This Way To Genesis

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 4:3-5a

● Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to
The Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the
choicest of the firstlings of his flock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?

"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the
prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the
blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar
and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)

It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given
religion. (cf. Heb 11:4)

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

Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city
barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or
thoughtless, nor did she neglect him or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang,
didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed,
drink, snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women. He was very religious
and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the
rituals he practiced were correct and timely.

Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a
predatory lender, wasn't racist, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest
investment banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a
cheap politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did
he associate with the wrong crowd. The man did everything a model citizen
is supposed to do; yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected.

It's common for poorly-trained Bible students to trip up on the nature of the
men's offerings and totally miss the role that the nature of the men
themselves played in their worship; in other words: they assume Cain was
rejected because his offering was bloodless and they attempt to justify their
theory by citing the below:

"It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than
Cain did. God accepted Abel's offering to show that he was a righteous
man." (Heb 11:4)

The focus in both Genesis and Hebrews is not really upon the offerings
because it's okay for a minchah to be bloodless. The focus is actually upon
faith and righteousness; viz: Abel was a man of both faith and righteousness
whereas his brother wasn't. In a nutshell: Cain's association with God was
strictly via ritual.

It's not uncommon for John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer to associate with
God like that. On Sunday they go through all the proper motions; while the
rest of the week they think, feel, speak, and act like secular humanists with
little concern as to how God might feel about their conduct.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 4:5b-7a


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps the classic example is the one below.

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

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

The principle didn't go away. It's still the Lord's way of doing business with
people; even with Christians.

"God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have
fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but
if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with
another." (1John 1:5-7)

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 4:7b-8


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 4:9-12


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

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

Cain worshipped the True God, same as his brother, and he practiced the
very same rituals; yet responded to his maker's simple question with a lie
and a sarcastic rejoinder. Those who are the Serpent's progeny often act like
that because the Serpent's progeny have a Serpent's tongue.

"You are of your father the Devil, and the desires of your father you want to
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his
own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it." (John 8:44-45)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since Cain could no longer sustain himself by farming, it would be difficult to
settle down and build himself a home; so he was forced to become
migratory and forage for seasonal foods like the uncivilized beast that he
was. It was poetic justice. The punishment sure fit his personality. If he was
going to act like a brute, then he deserved to live like one.

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

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 4:13-16


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

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

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

A: Murder is intrinsically evil, yes; however; according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom
4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17, law enacted ex post facto is too late; viz: law
can't be enforced until after it's enacted, not even divine law; which is
precisely why God didn't, and couldn't, prosecute Cain for murder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew word for "Nod" is from nowd (node) and means: wandering,
vagrancy or exile. Precisely how Nod got its name, or where it was located is
unknown. The only other place in the entire Old Testament where nowd is
found is at Ps 56:9.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 4:17-19


● Gen 4:17a . . Cain knew his wife,

Adam was created directly from the dust of the earth. Not so Eve. She was
constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body. In
other words: Eve's flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as
Adam's except for gender; viz: Eve wasn't a discrete species of human life,
rather; she was the flip side of the same coin.

After God created Adam and Eve, He wrapped creation and has been on
sabbatical every since.

According to the Bible, all human life thereafter came from Eve's flesh.

"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the
living." (Gen 3:20)

Bottom line: The flesh of Cain's wife descended from his mother's flesh.

NOTE: Seeing as how Eve was the mother of all living, then she was the
mother of Christ; ergo: if Mary was the mother of God, then so was Eve.

An even more convincing example of prehistoric incest is Noah and his three
sons and their wives. Nobody else survived the Flood; ergo: Shem's, Ham's,
and Japheth's children married amongst themselves-- brothers with sisters
and/or cousins with cousins.

"Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and
Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth
was populated." (Gen 9:18-19)

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

NOTE: Scientists have identified 100,000 pieces of retrovirus DNA in human
genes, making up eight percent of the genome. As to whether those
retroviruses have contributed to the shortening of the human life span, I
don't know; but I'd bet that those bugs were not in the human genome at
first.

According to Acts 17:26 it was the creator's deliberate design that all human
life descend from a solo specimen. Well, in order for that to happen, people
had to sleep with close relatives in the beginning.

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

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

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

Whether Cain actually lived in a permanent settlement is doubtful since he
was stuck with vagrancy and wandering. Cain's city was very likely nothing
more than a rudimentary village like the towns in the Old West and the
Klondike that grew up around rail heads and mining camps.

Some of those were little more than a village of tents, and that's probably all
that Enochville amounted to. Just a nomadic assembly of Cain's clan where
they could pool their resources, and watch each other's back as they
wandered from place to place in the land of Nod searching for sustenance.

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

Adah is from 'Adah (aw-daw') and means: ornament. It's not unusual for
people to name their little girls after jewelry like Pearl, Ruby, Jade, Sapphire,
and Amber. Zillah is from Tsillah (tsil-law') which is derived from tsel (tsale)
and means: shade (or shadow), whether literal or figurative. Shade is a
good thing in sunny locales so Zillah's name may have been associated with
shelter, protection, peace, serenity, and rest-- as in Song 2:3.

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

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

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

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 4:20-22


● Gen 4:20 . . Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who
dwell in tents and amidst herds.

This is the Bible's very first mention of man-made portable shelters. Tents,
teepees, wigwams, etc; make it possible to roam long distances in relative
comfort while searching for foods and pastures.

Abraham and Sarah were housed in portable shelters the whole time they
lived in Canaan. With portable shelters, Enochville could be a very mobile
community, staying in one place only long enough to deplete its natural
resources before moving on to better diggings to invade, plunder, exploit,
pollute, and depredate.

Jabal wasn't the father of animal husbandry as the passage seems to
suggest. Abel was already tending flocks before Jabal was born (Gen 4:2).
Dwelling "amidst" herds describes the lifestyle of North America's early
plains Indians; whose livelihood depended a great deal upon wild buffalo.
Though they followed the herds, the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa,
Crow, Blackfoot, Comanche, and Shoshone, et el; didn't actually raise any of
their own buffalo like on a ranch.

Dwelling amidst herds is a nomadic way of life rather than one that's
domesticated; hence the need for portable shelters; and the herds (e.g.
deer, elk, wild goats, antelope, wildebeests, et al) would provide fabric for
not only the tents, but also for shoes and clothing; which would need
replacement quite often.

One of Lewis' and Clark's complaints, when they were passing through the
Oregon territory, was that moccasins rotted off their feet in the Northwest's
climate. Even without rot, the soles of moccasins are not all that resistant to
wear. Buckskins, manufactured from Elk hide and/or deerskin, fared little
better.

● Gen 4:21 . . And the name of his brother was Jubal; he was the
ancestor of all who play the lyre and the pipe.

The word for "ancestor" is from 'ab (awb); a primitive word which means
father, in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application. In
this particular case, 'ab wouldn't mean literal kin, but likely analogous to an
inventor who is the first to introduce a new concept which then later
becomes widely adopted.

The word for "lyre" is from kinnowr (kin-nore') and means: to twang. So the
actual instrument itself is difficult to identify. It could have been a harp. But
then again, it may have even been something as simple as a string stretched
between a washtub and a broom stick.

The interesting thing about an ancient twanging instrument is its string. How
did the Cainites make them? Of what material? A stringed instrument is a
pretty advanced musical tool and certainly not something you would expect
to find among so primitive a people as the antediluvians.

The word for "pipe" is from 'uwgab (oo-gawb') and means: a reed
instrument of music.

A modern reed instrument is typically a woodwind that produces sound by
vibrating a thin strip of wood against the mouthpiece; like clarinets and
saxophones (hence the classification: woodwinds). But in that culture, it
could very well have been something as simple as a tube whistle made from
a single hollow section of plant stem; or several of those bundled together
like a Pan flute.

● Gen 4:22a . . As for Zillah, she bore Tubal-cain, who forged all
implements of copper and iron.

Copper, in its natural form, is too soft and pliable for practical purposes; but
it's a classification of metals called work-hardening. In other words, by
pounding or rolling cold copper, its mechanical properties can be greatly
improved. It probably didn't take Mr. Tubal-cain long to figure that out.

Adding a little tin to copper produces bronze, which is much stronger and
tougher than pure copper.

Copper's advantage in cooking is its natural heat conduction, which is very
fast as compared to iron and/or steel. It's also an excellent conductor of
electricity, but unless they were bottling lightening in those days, copper's
electrical properties would have to wait for future exploitation.

Iron, though stronger and harder than copper, is relatively soft and pliable in
its natural condition too; but with the addition of small amounts of carbon, it
becomes steel, which is quite a bit tougher than natural iron. Whether Tubal
cain figured that out is difficult to know for sure.

● Gen 4:22b . . And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

Her name is from Na'amah (nah-am-aw') which means pleasant, amiable, or
agreeable. A girl named Joy would probably fit that category. Na'amah
suggests that the people of Enochville were content with their way of life.

So all in all, Enochville, though unproductive in agriculture, prospered
through manufacturing and commerce instead; trading the goods and
services of their industrial base for much needed produce; the same way
that most urbanites still do even today. People in towns and cities typically
don't support themselves directly from nature. They earn a medium of
exchange in some sort of skill or profession, then trade it with merchants to
buy the things they need to survive.

The technological, and cultural, level of early Man was very high. It's
interesting that the identifying marks which evolutionary anthropologists use
to denote the emergence of a stone age culture into a civilized society were
evident in Cain's day-- animal husbandry, agriculture, trades, urbanization,
music, and metallurgy. All these civilizational technologies emerged very
early: within just a few generations of Adam; rather than thousands upon
thousands of years of human development.

I'm not saying there were never any "stone-age" peoples. Obviously there
were. But though Cain's community may have started out as cave men, by
Noah's day they were past primitive conditions and actually pretty advanced.

It's too bad the Flood wiped early Man off the map. Who can tell what he
might have accomplished had his progress not been interrupted (cf. Gen
11:6).

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 4:23-26


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes the record shows the mother naming a child, and sometimes the
father; which suggests that in all cases there was very likely mutual
consultation between husband and wife on this important decision. But it's
always important for the father to take a hand in naming the children
because the act testifies that he has legally, and officially, accepted them as
his own (e.g. Gen 15:16, Gen 21:3, Matt 1:21, Luke 1:13, Luke 1:63, Rev
2:17).

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

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

The Hebrew word for "Lord" in this case is Yhvh; which always, and without
exception, refers to the one true god.

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

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

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 5:1-8


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

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

Adam's genealogy includes every natural-born human being who ever lived
and/or will live, but the only branch in his tree that really counts is the one
leading to Jesus of Nazareth: the Bible's central figure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eve understood Seth to be Abel's replacement. But that doesn't necessarily
mean Seth was the very next boy born into the Adams family after Abel. It
doesn't even mean Seth was her third child. Bible genealogies often have
very large gaps in them, omitting insignificant male siblings; and typically all
of the girls. In one instance (1Chrn 1:1) the record skips Abel and jumps
right to Seth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 5:9-27


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 5:28-32


● Gen 5:28-29 . .When Lamech had lived 182 years, he begot a son.
And he named him Noah, saying: This one will provide us relief from
our work and from the toil of our hands, out of the very soil which
the Lord placed under a curse.

The word for "Noah" is from nuwach (noo'-akh) and means: rest or quiet.
But not the kind of quiet one might find in a sound-proof room. More like the
tranquility a person would experience by getting away from anxiety, fear,
conflict, and toil.

Lamech speaks as one fatigued with the business of living, and as one
grudging that so much energy, which otherwise might have been much
better employed in leisure, entertainment, or self improvement, was
unavoidably spent in toil and labor necessary simply to survive back in that
day.

Lamech undoubtedly saw that Noah was a very special boy; the next
patriarch after himself. Perhaps he hoped Noah was the promised seed of
the woman; the one who would crush the Serpent's head, remove the curse,
and restore the Earth to its former prosperity and glory; thus making for
Man a much more enjoyable experience than the one he is subjected to for
now.

"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing
with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager
longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected
to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;
because the creation itself will be set free from its slavery to decay and
obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God." (Rom 8:18-21)

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so
that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that
He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven
must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has
spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." (Acts
3:19-21)

According to Acts 3:19-21, men have been pounding pulpits since the very
beginning, and all of the prophets, ever since Abel, have looked ahead in
anxious anticipation to Messiah's intervention in world affairs and bringing
into existence a much better world than the one that is now.

● Gen 5:30-32 . . After the birth of Noah, Lamech lived 595 years and
begot sons and daughters. All the days of Lamech came to 777
years; then he died. When Noah had lived 500 years, Noah begot
Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Lamech escaped the Flood by a mere 5 years. It came when Noah was 600
(Gen 7:6).

Shem was the next patriarch after his dad Noah. But the names of all three
boys are given probably because of the role they will play in re-populating
the Earth after the Flood. The Bible doesn't say that Shem, Ham, and
Japheth were especially good men. They survived the Flood in spite of their
character only because they got aboard the ark with their dad when it was
time for the rain to begin. If they had mocked, and remained on land with
the rest of the world, then they would have certainly drowned right along
with everyone else in spite of their ancestry.

So; were Mr and Mrs Noah childless until Noah was 500 years old? Probably
not. The other kids, if there were any, didn't count as far as God was
concerned, and, if there were any, they perished in the deluge. Being related
to holy men like rabbis, pastors or deacons doesn't guarantee a ticket to
safety. Everyone has to make their own personal decisions in that regard
(e.g. Gen 19:12-14). God commands all people everywhere to repent.
Refuse, and it's curtains; no matter how important, nor well connected, your
relatives might be.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 6:1-2


● Gen 6:1-2 . . Now it came about, when men began to multiply on
the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons
of God saw that the daughters of men were good; and they took
wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

The Hebrew word for "good" in that passage is towb (tobe) which is the very
same word that Genesis utilizes to evaluate God's handiwork in creation;
e.g. Light (Gen 1:4) Land and Seas (Gen 1:10) Vegetation (Gen 1:12) Sun,
Moon, and Stars (Gen 1:18) Birds and Aquatic Life (Gen 1:21) Beasts and
Bugs (Gen 1:25) and the finished product. (Gen 1:31)

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

In my judicious estimation, when God's handiwork turned out "good" towb
indicates that the cosmos-- and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy -
came out just the way God wanted it to; perfectly suited to the purposes He
had in mind when He designed everything. But in this case; I think it's pretty
safe to assume towb indicates a woman's looks.

NOTE: Ambiguous Hebrew words like towb serve to illustrate why it's
virtually impossible to translate Hebrew into English with 100% verbatim
precision. No linguist in his right mind would dare to say that English
versions of the Hebrew Old Testament are perfect word-for-word renditions
of the original manuscripts-- no; they can't even be certified perfect word
for-word renditions of the available manuscripts let alone the originals.

The precise identity of the "sons of God" has been debated. Some say they
were the sons of the aristocracy of that day who married attractive women
from among the commoners. Others say they were renegade spirit creatures
who cohabited with humans to produce a hybrid strain of hominid freaks.

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

Intermarriage between men of faith and infidel women is as old a practice as
adultery; and a proven tactic for watering down, compromising, and even
extinguishing Bible beliefs and practices (e.g. Num 31:7-16). The people of
God are strictly, unequivocally, and clearly forbidden to marry outside their
faith. (Deut 7:1-4, 2Cor 6:14-18)

In a mixed relationship-- one a believer and the other an infidel --the
believer will be forced to compromise their convictions in order to keep the
relationship going. Compromise in the area of spiritual values is not a good
thing for God's people. It's not only bad for the conscience, but will quickly
ruin a believer's relationship with their Lord. (1John 1:6)

Most people want love, romance, companionship, and a family of their own.
According to Gen 1:27-28, and Gen 2:21-24, those things are Divine
blessings, they're perfectly normal and nothing to be ashamed of; nor is
there anything intrinsically naughty or sinful about them. But a believer has
to be self controlled, and not permit their base nature to make them lose
their heads and ruin their chances for happiness.

Adult dating is where it starts. And adult dating isn't harmless. It leads to
other things, and it leads into commitments and promises that are not easily
reneged. The end result of adult dating is ultimately marriage and children
(quite possibly illegitimate children). Whose spiritual philosophy will prevail
in the marriage? Whose spiritual philosophy will be taught to the children?
The believer's or the infidel's? And ultimately, who will get the children's
souls-- God, or the Serpent?

Some couples try to accommodate each other's beliefs by teaching their
children the concepts of both religions. For example, a marriage between a
Buddhist and a Christian. The children are given a choice between the Bible
and the Four Noble Truths; and between Christ and Siddhartha Gautama,
and between resurrection and reincarnation. That may seem like a good
idea, but it only creates confusion in the minds of the children. Why are
mom and dad not in agreement? Whose religion is right? Can both be right?
Does it mean that one religion is just as good as the next?

Wives can be very effective in influencing an otherwise pious man to
compromise his convictions (e.g. Gen 3:6). All too often, in a mixed
marriage, the mother's religion will be taught to her children because
husbands, as a rule, put a higher priority on sex and peace in the home than
religion, so they won't risk alienating mama by forcing the issue.

The sons of God in Noah's day-- whose wives were chosen based solely upon
sex appeal sans any spiritual prudence whatsoever --all perished in the
Flood right along with their infidel wives and children. Not a one of them had
the good sense to go aboard the ark with Noah.

It's never wise for believers to marry outside their faith. A good example is
Solomon. He got off to a good start but down the road accumulated a harem
of foreign women who led him into idolatry; which subsequently caused The
Lord to engineer rebellion in the kingdom. (1Kgs 11 & 12)

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

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

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 6:3-4


● Gen 6:3a . . And Yhvh said: My Spirit shall not strive with man
forever

Some translations have "abide" instead of strive. But the Hebrew word is
diyn (deen) which means: to rule; by implication: to judge (as umpire); also
to strive (as at law). It can also mean to plead the cause of; or to contend in
argument.

So. How did "My Spirit" accomplish this striving with man? In person
Himself? No; just like He always has: via a holy man.

"Noah, a preacher of righteousness" (2Pet 2:5)

According to 1Pet 3:18-20, the Spirit of Christ and My Spirit are one and the
same spirit. In point of fact; according to 1Pet 1:10-11, all the Old
Testament preachers (a..k.a. prophets) were motivated by the Spirit of
Christ. (cf. Rom 8:9 and 1Cor 6:19 where the Spirit of Christ and The Spirit
are again seen as one and the same spirit)

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

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

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

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

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

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

● Gen 6:3c . . yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But
people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years
afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood,
didn't die till he was 175 years old. It's far more reasonable to conclude that
God was announcing a deadline; viz: they had 120 years left to get ready to
meet their maker. But you think that alarmed anybody? Heck no. They went
right on; business as usual.

"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of
Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and
destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)

● Gen 6:4 . .There were giants on the earth in those days, and also
afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men,
and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who
were of old, men of renown.

The Hebrew word for "giants" in that passage is nephiyl (nef-eel') or nephil
(nef-eel') and I have no clue why the KJV's scholars translated it giants
because it doesn't mean that at all. For one thing; it's an ambiguous word
with more than one meaning. It can indicate someone who cuts, knocks, or
brings things down, or a killer; and/or bullies and tyrants.

Now; granted that some bullies are big guys; but not all tyrants are big
guys. Take for example Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, He isn't especially
imposing but Mr. Jong Il sure knows how to exercise power excessively and
brutally.

In other words: nephiyl doesn't necessarily indicate a special race of people;
but simply people whose ambition is to dominate others; even if they have
to completely destroy their culture and kill them all off to do it; viz: nephiyl
personalities are not good followers nor are they very good team players. It
can be accurately said of nephiyl personalities that they would rather rule in
hell than serve in heaven. In other words: if they can't conquer God, then
they would just as soon have nothing to do with Him.

Historical examples of nephiyl types would be men like Genghis Khan of
Mongolia, and Alexander the Great of Greece; Napoleon of France, Peter
Alekseyevich Romanov of Russia, Chandragupta Maurya of India, shogun
Minamoto no Yoritomo of Japan, conquistador Hernando Cortes of Spain,
Timur: founder of the Timurid dynasty, and Zahir-ud din Muhammad Babur:
founder of the Mughal dynasty that ruled the Indian subcontinent for over
three centuries.

Q: If all the nephiyl types drowned in the Flood; then how did their
characteristics manage to resurface down the road?

A: Well; from whence did nephiyl types originate in the first place? Same
place every other personality type originated: from Adam's genes; viz: since
Noah and his wife, and his sons and their wives, were Adam's descendants,
then nephiyl characteristics survived the Flood by riding it out in the DNA of
the people aboard the ark.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 6:5-7


● Gen 6:5 . . And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the
earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.

Man's descent into depravity didn't catch his creator by surprise. After all;
not only can God see the future but He can also manipulate it; so He was
well aware even before Gen 1:1 that the people He was about to create were
destined from day-one for a global deluge.

Also, when God inspected His handiwork at Gen 1:31, He evaluated it not
just good, but "very" good. So as far as He was concerned; everything was
going smoothly and according to plan-- nothing was broken, no parts were
missing, and nothing was maladjusted.

● Gen 6:6 . . And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the
earth, and He became grieved in His heart.

I seriously doubt that the regret and grief that God felt was somehow related
to His thinking that creating human life was a big mistake. It's difficult to
discern from the language and grammar of the text; but it's far more likely
that the regret God felt in Gen 6:6 was directly related to what He was about
to do next: the destruction of a major portion of the life that He himself put
on earth.

In other words; the destruction of life is not something God enjoys as if He
were an outdoor guy who kills fish and wildlife for sport with no more
sensitivity than a kid blasting aliens in a video game. Man's creator knew the
day was coming when He would have to do what He was about to do next,
and clearly wasn't looking forward to it.

But to be quite forthright; it seems insane to me that God would go forward
with plans to create life on earth knowing in advance that He would one day
be destroying so much of it. Where's the logic in that? I just don't get it; but
then, no surprise there.

The human mind is produced by a three-pound lump of flabby organic
tissue, and not even all three of those pounds are utilized for cognitive
processes; 60% of the human brain's mass is fat. All considered: the human
mind is practically that of an insect in comparison to the mind of the
inventor who created human life.

● Gen 6:7 . . And the Lord said: I will blot out man, whom I created,
from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping
thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them.

The destruction of earth's birds and beasts was unavoidable; they became
collateral damage in God's war against the sinful antediluvians.

The Hebrew word for "blot" is from machah (maw-khaw') which means: to
stroke or rub; by implication, to erase; also to smooth (as if with oil), i.e.
grease or make fat; also to touch, i.e. reach to.

God intended to not only remove the antediluvians from the face of the
earth, but also to scrub off all of their works too so that when He was done,
it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to even be able to tell the
antediluvians were ever here at all.

It's always been a mystery to me why paleo-anthropologists have managed
to find so few fossilized remains of pre-historic human beings.

In 1992, Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, discovered the
fossilized skeletons of human-like creatures in Ethiopia's Afar Rift who lived
4.4 million years ago but those are not the remains of h.sapiens; but rather,
of beasts that resemble h.sapiens. To my knowledge; no truly human
remains have been found from that era.

While mysterious; that lack of remains isn't exclusive. Take for instance the
Passenger Pigeon. That bird at one time numbered an estimated four to five
billion individuals; which is a number equal in quantity to the current year
round population of all North American birds combined. Yet an archeological
search for the pigeon's bones left behind by people who ate the bird for
food, through all pre-Columbian times, has thus far yielded very few
remains; at only two sites.

But my point is: where are the remains of the antediluvians? They're gone;
lock, stock, and barrel-- no metal implements from Tubal-Cain's blacksmith
shop, no musical instruments from Jubal's work shop, no dwellings, no
footprints, no bones, no pottery, no cave art, not even any geological
evidence of a world-wide deluge: nothing. It's like they were never here.

God moved against the antediluvians like a relentless newspaper editor
deleting superfluous words and sentences so skillfully that the reader cannot
even tell those superfluous words and sentences ever existed in the original
copy.

Why would God do that? I would hazard to guess that His purpose in doing
so was to prevent people from believing too easily that the Flood actually
happened.

The funny thing about the Bible is that portions of it are just as effective at
driving people away from God as they are at attracting them. No doubt it is
God's wishes that everybody believe the Bible; but at the same time it
seems He's thwarted His own wishes by taking steps to ensure that a
substantial number of people don't. For example:

"Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: You have seen all that The
Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his
servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those
great signs and wonders. Yet to this day The Lord has not given you a heart
to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear." (Deut 29:2-4)

"No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father
except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Matt
11:27)

"A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are
foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are
spiritually discerned." (1Cor 2:14)

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 6:8-10

● Gen 6:8 . . But Noah found favor with The Lord.

The word for "favor" is from chen (khane) and means: graciousness.
Translators sometimes render chen as grace. But the important thing is that
The Lord didn't find chen with Noah. No, just the opposite-- Noah found chen
with The Lord.

Webster's defines graciousness as: kind, courteous, inclined to good will,
generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial,
affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.

Those are all good qualities, and the very things you would expect to see in
someone you loved and trusted-- like your spouse or a very close friend.

● Gen 6:9a . .This is the line of Noah.-- Noah was a righteous man;

The Hebrew word for "righteous" is tsaddiyq (tsad-deek') which means: just.

Webster's provides several definitions of "just", but perhaps the ones best
suited for our purpose are: conscientious, honest, honorable, right,
scrupulous, true, dependable, reliable, tried, trustworthy, dispassionate,
equal, equitable, impartial, nondiscriminatory, objective, unbiased,
uncolored, and unprejudiced. So then, Noah was not only religious to his
fingertips; but he was a pretty decent guy to boot.

The kind of righteousness spoken of in Gen 6:9a is a personal kind of
righteousness. There's also a spiritual righteousness, but I don't think that's
in view here. The emphasis is upon Noah as a man rather than a believer;
though according to Heb 11:7 he was that too.

● Gen 6:9b . . he was blameless in his era; Noah walked with God.

Is that verse saying Noah was flawless? No; perfection in the Bible means
something altogether different than what you'd expect. The Hebrew word for
"blameless" is tamiym (taw-meem') which just simply means entire; in other
words; sound, i.e. no pieces missing and everything in working order;
indicating that Noah was not only a man of faith, but also a man who put his
faith into practice.

The most incredible thing about Noah was his degree of piety in a world
gone mad with evil. He was actually a nobody in his day; eclipsed by the
nephiyl types. They got all the press, the publicity, and the notoriety while
God's man went marginalized and largely ignored. Yet he persisted; and
continued pounding a pulpit right up to the end.

● Gen 6:10 . . Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Were those the only kids Noah had? And no daughters? I seriously doubt it.
Noah was six hundred when the flood began. It is unlikely that a healthy,
hard working, robust man would live that long without engendering a much
larger family than three; especially in those days without birth control. But
these three boys are the only ones that count now because they're going on
the ark with their dad.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 6:11-14c


● Gen 6:11a . .The earth became corrupt before God;

The word for "earth" is 'erets (eh'-rets) which technically refers to the planet
(Gen 1:1).

I think we're going to see that the planet wasn't corrupt due to itself going
bad, rather, the activities of its human inhabitants.

The word for "corrupt" is shachath (shaw-khath') which means: to decay,
decompose, and/or disintegrate; viz: to become decadent.

The perspective "before God" indicates the Almighty's own personal
estimation. No doubt the antediluvians disagreed with God's evaluation of
their spiritual condition just like people today disagree with His evaluation.
And again, this disparity of evaluations has its roots all the way back in the
garden when humans became their own Gods; discerning right and wrong
from within a humanistic system of values instead of their creator's.

● Gen 6:11b . . the earth was filled with lawlessness.

Crime is pretty much inevitable in a world of sinful beings sans cops and
courts. Nobody was accountable for a single thing in those days. The only
rules that may have existed were those among clans or in towns. But those
rules wouldn't be universal. Rules like that would be different from clan to
clan and from town to town. And primitive clans are known to war with each
other on a regular basis like the Native Americans did here in America's
early years.

I just hope I don't live to see the day when some sort of nationwide disaster,
like a nuclear holocaust, occurs in America. Nobody will be safe. Electrical
power will be out, the banks won't be open, ATM machines won't work, and
everyone will be so desperate to survive.

Roving gangs of thugs will prowl the rubble looking to scavenge and to steal
anything not nailed down or protected by guards. Law enforcement and
medical services will be so overwhelmed that dialing 911 will be no more
productive than writing a letter to Santa Claus; that is, if telephones even
work. If hurricanes Katrina and Sandy taught us anything in New Orleans
and Manhattan, it's that large-scale disasters produce large-scale anarchy
and chaos.

The criminal element has neither honor nor sympathy for its victims. After
the September 29, 2009 tsunami subsided in Samoa, residents returned to
neighborhoods only to find that their homes had been looted.

According to the 2016 World Almanac, in the year 2013, there were a total
of 1,163,146 violent crimes committed in the USA . The number of property
crimes totaled 8,632,512. Those totals exclude crimes like arson, perjury,
forgery, insider trading, contempt of court, bail jumping, internet hacking,
traffic violations, J-walking, trespassing, animal abuse, feeding parking
meters, cheating on taxes; et al.

And to think the USA and its territories are a society of law abiding citizens.
Just think what it must have been like in Noah's day with no law
enforcement whatsoever to control crime. All I can say is; if something really
bad should ever happen here in the USA, you'd better own deadly weapons
like swords and guns plus lots of pepper and/or bear spray because neither
your life nor your possessions will be safe after dark.

● Gen 6:12-13a . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all
the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I
am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with
violence because of them.

Some people would probably like to translate some of that verse like this:
"for the earth is filled with violence through God." But Genesis doesn't say it
was filled with violence through God; no, God said it was filled with violence
through them.

● Gen 6:13b . . I am about to destroy them with the earth.

Here is set a precedent of God forewarning His own when He is about to
execute a disastrous event upon the earth. The Passover was another such
example. God forewarned Moses, and Moses' people, of the imminent
annihilation of all the firstborn of Man and Beast in Egypt; which would also
impact Moses and his people if they didn't do exactly as God said and paint
the blood of a lamb on their door jambs (Ex 11:1-13).

And our man Noah, super-duper righteous man that he was, would have
drowned right along with the rest of the antediluvians had he neglected to
construct an ark. When God gives a warning, it is best to respond
accordingly.

"A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going
and suffer for it." (Pro 22:3)

● Gen 6:14a . . Make yourself an ark

The Hebrew word for ark is tebah (tay-baw') and just simply indicates, not a
ship, but a nondescript box. The only other place tebah is used again in the
Old Testament is of the little watertight container Moses' mom constructed
to hide her little boy from Pharaoh's assassins. (Ex 2:1-10)

● Gen 6:14b . . of gopher wood;

Nobody really knows for sure exactly what kind of trees Noah used to make
the ark. The word for "gopher" has nothing to do with little subterranean
rodents. It's a transliteration of the Hebrew word gopher (go'-fer) which only
suggests a kind of tree suitable for building structures out of wood. Some
think it was cypress because the wood of those trees is so resinous that it
resists rotting even after prolonged submersion in water. Others think it may
have been cedar or spruce; which are good too.

Unfortunately, this is the one and only occurrence of gopher in the entire Old
Testament so there's no other passages that might help identify a specific
kind of tree.

● Gen 6:14c . . make it an ark with compartments,

The word for "compartments" is from qen (kane) which means: a nest (as
fixed), sometimes including the nestlings; figuratively, a chamber or
dwelling. The construction of nests (and stalls) indicates the animals weren't
just herded or jammed together like the crowds attending an outdoor
Metallica rock concert. They were neatly stowed aboard in their own areas
and apparently made to feel quite comfortable.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 6:14d-15a


● Gen 6:14d . . and cover it inside and out with pitch.

The word for "pitch" is kopher (ko'-fer) which means: a cover. It can also
mean a village (as covered in); and also bitumen (as used for coating) and
the henna plant (as used for dye).

Kopher is a common word in the Old testament for "atonement" which is like
pitch as a coating, or a covering, which not only serves the purpose of a
sealing compound like the stuff people apply to weatherproof their patio
decks, but also a concealment coating like paint and/or tar and feathers.

NOTE: Old Testament atonements, while gaining offenders a pardon, do
nothing to exonerate them; viz: atonements don't expunge their history, i.e.
their offenses stay on the books like a rap sheet, and available to God as a
means of evaluating peoples' character. This is pretty serious because
according to Rev 20:11-15, those books are going to be opened for
examination to determine whether people qualify for a pass to heaven. (God
has figured out a way to expunge people's records so that they can be
legally adjudged innocent, but it's not within the scope of a study in
Genesis.)

Anyway; coating the ark with bitumen not only served to waterproof it; but
also preserved the wood for future uses after the Flood subsided and Noah
no longer had need of a titanic water craft.

NOTE: Bitumen is a naturally-occurring kind of asphalt formed from the
remains of ancient, microscopic algae (diatoms) and other once-living
things. In order for bitumen to be available in Noah's day, the organisms
from whence it was formed had to have existed on the earth several
thousands of years before him. In point of fact, I read somewhere that the
biomass that gave us fossil fuels existed even before the dinosaurs. That's
really going back a ways.

● Gen 6:15a . .This is how you shall make it:

What if Noah had some ideas of his own? Would that have been alright? No;
when God says "you shall" and/or "you shall not" then that's the law.

Some object that since paper and writing were not yet invented in Noah's
day, then God couldn't possible have provided him with plans for the ark.
But any pictograph, even one on a clay tablet or a rock face, qualifies as a
drawing. That objection infers that God was illiterate until Man learned to
read. (chuckle) I guess it just never occurs to them that holy men like Noah
were far more advanced than your average cave-dwelling hominid.

Other skeptics object that a wooden vessel the size of Noah's ark couldn't be
built because the timbers required for its structural strength would have
been so massive that Noah would never have managed to assemble its
pieces and parts.

But ancient craftsmen were far more ingenious than most people living
today realize. For example, nobody yet has really figured out how the
Egyptians built the pyramids nor how the people of Easter Island cut,
carved, and moved all those big stone heads around. And the Egyptians
aren't the only ones to mystify us. There are ancient stone structures around
the world that seem impossible to be erected by human hands prior to the
age of heavy industrial machinery; but nevertheless, there they are.

And not to forget that Noah's God was in the project. Since that's the case,
it's not unreasonable to assume God also provided Noah the tools necessary
to complete the task He assigned; and very, very possibly chipped in to help
out with the construction too. When people fail to factor in God, they
invariably end up mystified. To this day scientists are baffled about the
origin of the cosmos, with all of its life, matter, and energy, because they
refuse to factor God into their thinking.

How did Noah cut the logs that went into constructing the ark? Well;
according to the Bible, Cain's people were proficient with metals. If nothing
else; it's probably pretty certain that Noah had at least a metal hammer and
an axe; maybe several metal hammers and axes; and quite possibly saws
too.

"And Zillah she too bore Tubal-cain, who sharpened all tools that cut copper
and iron" (Gen 4:2 courtesy of Chabad.org)

How did Noah join the logs and other wooden pieces that went into
constructing the ark? Well; you know, a good cabinet maker can assemble a
very nice armoire without using nuts and bolts by the strategic use of dowels
and clever joinery like grooves, rabbets, dovetails, mortises, and tenons.

Others object that a wooden vessel the size of the ark would never hold up
on the open sea without steel reinforcement; especially when the super
storm of Gen 8:1 began blowing to mop up the water. But again; those
objectors typically fail to factor in God's involvement in the Flood. You really
think He left the only surviving humans and the only surviving beasts on the
whole planet to the mercy of the elements?

No; with God's oversight, even a house of cards would have survived the
Flood had He wished it to because the strength of natural materials isn't
fixed; they can be greatly enhanced, e.g. Samson (Judg 13:2-16:31). He
was just an ordinary man of flesh and blood; but via God's intervention,
Samson became strong enough to do things that no one man alone could
possibly attempt unassisted.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 6:15b-16a


● Gen 6:15b . . the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its
width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.

There was a cubit among the Babylonians, and one in Egypt too. But there
seems to have existed double standards in both countries. Because of that,
there exists no undisputed example of the cubit that remains to the present
time; so the length of the cubit has been variously estimated.

One of the ancient cubits was the length of a man's forearm, from the elbow
to the tip of the middle finger, as is implied from the derivation of the word
in Hebrew and from the Latin cubitum. It seems to be referred to also in
Deut 3:11 as "after the cubit of a man." But that's too vague, and unsuitable
for a scientific standard because not all men's arms are exactly alike.

The Babylonians employed two different cubits: the so-called royal cubit and
the common cubit. From the remains of buildings in Assyria and Babylonia,
the royal cubit is made out to be about 20.6 inches. A cubit of similar length
was used in Egypt. This was probably the cubit mentioned by Ezk 40:5 and
possibly that of Solomon's temple as "cubits after the first measure" (2 Chr
3:3)

The commercial cubit was shorter, and has been variously estimated at
between 16 and 18 inches or more, but the evidence of the Siloam
inscription and of the tombs in Palestine seems to indicate 17.6 inches as
the average length. This was the cubit of six palms, while the longer one
was of seven (Ezk 40:5). The cubit mentioned in Judges 3:16 is from a
different word, the Hebrew gomedh, and was probably shorter.

The cubit of Noah's day remains a total mystery. We have no way of
knowing exactly how long it was. Maybe Noah and his boys passed on their
antediluvian knowledge of weights and measures to the post-flood world and
it stayed pretty close to the original standards over the years; but it's
impossible to know for sure.

If we use an 18-inch cubit as a close approximation, then the ark would
have been in the neighborhood of 450' long x 75' wide x 45' high. The ark's
beam was 30 feet wider than its height, so should have proved very stable,
and difficult to capsize even in rough seas-- especially since it had a flat
bottom, which was good too for the purpose intended.

Nothing fancy. Since the ark didn't have to navigate; then it didn't require a
means of propulsion nor was there any practical use for a bow, or a stern, or
a wheel house, a rudder, sails, engine room, anchor, windlasses, or masts--
not even a handrail around the main deck. Since the ark didn't have to cut
through the water like a schooner, then it didn't need tapered undersides. All
the ark really had to do was float. It was really nothing in the world but a
barge: and a very crude barge at that. Really little more than a very large
watertight crate.

Compared to modern ships, 450 feet is not all that big. Oil tankers are
around 1,500, and the Nimitz aircraft carrier is about 1,092 feet. The
distance from home plate to the center field fence in major league baseball,
averages 400 feet or better. So the ark would just about fit into Yankee
stadium. The main playing area of a football field is 300 feet. Add 26 more
for the end zones, and the total is 326; which is still 124 feet short of the
ark's length but at least gives some idea of its scale.

● Gen 6:16a . . Make an opening for daylight in the ark, and
terminate it within a cubit of the top.

The ark was probably capped with a steeply sloped roof so the immense
volumes of water falling from the sky during the rain stage of the Flood
wouldn't impinge it perpendicularly; but rather strike a glancing blow; and
the eves were likely quite considerable so water running off the roof wouldn't
find its way to the window. Whether or not the window was shuttered isn't
stated, but was very likely a practical consideration. The first forty days of
the Flood were extremely inclement; and later on down at the end of the
voyage there was a howling wind to reckon with.

The dimensions of the window aren't stated, and it's design is a bit of a
mystery because later we'll see that Noah was apparently unable to look out
and see for himself whether the ground was dry. It could have been as wide
as six feet and extended the full length and width of the ark-- all the way
around it; who really knows. The only requirement was that it be adequate
for light; but undoubtedly served for ventilation too. With all that respiration
going on in there, Noah's air supply would become foul in very short order.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 6:16b-17


● Gen 6:16b . . Put the entrance to the ark in its side; make it with
bottom, second, and third decks.

A hatch in the hull was practical. Its cover could be let down as a boarding
ramp.

The very bottom of a ship is normally not counted as a deck. The lowest
deck is usually somewhat above the bottom and separated from it by a void
called the double bottom. That way if the actual bottom is pierced, the ship
won't sink because the void is sealed.

Whether or not Noah's craft had a double bottom is unknown; but likely it
had at least a bilge because the lowest deck needs to be above the bottom a
bit so the passengers and crew don't have to slosh around down there in the
lower parts of the ship where fetid water and other unsavory liquids typically
collect.

The spaces between decks were fairly tall. If we divide 45 by 3 we get
roughly 15 feet apiece not counting a bilge, nor the thickness of the deck
planks and their beams. Fifteen feet can accommodate pretty tall animals;
and provide enough room for the birds to exercise now and then too.

An ark 450 feet by 75 feet, with three decks would have provided 101,250
square feet of living space. If Noah were resourceful, he might have installed
shelves and cabinets on the hull and the bulkheads, plus more on the
overheads, and the underside of the ark's roof for even more storage/living
space. thus he would have taken advantage of not just the ark's square feet;
but also its cubic feet.

Critics insist there wasn't enough space aboard for all the various creatures
in Noah's day, but they fail to take into account a few facts. For one, nobody
really knows how long the cubit of Noah's day was and, most importantly,
nobody really knows how many species of life existed in his day.

By the time h.sapiens appeared on this old earth of ours, some colossal
mass extinctions had already taken place; and on top of that, the species
that exist on earth in our day, may not have existed in Noah's day, but
instead what we are seeing in our day is the result of millennia of somatic
mutations and adaptations.

Larger creatures could have shared their spaces with smaller creatures, even
permitting the ones smaller than themselves to climb up and rest on their
backs. Life finds a way.

They say there are seven wonders of the ancient world, but that is not quite
accurate. There's actually eight if we include Noah's ark. Sure, building a
giant floating barn like Noah's would be child's play for a modern shipyard
like Northrop Grumman Newport News; but in his day, it had to be quite a
feat.

● Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters
upon the earth-- to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is
breath of life; everything on earth shall perish.

Some think the Flood was merely a local event rather than a global deluge.
But that is not the way Genesis describes it. The author quotes God saying;
to destroy "all flesh under the sky" and: "everything on earth" shall perish.

If the Flood were to be local, then it would only be necessary for Noah and
his family and the animals to simply migrate to a different region rather than
go to all the trouble of building an ark. No. The idea of localized flooding is
totally unacceptable because "the sky" is everywhere.

Ironically, and perhaps even humorously, many of the people arguing for a
localized Flood are convinced it's a myth anyway so I have no clue where
they see the point of arguing its extent.

The word for "waters" is from mayim (mah'-yim) which is a plural noun that
can be used either in a plural sense as here in Gen 6:17, or in a singular
sense as in Gen 21:14.

Were the waters of the Flood fresh or salt? It doesn't matter, since the one
who created the physical requirements of all life is easily able to adapt it to
suit His purposes. But the sea's saltiness isn't static; it's increasing all the
time, and always has. Which means that if you were to go back in time, the
sea was a lot less salty in Noah's day than it is today; ergo: aquatic life's
adjustment to dilution back in his day wouldn't have been as extreme as
aquatic life's adjustment would be in our day.

/

 

[WebersHome]

-
Genesis 6:18-20


● Gen 6:18 . . But I will establish My covenant with you, and you
shall enter the ark, with your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives.

Biblical covenants are legally-binding contracts; and may include stipulations
for all parties involved; and then again may stipulate responsibilities for only
one of them with the other simply being along for the benefit; sort of like an
irrevocable trust. Covenants may, or may not, include penalties for breach of
contract; and sometimes those penalties are very severe; e.g. Lev 26:3-38,
Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69.

● Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two
of each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and
female. From birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of
creeping thing on earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.

Apparently one pair of each kind was a minimum; I mean; Noah took four
pairs of humans aboard; and he was later given updated instructions to take
seven pairs of some species.

Fortunately Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers. The
Bible says two of each "shall come to you." which implies of course that
species who failed to come got left behind and went extinct in the Flood.

There was plenty of time for them to make it because Noah was 120 years
building the ark and getting it ready. Since the animals selected were
cooperative and docile, then the smaller beasties could hitch rides on the
larger ones and thus save themselves some steps.

A man named Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4
years from June 1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450
miles, crossing four continents and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of
shoes, and walking more than 20 million steps. That was an odd thing to do,
but does prove it can be done in a relatively short time; so 120 years was
plenty enough for all the critters to make it on over to Noah's place in time
for the Folly's maiden voyage.

If the ark were to launch in 2017, critters would have been on the move
towards it since 1897-- six years before the Wright Brothers historical
flight, and fifteen years before the Titanic foundered --and probably
reproduced many times along the way since there are not all that many
species that live to see 120 years of age.

But how did they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny
theological problem. But with today's knowledge of the geological science of
plate tectonics, the answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know
that continental land masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry
parts brought so close together as to form one single super continent.

Scientists also know about magma hot spots and pressure points that can
raise and lower the earth's crust like a service elevator. Subduction no doubt
played a role by pushing sea beds up above sea level and made to form land
bridges; thus expediting migration.

This idea is by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old
stone structure used to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the
surface of Lake Huron; and is the most complex structure of its kind in the
Great Lakes region.

The structure consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac.
Within the lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters
hid while taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that
hunting was probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down
the lanes towards the blinds while another group waited to attack.

The site-- discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley
Ridge, 35 miles southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor
connecting northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario.

Ten miles off the coast of Alabama in 60 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico,
are the remains of a Bald Cypress grove that's estimated to be eight to
fourteen thousand years old; testifying that the earth's topography was
quite a bit different in the ancient past.

Actually the Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) mass
anyway, although its profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea
level at various high spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were
smooth, the world would be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the
Earth's mantle were perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough
water present even today to cover the land to a depth of 9,000 feet of
water. That would be equivalent to a global ocean approximately 1.7 miles
deep.

Normal geological processes take thousands of years to accomplish, but
when you factor in the creator's participation in the Flood event, it's no
problem at all for the supreme being who has absolute power over not just
the earth's geological processes; but all the rest of nature's processes too.

What about dinosaurs? Did they go aboard with Noah too? No; too late.
Paleontologists are pretty sure the Jurassic era was over and gone by means
of a mysterious mass extinction event several millennia before the entrance
of human life on the earth; which, in my layman's opinion, is pretty good
proof that the six "days" of creation were quite a bit greater in length than
24 solar hours apiece.

/