How Genesis Happened

Introduction

Last updated: 2020-06-22

All verses are in the NRSV unless otherwise noted. Karel van der Toorn compares the writing of the Bible to the Bible’s description of creation:

According to the first chapter of the Bible, separation and ordering were essential to the act of creation. God did not create the world out of nothing, but he turned chaos into cosmos. As a creator, God edited the world. He followed the modus operandi of a master scribe, whose art consists in the creation of something new out of preexisting elements. God brought order to the disparate elements that he found. The outcome was the world as we know it, not just a haphazard compilation of everything that went on before, but an orderly arrangement of all the elements available. He produced a text we can read and live in.

The scribes that were responsible for the creation of the canonical works of the ancient world, the books of the Bible as much as the classics of the Mesopotamian tradition, were not really authors but editors. Most of the scribes mentioned in the Babylonian Catalogue of Texts and Authors were the editors of the compositions put to their name.

Page 221 “God in Context: Selected Essays on Society and Religion in the Early Middle East” by Karel van der Toorn

Whatever you think of the documentary hypothesis there is no question that Toorn believes the Bible describes separating and organizing rather than ex-nihilo creation. Let’s keep this in mind when reading Genesis. Here I present my views on the creation story and attempt to reconcile it with a 13.772 billion-year-old universe and the 4.543 billion-year-old earth. My argument will work with or without evolution and common ancestry being correct. (that’s not my main concern here) It’s beyond the scope of this post to show why I basically accept these calculations. My argument, therefore, will be primarily theological.

For those who view the material in Genesis to be mythological, this will be a silly exercise. I find some of the details in Genesis hard to take in a mythological way, maybe I need to study ancient mythology more. However, from watching Shaye Cohen’s online class even secular Bible scholars have a problem with the non-mythological surface of Genesis 1 since it does not conform to the pattern of other creation myths where conflict results in creation. They need to read between the lines to extract the idea that it is a battle between God and Tiamat and I haven’t found this convincing.

In addition, I know ancient people believed a lot of weird things about the world and it would be pedantic if God magically changed their thinking just so they could make some theological point without misrepresenting an aspect of creation they were basing it on. However, consider the prophecy of Caiaphas:

50 You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, (John 11:15-51)

The relevant point: it is possible for someone to speak in a way that is inspired even if they do not know the way God intended their words. Therefore, I’m not claiming that all the statements in the Bible were meant to support a later scientific understanding when they were written; just that they are compatible with that understanding due to the ambiguity of language. This may seem like I’m holding too high of a standard to the Bible but my experience has taught me to have respect for the Bible’s veracity when it is properly interpreted so I thought I’d at least try this interpretation.

I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time arguing against young-earth creationism. However, I do find it odd so many Christians say that belief in a literal Genesis is critical but are in conflict about the meaning of Genesis 1 and many of the scientific facts related to it. Here are some of the church fathers’ views on days being ages: https://ibbarsoum.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/early-church-fathers-on-genesis/ Modern Creationists sometimes dismiss these as non-literal interpretations so I will also quote this:

Over the last four parts of this Today’s New Reasons to Believe series, I have responded to each of Mook’s major arguments.

Part 1. The early church fathers based their understanding of Genesis on Greek and Latin translations, not the original Hebrew.

Part 2. The allegorical interpreters (e. g., Origen and Augustine) did have specific scriptural reasons for rejecting a calendar-day view of Genesis 1. In particular, the creation days could not be solar days if the Sun was not created until the fourth day. Moreover, the seventh creation day is not closed out by the “evening and morning” phrase, so it is considered longer than a 24-hour day.

Part 3. Even the so-called “literalist” fathers often relied on nonliteral modes of interpretation in dealing with the Old Testament, such as typology and numerological association.

Part 4. The cornerstone of Mook’s proof of young-earth creationism in the early church is a widespread belief among the patristics that human history would last exactly 6,000 years. Ironically, this idea was merely a popular human tradition concerned primarily with eschatology—not creation. This model artificially constrained the age of the earth even though the Bible itself does not require it to be so.

https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2011/10/06/coming-to-grips-with-the-early-church-fathers-perspective-on-genesis-part-5-(of-5)

As you’ll see later in my post there are several early Jewish interpreters that were familiar with Hebrew and agree with my basic premise of interpreting Gen 1:2 as the state of the earth at the beginning of God’s creative process. Later on, this confusion with Christians over Genesis continued. It turns out that while the young-earth movement is seemingly uncontested in conservative circles that this is a recent phenomenon:

Until well into the twentieth century critics of evolution tended to identify themselves as anti-evolutionists rather than creationists. Three factors help to explain this practice. First, the word already possessed a well-known meaning unrelated to the creation–evolution debate. Since early Christianity theologians had attached ‘creationism’ to the doctrine that God had specially created each human soul – as opposed to the traducianist teaching that God had created only Adam’s soul and that children inherited their souls from their parents. Second, even the most prominent scientific opponents of organic evolution differed widely in their views of origins. Some adopted the biblical view that all organisms had descended from the kinds divinely created in the Garden of Eden and preserved on Noah’s ark. Others, such as the British geologist Charles Lyell (1797–1875), advocated the spontaneous but non-supernatural appearance of species in regional centres or foci of creation. Still others followed the leading American anti-evolutionist, the Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz (1807–73), in arguing for repeated plenary creations, during which ‘species did not originate in single pairs, but were created in large numbers’. Third, even Bible-believing fundamentalists could not agree on the correct interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. A majority probably adopted the ruin-and restoration view endorsed by the immensely popular Scofield Reference Bible (1909), which identified two creations (the first ‘in the beginning’, the second associated with the Garden of Eden) and slipped the fossil record into the vast gap between the two events. Another popular reading of Genesis 1, advocated by William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925), the leading anti-evolutionist of the time, held that the days mentioned in Genesis 1 represented immense ages, each corresponding to a section of the geological column or perhaps to a period in the history of the cosmos. Only a handful of those writing against evolution insisted on what later came to be known as young-earth creationism but was then called flood geology: a recent special creation of all kinds in six twenty-four-hour periods and a geologically significant flood at the time of Noah that buried most of the fossils. . . .

In 1935 Price, Clark, Rimmer and Higley joined with a few others to create ‘a united front against the theory of evolution’. The resulting society, the Religion and Science Association, quickly dissolved, however, when the members fell to squabbling about the age of the earth, with Price and Clark supporting flood geology, Rimmer and Higley pushing for the gap theory, and still others arguing for the day–age interpretation. As one frustrated anti-evolutionist observed in the 1930s, fundamentalists were ‘all mixed up between geological ages, Flood geology and ruin, believing all at once, endorsing all at once’. How, he wondered, could evangelical Christians possibly turn the world against evolution if they themselves could not even agree on the meaning of Genesis 1?

http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/3330/numbers_sc+id.pdf (Historian Ronald Numbers posted by the class professor)
http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/3330/

The roots of modern creationism run directly back to George McCready Price (1870–1963), an amateur geologist with no formal training. In a book designed to look like a geology textbook, Price (1923) asserted that there was no order to the fossil record. Rejecting the idea of fossil succession, he argued that the succession of organisms that geologists read in the fossil record was really just a mixed-up sampling of communities that lived in different parts of the antediluvian world. He considered the fossil record too incomplete to confidently reconstruct the past, citing the occasional discovery of animals thought to be extinct and known only from fossils. . .

Despite the efforts of Price and his followers, during the first half of the twentieth century, the majority of Christians—and evangelical fundamentalists—continued to endorse attempts to reconcile geology and Genesis. Even prominent anti-evolution crusader Harry Rimmer (1890–1952) acknowledged that Earth was quite ancient and thought the biblical flood was a local affair rather than a global catastrophe. Twentieth-century fundamentalist circles split into young-Earth creationists, who defended a global flood, and old-Earth creationists, who acknowledged geological evidence that we live on an ancient planet but maintained that God fashioned it for eventual human use.

https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm

In a presentation at the conference, Wise showed a slide of a fossil sequence that moved from reptile to mammal, with some transitional fossils in between. He veered suddenly from his usual hyperactive mode to contemplative. “It’s a pain in the neck,” he said. “It fits the evolutionary prediction quite well.” Wise and others have come up with various theories explaining how the flood could have produced such perfect order. Wise is refining a theory, for example, that the order reflects how far the animals lived from the shore, so those living farthest from the water show up last in the record. But they haven’t settled on anything yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25wwln-geologists-t.html

In addition, if you find your beliefs challenged or feel offended that is intentional. I started this site to filter out people who would be too easily offended to live in a community of diverse views and attract those that could. I don’t believe that different views about creation should cause divisions (see the “about” section of this site for my views about heresy) You should divide over sufficiently bad behavior, not beliefs. I have a friend who actually believes Noah is an alien and has more conservative beliefs about how to act than most other people I know. However, maybe you disagree with this and I’m just being a jerk and trying to destroy good conservative theology. That’s fine, you don’t have to read any of this.

Short Summary of Genesis 1

My interpretation is that the events in Genesis don’t make any sense unless viewed from the perspective of the Earth. Just like the Sun setting in the sky is a description that is accurate from the standpoint of the Earth but not from outside–so the creation story in Genesis doesn’t make sense if you view it from a cosmic perspective. Even the word for “earth” in Hebrew can also be translated as “land” or “ground” so it could be an entirely local creation event as well. Perhaps it’s repairing the garden of Eden or the land of Canaan.

Creation starts with a state of volcanic winter (also known as nuclear winter) and God starts recreating/repairing the Earth from there.

A massive volcanic eruption 250,000 years ago shot dust and ash into the atmosphere and probably caused a winter like that expected by many scientists to follow a nuclear war, according to New Zealand geologists.

. . .
Dust and ash ejected into the atmosphere reflect shortwave radiation from the sun, reducing the amount reaching the Earth’s surface and lowering temperatures.

Scientists are analyzing ancient ocean-floor samples, seeking conclusive proof linking the New Zealand eruption with the cooling.

“Core samples drilled from the Pacific Ocean bed and dated by oxygen isotopes showed there was a cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere immediately after the eruption,” Carter said. “We don’t have final proof yet, but it seems the two could be linked.”

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-01-05-mn-24574-story.html

Severe volcanic winter is a situation that is cold, dark, and has accumulated snow on the ground caused by ash in the atmosphere blocking sunlight.

Reading Genesis with this idea: The first day (Sunday) God lets the sunshine through the dark clouds enough so that the day-night cycle is apparent. The second day (Monday) God causes the thick fog to clear away between the clouds and the earth but leaves some of the cloud cover. The third day (Tuesday) God causes the snow to melt that has accumulated on the land and it runs into rivers and oceans and God now can cause plants to grow back. The fourth day (Wednesday) the Sun and the Moon are recreated by God in the sky by clearing away the rest of the cloud cover. Just like the “setting” sun appears to “set” from our perspective: God created the light in the sky from Earth’s perspective but not its literal source. The fifth day God recreates the water creatures and birds. The sixth day God recreates land animals and man. In general, God seems to be creating ecosystems from the ground up.

The Beginning

1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. (Gen 1 NRSV)

The standard evangelical Christian view is that God first created the heavens and the earth as a formless void (chaos) and improved upon that. However, you’ll notice that from the NRSV chaos could have been the previous state when God’s creating started. Some have tried allowing a gap between the first two verses. This is known as “the gap theory.” It was a long-held view before the advent of modern geological science and is a convenient way to try and reconcile vast amounts of geological age with the Bible. However, in addition to the NRSV, Young’s Literal Translation reads like so: 

1 In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth —
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, (Gen 1:1-2 YLT)

The NRSV and Young’s are widely considered good translations and here we have the possibility of a time period before the first verse. That is, before God was preparing the heaven and the earth. This makes a bit more sense than the gap theory because you would think even God would want people to notice if he left a 13.772 billion year gap in between two verses. Here, the huge time period is not strangely glossed over but is simply not covered.

Also, the language does fit with a state of catastrophe (although I’m not saying this is implied positively). In the definition of the word used for “waste and void.” Gesenius has “waste” as:

for “void” he has:

Compare the following ways the words are used in Jeremiah and Isaiah:

10 Night and day it shall not be quenched;
its smoke shall go up forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
no one shall pass through it forever and ever.
11 But the hawk and the hedgehog shall possess it;
the owl and the raven shall live in it.
He shall stretch the line of confusion (G8414) over it,
and the plummet of chaos (G0922) over its nobles.
12 They shall name it No Kingdom There,
and all its princes shall be nothing.
(Isaiah 34 NRSV emphasis mine)

20 Disaster overtakes disaster,
the whole land is laid waste.
Suddenly my tents are destroyed,
my curtains in a moment.
21 How long must I see the standard,
and hear the sound of the trumpet?
22 “For my people are foolish,
they do not know me;
they are stupid children,
they have no understanding.
They are skilled in doing evil,
but do not know how to do good.”
23 I looked on the earth, and lo, it was waste (G8414) and void; (G0922) and to the heavens, and they had no light.
(Jeremiah 4:20-23 NRSV emphasis mine)

We can see from these contexts that the only time (elsewhere) these Hebrew words are used–they describe destruction and desolation. We might infer that there is a similar state at the beginning of Genesis that is being repaired.

I also found something in the Greek of the LXX Genesis account that I want to share. The Apostolic Bible Polyglot translates Gen 1:2 as:

1 In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. 2 But the earth was unseen and unready, and darkness was upon the abyss, and spirit of God bore upon the water. (Gen 1:1-2 ABP emphasis mine)

However, “A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint” states that the “but” should be “and” at the beginning of Genesis 1:2:

δέ+ X 1554-155-259-1620-1298=4887

Gn 1,2; 2,6.10.12.14

connecting part., often it cannot be translated Gn 2,12; and Gn 1,2; but Gn 2,6; rather (after neg.) Wis2,11; introducing an apodosis after hypothetical or temporal protasis 2 Mc 1,34

… μὲν … δὲ … on the one hand … on the other hand … Gn 38,23; δὲ καί but also, but even 2 Mc 12,13;ἔτι δὲ καί and (even) LtJ 40; καὶ … δέ and also, but also Wis 7,3

Cf. AEJMELAEUS 1982 34-47.139.151-152

http://www.glasovipisma.pbf.rs/phocadownload/knjige/greek%20lexicon%20for%20the%20septuagint.pdf

The word for “was” in “the earth was unseen . . .” in Gen 1:2 is “to be,” or “to exist” and it is in this form:

Tense: Imperfect
Voice: Active
Mood: Indicative
Person: third 
Number: Singular 

https://studybible.info/compare/Genesis%201:2

εἰμι (εἶναι)
+ V 1730-1486-1362-1167-1202=6947

Gn 1,2.6.7.14.15

to be, to exist Gn 1,7; to be [+pred.] Gn 1,2; to be [+adv.] Jb 9,2; to be occupied with [τινος] 2 Chr 30,17;to have [τινι] Jb 1,12; ἔστι (impers.) it is possible Wis 5,10

Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν I am the one who is, I am the being Ex 3,14; πρὸς ἐμοῦ ἔσται ὁ ἀνήρ μου my husband will be with me or will become attached to me Gn 29,34; ἐσόμεθα τοῦ σῶσαί σε we shall be there to save you2 Sm 10,11; ἐγώ εἰμι see ἐγώ

*Is 4,5 καὶ ἔσται and it shall be-והיה for MT יהוהyhwh, see also Jl 4,11; *Is 16,4 ἔσονται they shall beיהיוfor MT הוי⋄ הוה be

Cf. AERTS 1965, 52-209; HORSLEY 1989, 56; LE BOULLUEC 1989, 92; KILPATRICK 1963=1990 27;→NIDNTT; TWNT(→ἀπ-, ἐν-, ἐξ-, ἐπ-, παρ-, περι-, συμπαρ-, συμπρος-, συν-) 

http://www.glasovipisma.pbf.rs/phocadownload/knjige/greek%20lexicon%20for%20the%20septuagint.pdf

The imperfect is different from the Aorist in “made the heaven and the earth” in Gen 1:1 Which is:

Tense: Aorist 
Voice: Active
Mood: Indicative
Person: third
Number: Singular 

https://studybible.info/compare/Genesis%201:1

While both the IMPERFECT and AORIST tenses refer to past actions, and so are past tenses, they differ in ASPECT. The AORIST tense always conveys a single, discreet action (i.e. simple aspect). This is the most common tense for referring to action in the past. The IMPERFECT tense always conveys past activity that was more than a single action in some way (i.e. ongoing aspect).
Aorist: I walked
snapshot of a past action (simple aspect)
Imperfect: I was walking/ used to walk
video of past action (ongoing aspect)
https://ancientgreek.pressbooks.com/chapter/31/

And according to ntgreek.net: http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson21.htm#imperfect with the verb “loosing” in the imperfect it gives the examples of “he, she, it was loosing” This leads me to believe Genesis 1:2 might be translated more literally: “And the earth was becoming unseen and unready, and darkness was coming upon the abyss, and the spirit of God was bearing upon the water.” which would describe the state of the earth when God started his creating. I think the difference implied by the Septuagint is that while God created the heaven and the Earth in a week the past activity of “waste and void” was a different type of activity not associated with what is being currently described as God’s creation.

As for the difference between “and” and “but” in Gen 1:2 I have trusted the Lexicon rather than the ABP but the change to “but” in the ABP may be comparing the creation of God to the original state of the earth. I don’t think it is implying there is a gap of time just a gap of difference between states.

These ideas would place my way of thinking under interpretation options two or three that Barry L. Bandstra describes here. However, he notes that even with option one where Genesis 1:1 is an independent statement it could be a title or topic statement that would make my interpretation fit with all three possible translations. This fit is: “a feat so impressive I am forced to mention it myself” (as the late great Ricky Jay would have put it)

https://books.google.com/books?id=vRY9mTUZKJcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bandstra&hl=en&ei=oLjATpT7I6_BiQeNopCcBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

One of the reasons I am sharing my interpretation is because I find it useful for reconciling geological age with the Bible. However, I also think this interpretation makes much more sense simply given the text. That should become clear to you as we move along.

1. Sunday

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Gen 1:3-5 NRSV)

To quote myself:

“God said let there be light and there was light”  is written as  “וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אֹור וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור” you’ll notice that “and there was light” and “let there be light” are written in the same way ” וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור” and ” יְהִי אֹור” except for the vav (meaning “and”) and the nikkud (nikkud weren’t added till later). How can this be? Because of the vav conversive which changes the tense of the statement, so they can be written the same way even though the tenses are different. However, the vav does not force this to be the case all the time. Therefore, this may be conveying “it happened exactly as God said it would” through the syntax. 

https://kingdomofgodcommunes.org/2020/02/29/passover-the-positive-command/

This is the first day and the astute reader will note that the sun is not created till later. Some say that “light” itself as in photons did not exist up till this point. There have been many attempts to connect this verse with The Big Bang. This is from a Wall Street Journal article:

“The press has dubbed the Higgs boson the “God particle,” a nickname that makes many physicists cringe. But there is some logic to it. According to the Bible, God set the universe into motion as he proclaimed “Let there be light!” In physics, the universe started off with a cosmic explosion, the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, which sent the stars and galaxies hurtling in all directions.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304141204577508622617259052

However, this does violence to the context. If you read the text you are observing the events in Genesis from the Earth’s perspective rather than from some cosmic perspective: obviously all the light in the universe isn’t separated from all the dark in the universe, neither are day and night cycles established on every planet. It’s just that the day is separated from the night on Earth. This implies that there was a preexisting day-night cycle that had been scrambled and is now set right: “the first day” is described as being the evening and morning that this separation resulted from. The Hebrew word used for “light” here Gesenius says is specifically used for diffuse light as in the daytime and not for light coming from a discrete luminary object. Obviously daytime diffuse light is from the sun which is a luminary (as Gesenius notes) but there’s quite a difference between looking at the day and looking directly into the Sun:

2. Monday

6 And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. (Gen 1:6-8 NRSV)

Here the NRSV is translating “rakiya” in Hebrew as “dome.” Other translations have “firmament. If this refers to the whole sky then there’s not much water above the sky (as we would think of it) and this is a problem. However, did the Hebrews know this? Gesenius says they didn’t and that they believed there was a “heavenly ocean” over the firmament:

I have my doubts that the Bible is expressing this idea of the heavenly ocean. God just calls the firmament “sky” in Gen 1:8. “God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.” The word sky certainly has a large range of meanings: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8064&t=KJV However, what I want to point out is that an Earthly perspective makes more sense here as well. For both the word “dome” or “firmament”

And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome H7549 of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, (Gen 1:14)

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome H7549 of the sky.” (Gen 1:20)

and the word “sky” or “heavens:”

And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky H8064 to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, (Gen 1:14)

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky. H8064 ” (Gen 1:20)

Thus the heavens H8064 and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. (Gen 2:1)

the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens H8064 were closed, the rain from the heavens H8064 was restrained, (Gen 8:2)

He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven H8064 and earth; (Gen 14:19)

The dome or firmament holds both fowls and stars and is also called by the same Hebrew word as the word for “sky.” While the word for “sky” or “heavens” also has the sun, stars, and birds in them and regular “rain” (which is what that Hebrew word means in Gen 8:2) “Heavens” is also paired with “earth” to just mean “everything.” This only makes sense if you look at “heavens” and “firmament” from an earthly perspective: anything high above you, hence “sky.” Clouds, rain, birds, and stars are all in the nebulous term “sky” and all are above the observer here in Genesis. If that’s not the perspective of the observer nothing makes sense: you have birds flying around the sun and the moon and stars hanging out in the clouds.

We don’t see the same syntax that God uses in Gen 1:3-5 to say that everything happened exactly as God said but this might still be implied with “and it was so.” However, I think not. Clouds don’t follow orders too well, there’s still going to be fog in the future, just not consistently. Notice that on Monday, God calls nothing good (unlike the rest of the days), this is why you never tell someone at work how awesome your day is on Monday–they will hate you. On a more serious note, I think some Rabbis say he doesn’t call it good because he isn’t finished with the clouds yet and this makes sense. Here God is getting rid of or moving a lot of water vapor in between the earth and the clouds. You can find historical similarities to this situation described in the following:

In the summer of A.D. 536, a mysterious cloud appeared over the Mediterranean basin. “The sun gave forth its light without brightness,” wrote the Byzantine historian Procopius, “and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear.” In the wake of the cloud’s appearance, local climate cooled for more than a decade. Crops failed, and there was widespread famine. From 541 to 542, a pandemic known as the Plague of Justinian swept through the Eastern Roman Empire.

When a volcano erupts, it spews sulfur particles called aerosols into the air, where they can persist for two to three years. These aerosols block out some of the sun’s incoming radiation, causing cooling. How much light gets blocked and how long the effect lasts depends on the location of the volcano and the magnitude of the eruption, as well as other variables in Earth’s natural climate-control system.

. . .

Scientists had long suspected that the cause of all this misery might be a volcanic eruption, probably from Ilopango in El Salvador, which filled Earth’s atmosphere with ash. But now researchers say there were two eruptions—one in 535 or 536 in the northern hemisphere and another in 539 or 540 in the tropics—that kept temperatures in the north cool until 550.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/sixth-century-misery-tied-not-one-two-volcanic-eruptions-180955858/

The first eruption was not discovered until around 2008 as far as I have searched. The fall of Constantinople was also preceded by a volcanic eruption (Kuwae erupted from 1452–1453), and then a great deal of fog:

On May 22, 1453, the moon, symbol of Constantinople, rose in dark eclipse, fulfilling a prophecy on the city’s demise. Four days later, the whole city was blotted out by a thick fog, a condition unknown in that part of the world in May. When the fog lifted that evening, “flames engulfed the dome of the Hagia Sophia, and lights, too, could be seen from the walls, glimmering in the distant countryside far behind the Turkish camp (to the west),”. This was interpreted by some as the Holy Spirit departing from the Cathedral.

https://www.istanbul-city-guide.com/Fall-of-Constantinople

Also, the effects of the eruption of Laki (a volcanic fissure) was recorded by Gilbert White:

The summer of the year 1783 was an amazing and portentous one, and full of horrible phenomena; for besides the alarming meteors and tremendous thunder‐storms that affrighted and distressed the different counties of this kingdom, the peculiar haze, or smokey fog, that prevailed for many weeks in this island, and in every part of Europe, and even beyond its limits, was a most extraordinary appearance, unlike anything known within the memory of man. By my journal I find that I has notice this strange occurrence from June 23 to July 20 inclusive, during which period the wind varied to every quarter without making any alteration in the air. 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/EO065i026p00410-01

Another relevant point is that eruptions can cause rain via low-level clouds:

Volcanoes typically create two types of particles, big primary particles that quickly fall to the troposphere, the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere, and smaller secondary particles, mostly composed of sulfuric acid, that react chemically with other molecules in the atmosphere and which are responsible for both local and global precipitation changes.

These secondary particles can in turn both help form and seed clouds, changing precipitation levels over large areas.

The underestimation of the “formation rate of new secondary particles in volcanic plumes by seven to eight orders of magnitude” might lead to an underestimation of the ability of formations to contribute to the creation of low-level clouds, they write in their paper in this week’s edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It is possible that volcanic eruptions and other volcanic activities that release sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere may have a larger effect on climate than previously understood, they write.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/07/volcanoes-may-cause-more-rain-than-realized/1

Here is the quoted paper:

The underestimation of the formation rate of new secondary particles in volcanic plumes by seven to eight orders of magnitude when performed from calculations based on this nucleation scheme could lead to an underestimation of the CCN and the subsequent potential formation of low-level clouds. As a consequence, such results may help to revisit nucleation schemes implemented in all past simulations of the impact of volcanic eruptions on climate.

https://www.pnas.org/content/108/30/12223

There are similar things that happened much further back. For example, some scientists say that the climate effects of a volcanic eruption reduced the global human population to one group of 10,000 individuals 74,000 years ago. (see Journey of mankind here)

Anyways, we see that events like volcanic eruptions can cause low clouds, fog, and rain, and that their particles can seed clouds (presumably by causing water to form on them). The high cloud cover and low fog is a good match for the scrambled day-night cycle in Gen 1:3-5. Here on Monday he partially fixes that by removing most of the low fog.

3. Tuesday

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. (Gen 1:9-13)

So far everything has happened exactly as God said or maybe is implied by “and it was so.” Here, we see “and it was so” followed by the description of what happened which is a bit of a break in the pattern so far. Here are the relevant parts where you can see the Hebrew that describes what happened is a bit different than what God commanded:

`Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:’ ( Gen 1:11 YLT)

הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי לְמִינֹו אֲשֶׁר זַרְעֹו־בֹו

the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; ( Gen 1:12YLT)

הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע לְמִינֵהוּ וְעֵץ עֹֽשֶׂה־פְּרִי אֲשֶׁר זַרְעֹו־בֹו לְמִינֵהוּ

So does this imply living things behave randomly in certain ways like clouds? Maybe, possibly adaption is implied. One day is certainly too quick for adaption to happen so this is a bit of reading into things. I’ve even heard this used to argue that evolution is implied in the Bible.

4. Wednesday

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. (Gen 1:14-19)

We’ve already discussed the issue with the day-night cycle coming before the Sun. Here again, we need to look at this from the perspective of Earth and things start making sense. Obviously, the same part of the sky isn’t used to hold the clouds that is used to hold the Sun and there is no water above the Sun like you might literally read previously: “So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome . . . God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.” (Gen 1:7-8)

Here God is creating the luminaries from the perspective of the observer. The stars, Moon, and Sun were already there they were just revealed: hence he created the lights in the sky not the literal sources of those lights. Another interesting thing to note is that “asahhttps://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6213&t=KJV is used for the “creation” of the lights rather than “bara” https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1254&t=KJV Some say “Bara” implies ex-nihilo creation while “asah” has a wider range of meaning. A different view is that these words are used interchangeably, compare:

For in six days the Lord made H6213 heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. (Ex 20:11)

In the beginning when God created H1254 the heavens and the earth, (Gen 1:1)

However, it possibly is talking about separate aspects of creation that are both present in Genesis 1. That is, God shaped old things to create new things.

5. Thursday

20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. (Gen 1:20-23)

Maybe now since there is enough light, algae and plankton can start growing again and the ecosystems in the water can be revived. I’m not a biologist and I don’t know for sure if this works, but the pattern is that God seems to build up things lower down on the food chain first.

6. Friday

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29 God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Gen 1:24-31)

Man is at the top of the food chain so creating/recreating him last makes sense after recreating other large animals. What it means for man to be in the “image” of God is an interesting topic and I found this enlightening: https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-could-humans-have-evolved-and-still-be-in-the-image-of-god/

7. Saturday

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. 2 And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation. (Gen 2:1-3)

And now we have the sabbath established. That’s the end of the first creation story but certainly not the end of the issues here. There’s a lot of other issues with this interpretation from other parts of the Bible and I’ll have to answer those next.

Biblical Issues

1. From the Beginning of Creation, God Made them Male and Female

Here I’ll respond to some possible issues with this interpretation.

In Mark 10:6 we have the clearest (but not the only) statement showing that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. He states that Adam and Eve were at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe was really billions of years old. So, if Jesus was a young-earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/seven-reasons-why-we-should-not-accept-millions-of-years/?utm_source=articlesmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_content=featurebutton&utm_campaign=20160402

It actually uses the same word in Mark 10:6 for beginning as it does in Genesis:
https://studybible.info/interlinear/%20Mark%2010:6
https://studybible.info/interlinear/Genesis%201:1

So the trick is to ask the question: the beginning of what? If Genesis is a recreation then he’s referring to Genesis as the beginning of God’s recorded creation but he may have thought there was at least a state of chaos before that if not more.

2. Adam The First Man

Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

So this on the surface doesn’t pose a problem for the theory but it does raise another question: were Adam and Eve the first people? In modern times there is an issue with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect but did genetics operate the same way at that time? It’s possible it didn’t or that God sustained the population through miraculous means but I have another issue here.

7 He is the Lord our God;
his judgments are in all the earth.
8 He is mindful of his covenant forever,
of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,
9 the covenant that he made with Abraham,
his sworn promise to Isaac,
10 which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute,
to Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11 saying, “To you I will give the land of Canaan
as your portion for an inheritance.” (Psalm 105:7-11)

God seems to say that the rules in his covenant are forever and we see a lot of evidence that the laws of the Torah were indeed observed before Sinai. Indeed the promises given to Abraham are really the continuation of messianic promises given to Eve and passed down through Noah. Hence, the laws against incest may apply:

Leviticus 18:6–11 and Leviticus 20:11–21, Deuteronomy 27:20–23, Deuteronomy 22:30

I’m not saying they were always obeyed, I just don’t think God would have put mankind in a position where they would have no choice but to break his rules. Especially with the strong language Leviticus uses it is hard for me to believe that incest would have been ok at a different time if indeed God does not change:

26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of these abominations, either the citizen or the alien who resides among you 27 (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these abominations, and the land became defiled); 28 otherwise the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people. 30 So keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done before you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God. (Lev 18:26-30)

Here’s what I propose then. Adam was, in fact, a representative of humankind and played the role of an early high priest whose job was to be a go-between for God and man. Here’s an argument for this very idea: “Adam as the First Priest in
Eden as the Garden Temple” by G. K. Beale https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/equip/uploads/2018/10/SBJT-22.2-Adam-as-Priest-Beale.pdf

G. K. Beale actually says:

As we will see, after Adam’s failure to fulfill God’s mandate, God raises up other Adam-like figures to whom his commission is passed on. We will find that some changes in the commission occur as a result of sin entering into the world. Adam’s descendants, like him, however, will fail. Failure will continue until there arises a “Last Adam” who will finally fulfill the commission on behalf of humanity.

https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/equip/uploads/2018/10/SBJT-22.2-Adam-as-Priest-Beale.pdf

Also see the related idea of the temple rituals being symbolic of reestablishing the original state of man in the garden: ATONEMENT: THE RITE OF HEALING © Margaret Barker, 1994 http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

So 1 Corinthians 15:45 isn’t saying Adam was the first man the same way Jesus wasn’t the last man (Adam just means “man” in Hebrew) to live on earth in a literal sense but Adam was the first man in the context of the priesthood of man. The fact that Adam is being used as a representative or priest for mankind is more evident when you look at the context:

42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:42-52)

It is contrasting the physical with the spiritual and compares the “first man” (those who are physical and don’t walk in Christ) to the “second man” (those that aren’t just physical and do). “First” here is being used as the first “type of man” not the first man to physically exist just as Jesus was not the second or last man to physically exist. Indeed the quote “The first man Adam became a living being” is not to be found exactly in Genesis 2:7 because Paul has added “first” and “man.” His meaning is rather “the physical man Adam became a living being” which then he uses in contrast with the Christ who makes us the spiritual man. Adam was not the first person due to the incompatibility incest has with God’s laws. Indeed something may be posed to fill in these cryptic passages:

3. Cain The Marked Wanderer

10 And the Lord said, “What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! 11 And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” 13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear! 14 Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.” 15 Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch. (Gen 4:10-17)

Cain is said to become a wanderer and fugitive but he settles down and founds a city? Who’s his wife? One of the sisters of the brother he just murdered? It seems strange that if he married his sister there is no explanation of how he accomplished this given the strain this would put on the family. Cain says “I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me” he doesn’t say his family may kill him. If indeed only his family is on the earth then why couldn’t God just tell them or even Adam (who he has talked to before) not to kill Cain?

Cain assumes he will be wandering but if only his small family is on the earth then why can’t he just get away from them? From this (and God not telling off Cain’s family), I say that the reason Cain would be killed by anyone is that he has alienated himself from his family protection and that the tribal groups of that time were violent towards outsiders. However, who were these other people? God marks Cain and this assumes there are a whole bunch of people already who don’t know who Cain is or that Cain will be avenged.

No one knows what the mark of Cain is or why he was a wanderer that built cities. So I guess I’ll throw in my opinion and quote Josephus: it’s the mark of the state and the wandering is Cain’s constant need to exploit new people with violence (imperialism) since he can no longer provide for himself through farming and does not want to be a nomad. Josephus seems to hint at something like this:

AND WHEN Cain had travelled over many countries, he, with his wife, built a city named Nod, which is a place so called, and there he settled his abode; where also he had children. However, he did not accept of his punishment in order to amendment, but to increase his wickedness; for he only aimed to procure everything that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbours. He augmented his household substance with much wealth by rapine and violence; he excited his acquaintance to procure pleasures and spoils of robbery, and became a great leader of men into wicked courses. He also introduced a change in that way of simplicity wherein men lived before, and was the author of measures and weights. And whereas they lived innocently and generously while they knew nothing of such arts, he changed the world into cunning craftiness. He first of all set boundaries about lands; he built a city, and fortified it with walls, and he compelled his family to come together to it; and called that city Enoch, after the name of his eldest son Enoch (CHAPTER II. Book 1)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_I

4. One Blood For All Nations

From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, (Acts 17:26)

“ancestor” is literally “blood”

He made also of one blood every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth — having ordained times before appointed, and the bounds of their dwellings — (Acts 17:26 YLT)

So if my theory is that there were other people does this disprove it? Actually, this verse–read literally–doesn’t contradict the fact of a common ancestor for all humans which is theorized also by science. However, if this is true you can’t just keep pushing back the incest problem forever. God has to create a population of people before (or soon after) the catastrophe in Gen 1 or mankind would have to not be mankind at some point in the past (which is what modern evolutionary theory says). However, what if it is referring to Adamic ancestry of all nations? That would put a dent in the idea that there were other people around at the time although not necessarily disprove it (since there could still be one common ancestor before that) Interestingly enough since God created two separate people: Adam and Eve, they wouldn’t have literally had “one blood” which is why I think it is interesting that “blood” is never used elsewhere in the ABP as a mark of ancestry. “A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint” does mention Numbers 35:11:

αἷμα,-ατος+ N3N 156-69-91-36-49=401
Gn 4,10.11; 9,4.5.6(bis)
blood Ex 12,7; anything like blood, wine Gn 49,11; blood relationship, kin Nm 35,11; blood, life Ez
16,36; αἵματα bloodshed, murder 1 Sm 25,33
κρίνω αὐτὸν θανάτῳ και αἵματι I punish him with death and bloodshed Ez 38,22; ἀνὴρ αἱμάτων cruel
man 2 Sm 16,7; τὸ αἷμά σου ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν σου you are guilty for the death of sb 2 Sm 1,16; αἷμα
ἀναίτιον innocent blood Sus 62; ὁ ἐκχέων αἷμα ἀνθρώπου ἀντὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ ἐκχυθήσεται he that
sheds human blood, instead of that blood shall his own be shed Gn 9,6; πηγὴ αἵματος fountain of blood,
menstrual flow Lv 12,7; ῥύσις αἵματος menstrual flow Lv 15,25
*Ez 24,17 αἵματος blood?-דם for MT דם◊ דמם silence?; *Ez 32,5 ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματός σου with your bloodדמך/מ for MT רמותיך) with) your rubble?
Cf. ENGEL 1985, 131; HARL 1986a, 61; HARLÉ 1988, 34; LE BOULLUEC 1989, 45; →NIDNTT; TWNT

A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint

However, if you go and look at the verse Num 35:12 (which is the verse they mean in the standard numbering) you’ll see no hint of this idea in the ABP: https://studybible.info/interlinear/Numbers%2035:12 “A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint” seems to get this from an older version of the Septuagint like this one here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/04-num-nets.pdf which reads:

And the cities shall be for you places of refuge from one doing the relative’s blood duty, and the one that commits murder will not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment (Num 35:11)

This is used in a totally different context (I would read “blood” as “revenge” here not as “family”) and seems to be a variant or translation issue which leaves some uncertainty. Neither is “blood” used in the new testament as a mark of ancestry. It is only used in the classics and in Acts 17:26 according to Thayer’s (John 1:13 uses it as a mark of human rather than divine origin “flesh and blood”)

c. Since the first germs of animal life are thought to be in the blood (Wis. 7:2; Eustathius ad Iliad 6, 211 (ii. 104, 2) τὸ δὲ αἵματος ἀντὶ τοῦ σπέρματός φασιν οἱ σοφοὶ, ὡς τοῦ σπέρματος ὕλην τὸ αἷμα ἔχοντος), the word serves to denote generation and origin (in the classics also): John 1:13 (on the plural cf. Winer’s Grammar, 177 (166)); Acts 17:26 [R G].

Blood is symbolic of life, so maybe it is saying we all have the same kind of life from God, maybe even it is talking about the blood of God’s life-giving covenant which is open to all nations:

1.
b. As it was anciently believed that the blood is the seat of the life (Leviticus 17:11; [cf. Delitzsch, Biblical Psychol. pp. 238-247 (English translation, p. 281ff)]), the phrase σὰρξ κ. αἷμα (וְדָם בָּשָׂר, a common phrase in rabbinical writers), or in inverse order αἷμα κ. σάρξ, denotes man’s living body compounded of flesh and blood, 1 Corinthians 15:50; Hebrews 2:14, and so hints at the contrast between man and God (or even the more exalted creatures, Ephesians 6:12) as to suggest his feebleness, Ephesians 6:12 (Sir. 14:18), which is conspicuous as respects the knowledge of divine things, Galatians 1:16; Matthew 16:17.


2.

b. It is used specially of the blood of sacrificial victims having a purifying or expiating power (Leviticus 17:11): Hebrews 9:7, 12f, 18-22, 25; Hebrews 10:4; Hebrews 11:28; Hebrews 13:11.

c. Frequent mention is made in the N. T. of the blood of Christ (αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Corinthians 10:16; τοῦ κυρίου, 1 Corinthians 11:27; τοῦ ἀρνίου, Revelation 7:14; Revelation 12:11, cf. Revelation 19:13) shed on the cross (αἷ. τοῦ σταυροῦ, Colossians 1:20) for the salvation of many, Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24, cf. Luke 22:20; the pledge of redemption, Ephesians 1:7 (ἀπολύτρωσις διὰ τοῦ αἵ. αὐτοῦ; so too in Colossians 1:14 Rec.); 1 Peter 1:19 (see ἀγοράζω, 2 b.); having expiatory efficacy, Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:12; by which believers are purified and are cleansed from the guilt of sin, Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 12:24; [Hebrews 13:12]; 1 John 1:7 (cf. 1 John 5:6, 8); Revelation 1:5; Revelation 7:14; 1 Peter 1:2; are rendered acceptable to God, Romans 5:9, and find access into the heavenly sanctuary, Hebrews 10:19; by which the Gentiles are brought to God and the blessings of his kingdom, Ephesians 2:13, and in general all rational beings on earth and in heaven are reconciled to God, Colossians 1:20; with which Christ purchased for himself the church, Acts 20:28, and gathered it for God, Revelation 5:9. Moreover, since Christ’s dying blood served to establish new religious institutions and a new relationship between men and God, it is likened also to a federative or covenant sacrifice: τό αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης, the blood by the shedding of which the covenant should be ratified, Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24, or has been ratified, Hebrews 10:29; Hebrews 13:20 (cf. Hebrews 9:20); add, 1 Corinthians 11:25; Luke 22:20 [WH reject this passage] (in both which the meaning is, ‘this cup containing wine, an emblem of blood, is rendered by the shedding of my blood an emblem of the new covenant’), 1 Corinthians 11:27; (cf. Cicero, pro Sestio 10, 24 foedus sanguine meo ictum sanciri, Livy 23, 8 sanguine Hannibalis sanciam Romanum foedus). πίνειν τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ (i. e. of Christ), to appropriate the saving results of Christ’s death, John 6:53f, 56. [Westcott, Epistles of John, p. 34f.]

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G129&t=KJV

Indeed the next verse speaks of God being near to all nations. It then speaks of God being the source of life:

26 From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us.

28 For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,

‘For we too are his offspring.’

29 Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. (Acts 17:26-27)

The Bible verse that Paul might allude to is actually talking about Israel not all of mankind which seems to imply a chosen relationship but not a literal birthing:

Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth;
for the Lord has spoken:
I reared children and brought them up,
but they have rebelled against me.
(Isaiah 1:2)

Paul’s quotation of Greek literature is probably from here which seems to imply not a literal son-ship but a dependency or a close relationship. (I’ve never heard of Zeus birthing all mortals, only of his occasional flings with them)

(1)“From Zeus begin; never let us leave
His name unloved. With Him, with Zeus, are filled
All paths we tread, and all the marts of men;
Filled, too, the sea, and every creek and bay;
And all in all things need we help of Zeus,
For we too are his offspring.”
—Aratus, Phænom. 1–5.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/acts/17.htm

(2)“Most glorious of immortals, many-named,
Almighty and for ever, thee, O Zeus,
Sovran o’er Nature, guiding with thy hand
All things that are, we greet with praises. Thee
’Tis meet that mortals call with one accord,
For we thine offspring are, and we alone
Of all that live and move upon this earth,
Receive the gift of imitative speech.”
—Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/acts/17.htm

Nevertheless, even if we look at Luke 3:38 which says in the genealogy “son of Adam, son of God” we must remember that God did not literally give birth to Adam but formed him out of the dust. An apt way of translating “son” would be “came from” or “image of.”

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
(Colossians 1:15 NRSV)

All this is to say even if “blood” does mean “ancestor” and the implied ancestry is God through Adam, there are several other ways this can be taken besides a literal descendancy from Adam by all mankind.

5. The Flood

If there’s a problem with incest before the flood then what about after the flood? I won’t go into detail why the flood was local I will instead refer you to this: https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Josephus says that some people survived the flood:

Now all the writers of Barbarian Histories make mention of this flood, and of this Ark: among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: “It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyæans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen: which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets, for the averting of mischiefs.” Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phenician Antiquities; and Mnaseas, and a great many more make mention of the same. Nay Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety sixth Book, hath a particular relation about them: where he speaks thus: “There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris: upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the deluge were saved: and that one who was carried in an Ark, came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved: this might be the man about whom Moses, the Legislator of the Jews, wrote.”

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-1.html

The following verses may imply the flood was at least universal in its destruction of mankind:

who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:20)

and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he saved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood on a world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:5)

However, this may have been localized to the land the flood was concerned about. There are other examples of universal language used locally: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/929-was-the-gospel-preached-throughout-the-whole-world-in-the-first-century In addition, the word for “world” here is used in the Septuagint for a “host”

κόσμος,-ου+ N2M 5-2-17-5-43=72
Gn 2,1; Ex 33,5.6; Dt 4,19; 17,3
world, universe Prv 17,6a; world, earth 2 Mc 3,12; world, mankind Wis 2,24; ornament, decoration Ex
33,5; honour, delight Prv 28,17a
*Gn 2,1 ὁ κόσμος ornamentation-◊צבה or-צבי for MT ◊צבא host, army, see also Dt 4,19, 17,3, Is 24,21,
40,26, Sir 50,19; *2 Sm 1,24 μετὰ κόσμου ὑμῶν with your ornaments-עם־עדיכן for MT עם־עדנים with
luxury, with ornaments
Cf. DOGNIEZ 1992, 138; HARL 1986a, 98; SCHMITT 1974, 152; →MM; NIDNTT; TWNT

6. The World From Water

4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he saved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood on a world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5)

3 First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” 5 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, 6 through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless. (2 Peter 3:3-7 NRSV)

We have already talked about “kosmos” which the word for “world” in 2 Peter 2: 5. In verse 2 Peter 3:5 “out of water” is not difficult to interpret. Dry land indeed emerged from “out of” water in Genesis 1 because the water ran off the land. However, what does “by means of water” mean? Was the Earth literally made of water? In the very next verse “through” is the same word and it precedes a genitive just as the one in verse 6. In addition 1 Peter 4:11 uses the same word preceding a genitive “through Jesus Christ”

Whoever speaks must do so as one speaking the very words of God; whoever serves must do so with the strength that God supplies, so that God may be glorified in all things through Jesus Christ. To him belong the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:11)

In 2 Peter 2:6 “through” is not talking about making something out of something but it is “through” in the sense of “through this process” and in 1 Peter 4:11 the things being glorified in God are not created out of Jesus Christ, but it is “by means of” Jesus Christ. So in this sense the world was created with the use of water but it probably wasn’t literally created from water. In addition, Dodson has this for the Genetive:

διά
through, on account of
(a) gen: through, throughout, by the instrumentality of, (b) acc: through, on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of.

https://studybible.info/strongs/G1223

Therefore, the Earth came out from under the waters when they were removed from it and by the instrumentality of water. Not literally created out of water.

7. Eve Mother of All Living

The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (Gen 3:20)

This is really interesting actually. Gesenius interprets “living” as “every living thing” implying a messianic meaning of being the mother of the Messiah who brings life to all. See Gesenius:

Eve is like a grain of sand in this poem:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour . . .

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43650/auguries-of-innocence

Conclusion

I have presented a theory which attempts to reconcile the Bible with modern science on the question of creation and the flood. All the main arguments I have made here have been from scripture or related context such as Josephus. I’ve presented a theory of Genesis that explains the awkward timeline of the sun being “created” after the day-night cycle starts in terms of an earthly viewpoint combined with a volcanic winter. I’ve also dealt with major challenges to the Bible from genetics but argued for them totally based on the laws against incest. The thing left to explore in this reconciliation is whether the Bible can be reconciled with science based on the timeline presented. There are some challenges already from Egyptian chronology but I am curious if this chronology is revised would we still see issues with the timeline in Genesis compared to other records?

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 4, Part Five

“A tree is known by its’ fruits” Jesus says. A good tree does not make bad fruit, or vice versa. This metric, while not true in a biological sense, is meant rather to impel a deeper meaning. After all, apples are not good or evil. This refers, rather, to the parentage of righteousness and depravity. We hear of the ‘bad apple’ in the bunch, but whence did it come? In the West, it almost certainly came from Jean Calvin.

Examine the recorded history etched into history. He was in most ways an ordinary human. He was blessed, however, to have lived in the most explosive times since the Fall of the old order. After a thousand years of mayhem, the Papacy was being challenged, by a monk-and some shrewd politicians. In the vortex that followed, Calvin had the opportunity to transform from mundane into the cosmic; like so many other cult leaders-Joseph Smith, Mohammad-he took the reigns of destiny, to become more than a man.

In the Swiss cantons, the ideas unleashed by Luther were being discussed openly. and act of bravery in light of France’s brutal murder of those possessing a Protestant bible. Zwingli was being debated with Luther, and Calvin wanted the spotlight those men had acquired. Armed with some legal training, a keen mind, and relentless will to prevail, he worked his way to the top, achieving patriarchy over Geneva, where he wrote his famous Institutes. How great the irony-the hater of Popes, now was one.

I wonder if he saw, for a moment, his face in the mirror, adorned in the miter-or how much like his enemy he was. His governorship of Geneva is well documented: he established the Law of Moses as the civil code (even though he was not in the priesthood of Aaron)-which ended in him being forcibly removed from office, after demanding someone’s daughter be stoned for impertinence. Many will contest this: Calvin has ardent followers still, centuries later. I do not have reason to believe he would attempt this, considering the Michael Servetus affair.

Servetus was an atheist, a critic of religion and the Papacy, and a recklessly brave man. A physician, he held religion to be tales of the powerful to control the uneducated. He had read, certainly, the works recovered during the Rebirth, amongst which would be the works of Seneca, whose tenets on religion are still adhered to today (it is regarded by the common as true, by the wise as false, and by the ruler as useful). He was, unsurprisingly, condemned to death-psychotic, intimidating death, at the stake-for his crimes of speaking against power. He had evaded capture, making for safe haven in Itaky, until he was caught in Geneva, where he would die the death.

Servetus had made the wrong man very angry. He had received Calvin’s institutes, and returned it, with pointed criticisms in the margins. Calvin opened correspondence with Servetus, which grew explosive, and Calvin grew to despise the man as much as the Papacy did. When Servetus came into his power, Calvin put him to the stake, atop of pile of Servetus’ books, and burned him alive. To saturate his thirst for revenge, he added a wreath of gunpowder, to extend the torment. The last words Servetus uttered were these:

“Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me”

The record shows that Servetus was killed for heresy-the act of executing heretics being repugnant to Reformers-but Calvin’s letter to Farel shows the real reason. Calvin’s ego had been bruised, and he would see vengeance for the slight, no matter the cost. Here, Calvin showed from which tree he fell.

If you want to experience true madness, watch a Calvinist defend Calvin. Cognitive dissonance doesn’t begin to cover it. The evidence is replete; but they will use arguments like ‘it was common then’ or ‘everyone has bad days’. Even more insane are the true cultists-the ones who never admit that Great Leader has a fault. Great Leader is perfect. Great Leader was blessed by God. These Calvinists remind me of the North Koreans who cannot admit that Un defecates, as feces would make him defiled, a mere man.

I have to be careful-reason and wit got Servetus killed. The savage irony of Calvin is that he had an opportunity to read most of the Bible-and yet, still found a way to justify what can not-can not- be found as permissible in the Scripture. There is no power granted by the Gospel of Jesus Christ to commit mayhem or murder. The ills associated with Bible-Crusades, slavery, etc-are not sustainable in cohesion with commandments of the Messiah. Period. Yet, people find a way.

Even today, Calvin is defended, upheld, cherished. If you are in a church in America. you have likely felt his spectre brush past you. His works still haunt us, and, indeed, the world itself. From his tiny city in the Alps, Calvin warped a planet with darkness. It was he who mastered what he Popes, greedy for wealth and power, could only dream of attaining. It was the son of the Papacy, the Protestant Pope, who forged, as Sauron, the Ring of Avarice. It was he who would unleashed the Gospel of Mammon.

Calvin instituted several edicts that would bring this about. The greatest of these was the dispelling of the prohibition against usury, he lending at interest, which Yahweh forbade. If El forbids something, He probably has a reason why. There is a reason that the one demon Jesus abjures by name is Mammon, which is, Avarice. The demonic host of the power of wealth, Mammon bends all to his will. Some murder; some rape; some steal: but all want. All desire; and that desire is directed towards the great lie of the Garden: you can be your own God. This is the promise that Mammon holds out, rapt in the splendid light of gold, and all of humanity has been its’ victims-either as the commodified, or the commodifiers. Mammon makes it all happen; Mammon has the key to the door of your dreams. All Mammon needs is interest.

It would take books of sobering, boring data to bear this out. I will give you a bullet point summary, and let you decide if you believe me. Interest pays the investor on the principle. I put in a thousand, and I get a few bucks on top of it back. Cool, right? Well, no. The interest you received came from somewhere-and that is from someone else going into debt peonage. Debt peonage is the assumption of a human as property. It is never stated this way: that would frighten people. But that is the end goal of debt. You loan, you require an interest payment, which upon default of the loan, remands the money or property back to the lender. And if there is a shortfall in the restitution-well, somehow, the balance must be paid.

Not long ago, America had Debtors prisons for those unable to pay debts. There, you would work off the shortage-in the custody of the state. These are starting to make reappearances today. Along with this is the prison slave labor system, that MIC companies employ to cheaply manufacture circuit boards that are featured in the missiles that blow up children in Warzistan. And, if you want some flush quarters, you can hide toxic assets in a CDO, while still merrily handing out the toxic loans-which, of course, were never going to be repaid.

What is the root of all evil, that makes the bad tree? It is not money, but the love of it. Money is fine. Basic capitalism-working hard for your wages, in the rote of John Locke-is not evil. The Bible commends honest work and honest gain. But there is no wealth in Law of El. You cannot squeeze your brother for the vig. No, to make wealth, your money must make money. That is the difference between rich and wealthy. Rich people make tons of money-but still have to work to pile it up. The goal of the rich is to get wealthy enough to retire-so their money finally becomes self-sustaining.

The goal, ultimately, is to defeat the curse of Adam: “By the seat of your brow, shall you make your bread”. To defeat this, mankind made civilizations, and later, empires. Civilization were made, generally, by commodifying people. Slavery began as a way to feed the needs of the citizens, to liberate to urbanites from the drudgery of work-by enforcing it on some one else. These liberated folk accumulated wealth, and became the priest and philosopher classes. One such man of that class was Cliesthenes, who looked out over his family’s helots-slaves- and wondered if every person had inherent worth, which was the foundation for what we now call Democracy.

Interesting, how it took a civilization to make the wealth to allow Cliesthenes to ponder the wretchedness of the Helots. Here, he punctures the mundane, to understand an idea-that people should not be commodified, that they were something more, affirming the very Law of El that he had never seen. What is striking is that this thought-this simple idea-became a major force in shaping Western civilization. Why, why is it so amazing, that a person should grasp this concept? Does it not speak volumes that we remember this man. mostly, because he stopped for one moment to consider the truth?

That is the power of Mammon. How many countless millions died agonized in horror, as they were converted into profit for the sake of the acquisition of wealth? How many are buried in the Great Wall of China. or the Pyramids? How many baskets of severed hands did Leopold require of the Congo? How many plains tribes watched their families die of smallpox, from blankets donated by the people the Indians once saved from famine?

I am reminded of a moment from the movie 30 minutes or less where two insanely inept criminals hatch a titanic failure of a heist. They order a pizza, then strap a bomb to the delivery guy, and order him to rob a bank to get them some cash. Finally, the delivery guy asks Danny McBride’s character, why are you doing this? McBride answers, deadpan, almost dolefully :”for the sh*tiest of all reasons: for the money”. What makes this memorable to me is the performance by McBride. The character, who is a lowlife-not Hitler or Stalin, just a low end kind of human-attains a Platonic degree of perspicacity. In that moment, McBride portrays a man who knows-knows-that what he is doing is wrong, and hates himself for it. But he is doing it anyway.

You can almost see a demonic shadow, lurking above his soul. It is almost as if he is not in control of himself. He almost looks like a man crying for help, who is in the grip of something from which he cannot escape. McBride conveys a deep human empathy for the delivery man. His eyes all but say ‘forgive me’. But the money is calling. The money is calling, and he must go. The lending at interest, which seems innocuous at first, is the gateway to wealth, which is the basis of all real power. This is one of the gifts of Calvin-the normalization of the worship of money.

In the next installment, I will go further into detail on this. I will discuss Calvin’s effect on the young nation America, drawing heavily on Max Weber’s Spirit of Capitalism. Note, here and now, that the problem is not Capitalism, which is the best idea fallen man has produced. The problem, as penned by the late, sovereign wit of Douglas Adams, is people. I will also look as some other odious doctrines of Calvin’s, that have led people today to see the weak and failed as subhuman-and divorced from the grace of God, which led to spiritual malice and moreover, the disrepute of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 4, Part 3

Now, we have seen how the Great Barge made its’ way through history, as the vessel of one people, in one place, at one time. From their river, the Euphrates, came the Tigris, and the vessels for it, the kalak. Let us then examine the navigation of those tiny boats, for history will turn on them. Indeed, all the world will soon be covered by the swarm of them out on their run.

Following the reports of the resurrection of the Messiah, a frenetic wave of activity covered the Roman empire; first in Judea, then in Greek cities like Corinth, Thessaloniki, and the Gallic city Galatia. Within a generation, men trained to go out into the waters of the nations-to be fishers of men, as the kalak is used often-to spread the word of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The most famous of these is of course Paul, the apostle to the gentiles; but, while chief amongst them, he was one of many who went forth, proclaiming the Good News.

There were fish to catch, for the Kingdom of God, and the early followers of The Way-known now as Christianity-left no stone unturned for those willing to repent and believe. They sailed the Tigris, casting their nets on all sides, looking for people to fish out and be saved. In the beginning, this was a tidal swell of activity, which was threatening to wash over the whole world. Indeed, until the age of Constantine, it looked for all the world like the Way might prevail against all odds. There seemed to be no way to stop the conversion of the Earth to the Gospel.

This is not empty rhetoric; Gibbons felt strongly that Christianity brought the Roman Empire down, as did Nietzsche. As a side note, I personally think the disease brought back from the Parthian wars of the third century did them in more than anything. Inflation was killing them, and political discord after the death of Marcus Aurelieus led to the splitting of the Empire into four factions. But it is perfectly reasonable to assert what Gibbons and Nietzsche did. An army with no weapons had beaten Rome-no weapons except having gained mastery over the fear of death.

You will recall our discussion of the impact of death on humans. Oddly, this is a dull sting to aboriginals and hunter-gatherers. They have an easier time accepting the way of things. Only as people became civilized did they become afraid: it would seem that having a luxurious life leads one to fear it ending. After all, if death eats you, what was the point of anything? If the only fate that awaits is nothingness, is it not the ultimate cruelty, to live long enough to realize that you are going to blank out, then go dark, extinguished, and erased?

The idea-the fact, in a Roman mind-that you will end was a torment they could not endure. They sought for every way possible to gain immortality-through writings, sculptures, histories. When you see these things, you seeing the Roman soul, flailing in fear, that they will not even be remembered. It was the keen awareness of this fear that the Romans used to dominate and control people; without this, Rome could not stand. A person who did not fear death was a weapon that could not be disarmed. This did challenge the Roman way of thinking, and undermined their cultural values greatly.

So, Christianity could be seen as an assault on Roman values themselves, as Nietzsche points out in Genealogy of Morals. Even today, I still cannot find a way to conclusively dismiss his argument empirically. While I do not agree with Frederick’s conclusion, his synopsis is quire valid. Romans did not like The Way. It was emasculating, prudish, and, well, Jewish. Romans liked conquest, personal glory, domination, and the glorious festival of the winter solstice, the Saturnalia. They were lovers of life, the Romans-for death was always after them.

Christianity is the death they fear, plus a new kind of death-a death to self, which took away the thin veneer of joy they had, in keeping Grendel upon the moors. In any other circumstance, they would have obliterated the offending cult-as they were famous for doing. But in Christianity, they finally met their match. They met an opponent who grew stronger as you killed them. Roman plebians-the commoners-who had long suffered under the patrician class, found that The Way offered them a power they could not have elsewise: the power to defy Rome. Slaves, as Frederick noted, were especially attracted to the Gospel, as it offered what they had never known, which was hope for a better tomorrow.

So the swell built, washing away the Roman power, and was being followed-even against psychotics like Diocletian-in the breadth of the Empire, surging as the Pagan ways were dwindling out. After Adrianople, Rome was an empty shell, a paper tiger that barbarians would to scoff-and later, take. Those people, the Goths, would elevate Christianity to new level-but at the price of creating a juggernaut of terror unmatched even in the days of Rome. This terror was Rome plus the Church, which became known formally as the Papacy. Please note, with acumen, the following:  This is not anti-Catholic. This is anti-Papal. I love my Catholic brethren fully and unconditionally. The Papacy is not Catholic: it is a tumor than grew up on the church. After the Peaces of Westphalia. the terror was finally leashed, and today is actually a spiritual center of some sorts, although the sybarite, hedonistic elements still remain strong within the Vatican.

The fall of the Terror of Rome was coterminus with the discovery of the New World (or, not Europe), and with this came a literal sailing of missionaries across the whole Earth, in the wake of Magellan’s epic quest to triumph over the insults heaped upon him by the King of Portugal. Unfortunately, this would not be the tale of epic splendor one would hope-for vessels meant to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ instead brought horror and darkness, and the commodification of people in the service of avarice. This is largely due to the impact of the arch-criminal of history, who harmed more than can be counted. This isn’t the standard bad guy-Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or even Karl Marx. This person cast a shadow over most of our planet that threw billions into ruin and nightmare, all through uniting the Gospel of Christ with that of Mammon. He is the son of the Papacy, who in fighting Popes became one, and the father of most protestant denominations in the West. This was Jean Calvin, and our next interlude will have to examine why he and his Papal counterparts made the Cross of Jesus Christ a sign of disrepute and disgust to most of humanity.

Popular Thought on Collectivism

There’s quite a lot of arguments made about how collectivism doesn’t and can’t work. Why does this interest us? One popular argument is that humans are–at their core–selfish and that there’s nothing we can do to change ourselves. A popularizer of this argument was Ayn Rand whose books are required reading for Paul Ryan staffers. She is still a household name in the U.S., especially among Libertarians.  For example, Eric Michael Johnson summarizes her ideas and popularity:
Ever since Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand has been gaining prominence among American conservatives as the leading voice for the political philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism, or the idea that private business should be unconstrained and that government’s only concern should be protecting individual property rights. As I wrote this week in Slate with my piece “Ayn Rand vs. the Pygmies,” the Russian-born author believed that rational selfishness was the ultimate expression of human nature.

“Collectivism,” Rand wrote in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases.” An objective understanding of “man’s nature and man’s relationship to existence” should inoculate society from the disease of altruistic morality and economic redistribution. Therefore, “one must begin by identifying man’s nature, i.e., those essential characteristics which distinguish him from all other living species.”

As Rand further detailed in her book The Virtue of Selfishness, moral values are “genetically dependent” on the way “living entities exist and function.” Because each individual organism is primarily concerned with its own life, she therefore concludes that selfishness is the correct moral value of life. “Its life is the standard of value directing its actions,” Rand wrote, “it acts automatically to further its life and cannot act for its own destruction.” Because of this Rand insists altruism is a pernicious lie that is directly contrary to biological reality. Therefore, the only way to build a good society was to allow human nature, like capitalism, to remain unfettered by the meddling of a false ideology.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/ayn-rand-on-human-nature/

Having not read Rand’s work I’m curious how this is different than the is-ought leap known as the naturalistic fallacy: https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalistic-fallacy The Ayn Rand Lexicon tries to address this:

It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/is-ought_dichotomy.html

This leaves me rather mystified. I agree that values depend on what the goal is. (the values of a thief are different than the values of a police officer) One wants to gain more money for themselves and the other (while also probably wanting to gain money for themselves) also wants to enforce a standard of voluntary behavior when attaining money. However, why is life an “end in itself.” Since Ayn Rand was an atheist I fail to see how undirected evolution has value. It is nature. The animals that evolve are selected for because of their ability to survive. Just because one species of animal survived better than another doesn’t make it more valuable. What if an animal evolved that was out-competing us for resources and was causing our extinction? I don’t think Ayn Rand would argue that it, therefore, should wipe us out, especially if it was a species of communist insects like ants. More issues (in addition to the is-ought problem I mentioned) with Ayn Rand’s philosophy are discussed here:
Rand in addition to selfishness advocates for capitalism:
in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. (Rand 1957 [1992]: Afterword)
Capitalism, “the unknown ideal”, is for her the only political-economic system compatible with this philosophy because it is the only system based on respect for human beings as ends in themselves. The free-market libertarian political movement, though largely disowned by Rand, drew—and draws—great inspiration from her moral defense of the minimal state, that is, the state whose only raison d’être is protection of individual rights.
This is one fact you don’t hear often. To say Ayn Rand “largely” disowned the libertarian movement may be a bit of an understatement:
Q
What do you think of the libertarian movement?
AR
All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]
Q
What do you think of the Libertarian Party?
AR
I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern. [FHF 72]
Her reason for disowning the libertarians was made quite clear and it may surprise you:
Q
Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?
AR
They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. [FHF 74]
I don’t often hear that libertarianism is compatible with anarchism or voluntary collectivism as the “Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Libertarian Party” shows:
Another prominent libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick describes such:
The official purpose of Part III of ASU, “Utopia”, is to show that the minimal state is not merely legitimate and just; it is also inspiring. This purpose is advanced by sketching a framework for utopia that is inspiring and noting that this framework is highly akin to—Nozick actually says “equivalent to” (333)—the minimal state. Yet Nozick also says that the framework might not have any “central authority” (329). Still, the framework is akin to the minimal state because it is an institutional structure that enforces peaceful co-existence among voluntarily formed communities. It protects the independence of such communities and their freedom to recruit members and also protects the liberty of individuals to enter and exit communities as they respectively choose. Although Nozick is not explicit about this, we have to presume that the framework enforces the same norms of personal freedom, property, and contractual compliance that the minimal state enforces except insofar as individuals voluntarily relinquish such rights within the communities they enter.
In fact, I would like to see a libertarian thinker who would say that voluntary collectivism is wrong. This is because Libertarians start from the position of individual rights:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
https://www.lp.org/platform/ (accessed 2019-01-02)

This is where the left and the right could potentially agree and work together. More on that may come in another post. The second problem with Ayn Rand’s argument for selfishness and capitalism is not metaphysical but factual.  Eric Michael Johnson writes affirmingly of Peter Kropotkin’s discoveries:

What he found was that competition was virtually nonexistent. Instead, in every nook and cranny of the animal world, he encountered mutual aid. Individuals huddled for warmth, fed one another, and guarded their groups from danger, all seeming to be cogs in a larger cooperative society. “In all the scenes of animal lives which passed before my eyes,” Kropotkin wrote, “I saw mutual aid and mutual support carried on to an extent which made me suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species and its further evolution.”

Kropotkin didn’t limit his studies to animals alone. He cherished his time in peasant villages, with their sense of community and cooperation: in these small Siberian villages, Kropotkin began to understand “the inner springs of the life of human society.” There, by observing “the constructive work of the unknown masses,” the young scientist witnessed human cooperation and altruism in its purest form.
. . .
He advocated that natural selection was the driving force that shaped life, but that Darwin’s ideas had been perverted and misrepresented by British scientists. Natural selection, Kropotkin argued, led to mutual aid, not competition, among individuals.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-prince-of-evolution-peter-kropotkin/

We rarely hear this.  We usually take for granted that nature is a heartless matriarch who feeds one of her children to another after the slightest mistake on the former’s part. Although humans are part of the natural world, making arguments about animal societies won’t convince everyone since humans are unique creatures. More formidable still (in my opinion) is the common idea of the doctrine of original sin in Christianity. The mechanics of original sin are not often clearly delineated, yet strangely, the conclusion is that selfless expectations are bound to create disaster for humans.  Fortunately, we can resolve what is possible with humans:
As, of 2010 at least 15 Kibbutzim in Israel “still follow the full traditional communal model” (there are 270 total according to this article)
Today there are some 260 kibbutzim and as this experiment evolved over the last century and longer, they seem to be experiencing some sort of a revival. But as most kibbutzim prove by their very existence, staying alive requires working together. . .

KIBBUTZ DEGANYA, which eventually split into Kibbutz Deganya Alef and Deganya Bet, developed into one of Israel’s most iconic institutions, and led the way for the hundreds of kibbutzim thereafter. It was established in October 1910 by a dozen men hailing from Russia. They were inspired to pursue the Zionist socialist vision in Palestine by working the land during what is known as the Second Aliya.
https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/A-uniquely-Israeli-institution-543296

The waiting lists are the most recent in a series of changes that the kibbutz movement has undergone since the financial crisis it faced in the 1980s. And in recent years, most kibbutzim are accepting new residents only as fully fledged members, with full rights and obligations, rather than as people simply living there. Many of the arrivals are children of the kibbutz who are returning home.
Many kibbutzim simply cannot meet the demand, and it’s not just the wealthy kibbutzim near the center of the country that are a draw, but also smaller collective communities in outlying areas. Kibbutz movement secretary general Nir Meir says every year, on the eve of Shavuot, the number of babies on the kibbutzim is tallied. This year the number exceeded 3,000.
Speaking to Haaretz, Meir attributed the growth to a number of factors. One is that the era in which kibbutzim were allowing non-members to move in, living in new neighborhoods that were being built, but not really fully part of the kibbutz community, is over. At the same time, the kibbutz movement extracted itself from its earlier financial crisis and changes on kibbutzim “made the way of life a lot more attractive,” Meir asserted.
Ein Dor and Yizre’el in northern Israel were both established in 1948. One was privatized in 2003, while the other still serves three communal meals a day and adheres to the old kibbutz socialist ethos – can you guess which one is thriving today?
. . .
Ein Dor is certainly not a failing kibbutz today, but Almog says it isn’t the most financially successful, either.
. . .

A 30-minute drive away in the Jezreel Valley, Yizre’el is among a handful of kibbutzim that still embraces the old-fashioned principles of communal life.

Here, monthly allocations are based not on job description and title, but on seniority at the kibbutz, family size and need. At Yizre’el, the mess hall is still the place where all members take their three daily meals (free of charge) and gather for events, activities and important votes.

. . .
Today, Yizre’el is one of the richest kibbutzim in Israel thanks to its controlling stake in a company that is the world’s single largest supplier of robotic pool cleaners. Maytronics, which is traded on the Tel Aviv stock exchange, has a market capitalization of 1.9 billion shekels (about $540 million). Last year, it boasted almost $200 million in sales (almost exclusively exports) and net earnings of $24 million. Maytronics, which is 60 percent owned by the members of Yizre’el, now has subsidiaries in the United States, France and Australia, and recently opened a second plant in northern Israel.
Of course, this only shows what is possible not what is likely. There are many more cities than kibbutzim. Yet, this type of system may be more common than rich westerners would know.  Some societies in third-world countries operate on a similar level of sharing. For example, a sojourners commune was normal for refugees from Nicaragua:
A couple of us from Sojourners were showing the group around. We introduced them to our tenant organizers, who were helping neighbors in massive tenement buildings join together to hold landlords accountable for fair rents and repairs. We stopped in and picked up a snack at our food co-op. We took our guests into our daycare facility for preschoolers and our neighborhood center, where older children were receiving after-school tutoring and adults computer training. There we talked with the group about the structure of our life: the shared assets, communal living, prayer.
All this was met with complete silence. We got none of the tough questions and challenging arguments we were used to from detractors—or the accolades of admiration and expressions of just-how-impressive-it-all-was that spilled readily out of the mouths of supportive observers. Just polite smiles. Translation was not the problem, as the Spanish interpreter had done a marvelous job of describing it all. The spokesperson for the group thanked us for our time, and they left.
The translator came back around a few days later to explain. “They didn’t understand that this is unusual in North America,” he said. “This is how they live—looking out for one another and each other’s children, sharing their food and everything they have, praying for God’s protection.” Of course.
Ultimately it is your decision what to value. We can talk about what we would naturally do all day but if something is possible for one human to value I believe it is possible for others. (what a libertarian idea) On Robert Nozick, the Standford encyclopedia comments that we don’t actually know what types of communities would suit human beings:
It is inspiring to anyone who appreciates how little each of us knows about what sorts of communities best suit human beings in all their depth and diversity and how much the operation of the framework assists individuals in their discovery of and engagement in communities that enhance their respective well-being.
Joyce Hollyday states that she believes collectivism is even natural for humans:
Now I’m closing in on 60. As I ponder my life, I give thanks for a rich and roundabout journey that has brought me back to community by intention. I share life on a small farm in the mountains of western North Carolina with friends. I co-pastor a faith community that includes additional friends and families that are committed to living justly and in peace. I try to remind myself often that those of us who inhabit industrialized, digitalized, privatized early-21st-century North America are an aberration on our planet and in human history. That we even have to engage in conversations and write articles and organize conferences about how to “do community” speaks of our poverty and our alienation from the way of being human. We have lost sight of the fact that we are designed to live interdependently, caring for one another and sharing all that we have for the sake of the common good.
As it turned out, the visit by the Central Americans was not our last at Sojourners. They soon returned when they discovered the traumas and frights of our competitive and unwelcoming US culture. And as the terror in Central America escalated, Spanish began to be spoken in more and more of the homes in our neighborhood.
I have presented a rough outline of where the left and right may agree and of how human nature is compatible with the communal system. We hope it provokes some thought.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter Four, Part Two

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter four, part two

     So, we have discovered the basic state of play for mankind in the time of Jesus.  It was to this broken, fallen world that He came, draped in human flesh, Emmanuel, God with us.  He ministered to the Hebrews, to the tribes of Abraham, to the Great barge, because only they could
know who He was.  No one else would have understood His miracles, His sermons, His sacrifice.  Having ministered for three years, He established His church, and prepared her to got out into the rest of the world, to make disciples of all men, in preparation for the day when the rivers merge again.

     He explained by parable, that He wanted His hall filled, for the great day of His marriage, and that the disciples were to go and preach, ‘whosoever will’.  From Matthew 22:

Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ 10 Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with [e]dinner guests.

     This stands in stark contrast to the first journey on the Euphrates.  The requirements were harsh, terrifying and immutable.  There was no grey area for behavior under the Law.  This seemed like a bum deal to the Hebrews; after all, they bore the Torah through the desert, and suffered greatly for it.  We see the mind of Judah in the parable of the Prodigal: the older brother, the one who remained, was angry that the profligate was received.  And in the parable of the vineyard, those who worked all day were angry that the wage was the same for those who worked an hour.  To be honest, they kind of have a point.

     It seems grossly unfair that the gentiles would be treated as family by El Shaddai.  What was the point of separating out from the nations, if those nations are welcomed in anyway?  I sympathize with the Hebrews in this: like Jonah, I have to call BS on what must be called as such.  The Ninth commandment compels it.  I can understand the older brother: why did he remain and work, if the younger could party and come back like nothing happened?

     Well, as the story goes, the older brother, Judah, did not get shorted after all.  The Father comforts him, and says, clearly in Luke 15

29 But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never [k]neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; 30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your [l]wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you [m]have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”

     Yahweh has never left Judah, not even in the worst of times.  He cannot, for Judah is His inheritance.  While the Gentiles were welcomed in, to be loved, restored, and uplifted, he has no portion on the farm.  It is, in fact, Judah’s farm.  Now, please pay close attention to the following words:

     This not about the love of God: this is about the proprietorship of the farm.  Jesus loves all mankind, no exceptions.  He paid for the sins of all people, no exceptions.  He sent His disciples to all the world, no exceptions. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is supernumerary to all barriers, all thoughts, all constructs of matter or will than do or can exist.  There is no power, in hard or limitless reality, that can interpose between the soul reaching to be saved, and mighty hand Yahweh to do so, as he attests in Isaiah 59. 

     That love belongs to all His progeny, no exceptions.  However, the administrative functions of the farm-those are not handed out to the wedding guests.  Those belong to Judah.  This will rankle a few people-and let me state that I am a gentile by birth-but the facts are intransigent.  The older brother has, as his portion, all the Father has.  This is established by the leadership team of the next reality, the final one, immortal, impervious to darkness.  Eternity is going to be run by thirteen Jewish men.  One Messiah, Yeshua, and His twelve friends, the Apostles.

    If you think that is incidental, try this.  Flip a coin thirteen times in a row, and try to get all heads.  Unless you have an Altered Carbon download, you will die of old age before that happens.  A permutation of 2 to the 13th power is pretty huge; it’s a series circuit that fails the first time you flip tails-and that just represents that they are are males.  That they are all Hebrew males-the chance of that event occurring is so  astronomical that I can’t calculate it.  It would be a theta value, which in Trigonometry is a number so small, it can be said to be 0, even though it is not.

     So let’s face the facts: Judah has not been subjected to ‘replacement theology’.  El may add to that number-after all, there were Ger who followed the Law, and were counted as native born, with an inheritance (ezek 47).  But Judah is given reign over the estate.  When all things come to an end, when the Millenium is over, and this world obliterated, the leadership team of New Jerusalem, which has a gate for each Tribe of Israel, will be Hebrews, and those who joined them on the Great Barge. 

     If this chaffs you, please remember that if you attending the wedding of the Lamb, you are not on fire.  That is a benny worth-well, anything.  If you are on fire, that is your job.  Not being on fire is an amazingly  good deal, especially when we earned it.  So, I am alright if I say ‘Sir’ to a Hebrew-considering that I could be saying “AHHHHHHHHH!” as I run around perpetually immolated.  Perspective, at times, is a virtue worth pursuing.

     This segue will lead us right to where Paul discusses the Jew and the Gentile, in Romans 3, where he explains that Hebrews have lost nothing.  Rather, the goyim have gained life, and the love of God, which can be spread around to as many as will receive them.  Now, we have returned to Romans 4 again, where the circumcised and uncircumcised children of Abraham are being brought in their vessels.  We will discuss the Kalak one more time, so that we can envision the day when all the vessels of faith join up in that happy armada, the Marriage of the Lamb.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter Four, Part One

So, what then is the purpose of having a Tigris?  El gave a Law to His people, to govern their existence.  Why then does the Tigris branch off at all?  After all, it would seem that He had a plan in place for the superintendence of His people.  But that proved to be the very reason the Tigris run was needed.  There were people living in this world that had grown up under the aegis of inquiry.  These had never heard of the written Torah, and did not know how the universe worked.

The civilized world was built on power, brutality, and avarice, all of which stemmed from one source: the fear of death.  From the mighty to the small, death plagued the soul of fallen men.  It was the spectre on the moors, a dread banshee that could not be repelled.  In fact, the more power and largess an empire acquired, the more the feared death.  The race of power makes one aware of the danger of power; thus, as one gains power, one fears losing it even more.  This was true for civilizations as well as people; the savagery and cruelty needed to make civilization (as Nietzsche detailed in Genealogy of Morals) always leaves a haunting whisper in the mind of the victor, as he surveys the dead he slaughtered to become a king: one day, this will be you.

Death, the constant northern star of fallen man’s literature and art; Death, the motor that drives his quest for first medicine, then immortality; Death, the hand and their throat, waking them in the night, waiting silently just beyond the door, silently, patiently.  Death, the cessation of anima, obsessed fallen man.  Death is the progenitor of all the gifts of civilization, either through the arts, philosophy, medicine and logic, or through mathematics and science, through which power may be gained.  It’s invincibility, omnipresence, and inevitability made it a god to men, literally.  Every ancient pantheistic religion had a god of death, who generally had to be appeased to stave him off.

If you think I am overstating this, pick up some Camus, or give Ingmar Bergman’s Seventh Seal a watch.  For an abridged version of existentialist angst, watch What if Ingmar Bergman directed the Flash? on youtube.

Ultimately, we can go back to the man that the Greeks and Romans revered as the great sage: Homer.  It was he that penned the verse by which all of them lived:

“Any moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again.”

This diatribe is of overwhelming importance, because you can now see how the minds of men were formed by history.  It was to this verse that Paul referred when he wrote “13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope”.  (1 thess 4).

Now, I must be thorough, which requires a quick statement.  The Greeks were investigating the possibility of the immortality of spirit as early as 400 bc, in what were called the Eleusinian mysteries.  So the idea of escaping Death was not totally unheard of.  These cults were highly guarded and secretive, probably because they were sexual rites.  For the majority of mankind, however, it seemed that life was a cruel joke,  in which Camus said it was absurd to assign meaning.  It is perhaps summed up best by T.S. Elliiot:

“I will show you fear in a handful of dust.”

It was to this world, a world without hope, a world of fear and terror, ruled by empires of fear and terror, that the Great Barge brought the sacred scroll, Torah.  Alexander of Macedon introduced the Hebrews to the world, and they moved to his eponymous city, Alexandria.  There, the Greek would work with them to translate the Torah into the Septuagint work that survives today.  Things were looking good, until the Hebrews revolted against the Seleucid Greeks (Seleucus  being a general of Alexander that inherited part of his master’s empire upon Alexander’s death).  Antiochus IV placed a statue of Zeus in the Temple, prefiguring the Abomination that causes Desolation in the End Times, when the Antichrist sits in the 3rd temple’s holiest seat, and declares himself God.  This led to the Maccabean revolt, which plunged Judea into constant turmoil and violence, until the Diaspora in 70 ad.

It was to Judea that Yeshua ben David, known also as Jesus, came with His ministry.  His work was strictly limited to the people of Israel;  not that He was a racist, but His focus was on the Hebrews, not the Goyim.  This was intended, for the Hebrews were versed in the Torah: they were educated and instructed by the Law, and moreover, knew of the prophesies that accompanied the arrival of the Messiah.  Jesus performed His miracles to show the Hebrews that He was the Anointed One, of whom the prophets had spoken.

In short order, the power elites of Judea worked to kill Jesus.  Like the empires of men, they feared death, and the loss of power.  That should have been the end of it.  But then, the world changed in three days (note: for a Hebrew, three days means “one whole day, with part or all of a day on either side of it’).  The impossible, if the reports of this man Jesus could be believed, had occurred.  Mankind’s ancient enemy, his tormentor, his god-like foe, had been thrown down.  As lunatic as it was fervent, the cries rang through the streets of Jerusalem, tearing down walls between Greek and Jew, and giving mankind the hope that they had never known:

“HE IS ALIVE!”

To the Greek, the Roman, the fallen, this simply could not be.  Death could not be defeated. And yet, here they were, the tribe of Christians (as Josephus called them), willing to face the very power at which all men and empires quailed, to proclaim the name of Jesus to Rome and the rest of the world.  Here, the Tigris Run, the Gospel of the Risen Christ, would burst forth from the water table made flush by the mighty Euphrates, to bring the light of the Torah to all mankind, borne on the modest Kalak that bears the joyous refrain:

He is Alive.