly expresses it, emptied of soul and life as it was under the hands of dogmatic philosophy— there are still to be found undiscovered treasures of knowledge. I have still much to say to courteous readers. But I shrink from bringing myself any longer personally in the front of my book. In deeply conscious acknowledgment of its imperfection, but yet with a grateful retrospect to the enjoyment I have found in the inquiry, I resign it to the not less merciful than strict criticism of the divine Fire (1 Cor. iii. 11-15).”
From Preface 2nd Ed., 1861. “I therefore beg all my readers carefully to distinguish the unassailable historical matter that is here placed before them, from that which is submitted to them for examination, and especially from those merely individual attempts to arrange it in general consistency with the scriptural view of God and the world; and to combine it systematically, agreeably with the suggestions of the Bible. He who in this behalf will form a competent estimate of my work, must first occupy a similar dogmatic, or, which is the same thing, ecclesiastical position to mine. That critics who are unprepared to answer the question: What is the Son of man? and who cut down the holy truths of faith in which they were baptized, and on account of which they are called Christians, nay, evangelical Christians, for the greater glorification of their scientific integrity, — that such critics should be able to find no enjoyment in my book, is wholly natural; and that the exact critics, who have no taste for a gnosis exercised in biblical paths, and the materialist critics, who know of no other induction than one which is calculated by atoms, should reject my book as a senseless production, is neither more nor less than might be expected. I rejoice in another estimate on the part of those who regard everything earnest and without deception—not merely the book of nature, but also the book of the Holy Scripture—as the attestation of a divine revelation, and who acknowledge the ground upon which I build (not without taking heed HOW I build) as the one that endures forever. If my building on this ground should prove a failure, it is after all a first attempt, which still perhaps may supply many stones for a more solid and newer edifice. It is always something gained, that the doctrinal material of biblical psychology here at length more completely and successfully than formerly appears organically articulated, so that it claims to be regarded as a science. And if, moreover, many developments slip in, which appear to lose themselves in what is fanciful, and can pretend to no demonstrative force,—a reproach which no science will escape, which is concerned with the invisible, the spiritual,—it is a fault that may be easily atoned for by the instructive communications of most manifold contents presented in connection therewith……….The relation of the doxa to the personal nature of God is represented, as I hope, more convincingly, as well exegetically as speculatively (i. Sec. 3., iv. Sec. 6). The distinction of nature and substance, which in the first edition was assumed, is now discussed (n. Sec. 4). The trichotomy fundamental text, 1 Thess. v. 23 (n. Sec. 4), and that of creationism, Heb. xii. 9 (n. Sec. 7), are searchingly considered. And equally so, the interpretation of the foundation texts of the conscience, Rom. ii. 15 (m. Sec. 4); of the relation of the soul to the blood, Lev. xvii. 14 (iv. Sec. 11); and of the antinomy of the spirit and the flesh unadjusted in the world, Rom. vii. (v. Sec. 6), are investigated anew. The just claim of biblical psychology to be called a science (Proleg. Sec. 2); the ideal pre-existence of the historically actual (i. Sec. 2); the similitude in man of God, and not merely of the Logos (ii. Sec. 2); the dualism of spirit and matter (n. Sec. 4); the distinction of a wider and narrower conception of (pneuma), (iv. 4, 5, V. 6); the fundamentally of the will (iv. 7); the priority of the spirit over the soul (iv. 8); the conception in the evangelical history of the Kenosis (v. 1); the importance to the history of redemption of the Descent (vi. 3); the actual reality, in the sense of Scripture, of the conjuration of the dead, 1 Sam. xxviii. (vi. Sec. 5)—are all established a new, with reference to the objections that have been advanced. Language, as a psychological manifestation, is better appreciated than before, as well in accordance with Scripture as experience (iv. 4, 10); the nature of the dream is more sharply defined, and its biblical name explained (iv. Sec. 14); and more attention is directed, in the region of extraordinary phenomena of the life of the soul, to the individual degrees and conditions of prophecy (iv. 14, v. 5). The earlier view of the psychologic matter of fact of possession (iv. 16), and the view of the relation of the” resurrection-corporeity to the present one (vii. 1), are justified. Many psychologic definitions of relation, as soul, power, and matter (iv. 9), person (I) and nature (iv. 2), heart and brain (iv. 12), are newly examined, and the history of the views referring to them enlarged upon. In this manner the revision is extended to every paragraph. The substantial views, and the arrangement of the material, are nevertheless first and last the same……..To the doings of the later physiology, empirical psychology, and medical psychology, I have referred in this second edition, as compared with the former, not more frequently, but rather more seldom, because I have gained the experience, that the representatives of this school of inquiry do not quite approve of seeing themselves named by a theologian of my tendency. But such references might, moreover, easily be misunderstood, as though biblical views ought to be modeled according to the results of natural science (precarious though they are), or the latter according to the former. Yet they were not always to be avoided. But my task is one wholly unconfused with that of these inquirers. The book whose answers to the questions respecting the source, the operations, the conditions, and destinies of the soul I have undertaken to discover, is not the book of nature, but the book of Scripture; and I have written for those to whom the answers of this book of books are not indifferent, and who know not merely a natural world of experience, but also one that does not give place to that in reality of self-conviction. Thanks be to God for the capacity bestowed once again to accomplish this work. May He bless it, to the stimulating further labors in this field of biblical psychology. Should it, moreover, be impossible entirely to solve the problems which meet us here, still the Creator of all things is to be glorified, that He has granted to the human soul the capacity of raising itself above itself by self-investigation, and with the necessity for this investigation has imparted the blissful pleasure that proceeds there from.”
Delitzsch’s System Biblical Psychology: Contents: Prolegomena in 3 Sections of History, Idea, and Method; with Appendix of Caspar Bartholitus’ First Sketch of a Biblical Psychology. 7 Divisions: I: of Everlasting Postulates, in 3 Sections of Pre-existence False & True, and Divine Archetype, with Appendix of Letters of Molitor on Jacob Boehme’s Doctrine of a Nature in God; II: Creation in 7 Sec. of Man the Object of the Six Days Work; Divine Likeness; Process; Trichotomy, False & True; Origin of Psyche, Ethical View; Difference of Sex; Traducianism and Creationism; Appendix of R. vonRaumer on the Fundamental Import of the names “Geist” and “Seele”; III: Fall in 5 Sec. of Sin of Spirit and Flesh; Ethico-Physical Disturbance; Shame and Fear; Conscience and Remoteness from God; and Promise and Faith. Appendix: From Pontoppidan’s Mirror of Faith. IV. Natural Condition in 17 Sec. of Personality and the “I”; Personal and Natural Life; Freedom; Triplicity of the Spirit; Nous, Logos, Pneuma; Seven Powers of the Soul; Established View of Capacities of the Soul; Body as Sevenfold means of Self Representation of the Soul; Soul and Blood; Heart and Head; Within the Body (Intestines & Kidney); Sleeping, Waking, Dreaming; Health and Sickness; Natural and Demonical Sickness; Superstition and Magic. Appendix I: Passages from Physics of Comenius; Appendix II: Theses on Fire & Light, Soul & Spirit; by Jul. Hamberger. V. Regeneration in 6 Sec. of Divine Archetype; New Life & Spirit; Conscious & Unconscious Side of Work of Grace; Actus Directi & Reflexi of Life of Grace; Three Forms of Divinely Wrought Ecstasy & Theopneustia; and Unabolished Antinomy. Appendix I: Luther’s Trichotomy. Appendix II: Spirit of the Mind. (A) From H.W. Clemens’ Work on the Powers of the Soul. (B) From Mediaeval Tractate entitled Das Leben der Minnende Seele. VI. Death, in 7 Sec. of Soul & Spirit in midst of Death; true & False Immortality; Future Life and Redemption; False Doctrine of Sleep of Soul; Phenomenal Corporeity and Investiture; Relation of Souls to Soulless Corporeity. Appendix: Johann Heinrich Urainus on Intermediate State of Souls. VII. Resurrection and Consummation, in 4 Sec. of Spirit & Soul in Act of Resurrection; Metempsychosis; Doctrine of Restoration; Progress in Eternity. Appendix: From a Sermon of the Author’s on Rom.8:18-23.
Appendix: “Guide to a True Psychology and Anthropology, to be gathered from the Sacred Writings; Attempted by Caspar Bartholinus. Prooemium: Philosophers have taken credit to themselves and have almost triumphed in the course of many ages, in respect of human comments upon the nature of the soul, its diversities and faculties, and generally of dreams without sleep, and shadow without substance; closely written volumes having been published on this argument, to the great damage not only of paper, time, and labour, but also of truth. As soon, however, as we consult the Spirit of God in His oracles and in His most sacred records, it is very manifest that the wisdom of the age has attained to little or nothing of the truth. And how could it be otherwise in so sublime an argument, when those who are wise after the manner of men are blind even to things which lie in their path and are obvious to their senses, and who, as Scaliger says, lick the glass vessel, but never touch the pottage? Wherefore, although in this imbecility of our nature we neither can nor will promise an exact and accurate (psuchologian, psychologian), yet we will contribute a compendious introduction, with the hope of making the whole matter more fruitful to others, and of affording both the occasion and the subject for its discussion and elaboration. The first foundation, then, of the true doctrine of the human soul, appears as a sacred one in Gen. 2: 7, in these words: “Formavit Dominus Deus hominum pulverem de terra, et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitarum, et fuit homo in animam viventem.” (Formavit), i.e. He constructed like a potter. Whence Job (x. 9),” Remember that Thou hast made me as the clay;” and Jer. xviii. 2, God is compared to the potter, and man to the day. The Hebrews will have the Hebrew word (wayyitser, vaiyitzer) written with a double Jod (yod), to signify the twofold formation, earthly and heavenly; for the reason that below, ver. 19 in the same chapter, W is found in reference to the construction of other animals with a single Jod, pointing to a single life, and that not immortal. (Dominus Deus hominem pulverem). Not only out of the dust of the earth, but man altogether was formed dust out of the earth. For which reason below. Dust thou art (not only “of dust”), and into dust shalt thou return. (De terra), or the mud of the earth. (Et inspiravit), i.e. He introduced breath with power. Where some persons are absurd who describe God anthropomorphically, as having blown into Adam’s nostrils like one with distended cheeks, the breath or spirit, as if a particle of His own Spirit. (In faciem ejus). Thus, the LXX and Vulg. For in and by his countenance, man is chiefly seen, and his various affections, as anger, joy, sadness, etc. Therefore, although the inspiration was communicated to the whole body, yet that body is characterized from the most noble and conspicuous part—to wit, the countenance. In other respects, in the largest signification, (aph) and (anaph) mean that by which any kind of a thing is beheld, what and what like it is, except when (trope), it is taken for other things. Hence it is taken also for anger or rage; because chiefly this affection is manifest, and especially in the face. Moreover, it is taken for the nostrils, by which the face is largely characterized; for an injury to the nose disfigures the entire face. Mercerus, therefore, takes needless trouble to induce us to understand nostrils as the actual meaning in this passage, since it cannot be denied that in many places of Scripture this word implies the countenance. (Spiraculum vitarum), doubtless of more than one, and certainly of a twofold life, Heb. (nishmath chaiyim) (for (neschama) is the same which in Greek is (pnoe), breath, blowing, breathing, respiration, and in construction (nischmat)), which two words placed conjointly Paul seems to repeat separately, Acts xvii. 25, where he says that God gives to all (zoen kai pnoen), i.e. life and breath. Whence Forster, in his Lexicon, infers a distinction between the natural man who eats, drinks, begets, etc., and the spiritual and heavenly man regenerated by faith in Christ, who performs spiritual actions, such as are knowledge of God, love and praise and joy in God, —such a one as shall be in perfection in life eternal. (Et fuit homo in animam viventem). This is repeated in these words in 1 Cor. xv. 45: “The first man Adam was made a living soul.” And thus, in that verse Moses impresses upon us all the causes of man. The efficient cause, the Lord God; the matter, earth; the form, the breath of lives; the object that he might become a living soul. Then, in the way of foundation, are to be adduced what things are said about the formation of man in God’s image, in or according to His likeness (Gen. i. 26, 27). Finally, to this fundamental place is to be added what has been observed from the concordances of the Hebrew Bibles, that the words (neshamah), (nephesh), and (ruach) are so different, that neschama is the efficient soul, or the spirit with the idea of efficiency (although sometimes it is put for nephesch): nephesch is the spirit or soul, not simply, but efficient in dust, or the soul efficient in respect of the subject or the efficient subject (for which reason also it is sometimes taken for a corpse, or a lifeless body, as Lev. xix. 28): ruach is efficiency itself, or energy, or the force and efficacy of power. Wherefore, in the most sacred memorials, neschama and ruach are attributed to God, but not nephesch.
From these three words in the holy writings, as if b, priori, the nature of the soul is aptly shown by the Spirit of God; that nature which the philosophers are compelled to investigate only a posteriori; and thus, the foregone foundations being given up to this point, we will approach the matter itself.
Chap. I. That Vegetables are not animated or living, notwithstanding the assertions of Philosophers. Those things which philosophers call living things—to wit, endowed with a vegetating soul as they call it, as roots, plants, trees, etc.—are not classed by God’s Spirit among animate or living things; nay, they are absolutely distinguished and separated from these (Gen. i. 30); and therefore, we most correctly say that herbs and trees are not animate or living. For the more abundant confirmation of which assertion, I adduce other passages of Genesis. Gen. i. 24, the living soul is classified according to whatever species the earth produces; but herbs and trees are not enumerated, but cattle, reptiles, and beasts of the earth; and therefore in ver. 30 the herb is distinguished from the living soul by its being appointed for its food. In Gen. vi.-ix. it is plain what things are said to have the spirit of life, or are said to be living things, or a living animal. For when God had determined to destroy every living soul that was on the dry land, He comprehended nothing under this designation except animals—winged, and living on the earth— beasts, and men; and these species He very often calls omnem animam viventem, sciL in the dry land (vi. 7, vii. 22). Wherefore the Hebrews never consider the vegetative life worthy of being called by philosophers by the name of soul or life.
Chap. II. — Of the Senses. The instruments and servants for the bodily, and, in like manner, for the mental functions, are the senses. In brutes I say they are for the purposes of nutrition; in man correspondingly, they subserve the intellect.
Chap. III. — What Man is and concerning his Origin. Although philosophers accustomed to human speculations do not speak with the Spirit of God, since they are left destitute of suitable words in so sublime a matter, yet we most rightly say, following the Spirit of God, that man is a soul, that man is a spirit in the dust, etc. Thus, also cattle, reptiles, and beasts of the earth, are called living souls. But man is called a soul, not by synecdoche, but by a scriptural phrase in which nephesch is not a part of a man, but a spirit in the dust, or the spirit of dust, i.e. man. Besides, man is often called the world in the sacred writings, because he is, as it were, the nucleus of creatures (that which, when it putrefies in the fruit, the rest also putrefies), and (aparche ton ktismaton), or chief of them all. Man, especially is (ktisis) and (kosmos), adorned and elaborated (and that not tropically or figuratively only) by God. But every (ktisis) has shown forth in God the Spirit, either that they may become only entities, or at the same time living entities, i.e. either entities potentially, or potentially living. For the efficacy of the Spirit of God is sometimes one thing, sometimes another, as some things may have received the spirit by which they are, others that they may live. All things, however, were made by the spirit of His mouth, i.e. by speaking. Hence being and living differ in the intensity of spirit, which indeed is plain from the intensity of the letters in the Hebrew words (hayah) and (chayah), (hawah) and (chawah) (conf. Ps. civ. 29; Job xii. 10; Ezek. xviii. 4; Neh. ix. 6). Moreover, law and life have, according to Forster’s Annotations, a great affinity between them. Living things are divided, in respect of motion, into flying things, creeping things, and walking things (Gen. vi. 19). But a certain (ktisis)? shone forth in the embrace of love in the moulded dust, to which, as there was its own face and form (species) (whereby it is looked at, so to speak, or known), the Lord, by the efficacy of His own Spirit, gave the spirit of lives, and then man was made a living soul; which peculiar efficacy is in this (ktisei) beyond the rest, that to them it is not said that He breathed into them, although He made them by His own Spirit, and gave them the spirit of life. And how intimately it shone forth in God, Moses declares (Gen. i. 26, 27), even into the very image of God with His likeness, to wit, the (apaugasma) and character of God giving itself as an image, in whose close embrace it might obtain the image of God Himself; that, as God Himself in His essence is an act of light knowingly true, of love mightily willing, and of the Holy living Spirit, so this (ktisis), in its essence mighty, might exist in light knowingly true, in love mightily willing, and in the Holy Spirit living. Wherefore, as far as the spirit of lives is chiefly the spirit of this era’s, its proper potentiality is noted by the designation of God’s image; but as far as it is of bodily dust, it is described in words of fructifying and subduing. For the life of the mental functions is to see God, (en ouranois); that of the bodily functions is (exousiazesthai, etc., en oikoumene}. Finally, we must observe that soul and spirit are sometimes distinguished, as Heb. iv. 12 and elsewhere. For the soul is so called in its natural powers; but in so far as it is enlightened by the light of the Holy Spirit, it is called spirit.
Chap. IV. —Of the Image of God in Man. Thus, man shone forth even in the image of God, which before the fall was like, afterwards unlike. The likeness of the image was, that his spirit beamed with love, or that it was light, love, and spirit, as God is. After the fall the light indeed remained, but unlike; the love remained, but unlike, etc. Thus, that likeness must be restored in holiness in regard of ourselves, and in justice in regard of (logismou tou Theou). Before the fall God shone forth in a fitting image, that man might reflect God, which light was the life or the to live of man; and this life obtained from that light, that it might reflect God fittingly, by which very thing man was (eneikos), and moreover (eudokimos) (who in himself was (entheos), and a partaker of the divine nature) and (ennomos). For he was a law unto himself, his own essential conformity and perfection from within dictating to him what God in other cases from without dictates and prescribes; and that life was in very deed the vision of God, while God was shining forth in our spirit, and was thus being seen. This light perished in the fall, and man died with death, and thus became (aeikos and anomos). The fallen Adam indeed retained his essence, and that a living one (Heb. ii. 14), but dead in respect of the perfection of its position. Hence Adam died. What life was left to him in life was a dead life. And we all received from Adam such a flesh: dead we are, certainly, born of dead flesh. Wherefore it is necessary that we be transformed and daily assimilated to God, which assimilation, in proportion as we realize, in that proportion we see God; and because man has lost the likeness of the image of God, that is to be restored in Christ, in whom, as if in an image, we are built, and in whom intimately made to shine forth again, we have received (eikona), from whom, I say, as if the head and beginning, the image of God Himself, the spirit living, although in moulded dust, has subsisted. For God’s counsel remains one and constant, and is not changed on account of the fall, scil. that we ought in (logo) to return (eikona), and thus to be united to God in an eternal covenant. That real change was made in the fall and by the fall, that what we had before by nature is now conceded to us by grace.
Chap. V. — What (stasis and hupostasis) are in Man. Stasis is in its nature nothing else than that in which the internal perfection of everything consists, and, moreover, that by which the thing itself is made to stand perfect: it is the internal status of the thing itself which the apostolic language designates either by a simple expression (staseos) (Heb. ix. 8), or a compound one, whether (sustaseos); (2 Pet. iii. 5) or (hupostaseos) (Heb. i. 3, xi. 1). Stasis and perfection, therefore, are one and the same thing, in such a way, however, that perfection may be said to belong to (staseos), as that which is of stasis. But (stasis) and (hupostasis) are different, although they sometimes concur in one. For mixed things, as this or that plant, this or that brute, have their (stasin), but not (hupostasin), because they have not yet attained to that (stasin and teleiosin), beyond which it is not permitted them to ascend. For a living form, generally considered, is not restricted to the form of a plant, but may ascend to a nobler grade. In God (teleiosis or stasis) is called hypostasis, in whom all things are said to have (sustasin and stasin), not (hupostasin), man alone excepted, who is next under God, or His (stasei), and in whom the image is reflecting God; wherefore man is called both (sustatos and hupostatos). (Sustatos) by reason of God, in whom all things have their (sustasin, but hupostatos) in himself, and in respect of our inferior (ktiseos). Hence in this same (aparche ton ktismaton, huparxis and hupostatis are different. For the rest of the (ktisis) is (huparktos and sustatos); man, over and above, is (hupostatos), on account of (teleiosin), whereby he excels the inferior (ktisin). Hence Christ, in respect of His human nature, is called, not (hupostatos, but sustatos), although He had an ulterior perfection differently from us men. For the natural (statis) of Christ, in which He was made like to us, is, that His human nature should be equally perfect as ours; whence it has the quality of being something, and not being reduced to nothings otherwise He would not have assumed perfect human nature. But Christ in the divine (stasis is hupostatos), which is a higher (stasis and teleiosis), intimately in God, in whom it subsists in the most internal manner; whence His humanity obtains far greater things than the privilege of not being reduced into nothing. But because every essence consists of a threefold (stasis)? —as there will elsewhere be an opportunity of saying— completing its (teleiosin), certainly also the human essence does so, essentially considered in its universal amplitude. And since, as regards the condition of matter when it is divisible, the individual is divided into various parts, even the units are called (hupostata or huphistamena).
Chap. Vi. —Of the Human Reason and its Acts. (Logos), or human reason, is that (teleiosis and stasis) of man, or of the human soul, by which, by its own internal essential light, he can both receive, consider, and acknowledge, and embrace, retain, and approve, whatever has any light to shine by. Therefore (logikoi) acts are (excipere and amplexari). Some call them (intellectum and voluntatem). But that essential light of human reason, in which it was first established potentially efficacious by God, by that great judgment of God, has even perished and become deprived of its original perfection of brightly efficacious power, so that there has remained to it only a certain spark of light. Wherefore all men are exhibited by God’s Spirit as (te dianoia eskotismenoi) (Eph. iv. 18), and in that respect are alienated from the life of God by the ignorance that is in them. Hence it is not sufficient for vividly embracing things, and bringing them before one’s self in the light,—the things, indeed, which refer to the life of God,—and it plainly has no light left by which they can shine forth to itself; but occult in perpetual mysteries, secret and profound, they will be able to be revealed by no spirit but that of God Himself, to be expounded or to be sought out by inquiry, concerning which thing we have spoken in our orations concerning the use of the human reason in divine mysteries.
Chap. VII. —Of the Twofold Life in Man. Moreover, we have to determine how manifold that life is, in such a way as that the number may not be needlessly great. Some people ridiculously understand by many lives the two openings of the nostrils. Others generally understand a threefold life—vegetable, sentient, and rational. But we have already shown above, that the vegetable is not anywhere called a life in the Holy Scriptures, but that rather the contrary is suggested. Wherefore, since there is said to be in man the breathing-place of many lives, it cannot be thought that they are either other or more than (corporis vita) and (mentis vita), since nothing else in man can be said to live. That one spirit, breathed into the dust from the earth, lives and pervades each life for the safety of the body and the mind; or, which is the same thing, one living soul lives the life of either kind with one spirit. But that the spirit of lives is also given to brutes (Gen. vi. 17), is an objection which may be answered: (1) That they have not (neschama, but ruach chajim); (2) That in the same expression men are comprehended; (3) That there is in brutes also a certain other life than the merely nutritive, yet not mental, but sensual, and in everyone according to its kind (comp. Prov. xxx. 25, vi. 6-8). The spirit of man is so sublime, that in Prov. xx. 27, (nischmat Adam) is said to be the light or lamp of Jehovah.
Chap. VIII. —Of the Power of the Soul: in what way one, or manifold. Since, then, the essence of one soul is one, and if, where the essence is, the essence is potential, and that, moreover, in the one potentiality essential to itself its essentially potential essence is potential, and moreover one, it’s essentially one essential potentiality is living, or actually able to live, with a twofold life. But that the essence is created in which there is such a potential essence, is manifest because of existent creatures. It is one thing (einai), another thing (stenai): the former is to be; (stasis) is to be able, or potentiality. Whence, moreover, on human ground, wise men concede that all created things, in respect to God, are a potentiality. But in God (stasis) is an act, yea, it is to act itself; and when we speak of God, who gives (stasin), then (stenai) also signifies to ordain, or to constitute. In order that this may be better understood, we must know that of every essence it is the essential condition to be prepared for action, or acting, which, if it is not prepared for not acting, then that essence is a mere act, or merely to act, because to act must always be thought of in an act, so that it may not be called potential in this sense that potentiality is opposed to act. But if, moreover, it is essentially prepared for not acting, and thus it is not a mere act, then it is understood and said to have a potentiality to act, so that it is not less essential to it not to act than to act, if the condition of the essence is turned to action; which potentiality of every essence, and, moreover, even of human essence, is preserved and sustained by God in His (stasei). But that one essence, with a certain universality and generic amplitude in proportion to the variety of objects around which either life is occupied, is potential to perform actions distinct in kind, although essentially participating in a generic community, as far as the actions are of an essence essentially potential, with its own only potentiality; which actions the one essence of the soul and of either life controls. Wherefore, although in itself the essential potentiality is one in unity of essence, yet, in respect of its various effect in various objects, potential in various manners and in distinct actions, it is also invoked by distinct names; so that sometimes it is called the power of understanding, now of nourishing, of increasing, of changing, etc., that essential communion of the various actions in proportion to the variety of the objects mental and corporeal remaining meanwhile in the essential potentiality, as if with a general origin and general nomenclature, on account of the condition of the common essence. As mind and body, as far as they are to be vivified by the power of the spirit of lives, are able to agree on many sides in this respect in a certain general community, but in respect of the special condition of every one, to differ also on many sides; thus also the destined objects of their life, and the actions of the same objects for either life and ample community, agree, and in special conditions differ. Whence, also, actions in either life, and in respect of the community indeed, are like to one another both in fact and in name, and for the special condition of everyone are different. As mental life alone is truly human life, so the potentiality which is called of the mental life in objects and actions is primarily potential; secondarily, it subserves the objects and actions of the bodily life. Hence, when in any action man or human soul is set forth as powerful, it will principally bear the appellation when around the mental life it is occupied in act; secondarily, when it serves the bodily life, unless in respect of either the one or the other, whether of mind or of body, from some special condition it is only peculiar to the other.
Chap. IX. —Of Death. Death is the destruction of actions, or the defluxion (not perishing and annihilation) of the perfection of every (staseos), as well of that which is common to man with the brutes, as of that in which he lives to God; and in respect of the latter, death is sin: for as far as it is (anomon) it is called sin, as far as it is (aeikon) it is called death. For all sin is death, but not the contrary. For death, as it is the privation of life by which we externally live, is not considered as sin. Before the fall, God communicated to man that he might be a (nomos) to himself; but afterwards, because he became (aeikos), he became also (anomos); and it is called sin as far as man is (anomos). This interchange of death and sin may be seen from Rom. v. 12, where it is said, “All have sinned,” only it is not intended to refer to actual sin. As soon as Adam fell, at that moment he began to die with death, or to sicken to death; for the potential essence was at once cast down from its status on account of the threatening uttered: In the day in which thou shalt eat of the forbidden tree, (morte morieris). Therefore the human soul is not only mortal, but also most certainly dead, in a sense, not philosophical, —as if after death commonly so called it should survive, —but sacred. For any one is called dead by reason of the deficient image and (doxes tou Theou), and of that vital image by which any one is called living. For this reason, as soon as man is born, he is in the same position in which the fallen Adam was, as rightly said the poet, although ignorantly: (Nascentes morimur), etc. Man dies, I say, daily; that is, he is subject to successive waste and abolition of his bodily actions, even to that sensible death, which death in this life is common as well to the pious as to the impious. But mental actions in the pious are renewed in this life gradually by regeneration, by which actions the pious are perfected in Christ and through Christ; and moreover, the soul is spiritualized, until at length in the last day, joined with a spiritual body (which was sown an animal body), it becomes one spirit with God. In the wicked, neither is the soul spiritualized in this life, nor the body in the last day: it will not be subtle, agile, etc.; and although they rise again, yet they abide in that death in which they were before they were buried. Thus, in the Holy Scripture, resurrection of the dead is attributed to them, but not resurrection from the dead. But if you should ask whether Adam, if he had not fallen, would not have been mortal also? I answer, To be mortal is said of the power of dying, or of the necessity. Any one may be in his essence prepared for the power of dying, and nevertheless of freeing himself from death. Because Adam was of the dust, he certainly had the capacity of dying; but if he had wished, he had at the same time before the fall the perfection of vindicating himself from death. But now, from the fall, necessity of dying has taken hold upon him.
Chap. X.—Of the State of the Human Soul after Death. When man dies by what is commonly called death, the soul of the pious is carried into Abraham’s bosom; and where this is, since Scripture says nothing on it, it is fit that we also should be silent. It seems fitter to be said that the soul is at rest, than that it is locally moved by deserting the body (as the common people imagine), as a body from a body, since the soul is a spirit, not a body. Certainly, as in the good, everything which is corruptible perishes and becomes spiritual; in the wicked, that even that perishes and leaves the body which hitherto was as if good, in respect to future evil. In the resurrection the wicked will not indeed be so well off as they have been in the tomb; although, moreover, they may feel horrible sufferings immediately after death and burial, which before they were not able to feel on account of this carnal life, in which they were able in some measure to discharge bodily functions. What things may be objected to the matters brought together in these few chapters, will be able to be solved from the foundations laid in the prooemium.” (Moniti meliora sequemur) ((Be admonished to follow better things)).

(Delitzsch rejects, with Kantian logic and Biblical dogma, pre-existence of eternal souls outside of Adam, and that the notions of the Greek philosophers are false and against Scripture. But as the Lord said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee”, and Paul in Romans. He calls those things which be not as though they were so; there preexistence in God and with God that takes in all mankind both as individuals and collective. This eternity of the soul belongs to and resides with God and fashioned after the Son of God the eternal Word and Wisdom of God. This likeness of God’s image is a Trinity, as God is Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, so too man in his nature and constitution is a trinity after the like manner, the Divine Archetype. To understand human nature, we must understand the Divine Nature. He concludes:” God is All. All has its original in Him. He is I, and Thou, and He, and It. As I, the Father is the primal source of the Son. The Son, as Thou, is the object of the Father’s love. The Spirit, as He, is the emanation of the love of the Father and the Son. The Doxa, as It, is the reflection of the Triune, and the origin of the Kosmos. We apprehend now the threefold personal and the sevenfold dynamical, the personally living, and the living archetype of the everlasting Ideal-Model, —in itself, indeed, impersonal, but effected by the personality of God, and wholly interpenetrated thereby,—including, moreover, the human soul and humanity in the image of God. We apprehend now, according to the measure of our knowledge, the everlasting postulates which precede psychological facts.”)
(In Jacob Bohme’s doctrine we probe into this eternal nature in God in His triuneness, but must shun as defective that the Godhead from all eternity had subordination of Persons, and with this a limitation of essence One from the Other. The creation of man in Genesis chapters one and two is reexamined considering modern knowledge. The angels being peculiar to creation, God’s sons and man’s superior. The creation of six days, and its perfection in the seventh, reveals Man as the Divine Object. Creation consists of grades and man shares this characteristic, so that in nature we see evolution by common likeness, but man immensely above and beyond other creatures. In the Process of Creation many enigmas are cleared up, and many false interpretations, influenced by philosophy, are silenced. He says: “But, moreover, to the reproach of J. P. Lange, when he says that it is a trifling bondage to the letter, to regard the narrative of Gen. ii. 7 as implying successive acts, we reply with a downright “It is written!” For when he maintains that the soul was created at the same moment with the body, and even goes beyond v. Rudloff, in the fact that he regards the formation of the body, the origination of the soul, and the inspiration of the spirit, as actual contemporary impulses of one act of creation, —it may be philosophical, but it is not biblical. Not as though it only contradicted the fundamental passage (Gen. ii. 7): it contradicts the entire Scripture, it contradicts its representation of man’s natural condition—of his life, his destiny, and his history; for everywhere the Scripture assumes that man is a nature originating first of all in respect of his earthly corporeity, composite, and on that account a limited and mortal nature.” Scripture distinctly presents man’s body was made without soul, and that the inspiration of God’s breath of life produced a living soul. Thus, the soul is related to the spirit as the body is to the soul. The human soul is in a manner the human spirit, but we must not deny the distinction, as found in Scripture, and lose truth as to man’s trichotomy. (“Similarly, the English physician, George Moore, “The Power of the Soul over the Body” (translated into German by Susemihl, 1850), S. xxv.: “As the dust was formed by immediate contact of Jehovah’s finger, the human figure took the impression of the Godhead. But that this figure of earthly form and heavenly meaning might not remain like a temple without its indwelling glory, God breathed into the body of man the continuing spirit of separate life, and this enlightened it with the moral reflection of the divine character.”) This dual nature of man composed in three persons or substance, body, soul, and spirit is explored in the New Testament, mainly in Paul, and early Christian writers along with some moderns. All of which prepares the reader to consider the system of psychology as found in the Bible and compare it to all else.)

9. Bible Doctrine of Man or the Anthropology and Psychology of Scripture, John Laidlaw, 1879, 1895. Six Divisions on Man’s Origins, Nature, Psychology, Fallen Nature under Sin, Psychology of New Life, Man’s Nature and Future State.
After a brief Introduction to his work, Laidlaw examines and selects examples of the debate between Hoffman and Delitzsch, with special focus on Delitzsch’s System of Biblical Psychology, says: On the other hand, Delitzsch, though premising that no system of “psychology propounded in formal language is to be looked for in the Bible, any more than of dogmatics or ethics, zealously contends that a system can be found and constructed. Under the name of Bible psychology, he understands a scientific representation of the doctrine of Scripture on the psychical constitution of man as he was created, and on the ways in which this constitution has been affected by sin and by redemption. It seems as if Hofmann had overlooked the importance and the purpose of that consistent idea of man’s constitution which underlies the Scripture teaching; while Delitzsch slightly misstates its purpose rather than exaggerates its importance. That purpose is not to teach the science of man, but it has a vital use in subservience to theology, nevertheless. To trace that use, in an induction of Scripture utterances, does the proper scope and form of any study deserve the name of biblical psychology”(p15) (p17-18) “Our aim, then, in the following pages is to give prominence to the psychological principles of Scripture, —to those views of man and his nature which pervade the sacred writings. It does not appear, however, that the psychology of the Bible, or what may be called its philosophy of man, can be successfully treated as an abstract system.”
Laidlaw considers a wealth of sources and references in conflicting views of trichotomy and dichotomy and seek to harmonize them into a single nature of man without an exact system and prefers to think of the soul-spirit not having essential differences. His words are: “That neither the familiar antithesis, soul and body, nor any other pair of expressions by which we commonly render the dual elements in human nature, should expressly occur in this locus classicus, is a fact which may help to fix attention on the real character of the earlier Old Testament descriptions of man. The fact is not explained merely by the absence of analysis. Rather is it characteristic of these Scriptures to assert the solidarity of man’s constitution, —that human individuality is of one piece, and is not composed of separate or independent parts. This assertion is essential to the theology of the whole Bible—to its discovery of human sin and of a divine salvation. In a way quite unperceived by many believers in the doctrines, this idea of the unity of man’s nature binds into strictest consistency the Scripture account of his creation, the story of his fall, the character of redemption, and all the leading features in the working out of his actual recovery from his regeneration to his resurrection.” (p56-57)
(p66-68)”Having considered the Unity which Scripture attributes to the human constitution, and the dual elements acknowledged by it, in common with almost all human psychologies, we have now to inquire whether this duality has to be further modified in favour of a threefold division of man’s nature. Here, as before, everything turns on interpretation of terms. There is a pair of expressions for the inner or higher part of man’s nature which occurs plentifully in the Old Testament, as Nephesh and Ruach, in the Greek Scriptures as Psyche and Pneuma, in the modern languages as Seele and Geist, Soul and Spirit. The distinction implied in this usage may be said to be the crux of biblical psychology. The controversy concerning it has been, not unnaturally, though rather unfairly, identified with that concerning the possibility of a Bible psychology at all. On the other hand, the revival of this whole science in recent times is coincident with the recall of attention to the fact of a distinction in Scripture between these two terms. The real controversy, however, concerns the precise force of that distinction. Does it indicate two separable natures, so that, with the corporeal presupposed, man may be said to be of Tripartite Nature? Or, is it rather such a view of the inner nature of man as sunders that nature into two functions or faculties? Or, finally, is it a nomenclature to be explained and accounted for on principles entirely peculiar to the biblical writings? We shall here sketch the theory of Tripartition, and in next chapter point out the historical explanation of the scriptural usage. I. The Theoretical Constructions.—The Trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit held an important place in the theology of some of the Greek Christian Fathers; but, in consequence of its seeming bias towards a Platonic doctrine of the soul and of evil, still more because of its use by Apollinaris to underprop grave heresy as to the Person of Christ, it fell into disfavour, and may be said to have been discarded from the time of Augustine till its revival within a quite modern period. It has recently received the support, or, at least, the favourable consideration, of a respectable school of evangelical thinkers on the continent, represented by such names as those of Eoos, Olshausen, Beck, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Oehler. In our own country, such writers as Alford, Ellicott, Liddon, and Lightfoot fully recognise the importance of the Trichotomic usage in Scripture, but none of them has investigated its real meaning. Most of them adopt the mistaken interpretation that the distinction between soul and spirit is that between a lower and a higher essence or nature, and accordingly lean to the foregone conclusion of this exegesis, namely, that Scripture is committed to the affirmation of a tripartite nature in man. Yet their utterances on this point are little more than (obiter dicta). Not one of these authors has seriously or consistently taken up this peculiar psychology. There exists among us a small school of writers who have done so. Their leading representative is Mr. J. B. Heard, whose Tripartite Nature of Man has now been before the public for some considerable time.1 (This psychology has been largely adopted by those who maintain the peculiar eschatological position known as that of Conditional Immortality, although Mr. Edward White, the main exponent of this view, makes comparatively little of the Trichotomy. That it has furnished a favourite scheme of thought for mystics and sectaries has not helped its fair investigation in our theological schools. The pretension put forth for it by some of its votaries, that as a theological panacea it would heal the strife of centuries, has had the effect on the professional mind which is always produced by the advertisement of a quack remedy, not without that other effect on the common apprehension that, after all, there is probably something in it. Its crudest and most frequently quoted form is that which, taking body for the material part of our constitution makes soul stand for the principle of animal life, and spirit for the rational and immortal nature. This is plainly not the construction which any tolerable interpretation can put upon the Scripture passages, though it is often presented in popular writing as an account of the Trichotomy. It is not unusual, indeed, to identify the whole topic with this boldly unscientific statement.”
He concludes: (p85)”Before proceeding to examine the origin and explanation of this usage, we may here sum up what has already appeared on the face of Scripture to be its mode of viewing human nature as one, as dual, or as trinal. There is evidence enough to show that while maintaining with strong consistency the Unity of the human being, Scripture confirms the usual dual conception that his two natures are flesh and spirit, or soul and body, yet makes use quite consistently of a trichotomy depending on a distinction between soul and spirit, which distinction, in some New Testament passages (especially the Pauline), is charged with a religious or doctrinal significance. “Anyone who does not force on Scripture a dogmatic system, must acknowledge that it speaks dichotomously of the parts viewed in themselves, trichotomously of the living reality, but all through so as to guard the fact that human nature is built upon a plan of unity.”

10. Other Writers: Mystics, Swedenborg; Heard, Moore, Bush, Pember, Larkins; Wolff, Nee, Jung and many medical and psychology authors.
The knowledge of man in body and soul and spirit has continued to increase to such degrees that it is difficult to consider much of it in any brief discussion. As a Christian I read from time to time any literature that has influenced modern knowledge in an acknowledged way. Both in philosophy and theology, old and modern, general or special, allured me in seeking to understand Scripture in light of the Church. Secular views did not lay hold on me at any time that I occupied myself with them, not Plato or Aristotle in the Socratic doctrines; not Freud and Jung and those of that science, except I grew fond of Jung and despised Freud. The writers on myths and symbols ever made me take note and compare the Bible. Swedenborg’s works of many volumes treating the soul and the spirit, that is the spiritual life and world did fascinate me for about ten years, but in time parted with the doctrines as extreme if not mild insanity. His clear partition of the soul and spirit of the spiritual world and the body and soul of the natural world did instruct me in several difficult points. Christian scholars like Heard in “Tripartite Nature of Man” 1882, as with Moore and Bush, and many others, shows that no area or element of the Biblical doctrine has been ignored. Pember’s “Earth’s Earliest Ages” 1876 and 1911, along with many other dispensationalists, before and after, especially Larkin’s “Dispensational Truth” making the doctrines popular and well known. Bullinger’s writings did the same; even among Baptists men like Graves spread the new doctrines. Unusual works not widely known outside of smaller circles like Nee’s “Spiritual Man”, or Wolff’s “Changing Concepts of the Bible”, along with countless 20th century writers and scholars have altered the church and the world views of human nature. Freud altered many ideas; Jung, following Kant, corrected Freud and his many followers. After Jung men like Campbell in comparative religion and cultures have dominated the new doctrines. And with these remarks I leave the general influences on my upon my mind and return to the Bible Reflections hoping to record for others what has passed through me without need to detail the many resources affecting me.

(Recently I reread some of my Reflections on these chapters in an unpublished book (manuscript) that I had laid aside as being too technical and restrictive to a selective audience of the academic sort. I found in writing and understanding these chapters than I explored an immense amount of literature during ten years of writing. The reward of those who devout themselves to Scripture is very rewarding and gives great insight of human origins. The word studies in English and the Hebrew and Greek and Latin, along with other resources produced untold treasures of the things of God.) Here follows some of these.
1: Some have interpreted the Creation as existing eternally, that God creates from this eternity the universe; others say from nothing comes nothing, and that all things originate from God as an extension of His expression. The world was formed from what did not exist but from God, and all creatures of life of that substance in God and of God, with man partaking of the divine nature and not merely the effect of the divine nature. The ages of the world are not easily or properly understood but all things are intertwined and interrelated from the least to the greatest. Man is unique of all God’s creatures and occupies a special place in creation. Man’s nature is nurtured and formed by God by His word and power and spirit. Man, quickly acquired his abilities and knowledge in human development into families and tribes or clans. His universal corruption is seen from his earliest beginnings, and his struggle between good and evil is never-ending. God continues to save man in ever changing conditions through all generations. Man, most advanced and present state is not a isolative or independent to his past, but rather reveals his exception to all animals, both in vice and virtue. The will of God, His way and word, is discovered and declared in the Bible, and every item and instance lead to greater understanding of the fulfilling of His purpose. Christ is the eternal Word and as such He is the Son of God by Whom all things came to be, and in Whom God deals with all men, applying His worth and blood as the satisfaction for sins and the vindication of His righteousness, to bring eternal life to all who turn to Him and receive him. Israel and the Christian Church along with Islam are tools and means for God to rescue mankind. The world of all nations and peoples in all ages are alienated from God and removed from their origins with God. The Bible is God’s account of His involvement and operation by His Holy Spirit
2: Targums: (Etheridge, 1862) “I have acquired the man from before the Lord…. If thou doest thy work well. Is it not remitted to thee? And if thou doest not thy work well, thy sin unto the day of judgment is reserved, when it will be exacted of thee, if thou convert (repent) not; but if thou convert (repent), it is remitted to thee….the blood of generations which were to come from thy brother complaineth….his wife, who had desired the Angel….I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord…..bear from her husband Adam his twin….Come, and let us two go forth into the field….Kain answered and said to Habel, I perceive that the world was created in goodness, but it is not governed according to the fruit of good works, for there is respect to persons in judgment; therefore it is that thy offering was accepted, and mine not accepted with good will. Habel answered and said to Kain, to goodness was the world created, and according to the fruit of good works is it governed and there is no respect of persons in judgment; but because the fruits of my works were better than thine, my oblation, before thine, hath been accepted with good will. (Kain countered and Habel replied and they argued till Kain arose and killed his brother with a stone….), (the invocation of God’s name is explained as making and naming of idols….).
3: Apocrypha: (Platt. 1927) (In Adam’s Conflict, Book 1: Chapters 73-79 Adam and Eve being betrothed 7 months after the banishment; Cain and Luluwa are born twins, boy and girl, 9 months later; in Adam’s 5th year the twins are weaned, then Abel and Aklia are born boy-girl twins; Cain and Abel are described from toddler to teens, one bad the other good. Cain at times to kill Abel; Adam concerned at the enmity parts the boys in their 15th and 12th year; Cain continues in rebellion, tempted by Satan to hate and violence, he beats Eve and Curses his parents for wanting to marry off his twin sister to Abel, filled with malice and schemes; Cain premeditates murder, but God tries to turn him from sin and to judge him for sin, and to make him an example by 7 plagues to last seven generations, and Cain returns his parents’ home. Book 2 begins with Luluwa, Cain’s twin sister, in grief over Abel’s death, Cain takes her away to live with him as his wife near the field of the murder, Cain being about 18 years of age; Cain’s descendents multiply; Adam and Eve abstained for 7 years in grief over Abel, in fasting and prayers with Abel’s corpse in the Cave of Treasures, till his 27th year; Eve is pregnant in Adam’s 28th year and births Seth, attended by Abel’s sister; Adam never again has sexual relations with Eve after their 5th 5th child. Adam’s 7 years before Set’s birth is described, his 40 days of fasts and prayers, tempted by the Devil. Seth’s grows to perfection and godliness, and in Adam’s 35th-37th years Seth contends with the Devil being 7-9. Seth married Aklia in his 15th year and she was 40, his son Enos was born in his 20th year.)
(Sparks, 1984) (Adam’s Life: Eve, about to give birth, in Adam’s 1st year, is visited by 12 angels and 2 powers with Michael the archangel, who standing to her right, strokes her from face to breast, blessing her concerning the child’s birth. Cain was a beautiful and intelligent baby, who as a newly born infant arose and fetched a blade of grass and gave it to Eve. The family removes eastward. Michael is sent with seeds to teach Adam to till the ground; Eve again conceives and bears Abel, in time Eve tells Adam of her dream of Cain drinking Abel’s blood; Adam separates them, and the grow to manhood, Cain a farmer, Abel a shepherd; Cain murders Abel in Adam’s 132nd (32) year, Abel’s 122nd (22) and Cain’s 132nd (32). Seth is born and grows.)
(Jubilees, Sparks) (Recounts the history from creation to the giving of the law at Sinai, by means the 50 years Jubilee Chronology. The review of 7 days of creation, of Adam and Eve 7 years in the garden, of the serpent tempting, their disobedience, judged and exile; they being childless till the 1st jubilee; Cain is born in first month of the 2nd jubilee, Adam’s 71st year, Abel born in Adam’s 78th year, a daughter, Awan, in his 85th, Abel murdered by Cain in the 100th; concerning the Heavenly Tablets; Adam and Eve mourns Abel till the 128th yr., Seth’s birth in 130th, a daughter, Ayura, born in the 142nd, In the 4th Jubilee, 200th yr., Cain and Awan births Enoch, and in the 5th Jubilee, 250th yr., houses are built, and Cain builds the City of Enoch.)
4: Philo and Josephus: (I have referred to these two earlier but here examine the writings.)
(Philo: 1st cent. A.D. Alexandria. Loeb Classic Lib. 2vol. In volume 1 book 1 covers Genesis 1-3, the Mosaic Cosmology or the World’s Creation; Moses reveals the true Creator of Creation by a form of reason and philosophy, using numeric and allegory to show mystic and arcane symbolic truth; recounts the creation elements , God’s unity and nature; the visible a copy of the invisible, the world is God’s mind and reason or word (logos), the creation both physical and mental is the word of God; time exists with creation as measured space, geometrical or numerical, all being an allegory of the true and unknown. Philo follows the Greek text and explores many doctrines; first five verses constitute Day One; he often drifts from the text explain allegorical philosophic mysteries. Man is the image of the Divine Mind, thus his mind is the principle element of the soul; following Platonic doctrine of the soul and reason, he teaches man’s mind to be archetype, and as God to the universe so man is to the world; after the 6 days of creation he explores the world of numbers, in math and astronomy, and the perfection of 7; Philo avoids the Hebrew names, especially of Adam, uses grammar to support his ideas of nature of the Internal Man; woman is man’s other half, being defective, making man worldly in desires and pleasures; scripture is not merely literal but symbolic or typical; the allegorical interpretation is the only right way to understand the writings, and thus ignoring any use of Hebrew to balance his Greek notions, he gives examples of the doctrines in allegory. He continues in this manner to explain man in the garden, the temptation and fall and exile is filled with allegory. In book 2 Philo covers man’s exile, the Cherubim and Flaming Sword, and Cain as the first man from man, of Abel and Cain, their offerings, Cain’s attack on Abel; Cain’s prosperity and exile. Philo ends on the Giants. Philo is a principle source for the Gnostic mystics against Judaism and Talmud; he is a Jewish Hellenist and Platonic in doctrine.))
(Josephus: 1st cent. A.D. Loeb Class Lib. Josephus writes for the Greeks to understand the Hebrew records and Divine origins and culture, being the oldest. He reviews the early chapters of Genesis, He follows the Greek text; uses some Hebrew, but not reliable, as the name Eve meaning Mother of all, rather than of all life or being. The creation, man’s formation, the garden, the fall, and the first civilization are examined. It’s apparent that Josephus uses the Apocrypha and Rabbinic lore to interpret certain passages, especially of the age before the flood. He is historical and paraphrases the entire Old Testament or Covenant, with more or less embellishment for outside traditions. He establishes the general canon and its spread in the Greek world, with clear testimony of the Hebrew doctrines as superior to the nations. He like Philo follows a liberal and reformed doctrine of Judaism, and to that extent supports the age of the New Testament.)

5: Kabala and Zohar: The Kabbbalah or Cabala (Qabalah): Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix 5 on Rabbinic Theology and Literature, Jewish mysticism, he translates for the first time the Book of Creation or Formation (Sepher Yetsirah) as the first and oldest Kabala text from the Kabala and the Zohar springs, flowing along with Mishnah and Talmud. Beginning at Genesis 2:7 of man’s formation the doctrine unfolds into 6 Pereqs, after the Mishnah’s divisions; first the 12 mishnahs, from the mystic and allegoric sense of the Hebrew text and numeric significance. Yetsirah begins: “In 32 wonderful paths of wisdom, Jah, JehovahTsebhaoth (YHWH, the Lord of Hosts), the God of Israel, the Living God, and King of the World, God merciful and gracious, High and Exalted, Who dwelleth to Eternity, high and holy is His Name, hath ordered (arranged, cosmically) by 3 Sepharim: by Sepher,Sephar and Sippur.” The dualism of nature and life is carried out throughout, heaven and earth, male and female, life and death, good and evil, and all such. There are 10 Sephiroth Belimah (Fearful Sephers); 22 Letters of Foundation (Hebrew Alphabet, the Written Word), composed of 3 Mothers (Aleph, Mem, Shin) and 7 Doubles (Dual Form Letters) and 12 Simples (Single Form Letters). There are 10 Fingers (5+5 of the Hands or Feet) of His Covenant and Word of Tongue and Sex; and 10 of Wisdom and Reality of God and Heaven; 10 Measurements, etc; 10 Appearances, etc; 10 Joints, etc; 10 Silence, etc; and 10 of the One, the Spirit of the Living God, Voice, Spirit, Word, Holy Spirit and Wind: 22+3+7+12= One Spirit. Finally it concludes:”And when Abraham our Father beheld and considered, seen, drawn, hewn, and obtained, then the Lord of all revealed Himself to him, and called him His friend , and covenanted with him and his seed: and he believed in Jehovah (YHWH), and it was imputed to him for righteousness. He covenanted with him between ten toes, and that is circumcision; between the ten fingers of his hands, and that is the tongue; and He bound 22 letters on his tongue and showed him their foundation. He drew them with water, He kindled them with fire, He breathed them with wind; He burnt them in seven; He poured them forth in the 12 constellations.” (For further details see Ginsburg’s Kabbalah: its Doctrines, Development, and Literature, 1863; and Waite’s Secret Doctrine in Israel, 1942; and of course, many more recent works.)
(Zohar: Waite’s Chapter 18, The Occult Sciences, expels some false notions of the Zohar and the Kabala. “The Practical Kabala, in which are included the artificial methods of Gematria, Notaricon and Temura, which are principles of exegetical interpretation.” The reader of Kabala and Zohar vision the Sephiroth Tree with 10 Points or Circles as a Man: Head to Feet; Arms and Legs; Eyes, Ears, Nostrils, and Lips as One; Breasts and the Sexes of Male and Female; and extends to 10 Fingers and Toes. The Ein Soph is the Highest and Endless One and Only. The Creation Week in Genesis 1 and 2, both Gen.1:1 and John 1:1, in the in 10 Words as the Seed contains the Tree. The work is, I believe, the Zohar of Moses de Leon of the 13th cent; and disguised as the work of Rabbi Simon ben Jochai of the 2nd cent. (Sperling’s and Simon’s translation in 5 vols. Soncino, 1933.) Ginsburgh’s outline and analysis the Zohar is most instructive in reading this confusing work. It begins with a Rabbi’s comment of the verse in Solomon’s Song of Songs about the Lily among Thorns, 13 leaves for 13 tribes, symbol of Israel, interpreted or extracted from the Hebrew nuances of the Text. The Zohar explores very intensely the Creation Week and what follows. His doctrine is developed by grammatics, numerics, and Gnosticism with one eye partly closed, on Scripture, and the other eye partly open on Sepher Yitsirah, Talmud, and Apocrypha. The Zohar then restarts several times by going back to the early chapters of Genesis and developing new doctrines. It uses the Targums and Apocryphal interpolations to promote its Gnosticism and mysticism. It continues from the Fall to the Cainite and Sethite races; introduces the sexual relations between Adam and female spirits fathering spirits and demons as plagues in the world, and so too at present such female spirits in human form bald-headed in men’s dreams conceive and birth such creatures; likewise, male spirits copulate with women in dreams in birth the same plagues among men…….)
6: Milton’s Paradise Lost and Regained: Milton in 12 Books poetically expounds the Creation of the World and the Fall of Man, Gen.1-3, being the first attempt of this kind. With much learning and creative sagacity, he intertwines ancient philosophy, Jewish and Christian Theology, to show how God saves and renews. Milton’s Arguments follows the Hebrew Text with Greek and Latin always before. Books 1-8: pictures to us God’s Vindication to Man and Angels, with great speculations of the pre-creation state of angels and the spiritual world; from Genesis 1.1 to chapter 2. Books 9-12: Satan lurks and disguises himself in the mist then in the serpent asleep; Adam and Eve attend to their labors with some conflicts between themselves as to how and where to work. Eve alone is tempted and fascinated by the snake, she finds Adam and gives him the forbidden fruit and reluctantly he eats and sins, sensing nakedness and shame with variance and accusations. Adam’s transgression is considered by God and His Son and the Angels, the Father turns judgment to the Son Who submits to take man’s condition and state, to remedy before God, and pay the price for justice and righteousness, vindicating God. God foretells the Son’s victory and man’s salvation; of the renewal of all things, and of the universe being changed by angelic administration. Eve desires to avoid the curse, and Adam determines to await in prayer and repentance, the Promised Seed to destroy to Serpent. The Son intercede to the Father on their behalf, God banishes them, and Michael sent escort them out, and to reveal the future of the human race up to the Flood. Finally, Michael continues with the vision of man from the Fall to Abraham, of the Seed of the Woman, His incarnation, death, resurrection, his ascension, and of the state of the church till His second coming. Adam is gladdened and leaves Paradise till it is regained by Christ.


Posted in Bible Reflections, Christian Reflections, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment


4. Science and the Bible:
The Day of God is the Creation of Seven Days. Scripture says that to the Lord one day is as 1,000 years, and a thousand years as one day. We reason also that adding more zeros does not change this truth, and millions and billions of years to Him is but a day. My understanding is that 1:1 takes in the billions of years of the history of the cosmos, that 1:2 covers the billions and millions of years in preparation to this present world as made suitable for man. Therefore, I am not troubled by science and modern understanding of cosmological and geological history in whatever way He has done it, and what ways we might interpret the evidence and details. At present we may sum up the scientific doctrine as the Seven Days of the Cosmos, the Creation Week of Science. It goes like this:
In the beginning, billions of years ago, the Big Bang, the Cosmic Explosion, created the Universe at a point of time and space of infinite energy and speed barely understood. All before this is unknown. (1:1) The cosmos at the point of origin in innumerable elements and fragments of the super atomic genesis expands at incredible speed and power, changing and cooling, slowing and solidifying, forming many systems of super-galaxies and systems within and without, and our own solar system with earth and other planets with their moons, and other space particles and debris which was in chaos and formlessness, without order and structure suitable for life, but ever changing over many millions of years to produce or evolve simple life forms and all that is a by-product and essential to its stability. This and many such things barely understood but quite fascinating and wondrous; leading to the Days or Periods of Eons and Ages from Hadean to Holocene. (1:2)
Day One: Post-Big-Bang, the Birth of the Universe. (10-20 Billion Years Ago, BYA)
Day Two: Post-Big-Bang, the Development of Galaxies of Stars and Planets, etc… (5-10, BYA)
Day Three: Precambrian Eon: Hadean (hades, hell, grave, death). (4-5, BYA)
Day Four: Precambrian Eon: Archean (archaic, ancient, azoic, prezoic). Consisting of 4 Eras:
Eoarchean, Paleoarchean, Mesoarchean, and Neoarchean. (2.5-4, BYA)
Day Five: Precambrian Eon: Proterozoic: 3 Zoic Eras: Paleo, Meso, Neo. (.5-2.5, BYA)
Day Six: Phanerozoic (Visible Life) Eon: 3 Eras: Paleo, Meso, Ceno (Recent, New). (500-0, MYA)
The Paleozoic: 7 Periods: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous Mississippian, Carboniferous Pennsylvanian, and Permian. (250-500 Million Years Ago, MYA)
The Mesozoic: 3 Periods: Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. (70-250, MYA)
The Cenozoic: 2 Periods: Tertiary and Quaternary. (70 MYA to Present)
Day Seven: Future?

The Ages or Times or Days of Geologic Life shows varieties of life forms in countless species, with life from the simplest to the most complex, small to great, and all kinds of intermediary forms. Science begins the evolutionary time-scale some 5 billion years ago shortly after the formation of the Earth in the Solar System in forming a solid crust, then the oceans and continents. They call this period Hadean, after the Greek Hades or Hell, single cell organisms and algae appear, with photosynthesis, emitting oxygen as by-product. Then invertebrates and vertebrates appear, then fishes, then plants and vegetation, then insects, fishes, and trees, mountains, and climate changes, reptiles, continents change, and mammals, then mountains, dinosaurs, and birds. At this time 65 million years ago the Earth becomes ruined in chaos from a super-giant asteroid impacting the Caribbean bringing death and destruction and extinction to most or all life forms. This followed by more severe climate changes. More climate and weather changes and the appearance of new life forms and the primates and diverse mammals, with earth flourishing with grass and vegetation and plant life. More mountains formed and the ice ages. And last of all appears humans and civilization and written history.
We see that the Creation Week of Science follows the pattern of the Creation Week of the Bible. The general stages of the six days are in fashion similar, the evolution of one is the design of the other, within the limits that are unknown, and details not understood. I cannot dismiss the evidence, and I try to understand the ways and work of God. It is certain that Scripture reveals God in His progression and production of the world.
I think it fitting to hear a well-respected man of Science, an Astronomer whose honest skepticism and fair presentation of facts I have always appreciated since the early 80’s. (Robert Jastrow,Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61), is an internationally known astronomer and authority on life in the Cosmos. He is the founder and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Professor of Astronomy and Geology (Geophysics) at Columbia University, Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College. Writings include: Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers (Wiley, 1972); God and the Astronomers (Norton, 1978); The Enchanted Loom (Touchstone, 1983); Has been described by Paddy Chayevsky as “the greatest writer on science alive today.” Dr. Jastrow is widely known for his TV appearances on astronomy and space exploration. He has been hosted on more than 100 CBS Network-TV programs on space science. BBC-TV and ITN-TV brought him to London for coverage of the Apollo flights. He is the author of RED GIANTS AND WHITE DWARFS, a Book of the Month Club alternate that sold 400,000 copies in several editions and languages. Dr. Jastrow’s last book, UNTIL THE SUN DIES, was also a Book of the Month Club alternate and was widely acclaimed by reviewers.):
“God and the Astronomers: “Strange developments are going on in astronomy,” writes Dr. Robert Jastrow: “They are fascinating partly because of their theological implications, and partly because of the peculiar reactions of scientists.” The essence of the strange developments is that astronomers have proven the Universe was created in a fiery explosion twenty billion years ago. In the searing heat of the first moment, all the evidence was melted down and destroyed that science might have used to determine the cause of the great explosion. Dr. Jastrow writes, “This is the crux of the new story of Genesis.” According to Dr. Jastrow, scientist did not expect to find evidence for an abrupt beginning. When the evidence began to accumulate, they were repelled by their own findings. Einstein wrote, “Such possibilities seem senseless,” and the great English astronomer Eddington declared, “The notion of a beginning is repugnant.” Dr. Jastrow comments, “There is a strong ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions. They come from the heart, whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why?” This book contains his answer. At the end he writes, “The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
“Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces. The first scientific indication of an abrupt beginning for the world appeared about fifty years ago. At that time American astronomers, studying the great clusters of stars called galaxies, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour. This discovery led directly to the picture of a sudden beginning for the Universe; for if we retrace the movements of the moving galaxies backward in time, we find that at an earlier time they must have been closer together than they are today; at a still earlier time, they must have been still closer together; and if we go back far enough in time, we find that at a certain critical moment in the past all the galaxies in the Universe were packed together into one dense mass at an enormous density, pressure and temperature. Reacting to this pressure, the dense, hot matter must have exploded with incredible violence. The instant of the explosion marked the birth of the Universe. The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion. It was literally the moment of Creation. From a philosophical point of view, this finding has traumatic implications for science. Scientists have always felt more comfortable with the idea of a Universe that has existed forever, because their thinking is permeated with the idea of Cause and Effect; they believe that every event that takes place in the world can be explained in a rational way as the consequence of some previous event. Einstein once said, “The scientist is possessed of a sense of infinite causation.” If there is a religion in science, this statement can be regarded as its principal article of faith. But the latest astronomical results indicate that at some point in the past the chain of cause and effect terminated abruptly. An important event occurred-the origin of the world-for which there is no known cause or explanation within the realm of science. The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen. This is a distressing result for scientists because, in the scientist’s view, given enough time and money, he must be able to find an explanation for the beginning of the Universe on his own terms-an explanation that fits into the framework of natural rather than supernatural forces. So, the scientist asks himself, what cause led to the effect we call the Universe? And he proceeds to examine the conditions under which the world began. But then he sees that he is deprived-today, tomorrow, and very likely forever-of finding out the answer to this critical question. Why is that? The answer has to do with the conditions that prevailed in the first moments of the Universe’s existence. At that time, it must have been compressed to an enormous-perhaps infinite-density, temperature and pressure. The shock of that moment must have destroyed every relic of an earlier, pre-creation Universe that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. To find that cause, the scientist must reconstruct the chain of events that took place prior to the seeming moment of creation and led to the appearance of our Universe as their end product. But just this, he cannot do. For all the evidence he might have examined to that end has been melted down and destroyed in the intense heat and pressure of the first moment. No clue remains to the nature of the forces-natural or supernatural that conspired to bring about the event we call the Big Bang. This is a very surprising conclusion. Nothing in the history of science leads us to believe there should be a fundamental limit to the results of scientific inquiry. Science has had extraordinary success in piecing together the elements of a story of cosmic evolution that adds many details to the first pages of Genesis. The scientist has traced the history of the Universe back in time from the appearance of man to the lower animals, then across the threshold of life to a time when the earth did not exist, and then back farther still to a time when stars and galaxies had not yet formed, and the heavens were dark. Now he goes farther back still, feeling he is close to success-the answer to the ultimate question of beginning-when suddenly the chain of cause and effect snaps. The birth of the Universe is an effect for which he cannot find the cause. Some say still that if the astronomer cannot find that cause today, he will find it tomorrow, and we will read about it in the New York Times when Walter Sullivan gets around to reporting on it. But I think the circumstances of the Big Bang-the fiery holocaust that destroyed the record of the past-make that extremely unlikely. This is why it seems to me and to others that the curtain drawn over the mystery of creation will never be raised by human efforts, at least in the foreseeable future. Although I am an agnostic, and not a believer, I still find much to ponder in the view expressed by the British astronomer E. A. Milne, who wrote, “We can make no propositions about the state of affairs [in the beginning]; in the Divine act of creation God is unobserved and unwitnessed.”

5. Evolution and the Origins of Man:

1. The Smithsonian Institution on their website has a Human Family Tree chart exhibiting human evolution, from a chain of links backward or downward to a single unknown trunk as a common ancestor, extending beyond 6 million years ago (mya). The Tree branches upward with some unknown Families, then the earliest Ardipithecus group of four identifiable primates, some 4-6 mya. Next is the Australopithecus group, consisting of primate types, more advanced, 2-4 mya; then this follows the Paranthropus group of three types, 1.5 – 2.5 mya. The last large group at top is Homo group of 6 types before modern man, called Homo sapiens-sapiens from 2 mya to the present.
The general scheme is the same in almost all institutions of learning in the world of science. The past twenty years have seen some modifications of the hominid lineage, adding and dropping, classification changes, and especially dates adjusted. Encyclopedia Britannica, Scientific America, and so many others offer the same theory of human origins. I give the National Geographic Society construction of the fossil remains.

2. “The Human Origins Project, a joint initiative of the National Geographic Society and the Turkana Basin Institute, will utilize cutting-edge technology to become the largest and most informative multilingual resource available on the subject of human evolution. Over the past 35 years, the Koobi Fora region in northern Kenya’s Turkana Basin has yielded a wealth of fossil material that has revealed a great deal of information about human history and origins. Some 16,000 fossils, including 350 hominid specimens, have been collected from the basin. The findings help scientists understand hominid behavior like tool use, piece together basic hominid lineages, and understand hominid diversity. Based on past successes in the Turkana Basin, researchers are hopeful that the next five to ten years of fieldwork will yield important new finds. Paleontologists are frequently discovering new sites, and greater numbers of students and professionals are now devoted to this project. Additionally, advances in technology are making paleontological and archaeological research more efficient and accurate. Using new methods of analyzing oxygen and carbon isotopes in fossils, scientists are now able to study the diet of extinct herbivores and the environments in which they lived. Satellite technology has also improved collection techniques and advanced computers can analyze and store more complex sets of data.
Project Goals: The Human Origins Project is the most ambitious and comprehensive undertaking of its kind; and researchers has high hopes for its outcomes. Goals of the mission include creating a Web resource that contributes to our understanding of human origins; educating and inspiring the next generation of scientists; providing means of research for global and indigenous paleontologists, geologists, scientists, and students; creating a collaborative community and virtual meeting space for anyone interested in human origins; and presenting a prehistory of early humans. Scientists in the field and in the lab are working hard to ensure the vast potential of the Human Origins Project is realized.
What Genes and Fossils Tell Us: Scientists have long held that modern humans originated in Africa because that’s where they’ve found the oldest bones. Geneticists have come to the same conclusion by looking at Africa’s vast genetic diversity, which could only have arisen as DNA mutated over millennia. There’s less consensus about the routes our ancestors took in their journey out of Africa and around the planet. Early migrations stalled but left behind evidence such as a human skull from 92,000 years ago at Qafzeh, Israel. Those people may have taken a northern route through the Nile Valley into the Middle East. But other emigrants who left Africa tens of thousands of years later could also have taken a different route: across the southern end of the Red Sea. Scientists say these more recent wanderers gave rise to the 5.5 billion humans living outside Africa today. “I think the broad human prehistoric framework is in place,” says geneticist Peter Forster of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in Cambridge, England, “and we are now fitting in the details.”.

1. African Cradle: Most paleoanthropologists and geneticists agree that modern humans arose some 200,000 years ago in Africa. The earliest modern human fossils were found in Omo Kibish, Ethiopia. Sites in Israel hold the earliest evidence of modern humans outside Africa, but that group went no farther, dying out about 90,000 years ago.
2. Out of Africa: Genetic data show that a small group of modern humans left Africa for good 70,000 to 50,000 years ago and eventually replaced all earlier types of humans, such as Neanderthals. All non- Africans are the descendants of these travelers, who may have migrated around the top of the Red Sea or across its narrow southern opening.
3. The First Australians: Discoveries at two ancient sites—artifacts from Malakunanja and fossils from Lake Mungo—indicated that modern humans followed a coastal route along southern Asia and reached Australia nearly 50,000 years ago. Their descendants, Australian Aborigines, remained genetically isolated on that island continent until recently.
4. Early Europeans: Paleoanthropologists long thought that the peopling of Europe followed a route from North Africa through the Levant. But genetic data show that the DNA of today’s western Eurasians resembles that of people in India. It’s possible that an inland migration from Asia seeded Europe between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago.
5. Populating Asia: Around 40,000 years ago, humans pushed into Central Asia and arrived on the grassy steppes north of the Himalaya. At the same time, they traveled through Southeast Asia and China, eventually reaching Japan and Siberia. Genetic clues indicate that humans in northern Asia eventually migrated to the Americas.
6. Into the New World: Exactly when the first people arrived in the Americas is still hotly debated. Genetic evidence suggests it was between 20,000 and 15,000 years ago, when sea levels were low and land connected Siberia to Alaska. Ice sheets would have covered the interior of North America, forcing the new arrivals to travel down the west coast.

3. “. . . documents summarizing the hominid fossil record and hypothesized lines of human evolution from 5 million years ago to the present. Under the current taxonomy (based on genetic rather than behavioral criteria), the term “hominid” refers to members of the biological human family Hominidae: living humans, all human ancestors, the many extinct members of Australopithecus, and our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee and gorilla. According to The Tree of Life by Guillaume Lecointre and Hervי Le Guyader (Harvard University Press: 2006), the similarly named and easily confused categories of humans and near human apes, in order of increasing inclusiveness, are: Hominini: -modern humans and all previous human, australopithecine, paranthropine and ardipithecine ancestors. Homininae: – all of the above, plus chimpanzees (Panini), our closest living biological kin (a genetic kinship so close that some scientists have suggested their genus name should be changed from Pan to Homo). Hominidae: – all of the above, plus gorillas (Gorillinae). Hominoidae: – all of the above, plus orangutans (Pongidae). Hominoidea: – all of the above, plus gibbons (Hylobatoidae).”

6. Biblical Historical Criticism: Spinoza:
We read in Spinoza’s Tractate (Treatise) Theological-Political of 1670, he seeks freedom of speech. Cites 1st John 4:13: Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.”
He writes in the Preface: Without rules or fortune men are lead to superstition; they become insulted by others questioning them or they go begging and praying for any counsel from anyone. Superstition preys on the victims of greed and slanders Reason, and breeds fear. He attempts to expose false Religion with its countless misconceptions which seeks to enslave man. The causes that that led to the Treatise: are the mutual hatred of Christians for one another, Jews against Jews, Turks against Turks, and all against each other, and Heathen against each. The Religious intolerance and hypocrisy. The Churches commerce of God’s religion. The Pretense of admiration and belief in Holy Writ, but instead teaching philosophies of Plato and Aristotle guised in divine inspiration, mere formal faith and ignorance of the Bible itself, but adherents of its teachers. The hatred against human reason made him, he says he “determined to examine the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit, making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines, which I do not find clearly therein set down. With these precautions I constructed a method of Scriptural interpretation, and thus equipped proceeded to inquire. . .”
“Now, as in the whole course of my investigation I found nothing taught expressly by Scripture, which does not agree with our understanding, or which is repugnant thereto, and as I saw that the prophets taught nothing, which is not very simple and easily to be grasped by all, and further, that they clothed their teaching in the style, and confirmed it with the reasons, which would most deeply move the mind of the masses to devotion towards God, I became thoroughly convinced, that the Bible leaves reason absolutely free, that it has nothing in common with philosophy, in fact, that Revelation and Philosophy stand on totally different footings. In order to set this forth categorically and exhaust the whole question, I point out the way in which the Bible should be interpreted and show that all knowledge of spiritual questions should be sought from it alone, and not from the objects of ordinary knowledge. Thence I pass on to indicate the false notions, which have arisen from the fact that the multitude—ever prone to superstition and caring more for the shreds of antiquity than for eternal truths—pays homage to the Books of the Bible, rather than to the Word of God. I show that the Word of God has not been revealed as a certain number of books, but was displayed to the prophets as a simple idea of the Divine mind, namely, obedience to God in singleness of heart, and in the practice of justice and charity; and I further point out, that this doctrine is set forth in Scripture in accordance with the opinions and understandings of those, among whom the Apostles and Prophets preached, to the end that men might receive it willingly, and with their whole heart.”
First, he gives his detail analysis and hermeneutical opinions of Prophecy, definition and distinction, of Moses superior to other prophets, of Christ superior to Moses, but all by mental process of mind or imagination. The ambiguity of “Spirit” or spirit allows for many senses. The Prophets use prophetic imagination and trances only to direct men to God and from evil. Divine Laws are the best in humanity and aligns with God’s dignity and nature as understood by reason. Ceremonial Laws are temporary and partial as attested by both Old and New Testaments. Miracles cannot be a violation of natural, which is absurdity, but may appear so, or so interpreted in ignorance, for edification. God’s providence is the course of nature. Scripture miracles are a matter of the systems of interpretation, which is limited and partial at the present. The various interpretations among Jews and Christians rival each other to the negation of the supernatural, which refutes, along with the teaching of Maimonides, and the traditions of Pharisees and Papists. After dealing with the prophetic books, he examines the Pentateuch, advocating that that Moses authorship is only in Deuteronomy, and that all the other books as well as the rest of the older historical books are of late authorship, and suggests that Ezra compiled them along with Deuteronomy which appears to be the first written and edited, and later still others added and edited. He continues his criticism of the rest of the books of the Old Testament, pointing out as he had earlier all the passages suggesting editorial hands, unknown authorship, dubious origins, partial revision and harmonization, as well as legends added to the corpus, along with a host of examples of scribal and textual variants, and peculiarities of Hebrew grammar. He declines to examine the New Testament as he has the Old but offers his version of apostolic inspiration and the letters and the Gospel accounts are not prophetic revelation but human illumination, and the same development formed its books. The Word of God is not limited to exact transmission of text in letters or books, but the Divine Word will always abide despite the fallibility of man and church. Reason and faith are not in conflict except in misunderstandings; faith and love are for good works, scripture is not completed except by theologians and philosophers. Reason and faith have each their independent domain which allows acceptance to Scripture authority, but not subservient to it or the other accommodated to it. Authority belongs to God and Nature as co-equal and co-extensive, and this applies to man’s state as in nature, and his subjection is not slavery, and it is applicable to the state and religion. . . “ Throughout Spinoza admits his novelty and speculation, his partial understanding, and his novel theories, and he denies that he has in any way said anything contrary to Scripture or to God.

7. Higher Criticism of the Old Testament: Documentary Theory: (I recently collected for uploads the Works of Bishop Colenso and thought of selecting from his publications of the Pentateuch and Joshua examples of Old Testament higher criticism as they call it, since he was in many ways a father of this modern documentary theory. But after going through his volumes, it appears that others have perfected their craft better than he, even if with a more anti and critical spirit. Dillmann still seems to be a better example, though tedious reading, of the school that to this day, though greatly diluted, continues antagonistic to the historical veracity of the Bible, breeding little scholars, like serpents, speaking of what they know not.)
“”Genesis Critically and Exegetically Expounded” by Dr. August Dillmann, late Professor of Theology in Berlin Translated from the last German Edition by WM.R. Stevenson, B.D. Two Volumes, Published in 1897 by T&T Clark in Edinburgh. [Student and friend of Ewald and Baur, co-author with Knobel’s commentaries. He was an accomplished Ethiopic scholar influencing modern Ethiopic Biblical studies.] (“The name of August Dillmann (1823-1894) and the value of his work have long been familiar to English students of Old Testament Literature. A translator of his Commentary on Genesis has therefore only to speak of the editions of the original, and of any features of the translation which require remark. The edition (1892) from which the present translation is made is generally quoted as the sixth. It is, however, only the fourth from Dillmann’s own hand. His first edition was a revision of a commentary by August Knobel, which had already passed through two editions. What still remains of this original is indicated in the text by quotation marks, with or without mention of Knobel’s name. The present translation is in two volumes, for the whole of which the writer of the Preface is finally responsible; but the general form of the first volume and nearly all the additional matter in it (in square brackets) is due to another hand. This has occasioned a certain want of uniformity in minor matters (style, use of footnotes, spelling of proper names), and the retention of Dillmann’s “Jahve” for Yahweh or Jehovah, and of his symbols A, B, and C, which hoped that the lexical indexes may prove to be of special value, as facilitating study of the sources of Genesis, and of Dillmann’s contribution to that study. The spelling adopted in the case of proper names may also be referred to. It seems to the writer that there must be compromise, following Dillmann’s example, between traditional spelling and accurate transliteration. But though this may be acknowledged, there can be little hope meantime of general agreement in actual practice. The spellings adopted are therefore tentative, and even inconsistency may be pardoned. . . . . His views regarding the composition of the Hexateuch are contained in a most valuable treatise printed as an appendix to Num. Deut. u. Josh. might otherwise have been replaced by P, E, and J. Regarding the last point, it seems to the writer that the substitution ought still to be made by any future translator of Dillmann. In the author’s own preface he says that it was the need of maintaining uniformity with the other volumes of his Hexateuch commentary which compelled him to retain the symbols A, B, and C instead of those now customary (P, E, and J). . . . The chief external feature of the translation, as compared with the original, is the more readable form in which it appears. Contractions have largely been dispensed with, except in the case of the numerous references to periodicals, the use of footnotes has greatly relieved the text, and the division into paragraphs makes reference easier. These changes of form have in some cases made slight transpositions of the text advisable (e.g. vol. ii. p. 14, lines 4—7 occur further down in the German text). Where misprints, principally of figures, have been detected, they are in general silently corrected (but see, e.g., vol. ii. p. 13, note 1). Dillmann’s references are generally to the German translations of English and French works. In these cases, so far as possible, references to the originals have been added in square brackets, or have sometimes been directly substituted (frequently in the case of Robinson’s Palestine). All other additions by the translator are in square brackets. On p. 22 ff. and on pp. 36, 37 of vol. i. there are, however, square brackets which have been retained from the German edition.”)
From Preliminary Remarks and Chapters 1 and 2:
Genesis, like the rest of the Hexateuch, notwithstanding that in it a distinct literary plan is carried out, is not the uniform work of a single author, but is a combination of several works which at one time circulated independently. [Note: I was going to change the archaic usage of Roman numerals which was so popular for far too long, to the modern practice, but I figured it was best to let the scholarly practice stand as is, since it matches their intellectual conceit.]
That it is not a literary unity is already apparent after a more exact examination of the actual contents of the book. There are found in it all sorts of seemingly needless repetitions (e.g. xxi. la alongside of 16, or iv. 25 f. alongside of v. 1-6, or xlvii. 29 ff. alongside of xlix. 29 ff.); also, two or more accounts of the same thing, not merely such as might, with a stretch, be explained by supposing that the author actually assumed different occurrences or wished to indicate the wavering of tradition (e.g. the varying legends about the seizure of the patriarch’s wife, xii. 10 f., xx. 1 ft’., xxvi. 7 ff.; or about Hagar and Ishmael, xvi. 1 ff’., xxi. 12 fi’.; or the double covenant of God with Abram, chs. xv. and xvii.; the double blessing of Jacob by Isaac, xxvii. 1 ff. and xxviii. 1 ff.; the double promise of a son to Sarah, xvii. 17 and xviii. 10 ff.; the triple explanation of the name Isaac, xvii. 17, xviii. 12, xxi. 6; the double explanation of the names Edom, xxv. 25, 30, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, xxx. 16-18, 20, 23 f., or Mahanaim, xxxii. 3, 8; comp. also on Ishmael, xvi. 11 ff. and xxi. 17, on Peniel, xxxii. 31 and xxxiii. 10), but also such as mutually exclude one another, because the thing can have happened only once, or in one way (see, e.g. on the course of creation, chs. i. and ii.; on the number of the animals taken into the ark, and the duration of the Flood, ch. vi. f.; on the scattering of the peoples, chs. x. and xi. 1 ff., also x. 2 5; or on the origin of the names Beersheba, xxi. 31, xxvi. 33, Israel, xxxii. 29, xxxv. 10, Bethel, together with the consecration of the Bethel pillar, xxviii. 18 f., xxxv. 14 f.; or on the encounter with the Shechemites, chs. xxxiv. and xlviii. 22; or the treatment of Joseph by his brethren and the merchants who brought him to Egypt, xxxvii. 19-36). But other irreconcilable statements also are not wanting, e.g. about the reduction of the duration of man’s life to a hundred and twenty years (vi. 3 against ch. v. 11, etc.); or that Abraham, after the death of Sarah, still begat many sons (xxv. 1 ff. against xviii. 11 f., xvii. 17); that Esau on Jacob’s return from Mesopotamia was already settled in Seir (xxxii. 4 ff. against xxxvi. 6); that Rebecca’s nurse first comes with Jacob from Mesopotamia (xxxv. 8 against xxiv. 59); that all the sons of Jacob were born in Padan-Aram (xxxv. 26 against ver. 16 ff.); or the different names of the wives of Esau (xxvi. 34, xxviii. 9 against xxxvi. 2 f.); or about Joseph’s Egyptian master, xxxvii. 36, xxxix. 1—xl. 4, or the statement xlii. 27, xliii. 21, beside xliii. 35. Notices like iv. 14 f., 17, are, in the place where they now stand, enigmatical. In particular, the chronology which lies at the basis of the book does not fit in with all the parts of the narrative, e.g. that of the age of Sarah, xvii. 17, comp. xii. 4, does not agree with xii. 11, xx. 2 ff.; nor that of Ishmael, xvii. 24, xxi. 5, 8 with xxi. 15 ff.; nor that of the nearness of Isaac’s death, xxvii. 1f., 7, 10, 41 with xxxv. 28 and xxvi. 34; nor that of Rachel, xxxvii. 10 with xxxv. 19. Further, xxx. 25 ff. does not agree with xxxi . 38, 41 (see notes on ch. xxx. 25 ff.), nor the ages of Jacob’s sons given or presupposed in xxxii.-xxxvii., xxxix — xlv. with xlvi. 8-27 (see notes on ch. xxxv. 22 ff.). See also on ch. 1. 21. Indeed, narratives are even to be met with in which particular parts do not agree with the rest (e.g. xxxi. 48-50), or the conclusion with the beginning (xxiv. 62-67).
Such repetitions, disarrangements, contradictions, and chronological difficulties, are not explicable on the assumption that the book was composed as a unity; or are so only by help of most improbable suppositions constructed ad hoc. But further, the critical labour of scholars during a whole century has with certainty led to the recognition in the accounts of this book of different groups or strata, of which the several pieces are as closely related to each other, formally and materially, as they are distinguished from those of the other strata. More precisely there are three different writings, differentiated in respect of time and place of origin, contents, arrangement, aim, mode of representation and language, which have been discovered as lying at the basis of Genesis, and also as continued into the other books of the Hexateuch. The more precise proofs of this state of things are given in the Introductions to the exposition of the several sections. A summary of the results of these detailed investigations, together with a characterization of the individual writings and a discussion of their origin, will be found in the concluding treatise of this whole work, after the Book of Joshua. (Dillmann, Num. Deut. and Josh. p. 599 ff.) Here only thus much.
The writing designated by us A is that which was formerly called the writing of the Elohist because in it, down (Dillmann, Num. Deut. and Josh. p. 599 ff.) to the passage Ex. vi. 3, the divine name Jahve is avoided, and only Elohim, or on occasion El Shaddai, is used, or foundation-document—Grundschrift—because it forms the framework into which the other parts are laid, but recently for the most part the Priestly Writing (therefore designated P or PC, i.e. Priests’ Code, whereas the designation as Q, i.e. Quatuor, by Wellhausen,(So in Kautzsch-Socin, Die Genesis, 1891.) rests on the inapt assumption that the author reported four covenants).(See, on the contrary, Zeitschrift fur altt. Wissenschafi, xii. 1 and 20.) It is in the main a law writing; it seeks to lay down the laws, ordinances, institutions, and customs which prevail, or should prevail, among God’s people, and to explain their origin. It deals with the historical almost only in so far as that is useful or necessary for the understanding of the origin of these laws, etc. While therefore it gives indeed a sketch of the whole Preliminary and Primitive History from the Creation, it does so only to show how and wherefore, and by what stages and by means of what divine arrangements, the chosen people were gradually formed and taken out from the other and especially related peoples, and it enters into fuller descriptions only in connection with epoch-making occurrences (such as the Creation, Flood Covenant with Noah, Covenant with Abraham, Descent of the Patriarchs to Egypt), or with reference to occurrences on which laws are based (such as Gen. xvii. 23, xlviii. 3—8); for the rest, it narrates the facts, or the incidents held to be facts, only in a brief and dry (annalistic) style, partly in the form of genealogies (chs. v., xi. 10 ff., xxxv. 22 ff.) and statistical surveys (chs. x., xxv. 12 ff., xxxvi.), all the time, however, giving special attention to the working out of a fixed and orderly chronology. Its mode of statement is broad, circumstantial (because aiming at the utmost possible accuracy and definiteness), and juristically precise and formal; its language somewhat stiff and monotonous, confining itself within a rather limited circle of expressions, with many technical terms, by no means late Hebrew, but in many respects peculiar: just as the prophets, the gnomic poets, and the Psalmists, also formed their own peculiar speech. Its treatment of the material is pre-eminently of an erudite character, resting upon research, calculation, and reflection, and turning to account varied stores of knowledge, (E.g. chs. i., v., x. f., xxxvi., xlvi.; in matters of detail, e.g. chs. xxv. 16, xxxvi. 15.) but with a strong tendency to systematize and schematize. Its manner of speaking of God is austere and worthy, and makes no use even of the belief in angels, still less of that strongly anthropomorphic style of thinking and speaking, which came so near to being mythological, and which poets and popular speech delighted in. Without doubt its author belonged to the circle of the priests at the central sanctuary in Jerusalem. A simple statement of the date of its composition cannot be given on account of the gradual remodeling and enlargement which it underwent (especially in Exod. Lev. and Num.) in exilic and post-exilic times. Yet the original writing undoubtedly dates back to the times of the kings of Israel. In Genesis, where it appears in its relatively purest form, chs. xvii. 6, 16, xxxv. 11, xxxvi 31 ff., and especially its description of the relations of the peoples in chs. x. and xxxvi., supply data for judging its date.
Of quite another character, in respect of their origin and their aim, are the two other writings. Only in the account of the activity of Moses do they to some extent deal with laws; otherwise, they are properly books of legend or history, whose purpose was, in the form of a survey attractively written, to give contemporaries, for their entertainment and instruction, information regarding what was still known or told about the olden times. In contrast to the sober intellectuality of the Priestly Writing, they are books of lifelike directness and poetic beauty. One of them, B, which, because it likewise calls God not Jahve but Elohim, is by many styled the writing of the Elohist (and therefore now by most designated E), may be named The Book of Israel’s Legendary History. It derives its contents partly, indeed, from older written documents, but mainly from orally transmitted legends as they existed among the midland, northern, and eastern tribes (Israel in distinction from Judah), and it preserves unchanged in its narratives the manner, tone, and color of this living legendary lore of the people. In the details of its contents this writing is the richest (in Gen. we know, e.g., only from it the names Eliezer, Deborah, Potiphar), and it gives much quite peculiar information, and many short utterances of the very oldest stamp (e.g. xxi. 27 ff., xv. 2, xx. 16, xlviii. 22). It is therefore much to be regretted that it has not been preserved for us in a more complete form. Many local legends of particular districts (e.g. also xxxi. 51 ff., xxxiii. 19, xxxv. 8, 20) were conjoined in it, and it has a special fondness for pointing out the origin of the ancient sanctuaries of the midland and eastern parts, as well as (comp. Amos v. 5, viii. 14) those of the far southwest (xxi. 31, xxii. 2 in its original form, xxviii. 17 f., xxxii. 2, 31, xxxiii. 20, xxxv. 4, 7, xlvi. 1 f.); but this does not entitle us to call it a priestly writing. (Stade, Gesch. 582.) A subject to which B devotes special attention is the glory of Joseph (Ephraim-Manasseh); in it the old standing of Reuben shines more distinctly through (xxxvii. 21, 29, xlii. 22, 37); Bethel is represented as a sanctuary at which tithes are paid (xxviii. 22); Shechem is expressly pointed out as the possession of Joseph (xxxiii. 19, xlviii. 22); and Joseph receives a special blessing from Jacob (xlviii. 15 f., 20). These facts alone leave no room for doubting (comp. also ch. 1. 25 with Josh. xxiv. 32) its origin in Israel (in the narrower sense). It is demonstrable as a documentary source of Genesis, certainly from ch. xx., and with high probability it is also the source of ch. xv. In support of the position that the narratives wrought up in ch. xiv, as well as those in iv. 17 ff., vi. 1-4, ix. 20, belonged originally to it, much may be advanced; especially in chs. iv. and vi. the close approach shown to the Phoenician theories of the development of the earliest races of man, which is most easily explained in the case of a North-Israelite document. An account of the Flood it certainly never contained. In matters of worship it still shows quite the older free manner of the Israelitish tribes with their many sanctuaries (also Masseboth, xxviii. 22, xxxiii. 20; comp. xxxi. 51 f.), but it condemns the teraphim and other idolatrous things (xxxv. 2 £f.; comp. Josh. xxiv.). It speaks much of revelations of angels, and revelations by dreams or visions, expressly calls Abraham a prophet (xx. 7), and likes to point out the gradual realization, in the dispensations of Divine Providence, of God’s plan unveiled beforehand by revelation. It belongs, doubtless, to the age when the prophetic order nourished among the midland tribes, i.e. to the ninth century. (See Dillmann, Num. Deut. Josh. p. 621.) It is no longer comprehensible as a product of the time after the destruction of the northern kingdom, or as late as the seventh century, (Lagarde, Nathrichten der k. Geselhchaft d. Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1889, p. 321 f.) nor is this hypothesis aided by the Egyptian names in xxxvii. 36, xli. 45 (see note on ch. xli. 45). Much of its contents are no longer extant in its original form, but only as wrought up in combination with C.
The third writing, C, usually called that of the Jahvist [Jehovist] (because from the beginning it makes use of the name Jahve, therefore now mostly designated J), for a long time also, though wrongly, called the Supplementary Document—Erganzungsschrift—as if it had been written with the intention of supplementing A, was, no less than the others, originally an independent document, and may be distinguished from A as a prophetical, and from B as a Judaic writing. That it proceeded not from Ephraim (De Wette-Schrader, Lehrb. d. Einl* § 205; Reuse, Gesch. d. AT. § 213; Kuenen, Onderzoek1 i. § 224 f.) but from Judah, is demonstrable with certainty, even within Genesis itself, from its assigning the district of Hebron as the residence of Abraham (xiii. 18, xviii. 1) and of Jacob (? xxxvii. 14), from the prominence which it gives to Judah in the history of Joseph (xxxvii. 26 ff., xliii. 3 ff., xliv. 16 ff., xlvi. 28), as well as from ch. xxxviii. This is not refuted by the fact that, like B, and probably following the lead of B, it purposely takes notice of the holy places of northern Israel (xii. 6-8, xxviii. 13-16) and of the Negeb (xxi. 33, xxvi. 23-25). See, further, introd. notes to ch. xlix. and observe xxxiii. 17 as well as xxxii. 8 against xxxii. 2 f., where in the mention of such places it shows only an antiquarian, not a religious interest. In the primeval histories there is an unquestionable relationship between it and A both in respect of arrangement and of contents (history of creation, the original state, the genealogy of Noah, the story of the Flood, the ethnographical table). Also, in the Abraham section and onward, it has some narratives in common with A (separation from Lot, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Dinah; also xlvii. 1-11, xlvii. 29 ff. with xlix. 29 ff.). But elsewhere in the history of the patriarchs, especially in that of Jacob and Joseph, it shows itself most closely related to B; so much so, that most of its narratives from ch. xxvii. onwards have their perfect parallels in B, and it is necessary to assume the dependence of the one upon the other.
And, indeed, it is C that borrowed from B. This may be proved from the general consideration that just in the circle of legends about Jacob and Joseph, which must originally have been developed in Israel not in Judah, the relationship is most complete. It is established further by a comparison of the several parallel passages, which almost always shows, on the side of B more realistic detail, on that of C more scene painting, set speeches, and wealth of ideas, if there be left aside such isolated cases as those in which B has the more definite statements (e.g. xv. 2 against 3, xxxvii. 36 against xxxix. 1) and C the more general (e.g. xxvi. 1, 8, Philistines; xxxvii. 25 Ishmaelites, against 28 Midianites). Unquestionably this writer worked with the written material of B lying before him; and this fact often betrays itself even at points where no parallel narrative has survived from B (e.g. Gen. xii. 6-9, ch. xxvi.), especially in turns of expression (e.g. xxvi. 32, xxx. 35, 38, 41, etc.). The opposite view, (Wellhausen, Stade, Budde, Kuenen, Onderzoek, – 226 ff.) that C is older than B, cannot be proved in Genesis from a detailed comparison of the parallel accounts of the two narrators; (NDt. Jos. 630 f.; Kittel, Gesch. der Hebr. i. 69 ff. s NTH. Jos. 630 f) it can only be in some measure established by appeal to the fact that C, especially in the history of Moses and Joshua, has in many cases more ancient accounts than B. But, in truth, this is rather to be explained from the fact (NDt. Jos. 630 f.) that he has there followed older and better sources. For, of course, B is not his only source. Narratives like xii. 10 ff., xvi. 1 ff. (alongside of xxi. 9-21), xxv. 29 ff. etc., show that he has drawn much of his material, quite independently of B, either from current legend or from written documents lying before him; and this apart from the many passages which he and A have peculiar to themselves. On the whole, one may safely say that he represents the legendary history as it was told in Judah, or from the Judaic point of view. But yet more important peculiarities are discovered, if one looks to the contents and form of his narratives. For in the same measure in which, in respect of realistic contents, he falls short of B, he surpasses him (and much more so A) in thoughtful apprehension, vivid lively description, smooth, and, at the same time, charming and interesting delineation and artistic rounding off of his narratives. Many of his passages that we still have complete (e.g. ch. ii. f., xi. 1-9, xviii. f., xxiv., xliii. f.) are masterpieces of the art of narration, with which only a few passages from B, like ch. xxii., can be compared. Not less distinguished, however, are they by the fullness of fine instructive thoughts, and of weighty, ethieoreligious truths which the author had the skill to breathe into his legendary histories, or rather to elicit from them, without taking away anything of their poetic character and the childlike simplicity of expression, which adhered to them as they came from the lips of the people. Especially of all three narrators does he show the deepest knowledge of the nature, origin, and growth of sin in mankind; of the counter action of God against it; of His plan of salvation (iii. 15 f., v. 29, viii. 21 f., ix. 26 f., xii. 2 f., xviii. 19); of the calling and training of the divinely chosen instruments to faith, obedience, and virtuous conduct; of the destination of Israel to be a blessing to the nations. So, it is already in Genesis, where he represents the patriarchs as essentially types and patterns. In the course of the work these more profound ideas come out yet more distinctly and make themselves strongly felt also in the polemic against the idolatrous and disobedient character of the people of Israel.1(In opposition to the judgment passed on him by Stade, Geseh. 547.) The ideas and knowledge by which the author is influenced are those of the prophets; and as we may therefore call himself in a certain sense a prophetic narrator, so we may also from this conjecture his era to be the time of the activity of the great prophets; which conjecture is then abundantly confirmed by many other indications. No particularly high antiquity need be demanded for him, neither because of the naive way in which he speaks of God, (Ch. ii. f. (see p. 97), vi. 6, vii. 16, viii. 21, xi. 5 f., xviii 1 ff., 17-21.)—for that does not uniformly characterize all his passages and is therefore conditioned rather by the subject and the source, —nor even because of the “unrestrainedness” with which from the beginning of things onward he makes use of the name Jahve, (Ch. ii. f. contrasted with Ex. vi. 3 ff. from A and Ex. iii. 13 ff. from B.) and makes mention of, or presupposes, even in the earliest times, sacrifice (iv. 3 f.), altar (viii. 20 f.), the distinction of clean and unclean (vii. 2 ff.), and the oracle of Jahve (xxv. 22 f.); for the passages quoted in the notes on ch. iv. 26 plainly show that, in his case also, there is already implied and carried out a theory of the origin of the service of the true God.
In language, too, as well as in his whole style of narrative, C stands much closer to B than to A; and although between them also all sorts of finer distinctions are to be found, yet it is often very difficult or impossible to make a complete separation between them, where their narratives have been worked into each other by later editors, and material criteria are wanting. The assumption that B as well as C, before they came into their present connection with one another, passed through several editions, (Kuenen, Ondarzoek, * 242 ff.) might be in itself possible, but with reference at least to B in Genesis (and in the other books) is not supported by any satisfactory proofs. In C we no doubt meet with heterogeneous sections, (See on chs. iv., vi. 1-4, xi. 1-9.) which might recommend that hypothesis, but only in the primitive history, not in the further course of the work; (See especially notes on xii. 10 ft’., and notes on xviii. 17 ff.) and since, for the rest, throughout all these passages the marks of C, in respect of form and language, are uniformly present, another explanation of that phenomenon is to be preferred. (See on chs. iv., vi. 1-4, xi. 1-9.) Under C, therefore, in what follows we shall include the whole of the sections of this document, without raising the question of its sources or prior stages.
If one inquires as to the manner in which Genesis has been worked up out of the three original documents, it may be said generally that A’s writing, with its continuous chronology and its sharply-marked division of sections, forms the framework or outline into which the accounts of the others are introduced; but also that in the choice and combination of the material, Cs range of ideas was the standard, and that his prophetic conceptions of sin and grace, of the saving purpose of God, of the divine training of the patriarchs to be ancestors of the people of God, are repeatedly made still more conspicuous by express remarks;2 and, generally, that attention is directed for the most part to that which seemed most serviceable for the religious discipline and instruction, as well as for the moral and national culture, of the people. In the preliminary remarks to the explanation of the several sections, a description is given of the way in which on these lines the work took shape in respect of connection and general plan. We anticipate that much which did not serve the purpose held in view was set aside or abbreviated: passages like iv. 17—24, vi. 1-4, xxx. 32-42, mere excerpts from fuller accounts, had perhaps been already shortened by 0 himself; but, e.g., the isolated mention of Isaiah (xi. 29), of the consanguinity of Abraham and Sarah (xx. 12), of the vow of the tenth (ch. xxviii. 22) without mention of fulfillment in ch. xxxv. 7, or the information given in xlviii. 22, plainly point to omissions in the compilation. On examination we find that up to ch. xi. 26 the accounts of A are doubtless given completely; that, on the other hand, the beginning of his history of Abraham which stood before……
If one inquires as to the manner in which Genesis has been worked up out of the three original documents, it may be said generally that A’s writing, with its continuous chronology and its sharply-marked division of sections, forms the framework or outline into which the accounts of the others are introduced; but also that in the choice and combination of the material, Cs range of ideas was the standard, and that his prophetic conceptions of sin and grace, of the saving purpose of God, of the divine training of the patriarchs to be ancestors of the people of God, are repeatedly made still more conspicuous by express remarks; (Especially chs. xv. 6 f., 12-16, xxii. 15-18, xxvi. 36-5.) and, generally, that attention is directed for the most part to that which seemed most serviceable for the religious discipline and instruction, as well as for the moral and national culture, of the people. In the preliminary remarks to the explanation of the several sections, a description is given of the way in which on these lines the work took shape in respect of connection and general plan. We anticipate that much which did not serve the purpose held in view was set aside or abbreviated: passages like iv. 17—24, vi. 1-4, xxx. 32-42, mere excerpts from fuller accounts, had perhaps been already shortened by 0 himself; but, e.g., the isolated mention of Isaiah (xi. 29), of the consanguinity of Abraham and Sarah (xx. 12), of the vow of the tenth (ch. xxviii. 22) without mention of fulfillment in ch. xxxv. 7, or the information given in xlviii. 22, plainly point to omissions in the compilation. On examination we find that up to ch. xi. 26 the accounts of A are doubtless given completely; that, on the other hand, the beginning of his history of Abraham which stood before ch. xii., the revelation of God to Isaac (see xxxv. 12), the residence of Jacob in Padan-Aram, and the whole of the history of Joseph before the removal of Jacob into Egypt, are left out, perhaps because in part they were too little in accord with the narratives of the other documents used. Vice versa, the sections of C are abbreviated. In the primitive histories (Chs. ii. 5 f., iv. 25 f., in the story of the Flood, in the ethnographical table; elsewhere xvi. 15 f., xxi. 2 ff., xxv. 7 ff., xxxii. 4, xxxv. 28 f.) and in the undernoted passages, the abbreviation is in favor of A, elsewhere in the patriarchal histories mostly only in favor of B. From the source B itself, apart from the history of Joseph (which, it seems, was one of the most beautiful parts of the work), relatively fewer passages are communicated word for word (from ch. xx. onward); usually they are expanded by notices from C, or what was remarkable in them has been incorporated into the sections of C.
Wherever it was at all practicable, or seemed requisite, the very words of the sources have been reproduced in the compilation, and it is just to the many pieces of narrative retained unchanged that we are indebted for a more accurate knowledge of the character of these sources. But a simple placing of their sections alongside of one another 2 (As we have ch. ii. f. alongside of ch. i., ch. xxvii. alongside of xxvi. 34 f., and xxviii. 1-9, xlviii. 3-7 alongside of xlviii. 9-22.) was not always possible and would not always have served the end in view. Facts, such as the birth or death of a man, even if they were narrated in all the sources, could only be told in the words of one of these. But even where the original narratives agreed only in the main while divergent in details, simple juxtaposition of the documents would have involved many repetitions. In such cases the documents used have been worked into one another, the one most suitable for the end in view being made the foundation, and what was peculiar in one or both of the others being inserted in it in the place best suited. (Chs. vii. f., x., xvi., xxv., xxvii.-xxviii., xxxix.-l.) But, naturally, it was not always possible that the several passages, culled from two or three writings, should without more ado allow of being placed alongside of one another, or fitted into each other. Either the most contradictory statements occurring in one or other must be omitted, (E.g. ch. xxi. 17ff., the etymology of the name Ishmael; ch. xxxii. 8, that of Mahanaim; ch. xxxiii. 10, that of Peniel; a proper name, ch. xxxi. 25.) or parts manifestly separate must be stitched together by little interspersed additions or remarks, and what was still in contradiction harmonized. Many such joinings and other artificial devices are quite perceptible. (E.g. in chs. iv. 25, x. 24, xxi. 14, xxvi . la, 15, 18, xxxv. 9, xxxvii. 56, 86, xxxix. 1, 20, xliii. 14, xlvi. 1.)
Among these artificial devices for the purpose of producing a readable whole, are to be classed, e.g., the employment before ch. xvii. of the names Abram and Sarai throughout all the sections or of the double name Jahve Elohim throughout ch. ii. f., or the change of Elohim into Jahve, xvii. 1, xxi. 1. An expedient often employed for the same purpose was the transposition of whole passages, (As chs. xi. 1-9, xii. 10-20, xxv. 5f., 116, xxv. 21 ff., xlvii. 12 ft) or of shorter statements, (As chs. ii. 4a, xxxi. 45-50, xxxvii. 26, etc) which then again made all sorts of short additions by the compiler necessary. (As chs. i. 1, ix. 18, xiii. 1, 3f., xxiv. 62.) In other passages the statements of the documents used are epitomized in a free manner, (E.g. chs. vii. 7-9, 22, xv. 7 f., xxxi. 45 ff., xxxvi., xlvi. 8-27.) and here and there detached sentences are added by way of bringing about a harmony. (E.g. chs. xxi. 34, xxxv. 5, xxvii. 46, xlvi. 12-20) Explanatory glosses also were occasionally inserted, (E.g. chs.xx. 18, xxxi. 47, xxxv. 6, or inch. xiv. where many such are found. (Chs. xv. 12-16, xxii. 15-18, xxvi. 3b-5.) , perhaps also iv. 15a.) some of them, perhaps, first from a later hand. Besides, all sorts of smaller insertions are found which are not derived from the sources but were made only during or even after the redaction, partly in order to provide standard points of view for the conception of the subject, (Chs. xv. 12-16, xxii. 15-18, xxvi. 3b-5.) partly in order to bring about harmony with statements occurring elsewhere, (Chs. xxv. 186, xxxv. 22a, perhaps also iv. 15a.) and partly in order to introduce detached notices, or new aspects of the legend not noted in the chief sources. (Chs. x. 9, xxxii. 33; perhaps ii. 10-14, and in x. 14 ; xi. 286, 316, xxxvii. 2*; further, chs. xv. 7, xxii. 2, 14, xv. 19-21, xxxiv. 136, 27-29, xlv. 19 f., 21* xlvi. 5*.)
That finally, notwithstanding all these methods, all kinds of incompatibilities and contradictions, especially in chronological matters, have still been left standing in the work thus originated, is not surprising. But they are for the most part discernible only upon a more careful examination, and could, in contrast to the importance of the contents of the inserted sections, be regarded as of secondary importance. Though in itself quite conceivable, it seems unnecessary to assume that during or after the redaction entirely new passages also, which had nothing corresponding to them in the three sources, were inserted; (See on Gen. xiv.) but certainly passages like chs. xiv. and xv. belong to those which have been most freely recast.
Finally, the further question still arises, as to whether the three documents ABC have been wrought up by one or by several redactors (R). Formerly, (Hupfeld and others.) the former hypothesis was the prevalent one. Recently, it has been contested by all who hold A to be the latest document in the Hexateuch and post-exilic, and it is maintained rather that B and C, after each of them separately had passed through several enlarged editions, were at length combined, and that at a later period by yet another hand they were joined to D (Deuteronomy), before a final redactor, R, wrought A into this composite work. (E.g. Bleek-Wellhausen, EM. in das AT* 118; Kayser, Kuenen, Budde.) This view of the process is at bottom only an inference from the opinion held regarding the age of A, and its validity can therefore be tested only in connection with the discussion of the origin of the documentary sources of the Hexateuch. (See Dillmann, Num. Deut. Josh. 675 ff.) Only this much may here be said, that if not D, then certainly if (who incorporated Deut. into the Pentateuch), knew A and made use of his writing. But even apart from this particular representation of the process, there would still remain the possibility that B and C were first of all worked together, and that only subsequently was A combined with BC.
What may be inferred from Genesis itself as to this question is the following. It is admitted that in the redaction not only was BC enlarged or enriched by additions from A, but also that C was mutilated in favor of A (e.g. chs. i.-xi.), as, conversely, A in favor of C (chs. xii.—l.). This is very well explained if R looked upon the whole three documents as merely private writings. On the other hand, the depreciation and mutilation of BC would be in the highest degree strange, if it were already an integral part of a work become almost sacred, which included in itself also the publicly acknowledged Deuteronomy and had now been read for more than a century. An explanation might be attempted by such an assertion as that it is a matter of the introduction of a stricter chronology, or the insertion of additions regarded as in other respects important. It would be remarkable enough, on such a supposition, that just these latest incorporations often contain the most ancient representations of things; (See on i. 2, 5, 7, 29 f., vii. 11, x. 2-5, 22 f.) it would be quite indiscoverable for what purpose disconnected fragments or repetitions which added nothing to the narrative (As xiii. 6, 116, 12, xix. 29, xxi. 16, xxxi. 18, xxxiii. 18, xxxv. 6.) had been introduced from A, or why, in relating facts like the birth (xvi. 15, xxi. 2 f.) or death (xlix. 33) of a man, which surely BC had also mentioned, the words of BC should be replaced by words of A, or why from the quite new document A there should be inserted, by way of revision, such contradictions as stand in xxvi. 34, xxviii. 9, contrasted with xxxvi. 2 f. When, further, it is urged that C and B are combined in a way altogether different from that in which they are united with A, and that consequently this was done by another hand and at an earlier time, (Wellhausen, JBDTh. xxi. 425. [See p. 25.]) this proof also cannot be regarded as sufficient. The pieces of C and B are indeed much more frequently fused into one single piece; yet not because another hand worked them together, but because C stood fundamentally in the closest relationship with B (§ 3), and in many of its narratives the differences were concerned with mere trifles, where it was sufficient to reproduce one of the two, and to add from the other only a few words or sentences. (As, e.g., chs. xxvii., xxix., xli. f.) But neither is it true that this has been always possible with C and B, 2 (For, e.g., xxvi. 25-33 from C stands alongside of xxi. 22-32 from B, or xxx. 31-43 from C alongside of xxxi. 7-13 from B, just as from G chs. ii. f. or xv. stand alongside of chs. i. or xvii. from A.) nor are there wanting between C and A, where the similarity of contents admits of it, mixed passages fused together like a mosaic. (E.g. Gen. vi. 9-ix. 17, or xxi. 1-7, or ch. xxxiv.; others in Ex.) It is just the thorough similarity in the method of combining C with B and C with A, which is equally seen in Ex., etc., that speaks strongly in favor of the idea that the same hand effected both combinations. Further, there are sections of A, like chs. xxxvi. or xlvi. 8—27, which are quite evidently not worked into a text of Bcb, but rather corrected according to BC (comp. also xlviii. 5); just as in xlix. 33, in the midst of the text of A, a fragment of C appears. Moreover, even in such passages as certainly do not belong to A (like xiv. 11 f., xvi.-xxi.), and in the harmonistic junction of B and C (xliii. 14), or in the redaction of the C sections (xxvi. 1), the redactor R often writes the language of A, just as in the incorporating of A he uses the language of C (xxvii. 46), quite apart from cases like chs. vi. 7, xiii. 3, xv. 14 f., where in redactional additions to sections of C or BC (which, however, are occasioned by the incorporation of A sections into Genesis) we find the language of A. Accordingly it seems, if one takes Genesis into consideration by itself, that a simultaneous working together of the three documents is not excluded but rather recommended, and hence in what follows we speak only for brevity’s sake of B.
On the other hand, it must be admitted as a possibility that, not indeed the insertion of whole large passages like chs. xiv., xxxiv., but that certain of the supplements, adjustments, glosses, and other alterations, were first introduced by later hands. In regard to several passages it is almost certain that the text, at a later period (in part only after the time of the LXX.), was altered, (E.g. iv. 18, xxi. 14, 16, xxxi. 45, xlvii. 5-7, also partly the numbers in ch. v. 11.) or corrupted, (E.g. iv. 8, x. 5, xxiv. 22, 29 f., xxx. 32, xxxviii., xli. 456, 48, 56, xlvii. 21, xlix. 26.) or glossed. (Ch. xlv. 23; perhaps also elsewhere in chs. xxxix.-xlv. and xlvii. 12-26. by Lange, 1874; vol. iii. Deut., by F. W. J. Schroder, 1866; vol. iv. Josua, by Fay, 1870 [Eng. trans., i. Gen., ii. Ex. and Lev., iii. Num. and Deut., iv. Josh. Jud. and Ruth]; Ed. Keuss, La bible, traduction nouvelle, etc., Paris, 1875 ff. (pt. iii. L’histoire sainte et la loi, Pentat. et Jos. 1879, 2 vols.); F. C. Cook, The Holy Bible with an explanatory and critical Commentary (also called The Speaker’s Commentary), in 6 vols. [on 0. T.] Lond. 1871-1876 (for present purpose, vols. i. 1, 2, ii.); D. Steel and J. W. Lindsay, Comm. on the Old Test., New York, 1891 (vol. ii. Lev. Num. Deut).) The critical proof does not reach down to the most minute particulars, e.g. as to whether, in ch. xxx. 18, already R, or only a later hand, wrote sifhati for amati. In passages like chs. xxvi. 3-5, xlv. 20* are seen traces even of the hand of P*.”
(We have taken pains to look at the critics’ criticisms, not only what is cited but many thousands of pages with their thousands of instances of objections to the full or divine inspiration of the Bible. If the Biblical textual critics are correct we have a human Bible without the Divine authorship at work, for Scripture, says the Lord Jesus, cannot be broken, that not a dot or letter of the law shall disappear, that His words last forever. If Moses did not receive from God the words and teachings that are recorded in his five books, then we are done with a Holy Bible, we would have only a common book, a vulgar scripture, and all that is witnessed of God from Moses to Malachi and the New Testament is made void, Christ rejected and shamed, and we are still in our sins and sorry state. I do not deny the peculiarities that they point out, nor do we need to fear all the human elements that come along with the divine word. Like nature the Bible is not just spirit and life, not only sense and symbols, but like the soul is clothed in a body suited to its order and use, a divine vessel. As with the universe, we have in human progress of sciences, as formerly with philosophies, and before them religion and theology, come to understand books and writings in a way to uncover many secrets and dispel superstition and fictions. I have had to examine myself and my beliefs repeatedly and now before my departure I set my own seal and witness that God is true if all else are lies. We have not spared our own search and research, investigating the investigators. In Genesis One we have God and cosmology, in chapter Two we have the Lord God and anthropology, we cannot here reflect on psychology properly without searching out the origins of fallen human nature which has changed the relations and condition of man. We move on to chapter three still dealing with the Generations of the Heavens and Earth in regards to man from Adam to Noah.)


Posted in Bible Reflections, Christian Reflections, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment


2. Reflections on Creation of Man in Chapters 1-6:
Man is presented as a direct and specific creation of God, formed and nursed by the Lord. His origin is divine in that he shares God’s image and likeness, and all that he was and became came from the Lord. Angels are not brought in to educate Adam and his wife, nor is man seen in some primitive and barbaric state of ignorance and alienation from God. There are some who would have us believe these things are mere symbolism of human development and would lead us to their newly developed theories of various forms of evolution from primates to Homo sapiens. This they find in science and natural philosophy by the relatedness of all living creatures, that life is similar in all species and thus must derive one from the other in a serial variety of simplest forms of life to ever increasing complex species which generate and evolve by adaptation in a struggle to exist and live in the most suitable manner. We cannot deny that in creation the patterns and symmetry of the Creator must exist, that in nature His wisdom and genius is found. In fact, we expect to see in the physical world the unseen counterparts or a resemblance and correspondence or reflection in the universe. It gives no credit to God to ignore or reject the countless evidence of His manifold works in nature or its reality. We also expect to find in inspired Scripture, as words and truth coming from God must also mirror the same patterns and analogies, and also the anomalies that must exist with such an infinite God. Here we read of man’s creation by God in very simple terms and a succinct picture which cannot be ignored by any intelligent person. Adam was formed as a first and an original creature by the Lord out of the dust of the ground and inbreathed by the Lord with the breath of life to live and become lord of all the earth. As with the creation so also here, man originates from God in this manner, or the Bible is broken and invalidated, without truth and revelation. We will reflect on the ancient chronology in the upcoming chapters but say here that the time that it is very recent, of several thousands of years (say 6-12, cannot be reconciled to the hundreds of thousands or millions of years that the scientific evolution requires. That man is unique among all animals is Genesis, and that all creation came from God is truth. Therefore, all creatures which resemble man were created by God in their species and innumerable variations. Scripture is not broken in admission of the fossil remains of pre-humans or other evidences of life forms reaching back into the dateless past. If God created certain species to adapt or transform or mutate it does not weaken faith and harm the truth. It’s when we touch what is holy and belongs to God that we do great injury to our souls. It is a true saying that the ancients were deceived by ignorance of the world, but modern man is deceived by his ever-increasing knowledge of the universe. But as in our reflections on the Creation Week, so too here we will let the learned speak for themselves as to their doctrines and theories of human origins.
The description in the Generations of Heaven and Earth are the actual process used in the manufacturing of the creation in which we are told when and how this work was done. The earth or land was barren and dry without rain only a mist or stream irrigated the ground, adamah. The marginal notes and the variant renderings of different translations confirm the difficulty of these verses leading to man’s formation. The interpretation that the description is another account of the creation week is not sustainable. Adam was not yet formed or birthed but was already conceived and in God’s creation. The earth as the place for man was not ready. And as the house is built after the land is prepared by clearings and grading, the foundation being laid to construct what must be manufactured from the ground. In the creation week the Word is given but here we have the Land and the Man, that is, the people who must live on it and fulfill God’s purpose or words. The ground must be cultivated to yield by growth what will feed man and animals. The Lord (YHWH) prepares Earth as His Eden in which He plants a Garden for man. Adam was formed from the dust of the ground, the adamah, and partakes of the earth and shares animal life. Water was necessary to soften the dry-land, which would nourish the ground to grow vegetation of variety and value. In the creation week earth is submerged in waters, but in Eden the land was dry and watered by mist and streams or springs, which will become rivers. The formation is a special creation marking God’s masterpiece which will be His signature work and confirm His majesty and glory because it bears His image and likeness and decreed to be the lord of earth and of all in it or of it. That God could have brought into being the prepared earth and its creatures and Adam in a day or an hour or minute or a second, we doubt not, but this would not stamp His personality and relationship but only His power and wisdom. We say, if no pain there is not gain. And the Lord took pain to slowly cultivate the ground from a field to useful lot, and to plant what He deemed best and good.
Man is formed (yitzer) from the dust or dirt as clay and mud is formed, with all the earthly elements and especially water. Adam is often interpreted as derived from adam or adm meaning red, or from dam meaning blood; but these are deficient, adam is from adamah the ground of the earth. Whether it was reddish as some earth is does not dictate its proper meaning, nor because they are similar in form or sound make their root the same. The Arabic is easier proved to be influenced by these roots being alike than be derived from each other though they may share a more primitive origin. Adam is man as so formed while still not alive. The Lord breathed the breath of life into man’s nostrils and he became a living soul. As a living soul he shares the animal life of other creatures who were called such in the creation week, but unlike them receives from the Lord God His own direct and divine living or life-giving breath which births life, a soul. All that a human soul is, is found in Adam who begins life without ability to care for himself, and ignorant of all things. He must learn from the Lord all that pertains to life and God. This divine life as living breath is capable of growth and development to make a man lord of all on earth. But in order to grow he needs God in everything. He will discover himself as he interacts and relates to fellow creatures and the Lord. We are not told a thousand things which must needs be lived and learnt, but we are told enough to lead us to and keep us in the truth. In the creation week these things are not revealed or decreed, but they are here vital to man. In the creation week we learn of God in many things, being and doing, and these many attributes and descriptions of God, or Divine details of His Person, must one by one be generated and perfected in Adam. The Lord must build a home for Adam, a living place, and this place must be a Garden, a Paradise, in Eden eastward (Gan-Eden miQedem), and he moved Adam from his birthplace to his new home and working place where he will learn to work and rule in living. This Garden of Eden, nourished by waters, settled by the Lord, and now occupied by man, is not a ordinary place, but initially must be a nursery of living and learning. The Lord furnished the Garden with many trees of beauty and appeal, healthy and healing, all that was essential to Adam. Two Trees were also made at the center of the Garden, one of Life and the other of Knowledge of Good and Evil. What and why these two trees were needful will soon be disclosed.
The History continues that a River proceeded forth out of Eden to irrigate the Garden, which then parted into four heads or rivers. The rivers are described from south to north. The two northern extremities, the rivers, are well known, the Hiddekel or Tigris River flows north east from the garden to Akkad through Bagdad and Assyria up to Armenia, and the Euphrates which is west of the Tigris flowing through Sumer and Babylon up to Syria and Turkey. The two rivers listed as 3rd and 4th are basically unchanged from then to now, and they converge at Bosra. The first two rivers flow from the garden southward and part to the west and the east. The two southern extremities the Rivers, Pison and Gihon, the 1st and 2nd, are enigmatic and create controversy. Most agree that the two northern rivers meet at the southern end of Mesopotamia whence that name is derived meaning Between-Rivers, the land of the most ancient Sumerians and Babylonians and of the ancient Akkadians and Assyrians. The ancient Biblical Pison River flows around or turns to or through the ancient Land of Havilah where gold, bdellium, and the onyx stone are valued. The ancient Gihon River turned to or around Ethiopia which in Hebrew is Cush or northern Africa. The ancient Gihon is not of Jerusalem as some quickly assume. The modern attraction to the Kharkeh east of the Tigris and Karun east of Kharkeh falls short in several areas and features. The Euphrates or Al-Furat, and the Tigris, from Persian or Hiddekel, now Dijlat of the Shat-al-Arab are clearly and easily traced, and historically valid, and are the rivers that flow from the Zagros Mountains. The earth is ever changing, and the continents undergone changes in size and shape by several processes. It is known in modern times that the earth’s constitution is made up of various layers, and center is molten hot lava as seen in volcanoes in eruption. Again, this layered composition of the earth is made up of larger segments of land throughout the earth and in and under the oceans. Science by knowledge of Plate Tectonics has mapped out the fractured planet and all its major plates. There are about ten plates so named, and one is called the Arabian Plate which borders the Indian Plate where great and mighty activity is visibly taking place in these two continental plates that are deep below the ocean, and are shifting and sliding away from each other, at opposite directions and different speeds. The plate fault line Arabia goes down from eastern shores of Mediterranean Sea along the borders of Syria and Lebanon and Israel or Palestine, continuing southward in a straight line to the coast line of the Sea of Aqaba down to the tip of Sinai Peninsula, straight down through the middle of the Red Sea and turning westward in the middle of the Gulf of Aden into the Indian Ocean meeting the larger Indian Plate. It is due to this, according God’s design in the creation of the world in such an awesome manner, most dreadful with wondrous grandeur in wisdom and power, that earth changes and reveals land from beneath and swallows land from above. It is well known that the tip of the Persian Gulf has moved forward and submerging land that once was visible and livable in southern Iraq and Kuwait along with Bahrain and ancient Dilmun. I am persuaded that Eden’s Garden, Gan-Eden, is gone into the sea of death. In the Garden the two rivers were met with two more heads or mouths or streams that flowed into the sea in two different directions. One flowed southward to the east along the borders of ancient Elam and southern Persia or Iran and into southern India; the other flowed south west on the eastern coast of Arabia going around Arabia unto Sinai Peninsula then down to east coast of Africa or Cush including ancient Ethiopia. The Nile River is not to be regarded to have anything to do with Gan-Eden. As in modern times the southern coast by land or sea can be followed, so anciently the two rivers in the form of the Gulfs enabled the culture and civilization to spread from Adam’s first home till the Great Flood swept them and the Garden away under the waters. But I leave you to think as you wish. I am sure of this that after the Flood and at the time of Moses Adam’s first real estate was no longer visible or known except in stories and myths and oral tradition and primitive writings. These things contain many mysteries some of which will begin to unfold.
The Lord God moves Adam into the Gan-Eden to cultivate and care for it. We are not told of the countless things or the time involved to nurse and train Adam from absolute zero human experiences to a state of maturity to work and rule. I used to think the Lord made Adam mature as a perfect adult, but I was childish in my thinking. Adam would go through human experiences just like all humans go through them, to develop after birth, and just like the Messiah, the Word incarnate did from childhood to teens to adulthood. Adam is commanded a prohibition, after a general permission as to the trees of the Garden, in regards to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, with the penalty of dying death (literal rendering noted in the marginal notes of many versions, and pointed out by countless interpreters). We are not yet taught what evil is or death, but we have been shown that darkness is opposite light, and the creation as coming from God was good, even very good. Man is created without his choice or will, but here Adam has a choice and will to obey the Lord or to disobey God. Adam was made alive by the Lord God and he will surely die if He disobeys God and eats of the forbidden tree. Adam names the animals brought to him but remains alone without his match. In the creation week Adam was made both male and female, their name was Adam, and referred to as them. Here Adam is alone without the female or woman to fulfill God’s words, His creativity.
The Lord then put Adam in deep sleep, anesthetized him, to operate in opening Adam’s flesh and removing piece of him, rib or side or whatever, and reclosed his flesh. The side-piece is made or built into a woman (ishah, female). We are not told of the degree of time and training required to bring her to Adam, but she is in the second order by design. She is brought to Adam who pronounced that this one is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, and calls her woman (ishah, from ish). The writer adds that a man (ish) leaves father and mother to cling and attach to his wife (ishah, female or woman), and thus the two become one flesh (basar). This is the first three occurrences of the word flesh, and here one flesh refers to the union of two in the procreation of offspring to fulfill God’s words. In simple innocence in unashamed nakedness we have the first union or marriage the conjugal rights and state. They share a common life and body in the institution and creation of a sacred but natural union, shared in a lesser degree by the animals.
Man is presented as a direct and specific creation of God, formed and nursed by the Lord. His origin is divine in that he shares God’s image and likeness, and all that he was and became came from the Lord. Angels are not brought in to educate Adam and his wife, nor is man seen in some primitive and barbaric state of ignorance and alienation from God. There are some who would have us believe these things are mere symbolism of human development and would lead us to their newly developed theories of various forms of evolution from primates to Homo sapiens. This they find in science and natural philosophy by the relatedness of all living creatures, that life is similar in all species and thus must derive one from the other in a serial variety of simplest forms of life to ever increasing complex species which generate and evolve by adaptation in a struggle to exist and live in the most suitable manner. We cannot deny that in creation the patterns and symmetry of the Creator must exist, that in nature His wisdom and genius is found. In fact, we expect to see in the physical world the unseen counterparts or a resemblance and correspondence or reflection in the universe. It gives no credit to God to ignore or reject the countless evidence of His manifold works in nature or its reality. We also expect to find in inspired Scripture, as words and truth coming from God must also mirror the same patterns and analogies, and the anomalies that must exist with such an infinite God. Here we read of man’s creation by God in very simple terms and a succinct picture which cannot be ignored by any intelligent person. Adam was formed as a first and an original creature by the Lord out of the dust of the ground and inbreathed by the Lord with the breath of life to live and become lord of all the earth. As with the creation so also here, man originates from God in this manner, or the Bible is broken and invalidated, without truth and revelation. We will reflect on the ancient chronology in the upcoming chapters but say here that the time that it is very recent, of several thousands of years (say 6-12, cannot be reconciled to the hundreds of thousands or millions of years that the scientific evolution requires. That man is unique among all animals is Genesis, and that all creation came from God is truth. Therefore, all creatures which resemble man were created by God in their species and innumerable variations. Scripture is not broken in admission of the fossil remains of pre-humans or other evidences of life forms reaching back into the dateless past. If God created certain species to adapt or transform or mutate it does not weaken faith and harm the truth. It’s when we touch what is holy and belongs to God that we do great injury to our souls. It is a true saying that the ancients were deceived by ignorance of the world, but modern man is deceived by his ever-increasing knowledge of the universe. But as in our reflections on the Creation Week, so too here we will let the learned speak for themselves as to their doctrines and theories of human origins.
The Bible makes no claims as a book of religion or science, nor philosophy or history and the like. It does record things touching many categories of knowledge as it comes to importance in the interaction of God with Adam and Noah, from Shem to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or Israel. Israel as the Hebrew race is followed through the generations and lives of Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, and finally to Christ. The generations are selected histories inspiring and inspired in relations to the Lord God as He moves in and through His creation with His creatures to bring about His will and way. Genesis as the book of origins begins the seeds of all that follow and governs the definitions and interpretations which unfold. As with cosmology in the creation week in chapter one, so here in chapter two the creation continues in its generations and history beginning with man. The story of man is anthropology and all that is seeded in it with properties of its own determined by design as a seed to a tree. Man is the vital life of the cosmos as a seed in the earth, because the Creator and Maker has so willed and said. Men study and discover His mysteries and secrets in many things and ways, but the greatest discovery is man himself as the reflection of God. Every detail and every word inspired by God instructs us to Him and of Him as we are guided along our generations. Genesis is the story of God in man.
Man’s constitution in anatomy and psychology as with the heavens in astronomy and the earth in geology, is revealed in chapter two and thereafter. The two stories are intertwined and are connected, but they are not two versions of the same thing and pieced together by clever documentary devices, and then interpreted by ingenious theories and promoted as doctrines of the wise and the learned. If we go back far enough, be it hundreds of years or thousands of years, we discover the innumerable ideas that mankind has created and invented of heavenly things and earthly things, and if God was not concerned with His creation, that is His world, mankind would not have any truth to trust. As with today in every field among all nations, there is the widest spectrum of human perspectives as to everything. Experimental science and experience in living will eventually expose the errors and evils in what we believe and teach, if not to ourselves then to others, if not in this generation then in the next. So it behooves me to share some of the conflicts and controversies related to the two chapters of Genesis.
It is not my concern to explain or refute the Bible critics; I am only considering their arguments and questions. Many erroneous Biblical doctrines have always existed, and we all partake of some ignorance as we do knowledge. Several centuries past in such ignorance many things of the Bible and of Genesis were denied as impossible an historically unsubstantiated, these enigmas were used by foolish presumptive men to mock Scripture, but now, during man’s progress in the sciences and specialties of exploration and experimentations, a world of an ancient and forgotten past have been unearthed to mock the mockers, and to shame their once honored fame and name. That the Mesopotamian civilizations were the earliest origins of historic mankind and that it was once rich in vegetation; and waterways different than today; that races are commonly related; that languages have originated from a common stock, that certain stories go back to early man and primitive people where ever found, Egypt, then Assyria and Chaldea, then Medes and Persians, Greeks and Romans, all arose in succession as the Bible recorded. The Sumerian civilization once forgotten for two thousand years, have been unearthed with writings that was unknown, but soon deciphered; yielding thousands of details of a post-flood era, and a pre-Abraham world. The Bible has now become a Book to find suggestions on many quests to unravel ancient history. Questions on human origins and migrations, human nature and man’s psychology, origins of some nations like the Arabs, and many other matters. I turn to another witness.
The Babylonian-Assyrian Genesis called Enuma Elish of seven tablets in cuneiform was unearthed to witness of the common stories of the early chapters of Genesis. These tablets would soon shame many dubious Bible critics of the previous centuries; but soon was interpreted by some as the source of Moses’ Genesis. As the tablets were deciphered and understood the contrast between Genesis and Enuma Elish were gigantic. Then came the clay tablets of the earliest Sumerians pushing back the Genesis stories more than a thousand years, and with the Sumerians and Acadians the stories of a pre-flood civilization brought back Genesis as a scientific curiosity. The Epic of Gilgamesh was soon compared with Noah and his times, along with the Flood that ended that earlier culture where man was closer to God. Any novice can read and compare the stories and see a world of difference, especially Monotheism versus Polytheism. I need not spend extended time and multiply pages in this and so many like myths which are used in comparative religions or archaic symbolism or primitive metaphysical worship. The Bible does agree with essential kernels of human nature and experiences leading culture, custom, and traditions, and are important and informative to those who have need to explore man’s origins. But here is an example:

1.”Like the Greek Theogony, the creation of the world in the Enuma Elish begins with the universe in a formless state, from which emerge two primary gods, male and female:”
“When the skies above were not yet named Nor earth below pronounced by name, Apsu, the first one, their begetter, And maker Tiamat, who bore them all, Had mixed their waters together, But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds; When yet no gods were manifest, Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed, Then gods were born within them.” (Dalley 233)
((But I would paraphrase these lines thus: Before the heavens above were ever named Before earth below pronounced by name, He Apsu, the beginning, their begetter, And She, maker Tiamat, who bore them all, They had mixed their waters together, But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds; When yet no gods were manifest, Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed, Then gods were born within them…))
(“Apsu, the male “begetter,” is the sweet waters, while Tiamat, the female “maker,” is the bitter, salt waters. Sweet and salt water mingle together at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, site of the origins of Mesopotamian civilization. Some translators see the word “maker” in line 4 not as an adjective describing Tiamat but as another god, named Mummu, who emerges at the same time. As you might expect, Mummu means “maker,” “form,” “mold,” or “matrix.” Besides being Apsu’s vizier, Mummu is the mold or the undifferentiated substance from which things are made. Like Eros at the beginning of the Theogony, this Mummu-power is necessary to get the job of birth-creation going. Stephanie Dalley notes that “the bit-mummu was the term for a workshop that produced statues of deities” (274). N. K. Sandars, however, sees mummu as potential, or entropy (27). In this early period, nothing is named yet because nothing has appeared or been created yet. Notice that pasture-land must be formed–wrested from the desert by the hard work of digging and irrigation. The reed-beds mentioned in line 6 are handier than one might think: in southern Iraq today, the marsh dwellers live and work in floating houses and boats made from the reeds in the reed-beds. The “destinies” mentioned in line 8 are somewhat like the Sumerian me–cultural patterns and ways of living.”) (“After the waters of Apsu and Tiamat mix, the gods Lahmu and Lahamu (“slime, mud”) emerge. And from this pair come Anshar (“whole sky”) and Kishar (“whole earth”), meaning perhaps “the horizon, the circular rim of heaven and the corresponding circular rim of earth” (Jacobsen 168). Anshar and Kishar give birth to Anu, the sky god, who in turn begets what one translation calls “his likeness” (Heidel 18) Ea, the trickster god of the flowing waters, who is familiar to us as Enki. The following genealogical chart summarizes the creation so far:”)

2. ((A better collection of translations and texts and collected and edited by Robert W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels Old Testament. Bodleian Library, Oxford. September 13, 1911.)):
“The Story of Creation: 1 When above the heaven was not named, And beneath the earth bore no name, And the primeval Apsu, who begat them And Mummu and Tiamat, the mother of them all,— 5 Their waters were mingled together, And no field was formed, no marsh seen, When no one of the gods had been called into being, And none bore a name, and no destinies [were fixed] Then were created the gods in the midst of [heaven], 10 Lakhmu and Lakhamu were called into being . . . Ages increased …”= e-nu-ma e-liS la na-bu-u sa-ma-mu sap-lis am-ma-tum su-ma la zak-rat Apsu-ma ris-tu-u za-ru-su-un Mu-um-mu Ti-amat mu-al-li-da-at1 gim-ri-Su-un 5 m6-Su-nu is-te-nis i-Jji-ku-u-ma gi-pa-ra la ki-is-«u-ra su-sa-a la Se-‘ e-nu-ma ilani la su-pu-u ma-na-ma su-ma la luk-ku-ru Si-ma-tu la [Si-mal ib-ba-nu-u-ma ilani ki-ri[b] [Sa-ma-mi2] 10 (ilu) Lajj-mu u (ilu) La-Qa-mu uS-ta-pu-u [. . .] a-di ir-bu-u i- [. . .]”] (“The text is published by King, in Cuneiform Texts, xiii. See further for additional fragments, King, The Seven Tablets of Creation, where also are to be found transcription, translation, and a valuable commentary. Earlier editions, which are still valuable, are Heinrich Zimmer, in Gunnels, Schdpfung und Chaos, pp. 401ff; Delitzsch, Das Babylonische Weltschopfungsepos. (Abhandlungen der Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Bd. xvii, 1896): Jensen, in Schrader’s Keilinschriftlichs Bibliothek, vi, 1, pp. 2ff.; Winckler, Keilinschriftliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, 3te Auf., pp. 94ff.; Bezold, Die Schepfungslegende (Kleine Texte fur theolog. Vorlesungen und Uebungen. Litzmann, Heft 7, Bonn, 1904); P. Dhorme, Choix de Textes Religieux Assyro-Babyloniens, pp. 2ff. The literature in explanation of this difficult text and of its relations to the religion of Israel is very extensive. The following may be mentioned: Jastrow. The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (1898), pp. 407ff., and Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens (1904-1912); A. Loisy, Les Mythes Babyloniens et les Premiers Chapitres de la Genese (1901); A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel (1907); Rogers, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, especially in its relations to Israel (1908).”)

((Finally, here is a fuller example of the Sumerian Genesis, by which the Hebrew Genesis is shown to be reflected by a poor distortion, and great confusion, of an earlier history and context. The polytheism shows the depraved creativity of human development in transmitting truth and the traditions of their beginnings. I do not seek to explain the elements of these early stories and myths, I only find the evidence and witness that Moses version, given by God, goes back in many details to the people and places given in Genesis are not imaginary, not fictional, and if true, not mythical. The re-discovery of this pre-Egyptian period of history and the generations after the great Deluge, clearly shows the connective thread of the later stories of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians. I double bracket my paraphrases.))
Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the nether world: translation. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature is based at the University of Oxford. Its aim is to make accessible, via the World Wide Web, over 400 literary works composed in the Sumerian language in ancient Mesopotamia during the late third and early second millennia BC. If you wish to use or cite the corpus, please use the following form of citation: Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., and Zףlyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature ( , Oxford 1998- Copyright © J.A. Black, G. Cunningham, E. Robson, and G. Zףlyomi 1998, 1999, 2000; J.A. Black, G. Cunningham, E. Flckiger-hawker, E. Robson, J. Taylor, and G. Zףlyomi 2001. The authors have asserted their moral rights.
Version A, from Nibru, Urim, and elsewhere:
“1-26 In those days, in those distant days, in those nights, in those remote nights, in those years, in those distant years [[in the beginnings of days, and of days and nights, and of years]]; in days of yore, when the necessary things had been brought into manifest existence [[before all things]], in days of yore, when the necessary things had been for the first time properly cared for, when bread had been tasted for the first time in the shrines of the Land, when the ovens of the Land had been made to work, when the heavens had been separated from the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens, when the fame of mankind had been established, when An had taken the heavens for himself, when Enlil had taken the earth for himself, when the nether world had been given to Erec-kigala as a gift; when he set sail, when he set sail, when the father set sail for the nether world, when Enki set sail for the nether world — against the king a storm of small hailstones arose, against Enki a storm of large hailstones arose. The small ones were light hammers; the large ones were like stones from catapults (?). The keel of Enki’s little boat was trembling as if it were being butted by turtles; the waves at the bow of the boat rose to devour the king like wolves and the waves at the stern of the boat were attacking Enki like a lion. 27-35 At that time, there was a single tree, a single halub tree, a single tree, growing on the bank of the pure Euphrates, being watered by the Euphrates. The force of the south wind uprooted it and stripped its branches, and the Euphrates picked it up and carried it away. A woman, respectful of An’s words, was walking along; a woman, respectful of Enlil’s words, was walking along, and took the tree and brought it into Unug, into Inana’s luxuriant garden. 36-46 the woman planted the tree with her feet, but not with her hands. The woman watered it using her feet but not her hands. She said: “When will this be a luxuriant chair on which I can take a seat?” She said: “When this will be a luxuriant bed on which I can lie down?” Five years, ten years went by, the tree grew massive; its bark, however, did not split. At its roots, a snake immune to incantations made itself a nest. In its branches, the Anzud bird settled it’s young. In its trunk, the phantom maid built herself a dwelling, the maid who laughs with a joyful heart. But holy Inana cried! 47-69 When dawn was breaking, when the horizon became bright, when the little birds, at the break of dawn, began to clamor, when Utu had left his bedchamber, his sister holy Inana said to the young warrior Utu: “My brother, in those days when destiny was determined, when abundance overflowed in the Land, when An had taken the heavens for himself, when Enlil had taken the earth for himself, when the nether world had been given to Erec-kigala as a gift; when he set sail, when he set sail, when the father set sail for the nether world, when Enki set sail for the nether world — against the lord a storm of small hailstones arose, against Enki a storm of large hailstones arose. The small ones were light hammers; the large ones were like stones from catapults (?). The keel of Enki’s little boat was trembling as if it were being butted by turtles; the waves at the bow of the boat rose to devour the lord like wolves and the waves at the stern of the boat were attacking Enki like a lion. 70-78 “At that time, there was a single tree, a single halub tree, a single tree (?), growing on the bank of the pure Euphrates, being watered by the Euphrates. The force of the south wind uprooted it and stripped its branches, and the Euphrates picked it up and carried it away. I, a woman, respectful of An’s words, was walking along; I, a woman, respectful of Enlil’s words, was walking along, and took the tree and brought it into Unug, into holy Inana’s luxuriant garden. 79-90 “I, the woman, planted the tree with my feet, but not with my hands. I, Inana (1 ms. has instead: the woman), watered it using my feet but not my hands. She said: “When will this be a luxuriant chair on which I can take a seat?” She said: “When will this be a luxuriant bed on which I can lie down?” Five years, ten years had gone by, the tree had grown massive; its bark, however, did not split. At its roots, a snake immune to incantations made itself a nest. In its branches, the Anzud bird settled it’s young. In its trunk, the phantom maid built herself a dwelling, the maid who laughs with a joyful heart. But holy Inana cried!” Her brother, the young warrior Utu, however, did not stand by her in the matter. 91-113 When dawn was breaking, when the horizon became bright, when the little birds, at the break of dawn, began to clamor, when Utu had left his bedchamber, his sister holy Inana said to the warrior Gilgamec: “My brother, in those days when destiny was determined, when abundance overflowed in the Land, when An had taken the heavens for himself, when Enlil had taken the earth for himself, when the nether world had been given to Erec-kigala as a gift; when he set sail, when he set sail, when the father set sail for the nether world, when Enki set sail for the nether world — against the lord a storm of small hailstones arose, against Enki a storm of large hailstones arose. The small ones were light hammers; the large ones were like stones from catapults (?). The keel of Enki’s little boat was trembling as if it were being butted by turtles; the waves at the bow of the boat rose to devour the lord like wolves and the waves at the stern of the boat were attacking Enki like a lion. 114-122 “At that time, there was a single tree, a single halub tree, a single tree (?), growing on the bank of the pure Euphrates, being watered by the Euphrates. The force of the south wind uprooted it and stripped its branches, and the Euphrates picked it up and carried it away. I, a woman, respectful of An’s words, was walking along; I, a woman, respectful of Enlil’s words, was walking along, and took the tree and brought it into Unug, into Inana’s luxuriant garden. 123-135 “The woman planted the tree with her feet, but not with her hands. Inana watered it using her feet but not her hands. She said: “When will this be a luxuriant chair on which I can take a seat?” She said: “When will this be a luxuriant bed on which I can lie down?” Five years, ten years had gone by, the tree had grown massive; its bark, however, did not split. At its roots, a snake immune to incantations made itself a nest. In its branches, the Anzud bird settled it’s young. In its trunk, the phantom maid built herself a dwelling, the maid who laughs with a joyful heart. But holy Inana (1 ms. has instead: I, holy Inana,) cried!” In the matter which his sister had told him about, her brother, the warrior Gilgamec, stood by her.” [[The story line in my perception is that of the poetic version and perversion of Adam and Eve and the generations of Cain and Abel, of the Fall of Man, the Garden of Eden, and such like, leading up to the Flood. A thousand pages could be filled with such stories in many versions, altered more or less, and fitted to various peoples or tribes and nations. We will revisit these early Epics when we have reflected on Noah and the Flood. I will at that time call as witness the opinion and translations of the famed Sumerian scholar Kramer.]])

The study of man has continued from the most ancient times to the present, ever changing in twist and turns, from loss of the truth to myths and fables of every kind. Every detail of human origins was altered and modified as it is to this day. The human evolution as it is taught shows religious beliefs in superstitions and obsession in the supernatural, from there reason and research in search for wisdom and truth added to the confusion in seeking to correct falsities and insanities. This endeavor became poetic prophesies and the general sophistry and finally philosophy as it approached scientific experimentation and theories based on such. In this concern in our reflections on the Genesis account of man and his generation in the world, we have anthropology in countless segments of doctrine and schools. The ideas concerning man as a human being with human nature, human behavior, and such like, has produced precise and specialized forms of knowledge which slowly developed into the field of Psychology as the Study of Soul, the Human Soul and Life and Being. The psyche as taught by the ancients and perfected by the Greeks in their myths was the soul as the female human personality filled with original and unique beauty divine and desired by all, she was sought by divine love in cupidity, evoked jealousy and lusts, lived and produced pleasure, shrouded in dreams and fantasies, loving in darkness, possessed by Eros, hated by Aphrodite , her sisters were deceit and seduction and murder, fated by Apollo, seeks love even to death and hell, satiated by sex, assisted by goddess of love, amused by Zeus who reunites her to Eros and makes her immortal; she is symbolized as a butterfly of love and desire or lust. And what we learn of Psyche so with other human and divine attributes and emotions and the like. Hesiod’s Theogony and Cosmogony shows the artful fictional Genesis of the Universe and Nature, often with most offensive behavior of divine powers and idols. Hesiod poetically explains and retells the history and religious tradition with obvious metaphysical sophistry as divine oracles. This brief analysis by……. will contrast the doctrine of Genesis. ((From Hesiod’s Poems and Fragments. Done in English Prose, with Introduction and Appendices; by A.W. Mair; in Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1908.))

((ANALYSIS OF THE THEOGONY: 1—115 Prooemium: 1-35 The Muses came on a time to Hesiod as he shepherded his sheep under Helikon and taught him sweet song. ‘Shepherds of the fields,’ they said, ‘ evil things of reproach, bellies only! We know to speak full many things that wear the guise of truth and know also when we will to utter truth.’ So saying, they gave to Hesiod a wondrous olive branch and breathed in him a voice divine that he might sing of the things that shall be and the things that were aforetime; 36-67 Of the manner of the song of the Muses: how in Pieria Mnemosyne bare them unto Zeus; 68-74 How the Muses, after visiting Hesiod, departed unto (Mount) Olympos; 75-103 The names of the Muses and the manner of their gifts to men. 104-115 Invocation of the Muses to sing the generation of the everlasting gods, the children of Earth and Heaven and Night and Sea: how Gods and Earth came into being, and the Rivers and the Sea and the Stars and Heaven above, and the gods who sprang from these: how they divided their possessions and attributes. 116-125 First of all was Chaos and then Earth and Eros (Love, Lust). From Chaos sprang Erebos (Darkness) and Night, and from Night in wedlock with Erebos sprang Aether (Ether, Air, Firmament, Fire, Light) and Day. 126-155 Earth first bare Ouranos (Heaven), and the Mountains and Pontos (Sea). These she bares without wedlock. In wedlock with Ouranos she bare Okeanos (Oceans) and Koios (Coios, Coitus) and Krios (Crius), and Hyperion and Iapetos (Japetos, Japheth) and Theia (Thea, Goddess) and Rheia (Rhea) and Themis (Theme) and Mnemosyne (Memory), and Phoibe (Phoebe, Phoebe, Bright, Radiant) and Tethus (Tethys), and, youngest, Kronos (Chronos, Time): also the Kyklopes (Cyclops)—Brontes (Thunder), Steropes (Steropes, Lightening), Arges (Argos, Argent, Shine, Bright); and further the hundred-handed Kottos (Cottos. Cottus), Briareos (Strong), Gyes (Gaea, Gaia, Earth); 155-210 How Ouranos hated his own children, and as each was born hid it in Earth: how Earth being sore straitened, devised a crafty device and gave to Kronos a sharp sickle, wherewith she persuaded him to do his sire grievous hurt: how the blood of the wound fell into the lap of Earth, whence sprang the Erinyes (Furies, Madness, Rage) and the Giants, and the Nymphs (Bride, Virgins) Meliae (Melia, Mylea, Milia): but from the fleshy parts that were cast into the sea sprang Aphrodite: and how Ouranos named his sons Titans. 211-225 The children of Night, without a sire: —Doom (Moros), Fate (Ker), Death, Sleep, Dreams, Blame (Momos), Woe (Oizus), Hesperides, Moirai (Klotho, Lachesis, Atropos), Nemesis, Deceit, Love (Philotes), Old Age, and Strife (Eris). 226-232 The children of Strife (Eris): —Toil, Oblivion, Famine, Griefs, Wars, Battles, Murders, Manslaughter, Quarrels, False Speech, Dispute, Lawlessness, Ruin (Ate), and Horkos (Oath). 233-239 The children of Pontos (Sea) and Earth: — Nereus, or the Old Man of the Sea, Thaumas, Phorkys and Keto, and Eurybia. 240-264The daughters of Nereus, son of Pontos and Earth, and Doris, daughter of Okeanos: —Thetis, &c. — fifty in all. 265-269 The daughters of Thaumas and Elektra, daughter of Okeanos: —Iris and the Harpies (Aello and Okypete). 270-279 The children of Phorkys and Keto (son and daughter respectively of Pontos): —the Graiai (Pemphredo and Enyo) and the Gorgons (Stheno, Euryale, and Medusa) 280-286 When Perseus cut off Medusa’s head there sprang from her Chrysaor and the horse Pegasos. The latter left earth for the immortals and now dwells in the halls of Zeus. 287-294 But Chrysaor with Kallirrhoe, daughter of Okeanos, begat three-headed Geryoneus, whom Herakles (Hercules) slew in Erytheia; 295-305 Kallirrhoe next bare Echidna; 305-332 Echidna in wedlock with Typhaon bare Orthos, the dog of Geryoneus, and Kerberos, the hound of Hades, and the Lernaean Hydra, whom Herakles (Hercules) slew: and Chimaira, whom Pegasos and Bellerophon slew. Chimaira bare to Orthos the Sphinx and the Nemean lion, which Herakles (Hercules) slew. 333-336 Keto to Phorkys bare the dragon which guards the golden apples of the Hesperides; 337— 345 Rivers sprung from Tethys and Okeanos: —Nile, Alpheios, Simois, Skamandros, Acheloos, &c, &c. 346363 Nymphs sprung from the same, including Styx, eldest (or’ most excellent’) of them all. 364-370 Three thousand daughters of Okeanos there be and sons as many—sounding rivers, ‘ whose names it was hard for mortal man to tell: but those who dwell by each know them everyone.’ 371-374 The children of Theia and Hyperion:—Sun, Moon, Dawn; 375-377 the children of Krios and Eurybia: —Astraios, Pallas, Perses; 378-382 the children of Astraios and Dawn:—the winds Argestes, Zephyros, Boreas, Notos, and after them the Morning Star. 383-403 the children of Styx and Pallas:—Zelos (Zeal, Jealousy) and Nike (Strife, Victory) and Kratos (Power, Strength) and Bia (Life, Bios, Vita), who dwell with Zeus (Theos, Dzeus, Deus, Dios), as he had vowed of old to Styx, when, with her children, she aided him against the Titans; Styx herself he appointed to be the Mighty Oath of the gods; 404-410 the children of Koios and Phoibe :—Leto and Asteria. 411-452 Asteria bare to Perses Hekate: the eminent powers and privileges of Hekate, as answerer of prayer, helper in council in games, and in war, aider of kings in judgments; of horsemen and of seamen, and of shepherds: and finally the nurse of children 453-458 The children of Rheia, daughter of Ouranos and Gaia, and Kronos :—Hestia, Demeter, Hera, Hades, Poseidon, Zeus; 459-491 how Kronos, learning from Ouranos and Gaia that he was fated to have a son who should overthrow him, swallowed his own children: how Rheia, when about to bear Zeus, took counsel of Earth and Heaven to save her child: how they carried her to Lyktos in Krete, where she brought forth Zeus and hid him in a cave on the hill Aigaion : but she swaddled a great stone and gave it unto Kronos, who swallowed it, thinking it to be his son Zeus. 492-506 how Zeus throve mightily, and how in time by the devising of Earth, Kronos vomited forth the stone: which Zeus set up at Pytho to be a sign in the aftertime, a marvel to mortal men. And Zeus set free his father’s brothers, who in gratitude gave him thunder and lightning; 507-511 the children of Iapetos and Klymene, daughter of Okeanos: —Atlas, Menoitios, Prometheus, and Epimetheus. 512-520 the fates of Epimetheus, Menoitios, and Atlas. 521-616 the fate of Prometheus: how at Mekone he cut up an ox and attempted to deceive Zeus by offering him the bones concealed in fat (wherefore to this day men ‘burn white bones to the immortals upon fragrant altars ‘): how Zeus in vengeance refused men fire till it was stolen by Prometheus: created the first woman to be the bane of men: bound Prometheus and sent an eagle to devour his liver, which grew again by night as much as the eagle devoured by day—till he was at last, by consent of Zeus, delivered by Herakles, who slew the eagle. 617-719 how with the help of the hundred handed giants, Briareos, Kottos, and Gyes, Zeus overcame the Titans and imprisoned them in Tartaros; 720-745 descriptive of Tartaros; 746-757 the abode of Atlas in the west; 758-766 the abode of Sleep and Death, children of Night; 767-774 the abode of Hades and Persephone, guarded by the dog Kerberos; 775-806 the abode of Styx: how the gods swear by Styx, and the punishment of perjury; 807-819 of Tartaros, in which the Titans are imprisoned: of the abode of the hundred-handed giants; 820-868 of Typhoeus, son of Earth and Tartaros, and how Zeus overcame him and hurled him into Tartaros: 869880 the offspring of Typhoeus ;—all winds except Notos, Boreas, and Zephyros; 881-885 how Zeus became king of the gods; 886-900 how Zeus took Metis to wife and swallowed her when about to give birth to Athene; 901906 Zeus next took to wife Themis, mother of the Hours (or Seasons)—’Opai, namely Eunomia, Dike, and Eirene, and of the Fates (Moirai), namely Klotho, Lachesis, and Atropos; 907-911 next Zeus took to wife Eurynome, daughter of Okeanos, who bare to him the Graces, namely Aglaia, Euphrosyne, and Thalia; 912-914 next Zeus took to wife Demeter, who bare to him Persephone, whom Aidoneus carried off; 915-917 next Mnemosyne, who bare the nine Muses; 918-920 next Leto, who bare Apollo and Artemis; 921-923 lastly Hera, who bare Hebe, Ares, Eileithuia. 924-929 Zeus begot Tritogeneia from his own head, and Hera of herself bare Hephaistos; 930937 the son of Amphitrite and Ennosigaios :—Triton; the children of Ares and Kythereia:—Fear and Terror and Harmonia; 938-944 other children of Zeus :—by Maia, daughter of Atlas,—Hermes; by Semele, daughter of Kadmos,—Dionysos; by Alkraene,—Herakles (Hercules); 945955 Hephaistos wedded Aglaia, the youngest of the Graces; Dionysos wedded Ariadne, daughter of Minos, and Zeus made her immortal; Herakles (Hercules) wedded Hebe and dwells with the immortals, sorrowless and ageless forever; 956-962 the children of Helios and Perseis, daughter of Okeanos :—Kirke and Aietes; Aietes wedded Iduia, daughter of Okeanos, who bare to him Medea. 963-1020 goddesses who bare children to mortal men: Demeter to Iasios—Ploutos; Harmonia to Kadmos—Ino, Semele, Agave, Autonoe (wife of Aristaios), and Polydoros; Kallirrhoe to Chrysaor—Geryoneus; Dawn to Tithonos— Memnon and Emathion; Dawn to Kephalos—Phaethon; Medea to Iason—Medeios; Psamathe, daughter of Nereus, to Aiakos—Phokos ; Thetis to Peleus—Achilles; Kythereia to Aineias—Anchises; Kirke to Odysseus—Agrios, Latinos, Telegonos, Kings of the Tyrrhenians; Kalypso to Odysseus—Nausithoos and Nausinoos; 1021-1022 ‘And now, sweet-voiced Muses of Olympos, . . . sing ye the race of women.’
[Here the poem breaks off]))

Hesiod and Homer lived about the time of David and Solomon down to Isaiah (900-700 BC), some thousand years after the patriarchs, and several thousand years from Adam’s creation. Hesiod, like many before him, and others after him, explained the world as a Divine Nature in which all invisible things of nature and reality are brought into being by the immortal and invisible beings and powers. The inspiration of universal tradition and thoughts are poetically expressed as truth and doctrines but are not connected with an Originator but takes pre-existent matter and substance that self-generate into nature and god, with the balance of dualism throughout, that is, of male and female, good and bad, strong and weak, and so on, infinitely eternal. We find Hesiod’s device of history the same with the Sumerians as the earliest representative, then the Egyptians, afterwards many nations along with the Greeks and the Romans. The modern world is filled with these notions and terms. Genesis lays out a far simpler and clearer and nobler account of all things. The connection between the divine and the human is not mythological and fabulous but according to the divine order and nature in which God created, made, formed, and ordered it. In like manner human nature is not evolutionary from a savage state to a refined civilized form, for it is evident from the earliest recorded history man’s intelligence was far greater then, than what slowly came to, and that from such decline and decay rises by divine intervention and participation into a higher and more mature state. What man’s formation and preparation before the fall, was limited to the original pair, but the descendants of the families of man, after the fall, lost most of what was once developed and governed by God. We do not read of Adam as stupid or idiotic, but very logical and sensible even in shame and guilt. Away from God man became less divine in moral and spiritual qualities and virtues. Human nature did not begin man’s own acquisition of sensible experiences that merely compounded into accumulative progress or psychological growth. In Genesis God is like a Father to Adam and man like a son to God, and as a baby must learn by the one who births it or cares for it, so too Adam, and in Adam all mankind. Human nature was after the Divine Nature in that God nurtured in Adam those qualities that formed our original personality as human. All acquired knowledge and experiences of living were good, some things not good, and some things very good. Man became a knower of good and evil in sin and his psychology altered in mortal state. His reason and thoughts from heart and head is such that it will lead to death until God saves him from this living death and corruption.
The nature of the soul and mind of man has intrigued me over the many years, first in myself then in others, by Scripture and by study. As a Christian I found two opposing views developed from the Bible which has risen at the same time modern psychology. The dual nature of man as a damaged trichotomy, or the duality as a unity; in one a spirit distinct from the soul, in the other the soul and spirit are one and the same. Delitzsch’s System of Biblical Psychology became the first to pave the way towards a new spiritual understanding of the person and nature of man. Laidlaw’s Bible Doctrine of Man offered a new perception of duality and unity of the soul, and opposed to trichotomy, adhering and limited to the Bible expressed statements without developing a system of psychology. Delitzsch surveyed the entire field and explained the dominance of dichotomy from earliest times up to Plato and Aristotle who till the reformation influenced all biblical psychology. Laidlaw avoiding the systematic independence of a biblical psychology adheres to a Bible doctrine of man as an individual with two natures, purged from heathen or foreign myths and fables, adopting language of its recipients in the common populace. I will cite from these two works after I have concluded the reflections of the generations of the heavens and the earth.

3. Textual & Biblical Criticism:
We return to Genesis chapter two, concluding our reflections by way of some textual critics.
(A Historical and Critical Commentary of the Old Testament with a New Translation and Hebrew Text; by M. M. Kalisch, Phil. Doc, M.A. Vol.1. Genesis-Bereshith. New Edition. Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer. 1879.) (Comments on chapters one and two)
The Book of Genesis abounds with problems no less perplexing than interesting. Its vast range includes branches of the natural sciences and of history, of ethnography and philosophy; and with materials of singular variety skillfully blends great and fruitful ideas. It has, accordingly, provoked an overwhelming mass of comment, partly in confirmation, and partly in opposition to its statements; it has proved the battle-field for almost every shade of opinion, both religious and skeptical; and it is evidently destined to become the arena for the critical discussion of the whole ground-work of Biblical theology, and for the introduction of a new era in religious thought. The conviction of the surpassing importance of the book has strengthened us to face the numerous difficulties of a conscientious interpretation. We have endeavored impartially to weigh the facts, and calmly to draw the inferences. It has been our aim to neglect no essential evidence. But after due consideration, the conclusions have been stated with unreserved frankness. As we have no preconceived theory to defend, we have never been tempted to distort the text or to indulge in reckless combinations; and we have always tried so to unfold the argument, that the reader may at once either discover our error or admit our result. The excavations on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, the continued researches on Indian and Egyptian antiquities, the many new accounts of observing travelers who have recently visited the lands of the Bible, and the rapid advance made in the study of oriental languages and literature, have materially augmented the means for illustrating the Scriptures. They have especially enabled us to pursue more efficiently than was hitherto possible, the momentous enquiry concerning the relation which the Hebrew writings bear to the general cycle of Eastern traditions. We have attempted to make these new sources of information available for the exposition of Genesis, and to point out the peculiarities which, in spite of a similarity of materials surprising in many instances, distinguish the records of the Israelites from those of other ancient nations. By thus separating the form of the narratives from the ideas which they embody, many difficulties may find a solution doing equal justice to universal history, and to the development of the Hebrew mind.” “Even the philosophical historian, who undertakes to delineate the progress of the human race, may consider that his legitimate labors first commence at the point where he perceives the earliest dawn of well-ascertained facts emerging from the mists of fables and legends, and where his eye is arrested by the sight of several nations, as the Hindus and Egyptians, the Babylonians and Assyrians, considerably in advance on the path of prosperity and civilization. Yet it may not be unprofitable, under two aspects, to overstep that boundary. The student may either trace the antecedent phases of our planet, point out its organic relation to the universe, and determine the place which man occupies in the system of creation; or he may, by acute reasoning, endeavor to ascertain the first steps which mankind made in its struggle for improvement, before it arrived at that stage of development which existing annals or monuments exhibit. This double task was attempted by nearly all religious lawgivers of antiquity. Not only did they dwell upon the origin of heaven and earth, but they described the history of man from the commencement, the transition from innocence to sin, the toils of existence, and the arts that soften or alleviate them; and they indicated the links which joined their own people with the first human families. Now, whatever may be the positive value of the facts and reflections they furnished, the cosmogonies belong to the most instructive relics of primitive literature. They lay open, with distinctness attainable from few other sources, the hopes and cravings, the aims and ideals, of the different nations. They teach the supposed connection between man and his destiny, or the powers that govern it; and they embody the moral principles believed to be necessary for the virtuous life of the individual, and to form the chief end of all human generations.” “Facts are indeed invaluable, because they form the imperishable basis of research: but they are a useless encumbrance unless they enclose some idea, influence the will or the feeling of man, and contribute either to his ennoblement or his happiness. The views set forth in the book of Genesis have not only become the foundation of the culture of the Hebrews, but, through them, of a large part of mankind; and if they have as yet not produced all the beneficent effects of which they are capable, it is because passion, short-sightedness, and egotism, have been unable to recognize and to appreciate the common kernel of humanity in the modified forms of human thought.” “The modern researches in the natural sciences are as gigantic in their extent, as they are incontrovertible in their main results. The investigation of the laws of the material world, and their application to practical purposes, form the characteristic pursuits of our age. But the Bible also alludes, in many important passages, to physical laws and to natural phenomena. It became, therefore, an indispensable task for the Biblical student, and especially the theologian, to compare those recent results with the respective Scriptural statements. The conclusion, at which these men arrived, though vastly differing in detail, may be reduced to two chief classes. One part of these scholars — whose zeal, unfortunately, overruled their reason — flatly denied the correctness, and even possibility, of such facts: everyone knows that Galileo was compelled to abjure and to curse the Copernican system of the earth’s motion as fallacious and heretical; Voetius described it as a neologian fabrication; and the learned Francis Turrettin, not much more than one hundred and fifty years since, endeavored to overthrow it by Scriptural and physical arguments. But the opposition to that great astronomical truth has gradually vanished away before the colossal labors of Kepler, Newton, and their illustrious followers; nor will anybody at present, as once the learned doctors of Salamanca did, decry the views of Columbus as an impious heresy; and if objections are still raised by some tenacious straggler, they are received as a curiosity, causing hilarity rather than provoking controversy. But more vehement were the denouncements hurled, up to a very recent date, against the results of geology, itself a comparatively recent science; it was declared an unholy and atheistic pursuit, a dark art, a ” horrid blasphemy,” a study which has the evil one for its author; and its votaries were designated as arch-enemies of religion and virtue, infidels standing in the service of the infernal powers.” “The other class of scholars, more sober and less skeptical, acknowledges, either wholly or partially, the exactness of the natural sciences, but denies emphatically that there exists the remotest discrepancy between these results and the Biblical records. This is at present by far the most prevalent opinion among theologians; they positively assert that if there is an apparent contradiction, the fault is not in the Scriptural text, but in its erroneous exposition. They have, therefore, proposed a vast number of explanations intended to prove that harmony; and they have endeavored to show that the present notions of astronomy and geology, though not clearly expressed in the Bible, are certainly implied in the words, or may easily be deduced from their tenor. We believe the time has arrived for pronouncing a final and well-considered opinion on these momentous points; the materials necessary for this decision exist in abundance; they are all but complete; and we propose to submit to the reader an analysis which will enable him to judge and to decide for himself, and to form an opinion founded, not upon indefinite conceptions, but upon indisputable facts. There is, indeed, a third and very large class of scholars, who attempt to evade these questions altogether, by simply asserting that the Bible does not at all intend to give information on physical subjects — that it is exclusively a religious book, and regards the physical world only in so far as it stands in relation to the moral conduct of men. But this is a bold fallacy. With the same justice it might be affirmed, that the Bible, in describing the rivers of Paradise, does not speak of geography at all; or in inserting the grand list and genealogy of nations (in the tenth chapter), is far from touching on the science of ethnography. Taken in this manner, nothing would be easier, but nothing more arbitrary, than Biblical interpretation. It is simply untrue that the Bible entirely avoids these questions; it has, in fact, treated the history of creation in a most comprehensive and magnificent manner; it has in these portions, as well as in the moral precepts and the theological doctrines, evidently not withheld any information which it was in its power to impart. Therefore, dismissing this opinion without further notice, we shall first compare, under different heads, the distinct statements of the first chapters of Genesis with the uncontroverted researches of the natural sciences; we shall then, secondly, draw from these facts the unavoidable conclusions as regards the possibility of a conciliation; and shall, lastly, review the various attempts which have hitherto been made to effect that agreement.” “It has, indeed, been very positively contended, that the days mentioned in the Biblical record of Creation signify periods of a thousand years,’ or of indefinite extent. But this imputed meaning is absolutely against the usage and genius of the Hebrew language; and the days of creation are really and literally periods of our and twenty hours.’ However, it might be asserted — and it has, in fact, been frequently advanced — that the earth, with all its various layers and stratifications, has, by the Divine will, been called into existence in that limited number of days; and that God, after the completion of this lordly act of creation, has left nature and all her component parts to those eternal and immutable laws with which He had endowed her. But this opinion is rendered impossible by the following facts: — in all the strata of the earth, except the two or three lowest, are found organic remains of creatures which possessed and enjoyed life, and which evidently perished, partly by that revolution of the earth which buried the old formation, and partly by the change of climate which took place in the next epoch. It may be important to observe, that each stratum has its own characteristic species…. Now we ask, if the earth was created within six days, how and for what conceivable purpose were these numberless, and often huge and appalling, forms of beings, exhibiting every stage of growth, embedded in the different strata of the earth? We believe there is scarcely any man preposterous or blasphemous enough to impute to the Deity such plan less and reckless destruction in the midst of His majestic acts of creation. Many species, and even many distinct genera, have thus entirely disappeared; they are no longer represented on the earth. Generally, even the organic beings of one formation exist no more in the next higher group of rocks. Do not these circumstances compel as to suppose an indefinite antiquity of the earth’s crust? Many have certainly ascribed all those destructions to the influence of the Noachian deluge; they advance, that first submarine volcanoes, by ejecting their molten masses through different successive explosions, formed the massive layers below; and that then the land floods, sweeping away the islands and continents with their organic creations, produced the second or higher formations. But, besides failing entirely to account for the production of the Tertiary strata, this theory introduces the agency of fire also in the deluge, of which we read nothing in the Biblical record; it assumes a series of volcanic eruptions of such rapid succession as could only be caused by a miraculous intervention of which nothing is mentioned; and it starts from the objectionable supposition, that strata, demonstrably separated from each other by immense periods, were formed within the space of a few months. For the facts, that very different fossils are found in the same formations, and that the same petrified species occur in different layers, cannot overthrow the general theory of slow successive stratification; the vast climatic changes which our planet has undergone, and the great variety in the internal structure of the various organic beings, are sufficient, together with other obvious circumstances, to account for these facts. We shall, in its due place, continue this subject in its further consequences. Indeed, the contemplation of the strata themselves, and of the organic remains which they enclose, lead exactly to the same result…. but we can scarcely accede to the very widely-spread theory of a ” primitive plant,” or ” cell,” or monad, producing all the later and more perfect vegetable forms by way of a partial metamorphosis; for every new formation of the crust of the earth is incontrovertibly the product of almost entirely new elements not before existing, and therefore amounting to a new creation; and the vegetation of even the last Tertiary epoch, or that below the most recent one, goes back to a period of at least 100,000 years before the present era. It appears, however, that many of the plants are “hereditary” through various geological epochs; and that certain species have traversed many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, in spite of the local and successive revolutions on the earth’s surface. For submarine forests in several parts of the globe consist of trees which still cover the neighboring continents, though the animal found in the same localities in a petrified state have ceased to exist; and many species of plants are not found in regions where they might thrive perfectly well according to their structure, or to the present condition of the globe. They seem to be absent from such countries only because they did not exist there in former geological epochs…. It is certain, both from ocular evidence and from inductive conclusions, that most of the animals discovered as fossils in the strata of the earth have died in a natural course on the spot where they enjoyed life. Now, as many of them are creatures of long life, and many reached an age far beyond the time now allotted to the creatures of the earth, it is impossible that they should have accomplished the full circle of their existence in a few days: the many theories which have been ventured to prove the contrary are so extravagant, that they do not even deserve notice. They proceed from the vain desire to support a tenacious preconception; they are neither based upon any allusion of the Biblical text, nor derived from natural laws or phenomena. Conjecture, fancy, and mysticism, are the parents of these abortive attempts. But we may observe, as a curiosity, that it was, and — incredible to say — is still asserted, that these fossils have never been animated structures, but were formed in the rocks through the planetary influences; that the mammoth which, at the conclusion of the last century, was found in the ice of the polar regions in such remarkable preservation that dogs and bears fed upon its flesh, had never been a living creature, but that it was created under the ice, and then preserved, instead of being transmuted into stone; that all organisms found in the depth of the earth are models created on the first day, to typify the living plants and animals to be produced in the subsequent part of the creative week; but as many forms which lie buried in the earth do not exist on the earth, it is maintained that they were rejected as inappropriate or imperfect. They represent the “gates of death,” but foreshadow also the immortality of the soul, the resurrection, and the ultimate re-union of the dust of the human bodies at the sound of the last trumpet! This is the sober mode in which ocular evidences are argued away, and Scripture is interpreted! But unfortunately, plain facts overthrow these fancies of a seeming life; in the stomach of the fossil animals, the very substances are visible which formed their food; and the dung of the carnivorous vertebrate contains, in many instances, the teeth, bones, and scales of the creatures on which they had preyed…. But all these changes, however extraordinary and astounding, are only as many manifest proofs of the creating activity of an Omnipotent Power, which, through unnumbered millenniums, after an all-wise though recondite plan, prepares new continents in the hidden depths of the fathomless sea, or in the volcanic abysses of the burning earth; lifting them up from the secret womb by a tremendous, but salutary. . .. These facts may suffice to prove the utter impossibility of a creation of even the earth alone in six days. The difficulties are infinitely increased, if we proceed to the contemplation of the whole universe. . . . If we reflect on all these circumstances, there seems indeed to be no alternative left, but honestly to acknowledge the immense difference existing between the Biblical conceptions and the established results of the natural sciences. But we need not apprehend thereby to lose or endanger what is eternal in the Scriptures. It is only necessary to pursue their exposition with the same vigor and energy, with the same unwearied attention and eager research, which characterize the natural philosophers of our time. The Bible has no more dangerous enemies than those who, either from indolence and apathy, or from fanaticism and bigoted zeal, are deaf to the teachings and warnings of the other sciences; and those men, however well-meaning or warmhearted, must be made mainly answerable if the authority of the Scriptures should lie disregarded by the most enlightened and most comprehensive minds. . . . We have seen that the results of the natural sciences are at variance with the Biblical narrative, especially with regard to the Age of the World, the Creation in Six Days, and the Formation of the Solar System and the Universe. . . . We are here reminded of the beautiful words of Socrates, who, in Plato’s Phaedon, when new and apparently unanswerable objections were raised against his proofs of the immortality of the soul, said: “First of all, we must beware, lest we meet with that great mischance to become haters of reasoning as some become haters of men (misanthropes); for no greater evil can happen to anyone than to hate reasoning. But hatred of reasoning and hatred of mankind both spring from the same source. For the latter is produced in us, from having placed too great reliance on someone without sufficient knowledge of him, and from having considered him to be a man altogether true, sincere, and faithful; and then, after a little while, finding him depraved and unfaithful, and after him another; and when a man has often experienced this, he at last hates all men, and thinks that there is no excellence at all in mankind. And yet he attempts to deal with men without sufficient knowledge of human nature, since he is unable to discern between the good and the bad. Just so a man who has discovered the fallacy of one argument after another, after having some time relied on their soundness, at last distrusts all argument, and becomes a hater of reasoning, though he ought to accuse his own shortsightedness, or unskilfulness.” . . . The Pentateuch has a three-fold end; it is intended to show, first, God as the Creator and Ruler of the World; secondly, to define the position of Israel among the nations of the earth; and, thirdly, to explain the organization of the Hebrews as a theocratical monarchy after their conquest of Palestine. Such is the aim; such are the leading ideas of the Books of Moses. These principles they unfold and carry out with minute consistency, whilst all other portions are only introduced to throw light upon them. They constitute the essence of the Mosaic dispensation; they are its exclusive characteristics, which are found in no other work which man possesses. The Scriptures proclaimed those spiritual and moral truths, which will be acknowledged in all ages; and they proclaimed them at a time when the whole earth was shrouded in mental darkness. But it is quite different with the scientific truths. The people of Israel, although favored as the medium of higher religious enlightenment, remained, in all respects, a common member in the family of nations, subject to the same laws of progress, left to the same exertions, adhering to their former notions and habits of thought, rectified by their faith only in so far as to harmonize with the pure doctrine of monotheism and the absolute rule of a just Providence. Hence, for instance, Moses did not abolish the “avenge of blood,” although he materially modified it; nor did he command monogamy, although he evidently encouraged it; he retained the phylacteries, which he, however, divested of all superstitious elements; and he ordained, in common with almost all heathen legislators, the sanctification of all first-born of men and animals, and all first-fruits, although he made this law subservient to the purposes of his theocracy. But the law is inexorable in punishing witchcraft, necromancy, divination, enchantment, or any other appeal to the power of spirits, because this would have endangered the principal idea of the legislation; it would have defiled the purity of monotheism. . . It is, indeed, a very convenient way of restoring harmony between the Bible and the natural sciences by asserting, that the production of the starry hosts, and the vast geological epochs, lie before the work of the six days; by making the first two verses a carte blanche, on which everything might be crowded, that disagrees either with astronomy or geology; and by maintaining that the condition of the earth, such as it is at present, and as it is adapted for human habitation, is the sole object of our chapter. Large volumes have, in this sense, been written with much pomp of language, and great self-sufficiency; and that of Kurtz1 is inferior to few in irrational and pretentious deductions. But these scholars ought to see, that this is not to harmonize, but to separate; by such tactics, they tacitly acknowledge that they despair of a conciliation; they admit the difficulties in almost every point; but forsaking, by a cowardly maneuver, the true arena of the dispute, they entrench themselves behind a few harmless verses; but calm and judicious criticism protests both against the stratagem, and the arguments: the former is undignified; and the latter spontaneously convert themselves into so many proofs for the contrary opinion. The first chapter of Genesis incontestably intends to offer a history of the creation of heaven and earth, such as the author believed to be authentic; he, therefore, commences with the Nothing, and then advances, through the chaos, in progressive steps up to the perfection of the universe. And all this was done during the six days which constitute the creative week, and which include that “beginning” when” God created heaven and earth.”. . . . We believe we have indisputably demonstrated, both by positive and negative proofs, that, with regard to astronomy and geology, the Biblical records are, in many essential points, utterly and irreconcilably at variance with the established results of modern researches. We must acquiesce in the conviction, that, at the time of the composition of the Pentateuch, the natural sciences were still in their infancy, and that the Hebrews were in those branches not materially in advance of the other ancient nations. But, on the other hand, they succeeded completely in removing, even from their physical conceptions, every superstitions and idolatrous element. It will be the task of the following notes on the first chapters to prove this proposition. We have cleared the way for a plain and unsophisticated interpretation. We are fettered by no preconceived dogmatical views. We shall be enabled to attempt a conscientious penetration into the notions of the Hebrew historian; and shall in no instance be induced to force upon his words, by a contorting and delusive mode of exposition, our modern systems of philosophy. Thus, may we hope to secure a positive advantage for Biblical science.”


Posted in Bible Reflections, Christian Reflections, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment


These selections are only a very small example that are available to us of the ancient and varied inferences and interpretations of the details of the texts of Scripture. But they were necessary to help us see and learn of the hidden things that have found their way in our biblical understanding from traditions and culture. The selections of more scholarly or academic nature are even more abundant. For this reason, it is most important to adjust our views, with those doctrines that are established and common by the authorities of the schools, churches, synagogues, and other centers of learning among us. For among the Jews the authority of the Talmud and Mishnah with those Elders, Sages, or Rabbis in them, is of the highest regard, and in Torah studies, first and foremost is the Mikraot Gedolot and Rashi, then a host of others like Maimonides, Nachmanides, Karo, Luria, Ba’al Shem Tov, S.R. Hirsch, etc. In like manner among Christians the authority of Augustine and Aquinas must be given the first place in the comparison and evaluation of our doctrines, then the other authorities, which are too vast to cite.
We were reflecting upon the Creation Week. The words we read were: Beginning, God, created, heaven, and earth. We discovered that the Text of verse 1:1 is translated in several ways: ‘in the beginning’, ‘in beginning’, ‘originally’, ‘in [the] beginning of’, ‘in [the] beginning [when]’, and so forth. The grammar (absolute or construct, relative or indicative, full or shortened, etc.) will determine our understanding, and our understanding will influence the grammar. The context, near and remote, will alter our views and doctrines as we proceed. ‘God’ in the Hebrew is ‘Elohim’ the -im ending tells us it is a plural word and a masculine noun or substantive, which in Hebrew is quite common as in ‘shamayim’ (heaven (s)), ‘mayim’ (water(s)), ‘chayim’ (life or lives), etc. Those who rashly and naively advocte the plural rendering here, and in most of its occurence, do not pay close attention to the Text and usage; for the verb ‘create’ is ‘bara’ in the singular masculine, ‘he-created,’ and not the plural ‘they-created’ ‘bara-u’ (compare Ps. 148:5: ‘we-nib-ra-u’ = and-they-were-created; also: ‘asu’ = ‘they made’, ‘asah’ = ‘he-made’). So, Elohim is ‘He’ and not ‘they’ even though there are mysteries within this plural form for God, which will unfold in the Bible as it has in the world. (In like manner we will inform the reader that in the Quran, the Arabic plural is used repeatedly as a singular in relations to God or Allah, Who often says of Himself, We, Us, Our, and with striking emphasis.) The heavens and the earth are the objects and essence or constituents of creation which embraces and embodies the entire natural world or universe. The Heavens or Heaven is the Universe, and the Earth or Planet is a member of the Heavens. And in turn, as the highest place is heaven, so too, the earth is the best and special member or planet within the universe; and then in the next progression is the Garden of Eden, then Man, and so forth.
We wonder that if creation had a beginning, then what existed before that beginning. Some think that Genesis does not declare the origin of the natural creation or universe, but that the universe always existing, that is preexisting, is here transformed by God into the ordered universe we now see and know. The Torah Anthology of the MeAm Lo’ez on verse one, warns us: “It is important that we not probe too deeply into the mysteries. We should not try to find out what the world was like before heaven and earth was created, or what it will be like after they no longer exist. Neither should we seek to find out what is above the heavens, below the earth, or beyond the four directions, east, west, north and south. The human mind obviously cannot even grasp a thousandth of all this, so it is best not to think of these things at all. If a person spends his time contemplating these things, it would have been better if he had never been born.” Then again at verse two: “The Torah did not have to tell us what the earth was like before the creation, but it does so teach that everything, without exception, was created in these six days. After this, nothing new would be formed, and nothing that was completed would be changed. The world constantly follows a single set of laws, which were set in the days of creation.” We think this is a wise warning but does not discourage us from searching the hidden things of God. For the idea that the angels were created in the natural creation was in part due to the thinking and teaching that the natural creation is the same as the spiritual world, or spiritual creation. As God is different and other than His creation, so the natural world is not the spiritual world. We may admit and allow that the Heavens and the Earth infer, imply, suggest, or reflect the other world which is higher and prior to the present world. We may not go beyond what is written but bound by biblical limits we might explore some notions of the other world. We have had certain learned and wise men throughout the many centuries tell us that the universe is very large, and very old. We too understand that the universe is infinite, immense, and eternal, and our ability to mentally and cognitively contemplate such a vast and complex cosmic system is quite intriguing. We have advanced in our comprehension from a universe of thousands of miles, to millions and billions of miles and light years, to trillions and beyond; and our rational perceptions have gone from planets and stars in the thousands and millions in our solar system and galaxy, to trillions of stars within billions of galaxies. And not just the big big things, but the small and very small world has been brought to our minds and understanding of the invisible world that exist all around us, and within us.
We do not know in Genesis of the spiritual world of which God is the Prime and Chief Member along with those spiritual beings and creatures found in the Bible as angels and messengers, cherubs and seraphs, archangels and princes, and principalities and powers. It is clear that spirits, spiritualities, and spiritual beings and things have clearly occupied the human heart and mind wherever we find man. Not only Jews and Christians, Muslims and religious adherents of every kind, primitives and moderns, all have this spiritual disposition in one degree or other. So, when we read that “the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the surface of the waters”, we immediately begin to think and ask some questions. If God created the creation, and the earth was in chaos and formlessness, waste, ruin, void and emptiness, and embryonic and undeveloped; then why was it created thus? Or was it in a perfected state then became ruined and destroyed? Some advocate the verb ‘was’ (Heb. ‘haiy’thah,’ from ‘haiyah’) could and should be rendered ‘became’, which I was taught as a young Christian, and it very much appealed to me along with some other dispensational doctrines, but now I feel no need to hold this grammatical alternative as helpful or fruitful. That the condition of the earth in its undeveloped form and appearance (tohu and bohu) with darkness and submerged in the depths (tehom) of waters, is not a sight or picture that speak of perfection or completion, and by logical extension, of creation proper. It is creation but not proper, for the state must be changed into something better, or more perfect. We infer that the Text implies a judgment on or about the Creation, so that this Judgment hides what we cannot see or know apart from His revelation of that mystery. We are told by science at present, that the universe originated in a cosmic universal blast producing a Big Bang, and that this cosmic explosion of infinite and immense energy in its outburst or releasing of its state and form in all its elements and properties resulted in time and space with all matter that exists. Of course, this is man’s feeble attempt to explain some big big problems and questions. God created the earth, and the earth needed further creation, and that creation is covered in the Creation Week.
We have before the Creation, God as God, then when He created and made anything, He as God is also now the Creator, and as the Creator God He is the Maker of all things. Now God as God, existing in Himself, and subsisting in Self, and by Himself, must by nature and being or person, contain all that is created, all things of the creation or nature or the universe, in whatever elements of its energy, its space, and its time. The matter and the life of creation must also be in Him, and of Him. In whatever way we as men or women, of science or religion, of philosophy or theology, reflect and ponder about God and creation we cannot penetrate the darkness and nothingness of eternity, that meets us as we grope to grasp the beyond. We must have some form of truth and facts, some revelation or experience, which will transcend and transport us to the unknown and to the mystery. The picture painted in verses 1-2 is the mystery that so much of human imagination and speculation has recorded from the earliest of historic times. The ancient peoples of the Middle East, India, Africa, Europe, and the Far East, have all left records of their thoughts and beliefs of creation. We pass over for the moment any preview of their witness, for we are here occupied with the Bible Text.
The Days of the Creation Week commences with Light called out of the Darkness, and the Creator is quoted as speaking, and shows by speech, that He thinks and wills. The Divine Person and His Personality is immediately presented to us in anthropomorphic terms, which reflect and answer to our humanity or human personalities. The Bible God is human-like in relations to the natural world, and in this manifestation, He is rational, intelligent, wise, and all that man as the highest natural being on earth is, so too, God as such, but infinitely higher, is also. But the doctrine of the Anthropomorphic God is not based on the lower nature ascending to the higher Nature, although in human history of the world it appears so, but the higher Nature descends or condescends to the lower in creation and revelation. The transcendent God is also the ‘descendent’ God, Who in creation manifest Himself in condescension to share His nature and person with us in the natural world. The natural world is a dark night, filled with lifelessness, emptiness, and chaos and confusion, disorderly and without proper structure. The spiritual world is governed by the Divine Spirit, that is by God, both in presence and relations of the highest manifest nature, that is, the can be shared by God to and with His creation and its creatures, both of the natural world and more so of the spiritual world. The Bible reveals man to be a little lower than the angels, so human nature is inferior to angelic nature; and likewise, animal nature is inferior to human nature in countless ways and properties, despite what evolution tries to teach. But we must restrain our thoughts for the moment.
The progression from the inanimate reality of the universe or nature, as it is in its original constitution, and its essential intrinsic properties and elements in its smallest state, moves on to higher or better orders of reality, which consummates in man as the final order of life in reality and nature of the natural world. The Day and Night, the Heaven and the Earth (as Sky and Land, Air and Ground, etc.), the Seas or Oceans and Lakes and Rivers, are inanimate creation, they are the world and nature without the element or property of life, or in simple Bible terms, without the Seed of Life. So that the progression, or to sanctify a naturalist word, the evolution, moves from non-life to life and living things. This progression, evolution, development, generation, and growth will constitute natural and world history, that is the history of the universe, of the earth, and of man or humanity. We are not trying to create a Bible Science filled with scientific-biblical terms and categories, but rather we are reflecting on Scripture from our present natural understanding of modern times, to understand creation and humanity as seen in the Bible. We may note that in this first citation of God speaking, calling, naming, blessing, approving, we will continue to see Him thus and more as we continue. (A few years ago, I decided to go through my Bible with a high-lighter marker all the words and verses of God that I encountered. I went through several Books of Moses in amusement, at times amazement, when I discovered a recently published printed edition with that very feature. It’s quite common to find a New Testament with the Words of Christ printed in red, but quite exceptional to find the Old Testament with the expressed words of God printed in red. So, I bought a copy, for I am very fond of Study and Reference Bibles, of the Sword Bible or the King James Easy Read (KJVER, ©2001, -07, 2010) by the Kings Word Press of Whitaker House.)
In reading the Creation Week we have the mineral or inanimate kingdom, then the vegetable or plant kingdom, then the animal kingdom, and last, the human kingdom, Naturalists class man as a mammal of the animal kingdom. In Science we are taught that the Tree of Life of Evolution as in Darwin-Haeckel’s doctrine, consists of kingdoms or taxonomic ranks, first the super-kingdoms or domains or empires of organisms, then it descends in the animal kingdom to phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. In the study of nature, we learn and identify an infinite and varied arrangement of things, both inanimate and animate, and the more we study, and the more of us given to natural study, along with research and experimentation, the more we discover how great and magnificent is nature and nature’s God. In the Creation Week we are shown the Seed of Life in plants and vegetation, from grass to trees, then we have the half-point of the Creation Week on Day Four, where the government of life is determined and maintained by the heavenly bodies of Sun, Moon, and Stars, in order that higher forms of life might be created, exists, evolved, developed, adapt, and generate and grow in reproduction as the seeds do. This higher form of life come in various degree of life as souls that move, breath, grow, generate or procreate, all after their kind and order. Living things (‘nephesh chaiyah’ = ‘souls of life,’ 1:20) of the seas and oceans, marine life in all variations, then those who move in the air as birds, who fly with wings, and last land creatures of animals of wide variety. These animals sharing natural affinity with man, in form, features, and structure in countless ways. But with animals we have countless variety, of many kinds and relations, but with man we read of only one kind. Man, or Adam, the Human Creation, is made and created differently to any other animal, and in a single pair, male and female.
Man is created in the Divine Image and Likeness, and as lord over all, to dominate all. and this as a divine creature, like God. But we ask Scripture and search Scripture as to why God should relate such a story and account, simple and beautiful, of Creation. What is meant by the creation of the universe being reduced to 7 days, 6 days to work, and the 7th day to rest. When we were human infants in world history, as in the time from Adam to Moses, we believed the world was very simple and small in relations to its reality and truth. Our language was childish, our understanding was as babes at the breast, and we thought of time and space, of life and matter, in short, of eternal infinite inscrutable things, and were all mysteries of God (or as it was often the case, of gods and goddesses). In time from Moses to Christ mankind grew up a little, sometimes a little smarter, sometimes a little dumber, but in all more advanced in many ways. Thus, as we studied nature and the world, nay, the universe, first in our heads, then with our toys, we discovered very many secrets of the Most High. This new knowledge brought new experiences, and we soon had difficulty in sympathizing we the ancients in many of their notions and beliefs. Our ancient ancestral elders were judged as naive simpletons for their myths, legends, and fables, especially the sacred ones in the sacred texts. Thus, a form of natural agnosticism and atheism evolved in the world over the many centuries, and increasing as we grew and discovered more secrets, and secrets that the ancients never dreamed of in their wildest dreams. And with this new kind of Bible criticism the Creation Week is called into debate, dispute, and doubt, yes, and denial.
Did God really create the universe in 6 literal days of 24 hours, and then rested on the 7th day? We read of the original creation of God, that part of that creation needed to be changed, that the change occurred in 6 days and finished on the 7th. What we think and understand is that the original creation of heaven and earth is not perfect or complete, but rather it is good. God is perfect and complete, lacking nothing as a deficiency, but altogether whole and full, with all that fulness and perfection may imply or require. The creation by nature cannot be as complete and perfect as the Creator, for the creature is dependent on its the Almighty its Maker. Therefore, we reason and reflect that in the generation of the original creation, in whatever way inferred or implied, that what follows, as described in the text of verse 2, is a corruption or deviation and alteration of the original state and condition. Then, the original state being corrupted, and afterwards altered, the altered and changed corrupted state needs to be corrected and further changed in order to renew, refresh, restore a completeness or perfection. The spiritual world that precedes the natural world, which we cannot know or experience outside of revelation or manifestation, is later in Genesis and the entire Bible afterwards and throughout, is spoken of as itself becoming corrupted and altered, and more specifically, judged. But we will not now entertain this doctrine at this early place of our investigation of Scripture. We must assume this much in our deduction and reduction of the principle that every creation and generation must by nature undergo decay and corruption, by use or abuse, by age and growth, and unless continually renewed and refreshed must needs be salvaged by restitution and resurrection or rebirth.
We do not call a state or condition, or situation, corrupted or ruined because it exists in a raw or original state, but only if it has been built or developed then damaged or unkept. We may give three examples: The land that has stones and sand scattered about, is not viewed as ruined, but as undeveloped; but once built or constructed into a building, then not maintained against the natural forces, or abused, or used without repairs, we judge it to be ruined, deteriorated, devalued, and waste. Again, a field exist with trees and plants and what is needed for building a house or home; yet the trees are not cut, and the plants not arranged, the weeds not pulled, or shrubs cleared; we do not condemn the field as a ruin and waste for its natural state of wilderness or forest; but once we developed and build our house and home, and it falls in disrepair, broken down and cluttered with trash, our condemnation is strong against the house and the owner. Lastly, man, like the animals, has in the body of male and female, all that is required for an offspring; the DNA, the cells, the chemicals and hormones, and many other thigs essential to life and living; but we do not regard the potentiality of any merit or value, good or bad in itself, unless conception takes place; which in turn grows, develops, and generates into a child, a baby, which brings joy to the world; but the conception being damaged, obstructed, and its development and growth interfered with, or halted, aborted, and destroyed, we label in the strongest negative judgment and condemnation, with full legal penalties. So too with creation, God must maintain actively what He makes and forms in all the varied ways of the universe or nature, so that His intention and purpose might be fulfilled. For read that in each of the Creation Days He spoke, and it came about, it was done as He desired.
We may answer the question thus created, that creation requires judgment, and in turn judgment is balanced by salvation. Not all creation will be preserved in every form and feature, but in judgment with justice must all be treated, whether good or bad, and only the best, the good, the better will be preserved for God’s fuller purposes. The Creation Days no doubt hides far more than they reveal, and as time moves on in the human experience in the world of all the nations, we are daily discovering what Paul said: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!” (Rom.11:33) And again he wrote to Timothy: “I charge thee in the sight of God, Who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, Who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times He shall show, Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; Whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to Whom [be] honor and power eternal. Amen.” (Ist Tim. 6:13-16)
On the 6th Day after the animals are created, we read that God says: “Let Us make man (adam) in Our image. after Our likeness: and let them have dominion….and God created man (adam) in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” If Elohim speaks of man as divine, God-like, then man is not a mere animal, nor is he angelic, though angel-like in the manner that angels share the divine image and likeness, as we said earlier that man is a little lower than the angels and a little higher than the animals. A Divine Council as some interpret the “Us” is not clear, nor in what way angels relate to man, especially in his creation, but that an angelic creation is clearly implied in the plural pronoun even if we take the Christian and New Testament view of the Trinity, of the God speaking to the Word, or the Father to the Son. Further, the interpretation of the Lord as the pre-incarnate Word, as the Agent of Creation, Who by means of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God, Ruach Elohim), executes the will of God, and Who with the Angels and Spiritual Beings, constitute a divine and spiritual family in a spiritual world or creation. The Lord then would be speaking as God to the Angels (as in the Targum of Johnathan Ben Uzziel, and Jerusalem Targum). These and other important doctrines must be understood in those verses and places as they occur from time to time. What is clear in these verses of the 6th Day is man shares God’s image and likeness, and potentially, His nature. This alone sets the Bible in clear opposition to the Science or Philosophy which makes man an ape or monkey with no superiority than a subtle serpent.
In the creation of man, we have a divine design which will unfold for several thousands of years to display the divine nature to be seen in man. The work of the 6th Day was very good. God finished His work on the 7th Day and God rested on the 7th Day. Many say He finished his work on the 6th day before the 7th day and then rested (sabbathed) on the Sabbath, but it is clear, that they are clearly wrong; and even if we allow them that His finishing touch or work was the creation of the Sabbath Day. As we have said there are many hidden things in the words of the Text, and here is one of those things which unfolds later on. As to the word ‘day’ or in Hebrew ‘yom’, we need not argue over its meaning, it is a day or part of a day, consisting of eve and morn, pm and am, night and day, as we read. That we need to insert 12 hours or 24 hours is unwise; for we will discover very soon (2:4; 5:1-2) that day is not limited to hours, and even three hours of a day is enough to make a day. And special usage of ‘day’ as in the Lord’s Day, Day of God, Day of Judgement and Resurrection, Eternal Day, Millennial Day (as “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”). In this special usage we may persuade the reader and Bible believer to regard or consider that the Creation Week consists of Creation Days, like regular ordinary days, and not like ‘ages’, as many have found pleasure in the typology of the Creation Week in relations to world history, and quite frequent in both Apocryphal and dispensational works. We will speak more of this shortly in regard to the 2nd Creation Account in chapter 2.

(I insert from my previous attempt of Bible Reflections this selection: Years ago a brother in Christ, and a beloved friend, wrote a song in meditation of the Sabbath of God in Creation: (JPH; Feb.22, 1981).

God is at Work! Hallelujah! God is at Work! Hallelujah!
God is at work, is at work in you.
Both to will and do in measure, All that is in own good pleasure.
God is at work, is at work in you.
Oft without your comprehension: Not by your own good intention;
God is at work, He’s at work in you.
How the mystery relieves us: That by grace He has received us:
This is His work, is His work in you.
Both to will and do in measure All that’s in His own good pleasure.
God is at work; He’s at work in you.
He works to put us where He’s resting, In His Christ Who’s passed all testing.
God is at rest, He’s at rest in Christ!
Oh dear saints tis such a blessing. That our God can work while resting.
God is at work; He’s at work in Christ!

GENESIS: 2-4: Generations of the Heavens and Earth:
We must point out that in biblical hermeneutics or scriptural interpretations, Bible believers have noticed and identified various rules or principles that should be observed in bible study. Rules as Scripture explains Scripture, a quote versus a statement, answering the questions of interrogation and investigation as who, what, when, where, why, etc. One of the rules is Text in Context without Pretext. But an often-forgotten or neglected rule is that of the First Occurrence, that a word in its first occurrence or instance is too be carefully noted and remembered, for it will govern all occurrences and usage thereafter. Already from the Creation Week we have encountered many first instances which govern our reflections and consideration, thus our doctrines, even now. The words: beginning, created, God, heaven, earth, God’s Spirit, and many more, are important to govern and form our views of understanding. An example is God or Elohim in the Creation Week, no other word or term is used of Him Who is revealed as the Creator, and thus Elohim, or God as Elohim, is related to Creation and creatures. So when we read there after that God as Elohim speaks and acts, or exists and lives, the relations is with creation, whether it is the universe, earth, man, the nations, or the like. Thus, when we meet God in our reading of this next account of the Generations of the Creation, we are prepared to notice and consider that He is now Jehovah Elohim or the LORD God, and then later we follow the text as it presents Him as Lord or God, or the Almighty or El Shaddai, and all such. In the Creation the Word of Power is obvious, that when and where the Creator wills and speaks it is done. The act of power is of His Spirit or Wind and Breath as an Energy or Force which proceeds from God and resides in God. God does not need to accomplish or effect His will and desire by physical means and instrumentation, or by extension of arms and hands, of legs and feet, not even a Divine Nod or Blink is essential to His Power. But Scripture describes Him in manifestation with these invisible forms and attributes. And when man is created it is in a divine image as human, that is, a divine-human creature.
God was resting on the 7th Day, and we are not told that the 7th Day had a evening and morning, that it ended at a certain hour or moment. What Scripture immediately records are the Generations of the Heavens and of the Earth. The creation is the origin of God’s work, the Generations, the Toledoth, are the history and biography of the creation or genesis as it pertains to the heavens and the earth. These Generations are Ten in the Book of Genesis, Esau is referred to twice but counted only once. The Generations of the heavens and the earth, of Adam, of Noah, of the sons of Noah, of Shem, of Terah, of Ishmael, of Isaac, of Esau (twice), and of Jacob. They are genealogies and biographies in a peculiar way, we may say they are records and documents of the times and life of the persons, places, and things which they treat. Genesis is a Book of Creation and Generations, a living history of God and the Lord God interacting with the world and man. This account reveals how the creation was generated, created, made, formed, arranged, adorned, ordered, and all else. The Lord God is interested in His creation for the single purpose of a man to be in the place He has set his eyes and heart upon. The Earth was not ready for the Man, and man was not yet created in reality or in generation, though he was created in the Creation Week. But in order for the divine image and likeness to be generated in creation he must be formed and enlivened. The Formation of man is of the dust of the ground, the dirt of earth, but his life is to be divine, that is, we may say, of heaven. This infusion and impartation of the breath of life (nishmah chaiyim) into this human form called man, a body and substance not yet alive, but called Man or Adam, and in creation perfectly made as Male and Female; and now becomes a living soul (le-nephesh chaiyah). Here Adam is created alone as the male. (We will understand the human constitution of body, soul, and spirit as we read of man’s behavior and experiences. Man’s nature of composite being but a simple unit or person, and his dual and trine division and distinction, his dichotomy and trichotomy, will also become clear.) Though the Earth was an Eden, yet the Eden needed a Garden to be a proper place for man, that is home. So Adam was moved into the Garden of Eden eastward (Gan-be‘Eden miqqedem). The Garden with its pleasant trees, and for food; but also, the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and even had 4 rivers that parted in the garden. The 4 rivers are in pairs, two go downward southward (Pishon and Gihon), and two went upward northward (Hiddekel (Tigris)and Euphrates); two was eastward from the Garden, and two was westward; one went towards Assyria and Armenia, the other towards Syria and Canaan; another flowed to Havilah, Sinai, and Ethiopia, and the other toward the Persian Gulf and India. Thus, GanEden becomes the Land as man’s Home to live and work.
God would train Adam by instruction and commandments, Man must not be alone, it is no good, but He will form for Adam living things, animals, so Adam might learn and identify them by name. But the proper mate and fit for Adam must be what comes from him, made or built (wai-yiben) into a woman. Adam as Ish and the Woman as Ishah (the Male and the Female, the Husband and the Wife) are now one flesh in reality or generation as they were already in creation. As we have said before, we repeat again, that many hidden things are not disclosed to us, but as seeds are already germinating and generating to His design. Adam and Eve in the Garden are tempted and failed the test. The Fall of Man is recorded as part of the generations of creation and as the creation itself in corruption and judgment needed to be renovated in regeneration so now the creation in man must undergo like judgment and salvation. The Serpent is the Old Serpent and the Devil we are told in the Book of the Revelation, and as he is the Evil One of the other world, so too now, he is in man or human nature. (We pass over all debate or ideas about talking snakes or animals communicating as humans. Nor do we venture by exegesis or eisegesis to explore or explain if snakes once walked with feet, or had hands, or looked like apes. Sorry.) All the temptation and seduction, the lies and deception, leads man in sin and disobedience, and the Sin is generated in man, and sin becomes man’s nature. The divine nature is then opposed and challenged in all human development. This sin condition with its disobedient disposition of disbelief and rebellion, will wage war in man personally and individually, but more so, will became a universal struggle and conflict of all mankind.
God must pass judgment by His intervention of this tragic fall and defeat, Man’s nature changed from light to darkness, and from life to death, must be eradicated if he is to live eternal. Their folly of conceit, their guilt and shame, the fear and cowardness, displays the nature of the Serpent who has begotten them in sin. The Lord God exposes this sin as the seed of the evil one, and thus He must judge sin unto death. The curse must be upon the serpent as the vilest and lowest of all creatures and animals; and continual conflict and warfare will exist throughout human history in the world between the Two and their Seeds, till the Seed of the woman crushes the serpent’s head. The curse in woman is multiplied sufferings in pain and conception, bound in desire to her husband and her lord. In Adam the earth is cursed and labor long and difficult, to eat with sweat till death and dust comes. This then is the new order and the world to be brought about by the Divine Word of Judgment which leads to Salvation and Redemption in the dispensations of the generations to follow unto the Messiah. Mother Eve is life for the generations of all mankind. The Lord God exchanges the garment of sin and shame with the blood of life in skins to hide human nakedness. But Adam and Eve are no longer fit for the Garden of Eden, they must be driven out in exile to a strange land to labor and dye. The Tree of Life is guarded, and in time buried. We must not forget that the generations of the world continue in Adam’s family and history.
The story of Adam and Eve with their children, or of the first family, will be the seed and seeds of world history up to the Flood. The world of Adam will generate the nature of the serpent in human depravity, or sinfulness in every way. The carnal knowledge in the sexual experience will alter both the man and the woman, and the change into parents will govern the human family for better or worse. The murder or killing of Abel by his brother Cain, will play out in many others, and with other families, tribes, peoples, nations, and kingdoms. But the divine nature will also struggle to prevail, to rule over sin and serpents, as well as over every creature of the earth. It is in the history of Adam and Eve that God now is identified and signified as the Lord (JHWH); thus, the first occurrence is from Eve of her birth of Cain (’eth–Qain), saying: I have gotten a man by Jehovah (qanithi ’ish ’eth–Yeh’wah) and no longer Jehovah Elohim, for man now is the Lord’s quest to save and restore. Human infancy, though in corruption and condemnation, need God as Lord Which is merciful and kind, understanding and patient, tolerant with human nature in infancy and foolishness. The two sons become two different kind of men, one a shepherd, and the other a farmer, and the two worshiped God in different ways; and the Lord regards Abel and his offering (Heb.’minchah’, 1st occur., and shows only the kernel or seed or nucleus of the later developed sacrificial system) but rejected Cain and his sacrifice. Cain is warned and instructed sin and its power. Abel the victim must be vindicated and honored, nay, valued, and Cain the murderer must be punished in measure, though protected by righteousness and justice, because mercy hides itself. The Two Brothers show Two Ways, and like the Two Trees in the Garden, so now in East Eden, the Two Trees are to be seen played out. The Seeds are germinating and generating a world of Two Kinds, and the natural evolution will display the Word of God and the Lies of the Serpent. As with Day and Night, as with the Good and the Evil, and as with so many contrasts and opposites, we are not allowed into the thousands of details of the antediluvian world of East Eden. We will however need to reflect on that world after the Flood, for the world that follows the Flood is generated by the same seeds. The Lord marks Cain with a sign ((Heb. ’oth, a sign like the celestial bodies above, like serpent who was once Lucifer the Shining One, like white leprosy of Moses and Miriam), —a miracle of judgment set and appointed to be clearly seen and known), with the warning of increased vengeance. So, Cain is spared, the world increases its population, human development and expansion continues. The beginning of primitive civilization begins, as cities are formed from simple families and clans and tribes. The village grows as man multiplies and fills the earth. The City of Enoch is built, a new kind of home for man, from which comes polygamy, later tent-dwellers, then cattle-keepers, and music-makers, metal-forgers for work, play, and war. But homicides still continue and will increase.

GENESIS: 5-9: Book of the Generations of Adam & Noah’s Generations:
We move from ‘these’ to ‘this’, from general and universal to specific and local, from the world to Adam or Man. And as in the New Testament, the Gospel according to Matthew opens: “The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” We have said that there are 3 great themes that run thru the Bible: the land, the people, and the book. The Book (Sepher, Scroll, Biblos, Liber, Libro) is now for the first time introduced, and is connected to Man or the People, as the Man or People was connected to the Land or Place, namely, the Garden, and Eden, and Earth. It is repeated here that God (note it is again Elohim and not the Lord God (YHWH Elohim) or the Lord (YHWH or Adonai)), created and made man, in God’s likeness, both male and female were created the day (yom) when they were created. The creation and the generation are one in the formation, for what God wills He creates, what He creates He makes and forms and generates. Generation is living, begetting, multiplying and growing. The Adamic family is the generation that now appears in the Bible history. Seth is Adam’s seed of life and is produced in living so many years; and the birth is procreation of a new generation which bears the image and likeness of Adam. The children of Adam of sons and daughters are his seed through the woman who births life, by conception and pregnancy and delivery. The 10 generations are Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. The generations before the Flood was Adamic, it was from Adam to Noah. The years given of their years are 930, 912, 905, 910, 895, 962, 364, 969, 777, and 950, which totals 2006 years, and 1656 years at the time of the Flood and the death of Methuselah. The ages of the patriarchs of these generations at the time of given birth to the next generation is likewise given: 130, 105, 90, 70, 65, 162, 65, 187, 182, and 500 years. Each father births sons and daughters that are not named. No account is given of the collective progress of these families as is done with Cain. It is plain that the Bible teaches that mankind was generated by interbreeding of siblings, that is, Adam’s and Eve’s children intermarried to procreate the generations to follow. We are not instructed about these things, and the Bible is silent about many details and particulars to portray that generation and age. We also are not aided in understanding the chronology of that early age of mankind. The doctrine that man lived about 1,000 years before dying, or that he fathered children when he was hundred s of years old, is mere speculation out of ignorance of what is not clearly revealed to us. Man lived about a hundred years, more or less, then as he does now, in the best cases. How years were calculated before the Flood is not known, Genesis never records the 11th month, which first occurs in Deuteronomy. We must reflect carefully concerning the ancient calendars, especially of those of different nations, who in comparison with one another show great differences.
The human race (ha-adam) increased and spread throughout East Eden (ha-adamah), the sons of God (beney-ha-Elohim,) were attracted to the daughters of men (ha-adam), and they married them. The expression My spirit (ruchi) is a first occurrence, and shows man’s relations to God, although he is flesh. Man’s years are numbered and limited to the judgment of the Great Flood, because man’s world is now corrupt. The giants or nephilim are introduced as distinct from the sons of God, and we are made to consider if they are the offspring of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men. The children of the union were mighty-men, ancient, and men of name. These were the ancient heroes and champions, the giants and monsters, that arise still in the world, men and women of unique exception, of super talents; but those before the Flood were not good. The Lord saw mankind (ha-adam) was depraved, total depravity was to be seen wherever man migrated. The creation and creature again dispensationally has failed their new estate. We do not trouble the reader with the ideas and stories found in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim apocryphal and epigraphal (pseudepigraphic, in contrast to epigraphical; as in the Kabballah and the Zohar, for example) literature; nor venture to reflect on the pornographic realities that must have existed in man’s primitive state. Mankind was full of vice and violence, rape and robbery, malice and murder, lies and deceit, and every unimaginable imagination and images of sin and sinfulness. So, The Lord’s heart was sad and broken, He changed to anger and wrath, and will destroy mankind (ha-adam) His unique creature of creation. Man, as lord of the earth must perish in such an evil nature, and with him also all the other creatures or animals. Man’s home must be destroyed, and as he was exiled from the Garden of Eden (Gan Eden) so now he will be removed from East Eden to start afresh in another time, age, and dispensation. The grace and favor (Heb. ‘chen’, whence John, the Lord’s grace, and this is the 1st occurrence of grace) of the Lord towards His creation will rest on Noah, the rest and comfort of mankind.
Before we look at the next Generations in Genesis, we will review the dispensations and covenants already treated. In my former writings I have deliberately obscured the divine flow or stream in fear of being mechanical or methodic, not wanting to create a superficial hermeneutical system that others might use or abuse. I have told the story that as a young Christian I was greatly in love with God and His Word, I read and studied the Bible as a baby nurses at the paps. The church was a mother to me, and I craved the milk of the word. I dwelt among dispensationalist of the Plymouth Brethren and Missionary Baptists; my Bibles were editions of Schofield, Bullinger, Darby, and Dake. I set out very early to chart the Dispensations and the Tabernacle, making two large oil-cloth wall charts, one 12 feet by 5′, and the other 6 ‘ by 5’. These I worked on for several years, then at the end of 1974 destroyed them. Only recently have I decided to return to work, but much smaller, and more guarded. At the end of this work, I will reproduce this chart for the public. The two Dispensations and Covenants are thus far the Creation and Adam. The Creation is governed by Elohim (God, Dios, Deus, Theos); for God as Eternal and the All from eternity before time and space, or any creation and creature, with all that He is in qualities and attributes of every kind, known and unknown, manifest Himself by creation in all its ways and nature. This Creation in dispensation and divine government consists of the heavens and the earth created in 7 days of a divine week, and these three divisions of Heaven, Earth. and the 7 Days commences the great dispensation and government or domain or kingdom of Creation, the Theme, or Branches, of the Bible, along with the Judgment and the Salvation. Creation is the Alpha and the Aleph of all that pertains to and relates to God as Elohim. The Creation Week progresses from Light to Life to Man, and Man as God’s Seed. The 2nd dispensation of divine dominion is governed by Elohim-Jehovah or Jehovah-Elohim, the Lord-God, that is God as Lord and God. It is dispensation of Adam in the Garden without Sin, then in the Temptation in Sin, and the last, outside the Garden in Sinfulness. It is from Adam to Noah, some 2,000 years proper, with the Great Flood terminating the old world of mankind. It is of the Theme and Branch that begins with Adam and ends with Christ. Genesis will disclose or present two more dispensations, namely of the Gentiles and of the Patriarchs or Fathers. Within the dispensations of the divine government of God interacting and influencing man, both by covenants and commandments as of the Divine Word, which will create and produce or form the Bible, which in turn will accomplish His creation, judgment, and salvation to and for His eternal glory, till He is All in all. We return to our reflections.

The Generations of Noah begins with mercy and judgment, the earth was corrupt, man depraved, the human way and life, all his living, was all contrary to Go’s nature and way. Man, as flesh was now rotten meat. Noah was an exception, and God would like to save man from total wrath of destruction and death. Though man was His creature, the human creation and generations was all evil, nothing good to save. The civilization, the culture, the customs, the lifestyles, the work and business, the friends and families, the divine worship and doctrine, and all the language of mankind was all bad. East Eden was ruined, including and especially Nod. Both the Cainites and the Sethites were altogether fallen, just like the nephilim, the fallen ones. But an Ark or House-Boat (tebah, a chest or coffin), which like Moses’ ark, will be salvation. The Ark of Noah measured in cubits (18′-24″, they say from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger): 300 long, 50 wide, and 30 high; in 3 floors or decks; with a window for light 1 cubit at the top. and a door on the side, and a removeable roof or covering. It was a big tabernacle in appearance. In order to save mankind in Noah, due to man’s fall, ruin, and corruption, it is necessary that God establish His Covenant (berith, this is the first instance) with Noah. Noah with his family, his three sons and their wives, with select pairs and numbers of animals, clean and unclean, with sufficient food for all of them, all in the ark. The house (baiyith, beth, 1st occurrence) of Noah will become the new generation and a new mankind. Thus, God as Lord judges the world.

(Notes & Comments from Bible Reflections.mjm):
1. The Divine Name: Tetragrammaton: YHWH:
We return to God. The LORD God is YHWH, Yod-He-Waw-He, Elohim; Who’s Name is not explained here, but shall be hereafter. The Hebrew Tetragrammaton, ha-Shem, is related to creation as it pertains to man, and not as it pertains to God. The Hebrew roots of the Divine Name I understand to be derived from four roots, for which we turn to the lexicons to get a better understanding: (The following is from the 1906 Abridged and Unabridged Gesenius’s Hebrew-English with Biblical Aramaic-Chaldee by Brown-Driver-Briggs, compare also the New Edition of 1974. I have here revised this, especially transliterating all Hebrew letters in brackets.)

יהוה (YHWH) i.e. יַהְוֶה (YaHWeH) personal name of Dei, God, Yahweh, or ה וָ הֹ יְ (YeHoWaH), Y’howah, Yehowah, Jehovah, the proper name of the God of Israel (1. MT יְהוָה (YeHWaH) (Qeri, read Adonai) אֲדֹנָי (’ADoNaI)), or יֱהוִה (YeHWiH) (Qeri, read Elohim) אֱלֹהִים (’ELoHiM), in the combinations אדני יהוה & יהוה אדני (YHWH ’ADNI & ’ADNI YHWH) (see אֲדֹנָי, ’Adonai)), and with prep. בַּיהֹוָה, לַיהֹוָה, מֵיהוָה (baYHoWaH, laYHoWaH, meYHoWaH (Qeri, read בַּאדֹנָי, לַאדֹנָי, מֵאדֹנָי ((ba’Donai, la’Donai, me’Donai)), do not give the original form.). II. 1. יהוה (YHWH) is used with אלהים (’ELHIM) with or without suffixes…. 3. יהוה (YHWH) is also used with several predicates, to form sacred names of holy places of YHWH. Whence יָהּ (Yah), God contraction from יהוה (YHWH), first appears in early poems. Elsewhere יָהּ (Yah) is used only in late ψ (Psalms), especially in the Hallels, in the phrase הַלֲלוּ־יָהּ (Hallelu-Yah, Hallelujah, and Alleluia).

The Name is derived from or related to four roots: hayah, hawah (unused), chawah (unused), and chaiyah.
הָיָה (hayah) verb, fall out, come to pass, become, be — Qal I. 1. A. fall out, happen. B. occur, take place, come about, come to pass. 2. esp. & very often come about, come to pass, become, sq. substantive (subj.) clause almost always + modifying (usually temporal) clause or phrase.: A. (1) וַיְהִי (way’chi) and it came to pass that, most often following be….
חָיָה (chayah) verb, live — Qal 1. live: A. have life; also in phrase וַיְחִי (way’chi) and he lived (so many years) with acc. of time. B. continue in life, remain alive; also נפשׁ ˊח (ch’ nphsh) live, of the soul or the self; לִפְנֵי ˊח (ch’ liphney) live in the presence of; ˊב ˊח (ch’ b’) live among. C. sustain life, live on or upon (על, ‘al), of the animal life, by the sword, by bread; elsewhere in pregnant sense of fulness of life in divine favour, sustained by (על, ‘al) everything that issueth out of the mouth of ˊי (Y’); his promises (?); of wicked man, by repentance; c. בְּ (b’) by the statutes and judgments of ˊי (Y’) if a man do them. D. live (prosperously). 2. be quickened, revive: A. from sickness. B. fr. discouragement of the spirit. C. fr. faintness. D. fr. death; by return of נפשׁ (nphsh), of רוּחַ (ruach). Pi. 1. preserve alive, let live; keep in existence heaven and earth; nourish, young cow, lamb. 2. give life, to man when created. 3. quicken, revive, refresh: A. restore to life, the dead; the dying. B. cause to grow, grain. C. restore, a ruined city, stones destroyed by fire. D. revive, the people of ˊי (Y’) by ˊי himself with fulness of life in his favour. Hiph. 1. preserve alive, let live. 2. quicken, revive: A. restore to health, a leper, Hezekiah. B. revive the לֵב (leb) and רוּחַ (ruach). C. restore to life, the dead.
([הָוָה] (hawah) verb, become — Qal, unused root.)
(חַוָּה (chaiwah, chawah) nom.prop.fem. (life). II. חַוָּה (chawah) village, v. infr. sub II. חוה (chwh). יחואל (ychw’l) Kt; Qr יְחִיאֵל (yechi’el) q.v. sub חיה (chych).)
I. חַי (chai) adjective, alive, living — 1. a. of God, as the living one, the fountain of life אֵל חַי; חי יהוה (’El chai, chai Yhwh) Yahweh is living; the formula of the oath is… as used by God Himself it is חי אנכי (chi ’anki), elsewhere חי אני (chi ’ani); with exception of בְּחֵי הָעוֹלָם (bechai ha‘olam) by him who liveth for ever, חֵי (chey) is always (as an artificial distinction of scribes) used of non-sacred oaths, v. b. b. of man: אָדָם חַי (’adam chai) a living man, in antith. מֵת; הַחַי (meth-hachai) collective; Absalom; Naboth; a son or lad; usually pl. חיים (chyim) alive, living; taking prisoners alive; living (prosperously). Note phrases: ((‘odh chyim)= ים) עוֹד הַי (ym) yet alive; חַיִים(הַ) אֶרֶץ (chaiyim (ha) ’eretz) land of the living; ˊצרור הח (tzror hch’) bundle of the living. In the oath by life of men חי (chy) is pointed always חֵי (chey). c. of animals, alive, living: ox; goat; bird; dog; animals in general; בשׂר חי (bsr chy) living raw flesh. d. animals and man, phrases for either or both…. 3. reviving: כָּעֵת חַיָּה (ka’eth chaiyah) at the time (when it is) reviving, the spring.
I. חַיָּה (chaiyah) nom.fem. living thing, soul, animal — 1. animal, as a living, active being: a. in general. b. wild animals, on account of their vital energy and activity. c. living beings, of the cherubic chariot. 2. life, only in late poetry. 3. revival, renewal: of strength (re-invigoration); v. חָיָה 2 (chaiyah).
חַיִּים (chayim) nom.masc.plural, abstract emphatic, life, lives, souls — 1. life: physical. 2. life: as welfare and happiness in king’s presence; as consisting of earthly felicity combined (often) with spiritual blessedness; used only once distinctly of eternal life (late) עולם ˊ(‘ ‘olm) ח. 3 (ch.) sustenance, maintenance, v. מִחְיָה (mich’yah).

The four roots are only two primary or strong, namely, hayah and chayah, ‘being’ and ‘life’ or ‘to be’ and ‘to live’. The strongest and most used is hayah, from which the Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (I am That I am, I become Who I become) is derived, and reveals the proper meaning of the Divine Name. The proper or best pronunciation of the YHWH is of little importance to me; the ignorance and confusion of it has been permanently and universally fixed. I will say this in these reflections that the harsh criticism against the old pronunciation of three syllables, in favor of the new scholarly two syllables, is a great mistake. The common English transliterated Jehovah was originally Yehowah, the J early being Y, and the V being W, the alterations due to French and German influence. The Spanish since the 1500s is Jehova pronounced ‘Ehovah’, the J in Spanish being softened or aspirated or muted, often to Y as in Juan pronounced ‘Wan, ‘Uan, or “One”, but we say John. Many just translate it as the Eternal or the Name. The sacredness is not in its exact enunciation, but in fear and honor and love to Him as God Eternal. The Jews have continually guarded the Sacred Name by various substitutions and clever alterations, even to applying the protection or fence to other languages. In English the most popular of these substitutes or alternatives are Lord, LORD, ha-Shem, the Almighty, and G-d. I will give Gesenius’ Lexicon translated and edited by Tregelles in which most of the history and controversy is touched upon briefly.

(Gesenius’s Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, translated from Latin and German with Additions and Corrections from Gesenius’s Thesaurus and other works by Tregelles (1846-1864-1893-1974) and Robinson (20th edition, 1871; also Gesenius of Brown-Driver-Briggs both old and new edition 1906, 1974.)

“(YHWH, YeHoWah, Y’howah): Jehovah, the proper name of the supreme God (ha’Elohim) amongst the Hebrews. The later Hebrews, for some centuries before the time of Christ, either misled by a false interpretation of certain laws (Ex. 20:7; Lev. 24:11), or else following some old superstition, regarded this name as so very holy, that it might not even be pronounced (see Philo, Vitae Mosis (Life of Moses) t. iii. p.519, 529). Whenever, therefore, this nomen tetragrammaton occurred in the sacred text (haShem, Shem Hamphorash, the ineffable incommunicable unpronounceable Name), they were accustomed to substitute for it (’Adonai) and thus the vowels of the noun (’Adonai) are in the Massoretic text placed under the four letters (YHWH), but with this difference, that the initial Yod receives a simple and not a compound Sh’va (Y’howah, Yehowah, and not Yahowah) prefixes, however, receive the same points as if they were followed by (’Adonai), thus , (laiHowah, baiHowah, me-Howah). This custom was already in vogue in the days of the LXX (Septuagint, Seventy) translators; and thus it is that they everywhere translate (YHWH) by (ho Kurios, Dominus, Senor, Herr, Lord) (’Adonai): the Samaritans have also followed a similar custom, so that for (YHWH) they pronounce (Shima (i. q. hashShem). Where the text has (’Adni Yhwh), in order that Adonai should not be twice repeated, the Jews read (’Adonai Elohim), and they write (’Adonai Yahowih).” “As it is thus evident that the word (Yehowah, Y’howah) does not stand with its own vowels, but with those of another word, the inquiry arises, what then are its true and genuine vowels? Several consider that (Yahaoh is the true pronunciation (according to the analogy of (Yaaqob, Yakob, Jacob; Paroh, Par’oh, Pharroah), rightly appealing to the authority of certain ancient writers, who have stated that the God of the Hebrews was called (IAO) (Diod. i. 94 (historousi….tous nomous didonai—para de tous Ioudaious Mosen ton IAO epikaloumenon Theon). Macrob. Sat. i. 18. Hesych. v. (Ozeias), interp. ad Clement. Alexander. Stromata, v. p. 666. Theodotion quajst, 15 ad Exod: (kalousi de auto Samareitai) IABE [Yahweh, Yahaweh] Ioudaioi de IAO); to which also may be added, that this same form appears on the gems of the Egyptian Gnostics as the name of God (Irenaeus adversus. Hseres. (Against Heresies) i. 34; ii. 26. Bellermann, uber die Gemmen der Alten mit dem Abraxasbilde, i. ii.). Not very dissimilar is the name IEYO of Philo Byblius ap. Eusebius praep. Evang (Preparation for the Gospel). i. 9; and IAOY (Yahu) in Clement Al. Strom, v. p. 562. Others, as Reland (decad, exercitatt. de vera pronunciatione nominis Jehova, Traj. ad Rh. 1707, 8.), following the Samaritans, suppose that (Yahweh) was anciently the true pronunciation, and they have an additional ground for the opinion in the abbreviated forms (Yahu) and (Yah). Also those who consider that (Yehowah, Jehovah) was the actual pronunciation (Michaelis in Supplement p. 524) are not altogether without ground on which to defend their opinion. In this way can the abbreviated syllables (Yehu) and (Yo), with which many proper names begin, be more satisfactorily explained. [This last argument goes a long way to prove the vowels (Yehowah) to be the true ones.] {{See also Ginsburg Massorah Ha Massorah, four volumes of most of the manuscript readings and all variations of usage and occurrences.}} To give my own opinion [This opinion Gesenius afterwards Thoroughly retracted; see Thesaurus. and Amer. trans, in voc.: he calls such comparisons and derivations, “waste of time and labour;” would that he had learned how irreverent a mode this was of treating such subjects!], I suppose this word to be one of the most remote antiquity, perhaps of the same origin as Jovis, Jupiter, and transferred from the Egyptians to the Hebrews [What an idea! God Himself revealed this as His own name; the Israelites could never have received it from the Egyptians]. (Compare what has been said above, as to the use of this name on the Egyptian gems [but these gems are not of the most remote antiquity; they are the work of heretics of the second and third centuries]), and then so inflected by the Hebrews, that it might appear, both in form and origin, to be Phenicio-Shemitic (see Mosheh, behemoth).” (From Brown-Driver-Brigg’s Gesenius: “The pronunciation Jehovah unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but it was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety (compare F. Bottcher’s Lehrbuch d. Hebr. Sprache).)
(Notes on the Name YHWH; George F. Moore; the Pronunciation Jehovah. “In modern books of reference the origin of the hybrid Jehovah is usually attributed to Petrus Galatinus, a Franciscan friar, confessor of Pope Leo X, in his De arcanis catholicae veritatis, published in 1518. Thus, in the New Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 218), Professor Briggs writes: “The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus.”‘ (1. Similarly, and with the same error in the date, A. B. Davidson, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, II (1899), p. 199; and E. Kautzsch, ibid.. Extra Volume, p. 625 (with the correct date).) The writers who in the seventeenth century combated the pronunciation Jehovah make similar assertions, though not all with equal positiveness. Drusius, in the preface of his Tetragrammaton (1604), (2. Reprinted, with other discussions, on both sides of the question, by Reland, Decas exercitationum philologicarum de vera pronuntiatione nominis Jehova, 1707. For convenience of reference I cite these dissertations, some of which in their separate form are rare, by Roland’s pages,) calls Galatinus “pater vulgatae lectionis;” and, again (p. 67), declares “primus in hunc errorem nos induxit Galatinus;” but, when he comes to discuss more particularly Galatinus’ words (p. 90), expresses himself more cautiously: “Fieri potest ut errem, tamen inclino ut credam, parentem lectionis Jehova Petrum Galatinum esse. Nam, ante qui sic legerit, neminem novi.” (In a note on this passage Reland pointed out that Jehova was used by Porchetus de Salvaticis, who wrote in 1303. See below, p. 147.) Sixtinus Amama (De nomine tetragrammato, 1628), a pious pupil of Drusius, says (Decas, p. 205): “Nullus certe, vocem earn cuiquam ante P. Galatinum usurpatam, adhuc ostendit.” He rightly attributes the occurrence of Jehova in certain printed editions of Jerome, (Breviarium in Psalterium, on Ps. 8, Plantin edition.) Paul of Burgos, and Dionysius Carthusianus, to the editors. Cappellus (Oratio de SS. Dei nomine tetragrammato, 1624) (5. The Oratio was first printed at the end of Cappellus’ Arcanumpunctationis (1624), pp. 313-332; then in the revised edition of the Arcanum (1643); finally, as an appendix to his Critica Sacra (Paris, 1650), pp. 690-712, with a Defensio, chiefly against the reply of Gataker (ibid., pp. 713-739). In this ultimate form it is reprinted by Relaud.) and is less guarded; he speaks of “Galatinus, quern primum dicunt in orbem terrarum vocem istam Jehova invexisse” (Decas, p. 270); and roundly affirms, “Nemo ante Galatinum legit vel Jova, vel Jehova” (ibid. p. 291).)
“To this origin, allusion is made Exod. 3:14; (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh) “I (ever) shall be (the same) that I am (to-day);” compare Apocalypse 1:4.8. (ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos): the name (YHWH) being derived from the verb (hawah) to be, was considered to signify God as eternal and immutable, Who will never be other than the same. Allusion is made to the same etymology, Hosea 12:6, (Yehowah Zikro).”Jehovah (i.e. the Eternal, the Immutable) is His name.” [We have thus the authority of God in His word, that this name is derived from the idea of being, existence, and not from any relics of Egyptian idolatry.] With this may be compared the inscription of the Sai’tic temple, Plutarch de Iside et Osiride, c. 9, (ego eimi to gegonos kai esomenon). [This shows how Pagans borrowed ideas from the true theology of God’s revelation, and not that the latter borrowed anything from the former.]”
“As to the usage of the word, the same supreme God, and the (Theos epichorios) [God was in an especial sense the God of the Israelites, but no idea must be admitted for a moment which would even seem to localize the God whose name is Jehovah of Hosts] tutelar God of the Hebrews, is called in the Old Testament by His proper name (Yehowah) and by the appellative (Elohim haElohim) (ho Theos, Allah), sometimes promiscuously, and sometimes the one or the other is used according to the nature of the expressions, or the custom of the writers (see p.49, B), (neum Yehowah, koh amar Yehowah, Ruach Yehowah, am Yehowah, ebed Yehowah), etc. The use of the word is to be especially observed in the following cases. (A.) (Yehowah Elohim) i.e. Jehovah God (in apposition, and not, as some have maintained, Jehovah of Gods, sc. the chief), the customary appellation of Jehovah in Genesis chap. 2:3, elsewhere less frequent, see however ….”
The pronunciation of the Four-Letters is certainly no longer positively known, for the Jews in guarding the Sacred Name, lost and then confused the pronunciation forever. However, the substitution and alteration of the vowel-points of the four letters does not change the possible valid pronunciation. We have the single syllable form of the Name; we also have dual and triple syllables of pre-reformation-renaissance form and now those of modern times. The Hebrew text is pointed in several ways, with some intention to hide the true sound, or accidental profanation. The analogies of the compound forms with the Name suggest both Yeho-, and Yah-, or –iah, and –yah. The changes of each letter in transliteration into other languages are several: y, I, and j; e, a, h, and o, u, v, and w; and these variants are unavoidable when the tongue of a certain people limits the ability to pronounce exactly the letters or vowel points. The tri-syllabic form was in use since the 13th century among the Jews going back to the innovation of the vowel points as a writing system. The Aramaic-Syriac-Chaldean and Arabic system of vowel-points attest to the possible possibilities within the cognate and the close related languages for the Biblical Hebrew. The Ancient Hebrew as with the Modern Hebrew has its own variants and options. It is certain that as with the advocates of the Documentary System of the many Bible books, especially their reconstruction of Genesis, these same scholars are not hesitant to advocate their dual-syllable sound as absolute truth and established fact. The assertion that the tri-syllable was a Roman Catholic invention of the early 16th century is a scholarly myth without creditability as to documentation, beyond scholars slinging and making accusations against the new liberty of the Reformers; since before then the Jewish orthodoxy prohibited and concealed the obvious. If the root is hayah and chayah by way of Ehyeh then the probability is far stronger as a tri-syllable word rather than dual. If Joshua or Judah be taken as the example, then Yehoshua (the last letter is a silent Ayin sustained by a vowel-point) Yehudah. Finally, the very first word that proceeded from God’s mouth was yehi, let-be, become, exist, spoken of day one; followed by yehi and yehi for the first day and repeated on the following days; then the last words He spoke of the Creation week at the end of day six, verse 29, was yihyeh. It-shall-be, let it be, food for them, and the them also refers, verse 30, to man and animals as nephesh chayah, living souls, breathing life, which is given in the margin of both AKJV and the ASV. Later we will have Adam’s name for his wife is Eve or Chaiwah and Havah which means Life.


Posted in Bible Reflections, Christian Reflections, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment


       The First Things Created: In the beginning, two thousand years before the heaven and the earth, seven things were created: the Torah written with black fire on white fire, and lying in the lap of God ; the Divine Throne, erected in the heaven which later was over the heads of the ‘Hayyot; Paradise on the right side of God, Hell on the left side; the Celestial Sanctuary directly in front of God, having a jewel on its altar graven with the Name of the Messiah, and a Voice that cries aloud, “Return, ye children of men.” (1 Tehillim 90, 391.) When God resolved upon the creation of the world, He took counsel with the Torah. (2) Her advice was this: “O Lord, a king without an army and without courtiers and at­tendants hardly deserves the name of king, for none is nigh to express the homage due to him. “The answer pleased God exceedingly. Thus, did He teach all earthly kings, by His Divine example, to undertake naught without first con­sulting advisers. (3) The advice of the Torah was given with some reserva­tions. She was skeptical about the value of an earthly world, on account of the sinfulness of men, who would be sure to disregard her precepts. But God dispelled her doubts. He told her, that repentance had been created long before, and sinners would have the opportunity of mending their ways. Besides, the Temple service would be invested with atoning power, and Paradise and hell were intended to do duty as reward and punishment. Finally, the Messiah was appointed to bring salvation, which would put an end to all sinfulness. (4) Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created ours. (5) But even this last world would have had no permanence, if God had executed His original plan of ruling it according to the principle of strict justice. It was only when He saw that justice by itself would undermine the world that He associated mercy with justice and made them to rule jointly. (6) Thus, from the beginning of all things. prevailed Divine goodness, with­out which nothing could have continued to exist. If not for it, the myriads of evil spirits had soon put an end to the generations of men. But the goodness of God has ordained, that in every Nisan, at the time of the spring equinox, the seraphim shall approach the world of spirits, and intimidate them so that they fear to do harm to men. Again, if God in His goodness had not given protection to the weak, the tame animals would have been extirpated long ago by the wild animals. In Tammuz, at the time of the summer sol­stice, when the strength of behemot is at its height, he roars so loud that all the animals hear it, and for a whole year they are affrighted and timid, and their acts become less ferocious than their nature is. Again, in Tishri, at the time of the autumnal equinox, the great bird ziz (7) flaps his wings and utters his cry, so that the birds of prey, the eagles and the vultures, blench, and they fear to swoop down upon the others and annihilate them in their greed. And, again, were it not for the goodness of God, the vast number of big fish had quickly put an end to the little ones. But at the time of the winter solstice, in the month of Tebet, the sea grows restless, for then leviathan spouts up water, and the big fish become uneasy. They restrain their appetite, and the little ones escape their rapacity. Finally, the goodness of God manifests itself in the pres­ervation of His people Israel. It could not have survived the enmity of the Gentiles, if God had not appointed pro­tectors for it, the archangels Michael and Gabriel. (8) When­ever Israel disobeys God and is accused of misdemeanors by the angels of the other nations, he is defended by his designated guardians, with such good result that the other angels conceive fear of them. Once the angels of the other nations are terrified, the nations themselves venture not to carry out their wicked designs against Israel. That the goodness of God may rule on earth as in heaven, the Angels of Destruction are assigned a place at the far end of the heavens, from which they may never stir, while the Angels of Mercy encircle the Throne of God, at His behest. (9)
The Alphabet: When God was about to create the world by His word, the twenty-two letters of the alphabet (10) descended from the terrible and august crown of God whereon they were en­graved with a pen of flaming fire. They stood round about God, and one after the other spake and entreated, “Create the world through me!” The first to step forward was the letter Taw. It said: “O Lord of the world! May it be Thy will to create Thy world through me, seeing that it is through me that Thou wilt give the Torah to Israel by the hand of Moses, as it is written, ‘Moses commanded us the Torah.'” The Holy One, blessed be He, made reply, and said, “No!” Taw asked, “Why not?” and God answered: “Because in days to come I shall place thee as a sign of death upon the foreheads of men.” As soon as Taw heard these words issue from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, it retired from His presence disappointed. The Shin then stepped forward, and pleaded: ” O Lord of the world, create Thy world through me, seeing that Thine own name Shaddai begins with me.” Unfortunately, it is also the first letter of Shaw, lie, and of Sheker, false­hood, and that incapacitated it. Resh had no better luck. It was pointed out that it was the initial letter of Ra’, wicked, and Rasha’, evil, and after that the distinction it enjoys of being the first letter in the Name of God, Ra·hum, the Merciful, counted for naught. The ·Kof (Qof) was rejected, be­cause ‘Kelalah, curse, outweighs the advantage of being the first in ·Kadosh, the Holy One. In vain did ‘Zadde (Tzadde) call at­tention to ‘Zaddik, the Righteous One; there was ‘Zarot, the misfortunes of Israel, to testify against it. Pe had Podeh, redeemer, to its credit, but Pesha’, transgression, reflected dishonor upon it. ‘Ain was declared unfit, because, though it begins ‘Anawah, humility, it performs the same service for ‘Erwah, immorality. Samek said: ” O Lord, may it be Thy will to begin the creation with me, for Thou art called Samek, after me, the Upholder of all that fall.” But God said: “Thou art needed in the place in which thou art; (11) thou must continue to uphold all that fall.” Nun intro­duces Ner, “the lamp of the Lord,” which is “the spirit of men,” but it also introduces Ner, “the lamp of the wicked,” which will be put out by God. Mem starts Melek, king, one of the titles of God. As it is the first letter of Mehumah, con­fusion, as well, it had no chance of accomplishing its desire. The claim of Lamed bore its refutation within itself. It ad­vanced the argument that it was the first letter of Lu’hot, the celestial tables for the Ten Commandments; it forgot that the tables were shivered in pieces by Moses. Kaf was sure of victory. Kisseh, the throne of God, Kabod, His honor, and Keter, His crown, all begin with it. God had to remind it that He would smite together His hands, Kaf, in despair over the misfortunes of Israel. Yod at first sight seemed the appropriate letter for the beginning of creation, on account of its association with Yah, God, if only Ye’zer ha-Ra’, the evil inclination, had not happened to begin with it, too. ‘Tet is identified with ‘Tob, the good. However, the truly good is not in this world; it belongs to the world to come. ‘Het (Cheth) is the first letter of ‘Hanun, the Gracious One; but this advan­tage is offset by its place in the word for sin, ‘Ha’t’tat. Zain suggests Zakor, remembrance, but it is itself the word for weapon, the doer of mischief. Waw and He compose the Ineffable Name of God; they are therefore too exalted to be pressed into the service of the mundane world. If Dalet had stood only for Dabar, the Divine Word, it would have been used, but it stands also for Din, justice, and under the rule of law without love the world would have fallen to ruin. Finally, in spite of reminding one of Gadol, great, Gimel would not do, because Gemul, retribution, starts with it. After the claims of all these letters had been disposed of, Bet stepped before the Holy One, blessed be He, and pleaded before Him: ” O Lord of the world! May it be Thy will to create Thy world through me, seeing that all the dwellers in the world give praise daily unto Thee through me, as it is said, ‘Blessed be the Lord forever. Amen, and Amen.’ ” The Holy One, blessed be He, at once granted the petition of Bet. He said, ” Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” And He created His world through Bet, as it is said, “Bereshit God created the heaven and the earth.” The only letter that had refrained from urging its claims was the modest Ale£, and God rewarded it later for its hu­mility by giving it the first place in the Decalogue. (12)
1st Day: …. Corresponding to the seven heavens, God created seven earths, each separated from the next by five layers. Over the lowest earth, the seventh, called Ere’z, lie in succession the abyss, the Tohu, the Bohu, a sea, and waters. Then the sixth earth is reached, the Adamah, the scene of the mag­nificence of God. In the same way the Adamah is separated from the fifth earth, the Ar’ka, which contains Gehenna, and Sha’are Mawet, and Sha’are ‘Zalmawet, and Beër Sha’hat. and ‘Ti’t ha-Yawen, and Abaddon, and Sheol, and there the souls of the wicked are guarded by the Angels of Destruc­tion. In the same way Ar’ka is followed by ‘Harabah, the dry, the place of brooks and streams in spite of its name, as the next, called Yabbashah, the mainland, contains the rivers and the springs. Tebel, the second earth, is the first mainland inhabited by living creatures, three hundred and sixty-five species, all essentially different from those of our own earth. Some have human heads set on the body of a lion, or a ser­pent, or an ox; others have human bodies topped by the head of one of these animals. Besides, Tebel is inhabited by human beings with two heads and four hands and feet, in fact with all their organs doubled excepting only the trunk. It happens sometimes that the parts of these double persons quarrel with each other, especially while eating and drinking, when each claim the best and largest portions for him­self. This species of mankind is distinguished for great piety, another difference between it and the inhabitants of our earth. Our own earth is called ‘Heled, and, like the others, it is, separated from the Tebel by an abyss, the Tohu, the Bohu, a sea, and waters. Thus, one earth rises above the other, from the first to the seventh, and over the seventh earth the heavens are vaulted, from the first to the seventh, the last of them attached to the arm of God. The seven heavens form a unity, the seven kinds of earth form a unity, and the heavens and the earth together also form a unity. When God made our present heavens and our present earth, ” the new heavens and the new earth “were also brought forth, yea, and the hundred and ninety-six thousand worlds which God created unto His own glory. It takes five hundred years to walk from the earth to the heavens, and from one end of a heaven to the other, and also from one heaven to the next,” and it takes the same length of time to travel from the east to the west, or from the south to the north. Of all this vast world only one ­third is inhabited, the other two-thirds being equally divided between water and waste desert land. Beyond the inhabited parts to the east is Paradise with its seven divisions, each assigned to the pious of a certain degree. The ocean is situated to the west, and it is dotted with islands upon islands, inhabited by many different peo­ples. Beyond it, in tum, are the boundless steppes full of serpents and scorpions, and destitute of every sort of vegetation, whether herbs or trees. To the north are the supplies of hell-fire, of snow, hail, smoke, ice, darkness, and wind­storms, and in that vicinity sojourn all sorts of devils, de­mons, and malign spirits. Their dwelling-place is a great stretch of land, it would take five hundred years to traverse it. Beyond lies hell. To the south is the chamber containing reserves of fire, the cave of smoke, and the forge of blasts and hurricanes. Thus, it comes that the wind blowing from the south brings heat and sultriness to the earth. Were it not for the angel Ben Ne’z, the Winged, who keeps the south wind back with his pinions, the world would be consumed. Besides, the fury of its blast is tempered by the north wind, which always appears as moderator, whatever other wind may be blowing. In the east, the west, and the south, heaven and earth touch each other, but the north God left unfinished, that arty man who announced himself as a god might be set the task of supplying the deficiency, and stand convicted as a pre­tender. The construction of the earth was begun at the centre, with the foundation stone of the Temple, the Eben Sheti­yah, for the Holy Land is at the central point of the sur­face of the earth, Jerusalem is at the central point of Pales­tine, and the Temple is situated at the centre of the Holy City. In the sanctuary itself the Hekal is the centre, and the holy Ark occupies the centre of the Hekal, built on the foundation stone, which thus is at the centre of the earth … Thence issued the first ray of light, piercing to the Holy Land, and from there illuminating the whole earth. The creation of the world, however, could not take place until God had banished the ruler of the dark. “Retire,” God said to him, “for I desire to create the world by means of light.” Only after the light had been fashioned, darkness arose, the light ruling in the sky, the darkness on the earth. The power of God displayed itself not only in the creation of the world of things, but equally in the limitations which He imposed upon each. The heavens and the earth stretched themselves out in length and breadth as though they aspired to infinitude, and it required the word of God to call a halt to their encroachments.
2nd Day: On the second day God brought forth four creations, the firmament, hell, fire, and the angels. The firmament is not the same as the heavens of the first day. It is the crystal stretched forth over the heads of the ‘Hayyot, from which the heavens derive their light, as the earth derives its light from the sun. This firmament saves the earth from being engulfed by the waters of the heavens; it forms the partition between the waters above and the waters below.” It was made to crystallize into the solid it is by the heavenly fire, which broke its bounds, and con­densed the surface of the firmament. Thus, fire made a division between the celestial and the terrestrial at the time of creation, as it did at the revelation on Mount Sinai. The firmament is not more than three fingers thick, nevertheless it divides two such heavy bodies as the waters below, which are the foundations for the nether world, and the waters above, which are the foundations for the seven heavens, the Divine Throne, and the abode of the angels….
3rd Day: …. The most important work done on the third day was the creation of Paradise …. Beyond Paradise begins Eden, containing three hundred and ten worlds and seven compartments for seven different classes of the pious. In the first are the martyr victims of the gov­ernment, like Rabbi Akiba and his colleagues; in the sec­ond those who were drowned; in the third Rabbi Johanan hen Zakkai and his disciples; in the fourth those who were carried off in the cloud of glory; in the fifth the penitents, who occupy a place which even a perfectly pious man can­not obtain; in the sixth are the youths who have not tasted of sin in their lives; in the seventh are those poor who stud­ied Bible and Mishnah, and led a life of self-respecting de­cency. And God sits in the midst of them and expounds the Torah to them….
6th Day: As the fish were formed out of water, and the birds out of boggy earth well mixed with water, so the mammals were formed out of solid earth, and as leviathan is the most notable representative of the fish kind, and ziz of the bird kind, so behemot is the most notable representative of the mammal kind. Behemot matches leviathan in strength, and he had to be prevented, like leviathan, from multiplying and increasing, else the world could not have continued to ex­ist; after God had created him male and female, He at once deprived him of the desire to propagate his kind. He is so monstrous that he requires the produce of a thousand moun­tains for his daily food. All the water that flows through the bed of the Jordan in a year suffices him exactly for one gulp. It therefore was necessary to give him one stream entirely for his own use, a stream flowing forth from Para­dise, called Yubal. Behemot, too, is destined to be served to the pious as an appetizing dainty, but before they enjoy his flesh, they will be permitted to view the mortal combat between leviathan and behemot, as a reward for having denied themselves the pleasures of the circus and its gladia­torial contests. Leviathan, ziz, and behemot are not the only monsters; there are many others, and marvellous ones, like the reëm, a giant animal, of which only one couple, male and female, is in existence. Had there been more, the world could hardly have maintained itself against them. The act of copulation occurs but once in seventy years between them, for God has so ordered it that the male and female reëm are at opposite ends of the earth, the one in the east, the other in the west. The act of copulation results in the death of the male. He is bitten by the female and dies of the bite. The female be­comes pregnant and remains in this state for no less than twelve years. At the end of this long period she gives birth to twins, a male and a female. The year preceding her de­livery she is not able to move. She would die of hunger, were it not that her own spittle flowing copiously from her mouth waters and fructifies the earth near her and causes it to bring forth enough for her maintenance. For a whole year the animal can but roll from side to side, until finally her belly bursts, and the twins issue forth. Their appearance is thus the signal for the death of the mother reëm. She makes room for the new generation, which in turn is destined to suffer the same fate as the generation that went before. Im­mediately after birth, the one goes eastward and the other westward, to meet only after the lapse of seventy years, propagate themselves, and perish. A traveler who once saw a reëm one day old described its height to be four para­sangs, and the length of its head one parasang and a half. Its horns measure one hundred ells, and their height is a great deal more. One of the most remarkable creatures is the “man of the mountain,” [Man Mountain, Mountain-Man] Adne Sadeh, or, briefly, Adam. His form is exactly that of a human being, but he is fastened to the ground by means of a navel-string, upon which his life de­pends. The cord once snapped, he dies. This animal keeps himself alive with what is produced by the soil around about him as far as his tether permits him to crawl. No creature may venture to approach within the radius of his cord, for he seizes and demolishes whatever comes in his reach. To kill him, one may not go near to him, the navel-string must be severed from a distance by means of a dart, and then he dies amid groans and moans. Once upon a time a traveler happened in the region where this animal is found. He overheard his host consult his wife as to what to do to honor their guest, and resolve to serve “our man,” as he said. Thinking he had fallen among cannibals, the stranger ran as fast as his feet could carry him from his entertainer, who sought vainly to restrain him. Afterward, he found out that there had been no in­tention of regaling him with human flesh, but only with the flesh of the strange animal called “man.” As the “man of the mountain ” is fixed to the ground by his navel-string, so the barnacle-goose is grown to a tree by its bill. It is hard to say whether it is an animal and must be slaughtered to be fit for food, or whether it is a plant and no ritual ceremony is necessary before eating it. Among the birds the phoenix is the most wonderful. When Eve gave all the animals some of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the phoenix was the only bird that refused to eat thereof, and he was rewarded with eternal life. When he has lived a thousand years, his body shrinks, and the feathers drop from it, until he is as small as an egg. This is the nucleus of the new bird. The phoenix is also called “the guardian of the terrestrial sphere.” He runs with the sun on his circuit, and he spreads out his wings and catches up the fiery rays of the sun. If he were not there to intercept them, neither man nor any other animate being would keep alive. On his right wing the following words are inscribed in huge letters, about four thousand stadia high: “Neither the earth pro­duces me, nor the heavens, but only the wings of fire.” His food consists of the manna of heaven and the dew of the earth. His excrement is a worm, whose excrement in turn is the cinnamon used by kings and princes. Enoch, who saw the phoenix birds when he was translated, describes them as flying creatures, wonderful and strange in appear­ance, with the feet and tails of lions, and the heads of croco­diles; their appearance is of a purple color like the rainbow; their size nine hundred measures. Their wings are like those of angels, each having twelve, and they attend the chariot of the sun and go with him, bringing heat and dew as they are ordered by God. In the morning when the sun starts on his daily course, the phoenixes and the chalkidri sing, and every bird flaps its wings, rejoicing the Giver of light, and they sing a song at the command of the Lord. Among reptiles the salamander and the shamir are the most marvelous. The salamander originates from a fire of myrtle wood which has been kept burning for seven years steadily by means of magic arts. Not bigger than a mouse, it yet is invested with peculiar properties. One who smears himself with its blood is invulnerable, and the web woven by it is a talisman against fire. The people who lived at the deluge boasted that, were a fire flood to come, they would protect themselves with the blood of the salamander. King Hezekiah owes his life to the salamander. His wicked father, King Ahaz, had delivered him to the fires of Moloch, and he would have been burnt, had his mother not painted him with the blood of the salamander, so that the fire could do him no harm….
II. Adam.
Man and the World: With ten Sayings God created the world, although a single Saying would have sufficed. God desired to make known how severe is the punishment to be meted out to the wicked, who destroy a world created with as many as ten Sayings, and how goodly the reward destined for the righteous, who preserve a world created with as many as ten Sayings. The world was made for man, though he was the last ­comer among its creatures. This was design. He was to find all things ready for him. God was the host who pre­pared dainty dishes, set the table, and then led His guest to his seat. At the same time man’s late appearance on earth is to convey an admonition to humility. Let him beware of being proud, lest he invite the retort that the gnat is older than he. The superiority of man to the other creatures is ap­parent in the very manner of his creation, altogether dif­ferent from theirs. He is the only one who was created by the hand of God. The rest sprang from the word of God. The body of man is a microcosm, the whole world in minia­ture, and the world in turn is a reflex of man. The hair upon his head corresponds to the woods of the earth, his tears to a river, his mouth to the ocean. Also, the world resembles the ball of his eye: the ocean that encircles the earth is like unto the white of the eye, the dry land is the iris, Jerusalem the pupil, and the Temple the image mir­rored in the pupil of the eye. But man is more than a mere image of this world. He unites both heavenly and earthly qualities within himself. In four he resembles the angels, in four the beasts. His power of speech, his discriminating intellect, his upright walk, the glance of his eye-they all make an angel of him. But, on the other hand, he eats and drinks, secretes the waste matter in his body, propagates his kind, and dies, like the beast of the field. Therefore, God said before the creation of man: “The celestials are not propagated, but they are immortal; the beings on earth are propagated, but they die. I will create man to be the union of the two, so that when he sins, when he behaves like a beast, death shall overtake him; but if he refrains from sin, he shall live forever.” God now bade all beings in heaven and on earth contribute to the creation of man, and He Himself took part in it. Thus, they all will love man, and if he should sin, they will be interested in his preservation. The whole world naturally was created for the pious, the God-fearing man, whom Israel produces with the helpful guidance of the law of God revealed to him. It was, there­fore, Israel who was taken into special consideration at the time man was made. All other creatures were instructed to change their nature, if Israel should ever need their help in the course of his history. The sea was ordered to divide before Moses, and the heavens to give ear to the words of the leader; the sun and the moon were bidden to stand still before Joshua, the ravens to feed Elijah, the fire to spare the three youths in the furnace, the lion to do no harm to Daniel, the fish to spew forth Jonah, and the heavens to open before Ezekiel.” In His modesty, God took counsel with the angels, before the creation of the world, regarding His intention of making man. He said: “For the sake of Israel, I will create the world. As I shall make a division between light and dark­ness, so I will in time to come do for Israel in Egypt—darkness shall be over the land, and the children of Israel shall have light in their dwellings; as I shall make a separa­tion between the waters under the firmament and the waters above the firmament, so I will do for Israel—I will divide the waters for him when he crosses the Red Sea; as on the third day I shall create plants, so I will do for Israel—I will bring forth manna for him in the wilderness; as I shall create luminaries to divide day from night, so I will do for Israel—I will go before him by day in a pillar of cloud and by night in a pillar of fire; as I shall create the fowl of the air and the fishes of the sea, so I will do for Israel—I will bring quails for him from the sea ; and as I shall breathe the breath of life into the nostrils of man, so I will do for Israel—I will give the Torah unto him, the tree of life.” The angels marveled that so much love should be lav­ished upon this people of Israel, and God told them: “On the first day of creation, I shall make the heavens and stretch them out; so, will Israel raise up the Tabernacle as the dwelling-place of My glory. On the second day, I shall put a division between the terrestrial waters and the heavenly waters; so, will he hang up a veil in the Tabernacle to divide the Holy Place and the Most Holy. On the third day, I shall make the earth put forth grass and herb; so, will he, in obedience to My commands, eat herbs on the first night of the Passover, and prepare showbread for Me. On the fourth day, I shall make the luminaries; so, will he make a golden candlestick for Me. On the fifth day, I shall create the birds; so, will he fashion the cherubim with outstretched wings. On the sixth day, I shall create man; so, will Israel set aside a man of the sons of Aaron as high priest for My service.” Accordingly, the whole of creation was conditional. God said to the things He made on the first six days: “If Israel accepts the Torah, you will continue and endure; otherwise, I shall turn everything back into chaos again.” The whole world was thus kept in suspense and dread until the day of the revelation on Sinai, when Israel received and accepted the Torah, and so fulfilled the condition made by God at the time when He created the universe.
The Angels and the Creation of Man: God in His wisdom having resolved to create man, He asked counsel of all around Him before He proceeded to execute His purpose—an example to man, be he never so great and distinguished, not to scorn the advice of the humble and lowly. First God called upon heaven and earth, then upon all other things He had created, and last upon the angels. The angels were not all of one opinion. The Angel of Love favored the creation of man, because he would be affectionate and loving; but the Angel of Truth opposed it because he would be full of lies. And while the Angel of Justice favored it, because he would practice justice, the Angel of Peace opposed it, because he would be quarrelsome. To invalidate his protest, God cast the Angel of Truth down from heaven to earth, and when the others cried out against such contemptuous treatment of their companion, He said, “Truth will spring back out of the earth.” The objections of the angels would have been much stronger, had they known the whole truth about man. God had told them only about the pious and had concealed from them that there would be reprobates among mankind, too. And yet, though they knew but half the truth, the angels were nevertheless prompted to cry out: “What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that Thou visitest him? ” God replied: “The fowl of the air and the fish of the sea, what were they created for? Of what avail a larder full of appetizing dainties, and no guest to enjoy them? “And the angels could not but exclaim: ” O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is Thy name in all the earth! Do as is pleasing in Thy sight.” For not a few of the angels their opposition bore fatal consequences. When God summoned the band under the archangel Michael, and asked their opinion on the creation of man, they answered scornfully: ” What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that Thou visitest him? “God thereupon stretched forth His little finger, and all were consumed by fire except their chief Michael. And the same fate befell the band under the lead­ership of the archangel Gabriel; he alone of all was saved from destruction. The third band consulted was commanded by the arch­angel Labbiel. Taught by the horrible fate of his prede­cessors, he warned his troop: “You have seen what mis­fortune overtook the angels who said, ‘What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? ‘Let us have a care not to do likewise, lest we suffer the same dire punishment. For God will not refrain from doing in the end what He has planned. Therefore, it is advisable for us to yield to His wishes. ”Thus warned, the angels spoke: ” Lord of the world, it is well that Thou hast thought of creating man. Do Thou create him according to Thy will? And as for us, we will be his attendants and his ministers, and reveal unto him all our secrets. ”Thereupon God changed Labbiel’s name to Raphael, the Rescuer, because his host of angels had been rescued by his sage advice. He was appointed the Angel of Healing, who has in his safe-keeping all the celestial remedies, the types of the medical remedies used on earth.”
The Creation of Adam: When at last the assent of the angels to the creation of man was given, God said to Gabriel: “Go and fetch Me dust from the four corners of the earth, and I will create man therewith. “Gabriel went forth to do the bidding of the Lord, but the earth drove him away, and refused to let him gather up dust from it. Gabriel remonstrated: “Why, O Earth, dost thou not hearken unto the voice of the Lord, who founded thee upon the waters without props or pil­lars? “The earth replied and said: “I am destined to become a curse, and to be cursed through man, and if God Himself does not take the dust from me, no one else shall ever do it. “When God heard this, He stretched out His hand, took of the dust of the ground, and created the first man therewith.” Of set purpose the dust was taken from all four comers of the earth, so that if a man from the east should happen to die in the west, or a man from the west in the east, the earth should not dare refuse to receive the dead and tell him to go whence he was taken. Wherever a man chances to die, and wheresoever he is buried, there will he return to the earth from which he sprang. Also, the dust was of various colors-red, black, white, and green—red for the blood, black for the bowels, white for the bones and veins, and green for the pale skin. At this early moment the Torah interfered. She addressed herself to God: ” O Lord of the world! The world is Thine, Thou canst do with it as seemeth good in Thine eyes. But the man Thou art now creating will be few of days and full of trouble and sin. If it be not Thy purpose to have forbearance and patience with him, it was better not to call him into being. God replied, “Is it for naught I am called long-suffering and merciful?” The grace and lovingkindness of God revealed themselves particularly in His taking one spoonful of dust from the spot where in time to come the altar would stand, saying, “I shall take man from the place of atonement, that he may endure.”
The Soul of Man: The care which God exercised in fashioning every detail of the body of man is as naught in comparison with solicitude for the human soul. The soul of man was created on the first day, for it is the spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters. Thus, instead of being the last, man is really the first work of creation. This spirit, or, to call it by its usual name, the soul of man, possesses five different powers. By means of one of them she escapes from the body every night, rises up to heaven, and fetches new life thence for man. With the soul of Adam, the souls of all the generations of men were created. They are stored up in a promptuary, in the seventh of the heavens, whence they are drawn as they are needed for human body after human body.” The soul and body are united in this way:”……..
The Ideal Man: Like all creatures formed on the six days of creation, Adam came from the hands of the Creator fully and com­pletely developed. He was not like a child, but like a man of twenty years of age. The dimensions of his body were gigantic, reaching from heaven to earth, or, what amounts to the same, from east to west. Among later generations of men, there were but few who in a measure resembled Adam in his extraordinary size and physical perfections. Samson possessed his strength, Saul his neck, Absalom his hair, Asahel his fleetness of foot, Uzziah his forehead, Josiah his nostrils, Zedekiah his eyes, and Zerubbabel his voice. History shows that these physical excellencies were no bless­ings to many of their possessors; they invited the ruin of almost all. Samson’s extraordinary strength caused his death; Saul killed himself by cutting his neck with his own sword; while speeding swiftly, Asahel was pierced by Abner’s spear; Absalom was caught up by his hair in an oak, and thus suspended met his death; Uzziah was smitten with leprosy upon his forehead; the darts that killed Josiah entered through his nostrils, and Zedekiah’s eyes were blinded. The generality of men inherited as little of the beauty as of the portentous size of their first father. The fairest women compared with Sarah are as apes compared with a human being. Sarah’s relation to Eve is the same, and, again, Eve was but as an ape compared with Adam. His person was so handsome that the very sole of his foot ob­scured the splendor of the sun. His spiritual qualities kept pace with his personal charm, for God had fashioned his soul with particular care. She is the image of God, and as God fills the world, so the soul fills the human body; as God sees all things, and is seen by none, so the soul sees, but cannot be seen; as God guides the world, so the soul guides the body; as God in His holiness is pure, so is the soul; and as God dwells in secret, so doth the soul. When God was about to put a soul into Adam’s clod-like body, He said: “At which point shall I breathe the soul into him? Into the mouth? Nay, for he will use it to speak ill of his fellow-man. Into the eyes? With them he will wink lustfully. Into the ears? They will hearken to slander and blasphemy. I will breathe her into his nostrils; as they discern the unclean and reject it, and take in the fragrant, so the pious will shun sin, and will cleave to the words of the Torah……..

Also, a sample from the Soncino’s Midrash Rabbah on Bereshith-Genesis, vol. 1, edited by Freedman, 1939:
Midrash Rabbah Bereshith-Genesis Chapter 1:
1. R. Oshaya commenced [his exposition thus]: Then I was by Him, as a nursling (amon) ; and I was daily all delight (Prov. viii, 30). ‘Amon’ means tutor; ‘amon’ means covered; ‘amon’ means hidden 1; and some say, ‘amon’ means great. ‘Amon’ is a tutor, as you read, As an omen
(nursing-father) carrieth the sucking child (Num. xi, 12). ‘Amon’ means covered, as in the verse, Ha’emunim (they that were clad i.e. covered) in scarlet (Lam. iv, 5). ‘Amon’ means hidden, as in the verse, and he concealed (omen) 2 Hadassah (Est. ii, 7). ‘Amon’ means great, as in the verse, Art thou better than No-amon (Nah. iii, 8)? which is rendered, Art thou better than Alexandria the Great, that is situate among the rivers? 3 Another interpretation: ‘amon’ is a workman (uman). The Torah declares: ‘I was the working tool of the Holy One, blessed be He/ In human practice, when a mortal king builds a palace, he builds it not with his own skill but with the skill of an architect. The architect moreover does not build it out of his head but employs plans and diagrams to know how to arrange the chambers and the wicket doors. Thus, God consulted the Torah and created the world, while the Torah declares, IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED (I, 1), BEGINNING referring to the Torah, as in the verse, The Lord made me as the beginning of His way (Prov. viii, 22). 4
(1 The speaker is the Torah (Wisdom) personified, referring to the pre-Creation era. The Torah was with God as with a tutor, reared, as it were, by the Almighty (this is similar to E.V.); it was also covered up and hidden. This may mean that the laws of the Torah were unknown until the Revelation at Sinai, while some of them remained ‘hidden’ even then, i.e. their reasons are not known. 2 E.V. ‘brought up’. The Midrash understands it to mean that Mordecai concealed her from the public gaze. 3 Translation of the second half of the verse. 4 Here too the speaker is the Torah. Thus, the verse is translated: By means of the ‘beginning’, sc. the Torah, God created, etc.)

Midrash Rabbah Bereshith-Genesis Chapter 2:
AND THE DARKNESS HE CALLED NIGHT, Esau; AND THERE WAS EVENING Esau; AND THERE WAS MORNING, Jacob. ONE DAY [teaches] that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him one [unique] day: and which is that? the Day of Atonement.1
4. R. Simeon b. Lakish applied the passage to the [foreign] Powers. NOWTHE EARTH WAS TOHU (E.V. ‘UNFORMED’) symbolises Babylonia: I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was tohu E.V. ‘waste’ (Jer. iv, 23) 2; AND BOHU (E.V. ‘VOID’) symbolises Media: They hastened (wa-yabhillu) to bring Haman (Est. vi, 14). 3 AND DARKNESS symbolizes Greece, which darkened the eyes of Israel with its decrees, ordering Israel, ‘Write on the horn of an ox that ye have no portion in the God of Israel/ 4 UPON THE FACE OF THE DEEP —this wicked State 5: just as the great deep cannot be plumbed, so one cannot plumb [the depths of iniquity of] this wicked State. AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD HOVERED: this alludes to the spirit of Messiah, as you read, And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him (Isa. xi, 2). In the merit of what will [this spirit] eventually come? [For the sake of that which] HOVERED OVER THE FACE OF THE WATERS, i.e. in the merit of repentance which is likened to water, as it is written, Pour out thy heart like water (Lam, ii, 19). R. Haggai said in the name of R. Pedath: A covenant was made with water6 that even in the hot season a breeze stirs over it. 7
(1 I.e. it is the one day over which Satan, symbolizing the wickedness of Esau, has no power; cf. infra, iii, 8. 2 Jeremiah refers to the desolation wrought by the conquering might of Babylonia, Tobu and bohu are applied to Babylonia and Media (Persia) respectively in the sense that they caused chaos and destruction. 8 This happened in Media, and wa-yabhillu is linked up with ‘bohu’. Or possibly wa-yabhillu is read: wayabo bohu lo, and they brought desolation to him. Mah. 4 The reference is to Antiochus who endeavoured to annihilate Judaism and implant Hellenism in its stead; ‘write on the horn of an ox’ probably implies a public disavowal of Judaism. 5 Pesik. R.: to the wicked State of Edom i.e. Rome. 6 I.e. it is the eternal nature of water. 7 He translates ‘ruah’ literally, wind, and also stresses the present tense of merahefeth) lit. ‘hovers’; thus, the verse means that at all times a breeze, caused by God, stirs over the waters.)

(From: Internet Sacred Text Archive’s selections from Midrash Rabbah):
It is forbidden to inquire what existed before creation, as Moses distinctly tells us (Deut. iv. 32): “Ask now of the days that are past which were before thee, since the day God created man upon earth.” Thus, the scope of inquiry is limited to the time since the Creation.
The unity of God is at once set before us in the history of creation, where we are told he, not they, created.
The Torah was to God, when he created the world, what the plan is to an architect when he erects a building.
The aleph, being the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, demurred at her place being usurped by the letter beth, which is second to her, at the creation; the history of which commences with the latter, instead of with the former. She was, however, quite satisfied when told that, in the history of giving the Decalogue, she would be placed at the beginning, for the world has only been created on account of the Torah, which, indeed, existed anterior to creation; and had the Creator not foreseen that Israel would consent to receive and diffuse the Torah, creation would not have taken place.
There is a difference of opinion as to the day on which angels were created; one authority decides for the second day, on the ground that they are mentioned in connection with water (Ps. civ. 3, 4), which was created on that day; while another, arguing from the fact that they are said to fly (Isa. vi.), assigns their creation to the fifth day, on which all other flying things were created. But all authorities are agreed that they did not exist on the first day of creation, so that skeptics cannot say that they were helpers in the work of creation.
The title of an earthly king precedes his name, for instance, Emperor Augustus, etc. Not so was the will of the King of kings; He is only known as God after creating heaven and earth. Thus, it is not said, “God created,” but “In the beginning created God heavens and earth”; He is not mentioned as God before he created.
Even the new heavens and earth, spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah (lxv. 17), were created in the six days of creation.
When any divergence is found in the Scriptures it must not be thought that it is by mere accident, for it is done advisedly. Thus, for instance, we invariably find Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; but once, as an exception, Jacob is mentioned before the other patriarchs (Lev. xxvi. 42). Again, whilst Moses has always precedence over Aaron, in one instance we find Aaron’s name placed before that of Moses (Exod. vi. 26). This is also the case with Joshua and Caleb; whilst the former normally precedes the name of Caleb, there is one exception (Numb. xiv. 30).
This is to show us that these men were equally beloved by God. The same is the case with the love and honor due to parents; whilst the father is as a rule mentioned first in this connection, once (in Lev. xix. 3) the mother is mentioned before the father. This is also intended to indicate that children owe the same love and honor to the mother as to the father.
The man that gloats over another man’s disgrace and thinks himself raised in dignity by it, is unworthy of future bliss.
Light is mentioned five times in the opening chapter of the Bible. This points to the five books of Moses. “God said, let there be light,” refers to the book of Genesis, which enlightens us as to how creation was carried out. The words, “And there was light,” bear reference to the book of Exodus, which contains the history of the transition of Israel from darkness to light. “And God saw the light that it was good”: this alludes to the book of Leviticus, which contains numerous statutes. “And God divided between the light and between the darkness”: this refers to the book of Numbers, divided as that book is between the history of those who came out of Egypt and that of those who were on their way to possess the promised land. “And God called the light day”: this bears reference to the book of Deuteronomy, which is not only a rehearsal of the four earlier books but contains Moses’s eloquent dying charge to Israel and many laws not mentioned in the preceding books.
“And the earth was without form and void.” There seems to be some reason for the earth’s despondency, as though she was aware of her lot beforehand. This may be illustrated by the following parable: A king acquired two servants on precisely the same conditions but made a distinction in their treatment. Regarding the one, he decreed that she should be fed and maintained at the expense of the king. For the other, he decided that she must maintain herself by her own labor. In the same way, the earth was sad because she saw that the heavens and the earth were equally and at the same time called into being by the same “let there be,” or will of God, and yet the heavenly bodies feast on: and are maintained by divine glory; whilst earthly bodies, unless they labor and produce their own sustenance, are not sustained. Or, again, it is as though the king decreed that the one servant should be a constant dweller in his palace, whilst the other should be a fugitive and a wanderer; or gave to the one perpetuity or eternity, and to the other, death. Thus, the earth knowing–as though by inspiration–God’s words spoken afterward to Adam (Gen. iii. 17): “Cursed is the ground for thy sake,” put on mourning, and thus was “without form and void.”
In the words, “And there was evening and there was morning one day,” the “one day” referred to is the Day of Atonement–the day of expiation.
There seems to be a covenant made with the waters that whenever the heat is excessive and there is scarcely a breath of air moving on land, there is always some breeze, however slight, on the waters.
God knew beforehand that the world would contain both righteous and wicked men, and there is an allusion to this in the story of creation. “The earth without form,” means the wicked, and the words, “and there was light,” refers to the righteous.
Other worlds were created and destroyed ere this present one was decided on as a permanent one.
Rain is produced by the condensed effusion of the upper firmament.
“How is it,” asked an inquisitive matron of Rabbi José, “that your Scriptures crown every day of creation with the words: ‘And God saw that it was good,’ but the second day is deprived of this phrase?” The Rabbi sought to satisfy her by pointing out that at the end of the creation it is said: “And God saw all that he had made, and it was exceedingly good,” so that the second day shares in this commendation. “But,” insisted the matron, “there is still an unequal division, since every day has an additional sixth part of the praise, whilst the second day has only the sixth part without the whole one, which the others have for themselves.” The sage then mentioned the opinion of Rabbi Samuel, that the reason for the omission is to be found in the fact that the work begun on the second day was not finished before the following (the third) day; hence we find the expression “it was good” twice on that day.
Three were accused: Adam, Eve, and the Serpent; but four were sentenced, viz., the earth, as well as those three. The earth received her sentence as the element out of which rebellious and fallen man was formed.
The waters of the various seas are apparently the same, but the different taste of the fish coming from the various seas seems to contradict this.
God made a condition with Nature at the creation, that the sea should divide to let the Israelites pass through it at the Exodus, and that Nature should alter her course when emergency should arise.
When iron was found the trees began to tremble, but the iron reassured them: “Let no handle made from you enter into anything made from me, and I shall be powerless to injure you.”
The following are God’s presents, or free gifts, to the world: The Torah (Exod. xxxi. 18), light (Gen. i. 17), Rain (Lev. xxvi. 4), Peace (Lev. xxvi. 6), Salvation (Ps. xviii. 36), Mercy (Ps. cvi. 46). Some add also the knowledge of navigation.
When creation was all but ended, the world with all its grandeur and splendor stood out in its glorious beauty. There was but one thing wanting to consummate the marvelous work called into existence by the mere “let there be,” and that was a creature with thought and understanding able to behold, reflect, and marvel on this great handiwork of God, who now sat on his divine throne surrounded by hosts of angels and seraphim singing hymns before him.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our likeness, and let there be a creature not only the product of earth, but also gifted with heavenly, spiritual elements, which will bestow on him reason, intellect, and understanding.” Truth then appeared, falling before God’s throne, and in all humility exclaimed: “Deign, O God, to refrain from calling into being a creature who is beset with the vice of lying, who will tread truth under his feet.” Peace came forth to support this petition. “Wherefore, O lord, shall this creature appear on earth, a creature so full of strife and contention, to disturb the peace and harmony of thy creation? He will carry the flame of quarrel and ill-will in his trail; he will bring about war and destruction in his eagerness for gain and conquest.”
Whilst they were pleading against the creation of man, there was heard, arising from another part of the heavens, the soft voice of Charity: “Sovereign of the universe.” the voice exclaimed, in all its mildness, “vouchsafe thou to create a being in thy, likeness, for it will be a noble creature striving to imitate thy attributes by its actions. I see man now in Spirit, that being with God’s breath in his nostrils, seeking to perform his great mission, to do his noble work. I see him now in spirit, approaching the humble hut, seeking out those who are distressed and wretched to comfort them, drying the tears of the afflicted and despondent, raising up them that are bowed down in spirit, reaching his helping hand to those who are in need of help, speaking peace to the heart of the widow, and giving shelter to the fatherless. Such a creature cannot fail to be a glory to his Maker.” The Creator approved of the pleadings of Charity, called man into being, and cast Truth down to the earth to flourish there; as the Psalmist says (Ps. lxxxv. 12): “Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven to abide with man”; and he dignified Truth by making her his own seal.
The sun alone without the moon would have sufficed for all his purpose, but if he were alone the primitive people might have had some plausible excuse for worshiping him. So, the moon was added, and there is less reason for deifying either.
The progeny of man is reckoned from his father’s and not from his mother’s family.
“Let us make man.” God may be said to address the spiritual and the material elements thus: “Till now all creatures have been of matter only; now I will create a being who shall consist of both matter and spirit.”
“In our form, in our likeness.” “Hitherto there was but one such creature; I have now added to him another who was taken from him. They shall both be in our form and likeness; there shall be no man without a woman and no woman without a man, and no man and woman together without God.” Thus, in the words AISH VASHH (“man and woman”) there is the word IH (God).
If they are unworthy the I from the word AISH and the H from VASHH is taken away, and thus IH, God, departs and there are left the words ASH VASH = “fire and fire.”
Adam was created with two bodies, one of which was cut away from him and formed Eve.
If man had been created out of spiritual elements only there could be no death for him, in the event of his fall. If, on the other hand, he had been created out of matter only, there could be no future bliss for him. Hence, he was formed out of matter and spirit. If he lives the earthly, i.e., the animal life only, he dies like all matter; if he lives a spiritual life he obtains the spiritual future bliss.
Michael and Gabriel acted as “best men” at the nuptials of Adam and Eve. God joined them in wedlock and pronounced the marriage-benediction on them.
Rabbi Meier wrote a scroll for his own use, on the margin of which he wrote, in connection with the words: “And God saw that it was good.” “This means death, which is the passing from life transitory to life everlasting.”
God knows our thoughts before they are formed.
There is a limit to everything except to the greatness and depth of the Torah.


Posted in Bible Reflections, Christian Reflections, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment


     This year of 2018 will be my desire to share in 12 monthly parts my Reflections on the Bible. This first post is an Introduction to the whole, and to be followed monthly the Ten Parts, and a Conclusion at the end. Its been a long and precarious desire and plan over many years and several attempts. My hope and prayer is that others may find some light in the Reflections in the quest for truth and understanding as it is found in the Bible as God’s Word. I have reposted the Introduction along with the Genesis chapters 1-10, with minor additions and corrections. Since the blog pages are not designed for too many words and pages I will post them in increments or parts, about 10-20 pages at a time.


                                                      CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL REFLECTIONS


I am a Christian, now approaching 50 years in Christ, and now in my 65th year. I was 17 when a friend preached Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as Lord and Savior to me and I turned and believed and received new life in God. This conversion and rebirth immediately started me on a life long journey towards God and heaven, to good and better things, and continues still. My earliest memories of a desire to know God was when I was 11 in Sunday School, and reading a few pages of the Bible here and there, but without any understanding or deep impression. Then when I was 13 in a Jewish foster home in Los Angeles in southern California, I read Max Dimont’s “Jews, God, and History”, I asked serious searching questions of being, life and eternity; and I even desired to be a preacher. The Bible became my companion, and it was ‘guide to my feet and light to my path’. Along the way this Christian life involved me with many Protestant Churches, also with the Catholics and Orthodox, and the non-orthodox or heretical groups. Although my maternal grandfather was a Buddhist, being Chinese, yet I have no recollections of his Buddhism up to my 9th year; but my maternal grandmother, non-Chinese, was of some religious persuasion, 7th Day Adventist and perhaps of other Protestant persuasion, and there are faint memories in my mind. The Jewish faith of course I considered seriously from my 13th to 15th year, but rejected it, and soon religion and God. After my conversion I found myself always interacting with various religious adherents. I have had to consider and research Hinduism and Buddhism, and the Chinese doctrines of religion and philosophy; at least those represented in Max Mueller’s “Sacred Books of the East”. I have always continued to reflect on Islam and the Quran. Thus as a Christian, (and a Cobbler for some 45 years) after so many years with God’s Christ and His Book the Bible, I wish to share the fruit and result of my journey for others to benefit or at least consider and reflect for themselves.

The Bible is the Holy Book for Christians, it is the Holy Bible, the Sacred Scriptures, the Divine and Inspired Writings, and in a word the Word of God. Among Christians the Bible is a Library of many books and letters, in two parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament. It contains 39 Books in the Old and 27 in the New; the Old Testament or Covenant was in the original Hebrew and some Aramaic (Chaldean or Syriac). The New Testament or Covenant was originally in Greek. The Old Testament is called by the Hebrews or Jews, Israelites, the TaNaKh for the 3 parts it contains of the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nebhiim), and the Writings (Khethubhim); they also call the Old Testament the Mikra, the Bible, the Scriptures and the Book or Scroll. The TaNak contains the 39 Books of the Christians but are arranged and numbered as 24 Books. Among the Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox Churches there are several Books or Additions that are called Deuterocanonical Books which were found in the LXX, Septuagint (70), Greek translation or version, which were treasured by Christians and preserved in the Canon, and then transmitted in the Latin (Jerome’s Vulgate) and Syriac (Peshitta), but rejected or abandoned by the Jews. Many of the versions of the early Reformation had the added Books, called the Apocryphal Books, in the Volume, but within a few centuries most Protestants also have excluded the Apocrypha from being bound and printed in the same volume of the official or authorized Canon or Inspired Books. The Catholics still print and use the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon.
The Bible as a Divine Library is a collection of many books, writings, of history, laws, chronologies, prophecies, biographies, poetry, sermons, and many other literary pieces. There were many writers or authors, scribes and prophets, apostles and teachers who were instrumental in the production and creation of the Sacred Volume. The Bible has come down to us in the Church and the Churches with many changes in form and dress, both the Text and the Edition have gone through many variations and alterations, some minor and others not, some orthodox and others heretical. Those who study these things in Biblical Criticism have constantly and regularly informed us of the many elements of the transmission of the Bible throughout the centuries. There are now hundreds and thousands of translations and versions of the Bible in hundreds of languages around the world. The original tongue of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, with comparison to the ancient versions and the earliest modern versions will always help keep the more modern versions harnessed or bridled. The Bible is printed in many editions for reading, study, audio, and the like.

The Bible is a Mirror which reflects man in our human nature in relations to our divine nature. The Bible as God’s Word by the inspiration and operation of the Holy Spirit is Light that illumines our darkness as it enlightens our minds and hearts by its effects in our souls and spirits. Reflections are thoughts and views of understanding and interpretations in various ways and considerations. Biblical Reflections are those words and writings which help us hear and see the Bible as God’s Revelation and Communication to mankind as He has chosen to entertain us as His creatures and creation. The Bible is the Source and Resource of all our spiritual perceptions, and the Root and Core of all conceptions of eternal and divine things. Not the mere letter of Scripture, or the grammar of inspired writings, but what comes from God by His Spirit, and what is used by that same Spirit to help and guide us in the intended aim and goal of God, namely, to transform us to His image and likeness in all things. I am speaking here as a Christian who has occupied himself with the Holy Bible since 1969, and who with so many other Bible believers and lovers depend on the Book to lead us to life eternal in the Lord Jesus Christ according to the promises of God the Father.
Christian Biblical Reflections is filled with the treasury of Christians and others, who in writings or ministry have shared their great deposits of spiritual things to us all. In my own exploration of the Bible I have found help and insight in so many sources in as varied resources as may be found. Standard reference works of dictionaries and lexicons, commentaries and hermeneutical works, in essays and articles, in English original works and many more translated from other languages, and of course what little my skill in understanding those in other tongues. I never pursued or attained to professional scholarship or expertise in any specified Biblical Studies but have aimed to consult and benefit from those scholars which have contributed to various fields of study. In this regard it may be proper to lay before the reader those writings and works which have influenced my pursuit. In the Missionary Baptist Seminary (CMBI) I was introduced to basic and traditional study tools, including the Bible Languages of Hebrew and Greek, and to Baptist writers such as J.R. Graves, Ben M. Bogard, A.T. Robertson, and dozens of others. In the wider Christian world of scholarship or literature I was directed to scholars like: Bullinger, Darby, Schofield, Schaff, Edersheim, Ginsburg, Tregelles, Gesenius, Alford, Kalisch, Larkins, Rotherdam, Dake, and a host of others. Church History and the Church Fathers of the first seven centuries were emphasized. In time I continued to widen my knowledge of some of these writers and added many more as my interest grew as in the Bible commentators as Meyer, Delitzsch, and rabbinical or Jewish writers. In my studies I began from the first and the earliest to read the Bible daily, and to study it in English, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, with comparison of the text in Spanish, German, French, Italian, and later added a few more languages as I had time. This habit of reading continued to the present, now some 48 years, save over the past 30 years I slowly and regularly turned to audios in tapes, CDs, and mp3, or audio books as Audible and LibriVox to maintain a high repetition of going through the Bible some 200 times. As I got older, and my health more restricted I turned from the printed books and pages to the digital books and pages. I never intended to pursue such a strict and obsessive quest of learning, and in fact I on several occasions over the many years resisted and obstructed my own path and interest, which included getting rid of my library and starting over at least 5 times. Though my desire to know and learn, to explore and discover, to consider and reflect never abated or changed, I still found myself at odds with myself as a student and scholar. Even now it this last book I have now three times started and stopped, changed and altered both the way and content of this work.
The Text of the Bible in English has been AKJV of 1611 and its various revisions, especially ASV of 1910, and the NASB of the Lockman Foundation. I have, and use, or consulted many other editions and versions. The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament I follow is mostly the Massoretic edition, and I use the Biblia Hebraica in several editions from 1900s to the present; and of course, the Jewish editions of Koren and Messorah ArtScroll publishers. The Greek Text of the New Testament I follow in the Byzantine tradition but not shunning the other textual traditions. I suppose I use most often the Nestle-Aland edition. For the Greek LXX I use Rahlf’s, and the Greek Orthodox Byzantine editions. (I here add, that when I was a young Christian, I think 1971, I had a Bookbinder rebound my Hebrew Kittel’s and Greek Nestle-Aland together as one volume. In 1975 I sold most of my library, this volume was hard to part with, as well as a 5 volume Polyglot Bible set, which left me with saddened memories for years. But God cheered my heart of late when I procured the new printed edition of The Complete Hebrew-Greek Bible of the Hendrickson Publishers, ©2001, -08, 2017. The digital Polyglot Bible of Stier & Thiele I located a decade ago on Google Books and Internet Archives, along with several other valuable Polyglot Bibles, which may be found also under mjmselim or mikemjmselim pages and uploads or bookmarks at The Latin Vulgate editions is that of the Protestants and Catholics. I consult various Study Bibles or special editions that have become popular as Bullinger’s Companion Bible, Darby’s Translations and his Greek New Testament, Knoch’s Concordant Greek New Testament, the Jerusalem or Jerome Bible, the Recovery Version of the Living Stream, the NET Bible, and such like. And a final note or notice of digital tools and programs, which I availed myself as needs arose; and though I use many very good programs and software as Bible Helps, I must here acknowledge my dependence above all to the digital texts of Bibloi 8 (formerly Bible Windows 7) as my favorite and daily utility, and the others, both Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, as secondary, whether as computer software or internet resources. (In review of my Bible Reflections, I treated 8 Study & Reference Bibles in detail: 1. Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible: 2. Darby’s Synopsis of the Books of Bible: 2. Variorum Bibles of Cross-References and Scholarly Notes with Study Aids: 4. Bullinger’s Companion Bible. 4. Scofield’s Reference Bible: 5. Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible: 6. Jerusalem Bible: (French and English) a Roman Catholic Study Bible: 7. Lee’s Living Stream Recovery Version Bible: 8. NET Bible: (New English Translation) of and
The Bible is the Book of God symbolized by the Hands of God. The Two Hands are the Old and New Testaments. The One Hand has 5 Fingers or Key Books, and the Other Hand has 5 Fingers or Key Books. The Hands viewed from the front or palms reads from the Right to the Left but viewed from the reverse with palms down they are read in relations and correspondence. The 5 Fingers consist of a Thumb and 4 Fingers of different sizes, and the Two Hands each have like form and features to answer each other. The Thumb is the Great Finger, and the Two Thumbs are the Two Books that Begin and End the Book. When the Bible is read from historically it begins with Genesis and ends with Revelation. The 8 Books or Fingers are determined by the Two Great Thumbs or Fingers. As the Fingers of the Hands are of different sizes, so too, the Books are of different key or core values as to the Great Thumbs or Genesis and Revelation. When the Hands are held together with the palms facing downwards or outwards or forwards, the Two Thumbs touch each other; thus, Genesis and Revelation are side by side and the entire Bible is complete in this view dispensationally and relationally. If we cannot see the uniqueness and greatness of the Thumbs we will not be able to rightly or properly or wisely to assign and determine the other Key Books. The Key Books are the essential Books by which the Bible unfolds properly and clearly, which is symbolized by the Hands and Fingers. The Five Books of the Old Testament are: Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, and Daniel. The Five Books of the New Testament are: John, Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews, and Revelation. When the Hands are closed together as in Prayer, where each finger touches the matching fingers we have the relations and correspondence. Each Key Book is connected to those other Books in relations to God’s purpose and revelation as it is made known in the Volume and Text. When the Hands are held in different forms as Fists, or interlocked, or one covering the other, the symbol and relationship changes accordingly, and thus are views and interpretations are altered in those ways likewise. My reflections of the Bible will attempt to survey and display the Word of God as I have been led and influenced to see and understand in this Manual Form and Divine Symbol.
Within the Reflections of the Bible in Two Testaments or Covenants as the Hands of God and Word of God we will relate the Genesis or Generation with the Revelation not only as in the Ten Parts but will also view the whole in the figure of the Lampstand or Candlestick or Menorah. As with the Ten Words of the Decalogue on Two Tables, each Table contains 5 Words or Commands or Laws, so too the Bible. As in mathematics (and we may say in many primitive signs of expressions or communication, simple marks, dots, strokes, knots, notches, and wedges (as in Cuneiform writing or script), and our fingers) in the Roman Numeral signs of I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X, each having their own distinct symbol or character, so too the Bible Books. The V and the double V or X, like the Thumbs of the Hands, govern the other four numbers of each set. In like manner the Menorah of the Tabernacle reflects and relates to the Creation Week of the Seven Days, and these in turn symbolically and parabolically, in a dispensational way, picture the Divine Outline of the Divine Word as it is in the Bible. Further the Seven Dispensations or Lamps or Lights are governed in Three Dispensations or Streams of Creation and Judgment and Salvation, with Three Properties or Kingdom or Lots or Estates of the Land or Place, of the Man or People, and of the Book or Scroll or the Word as the Seed. With these many other details and elements will surface as we explore and research the Bible. (A note to my previous writings of Reflections, Christian Reflections, and Bible Reflections, which are not now consciously followed in this work; rather I have allowed the changes of my views and doctrine to surface and flow as they will. I have decided not to shun my prior labor and publishing of my understanding as a Christian, but to freely incorporate from those writings whatever might be useful and true that applies to this endeavor and ministry of the word. And though I have no plans to commercialize my work as the author (neither have I ever copyrighted any of my writings for the past 40 years; but I do not despise or resent those authors and publishers who do so, it is their right), since it was never pursued for monetary reasons, I therefore release and publish it as common and public domain, leaving it to God and everyone’s own conscience to use it without plagiarism or misrepresentations. (mjm, also pseudonym, mjmselim.)


                                                                         CHAPTER I

GENESIS: 1-2: Creation Week
The Bible begins with Genesis relating and reporting that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” These Ten Words in our English Bible (AKJV, etc) reveal to us the Creation and the Creator. In the Hebrew Bible the Jews call this book Bereshith (Bereseis) after the first word of the first verse: “Bereshith bara Elohim eth hashammayim weth haaretz,” which are seven words which extend to 11 words or elements. Our knowledge of the authorship of the Book of Genesis comes to us from the Christian and Jewish tradition, which we see attested to in the Bible as we read in later books. The testimony of Scripture is that Moses wrote or authored Five Books, which the Greeks called the Pentateuch which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Genesis never records Moses authorship, or anything of Moses personally, which first comes to our attention in Exodus. What we read in Genesis is the origin of the world from its creation to the Israelites migrating to and residing in Egypt. This story of Creation and the Hebrew People or Nation of Israel is one connected whole, or a continuum and connectivity, that is, interconnected and related to each person, place, and thing. The Mosaic authorship is suppressed to magnify the Divine Author, Who reveals His Version and Story of the Divine Origins and History of His Creation, Judgment, and Salvation. How do we know this? The first two verses of Genesis reveal this to us, which after revealing the Creation, it says: “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.” We see besides creation the condition or state of imperfection or incompleteness, be it embryonic or catastrophic, it is visually a contrast to what it will be and of what it was. But we must not move too quickly ahead of the Text.
The Creation Week consists of 7 Days in chapter 1 and beginning of chapter 2, the details of each day given in such a way that we see order and progression. We cannot understand verses 1 & 2 in chapter 1 if we do not consider the entire creation week, and by extension the entire Book of Genesis and the Old Testament and the Bible. As we have the Bible in the form that has come down to us, we have it so interdependent that if we unweave it too much we lose the garment and have only threads. Of course, it was weaved with threads and design, but we are not to value the manufacturing process to the lost or disregard of the end product. The Creator as God does not appear to us as the Author or Writer externally, for the author and writer, namely Moses, quotes or cites God as speaking and doing. The 7 days are numbered and detailed as: Day One of the 1st Day: Light and Darkness or Day and Night; Day Two: Waters Divided or Firmament or Expanse or Heaven; Day Three: Dry Land or Earth and Gathered Waters or Seas with Vegetation of Seeds; Day Four: Lights in the Heavens to light the Earth; the Greater Light or Sun to govern the Day, and the Lesser Light or Moon to govern the Night; and the Stars; Day Five: Fishes and Birds, Creatures or Animals in the waters and the air; Day Six: Land Animals or Creatures; Man or Adam in God’s image and likeness, male and female, to dominate animals all living creatures; and Day Seven, the Sabbath or God’s Day of Rest. Each and all the days were good and blessed in their own peculiar way. The Creation Work was finished and ready for something new and other. The first day answers to the seventh, the middle day is the 4th, and the other days correspond to their mate accordingly; that is, day two answers to day six, and day three to day five. In like manner many have ignored the 7th Day and only compared the 6 Days to discover some relations and mystery. Each Bible reader as student or scholar will find hidden things that answers to their own quest.
We return to reflect on the first two verses of Genesis. We read of new things in words that will create a Divine Dictionary or Vocabulary composed of a Divine Alphabet of spiritual things which answer to, and in contrast to, natural things as from one Creator and Author. Words as beginning, God, created, heaven(s), earth, form, void, darkness, deep, God’s Spirit and spirit (Wind or wind), water(s), light, and all the words that follow. We are not given the meanings and definitions beforehand, but rather the use and sense are developed in the story or account as it develops and evolves. We are not instructed about many things which naturally and spiritually relate to the things written and read. Grammar is not explained, chronologies not interpreted, and all kinds of literary devices and departments of knowledge and science not differentiated and categorized; but instead we learn as we go and live. This feature or property of Divine Inspiration allows and demands hearts to seek and explore the Word in the words to understand the facts and its truth. Thus we, as so many others before us and around us, are all related and dependent in this great pursuit of Divine Knowledge. So too, our need to consider always what the Synagogue or Church in their traditions have taught us in the hermeneutics or interpretations of the Scriptures. In like manner we must never reject or despise wisdom and insight in our biblical studies and reflections.
Genesis 1: 1-2 declares a Creation and its Creator. In Hebrew the verse commences with ‘Bereshith’ or ‘be-reshith’ or ‘b’reshith’ (I use the pronunciation as academic, and not a colloquial variant of German or Spanish influence, or others), which is translated usually with a preposition, ‘in’. But because the Hebrew text has no definite article (ha, the) prefixed to the word ‘reshith’ (beginning, starting, commencing, at-head-of) we are told that some understand the Text to mean something other than what it as been commonly understood. The Hebrew grammarians tell us that there is a feature and form in Hebrew that is called a construct state which alters the sense and interpretation in syntax or usage, but then there are other grammarians who reject this novelty. As an example of this recurrent problem in biblical hermeneutics we will consider Kalisch, in agreement with Gesenius grammatical rules and views, on the passage:
(From: Kalisch’s Historical Critical Commentary, Old Testament, New Translation, Genesis, 1879, p.55-56):
“Philological Remarks. — Although the two first verses must not be separated, too close a connection between them is not intended; it is not necessary to translate— “In the beginning, when God created heaven and earth, the earth was,” etc., and to read with Rashi (‘bero’) instead of (‘bara’). For it is an erroneous opinion of ancient interpreters that the noun (‘reshith’) is only used in the status constructus. It matters little that it indeed occurs forty-three times in that form; for “the beginning” is a relative notion, and requires generally a complement, as we have, in fact, in our instance to supply — ” in the beginning of all things;” or that our text reads (‘bereshith’) not (‘barashith’, ‘borashith’), for it is here intended to express the unlimited, indefinite commencement of matter; (‘reshith’) is here the reverse of (‘echrith’), in the current phrase, (‘beachrith haiyamim’) (49:1; Isa.2:2, etc.; Aquila (‘enkephalaiö’); and it occurs several times in the status absolutus, for instance, (‘qorban reshith’) (Lev.2:12); (‘waiyr reshith lo’) (Deut.33:21; see also Ps. 105:36; Neh.12:44; Isa.46:10). Ebn Ezra, in, order to explain the finite verb (‘bara’) after the supposed status constructus (‘bereshith’), quotes two instances which he considers analogous—
1. (‘techillath dibber YY”) (Hos.1:2); but this phrase is rather parallel with Job 18:21, and Ps.81:.6, where the stat. constr. is to be accounted for by the omission of the demonstrative pronoun,” the beginning of that which the Lord spoke,” an ellipsis perfectly inapplicable here; and
2. (‘qiryath chanah dawidh’) (Isa.29:1); but here the relative pronoun is omitted before the verb, “the city which David inhabited;’ and in such cases the stat. constr. is by no means of rare occurrence (Lev.4:24; Ezek.21:30, etc.; Gesenius, Lehrgeb., p. 679).—God first called matter into existence, and then, by the commands of His power, organized and arranged it for the purposes of His wisdom; but this idea is implied in the tenor of the whole verse, rather than either in the particle (‘eth’), which some have understood to describe the substance or matter of heaven and earth (like the “alpha and omega” in the Revelation of St. John, (‘eth’) consisting, also, of the first and last letter of the alphabet ((Alpha-Omega, Aleph-Tau, A-Z)), esse coeli et esse terrae ((‘this heaven and this earth’))), whereas it is merely the sign of the accusative; or in the word (‘bara’), which has very generally been conceived to mean “creating out of nothing,” whilst the verb (‘asah’) (in vers. 7,16, etc.) is considered to signify “to arrange,” or to produce out of existing matter. But both verbs are, in vers. 7, 16, and 21, used promiscuously,”
(From: Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Kautzsch-Mitchell-Price, 1898; and -Cowley, 1909-1910):
Ҥ 89. The Genitive and the Construct State.
1. (a) The Hebrew language no longer makes a living use of case-endings, but either has no external indication of case (this is so for the nominative, generally also for the accusative) or expresses the relation by means of prepositions (§ 119), while the genitive is mostly indicated by a close connexion (or interdependence) of the Nomen regens and the Nomen rectum. That is to say, the noun which as genitive serves to define more particularly an immediately preceding Nomen regens, remains entirely unchanged in its form. The close combination, however, of the governing with the governed noun causes the tone first of all to be forced on to the latter, and the consequently weakened tone of the former word then usually involves further changes in it. These changes to some extent affect the consonants, but more especially the vocalization, since vowels which had been lengthened by their position in or before the tone-syllable necessarily become shortened, or are reduced to Shewa (cf. § 9 a, c, k ; § 27 e-m) ; e. g. (‘dabhar’) word, (‘Elohim debhor) word of God (a sort of compound, as with us in inverted order, God’s-word, housetop), landlord) ; (‘yadh’) hand, (‘yadh hammelek’) the hand of the king; (‘debharim’) words, (‘dibhrey haam’) the words of the people. Thus, in Hebrew only the noun which stands before a genitive suffers a change, and in grammatical language is said to be dependent, or in the construct state, while a noun which has not a genitive after it is said to be in the absolute state. It is sufficiently evident from the above that the construct state is not strictly to be regarded as a syntactical and logical phenomenon, but rather as simply phonetic and rhythmical, depending on the circumstances of the tone.

§ 119. The Subordination of Nouns to the Verb by means of Prepositions.
1. In general. As is the case with regard to the looser subordination of nouns to the verbal idea (§ 118), so also their subordination by means of prepositions is used to represent the more immediate circumstances (of place, time, cause, purpose, measure,
association, or separation) under which an action or event is accomplished. In the case
of most prepositions some idea of a relation of space underlies the construction, which then, in a wider sense, is extended to the ideas of time, motive, or other relations conceived by the mind.
(b) 1.(‘be’) Underlying the very various uses of this preposition is either the idea of being or moving within some definite region, or some sphere of space or time (with the infinitive, a simultaneous action, &c.), or else the idea of fastening on something, close connexion withsomething (also in a metaphorical sense, following some kind of pattern, e.g. the advice or command of someone (‘p’ bidbar, p’ aath ba’) , or in a comparison, as in Gen 1:26 (‘betsalmenu kidmuthnu’) in our image, after our likeness; cf. 1:27, 5:1, 3), or finally the idea of relying or depending upon…, or even of merely striking or touching something.”

The word ‘reshith’, as we were saying, comes from the primitive root ‘rosh’ which means ‘head, start, first, chief, primary, beginning’, etc. Reshith is feminine and Rosh is masculine. So, we find among certain Jews, both Rabbinical and Apocryphal, certain views or doctrines or principles developed from the words of the Creation, at times the novel or variant view is suggested or inferred or imagined from a grammatical form or possibility, at times its relation or association to another word or usage or syntax. Some have labored to collect these views from Jewish and Christian and even Muslim sources and compiled them in volumes. The collections of Hershon (Rabbinical & Talmudical Commentary on Genesis) in the 19th century, and of Ginzberg (Bible Myths and Legends of the Jews in the 20th century is very useful. There are many other references in many works which are readily found, and of those Mesorah ArtScroll Tanach Series (Ashkenazic), and Maznaim Torah Anthology MeAm Lo’ez (Sephardic) are most valuable. We cite just a few examples here to help us in our own reflections of Scripture.
1. (From: Hershon’s Talmudic Commentary of Genesis and the Pentateuch, 1883):
I. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Tradition records: It happened that Ptolemy the king had brought together seventy-two elders and put them into seventy-two chambers; he did not disclose to them the reason why he had brought them together, but subsequently he went in to every one of them and said: Write me out a copy of the Law of Moses, your Rabbi. The Holy One, blessed be He! suggested His counsel to the heart of every one of them, so that all concurred in the same opinion, and wrote: —
1. “God created in the beginning,” etc. (Without this transposition, the word (‘bereshith’), “In the beginning,” might be taken for the name of the first Deity, who created a second. Rashi—who evidently supposes that a Hebrew copy was demanded in Greek letters in addition to a translation.)
2. “Let Me make man according to an image and a likeness” (for it is on the plural number, let Us make, etc., that those who maintained the existence of two principles, based their heresy.
8. “And on the sixth (not seventh) day God ended His works, and He rested on the seventh day ” (Ge. 2:2, that it should not appear, that God worked on the seventh day. Rashi).

T. N. a. Here we have a Talmudic account of the origin of the Septuagint Version, which is evidently derived from the same source as those furnished by Aristeas, Philo, Josephus, and the early Christian Fathers. If the above alterations and interpolations ever existed in any Greek Version, they may have been taken from that by Aquila, who renounced the Christian profession for that of Judaism in the reign of Hadrian and executed his translation under the auspices of Rabbi Akiva ben Yoseph. The latter was resolved to get rid of the Septuagint Version, which till then was in use among the Hellenist Jews, and which was effectually pressed against them by Hebrew Christians. He would have abolished the use of any other but the Hebrew Scriptures, which in his time were not generally understood by the masses. But such a sweeping innovation was stoutly resisted; and, therefore, Aquila’s, or some other, Version was for the present substituted in the place of the Septuagint. The Rabbis, however, like the Church of Rome, had no intention of yielding to the multitude, and the conflict was ultimately decided in their favour by the decree of Justinian, still extant in the Novel Contitutions, permitting the Jews to read the Scriptures in the language of the country where they resided. From that time the Hebrew Scriptures have been exclusively read in public worship, and the only other version allowed for private use is that of Onkelos, in the Chaldean dialect.
b. The introduction of Aquila’s Version must have been effected in a guarded manner, since the alterations made in it are quietly attributed to the Septuagint; and Rashi, who flourished in France about ten centuries later, talks of the belief in two first principles having been derived from the Scripture application of the plural number to God.
c. The phrase: “Write me out a copy of the Law,” and the fear of offending Ptolemy by the use of the word “Arneveth” if any conclusion may be based upon them, favours the presumption, that a Hebrew copy of the Scriptures was written out in Greek letters. If so, and if other copies existed besides the one that had been lost through the destruction of the Alexandrian Library, Origen might have transcribed it for his Hexapla. (Vide, ch. xi. 9, Note 84.)

II. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Ten things were created on the first day, viz.: —heaven and earth, chaos and confusion, light and darkness, wind and water, the measure of day and the measure of night. Heaven and earth; for it is written: “In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth.” Chaos and confusion; for it is written: “And the earth was chaos and confusion.” Light and darkness; for it is written: “And darkness was upon the face of the abyss.” Wind and water; for it is written: “The wind of God hovered over the face of the waters.” The measure of day and the measure of night; for it is written: “Morning and evening were one day.”
III. Tradition teaches: Chaos is a green line surrounding the whole world, from which darkness proceeds; as it is written (Ps. 18:11): “He made (for) darkness its hiding place roundabout it. “Confusion issues from those spouting stones (Pulamouth, (‘plëmë’) that are sunk in the abyss, from which water gushes forth; as it is said (Is. 34:11): “And He stretcheth over it the line of chaos, and the stones of confusion.”
IV. And was light created on the first day? Is it not written (Gen. 1:17-19): “And God set them (the lights) in the firmament of heaven,” etc. “And the morning and the evening were the fourth day”? The answer to this question is given by Rabbi Elazar, who said: By the light which the Holy One, blessed be He! created on the first day, a man might have seen from one end of the world to the other; but when God observed the generation of the deluge, and that of the confusion of tongues, and saw that their deeds would be depraved, He stood up and hid it from them, as it is said (Job 38:15): “He withheld from the wicked their light. “He reserved it, however, for the righteous in the world to come. The Mishnic Rabbis, however, maintain, that the lights were created on the first day, but were not suspended (in the sky) till the fourth day. Chaguigah, fol. 12, col. 1.
V. The Post-Mishnic Rabbis have recorded: The school of Shamai maintain, that the heavens were created first, and then the earth; for it is said: “In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth. “But the school of Hillel say, that the earth was created first, and then the heavens; for it is said (Gen. 2:4): “On the day that the Lord God made the earth and the
heavens.” The school of Hillel said to the school of Shamai: According to your assertion, a man must first build the upper and then the lower part of a house! For that such is the relation of the heavens to the earth, is clear from Am. 9:6, where it is said: “Who builds his upper chambers in the heavens and founded the ligature (support) thereof upon the earth.” The school of Shamai replied: According to your assertion, a man would make the foot-stool first and then the throne! For that such is the relation between earth and heaven, is evident from Is. 66:1, where it says: ” Thus saith the Lord, the heavens are my throne, and the earth is my foot-stool. “The Mishnic Rabbis have, however, decided, that they were made at the same time; for it is said (Is. 48:18): “My hand founded the earth, and my right hand measured the heavens: I call them, they stood together.”
VI. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: At their creation, the heavens had the priority, but at their stretching out the earth came in first.
VII. What is the meaning of the word ” Shamaim,” heavens? Rabbi Yosi ben Chanena said: Sham-mayim, water-is-there.
VIII. A tradition says, that it is compounded of the words
Aysh-mayim, fire and water. It teaches, that the Holy One, blessed be He! mingled these two elements together, and made the firmament out of them. (Chaguigah, fol. 12, col. 1.)
IX. Alexander of Macedon proposed ten questions to the elders of the South: Which is farther removed from the other, the heavens from the earth, or the East from the West? They replied: The East from the West; for when the sun is either in the East or in the West, all can gaze at him; but when the sun is in mid-heaven (i.e. nearer to the earth and, therefore, too dazzling) none can gaze at him. The Mishnic Rabbis say, that the distances are equal, for it is said (Ps. 103:11,12): “As the heavens are from the earth … so is the East removed from the West.” Alexander then asked: Were the heavens made first, or the earth? They replied, the heavens; for it is said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He asked again, was light first created, or darkness? They replied: This is an insoluble problem. They should have said, that darkness was created first, for it is said: “And the earth was void, and empty, and darkness,” etc.; and then: “And God said: Let there be light, and there was light.” (Tamid, fol. 81, col. 2.)

Synoptical Notes.
Heaven and Earth.
1. Since the Temple was destroyed, the firmament has not been seen in its former purity; for it is said (Is. 50:3): “I will clothe the heavens with blackness and make their covering a sack.” (Berachoth, fol. 59, col. 1.)
2. Rava said: The world is six thousand miles in extent, and the thickness of the firmament is one thousand miles. (Psachim, fol. 94, col. 1.)
3. Rav Yehudah said: There are two firmaments; for it is said (De. 10:14): ” Behold, the heavens and the heavens of heavens belong to the Lord thy God.” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Seven viz.: —Vilon (velum), Rakia, Shechakim, Zevul, Maon, Machon, Aravoth…….Rashi. (Chaguigah, fol. 12, col. 2.)
T. N. St. Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, refers to the third heaven, which he seems to identify with paradise, where he heard unspeakable words, which it is unlawful for a man to utter. It is, therefore, remarkable that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who lived in the third century, should, leaving out Vilon, which is not easily defined, speak of Zevul the third heaven, where the heavenly Jerusalem, the Temple, and the altar are erected; and where Michael (who is like unto God?), the Great Prince, stands and offers a sacrifice (singular) upon it. Here we are undoubtedly upon one of the many traces left by Apostolic Christianity upon Judaism.
Verse 2.
And the earth was empty and void.
I. Whilst walking together, Rabbi Ishmael asked Rabbi Akiva: Thou hast waited for twenty-two years upon Nahum Ish-gam-zu (the resigned), who had something to say in connection with the particle (Aleph-Thau) Eth, wherever it occurs in the Pentateuch; what did he make of those which precede “the heavens and the earth “? Rabbi Akiva replied: But for this particle [‘eth’] (which governs the accusative) heaven might be construed nominatively, as one of the names of God. (Chaguigah, fol. 12, col. 1, 2.)

And the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
II. The Post-Mishnic Rabbis related of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah, that he was once standing on a ridge of the temple mount. Ben Zoma happened to see him, but did not rise before him; Rabbi Yehoshua asked him: Whence and whither, Ben Zoma? He replied: I have been considering the distance between the upper and lower waters, and it is no more than the measure of three fingers; for it is said (Ge. 1:2): “The Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters,”like a dove hovering over her young without touching them. Rabbi Yehoshua then observed to his disciples: Ben Zoma is still out of his mind; for was it not on the first day that the Spirit of God is said to have hovered over the face of the waters, whereas the separation of the upper from the lower waters did not take place till the second day?

2. (From Ginzberg’s Legends of the Jews, vol. 1, 1912):
I. The Creation of the World.




Posted in Bible Reflections, Christian Reflections, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment