TARSB: Genesis Chapter 1

Footnotes Written By Thomas Perez. Originally Posted 2009. Updated; 2014, 2019. Copyright 2009.

CHAPTER 1
A. The Creation of the Heavens and the Earth Ch 1:1-2, 2:1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Cr1)

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Cr2)

B. The First Six Days of Creation Ch 1:3-25, 31

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Cr3)

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (Cr4)

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Cr5)

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (Cr6)

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (Cr7)

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (Cr9)

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (Cr10)

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (Cr11)

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. (Cr14)

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (Cr16)

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (Cr17)

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. (Cr18)

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth [moves], which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Cr21)

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Cr24)

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth [creeps] upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Cr25)

C. The Creation of Man/The Creation of Adam and Eve Ch 1:26-30, 2:7

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth [creeps] upon the earth. (Cr26)

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Cr27)

28 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 [moves] upon the earth. (Cr28)

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (Cr29)

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth [creeps] upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (Cr30)

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Cr31)


Cross References

Cr1. Job 38:4, Psa 89:11, 90:2, 102:25, Isa 40:2, 42:5, 45:18, Jn 1:1-2, Acts 17:24, Rom 1:20, Heb 1:10, 11:3, Rev 4:11. Cr2. Psa 104:30, Isa 40:13, 45:18, Jere 4:23. Cr3. Psa 33:6-9, II Cor 4:6. Cr4. Psa 149:9, Isa 34:7. Cr5. Psa 65:8, 74:16. Cr6. Isa 44:22, Jere 10:12, II Pet 3:5. Cr7. Job 38:8, Psa 148:4, II Pet 3:5. Cr9. Psa 24:1-2, 95:5, 104:6, Jere 5:22. Cr10. Psa 33:7, 95:5, 146:6. Cr11. Psa 65:9, 104:14, Heb 6:7. Cr14. Isa 19:1, 7, 4:16, Psa 109:19, 136:7, 150:1, Jere 10:2 Cr16. Job 38:7, Psa 8:3, 136:8-9, Isa 40:26. Cr17. Jere 33:20, 25. Cr18. Jere 31:35. Cr21. Psa 104:25. Cr24. Gen 2:19, 6:20, 7:14, 8:19. Cr25. Gen 7:21-22, Jere 27:5. Cr26. Gen 3:22, 5:1, 9:6, 11:17, Psa 8:6, I Cor11:17, Eph4:24, James 3:9. Cr27. Gen 5:1, Matt 19:4, Mk 10:6, I Cor 11:7, Col 3:10. Cr28. Gen 9:1, 9:7, Lev 26:9, Psa 127:3-5. Cr29. Psa 104:14, 136:25. Cr30. Psa 145:15-16, 147:9. Cr31. Psa 104:28, 119:68, I Tim 4:4.


Footnotes

1:1 “In the beginning God.” “Which God?”
In Genesis 1:1-2, we read that God created the Heavens and the Earth. The name “God” appears in the Plural. According to Judaism, the name is used in ref to a family of plurality (counsels. Magistrates and Authority). In Christianity, it is seen as a Triune Plural Singular entity (the Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit). But in Vs 2, we learn that it (creation) was already there “without form and void.” Why is this so? Some Biblical scholars suggest that it was due to a rebellion of some sort in Heaven – citing it was due to the fall of Satan. Others suggest theistic evolution, or simply that God re-created everything. However, upon careful examination of the word “form” in the Hebrew, we learn that it means; to lie in waste, desolation, worthless, vain – vanity, confusion, wilderness – dessert. In Hebrew, the word “void” is similar to; a vacuity, superficial, undistinguishable, emptiness, ruin.

The suffix “hovah” in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary (No. 1943) has the meaning of ruin, and mischief. It is another form of No. 1942, ‘havvah,’ which is translated “calamity, iniquity, mischief, mischievous (thing), naughtiness, naughty, noisome, perverse thing, substance, very wickedness.” Put the two (Je + hovah) together and you get “god of ruin, mischief, calamity, perversion and wickedness.” Here we see the words ruin, calamity, mischief and dessert. This god is of the dessert. Hence, the homeless god. The desert god. The Nomadic god – or the god of the Nomadic tribe or the god who is the Nomadic tribe became the Hebrew god, a new EL – and Elohim perhaps, who later became Yahweh – the Hebrew god of war, their liberator through Moses.

However, after the Oneness of God or EL with reference to ALL men, GodEL – also become known as this YHWH/Yahweh, or Jehovah if you will, an individual god – a nationalistic god. With this nationalistic god came the ceremonial law (this does not include the last 5 commandments to the Decalogue – the ten commandments), then came the bloody battles, and conquest – quite different from the former EL. Perhaps they are different. Perhaps they are the same. It is difficult to tell. It is difficult to trace.

Simple word comparisons in Hebrew and Greek reveal the many similarities in the language intent. There are also similarities in reference to different cultures regarding morality and social law. The Social Laws of the Decalogue are not subjected, or unique to Judaism alone. It is Universal. It is found in all reasonable faiths. There are many who are confused with reference to the God or god of the OT with that of the NT. They compare Law and Grace and find it quite difficult to reconcile the two opposing principles of the humanities.

When the Decalogue was said to be written, and as it was being written according to the Hebrew Torah; the name that appears in the 20th chapter of Exodus is given (as it appears) by the one named “Jehovah.” Jehovah is the Jewish Tetragrammaton of YHWH – the Hebrew/Jewish national name of god – but this not His Universal Name. Moreover it is in the plural as in conjunction with Elohiym – plural of gods. In English we get the phrase Lord God. It is highly likely that since the Exodus (the Hebrew revolution of thought, culture and religion) they – meaning the Hebrews – saw the need to give themselves an identity. Or to pick at random from the totem pole the many names of God that was in circulation for that day – as in the plural sense.

It is likely that since there was no “quote” – “unquote” – Law before the Exodus (save that which we know that pre-existed before, I.e., the Seven Noahide Laws) the best plausible possible answer to the seemingly all to familiar figure of Jehovah or Yahweh appearing as giving the 10 Commandments is the division in which they were given. We can find similarities in Social Laws with that of the Noahide Laws as strikingly similar to other cultures before Moses (I.e., do not murder, do not steal, etc). But no where does the Noahide Laws state areas of worship, as the first 5 Commandments command us to do, or not to do.

Perhaps this Yahweh (or cultures, if you will, namely the Hebrew/Jewish one) saw fit to plagiarize what is universal with what is nationalistic – hence, the confusion with many today. People often equate this god (Yahweh) with the EL or Elohim or Elohiym (God Almighty).

Yahweh/JHWH is the Jewish National name of god. It was NOT the representative name for all mankind. It is a name that means; calamity, iniquity, mischief, mischievous (thing), naughtiness, naughty, noisome, perverse thing, substance, very wickedness, god of ruin, perversion, and “noisome – foul.” Moreover, “This hypothesis is not intrinsically improbable – and in Aramaic, a language closely related to Hebrew, “to be” actually is hawa – but it should be noted that in adopting it we admit that, using the name in Hebrew in the historical sense, Yahweh is not a Hebrew name” (Ency. Brit. 1958 Ed. Vol 12. p. 996). Perhaps even creation may well be a calamity of sorts – a perversion, god (Yahweh/Jehovah) created it and called it “good ” – he never called it Holy. He created the sun (a light – an artificial light to rule the day) as opposed to ruling the earth with the Light that is supposed to illuminate from him automatically. He created the moon and the stars (lesser lights) to rule the night – as opposed to his own lighted being. It may even be considered here that the Father of Hosts did not intend to create anything of the empirical (what we see). What we see is an imitation of greater virtues. It is a substance, not of the spirit. Some consider that perhaps God was lonely so He made Man. If that is true – How can God be called the Lord of Hosts? Genesis, according to the documentary hypothesis, was written declaring two distinct Gods or stories – the Yahwist version and the Elohist version. It also should be pointed out that although the Yahwist version dates back to c.950-BCE in the southern kingdom of Judah, the Elohist version dates back about 100 years after – c.850-BCE. Jeremiah cited that the children of Israel had forgotten the name of God about another 100 years after that in c.626-586-BCE. But in earlier times, before the c.950 date, God was known as Elohim.

Perhaps God (Elohim – EL) did not have anything to do with creation or death. For in Him there is no death, He is Eternal. Perhaps it was Yahweh (Satan) who was responsible for our eventual death. Death is all around us. We see it in the universe; stars are born, stars die, we see it in our solar system, we see it on earth – summer turns to fall and that turns into winter, and winter entails death – the death of plant life (leaves fall, flowers die). But Christ – EL – the True Elohim, the Almighty God came to taste death for all men – Heb 2:9 – so that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil Vs. 14.

Questions – Who was it that condemned man to death? Answer: god – Yahweh. Who chased Man out of the Garden of Eden so that he might not eat of the tree of life? Answer: god – Yahweh. Does death issue from Yahweh? Answer: Yes – Genesis 3:19, 22-24, Psalms 68:20. Does Yahweh kill? Answer: Yes – Deut 32:39. Does god – Yahweh have the power of death? Answer – Yes, obviously. Does the Devil have the power of death? Answer: Yes, obviously (Heb 2:14). Did Jesus die to destroy the work of the Devil (or as it seems Yahweh?) Yes, obviously. Who holds the keys to death and life now? Answer: The Lord Christ Jesus (Rev 1:17-18).

But how is it possible, that the Son of Man saw fit to destroy the works of the law (or Yahwism) when it is also recorded that the Law is; holy Rom 7:12, spiritual Rom 7:14, good Rom 7:16, right Rom 7:12, and just Psa 19. The answer to that question is, “Yes.” This destruction resulted in freedom Rom 7:3, being married to another Husband Rom 7:4, thus, becoming one in the Body of Christ Rom 7:4. But at the same time how could something that is cited as being holy, spiritual, good, right, and just be described as such when Christ is said to have destroyed it? You don’t destroy something of value. Or do you?

Yes, by all means we do, or rather I should say He (Christ) did. “And why would He do such a thing you may ask?” A thing that contains all of the virtues mentioned above? Its destruction is due to its vices. For in it we find the knowledge of sin Rom 3:20, guilt Rom 3:19, the need for a Saviour, and this need is further enhanced by the convictions of the Holy Spirit, in which He convicts one to the saving knowledge of Christ in this age (aion). Paul actually said that it was a school teacher – bringing us to Christ – Gal 3:24.

Christ is our Husband. He is our New Husband because God had divorced Israel due to their worship of Baal (Jere 3:8, 23:27). God had said in the Torah, that even we can’t remarry once we are divorced. Hence we have a dilemma. How can God marry the backsliding harlot Israel, when she slept with many – including Baal? Can a woman marry another? Yes, if the husband dies (Rom 7:1-2). But God never dies. Therefore, wouldn’t God be breaking His own commandments, if He was to marry her (Israel)? But here is the beauty of the greatest love story ever – the Scriptures reveal that the Husband did die – for He died for His Bride, as verses 3-4 reveals in Romans 7. And He is raised from the dead, so that we should bring forth fruits onto God. We are His new creation, as opposed to the old creation.

Moreover, the possibility of man being created as a spiritual being, not a physical being may be the more apparent when examined carefully. An image in Hebrew means – is “tselem” – a shade – a phantom, an illusion – SH6754. The word likeness – SH1822 is from the root word of SH1820 “damah” – to be dumb or silent; hence to fail or perish – trans – to destroy – cease; to be undone utterly. This cycle of undoing had to abe revived constantly to avoid death. This was accomplished through the tree of life. Before the events of Genesis 3 man was dumb (innocent) silent (without questioning) – no knowledge of good or evil. But when man ceased or became undone utterly as in “damah” – which was inevitable anyway, the tree (branch in Hebrew – branch of Elohim) of life (in Hebrew – revive, keep, suffer to live, running, springing) – man began to grow – that is the tree of knowledge – his ultimate price was death – though he did not know it or realized it until the 1st question was put forth in his mind – “Has God truly said” (Gen 3:1). Death, a terrible price to pay wouldn’t you say? And for what, allegorically eating a fruit?

Some versions, to keep with the modern thought on the soul, translates the term “man became a living soul” to “man became a living being.” This is an error. That is why the word soul is used interchangeably with the spirit or flesh. In Gen 1:26, we see the word God (Elohim only). In Gen 2:7 – we see the term the Lord God or the Lord Yahweh. Then in Gen 2:8-9 we have two trees. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge – da’ath SH1847 – root word from 3045 yaw-dah – to ascertain by seeing, recognition, punishment, used in a great variety of senses. And then to top it all off, after we receive this soul from Yahweh, we are asked our 1st question, “Has God truly said” (Gen 3:1).

It is now easy to understand why Paul said “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.” (Rom 7:9-11). Paul is apparently discussing 3 things here. The before, the present, and in verse 25 and 8:1-2 he is speaking of his present and future tense. Paul, like Adam, was once alive, but when the commandment came “do not eat of the tree of knowledge,” he died. In Adam all shall die, but even so in Christ shall all be made alive! That is why we have a Saviour. For more information on Yahwism, EL and the Hebrews, see the Book of Exodus.

According to Judaism, the name of God is difficult. In some Jewish sec’s they do not dare utter His name. When His name is attempted to be uttered, it is usually uttered and/or spelled in the Tetragramation with the assertion of vowels. In the Tetragramation, the exact name for YHWH appears without its own vowels. Thus the pronunciation can be uttered as either (Jehovah, Yehovah, Jahweh, or Yahweh). Furthermore, it is for this reason the Hebrew text insert the vowels for ‘Adonay.’ Jewish students and scholars when reading Adonay, insert the vowels, whenever YHWH appears. The use of this word occurs 6,828 times. However, the Tetragramation is a relatively new descriptor – For more information concerning the Tetragramation and its true origins, see the Book of Exodus.

According to Judaism, God is revealed as the Great ”I am that I am.” (Ex 3:14). The One True God (Deut 6:4). He spoke to the fathers as YHWH, or as rendered in our English Bible’s Lord God – uttered as Jehovah Elohim, Yehovah Elohim, Jahweh Elohim or Yahweh Elohim. But before the Exodus, the fuller significance or meaning of his name were not known to them until it was revealed in Exodus 6:2-8. Moreover, in Psalms 68:4, He is simply called YAH. YAH is a shortened form of the name Yahweh (Ex 3:14-15). Though the name demonstrates a character of Lordship, it does not illustrate sexuality. God is neither male nor female. God has no sexual parts or any other physiological traits. God is “Spirit,“ incorporeal. The use of the term “Himself/Herself” or the term “Spirit” to illustrate God’s non sexuality, is justified. The term “God” and its definition can only be expressed in what this Being is, “a Spirit.” Therefore when understanding the nature or makeup of God, one should look into the various languages in which the word “Spirit” appears. The gender of the Spirit varies according to the language that is used to describe the Spirit. For I.e., the Latin word for Spirit is “spiritus” which is in the masculine. The term “Spirit” in the Semitic languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac; is always in the feminine. Unlike Greek, there is no “neuter gender in the Semitic languages. In Greek, the term ’Spirit” it is always in the Neuter – except in cases as recorded in John chapters 14 and 16, where the masculine Greek word “Paraclete” occurs, for “Comforter.” There are other instances where the pronoun is used to describe the masculine Spirit as opposed to the gender word, ‘Spirit” in the Bible. A noun in English is neuter by default. The English rendering of the word “Spirit” in the neuter can be affectionately called “He” or “She.” Neuter is a Latin adjective meaning “neither.” Therefore the term can either be male or female, or neither male or female. Hence the term “Spirit” can illustrate God’s non sexuality. However, when we read various sacred texts and take note, the descriptors above depend heavily on the linguistics of the many passages you just read. What is even more fascinating is our tendency to ascribe to this Being various descriptors. All descriptions pertaining to this Being are synonymous to the beings, that the Eternal Being has created – that Eternal Being is called EL – The True God and Father of All – perhaps separate from Yahweh Elohim/ YAH/Jehovah as mentioned above.

Godly descriptors/attributes and characteristics such as; love, anger, mercy, jealousy, faithfulness, goodness, evil, character and a conscience, etc; can all be traced back to the the one who is called Yahweh/Jehovah. Knowing this then, our perception of God can be viewed as a perception of ourselves. “We are our brothers Keeper.” One should be in charge of one’s soul, one should be responsible for the up-keep of their own heart and human condition. For we were made in the image and likeness of the neuter God, who can neither be called male or female – simply put, God is “Spirit.” Therefore, argumentation of names in reference to God have no merit to an Eternal Being. This is not to say that the Spirit is not the Eternal Being (the Alpha and Omega). For God is Spirit, and they that worship Him (affection implied), must worship Him (affection implied) in spirit and truth (John 4:24).

God is a Being, who is eternal – who has no Beginning and no End – God is the Alpha and Omega. Since He/she has no beginning and no end, we must learn to realize that we can no longer call God by such pronouns, though that is often easier said than done. However, it should be remembered and understood that God chooses to reveal the eternality of the Logos (Mind of God) as that of a male, since God is often referred to in Scripture and other religious sacred texts as “He” and “Him,” but even in this, nevertheless, the Logos is always revealed, not as, but through the Feminine as in the Semitic languages (through the Spirit) and the neuter (neither male or female – as in the Greek).

In Vedic traditions, the term “goddesses” as in the feminine are not far to be found. In Vedic/Eastern Religions also known as the Indian religions, or the dharmic religions, the concept of God is rather complex. This complexity can be found namely in any Indian faith, such as; Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. Though Hinduism, the most complex of the four mentioned; having no creed, doctrine of authority, or particular denominational belief is nevertheless categorized into different denominations by modern contemporary academics; similar to Christianity – with its many sects.

The main sects of Hinduism are Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, Sauram, and Smartism. Hindu Scriptures include the Vedas (1700BC – 500 AD), Upanishads (600 – 400 BC), Puranas (500 – 1500 AD), Maha-bha-rata (circa 400 BC – 400 AD), Ra-ma-yana (4TH cent BC or 8TH – 7TH cent BC), Bhagavad Gi-at (5th cent – 2nd cent BC) and the A-gamas. The dating of various Vedic religions are debatable. However, the earliest documented recording that we have written down appears during what is called the Vedic period (1700 – 500 AD). The oldest of the Vedas Scriptures called the Rig Veda, was written any where during the early Vedic period (1700 – 1100 BC). The Vedas is the oldest Scripture of Hinduism. However, it is believed by some scholars that Hinduism is an eternal religion which is known to have no beginning and no end. It is supposed to be founded somewhere around 3200-2500 BC. Others suggest that Hinduism had its origins in such a remote past that it cannot be traced to any one individual. Some scholars believe that Hinduism must have existed even in circa 10,000 BC and that the earliest of the Hindu Scriptures – The Rig Veda – was composed well before 6,500 BC However, there exists no criteria for validated date authenticity. Moreover, the Vedic religion shows influence from the Proto-Indo-European religions (5500 to 4500 BC) or even the early Neolithic Proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE‘s) (7500 to 5500 BC). The PIE’s developed, according to archeological and linguistic findings, various religious practices, myths, and sacrifices; which in turn gave birth to various other mythologies. There are striking similarities between the early PIE’s and the latter Hindu faith.

This is not to say that Hinduism is based on a myth. Hinduism is a way of life. It is a diverse system of thought, spanning from; monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, and even atheism; etc. Those who claim Hinduism as a myth simply do not understand their infantile beginnings, growth, and future aspirations. Therefore, it is probably in all likely hood that its religions, though seen as various myths, can contain an undeniable truth concept. Thus the myth becomes the reality. The allegorical becomes the literal. As in their Karmatic belief system ofreaping what you so.” Their religious complexity can range from each individual, philosophy, tradition, sociological class, and faith; all affecting how they conceptualize God. For many, this God or Being, is unknowable. The Creation Hymn of the Rig Veda thus says, “Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen?” However; each book, each religious representation of God, has its own flavor and twist – as covered in our Introduction to the “Gospel of John.”

In Hinduism God is seen as a Trimurti of Trinity (Brahman). However, each of the five known denominations within Hinduism expresses this belief differently – similar to Christianity’s Trinity concept – which is also viewed differently by other faiths. Brahman, as opposed to Brahma is the manifestation and cause of all that is. While Brahma is the Hindu God Deva, (one of the Trimurti) while Visnu and Siva are the 2nd and 3rd persons or roles of the Hindu Godhead. In Hinduism Brahman (neuter gender – the Great Cosmic Spirit – the Greek recognizes this as stated above) is seen as the ultimate reality, the absolute, the source of all existence. Brahman is the One Supreme God. The Isha Upanishad says: Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. That infinite proceeds from this infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite still remains infinite. Brahman is conceived differently according to various philosophical schools of thought. Brahman can be seen as personal, impersonal and supreme. Interpretations for Brahman is as follows:

1. Upanishadic Writings: The writings reveal the “Atman,” meaning the “self” as Brahman. Gen 3:5 condemns this belief, but at the same time, albeit written in another generation, the Davidic Psalm of 82:6 quotes; “I said, you are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.”
2. Advaita Philosophy: Brahman is without form, qualities, or attributes. All manifestations of Brahman (God), such as Vishnu and Shiva, are to be considered metaphors. Brahman is expressed as Nirguna Brahman – which means formless, indescribable, and attribute-less. The universe is Brahman and comes from Brahman. It is an extension of God – thus the creation, as revealed in the Book of Genesis – is thus the expansion of this God (Who in this instance is called “Elohim”). The Personal God as expressed in Exodus 6:2-8 is an impersonal reality revealed only in writings that purport His/Her existence and thus is reflected upon what Paul said was a dark glass/mirror (I Cor 13:12). A mirror of ignorance and illusion (an illusion is a distortion of a reality). Therefore, a distorted reality doesn’t necessarily incur a reality that doesn’t exist – just our interpretation of it.
3. Visishtadvaita and Dvaita Philosophies: Brahman (God) is Saguna – one who has infinite attributes, yet is of the same source, the impersonal Nirguna Brahman. God’s energies are regarded as Maya (Hinduism). For others, it is the Holy Spirit. Who can be seen in the masculine, feminine, or neuter; depending on the linguistics given.

There are five major religious denominations in Hinduism with a different take, more or less, on God. This flavor of God is as follows:

I. The Shaivites; Shaiva is the supreme God. Shaiva performs 5 actions – which in turn reveals a name/form of Shaiva
II. The Shaktist; Shakti or Devi – the Hindu Divine Mother is considered the One Supreme Brahman, who reveals all other forms of deity; male or female.
III. The Vaishnavist; Rejects the Trimurti concept. Vishnu is considered the One True Lord. Though they see Vishnu as the One Lord, they also believe in His ten incarnations. The 10 incarnations are known as the Dashavatara – the 10 Avatars of Vishnu, which are found listed in the Garuda Purana (one of the Puranas). For more on these incarnations, please see, Introductions to the “Gospel of John” and “I John.”
IV. The Sauramist; worships Surya as the Supreme person of the Godhead – Surya would be equivalent to the Father – the Morning, Vishnu – the Son – the afternoon, and Shiva – the Holy Spirit – the evening.
V. The Smartist; In the Smarta tradition, not only is Shiva worshiped as the supreme God, but 4 other deities (Vishnu, Devi, Surya, Ganesha, and Kalki) totaling 5 in all, are worshiped, depending on the traditions of various Smartian communities and households. Ironically, all 5 are worshiped as One personal God who inhabits form, rather than 5 distinct beings or persons, each one fulfilling a role in Hindu stages/ages. This concept is similar to the doctrines of Modalistic Monarchianism and/or the trinity (3 in One).

In Islamic traditions, the belief in One God is followed to the utmost. Islam has roughly about 1.5 billion followers. In circa 610 AD, Islam was founded by the prophet Muhammad, who received a revelation from the angel Gabriel instructing him to write down the words of Allah (God). This word of revelation became known as the Noble Qur’an. Islam (Arabic for “submission to God“) maintains that Muhammad is the last in a long line of holy prophets, preceded by Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Islam also maintains the infallibility of the Qur’an, citing that it is a book that corrects the alleged mistranslations and misinterpretations of previous Scriptures written before; namely the prophets and parts of the NT. In addition to the Qur‘an, followers of Islam (Muslims) also have what they call the Hadith. Muslims are devoted to the worship of Allah through what is known as the Five Pillars of Faith: 1. Testimony of faith: “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.” 2. Prayer: conducted five times a day while facing Mecca; and the giving of alms; 3. Fasting: Muslims should fast during the ninth month of Ramadan the Muslim year; 4. Zakat: The Muslim should pay compulsory religious tax for the poor called Zakat. And 5. Pilgrimage: The making of a pilgrimage at least once to Mecca, if possible. The Muslim articles of Faith are: 1. Belief in Allah as One God, 2. Belief in Angels, 3. Belief in Revelations, 4. Belief in Apostles, 5. Belief in the Day of Judgment, 6. Belief in Predestination. Islam has two major divisions, the Sunni and the Shiite; the Wahabis are the most important Sunni sect, while the Shiite sects include the Assassins, the Druses, and the Fatimids, among numerous others. The two sects, though politically different, follow the same Articles of Faith. Although all Muslims demonstrate their faith in the Five Pillars, most Muslims, be it Sunni or Shiite, all agree to the necessity of believing in the absolute Oneness of God as these passages suggest; He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (Surah 112). A view so sharply contrast to that of Christianity which declares the Son-ship of Jesus Christ. “God is He, than Whom there is no other god; – Who knows (all things) both secret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. God is He, than Whom there is no other god;- the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace (and Perfection), the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Safety, the Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme: Glory to God! (High is He) above the partners they attribute to Him.“ “He is God, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colors). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory: and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.“ (59:22-24) “And your God is one God! there is no god but He; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful” (Sura; The Cow 2.163). Surly these verses indicate the Oneness of Allah. But what is puzzling to some is the entire Qur’anic usage of the plural term “WE.” Does this term suggest a Plurality of Allah/God, as in many gods? No, the Islamic explanation for all the references of “We” is that of a “Royal Plurality” meaning a “Plural Majesty or Magistrates.” When the Qur’an refers to Allah, it often uses the Arabic word “Nahnu,” meaning, “We.” However, it is quite curious that the Qur’an makes no mention of Allah (the name) in the singular, except when spoken in the second or third person. Though the Qur’anic verses quoted above say Allah is One, it doesn’t explain why Allah would so often reveal Himself as “We” rather than ”I” or why Allah/God doesn’t simply call Himself Allah/God or say “I” or “Me,” instead Allah says “We,” “Us,” etc. But even more curious than that is the OT usage of the plural in reference to Elohim/God.” In Judaism, the name Elohim” is also seen as the Plurality of God as in HisPlurality of Majesty.” Trinitarian Christians see this plurality as Triune -3 in 1 or as Christian Oneness believers (Modalistic Monarchianists) adhere to; God revealed/reveals Himself in 3 modes as opposed to 3 distinct persons. Both concepts are plausible as revealed in the NT. For more on the study of the word “God” see Footnote in I Timothy 3 and I John 1.

In reference to all things as beginning or eternal there are 5 presuppositions as taken from the theoretical sciences and 5 from the theological: There are also a number of creation myths that have been recorded by ancient civilizations – this is included at the bottom under ‘Reference to Religious Myths.’

In reference to the sciences there are: 1. Argument From Matter 2. Argument From Possibility 3. Argument From Motion 4. Argument From Time 5. Argument From the Vacuum.

In reference to the theological there are: 1. The Allegorical Interpretation. 2. The Framework Theory. 3, The Day Age Theory. 4. The Gap Theory. 5. The Literalist Theory.

In reference to the sciences:

A. Argument from the nature of matter: In his “Physics,” Aristotle proceeds as follows: “Everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. A substratum is literally an underlying cause or thing. This position was held by such philosophers, the likes of; John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, and Immanuel Kant. However, it was rejected by George Berkley. In contrast to Aristotle, we have Maimonides/Moses ben Maimon (1138–1204); but known as Maimonides and to the Hebrew speaking people as Rambam. He is considered one of the greatest Jewish philosophers of the medieval period. His material is still widely read today. Maimonides took into consideration four schools of thought; the kalam (Islamic), Moses, Plato, and the Aristotelian concept. While rejecting the Islamic school of thought, in which one demonstrates that the universe must have been created and then reasons that if it was created, it must have a creator. Like Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides believes it is impossible to show by logical considerations alone either that the universe was created or that it is eternal. Though Maimonides believed in creation, he admits that the delicate balance between the remaining three schools of thought can be conveyed as accurate theories in either case. In his Guide (2.13), he limits his discussion to the theories of Moses, Plato, and Aristotle.

B. Argument From Possibility: In the 12th century, the medieval Islamic philosophy of Avicennism eventually became the leading school of Islamic thought by the 12th century. Avicenna was born c. 980 in Afshana, near Bukhara, the capital of Samanids, a Persian dynasty in Central Asia and Greater Khorasan. Avicenna’s believed that existence is due to an agent-cause that necessitates, imparts, gives, or adds existence to an essence. To do so, the cause must be an existing thing and coexist with its effect.

C. Argument From Motion: Newton’s three laws of physics that form the basis for classical mechanics are: 1. First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. 2. Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma. 3. Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. A body which does not move is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary, or to have a constant (time-invariant) position. According to Aristotle: If an absolute beginning of motion should be assumed, the object to undergo the first motion must either 1. Have come into existence and begun to move, or 2. Have existed in an eternal state of rest before beginning to move. Aristotle argues that option 1 is self-contradictory because an object cannot move before it comes into existence, and the act of coming into existence is itself a “movement,” so that the first movement requires a movement before it, that is, the act of coming into existence. Aristotle argues that option 2 is unsatisfactory for two reasons 1. If the world began at a state of rest, the coming into existence of that state of rest would itself have been motion. 2. If the world changed from a state of rest to a state of motion, the cause of that change to motion would itself have been a motion. Aristotle concludes that motion is necessarily eternal.

D. Argument From the Nature of Time: 1. Time is eternal because to refer to a time “before” time began implies that there was time before time, making the concept self-contradictory. 2. The future and an end of the past. Meaning, if one performs an action, i.e. picking up a paint brush, that action becomes a past event. Yet the very act constituted a future event – the act of painting. Yet the very act, as in the actual performance becomes the actual present and past simultaneously – since the canvas captures what was drawn in the given past. 3. Time is unreal. Antiphon the Greek Sophist (5th cent BC) in a fragment preserved from his chief work “On Truth” held that: “Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (or a measure). Parmenides went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to paradoxes. the Buddhist school of thought considers time as an illusion (2, 3, & 4). 1. Harry Foundalis. “You are about to disappear “http://www.foundalis.com/phi/WhyTimeFlows.htm. 2. Huston, Tom. “Buddhism and the illusion of time.” http://www.buddhasvillage.com/teachings/time.htm. 3. Garfield, Jay L. (1995). The fundamental wisdom of the middle way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. “Time is an illusion? “http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2007/03/time-is-illusion.html. For some time is divided into three distinct realms or regions; the “past”, the “present,” and the “future.” Using this model, the past is generally seen as being immutably fixed, and the future as undefined, uncertain, and nebulous; always in motion perhaps. As time passes, the moment that was once the present becomes part of the past; and part of the future, in turn, becomes the new present. In this way time is said to pass, with a distinct present moment “moving” forward into the future and leaving the past behind. This view of time is given the name presentism by philosophers. This conventional model presents a number of difficult philosophical problems, and seems difficult to reconcile with currently accepted scientific theories such as the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity brings me to my next argument; the argument of eternalism. The word eternalism has at least three meanings: 1. In philosophy, Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally “real,” as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real. 2. In this view, we can hold to the position that Eternalism can be seen as static and fixed. This worldview is in opposition to mobilism, which states that the world must be seen as in a constant state of flux. Time is unchanging. These worldviews are particularly relevant to paradoxology. an observer at any given point in time can only remember events that are in the past relative to him, and not events that are in the future relative to him, the subjective illusion of the passage of time is maintained. The asymmetry of remembering past events but not future ones, as well as other irreversible events that progress in only one temporal direction (such as the increase in entropy) gives rise to the arrow of time. In the view suggested by Eternalism, there is no passage of time; the ticking of a clock measures durations between events. Augustine of Hippo wrote that God is outside of time – that time exists only within the created universe. Many theologians agree. Many that hold to this view, claim that God created the cosmos as a block universe, while time might appear as finite (as in our perception of beginnings) time can also appear, infinite due to a blocked or closed universe that has the capacity to expand. Moreover, many theoretical physicists agree with the conceptual view of a blocked universe. The shape of the universe is a matter of debate. The finality of the universe or a finite conception is based upon what physicists would call an unbounded or bounded metric space. The Universe can either be; an open space or a closed space/universe, a flat universe, or a spherical universe (Same as a closed universe). If the Universe is contained/rounded within an ever expanding sphere (which may have started from a single point as in the vacuum theory aka the Big Bang) it can still appear infinite from all practical angles and for all practical purposes. Because of the length contraction and the expanding of matter (both dark and lighted bodies), the galaxies are flying away from each other as the space that is surrounding them expands. The further an object and the faster they will appear and the smallest they will become – to the point of not receiving its light anymore. But that does not exclude the galaxies existence from which they are traveling away from the observer. In this way an infinite Universe fits within a finite sphere as long as the sphere is expanding continually. Some theists do not view the various theories about the end of the universe, to do so is to contradict their religious beliefs that the earth will be destroyed by fire and be renewed again. It is also expressed in the mainstream that this death and renewal must exist in a given universe, therefore the universe itself must continue to exist. Others predict the end of life and corruption on earth, while believers obtain paradise outside the universe, therefore the universe doesn’t need to exist. Religions such as Islam and Zoroastrianism, adhere to the JudeoChristian concept of creation and a single universe-ending event – the end of all things. However, many within the Abrahamic faiths differ as to the many theories concerning the possible end of the universe. Many also hold different theories as to its time and duration. Others, notably Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, believe in an unending cycle of apocalyptic destruction and re-creation of the universe.

E. Argument From the Vacuum: An hypothesis also called a hyperbolic universe. The Big Bang theory states that the universe began as a single particle arising from an absolute vacuum, similar to how virtual particles come into existence and then fall back into non-existence. From this particle, the biggest, greatest, explosion created all that we see in the known universe. A better addition to this theory is to contend that the explosion came about through the actions of a Creator – who thus created motion – in what we now know as time.

In Reference to the Theological:

A. Allegorical Interpretations: Many early Church historians treated certain elements found in the book of Genesis as allegorical. Such Church fathers included; Origen and others of the Alexandrian school of thought, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus saw Adam, Eve, and the serpent pointing to the death of Jesus (Against the Heresies 2nd cent). Later Augustine of Hippo suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally as found in Augustine’s “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis(early fifth century, AD). We also have Philo and Maimonides who viewed the creation story as an account which actually refers to spiritual symbolic concepts. However, in opposition of an allegorical approach, we have St Basil, Zohar, and the more recent; fundamental literalists.

B. The Frame Work Theory: This theory involves theistic evolution. Geological ages are literally true and Genesis is seen as merely a literary framework. God creates and sits back and allows the process of evolution and natural selection to take place and shape the entire biological, ecological, and cosmological elements to “change” in favor of its better matrix. Religious Liberals hold this view.

C. The Day Age Theory: This theory involves progressive creation. Geological ages occurred during the six day creation. Neo-Evangelicals hold to this view.

D. The Gap Theory: This theory involves irrelevant creation. Geological ages occurred before the six day creation. Record of extinct life prior to supposed pre Adamic cataclysm. Pietistic Fundamentalists hold this view.

E. The Literalist Theory: This theory involves special creation. A literal interpretation of Genesis. Geologic ages are merely taxonomic. Genesis days are literally true. Biblical Theists hold to this view.

In reference to religious myths:

Belief in a creation of some sort is not unique to the JudeoChristian tradition. Most societies believe that the world and its living inhabitants have not existed forever, but rather that everything was created by some deity or supernatural force in the remote past. Many different scenarios for the mode of creation can be found. Each one constricted to its own culture and even to a period in history. Here is a brief list pertaining to various creation myths – all of which are considered by the Abrahamic faiths as idolatrous and polytheistic: 1. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 2. Enuma Elis. 3. The Egyptian Creation Myth. 4. Creation Myths of Classical Greece. 5. The Andaman Islands Creation Myths. For further explanation pertaining to man’s fall in reference to polytheism, see Footnote in Genesis 3 and Rom 3 and 6.

1:2 According to many within mainstream Christianity the termIn the beginning” denotes a time that predates the alleged fall of Lucifer (who became Satan) our adversary. A justification for this preposition is found in Isa 14:12-15, Lk 10:18 and Rev 12:3-9. This correlation was coined more popularly by early church father Tertullian. The appearance of the serpent in Ch 3:1 correlates with this ideology, or sequence of events. The beginnings, the fall of Lucifer (causing the earth to be without form and void), and his subsequent appearance in the garden (3:1-14) seems to confirm this interpretation. However, since it is recorded that all was good 1:31, the logical question then would be, if God had created everything perfect, then why the appearance of the serpent in ch 3:1? Some may cite “the serpent was not the actual thing that was evil, the serpent was merely an agent used to accomplish Satan‘s temptation.“ However, the interpretation is left wanting, since we cannot decipher the original origins of the evil found during the supposed rebellion of Lucifer. Moreover, many would further proclaim that the words “without form…void” expresses chaos. Many would further cite Jere 4:23 and Isa 45:18 to support their claim that God originally created the earth perfect. However, this position causes several problems as well. If there was a rebellion in Heaven, a fall of Lucifer – who became Satan, thus causing a chaotic lifeless and formless void which was once the paradise of earth, then again it must be asked from “whence did the evil come from“? How did evil commence? Some would cite, “evil came about through the pride of Lucifer” – the first fall, so to speak. However, it must be understood that this explanation is lacking. For it entails a dualistic concept. In dualism, there are two separate forces at work. In theology dualism consists of God and Satan, good and evil. In Philosophy it is the idea that the world consists of two main components: thought and matter. Many religions hold to this concept, such as – Zoroastrianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, Manicheism, Bogomilism, Catharism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In the Quran Satan, or Shaitan/Shaytan is the father of the Jinns (spirits). The Jinn (spirit beings with freewill), Man (Humans), and angels (spirit beings with no freewill) make up the sentience of God – Feel, Perceive, and Conscience (awareness). The Jinn, like human beings, can also be good, evil, or neutral; they both have freewill. They are frequently mentioned in the Qur’an, especially the 72nd Sura; a whole chapter devoted to them entitled Sūrat al-Jinn.

In Eastern philosophy, sentience requires respect and care. This sentience includes the rights of all human beings and animals. And because this is an alienable right, no living thing should suffer. All things living are held to certain rights. Therefore any faith, religion, or culture should by the utmost of all simplest commandments; love one another and inflict no pain, suffering, hate, or malice toward another. This is simply not the case of the True God of the Scriptures, Qur’an, or of the Vedic Texts. See Footnotes in Leviticus.

In Islam the name for the Devil is Ibless. According to the Qur’an, Ibless (a Jinn – with freewill, but yet considered angelic in rank) was once a pious servant of Allah who was created along with all the other Jinns. It is believed that Ibless was created out of pure fire, a smokeless fire. Having been created out of fire, Ibless refused to bow down to Adam, a creature made out of clay. Since Adam was created out of clay, Ibless thought himself superior to Adam and refused to bow the knee, as the angels did to God’s greatest creation, Man. Ibless abused his freewill by refusing to bow to Adam. This incurred the wrath of Allah upon Ibless, and God banished him from Heaven and as a result he is now called Shaitan/Shaytan (Sura; The Heights, Elevated Places 7:11-20).

Ibless/Shaitan/Shaytan is believed to be on earth, where he is permitted by respite, until the day of judgment to roam; continually persuading men to sin and stir them away from the One true God. His primary goal is to take as many of the children of Adam into the fires of Hell. This is done through evil suggestions and whispers to both men and women, even unto the Jinn. See Footnote in Luke 16 and Jude 1.
It is interesting to note that the Qur’an offers a plausible reclamation of the Jinn, as found in The Heights, the Elevated Places Sura 7:27 “O children of Adam! let not the Shaitan cause you to fall into affliction as he expelled your parents from the garden, pulling off from them both their clothing that he might show them their evil inclinations, he surely sees you, he as well as his host, from whence you cannot see them; surely We have made the Shaitans to be the guardians of those who do not believe.” The citation warrants a question. “Why would Allah create guardians for those that do not believe?“ In all likelihood the answer to that question lies within the substance of their creation – “they are Jinns” and thus being so, are capable of freewill and are able to change their eternal course. The term guardians in this instance are Protectors and Helpers. Ministering spirits/Jinns perhaps. This is possibly the reason why Islam, as well as Judaism and Christianity believe that the angels (though in Islam it’s the Jinn) would be judged on the day of Judgment. Time of judgment is debated among Futurist and Preterist Christians. However, the concepts of freewill and predestination are at odds with each other. How can the two ever reconcile? See Footnote in Romans 11.

However, both interpretations fail to address the issue at hand, the origin of evil as revealed in Isaiah “I form the light, I create the darkness.” “I make peace, and create evil” (Isa 45:7) and the Qur‘an, Sura 23.80 The Believers; “And He it is Who gives life and causes death, and (in) His (control) is the alternation of the night and the day; do you not then understand?” And Sura 40:68 The Believer; “He it is Who gives life and brings death, so when He decrees an affair, He only says to it: Be, and it is.”
It is clear that God, on a number of occasions, does the evil as well as the good, while the Adversary, the exponent of evil, may appear at times as a messenger of light, and light in itself is good. But, again, if we are to say that good emanates from God and evil from Satan, how are we to explain the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” which God planted in the Garden of Eden? Here we have the knowledge of two things brought together in the same tree, which was planted by God. Furthermore, (and this is most vital), if good finds its origin in God and evil in Satan, how can we be certain that good will triumph in the end? If a force of evil has arisen in the universe apart from God in the past, how can we be certain that it will not become so powerful as to defeat God or at the least His purpose? Indeed, if a force (or the other half of dualism) has arisen in the universe apart from God, then He has already been taken unawares, and His omnipotence has already been shaken.

The rhetoric of dualism falls short of any real explanation as to how, if such a permitted thing occurred, did pride come about within Lucifer, when he was supposedly created perfect? Therefore, the question that should rightfully be asked is, “Where did the evil spring from?” Did it always exist in the cosmos, somewhere in the universe? Did evil exist outside of the omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotent sovereignty of God? If your answer to that question is yes then, you are a dualist. Such an interpretation implies a shaken sovereignty. God’s Omnipresence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence is shaken. A sovereign will shaken, based upon the actions of another (in this case, the so-call fall of Lucifer). A sovereign will so shaken that God had to devise a plan of salvation for all humanity in order to usurp the actions of a free creature. Many find it very difficult to reconcile the fall of Lucifer with that of a shaken sovereign will. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Meaning, shouldn’t all that is created be found doing the ultimate will of God?

Moreover in Jn 8 :44, it is recorded that Satan was a liar since the beginning. It would appear from the text of John’s Gospel that Satan knows no other application. Contrary to Christianity and Islam, this may imply a creature created without the concept of a freewill. For it is written that they are ministering spirits (Heb 1:7) – he fulfills a role. Satan, was not made in the image or likeness of God. Only man was given the option of choosing between good and evil (a freewill). A freewill mechanism founded upon the knowledge of good & evil. A freewill based upon what is good, evil, or neutral is set as a standard against what is called deeds. We choose the option to do the good deed as well as the bad deed – thus is the fruit of our imprinted freewill (Ch 2: 15). Evil, in and of itself, is a component of God – hence, freewill is a component of God. For it is written “I form the light, I create the darkness.” “I make peace, and create evil” (Isa 45:7). Perhaps because of this freewill the angels lament and declare unto the Lord, “What is Man that Thou art mindful of him?” This angelic declaration may be in reference to man’s salvation (his second chance) in reference to his choosing the good rather than the evil. Angels, not having the capacity for freewill, are not entitled to the remedial benefits of salvation as man is -thus they fear the Lord with a godly fear. They are the faithful one’s. In ref to demons or jinns, it is written that they kept not to their first estate (Jude 6) thus implying a freewill (as Christianity and Islam suggests). Or it may be said that they were created for Satan to usurp authority over, nullifying a freewill. These are they, which upon a possible freewill mechanism, did foolishly followed the ministry of Satan rather than esteeming God and His ultimate creation; “Man” better. Or as noted they were created for that purpose (though the former serves a better interpretation in reference to their freewill). In reference to angels, it is written that we will judge the angels (I Cor 6:3). But by what standards do we judge ministering spirits if they have not the capacity to exercise freewill you may ask? Freewill is thus implied to angels in this instance – who can and may be called jinns – who in turn are called spirits/demons/angels. Perhaps the Pauline expression is one of a general statement in reference to the term “angels.“ However, freewill and the ability to exercise it in reference to Satan would imply something (in this case pride) existing outside the omnipotence of God which underscored His perfect creation, Lucifer/Ibless, and that simply can not be the case since both interpretations (Christianity and Islam) fail to answer the question concerning the origin of evil. Perhaps, the story of the garden, the serpent, the fall, is an allegorical one. Perhaps a bigger picture is being thought here.

1:3 Let there be light.” This phrase emphasizes a calendar of events, since the term “the first day” is recorded in Vs. 5. Upon this instance God had shown the light, as in light emanating from eternality (from God). Light had began to show itself, yet the sun, moon, and stars were not yet created until verses 14-16. Therefore, it is probable that the term “first day” in Vs. 5 is an allegorical one, since God had not set into motion the rule of the day or rule of the night – Vs. 16. To present this light God had to separate the darkness that was there prior in order to declare light, not create it. For to assume that God created light is to assume that God is not eternal, which would go contrary to I Jn 1:5 “God is Light, and in Him, there is no darkness” If this event is seen as an allegorical expression, then this is the Light upon which men had failed to focus upon. The same can also be said of the darkness. If Vs. 3-4 are to be interpreted as an allegory, then it can be said that darkness was the substance or idea that was created, since there is no darkness in God to begin with. Light can not create Light, it can only expand or explode or express (as in the Mind of God). However, darkness reveals the Light, therefore the darkness had to be created in order to reveal that which is eternal (Isa 9:1-2). Here, the allegorical interpretation is warranted as shown in footnote Vs. 2 – The Allegorical Interpretation. Furthermore, the term “and God divided the light from the darkness” entails a dualistic realty. Dualism (as mentioned in footnote Vs. 2) is not an eternal substance, but a created reality, only to be found in this empirical realm – therefore warranting the title “day” and “night” as the first day in a chain of events that would follow. Darkness is also seen and revealed in negative terms (Jn 3:19) as opposed to the Light that has come into the world – via – Jesus Christ (Jn 3:18). The term “Light” as expressed in the Abrahamic traditions are revealed as follows; in Judaism this Light is called Jehovah (Psa 27:1, Isa 60:19). In Christianity, this Light is also called Jesus (Jn 1:4-9, 8:12, Rev 21:3). In Islam, this Light is called “Allah,” (Sura 24:25 – An-Nur).

In the Vedic traditions, this Light is centered around 4 great principles of Light – Devatas; as Agni (fire), Soma (water and moon), Indra-Vayu (lightning) and Surya (the Sun). However, and in all probability, this Light can be seen as advancing, a terminology I find myself often using. This advancing term is describing God as advancing in this age with regards to the Ultimate Reconciliation of All Men. This advancement can be found in what is known as “Tantrism” – “Tantra.“ Tantrism is an esoteric school of thought that originated from Hinduism and Buddhism. It is a term that denotes two distinct definitions – “Tan” meaning principles, doctrines, systems, theories, while “Tra” denotes, stretch, extend, expand. The Tantra tradition sees the Vedic Tradition as orthodox and patriarchal, as opposed to the feminine aspect of reality (matriarchal).

In “Matriarchal culture,” women are seen as the primary leader. The term comes from the ancient Greek mater, meaning “mother” and “archein,” meaning “to rule.” In some cultures of Ancient Egypt, China, and numerous North American First Nations tribes, women were seen as the Head/Leader. Daughters inherit birth rights and blessings, rather than sons. Tantranists seek to unite the Shakti principle (the great Goddess) with the principle of Shiva as “Prakasha” or pure illumination. It is interesting to note that this principle of unification began to take root during the early 4th Cent – early 300’s. Variations of Tantra can be found and identified in Hinduism, Sikh, Bon, Buddhism (East Asia & South-East Asia), and Jainism’s religious traditions. Variations that even go against the “Light.” Such opposition can be found within the tenants of one called Kapila – a legendary figure – whom is said to have been the founder of Samkhya.

Samkhya is divided into two categories; Purusha and Prakriti. Purusha represents that which is of the world, (perception, unintelligence, ever-active, uncaused). Prakriti is a single entity, composed of one final source – ourselves! It is believed that in order to shed the Purusha, one must, by discriminative knowledge, shed the ignorance of the Prakriti. For it is believed that the products of Prakriti (Intellect and Ego) are a deterrent to the true eternal Light and pure conscience. Once the separation of the two are deciphered then one can achieve absolute freedom (kaivalva) or Moksa.This is similar to the early Christian Gnostics, who thought that matter and spirit are two separate entities that can never mix. For the Gnostics, matter was evil and the spirit was good. Hence, denying the Light – as revealed in a bodily Incarnation & bodily resurrection of Christ.

However, it can be said at the same time, that this Light/God is not to concerned with doctrines or creeds (Isa 1:1, Matt 5-7, Jn 8 :3-11), as so much as He/she is with the conscience that is bestowed upon individuals. Conscience varies from culture to culture, from society to society – and as Martin Luther once claimed “the violation of, or to go against conscience is neither right or safe.” Still others would interpret this “Light” as being a reality created, as demonstrated above in footnote Vs. 2 in reference to the other remaining 4 theological arguments.