Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Hezzer]

> possibly you could briefly explain the position to me

Sure, here is a quick summary of Universal Salvation.

1.) God is love. His goodness is free, immutable, eternal, infinite, and impartial.
2.) Kingdom government by the faithful. To be a child of God is to be an heir of the kingdom and therefore carries royal authority but is not exclusive salvation from death.
3.) Death will be abolished by Christ. All of mankind is rescued from death by Christ, even non-believers, at the resurrection of the dead on the last day.
4.) The judgment seat of Christ. God demands equity in his justice. Therefore God’s punishments are always corrective and measured, rooted in his nature of love and goodness, and never infinite.
5.) Followers of Christ alone pass directly through death and into life.

I believe that Reincarnation would be part of all this. Early church father Origen of Alexandria taught several aspects of this but of course finding his writings can be challenging and after 325 A.D. anyone was labeled a heretic that did not teach according to what was decided to be doctrine at the council of Nicaea etc etc

I will say again, this is what I believe in the realm of Christianity. I currently am studying and aligning myself to Sanatana Dharama and I do not think the two oppose each other (mystical and allegorical interpretation of the bible and the reading of the Bhagavad Gita which is literally universal and applicable to all humanity)

> I think it's typical for Hindus to recognize Christ as an avatar. On a perusal of Sanatana Dharma, it seems like a system of moral living. Am I seeing it correctly?

Great question and you're pretty much correct. I took this summary from [url]hinduwebsite.com[/url], I think it will explain Sanatana Dharma through the explanation of the Bhagavad Gita. Kind of like explaining Christianity through the Bible etc.

The Bhagavadgita teaches us how to live in this world, do our duties and yet remain like the lotus leaves in the water of life. The world in which we live is said to be a world of illusion. You cannot depend upon it forever, because it is transient and subject to change. Out of ignorance and egoism, states the Bhagavadgita, we bind ourselves to it through our desires and desire-ridden actions and suffer from ignorance and delusion, not knowing our true nature and true purpose. Having become caught in the snare of desires and delusion, we remain chained to the cycle of births and deaths and to the forces of nature.

The Bhagavadgita teaches us how to escape from this predicament, not by escaping from the burdens of the worldly life, nor by the avoidance of our duties and responsibilities, but remaining amidst the humdrum of life and facing it squarely with fearlessness, detachment and stability of mind, accepting God as the Doer and the Savior and performing our actions as part of the sacrifice of life.

According to the Bhagavadgita, salvation is possible neither for those who want to escape from life and activity nor for those who indulge in sinful, selfish and evil actions and become their own enemies, ignoring their duties and obligations to God. Those who remain amidst the world and its snares, unafraid of the burdens of life, and live their lives with a sense of sacrifice, fully surrendering to God, are truly qualified for it.

The scripture assures that God responds to his devotees with love. Different people approach him with different mindsets and expectations. However, he considers them his dearest devotees, who go through the battles of life with discipline, knowledge and intelligence, do their part in creation and surrender to him with devotion and faith. They are the most qualified to attain liberation and enter the world of Brahman from where there is no return.

Thus, the Bhagavadgita is about human suffering and its resolution through spiritual effort. It brings spirituality to worldly life and suggests how to face the challenges and compulsions of human life with faith and devotion, without becoming lost in egoistic pursuits and selfish actions. The discourse is about the predicament of humans in the battle of life, with God as its controller.

The embodied soul is personified by Arjuna, who faced a crisis of his life in the middle of the battlefield and stood confused, fearful and worried. He also stands for an ideal devotee. Lord Krishna, as his charioteer in the battlefield personifies the voice of God and the Supreme Self. Out of extreme love and compassion, he taught Arjuna the divine wisdom to remain calm amidst the turbulence of life and perform his duties as a service to God. He taught him how to overcome desires, selfishness, duality, attachments, egoism, karma, delusion and ignorance and achieve liberation by practising right action, right knowledge, right contemplation, right perception or discernment and right devotion.

The Bhagavadgita contains profound wisdom. It is the most ancient, dissected and discussed scripture of the world with a history of over 2400 years. It has 600 or 601 verses which are divided into 18 chapters. Each of them is about a Yoga.

[Solid]

> Well, don't just blow it off like it's a tiny matter.

I'm not blowing off their worldview. I'm blowing off you using it to support your pet theory without evidence.

> You said their sin was "getting too close to becoming gods," and that's why they were sent out. I am showing you that Gn. 3.11 specifies their sins as having eaten from the forbidden tree, so that's why they were sent out.

But that's not what Genesis says.

> You're seeing the trees but missing the forest. They've had knowledge all along. Adam is not some grunting cave man who is suddenly enlightened or given a brain like the Straw Man in the Wizard of Oz. What A&E have done is decided to make themselves the center of order and wisdom, to seize God's roles and functions and make them their own.

Are you reading the same Genesis as me? They eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now they have the same knowledge the gods have.

> And it's true that they have to be kept from access to the Tree of Life. God won't allow them to live forever in their sinful state.

Again, not what Genesis says. They're half like gods now they have the knowledge of good and evil, they'll become fully like gods if they're allowed to eat from the second tree. So they have to be kicked out.

> What we are told is that continued eating from the Tree of Life could allow them to live forever (Gn. 3.22).

That's not what Genesis 3:22 says.

And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!”

There's nothing there about continued eating.

> Yes, the God of Genesis is omnipotent. Gn. 1 would be one obvious source of this concept. He is all-powerful to order the world to function as He wishes.

You've snuck in all-powerful there. What support is there for all-powerful over just powerful?

> They chose to defy God's wisdom by eating the fruit. They didn't choose God's wisdom; they chose against God's wisdom.

They chose to have the same wisdom as god.

> Humankind must access the knowledge of good and evil via a relationship with God, not apart from Him.

Why must they? As it turned out they could just gain the knowledge by eating the fruit. God doesn't give a reason not to eat the fruit (and indeed lies about the consequences).

[jimwalton]

> I'm blowing off you using it to support your pet theory without evidence.

Dude, I've given you plenty of evidence.

>> I am showing you that Gn. 3.11 specifies their sins as having eaten from the forbidden tree, so that's why they were sent out.
> But that's not what Genesis says.

Genesis 3.11 is what Genesis says.

> Are you reading the same Genesis as me? They eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now they have the same knowledge the gods have.

That's hard to tell. I'm reading the one from the Bible. The Bible DOESN'T say they have the same knowledge as the gods have. It says (Gn. 3.22) that "The man" (the humans) "has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." In one sense, but in only one sense, have they become like God: knowing good and evil, meaning they have taken to themselves a godly prerogative: being the center of order and wisdom As I've shown, "good and evil" is a legal idiom meaning to formulate and articulate a judicial decision. I've shown you the evidence of that from the Bible. Adam and Eve have become like God in that way (and in that way alone): they have made a judicial decision to make themselves the arbiters of wisdom (of good and evil), as I've shown you evidence of in the verses I mentioned.

>> And it's true that they have to be kept from access to the Tree of Life. God won't allow them to live forever in their sinful state.
> Again, not what Genesis says.

It's exactly what Genesis 3.22 says. They have defied God's warning and eaten the fruit. They have made themselves the center of wisdom and order. They cannot be allowed to live forever in this state of being. I gave you the Scriptural evidence of this is the previous post. I can't do anything more than show you what the Bible says and give you the evidence from the Bible.

> They're half like gods now they have the knowledge of good and evil, they'll become fully like gods if they're allowed to eat from the second tree. So they have to be kicked out.

Now *you're* not in the Bible. Half like gods? Where in the WORLD does THAT come from?

> There's nothing there about continued eating.

Correct, but there's nothing magical about this fruit. It's not the actual food of immortality. The fruit of this tree extends life, but does not instantly grant immortality (Proverbs 3.16-18; 13.12; 15.4). The tree of life symbolizes what is only God's to give: He is the source of life, which is given by him and found in his presence (Deuteronomy 30.11-20).

> You've snuck in all-powerful there. What support is there for all-powerful over just powerful?

What do you mean I "snuck in all-powerful"? You specifically asked, "Is the god of genesis omnipotent?" Omnipotent = all-powerful. It's what you asked.

> What support is there for all-powerful over just powerful?

Every verse I referenced for you. "El-Shaddai," which is in these verses, means "all-powerful one."

> They chose to have the same wisdom as god.

Yes, correct. Their problem was not in what they sought, but in how they went about it. Instead of attaining wisdom by the proper means (a relationship of love and obedience with God), they sought it by improper means (making themselves the center of order and wisdom).

>> Humankind must access the knowledge of good and evil via a relationship with God, not apart from Him.
> Why must they?

Because God is the source of order and wisdom. It can't be accessed by going around Him or not recognizing Him.

> As it turned out they could just gain the knowledge by eating the fruit.

The fall is defined by the fact that Adam & Eve acquired their knowledge illegitimately, thus trying to take God's role for themselves rather than partnering with God in His role. God had ordained them to be His vice-regents on Earth (rule and subdue) and to gain wisdom in relationship with God. If humans were going to work alongside God in extending order on the Earth (1.28), they definitely need to attain wisdom, but as an endowment from God, not by seizing it for their own autonomous use with them as center.

> God doesn't give a reason not to eat the fruit

Correct, in a sense. They are just warned of the negative consequence. The implied reason is that it was a test of obedience. The reason not to eat is in recognition of God's authority. To choose to defy Him suggest rebellion against that authority.

> (and indeed lies about the consequences).

Nah He didn't. The Hebrew term is תָּמֽוּת (tamut). Literally: "Dying you shall die." As Speiser explains: This is an infinitive absolute, in which the pertinent Hebrew form is preceded by the infinitive. The resulting phrase is a flexible utterance capable of conveying various shades of meaning. 'You shall surely die;' 'You shall be doomed to death.' The phrase need not be translated 'you shall surely die,' as it invariably is. Immediate death did not result in this instance. The point of the narrative is man's ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous death.

Speiser says a better translation is "You shall be doomed to death," which is exactly what happened. Walton concurs: "The wording indicates they will be doomed to die. This destiny is sealed when they are cast from the garden and prevented from eating from the tree of life."

God didn't lie.

[Solid]

> Dude, I've given you plenty of evidence.

You haven't given good evidence to support your order-centric explanation of Adam and Eve's motives.

> I am showing you that Gn. 3.11 specifies their sins as having eaten from the forbidden tree, so that's why they were sent out.

But that's not what Genesis says.

> Genesis 3.11 is what Genesis says.

You say they were sent out for eating the fruit. Genesis says this:

And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden

> meaning they have taken to themselves a godly prerogative: being the center of order and wisdom

Nowhere is this mentioned. Only knowledge is mentioned. After mentioning your order hypothesis you haven't supported it.

> It's exactly what Genesis 3.22 says. They have defied God's warning and eaten the fruit.

True

> They have made themselves the center of wisdom and order.

Not what Genesis says.

> I gave you the Scriptural evidence of this is the previous post. I can't do anything more than show you what the Bible says and give you the evidence from the Bible.

You're completely twisting the actual words of Genesis and injecting new meanings without support. I'm taking a plain reading.

> Now you're not in the Bible. Half like gods? Where in the WORLD does THAT come from?

As in, part gods. Partly like gods in that they now have the same knowledge as gods.

> What do you mean I "snuck in all-powerful"? You specifically asked, "Is the god of genesis omnipotent?" Omnipotent = all-powerful. It's what you asked.

You originally said:

Yes, the God of Genesis is omnipotent. Gn. 1 would be one obvious source of this concept. He is all-powerful to order the world to function as He wishes.

What I mean by snaeking in all-powerful is that Genesis 1 supports a powerful god. You just then jump to saying he's all-powerful.

> "El-Shaddai," which is in these verses, means "all-powerful one."

You'll need more than a contentious translation of Shaddai

> Their problem was not in what they sought, but in how they went about it.

Where does it say this in Genesis?

> Because God is the source of order and wisdom. It can't be accessed by going around Him or not recognizing Him.

Again, where are you getting this? They got it by eating the fruit. Obviously you can get it by going around him. They did it.

> If humans were going to work alongside God in extending order on the Earth (1.28), they definitely need to attain wisdom, but as an endowment from God, not by seizing it for their own autonomous use with them as center.

What indication is there that god will give them the knowledge any other way?

>>God doesn't give a reason not to eat the fruit
>Correct, in a sense. They are just warned of the negative consequence. The implied reason is that it was a test of obedience.

How can you tell that's an implied reason rather than an inferred reason?

> The phrase need not be translated 'you shall surely die,' as it invariably is. Immediate death did not result in this instance. The point of the narrative is man's ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous death.

Is this a translation driven by dogma?

[jimwalton]

> You haven't given good evidence to support your order-centric explanation of Adam and Eve's motives.

I've shown you that the text is all about order, disorder, and non-order. I've shown you that the culture's concerns are about order, disorder, and non- order. Even the serpent in the ancient world was viewed as a chaos creature. He's a disrupter, not a tempter to evil. He deceives. He casts doubt, disclaiming death, another piece of non-order in their world. "Their eyes will be opened and they will be like God!" He's telling the truth this time, and God confirms it (v. 22). There's nothing wrong with what he is offering except the means and the timing. Instead of "gaining the knowledge of good and evil" God's way in God's time, he is deceiving them to do it their own way and in their own time.

She knows this is what is going on, because she says the fruit was "desirable for gaining wisdom." There's the evidence you're after. There's the order-centric explanation of Adam and Eve's motives.

> Nowhere is this mentioned. Only knowledge is mentioned.

In other words, you're not paying attention to any of the biblical proof I gave you (many verses where knowledge is connected with wisdom is connected with deity is connected with order). There's not a whole lot of sense in continuing the conversation.

>> They have made themselves the center of wisdom and order.
> Not what Genesis says.
> You're completely twisting the actual words of Genesis and injecting new meanings without support. I'm taking a plain reading.

You have to connect dots with terms, context, cross-references, and the culture itself. I can show you all the dots and number them for you, but you have to be able to use reason.

> I'm taking a plain reading.

Just looking at the English and making all decisions from it is not justified in a text this ancient that depends on the cultural context for understanding.

> You'll need more than a contentious translation of Shaddai

It's the best we have. The traditional translation of Shaddai as "Almighty" goes back to an early rabbinic etymology ("Self-sufficient"). There is some etymological evidence associating Shaddai with "mountain" ("Shaddai-Ammi" on an Egyptian statue from the Judges period; the Akkadian "Shadu"). Indications are that the surrounding culture used it as an epithet for the power of their deities, and the 48 times the Old Testament uses it, the context tells us it speaks of their view of God as omnipotent. Context is king.

>> Their problem was not in what they sought, but in how they went about it.
> Where does it say this in Genesis?

In Genesis 2.17, God tells them they are not to eat of the fruit of that particular tree. In Gen. 3.6, they eat from it. Obviously they were not doing things in God's way.

> Again, where are you getting this?

I've explained it about half a dozen times.

> What indication is there that god will give them the knowledge any other way?

God granted them the right to name the animals, an ordering function. God granted them the responsibility to rule and subdue the Earth, an ordering function. God granted Adam a visionary experience to teach him about Eve's equality and unity with him.

There. There's at least 3.

> How can you tell that's an implied reason rather than an inferred reason?

You're working so hard to be obfuscatory. Implied reason and inferred reason are the same thing, just in different directions. I imply something to someone else; I infer from others to myself.

>> The phrase need not be translated 'you shall surely die,' as it invariably is. Immediate death did not result in this instance. The point of the narrative is man's ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous death.
> Is this a translation driven by dogma?

Nope. Not at all. Straight up Hebrew grammar. An emphatic construction of the absolute infinitive coupled with the finite verb of the same root: "Dying you shall die."

[Solid]

> She knows this is what is going on, because she says the fruit was "desirable for gaining wisdom." There's the evidence you're after. There's the order-centric explanation of Adam and Eve's motives.

How is that an order-centric explanation? You've just leapt to order from a quote about wisdom. Yes, an order/chaos dichotomy is common in ANE myths, and yahweh forms the earth etc. out of chaos, but you still haven't shown that the motivations of Adam/Eve are anything to do with order/chaos.

> many verses where knowledge is connected with wisdom is connected with deity is connected with order

Connecting knowledge to a deity is one thing. Then making the unconnected leap to order is another.

> You have to connect dots with terms, context, cross-references, and the culture itself. I can show you all the dots and number them for you, but you have to be able to use reason.

We have dots. You haven't shown a path between them.

> Just looking at the English and making all decisions from it is not justified in a text this ancient that depends on the cultural context for understanding.

What I mean is when I see "the cat sat on the mat" I don't read "the cat wanted to subvert the natural chaos of the world to rule the underworld". Yes these myths were created in a certain context, but that doesn't mean your conclusions are automatically right, you have to show that they are.

> Indications are that the surrounding culture used it as an epithet for the power of their deities

Deities which weren't all-powerful.

> There. There's at least 3.

Fair enough.

> You're working so hard to be obfuscatory. Implied reason and inferred reason are the same thing, just in different directions. I imply something to someone else; I infer from others to myself.

Not at all. You have a conclusion in mind when you read the text so you infer things which weren't intended by the author.

> Nope. Not at all. Straight up Hebrew grammar. An emphatic construction of the absolute infinitive coupled with the finite verb of the same root: "Dying you shall die."

And yet, others translate the "straight up hebrew grammar" as "as soon as you eat of it, you shall die".

[jimwalton]

> How is that an order-centric explanation?

Because "wisdom" in the ancient world was a fundamental characteristic of divinity, so much so that wisdom was often personified, and wisdom was understood in the ancient world as the primary way that the deities ordered the world. It's a key term and concept.

Wisdom was the template by which God ran the world (and not the retribution principle, as demonstrated by the book of Job). Wisdom is what God is in His essence. So when Eve says the fruit was desirable for wisdom, she is claiming that she perceives it will make her like God and put her as center and locus of order.

> Yes these myths were created in a certain context

These aren't myths. They are theological interpretations of historical events.

>> Indications are that the surrounding culture used it as an epithet for the power of their deities
> Deities which weren't all-powerful.

Correct, but YHWH was. That's how the biblical writers portrayed him as distinct from the false deities of the surrounding cultures. Consider the context and theology surrounding the use of the term.

> You have a conclusion in mind when you read the text so you infer things which weren't intended by the author.

Actually it was the opposite. Reading the text led me to the conclusion, and researching the culture reinforced the conclusion.

> And yet, others translate the "straight up hebrew grammar" as "as soon as you eat of it, you shall die".

Please read more carefully what I said. Again, it seems you are more dedicated to argumentation than to learning. What I wrote is,

"The resulting phrase is a flexible utterance capable of conveying various shades of meaning. 'You shall surely die;' 'You shall be doomed to death.' The phrase need not be translated 'you shall surely die,' as it invariably is. Immediate death did not result in this instance. The point of the narrative is man's ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous death.

"Speiser says a better translation is 'You shall be doomed to death,' which is exactly what happened. Walton concurs: 'The wording indicates they will be doomed to die. This destiny is sealed when they are cast from the garden and prevented from eating from the tree of life.' "

[Solid]

> Because "wisdom" in the ancient world was a fundamental characteristic of divinity, so much so that wisdom was often personified, and wisdom was understood in the ancient world as the primary way that the deities ordered the world. It's a key term and concept.

Sure. Again, I wouldn't dispute that. However you're pinning your order-centric explanation on a generalisation of broad ideas in the ancient world. You haven't shown that this specific story, coming out of this specific culture, is about one of these big ideas in particular.

> Wisdom was the template by which God ran the world (and not the retribution principle, as demonstrated by the book of Job).

How far apart in time were Genesis and Job written? Are they about the same god?

> Wisdom is what God is in His essence. So when Eve says the fruit was desirable for wisdom, she is claiming that she perceives it will make her like God and put her as center and locus of order.

You're mixing up western christian notions with ANE notions here. Would the Israelites have thought in terms of essences at this time?

> Correct, but YHWH was. That's how the biblical writers portrayed him as distinct from the false deities of the surrounding cultures. Consider the context and theology surrounding the use of the term.

What are you basing this on? Yahweh saying he's more powerful than other gods doesn't mean he's all-powerful.

> The phrase need not be translated 'you shall surely die,' as it invariably is.

Why is it invariably translated like that if it's not the most accurate translation?

> Immediate death did not result in this instance. The point of the narrative is man's ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous death.

Or god could have lied. Or some transcribers somewhere made a mistake.

[jimwalton]

> However you're pinning your order-centric explanation on a generalisation of broad ideas in the ancient world.

I'm pinning my explanation on two things: (1) it is a reasonable explanation of the text, and (2) it fits perfectly with the ancient mindset and worldview.

> How far apart in time were Genesis and Job written? Are they about the same god?

It is unknown when either were written. It is thought that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, with a writing style and culture context that puts it at about 2000 BC.

I happen to think Moses wrote Genesis, though it was not put down on papyrus until many centuries later. Moses was authority behind the book, and someone later collated his words, teachings, and the stories about the Israelites that were part of their oral culture, and assembled them into the "books of Moses." I believe Moses wrote things down (the Book of the Law), but later they were translated into Hebrew and assembled into a collection.

Therefore, to answer your question, I put the writing of the two books about 700 years apart: Job in 2000, and Genesis in 1300.

> Are they about the same god?

Yes, absolutely. "God" in both collections is YHWH.

> You're mixing up western christian notions with ANE notions here.

I am most certainly not.

> Would the Israelites have thought in terms of essences at this time?

Yes. Their term *nephesh* pertained to such things, among other things.

> What are you basing this on? Yahweh saying he's more powerful than other gods doesn't mean he's all-powerful.

The contexts of the 48 times El-Shaddai is used in the Scriptures. While the other gods of the ancient Near East are expressed with limitations, YHWH is never so expressed. He is manifested as all-powerful, that nothing is impossible for him, and that He is able to do whatever is the proper object of His power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature. What He chooses to do He accomplishes because He is all-powerful.

> Why is it invariably translated like that if it's not the most accurate translation?

First of all, traditions carry weight in some people's minds. Second, we are learning more now, because of archaeology, than has ever been known before. Our knowledge gets fuller and more refined. Subsequently, though, we can't go back and change previous publications (like the King James and the RSV), and in addition some people stick with their traditions despite the new information.

> Or god could have lied. Or some transcribers somewhere made a mistake.

Actually neither of these are very good choices. The Scripture affirms in many places that God is righteous and He does not lie and cannot lie (Num. 23.19; 1 Sam. 15.29).

Secondly, there is no evidence anywhere that "some transcribers somewhere made a mistake." Sure, you're just pulling this out of the air because you're grasping as straws, but it's not legitimate without some kind of evidence. Without supporting evidence, the hypothesis hangs in the air with nowhere to go and nothing to give it weight.

[Solid]

> I'm pinning my explanation on two things:

But anyone could come up with an explanation like that. Doesn't mean it's the right one. You have to show it's the explanation the authors had in mind.

> I happen to think Moses wrote Genesis

Why? Evidence or dogma?

> Yes, absolutely. "God" in both collections is YHWH.

But is it the same understanding of yahweh? Understandings changed from time to time and place to place.

> Yes. Their term nephesh pertained to such things, among other things.

Are you sure? It seems to mainly be linked to sentience.

>The contexts of the 48 times El-Shaddai is used in the Scriptures.

But you have to take into account the context of each of the writings. As we've been covering, the different understandings of yahweh through time and space.

> While the other gods of the ancient Near East are expressed with limitations, YHWH is never so expressed

Wasn't he defeated by iron chariots? And had his mind changed by humans? And sends people to find things out? Why does he need a council to help him out rather than just doing everything himself effortlessly?

> Subsequently, though, we can't go back and change previous publications (like the King James and the RSV), and in addition some people stick with their traditions despite the new information.

I'm not talking about dogmatic translations like that though. I'm talking about constantly updated scholarly translations. And the two which have been recommended to me most often (NRSV and Jewish Publication Society) render it as god saying that they will die either as soon as they eat the fruit, or on the day they eat the fruit.

>The Scripture affirms in many places that God is righteous and He does not lie and cannot lie

And scripture can't be wrong?

> Sure, you're just pulling this out of the air because you're grasping as straws, but it's not legitimate without some kind of evidence.

I'm offering alternative, non-dogmatic explanations for why god lies in Genesis.