Book of Genesis: the three creation accounts

[dybmh]

If every word is to be parsed like that we'd all need to learn Hebrew without wavering in order to understand the scriptures. Fortunately for some of us, there are decent translations we can use along with commentary, sometimes about the ancient Hebrew.

The issue that I usually have with Gen 1 and Gen 2 is that depending on the english translation, some people read it and say that Gen 1 and 2 *must* be 2 different stories from 2 different sources and there is no other way to read it. Using the Hebrew this is not the case. However, I did check what I think is your preferred translation, the only minor issue I see is that it's still a little strange comparing Gen 1:28 with Gen 2:7. In the Hebrew "humanity" "Adam" in Gen 1:28 is different than "this the human" "Es-HaAdam" in Gen 2:7. But in the english both verses use the same word "man".

From this, it's a little confusing. Which was the original "man" or "human"? Was it the one in Gen 1:28, or was it the one in Gen 2:7? Were there 2 "men/humans" one inside the garden, and one ouside the garden? One was in the likeness of the image of God and one isn't?

 

[YoursTrue]

The issue that I usually have with Gen 1 and Gen 2 is that depending on the english translation, some people read it and say that Gen 1 and 2 *must* be 2 different stories from 2 different sources and there is no other way to read it. Using the Hebrew this is not the case. However, I did check what I think is your preferred translation, the only minor issue I see is that it's still a little strange comparing Gen 1:28 with Gen 2:7. In the Hebrew "humanity" "Adam" in Gen 1:28 is different than "this the human" "Es-HaAdam" in Gen 2:7. But in the english both verses use the same word "man".

From this, it's a little confusing. Which was the original "man" or "human"? Was it the one in Gen 1:28, or was it the one in Gen 2:7? Were there 2 "men/humans" one inside the garden, and one ouside the garden? One was in the likeness of the image of God and one isn't?

OK, what I really need to do is take the time to read the two accounts and discuss them. From a practical standpoint, let's just say that the account was pretty well passed on within some many several centuries ago. Meaning thousands of years. We know there is the Septuagint Version and seems the originals just aren't there -- so it makes me wonder -- why would scribes who were so fastidious in copying the scrolls pass on for a long time two differing accounts? OK, I'll look into it more, thank you for your response. I'm not sure I fully understand your question. But I think I do to an extent. As an example, woman is part of humanity, and the human race. It makes much more sense to me that the first two humans did not evolve by interbreeding somehow from some "unknown common ancestor," but were a unique creation of God. I was just studying about language and it is obvious to me that man's development of language far, far surpasses that of gorillas and birds. This is related to the unique creation of man (which includes womankind, of course.)

 

[dybmh]

GINOLJC, to all,

in verse 26 we must disagree, and here's why. if it's an "IMAGE" of a LIKENESS, then it's not a Image of the original, (Source), but a copy. for a copy is an identical duplication, and not an optical or other representation of a real object, which is the IMAGE/

listen and understand, an image is an optical or other representation of a real object. NOT IT'S "LIKENESS", but the representation of a real object. so if you have the source LIKJENESS, then you only have a copy, which only confer thr original. meaning a an identical duplication of the LIKENESS, and not the original representation of a real object. Think on that for a few.

I hear you, but the text says what it says. The image is of the likeness. Not of the original. The likeness is like a dummy, like a marionette, like pinochio compared to a real boy. Then a 2-d image is made of that dummy. That's how far removed it is from the original.

The word for likeness is a conjegation of דמה...

Klein Dictionary, דֶּֽמֶה 1

דֶּֽמֶה m.n. NH dummy. [Coined from דמה ᴵ. cp....

www.sefaria.org

Agreed, masculine and feminine is none physical. and an IMAGE is outward physical now think on this, is not the female an Adam/Man? yes, (see Genesis 5:1 & 2), and the female have the same spirit from God, correct. so how is the fundamental quality of masculine and feminine is a pair of opposites when it's the same spirit that is given by God himself?

It's the same spirit as a pair when it's given to the human. The two are opposites but joined. Choosing to create something in its own resemblence required a stepping down, a lowering, a ... I'm not sure how to describe it. It's like getting down on the floor to play with a dog. Doing this a person surrenders their position and relates to the dog on the dog's level. So, when God chose to create masculine and feminine resembling itself, those aspects, those attributes already existed in itself in potentia. Creation reflected these potential aspects and presented them. When I get on the floor and play with my dog, the parts of me that are dog-like are activated, or brought forward. My dog loves this... naturally. But I haven't changed anything about myself. I've simply changed my behavior so that it's more doggish at that time.

remember MAN became a "LIVING SOUL" by God's breath. so is God's breath male or female, or masculine and feminine? ..... NO. if so, produce the scripture to that fact.

Well... whatever it is, however you choose to translate it, breath, soul, spirit... those are all feminine regardless of which body it inhabits, regardless of the source. Look it up yourself. My position is that in that breath, spirit, soul, whatever were both aspects of masculine and feminine. And even within those two halves, each half contained masculine and feminine aspects. This masculne / feminine dynamic rules all of creation. That's how I understand the blessing in Gen 1:28.

thanks, yes we don't agree on which day man was formed. but here's something to chew on. listen, the Rib that taken out of man as said is feminine? so how could the rib be feminine before the woman was brought forth in verse 26. THINK ABOUT THAT.

The woman wasn't brought forth in verse 26. The word 'woman' is not in the text until Gen 2. But, it is interesting to think about. What I'm saying is the pair "zachar v'n'keivah" has a special meaning. And this resolves one of the issues between Gen 1 and Gen 2, as well as the issues in Gen 6 and Gen 7. And, it's also kind of cool in the grand scheme of things. How important is this concept of gender? Isn't it so so important? People make a huge deal about gender. Also, male-female pairing, it's a hugely important aspect of life as we know it, not just humans but animals, and plants. And opposites? Opposites are a huge important concept in science, art, poetry, language, everything...

Now, 101G will put forth something to you for consideration, was the Woman in the Man before she was taken out of the man? could both was created on day 3 and the woman was taken out of the man on day 6, which the scriptures clearly state that the GENDERS was made on day 6 only. case in point, was not ADAM here before the animals? let the bible speak, Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

2 points.

Point #1. Adam the man was "ALONE", meaning, no animals, nor the woman was present, or brought forth.

Point #2 if Adam was made on day 6 how could an animal made on day 5 be brought to adam who was not yet formed. remember the verse said Adam was "ALONE" and out of the ground the LORD Goid formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air. if Adam was here before God formed these animals, then Adam had to be here on or before day 5 because every fowl of the air was made on day 5. let the bible speak. Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." NOW, what day was the flying fowl made, Genesis 1:23 "And the evening and the morning were the fifth day."

well now, if the flying fowl was made on day 5, and they was formed because Adam was alone, well that put a crimp in any 6 day making of man, but not the GENDERS or sexes on day 6.

so clearly man was here before day 6 and or day 5.

Well, that's a good point about the birds. But, I understand that Gen 2 is in the garden. And the garden was empty. God cleared away all the animals and birds from the garden starting with a clean area. There's other possibilities, but this is the simplest.

Correct, an "IMAGE" of God is not "Formed" in physical Attributes, but in righteous Attributes, meaning the Image of God is spirit. our bodies is the expression, "outward" seen, of the spiritual concepts of righteousness that are "inward", that are not physically seen.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to judge based on appearances. Fast forward to Gen 3, isn't this one of Eve's mistakes? "When she saw the fruit would make her wise and was pleasant ... "

not weird, just not completely or fully not understood. is not in the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1 the letters Aleph and Tav are there? meaning with the understanding of the "FIRST", and the "LAST" ... the beginning, and the END. ....or in Greek the Alpha and the Omega...... (smile).

Yes... but also no. The Aleph-Tav is "Es" which usually means "This one". It's like pointing a finger at a word. "Es ha Shamayim" is "This the heavens" "Es Ha Aretz" is "This the Earth". "Es Ha Adam" is "This the human". Some people might look at it differently, maybe understanding it as everything from A-Z, from Aleph-to-Tav. Kind of like saying in Gen 1:1 God created everything in the heavens and everything on the earth, and it's a summary of what is included in the following verses. But other people, read it differently.

where not given dominion over the EARTH?

Whatever was created in Gen 1:27? Yes! Definitely!

good discussion,

101G.

It's a great pleasure,

 

[dybmh]

thanks for the reply,
as said was not the Female inside the First man and later brought forth. Remember God went inside of the man to bring forth the Woman, for the term woman means "OUT" of man. she is a man out of a man, a FEMALE man. think about it.

101G.

It just says, "from man was taken" not "out".

 

[Trimijopulos]

OK. Stil not the people of Israel, though, right? That's much later in the story, post flood.

We have yet to reach post-flood time. The level of the oceans (the Flood waters) may rise for another ten meters.
Almost always at the kernel of the legend or myth, there is a historical event.
Our ancestors were no brainless savages. They noticed that the sea was gulping down all the coastal areas they were living on.

So, 40,000 years ago when white people commenced migrating from the Near East to Europe, the sea level was 70 meters below the present level and kept decreasing until 19,000 years ago when it reached 125 meters below present level. Then it commenced rising. There was a period of rapid rising between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago but it never stopped rising.
All that time, the people of Israel (or the ancestors of the people of Israel, if you so prefer it) were living in the Near East and never left.
Those who left for Europe could not live all of them together and so the Caucasians (blond hair, blue eyes) had to keep going until reached Northern Europe, leaving Southern Europe to those of dark hair and dark eyes (to the ancient Greeks the gods were of the Caucasian type!!). The people of Israel back in the Near East were living among the darkest of the darker white people and that explains the reason they fought to retain their identity.

Racism commenced with the offspring born out of the interbreeding between white people and Neanderthals….they had no use for the children that came out more Neanderthal than Anatomically modern human.

I agree to a point, but also disagree to a point. The story itself can be understood in isolation, but, some people like to adjust the story based on outside sources. There are various reasons people do this: people who like akkadian mythology read their mythology into the text, people who like canaanite mythology read that into the text. You seem to be a critic, so you've found something morally reprehensible and are reading that into the text...

I prefer to try to understand all sides, while also indicating the places where outside sources do not agree with what is written.

Correct! We have to take into consideration only the elements which are common to all the stories. One such element is that the gods were some criminal, rapist rulers.
We have the life stories of the Sumerian king Gilgamesh and the Egyptian king Unas. They were both born of ‘Cow’ women who had been raped by the ‘Bull’ lords-gods. They both revolted, vanquished, and killed the lords-gods and made themselves into lords-gods who as ‘Bulls’ kept raping ‘Cows’.
What we have here is the vicious circle of “destruction and rebuilding and destruction and rebuilding”. Most probably, the story told by Gobelki Tepe.

The reason I acknowledged Goliath was a valid example in context of the topic is that is an example of an actual giant in the story. However, you have now advanced thousands of years in the story from Genesis to Kings, and then you are relating that story to something archealogical, and drawing a conclusion about skin color based on this? The chain of logic is broken from the beginning, and following link in the chain is weak.

There is no weak link in the… story of History. If you can name it we can discuss it.

Sorry, it isn't reliable.

What is not reliable, the Jewish Encyclopedia?
We read:

“In his endeavors to explain all Biblical subjects the author invented entire narratives, interweaving them with certain passages of the Bible.”

Since the text is identified as Midrashic Haggadah, it is regarded as genuine, not a forgery.
Moreover, since it is also regarded as older than the Bible, we can say that it was the authors of the texts of the Bible who invented explanations for what is written in the text of Jasher. For example, according to Jasher, the judges in the cities of the Sodom-Gomorah area were humans, while in the Bible is God himself. Which one appears to be the original?

The Jewish Encyclopedia criticizes the genuine text, not the forgery.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all,

I hear you, but the text says what it says. The image is of the likeness. Not of the original. The likeness is like a dummy, like a marionette, like pinochio compared to a real boy. Then a 2-d image is made of that dummy. That's how far removed it is from the original.

The word for likeness is a conjegation of דמה...

thanks for the reply, but if the IMAGE is in LIKENESS, as you said, " like a dummy, like a marionette, like pinochio compared to a real boy".
well now would that be a GRAVEN IMAGE, which is forbidden?
Graven: H6459 פֶּסֶל pecel (peh'-sel) n-m.
an carved idol.
[from H6458]
KJV: carved (graven) image.
Root(s): H6458
let's see what text says, Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

"in" is the same, so what is the same as God? Spirit, but what's "after" God in likeness?" . Resemblance in form, similitude, NOW GET THIS, "a counterpart". my source for this definition is the Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English.

Now knowing that let's see the Resemblance, similitude, or the counter part of GOD.
question, "is not God a Spirit?", so please tell me what is God's Resemblance, similitude, or countrerpart?

counterpart, when used as a noun, as, A person or thing that corresponds to or has the same function as another person or thing, another word for this is "EQUAL", "one of a pair",

also when used as a Noun, "Someone or something that is identical to another", guess what another word for it means? "image". "Likness", "two of a kind", "perfect likeness", "companion". "order"

when COUNTERPART" is used as an adjective. "Of the same rank, quality or significance". another word for that is "equal". "like", "same", "identical", "exactly the same", "proportionate to" or (EQUAL PORTION), or "associate"

NOW, let's see God "Counterpart", his "EQUAL", his, "perfect likeness", his, "companion", his "associate" from both the OT and thew NT.

the Tanakh. Zechariah 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones."

this term "FELLOW" here in the scripture, is
H5997 עָמִית `amiyth (aw-meeth') n-m.
1. companionship.
2. (hence, concretely) a comrade or kindred man.
[from a primitive root meaning to associate]
KJV: another, fellow, neighbour.

right there in the OT, God's companion, God's Associate, who is "EQUAL WITH HIM, is in concrete FORM, or LIKENESS. but God is abstract, (Spirit). now let's seem this EQUAL of God that is concrete, meaning in flesh, visible. Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" THERE HE IS, JESUS THE CHRIST, SHILOH, that was to come. God almighty himself in flesh.

it;s always good to go back to the beginning to get it right.

now, one other thing, COUNTERPART, also when used as a Noun, "Someone or something that is identical to another", guess what another word for it means? "image". "Likness", "two of a kind", "perfect likeness", "companion". "order"
let's see this order of God. Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
ONE: H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

there it is, Ordinal First, an as the KJV can translate it as "LIKE", or LIKENESS, is the "LAST", God Fellow in Zechariah 13:7, Shiloh, JESUS the Christ, the Lord.

Oh my this is just too easy.

101G.

 

[101G]

Well, that's a good point about the birds. But, I understand that Gen 2 is in the garden. And the garden was empty. God cleared away all the animals and birds from the garden starting with a clean area. There's other possibilities, but this is the simplest.

How can he clear something which was not yet formed, or yet there?

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to judge based on appearances. Fast forward to Gen 3, isn't this one of Eve's mistakes? "When she saw the fruit would make her wise and was pleasant ... "

saw or seeing is not always a physical property. note, she was seeing (physically) all the time, because it was order which tree to eat from and not, so she was physically seeing all the time. but here in chapter 3 when she "SAW" that was not physical, but a mental process, meaning a spiritual process. we use it all the time..... when we say, "do you see it now", meaning do you understand it now.

The Aleph-Tav is "Es" which usually means "This one"

yes, in reference to God. was there any other person at Genesis 1:1? ,,,,, answer, NO, so Aleph-Tav is in reference to God, H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') which is the [plural of H433], correct.

101G.

 

[101G]

thanks for the reply,
as said was not the Female inside the First man and later brought forth. Remember God went inside of the man to bring forth the Woman, for the term woman means "OUT" of man. she is a man out of a man, a FEMALE man. think about it.

101G.

dybmh, said, "It just says, "from man was taken" not "out".​

ok, if "from" man how? ..... do not the scriptures say, Genesis 2:23 "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
my source, The Tanakh - Jewish Virtual Library, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/berei****-genesis-chapter-2

but to give you benefit of the doubt, another Jewish translation states THE COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE, https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166 23And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

now how do we tell which one is more accurate? see what both say in verse 21. from THE COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE, 21And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and He closed the flesh in its place.
this bible kills it oneself. if God closed the flesh at Adams/the man side, then God had to"OPEN" the man side, meaning to go into his side.

see, or understand, this is how one discern scripture with the wisdom of God. just compare what the scriptures.

and here we see that the correct rending is, "because she was taken out of Man."

remember these are both Jewish publications., as with English publications, or any other publications, 101G always states, check it out with God in order to get the correct answer, else one will be in the ditch.

so, 101G ask you to re-consider your statement,

101G

 

[dybmh]

We have yet to reach post-flood time. The level of the oceans (the Flood waters) may rise for another ten meters.
Almost always at the kernel of the legend or myth, there is a historical event.
Our ancestors were no brainless savages. They noticed that the sea was gulping down all the coastal areas they were living on.

So, 40,000 years ago when white people commenced migrating from the Near East to Europe, the sea level was 70 meters below the present level and kept decreasing until 19,000 years ago when it reached 125 meters below present level. Then it commenced rising. There was a period of rapid rising between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago but it never stopped rising.
All that time, the people of Israel (or the ancestors of the people of Israel, if you so prefer it) were living in the Near East and never left.
Those who left for Europe could not live all of them together and so the Caucasians (blond hair, blue eyes) had to keep going until reached Northern Europe, leaving Southern Europe to those of dark hair and dark eyes (to the ancient Greeks the gods were of the Caucasian type!!). The people of Israel back in the Near East were living among the darkest of the darker white people and that explains the reason they fought to retain their identity.

Racism commenced with the offspring born out of the interbreeding between white people and Neanderthals….they had no use for the children that came out more Neanderthal than Anatomically modern human.

I haven't a clue whether this is true or not. If that's how you choose to read the flood event, I can't think of anything to refute it. I would have said that the author experienced a flood, maybe not a world wide flood, just a regional flood. This seems like a simple answer if one doesn't accept it as a miraculous event which wouldn't leave geological / scientific evidence. Is there a reason, in your opinion, to reject the simple explanation?

Correct! We have to take into consideration only the elements which are common to all the stories. One such element is that the gods were some criminal, rapist rulers.
We have the life stories of the Sumerian king Gilgamesh and the Egyptian king Unas. They were both born of ‘Cow’ women who had been raped by the ‘Bull’ lords-gods. They both revolted, vanquished, and killed the lords-gods and made themselves into lords-gods who as ‘Bulls’ kept raping ‘Cows’.
What we have here is the vicious circle of “destruction and rebuilding and destruction and rebuilding”. Most probably, the story told by Gobelki Tepe.

Again, I'm asking why isn't Genesis a rejection of these other stories? God in Genesis is not raping anyone. The story in Gen 6 of the men of renown is not a "good" story. The reader is lead to beleive taking the earth women is a "bad" thing. Wouldn't this indicate the author is describing God contrasted with these other myths not in agreement with them?

There is no weak link in the… story of History. If you can name it we can discuss it.

Certainly!

It has to be noted that layers containing artifacts of modern technology were found below layers containing artifacts of the older technology which means that the white people were thrown out of Africa by the black people, who remained in Africa.

Maybe the layers are as you are describing, but the conclusion drawn seems like a guess at best.

What is not reliable, the Jewish Encyclopedia?

No, "The Book of Jasher" in english is often a forgery. If you're citing Sefer HaYashar, it's midrash, it's legend.

We read:

“In his endeavors to explain all Biblical subjects the author invented entire narratives, interweaving them with certain passages of the Bible.”

So which part of "invented entire narratives" leads you to believe it's a reliable source?

Since the text is identified as Midrashic Haggadah, it is regarded as genuine, not a forgery.

It really depends on the source. If it were me, if the source is the midrashic book, I would not use the title "Book of Jasher", but instead "Sefer HaYashar" and give the author so there's no doubt which book you're talking about.

Moreover, since it is also regarded as older than the Bible, we can say that it was the authors of the texts of the Bible who invented explanations for what is written in the text of Jasher. For example, according to Jasher, the judges in the cities of the Sodom-Gomorah area were humans, while in the Bible is God himself. Which one appears to be the original?

Ok, so that's a pretty big problem. The Sefer HaYashar that ( I think ) you're quoting is not older than Genesis. Genesis is the original version. Sefer HaYashar takes from various late sources. The earliest is Talmud, so that's common era.

The Jewish Encyclopedia criticizes the genuine text, not the forgery.

There's multiple versions. Multiple books with the same name. The Jewish Encyclopedia isn't critisizing the actual midrash, but it is correctly identifying it as a late book which invents narrative. Why is this being considered a reliable source?

 

[dybmh]

GINOLJC, to all,

thanks for the reply, but if the IMAGE is in LIKENESS, as you said, " like a dummy, like a marionette, like pinochio compared to a real boy".
well now would that be a GRAVEN IMAGE, which is forbidden?

Well, no. A graven image is something else. Stone or metal carved or in relief.

Graven: H6459 פֶּסֶל pecel (peh'-sel) n-m.
an carved idol.
[from H6458]
KJV: carved (graven) image.
Root(s): H6458
let's see what text says, Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

"in" is the same, so what is the same as God? Spirit, but what's "after" God in likeness?" . Resemblance in form, similitude, NOW GET THIS, "a counterpart". my source for this definition is the Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English.

an image of a counterpart... OK...



Just because they are counterparts, doesn't make them close. They can be removed and joined by a chain.

or... maybe something like this...



Now the two are counterparts, but they are completely different shapes. The only thing in common are the teeth.

Now knowing that let's see the Resemblance, similitude, or the counter part of GOD.
question, "is not God a Spirit?", so please tell me what is God's Resemblance, similitude, or countrerpart?

counterpart, when used as a noun, as, A person or thing that corresponds to or has the same function as another person or thing, another word for this is "EQUAL", "one of a pair",

also when used as a Noun, "Someone or something that is identical to another", guess what another word for it means? "image". "Likness", "two of a kind", "perfect likeness", "companion". "order"

when COUNTERPART" is used as an adjective. "Of the same rank, quality or significance". another word for that is "equal". "like", "same", "identical", "exactly the same", "proportionate to" or (EQUAL PORTION), or "associate"

NOW, let's see God "Counterpart", his "EQUAL", his, "perfect likeness", his, "companion", his "associate" from both the OT and thew NT.

the Tanakh. Zechariah 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones."

this term "FELLOW" here in the scripture, is
H5997 עָמִית `amiyth (aw-meeth') n-m.
1. companionship.
2. (hence, concretely) a comrade or kindred man.
[from a primitive root meaning to associate]
KJV: another, fellow, neighbour.

right there in the OT, God's companion, God's Associate, who is "EQUAL WITH HIM, is in concrete FORM, or LIKENESS. but God is abstract, (Spirit). now let's seem this EQUAL of God that is concrete, meaning in flesh, visible. Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" THERE HE IS, JESUS THE CHRIST, SHILOH, that was to come. God almighty himself in flesh.

it;s always good to go back to the beginning to get it right.

now, one other thing, COUNTERPART, also when used as a Noun, "Someone or something that is identical to another", guess what another word for it means? "image". "Likness", "two of a kind", "perfect likeness", "companion". "order"
let's see this order of God. Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
ONE: H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

there it is, Ordinal First, an as the KJV can translate it as "LIKE", or LIKENESS, is the "LAST", God Fellow in Zechariah 13:7, Shiloh, JESUS the Christ, the Lord.

Oh my this is just too easy.

101G.

So, no... not equal, not exactly the same at all. Just similar enough to make a connection. Kindred, ok, maybe kindred.

 

[dybmh]

How can he clear something which was not yet formed, or yet there?

Earth was formed. The animals were formed. That happened in Gen 1. Humans weren't formed till Gen 2.

saw or seeing is not always a physical property. note, she was seeing (physically) all the time, because it was order which tree to eat from and not, so she was physically seeing all the time. but here in chapter 3 when she "SAW" that was not physical, but a mental process, meaning a spiritual process. we use it all the time..... when we say, "do you see it now", meaning do you understand it now.

Still, do you think it's a good idea to judge based on appearances?

 

[dybmh]

dybmh, said, "It just says, "from man was taken" not "out".​

ok, if "from" man how? ..... do not the scriptures say, Genesis 2:23 "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
my source, The Tanakh - Jewish Virtual Library, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/berei****-genesis-chapter-2

but to give you benefit of the doubt, another Jewish translation states THE COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE, https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166 23And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."

now how do we tell which one is more accurate? see what both say in verse 21. from THE COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE, 21And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and He closed the flesh in its place.
this bible kills it oneself. if God closed the flesh at Adams/the man side, then God had to"OPEN" the man side, meaning to go into his side.

see, or understand, this is how one discern scripture with the wisdom of God. just compare what the scriptures.

and here we see that the correct rending is, "because she was taken out of Man."

remember these are both Jewish publications., as with English publications, or any other publications, 101G always states, check it out with God in order to get the correct answer, else one will be in the ditch.

so, 101G ask you to re-consider your statement,

101G

The "Complete Jewish Bible" is not a Jewish translation, FYI.



Your two "go-to" options for online Jewish translations are Chabad.org and Serfaria.org. Both agree with what I'm saying. It's "from" not "out". Besides, "out" is in the text just a few verses back...Gen 2:10... the river went out. Totally different word. Same thing in the flood story. Gen 8:18... Noah and his family went out of the ark. Same word as Gen 2:10, and that's not the word that's used in gen 2:23.

To answer your question, there was a physical disconnection of some kind and the woman was built from this in Gen 2. But that doesn't change that the masculine-feminine pair was created in gen 1, delivered in gen 2, then split.

 

[Trimijopulos]

I haven't a clue whether this is true or not. If that's how you choose to read the flood event, I can't think of anything to refute it. I would have said that the author experienced a flood, maybe not a world wide flood, just a regional flood. This seems like a simple answer if one doesn't accept it as a miraculous event which wouldn't leave geological / scientific evidence. Is there a reason, in your opinion, to reject the simple explanation?

Because the ancient Egyptian texts say that the flood was caused by the inflow.
The Chinese myths say that it was caused because hundreds of fountains were opened up, and the Bible says that “All the fountains of the great deep burst apart”,
This means that the waters were rising but there was no observable source for the waters.

Again, I'm asking why isn't Genesis a rejection of these other stories? God in Genesis is not raping anyone. The story in Gen 6 of the men of renown is not a "good" story. The reader is lead to beleive taking the earth women is a "bad" thing. Wouldn't this indicate the author is describing God contrasted with these other myths not in agreement with them?

To start with, it is not “God in Genesis”; we have to use the name of God in each case.
Gen. 1:27 it is “Elohim”, i.e., “gods” who were producing men in their image by raping non-god women and exterminating the non-god offspring.
Gen. 2:7 it is Yahweh Elohim
Gen. 6:4 it is the sons of Elohim
So, what God are we talking about?

Maybe the layers are as you are describing, but the conclusion drawn seems like a guess at best.

The layers are as the archaeologists describe them. The microliths were found under layers containing older technology which means that the people using the microliths did not stay behind to teach the newcomers and the microliths appeared thousand of years later outside of Africa.

What is your explanation of these facts?

So which part of "invented entire narratives" leads you to believe it's a reliable source?

The legend of Procrustes, i.e., the man who judges a person by comparing his height to the length of Procrustes’ bed, was told by the ancients Greeks but not connected to some story justifying the actions of the judge. On the contrary, the text of Jasher provides the correct explanation as it is found in the older Egyptian texts. It is again a matter of ancient history that has been suppressed by modern historians in order to protect religion.

There's multiple versions. Multiple books with the same name. The Jewish Encyclopedia isn't critisizing the actual midrash, but it is correctly identifying it as a late book which invents narrative. Why is this being considered a reliable source?

Because the information provided is correct. Furthermore, we do not have the original Jasher (the one mentioned in the Bible) to compare it to the one we have.

As regards early and late books, one needs the explanations of the Talmud to understand the stories of the Bible since the true story was not the recorded one but the one of the Oral Torah.
The Sodom story is not the fairy tale one reads in the Bible, it is the historical event partly recorded in the Jasher.

By the way, what is your analysis of the Sodom story?

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.

an image of a counterpart... OK...



Just because they are counterparts, doesn't make them close. They can be removed and joined by a chain.

or... maybe something like this...



Now the two are counterparts, but they are completely different shapes. The only thing in common are the teeth.

that's fine for an OBJECT, but here in the bible we're speaking of PERSON, and NOT objects, let me refresh your memory,
counterpart, when used as a noun, as, A person or thing that corresponds to or has the same function as another person or thing.

also when used as a Noun, "Someone or something that is identical to another", guess what another word for it means? "image". "Likness", "two of a kind", "perfect likeness", "companion". "order"

my brother, we're speaking about "PERSON", not objects here, ok. so let's keep this discussion REAL. God is a Person, now who is God "COUNTERPART" who as the definition states, "has the same function as another person ". "Someone or something that is identical to another"

please reply to that please. thanks in advance.

So, no... not equal, not exactly the same at all. Just similar enough to make a connection. Kindred, ok, maybe kindred.

First, "KINDRED", correct. God in concrete form ... Flesh. SECOND, we must disagree in the term "EQUAL", and here's why. remember this verse? Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the pronoun "I" indicates a single person. but the LORD, our God, (per Deut 6:4), is "ONE" LORD..... correct. now this, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

now either this is the same "ONE" person, or one has two LORDS as God.

because "WITH" means, 1. accompanied by (another person or thing). 2. possessing (something) as a feature or accompaniment: 3. indicating the instrument used to perform an action:

now the term "ALSO". in addition; too. which means more that a single one, NOT a YACHID, but a ECHAD.

now, as said, either this "LORD", the "FIRST", ..... our God, (per. Deut 6:4), is the same PERSON that, "has the same function as another person ". or is, "Someone or something that is identical to another" or one has TWO "LORD'S", I'll be looking for your answer.

now, to help you out, as I said, concerning Zechariah 13:7. "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones."

this "MAN" who is God "FELLOW?" .... yes, FELLOW, using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments,
Fellow: H5997 עָמִית `amiyth (aw-meeth') n-m.
1. companionship.
2. (hence, concretely) a comrade or kindred man.
[from a primitive root meaning to associate]
KJV: another, fellow, neighbour.

dybmh, my brother, LISTEN CAREFULLY: when, "Companion", is used as a noun, as, "A copy or likeness of someone or something". the Synonyms or another word for Companion is, counterpart, Uh O ......... this man in Zechariah 13:7 is God counterpart? remember this is your bible the tanakh. also, Companion, which means "COUNTERPART", means, likeness, image, "fellow", as stated in Zechariah 13:7. also it means, spitting image, mirror image, "living image". (not stone, or wood), perfect likeness, "equal" .... STOP, this man that is God fellow is God "EQUAL". ..... now, let's quit playing any games, and no more excuses, DEFINITIONS don't LIE. this is NOT LONGER about anyone's private interpretation of any scripture. no, these are the FACTS. this man in Zechariah 13:7 is God EQUAL this is just the FACTS.

now the question is, "HOW is a MAN, God EQUAL?".... is not the bible clear, Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?" READ THAT AGAIN. or this, Isaiah 40:25 "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One."

the only answer is God is the ECHAD of himself in flesh..... meaning in LIKENBESS, or IMAGE, the COUNTERPART of HIS "OWNSELF", who is the CHRIST, GOD in FLESH, his own EQUAL, because it is God himself (in the ECHAD) his own counterpart, (First Spirit, Last, Flesh). scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." God own ARM is him, (God), in Flesh as a MAN, just as Zechariah 13:7 states.

my brother dybmh, you have heard the facts, if you have some other answer, please put your research on the table for open discussion, so we all may evaluate it. . Just as I have done here. my research can be reproduced.

looking to hear from you soon, so please re-read this post for, A. clarification. and B. edification,

101G

 

[101G]

Earth was formed. The animals were formed. That happened in Gen 1. Humans weren't formed till Gen 2.

we cannot agree with that assumption, "Humans weren't formed till Gen 2".
humans was formed on day 3 and the GENDERS was not brought forth until creation day 6.
Genesis Chapter 2 is just a detail account of Genesis Chapter 1.

Still, do you think it's a good idea to judge based on appearances?

yes, a resounding yes, in this WORLD, and here's why I say this, Matthew 7:16 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matthew 7:17 "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."

Matthew 7:20 "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Your two "go-to" options for online Jewish translations are Chabad.org and Serfaria.org. Both agree with what I'm saying. It's "from" not "out".

you better look again at what was posted.

To answer your question, there was a physical disconnection of some kind and the woman was built from this in Gen 2. But that doesn't change that the masculine-feminine pair was created in gen 1, delivered in gen 2, then split.

say WHAT? that's nonesense.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

Because the ancient Egyptian texts say that the flood was caused by the inflow.
The Chinese myths say that it was caused because hundreds of fountains were opened up, and the Bible says that “All the fountains of the great deep burst apart”,
This means that the waters were rising but there was no observable source for the waters.

It does say it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, though.

Would you please bring a source for the egyptian myth and the chinese myth that you're using for comparrison?

To start with, it is not “God in Genesis”; we have to use the name of God in each case.
Gen. 1:27 it is “Elohim”, i.e., “gods” who were producing men in their image by raping non-god women and exterminating the non-god offspring.
Gen. 2:7 it is Yahweh Elohim
Gen. 6:4 it is the sons of Elohim
So, what God are we talking about?

Gen 6 is not God, so that should be easy to rule out. And neither Gen 1 nor 2 has any rape of any kind. I'd prefer not to get derailed on plural / singular between Gen 1 and 2 and instead simply focus on refuting this idea of the Biblical god raping in order to create.

The layers are as the archaeologists describe them. The microliths were found under layers containing older technology which means that the people using the microliths did not stay behind to teach the newcomers and the microliths appeared thousand of years later outside of Africa.

What is your explanation of these facts?

I can come up with a couple of possibilites, but, it woud be better to review the actual data instead of guessing. Can you bring something describing the layers you're talking about, and also the mircoliths found outside africa? I did a little searching, and comparing the two shows significant differences.

The legend of Procrustes, i.e., the man who judges a person by comparing his height to the length of Procrustes’ bed, was told by the ancients Greeks but not connected to some story justifying the actions of the judge. On the contrary, the text of Jasher provides the correct explanation as it is found in the older Egyptian texts. It is again a matter of ancient history that has been suppressed by modern historians in order to protect religion.

So you've chosen to accept the "invented" narrative coming from a very late source because... you like that it agrees with these other stories? That's perfectly fine, but you're no longer talking about Genesis. You're talking about Sefer HaYashar. Perhaps t would be interesting to ask the question, "Why does Yashar agree with these other myths?" But the logic breaks down because Yashar is an invented late narrative.

Because the information provided is correct. Furthermore, we do not have the original Jasher (the one mentioned in the Bible) to compare it to the one we have.

It's not correct. You want it to be correct to substantiate your bias. The book your calling "Jasher" has no connection at all to the "Jasher" mentioned in the Bible. Two totally different books, with the same name.

As regards early and late books, one needs the explanations of the Talmud to understand the stories of the Bible since the true story was not the recorded one but the one of the Oral Torah.

If you want to claim oral Torah, then go find the narrative that think is the correct one in the oral Torah.

The Sodom story is not the fairy tale one reads in the Bible, it is the historical event partly recorded in the Jasher.

Nice claim. You're welcome to believe what ever you want. Jasher, at a minimum was 900CE or later because it depends on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer. So when do you think this historical event took place? And how accurate do you think Ajser could be if it was an "invented narative" written at a minimum 1000s of years later?

By the way, what is your analysis of the Sodom story?

Nothing too controversial. It juxtaposes Abraham's hospitality with that of the Sodomites. Also juxtaposes Abraham with Lot.

 

[dybmh]

GINOLJC, to all.

that's fine for an OBJECT, but here in the bible we're speaking of PERSON, and NOT objects,

except, I'm saying Gen 1:26-28 is not talking about a person. the person is not in the story until Gen 2.

let me refresh your memory,
counterpart, when used as a noun, as, A person or thing that corresponds to or has the same function as another person or thing.

also when used as a Noun, "Someone or something that is identical to another", guess what another word for it means? "image". "Likness", "two of a kind", "perfect likeness", "companion". "order"

my brother, we're speaking about "PERSON", not objects here, ok. so let's keep this discussion REAL. God is a Person,

Ah. I can stop you at the comment "God is a Person". If that's the reason for the disagreement, we should probably just agree to disagree. We can maybe proceed if we agree to limit our investigation to a certain point. I would say the book of Genesis would be a good limit. Or even the first five books. But even stretching to Isaiah, which is where you usually go to show God as a person, imo, is too far.

now who is God "COUNTERPART" who as the definition states, "has the same function as another person ". "Someone or something that is identical to another"

please reply to that please. thanks in advance.

First, "KINDRED", correct. God in concrete form ... Flesh. SECOND, we must disagree in the term "EQUAL", and here's why. remember this verse? Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the pronoun "I" indicates a single person. but the LORD, our God, (per Deut 6:4), is "ONE" LORD..... correct. now this, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

now either this is the same "ONE" person, or one has two LORDS as God.

There it is! Isaiah! I agree with "one", but pushing that into a fleshy human form is prohibitted for me. I cannot follow any Egyptian style human-god hybrids. Perhaps it's a limitation that doesn't resonate with you. But it would be improper for me as a Jew to do that.

because "WITH" means, 1. accompanied by (another person or thing). 2. possessing (something) as a feature or accompaniment: 3. indicating the instrument used to perform an action:

now the term "ALSO". in addition; too. which means more that a single one, NOT a YACHID, but a ECHAD.

now, as said, either this "LORD", the "FIRST", ..... our God, (per. Deut 6:4), is the same PERSON that, "has the same function as another person ". or is, "Someone or something that is identical to another" or one has TWO "LORD'S", I'll be looking for your answer.

Or the same infinite formless being. Doesn't have to be a person, no flesh is required for something to be "one".

now, to help you out, as I said, concerning Zechariah 13:7. "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones."

this "MAN" who is God "FELLOW?" .... yes, FELLOW, using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments,
Fellow: H5997 עָמִית `amiyth (aw-meeth') n-m.
1. companionship.
2. (hence, concretely) a comrade or kindred man.
[from a primitive root meaning to associate]
KJV: another, fellow, neighbour.

dybmh, my brother, LISTEN CAREFULLY: when, "Companion", is used as a noun, as, "A copy or likeness of someone or something". the Synonyms or another word for Companion is, counterpart, Uh O ......... this man in Zechariah 13:7 is God counterpart? remember this is your bible the tanakh. also, Companion, which means "COUNTERPART", means, likeness, image, "fellow", as stated in Zechariah 13:7. also it means, spitting image, mirror image,

So, "Amit", is a person. Thats true. But it really is more of a comrade.

"living image". (not stone, or wood), perfect likeness, "equal" .... STOP, this man that is God fellow is God "EQUAL". ..... now, let's quit playing any games, and no more excuses, DEFINITIONS don't LIE. this is NOT LONGER about anyone's private interpretation of any scripture. no, these are the FACTS. this man in Zechariah 13:7 is God EQUAL this is just the FACTS.

God's Equal? It is? Thats odd. Let me go look. ... Yeah, I don't see it. It seems to me more like a feudal lord who is speaking to one of his subjects. The sheppard who is tending his flock. The lord/duke/king is not equal to the sheppard. Literally, the phrase is "al-gezer amiti" ... "on the man of my people". The Jewish nation is God's people. God is the monarch.

now the question is, "HOW is a MAN, God EQUAL?".... is not the bible clear, Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?" READ THAT AGAIN. or this, Isaiah 40:25 "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One."

Sure, the answer to the question that is implied is "no one and no thing is equal to you, my LORD".

the only answer is God is the ECHAD of himself in flesh..... meaning in LIKENBESS, or IMAGE, the COUNTERPART of HIS "OWNSELF", who is the CHRIST, GOD in FLESH, his own EQUAL, because it is God himself (in the ECHAD) his own counterpart, (First Spirit, Last, Flesh). scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." God own ARM is him, (God), in Flesh as a MAN, just as Zechariah 13:7 states.

I know you love Isaiah, a lot of people love Isaiah. Here's a question. "mine own arm brought salvation unto me" In order for this to be God in flesh, the phrase needs to be literally true? Truly true? 100% true? If so, it says "brought" past tense. That means God in the flesh was operating in Isaiah's time? Where was God in the flesh? Where was God walking around doing the things a fleshy God would do?

my brother dybmh, you have heard the facts, if you have some other answer, please put your research on the table for open discussion, so we all may evaluate it. . Just as I have done here. my research can be reproduced.

looking to hear from you soon, so please re-read this post for, A. clarification. and B. edification,

101G

I appreciate the effort, but, hopefully you will understand, I'm Jewish. And in a lot of ways that makes me limited in what I can do. There's pros and cons to this, but it's still a joy discussing these topics with you.

 

[dybmh]

we cannot agree with that assumption, "Humans weren't formed till Gen 2".
humans was formed on day 3 and the GENDERS was not brought forth until creation day 6.
Genesis Chapter 2 is just a detail account of Genesis Chapter 1.

You know my position... here's a question. Why split it up this way? I have my own opinion, but, do you have a theory?

yes, a resounding yes, in this WORLD, and here's why I say this, Matthew 7:16 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matthew 7:17 "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."

Matthew 7:20 "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Well. If that were true, then the false prophet description in Deut 13 would read a bit differently. But skipping that, let me ask you this: A wolf in sheep's clothing is what? A wolf or a sheep? Isn't the sheep's clothing just its appearance?

you better look again at what was posted.

Oh! You're using the Jewish Virtual Library. Sorry. They are using the 1917 JPS. Kind of an old version. Regardless, I brought a lot more than this. The word for "out" is in Gen 2 and Gen 8 and all over the place. It's a different word.

say WHAT? that's nonesense.

101G.

No more so than a rib.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Would you please bring a source for the egyptian myth and the chinese myth that you're using for comparrison?

“Essential Chinese Mythology” by Martin Palmer & Zhao Xiaomin, page 67:

“Meanwhile, the Emperor Shun observed the state of his country. He saw the common people distressed and dismayed by the ceaseless waters. And he asked who could be commanded to deal with this. His advisers said only one man was capable of this. Yu, the son of Kun.”

On page 68 it says that Yu “blocked over quarter of a million of springs”.

You seem to forget the following:

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
And broke up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shall thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed ?(Job 38:8-11)

Gen 6 is not God, so that should be easy to rule out. And neither Gen 1 nor 2 has any rape of any kind. I'd prefer not to get derailed on plural / singular between Gen 1 and 2 and instead simply focus on refuting this idea of the Biblical god raping in order to create.

He raped Zipporah, the wife of Moses:
Exodus 4:24-26

I can come up with a couple of possibilites, but, it woud be better to review the actual data instead of guessing. Can you bring something describing the layers you're talking about, and also the mircoliths found outside africa? I did a little searching, and comparing the two shows significant differences.

In an article titled “Ages for the Middle Stone Age of Southern Africa: Implications for Human Behavior and Dispersal”, published in Science magazine (Vol. 322, 31 October 2008), we read in the abstract provided:

“The expansion of modern human populations in Africa 80,000 to 60,000 years ago and their initial exodus out of Africa have been tentatively linked to two phases of technological and behavioral innovation within the Middle Stone Age of southern Africa—the Still Bay and Howieson's Poort industries—that are associated with early evidence for symbols and personal ornaments. Establishing the correct sequence of events, however, has been hampered by inadequate chronologies. We report ages for nine sites from varied climatic and ecological zones across southern Africa that show that both industries were short-lived (5000 years or less), separated by about 7000 years, and coeval with genetic estimates of population expansion and exit times. Comparison with climatic records shows that these bursts of innovative behavior cannot be explained by environmental factors alone.”

Also, in the article itself:

“The cause of these two bursts of technological innovation, closely spaced yet separated in time, remains an enigma, as does the reason for their disappearance. But, intriguingly, both fall within the genetic bottleneck that occurred 80 to 60 ky and the subsequent expansions of modern human populations within and out of Africa.”

So you've chosen to accept the "invented" narrative coming from a very late source because... you like that it agrees with these other stories? That's perfectly fine, but you're no longer talking about Genesis. You're talking about Sefer HaYashar. Perhaps t would be interesting to ask the question, "Why does Yashar agree with these other myths?" But the logic breaks down because Yashar is an invented late narrative.

I respect the Bible, but it is just another ancient text and I need other ancient texts in order to comprehend the stories and the reason the authors wrote the stories in the way they did.

If you want to claim oral Torah, then go find the narrative that think is the correct one in the oral Torah.

I regard Jasher as part of the Oral Torah.

Nothing too controversial. It juxtaposes Abraham's hospitality with that of the Sodomites. Also juxtaposes Abraham with Lot.

All the killings just for that?
The world was left without men because the author of the story wanted to juxtapose Abraham with Lot?
You are insulting the author of the story who was a genius indeed.

 

[dybmh]

He raped Zipporah, the wife of Moses:
Exodus 4:24-26

ok, since you seem intent to fabricate and distort, I've lost interest in the discussion.