Genesis Series: "When This and That Was Not Yet . . ."

Introduction

In his book Genesis 1-11 Westermann comes up with a fine association which helps with an interpretation of Genesis 1, in particular Gen 1:1-3. He does a comparative study of ancient creation myths and what scholars have to say about the creation myths and there seems to be a common introduction formula used in most of these. The formula is summed up as

'When this and that was not yet'

This formula is used to frame the creation myths.  I do not believe Genesis 1, 2, 3 are myths, myths defined as made up or fictional events.  I believe Genesis relates true consummated events between real objects. Genesis 1, 2, & 3 uses some figurative concepts but the reason is that God and the sacred author explain past objects in existence and their relations that are not apparent. No one was there to see what happened other than God and the Angels.  In addition the prophetic author had a smaller pool of concepts to use in his description.  He is writing thousands of years ago before all our modern developments.  Thus they (God and the sacred author working together) reasonably choose some figurative concepts so that the reader can visualize what is happening. 

But even though I do not think that Genesis 1 is a myth, it seems reasonable to me that the sacred author would use an opening formula similar in style to other stories of his time.  The sacred author was embedded in an ancient Eastern culture.  So if this is how people opened stories in his time then so be it.  One need not abandon Faith, only assume this study to Faith and further apply some critical thinking skills.  So in my view it can only help to know how people may have related their stories way back in the ancient days.

God, Heaven and Earth in Genesis 1:1    

My translation of Gen 1:1-3 is

In a beginning God had created the form of Heaven and the form of Earth 

And when the Earth was an astonishing-desert with darkness over the face of the abyss 

And the Spirit of God oscillating over the face of the waters: God said, "Let light happen!" And light happened.

The opening phrase is a concept associating the memory of God creating the Heaven and the Earth . The Heaven is an object that exists not a concept (a relation of two or more objects). The Heaven of the first verse is the detached sphere God created and placed Himself in. It is the place where God lives. It is discrete, detached from matter, i.e. the network of atoms.  It makes perfect sense that the sacred author would open with this object since God created this object first and this is from where God will act to transform another object called the Earth.  In telling a story it makes sense to state all the relevant mediators involved in the events.  God acts from His sphere called Heaven.  

Prior to the the main event of Genesis One, God was not yet on the Earth.  Earth was just another old dark star assuming a succession of locations in relation to all other stars of the Milky Way.  Yes God had created it long ago, and perhaps Earth was predestined. God always knew what he would accomplish with the Earth, but even before God moved to enact the miraculous light event, Earth was not special.  There are countless objects out there that God could have just as easily have chosen for his purposes.  But he freely chose to send the Spirit to this astronomical object called Earth.  It is when the Spirit was sent to the Earth, hovering over the surface of the Earth so as to be the Divine mediator of the miraculous light event that all of a sudden this object becomes special, elect, and so on.    

The Earth of Gen 1:1 is also an object that existed and still exists.  It resolves to an astronomical object, not a concept. God creates nouns of reality not concepts.  God uses concepts He conceived to work his miracles, but these resolve to real objects in relation with each other.  The Heaven and the Earth are two real objects.  

The word 'beginning' resolves to a concept.  Time is not a noun of reality.  There is no such thing as time.  Time is not an object, and it certainly does not exist.  Time is a brain-work. The brain works to compare two or more motions where at least one is an assumed constant, e.g. rotation of the Earth and orbit of Earth in relation to Sun.  The conceptual beginning which the sacred author proposes is indefinite for several reasons one of which he decided to omit a definite article, "the".  To omit a definite article is to propose indefiniteness.  A higher conceptual translation is "In a beginning", not "In the beginning".  The definite article was later added to translations because of the misconception that the sacred author is describing matter's creation ex nihilo. 

Instead the sacred author describes an indefinite memory and motion of three objects namely God and the Heaven and the Earth. In other words he knew that these two objects were created by God and existed, but he did not know when in relation to the main light event. He is simply states that these objects had been created by God and had existed for an indefinite time, one that he had no other motion to compare to.  

More importantly the prophet is stating that these are two objects of his story.  As a result of the events of Genesis One a Divine connection is established between the Heaven and the Earth.  Heaven is not woven into the web of atoms, but the Earth is.  God sends forth the Spirit to the Earth thus making a connection.  This is elementary.  Anyone who reads a merism into this verse is missing the point.  It is implied in all of the Genesis One events that God is acting from the sphere He created and placed Himself in. Later on the second Divine day, God calls the Earthen-sphere Heaven as a figurative concept, identifying our Earthen sphere and associating it with His sphere.  One of the reasons He does this is for teaching purposes.  These are some reasons why the Heaven of God gets related at the outset.

Heaven and Earth a Merism for the Universe???  

Why read universe into 'the Heaven and the Earth'?  There is no point.  Yes God created all objects out of nothing.  Every believer knows this.  But Gen 1:1 only states two objects:  the Heaven and the Earth.  Two objects does not equal all objects unless you make the Heaven into a plural and stretch the meaning, something which is inconsistent with the rest of a narrative that rests on unity, integrity and organization.       

The second verse is the proposal of 'when this and not yet that'. We have the Earth, an astronomical object that exists but this Earth is not yet transfigured by a miraculous light event described in the third verse.  This is an Earth that is radically different from the one we know today.  Barren, no living objects, no clear landmasses and oceans.  So a basic description is given as to the state of the Earth just prior to when it was transfigured by God. 

My understanding is that Genesis 1 has nothing to do with the angel's and matter's simultaneous creation ex nihilo. Assuming Faith, there is no reason that God and the sacred author would crunch in countless years between verses 1 to 5. Creation ex nihilo happened before the main event of Genesis One and the sacred author decided not to explain these. Why? Because he was not given a prophetic communication of the angel's and matter's creation ex nihilo. God only took him to this and not yet that.  He had a mission to write that which was shown him from the past and not all history.    His flash point was a phase of the Earth just prior to surface having been transfigured by God.  The Earth was a wandering planet not even in a gravitational lock with our Sun.    

Now, all the educated Gen 1 students know that the creation ex nihilo teaching did not develop for hundreds of years after Gen 1 was written.  No problem at all.  Creation ex nihilo can be drawn from hundreds of other verses in the Bible.  The only problem is coming up with a fresh solution to the Gen 1 Text.  We actually have to think now outside of the old stodgy rules for a change.

Genesis One is a story of election and critical events that define our existence. Just because theologians cannot figure out at what phase of the Earth that the main event initiated, does not mean we have to go adopting a mythical eternal matter, a primeval atom or undefined chaos with germs of intrinsic annihilation (Ala ancient myths, Edgar Allan Poe, Big-Bang and Big-Crunch).  Nor do we have to go reading in a tract on philosophy, e.g. materia informis and the concept time. One is free to do philosophy to solve the problem of universal history but this is not the place.  The Gen 1 author could have cared less about philosophy.  He wrote as a prophet.  Prophets speak forthright.  They do not fop around with philosophy.  Too much is at stake.  Were Jesus and Moses and Elias philosophers or were they prophets?    

The Earth of the first and second verses resolves to an object not a figurative concept.  Concepts are relations of two or more objects. Concepts do not have surface features (e.g. face of the waters) as do physical objects in existence whether that be five billion years ago or today.  Example:  your wife's face has little pools of tears over her eyes.  This is a facial feature similar to the Earth having a face of waters.  

The relation of Gen 1 verses 1, 2, & 3 suggests an undefined prehistory, one that we know little or nothing about. Prehistory is the angel's and matter's history. On the other hand our history begins with the main event, namely:  And let light happen.

Clause Westermann's Thought   

Westermann has some interesting thought concerning a formula that suggests the opening language structure of the prophetic Genesis One story. I think these are useful. 

From Westermann's Genesis 1-11 pages 42-46:

A formula which is so widespread and of such a long standing must say something very important about the idea of creation. The action of creation is understood as a transformation, as a changing of chaos or nothingness, however these are understood, into the world as it now is, that is, into the world which is destined for people to live in. This way of speaking about transformation prevents the world and its existence from being taken for granted; the world in its contingency is traced back to an event which transcends it, namely the act by which the creator brought about change. This way of speaking is of great significance because it is the place where talk about creation becomes a narrative in the strict sense. It brings a flash point into the creation event. It is here that the question of creation ex nihilo must be introduced. Can the phrase “when this and that was not yet” be replaced simply by “when as yet there was nothing” without altering the purpose of the narrative which is to describe creation as a change? . . .

These threads of thought fit in very well with my understanding of the light event. God acts to transfigure a preexisting astronomical object and this transcendent event marks the beginning of our history. Our unique beginning is 'and light happened'. Light references a phenomenon, a dynamic relation of objects. God initiated a unique and miraculous relation with a preexisting astronomical object labelled by the sacred author as the Earth. 

God did this via the Spirit. In my view, the Earth was an old star prior to the main event which is basically the same as a planet. This star existed for billions of years and naturally transitioned to the phase which is summarized by the sacred author in the second verse. When the Earth was a cinder of what was once a star, God sent forth the Spirit and changed it. God renewed the face of this old star and this is the beginning of Man, and not only man but also the first pristine plants, microorganisms, animals, landmasses, and oceans before the Fall.  Westermann continues:

The texts Grapow has collected show the significance of this formula and demonstrate at the same time the different ways in which it can be used. Its basic function is always the same; to fix a point in the course of events when time and existence as experienced in the everyday world are marked off from a primeval state when all that conditions present existence had not yet come to be. One could describe the formula as the narrative trait that marks off primeval time.

So the formula that the sacred author uses is consistent with other creation stories. It marks off a transition from a prehistory which we know little about.  Who presumes to know the entire history of the network of atoms, i.e. matter?  Who presumes to know the entire history of the angels?  No one in their right mind.  Plus for what critical purpose would the info on the history of angels and matter serve us?  Why would God even bother revealing this type of information?  Westermann continues:    

The reason for this is that the formula “when there was not yet” is the narrative characteristic that marks off primeval time. Narrative must speak of something; it cannot tell of nothing.

This calls to mind Gen 1:2, for the explanation of which we have now an important insight. The survey shows that it is Gen 1:2 and not Gen 1:1 that corresponds to the formula.  Consequently the argument for translating Gen 1:1 as a subordinate clause corresponding to the formula disappears. On the other hand Gen 1:2 corresponds exactly, the only adaptation being that the negative expression is changed into a positive one as with the example cited from Egyptian texts. Gen 1:2 must be explained from the history of the tradition of this motif. This means that its intent is not to describe a state that preceded creation, but to mark off God’s act of creation from a “before” which is beyond words and can only be described in negative terms.
The primary purpose of all these sentences is to delimit and not to describe, 

The formula “when there was not yet” [in other words creation ex nihilo] makes it possible for the old creation narratives to describe creation as an event or as an act. Acts and events occur only in a series in any given narrative, linked in some way to what has gone before. Creation is narrated as the primal beginning which took place “when this and that was not yet there.” The purpose of the formula is to give creation the character of an event. 

Gen 1 has no option but to speak in concrete terms which mark off creation as an event from any “before” which can only be described negatively. If Gen 1:1-2 intended to describe creation ex nihilo, then that would be something that simply cannot be reported. One can teach creation ex nihilo; but one cannot narrate it.

Gen 1:1-2 does not describe creation ex nihilo.  But the existence of atoms, stars, and the fundamental objects that mediate light and gravity, not to mention the Angels, prior to the main event of Genesis One was not really chaos or negative it is only dark to the sacred author's mind, so to speak. He did not know much of anything about it other than God created these two objects called Heaven and Earth.  

Gen 1:2 describes an astronomical object, one which has form.  The Earth is described as an astonishing-desert with facial features that is an abyss/the waters.  This object is about to be transfigured by God via the missive Spirit. Gen 1:2 describes an astronomical object which is about to enter in a singular relation with God that no other astronomical object in the universe can boast of.  The Earth was an old transitioned star and at some flash point God changed it forever.  God initiated a unique and dynamic relationship with this dying star that will continue forever. The future fire event predicted by Saint Peter will be the final renewal begun by the light event of Genesis One.

Final Thoughts        

The main event of Genesis One is the transfiguration [i.e. change of the surface] of the Earth to a renewed astronomical object fit for Man.  Soon later Adam and Eve sinned in Paradise and perhaps were detained there asleep so that the Earth could cycle through a fallen course of Nature for millions or a few billions of years.  So much so that the new Earth Adam first saw when he was created, and the old cursed Earth Adam and Eve were banished to from Paradise were very much different in spite of some similarities.

Genesis Series: The Hebrew Shamayim

Some translate the first verse of the Bible

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Heaven is sometimes given a plural translation. The justification for this seems to stem from grammatical studies that the Hebrew word transliterated 'shamayim' is what they call a Hebrew dual word. There is no singular variant of the Hebrew shamayim. So I looked into this and came to my own conclusion that the Hebrew word 'shamayim' appears as a dual because it is a compound of the Hebrew word 'mayim' meaning waters.

Hebrew, like most other languages, has two characteristic numbers: singular and plural. A third is called the dual which is a modification of the plural preserved by aid of punctuation. The purpose of this article is to present my opinion that the Hebrew shamayim appears to be a dual since it has the Hebrew dual mayim built into it. If I can rest on this assumption then the referent of shamayim is not always many objects or a pair of objects and from a sheer grammatical conception (let alone an interpretive conception assuming Faith and reason) need not be always be translated as a plural.

Some Hebrew words are plural only or dual only. Plural or dual only are words that have no singular variant. An English example is 'glasses' or 'scissors'. The Hebrew word for water, mayim, is supposedly a dual only. For whatever reason the ancients conceived, uttered and traced the word referencing water as a pair. Perhaps the reason is they understood the basic cyclical relation between the water of the land and the water of the sky.  And not only this . . . it would seem that God used some of the waters already present on Earth's surface to make our first modern atmosphere (more on this in future articles).

It seems that this Hebrew word mayim is built into the Hebrew word for heaven: shamayim. Shamayim could be a compound of 'waters' and a prefix. Lets take a look at a couple of sources.

1. The great Medieval Jewish interpreter Rashi.

Rashi's loose translation and interpretation of Genesis 1:8:

God called the expanse "heaven" because it was made from fire and water. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.

And Rashi's notes:

And God called the expanse heaven: Heb. שָׁמַיִם [This is a combination of the words מַיִם שָׂא, bear water (Gen. Rabbah 4:7); שָׁם מַיִם, there is water; אֵשׁ וּמַיִם, fire and water. He mingled them with one another and made the heavens from them (Chag. 12a).

So with Rashi there is this concept that the Hebrew word shamayim is a word combination: fire in waters, or fire and waters or fiery waters.

2. To paraphrase, scholars Bauer and Leander in Historische Grammatik der hebraischen Sprache des Alten Testaments I return to Proto-semitic postulating the reconstruction of samayim from *sa, which is according to them the (demonstrative and) relative pronoun, and *maiu “water.” *sa-maii would yield the meaning “place of water.”

3. Min Suc Kee in a little article from the Jewish Bible Quarterly states:

The word shamayim (sky, heaven), which is closely associated with water in the cosmologies and takes the same intriguing dual ending, could be explained in the same manner. A point of interest here is that fact that the words denoting "sky' in the Semitic languages are all spelled by prefixing s/sh to the words meaning "water" in general. Simply understood, for example, shamayim in Hebrew or Aramaic and šamu in Akkadian could be seen as a term combining "of/one of which"(ša) and "waters" (mayim/mu). One might therefore assume that the sky was "one of the waters/of the waters." (see http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/403/jbq_403_mayim.pdf)

4. And from Fabre d'Olivet's etymology:

I am taking up here, the etymology of the word [shamayim] heavens, because it is attached to the one I have been explaining in this article, and because it signifies literally, the waters, raised, brilliant and glorified; being formed from the word [mayim], waters, and from the root which is united to it. This root contains the idea of that which rises and shines in space, that which is distinguished and noticeable by its elevation or its splendour." (From The Hebrew Tongue Restored)

So I conclude the Hebrew word shamayim is a dual since it has the Hebrew dual mayim built into it. Thus shamayim can reference a single object or many objects pending the context. For example in the second day sequence of Genesis One God names a singular object, thus the name should be translated in the singular Heaven not the plural Heavens. If He made a single thing that is Earth's atmosphere then it follows that the name should be translated singular for this context. If God or a sacred author reference the many stars and galaxies seen through the night sky then the word could be translated in the plural: heavens.

In the Bible shamayim seems to reference either God's sphere or house, the Earth's sphere or atmosphere, or the stellar spheres seen through the night sky, the stars, interstellar clouds, galaxies and so on. So all the translator need do is decide what the word references in a particular context and mark singular or plural for his readers. It all boils down to context. Context, context, context. There is no justification for translating oblivious to context or making a case that the shamayim of Genesis 1 or Gen 1:8 should be translated as a plural based on morphology alone.

Back to Genesis 1:1.  I am of the opinion that the shamayim of the first verse of the Bible refers to God's Sphere, the Heaven of God, the Heaven of the Blessed, the Place where God lives, God's House, God's enclosure, God's Tabernacle.  Describe it how you will, but the important interpretive point is that it is an object (that which has form).  Thus it should be translated in the singular. There is only one Heaven housing God. This is the object from where God triggers the main light event described in the subsequent verses of the Genesis narrative. The name Heaven of the second day sequence refers to Earth's atmosphere which God forms from the H2O, gas molecules and chemical compounds of this astronomical object's surface. Thus 'shamayim' of Genesis 1:8 should also be translated in the singular.

God named Earth's brilliant atmosphere Heaven in order to plant in our brains a connection between His most exalted Sphere where he lives and Earth's Sphere.  The Shamayim of God is of course disconnected from the all the atoms of the Universe, as well as the fundamental objects which interconnect all atoms, constitute them and mediate light and gravity between them all.  God could have his House, his Shamayim close to the Earth or the Sun and humans would never be able to see it, detect it, locate it, and so on.  And yet the prophetic author of Genesis One had a vision of God and Heaven in close relation to the Earth.  God, Heaven, and Earth are all relevant objects involved in the miraculous light event and thus described to open the narrative.

Genesis Series: Key Hebrew Words in Gen 1:1

The Hebrew Aleph-Thao Article

There is an important and meaningful Hebrew preposition used in the first verse of the Bible. This preposition modifies the noun Heaven and the noun Earth with distinction. Sadly, it has rarely if ever been translated in all the versions of the Bible. Even the literal versions of the Bible as well as the Hebrew interlinear that I use omit this article. I just came across this article while studying my Hebrew grammar. I knew it prior to this but no one ever clearly explained to me the meaning.

Now that I know what it means, I am disappointed that few translators in history bother to convey it or add it to his notes. It matters not that this preposition has no equivalent in the other languages. Once the translator understands this Hebrew word concept, all he need do is create a new mode of uttering and tracing the concept using the idiom at his disposal. In short he must generate a new spoken word as well as traced word and note what it means. Or just leave the Aleph-Thao in and everyone should be taught what it means. Maybe it would be awkward but oh well. If God and the sacred author used this article to convey meaning, its 'presence' trumps eloquence. Perhaps if this preposition had always been translated it would be accustomed to seem eloquent.

How could this Hebrew prepositive article just be skipped over in one of the most prominent verses of the entire Bible? This word concept is crucial in this context.

The Hebrew preposition is an Aleph-Thao script. The preposition is composed of the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. What is its meaningful relation?

A basic understanding of this word is that it is used to introduce a semantically definite direct object. This alone is enough to destroy any understanding of the Heaven and the Earth in Gen 1:1 as referring to a conceptual figure. The Heaven and the Earth of Gen 1:1 considered alone or taken together does not refer to a concept or figure of speech.  The Heaven and the Earth of Gen 1:1 both respectively refer to an object.  We define object as that which has form. God created this thing. It is spatially separated, bound from its immediate surrounding. In the case of Heaven it is disconnected from matter. It exists even prior to the main event described in Gen 1:1, and the same goes for the astronomical object called Earth.

But now lets get into the concept of this singular Hebrew preposition. I take from The Hebrew Tongue Restored by the french man Olivet:

This is the designative preposition (Aleph-Tao), which I have mentioned as having no corresponding article. . .The movement which expresses this preposition with the nouns which it modifies, is that by which it puts them en rapport as governing or governed, as independent one of the other and participating in the same action. I name it designative, on account of the sign of signs, Thao, from which it is derived. It characterizes sympathy and reciprocity when it is taken substantively. Joined to a noun by a hyphen, it designates the substance proper and individual, the identity, the selfsameness, the seity, the thou-ness, if I may be permitted this word; that is to say, that which constitutes, that which implies something apart from me, a thing that is not me; in short, the presence of another substance. This important preposition, of which I cannot give the exact meaning, indicates the coincidence, the spontaneity of actions, the liaison, the ensemble and the dependence of things. (p. 116)

This incredible effort on his part is followed by an exact translation in English:

the-selfsameness-of-heaven and the-selfsameness-of-earth

The concept of this Hebrew preposition in context to God and the Heaven and the Earth can be taken in both above meanings. First, there is sympathy and reciprocity between God and the Heaven and the Earth. This is established by the light event described in Gen 1:3. God created the Heaven and the Earth to be together in a mutual exchange; a harmony.

Second, the Earth already consisted of a core, mantle and surface prior to the main event described in the third verse.  In other words the Earth had form and existed prior to the Spirit having been sent to it.  The Earth existed from core to surface, from inside to out prior to the main event. The Earth had form. It had all of its elements and molecules. The Earth was on its own prior to God electing it and performing His miraculous light event with Earth as target. Similar things can be said of the Heaven.  The Heaven where God lives had form and existed prior to the main light event.

What is fascinating about this writer, Fabre d'Olivet, is that in his subsequent section on Hebrew Tense, he, in spite of himself and custom, reveals the implications of this unique Hebrew preposition on the translation of Genesis 1:1-2:

One must first examine the intention of the writer, and the respective condition of things. Thus, to give an example, although, in the French and English word-forward translation, conforming to custom, I have rendered the verb bara, of the first verse of the Cosmogony of Moses, by he created, I have clearly felt that this verb signified there, he had created; as I have expressed it in the correct translation; for this antecedent nuance is irresistibly determined by the verb haitha it existed, in speaking of the earth an evident object of an anterior creation. (p. 191)

Olivet explains that the two Hebrew tenses convey temporal continuity: from extreme past to present and from present to extreme future. The context, or an inflection can restrict the action to some point on the conceptual timeline. So now assimilating these concepts I could translate Gen 1:1-2 something like this:

In a beginning, God had created the form Heaven and the form Earth.  And when the Earth existed as an astonishing-desert, etc.God said, "Let light happen." And light happened.

The correct relation between the Heaven and the Earth is that God connects Heaven and Earth by the effusion of the Spirit and establishes a unique relation between the two objects in the light event. In Gen 1:1 the Heaven and the Earth are not a figurative concept referring to the universe. They are not a merism. This is a sloppy misconception. Rather, they are two distinct objects brought together by God in the light event. God lives in Heaven. It is implied that God is miraculously acting upon the Earth from Heaven. God, from Heaven manifests Himself by inducing a miraculous change of this astronomical object called Earth via the Spirit. God from Heaven lights up the Earth. God stimulated the face of the Earth like the Sun stimulates your face. God miraculously transfigured the face of the Earth which had already existed for countless years.

I have not mentioned this on the blog yet but nowhere in the third verse does it convey that God created or made light. The sacred author simply writes: And light happened. He does not write: And God made light, or And God created light. People read this into the text because they do not understand what light refers to. Light refers to a concept, that is a dynamic relation between objects (atoms) via an invisible mediator. The physical mediator of light phenomenon had already existed countless years prior to the main event described in the story of Genesis One. Natural, physical light happened as soon as the network of atoms existed. Light is just atoms impinging upon the fundamental objects or mediators which interconnect and even constitute all atoms [at various frequencies].  Torsion signals physically affect the receiving atoms, inducing motion. This atomic action and reaction is a model of the light event described in Genesis One, only the sending atom, so to speak is God and the receiving atom is the Earth and the Mediator between the two is the Holy Spirit. The light of Genesis 1:3 is a miraculous phenomenon consummated by God through the missive Spirit.

The Earth existed billions of years prior to the main event. It was a clearly bound from its immediate surrounding (had form).  Maybe Earth was among a first generation of astronomical objects formed from within the network of atoms of our galaxy. The Aleph-Tao article conveys the truth that the Earth had already been created, "in a beginning". I think Earth is a star which at the time of the main event was a cinder of what was once a star. It was a dark star. A black dwarf. A rogue planet.  But regardless of what I think about its history the Earth is clearly marked in the Text as a pre-existing astronomical object with surface features.  And when it was this, then God miraculously worked the surface which was like a desert and had a froze over water and chemical supply. When God initiated the light-event the surface broke out: it jumped, making the atmosphere. 

The underlying meaning of the Divine word concept; light; is that God initiated a singular manifestation, a dynamic relation with the Earth via the Spirit which culminated in the miraculous creation and motion of Adam and Eve. The light-event is the symphony of God orchestrated from Heaven to the Earth. It is one of God's greatest works where He shows forth such great purpose and prowess.

Genesis One is not a statement of creation ex nihilo. God created the Earth as a definite astronomical object long before God initiated the transfiguration of its face in the awesome light event. Matter, the network of atoms, already existed when God created the Earth. God had created the Earth from the network of atoms prior to the main event. Earth's core, its stable base, was gradually forged by stellar nucleosynthesis prior to the main event. Subsequent to fusion the Earth shed its outer layers, formed crystals, molecules and settled into a dark desert-like water-world not unlike more than a few observed planets and moons. This all prior to the main-event.

After the Earth had naturally transitioned as an astronomical object for billions of years, when it was a dark star: God initiated a singular relationship with it by sending forth the Spirit and transfiguring its face in the light event. No other astronomical object has ever or will ever receive the Divine miraculous relation. Earth is elect. This is why we will never find living entities on any other planet.

The Hebrew Verb Bara

The Hebrew verb bara takes on the meaning 'to make something from nothing' and 'to make something from something' in Gen 1:1. The Heaven is made from nothing. The Earth is made from pre-existing matter. All these circular debates over the years as the the meaning of the Hebrew 'bara' in context to Gen 1:1 are nullified just by understanding that the Heaven and the Earth are two definite objects. They had form prior to the main event of the narrative. God and the sacred author made this clear via the Aleph-Thao article, they placed in front of the noun Heaven and the noun Earth. God decisively chose his concept of the Heaven and the Earth into existence long before the main event of Genesis One. The main event sealed the Earth with God's love and election. It established a harmony between the Heaven and the Earth. And in the end the plan is realized fully when God not only lives in the Heaven but he also lives on the Earth. God does not live on Mars or any other astronomical object. God lives on Earth.

Our millions of artificial concepts have adulterated this Sacred Text. It is so simple yet so profound. The manner in which God did his awesome work and the manner in which He conveyed His work is astonishingly lucid, direct, straightforward, clear-cut. It was effortlessly beautiful and wondrous.     

The Origin of Enuma Elish

Bel-Marduk is a Babylonian god who is elevated in the Babylonian creation myth called Enuma Elish. This creation myth is often associated with Genesis One. Some foolishly speculate that Genesis One was an offshoot of Enuma Elish.

So just who is this Bel-Marduk? And where did his ridiculous myth come from?

Bel-Marduk is a concept generated from the life of Nimrod. After Nimrod died he was worshiped as a god under the title Bel or the name Marduk. After a few generations, knowledge of the association between Nimrod, Bel and Marduk faded away.

Nimrod was a son of Cush who was the son of Ham. He was a thoroughly evil and degenerate person. He was the Hitler of his time. Nimrod was involved in the project of building the immense city-tower called Babel. Many tribes were associated in building this city-tower and Nimrod was one of the chiefs among them. When the work on the tower stopped Nimrod took power over remaining tribes who did not migrate from Babel. So it is written in Genesis:

And the first part of his kingdom is Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar; from that land he hath gone out to Asshur, and buildeth Nineveh, even the broad places of the city, and Calah, and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah; it [is] the great city. (Young's Literal Translation)

Nimrod rose to power after the event of the confusing of the tongues. He used the bricks of the halted Babel project to lay foundations for the cities that later united into the Babylonian empire. I do not think that Babel is Babylon. Babel was built on a rise surrounded by a plain. Babylon was built by the river. Nimrod had the bricks and stones moved. The bricks and stones of the Tower were used to build a first foundation of Babylon, whatever it was. I do not think Nimrod was ever a king-proper, he was simply the most powerful tyrant of the region. He was a founder of cities and of a race. Later these cities he founded had kings.

Nimrod was involved in all sorts of devilry, idolatry and astrology out of resentment toward God for the Flood. For many years he worked on a system of idolatry chalk full of gods, idols, myths, pseudo-prophecies, and rituals which he passed down to his subjects (I take this from Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich). He probably drew some concepts and names from the debris of Sumer. He even made priests for his system. Nimrod was also involved in famous hunting expeditions and sired many children. A daughter and granddaughter of his were also very powerful and later worshiped as goddesses.

Enuma Elish is a piece of hogwash. It ultimately came from the idolatry and idolatrous system of Nimrod. Nimrod was the first to draw up the fictional histories of the Babylonian gods used in Enuma Elish. The story probably got copied and recreated from the passing down of Nimrod's teachings and writings. The Tiamat/chaos elements were originally conceived of by Nimrod who lived not long after the Flood event. Only there is a twist in all of this. Nimrod under the name of Marduk enters into his own fictional history and becomes the creator god! Whether they knew it or not the Babylonians were worshiping a concept referring to Nimrod under via the names Bel-Marduk.

The fact that scholars actually take this stuff seriously and make claims such as Genesis One being influenced by Enuma Elish is a testimony that establishments are confused, wild in their concepts and more or less full of hogwash. That anyone would even conceive of Genesis One having anything to do with the piece of idolatrous filth known as Enuma Elish is foolish.  I've read many translations, interpretations and commentaries of Genesis One, and it seems that wherever I look I see Enuma Elish.  Well it makes me think . . . are some Scripture scholars for real? 

The holy writer of Genesis One could not have cared less about Babylonian myth. I assume he did not even know that Enuma Elish existed. But even if he did know it existed and happened to read it, there is no possible way he would have stooped so low as to be influenced by this nonsense.  Some of the speculative associations and speculative events that circulate in books and institutions these days are just made up and treated like some wise doctrine. It is as if Nimrod is having his revenge on God in the future; for today, one cannot even read a Genesis 1 commentary or interpretation without the filth of Enuma Elisha sullying it. It was said by Blessed Anne that Nimrod resented God for having enacted the Flood.

Genesis 1-2:3 is derived from a seer who saw and understood what God did. God mystically induced him to conceptualize past events (perhaps in a prophetic dream) which he described in the script. Genesis 1 is a postdiction: a description of past events without error. Some of the word concepts he employs, such as evening and morning, one day, second day, third, etc. have specialized-prophetic meanings that refer to the unique phenomenon of God manifesting Himself in a miraculous transfiguration of the physical astronomical object: Earth. When God went to work it was like the Earth's first daytime, for Earth was a wandering planet prior to the events described in Genesis One. These prophetic concepts have nothing to do with 24 hour cycles, or yearly cycles, or anything of a Western temporal concept. It is not like the seer had a clock and was measuring the time God took to do his work then decided to use the word day as a figurative concept. And the days of Genesis 1 certainly have nothing to do with the generations of Babylonian gods.

In conclusion,

Bel-Marduk=Nimrod

That is all one need know about Enuma Elish.

Genesis Series: In a beginning

In a beginning, God had created the form of Heaven and the form of Earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Introduction

The opening phrase of Genesis as well as the entire Genesis One narrative is one of the most hotly debated phrases in all of Sacred Scripture.  Biblical scholars trained in ancient languages as well as others have dissected these words to the letter.  An interpreter is faced with a few different paths of translation and interpretation.  For my part I've chosen a road less taken.  This interpretative path is born from thinking outside the box over years.  One will be thoroughly imbued with these ideas over the course of many articles I have written on this subject.

The Opening Phrase

My understanding of the opening prepositional phrase is that God and the sacred author do not intend to communicate THE ABSOLUTE BEGINNING, i.e. beginning of all time or the creation ex nihilo event. Rather the they open the narrative, indefinitely, so as to allow for the understanding that there was a history prior to the main event postdicted in Gen 1:3.

My inspiration comes in part from a Hebrew language scholar, Robert Holmstedt. Holmstedt is a bright Hebrew language scholar I have encountered in my studies. His article 'The Restrictive Syntax of Genesis i 1' (Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008) 56-67) provides a clear argument why the traditional understanding of an 'absolute beginning' is grammatically ill-founded.

There is much strife in the history of Gen 1:1 translations. The strife is founded on whether or not to translate the Hebrew noun bǝrēʾšît (beginning) in an absolute or construct state. Absolute state means the noun is marked in a grammatically independent form, e.g. the beginning. Absolute state showcases a human's ability to reify concepts so as to consummate higher order abstractions. So for example one takes a concept, i.e. beginning, and one treats this concept AS IF it has form and one could possibly relate to it.  Of course in reality this is impossible, but human's have this uncanny ability to treat concepts as if they were objects.  The root of our thinking prowess is in our sophisticated ability to treat our thought as if it had form.  This is will feature prominently in my interpretation.  A translator of a controversial text such as this one must understand the difference between an object (that which has form) and a concept (a relation between two or more objects, or a nest of concepts, worked out by the brain).

Construct state means the noun is grammatically bound to the following words liken to a genitive relation, e.g. beginning of. The issue is made complex since the noun beginning is a concept and lacks form.  Furthermore this noun is of time, i.e. temporal. Time is of course a concept . . . a brainwork.  Literally speaking time has no beginning or end.  In tongue and cheek I say that time began when God, an Angel, a human or animal first compared two or more motions.  And that is a perfect definition of time.  Time is a comparison between two or more motions where one motion is assumed as constant.  For example we compare our conception of Earth's rotation in relation to the Sun (Moon and stars) to Earth's orbit in relation to the Sun.  Notice how in both conceptions, rotation and orbit, we are relating two objects:  Earth and Sun.  And we assign scalar quantities to keep track of these motions.  Motion of course is two or more locations which an object assumes.  In order to conceive motion we need a minimum of two objects.

With these basics in mind let us look at the two proposals to account for the grammar of the opening phrase as summarized by Holmstedt as:

1. rēʾšît is a grammatically indefinite but semantically determined noun in the absolute state, used adverbially for absolute temporal designation. (Holmstedt)This proposal translates to the English, "In the beginning God created, etc" with the understanding that the sacred author is stating creation ex nihilo. 

2. rēʾšît is a grammatically and semantically indefinite noun in the construct state, used adverbially for temporal designation relative to a separate main event. (Holmstedt)

This translates to "When God began to create" with the understanding that the this preposition is linked to a main event in this case 'God said, "Let there be light."'

The most literal English translation would simply be: In beginning God created, etc. but this is impractical. In my view, the sacred author had no motions by which to compare what he had seen in a vision.  He did not know the time God took him too in his prophetic experience. He simply relates three objects: God and the Heaven and the Earth in an undefined memory.  It would seem that the sacred author start with three objects:  God, Heaven, Earth, and relates them together in this indefinite and undefined beginning.  He states that God created the Heaven and the Earth which is true, but for his narrative he states this as a given.

This beginning is defined by the first major motion, that is God, from Heaven, moving to enact the light event in relation to the Earth.  So this hotly debated beginning would seem wed to the light event which presupposes three existing objects:  God, Heaven and Earth.  Clearly the sacred author and God who inspired him did not intend to take us readers back to a creation ex nihilo event 'when' there is only God, and nothing else.  God alone with nothing else is enough to challenge our notion of motion, but clearly the sacred author had no intention to take us back to only God.  

The sacred author understands that God had done things prior to where the events of Genesis One begin. And besides it makes no sense that God's sphere, i.e. Heaven and the Earth would be created at the absolute beginning as if there is no lapse in time: a metric of motion. And yet the sacred author understands he is taken to the initiation of our history, that is God's act to transform a pre-existing astronomical object.  The sacred author did not have a timeline of the universe where he could mark the main event. To him, God from Heaven miraculously enters into an astronomical object's history.

The Matrix

Holmstedt uses the Masoretic text of the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible dated to 1008 a.d. Holmstedt argues for the second position but he refines and clarifies their position to the opening phrase signalling a restrictive relative clause:

"In fact, only one grammatically sound explanation of the syntax of a noun in construct with a verb has surfaced: such sequences are unmarked relative clauses. This “construct-relative” option makes better sense of the fact that the noun in bǝrēʾšît lacks the article, and builds upon known Hebrew grammar."

A relative clause is a type of subordinate clause. It provides additional (but syntactically) non-crucial information about the matrix.  Matrix is a word derived from the Latin and is a variation of mater translated as mother.  In grammar the matrix is the main clause of the sentence, but in our Genesis 1 context the matrix is more.  The matrix is the main event not only of the first sentence of Genesis but of this entire narrative.  I call it the Light Event.  The matrix clause is 'And God said, "Let light happen".

In Holmstedt's view the syntax of the first three verses of Genesis is a compound-complex sentence. So according to this position the clause 'In a beginning, God had created the Heaven and the Earth' provides additional (but syntactically) non-crucial information to the matrix of the compound-complex sentence that is ' And God said, "Let light happen."' In other words verse one is a syntactical element of verse three.

Holmstedt argues in favor another feature known as the restrictive nature. He analyzes several Hebrew verses and compares the Hebrew to the Akkadian and Old South Arabian. He concludes

"any translation or semantic reading of a translation that would identify rēʾšît in Gen. i 1 as “the beginning” would fail to recognize the significance of relative clause syntax."

He follows by providing an explanation of the awkwardness of translating this Hebrew relative clause syntax into English. He provides his own translation:

"Admittedly, the implication of my analysis is significant. If rēʾšît is the head of an unmarked, restrictive relative clause, then Gen. i 1 as a whole can serve only one grammatical function: it is a stage-setting prepositional phrase, providing a temporal frame of reference only for what follows. Importantly, the temporal reference is relative to the event provided in the matrix clause (either v. 2 or v. 3). To reflect this linguistic analysis, a translation based on the one in (17) would be accurate. In the initial period that/in which God created the heavens and the earth . . ."

He concludes the article by stating the theological implications of his study. His study allows for an understanding of multiple stages to God's creative work prior to the parenthetic information of Gen 1:2 and the main event of Gen 1:3.

Arguments for 'In a beginning'

For my part I have adopted a rare position to the grammatical game provided from none other than Holmstedt himself! In the course of his paper he cites in his footnotes a third logical possible way of translating:

"There is a third logical possibility, that the noun rēʾšît should be taken as indefinite and in the absolute state, e.g., “in a beginning, God created . . .”. This option does not appear to have any adherents, . . . "

I adopted this possibility, "in a beginning' for several reasons. One is that maybe one other person has used it. This avoids the endless circles of debate, stodginess, and so on.  This translation is grammatically speaking, allowed in the Hebrew as well as the Latin tradition. The Latin Vulgate has "In principio". Latin has no articles. It is left to the translator to decide a definite or indefinite article when translating to English.

Another reason is that my understanding of this phrase is liken to the stock phrase "Once upon a time". "In a beginning" opens a story! It opens a thread of events after which the Earth will never be the sames.  Genesis One is prophetic prose narrative. It is a postdiction: a description of past events without error. At the primary level there is nothing particularly profound about this opening phrase.  Like Holmstedt said this phrase sets a stage or establishes a temporal realm in relation to the main light event.  This phrase simply opens a conceptual realm whereby the sacred author may unleash his narrative and the reader may begin processing the same. "In a beginning" means once in the past, a long long time ago.

Another reason I translated 'In a beginning' is my understanding that this Genesis One narrative begins to unfold long, long after creation ex nihilo. My reasoning beyond grammar runs something like this: It would be impractical for God to reveal all that he has done since the beginning of angels and the network of atoms, i.e. matter in a manner of a few verses. A few verses is insufficient to tell the story of the galaxies, and the stars, and all matter, let alone the Angels prior to the events communicated in the Gen 1 story. This prehistory could be trillions of years. And the same could be said concerning the the angels. This reasoning is in line with what the Gospel of John 21:25 proclaims:

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written.

Similarly there are also many other things that God did prior to the main event, the matrix of this narrative which in a manner of speaking the world itself would not be able to contain the books that would be written. These other things include the creation ex nihilo: the sudden and miraculous arrival of the angels and the atoms. Then matter's development into structures, and their interactions, etc.; and the Angel's development including the Fall of the angels. We consider but a spark of all God has done and God simply has not revealed to us all things through the Bible. Creation ex nihilo happened long before the first event of the Genesis One story.

Some get offended by an interpretation contrary to absolute beginning. They argue that this interpretation is an attack on the creation ex nihilo dogma. Little do they consider whether or not the sacred author even had a clear conception of creation ex nihilo. This clear conception could have developed long after Genesis One was written when the Hellenist culture with its philosophy spread through the Holy Land. The sacred author implicitly believed in creation ex nihilo yet in his time there was no defined dogma as in our time.

Another counter argument would be that creation ex nihilo can be drawn out of other verses in the Bible. The Bible is thousands upon thousands of verses. God does not need to directly teach creation ex nihilo in the opening verse. Creation ex nihilo can be drawn out of many verses in the Bible. Too much emphasis has been placed on Gen 1:1.

Conclusion

'In a beginning' targets a time long ago in the past, only this time is long after creation ex nihilo. The phrase functions to open a temporal concept through which the sacred author may unleash his prophetic narrative and through which the reader may begin processing the same. The sacred author deliberately opens the prophetic narrative, indefinitely. He did this since he quite really did not know how far back in the process of creation God took him in his prophetic experience. He was being wise and honest in not choosing to use an article in the record of this prophetic history. God also made this choice and of course knew many things happened prior to that which he did as related in Genesis One. And yet this beginning is absolute in the sense that this story marks the time when God initiated the history of planet Earth as the sacred author knew it.

The indefiniteness allows for the understanding that there was a history prior to the information communicated in the Gen 1:2 and the main event communicated in Gen 1:3. God, from Heaven miraculously acts to transfigure the face of an astronomical object: Earth. This object may have existed for billions of years prior to His supernatural act to transform.

The lack of definite article in my translation precisely signifies the concept: obscurity, indefiniteness, ambiguity. And yet there is also a concept of absoluteness in the sense that the first event begins history as the sacred author knew it. The main event marks the beginning of Mankind, the animal kingdom and plant kingdom's story.
I assume that the Genesis One narrative does not begin at creation ex nihilo. I assume the Genesis One narrative begins at some indefinite time in the past billions, maybe even trillions of years subsequent to creation ex nihilo. I understand that the subject of the second verse, that is the Earth could have a long history prior to the miraculous events disclosed starting with Gen 1:3. Ultimately I am suggesting the idea that planet Earth had a history prior to the beginning of the events communicated in Genesis One. The planet existed long before the events of Genesis One happened. 

Addendum

After writing the above article many years ago I found another who adheres to my chosen translation: 'In a beginning' for the first word of Genesis 1 and Bible. It comes from the book Intercourses in the Book of Genesis by R. Gilboa. This book is a simplified version of his P.H.D. thesis presented to the University of Manchester and published in 1998. He seemed to be doing a doctorate in Biblical Hebrew. Here is an abstract from the book:

The very first word in Genesis indicates a certain mode of time. It is usually translated "In the beginning", but the particle 'the' is not part of the Hebrew text; the person who vocalized the word saw fit to give it an indefinite sense of time and not the sense of the all-embracing transcendental occurence: Be'Reshit, not Ba'Reshit,. Assuming that the voweller was conscious of what he was doing, and this is the approach stressed again and again in this paper, one cannot apply a cosmic interpretation to a text which avoids the cosmic. Therefore when the text states "בְּ·רֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים", it means to say only what is written: "in a beginning God created . . ." The problems of whether there were other beginnings or when was THE beginning (a question scientifically yet unsolved) are irrelevant for the story, and the practical text, by the very words used, seems to avoid unsolvable problems by relating only to an undefined time and a beginning that concern it. (Chapter II, p. 39)

I more or less agree with him. Grammatically, and by Faith I came to the same conclusion although there are other alternatives and a circle of never-ending debates. Biblical Hebrew studies is confusing because it is history.  It is not like any one of us can ask the sacred author personally what he intended.  And so one has to also apply some critical thinking and rational analysis tools in an assumption of Faith.

Even if his grammatical argument is unsound Gilboa's reasoning when taken in context to the referents 'the Heaven and the Earth' are sound. The object Heaven and the object Earth (object: that which has form) were not necessarily created simultaneously ex nihilo at THE absolute beginning of created objects.  Perhaps God created his house first and then the astronomical object Earth was created billions of years later.  It could have taken form for the atoms, and fundamental objects which constitute the atoms which God created ex nihilo.  Perhaps it was predestined, and at a time after some of the Angels fell elected to be the home of humans.

The sacred author relates the creation of these two objects (Heaven and Earth) in an indefinite beginning. He was a seer. He did not know when these two objects were created in relation to each other because this history was not relevant to his prophecy. All he knew is that God created the Heaven and the Earth prior to the events that he relates in his prophetic narrative. He relates them to God and states them since they are the relevant objects of his narrative. God acts to transfigure the face of the Earth from His house named Heaven, via the Spirit who is emitted to the astronomical object Earth. The Heaven of God is a relevant object in the dynamic of the events described in the Genesis 1 narrative. God from Heaven acts to change the face of the Earth.

Later in the same chapter Gilboa states:

The author, as discussed beforehand concerning A beginning, avoid the problem of THE beginning and states the existence of A God-creator. The powers of this God are directed toward a very specific creation. . . (p. 44)

The specific created object of the Genesis 1 narrative is the astronomical object named Earth.  Earth will be miraculously changed and its elements will be used to create an atmosphere, oceans, plants, animals, and finally Adam.  I think the Earth is an old dark star that naturally transitioned from an active fusion and compression phase to a cool and for the most part inactive phase (minus the core) after which all the fusion of the heavy elements, synthesis of chemicals, crystallization of minerals, and so on occurred for billions of years prior to the main light event of Genesis.  If not this then perhaps it was what scientists now call a rogue planet.

Beginning as stated in Genesis 1:1 is indefinite, obscure, uncertain, unclear, etc. The seer who communicated Genesis 1 had little idea of all the things God did prior to "and the Earth was an astonishing-desert . . . "Let light happen!"

The Life of Job and the Evolution of the Book of Job

Sit back and enjoy my extended article on the life of Job and evolution of the Sacred Book of Job.*

Job Was Not an Edomite

Edom refers to Esau son of Isaac; the descendants of Esau; and the land where Esau's descendants settled (also called Idumea). This land extended south of the Dead Sea toward Egypt. Job did not descend from Esau nor did Job ever live in the ancient region called Edom or Idumea.

A simple critical thinking can resolve that Job was not an Edomite. Edomites were enemies of Israel. There is no conceivable way that the Israelites would be interested in an Edomite or in preserving an Edomitic script. The Edomites had their own deities that they supposedly worshiped, and not the One God, the Lord. Another point is whether or not Edomites had their own script not to mention read and write.  I doubt it.  And so it is irrational, inconceivable and impossible that Job could have been an Edomite.

The confusion with the history of Job arises from the evolution of the Book of Job and the fact that Job was an ancient---lost to memory. The history of Job, his sayings and his dialogues were originally written on bark. They were copied.  In this process words were added, removed and rearranged first in the time of Moses and the Israelite's passage through the wilderness; second in the time of Solomon. Solomon rearranged the scripts of Job into a wisdom literature. Over the generations people forgot about Job and did not understand that Moses and Solomon reformed the scripts that came to be known as the Book of Job.

Did Job Exist?

The dispute over Job's existence has been a topic of debate since the time of Jesus. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich relates an episode of Jesus teaching in a Jewish boy's school:

At the moment of Jesus' entrance into this school, the boys were making some calculation connected with Job . . . He explained much of the Book of Job. Some of the rabbis at this period attacked the truth of the history therein contained, since the Edomites, to which race Herod belonged, bantered and ridiculed the Jews for accepting as true the history of a man of the land of Edom, although in that land no such man was ever known to exist. They looked upon the whole story as a mere fable, gotten up to encourage the Israelites under their afflictions in the desert. Jesus related Job's history to the boys as if it had really happened. He did so in the manner of a Prophet and Catechist, as if He saw all passing before Him, as if it were His own history, as if He heard and saw everything connected with it, or as if Job himself had told it to Him. His hearers knew not what to think. Who was this Man that now addressed them? Was He one of Job's contemporaries? Or was He an angel of God? Or was He God Himself? (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

The rabbis described by Blessed Anne in this episode remind me of some modern scholars. Their brains cannot conceive of ancient concepts or their limited sensory systems cannot find evidences of a story written in the Sacred Script thus they write it ALL off as fiction. They cannot unlock the mystery of the Sacred Script thus they assume the Sacred Script is wrong. This is the way of some. Man are they in for a surprise!

Sure, Job and the Book of Job can take on an indirect spiritual level of meaning where Job represents the Church and her sufferings.  However this interpretation is firmly rooted in history.  Job literally existed, lived, suffered and ended up happy in this unique relationship he had with God.

Job Was Not

Clearly, Job is a nickname of Jobab. In the Bible there is Jobab, an Edomite King:

These were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king ruled over the Israelites:  Bela son of Beor; the name of his city was Dinhabah.  When Bela died, Jobab son of Zerah from Bozrah, succeeded him. (1 Chr 1:43-44)

Job was not this Edomite king nor was he from Bozrah. Job lived an ancient patriarchal-pastoral way of life. In Job's time there was no such concept as Edom or Israel since Esau and Jacob had not yet to be born.

There was another Jobab, King of Madon:

When King Jabin of Hazor heard the news, he organized a coalition, including King Jobab of Madon, the king of Shimron, the king of Acshaph, (Judges 11:1)

Obviously, our Job was not this King of Madon. Madon was a city in Canaan. Joshua and the Israelites defeated this Jobab with God's help.

Two other Jobabs are listed in the Book of Chronicles as descendants of Benjamin son of Jacob.

I assume that these above were named after THE Jobab who in his time was the greatest among all the ancient sons of the East; not the Israelites or Edomites. A comparison of naming a child Jobab could be Saint Nicholas. I am named after Saint Nicholas as are many others. Once upon a time Nicholas of Myra was a renown and holy man who lived in Asia Minor. He performed a lot of great deeds. Today many are named after him but not everyone knows all the details of his life. He has become something of a legend. Similar with Jobab. He was famous and some were named after him but the details of his life eventually were forgotten since he lived long before the Jews.

Job's Lineage

Job was not a Jew, but perhaps he could be called a Hebrew if the word Hebrew is defined as a descendant of Heber, son of Shelah in Shem's line.

Job was a holy ancient patriarch, a grand uncle of Abraham. Job lived not long after the confusion of tongues at the Tower Babel. Job lived around the time Babylon was first founded by Nimrod using the stones of the halted Tower Babel project. He lived at the time the morphemes and alphabet of the holy and ancient Hebrew language were first traced by the patriarch Heber. Job was a descendant of Heber.

Job descended from Noah via Shem. Shem was the father of Arphaxad. Arphaxad was the father of Shelah. Shelah was the father of Heber. Heber had two sons: Phaleg and Joktan. Job was the thirteenth and youngest son of Joktan. In the tenth chapter of Genesis all thirteen sons are listed and Job's full first name is given as Jobab:

Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.

The first concept I'd like to convey about this specific verse is that these names first and foremost refer to real sons of Joktan and not simply to nations or regions. Real fathers established families, settled in lands, had jurisdiction over the lands and cultivated them. Joktan was a great leader of nations. From him sprung up various peoples via his sons who migrated and settled throughout the East. For the purposes of this article, East is defined as the lands extending from the Levant to India.

The last son of Joktan was Jobab. This Jobab of Joktan IS one and the same as the Job whose story and sayings are traced in the Book of Job. The next verse from Genesis describes the lands of the sons of Joktan and perhaps other children of Shem:

Their dwelling place was from Mesha all the way to Sephar in the eastern hills.

Mesha and Sephar are unidentified by modern scholarship. They assume that these names refer to places of Arabia. I was not able to figure out their exact location. These names could have been conceived prior to the confusion of tongues at Babel and the establishment of the ancient proto-Hebrew via Heber. I assume that Mesha refers to a land, probably somewhere in the Caucasus. Sephar, I assume, is a highland far into the East, perhaps even Pakistan or India. In Genesis Sephar is referred to as in the 'eastern hills' or a 'mount of the east'.

I do not doubt that some of Joktan son's and descendants migrated down to Yemen but I also think that other sons migrated far into the East. I am biased toward the idea posited by modern scholars that Ophir was a kingdom in the East, on the shores of Pakistan or India. Perhaps there is some relation to the Indus Valley Civilization.  I assume that Ophir, son of Joktan migrated far into the East perhaps to Pakistan or India and eventually a kingdom perhaps took its name in memory of him. Later Solomon would acquire primary goods from Ophir (see 1 Kings 9:26-28). They sailed the navy around the southern tip of Arabia and up to the shores of modern day Pakistan or India. In the Sacred Script under Job's dialogue the gold of Ophir is used to signify the value of wisdom:

It cannot be measured out for purchase with the gold of Ophir, ​​​​​​with precious onyx or sapphires. (28:16)

After the Flood, Noah landed somewhere in the Armenian Highlands and settled nearby, perhaps down in the plains toward Lebanon. From there his descendants migrated in all directions. Not all of his descendants migrated to the Tigris-Euphrates river system to work on the Tower. These were mostly families of Ham and a few families of Japheth. Other families migrated north and east to what we would call the Caucasus. These were some families of Shem and Japheth. Shem's descendants took no part in the Tower Babel project.

Joktan was given jurisdiction over lands situated in what we call the Caucasus. The Caucasus, or Caucasia is a region that extends up from northern Iran, eastern Turkey, and Armenia between the Black and Caspian Seas, includes the Caucasus Mountains and ends north of the Black Sea in modern day Russia. Some of Abraham's close forbears eventually migrated down to Mesopotamia from southeastern ring of the Black Sea. Abraham a descendant of Phaleg migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan (roughly modern Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, West Jordan, Southwest Syria). But Joktan, son of Heber ended up in the Caucasus. The Caucasus is from where Job hailed at least for the first developments of his life. 

Job was born somewhere in the Caucasus perhaps off the North Eastern shores. Job was Ophir's little brother. So now rounding off the thought from the Job verse cited above, I would assume that either Jobab knew that his brother Ophir found gold or that this verse was added by Solomon for it refers to wisdom and understanding. I’m inclined to think the latter.


The Caucasus is a region extending between the Red Sea and Caspian Sea. There is a mountain range extending across from Sea to Sea called the Caucasus Mountains. I assume the Black Sea and Caspian Sea formed in the Flood of Noah.

Interesting Corollary: Of all the Christian Churches the one that holds a calendar feast day in honor of the astonishingly holy Jobab is the Armenian Apostolic Church. Armenia is a country located in South Caucasus.


The Land of Uz

In the Book of Job it is said that Job was in the land of Uz:

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And that man was pure and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.

I assume that the land of Uz refers to a region due east of Jericho, perhaps in the land that would later be occupied by the Ammonites and Moabites, and then divided to the two and a half tribes of Israel (half Manasseh, Reuben and Gad). So this would correspond to modern day Jordan, or in more past days, Northern Arabia, Southern Syria, or classical Transjordan. I assume that this land was under the jurisdiction of Uz or his descendants. Uz was a grandson of Shem via Aram, and brother of Arphaxad. Some of Shem's descendants migrated to these lands north and east of Canaan. Various families close to Shem were spread out around the Caucasus, the Levant, and Northern Arabia, Mesopotamia and perhaps other lands.

Job began his life in the Caucasus and ended his life in Uz [a land east of Jericho and the River Jordan] because of his misfortunes. After each of his afflictions he had to start over which, of course, was difficult to do in ancient times let alone our times. After his second affliction he moved south from the Caucasus down to Uz, a land under the jurisdiction of Uz's descendants which would have been Job's cousins. It was in the land of Uz where Job built a tent city founded on stone over a fertile plateau. Job was not a nomad. He lived a pastoral way of life that in the its last phase was centered around his tent castle/city. Prior to his final residence in Uz his moves were because of his misfortunes. 

It was there in the land of Uz that he prospered and yet suffered his final affliction which was the loss of his camels to the Chaldeans (Babylonian raiders), his children, leprosy and a grievous temper. Only after was he given more than he ever had including three daughters who were the most beautiful women in the world. Job gave them the names transliterated roughly Jemimah, Kezia, and Keren-Happuch translated in English via the the Septuagint and Jerome's Vulgate as Daylight, Cinnamon, and Horn of Cosmetics. 

Jobab's Appearance

Job was a redhead! Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich relates Job's appearance:

Job was a large, powerful man of agreeable appearance; he had a yellowish-brown complexion and reddish hair. (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Red hair can still be found in the Caucasus and the nations surrounding the Black Sea. It is interesting that Job's ancient parents must have carried the gene for red hair.

Jobab's Character

Blessed Anne also relates his character:

Job was unspeakably gentle, affable, just, and benevolent. He assisted all in need. He was, too, exceedingly pure and very familiar with God, who communicated with him through an angel, or "a white man," as the people of that period expressed it.

Without prejudice Job helped everyone in need using his store of wisdom and goods. In the grievous temper Job underwent, he relates how he helped everyone around him and this was a source of confusion for him during his sufferings. Here are some examples taken from the Book of Job:

​​​​​​​for I rescued the poor who cried out for help, ​​​​​​and the orphan who had no one to assist him; (29:12)

​​I was a father to the needy, ​​​​​​and I investigated the case of the person I did not know; (29:16)

​​​​​​​If I have seen anyone about to perish for lack of clothing, ​​​​​​or a poor man without a coat, if his sides have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep; (31:19)

Of course Sacred Scripture also bestows upon Job rare accolades as in the first verse of the Book of Job or in the Prophecy of Ezekiel where God honors him aside Noah and Daniel. And the Apostle Saint James holds the person Job up as an example of patience. 

Job was certainly a Saint and he had followers. He had an intimate relationship with the Lord God, helped those in need and even was stimulated to understand coming of Jesus and Mary in some Divine prophetic manner.

The Misfortunes of Jobab

The misfortunes of Job, described in the Book of Job did not all happen at once. They fell upon him in sets, at different times and in three different abodes. After each set of affliction was some period of time, maybe even a decade. And in between Job moved, and started over. The words used in the first chapter of the Book of Job: 'While this one was still speaking. . ." refers to a general figurative expression meaning "And while this was still the talk of men, etc.' I assume Job was fairly young when he suffered his first affliction. Maybe in his late twenties or thirties. 

In our version of the Book of Job the afflictions are traced in an abbreviated manner. Why? The ancients were terse with their words even if they enjoyed figures. In addition this particular book was originally traced into bark. They were not effusive with their words nor did they have the luxury of Microsoft Word. 

After Blessed Anne's words I have Job's afflictions imagined in three different abodes. 

1. A marshy region of the Caucasus
2. Higher up a mount in the Caucasus
3. Land of Uz

Job suffered his first affliction in a marshy region of the Caucasus which he moved too after deciding to separate from his parents. There are some circumstantial descriptions of his first land in the Caucasus in the Sacred Script:

​​​​​​​By the brush they would gather herbs from the salt marshes, and the root of the broom tree was their food. (30:4)

In connection to this verse Blessed Anne relates that 

"No grain was cultivated in those marshy districts; but they raised a large sedge, which grows also in water, and whose pith was eaten either boiled or roasted. . . They planted many species of gourds for food." (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Eventually he found himself prospering with children, and followers who he originally helped out of charity. They cultivated the land and dwelt in tents. But Sheba stole his animals and killed some of his followers. This Sheba refers to a raiding party that consisted of members from the tribe of Sheba, great grandson of Ham, son of Cush, son of Raamah. The raiders were descendants of Sheba. At that time just like in other times certain bands got together and raided across nations. These impious raiders probably heard of Job's prosperity and holiness. They discovered his location, attacked, killed, stole, etc. Job did not have warriors to protect his goods. 

After this first affliction Job moved somewhere higher up in the Caucasus Mountains. There he struggled to recover with his remaining family and followers. And there again he eventually prospered.

After Blessed Anne I assume that about a decade passed between his first affliction and second affliction. In that interim he was sent on a mission to Egypt in order to deliver one of his relatives as bride to some shepherd kings originally from the Caucasus. The shepherd kings assigned to him a land which incidentally was the same place where Jesus, Mary and Joseph would later flee to from Herod's persecution. There he had visions about man's salvation and even was shown a well that later Mary, the Mother of God would use when she lived in Egypt. In Egypt, Job fought against the sacrifices of living children. Those beastly ancient Egyptians would burn children alive on the apparatus of idols shaped (but smaller) as a sphinx. This is something they don't tell you in the museum exhibits. Job vehemently spoke out against those who practiced this and I think he was able to stop the practice at least for a time. This is hinted at in the Sacred Script under Job's dialogues:

I broke the fangs of the wicked, ​​​​​​and made him drop his prey from his teeth. (29:17)

The prey figuratively refer to the innocent children killed in sacrifice to idols or demons.

Eventually, Job returned to his native land in the Caucasus and suffered his second misfortune where the fire of God, perhaps lightning or a meteor, fell from the sky and burned his herds and some of his servants. After this he moved to the land of Uz and eventually suffered his final set of afflictions:

When Job had returned to his native country, his second misfortune overtook him; and when, after twelve years of peace, the third came upon him, he was living more toward the south and directly eastward from Jericho. I think this country had been given to him after his second calamity, because he was everywhere greatly revered and loved for his admirable justice, his knowledge, and his fear of God. This country was a level plain, and here Job began anew. On a height, which was very fertile, noble animals of various kinds were running around, also wild camels. They caught them in the same way as we do the wild horses on the heath. Job settled on this height. Here he prospered, became very rich, and built a city. The foundations were of stone; the dwellings were tents. It was during this period of great prosperity that his third calamity, his grievous distemper, overtook him. After enduring this affliction with great wisdom and patience, he entirely recovered, and again became the father of many sons and daughters. I think Job did not die till long after, when another nation intruded itself into the country. (Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Renown Descendants of Jobab

Abraham was a descendant of Job. Via Blessed Anne, Abraham's mother was a great grand daughter of Job. In the last verse of the Book of Job it is written that Job lived to see his children to the fourth generation. So for example Job's beautiful daughter Daylight (first generation) could have married and had a daughter (second generation) who got married and had another daughter (third generation) who married Terah and together they had Abraham (fourth generation). Job may have still been alive when Abraham was born. 

At least one of the Three Kings who visited Jesus after his birth descended from Job. His name was Mensor. The names of the other two were Seir and Theokeno. The names of the Three Kings that some Christians are familiar with today are symbolic. I do not know if all three descended from Job, but the three did descend from Shem via Arphaxad. Mensor was from northern Arabia. He lived in a tent castle and tent city founded on stone. Seir was from the South Caucasus. Theokeno was from the north and east of the Caspian Sea, perhaps modern day Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan. The Three Kings inherited the prophecy of the Star from their forebears. The prophecy of the Star was given to ancients descended from Arphaxad, prior even to Abraham. 

Jesus visited the tent city of Mensor not long prior to his Death. By that time Seir had passed away but Jesus taught Mensor that Seir had the baptism of desire. Later Mensor and Theokeno were baptized by the Apostle Saint Thomas who later traveled to India. The events of Jesus visiting Mensor's tent city are not written in the Gospels since Jesus decided not to take the future Apostles and Disciples with him for this journey. No one knew of what Jesus did there hence no script. 

Prophecies of Job

Job was close with God and underwent prophetic experiences. He alludes to this in the Script:

​​O that I could be as I was in the months now gone, in the days when God watched over me, ​​​​​​​when he caused his lamp to shine upon my head, and by his light I walked through darkness; ​​​​​​​just as I was in my most productive time, when God’s intimate friendship was experienced in my tent . . . (29:2-4)

   
Job himself knew of the coming of the Savior, Resurrection and perhaps even a proto-concept of the Beatific Vision:

As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and that at the last will stand upon the earth.  And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God, ​​​whom I will see for myself, and whom my own eyes will behold, and not another.  (19:25)

Job also knew that he would gather with others after death:

I know that you are bringing me to death, ​​​​​​to the meeting place for all the living. (30:23)

Job was very wise and understood the nature of the Universe and secrets about Earth's history that not even the modern scientists have been able to figure out due to his intimacy with God recorded in the dialogues of Job. I get the feeling we moderns tend to think that ancients such as Job were naive and excluded. They were not. Job understood the coming of the Redeemer. Enoch knew of primal concepts of the Second Coming. Adam knew of the promised Virgin who thankfully turned out to be Mary. The problem was that concepts got confused, misunderstood, or forgotten over many generations. But of course God revealed much more to the Jews via the prophets and wise men. 

Evolution of the Book of Job

My justification for this plea is this:
his work, the parable of Job, the man from Uz,
is a work of miraculous talent and prophecy,
that alone earns Solomon a place of honor in
the ranks of God's defenders.
Hence, it is acceptable to plead for him rather than
speak ill of him. --- St. Gregory of Narek, Prayer 48

Scholars have long thought the Book of Job underwent an evolution from the original tracings. I agree. In addition to translating and copying various persons added words and clauses, subtracted them, and rearranged them. Here is an excellent note from the NET Bible scholars:

Most of it is written in poetic parallelism. But it is often very cryptic, it is written with unusual grammatical constructions, and it makes use of a large number of very rare words. All this has led some scholars to question if it was originally written in Hebrew or some other related Semitic dialect or language first. There is no indication of who the author was. It is even possible that the work may have been refined over the years; but there is no evidence for this either. The book uses a variety of genres (laments, hymns, proverbs, and oracles) in the various speeches of the participants. This all adds to the richness of the material. And while it is a poetic drama using cycles of speeches, there is no reason to doubt that the events represented here do not go back to a real situation and preserve the various arguments. Several indications in the book would place Job’s dates in the time of the patriarchs. (NET Notes)

Now compare this with what Blessed Anne says:

The history of Job, together with his dialogues with God, was circumstantially written down by two of his most trusty servants who seemed to be his stewards. They wrote upon bark, and from Jobs own dictation. These two servants were named respectively Hai and Uis, or Ois. These narratives were held very sacred by Jobs descendants. They passed from generation to generation down to Abraham. . . In the school of Rebecca, the Canaanites were instructed in them on account of the lessons of submission under trials from God that they inculcated. Through Jacob and Joseph, they descended to the children of Israel in Egypt. Moses collected and arranged them differently for the use of the Israelite's during their servitude in Egypt and their painful wanderings in the wilderness; for they contained many details that might not have been understood, and which would have been of no service in his time. But Solomon again entirely remodeled them, omitting many things and inserting many others of his own. And so, this once authentic history became a sacred book made up of the wisdom of Job, Moses, and Solomon. One can now only with difficulty trace the particular history of Job, for the names of cities and nations were assimilated to those of the land of Canaan, on which account Job came to be regarded as an Edomite. (Mysteries of the Old Testament)

The Book of Job is an excellent example of how the Spirit can inspire successive holy writers to complete a sacred book in an evolution. The script began by Job dictating to his followers who wrote on bark. Job had recorded his dialogues with God, his thoughts and words for the duration of his grievous temper and confusion. And he had recorded the words of his friends, relatives and surrounding people who visited him. They probably used a dialect of Job's grandfather Heber, a proto-Hebrew. So these scripts were able to be more or less understood by the Abraham and his descendants. The NET Bible notes say that the Job script uses strange grammatical constructions and rare words that perhaps only Job, his family and followers conceived of and understood. 

Moses removed many details that would be of no service to the Jews who lived at a later time. And Moses may have added a few verses. For example:

​​​​​​​He will not look on the streams, ​​​​​​the rivers, which are the torrents ​​​​​​of honey and butter. (20:17)

This is a variation of "the land flowing with milk and honey" that God promised the Jews found in Exodus, Numbers, etc. 

It is easy to imagine that Solomon worked on the Book of Job. Solomon omitted even more words because he and his people were more distant relative to ancient Job. For Solomon and his people the Job script would have been to them what the works of Shakespeare, Chaucer, or the poem Beowulf are to us in the English speaking world. It is not always easy to understand all the words written by Shakespeare because he lived in a different world than ours. However one can readily identify his style and perhaps mimic it. 

I can just imagine Solomon reading the exotic Job script with all these characters and thinking to himself:

There is no remembrance of the men of old; nor of those to come will there be any remembrance among those who come after them. (Ecclesiastes 1:11)

I assume Solomon gave the Book of Job its current structure so as to make the Book more of a cycle of dialogues between Job and his friends. He conceived the idea to organize the writings into a dialogue. I assume the scripts were disorganized into Job's dialogues, and that of various friends, family, etc. I assume that Eliphaz, Baldad, Zophar and Elihu's dialogues do not all strictly belong to them. They may have been a collection of quotes taken from various friends and relatives of Job and then new additions from Moses. Solomon may have added the family titles to Job's friends in order to help delineate the dialog and communicate some concepts relevant to the people of his time. 

Solomon imitated the terse style of the ancient poetic parallelism so as to add some of his own wisdom as well as smooth out some sequences and put on some finishing touches thus revising the Text into a masterful and potent Wisdom literature retaining all that God desired to have traced. 

It is easy to see that some verses from the Book of Job bear a resemblance to verses from the Proverbs of Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiastes. Here are some examples from Job that may have been written by Solomon:

And the eye of the adulterer watches for the twilight, ​​​​​​thinking, ‘No eye can see me,’ ​​​​​​and covers his face with a mask. He passes through houses in the nighttime, just as they had agreed among themselves in the daytime; and they are ignorant of the light. (Job 24:15-16)

These verses are similar to the adultery themes in the early chapters of Proverbs.


Summary

Job was a real person, an ancient of the family of Heber via Joktan. He lived a long time ago not long after the Flood. His lineage is in the Bible and certain details about his life can be drawn from the Book of Job. The Book of Job underwent an evolution via the work of Moses and Solomon.
  



* Please note that for the most part I used the NET Bible version. The quotes from Blessed A.C. Emmerich are from her works published in English in the early 1900s. I'm not ashamed to say I relied heavily on Blessed Anne, but I also put some of my own work into this.

Why Jesus Spat

From the Gospel of John

{9:1} And Jesus, while passing by, saw a man blind from birth.
{9:2} And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?”
{9:3} Jesus responded: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but it was so that the works of God would be made manifest in him.

+++ The gestures surrounding Jesus’ miracles are symbolic. Jesus uses these symbolic gestures to reveal mystical realities. Jesus chose this man to heal and in doing so to manifest the Incarnation.

{9:4} I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day: the night is coming, when no one is able to work.
{9:5} As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

+++ At this time Jesus was proclaiming to the Jews, in so many ways and expressions that God the Father has sent Him into the world.

{9:6} When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and he made clay from the spittle, and he smeared the clay over his eyes.
{9:7} And he said to him: “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated as: one who has been sent). Therefore, he went away and washed, and he returned, seeing.

+++ Jesus spat on the ground. This references the Father in Heaven sending the Son to the Earth by means of the Incarnation. It also references the Son eternally springing forth from the Father: God from God.

After Jesus spat he made clay using the saliva of his mouth and soil of the earth. This is an elegant signification of the Son assuming his human nature. Saliva represents his Divine Form, and soil his human form fashioned in the womb of Mary. The clay signifies the mystical, intimate, and indissoluble fusion of the Divine nature and human nature of Jesus Christ.  

Saliva: Divine Nature
Dirt: human nature
Clay: Jesus Christ.

The act of spitting, and the spittle coming together in the soil to make this new clay is a genius symbol of the miracle of the Incarnation.

Jesus smearing the clay on the blind man's eyes represents the seal smeared on the soul through Baptism. "Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ." (CCC. 1272)

The blind man washing in the Pool of Siloam represents Baptism: the cleansing of original sin, infusion of the Holy Spirit, etc. The two eyes opening represent the stimulation of the soul and the body by the presence of the Spirit in the newly baptized.

The Pool of Siloam means "one who has been sent" to set an exclamation on the whole miracle.

Saliva is intimate. It comes from inside the mouth, inside the body. Think of a husband and wife kissing. The gift of Jesus Christ and sanctifying grace effected through baptism is an unfathomable, and astonishing gift of God's intimacy wit mankind..

It is amazing to think that Jesus would use such a lowly human act to teach such profound mystical events.