Book of Genesis: the three creation accounts

[Trimijopulos]

Gen. 1:27, the mythological account.
Gen. 2:7, the theological account.
Gen. 6:4, the historical account.

― 1:26-27. And God (Elohim) said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.”
And God (Elohim) created humankind in the divine image, creating it in the image of God (Elohim), creating them male and female.


This is the account provided by the ancient mythographer who recorded the cultural memory of the ancient Israelites.
We, ‘humans’, were made by the Elohim, in the image of the Elohim male and female, so we are the sons and daughters of the Elohim, and the Elohim looked exactly as we do.
Now please note the translation according to KJV:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Elohim is a masculine noun in the plural number and as such is treated by both the ancient mythographer and the translators of the Jewish Publishing Society. King James Version transformed the mythological account into a theological one by presenting “Elohim” as one person, the creator God.
This account is historically true because the kings in the ancient Near East were producing new citizens and slaves in human breeding grounds.

―2:7 And Yahweh Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:22 And the rib, which Yahweh Elohim had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

This is the theological account. Most scholars agree that the rib of Adam evolved out of the “bone” mentioned in Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation account.

5. “I shall compact blood, I shall cause bones to be,
6. “I shall make stand a human being, let “Man” be its name.
7. “I shall create human beings,

―6:4 It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth – when divine beings (the sons of Elohim) cohabited with the human women, who bore them offspring. Such were the heroes of old, the men of renown.


Here we have the same story as in 1:27 only that in this case those who raped the human women are our ancestors, the sons of the Elohim.
“Nephilim” literally means “the fallen ones”, “the exterminated ones”, “the ones driven to extinction”.
Who were those exterminated ones?
According to the Jewish scholars who translated the Bible into Greek (3rd century BCE), the Nephilim are those who all the other people groups of the ancient world called “Giants”.

οἱ δὲ γίγαντες (giants) ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις· καὶ μετ᾿ ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ (the sons of God) πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῖς· ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες (but the word in the original is “gibborim” not “Nephilim) οἱ ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος, οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί (men of renown).

Numbers 13:32 and 13:33

On arriving at the land of Canaan the ancestors of Israelites found no people there (the country had devoured its settlers) only the Giants.

Diodorus Siculus, Book 4, 21.5

Heracles then moved on from the Tiber, and as he passed down the coast of what now bears the name of Italy he came to the Cumaean Plain. Here, the myths relate, there were men of outstanding strength the fame of whom had gone abroad for lawlessness and they were called Giants.

These Giants were also exterminated, and the same happened with the Giants the ancestors of the Norsemen found on arriving for the first time in Northern Europe.
The Giants are known from the legends of most, if not all, people groups of Eurasia (and the Americas where they migrated) but not of Africa because… no Neanderthals ever lived in Africa!
Egypt is in Africa but it is also part of the Near East. Here is the Egyptian version of the creation account of Gen. 6:4.


The Egyptians were operating human breeding grounds where supposedly primitive women (foreigners, non-Egyptians) were raped by Egyptian noblemen and produced normal modern people (“the men of renown” of the Bible). The raping was done by Ra (the divine beings -the sons of Elohim- of the Bible).

So, by “phallus of Ra” the Egyptians meant their own phallus; they meant themselves. Ra was them: the Egyptian noblemen!

The same happens with the Israelites. Those who enslaved the primitive Canaanites and raped their women were the Israelites themselves. They were the sons of Elohim!

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was written to record the event when the Israelites ceased producing more Israelites by using non-Israelite women.

Here is the analysis of the story, if you are interested:
Analyzing the Sodom story

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Gen. 1:27, the mythological account.
Gen. 2:7, the theological account.
Gen. 6:4, the historical account.

Nonsense. P's cosmogony is densely theological. So, for example ...

6. For the Priestly writer, the celebratory and well-nigh triumphant work that God had begun is exclusively his. He alone ברא "created a good, ordered world;... He 'separated' and hierarchically ordered the primordial mass into a 'good' pattern; ... the created world of nature is, as a result, a harmony; and ... Elohim is Omnipotent and without rival."[24] Creation is God's good, constructive cosmogonic activity. But through ברא, P's God also acts as counteragent. He quiets the turbulent land. He takes control of the sea monsters. And he ousts his divine colleagues. ברא is an interventionist activity through which God demonstrates that he is "Omnipotent and without rival."​

​

[24] Fishbane, Text and Texture, 8.​

Source:

God's Creation: ברא in the Priestly Source;​

W. Randall Garr; The Harvard Theological Review , Jan., 2004, Vol. 97, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 83- 90​

​

It serves, in brief, as an uncompromisingly monotheistic reframing of the ANE mythos.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Nonsense. P's cosmogony is densely theological. So, for example ...

So, for example...here is what others say!!!

 

[101G]

Elohim is a masculine noun in the plural number and as such is treated by both the ancient mythographer and the translators of the Jewish Publishing Society. King James Version transformed the mythological account into a theological one by presenting “Elohim” as one person, the creator God.

is this not true? God is one person of a plurality. and this plurality is found in the titles of "First"/Father, and "Last"/Son. is not JESUS the First, and the Last?

was it not JESUS, the ordinal First who made man, and then made him male and female? ... see Genesis 1:26 & 27, verified by Matthews 19:4. and according to Matthews 19:4 God is a "he" a single person.

101G

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Trimijopulos

Genesis 6:4 is not a creation myth. Myth yes. But it has nothing to do with creation.

 

[101G]

Genesis 6:4 is not a myth. it establishes the fact that Adam and Eve had children in the Garden. a none fallen line from Adam that was contaminated by the marrying. into the fallen line from Adam, (the daughters of men). hence the reason for the flood.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

― 1:26-27. And God (Elohim) said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.”
And God (Elohim) created humankind in the divine image, creating it in the image of God (Elohim), creating them male and female.

Two important notes:

This creation is doubly removed from God. Reading it in English tends to communicate the opposite. Also, "male and female" is not the same as "a male a female". I think a better wording would be "masculine and feminine" the attributes not the physical beings.

This is the account provided by the ancient mythographer who recorded the cultural memory of the ancient Israelites.
We, ‘humans’, were made by the Elohim, in the image of the Elohim male and female, so we are the sons and daughters of the Elohim, and the Elohim looked exactly as we do.

Looked exactly like... Isn't really what's said in the text. Gen 1:27 says "b'tzalmo b'tzelem". In Hebrew this is the same basic word repeated twice emphasizing the concept. This isn't communicated in the translation. So even if we're talking about a physical creation, it would be the image of an image, or the shadow of a shadow, or the echo of an echo.

Now please note the translation according to KJV:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Mixing in the Kjv is not the best idea. Naturally they will translate encouraging a "god in the flesh".

Elohim is a masculine noun in the plural number and as such is treated by both the ancient mythographer and the translators of the Jewish Publishing Society. King James Version transformed the mythological account into a theological one by presenting “Elohim” as one person, the creator God.
This account is historically true because the kings in the ancient Near East were producing new citizens and slaves in human breeding grounds.

That's an interesting idea, although, other creation myths which create via breeding use clearer breeding language. Here, if anything it is a rejection of that notion. Add to that the mysterious "in the shadow of the shadow" resemblance and it really isn't a good fit in my opinion.

―2:7 And Yahweh Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:22 And the rib, which Yahweh Elohim had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

This is the theological account. Most scholars agree that the rib of Adam evolved out of the “bone” mentioned in Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation account.

5. “I shall compact blood, I shall cause bones to be,
6. “I shall make stand a human being, let “Man” be its name.
7. “I shall create human beings,

For this, a lot is being concluded from one word "rib". The Word in hebrew is also the "side" of Adam. Not just the "rib". It's not saying much for two creation myths to both speak about making the bones in humans. Also, there are multiple versions of the enuma elish. The version that is translated into english is at the latest 750bce. Many people in error give the enuma elish a very early date but that is not the version that is being compared to Genesis. In comparrisson with the early versions moving to the later versions each version gets closer and closer to the biblical account. So this idea that Genesis evolved out of the enma elish really is not a very strong claim in spite of its populaity. It's based on an erroneous date of composition and a few common elements which any two independent myths may have in common.

The other issue here is the idea that Gen 1 and Gen 2 *must* be two seperate stories. Although, that is not the case, but, I understand why people latch onto that idea.

6:4 It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth – when divine beings (the sons of Elohim) cohabited with the human women, who bore them offspring. Such were the heroes of old, the men of renown.


Here we have the same story as in 1:27

The very important detail that most people miss is that Gen 1:27 does not deliver anyone or anything onto the earth. So, even if a person ignores the context of Gen 6, and takes this out of order in isolation it is describing something happening on the earth, where as Gen 1:27 is not happening on the earth.

in this case those who raped the human women are our ancestors, the sons of the Elohim.
“Nephilim” literally means “the fallen ones”, “the exterminated ones”, “the ones driven to extinction”.
Who were those exterminated ones?
According to the Jewish scholars who translated the Bible into Greek (3rd century BCE), the Nephilim are those who all the other people groups of the ancient world called “Giants”.

Really, "all the othe people groups"? That sounds exaggerated. All of them? As you are probably aware the greek word being translated as "giants" is not always a physical giant. For example, take a look at Isaiah 13:3 in greek, or maybe Ezekiel 32:12. This is supported by the JPS which clarifies that the verse is speaking of men of renown.

οἱ δὲ γίγαντες (giants) ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις· καὶ μετ᾿ ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ (the sons of God) πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῖς· ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες (but the word in the original is “gibborim” not “Nephilim) οἱ ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος, οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί (men of renown).

Yes, note the word "gibborrim" = "mighty ones", that is how the greek LXX has translated the word in focus.

Numbers 13:32 and 13:33

On arriving at the land of Canaan the ancestors of Israelites found no people there (the country had devoured its settlers) only the Giants.

Has it occured to you that this could have been a gross exaggeration? Perhaps look up the definition of the word "calumnies"?

Diodorus Siculus, Book 4, 21.5

Heracles then moved on from the Tiber, and as he passed down the coast of what now bears the name of Italy he came to the Cumaean Plain. Here, the myths relate, there were men of outstanding strength the fame of whom had gone abroad for lawlessness and they were called Giants.

These Giants were also exterminated, and the same happened with the Giants the ancestors of the Norsemen found on arriving for the first time in Northern Europe.
The Giants are known from the legends of most, if not all, people groups of Eurasia (and the Americas where they migrated) but not of Africa because… no Neanderthals ever lived in Africa!

Isn't it a much simpler explanation that multiple cultures all have come up with the similar element in their mythology?

Egypt is in Africa but it is also part of the Near East. Here is the Egyptian version of the creation account of Gen. 6:4.


The Egyptians were operating human breeding grounds where supposedly primitive women (foreigners, non-Egyptians) were raped by Egyptian noblemen and produced normal modern people (“the men of renown” of the Bible). The raping was done by Ra (the divine beings -the sons of Elohim- of the Bible).

So, by “phallus of Ra” the Egyptians meant their own phallus; they meant themselves. Ra was them: the Egyptian noblemen!

In order to make the connection a rather large adjustment is needed to the story? Ra becomes the Egyptian nobles? That's kind of a stretch. Normal modern people become men of renown? That's the opposite.

The same happens with the Israelites. Those who enslaved the primitive Canaanites and raped their women were the Israelites themselves.

Except rape is prohibited for the canaanites slaves and for anyone. It's a common misconception.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was written to record the event when the Israelites ceased producing more Israelites by using non-Israelite women.

Wow, that's an extremely bizarre rewriting of the story.

Here is the analysis of the story, if you are interested:
Analyzing the Sodom story

OK, I'll check it out. Thanks.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Very interesting comments. Thank you!
I value all ancient texts and you can help me understand Tanakh better.
That, of course, does not mean that I agree with you on everything.

I think a better wording would be "masculine and feminine" the attributes not the physical beings.

Even so, the sense of the verse is not altered: the Elohim gods created man masculine and feminine. Not the masculine and out of it the feminine. The author had in mind the theological version of Adam-Eve and he, obviously, did not much like it.

So even if we're talking about a physical creation, it would be the image of an image, or the shadow of a shadow, or the echo of an echo.

Which also makes no difference. We are informed that we were created in the image of these gods. What the text does not say is that those who were produced not in the image of the gods, were executed on the spot. That information we get from the Egyptian texts.

Mixing in the Kjv is not the best idea. Naturally they will translate encouraging a "god in the flesh".

It is the Bible that describes gods in flesh. You have to admit that not all the authors of the texts of the Bible were theologians. There was the inheritance, the history of the people of Israel that had to be preserved and transmitted.

Many people in error give the enuma elish a very early date but that is not the version that is being compared to Genesis.

It is the theologians who borrow from one another, not the cultural memory of the people.
We may say that Enuma Elish borrowed from Genesis. It makes no difference. We will still be doing with theological concepts.

Really, "all the othe people groups"? That sounds exaggerated. All of them?

Absolutely all of them (Africans excluded), but I am referring to Giants mentioned if the legends of the peoples.

Has it occured to you that this could have been a gross exaggeration? Perhaps look up the definition of the word "calumnies"?

Only that they were no calumnies but honest reports. Goliath was one of the Nephilim.

Isn't it a much simpler explanation that multiple cultures all have come up with the similar element in their mythology?

Like they all came up with the God idea because God had our brains hardwired?

Except rape is prohibited for the canaanites slaves and for anyone. It's a common misconception.

The patriarchs who were raping the Canaanite and Egyptian maids of their wives, did not know of the prohibition?

OK, I'll check it out. Thanks.

I thank you too!
I’ll be expecting your comments.

 

[101G]

Two important notes:

This creation is doubly removed from God. Reading it in English tends to communicate the opposite

how so? please explain.

Also, "male and female" is not the same as "a male a female". I think a better wording would be "masculine and feminine" the attributes not the physical beings.

is not "masculine and or feminine" are only quality differences in distinctive attribute or characteristic. for in the Hebrew language that would not apply. for a Male hands are they not Identified as feminine?. but the whole being shape, form fashion, would be male and or female correct?
please understand, I'm not making these statement for an argument, but for a clear understanding as to what and how the Hebrew Language works.

Looked exactly like... Isn't really what's said in the text. Gen 1:27 says "b'tzalmo b'tzelem". In Hebrew this is the same basic word repeated twice emphasizing the concept. This isn't communicated in the translation. So even if we're talking about a physical creation, it would be the image of an image, or the shadow of a shadow, or the echo of an echo.

not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this. was not the woman made "OF" not "FROM" the man who was created on day 3, for the woman came forth out of the Man, (for she was TAKEN OUT OF MAN). who is the IMAGE of God, but with her own shape, her own form, and her own fashion. also note, she was formed in God's Image, so how could she be an image of an image, or the shadow of a shadow, or the echo of an echo? REMEMBER, the Man , not the masculinity is the IMAGE, and physically the woman is not shaped in the man's image .... physically. so please explain clearly.

Mixing in the Kjv is not the best idea. Naturally they will translate encouraging a "god in the flesh".

what about "the God" equally SHARED in Flesh? for is not H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') the [plural of H433?]

For this, a lot is being concluded from one word "rib". The Word in hebrew is also the "side" of Adam. Not just the "rib".

May I ask you something. areeed rib have several meaning. for eaxmple, watch the definition,
H6763 צֵלָע tsela` (tsay-law') n-f.
צַלעָה tsal`ah (tsal-aw') [feminine]
1. a rib (as curved).
2. (literally) a rib of the body.
3. (figuratively) a leaf (or rib) of a door.
4. (hence, literally) a person's side (left or right, etc).
5. (or figuratively) a portion of an object or the sky (i.e. a quarter of the sky).
6. (architecturally) a floor, wall, or ceiling timber or plank.
7. (collective) a flooring or ceiling.
8. (by extension) a side chamber.
[from H6760]
KJV: beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
Root(s): H6760

note definition #5 . (or figuratively) a portion of an object. another word for "portion" is SHARE. which is a plurality, is it not? now going back to Genesis 1:1 is not H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym a portion of, or the [plural of H433?] let's see it,
H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433

Now,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

both definitions are from the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

and according to the NT, the Lord Jesus in "NATURE" is the SAME "PORTION" of, of, of, God. supportive scripture, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

here "FORM" is NATURE, and God is a Spirit, (per John 4:24a).
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

definition #2, states NATURE,
so, the Lord Jesus has the SAME nature, but what KIND "OF" the same nature? answer, in the Root of G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') itself
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).

there is that "Portion" or the "RIB" that EVE got from Adam.

definition don't LIE,

knowing this, EVE is the EQUAL "SHARE" of Adam in Spirit, that came from God. for all spirits are "OF", "OF" God.

so there cannot be an IMAGE of a IMAGE of Man/male and Woman/Female, PHYSICALLY, as said, not saying that you're right or wrong, but something to consider.

101G.

 

[101G]

@dybmh
here is something to chew on and let me know what you think.
in the definition of Rib, H6763 צֵלָע tsela` (tsay-law') n-f.

צַלעָה tsal`ah (tsal-aw') [feminine]
1. a rib (as curved).
2. (literally) a rib of the body.
3. (figuratively) a leaf (or rib) of a door.
4. (hence, literally) a person's side (left or right, etc).
5. (or figuratively) a portion of an object or the sky (i.e. a quarter of the sky).
6. (architecturally) a floor, wall, or ceiling timber or plank.
7. (collective) a flooring or ceiling.
8. (by extension) a side chamber.
[from H6760]
KJV: beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
Root(s): H6760​

Note: another word for BEAM or that is synonyms with it is LIGHT, Radiate, Irradiate, or Emanate ...... BINGO, let's look at,

Emanate: 1. (of something abstract but perceptible) issue or spread out from (a source):
SIMILAR: emerge, flow, pour, proceed, issue, ensue, come out, come forth,spread out, come, be uttered, be emitted, be transmitted, arise, originate, stem, derive. Spring, start,

now listen, John 13:3 "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;"
the term "COME FROM" in the Greek,​

G1831 ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai (ex-er'-cho-mai) v.
to issue.
{literally or figuratively}
[from G1537 and G2064]
KJV: come (forth, out), depart (out of), escape, get out, go (abroad, away, forth, out, thence), proceed (forth), spread abroad
Root(s): G1537, G2064

and ISSUE means, to come, go, or flow out from:,,,,,,,,
SIMILAR: emanate, emerge, proceed, exude, discharge.

do you see it now? one more the AHLB pictograph dictionary.
Strong's #6763: AHLB#2664 (N)
2664) Limp co: Side ab: ? Limp: As favoring one side. [freq. 4] (vf: Paal) |kjv: halt| {H6760}. I. Side: The side of anything. II. Limp: As favoring one side. [ar: ele] [freq. 45]
kjv: rib, side, chamber, board, corner, another, beam, halting, leaves, planks, halt, adversity| {H5967, H6761, H6763}

BEAM, now go back tro the first definition above.... "RIB" and read it again.

now one other thing, "one" used here in Genesis 2:21 is ECHAD, but one Rib was used. which is defined as absolute, but the same definition as a absolute in "ONE" do not apply to Deuteronomy 6:4. which means the "ONE" in Deuteronomy 6:4 is not absolute. so please look into that.... ok. thanks in advance.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

Even so, the sense of the verse is not altered: the Elohim gods created man masculine and feminine. Not the masculine and out of it the feminine. The author had in mind the theological version of Adam-Eve and he, obviously, did not much like it.

Without the actual physical creation of a man and a women and delivering them to the earth, the "theological version" as you call it , doesn't actually exist. That's a problem. Gen 1 is not a complete story of creation without Gen 2.

Which also makes no difference. We are informed that we were created in the image of these gods. What the text does not say is that those who were produced not in the image of the gods, were executed on the spot. That information we get from the Egyptian texts.

I think it's important because if Genesis is not describing a physical creation of a human in Gen 1 and there is no execution, that's 2 significant deviations.

It is the Bible that describes gods in flesh. You have to admit that not all the authors of the texts of the Bible were theologians. There was the inheritance, the history of the people of Israel that had to be preserved and transmitted.

I'm not convinced that the Bible describes gods of flesh. If you're talking about the "men of renown" the "children of the divine", those aren't gods.

Have you considered the flip-side of this? The Bible is rejecting the others who believe in gods of flesh? If so, what is being preserved and transmitted is a negative role model. And honestly, at this point in the story, there is no "people of Israel". These early chapters in genesis are describing humanity in general.

It is the theologians who borrow from one another, not the cultural memory of the people.
We may say that Enuma Elish borrowed from Genesis. It makes no difference. We will still be doing with theological concepts.

Agreed. The question becomes what are those theological concepts? Are there a theological concepts that unite Gen 1 and Gen 2 instead of dividing them? If Gen 1 doesn't match mythology, then it could be theological along with Gen 2, which leads to Gen 3 which is also theological, and Gen 4 and Gen 5 and Gen 6...?

Only that they were no calumnies but honest reports. Goliath was one of the Nephilim.

Well, the land wasn't filled with giants, and the Jewish soldiers weren't grasshoppers compared to them. That part, at least, is exaggerated according to the story. But, you're right about Goliath. I had forgotten about that.

Like they all came up with the God idea because God had our brains hardwired?

All our brains are wired similarly. How that happened could be God, could be nature, could be random, it doesn't matter. What matters is that all humans are simlar, and if those similar humans are exposed to the same experiences they will develop similar elements to their mythology. One family produces short offspring, another family produces tall offspring... poof! People come up with the idea of giants.

The patriarchs who were raping the Canaanite and Egyptian maids of their wives, did not know of the prohibition?

Were they raped according to the story? It just doesn't make sense. Look at Hagar in the story. She is bragging about being with Abraham and bringing him a child. That's what triggers Sarah's reaction. Those are not the actions of a rape victim. We don't have a similar story about Bilhah and Ziplah, although they did become Jacob's wives ( Gen 37:2 ). Becoming a wife requires consent, this is implied in the story of how Eliezer found Rebecca. Her parents were relaives of Abraham. Abraham wanted his son's wife to come from people with similar values. One of those values is consent in marriage, and we see that when the parents asked Rebecca if she would go to be Isaac's wife, Gen 24:57-58. They didn't tell her to go, they didn't force her to go, they asked her to go. And she said 'yes'.

So, in addition to lacking details of a rape in the story, there are reasons to believe it's not a rape. Of course it would be better if part of the story had Sarah and Rachel and Leah asking their maidservants if they wanted to become surrogates. But, in Deuteronomy rape is explicitly forbidden, and here in Genesis it also appears that consent was obtained.

I’ll be expecting your comments.

In your analysis, I noticed you cite the Book of Jasher? That's not a reliable source, fyi.

" ... Numerous forgeries purporting to be rediscovered copies of this lost book have been written. "

Book of Jasher (biblical references) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[101G]

@dybmh,
shalom my brother. while you're chewing on my previous posts. here are some more food for thought. in the case of the term "Rib", question, "why is the definition noun, and femmine? remember the woman is now about to be "FORMED". so, really I'm asking how can the term for "rib" be femmine before the woman is brought forth?" is the term relating to something else beside the person or the creature "woman?"

101G has one possible answer, but I'll wait and hear you out first.

PICJAG, 101G

 

[dybmh]

how so? please explain.

in verse 26, It's an image of a likeness... not just an image, not just a likeness, but the image is of a likeness. That, to me, is doubly removed. Similarly In verse 27, .... in its image in image God created them... not just one image, but an image in an image.

is not "masculine and or feminine" are only quality differences in distinctive attribute or characteristic. for in the Hebrew language that would not apply. for a Male hands are they not Identified as feminine?. but the whole being shape, form fashion, would be male and or female correct?
please understand, I'm not making these statement for an argument, but for a clear understanding as to what and how the Hebrew Language works.

The fundemental quality of mascuine and feminine is a pair of opposites. It's not a concept based on the Hebrew language. However, we know the words for a physical man and a physical woman walking around on the earth. Those words are in Gen 2. Here we have something else. It's further clarified as a non-physical attribute in Gen 6:16, and Gen 7:15-16. The "zachar/masculine and n'keivah/feminine" as a pair are the "spirit of life".

not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this. was not the woman made "OF" not "FROM" the man who was created on day 3, for the woman came forth out of the Man, (for she was TAKEN OUT OF MAN). who is the IMAGE of God, but with her own shape, her own form, and her own fashion. also note, she was formed in God's Image, so how could she be an image of an image, or the shadow of a shadow, or the echo of an echo? REMEMBER, the Man , not the masculinity is the IMAGE, and physically the woman is not shaped in the man's image .... physically. so please explain clearly.

Well, I place the creation in Gen 1:27, and the story in Eden on the 6th day, the day when the earth and the heavens were made. Made meaning finished or completed. So humanity was created and formed on the 6th day. I know we disagree about this, but that's my understanding.

Regarding "of" not "from", I read it as "from". "Min Ha-Adam", "min" means "from". There isn't anything in either Gen 1 or Gen 2 that says they were "formed" in God's image. They were created, in Gen 1, but not formed until Gen 2. When they were formed in Gen 2, the parts that were created in likeness of an image of God is blown into them. What ever is God-like is on the inside.

what about "the God" equally SHARED in Flesh? for is not H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') the [plural of H433?]

Yes and no, H430 is plural of H433, usually this is reserved for other gods, not God. The plural use in Gen 1:26 is weird. That's definitely true.

May I ask you something. areeed rib have several meaning. for eaxmple, watch the definition,
H6763 צֵלָע tsela` (tsay-law') n-f.
צַלעָה tsal`ah (tsal-aw') [feminine]
1. a rib (as curved).
2. (literally) a rib of the body.
3. (figuratively) a leaf (or rib) of a door.
4. (hence, literally) a person's side (left or right, etc).
5. (or figuratively) a portion of an object or the sky (i.e. a quarter of the sky).
6. (architecturally) a floor, wall, or ceiling timber or plank.
7. (collective) a flooring or ceiling.
8. (by extension) a side chamber.
[from H6760]
KJV: beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
Root(s): H6760

note definition #5 . (or figuratively) a portion of an object. another word for "portion" is SHARE. which is a plurality, is it not? now going back to Genesis 1:1 is not H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym a portion of, or the [plural of H433?] let's see it,
H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433

Now,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

both definitions are from the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

and according to the NT, the Lord Jesus in "NATURE" is the SAME "PORTION" of, of, of, God. supportive scripture, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

here "FORM" is NATURE, and God is a Spirit, (per John 4:24a).
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

definition #2, states NATURE,
so, the Lord Jesus has the SAME nature, but what KIND "OF" the same nature? answer, in the Root of G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') itself
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).

there is that "Portion" or the "RIB" that EVE got from Adam.

definition don't LIE,

knowing this, EVE is the EQUAL "SHARE" of Adam in Spirit, that came from God. for all spirits are "OF", "OF" God.

so there cannot be an IMAGE of a IMAGE of Man/male and Woman/Female, PHYSICALLY, as said, not saying that you're right or wrong, but something to consider.

101G.

I see what you're saying. I agree that Adam and Eve were equal to each other. But that's as far as I can go with it.

 

[dybmh]

@dybmh
here is something to chew on and let me know what you think.
in the definition of Rib, H6763 צֵלָע tsela` (tsay-law') n-f.

צַלעָה tsal`ah (tsal-aw') [feminine]
1. a rib (as curved).
2. (literally) a rib of the body.
3. (figuratively) a leaf (or rib) of a door.
4. (hence, literally) a person's side (left or right, etc).
5. (or figuratively) a portion of an object or the sky (i.e. a quarter of the sky).
6. (architecturally) a floor, wall, or ceiling timber or plank.
7. (collective) a flooring or ceiling.
8. (by extension) a side chamber.
[from H6760]
KJV: beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
Root(s): H6760​

Note: another word for BEAM or that is synonyms with it is LIGHT, Radiate, Irradiate, or Emanate ...... BINGO, let's look at,

Emanate: 1. (of something abstract but perceptible) issue or spread out from (a source):
SIMILAR: emerge, flow, pour, proceed, issue, ensue, come out, come forth,spread out, come, be uttered, be emitted, be transmitted, arise, originate, stem, derive. Spring, start,

now listen, John 13:3 "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;"
the term "COME FROM" in the Greek,​

G1831 ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai (ex-er'-cho-mai) v.
to issue.
{literally or figuratively}
[from G1537 and G2064]
KJV: come (forth, out), depart (out of), escape, get out, go (abroad, away, forth, out, thence), proceed (forth), spread abroad
Root(s): G1537, G2064

and ISSUE means, to come, go, or flow out from:,,,,,,,,
SIMILAR: emanate, emerge, proceed, exude, discharge.

do you see it now? one more the AHLB pictograph dictionary.
Strong's #6763: AHLB#2664 (N)
2664) Limp co: Side ab: ? Limp: As favoring one side. [freq. 4] (vf: Paal) |kjv: halt| {H6760}. I. Side: The side of anything. II. Limp: As favoring one side. [ar: ele] [freq. 45]
kjv: rib, side, chamber, board, corner, another, beam, halting, leaves, planks, halt, adversity| {H5967, H6761, H6763}

BEAM, now go back tro the first definition above.... "RIB" and read it again.

now one other thing, "one" used here in Genesis 2:21 is ECHAD, but one Rib was used. which is defined as absolute, but the same definition as a absolute in "ONE" do not apply to Deuteronomy 6:4. which means the "ONE" in Deuteronomy 6:4 is not absolute. so please look into that.... ok. thanks in advance.

101G.

I like the creativity.

 

[dybmh]

@dybmh,
shalom my brother. while you're chewing on my previous posts. here are some more food for thought. in the case of the term "Rib", question, "why is the definition noun, and femmine? remember the woman is now about to be "FORMED". so, really I'm asking how can the term for "rib" be femmine before the woman is brought forth?" is the term relating to something else beside the person or the creature "woman?"

101G has one possible answer, but I'll wait and hear you out first.

PICJAG, 101G

I could only speculate on why this word is considered feminine.

 

[YoursTrue]

I could only speculate on why this word is considered feminine.

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.

 

[Trimijopulos]

And honestly, at this point in the story, there is no "people of Israel". These early chapters in genesis are describing humanity in general.

Not humanity in general. Only the part of humanity that arrived at the Near East area when Giants (Neanderthals) were still living there.

Well, the land wasn't filled with giants, and the Jewish soldiers weren't grasshoppers compared to them. That part, at least, is exaggerated according to the story. But, you're right about Goliath. I had forgotten about that.

You need to know ancient history in order to comprehend ancient texts. Provided, of course, that one really wants to comprehend ancient texts. There is no way to understand anything out of the Tanakh if you regard it as the word of God.
Goliath was killed by the use of a projectile weapon because nobody could get close to a grown-up Neanderthal. That is where the beauty of Tanakh is!

White people migrated out of South Africa c. 55,000 years ago and they were already using bows and arrows.
In South Africa, in Sibudu Cave, have been found: the earliest stone arrows (64,000 years old), the earliest bone arrow (61 ky), the earliest needle (61 ky ), the earliest use of heat-treated mixed compound gluing (72 ky), an early example of the use of bedding (77 ky), and microlith technology (small stone tools made of flint, used in spear points and arrowheads) which was later to appear in the Upper Paleolithic period.

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.

White people, on arriving at the Near East area, found there the Early Modern Homo sapiens of Israel (Mount Carmel), who were almost anatomically modern humans, and the Neanderthals. Interbred with them, exterminated them, and then migrated out of the Near East. The white people to Europe and those who were obviously half breeds towards the East.

The only part of white people who never left the Near East were those who came to be known as the people of Israel.
The passion of Jewish people for Judaism prevents them from acknowledging their own history (Yahweh created Adam and Eve as white people and forgot about the Chinese-Japanese and the black people!!).

In your analysis, I noticed you cite the Book of Jasher? That's not a reliable source, fyi.

It is, according to Jewish Encyclopedia

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all,

in verse 26, It's an image of a likeness... not just an image, not just a likeness, but the image is of a likeness. That, to me, is doubly removed. Similarly In verse 27, .... in its image in image God created them... not just one image, but an image in an image.

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.

The fundemental quality of mascuine and feminine is a pair of opposites. It's not a concept based on the Hebrew language. However, we know the words for a physical man and a physical woman walking around on the earth. Those words are in Gen 2. Here we have something else. It's further clarified as a non-physical attribute in Gen 6:16, and Gen 7:15-16. The "zachar/masculine and n'keivah/feminine" as a pair are the "spirit of life".

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? 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, I place the creation in Gen 1:27, and the story in Eden on the 6th day, the day when the earth and the heavens were made. Made meaning finished or completed. So humanity was created and formed on the 6th day. I know we disagree about this, but that's my understanding.

Regarding "of" not "from", I read it as "from". "Min Ha-Adam", "min" means "from". There isn't anything in either Gen 1 or Gen 2 that says they were "formed" in God's image. They were created, in Gen 1, but not formed until Gen 2. When they were formed in Gen 2, the parts that were created in likeness of an image of God is blown into them. What ever is God-like is on the inside.

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.

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.

Regarding "of" not "from", I read it as "from". "Min Ha-Adam", "min" means "from". There isn't anything in either Gen 1 or Gen 2 that says they were "formed" in God's image.

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.

Yes and no, H430 is plural of H433, usually this is reserved for other gods, not God. The plural use in Gen 1:26 is weird. That's definitely true.

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).

see what you're saying. I agree that Adam and Eve were equal to each other. But that's as far as I can go with it.

where not given dominion over the EARTH?

good discussion,

101F.

 

[101G]

I could only speculate on why this word is considered feminine.

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]

Not humanity in general. Only the part of humanity that arrived at the Near East area when Giants (Neanderthals) were still living there

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

You need to know ancient history in order to comprehend ancient texts. Provided, of course, that one really wants to comprehend ancient texts. There is no way to understand anything out of the Tanakh if you regard it as the word of God.

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.

Goliath was killed by the use of a projectile weapon because nobody could get close to a grown-up Neanderthal. That is where the beauty of Tanakh is!

White people migrated out of South Africa c. 55,000 years ago and they were already using bows and arrows.
In South Africa, in Sibudu Cave, have been found: the earliest stone arrows (64,000 years old), the earliest bone arrow (61 ky), the earliest needle (61 ky ), the earliest use of heat-treated mixed compound gluing (72 ky), an early example of the use of bedding (77 ky), and microlith technology (small stone tools made of flint, used in spear points and arrowheads) which was later to appear in the Upper Paleolithic period.

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.

White people, on arriving at the Near East area, found there the Early Modern Homo sapiens of Israel (Mount Carmel), who were almost anatomically modern humans, and the Neanderthals. Interbred with them, exterminated them, and then migrated out of the Near East. The white people to Europe and those who were obviously half breeds towards the East.

The only part of white people who never left the Near East were those who came to be known as the people of Israel.
The passion of Jewish people for Judaism prevents them from acknowledging their own history (Yahweh created Adam and Eve as white people and forgot about the Chinese-Japanese and the black people!!).

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.

It is, according to Jewish Encyclopedia

Sorry, it isn't reliable.