Genesis 1-11 Many of the stories in these chapters have been called myths that were borrowed from pagan cultures. Does that mean that they didn't really happen?
I usually steer away from talking about whether the Scriptures themselves are mythic in nature because, as you indicate, “myth” in modern usage means a lie and is placed in the same category as belief in the Loch Ness monster. Actually, the primary meaning of the word is “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.”
Examples in the Bible include the Creation Myth with its three-tier universe, God wrestling with the forces of chaos symbolized by the ocean and the sea monster Leviathan, the mythic Tree in the Garden of Eden found in other cultures, the Flood Myth with its close parallels to Babylonian stories, the well-known story of a dead god rising from the underworld, popular pictures of Sheol in neighboring cultures, and language from poems to Baal being reworked in the psalms to praise Yahweh.
There are several ways of viewing these mythic parallels:
1. The History of Religions movement uses them as proof that there is no such thing as true revelations from God but each succeeding culture utilized some beliefs from previous cultures and built on them to suit their own needs.
2. Some examples such as the reference to god(s) residing on Mount Zephon in Is. 14:13 just accurately portray the beliefs held by the pagan nations at the time (Babylon in this case) without in the least indicating that the Jews themselves believed those myths.
3. Some of the mythic language of neighboring nations is utilized because it would have been familiar to the Jews at the time. However, it is transformed in the Bible so as to be used in the service of the true God. This is much like Luther turning popular drinking songs into hymns.
4. Many of the so-called parallels in the Bible to pagan mythology are actually quite a bit weaker than originally portrayed by liberal scholars. One example would be the so-called primal struggle between God and chaos.
5. In some cases, the direction of borrowing is very much in question. One example is the Flood Myth. Scholars are now not sure whether the Jews borrowed it from an earlier Babylonian account, whether the reverse is true, or whether both derive from a common source (perhaps from a memory of the actual event recounted orally throughout the ages in each culture).
6. Lastly, there is the approach of C. S. Lewis to consider. As you know, he was a trained classical scholar and teacher who was thoroughly acquainted with the myths of early cultures. The similarities between Christian beliefs and the Norse and Greek myths, such as the miraculous birth of a god-man and the resurrection of a hero or god from the dead, had been (and continue to be) used by skeptics to cast doubt on the historicity of the Bible. By contrast, it was these same similarities that were partially instrumental in converting Lewis from his earlier agnostic position. He reasoned that God would not have introduced Christ into the world without first preparing the people for that event, which was done by direct revelation in the case of the Jews and by the introduction of appropriate mythic beliefs into the other cultures. The coming of Christ was “myth become history.”
Genesis 1:1 How should this verse be properly translated?
Translators are divided whether to translate it as “When in the beginning, God...” or “In the beginning God.” Either is possible grammatically. The former translation infers that God used pre-existing matter while the latter infers that there was no matter before God began. Theology in the rest of the Bible goes with the latter view. However, this may not indicate the absolute beginning of time. For example, the angels were already present. Other examples of existence before the world was created are found in John 1; 17:5,24; Ephesians 1:4; I Peter 1:20; Titus 1:2; and II Timothy 1:9. Look at John 1; the first 5 verses echo Genesis 1:1-5. Additional information follows in that the creation was for Jesus and that he sustains it today. The word for create (bara) is generally used in relation to God and denotes something brand new (but not necessarily ex nihilo since it is used for the creation of man, which we learn later utilized mud). However, see Hebrews 11:3 and Revelation 4:11 for that idea. “Heavens and earth” is a merism used elsewhere to indicate all of creation.
Notice the theology contained in the first verse: There is a God, He was in the beginning, He existed before creation and is apart from it, He created everything, there was a beginning to the universe. God is not dependent on the creation for His existence. One option for him was not to have created anything. Westminster Confession says that he created it “for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom and goodness.” Creation is theocentric to be “the theater of His glory” (John Calvin). Read Hebrews 11:3: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.” This indicates that this insight only comes through revelation; it cannot be discovered by scientific means.
Genesis 1:26-27 Who is the “us” God is referring to? Also, it says, “Let us make man in our IMAGE. What is that similarity?
Regarding your first question:
It is sometimes proposed that God is talking to the heavenly court of angels, but nowhere else in the Bible is it taught that we were created in the image of angels.
The standard Christian view is that this is the first reference to the Trinity in the Bible. This view is supported by the fact that the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2) and Christ (John 1:1-4) were both involved in the creation.
A third grammatical explanation, which is consistent with #2 above, is that God is talking to himself in this sentence. The plural pronouns "we" and "are" are utilized so as to be in agreement with the plural word for God in the sentence: Elohim. This so-called "plural of majesty" is used in Hebrew for other objects that contain more than one part to them, such as mountain ranges. An English example of plural of majesty would be the word "scissors."
Addressing your second question, several proposals have been offered to explain what the similarity is:
Older commentators sometimes pointed to intelligence and self-awareness as being the characteristics that set us apart from the animals. However, more and more scientific studies are demonstrating that at least some animals do possess what we could call true self-awareness and intelligence.
When I used to teach creativity classes at work, I would explain that the only thing we really know about God up to that point in the Bible is that He is a creator. Therefore one could make the point that creativity is what we have in common with God. Dorothy Sayers, for one, agrees and argues: “When we turn back to see what he says about the original upon which the image of God was modeled, we find only the single assertion, 'God created.' The characteristic common to God and man is apparently that: the desire and the ability to make things.” But I am no longer wholly satisfied with this answer either since animals have again been shown in studies to possess a certain amount of creativity in solving problems and can even make tools to aid them.
Another approach taken by some is to state that man was indeed perfect like God until the Fall and expulsion from the garden. However, note that Satan tempted Adam and Eve with the possibility of becoming like God. And, when they were driven out of Eden, God did not say, “Now they will no longer be like us” but “See, the man has become like one of us.”
Probably the most common approach taken nowadays is this: The prohibition against making images of God comes from the fact that only man is in God's image. “God set man in the world as a sign of his own authority, in order that man should uphold his-God's-claims as Lord...man is God's authorized agent on earth and has his worth only as such.” (von Rad) The nature of likeness is thus not physical, but in terms of function—lordship over the earth. This explanation stresses the idea of stewardship using Genesis 1:26b as the context.
But I think that all of these similarities take a back seat to the really important one. In Genesis 2:7 we have a more detailed description of man's creation. Whether this merely elaborates on the Genesis 1 story or describes a separate creation of the first truly modern man does not really matter. The important point is that God took dirt to fashion him and breathed life into him. This is quite different from God's creation of the plants and animals by merely speaking them into existence. The dirt represents mankind's wholly physical nature while the breath of God represents mankind's spiritual component. This point is even clearer in the original Hebrew since the word ruah can mean breath, wind or spirit.
Without that spiritual component, which gives us such things as a free will, we are only a tool of the deterministic universe and have no more control over our actions than a machine does. That is what truly sets us, along with the angels, apart from the rest of God's creation. We are no longer complete slaves to the chain of cause-and-effect that runs most of the universe.
“Made in his image” excludes the understanding that man was made in the image of the divine council. Interchange of singular and plural lends credence to the idea of the Trinity. Rulership does not infer that we can ruin the environment as we please. Also note that dominion does not include dominion over other human beings.
Genesis 1:29 seems to indicate a vegetarian existence. Would this have been understood that way by early Jews?
This is not necessarily a command that all animals be vegetarian. Another possibility is that this verse only expresses the fact that all animal life is ultimately dependent upon plant life. This also brings up the question as to whether death, including that of animals, was part of the original creation or only introduced with the fall. Scholars are divided on this issue so we shouldn't be too dogmatic here. Words “subdue and rule” indicate that a struggle might be involved.
Genesis 2:2 Two questions arise: First, this looks like God is still working on the 7th day. Is that true?
Also, why would God need to rest at all?
The apparent contradiction is that God is still finishing work on seventh day. (LXX and Samaritan
Pentateuch say "sixth day." ) Medieval rabbi Rashi solved the problem by postulating that what God
created on the seventh day was Rest. Another possibility is a textual confusion between sixth (hashishi)
and seventh (hashebi'i). A third proposal is the rabbinical idea that God created the Sabbath (holy time)
on the seventh day.
There is the necessity of rest as an escape from work and acquisitiveness, trusting God to meet our
needs through six days of activity, a day to indulge in the creativity we were meant for. “Leisure is a
mental and spiritual attitude. In leisure, man too celebrates the end of his work by allowing his inner
eye to dwell for a while upon the reality of the Creation.” (Pieper)
Did God need to rest and recuperate from the effort of creation? No, the Hebrew word simply means
“to cease, complete.” As a Jewish sage has said, “the sabbath was not created because of the six days;
the six days were created with a view to the sabbath.” Retirement is the summit of life: the full
achievement of everything. God decides to stop working so as to allow mankind the freedom to create
on his own and/or to rest as he has. Most commentators stress that God has not stopped being active in
the world; he merely rested from initial creation. See John 5:17 indicating that God is active today in healing.
The same word “accomplished” appears in Ecclesiastes 1:11 when Solomon looked over all his great
accomplishments.
Genesis 2 The accounts in chapters 1 and 2 have some redundancies, the most prominent of which is rehashing the creation of man and woman. Why revisit this in a separate chapter?
The most general description is given in Genesis 1:1, a more specific one in Genesis 1:2-2:3, and the
most specific one in Genesis 2:4-25. This follows the Jewish rabbi Hillel's rule for exegesis called "the
general and the particular." This is also the pattern often used in early Egyptian inscriptions. Another
possible answer is that Chapter 2 is a later series of events dealing with one particular human couple
created separately, Adam and Eve.
Genesis 2:10-14 If I should take a figurative interpretation of the existence of the Garden of Eden, why
is the geographic location specifically mentioned? A figurative reading would just say the intersection
of four great rivers, not the Pison, Gihon, Euphrates and Tigris.
Anyone attempting to locate the Garden of Eden from this description would have a great deal of
trouble. The Tigris and Euphrates are of course located in Mesopotamia, but the Gihon flows from
Mount Zion in Jerusalem. Cush is usually understood to be in Ethiopia. And no one knows where
Pishon is located, but from the name Havilah it is probably in Arabia. Therefore this may just be a
poetic way of saying that Eden waters the whole known ancient world. The imagery here recurs in the
similar passage in Revelation 22:1-2 where a river of life flows from the Throne of God through the
New Jerusalem with the tree of life on either side to heal the nations. In that passage, the New Heaven
and Earth is pictured somewhat like a return to Eden, but this time in a city.
Genesis 2:16 In Genesis 1:29 we see that man can eat the fruit from every tree in the planet, but then in chapter 2 it says that he could not eat from the tree of knowledge…..why the discrepancy?
There are several ways to deal with this apparent contradiction:
(a) The tree of knowledge is a metaphorical tree.
(b) It doesn't contain seeds in its fruit.
(c) It hadn't been created yet.
(d) Chapter 2, as a more detailed account, gives further clarification to Chapter 1.
One could just as easily point to the same apparent contradiction between the two halves of Genesis
2:16 itself. In that case, we would probably reword the sentence to read, “You can eat of all the trees
except...”
Genesis 2:17 I’ve heard several interpretations of the death “declared” by God following their disobedience. What is the correct understanding? Some maintain that it was spiritual death – spiritual death. The actual translation (I think) is: “The day you eat of it, in dying you shall surely die."
An alternative understanding says that "muwth," the Hebrew term meaning physical death, appears twice in the sentence. In other words, his death would be permanent. This excludes the possibility that God was speaking of "spiritual death," which is the understanding of most because he did not physically die the day he ate of the tree.
First, to clear up a few points:
1. The word for “death” does not appear twice in this passage, but instead a particular form of the verb “to die” is employed. The grammatical construction is technically called “the absolute infinitive followed by the imperfect form of the finite verb form.” This does have the same implication of certainty that you mention above: “you shall surely die,” but apparently (according to my sources) says nothing about the permanence of death one way or the other.
2. The word yom for day has three possible meanings depending on the context: daylight vs. night (a work day), an unspecified time period, or a 24-hour day.
3. The word for “death” can mean either physical death of the body or spiritual death (separation from God).
Let's deal with each of these three points in more detail:
1. The exact same Hebrew expression “in the day...you shall die” appears two other times in the OT. The first is when Pharaoh warns Moses never to appear in his presence again (Exodus 10:28), and the second is when Shimei is warned not to cross the river if he wants to keep living (I Kings 2:37,42). In the contexts of these two passages, the phrase above makes more sense if it is referring to the inevitability of the deaths, not their actual time frame. In other words, it is a Hebrew idiom expressing the certainty of death if certain conditions are not met.
2. Looking at the near context of the word yom reveals that the identical phrase “in the day” appears in both Genesis 2:4 and 5:1-2. The first passage mentions the “day” in which God created everything (at least seven-days long even for a fundamentalist), and the second one talks about the “day” when God created mankind, both male and female. But according to Gen. 2, quite a few events transpired between the time that Adam was created and the time when Eve was made. So the most likely usage of yom in 2:17 is as an unspecified time period.
The most telling factor, of course, is that Adam and Eve did not physically die in that same 24-hour day. There have been several attempts to stick to a 24-hour understanding and still translate “die” in the physical sense without making God into a liar. One proposal offered by a number of mainly Calvinist scholars is that God in his mercy relented and delayed their physical death until a later time. A rabbinical explanation was also offered early on: Adam lived to almost 1,000 years old, but with God a thousand years are as a single day.
The following phrases demonstrate how a variety of Bible scholars interpret the inevitability of physical death expressed in this passage: “you are doomed to die eventually,” “you will become mortal rather than immortal,” “a death sentence is announced by divine decree whether it is ultimately carried out or not,” and “man entered into a state in which bodily death was now inevitable.”
3. Regarding the full definition of death in this passage, every source I have looked at considers that both physical and spiritual death are in mind. The clearest demonstration of this fact is seen in the aftermath of Adam and Eve's sin: they are excluded from Eden and the very presence of God (spiritual death), and from the tree of life so that they will return to the dust they came from (physical death).
This does bring up the somewhat controversial subject: Did Adam and Eve possess immortality in the first place? There was no prohibition in Genesis 2:16-17 against them eating from the Tree of Life in the garden. Genesis 3:22-24 seems to imply that they had not yet eaten of it, but the Hebrew in those verses can also be understood to say, “he might reach out his hand and continue to eat from the tree of life and live forever.” According to this understanding, mankind only possessed immortality as long as it had access to the tree, as we will eventually according to Revelation 20-21. I Timothy 6:16 states that only God has immortality, but that statement reflects the current situation only, not any possible immortality that mankind had at one time in the Garden. “The Scriptures do not teach the continued existence of the soul by virtue of its inherent indestructibility...Since, according to the Scriptures, man has been created by God and continues to be dependent on God for his existence, we cannot point to any inherent quality in man or to any aspect of man which makes him indestructible.” (Hoekema, The Bible and the Future)
In short, the jury is still out on that subject.
Genesis 2:18 Am I wrong, or doesn't this verse seem to indicate that woman's proper place in life is to
be a helper to her husband?
One prominent theologian, David Noel Freedman argues that "fit" should better be translated "equal."
Also that the word translated "helper" usually connotes "savior" or "strength." The latter is preferred in
this case. Eve is a power equal to Adam. This equality is also stressed in the Genesis 1 version of the
creation and in Adam's phrase "bone of my bone," etc. Also, the Hebrew word for helper used here is
most often used for God himself. So it does not connote inferiority. Other commentators disagree with
Freedman's translation but state nevertheless that helper is not inferior by nature since God is called a
helper elsewhere in the Bible.
Genesis 3:1-4 How can the garden be a paradise if Satan is present?
I assume from that question that you would define “paradise” as a perfect place. The first thing to note is that Genesis 1 defines the whole of creation as “good” but not necessarily perfect, and Genesis 1:26,28 tells man that he must have dominion over all the living creatures and subdue the earth. Both of these commands imply some sort of struggle, which most of us would define as less than perfect. When God plants the Garden, it nowhere states that this is going to be a more perfect place than the rest of creation, only that it contains trees with fruits that are pleasant to look at and good to eat. (The latter idea was already present in Genesis 1:29.) Man will still have to physically maintain it, not paradise as far as a sedentary person as myself is concerned.
There are three additional indications that the Garden is not perfect. Genesis 2:17 states that at the time the Garden was planted by God, conditions were not even good, let alone perfect – man did not have a mate. Then, as you point out, the serpent was certainly not a “good” being by any stretch of the imagination, and yet Genesis 3:1 goes out of its way to point out that he was made by God. Thirdly, and most importantly, God planted in the middle of the Garden a tree that would lead to the death of anyone who ate from it. So much for a paradise!
So where did the equation Eden = paradise come from? Much of it involves a historical development of language over time. The references to the Garden of Eden in the rest of the Bible are few and far between, and none of them defines it as a perfect place. Ezekiel 28 and 36 contain two taunt songs making fun of then-current leaders in exaggerated terms. Eden is called “the garden of God” in both chapters and it is pictured as a place containing valuable jewels (28:13) and trees almost as grand as the cedars of Lebanon (31:8-9).
The prophets also reference the Garden of Eden in a few descriptions of Israel's future. Ezekiel 36:33-36 promises that one day Israel's abandoned towns will be like the Garden of Eden, which he defines as being “tilled, inhabited and fortified.” This still falls far short of a description of paradise according to our current use of the word. Isaiah goes somewhat further in saying that Zion's waste places will be like “the Garden of Yahweh,” defined as being full of joy, gladness, thanksgiving and song (Isaiah 51:3). The reverse side of the coin uses the Garden of Eden as part of a judgmental prophecy against Israel. Joel (2:1-3) says it will be equivalent to a mighty fire burning up a lush garden and turning it into a desolate wilderness. That is about it for the OT references.
Moving to the NT and the Greek language, the connection between the Garden of Eden and “Paradise” comes primarily from the fact that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew gan (“garden”) in Genesis 2-4 and Ezekiel using the Persian loan word paradeisos, having the original meaning of “enclosure, park, or pleasure ground.” This word appears several times in the NT, where it is usually rendered as “paradise” in English. By the time of the NT references, the word certainly had taken on more of its current meaning. But note that none of the NT references refers directly back to the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2. Thus, in Luke 23:43 Jesus promises the thief on the cross: “This day you will be with me in Paradise.” Also, Paul, in II Corinthians 12:1-5 describes someone (perhaps himself) who was taken, probably in a vision, to the “third heaven,” also called “Paradise.” We don't know exactly what or where this place is, but the best guess is that it is some sort of “holding tank” for believers prior to the Last Judgment.
The only other mention of paradise in the NT, as far as I know, is Revelation 2:7 where Jesus promises believers that they can eat of the tree of life in “the Paradise of God.” But Revelation 22 locates that tree in the New Jerusalem, not somewhere in Mesopotamia. Note that many of the images of the Garden of Eden resurface in Revelation 21-22 where they are recycled to describe the New Jerusalem in the New Heaven and Earth. However, that place is not a mere return to Eden in that it is now located in an urban, not a rural, setting, and it is superior to Eden in several ways: no more death, the tree of life can be safely eaten of, no more disease, no night, nothing/no one unclean can enter it, it will last forever, and God will actually dwell there, not just visit on occasion. A true paradise at last!
Genesis 3:10 Does this mean that sex is somehow evil?
Regarding Adam and Eve's nakedness, a few commentators do feel that their sense of physical nakedness in each other's presence indicates that their original innocent state has been destroyed by the realization of the possible abuses of sexual sin. However, almost all scholars feel that there is a much more important message being relayed in this story. Here are some representative quotes:
“The sense of shame attached to physical nakedness manifested consciousness of inner nakedness, the stripping of the glory of holiness from the soul.” New Bible Commentary
“...the instinct (to hide in shame) was sound and God confirmed it (v. 21), for sin's proper fruit is shame.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis
“But as soon as human rebellion and self-assertiveness reared their ugly heads, shame, guilt and self-consciousness took over. Pathetic attempts at self-concealment are replace by God's own provision of covering...Clothing is God's covering, his divine gracious response to human rebellion. Being unclothed thus becomes a metaphor for being exposed to the judgment of God.” Dictionary of Biblical Imagery
“The fear of nakedness in God's presence was hardly a bodily matter; they knew that what they had done could not be hidden from Him.” International Bible Commentary
“...the motif of nakedness...obviously stands for more than a lack of covering, in view of the shame and fear that was generated over it. From this point on, all sinners will fear the Lord God when their guilt is uncovered.” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
“It is tempting to see atonement in verse 21 (i.e. when God clothes Adam and Eve).” Handbook on the Pentateuch
“It was not skin nakedness they discovered, but the nakedness of their dead souls...When sin came there was nothing left of righteousness and they were naked indeed...Fig leaves were a substitute for righteousness.” Barnhouse, Genesis
“Adam and Eve first clothed themselves with leaves, which was the proper response to shame and guilt, but the only satisfactory clothing would have to come from God.” Genesis 3:21 describes “...the provision of clothing from the Lord, in which the human instinct to cover guilt is superseded by the Lord.” Ross, Creation and Blessing
Genesis 3:17 Do you think that God might have cursed only the ground that Adam was to “farm” and not the ground from then on? (He created the ground and said it was “good.” Did He then curse His own creation forever? Seems improbable.)
1. Since the punishment for Eve applied to all her subsequent descendants, we can infer that the punishment for Adam also applied to all his descendants. Thus, the ground would be cursed wherever they happened to work the soil.
2. Remember that the creation was originally “good.” That is precisely the import of Genesis 3 in explaining why creation today is not as “good” as it was in Genesis 1. The cursing of the ground obviously affected more than just Adam's immediate surroundings since hundreds of years later Lamech states in Genesis 5:29 that the ground was still cursed and hopes that the birth of Noah will remove the curse. This does indirectly come about after God cleanses the earth with a flood and announces afterward in Genesis 8:21 that He will not take any such drastic measures in the future due to man's sins. You could perhaps make the argument that the original curse on the ground due to Adam's sin was removed at the same time, but I have never seen that argument in print before.
3. At a much later date, Paul writes that all creation is "subjected to futility...its bondage to decay." (Romans 8:18-23) This is an apt description of the Law of Entropy -- everything is winding down.
Genesis 4:2-5 Is there any significance to why Cain was a farmer and Abel a shepherd? Also, Why was
Cain’s offering not acceptable?
Responses either center in on (A) on Cain himself or (B) on the sacrifice.
(A) Note that God has no respect for Cain and his sacrifice. It was not made in the right attitude—as
evidenced by his subsequent behavior. If Cain had been trying to please God with his sacrifice rather
than just doing it out of duty, his logical response should have been one of sadness or repentance rather
than anger at God. Cain had some moral flaw. Abel offered from his own possessions while Cain
offered from common possessions.
Abel offered a tithe of the flock while Abel offered only a minimal amount. See Hebrews 11:4-- Abel
had faith and Cain didn't (“a more acceptable sacrifice”). There was even a legend that Cain was the
son of Eve and Satan. See I John 3:12-- “We must not be like Cain who was from the evil one and
murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's
righteous.” He was only going through the motions of the ritual without his heart being in it. Abel is
said to have been righteous in his behavior (Matthew 23:35) and that was the reason his sacrifice was
accepted. The general principle is laid out in the Old Testament: “The sacrifice of the wicked is an
abomination to Jehovah, but the prayer of the upright is his delight.” (Proverbs 15:8) And then there is
the Calvinistic idea that some are destined for destruction and others for salvation-- solely at God's
discretion.
(B) The sacrifice came from the ground, which was cursed by God. It reflects an anti-agrarian attitude
in Israel during the time it was written. Only a blood sacrifice is ultimately acceptable to God. This
explanation is unlikely since the later levitical laws specify that cereal offerings are also acceptable.
Also, Abel offered from the choicest of his flock while Cain did not pick the best of the crop. The
Septuagint translation infers that the rejection was due to some ritual infraction in the way the sacrifice
was prepared or burned. If the sacrifice was fruit, then it was rejected since it is a reminder of the
forbidden fruit.
Alternatively, the sacrifice may have been merely a test, such as the eating of the tree of knowledge--
the real importance is in how man responds to an apparent lack of interest. God does not actively reject
Cain's offering; he just doesn't consider it. God doesn't even get mad at Cain when he shows anger; only
later when he kills Abel. At this point he is gently warning Cain to get his anger under control or he
will sin.
Genesis 4:15 What mark was placed on Cain?
Totally unknown, but whatever it was was a mark of protection, not a curse. This makes a mockery of
the belief by some in the slave-owning South, and Mormon teaching up to recent years, that a Negro's
black skin was the sign of being cursed by God.
Genesis 4:16 How could Cain leave the “presence of the Lord?”
Cain spiritually departs from God, not that he went outside of God's sphere of influence.
Genesis 4:17 Where did cities and other people come from? Where did Cain’s wife come from? I
assume she wasn’t his sister.
Since the patriarchs lived hundreds of years, it is conceivable that Adam and Eve could have had a
number of other children and grandchildren not mentioned in the text. See Genesis 5:4.
Also is the possibility that Adam and Eve are only one couple specifically created after the general
creation of mankind in Genesis 1. Genesis 4:14 seems to indicate this possibility.
Intriguingly, the city considered by archeologists to be one of the oldest in Mesopotamia has as its
oldest attested name UNUG (see Genesis 4:14).
Genesis 4:23-24 Why is Lamech’s rant in verse 23 relevant?
The word for man ('ish) appears in Chapter 4 twice, once here and once in verse 1, referring to Cain.
Verse 15 is ambiguous in referring to either Cain or his future killer who will suffer seven-fold
vengeance. There is the possibility that Lamech has killed Cain. Alternatively, Lamech reasons that if
God will avenge the killing of a cold-blooded murderer like Cain seven-fold, he should be avenged
more since he killed for good reason. In either case, it demonstrates that civilization was starting to
deteriorate.
Genesis 4:26 When did we stop having perfect communion with God?
Note that the first time man began to pray and sacrifice to God was with Seth's children, not Cain's
children. The need to call on the Lord may imply that God no longer walked with them in person.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments