TL:DR: The Genesis Question part forty-six

Hi, Everybody!

So, two things:

1, the bizness:

There's a Indiegogo live if you missed the Kickstarter for the birthday card.

The remastered Volume 1, digitally for $9.99.

No word on the postcard Kickstarter, or a Star code for the remastered Jaka's Story, but I'll add 'em to the list when I get 'em!

2, I ran out of pages from issue 289/290 to run in front of Dave's Genesis Question commentaries. Dave suggested I use Jewish, Christian or Muslim religious images. But then, Superman's Frenemy: David Birdsong sent in a bunch of (so far) unused Cerebus in Hell? images and now I'ma gonna run them. So:
____________________________________________________________________________

image by Doré, Sim & Birdsong

14 December 14

Hi Troy & Mia:

Okay, back at THE GENESIS QUESTION:

We left off near the end of Chapter Three with Mr. Ross' citations in support of his criticism of "the gap theory" wherein he asserts: "Thus, it makes a mockery of those Scripture passages commanding us to 'test everything' and to look to the creation for evidence of God's existence and character'".  I don't think he makes a persuasive case, Scripturally, for that assertion, but, going citation by citation:

Psalms 8

To the chief Musician, upon Gittith, a Psalm of David.

O YHWH our Lord, how excellent thy name in all the earth! Who has set thy glory above the heavens.

I don't think David was a prophet, per se, but I do think he was considered to be, historically, the best conduit for the YHWH's theological assertions/pretensions.  I'd be guessing if I was to speculate on the extent of that conduit status -- i.e. how much and many of the Psalms were dictated to David by the YHWH (or in the case of those Psalms dedicated to God, dictated to him by God or someone delegated to that task by God). 

The assertions do seem to be to "informed" by Reality (or, at least, Reality as I construe it). 

The fact that David asserts that the YHWH's name is excellent IN all the earth, rather than ON all the earth suggests to me that it's an authentic YHWHistic enunciation.  Likewise "Who has set thy glory ABOVE the heavens" also seems to me authentically YHWHistic, although I would doubt the latter assertion as being accurate theologically.  I think the YHWH's consciousness inhabits the earth AND the heavens -- earth's atmosphere -- but doesn't extend past that point.  The YHWH being aware of that fact would, I think, supply sufficient motivation on the YHWH's part for making that assertion: an intended expansion of territory by simple enunciation.  Which I don't think happened but…no harm in trying, I suppose.

Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou [Hebrew: founded; KJV:ordained] strength, because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

This seems to me an equally authentic YHWHistic theological view along the same lines as Isaiah's "And a child shall lead them".  It's popularly conceived as a Godly way of viewing things:  only by becoming as innocent and guileless as an infant can we truly follow God's teachings (the Synoptic Jesus made a couple of prominent assertions along those lines). 

Personally, I see that as a misconstruction of what the YHWH, it seems to me, is actually talking about:  that it's an exaggerated construction of the "elder being/younger being" argument.  That the YHWH always takes the side of the youngest, even to the extent of taking the side of babes and sucklings against….presumably, the Eldest Being, which is, of course, God…deemed here to be "the enemy and the avenger". 

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained;

A reference, I infer, to Genesis 1:16.  Personally, I infer Genesis 1:14-19, "the fourth day narrative" to be a YHWH-inspired insertion, placed there by A Dam after he ate the forbidden fruit (A Dam's reasoning being that this was the best spot for it, directly after the reference in 1:12 to "the tree yielding fruit, whose seed in its self").  It makes sense neither narratively -- 1:11 and 1:20 follow each other more rationally and logically: "the earth brings forth" followed by "the waters bring forth" -- or scientifically (the sun and the moon and the stars are not contemporary creations).

Theologically opportune for the YHWH is how I would infer its inclusion here. 

What man that thou art mindful of him?  and the son of man that thou visitest him?

I'm not sure, but this might be one of the earliest -- if not THE earliest -- references to "the son of man".  It seems to refer, first, to men generally -- and the fact that it is perfectly astonishing that either God or YHWH is "mindful" of men (which it is!) -- and then appears to refer to exceptional men who are deemed worthy of being visited, personally, by the YHWH (and/or God).  Which I infer is David's way of referring to himself while being genuinely humble about the implied honour.  "The son of man", particularly in David's context, being deemed to be secondary to "man". 

His later troubles with Absalom perhaps being the "birds coming home to roost" from this earlier assertion:  where Absalom temporarily inverts the relationship and usurps his father, David's place and stature… 

For thou hast made him a little lower than the Angels; and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

…probably having much to do with the blasphemous implications (or so I infer) built into this assertion/extrapolation.  Whether David is referring to man generally, "the son of man" generally or himself specifically, this is sincerely poisonous stuff.  If "man" is the "him" referred to: that is, "man" generally has been made "a little lower than the Angels" and God has crowned man, generally, with glory and honour -- well, I'd want to make 100% certain that that's a verifiable revelation before having it written down anywhere.  It raises too many questions:  if man, generally, is a little lower than the Angels and if men deemed worthy of being visited by the YHWH (and/or God) are, presumably, on a rank higher than that -- where does David place himself on that spectrum of stature? 

It seems to me a misconstruction of earthly circumstance.  To whatever extent David was "crowned…with glory and honour" -- and presumably he was, as King in Israel in a context that would have been at the "high end" of prosperous in the Bronze Age -- that, it seems to me, is a quantum level away from being "a little lower than the Angels".  Inferring material prosperity to confer and/or imply near-deistic stature seems, as I say, "sincerely poisonous stuff".     

Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.

I don't think David is fully conscious of what he's enunciating which, to me, makes him easy prey for the YHWH in attempting to provoke God.  I mean, it's technically accurate:  in Genesis 1:28 God blesses man (man and woman):

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

…so it can easily be argued that God has made man "to have dominion over the works of thy hands".  But it could also be argued that this is a continued meditation on "the son of man" or on David himself.  In which case, if my inference is correct -- that the YHWH IS the earth -- David is just, rather comedically, being subdued by the earth which is asserting his/her/its dominion over him.  The assertion is technically accurate in the sense that "Thou hast made him (man, generally, the son of man, generally or David specifically) to have dominion over the works of thy hands" but that isn't necessarily how things are working out.  Which strikes me as a provocation on the YHWH's part: asserting the YHWH's dominion over David who God "hast made him to have dominion over the works of thy (God's) hands".    

[Hebrew: Flocks and oxen, all of them/KJV: All sheep and oxen] yea and the beasts of the field.

This strikes me as a further provocation if I'm correct in my conjecture that the significant difference between the covenant as proposed in Genesis 1:26 and as enunciated in its final form in 1:28 is that "the cattle" are missing.  Man DOESN'T have dominion over the flocks and oxen and the beasts of the field. So, the YHWH appears to be rubbing God's Face in that fact:  David, the cattle and "yea, and the beasts of the field" are, at this point in human history, under the YHWH's dominion.

Then, as I read it, as a side observation, the YHWH, through David adds:

The foul of the air, and the fish of the sea, [interpolated: and whatsoever] passeth through the paths of the sea.

This strikes me as a still further provocation, water being God's medium.  The interpolation violates the intended meaning, as I read it. The interpolation creates the impression that "the foul of the air, and the fish of the sea" are a continuation of the previous thought.  Without the interpolation, it becomes what I infer it is: a dry encapsulation -- after asserting what is under the YHWH's dominion, as the YHWH sees it -- of what is under God's dominion:

The foul of the air, and the fish of the sea, passeth through the paths of the sea.

Basically, as I read it, the YHWH is asserting through David that God has dominion over those creatures that pass through God's medium or who emerged from God's medium (Genesis 1:20: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath [Hebrew: soul/KJV: life] and fowl may fly above the earth in the [Hebrew: face of the firmament of heaven/KJV: in the open firmament of heaven"]) but that's ALL that God has dominion over.

And concludes the Psalm by directed David, the YHWH servant, conduit and mouthpiece to enunciate:

O YHWH, our Lord how excellent [interpolated: is] thy name in all the earth?

Next week:  More Psalms! (God willing)

Best,

Dave

PS: It's interesting that Psalms 8 comes up the same week that Pope Francis has

enunciated a change in Church doctrine suggesting that dogs have souls and "go to their reward" just as men do.  As can be seen in the reference to Genesis 1:20, the original Hebrew refers to "soul" while the KJV transmogrifies that term into "life" .

____________________________________________________________________________

Next Time: Boogers. I'm gonna post boogers... -Past Matt