Gen 6

The BKC starts by saying, "This section's details have been the subject of endless debates..."

I can certainly agree with that.  The commentary talks about the different theories about who the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" are, or what they are.  I personally am willing to admit that there are things that I don't know and that this might be one of them.  However, if I were forced to choose the theory I liked the best I would go with the "sons of God" are the descendants of Seth and the "daughters of men" were the descendants of Cain.

Gen 6:6 in the NIV is

6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Gen 6:6 in the KJV is

6 And it repented the LORD that he had mad man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.

The commentary feels strongly enough about this that it takes the time to point out that "repented" in the KJV does not mean that the LORD changed His mind, because he is unchanging according to Mal 3:6.  Apparently the Jews didn't know that and they used the wrong word once again, or in a way that we need to be warned not to misconstrue it.

The commentary says that this section shows the irony of Lamech prophecy because because God, instead  of comforting mankind, is going to kill them.  I don't know why they think that this is ironic.  I guess they don't think that the righteous Jews in the Old Testament go to heaven.  If I go to heaven after i die I expect that I will be comforted.

Gen 6:9 is a new tol'dot of Noah.  I think that it's interesting that the last part of Adam's tol'dot talks about the corruption of society and then the new tol'dot starts off saying the same things.  I suppose this emphasizes how corrupt mankind had gotten.  I'd never noticed that before, probably because I'd never known about the tol'dot sections.

Gen 5

Gen 5 is the start of a new tol'dot, this time the "generations of Adam".  The BKC feels that this is important because is shows that the introduction of evil was planned by God and was part of the creation of the Earth, which is why it was in the section "generations of the heavens and the earth."  I think that pretty significant as well.

Verses 1-3 start off by saying again that Adam is in the likeness of God, and that Adam and Eve had "...a son in his own likeness, after his image..."  However, although this is the same language that is used in Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1  when it talked about Adam being in the image of God.  The Jews who wrote this didn't know what they were saying, you see God doesn't look anything like man and the Jews were wrong to use this language.  Silly Jews.

The BKC points out that many of the verses in Gen 5 have "and then they died" at the end of them.  I've never noticed this before and I find it significant as well.  It's always been my belief that whenever something is repeated in scripture the Lord is stressing it and wants us to take notice of it.  The Lord is stressing that we all die, even if people used to live a long time.

The BKC says that when Enoch "walked" with God it meant that he followed God as in a "Christian Walk".  While I agree that this is a common reference among Christians, I would be surprised if the Jews used it this way.  What does the Bible mean in Gen 3:8 when it says that Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden in the cool of the day?  Although this is the only mention of Enoch is barely mentioned in the Bible, there is a lot more information about Enoch out there if someone is willing to look.  There was a Book of Enoch that existed in the early days of Christianity.  It was thought of highly by certain Christians.  It was so highly thought of that there is a quote out of it in Jude, so part of the Book of Enoch actually is part of the Bible.  Today the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their scriptures, as does the Jewish sect of Beta Israel (a group of Africa Jews in Ethiopia).  There are a lot of traditions about Enoch and the traditions recount that Enoch did in fact walk with God literally.  (One of these external traditions to the Bible, of course, is the LDS Pearl of Great Price.)

I was quite surprised by the way that the BKC treated the statement that Lamech made when Noah was born.  The NIV has it as

28 He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."

The BKC says that this "prophecy" was not fulfilled the way that Lamech expected it to be fulfilled!  How in the world do they arrive at that conclusion?  They don't explain so I don't know.  My idea of prophecy is not that the prophet says something under the influence of the Spirit and doesn't have any idea how it will be fulfilled.  I was just caught be surprise by the way the BKC talked about this.

Gen 3-4

My first major surprise in the NIV came in ver 3:3 and it was pointed out by the BKC.  It says

3. but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden and you must not touch it, or you will die.' (Gen 3, NIV)

The BKC said "Eve disparaged the privileges, added to the prohibition, and weakened the penalty – all seen by contrasting, her words (Gen. 3:3) with God's original commands. (2:16-17)."

Now I heard a preacher on the radio once talking about how Eve had added the prohibition "...you must not touch [the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil]...", and because of that she had opened the way for disobedience because when she touched the fruit and she didn't die, she then thought that maybe she could eat the fruit as well, so by misquoting the Lord she was opening the door to disobedience.  Perhaps that is what they were talking about here.

17. but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. (Gen 2, NIV)

The NIV doesn't mention the time from for the death from disobedience.  That they will die in "day" they partake of it.  I don't see what the BKC is talking about when the say Eve "weakened the penalty" both verses say the penalty is death.  I wonder why the NIV leaves out that they will die in the "day" that they partake?  I can remember someone pointing out no one has lived longer than one day to the Lord.  Peter says that a day to the Lord is a thousand years to us (2 Pet 2:8).

BKC points out that after Satan has tempted Eve, and he then leaves her and she is left to herself and the fruit appeals to her natural side.  The fruit is "good for food" appealing to appatite.  It's all "pleasing to the eye" or beautiful.  How often are humans lead astray by the beautifulness and desirability of something?  And it was "desirable for gaining wisdom" or getting great knowledge.  Now I don't really know that gaining knowledge is bad, but the BoM warns against becoming wise and thinking that you know more than the Lord (2 Nep 9:28).

The BKC makes a big point of describing Satan's tempting of Eve.  It says that Satan first says that sin will not cause death, then he tries to say that Heavenly Father is jealous and doesn't want them to become like Him, and that he is holding them back.  Then the BKC says "So Satan held out to the the promise of divinity – knowing good and evil." (emphasis in original).  I don't know that Satan was offering to make them divine, it just says that it will make them like God.  What would he offer to perfect immortal humans who were the associates of God that would make them more divine?  I think the BKC oversteps in their emphasis.

Then after Adam and Eve partake and sin enters into the world, the only thing they actually got was "the knowledge of good and evil".  In fact God confirms this when he says

22 "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.  He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever." 

So the lie Satan told was that they wouldn't die after they partook.  This is the true insidiousness of Satan's lies, he mixes lies with truth to make it sound plausible, so that when you take the truth with the lie that's when you get in trouble.  In this case it brings about death for everyone.

I like the insights that the BKC brings when they talk about the cursing that the Lord gives to Adam and Eve.  First since is was Eve's "desire" for the fruit that got them in trouble in the first place, her "desire" is going to be to her husband, and this will result in her being ruled over by her husband.  When I teach Genesis I like to point out to brethren that this is not a reward for Adam but punishment for Eve.  So don't let this be something to swell a mans head.

It points our that the Serpent will spend its days eating dust.  Man will die and return to the dust, and so, presumably, to being dominated by Satan once again at least symbolically.

They also describe how the Lord shows his concern for Adam and Eve by making the coats of skins.  The BKC says that this is symbolic of the of the fact that later Israel will sacrifice animals that will remedy a curse for them as well.

Chapter 4 gives an account of how society becomes sinful starting with Cain.  Pretty standard stuff here.  The thing that was most interesting is that when the Lord tells Cain that "sin lies at the door" that the word that is translated as "lies" would imply an animal crouching, ready to pounce, and that Cain is able to resist the crouching sin, and that it is his duty to do so.

The BKC says that the mark that the Lord puts on Cain is a mark of grace and that it protects Cain from retribution from any who should find him after he was thrown out of God's presence.  The rest of the chapter talks about the introduction of evil/worldly society.  The book seems to take culture to task here a little to much for my taste, but perhaps they are talking about worldly culture. 

The BKC points out that the only words that are spoken in this chapter other than Cain's are Lamech's.  The book says that Lamech breaks away from God's plan when he takes two wives.  I'm pretty sure that that's reading more into the Bible than is there.  I guess I'll have to wait to see how it handles the wives of Abraham, and others.  I have always wondered what Lamech was talking about when he said the if Cain was protected 7 times, he would be protected 70 X 7.  The book says that this is an example of pride and he's bragging.  That sounds as good as anything else I've ever heard.

Genesis 1-2

I've managed to get through the the first four chapters of Genesis and it's been pretty interesting, but I've read a lot of things that I want to mention so this will just cover through Gen 1-2.

Starting with Gen 1:1-2 the LDS don't believe in creatio ex nihlo.  One question I have for those who do believe in creatio ex nihlo is; "Why, if God created everything from nothing, why did He first create chaos?  Why didn't He just go directly to the finished product?"  The BKC admits that there is a problem.  They said that some people think that there might be a "gap" between the first two verses which would allow Satan to fall and create the chaos.  The authors of the book say "The chapter would then be accounting for the Creation of the universe as man knows it, not the beginning of everything, and verses 1-2 would provide the introduction to it.  The fall of Satan and entrance of sin into God's original Creation would precede this."  I find this solution less convincing.

The LDS think that matter exists eternally and that God organized matter for this Earth.  We are also taught that God only give humans an account of this Earth, not an account of all creation (Moses 1:35) because God's creations are infinite and man cannot comprehend all them. 

Of course when we reach vs 26 the BKC states that man being created in the "image" of God is "figurative."  They have to say that because it's possible to read it literally, just the way that it's written, because if they don't say that it's figurative then the entire theology of the Trinity falls apart.

Verse 2:4 is the first tol'dot "the generations of the heavens and the earth."  BKC doesn't mention that this is a different account of creation than was recounted in in Gen 1:1-2:3.  In the first account humans are the culmination of creation.  In this account Adam is created before there are shrubs or plants.  This seems to be a problem for many people because the accounts are different.  However, BKC does point out that this account uses Jehovah for the name of the Lord, instead of Elohim as the first account did.  I never new that.  The LDS believe that the first account of creation was a spiritual creation, and the plan was made by Elohim, and that the second account "the generation of the heavens and the earth" is the actual physical creation which was carried out by Jehovah, or Jesus, executing Elohim's plan.

The BKC points out that God said that it was "not good" for man to be alone.  This is the only time in the creation that the product is not pronounced "good."  It wasn't "good" or I suppose finished, until the man and women were married and made one flesh.  The BKC does say that they are married, but they don't mention that when they were married they were still eternal beings so God must have meant for them to be married forever.

Another interesting tidbit that the BKC points out is that the word that translated "suitable helper" in the NIV or "help meet" in the KJV is the same word that is used for the Lord in is Pss 33:20, 70:5, 115:9.  That's pretty cool and I think that really reinforces the womans role.

Bible Knowledge Commentary

The full title for this book is "The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty Old Testament Based on the New International Version." (BKC)  Man is that an impressive title or what?  As I explained in my last post I'm reading the NIV as my version of the Bible this year, and since this Bible commentary will sync with it I'm reading them together and so far I'm having a lot of fun with it, and learning quite a bit.  I'm going to call it the BKC for short because that's just to long of a title to type repeatedly.

I'm excited about reading the commentary because the Dallas Seminary seems to be a very conservative seminary.  The book has a preface that explains why they are writing another commentary on the Bible.  I don't remember why they're writing this, but I expect it has something to do with they feel that they can provide insights to studying the Bible for those who read the BKC.  There are two volumes, one for the Old Testament and one for the New Testament.

For Genesis, and I expect for all the books of the Old Testament, they start with an Introduction.  This one is written by Allen P. Ross.  I really liked this introduction.  Dr. Ross covers many of the different threads of scholarship that the Old Testament has been subjected to in a very succinct way.  I thought he dealt with them very well.

One thing that is pointed out is the natural division of Genesis into an initial section and the 11 following sections.  Each of these section is started by the word tol'dot ("these are the generations of...").  I never knew that before.  So the sections are

1. Creation (1:1-2:3)
2. tol'dot of the heavens and the earth (2:4-4:26)
3. tol'dot of Adam (5:1-6:8)
4. tol'dot of Noah (6:9-9:29)
5. tol'dot of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10:1-11:9)
6. tol'dot of Shem (11:10-26)
7. tol'dot of Terah (11:27-25:11)
8. tol'dot of Ishmael (25:12-18)
9. tol'dot of Isaac (25:19-35:29)
10. tol'dot of Esau (36:1-8)
11. tol'dot of Esau, father of the Edomites (36:9-37:1)
12. tol'dot of Jacob (37:2-50:26)

One thing that I found funny about the preface was when the author said that they would take care of apparent contradictions.  I guess the Dallas Seminary take an inerrant view of the Bible.  This should be interesting.

Reading the Bible again

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have four books of scripture.  The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Christ (from where the term Mormon comes from), the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible.  I've struggled with the best way to study the scriptures.  I've only ever heard the Apostles and prophets tell that reading the Book of Mormon daily comes with promised blessings.  I've never actually studied that, but that's the impression that I get.  However, we believe that all four books are scripture.  We also believe in continuing revelation.  So every six months we have a General Conference where our Apostles and prophets get together and speak to the world, and we believe that this is current scripture.


While I was on my mission we were given the goal of reading 10 pages of scriptures a day.  For me that was easy and I would generally read 20 pages a day.  I did this because I'm a self righteous pig and want to be better than everyone around me, even though I'm very average.  However, I am a good reader  and reading 20 pages was not that hard for me.  After my mission I tried to keep that up, but it was too much and I would finish the Book of Mormon once a year but that'd be by cramming in the last couple of weeks, generally after school was over.  Later in life I figured out that if you read 5 scripture chapters/sections a day that you can finish the scriptures in a year, and still have time left over to read the Ensign, if you're diligent.  Also, some of the chapters are just to long to read in a single day such as Jacob 5.  After a while that became too hard and all I was really doing was trying to put in the reading time to stay on schedule.  I finally came to the conclusion that what I needed to do was to read one chapter of the Book of Mormon a day and then 3 chapters a day of other scriptures.  (I forgot that you needed to read 5 books and thought it was only 4.)  Now I read one chapter of the Book of Mormon each day and some other chapters in other scriptures.  However, I don't try to read them on any kind of a schedule I generally shoot for having a spiritual experience each day with the scriptures, although that doesn't always work it's a goal.

A few years ago I decided that I'd start rotating versions of the Bible each year as I read it.  I think that I've read the RSV, and the ASV that way.  This is how I used to pick the version of the Bible to read.  I'd go the book store find an inexpensive version (read that as cheap) and then I would read John 3:13

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (KJV)

If it didn't have the phrase, or something close to "...son of man which is in heaven." I wouldn't get it.  Pretty good standard right?  By this standard I never read the NIV because it was always one of the most expensive versions of the Bible (and it doesn't have the phrase, but it was always disqualified before I got to that because of the cost).  I've always thought that was a little weird.  Many Bibles versions are basically given away for free, but not the NIV, they always want the cash laid out.

I'm rambling for a reason.  I bought this iPod app called BibleReader by Olive Tree.  I was looking for a Bible reading app that had that a Strong's concordance.  This ended up costing me quite a bit of money because I noticed the the BibleReader app had a lot of Bible study features that I thought I'd like and I bought some packages of study materials, one of which had was called the NIV package, which included the NIV, the Todays NIV which is an update of the 1978 NIV, and the NIrV, where the 'r' stands for reader and it a simpler version of the NIV Bible for people who have trouble reading English.  I don't know that I'm going to be reading those other NIV versions but I am reading the NIV Bible as my Bible Versions this time through.

It also has a number of study guides that you can get as well, and when you read the Bible it will sync your Bible with the study guide.  It's pretty dang sweet.

As I mentioned one thing that I was especially looking for was a bible version with the Strong's Concordance associated with it.  I didn't get the BibleReader Strong's Concordance because it was too expensive.  However, I do now have to apps that do have the Strong Concordance.  One is called Strongs.  It is a free app.  I also have the Touch Bible Loaded which is a paid app, and it has the KJV with Strong's Numbers.  I guess that I bought it for that feature because I don't see another reason that I would have bought it.

The History of Theology

This is a tape set that I got from the Teaching Company.  If anyone is interested it’s web site is teach12.com.  It started out very very slowly and I’d just about decided that I didn’t like it.  However, I really started liking it and ended up getting two more tape sets by the lecturer.  A Dr. Phillip Cary.  It seems to me that he is a believer and lectures in that way.  Also, he is an Augustine scholar so I got his tapes on Augustine, and his tapes on Philosophy and Religion in the West.

He really presents the ideas of different theologies very well.  Ive had problems determining exactly what kind of a believer he is, although I’m pretty sure that he’s a believer.  I find these kinds of tapes sets and books about theology fascinating.  The thing that I’m especially fascinated by is the way Christian theology is totally separated from the scriptures.

For example Jesus says that He and the Father are one. OK.  That is an “a priori“ statement by Jesus so it has to be true.  Then the early Christian Theologian/Philosophers assume the neo-Platonist view of God and for the next 700 years try to describe how the neo-Platonist Prime Mover fits with the Jewish Scriptures.  Here’s the thing that kills me about this.  One of the neo-Platonist views of God is that he is impassionate?  Where in the scriptures is God described as being impassionate?  See the Greeks realized that we as humans can at times be completely controlled by our passions, and often when that happens we do stupid things.  Thus they decided that a perfect being would never have passions that would cause them to do stupid things.  However how can a God that says things like

9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, (Deut 5)

How exactly is a “jealous God” impassionate?  God is constantly described in the Jewish Scriptures with very strong emotions, and the last days of Christ’s life are described as The Passion.  I’ve never understood why Christians accept this classical description of God.  Don’t get me started on the rest of it.

Besides the fact that I think it’s totally missguided I still find the process of theology fascinating.  Also, I do think that they have very deep insights at times.  The really funny thing is that when I start to try and describe what others accept as classical theology, or their denominations accept and teach, they don’t seem to believe it at all.