Except the book of Genesis, I believe that it is possible to make some plausible possibilities on how the books of the Bible were written. Moses wrote about himself, Joshua recorded his conquest of Canaan, some priests or prophets recorded the stories of Gideon, Samson and Ruth. Samuel recorded the events in his lifetime, historians recorded the chronicles of the kings of Israel, prophets wrote down their visions and messages from God, the apostles recorded the life of Jesus, apostles wrote letters and John wrote down his visions. Now, I can't make any hypothesis how Moses could write down the stories which were around 2000 years before him. The Creation story where no one was there to witness is the most astounding account. Genesis contains many complicated contents such as the years of the first men, thousands of names, complicated family trees, detail stories of people and such. How have historians and theologians explained how Moses wrote the Book of Genesis?

From the creation until the time of Moses, who documented the events? Abraham? Prophets? Priests?

Genesis 1:2 (NRSVCE) reads : >the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. The same verse in New King James Version (NKJV)reads: >The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. I wish to know if the term ' a wind from God' as used in NRSVCE implies the Holy Spirit, or does it only mean a creative energy which set the stage for the creation of primordial life in water? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell about the latter prospect?

In the account of creation in Genesis 1, it seems that God describes many of the things He creates as being "good". Verse 2 indicates that prior to there being light, there was "darkness over the face of the deep". God's first created act, aside perhaps from the heavens and the earth themselves, is light. He specifically calls the light "good", but not the darkness. So, was the darkness "not good", or did God simply not explicitly declare it as such? > 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. > > 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that *the light* was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. *(Genesis 1:1-5, ESV)*

I have seen some similar questions, however, this is slightly different. The passages in John cannot be referring to the 'Holy Spirit' as it was here already, Jesus in John is talking about someone to come after him. Luke 3:22 2 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: Luke chapter 1 verses 39-41: And Mary rose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. (Genesis 1:2) – from beginning of time - 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete (advocate) shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7 also John 16: 12-14 and a number of other passages. Jesus also mentioned as parakletos 1 John 2:1 Jesus is a parakletos (advocate), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father. "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, ["Paraclete" (Parakletos, Advocate, Comforter, Helper)] that he may abide with you into the age (to come)."John 14:16 John 1:20-24 20He did not refuse to confess, but openly declared, “I am not the Christ.” 21“Then who are you?” they inquired. “Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” 22So they said to him, “Who are you? We need an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet: “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’” 24Then the Pharisees who had been sent 25asked him, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”… "2 Peter 1:21" - For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit; “John 15:26" - When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me”. “Ephesians 4:30" - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. “Acts 4:31" - After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. "John 16:13" Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but what so ever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come." John chapter 16: verses 7-8: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.”

Original sin was a sin of disobedience of God's command: > Romans 5:19 : … by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners … cf. Council of Trent sess. 5, can. 2 But which command(s) did Adam disobey? 1. >Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. 2. >Genesis 2:17 (the "law of probation")
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

> Genesis 1:28 > > Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) > > 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Have many children. Fill the > earth and take control of it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the > birds in the air. Rule over every living thing that moves on the > earth.” There are so many Christian concepts that make me scratch my head as to why God wants us to have children. Things like the ruler of this world is Satan, Christians must suffer in this world, we are anxiously waiting for Jesus' return and the rapture, fighting our carnal nature of a fallen world....etc. Wouldn't it be better to leave unborn children wherever they may originate from? **So what is the reason God wants us to have children?** (Also, if you happen to known - does God ***NOT*** want non-Christians to have children?)

Moses 8:25-30 >25 And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart. > >26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life. > >27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. > >28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence. > >29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. > >30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth. VERSUS Genesis 6:6-13 >6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. > >7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. > >8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. > >9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. > >10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. > >11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. > >12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. > >13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. My question is why was the wordage changed around who was "repented". In Moses it makes it seem like because of Noah's sorrow and the dangers against his life God who was already angry at the world flooded the earth because of Noah's faith. Whereas in Genesis, it seemed to be Gods decision to flood and the earth and Noah was an innocent bystander who God decides to save. But the Pearl of Great Price being a collection of extras a retranslations of the bible maybe the mormons decided Genesis was incorrect. Or do these two sections go hand in hand. Let me know your thoughts from an LDS perspective and outside perspective.

I recently watched the debate between the Apostate Prophet and Jake Brancatella from DebateCon earlier this year. Jake was a touch aggressive and AP was flakey, but a good discussion regardless. Jake pointed out something interesting in his argument that I think demands attention: In Genesis 37, Joseph's second dream depicts the sun, moon, and eleven stars all bowing to him. Israel then interprets this as Joseph being lauded by his mother, father, and brothers. However, Rachel was already dead and thus was unable to bow to her son in Egypt. **What is the generally-accepted solution to this problem?** I can think of four answers, but I'm not confident about any of them: 1. Rachel and Israel already played favorites with Joseph, before the whole debacle. The window for this is pretty small, because Israel was flabbergasted by the idea when Joseph brought it up. 2. This is a post-mortem thing that will happen in the afterlife. This is unverifiable on our end and I think defies logic. 3. This is not about Rachel, but one of Israel's other wives (Leah was also probably dead, so not her. Still, two other potential candidates). This seems like a bit of a stretch, but it's possible. 4. Rachel (and all the other wives) were of one flesh with Israel through marriage, so his actions may turn over to them via association. I don't think there's precedent for such a reading. What thoughts do others have on this matter? I'll be the first to say that I may be missing a simple answer somewhere.

In Genesis 2:2–3, God rests on the seventh day and blesses and sanctifies it. However, the explicit command to observe the Sabbath does not appear until Exodus 16 and is formally given in the Decalogue in Exodus 20:8–11. Does Genesis imply that the sanctification of the seventh day functioned as an ordinance for humanity from creation? Or is the Sabbath understood in Christian theology to have been instituted later, particularly within the Mosaic covenant?

> Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the > Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God > said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” Genesis 3:1 > (NET) I'm wondering what precisely was Satan's motivation to deceive Eve into disobeying God. I'm assuming the answer is in the context provided in the previous two chapters of Genesis, for example: > Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our > likeness, **so they may rule** over the fish of the sea and the birds of > the air, over the cattle, and **over all the earth**, and over all the > creatures that move on the earth.” Genesis 1:26 (NET) I'm thinking it's mostly related to man's authority over the earth - perhaps Satan saw an opportunity to have his own domain, and to rule it using the authority God had delegated to man, thus he usurped their authority. But there's some problems with this: - The authority to rule over the earth was only given to mankind. Satan didn't have a physical, human body (he wasn't mankind), so how was he planning to wield this authority? - Since the Bible does not describe a rebellion of satan prior to Eden, I'm assuming that satan's attempt to deceive Eve was actually his first rebellion against God... So, as described in Ezekiel 28:13-19, satan already held a high rank in God's kingdom as a cherub before he rebelled. What was so enticing about having authority over tiny planet Earth in God's universe compared to being so close to Yahweh and already having a certain amount of delegated authority as a cherub? That doesn't make sense to me (to forfeit so much to gain what Adam and Eve had). If anyone has a similar or different take on **what exactly satan's primary motivation to deceive Eve was** I'm interested to read it and learn from it (please base your answer on Scripture references and not personal opinion). Also, in my two bullets points I was only sharing my current thoughts about it - don't feel the need to engage with them if they are not related to your answer.

In Genesis 12:10–20, during a famine, Abraham (Abram) goes to Egypt and tells Pharaoh that Sarah is his sister because he fears he will be killed on account of her beauty. Pharaoh takes her into his house, and God intervenes by sending plagues before she is returned. Later, in Genesis 20:1–18, Abraham again identifies Sarah as his sister while sojourning in Gerar. King Abimelech takes her, and God warns him in a dream, after which Sarah is restored to Abraham. Given that Abraham is later commended in Scripture as a model of faith (e.g., Romans 4; Hebrews 11), how should Christians understand these repeated episodes? What do these narratives teach about the relationship between fear and faith in a believer’s life?

During a recent small group meeting recently, several questions about the life of Jacob came up: 1. If God had already chosen Jacob to be blessed, why did God still chose to wrestle with Jacob? So that he could repent and be able to be blessed? 2. When Jacob do not want to let go of God until after the "wrestling", asking for a blessing first, did God give in? Did God bless Jacob so that he would let go? 3. If God showed himself to Jacob, how come it didn't become a "big deal" the way later appearances did? Is there a article/commentary the tackles this question?

**Some preliminary notes:** 1. No, this is not a hermeneutical question, as what I’m interested in are answers from theological perspectives who advance/defend the notion which states that the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4 are in fact the offspring of the sons of God mentioned in the same verse. 2. Separate is the question of the identity of the aforementioned “sons of God.” Instead, my inquiry is strictly about how the ancestry and origin of the Nephilim have been deduced from scripture according to any and every denomination who espouses such knowledge. **The verse** Here is the verse in question, from various English translations: > The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when > the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children > to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. > **ESV** > The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when > the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by > them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. **NIV** > The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) > when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters > of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty > heroes of old, the famous men. **NET** > There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, > when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare > children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of > renown. **KJV** **The question** It seems clear to me from a plain, common sense reading of the verse that the Nephilim preexist the event in which the sons of God have offspring with the daughters of men. How can anyone claim that they originate from said relations? Simple question, hoping for a simple answer. God bless!

The Bible speaks of the Nephilim as the offspring of the “sons of God and daughters of men” in books such as: Genesis, Enoch, and a couple others. It does explain that they bred from evil beings, but it doesn’t specify if they themselves were evil or not, and even if they were supposed to be “evil”. Were they **all** evil?

> And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. - Genesis 15:4-6 > What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. - Romans 4:1-5 > This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. - Galatians 3:2-6 Does Reformed Theology (RT) assert that God made/caused/enabled Abraham to believe the promise God made in a primary fashion? What I mean is, one might say that the giving of a promise creates an opportunity for the choice to believe without directly causing that belief to occur in the same way that the prohibition in the Garden of Eden created an opportunity for Adam to choose but God didn't make Adam disobey. I think that RT affirms the latter (please correct me if I'm wrong). Does RT reject the former and assert that Abraham in no way would or could have believed unless God enabled/gave that ability to him? If yes (which I am sort of expecting) then a good answer will explain why real choice occurred in Genesis 3 but not in Genesis 15 and also whether God activated something latent in Abraham or gave him something brand new. In other words, did Adam's ability to make an actual choice disappear from humanity, go dormant, or something else? Bonus points for explaining (if yes) why Abraham's first act with his God-given faith was to ask for proof of God's re-iteration of his promise from Genesis 12:7. If God gave Abraham faith to believe (which Abraham played no part in), why was it a faith that doubted? > And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? - Genesis 15:7-8

Is **Hebron** referred to **Hebrew**? In **Genesis 39:17** → *The Hebrew Servant* → Here Joseph is called as a Hebrew. So this is my understanding that → Joseph's great grandfather Abraham was from Hebron → referred to Hebrews → often used with Israelites. It's usually refers to the descents of Abraham. **Hebrew** is → geographical reference whereas **Israelite** is → lineage reference Please correct me if I am wrong.

Genesis 4 discusses the descendants of Cain: >"Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the **father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock**. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the **father of all those who play the lyre and pipe**. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was **the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron**. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Genesis 4:17-22 Why are we given details about what the descendants of Cain did? Is there some special significance to these details?

Some might question it that this kind of colossal story would be able to pass on accurately via oral tradition: for example older men telling this story to others among his own tribe Beside the fire. My original intent was to ask that how is it possible that exodus story could be passed on to the next generation so accurately? Some might say that exodus story is a myth, because no-one can pass on this story so accurately as it is written in the Bible.

How do those who understand Noah's Flood to be a global flood explain what the carnivorous animals ate after disembarking, if there were only 2 of all the other species left? Eating 1 would stop those species' reproductive lines, so what happened here?