Genesis REVISITED

[Infamous Plug]

Genesis is one of the harder chapters to get a grip on. It's coded really well and hard to study but I spent some time on it
But I'm not sure if I got any futher ahead but i hope someone can read and tell me what they think. So heres a few points i come up with.

1: Someone told me once the Bible wasn't accurate because it didn't explain dinosaurs and such. I said read "if you have a Bible"
Gen :1:28/ Be fruitful and multiply ,and REPLENISH the earth.
It said Replenish not plenish.

2:Apples and talking snakes????
First of all Satan was not a snake and he didn't feed Eve apples,
Apple was the fruit of knowlage, ask yourself why there on teachers desks. Satan confronted Eve in Angelic form ,Yes some of the Angels were Keen, like in Gen:6:2/
That the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ,and they took them wives of all which they chose.

So as far as I understand which isn't that far ,Satan seduced Eve in a term called Holy Suduction(body,mind, and spirit) thus comes the paternal children(twins with 2 different fathers), Abel(son of Adam) and Cain(son of Satan) and you can follow the tracks of the Enemy's son and his tribe and it may be the Kennites.

3:Look!! Christ mentioned in Genesis (yes that early) such as
GEN:17:19:,
And God said ,Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed:and thou shalt call his name Isaac:and I will establish My covenant with Him for an everlasting covenant,and with his seed after Him.




Well thats a quickie anyway I'll update soon

 

[Tambora]

If this be true that Satan is the father of Cain and Kennites are the descendants of Cain, then there are two options as how they survived Noah's flood.

Either the flood was not world wide, or the descendants were on the ark.

1 Peter 3:20 tell us that 8 souls were saved by water. Were any of the wives descendant of Cain?

And was the name "Cain" only given to Abel's brother, or was there another named Cain that the Kennites descended from?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Re: Genesis REVISITED

Originally posted by Infamous Plug

Genesis is one of the harder chapters to get a grip on.

Genesis is a chapter now?

 

[Frank Ernest]

tambora:
"If this be true that Satan is the father of Cain and Kennites are the descendants of Cain, then there are two options as how they survived Noah's flood."

FrankiE:
Genesis 6:8-9, Genesis 6:18-19. Noah was perfect in his generations, i.e., direct descendant of Adam throught Seth. His wife and his sons' wives were also direct descendants of Adam through Seth, ergo, 8 Adamic souls were saved.

Genesis 6:19 says "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort ..." Were not the Kenites "of all flesh?" At least two, male and female, were on the Ark.

tambora:
"1 Peter 3:20 tell us that 8 souls were saved by water. Were any of the wives descendant of Cain?"

FrankiE:
No. If that were so, then Noah would not have been "perfect in his generations."

tambora:
"And was the name "Cain" only given to Abel's brother, or was there another named Cain that the Kennites descended from? "

FrankiE:
What would make you think that?

tambora:
"Either the flood was not world wide, or the descendants were on the ark."

Frankie:
Genesis 6:12-13 The purpose of the flood was to destroy the people who descended from the fallen angels. We do not know the extent of their population, ergo, we do not know the precise geographical extent of the flood.

 

[Tambora]

Hi Frank,

Thanks for some clarification.

If one of Noah's sons married a Kennite, would not Noah still be perfect in his generations? (that is, if "perfect in generations" means he was of pure Adamic blood).

You said:

His wife and his sons' wives were also direct descendants of Adam through Seth

Can you point me to scripture to verify this?


And which do you think it is,
not a world wide flood,
or Kennites were on the ark?

If they were on the ark, and only 8 souls were saved by water, does that mean that Kennites have no soul?


I asked if anyone else might be named Cain because if Kennite means "descendant of Cain", then we need to know which Cain they are refering to.
From the bible I don't see anyone else with this name, just a placename. I was asking the question more on a historical or archeological basis.
Has a reference to a person named Cain been found, and if so, what timeperiod did he exist?

How could anyone prove that he was or was not a Kennite?

 

[Frank Ernest]

quote:
"His wife and his sons' wives were also direct descendants of Adam through Seth

tambora:
"Can you point me to scripture to verify this?"

FrankiE:
"Perfect in his generations" would mean that Noah's family was too. If any of his sons had married away from the Adamic line, then Noah would not have been "perfect in his generations." The word "generations" translates from the Hebrew "dor" which means generations and implies posterity. Genesis 6:9.

tambora:
"And which do you think it is,
not a world wide flood,
or Kennites were on the ark?"

If they were on the ark, and only 8 souls were saved by water, does that mean that Kennites have no soul?

FrankiE:
Those questions are unrelated. The flood may or may not have been world-wide. Probably not considering Genesis 8:11.

Kenites must have been on the ark as Noah was commanded according to Genesis 6:19. Kenites have souls (Genesis 2:7). Even though they are children of Cain from Eve by Satan, they are still, ultimately, children of God and created of Him.

The 8 souls referred to in 1 Peter 3:20 are 8 Adamic souls.

tambora:
"I asked if anyone else might be named Cain because if Kennite means "descendant of Cain", then we need to know which Cain they are refering to.

From the bible I don't see anyone else with this name, just a placename. I was asking the question more on a historical or archeological basis.
Has a reference to a person named Cain been found, and if so, what timeperiod did he exist?"

FrankiE:
I don't know of any and it wouldn't be relevant even if so. We have Genesis telling us of THE Cain. That is the one we are concerned with.

tambora:
"How could anyone prove that he was or was not a Kennite? "

It wouldn't matter.

 

[philosophizer]

This thread is silly.

 

[Turbo]

I was about 3/4 done with a thorough reply to the opening post, when my computer crashed. :madmad: :bang: I don't have time to retype it all now, but I'll probably get to it later today.

For now, I'll just post this one verse that destroys the notion that Cain was not Adam's son:

• Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD." Genesis 4:1

How could the text be any clearer?

 

[Frank Ernest]

Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. ..."

How did that happen?

In Genesis 4:1 Eve says, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Was Adam the Lord she refers to?

 

[philosophizer]

Re: Genesis REVISITED

Originally posted by Infamous Plug

Genesis is one of the harder chapters to get a grip on. It's coded really well and hard to study but I spent some time on it

Oh good. I'm always excited to hear from one of the lucky few with a secret decoder ring.

But I'm not sure if I got any futher ahead but i hope someone can read and tell me what they think. So heres a few points i come up with.

1: Someone told me once the Bible wasn't accurate because it didn't explain dinosaurs and such. I said read "if you have a Bible"
Gen :1:28/ Be fruitful and multiply ,and REPLENISH the earth.
It said Replenish not plenish.

Ah, so you think that mankind was the second creation? You think there's a gap between verse one and verse two, right? Why? Why wouldn't that be mentioned? Not all translations use the word "replenish." And even if some do, it doesn't necessarily mean what you are implying. I think we'll have to look at the Hebrew for this. Anyone got a Hebrew Old Testament?

2:Apples and talking snakes????
First of all Satan was not a snake and he didn't feed Eve apples,
Apple was the fruit of knowlage, ask yourself why there on teachers desks.

Now first of all, take another look at Genesis 3. Do you see the word "apple" anywhere? I don't know where this misconception came from, but it is simply false. There is no apple in the story. It only says "fruit." We have no way of knowing what kind of fruit it was. Maybe it's a kind that mankind has never seen since.

Second, bringing an apple for the teacher is much more of a recent Western thing. It's kind of a classic American symbol that we've all grown up with. It is very unlikely that this symbol is more than four hundred years old. Perhaps the story of Isaac Newton helped establish this symbolism, but the Bible certainly didn't.

Satan confronted Eve in Angelic form ,

Wow! Your secret decoder ring must do wonders! It's able to decode "serpent" to "angelic form."

Yes some of the Angels were Keen, like in Gen:6:2/
That the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ,and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Please don't lay that notion down as if it is an established fact. That's a highly debated passage and it is not at all proven that the "Sons of God" refers to angels or fallen angels.

So as far as I understand which isn't that far ,Satan seduced Eve in a term called Holy Suduction(body,mind, and spirit)

Whoa whoa wait a minute! Where did you get that? I've heard this from people before, but I've never gotten a real answer of where the idea comes from. I sure don't see it in the text:

Genesis 3:6 --
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

The text sounds pretty straight forward. "She took some [of the fruit] and ate it." You'd need a pretty fancy decoder ring to transform that into "she had sex with Satan."

So where does this "seduction" idea come from?

thus comes the paternal children(twins with 2 different fathers), Abel(son of Adam) and Cain(son of Satan)

There's another leap.

Genesis 4:1-2 --
1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

Where is the evidence for your claim that Cain and Abel were twins?

and you can follow the tracks of the Enemy's son and his tribe and it may be the Kennites.

How did descendents of Cain survive the flood? Did Satan tell them how to build speedboats?

3:Look!! Christ mentioned in Genesis (yes that early) such as
GEN:17:19:,
And God said ,Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed:and thou shalt call his name Isaac:and I will establish My covenant with Him for an everlasting covenant,and with his seed after Him.

You bet. There are many, many symbolic and not-so-symbolic foretellings of Christ in the Old Testament.

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. ..."

How did that happen?

Um.... they had sex. Someone forget to tell you the birds and the bees?

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. ..."

How did that happen?

Um... how do you think?

In Genesis 4:1 Eve says, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Was Adam the Lord she refers to?

No. Any time you see LORD in the Old Testament (written in all caps), it is a translation of YHWH (Jehovah), which is a proper name for God.

 

[Batman]

Corrections...

Corrections...

"1: Someone told me once the Bible wasn't accurate because it didn't explain dinosaurs and such. I said read "if you have a Bible"
Gen :1:28/ Be fruitful and multiply ,and REPLENISH the earth.
It said Replenish not plenish."

The word replenish can mean to fill or fill again. In fact, the Hebrew word used here means to fill not fill again. BTW, dinosaurs could have existed the same time as man but most would have perished in the flood.

"2:Apples and talking snakes????
First of all Satan was not a snake and he didn't feed Eve apples,
Apple was the fruit of knowlage, ask yourself why there on teachers desks. Satan confronted Eve in Angelic form ,Yes some of the Angels were Keen, like in Gen:6:2/
That the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ,and they took them wives of all which they chose.

So as far as I understand which isn't that far ,Satan seduced Eve in a term called Holy Suduction(body,mind, and spirit) thus comes the paternal children(twins with 2 different fathers), Abel(son of Adam) and Cain(son of Satan) and you can follow the tracks of the Enemy's son and his tribe and it may be the Kennites."

It is normally thought that Satan appeared as the snake, which is why he's later referred to as a serpent or dragon. Most commentaries I've read say the fruit was probably a pomegranate since those are in abundance in that part of the world. Besides, if you ever tried to eat one, it definitely takes some knowledge and skill.

Also the sons of God refer to men in this passage. The only other place this phrase is used is in Job where it's referring to angels. Since that book was written centuries after Genesis and by a different author, it's use of "sons of God" isn't necessarily the same as in Genesis 6. However, if you want some verification of son of God referring to a man other than Jesus, just look in the gospel of Luke where he calls Adam a son of God. Besides, Jesus said that angels don't marry which means they probably can't have sex since sex and marriage go hand and hand in the Bible. What is happening in Gen 6 is the sin of lust and probably polygamy.

I haven't run across anything that says Kenites means "descendants of Cain". It is true that both Cain and Kenite are the same Hebrew word but because of usage have different meanings. Cain means "possession" and Kenite means "smiths". BTW, Cain is not the son of Satan. He had the same opportunities to serve God as Abel but he chose to serve himself.

"3:Look!! Christ mentioned in Genesis (yes that early) such as
GEN:17:19:,
And God said ,Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed:and thou shalt call his name Isaac:and I will establish My covenant with Him for an everlasting covenant,and with his seed after Him."

The context of this passage is referring to the children of Israel which God did establish what was supposed to be an everlasting covenant through Moses, but they never kept their end of the bargain. By extension, it can refer to Christ but mainly because Israel failed to keep the covenant.

Now to address Frankie:
"Genesis 6:8-9, Genesis 6:18-19. Noah was perfect in his generations, i.e., direct descendant of Adam throught Seth."

It makes more sense in the NIV, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." This is talking about Noah following God, not the perfection of his genetic line, which means squat to God.

"Genesis 6:12-13 The purpose of the flood was to destroy the people who descended from the fallen angels. "

The purpose of the flood was to punish mankind for his sin and start over with someone who followed God.

Later

 

[philosophizer]

Nana nana nana nana nana nana nana nana BATMAN!

 

[Turbo]

Re: Genesis REVISITED

Originally posted by Infamous Plug

3:Look!! Christ mentioned in Genesis (yes that early) such as
GEN:17:19:,
And God said ,Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed:and thou shalt call his name Isaac:and I will establish My covenant with Him for an everlasting covenant,and with his seed after Him.


Originally posted by philosophizer

You bet. There are many, many symbolic and not-so-symbolic foretellings of Christ in the Old Testament.

Yes, but I don't think Genesis 17:19 is one of them, at least not the way Infamous Plug is saying it is. I don't know where Infamous Plug got the idea to capitalize the Hims in that verse; it's pretty obvious that they both refer to Isaac.

 

[Turbo]

Batman is right: The only two versions I know of that say "replenish" instead of "fill" are KJV (translated ~1611) and ASV (translated ~1903). Look up "replenish" in a dictionary from those days and you will see that it meant "to fill again" or "to fill," though the latter has for the most part fallen out of use. So it's no surprise that ALL more recent translations use the word "fill" instead of "replenish."

As for why the Bible doesn't mention "dinosaurs," the word didn't exist prior to the mid 1800s. But the Bible does have many references to dragons. And then there is the discription of Behemoth in Job 40:15-24. What is that passage describing if not a dinosaur?

 

[philosophizer]

Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED

Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED

Originally posted by Turbo

Yes, but I don't think Genesis 17:19 is one of them, at least not the way Infamous Plug is saying it is. I don't know where Infamous Plug got the idea to capitalize the Hims in that verse; it's pretty obvious that they both refer to Isaac.

Yeah, I agree. I was just saying that there's a lot of reference to Christ's coming.

 

[Turbo]

On a side note:

Batman, have you ever heard the case that Job was actually written before Genesis?

 

[Turbo]

Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED

Re: Re: Genesis REVISITED

Originally posted by philosophizer


Please don't lay that notion down as if it is an established fact. That's a highly debated passage and it is not at all proven that the "Sons of God" refers to angels or fallen angels.

philo, have you ever read the thread The sons of God? It's a good read, and I think the Sibbie especially did a bang-up job in that thread.

 

[Turbo]

Re: Corrections...

Re: Corrections...

Originally posted by Batman

It is normally thought that Satan appeared as the snake, which is why he's later referred to as a serpent or dragon. Most commentaries I've read say the fruit was probably a pomegranate since those are in abundance in that part of the world.

I think it makes more sense that the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a unique tree, which no longer exists. Check out Ezekiel 31.

Besides, if you ever tried to eat one, it definitely takes some knowledge and skill.

But it doesn't take knowledge of good and evil.

Now to address Frankie:
"Genesis 6:8-9, Genesis 6:18-19. Noah was perfect in his generations, i.e., direct descendant of Adam throught Seth."

It makes more sense in the NIV, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God."

Just because it makes more sense according to your theology doesn't mean it's a more accurate translation. The NIV translators baked a lot of their own interpretation into that verse rather than just translating what the Hebrew text says.

I admit that this verse is perplexing, but I highly recommend reading the thread I linked in my previous post. oly: